Transport Assessment by East Hampshire District Council

Transport Assessment WHITEHILL BORDON ECOTOWN EVIDENCE BASE

Job No.: CO00900001

Transport Assessment Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Report No.: 00900001/004 Revision No.: Draft Final Date of issue: September 2011

Amey Caburn House

East Hampshire District Council

Brooks Road

Penns Place

Lewes

Petersfield

East Sussex

Hampshire

BN7 2BY

GU31 4EX

00900001\003

Chapters and Appendices 1

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

1.1

Background ............................................................................................................. 1

1.2

Objectives................................................................................................................ 2

1.3

Report Structure ...................................................................................................... 2

1.4

Associated Documents ........................................................................................... 3

Policy Context ........................................................................................................... 5

2.1

Introduction.............................................................................................................. 5

2.2

National Policy......................................................................................................... 5

2.3

Regional Policy...................................................................................................... 11

2.4

Local Policy ........................................................................................................... 11

2.5

Other Considerations ............................................................................................ 14

Existing Conditions.................................................................................................. 16

3.1

Introduction............................................................................................................ 16

3.2

Location and Demographics ................................................................................. 16

3.3

Current Land Uses ................................................................................................ 17

3.4

Public Transport Provision .................................................................................... 19

3.5

Pedestrian and Cycle Provision ............................................................................ 20

3.6

Surrounding Highway Network.............................................................................. 21

3.7

Parking .................................................................................................................. 22

3.8

Traffic Data and Existing Movement ..................................................................... 23

3.9

Collision Analysis .................................................................................................. 24

Development Proposals .......................................................................................... 31

4.1

Proposed Development Scenarios ....................................................................... 31

4.2

Mode Share Scenario Iterations............................................................................ 34

4.3

Trip Containment Scenario Iterations ................................................................... 37

4.4

A325 Treatment Scenario Iterations ..................................................................... 39

00900001\003

Smarter Choices and Modal Shift Interventions...................................................... 43

5.1

Introduction............................................................................................................ 43

5.2

50% Car User Mode Share Target - Hard Measures............................................ 44

5.3

50% Car User Mode Share Target - Soft Measures ............................................. 50

5.4

25% Car User Mode Share Target â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Potential Options ........................................ 76

Trip Generation & Distribution................................................................................. 82

6.1

Trip Generation ..................................................................................................... 82

6.2

Trip Distribution ..................................................................................................... 85

Traffic Impact Assessments .................................................................................... 87

7.1

Introduction............................................................................................................ 87

7.2

High-level Assessments........................................................................................ 88

7.3

Detailed Assessment .......................................................................................... 129

Summary and Recommendations......................................................................... 205

8.2

Summary ............................................................................................................. 205

8.3

Recommendations .............................................................................................. 215

Appendix A:

Local Bus Timetables

Appendix B:

PIC Data

Appendix C:

Mode share and containment targets for assessment

Appendix D:

Relief Road Connecting Junctions Feasibility Design

Appendix E:

Traffic Calming Plan

Appendix F:

MVA TN03 Technical Note

Appendix G:

Modelling Scenario Test

Appendix H:

HCC Key Junctions Plan

Appendix I:

Key Junction Traffic Flow Impact Assessments

00900001\003

iii

Introduction

1.1

Background

1.1.1

Amey Consulting were commissioned by Hampshire County Council (HCC) to undertake a Transport Assessment (TA) which, together with a Transport Model produced by MVA Consultancy, forms part of a robust and credible evidence base to support proposals for the potential re-development and regeneration of Whitehill Bordon as an Eco-town.

1.1.2

Bordon is a town in the East Hampshire district of Hampshire. It lies 5.4 miles southeast of Alton and forms a part of the civil parish of Whitehill. Both settlements are on the A325 road and close to the A3 road between London and Portsmouth. For the purposes of the TA the two settlements will be referred to as the collective Whitehill Bordon.

1.1.3

The Ministry of Defence is expected to relocate armed forces training away from Whitehill Bordon. Whilst the previous contract to re-locate combined training to St Athan in South Wales under the Defence Training Review (DTR) was cancelled as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review, the MoD remains committed to vacating the Bordon Garrison. This decision could mean that up to 600 acres (230 ha) of land will be released from 2014 - 15. This land, together with other land in the ownership of Hampshire County Council (HCC) and East Hampshire District Council (EHDC), offers a unique opportunity to plan ahead to realise the aspirations of the community. The local authorities have a longstanding commitment to regeneration and renewal of the area and along with the Whitehill Town Council were instrumental in the production of the ‘Green Town Vision’.

1.1.4

The aim of the ‘Green Town Vision’ was to ensure that new development in Whitehill Bordon will bring about regeneration while protecting the natural environment. The former Government's plans for Eco-towns fit closely with the ‘Green Town Vision’ and so EHDC made a bid for Whitehill Bordon to become an Eco-town in October 2007. Whitehill Bordon was successful and was awarded Eco-town status in July 2009. The project seeks to become an example for sustainable development and regeneration.

1.1.5

This commission forms part of the evidence base that will support the future allocation of Whitehill Bordon as an Eco-town and major development in the area within the EHDC Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy, and will support future planning applications for major development in the town.

00900001\003

1.2

Objectives

1.2.1

The main objectives of this study as listed within the original work package brief are: • To develop and provide a sound, reliable and credible evidence base for the transport strategy required for the re-development of Whitehill Bordon as an Eco-town, which will support the LDF Core Strategy, future planning application submissions, and the funding and implementation of necessary transport interventions. • To transparently test a range of key transport interventions / development assumptions and provide evidence to support them, and to identify the potential impacts of these on the local transport network and the environment. • To utilise the outputs of the work to evaluate the future transport strategy for the Ecotown and to inform future transport infrastructure and service needs.

1.2.2

The key sustainability and transport objectives driving the proposed Whitehill Bordon Ecotown project are summarised below: • Encouraging the community to live and work in ways that respect the natural resources on which our society and economy depend. • Environmental conservation. • Creating an attractive built environment with a balanced mix of housing, community facilities, commercial and employment opportunities where people want to live, work, shop and play. • Create a thriving, sustainable community with a distinct character that will give Whitehill Bordon a unique identity within Hampshire and the South East. • Improving the built environment in the town so that it compliments the superb and diverse landscape surrounding the town. • Using innovative, modern, environmentally friendly design including eco-homes and modern methods of construction. • Establish sustainable patterns of movement to and within the town • Minimise use of the private car • Provide appropriate, appealing and realistic alternatives, so that people living within Whitehill Bordon will not be reliant on the private car, as is currently the case.

1.3

Report Structure

1.3.1

This report has been divided into chapters and is structured as follows: •

Chapter 2 considers the development proposals with regard to national and local planning and transport planning policies.

•

Chapter 3 provides a summary description of the existing conditions, transport infrastructure and movement patterns within the Whitehill Bordon area.

00900001\003

•

Chapter 4 sets out the various proposed development scenarios which will be assessed within this Transport Assessment, including the identified targets for mode share, trip containment and options to manage traffic on the A325 within the town centre.

•

Chapter 5 sets out the range of measures which could potentially be implemented in Whitehill Bordon to meet the mode share and trip containment targets for the town.

•

Chapter 6 provides a summary of the methodology used to determine the generation and distribution of person trips as a result of the various proposed development scenarios onto the highway and public transport networks. This Chapter also considers background growth of traffic and other significant developments in the surrounding area.

•

Chapter 7 discusses and describes the impacts of the proposed development scenarios in terms of traffic flow on particular links adjacent to European Special Protection Areas, presents junction capacity analysis at identified key junctions and area wide network performance analysis.

•

Chapter 8 draws together the key elements of the previous chapters and provides a relevant summary and conclusions regarding the overall study.

1.4

Associated Documents

1.4.1

The Transport Assessment has been written in accordance with the latest approved guidance by the Department for Transport (DfT) entitled Guidance on Transport Assessment (2007).

1.4.2

It is intended that this report is considered in association with other documents within the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town evidence base. In particular, reference should be made to the MVA Consultancy Model Development, Validation and Forecasting reports and the emerging Transport Strategy.

1.4.3

Other key documents which have been created subsequent to or in parallel with this report and have influenced the assessment work undertaken are: •

Framework Masterplan – produced by AECOM, the framework Masterplan brings together all of the elements of the proposed Eco-town development to describe the principles of the development and to provide a visual identity to the scheme.

•

Whitehill Bordon Transport Strategy – produced by Alan Baxter & Associates, provides a summary of the strategy developed through the master planning process to enable and support the future development of the town. The transport strategy aims to establish sustainable patterns of movement to and within the town, minimise the use of the private car; and provide appropriate, appealing and realistic alternatives, so that people living in Whitehill Bordon will not be so reliant on the private car.

00900001\003

•

Sub-regional Bus Strategy and Park & Ride Reports – produced by Mott Gifford, set out the challenges and potential improvements which could be implemented to improve public transport links as Whitehill Bordon becomes a more important sub-regional centre.

•

Whitehill Bordon Transport Assessment (2008) – produced by WSP, the TA sets out the existing transport conditions in Bordon and provides an initial assessment of the impact of the proposals on the surrounding transport network. Furthermore an associated Draft Travel Plan is provided with the aim of encouraging sustainable travel within the development.

•

DfT New Growth Points Local Authority Support, EHDC and HCC Smarter Choices Strategy – produced by Atkins on behalf of DfT, sets out a comprehensive strategy for encouraging use of sustainable transport modes and modal shift away from the car based upon latest guidance, best practice and case studies. The document reviews and provides recommendations to improve the Travel Plan developed by WSP. The report sets out a number of ‘quick win’ recommendations and also a longer term strategy for encouraging sustainable travel within the proposed Eco-town.

00900001\003

Policy Context

2.1

Introduction

2.1.1

This section of the report reviews national and local policy documents relevant to transport and development in context to the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town proposal.

2.1.2

National and local planning policy is a material consideration in determining development proposals that are progressing through the planning process. This section summarises the relevant policy and demonstrates how the proposed development complies with, and would contribute towards, these policy aspirations.

2.2

National Policy

2.2.1

Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) are prepared by the government to explain statutory provisions. They provide guidance to the previously incumbent regional planning bodies and local planning authorities on policy and the operation of the planning system. Local authorities must take their contents into account when preparing their Local Development Documents. Planning Policy Statement: Eco-towns – A Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1

2.2.2

PPS: Eco-towns provides the standards that any Eco-town development will have to adhere to and the list of locations identified with the potential for becoming an Eco-town. Whitehill Bordon is one of the first four identified locations stated in Annex A of the PPS.

2.2.3

Paragraph ET11 sets out the standards expected from Eco-towns in regards to transport and states that: “The town should be designed so that access to it and through it gives priority to options such as walking, cycling, public transport and other sustainable options”.

2.2.4

It also states that planning applications should include Travel Plans which demonstrate: • How the town’s design will enable at least 50% of trips originating in Eco-towns to be made by non-car means, with the potential for this to increase over time to at least 60%; • Good design principles drawing on Manual for Streets, Building for Life, and community travel planning principles; • How transport choice messages, infrastructure and services will be provided from ‘day one’ of residential occupation; and

00900001\003

• How the carbon impact of transport in the Eco-town will be monitored, as part of embedding a long term low carbon approach to travel within plans for community governance. 2.2.5

The Whitehill Bordon proposal includes plans for a public transport spine along the High Street of the existing A325 with a pedestrian priority area in the town centre. This coupled with the ‘Green Loop’ and ‘Green Grid’ proposals, which will connect all pedestrians and cyclists to key facilities, will give priority to sustainable transport options over the use of the private car. A Travel Plan which provides a package of deliverable measures to encourage real transport modal shift will form a key part of the proposals.

2.2.6

The policy statement sets design guidelines for Eco-towns and states that: “Eco towns should be designed in a way that supports children walking and cycling to school easily and safely. There should be a maximum walking distance of 800m from homes to the nearest school for children under 11”.

2.2.7

The policy statement also states that homes should be within ten minutes walk of: • Frequent public transport, and • Neighbourhood services.

2.2.8

The overall ethos of PPS1 and the Eco-town supplement as set out in Paragraph 3 of PPS1; “Sustainable development is the core principle underpinning planning.”

2.2.9

The policy statement provides an outline of the means by which sustainable development and patterns of inclusive urban and rural development should be achieved, namely: • Making suitable land available for development in line with economic, social and environmental objectives; • Making contributions to sustainable economic development; • Protection and enhancement of the natural and historic environment and existing communities; • Ensuring a high quality development through good and inclusive design and the efficient use of materials; and • Ensuring that development supports existing communities and contributes to the creation of safe, sustainable and liveable communities with good access to employment, facilities and services. Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing

2.2.10

PPS3 aims to set out the requirements at the regional and local level which will enable the planning and delivery of housing within sustainable communities.

00900001\003

2.2.11

Paragraph 9 of PPS3 states that: “The Government’s key housing policy goal is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of living in a decent home, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live.”

2.2.12

To achieve these wider housing goals PPS3 sets out several principle objectives: • Achieve a wide choice of high quality homes, both affordable and open market housing so as to address the requirements of communities; • Widen opportunities for home ownership and ensure high quality housing for those who cannot afford open market housing, especially those who are vulnerable or in need; • Improve affordability across the housing market by measures which include increasing the supply of housing stock; and • Create sustainable, inclusive, mixed communities in all areas, both urban and rural.

2.2.13

The Whitehill Bordon proposal will make provision for thousands of new dwellings of which a significant proportion will be affordable homes, ensuring that the proposal meets the requirements of national housing policy. The Masterplan currently proposes 35% affordable housing, rather than 50%, primarily due to the large number of ‘affordable’ homes already in Whitehill Bordon. Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport

2.2.14

PPG13: Transport sets out the objectives to integrate planning and transport at the national, strategic and local level and to promote sustainable transport choices for both the movement of people and freight. The key objectives of PPG13 are to: • Promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and for moving freight; • Promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling, and • Reduce the need to travel, especially by car.

2.2.15

The guidance emphasises the importance of incorporating realistic means of access by public transport, walking and cycling into the design of a development rather than assuming that the car will represent the only means of access for the vast majority of people. PPG13 states that to deliver the objectives of the guidance the relevant local authority should: “Make the fullest use of public transport, and focus major generators of travel demand in city, town and district centres and near to major public transport interchanges.”

2.2.16

In terms of residential developments local planning authorities should: “Accommodate housing principally within existing urban areas, planning for increased intensity of development for both housing and other uses at locations which are highly accessible by public transport, walking and cycling.”

00900001\003

2.2.17

The Whitehill Bordon Eco-town proposal will accommodate growth within an existing urban area, making use of Brownfield Land, and will help to promote sustainable transport choices by making walking and cycling the centre of its transport network with radial cycle routes providing connectivity throughout the town and continuous footpath provision replacing the gaps that are currently present. A strong commitment to provide a fully integrated bus service that will not only allow residents in Whitehill Bordon to travel around the town comprehensively by bus, but it will also connect to the wider area, reducing the need to travel by private car.

2.2.18

PPG13 continues to state that: “Local authorities should in rural areas, locate most development for housing, jobs, shopping, leisure and services in local service centres which are designated in the development plan to act as focal points for housing, transport and other services, and encourage better transport provision in the countryside”.

2.2.19

The proposals for Whitehill Bordon will provide the town with a much enhanced town centre area. This will ensure that all provisions for shopping and amenities can be focused in one area allowing opportunities to link up walking and cycling facilities to/from the area, and significantly reducing the need to travel.

2.2.20

In terms of linking planning and transport together, PPG13 states that: “Local authorities should take into account the potential for changing overall travel patterns, for instance by improving the sustainability of existing developments through a fully coordinated approach of development plan allocations and transport improvements”.

2.2.21

To maximise the potential use of public transport, PPG13 states that local authorities should: • Identify the key routes for bus improvements and priority measures; • Ensure, so far as is practical, that traffic management measures do not impede the effectiveness of public transport services; and • Identify the potential for improved interchange between different transport services and between public transport, walking and cycling.

2.2.22

Paragraph 75 of PPG13 states that: “Walking is the most important mode of travel at the local level and offers the greatest potential to replace short car trips, particularly under 2 kilometres.”

2.2.23

To improve pedestrian conditions and encourage more people to walk, the guidance advises local authorities to: • Focus high density, mixed use developments in and around town centres and in close proximity to major public transport interchanges;

00900001\003

• Create more direct, safe and secure walking routes to reduce the actual walking distance between land uses and to public transport interchanges; • Provide wider pavement, including the reallocation of road space to pedestrians; and • Introduce and promote pedestrian friendly crossing facilities. 2.2.24

Paragraph 78 of PPG13 states that: “Cycling has potential to substitute for short car trips, particularly those under 5km, and to form part of a longer journey by public transport.” Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon – Making Sustainable Local Transport Happen

2.2.25

The Government sets out its policy for the future of local transport in the White Paper released in January 2011 entitled ‘Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon – Making Sustainable Local Transport Happen’. The launch of the White Paper is aimed at helping the Government to meet its two key objectives of ‘creating growth in the economy’ and ‘tackling climate change’.

2.2.26

The White Paper is built on the underlying objective and vision as stated in Chapter 1; “for a transport system that is the engine for economic growth but one that is also greener and safer and improves quality of life in our communities”.

2.2.27

The publication of this White Paper reflects the priority set out in the Government’s Business Plan (DfT 2010a) which places emphasis at finding local level solutions: “Encourage sustainable local travel and economic growth by making public transport and cycling and walking more attractive and effective, promoting lower carbon transport and tackling local road congestion”.

2.2.28

The White Paper recognises the potential benefits that packages of measures can bring in developing sustainable transport measures stating that “Packaging enables a broader spectrum of users to be targeted”. The concept of packages of measures is underpinned by marketing and information provision to raise awareness and encourage people to think about their travel choices.

2.2.29

The Paper continues to outline the importance of early planning to achieve the most effective change in travel behaviour referring directly to the findings of a study carried out and summarised in the document ‘Delivering Sustainable Transport for Housing Growth – Case Studies from Local Communities’. The study showed that early engagement with specialists and key partners creates a platform for discussion enabling the integration of sustainable transport measures at the master planning and design stages.

00900001\003

2.2.30

The White Paper also notes the potential for home working and other practices that prevent the need to travel at all.

2.2.31

Whitehill Bordon will be built on the fundamentals of a multi-modal transport system that incorporates public transport hubs, cycling route links and continuous walking links. The transport modes will interlink as part of the proposal to ensure people are able to move around both the local area and wider county by sustainable transport and reduce reliance on the private car. This is supported by a package of sustainable transport measures aimed at achieving a maximum of 50% of all trips by car (and to achieve higher levels of modal shift in the longer term) and promoting sustainable travel. Along with comprehensive travel information proposals, the design of the Eco-town includes dwellings with flexible space that can be used for home office or additional living room as per the requirements of the occupier. Building Sustainable Transport into New Developments: A Menu of Options for Growth Points and Eco-towns

2.2.32

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Building Sustainable Transport into New Developments: A Menu of Options for Growth Points and Eco-townsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, was published by the Department for Transport in April 2008, and forms part of the previous Governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s advice on transport within Eco-towns and new growth points. It is aimed at all those involved in the planning, design and construction of new housing developments.

2.2.33

The document sets out advice about how to build an effective sustainable transport system in new developments, from the planning to implementation stage. A hierarchy of road users should consider pedestrians first followed by cyclists, public transport users, specialist service vehicles, and lastly, other motor traffic. A modal shift is promoted by making walking, cycling and public transport journeys more convenient than the majority of car journeys.

2.2.34

A variety of transport options are recommended that should be specifically tailored according to the location and needs of the individual development. New developments should integrate sustainable travel choices into their planning and design process and consider the future needs of the community.

2.2.35

The proposals for Whitehill Bordon include robust measures and interventions for meeting the modal share targets set for Eco-town developments. By consulting best practice guidance and case studies of sustainable developments, the proposal is able to demonstrate clear and achievable methods for creating a modal shift away from private car use and developing walking, cycling and public transport as the primary modes of transport within Whitehill Bordon.

00900001\003

2.2.36

The document also outlines the methods by which developers should work together with local transport authorities, local travel plan advisors, residents and transport operators to support a high uptake of sustainable transport options. These include: • Ensure quick and easy ticketing across modes and operators; • Ensure a high quality of information is provided; • Provide a high quality of advertising and marketing; • Provide facilities for people to work from home such as broadband internet connections; • Promote sustainable transport modes to health centres and educational establishments; • Encourage a change in behaviour by implementing personal travel planning for all residents; and • Introduce cycling and walking initiatives.

2.2.37

The Whitehill Bordon proposal is fully committed to ensuring that appropriate measures and initiatives are introduced and supported as part of an overall sustainable transport package, with the aim of meeting the modal share targets as set by the Eco-town guidance. By using best practice and shared case studies the proposal will provide a clear strategy for linking sustainable transport infrastructure to uptake amongst current and future residents of Whitehill Bordon.

2.3

Regional Policy

2.3.1

In July 2010 the change of government resulted in the revocation of regional level planning policy resulting in increased emphasis on ‘localism’. The current position regarding Regional Spatial Strategies is the subject of a High Court challenge by Cala Homes which was initially thrown out by the judge on 7th February 2011. This is expected to be appealed in the near future but adds significant weight to the likelihood that the Localism Bill which is to pass through parliament in the near future will be successful. It would therefore be redundant to review any regional policy as part of the Whitehill Bordon proposal as it no longer holds any weight in Government policy terms due to its expected abolition as part of the Localism Bill.

2.4

Local Policy

2.4.1

At the local level, planning and highway authorities interpret national policy and guidance and implement appropriate area based policies reflecting the overarching national standard. Hampshire Local Transport Plan (LTP2) 2006-2011

2.4.2

Hampshire County Council’s second Local Transport Plan covers the period 2006 – 2011 and sets out the Council’s transport strategy for five years.

00900001\003

2.4.3

The LTP strategy is based on a hierarchal concept to “reduce, manage and invest”. This concept orders the response to transport problems with a preference towards a solution through reducing the problem. If the problem cannot be reduced it should be managed and the last option, providing there is no other alternative, is investment.

2.4.4

In the previous LTP, Whitehill Bordon sat within the Central Hampshire Transport Strategy area which seeks to provide a more sustainable approach to transport provision and reduce the need to travel. Specifically the plan sets out clear aims to improve accessibility to a range of services and improve public transport access from the surrounding rural settlements to the town.

2.4.5

The Whitehill Bordon proposals will improve the public transport network in the local area; increasing capacity on surrounding roads by offering alternative transport choices. It will also help to reduce the number of journeys made by providing a town centre area that will provide the necessary shops and services for local residents, bring forward proposals for managing traffic and travel movements and set out any necessary investment in infrastructure and services. Hampshire Local Transport Plan (LTP3) 2011 - 2031

2.4.6

The development of the third round of LTPs has been undertaken and Hampshire LTP3 was formally approved on 24th February 2011. The plan provides a long-term strategic overview that will guide a series of implementation proposals.

2.4.7

The plan specifically references Whitehill Bordon stating that vehicles will remain an important mode of transport in the town but that it will be pro-actively managed car use which enables growth to take place in a deliverable way. Key elements that are outlined in the LTP are: •

A transport strategy for the town bringing about significant improvements in the town’s transport system focussing on ‘Reducing the Need to Travel’, ‘Managing Car Demand’ and ‘Enabling Sustainable Transport’.

•

Careful planning, locating jobs, shops and leisure, recreation, educational and health facilities within easy reach of the existing and future population.

•

Developing high-frequency town, local and inter-urban bus services.

•

Investigating the feasibility of providing a direct rail connection to the town.

•

Providing a ‘Green Grid’ – a safe, secure, direct and attractive network of walking and cycling routes linking residential areas with the town’s services.

•

00900001\003

Cycle hire schemes, car clubs and car share initiatives.

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review 2.4.8

The second review of the Local Plan was adopted in March 2006 and sets out the development guidelines for the district up to 2011. The Local Plan will eventually be replaced by the Local Development Framework and the Core Strategy Preferred Policies currently being considered.

2.4.9

The saved policies of the Local Plan (MOD1 and MOD2) promote the principle of the re-use and redevelopment of former military areas in Whitehill Bordon as an opportunity to create a sustainable community.

2.4.10

In addition to the direct policies mentioned above, the Local Plan also contains the following relevant policies that can be applied to the proposal: Policy T1: Planning permission will be granted for development that promotes the integration of the means of transport, choice of mode and an efficient public transport system.

2.4.11

The Whitehill Bordon proposal fully supports this policy by providing transport choices and developing a fully integrated transport solution including bus, walking and cycling options. Policy T2: Planning permission will not be granted for development likely to generate a significant level of travel demand unless: a) arrangements are made for it to be well served by public transport, and b) its layout to ensure that existing and/or future bus routes lie within easy walking distance.

2.4.12

The Masterplan for the proposal highlights the development principle that each dwelling will be no further than 10 minutes walk from a public transport service and sets out comprehensive proposals for public transport. Policy T3: Development proposals which are likely to generate significant levels of travel demand will only be permitted where the development can be served effectively by walking and cycling.

2.4.13

The proposal incorporates the ‘Green Loop’ and ‘Green Grid’ plan which will ensure a fully connected and comprehensive walking and cycling network through the town. Additionally, the internal streets will be designed using a grid pattern to provide a permeable series of alternative routes for pedestrians and cyclists. Policy T12: Planning permission will not be granted for a proposal unless any parking of vehicles, including cycles is provided in accordance with adopted parking standards.

2.4.14

The proposal will use an area wide Travel Plan in partnership with the East Hampshire parking standards to manage parking. In addition the Framework Masterplan makes provision for at least one cycle parking space per dwelling and intends to provide reduced levels of car parking.

00900001\003

East Hampshire District Core Strategy Preferred Policies 2.4.15

The Core Strategy sets out the overall planning framework for the district looking ahead to 2026. Public consultation on the Core Strategy ended in May 2008 but is subject to change in the future to meet the needs of East Hampshire residents.

2.4.16

The Council’s preferred approach is to include a series of policies designed to encourage residents to walk, cycle or to use public transport or other sustainable options and to significantly reduce trips made by car. The preferred approach will include the following policies: • Designation of priority areas for pedestrians and cyclists; • Each new home is to be located within 10minutes walk of a frequent public transport service; • Secure bike storage facilities in every home and place of work; • Measures to restrict car parking in residential areas.

2.4.17

The Whitehill Bordon proposal meets these requirements as part of the design for the Framework Masterplan of the town.

2.5

Other Considerations Emerging Transport Strategy, March 2010

2.5.1

The Emerging Transport Strategy advises continued partnership working with stakeholders and central government to achieve a successful outcome.

2.5.2

The document outlines a framework for the Whitehill Bordon Transport Strategy and places significant emphasis on meeting the targets set out in the document to ensure that the increased transport demands can be accommodated on the road network without adverse impact.

2.5.3

To accommodate the additional transport demands on the existing road network, the following measures are proposed: • Provision of a Transport Hub • High-quality public transport system • Consideration of the potential for direct rail connection to the town • Creation of public transport corridor on the existing A325 • Creation of a Green Grid and Green Loop of walking and cycling routes • Implementation of a Smarter Choices Strategy and Travel Plan • Implementation of a Traffic Management Strategy to reduce and manage car borne travel • Creation and implementation of Parking Strategy

00900001\003

• Creation and implementation of a Freight Strategy Framework Masterplan 2010 2.5.4

The Framework Masterplan proposes a strategic framework for the growth and change in Whitehill Bordon over the next 20-25 years. It demonstrates at the local level how the requirements of PPS1 and the ‘Green Town Vision’ are to be translated in Whitehill Bordon.

2.5.5

The document outlines the following key aims: • Establish sustainable patterns of movement to and within the town • Minimise the use of private car through the provision of appropriate, appealing and realistic alternatives.

2.5.6

It proposes that it will achieve these aims by ensuring that there is a pedestrian priority in the town centre and that there is a clear and direct cycle routes connecting Whitehill Bordon with surrounding towns and villages. There is also a proposed policy for the 50% reduction to the existing East Hampshire parking standards to reduce available parking space. The parking policy is teamed with a proposed ‘car free zone’ within the core area of the town centre. Sub-Regional Bus Strategy, March 2010

2.5.7

The Sub-Regional Bus Strategy outlines the scale and significance of the Whitehill Bordon development and the impact that it will have on the generation of private car trips unless public transport accessibility is improved.

2.5.8

The document proposes the phased implementation of a number of high-quality sub-regional bus links as the development of the town progresses.

00900001\003

Existing Conditions

3.1

Introduction

3.1.1

This chapter provides an overview of the existing conditions in Whitehill Bordon and the surrounding area. The existing conditions will be described including existing size, land uses, and demographic characteristics. Also a summary of existing travel patterns, the operation of surrounding road network, and the provision made for public transport and non-vehicular travel facilities within Whitehill Bordon will be considered.

3.1.2

As considerable work has previously been undertaken in establishing existing conditions within previous studies undertaken on the proposed Whitehill Bordon Eco-town, this section of the TA will provide relevant updates to the work already undertaken and provide detail on the latest network conditions.

3.1.3

The following previously undertaken studies have been used to provide a basis to establish the existing conditions within Whitehill Bordon: • Whitehill, Bordon and Lindford Accessibility Study, 2007 - HCC • The Whitehill Bordon Opportunity – Revised Baseline Report, 2008 • Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Transport Assessment, 2008 – WSP • Whitehill Bordon Transport Strategy, 2010 – Alan Baxter • Public and Community Transport Feasibility Study, 2009 – Mott MacDonald • Proposed Sub-regional Bus Strategy, 2010 – Mott Gifford • Emerging Transport Strategy, 2010 – HCC • Whitehill Bordon Draft Framework Masterplan, 2010 - AECOM

3.2

Location and Demographics

3.2.1

Whitehill Bordon is located just north of the A3 London to Portsmouth Trunk Road, approximately 12km north of Petersfield in East Hampshire. The towns of Alton in Hampshire and Farnham in Surrey lie approximately 10km to the west and north respectively. Whitehill Bordon lies on the A325 corridor which links it from the A3 to the north where highway connections to the A331 and M3 can be made via the A31.

3.2.2

The existing town is located in close proximity to the recently designated South Downs National Park, which stretches from Winchester in the west to Eastbourne in the east, and is also near to a number of European Protection Sites. The location of Whitehill Bordon in context with the surrounding area is shown in Figure 3.1 below.

00900001\003

Figure 3.1: Whitehill Bordon Location Plan

3.2.3

Derived from the 2001 census, the 5 wards which make up the existing area of Whitehill Bordon have a population of approximately 13,950 people. At present there is a higher than average proportion of younger people (aged 0 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 44) and a lower proportion of older and elderly residents (aged 45+). It is clear that the existing demographic of Whitehill Bordon residents is greatly influenced by the MoD presence within the town, and type of housing stock available.

3.3

Current Land Uses

3.3.1

Historically, Whitehill Bordon developed as a town around military activity and ultimately the Bordon Garrison facility. As a result the town lacks a historic town centre.

00900001\003

3.3.2

The current town is still largely dominated by Ministry of Defence (MoD) activity with there being an effective split between military and civilian areas, roughly defined by the northsouth route of the A325 through the town. Generally to the east of the A325 are the civilian post-war residential areas with the secure MoD barracks and training facilities located to the west of the A325.

3.3.3

The MoD facilities in the town consist of approximately 230 hectares in total made up of secure MoD barracks and training areas, MoD sports pitches and the Hogmoor Enclosure woodland (currently used for tank training). Buildings on the MoD land vary in quality from substantial brick barrack accommodation at Prince Philip Barracks, terrace form barracks and stables at Louisburg, to large steel frame sheds and temporary buildings housing the MoD engineering training, storage facilities and plant. About 9% of the available housing stock in Whitehill Bordon is owned by Annington Property Ltd in association with the MoD and provide 540 properties to MoD families. These properties comprise four storey maisonette flats and semi-detached houses giving a relatively low housing density of 11-29 dwellings per hectare. The MoD also owns some of the disused railway routes which East Hampshire District Council proposes to safeguard as part of the Whitehill Bordon proposal.

3.3.4

In addition to the MoD facilities set out above, the town consists of a mix of land uses as would be expected in most settlements of the size of Whitehill Bordon. The various land uses which make up the town of Whitehill Bordon (excluding MoD facilities) are summarised below: • Residential – 5,969 existing dwellings within the Whitehill Bordon and Lindford wards (Source: 2001 census) • Education – Bordon Junior and Infants School, Weyford Primary and Woodlea Primary provide primary education within the town. Hollywater School provides special needs primary education and Mill Chase Community Technology College provides comprehensive secondary education for 11-16 year olds. • Retail – Currently the primary town centre function is housed in the Forest Centre, which is a local mall containing local shops and a supermarket. Other retail provision is provided at Chalet Hill and High Street • Employment – Highview Business Park and Woolmer Trading Estate on the A325, Bordon Trading Estate on Oakhanger Road, and the Forest Centre. The main employment sectors within the town are distribution, catering and retail, public administration and manufacturing. • Community/Leisure – Chase Hospital is the primary health facility in the town, Mill Chase Leisure Centre and existing MoD facilities such as Oakhanger Sports Club provide the fitness and leisure facilities. The Forest Centre also provides a community centre and public library.

00900001\003

3.4

Public Transport Provision

3.4.1

A number of bus routes currently serve the Whitehill Bordon area, however only three services operate through the town itself. Table 3.2 below provides a summary of the bus services operating in Whitehill Bordon and full bus timetables for all available routes are attached as Appendix A. Table 3.2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Summary of Bus Services Serving Whitehill Bordon Service (Operator)

13 (Stagecoach

Average Route Summary

Frequency of Departures

Journey Time

Mon-Fri

Alton-Bordon-

5 per day

Whitehill-Liphook

(one extra 40 mins

in Hants &

Liphook-Whitehill-

Surrey)

Bordon-Alton

on Alton College

Sat

No service

Sun

No service

Days)

AldershotFarnham-Bordon18

Whitehill-Lindford-

(Stagecoach

Haslemere

1hr 40

2 per

in Hants &

Haslemere-

mins

hour

Surrey)

Lindford-Whitehill-

1 per hour

Bordon-FarnhamAldershot Bordon-Whitehill73 (Wheel Drive LTD)

2 per day

Liss-Petersfield 40mins Petersfield-Liss-

(Wednesday only)

No service

Whitehill-Bordon 3.4.2

There are a total of 43 bus stops in the Whitehill Bordon area and are all provided with a bus stop flag sign as a minimum. Bus timetables are only available at 8 of the 43 (18.6%) bus stops and are in the form of a paper timetable. Bus shelters are only present at 8 bus stops (16.2%) located on Conde Way, High Street, Petersfield Road, Liphook Road, Chalet Hill, Hollybrook Park and Pinehill Road. Specific bus stops throughout Whitehill Bordon provide SMS (text message) requested timetable departures for the next three buses direct to passengers mobile phones.

3.4.3

As shown within Table 3.2 above, at present there is only very limited accessibility to the wider area and connections to rail services by bus within Whitehill Bordon. This is particularly highlighted by service 73 which provides accessibility by bus to the nearby town of Petersfield, however only operates on one day per week (Wednesday).

00900001\003

3.4.4

Currently there is no railway station in Whitehill Bordon and the site once occupied by the station is now a local industrial area. Liphook and Alton have railway stations in closest proximity to Whitehill Bordon and there are also stations in nearby Bentley, Farnham and Liss. However, Bentley is a rural station that can only be accessed from Whitehill Bordon via country lanes by private car.

3.4.5

Liphook station is located on a radial route between London and Portsmouth, providing access to these destinations as well as Guildford and Woking. Liphook is not a main station however, and consequently only one train per hour stops at Liphook for these destinations.

3.4.6

Alton railway station is located on a London Waterloo radial route and acts as an â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;end of lineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; station. The service number 13 stops at Alton station via Whitehill Bordon twice a day (am and pm peak) as well as an extra afternoon service during Alton College term time. Train services from Alton railway station operate on a 30 minute frequency to London via Farnham, Aldershot and Woking.

3.4.7

Despite connectivity to London via Liphook, Farnham and Alton there are no direct north/south connections to destinations such as Farnborough or Camberley. The lack of direct north/south rail connections and local bus services result in travel by private motor vehicle via the A325.

3.5

Pedestrian and Cycle Provision

3.5.1

There is a good footway network throughout the residential areas of Whitehill Bordon; however, the network does not provide a comprehensive and cohesive network throughout the local area. There are gaps in footpath continuity throughout Whitehill Bordon, including on the A325, where there are footpaths along the High Street section of the road but then stop north and south of the town preventing connectivity.

3.5.2

Due to the layout of many of the streets as cul-de-sacs, walking routes do not satisfy natural desire lines to key facilities such as the Forest Centre, High Street and local bus stops. This was reflected in the Accessibility Report undertaken on behalf of Hampshire County Council which used Accession software to analyse journey time and accessibility within Whitehill Bordon. The report found that large percentage of residents currently living in the area experienced no access or poor access to a range of key destinations by walking. The thresholds for what is acceptable in terms of the services that should be accessible by walking within a given time are based on Department for Transport guidelines. The report states, for example, that 2233 households within the town cannot access retail services in less than 15 minutes walk.

00900001\003

3.5.3

In addition to the footpaths in the town centre and residential areas, there are also leisure walks including the Deadwater Valley. The secure sites of the MoD create a barrier to movement in the western part of the town, and the proposal presents an opportunity to resolve these issues. The size and compact nature of the town lends itself well to allowing walking to be a popular form of transport, as well as being set within pleasant landscapes.

3.5.4

Cycle facilities in Whitehill Bordon are very limited with the only dedicated cycle lane provision in the local area located on the A325 south of the junction with Camp Road, Chalet Hill and the High Street. The provision of cycle routes and facilities within the town are sporadic, consisting of short sections of shared cycle and footways and on-road cycle lanes on some streets. There are however various national and local cycle routes linking Whitehill Bordon with surrounding villages and intermittent sections of on and off road cycle routes towards Bentley, Liss and Liphook railway stations. These are primarily leisure routes, and currently do not cater for commuter use.

3.5.5

The A325 is also an identified barrier to walking and cycling in the town as it creates severance between the mainly residential areas to the east from the existing employment areas to the west. Walking and cycling are therefore effectively discouraged due to lack of safe and appropriately located crossing points and the level of traffic flow on the A325. In more general terms, although there are some steep sections, the topography of the town and the surrounding area lends itself well to encouraging cycling as a means of transport.

3.6

Surrounding Highway Network

3.6.1

The principal highway link in the Whitehill Bordon area is the A325 which runs through the centre of Whitehill Bordon and provides a link between the town and A31 to the north and the A3 to the south. The A3 forms part of the national strategic network and provides links to Guildford, the M25 and the Greater London area to the north, and to Southern Hampshire and the Coast to the south. The A31, also part of the national strategic road network, provides links to the M3 Motorway to the north and the city of Winchester to the south-west.

3.6.2

The A325 acts as the principal north-south link in the surrounding area, making it a significant link within the local highway network. The A325 is a single carriageway road with varying speed limits (30mph â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 60mph) and intermittent provision of pedestrian footways and street lighting.

3.6.3

The B3004 connects to the A325 providing access to the west for traffic bound to and from the direction of Alton and Basingstoke. These roads are supplemented by several single carriageway local roads that connect to the aforementioned principal roads and are also primary connections to the surrounding rural area from Whitehill Bordon.

00900001\003

3.6.4

To the east of the town the B3002 and B3004 connect to the A325 providing access to Lindford, Grayshott and Hindhead to the east and Liphook to the south east.

3.6.5

The main road network within the town of Whitehill Bordon itself is made up of the following roads: • A325 Camp Road/Farnham Road/High Street/Petersfield Road – 30mph-60mph speed limit with continuous street lighting, • Budds Lane – 40mph speed limit and continuous footpath on both sides of the road, • Chalet Hill – 30mph speed limit and continuous lighting throughout the route, • Conde Way – 30mph speed limit with continuous lighting and footpaths, • Firgrove Road – 30mph speed limit with a shared cycle and pedestrian facility along part of the route, • Hogmoor Road – 40mph speed limit with continuous lighting and footpath, • Hollybrook Park – 30mph speed limit with continuous footpath provision, • Hollywater Road – 60mph national speed limit along entirety, • Lindford/Liphook Road – 40mph speed limit with continuous lighting and footpath, • Oakhanger Road – 40mph speed limit with continuous footpath and lighting around key junctions, • Standford Lane – 40mph-60mph speed limit, • Station Road – 40mph speed limit with continuous lighting and partial footpath.

3.7

Parking

3.7.1

There are currently two public car parks within Whitehill Bordon which are managed by East Hampshire District Council (EHDC). The Guadaloupe House car park on Bordon High Street and the Sutton Field car park in Whitehill provide free parking.

3.7.2

In addition there is the private car park associated with the Tesco superstore within the town centre which provides free parking for store customers and provides approximately 200 parking spaces including designated parking bays for disabled customers. There are currently no restrictions on parking within the Tesco car park and no car park management or enforcement is in place.

3.7.3

Private free parking is also provided at the Forest Community Centre and Somerfield supermarket off Pinefield Road.

00900001\003

3.8

Traffic Data and Existing Movement

3.8.1

Whitehill Bordon is primarily accessed via the A325 which connects the area to the strategic road network. The A325 in Bordon carries approximately 16,000 vehicles per day, of which 40% is estimated to be through traffic. A proportion of 4% of all traffic on the A325 is Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs).

3.8.2

Current traffic patterns include a proportion of traffic associated with the ongoing MoD activities on the garrison site, which includes the generation of HGV’s, tank driving and other vehicles. MoD activity is currently operating well below its potential, with approximately half of the MoD land currently vacant.

3.8.3

Research undertaken as part of the Whitehill Bordon Transport Strategy (2010) by Alan Baxter and Associates identifies that 51% of trips currently made are internal to the town, which is likely due to the high proportion of residents living and working within the town due to the MoD. The study also establishes that 67% of trips are made by private car and only 4% of all trips are made by public transport.

3.8.4

Traffic observations within Whitehill Bordon indicate that the A325 is currently operating close to capacity during weekday morning and evening peak highway periods. Outside of peak times traffic is generally free flowing within the town.

3.8.5

Information extracted from the census data (2001) shows that the destinations that people currently living in Whitehill Bordon travel to for all journey purposes are proportionally broken down as follows: • 51% internal trips • 14% Farnham, Farnborough, North Surrey etc • 10% Guildford, East Sussex • 8% Alton, Basingstoke • 6% Petersfield, South Hampshire • 3% Liphook, Sussex • 2% London • 2% Selbourne • 2% Hart, West Berkshire • 2% Headley, Haslemere

3.8.6

In 2006 a countywide TRANSPOL travel survey was undertaken focusing on the East Hampshire District. The study found that 76% of all trips made in the district were done so by car with walking the second most popular mode with a share of 12%. The remaining share comprises 4% by cycle, 4% by rail, 2% by bus and 1% by taxi, motorcycle or ferry. Encouragingly, the level of car use has dropped by 6% in the period from 2002 when the previous study was undertaken.

00900001\003

3.8.7

Travel to work in East Hampshire District is dominated by the car with 70% commuting to their place of work via private car. 10% of people commute to work by walking with 9% cycling, 8% by rail and 3% by bus. These figures reflect the scarce availability of public transport and the unconnected walking and cycling routes in the Whitehill Bordon area. When questioned as to why they choose to use the car over other forms of transport, the travel survey showed that 37% of people cited the available public transport as being poor quality with 35% stating that there was a lack of suitable alternatives.

3.8.8

To capture existing movement patterns and traffic levels in Whitehill Bordon and on the surrounding highway network a number of data sources have been used. A series of detailed traffic and movement surveys were undertaken in 2009 and 2010 with a summary of the full range of data set out below. Plans showing the location of traffic and movement surveys are contained within this report as Appendix B. • September 2009 RSI surveys at a cordon of sites leading out of Whitehill and Bordon; • September 2009 traffic counts around Whitehill and Bordon including turning counts; • September 2009 journey time surveys along seven routes through the study area; • September 2009 bus passenger interviews; • September 2009 bus passenger counts; • Additional junction turning counts in Alton, Bordon and south of Farnham; • TRADS traffic flow data along the A3; and • Census journey to work data.

3.8.9

The traffic data captured from the above surveys and data sources will be used to establish baseline future year conditions at key links and junctions within the town and surrounding area to provide a comparison with future year development scenarios. These assessments will be set out in detail within Chapter 7 of this TA.

3.9

Collision Analysis

3.9.1

Personal Injury Collision (PIC) data has been obtained from Hampshire County Council for a five year period beginning September 2005 through to September 2010. A desktop analysis of collisions that occurred on the primary routes within the Whitehill Bordon area has been undertaken. This analysis is intended as an update of the detailed collision analysis within the Whitehill Bordon Transport Assessment, 2008 undertaken by WSP.

3.9.2

An initial review of the collision data for the study area identified that there were a total of 114 collisions during the 5 year time period. Of those 114 collisions, 4 were ‘fatal’ and 17 were classified as being ‘serious’. The remaining 93 collisions were deemed to be ‘slight’ in severity. 35 of the collisions involved either a pedestrian or a cyclist and at least one other motor vehicle.

00900001\003

3.9.3

The majority of accidents in the Whitehill Bordon study area occurred on five main routes. These routes represent the most significant road links in the town and are set out below: • A325 • B3002 • B3004 • Mill Chase Road/Chalet Hill • Firgrove Road/Liphook Road/Hollywater Road

3.9.4

The following analysis therefore focuses on these five main routes and also considers any collisions that have occurred in close vicinity to these roads. The full PIC data is contained within this report as Appendix C. A325

3.9.5

The A325 runs from north to south through Whitehill Bordon and acts as the principal route for all traffic travelling to the strategic road network. The A325 connects Farnham to the north and the A3 to the south of Whitehill Bordon.

3.9.6

Between 1st November 2005 and 31st August 2010 (5 year study period), a total of 58 collisions were recorded on the A325, of which 48 PICs were slight in severity with 8 serious injury collisions and 2 fatalities. Table 3.3 below summarises the number of collisions that occurred within the study area and timeframe. Figure 3.3: A325 Collision Summary by Year Collision

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Total

Fatal

Serious

Slight

Damage

Total

Severity

3.9.7

The collisions on the A325 are largely located around three main cluster points; the first is located around the A325 junction with Station Road and Lindford Road, the second is located on the A325 Camp Road section near to its junction with Ennerdale Road, and the third is located on the A325 High Street around its junction with Chalet Hill. Despite these three clusters, collisions are spread along the entirety of the A325 within the Whitehill Bordon area.

00900001\003

3.9.8

Analysis of the collision type indicates that the collisions occurring along the A325 are mainly rear end shunt type with a total of 26 (45%) collisions. The next most common collision type involved a vehicle turning right and striking a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction with 20 (34%) collisions of this type. Collisions with either a pedestrian or cyclist accounted for 8 (14%) including 1 ‘serious’ collision. The remaining collisions occurred on roundabouts where a vehicle pulled out in front of an oncoming vehicle resulting in a ‘slight’ collision.

3.9.9

One of the ‘fatal’ collisions occurred as a car lost control and veered into the boundary wall of a neighbouring property on A325 near Hogmoor Road. The other fatality occurred on the A325 near Ennerdale Road where a vehicle accelerated out of a lay-by and collided with a motorcyclist travelling in the opposite direction. Of the 8 ‘serious’ collisions that occurred on the A325, 5 were the result of a vehicle turning right into the path of an oncoming vehicle. In two of these instances a motorcycle was involved. B3002

3.9.10

The B3002 runs west to east through Whitehill Bordon connecting Bordon with the Village of Lindford and Liphook. The B3002 incorporates Budds Lane, Station Road, Lindford Road and Headley Road.

3.9.11

Within the 5 year study period, a total of 12 PICs were recorded on the B3002, of which 8 PICs were ‘slight’ in severity with 3 ‘serious’ injury collisions and 1 ‘fatal’. Table 3.4 below summarises the number of collisions that occurred on the B3002 within the study period. Table 3.4: B3002 Collision Summary by Year Collision

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Total

Fatal

Serious

Slight

Damage

Total

Severity

3.9.12

The collisions on the B3002 are spread along the road within the study area with no identifiable clusters or collision ‘hot-spots’.

00900001\003

3.9.13

Analysis of the collision type on the B3002 shows that the collisions that occurred were mainly the result of cars losing control on a bend and either leaving the road at the nearside or crossing into the path of the opposite carriageway with a total of 5 (42%) resulting from a vehicle losing control. 3 (25%) collisions were the result of a rear end shunt type collision, all of which were deemed ‘slight’ in severity. Only one ‘slight’ collision was the result of wet road conditions which caused the vehicle to skid off of the carriageway while turning around a bend in the road.

3.9.14

The single fatal collision that occurred on the B3002 was the result of a car losing control on a bend near to Budds Lane and colliding with a roadside tree. No other vehicles were involved in the collision. Of the 3 collisions deemed to be ‘serious’ two of them involved a vehicle colliding with a cyclist. The third ‘serious’ collision was the result of a motorcycle losing control on a bend near to Oakhanger Road and the driver parting company with the motorcycle. B3004

3.9.15

The B3004 runs from the B3002 in the north to the town of Liphook in the south. It is located to the east of Whitehill-Bordon and connects the village of Lindford to Standford and Liphook.

3.9.16

In the period between 1st November 2005 and 31st August 2010 (5 year study period), a total of 13 collisions were recorded on the B3004, of which 10 PICs were ‘slight’ in severity with 2 ‘serious’ injury collisions and 1 fatality. Table 3.5 below summarises the number of collisions that occurred on the B3004 within the study period. Table 3.5: B3004 Collision Summary by Year Collision

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Total

Fatal

Serious

Slight

Damage

Total

Severity

3.9.17

The collisions on the B3004 were spread evenly throughout the road within the Whitehill Bordon study area and there were no obvious clusters or single identifiable cause linking the collisions together.

00900001\003

3.9.18

Analysis of the collision types on the B3004 shows that the most common type of collision was the result of a vehicle turning right and colliding with a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction or a vehicle with 9 (69%) of this type of collision occurring. Only 1 rear end shunt type collision occurred on this road resulting in a ‘slight’ in severity collision. The single ‘fatal’ collision that occurred was the result of a car losing control near the junction with Elderberry Road and colliding with a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction. The two ‘serious’ severity accidents were both the result of the car driver losing control and either veering off the carriageway or hitting oncoming traffic. Mill Chase Road/Chalet Hill

3.9.19

Mill Chase Road/Chalet Hill runs from the A325 High Street in Bordon as a local connecting road joining to the B3004 in Lindford, albeit connection to the B3004 at Lindford is restricted to a single direction and requires the traversing of a Ford.

3.9.20

Between 1st November 2005 and 31st August 2010 a total of 11 collisions were recorded on Mill Chase Road/Chalet Hill, of which 9 PICs were ‘slight’ in severity with 2 ‘serious’ injury collisions and 0 fatalities. Table 3.6 below summarises the number of collisions that occurred on the route within the study period. Table 3.6: Mill Chase Road/Chalet Hill: Collision Summary by Year Collision

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Total

Fatal

Serious

Slight

Damage

Total

Severity

3.9.21

The collisions that occurred on Mill Chase Road and Chalet Hill are located closer to the western end of the road, nearer to the A325 rather than the eastern end of the road. There is an identifiable cluster on Chalet Hill in close proximity to its junction with Savile Crescent.

00900001\003

3.9.22

Analysis of the collision types on Chalet Hill/Mill Chase Road show that the most common type of collision involved a vehicle turning right into the path of an oncoming vehicle which was responsible for 4 (36%) of the total collisions on Chalet Hill/Mill Chase Road. A further 3 (27%) collisions were rear end shunt type collisions. Collisions involving either a cyclists or a pedestrian accounted for 3 (27%) collisions. Of the two ‘serious’ collisions that occurred one was the result of a vehicle turning right into oncoming traffic and the other was the result of a vehicle leaving a lay-by and colliding with a vehicle travelling on the nearside of the carriageway. Firgrove Road/Liphook Road/Hollywater Road

3.9.23

Firgrove Road/Liphook Road/Hollywater Road is a local access road located to the south of Bordon. Firgrove Road starts in Whitehill before changing into Liphook Road at the junction with the A325. Liphook Road becomes Hollywater Road before connecting with the B3004 to the south-east of Bordon.

3.9.24

Between 1st November 2005 and 31st August 2010 (5 year study period), a total of 7 collisions were recorded on Firgrove Road/Liphook Road/Hollywater Road, of which 6 PICs were ‘slight’ in severity with only 1 ‘serious’ injury collision. Table 3.7 below summarises the number of collisions that occurred on the route within the study period.

Table 3.7: Firgrove Road/Liphook Road/Hollywater Road Collision Summary by Year Collision

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Total

Fatal

Serious

Slight

Damage

Total

Severity

3.9.25

The collisions on Firgrove Road/Liphook Road/Hollywater Road are largely located around two junctions; the first is located around the Liphook Road and Walldown Road junction, and the second is located on the Hollywater Road/Walldown Road junction. Due to the relatively low number of collisions on this stretch of road, these clusters consist of 3 and 2 collisions over the 5 year period respectively, and do not on their own raise significant safety concerns.

00900001\003

3.9.26

Analysis of the collision type shows that 2 of the collisions that occurred at the junction of Liphook Road and Walldown Road were caused by a car pulling out of the junction and into the path of another vehicle travelling in the same direction. A further two collisions were caused by vehicles making a right turn into the path of an oncoming vehicle. 2 of the collisions were attributed to adverse weather conditions with both a wet and an icy road surface causing 2 vehicles to lose control. 1 collision involved a rear end shunt type collision.

3.9.27

The one â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;seriousâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; collision that occurred was located on Hollywater Road and was attributed to icy road conditions that caused the vehicle to lose control and collide with a roadside tree. No other vehicles were involved in the collision. Summary

3.9.28

The above collision analysis indicates that the majority of collisions which have occurred within Whitehill Bordon within the 5 year analysis period were spread over the road network and no obvious common causes can be identified.

3.9.29

Small clusters of accidents have been identified on busier junctions on the A325, such as the A325/B3002 Station Road and A325/Chalet Hill junctions. It is anticipated that the existing road network and traffic conditions would be subject to change and improvement as part of the proposed Eco-town development which would mitigate the above minor collision cluster sites. Further safety improvements can be considered in due course.

00900001\003

Development Proposals

4.1

Proposed Development Scenarios

4.1.1

The Framework Masterplan (June 2010), produced on behalf of East Hampshire District Council, sets out the various proposed land uses that will form the new Whitehill Bordon development. It has been agreed with the project steering group (HCC, EHDC, SCC and the Highways Agency) that four alternative proposed development scenarios will be tested initially in addition to testing baseline conditions within Whitehill Bordon. The development scenarios are driven by the quantum of residential dwellings proposed which have been tested under the Draft Framework Masterplan and its associated supporting work (including the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA), but also include proposals for non-residential development in line with the Framework Masterplan proposals.

4.1.2

The proposed development scenarios which are to be tested initially within the Future Year Transport Model are set out in further detail below: Baseline â&#x20AC;&#x201C; do nothing scenario for comparative purposes which will incorporate the identified committed developments and general background traffic growth derived from TEMPRO. The committed developments within the surrounding area have been identified and agreed as the Aldershot Urban Extension (AUE) and the East Street, Farnham developments. The AUE scheme, located to the north of Aldershot town centre, is proposed to provide some 4,500 residential dwellings in addition to an extensive range of community and commercial uses. The East Street, Farnham development, located on the edge of Farnham town centre, comprises proposals for a mixed use development including residential apartments, some 25 new shops and restaurants, a cinema, a community centre, and public open and green spaces. Assessments which considered the likely traffic impacts of both developments have been provided by HCC and Surrey County Council (SCC) respectively. Option 1 (Full Masterplan) - based upon a residential quantum of 4,000 new dwellings and employment to support some 5,500 jobs; derived through the development of the current draft Framework Masterplan for Whitehill Bordon. Option 2 (Extended Masterplan) - based upon a residential quantum of 5,300 new dwellings identified as the upper limit within the Masterplan (and tested in the HRA produced by UE Associates) and employment to support some 6,800 jobs. Option 3 (Phase I of the Masterplan) - based upon a residential quantum of 1,700 new dwellings and employment to support some 3,200 jobs, which represents a mid-Masterplan build out likely to be reached by 2019. It is envisaged that this scenario would entail the reuse of existing buildings on Ministry of Defence (MoD) land for non-military purposes and the

00900001\003

release of some further additional MoD land to accommodate the residential quantum as set out in the draft Masterplan. Option 4 (Fall-Back Scenario) - based upon the potential re-use of the existing MoD buildings on the land for non-MoD uses consistent with a possible future Certificate of Lawful Use application. This Option considers the quantum of existing buildings on site and associates an appropriate use to each building or buildings (undertaken in consultation with EHDC as Local Planning Authority). Option 4 can be used for comparative purposes as it represents a likely lawful use of the existing site without the need for a new planning application. 4.1.3

A full summary of the development mix within each of the proposed development scenario options is contained within Table 4.1 below:

00900001\003

Table 4.1: Proposed Development Scenario â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Development Mix Summary Land Use

Proposed Development Scenario

Sub Land Use Category Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

1 Bed Flat

600

795

255

2 Bed Flat

520

689

221

2 Bed Houses

560

742

238

3 Bed Houses

920

1,219

391

4 Bed Houses

880

1,166

374

5 Bed Houses

520

689

221

Total

4,000

5,300

1,700

15,560 m2

A1 Retail

24,046m2

10,220m2

Retail

A2 Financial

2,805m2

1,192m2

(Gross Internal Area)

A3/A4/A5 Pubs, Restaurants, Takeaways

4,008m2

1,703 m2

Total

30,859m2

13,859m2

2,283 m2

B1(a) Office

41,761m2

51,632m2

24,297m2

11,170 m2

B1(b) Research & Development

11,600m2

14,342m2

6,749m2

7,162 m2

B1(c) Light Industry

29,000m2

35,855m2

16,873m2

35,608 m2

Total

82,361m2

101,829m2

47,919m2

53,940 m2

Primary School

(x3) 7,581m2

(x1) 2,217m2

(D1 Education) Non-residential

Secondary School

(x1) 7,800m2

Institutions

Skills Centre

2,500m2 (GFA)

Further Education

3,000m2 (GFA)

Total

21,000m2 (approx.)

2,217m2

GP Surgery

(x5) 475m2

(x7) 665m2

(x2) 190m2

Dental Practice

(x4) 400m2

(x5) 500m2

(x2) 200m2

General Healthcare Facilities

550m2

250m2

Total

1,425m2

1,715m2

640m2

C3 Residential (Dwellings)

Employment (Gross Internal Area)

(Gross Internal Area)

(D1 Healthcare) Non-residential Institutions (Gross Floor Area)

00900001\003

2,283 m2

TOTAL d1 - 1,782 m2

4.1.4

In addition to the four development scenarios above there are a number of mode share and trip containment targets. These have been established from Eco-town policy and through the Masterplanning process and will be incorporated into the forecast transport model to create a number of iterations as appropriate. An iterative approach will provide a robust base of evidence against which the impact of development can be considered.

4.2

Mode Share Scenario Iterations

4.2.1

The modal share of future Whitehill Bordon trips will be dependent upon many factors. However, they will be particularly influenced by the availability and attractiveness of alternative means of transport to the private car. This, in turn, is dependent on a number of factors such as funding and financial viability. As such, a number of mode share targets have been identified which reflect Eco-town Policy and could potentially be achievable within Whitehill Bordon. The various types of Smarter Choice interventions and the viability of providing appropriate alternative transport to potentially meet the identified mode share targets will be discussed within Chapter 5 of the TA, which will draw on previous work undertaken by the County Council and EHDC.

4.2.2

Other factors which could potentially affect the future modal split in Whitehill Bordon have been considered within this study. Firstly, the potential re-introduction of direct rail services into Whitehill Bordon has been investigated within a Rail Feasibility Study. The latest position of the Rail Feasibility work is set out in Chapter 5.

4.2.3

The mode share targets relate to the proportion of private car trips and are intended to apply to all new trips associated with the development proposals. The initial target mode share iterations are set out below: â&#x20AC;˘ 25% car mode share (long term Eco-town target) â&#x20AC;˘ 50% car mode share (mode share target set out in the PPS Eco-towns) â&#x20AC;˘ 75% car mode share (broadly the current level of car use in the town)

4.2.4

The challenge of achieving the higher mode share targets within the retained areas of Whitehill Bordon will be more difficult considering that existing infrastructure in these areas is more difficult to change and make more accessible. However, these existing areas will benefit from the same Transport Strategy proposals as the new development areas and there remains good potential for creating modal shift away from the car. The modal targets for the Eco-town have therefore been applied to both the new and existing areas of Whitehill Bordon as a whole.

00900001\003

Alan Baxter and Associates – Mode Share Study 4.2.5

Further to the comprehensive work undertaken as part of the Whitehill Bordon Transport Strategy (2010) by Alan Baxter and Associates (ABA), this section of the TA is intended to compliment the previous study and further investigate the target modal split of movements within Whitehill Bordon. The ABA report considers in significant detail existing travel patterns and how the development of Whitehill Bordon and associated changes in demographics and settlement type would impact upon future movement patterns within the town.

4.2.6

The Alan Baxter study establishes existing travel patterns within Whitehill Bordon through analysis of the following datasets: • 2001 census – method of travel to work • The National Travel Survey • East Hampshire Residents Travel Surveys, 2006

4.2.7

The existing modal split within Whitehill Bordon, as established within the Alan Baxter Transport Strategy report, is shown in Figure 4.2 below: Figure 4.2: Summary of Existing Whitehill Bordon (All Trip Purpose) Modal Split

4.2.8

The ABA Transport Strategy report then determines modal split targets for the future years 2026 and 2036 based upon detailed calculations which consider a number of Smarter Choices measures which, if fully implemented, would encourage modal shift away from use of the private car. The detailed calculations are contained within Appendix B of the ABA Transport Strategy report, which determine future year target modal splits for each journey purpose individually and for all movements as a whole based upon an assumed number of future year trips.

4.2.9

The target modal split for Whitehill Bordon in 2036, as established within the ABA Transport Strategy report, is shown in Figure 4.3 below:

00900001\003

Figure 4.3: Summary of Overall Whitehill Bordon Target Modal Split in 2036

4.2.10

The mode share targets developed within the ABA Transport Strategy have been used as the basis to develop the future year mode share targets, identified in Section 4.2.3 above, across all modes.

4.2.11

The derived modal split targets for the town of Whitehill Bordon in the future year 2036 are summarised below in Figure 4.4, Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6 below:

Figure 4.4: 2036 Target Modal Split (25% Car Mode Share)

00900001\003

Figure 4.5: 2036 Target Modal Split (50% Car Mode Share)

Figure 4.6: 2036 Target Modal Split (75% Car Mode Share)

4.3

Trip Containment Scenario Iterations

4.3.1

In addition to the mode share targets set out above, targets for the level of trip containment or internalisation of future residential based trips within Whitehill Bordon have also been established. The overall trip containment targets for the proposed Eco-town as a whole are set out below: â&#x20AC;˘ 50% trip containment â&#x20AC;˘ 30% trip containment

00900001\003

4.3.2

Trip containment for the future town of Whitehill Bordon as a whole requires a certain proportion of all person trips generated by future residents of Whitehill Bordon to be internal to/contained within the town. The overall trip containment target must consider each of the various journey purposes undertaken by future residents. For example, trips generated by a primary school or a doctors surgery within Whitehill Bordon would realistically be trips derived predominantly from residents of the town. Conversely, the employment elements of the land uses proposed within the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town are likely to attract a higher proportion of trips from surrounding settlements.

4.3.3

Also the relationship between the proposed new development within the town and the existing areas being retained again needs to be considered. In the early years, the ability to achieve higher trip containment targets within the retained areas of Whitehill Bordon would be more difficult considering that existing residents would already have established commuting patterns to employment areas outside the town. However, over time, and as the town develops, it is likely that the demographic patterns within the retained areas will change and that people will seek more local employment opportunities where these are created. Additionally, the new community facilities and town centre services will offer all future residents a much wider choice of local attractions, and will reduce the need for external trips. For the purposes of this assessment the trip containment targets are applied to the future town of Whitehill Bordon as a whole.

4.3.4

The level of trip containment which can be achieved within Whitehill Bordon in the future will be closely linked to the modal split achieved within the town, and some of the trip containment targets are not compatible with certain mode share targets.

4.3.5

When attempting to achieve the more challenging mode share targets (i.e. 25% and 50% car mode share), sustainable modes of travel, particularly walking, cycling and public transport, are required to take the burden of travel mode away from the private car. The modes of walking and cycling, by their nature, result in the vast majority of pedestrian and cyclist trips being made internal to or contained within the town due to the restrained distances over which people will consider them a viable mode choice. Therefore, in order to achieve the higher levels of car mode share within Whitehill Bordon, a high level of trip containment will be achieved naturally due to the increased level of pedestrian and cyclist mode share.

4.3.6

For that reason, the lower trip containment target of 30% will not be considered within this assessment alongside the mode share targets of 25% and 50% and will only be considered alongside the 75% target car mode share iteration as a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worst caseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; scenario.

4.3.7

A breakdown of the mode share targets combined with the trip containment targets, based upon the work undertaken by Alan Baxter Associates, contained within this report as Appendix D.

00900001\003

4.4

A325 Treatment Scenario Iterations

4.4.1

A key element of the Eco-town proposals is the potential re-routing of traffic from the existing A325 in Bordon town centre. These proposals have the joint aim of relieving already congested peak period traffic conditions on the A325 and also to create a quality town centre with a sense of place and which provides priority to pedestrians and sustainable modes of travel.

4.4.2

To achieve this, existing traffic (or a proportion of existing traffic) will need to be diverted onto an alternative route within the town. An indicative route has been identified within the Masterplan to the west of the existing town centre and A325. The indicative route is shown within Figure 4.6 below: Figure 4.6: Indicative A325 Alternative Route

4.4.3

The indicative alternative route for the A325 is appropriately located in terms of causing minimal impact to existing areas of Whitehill Bordon being retained within the Eco-town proposals. This route would also have the dual purpose of providing essential access to the new development areas. Further investigation with regards to land ownership, statutory undertakerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plant and site specific environmental issues would be required during the design process and detailed scheme option appraisal.

4.4.4

To assess the traffic impact of potential measures implemented on the A325 in the town centre a number of outline options have been identified. The potential options for the treatment of the A325 to be considered within this study are set out in further detail below.

00900001\003

A325 Do Nothing 4.4.5

This scenario iteration assumes that the A325 in Whitehill Bordon will operate as it does at present and all vehicular traffic will be provided with a choice of using either the existing A325 or the alternative route shown in Figure 4.6 above.

4.4.6

A detailed proposed layout of the alternative route of the A325 will need to be developed based on appropriate further investigation and option appraisal. For the purposes of this assessment, however, it has been assumed that the proposed route will be comprised of a continuous 7.3 metre wide single carriageway with a speed limit of 30mph.

4.4.7

The potential alternative route would be connected with the existing A325 to the north and south of the town via two new signalised junctions incorporating bus priority. The use of appropriate Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) would afford priority to buses through vehicle detection when necessary. When no buses are present the signalised junctions would allow the free flow of general traffic through the junction to/from the potential alternative route.

4.4.8

A feasibility design of the junctions connecting the proposed alternative route with the existing A325 to the north and south of the town are shown within drawings 00900001/GA/001 and 00900001/GA/002 respectively, contained within this report as Appendix E. The proposed junctions would also incorporate cycle-friendly infrastructure such as bypasses to further encourage sustainable modes of transport. A325 Vehicular Traffic Restricted (excluding Public Transport)

4.4.9

This option assumes that all vehicular traffic, with the exception of Public Transport and local access, is restricted from using a section of the A325 within Whitehill Bordon town centre and is re-routed via the indicative alternative route shown in Figure 4.6 above.

4.4.10

For the purposes of this study it is assumed that the alternative route will again be comprised of a continuous 7.3 metre wide single carriageway with a speed limit of 30mph.

4.4.11

The route would provide generous provision for pedestrians and cyclists, particularly in the form of wide footways, cycle-friendly infrastructure and appropriate and conveniently located crossing facilities. It is imperative that the alternative route, in addition to providing a key route for motor traffic, also encourages sustainable modes of transport and does not cause severance as experienced with the existing A325 in the town centre.

00900001\003

4.4.12

The re-routing of all private motor vehicle traffic would allow the existing route of the A325 to become a fully dedicated public transport spine through the town centre. It is intended that the spine would be served by all bus services operating within the town and the traffic-free environment would afford priority to sustainable forms of transport in the town centre. Furthermore, it is assumed within this scenario that a section of the A325 within the town centre surrounding the proposed retail core will be designated as ‘car free’, thereby creating a physical barrier to private motor vehicle through movements.

4.4.13

4.4.14

The feasibility design of the junctions connecting the proposed alternative route with the existing A325 to the north and south of the town are shown within drawings 00900001/GA/001 and 00900001/GA/002 respectively, contained within this report as Appendix E. The proposed junctions would also incorporate cycle-friendly infrastructure such as bypasses to further encourage sustainable modes of transport. A325 Traffic Management

4.4.15

This option assumes that the level of traffic using the existing A325 will be managed through the implementation of traffic calming, speed management and engineering to provide prioritisation to non-car modes.

4.4.16

An alternative route through the town would be required for through traffic and other vehicles choosing the alternative route, similar to that within the ‘A325 All Vehicular Traffic Restricted (excluding Public Transport)’ option.

4.4.17

The implementation of proposed traffic management measures on the existing route of the A325 and the provision of an alternative route through the town, accompanied with appropriate advance warning and signage, is intended to encourage the perception of the A325 as a less attractive option unless for direct access to homes, shops or town-centre facilities.

4.4.18

For the purposes of this study it is assumed that the alternative route will again be comprised of a continuous 7.3 metre wide single carriageway with a speed limit of 30mph along the route shown in Figure 4.6 above.

00900001\003

4.4.19

The potential alternative route would again be connected with the existing A325 to the north and south of the town via two new signalised junctions incorporating bus priority. The use of appropriate Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) would afford priority to buses through vehicle detection when necessary. When no buses are present the signalised junctions would allow the free flow of general traffic through the junction to/from the potential alternative route described above.

4.4.20

4.4.21

Potential traffic calming measures which could be implemented along the existing A325 include the following: • Gateway treatments – coloured surfacing, carriageway narrowing • Horizontal deflection measures – chicanes, pinch-points, throttles, existing roundabout junctions • Vertical deflection measures – raised tables, speed cushions • Manual for Streets measures – shared surface, relaxed junction geometry/visibility standards, sustainable mode priority, quality environment

4.4.22

An indicative plan (Amey drawing 00900001/GA/003) showing potential locations for the general types of traffic calming measures described above is contained within this report as Appendix E.

4.4.23

It should be noted that early consultation with bus operators and emergency services will be vital within the process of developing a detailed traffic management scheme for the existing A325 in the town centre. Furthermore, early consultation with key stakeholders and the community should be undertaken with particular regard to shared surface proposals as similar schemes have presented problems for some users, in particular blind or partially sighted users.

00900001\003

Smarter Choices and Modal Shift Interventions

5.1

Introduction

5.1.1

As described in Chapter 1 of this report, this TA will assess the potential transport impacts of a range of development scenarios and associated mode share and trip containment targets. The most challenging targets in terms of mode share and trip containment are based upon targets established in Eco-town policy and guidance, as described in Chapter 3 of this report.

5.1.2

It is important to recognise that, as there are no existing Eco-town developments within the UK, there are no similar examples/case studies of settlements elsewhere in the UK and, therefore, no clear precedent for achieving these higher end targets exist upon which we can benchmark and critique packages of measures which could deliver the higher mode share proportions tested. During previous work, case studies of successful sustainable initiatives have however been considered from across the UK and Europe to inform the package of measures proposed. This chapter considers and builds upon this work as referenced in Section 1.4.3.

5.1.3

This chapter will identify a range of measures, developed in the context of appropriate guidance and relevant best practice, which could potentially achieve the higher end mode share targets established for the proposed Whitehill Bordon Eco-town. Whilst there can be no definitive mode shift quantities attached to the measures proposed, the measures discussed would certainly be central to delivering the mode share targets and delivering the optimum mode shift away from car user to alternative modes of travel.

5.1.4

The chapter will summarise the baseline situation and likely key transport challenges associated with achieving mode shift before looking at the measures and interventions required to potentially achieve a 50% and 25% car mode share and assess the implications and viability of achieving these targets. Existing Mode Share Summary

5.1.5

The mode share by journey purpose for residents of Whitehill Bordon is shown in Table 5.1 below. The data reveals high car reliance and low public transport usage for all journey purposes, in particular the journey to work where 79 percent travel by car and only 2 percent use public transport.

00900001\003

Table 5.1: Existing Mode Share by Journey Purpose Purpose/Mode

Walk

Cycle

Car Driver

Car Passenger

Bus

Rail

All trips Work Shopping Leisure Education Others

20% 15% 37% 28% 49 % 9%

2% 4% 2% 2% 2% 7%

58% 72% 43% 49% 25% 47%

13% 7% 16% 18% 17% 33%

4% 2% 3% 3% 7% 4%

1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

*Source: WSP D/T Whitehill / Bordon Travel Plan, page 9 5.1.6

The journey to and from work is an especially important target for a sustainable transport strategy. Commuting patterns in Whitehill Bordon represent a significant proportion of single occupancy car journeys as shown in Figure 5.2 below:

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 O th er

e B ic yc l

W al k

Tr ai n

All trips Commute

B us

C ar dr C iv ar er pa ss en ge r

Percent

Figure 5.2: Comparison of Commuting Trip Mode Share with All Trips

Mode

5.2

50% Car User Mode Share Target - Hard Measures Planning and Design

5.2.1

Under current conditions, without the car, existing residents of Whitehill Bordon would arguably face accessibility difficulties as a result of the semi-rural location and limited alternative travel options as discussed in sections 3.4 and 3.5. The car provides a rational choice for all journey purposes and residents strongly value the convenience and time saving associated with car travel.

00900001\003

5.2.2

To influence the travel behaviour of future residents and of future visitors to the town of Whitehill Bordon it is imperative that sustainable travel choices are promoted and integrated within the planning and design process. The final design of the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town must ensure that journeys undertaken by the sustainable travel modes of walking, cycling and public transport are more convenient than private car use and are supported by required management and regulatory measures.

5.2.3

Future mode share is dependent upon the attractiveness of alternative modes to the car. Good design of Whitehill Bordon’s built environment and the well considered provision of transport infrastructure can positively influence how people travel. Rather than sustainable transport being an after-thought for a settlement, with the new development areas, there is an opportunity to design-in sustainable transport and design-out land use patterns which encourage car use from the outset.

5.2.4

The combination of mixed-use development with high quality local facilities and a range of employment opportunities, as well as street design which prioritises non-car travel with direct and dedicated pedestrian and cycle routes, will lead to a reduction in both the need to travel and the benefits of travelling by car. This is critical to delivering sustainable travel patterns and without achieving trip containment, by bringing the jobs and services into the town, the transport strategy and targets cannot be achieved.

5.2.5

The planning and design of Whitehill Bordon Eco-town centres on the following key points: • Urban design will ensure sustainable travel modes are the easiest, cheapest, fastest and most pleasant way to travel (i.e. street design for a sustainable user hierarchy; pedestrians first, cars last); • There will be a mix of land uses including employment, education, retail and leisure facilities within walking distance to all residential areas of the town; • All development will be linked to the ‘green grid’ of walking and cycling routes; • All homes will be within close proximity to public transport connection; • Public transport will be high speed, accessible, frequent and provide connections to higher order settlements and railway stations.

5.2.6

At the stage of producing this TA, an indicative development layout has been developed through the Masterplanning process, involving three stages of community engagement. The indicative layout sets out general locations for each of the proposed land uses within the town and the general connectivity between these areas. The Masterplan also incorporates an indicative street hierarchy which has been developed based upon key principles of connectivity and permeability to encourage sustainable travel; and also to provide appropriate linkage between existing and proposed areas of the town.

00900001\003

5.2.7

The street hierarchy will be used as the basis for developing a detailed highway layout for the development which will need to be based heavily on the design principles set out within the Manual for Streets, 2007 guidance produced by the DfT. The Manual for Streets (MfS) advises designers that a hierarchy of users should be applied within the design process which is shown in Figure 5.3 below: Figure 5.3: User Hierarchy in Design Process Consider first

Pedestrians Cyclists Public transport use Specialist service vehicles (e.g. emergency service vehicles, waste etc)

Consider last 5.2.8

Other motor traffic

Other design considerations that are advised within the MfS and need to be considered in further detail to encourage sustainable transport usage within the proposed Whitehill Bordon are set out below: Comprehensive direct networks for walking, cycling and public transport

5.2.9

The indicative street hierarchy contained within the Whitehill Bordon Framework Masterplan, and contained within this report as Figure 5.4 overleaf, indicates early consideration of this in the design process. In particular, proposals to re-direct through traffic away from the existing A325 in the town centre to provide a dedicated public transport corridor, a preference towards tertiary streets which afford priority to non-car modes within the town; and the provision of the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;green loopâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; footpaths and cycle paths will encourage sustainable travel choices.

00900001\003

Figure 5.4: Proposed Whitehill Bordon Indicative Street Hierarchy

5.2.10

Furthermore, the indicative street hierarchy shows a connected network of streets within the town allowing direct and convenient routes for pedestrians and cyclists to the town centre and other key facilities. This network â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;permeabilityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; could be further enhanced during the design process of a detailed highway layout for the chosen level of development. All of the above measures will need to be supported by appropriate design features to ensure that the appropriate environment is created to enable and encourage sustainable modes. Situating key services in accessible locations

5.2.11

The final layout of the proposed development must ensure that all key services and facilities, such as health centres and schools, are located in central and accessible locations and within a walk distance of 800 metres from peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s homes.

5.2.12

However, it is not only distance that will affect the propensity to walk or cycle but also the quality and attractiveness of the routes provided. Future and existing residents of Whitehill Bordon will be more likely to walk or cycle to local services routes are of high quality, visually attractive and have a perception of being safe. It is, therefore, important that such routes provide adequate surveillance and lighting to create a perception of being safe; and appropriate materials and landscaping are considered to improve the aesthetics of the route. Routes and improvements will be focussed on both the existing and new areas of the town.

00900001\003

Inclusive street environments which integrate the activities of all users 5.2.13

Streets are the focus of movement in a neighbourhood and can represent a key role in creating attractive and socially interactive environments. Pedestrians and cyclists should generally share streets with motor vehicles. There are a number of methods which could be adopted within Whitehill Bordon to promote the use of non-car modes of travel and create inclusive and safe environments for all users, these include: Shared space streets and squares – remove traditional segregation of footway and carriageway thereby pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles share the surface. These are most effective in environments with low levels of traffic. The aim of shared spaces is to promote lower vehicles speeds, make it easier for people to move around and encourage social interaction. It should be noted, however, that whilst shared spaces satisfy a number of aims for the majority of users, problems have been encountered by visually impaired users who have traditionally used kerb lines as a directional guide. Home zones – are residential areas where the street is designed as a place for people and not just motor traffic. Home zones commonly incorporate elements of shared surface, as described above, and encourage low vehicular speeds. Car-free areas within the development

5.2.14

A proportion of the proposed housing element of the development should be promoted as ‘car–free’. This would be most appropriate in central locations within the town amongst higher density housing stock which have greater and easier access to local services and public transport networks. The ‘car–free’ nature of the property would have to be legally supported by a contract with the resident to maintain this status. Incentives to buy/rent this type of property could potentially be provided in the form of subsidised public transport fares or car club membership.

5.2.15

It is proposed within the Masterplan to apply a reduced maximum parking standard to the Whitehill Bordon development as a whole. Measures to support these proposals could be to provide parking spaces which can be bought or rented separately from the property and/or to provide separate, safe and secure car parking away from the residential area. Joined-up transport networks

5.2.16

A fundamental factor in creating a travel network which provides an attractive and viable alternative to private motor vehicles is to ensure that appropriate interchanges are provided at key locations to ensure continuity of travel between key destinations and between different modes. Interchanges should ensure that, where direct journeys are not possible, changes between transport modes are ‘seamless’.

00900001\003

5.2.17

As part of the transport strategy for Whitehill Bordon it is proposed to provide a central transport ‘hub’, situated within the High Street, where all proposed bus services will stop. The hub building is intended to provide a focus for travel within and to/from the town and provide state-of-the-art travel planning facilities. Proposed features and services include real time passenger information, bus route information, cycle and walking route information, cycle hire, car club and car share information. The iconic building in the heart of the town centre’s High Street will play a crucial role in acting as a focal point for changing people’s perceptions of public transport as well as providing an access point to the network.

5.2.18

The presence of a fashionable building in the heart of the community evokes an instant connection with a high-quality bus service that people would want to use. The provision of information and journey planning as well as wider services such as free internet and community messaging and educational services including the spreading of environmental awareness is useful in showcasing the benefits of using public transport as well as becoming a meeting place for the community. All of this will create positive associations which help overcome the reasons why people currently do not support public transport.

5.2.19

In addition it is proposed to provide further transport ‘sub-hubs’ located in key employment areas. It is intended that all bus routes will stop at these sub-hubs and high quality sheltered waiting facilities at bus stops and real time passenger information provided.

5.2.20

The proposed transport hub interchanges in Whitehill Bordon should be of very high quality. The design of the interchange bus stops and the type of vehicles used must enable passengers to board or alight from the vehicle unaided or with a reasonable level of assistance. The proposed hubs should provide the following as a minimum:

5.2.21

•

Sheltered waiting areas with appropriate seating

•

Appropriate lighting and security

•

Passenger help point/assistance during service hours

•

Disabled access to the hub building/shelter and buses

•

Up-to-date timetables displayed

•

Electronic real time passenger information

•

Appropriate levels of cycle parking

•

Disabled car parking

•

Safe and attractive access for pedestrians

•

Appropriate signage to the hub for pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles.

The following measures should also be considered at the transport hubs, particularly at the central transport hub, where appropriate: •

Public address system

•

Ticket office/self-service ticket machine

•

Toilet facilities

00900001\003

â&#x20AC;˘

Public telephone

â&#x20AC;˘

Designated drop-off/pick-up area

5.3

50% Car User Mode Share Target - Soft Measures

5.3.1

To develop a truly sustainable town requires intervention in all areas; buildings, green space, transport infrastructure, employment and perhaps most importantly lifestyle. The key to achieving mode share targets and trip containment is the challenge of developing sustainable travel mindsets among residents. Many new and existing residents are likely to have established travel habits which revolve around car dependency.

5.3.2

Regardless of innovation and provision of alternative transport options, their travel behaviour remains a function of personal circumstances, demographic profile, personality traits and perception of alternative travel options; which in many cases form a collection of reasons to use a private car over sustainable transport alternatives and it is difficult to overcome these culturally embedded travel habits in the short term. There is potential however, over the longer term and as the town develops, to begin to change attitudes to travel if benefits observed by new residents through the application of sustainable modes can be transferred and experienced by existing residents.

5.3.3

The existing Travel Plan and Transport Strategy documents largely focus on managing travel demand through the provision of transport infrastructure. The purpose of a travel plan - to reduce the number of car journeys - is simple, but the principle of the travel plan concept - to encourage behaviour change - is inherently complex. To support the design and infrastructural improvements that are proposed to create a sustainable community, it is therefore important to impart behavioural changes.

5.3.4

Transport measures are required to recognise the different factors which cause personal travel choice. Altering modal choice requires a carefully tailored, well targeted strategy which must identify individual or collective travel motivations, and satisfy as many of them as possible.

5.3.5

Measures that alter residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; established travel habits and intrinsic perceptions of travel are fundamental to creating behaviour change. These factors cannot be directly addressed though the implementation of infrastructural solutions. For example the introduction of new public transport infrastructure must be accompanied with the ongoing campaign of awareness and cost saving to ensure a balance of attractiveness of public transport against the car and reinstate the actual benefits of public transport over the using the car.

00900001\003

5.3.6

To compliment our indicative list of hard measures, this report considers the specific transport and behavioural challenges to achieving overall mode share targets, the physical infrastructure proposed and an effective approach to behavioural change to compliment their implementation. Reducing Car Use

5.3.7

Journey to work trips provide a real opportunity for mode change. The Masterplan for Whitehill Bordon includes the creation of up to 5,500 new jobs in the town with the vision of creating a live/work arrangement with a low mobility requirement similar to the Bordon Garrison currently operating in the town. Whilst the reality of this is dependent on a number of factors such as the matching of employment opportunities with the demographic profile and skill set of new and existing residents, with higher than average car reliance, reducing car use for work related journeys is more significant to overall mode share targets than other journey purposes. Measure to reduce car use include: ~ Home working

5.3.8

Home working is the primary tool for achieving this. Based on current levels of home working within East Hampshire it is estimated that around 1 in 10 new homes could contain a homeworker. Home working will be supported within the town by providing flexible spaces within homes that can be used as home offices as well as introducing high speed broadband to each property.

5.3.9

In addition to facilitating home working through the provision of broadband internet connection and flexible working spaces in homes, it will be important to ensure that a culture of home working is viewed as being equally as or more effective than being in the office environment at work. Companies in East Hampshire will need to be made aware of the benefits of allowing people to work from home by demonstrating that productivity amongst staff who work from home increases without the distractions that working in a busy office environment can bring.

5.3.10

It will also be necessary to offer advice to all home workers in regards to health and safety regulations that will apply to them as home workers. This can be facilitated through a support group for all home workers within Whitehill Bordon that will provide workers with a sense of being part of something while not having to travel. Meetings could be held locally on a monthly basis to provide advice and guidance to interested parties.

00900001\003

~ Car Clubs 5.3.11

For occasional drivers using a car for journeys equating to less than 6,000 miles per year, membership to a car club can reduce bills by around ÂŁ3,500 a year. Research has shown that every car club car can replace up to 20 private cars. This will have significant impact on reducing traffic and the need for parking space.

5.3.12

The transport hub in the centre of town would provide the ideal location for people to find out about the car club and enable them to sign up to the scheme. Dedicated spaces for car club members should be provided throughout town.

5.3.13

Car club research shows that 15% of members showed an increase in the use of active travel after joining and members use public transport three times more often than nonmembers.

5.3.14

Car clubs can be successful in large towns or cities but for a town the size of Whitehill Bordon additional funding may be required until the club becomes established. The New Growth Points report states that implementation of the car club needs careful consideration with regards to timing. If introduced too early funding may run out before other infrastructure is in place or before the town has a large enough population or employment to support it. If the car club folds and there are no alternatives then people will revert to car use. This also risks alienating people from car clubs altogether as people would be less likely to sign up to a second car club later in the development process.

5.3.15

The Poole Quarter development in Dorset used Smart Moves to set up and manage a car club for residents which allowed members to hire a car as and when required at an affordable cost. Two fuel efficient cars were made available from day one of occupation and were marketed as a handy alternative to car ownership when residents needed to make short day trips such as shopping or visiting nearby attractions or relatives. ~ Car Sharing

5.3.16

In addition to car clubs, car sharing can help reduce transport related CO2 emissions by 4050% among its members and is also a good way to encourage interaction within the community, if neighbours are making the same journey everyday they can take it in turns to drive and reduce their bills. The travel patterns in the town suggest significant potential for successful car sharing measures.

00900001\003

5.3.17

The use of technologies to set up town wide databases to help people car share by getting in touch with each other should be used, potentially through the national car sharing company Liftshare.com. Priority parking should be used in conjunction with this initiative at places of work and in parking sensitive areas within residential streets. Carsharedorset.com was set up through the Liftshare.com website in partnership with Borough of Poole Council and Bournemouth Borough Council to help maximise peoples travel options through Dorset. Carsharedorset.com is free to use and was designed for use by both passengers and drivers interested in finding an alternative to the daily parking and congestion issues faced in the county. A similar scheme for Hampshire is currently in place at www.hantscarshare.com and Whitehill Bordon already has its own town specific car-sharing domain through Liftshare.com.

5.3.18

Atkins report on Smarter Choices for East Hampshire District Council (2010) states that a car share scheme can be implemented quickly and with relatively little outlay. The report notes that there is a significant amount of out-commuting and the 2001 census data indicates that this is to a small number of key locations meaning people will have similar commutes. These people can be easily matched together using a marketing campaign to attract users.

5.3.19

All initiatives for reducing car use in Whitehill Bordon should be advertised to residents as soon as possible to get ‘buy in’ at the earliest possible stage. Using the example of Poole Quarter again, homebuyers would receive a detailed leaflet explaining the Travel Plan and the travel benefits available to them when they reserve their property. Upon completion of sale a travel benefits package and travel information pack would be provided to new residents explaining how to register for the new travel schemes and benefits. ~ Car Parking Management / Restriction

5.3.20

Parking management measures could also be introduced if the travel incentives are not proving to be effective. By limiting parking spaces per household and preventing or regulating on-street parking as the local authority did in Poole Quarter, it acts as a ‘stick’ to support the incentives for using sustainable transport and moving away from having to own a car.

5.3.21

Currently there are three District Council car parks and a Tesco store car park in Whitehill Bordon and it is free to park at each of these. Illegal parking generally goes unchecked in the town as there is no monitoring system in place. This will need to be addressed in the Transport Strategy.

5.3.22

Building Sustainable Transport into New Developments, the guidance released by the DfT in 2008 to help plan transport for Eco-towns and other sustainable developments, sets out the following key points to promote a reduction in the need to travel:

00900001\003

•

Create a completely, or partially, car-free area. This might involve restricting car parking to residents with disabilities and car club members.

•

Limiting car spaces for residential car parking. Recent examples of eco-communities that have limited residential car parking did so at around 0.4-0.7 spaces per unit. As Manual for Streets indicates, provision below demand will only work successfully where adequate alternatives to car usage exist.

•

Restricting car access at certain times of the day within parts of the development.

•

Giving preferential treatment for small or eco-friendly cars and scooters.

•

Limited workspace parking and restrictions on non-residential parking.

~ Sustainable Travel Website 5.3.23

To help support the package of measures aimed at reducing the need to travel and car use, the New Growth Points for East Hampshire 2010 report by Atkins proposes that a travel website should be implemented to provide a high quality portal of information on transport and eco initiatives across the town. The website would provide real time transport information, increase awareness of alternative modes and provide informed travel choice. Residents could also use the site to book car club vehicles.

5.3.24

This measure can be implemented with relatively small cost and should be introduced once the majority of the infrastructure and other measures are available to ensure that users aren’t put off in the early days when some measures might not yet be implemented resulting in a minimal website. However, accessibility and travel information provision should inform the early stages of the decision making process by individuals when deciding where to buy a new property. It would therefore make sense to have two versions of the website, with an initial version established as part of the property marketing stage aimed at influencing prospective buyers and then at a later stage a website that provides more comprehensive travel information when a full package of travel measures are in operation. A web-site for Whitehill Bordon is currently under development. Promoting Walking

5.3.25

The combination of mixed-use development with high-quality local facilities and a range of employment opportunities, as well as street design which prioritise non-motorised travel over the private car with direct and dedicated pedestrian and cycle routes, will lead to a reduction in both the need to travel and the benefits of travelling by car.

00900001\003

5.3.26

The aim for the town is to increase the overall modal share of trips on foot to 25% from the existing situation. The town is being designed with genuine walk able neighbourhoods to make walking a more attractive and safer option for local residents. A network of pedestrian routes, the ‘Green Loop and Grid’ is proposed throughout the town linking up with existing town wide and long distance routes via new streets and footpaths. The facilities for enabling walking are designed to connect homes, schools, employment and community facilities together with direct, well lit and well maintained footways.

5.3.27

Whilst the physical measures outlined in sections 5.2.9 will have designed out the current barriers to walking as detailed in 3.5; these infrastructure improvements need to be effectively marketed.

5.3.28

The Queen Elizabeth Park development in Guildford, Surrey which comprised of 525 residential units made provision of pool umbrellas and personal attack alarms to encourage walking by improving safety and comfort. Emerging best practice from the development established that the ‘green transport’ credentials of the site were included in the marketing of properties to potential residents which meant that the travel benefits were sold as a positive extra to new residents. In Grand Union Village, West London, which comprises 705 residential units, walking was encouraged by giving priority to pedestrians through 20mph speed limits throughout all residential areas and traffic calming to support road safety. This pedestrian centred infrastructure was teamed with the requirement for all schools in the area to have a robust Travel Plan in place with a focus on walking.

5.3.29

The DfT report ‘New Growth Points Local Authority Support’ for East Hampshire identifies the following as potential walking measures that should be designed into the Masterplan for Whitehill Bordon: •

Monitoring of important walking routes;

•

Guidance on personal safety;

•

The inclusion of a health and fitness assessment within personal Travel Plans;

•

Provision of free pedometers and attack alarms.

Promoting Cycling 5.3.30

The aim of the transport proposal is to increase the modal share of trips taken by cycle to 12% from the current level. Cycling as a mode of transport provides an opportunity for both leisure and commuting purposes and as such design will need to provide safe and secure cycle parking facilities close to the front door of each dwelling as an immediate alternative to having a car on the driveway.

00900001\003

5.3.31

This coupled with improved cycle infrastructure in the form of the ‘Green Loop’ will help provide the base upon which ‘softer’ cycle initiatives can build. Cycle paths are currently sporadic, fragmented or primarily designed for recreational purposes and access to the countryside. There are also currently very limited cycling facilities along the A325 north/south strategic corridor. All of these issues should be addressed in the final refinement of the Framework Masterplan.

5.3.32

Cycling is a relatively fast mode of transport over short distances and is reliable, affordable and physically active. Currently 2% of Whitehill Bordon residents cycle as a means of mobility. Significantly more residents can be persuaded to cycle based on distance criteria, which will be given priority through the Framework Masterplan.

5.3.33

The improvement of cycle infrastructure is only one aspect of encouraging more cycle trips amongst non-cyclists. Long term behaviour change also requires efforts to influence the perceptions and image of cycling as a means of travel. The most common reasons for not cycling are gradient, safety, traffic, pollution, bad weather, and not being fit enough. Convenience is often quoted as a main reason for car use - the car is extremely accessible (parked on the driveway) and available for immediate use so changing access to cycles is key in ensuring a change in transport mode.

5.3.34

A community bike rental scheme and a ‘bikeability’ training programme would prove to be the most effective immediate measures to implement as part of the development. As all the sustainable transport solutions would form part of an overall package of measures, the cycle schemes would tie in with other measures and indeed the public transport hub could be utilised as the base for hiring cycles and displaying relevant cycle information.

5.3.35

The Poole Quarter development in Dorset was a flagship regeneration scheme led by Crest Nicholson to develop 500 residential units on the site of a former gasworks close to the south coastline. Due to the size of the development a package of sustainable transport measures was proposed to alleviate the potential transport pressures that a scheme of that size would place on the local road network. As part of the cycle initiatives that were implemented, a heavy duty pump was provided at a central point within the development to enable cyclists to pump up their tires. The Whitehill Bordon initiatives could take this a step further by offering cycle maintenance stands throughout the town for cyclists to fix and repair their cycles as and when needed at minimum or no cost to themselves. By making cycle ownership and maintenance simple and easy to do, there is a greater opportunity for encouraging uptake.

5.3.36

Bilston urban village comprises of 870 new dwellings as an extension to the existing settlement of Bilston near Wolverhampton. As a package of measures aimed at reducing car use, schemes centred on cycling and public transport use were implemented from day one. Cycle parking facilities were made available at key locations throughout the development to enable residents and visitors to park their cycle within close walking distance to several key

00900001\003

destinations in the area. In addition to this, each dwelling was provided with a covered and secure cycle parking space with at least 1 space per dwelling allocated. 5.3.37

Whitehill Bordon could adapt the above case studies to produce measures and incentives more tailored to the requirements of an Eco-town development. The DfT report for East Hampshire ‘New Growth Points Local Authority Support’ states that cycle parking should be made available within employment areas, the town centre, schools, residential areas and even retrofitting cycle parking into existing homes within Whitehill Bordon. This should be supported by the provision of grants for the purchase of cycles and equipment. The DfT report also outlines the following potential cycle measures:

5.3.38

•

Cycling information and maps made available;

•

Cycle training offered to residents;

•

An on-site cycle repair centre;

•

A cycle loan scheme;

•

Promotional events including guided rides;

•

The provision of a free cycle with every home.

The DfT New Growth Points report recognises that the provision of cycle parking in public areas is a key issue and should be implemented early so as to encourage those residents most willing and able to mode shift to cycle without the need for marketing campaigns and hire schemes. The report further accentuates the importance of making improvements to cycling facilities and infrastructure at the master planning stage. Promoting Public Transport Use

5.3.39

As was highlighted in section 3.4, Whitehill Bordon is currently poorly served by bus services, a fact reflected in the current low level of patronage observed.

5.3.40

The aim is for it to be a real possibility to live in Whitehill Bordon without the need to own a car. To achieve this, a high-quality and reliable public transport system linking to surrounding towns and villages is required to cater for new residents and potential suppressed demand created from existing residents.

5.3.41

Substantial previous work has already been undertaken by Alan Baxter and Associates and Mott Gifford respectively, as referenced in section 1.4.3 to determine an appropriate bus service network that could adequately service the Eco-town.

5.3.42

Three tiers of bus service are proposed for the Eco-towns public transport network. This network will comprise of; strategic routes (longer journeys) with 1 bus every 30 minutes, local routes serving surrounding villages and centres with 1 bus every 15 minutes, and town wide routes with 1 bus every 10 minutes. The public transport system will be centred on the

00900001\003

transport hub located on the existing High Street where all bus routes serving the town would stop. 5.3.43

The new public transport bus network comprises of seven key routes, which are designed to link with key surrounding areas and be made available from day one. The bus services will be introduced in three phases: Phase 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Improved existing services Service 13 Alton to Liphook - This service starts on the B3004 in East Worldham and travels along the A325 to Sleaford and the new town centre of Bordon before travelling along Liphook Road in Whitehill and ending in Liphook centre. This route is also carried out in the opposite direction as a return. Service 18 Aldershot to Haselmere - This service begins on East Street in Farnham and travels along the A325 in Sleaford and stops in the new town centre in Bordon. The service then travels along the B3002 to Headley before terminating on the A286 in Haselmere. This route is also carried out in the opposite direction as a return. Service 37 Havant to Bordon - This service travels along the A3 north of Petersfield and stops on Petersfield Road in Greatham before travelling along the A325 to Whitehill. The service then stops on Budds Lane and Station Road in Bordon. This route is also carried out in the opposite direction as a return journey. Phases 2 and 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Additional Services Service 50 Bordon to Guildford - The service begins on Budds Lane in Bordon then travels to Louisburg Barracks before travelling along the B3004 to Lindford. The next stop is in Liphook centre before travelling along the A3 to Guildford. Service 51 Bordon to Farnborough - This service begins in the new Bordon town centre and travels to the Louisburg Barracks before heading along the A325 in Sleaford followed by East Street in Farnham. The route terminates on the A325 north of Farnham and a service running in the opposite direction acts as the return journey. Service 52 Bordon to Basingstoke - This service begins in Bordon on Budds Lane then travels along Drift Road before heading along the B3006 in Selbourne. The service then stops in Alton centre before travelling along the A339 north of Alton and terminating in Basingstoke. A service operates in the opposite direction as a return service. Service 53 Bordon to Petersfield - This service begins on Budds Lane in Bordon at travels along the A325 stopping at the Tesco Supermarket before travelling along Petersfield Road in Greatham. The stops then stops in Liss centre before terminating in Petersfield centre. A service operates in the opposite direction as a return journey.

00900001\003

5.3.44

To support bus services every dwelling should be no longer than 5 minutes walk from a bus stop or access to public transport. This approach has been used before in the Bolnore Village development in Haywards Heath, West Sussex where the development of 785 new homes and associated infrastructure as an urban extension resulted in the need for creative sustainable transport solutions. A RouteONE bus service was used to link the residential areas to the town centre, hospital and railway station. The RouteONE bus service uses low level floor access for people with pushchairs or who use wheelchairs to gain easy access and ensure using public transport is an easy option for everyone. The bus service runs frequently throughout the day with additional services running during the peak commuter hours and a round trip to town and back takes under 25 minutes due to the directness of the bus route.

5.3.45

In addition to this, the RouteONE bus service offered a fixed price fare for unlimited use to encourage regular users through value for money and convenience. Also real time bus information was made available at every bus stop within the village as part of a package of measures to make bus use as simple and easy to use as is possible.

5.3.46

Poole Quarter in Dorset teamed their public transport infrastructure with a voucher and discount scheme. Two ÂŁ50 vouchers were sent to every household in the Poole Quarter development which could be redeemed against a set of local transport initiatives that were made available as part of the Poole Quarter Travel Plan. The initiatives that they can use the vouchers for are; bus travel, rail travel, cycle equipment and/or car club membership. The vouchers were made available as part of the overall travel benefits package that was made available to new residentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s pre day one of occupation to enable them to engage early in the Travel Plan and sustainable transport. Early surveys indicated that the vouchers were used on bus and rail passes as a majority.

5.3.47

Some larger residential schemes in Suffolk also provided a free introductory bus pass in their resident welcome packs which would give residents free bus travel for the first month of occupation with the intention that it would lead to regular bus use after the free trial period ran out. Currently there are no statistics to show how successful this is as a travel method but free trials are regularly used throughout many industriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; to attract new customers with a good degree of success.

5.3.48

Residents in the new High Royds development in Leeds were encouraged to use rail transport to commute into the city with the provision of a shuttle bus service running in the morning and evening to the nearby rail station. To further improve public transport facilities, the development was equipped with on-site bus shelters and real time bus information. The use of bus gates was implemented to ensure only buses could use the direct routes through the development, maintaining a pedestrian friendly street environment.

00900001\003

5.3.49

Residents of new developments in Kent Thameside are being linked together by 40km of Fastrack bus ways and priority lanes to ensure access to facilities and rail stations is quick and direct. All new developments are designed around a Fastrack spine on which high quality, high frequency services operate, ensuring a credible and attractive alternative to private car use.

5.3.50

As part of the Mott Gifford study, the feasibility of including a Park and Ride facility in the Eco-town to facilitate people from outside Whitehill Bordon using buses was considered. The use of Park and Ride as an element of the Transport Strategy requires further consideration. However; if this was pursued, it would be important to advertise the town as a Park and Ride destination through local media and place restrictions, through levels of parking charges or the availability of spaces on town centre parking to ensure that the only â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;realâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; option for transport into Whitehill Bordon is sustainable whilst maintaining accessibility and encouraging economic prosperity from outside the town.

5.3.51

Changes to the bus services in Whitehill Bordon should be one of the first changes implemented. The DfT New Growth Points report mentions the need for more frequent and direct services towards Petersfield and Farnham to help capture commuter trips. The current rail link bus service to/from Liphook station is less frequent and slower than the services to Petersfield and Haslemere, which would benefit from a bus/rail link to those stations.

5.3.52

The costs associated with implementing a comprehensive bus network in Whitehill Bordon was developed as part of the Mott Gifford work and Table 5.5 and Table 5.6 show the annual maintenance and operational costs of the three phases of bus route integration proposed for Whitehill Bordon. Table 5.5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Operating Costs of Phase 1 Bus Routes

00900001\003

Table 5.6 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Operating Costs of Phases 2 and 3 Bus Routes

5.3.53

Using the operating costs 1 above and the bus patronage generated by the public transport model, developed as part of the Whitehill Bordon transport model, to replicate a 25 and 50% car mode share, it is possible to determine an annual operating cost of providing the prescribed bus services in Whitehill Bordon that will be required to cater for a 25% and 50% car mode share. This is the coverage of services required to accommodate the anticipated shift from car users to bus users.

5.3.54

Tables 5.7 - 5.12 overleaf indicate the number of public transport trips by period for both 50% and 25% mode share. The total demand (persons) column highlights the amount of patrons looking to use the service in the indicative period. The maximum volume (persons) column highlights the peak attraction at a specific point on the service route and the average volume (persons) indicates the average number of patrons across the service route.

5.3.55

An important point to note is that this work has not considered how these services could generate such patronage and the PT model has been employed to solely synthesise the level of patronage that would be required to replicate a 25% and 50% car mode share.

5.3.56

An assessment has been undertaken to estimate the future basic cost of the operation of the bus services based on the loading levels that would be anticipated if the development was to achieve both a 25% and 50% car mode share. This cost does not include a projection for revenue generation, which would be subject to further work."

Operating costs as of January 2010

00900001\003

Table 5.7: 2026 AM Peak - Public Transport Trips â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 50% Car Mode Share Service Distance (km)

End to End time (mins)

Average Service Speed (km/h)

Total Demand (Persons)

Max Volume (Persons)

Average Volume (Persons)

Demand per km (persons)

13 Alton to Liphook

31.53

239

127

13 Liphook to Alton

29.21

452

379

212

18 Aldershot to Haselmere

28.86

298

142

18 Haselmere to Aldershot

29.11

416

268

37 Havant to Bordon

51.30

37 Bordon to Havant

48.48

164

146

50 Bordon to Guildford

49.33

167

134

50 Guildford to Bordon

48.35

51 Bordon to Farnborough

29.82

434

334

169

51 Farnborough to Bordon

28.33

114

AM Peak (07:00 - 10:00)

52 Bordon to Basingstoke

35.54

137

52 Basingstoke to Bordon

35.37

53 Bordon to Petersfield

33.70

149

117

53 Petersfield to Bordon

34.60

60 West of Town Loop

29.54

61 East of Town Loop

24.53

70 North South Route

20.15

176

103

71 East West Route

20.50

456

208

00900001\003

Table 5.8: 2026 Inter-Peak - Public Transport Trips â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 50% Car Mode Share Service Distance (km)

End to End time (mins)

Average Service Speed (km/h)

Total Demand (Persons)

Max Volume (Persons)

Average Volume (Persons)

Demand per km (persons)

13 Alton to Liphook

33.26

637

349

251

13 Liphook to Alton

31.53

677

432

276

18 Aldershot to Haselmere

30.11

599

186

113

18 Haselmere to Aldershot

30.22

507

158

37 Havant to Bordon

55.29

176

133

37 Bordon to Havant

50.16

163

134

50 Bordon to Guildford

50.57

134

50 Guildford to Bordon

50.16

130

51 Bordon to Farnborough

30.87

361

177

51 Farnborough to Bordon

29.86

343

167

52 Bordon to Basingstoke

36.41

186

127

52 Basingstoke to Bordon

36.37

167

53 Bordon to Petersfield

35.30

185

126

53 Petersfield to Bordon

38.01

185

118

60 West of Town Loop

30.19

121

61 East of Town Loop

24.98

145

70 North South Route

21.21

323

151

104

71 East West Route

22.46

825

237

147

Inter-Peak (10:00 - 16:00)

00900001\003

Table 5.9: 2026 PM Peak - Public Transport Trips â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 50% Car Mode Share Service Distance (km)

End to End time (mins)

Average Service Speed (km/h)

Total Demand (Persons)

Max Volume (Persons)

Average Volume (Persons)

Demand per km (persons)

13 Alton to Liphook

33.38

565

367

228

13 Liphook to Alton

31.16

483

287

185

18 Aldershot to Haselmere

29.98

471

204

18 Haselmere to Aldershot

29.99

418

140

37 Havant to Bordon

54.50

161

119

37 Bordon to Havant

49.55

107

50 Bordon to Guildford

50.15

50 Guildford to Bordon

49.88

193

145

51 Bordon to Farnborough

30.55

255

122

51 Farnborough to Bordon

29.71

348

229

104

52 Bordon to Basingstoke

36.06

116

52 Basingstoke to Bordon

36.00

158

53 Bordon to Petersfield

34.68

158

113

53 Petersfield to Bordon

37.29

177

114

60 West of Town Loop

29.91

61 East of Town Loop

24.91

120

70 North South Route

20.82

254

114

71 East West Route

22.11

672

191

113

PM-Peak (16:00 - 19:00)

00900001\003

Table 5.10: 2026 AM Peak - Public Transport Trips â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 25% Car Mode Share Service Distance (km)

End to End time (mins)

Average Service Speed (km/h)

Total Demand (Persons)

Max Volume (Persons)

Average Volume (Persons)

Demand per km (persons)

13 Alton to Liphook

32.03

340

181

13 Liphook to Alton

30.10

633

529

293

18 Aldershot to Haselmere

29.26

430

207

18 Haselmere to Aldershot

29.34

603

403

135

37 Havant to Bordon

51.29

37 Bordon to Havant

49.02

241

215

127

50 Bordon to Guildford

49.89

239

193

115

50 Guildford to Bordon

48.47

51 Bordon to Farnborough

30.10

647

501

253

51 Farnborough to Bordon

28.84

162

100

AM Peak (07:00 - 10:00)

52 Bordon to Basingstoke

35.90

178

123

52 Basingstoke to Bordon

35.52

53 Bordon to Petersfield

34.21

222

173

118

53 Petersfield to Bordon

34.72

60 West of Town Loop

29.80

61 East of Town Loop

24.68

126

70 North South Route

20.73

259

157

71 East West Route

21.31

687

320

144

00900001\003

Table 5.11: 2026 Inter-Peak - Public Transport Trips â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 25% Car Mode Share Service Distance (km)

End to End time (mins)

Average Service Speed (km/h)

Total Demand (Persons)

Max Volume (Persons)

Average Volume (Persons)

Demand per km (persons)

13 Alton to Liphook

33.52

889

478

344

13 Liphook to Alton

31.79

989

627

396

18 Aldershot to Haselmere

30.27

834

262

153

18 Haselmere to Aldershot

30.29

723

235

114

37 Havant to Bordon

55.44

246

186

37 Bordon to Havant

50.20

239

193

50 Bordon to Guildford

50.64

188

140

50 Guildford to Bordon

50.27

178

133

51 Bordon to Farnborough

30.94

530

265

118

51 Farnborough to Bordon

30.08

517

260

135

52 Bordon to Basingstoke

36.47

252

167

52 Basingstoke to Bordon

36.47

231

132

53 Bordon to Petersfield

35.36

269

184

104

53 Petersfield to Bordon

38.20

263

167

104

60 West of Town Loop

30.20

162

61 East of Town Loop

25.01

200

70 North South Route

21.29

466

226

153

71 East West Route

22.80

1,225

359

220

101

Inter-Peak (10:00 - 16:00)

00900001\003

Table 5.12: 2026 PM Peak - Public Transport Trips â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 25% Car Mode Share Service Distance (km)

End to End time (mins)

Average Service Speed (km/h)

Total Demand (Persons)

Max Volume (Persons)

Average Volume (Persons)

Demand per km (persons)

13 Alton to Liphook

33.79

790

494

308

13 Liphook to Alton

31.54

719

426

275

18 Aldershot to Haselmere

30.16

702

303

130

18 Haselmere to Aldershot

30.17

612

205

101

37 Havant to Bordon

54.90

227

172

37 Bordon to Havant

49.84

155

125

50 Bordon to Guildford

50.45

117

50 Guildford to Bordon

50.18

263

203

125

51 Bordon to Farnborough

30.75

374

185

51 Farnborough to Bordon

29.96

515

341

154

52 Bordon to Basingstoke

36.29

171

101

52 Basingstoke to Bordon

36.24

218

129

53 Bordon to Petersfield

35.01

219

152

53 Petersfield to Bordon

37.72

256

166

105

60 West of Town Loop

30.06

144

61 East of Town Loop

24.95

166

101

70 North South Route

21.11

368

169

116

71 East West Route

22.60

1,004

293

172

PM-Peak (16:00 - 19:00)

00900001\003

5.3.57

On a ‘per route’ basis, these costs are based upon operating either a smaller 33 seat (midi bus) or a 49 seat (single decker) bus. Based on the expected number of patrons for each of the two mode share target scenarios (50% car mode share and 25% car mode share), it is possible to identify which size of service and the appropriate frequency that will be required to run on each bus route to accommodate demand, based on achieving these mode share targets. This is then assigned an appropriate operating cost as per Table 5.13 and Table 5.14 below: Table 5.13: Approximate Annual Bus Operating Costs – 50% Car Mode Share Route

Bus Type Required

Mon / Sat Frequency (mins)

Sunday Frequency (mins)

Operating Cost

49 Seat

£1,061,942

33 Seat

£1,816,497

33 Seat

£1,976,874

33 Seat

£1,372,580

49 Seat

£1,016,137

33 Seat

£946,276

33 Seat

£575,379

Total

£8,765,685

Table 5.14: Approximate Annual Bus Operating Costs – 25% Car Mode Share Route

Bus Type Required

Mon / Sat Frequency (mins)

Sunday Frequency (mins)

Operating Cost

49 Seat

£1,479,638

33 Seat

£2,524,305

33 Seat

£1,976,874

33 Seat

£1,372,580

49 Seat

£1,016,137

33 Seat

£946,276

33 Seat

£575,379

Total 5.3.58

£9,891,189

The 50% mode share indicates that to operate a bus network with an adequate frequency to cater for the patronage created by achieving a 50% car mode share would cost in the region

00900001\003

of £9 million annually. As stated previously this figure does not account for potential revenue generated from the service and so does not represent the potential level of subsidy required to support such a service or the viability of such a service. It is merely a basic cost to operate the service. 5.3.59

To provide a bus network with an adequate frequency to cater for the potential patronage generated by the 25% car mode share would cost in the region of £10 - £11 million. However; what is not shown in Table 5.14 is that a number of these services would be approaching their practical capacity and in some cases (service 51) the service provision could not cope with capacity and extra services would need to be provided. Therefore an estimate of the true cost of delivering the 25% mode share in terms of providing adequate coverage would be in the region of £12 - £13 million. These costs are base operating costs that do not account for revenue generated and so does not account for revenue generated and so does not represent a level of subsidy that will be required. This will be subject to further work

5.3.60

Alongside providing an indication of potential costs associated with providing bus network coverage required to cater for both 50% and 25% car mode share, further interrogation of the PT model provides an indication as to the peaks in demand for certain sections of certain services. Table 5.15 below highlights indicative points across each of the services to identify the loading points on the network, providing a useful loading profile for each of the services Table 5.15 PT passenger flows at key network points by service - 50% mode share Service

Service

PM IP

13 Liphook to Alton

Volum e

13 Alton to Liphook

Volum e

B3004, East Worldham

295

327

Liphook Centre

A325, Sleaford

349

362

Liphook Rd, Whitehill

138

102

Centre, New Bordon

127

246

173

Centre, New Bordon

116

229

176

Liphook Rd, Whitehill

108

173

A325, Sleaford

375

430

283

Liphook Centre

B3004, East Worldham

334

375

245

18 Aldershot to Haselmere

Volume

East Street, Farnham

120

111

A286, Haselmere

A325, Sleaford

181

166

B3002, Headley

118

00900001\003

Volum Volume e

18 Haselmere Volume to Aldershot

Service

Centre, New Bordon

122

Centre, New Bordon

112

139

118

B3002, Headley

122

128

A325, Sleaford

248

127

A286, Haselmere

East Street, Farnham

166

Volume

A3, North of Petersfield

Station Rd, Bordon

Petersfield Rd, Greatham

106

A325 at Budds Lane

A325, Whitehill

126

115

A325, Whitehill

142

132

A325 at Budds Lane

Petersfield Rd, Greatham

130

105

Station Rd, Bordon

A3, North of Petersfield

130

105

Volume

Budds Lane, Bordon

A3, nr Guildford

Louisburg Barracks

115

Liphook Centre

121

B3004, Lindford

124

B3004, Lindford

132

Liphook Centre

Louisburg Barracks

126

A3, nr Guildford

Budds Lane, Bordon

51 Bordon to Farnborough

Volume

Bordon Centre

171

161

122

A325, North of Farnham

Louisburg Barracks

327

161

East Street, Farnham

127

A325, Sleaford

320

144

A325, Sleaford

165

191

East Street, Farnham

224

Louisburg Barracks

165

223

37 Havant to Bordon

50 Bordon to Guildford

00900001\003

37 Bordon to Volume Havant

50 Guildford to Volume Bordon

51 Farnborough Volume to Bordon

Service A325, North of Farnham

Service 49

128

132

Volume

Budds Lane, Bordon

A339 north of Alton

Drift Rd

127

Alton Centre

B3006, Selborne

Alton Centre

Drift Rd

A339 north of Alton

Budds Lane, Bordon

Volume

Budds Lane, Bordon

Petersfield Centre

A325 at Tesco

Liss Centre

Petersfield Rd, Greatham

100

Petersfield Rd, Greatham

Liss Centre

A325 at Tesco

Petersfield Centre

Budds Lane, Bordon

52 Bordon to Basingstoke

53 Bordon to Petersfield

Bordon Centre

52 Basingstoke Volume to Bordon

53 Petersfield to Volume Bordon

Table 5.16: PT Passenger flows at key network points by service: 25% mode share Service / point on network 13 Alton to Liphook

Service / point on network AM

13 Liphook to Volume Volume Volume Alton

Volume Volume Volume

B3004, East Worldham

410

435

Liphook Centre

100

A325, Sleaford

474

486

Liphook Rd, Whitehill

187

148

Centre, New Bordon

181

336

235

Centre, New Bordon

169

327

270

Liphook Rd, Whitehill

154

228

121

A325, Sleaford

523

624

423

00900001\003

Service / point on network

Liphook Centre

120

18 Aldershot to Haselmere

Volume

East Street, Farnham

155

171

A325, Sleaford

240

Centre, New Bordon

B3002, Headley A286, Haselmere

B3004, East Worldham

471

544

366

Volume

A286, Haselmere

248

B3002, Headley

127

171

162

115

Centre, New Bordon

170

190

176

181

107

A325, Sleaford

374

176

East Street, Farnham

254

111

Volume

A3, North of Petersfield

142

135

Station Rd, Bordon

Petersfield Rd, Greatham

151

141

A325 at Budds Lane

116

114

A325, Whitehill

176

165

A325, Whitehill

210

189

122

A325 at Budds Lane

134

Petersfield Rd, Greatham

194

152

Station Rd, Bordon

A3, North of Petersfield

193

152

Volume

Budds Lane, Bordon

A3, nr Guildford

Louisburg Barracks

169

122

Liphook Centre

160

B3004, Lindford

178

108

B3004, Lindford

115

183

Liphook Centre

115

Louisburg Barracks

108

181

37 Havant to Bordon

50 Bordon to Guildford

00900001\003

18 Haselmere Volume to Aldershot

37 Bordon to Volume Havant

50 Guildford to Volume Bordon

Service / point on network

A3, nr Guildford

51 Bordon to Farnborough

Volume

Bordon Centre

256

229

184

Louisburg Barracks

490

233

A325, Sleaford

479

East Street, Farnham A325, North of Farnham

Budds Lane, Bordon

Volume

A325, North of Farnham

122

East Street, Farnham

152

192

199

A325, Sleaford

251

283

337

125

Louisburg Barracks

258

332

Bordon Centre

182

194

Volume

Budds Lane, Bordon

A339 north of Alton

Drift Rd

123

167

101

Alton Centre

B3006, Selborne

104

127

B3006, Selborne

111

108

Alton Centre

102

Drift Rd

132

129

A339 north of Alton

Budds Lane, Bordon

Volume

Budds Lane, Bordon

Petersfield Centre

A325 at Tesco

116

128

Liss Centre

Petersfield Rd, Greatham

150

142

125

Petersfield Rd, Greatham

131

135

Liss Centre

115

A325 at Tesco

135

144

Petersfield Centre

103

Budds Lane, Bordon

52 Bordon to Basingstoke

53 Bordon to Petersfield

00900001\003

51 Farnborough Volume to Bordon

52 Basingstoke Volume to Bordon

AM 53 Petersfield to Bordon Volume Volume

5.3.61

From interrogation of these tables for both 50% and 25% mode share the following changes could be made to the network to improve its current efficiency: Service 13: Table 5.15 and 5.16 highlights that this service is being utilised as a short hop service in the AM peak for trips internal to Bordon between Alton and Liphook, with minimal passenger numbers using the service for the trip to Liphook. Interrogation of the findings for the 50 service suggests that this is the service of choice for trips to Liphook from Bordon in the AM peak period. The service is currently anticipated to operate on a 20 minute frequency across the length of the route; however this data would suggest the anticipated patronage outside the confines of Bordon would not justify this frequency outside of the new Eco Town. Potential options are to curtail the service in the AM peak or to simply offer an inter peak and PM peak service, with the internal Bordon trips utilising alternative services in the AM peak. Service 18: The AM peak service is poorly utilised until Bordon centre when patronage increases between Bordon and Headley. As with the 13 service there would be the potential to curtail the AM peak service and to operate a Bordon to Headley service only. Whilst the patronage increases on the service in the inter peak and PM peak the popular terminus point is Headley with minimal demand for services to Haselmere in the IP and PM periods. Service 37: The AM peak service has marginal patronage across the service but supports a decent level of patronage in both the IP and PM periods. The service could potentially operate as an IP and PM period service only. Service 50: Only be utilised as a local service between Bordon and Liphook in the AM peak, with patronage trailing off for the service across the IP and PM periods. Service could potentially be offered as an AM service with 3 buses an hour with a reduced service across the rest of the day, with the reverse replicated on the return journey, a condensed AM period service and a 20 minute frequency service in the PM peak between Liphook and Bordon.

5.3.62

Only 2% of residents currently use the bus service in Whitehill Bordon. The most commonly cited reasons for what would most encourage the use of public transport is the provision of additional routes and services so public transport fits better with peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s journey requirements.

5.3.63

The lack of availability of a quality bus service is however not the only factor which currently prevents bus travel. Current residents perceive the level of provision of bus travel to be substandard and regular use of the bus does not offer value for money. Regardless of the fact that people claim they would use a more frequent bus service, additional services alone are unlikely to convert car users to regular bus users.

00900001\003

5.3.64

Bus travel is often perceived as a journey affected by unpleasant scenarios such as intimidation, litter, dirt, close proximity to others and fears for safety. As well as a negative journey experience, objections to bus travel can also arise from accessing and waiting at the bus stop where passengers are subject to bad weather, traffic noise and fumes. Many existing car users are aware that for many journeys a car is more expensive than public transport, but it is worthwhile for the convenience and flexibility. This is primarily because the car will remain as the mode of transport with the most benefits in terms of journey requirements on which travel decisions are made.

5.3.65

Public transport in Whitehill Bordon needs to project a positive image from the outset to counter unenthusiastic perceptions of bus travel and the enthusiastic perceptions projected by the car. The provision of a clean, reliable, accessible and inexpensive service is crucial and will go some way to alter public scepticism as the bus aims to become a principle mode of travel in Whitehill Bordon. This could be achieved, for instance, by focussing public transport along the high street using bus only sections of road so the benefits, convenience and frequency of bus travel is in full view of the public.

5.3.66

Below is a breakdown of the potential measures identified as necessary to meet the mode share targets, which should be read in conjunction with the emerging Transport Strategy: Table 5.16: 50% Car user mode share target – Potential hard and soft measures 50% Car User Mode Share Target - Hard Measures

50% Car User Mode Share Target - Soft Measures

Planning and Design:

Reducing Car Use:

•

Comprehensive direct networks for

•

Home working

walking, cycling and public transport

•

Car Clubs

Situating key services in accessible

•

Car Sharing

•

Car Parking Management/Restriction

•

Sustainable Travel Website

locations •

Inclusive street environments which integrate the activities of all users

•

Car-free areas within the development

Promoting Walking

•

Joined-up transport networks

Promoting Cycling Promoting Public Transport Use

00900001\003

5.3.67

The identified package of measures has the potential to deliver an optimal mode share and optimum mode shift in the Eco-town based on available best practice and case study data, potentially meeting the 50% car mode share in Whitehill Bordon, i.e a 10% â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 15% shift from existing mode share. This level of shift is considered achievable when the package of measures is considered, but will require continued commitment to the Eco-town from residents and local authorities.

5.4

25% Car User Mode Share Target â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Potential Options Introduction

5.4.1

In the following sections we identify and critique a number of potential measures that would be required to deliver a minimal car user mode share, in line with the aspiration and long term target for 25% car mode share in the Eco-town.

5.4.2

As was discussed in the introduction to the previous section, with no similar available developments to that proposed for Whitehill Bordon or best practice or case study evidence relating to developments managing to attain a car mode share in the region of 25%, the measures investigated in the following sections are those which have the ability to potentially deliver mode share in the proportions required to create a car user mode share in the region of 25%.

5.4.3

Below is the package of potential measures which would need to be considered in addition to the measures outlined for the 50% mode share target to achieve as close to 25% car mode share as possible. Congestion Charging/Road Pricing

5.4.4

This would take the form of all car trips originating, terminating or internal to Whitehill Bordon being subject to a daily congestion charge. The scheme would require the use of vehicle number plate recognition systems to enforce the charge

5.4.5

Congestion charging was first introduced in Durham in 2002. Whilst their was a flurry of initial interest in the idea, in addition to the London scheme, only 2 local authorities, Edinburgh and Manchester City Councils, pursued the concept with any vigour. Edinburgh City Councils proposed congestion zone was rejected in a postal referendum by around 75% of voters in Edinburgh. Manchester proposed a peak time congestion charge scheme which would have been implemented in 2011/2012. This was rejected in a referendum held on 12 December 2008 by over 70% of voters. Plans for similar charges in both the West Midlands and East Midlands have also been rejected.

00900001\003

5.4.6

The Government has proposed a nationwide scheme of road tolls, but public opposition has been fierce and included a petition of nearly 2 million signatories on the 10 Downing Street website.

5.4.7

A number of Studies have been completed in relation to the London scheme, detailing its effects on congestion, traffic levels, road safety, use of public transport, the environment, and business activity matters.

5.4.8

Whilst usage of the Underground increased by only approximately 1% above pre-charge levels and no change in National Rail patronage had been noted as a result of the introduction of the central zone charge, Bus patronage in central London did significantly increase to around 116,000 journeys per day (after increasing from under 90,000 precharge). From figures released on the fifth anniversary of the congestion charging zone, TfL noted a 45% increase in the use of buses with the introduction of the zone.

5.4.9

TfL also announced a 43% increase in cyclists on roads within the congestion charge zone (compared to an 83% increase across the captial in the same period). Whilst not the sole reason for this increase, it can be argued that the introduction of the charge was a key factor in eliciting this increase.

5.4.10

However; the initial operating revenues from the congestion charge did not reach the levels that were originally expected. Within six months of the start of the scheme, the reduction in traffic had been such that TfL were predicting a ÂŁ65 million revenue shortfall.

5.4.11

Within the context of Whitehill Bordon, whilst such a scheme would be effective in delivering modal shift in substantial quantities as observed in London, there would be the concern that such a scheme could not recover the high initial capital outlay to implement the scheme, or recover revenue sufficient to cover enforcement costs of the scheme. Additional difficulties in delivering such a scheme would be dealing with the through traffic that is a current function of the A325. It is also unlikely that such a scheme would gain local or political support in Whitehill Bordon.

5.4.12

Ultimately the introduction of any such scheme would require very careful future consideration, and would not be delivered in the early stages of development. Car parking levies

5.4.13

Parking provision and enforcement is an important tool available to local authorities to control traffic congestion in towns, since the availability of parking spaces and the cost of parking to the motorist can have a significant influence on the level of traffic within a town.

00900001\003

5.4.14

The availability of convenient, guaranteed, free or cheap parking is a major factor influencing people's decision to drive to work, but controls cannot be imposed on private, non-residential parking (e.g. parking by employees, shoppers in private spaces) which typically accounts for 40 to 60 per cent of all town centre parking spaces.

5.4.15

One option is to implement a Work Place Levy (WPL) for such premises. With a WPL, premises providing in excess of 10 car parking spaces where car parking is predominantly for the use of employees pay a levy, circa £250 per workplace parking space and then it is at the discretion of the owner of these premises whether or not to pass this levy onto the employee.

5.4.16

Nottingham City Council has now confirmed its Department for Transport approved plans to introduce a levy of £253 p.a. per workplace parking space in 2012, rising to around £350 p.a. by 2015. Penalties for 'exceeding' the number of declared parking spaces, enforced by random checks, will be highly punitive.

5.4.17

The scheme is expected to set a precedent for other cities across the country, especially following the collapse of the Government's road pricing scheme and the attempt and subsequent failure to introduce a congestion charge in Greater Manchester.

5.4.18

The scheme has met with opposition from a number of employers, with some small and large companies, including Boots one of the largest employers in the City with approximately 9,000 employees at its Beeston site, considering pulling out of the city as a result of the scheme. In Whitehill Bordon the impact could be similar, leading to a less attractive town to inward investment.

5.4.19

In a BBC Nottinghamshire poll it was found that only 22% of people in Nottinghamshire supported the idea. The majority (79%) did not think the cost of the levy (£253 per year) would persuade many people to stop using the car and commute on public transport.

5.4.20

Whilst the advantages of the scheme are that it can be a source of new additional revenue for transport funding, is far simpler to understand, implement and run than a congestion charging scheme and may reduce traffic levels and congestion and encourage modal shift, there are a number of disadvantages which need to be balanced: •

Implementation and compliance cost for companies;

•

Possible skewing of the employment market in the region, making Whitehill Bordon less attractive to inward investment;

•

Adverse impact on less well-off employees who have to pay;

•

Adverse impact on employees who lose parking and are forced to use alternatives;

•

If reduction in workplace parking occurs opportunistic parking may become a problem in nearby residential areas;

00900001\003

•

Risk that other central government grant to local authorities which have implemented charging will be cut by amount raised through charges (i.e. substitution); and

•

Companies pass on costs to employees (inflationary)

Introduction of Rail / Tram / BRT 5.4.21

A Rail Feasibility Study has now been completed which has considered the potential for direct rail connection to the Eco-town. The Study has been carried out in close consultation with Network Rail and South West Trains, and meets the Network Rail GRIP Procedures, as well as the DfT Appraisal processes. Should a rail link be established to Whitehill Bordon, it would provide a further sustainable alternative to the car and would be likely to be successful in providing for a modal shift of a large number of trips from the car to rail. Current car trips to local rail stations would be replaced by local contained travel, and rail would be considered as an attractive alternative to the private car for trips to London, Farnham, Aldershot, Woking and Guildford.

5.4.22

The Study, which satisfies Stage 2 of the 6 Stage GRIP Process, considered a number of different routing options to Bentley, Alton, Liphook and Liss, along with a combination of route connections between both rail lines, and considered options for

5.4.23

5.4.24

•

Heavy rail;

•

Tram/light rail; and

•

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

The Study considered the following areas in detail for each route option; •

Policy Integration;

•

Operational issues associated with existing rail lines;

•

Environmental planning considerations;

•

Engineering constraints;

•

Cost estimations;

•

Demand forecasting; and

•

Economic appraisal.

According to DfT criteria, projects will generally be:

00900001\003

•

Poor value for money if its BCR is less than 1;

•

Low value for money if its BCR is between 1 and 1.5;

•

Medium value for money if its BCR is between 1.5 and 2; and

•

High value for money if its BCR is over 2

5.4.25

The Study found that only one option produced a sufficiently strong socio-economic business case to warrant further study. This route was the Heavy rail ‘through-route’ to Bentley which generated a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 2.14. This option: •

Could generate up to 1 million trips per annum;

•

Would have a capital construction cost of circa £130 million;

•

Produced the least environmental impact of the options;

•

Would be likely to be deliverable in engineering and operational terms; and

•

Ensured that existing service levels to Alton could be maintained by splitting trains at Farnham or Aldershot.

5.4.26

Options for connections to Liphook and Liss failed to establish a sufficiently positive business case, with BCRs of 0.45 and 0.41 respectively, representing poor value for money. The main reason for this was the lack of train paths in peak hours on the Portsmouth line, the lower levels of daytime off-peak service frequency and the increased environmental constraints to the south east of Whitehill Bordon.

5.4.27

Options for connection to Alton would have been the most viable in terms of railway operations, but due to the local topography the engineering costs of this route were substantial, and meant that a BCR of 0.22 was derived.

5.4.28

None of the options for Bus Rapid Transit or Light Rail established a sufficiently positive business case to be considered further, each with a BCR of less than 0.2. This was primarily doe to the longer journey time, high infrastructure costs in comparison to demand generated and the need to acquire and maintain fleets of bespoke vehicles.

5.4.29

As a result of the GRIP 2 Study, only the Heavy Rail ‘through-route’ option to Bentley will be considered further to GRIP 3 level. Part of this work will also consider potential funding and delivery mechanisms. Heavily Subsidised Public Transport

5.4.30

Bus travel would be made available to residents and visitors at a heavily reduced price or even for free on key strategic routes. Service levels and frequency should be retained but the price should reflect a level that makes the use of public transport not only cost effective but essentially a ‘benefit’ of living in Whitehill Bordon.

5.4.31

As was highlighted in Table 5.14 and the subsequent analysis in Section 5.3.58, to provide a bus network that can accommodate a 25% car mode share the annual operating cost for services would be in the region of £12 - £13 million (based on 2010 operating costs). This cost excludes revenue generated by such a service and so does not set out a prospective subsidy level required.

00900001\003

5.4.32

This does not account for publicity of services which as was described in the approaches to the softer measures is as important to the successes of sustainable transportation as the physical implementation of infrastructure.

5.4.33

If heavily subsidised bus travel is to be provided, then the majority of this operating cost would need to be provided in the form of a subsidy, with little scope for revenue generation to off set these operating costs. Whilst this subsidy may begin to tail off or reduce as the town becomes established, to provide heavily subsidised travel from the outset a substantial subsidy would need to be provided.

5.4.34

As HCCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s net spend on bus subsidies across the county is less than ÂŁ7million per annum, and with this figure in some doubt with potential decreases in local authority bus subsidies, there is limited likelihood of significant public funding for bus subsidy in future years. Pump â&#x20AC;&#x201C; prime funding will be required during the early development stages and until the services become established, this funding will need to be provided through the Whitehill Bordon Project.

00900001\003

Trip Generation & Distribution

6.1

Trip Generation

6.1.1

To establish the level of trips generated by the development proposals an approach using the National Trip End Model (NTEM) to derive person trip productions and attractions has been adopted.

6.1.2

This chapter of the TA will provide a summary of the common methodology used to derive the level of trip productions and attractions associated with the various proposed development scenarios, as described in Section 4.1. For further detailed description of the trip generation methodology used within this assessment please refer to MVA Consultancy’s associated document ‘Whitehill Bordon Model Development Report’.

6.1.3

The proposed Whitehill Bordon Eco-town development has been divided into appropriate origin/destination zones by the MVA Consultancy for modelling purposes for which the trip productions and/or attractions will be calculated. Trip Productions

6.1.4

The NTEM has been used to calculate residential generated trips (trip productions) by time period and journey purpose. This process involved a level of assumption on the level of car ownership, population demographics and population size predicted in Whitehill Bordon in the future assessment years.

6.1.5

The average car ownership values have been derived from the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) document Residential Car Parking Research and established at 1.49 vehicles per household within Whitehill Bordon in 2026. Population demographic information such as age/employment status was derived from long term predictions for East Hampshire. Predicted population sizes for each of the development scenarios have been established within the Masterplanning process.

6.1.6

The above sources of information have been used along with the NTEM to derive a person trip rate for each of the development scenarios by time period. An example of how this process has been undertaken is detailed within MVA Consultancy’s associated document ‘TN03 Comparison of NTEM and TRICS Trip Rates v6’, contained within this report as Appendix F. The example uses a notional zone, which comprises the total residential element of proposed scenario Option 1 (4000 dwellings). In reality, however, the residential element of this scenario would be split over a number of origin/destination (O/D) zones as appropriate.

00900001\003

Trip Attractions 6.1.7

The person trips generated by the residential element of the proposals will be attracted to the various other land uses within the Eco-town proposals and the existing areas of the town being retained. The relative attractiveness of each of the OD zones within the model area have been calculated using the NTEM to determine the destinations of trips generated by the residential element of the proposals.

6.1.8

In addition the proposed development will likely attract trips from surrounding areas which are outside of the transport model study area and which terminate in Whitehill Bordon. The new services and facilities on offer within the proposed Eco-town will potentially attract new trips which may replace trips occurring outside of the model scope, for example, trips currently attracted to Farnham from Alton may be diverted to Whitehill Bordon in the future as the Eco-town becomes an alternative sub-regional centre.

6.1.9

The origins of trips attracted to Whitehill Bordon from outside of the model area have been determined based on judgement taking into account the size and proximity to the Eco-town and current patterns of travel in the area.

6.1.10

A summary of the ‘home based’ person trips produced and attracted by the O/D zones comprising the development proposals for each of the various proposed development scenarios is contained within Table 6.1 below: Table 6.1: ‘Home Based’ Person Trip Productions/Attractions AM Peak

Development Scenario

Inter Peak

PM Peak

Prod

Attr

Prod

Attr

Prod

Attr

2026 Option 1 (4000 dwellings)

2891

1406

752

465

750

533

2026 Option 2 (5300 dwellings)

3597

1717

941

582

941

679

2026 Option 3 (1700 dwellings)

1435

669

363

206

355

220

2026 Option 4 (Fall-back)

370

946

245

275

2036 Option 1 (4000 dwellings)

2772

1374

725

442

725

507

2036 Option 2 (5300 dwellings)

3471

1677

910

555

914

648

2036 Option 3 (1700 dwellings)

1314

604

337

189

332

205

2036 Option 4 (Fall-back)

365

938

238

270

6.1.11

The above table shows the number of person trips produced by and attracted to the proposed development scenarios within each of the peak highway periods which originate from places of residence in Whitehill Bordon as established from the NTEM methodology set out above. The reduction in person trip numbers from 2026 to 2036 would be due to an increased proportion of retired residents in the area based on demographic profiles.

00900001\003

6.1.12

To establish a robust level of trip productions and attractions for the proposed development scenarios it is also necessary to establish the level of ‘to-home’ and ‘non-home’ based trips that occur within the usual travel pattern of any settlement. The numbers of these trips are estimated within the SATURN model and vary depending on the level of car mode share, trip containment and general conditions on the transport network within each development scenario. Further information relating to the trip generation exercise can be found in Appendix F in the MVA technical note Comparison of NTEM and TRICS trip rates

6.1.13

Table 6.2 below sets out the estimated trips attracted to Whitehill Bordon from areas external to the model area within each development scenario and Table 6.3 sets out the total ‘All Person’ trips produced by and attracted to the O/D zones comprising the development proposals by proposed scenario.

Table 6.2: Proposed Development Scenarios – External to Model Area Trip Attraction Summary

Development Scenario

2026 Baseline External Trips

External Trips to Existing Zones

External Trips to New Zones

Total External Trips

% Increase

2026 Opt 1 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

4,387

2,993

2,306

5,298

21%

2026 Opt 2 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

4,387

3,011

2,737

5,748

31%

2026 Opt 3 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

4,387

3,018

1,316

4,335

-1%

2026 Opt 4 (50%/50%/ Do Nothing)

4,387

2,974

523

3,497

-20%

2036 Opt 1 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

4,533

3,083

2,378

5,462

20%

2036 Opt 2 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

4,533

3,070

2,837

5,907

30%

2036 Opt 3 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

4,533

3,148

1,340

4,488

-1%

2036 Opt 4 (50%/50%/ Do Nothing)

4,533

3,150

549

3,699

-18%

2026 Opt 1 (25%/50%/Do Nothing)

4,387

2,445

2,097

4,543

2026 Opt 1 (50%/50%/ Do Nothing)

4,387

2,976

2,336

5,312

21%

2026 Opt 1 (75%/30%/ Do Nothing)

4,387

3,954

3,092

7,046

61%

2026 Opt 1 (75%/50%/ Do Nothing)

4,387

3,418

2,518

5,936

35%

2026 Opt 1 (25%/50%/A325 PT only)

4,387

2,446

2,096

4,542

2026 Opt 1 (50%/50%/A325 PT only)

4,387

2,977

2,335

5,311

21%

2026 Opt 1 (75%/30%/A325 PT only)

4,387

3,955

3,091

7,046

61%

2026 Opt 1 (75%/50%/A325 PT only)

4,387

3,418

2,518

5,936

35%

2026 Opt 1 (25%/50%/A325 TM)

4,387

2,457

2,081

4,538

2026 Opt 1 (75%/30%/A325 TM)

4,387

3,987

3,065

7,052

61%

2026 Opt 1 (75%/50%/A325 TM)

4,387

3,446

2,474

5,902

35%

00900001\003

Table 6.3: Proposed Development Scenarios – All Person Trips Production/Attraction Summary Development Scenario

Mode Share/Trip Containment

A325 Treatment

AM Peak

2026 Opt 1

50%/50%

2026 Opt 2

Inter Peak

PM Peak

Prod

Attr

Prod

Attr

Prod

Attr

Traffic Management

2709

1884

1729

1668

2727

3268

50%/50%

Traffic Management

3326

2182

2100

2016

3276

4025

2026 Opt 3

50%/50%

Traffic Management

1382

1137

935

904

1510

1696

2026 Opt 4

50%/50%

Traffic Management

415

613

757

875

731

608

2036 Opt 1

50%/50%

Traffic Management

2718

1900

1762

1682

2772

3331

2036 Opt 2

50%/50%

Traffic Management

3358

2189

2098

2031

3282

4029

2036 Opt 3

50%/50%

Traffic Management

1362

1043

905

863

1447

1684

2036 Opt 4

50%/50%

Traffic Management

378

375

744

870

607

613

2026 Opt 1

25%/50%

Do Nothing

2857

1713

1740

1586

2822

3573

2026 Opt 1

50%/50%

Do Nothing

2672

1936

1778

1662

2666

3229

2026 Opt 1

75%/30%

Do Nothing

2460

1617

1571

1469

2022

2731

2026 Opt 1

75%/50%

Do Nothing

2527

2158

1826

1747

2500

2886

2026 Opt 1

25%/50%

PT and Access Only

2858

1714

1741

1587

2823

3574

2026 Opt 1

50%/50%

PT and Access Only

2673

1926

1778

1662

2667

3230

2026 Opt 1

75%/30%

PT and Access Only

2460

1617

1571

1469

2022

2731

2026 Opt 1

75%/50%

PT and Access Only

2527

2149

1826

1747

2500

2886

2026 Opt 1

25%/50%

Traffic Management

2910

1707

1752

1649

2971

3680

2026 Opt 1

75%/30%

Traffic Management

2515

1652

1529

1423

2043

2744

2026 Opt 1

75%/50%

Traffic Management

2528

2071

1742

1710

2522

2913

6.1.14

The above table indicates that the fall back scenario (Option 4) would generate a significant level of traffic associated with the re-use of the existing buildings on the development site without the need for further planning consent. It should be noted that the levels of traffic generated by the other development proposal scenarios need to be considered in this context and compared with the fall back scenario in addition to baseline conditions. It is highly likely that the development site will be utilised by some means after the MoD has relocated, in which case, there would not realistically be a ‘no development’ scenario.

00900001\003

6.2

Trip Distribution

6.2.1

The trips generated by and attracted to each OD zone within the model area has been distributed through the demand model incorporated within the SATURN forecast model for the proposed Whitehill Bordon Eco-town. The demand model has forecast the proportion of trips generated in a zone which travel to each destination. The mode of transport used will be synthesised in accordance with the identified modal split and trip containment targets as set out within Chapter 4 of this TA.

6.2.2

For further detailed description of the trip distribution methodology used within this assessment please refer to MVA Consultancyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s associated document â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Whitehill Bordon Model Development Reportâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;.

00900001\003

Traffic Impact Assessments

7.1

Introduction

7.1.1

To assess the transport impacts of the proposed development scenarios and various scenario iterations, as set out within Chapter 4 of this report, a two-tier methodology has been adopted to provide a comprehensive yet focused assessment.

7.1.2

The proposed traffic impact assessment methodology comprises a high-level assessment of the four alternative proposed development scenario options for both 2026 and 2036 forecast years. The high-level assessments considers changes in traffic flow, link capacity and delay outputs from the Whitehill Bordon Transport Model compared with outputs from appropriate baseline scenarios.

7.1.3

Further high-level assessments have been undertaken to assess the impacts of the various mode share, trip containment and A325 treatment iterations for development scenario Option 1 (Full Masterplan) in the future year 2026. The outputs of these further high-level assessments again consist of traffic flow changes, link capacity and delay outputs from the Whitehill Bordon Transport Model compared with outputs from the 2026 baseline scenario.

7.1.4

Detailed junction assessments of a number of identified key junctions have then been undertaken for the development scenario Option1 â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worst caseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; scenario iteration for the future year 2026, using the 75% car mode share and 30% containment figures. The junction assessment results are compared with results of junction assessments for the 2026 baseline scenario.

7.1.5

A comprehensive list of all the scenarios and scenario iterations tested within the SATURN transport model is provided for reference within this report as Appendix G.

7.1.6

This chapter will set out in further detail the assessment methodology used, present and then analyse the results of the high-level and detailed assessments and provide a comparison with appropriate baseline results.

00900001\003

7.2

High-level Assessments Development Scenario Testing

7.2.1

Within the initial high-level assessment the four development scenario options, as set out within Section 4.1 of this report, have been incorporated within the SATURN transport model, developed by MVA Consultancy, to derive future year traffic flows on the surrounding highway network for each individual scenario. In addition to the proposed development scenarios, future year baseline conditions have also been determined from the transport model for comparative purposes. The transport model has been developed to provide forecasts for the following future years: • 2026 – predicted year of opening of the proposed development • 2036 – as horizon year 10 years after the intended year of opening

7.2.2

The initial testing of the development scenario options required the target levels of car mode share and trip containment to be fixed uniformly to agreed levels to derive a valid comparison between the impacts of each proposed scenario on the surrounding transport network. It was decided, and agreed with the project group, to fix both the car mode share and trip containment iterations at 50% as these targets represent a significant change in travel behaviour towards the Eco-town vision and are considered more achievable than the upper end mode share target.

7.2.3

With regards to the treatment of the A325 in the town centre, the A325 ‘Traffic Management’ iteration was applied to development scenario Options 1, 2 and 3 (4,000 and 5,300 and 1,700 residential dwellings); and the ‘Do Nothing’ option to development scenario Option 4 (Fall Back option) and the Baseline conditions. This is due to the fact that the level of development associated with Option 4 would not support the proposed improvement of the existing A325 or the implementation of the relief road to the west of the A325. However, the increase in likely traffic movements within the town as a result of proposed development scenarios Option 1, Option 2 and Option 3 would likely require improvements to the currently congested A325 within the town centre.

7.2.4

Forecast traffic flows have been recorded for each turning movement at a number of identified key junctions in and around Whitehill Bordon. The forecast traffic flows for each turning movement, and the total flow through each key junction as a whole, have been compared with the corresponding traffic flow from the appropriate baseline to establish the proportional increase or decrease in traffic as a result of each of the proposed development scenarios.

00900001\003

7.2.5

Highway officers at HCC, Surrey County Council (SCC) and the Highways Agency (HA) have identified a number of key junctions within the study area which need to be considered for assessment. The identified key junctions are shown on HCC plan â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Key Junctions Planâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, contained within this report as Appendix H and shown below:

00900001\003

7.2.6

The traffic flow impact assessments have been undertaken for the AM peak, inter-peak and PM peak highway periods within the future years 2026 and 2036. The results of the traffic flow impact assessments compare each of the proposed development scenarios with appropriate baseline conditions and additionally with the Fall Back (Option 4) scenario. A comparison of the results of each of the development scenarios in the forecast year 2026 against the 2026 baseline and 2026 Fall Back scenario is provided by individual peak period in Table 7.1 to Table 7.3 below. The full traffic flow impact assessment diagrams are contained within this report as Appendix I.

00900001\003

Table 7.1: Summary of Key Junction Traffic Flow Impact Assessment â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2026 AM Peak 2026 Development Scenario (AM Peak) Key Junction Baseline

Fall Back (Option 4)

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

A31/B3001 Hickleys Corner

100%

+6% (+6%)

+8% (+8%)

+3% (+3%)

A31/Weydon Lane

100%

+8% (+8%)

+10% (+10%)

+4% (+4%)

A31/A325 Coxbridge Roundabout

100%

+4% (+4%)

+6% (+6%)

+2% (+2%)

A325/School Hill Mini-roundabout

100%

-2%

+10% (+12%)

+11% (+13%)

+12% (+14%)

A325/B3384

100%

-3%

+15% (+18%)

+17% (+20%)

+16% (+19%)

A325/B3004

100%

+26% (+26%)

+28% (+28%)

+19% (+19%)

B3004/Oakhanger Road

100%

+7%

+11% (+4%)

+15% (+8%)

+3% (-4%)

B3004/Paper Mill Lane

100%

+3%

+4% (+1%)

+5% (+2%)

+1% (-2%)

B3004/B3002

100%

+5%

+15% (+10%)

+19% (+14%)

+7% (+2%)

A325/B3002 Station Road

100%

+5%

-17% (-22%)

-11% (-16%)

-12% (-17%)

A325/B3002 Budds Lane

100%

+17%

-31% (-48%)

-24% (-41%)

-44% (-61%)

A325/Chalet Hill

100%

+7%

-48% (-55%)

-46% (-53%)

-55% (-62%)

A325/Tesco Access/Woolmer Way

100%

+8%

-42% (-50%)

-40% (-48%)

-47% (-54%)

A325/Conde Way/Woolmer Way

100%

-16% (-16%)

-14% (-14%)

-21% (-21%)

A325/Liphook Road/Firgrove Road

100%

+1%

+21% (+20%)

+24% (+23%)

+16% (+15%)

A325/Petersfield Road

100%

-3%

+18% (+21%)

+20% (+23%)

+15% (+18%)

A325/A3 (EB) Slips

100%

-3%

+15% (+18%)

+16% (+19%)

+9% (+12%)

B3006/Petersfield Road

100%

+1%

+12% (+11%)

+16% (+15%)

+1% (0%)

A3/B3006

100%

-1%

+11% (+12%)

+13% (+14%)

+5% (+6%)

A3 (WB) Slips/B2171

100%

-2%

+3% (+5%)

+5% (+7%)

-1% (+1%)

(*numbers in brackets represent comparison with Fall Back (Option 4) Scenario)

00900001\003

Table 7.2: Summary of Key Junction Traffic Flow Impact Assessment â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2026 Inter Peak 2026 Development Scenario (Inter Peak) Key Junction Baseline

Fall Back (Option 4)

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

A31/B3001 Hickleys Corner

100%

+1%

+5% (+4%)

+6% (+5%)

+2% (+1%)

A31/Weydon Lane

100%

+2%

+6% (+4%)

+8% (+6%)

+3% (+1%)

A31/A325 Coxbridge Roundabout

100%

+6% (+6%)

+7% (+7%)

+2% (+2%)

A325/School Hill Mini-roundabout

100%

+2%

+24% (+22%)

+27% (+25%)

+14% (+12%)

A325/B3384

100%

+3%

+38% (+35%)

+44% (+41%)

+22% (+19%)

A325/B3004

100%

+35% (+35%)

+41% (+41%)

+18% (+18%)

B3004/Oakhanger Road

100%

-1%

+11% (+12%)

+16% (+17%)

+2% (+3%)

B3004/Paper Mill Lane

100%

-1%

+7% (+8%)

+9% (+10%)

+2% (+3%)

B3004/B3002

100%

+7%

+7% (0%)

+9% (+2%)

+1% (-6%)

A325/B3002 Station Road

100%

+6%

-23% (-17%)

-21% (-15%)

-29% (-23%)

A325/B3002 Budds Lane

100%

+16%

-32% (-16%)

-30% (-14%)

-36% (-20%)

A325/Chalet Hill

100%

+6%

-64% (-58%)

-45% (-39%)

A325/Tesco Access/Woolmer Way

100%

+4%

-30% (-26%)

A325/Conde Way/Woolmer Way

100%

-2%

-14% (-12%)

-18% (-16%)

A325/Liphook Road/Firgrove Road

100%

+24% (+24%)

+28% (+28%)

+13% (+13%)

A325/Petersfield Road

100%

+1%

+21% (+20%)

+24% (+23%)

+13% (+12%)

A325/A3 (EB) Slips

100%

-1%

+18% (+19%)

+23% (+24%)

+9% (+10%)

B3006/Petersfield Road

100%

+3%

-5% (-2%)

A3/B3006

100%

+3% (+3%)

+5% (+5%)

+1% (+1%)

A3 (WB) Slips/B2171

100%

+1% (+1%)

0% (0%)

(*numbers in brackets represent comparison with Fall Back (Option 4) Scenario)

00900001\003

Table 7.3: Summary of Key Junction Traffic Flow Impact Assessment â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2026 PM Peak 2026 Development Scenario (PM Peak) Key Junction Baseline

Fall Back (Option 4)

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

A31/B3001 Hickleys Corner

100%

+1% (+1%)

0% (0%)

A31/Weydon Lane

100%

-1%

+1% (+2%)

0% (+1%)

A31/A325 Coxbridge Roundabout

100%

-1%

+4% (+5%)

+5% (+6%)

+1% (+2%)

A325/School Hill Mini-roundabout

100%

-3%

+14% (+17%)

+16% (+19%)

+7% (+10%)

A325/B3384

100%

-3%

+16% (+19%)

+20% (+23%)

+8% (+11%)

A325/B3004

100%

-4%

+12% (+16%)

+15% (+19%)

+4% (+8%)

B3004/Oakhanger Road

100%

-4%

+4% (+8%)

+6% (+10%)

-2% (+2%)

B3004/Paper Mill Lane

100%

-3%

+2% (+5%)

+4% (+7%)

-1% (+2%)

B3004/B3002

100%

+9%

+9% (0%)

+10% (+1%)

+4% (-5%)

A325/B3002 Station Road

100%

+2%

-24% (-26%)

-22% (-24%)

-29% (-31%)

A325/B3002 Budds Lane

100%

+10%

-33% (-43%)

-31% (-41%)

-35% (-45%)

A325/Chalet Hill

100%

+2%

-41% (-43%)

-42% (-44%)

A325/Tesco Access/Woolmer Way

100%

+1%

-28% (-29%)

A325/Conde Way/Woolmer Way

100%

-4%

-16% (-12%)

-15% (-11%)

-18% (-14%)

A325/Liphook Road/Firgrove Road

100%

+1%

+19% (+18%)

+23% (+22%)

+9% (+8%)

A325/Petersfield Road

100%

+19% (+19%)

+21% (+21%)

+10% (+10%)

A325/A3 (EB) Slips

100%

+15% (+15%)

+17% (+17%)

+6% (+6%)

B3006/Petersfield Road

100%

+1%

-1% (-2%)

0% (-1%)

-1% (-2%)

A3/B3006

100%

+4% (+4%)

+5% (+5%)

+1% (+1%)

A3 (WB) Slips/B2171

100%

+2% (+2%)

+1% (+1%)

(*numbers in brackets represent comparison with Fall Back (Option 4) Scenario)

00900001\003

7.2.7

The above tables indicate that the key junctions would observe an increase or decrease in traffic flow in a generally regular pattern across the proposed development scenarios during the peak highway periods in the forecast year 2026.

7.2.8

The most significant impacts in terms of traffic flow increase would occur on the junctions to the north and south of Whitehill Bordon along the A325 across all the development scenarios and within each of the peak highway periods. In particular, the A325/School Hill miniroundabout, A325/B3384 and A325/B3004 junctions to the north of the town, the A325/Liphook Road/Firgrove Road roundabout, A325/Petersfield Road roundabout and A325/A3 (EB) slips roundabout to the south of the town would observe increases in traffic flow of between 6%-44%.

7.2.9

The increase in traffic flow at these junctions would be due to the increase in trips produced by and attracted to the various land uses proposed as part of the various Eco-town development scenarios accessing the strategic road network and areas to the north and south of the town.

7.2.10

The most significant impacts in terms of traffic flow decrease would occur on the junctions within Whitehill Bordon town centre. The junctions between and inclusive of the A325/B3002 Station Road junction to the north and A325/Conde Way/Woolmer Way roundabout to the south would observe a decrease in traffic flow of between 11% and 64% across all the development scenarios and across all of the peak highway periods.

7.2.11

The decrease in traffic flow at these junctions when compared with the 2026 baseline would be due to the implementation of the proposed inner relief road to the west of the town centre and the provision of traffic management measures along the existing route of the A325 where the junctions are located. The decreased attractiveness of the existing A235 as a result of the traffic management measures would divert â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;through trafficâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, in particular, onto the alternative route thereby improving traffic conditions at these junctions.

7.2.12

Those identified key junctions located furthest from the proposed development would observe the smallest impact in terms of additional traffic flow through the junction across all of the development scenarios. This would be expected as the further from the development a junction is located, the greater the choice and opportunity for alternative route are provided to motorists.

00900001\003

7.2.13

When compared with baseline traffic flows at the junctions, the Fall Back (Option 4) scenario would generally experience a moderate impact in terms of traffic flow increase or decrease during the peak highway periods. The most significant impacts of the Fall Back scenario would occur at the junctions along the A325 in the town centre, particularly the A325/B3002 Budds Lane junction, which would observe a more significant increase in traffic flow. The increase in flow at the town centre junctions would be expected as this scenario does not include the proposed inner relief road resulting in the existing A325 absorbing the majority of additional traffic generated by the increased use of MoD land.

7.2.14

The variance in traffic flow impact across the remaining development scenarios generally follows a uniform pattern whereby the degree of traffic impacts increases or decreases in proportion to the variance in size of the development proposals within each scenario. The traffic flow impacts on the key junctions of 2026 development scenario Option 2 (5,300 residential dwellings) is proportionately increased from the traffic flow impacts of development scenario Option 1 (4,000 residential dwellings). The traffic flow impacts of development scenario Option 3 (1,700 residential dwellings) are again proportionately decreased from both development scenario Option 1 and Option 2.

7.2.15

A comparison of the results of each of the development scenarios in the forecast year 2036 against the 2036 baseline and 2036 Fall Back (option 4) scenario is provided by individual peak period in Table 7.4 to Table 7.6 below:

00900001\003

Table 7.4: Summary of Key Junction Traffic Flow Impact Assessment â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2036 AM Peak 2036 Development Scenario (AM Peak) Key Junction Baseline

Fall Back (Option 4)

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

A31/B3001 Hickleys Corner

100%

+6% (+6%)

+8% (+8%)

+3% (+3%)

A31/Weydon Lane

100%

+8% (+8%)

+10% (+10%)

+4% (+4%)

A31/A325 Coxbridge Roundabout

100%

+6% (+6%)

+7% (+7%)

+2% (+2%)

A325/School Hill Mini-roundabout

100%

-1%

+7% (+8%)

+9% (+10%)

A325/B3384

100%

-1%

+10% (+11%)

+14% (+15%)

+12% (+13%)

A325/B3004

100%

+1%

+22% (+21%)

+25% (+24%)

+16% (+15%)

B3004/Oakhanger Road

100%

+7%

+12% (+5%)

+16% (+9%)

+2% (-5%)

B3004/Paper Mill Lane

100%

+4%

+4% (0%)

+6% (+2%)

+1% (-3%)

B3004/B3002

100%

+4%

+16% (+12%)

+22% (+18%)

+5% (+1%)

A325/B3002 Station Road

100%

+5%

-17% (-22%)

-12% (-17%)

-30% (-35%)

A325/B3002 Budds Lane

100%

+15%

-30% (-45%)

-25% (-40%)

-43% (-58%)

A325/Chalet Hill

100%

+6%

-49% (-55%)

-47% (-53%)

-51% (-57%)

A325/Tesco Access/Woolmer Way

100%

+8%

-42% (-50%)

-40% (-48%)

-45% (-53%)

A325/Conde Way/Woolmer Way

100%

-18% (-18%)

-16% (-16%)

-20% (-20%)

A325/Liphook Road/Firgrove Road

100%

+2%

+13% (+11%)

+15% (+13%)

+11% (+9%)

A325/Petersfield Road

100%

-3%

+13% (+16%)

+16% (+19%)

+12% (+15%)

A325/A3 (EB) Slips

100%

-2%

+12% (+14%)

+14% (+16%)

+10% (+12%)

B3006/Petersfield Road

100%

-2%

+14% (+16%)

+16% (+18%)

-2% (0%)

A3/B3006

100%

-3%

+6% (+9%)

+7% (+10%)

+3% (+6%)

A3 (WB) Slips/B2171

100%

-3%

+4% (+7%)

+2% (+5%)

(*numbers in brackets represent comparison with Fall Back (Option 4) Scenario)

00900001\003

Table 7.5: Summary of Key Junction Traffic Flow Impact Assessment â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2036 Inter Peak 2036 Development Scenario (Inter Peak) Key Junction Baseline

Fall Back (Option 4)

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

A31/B3001 Hickleys Corner

100%

+2%

+5% (+3%)

+6% (+4%)

+2% (0%)

A31/Weydon Lane

100%

+2%

+6% (+4%)

+8% (+6%)

+3% (+1%)

A31/A325 Coxbridge Roundabout

100%

+6% (+6%)

+7% (+7%)

+2% (+2%)

A325/School Hill Mini-roundabout

100%

+2%

+23% (+21%)

+27% (+25%)

+15% (+13%)

A325/B3384

100%

+4%

+37% (+33%)

+43% (+39%)

+22% (+18%)

A325/B3004

100%

+33% (+33%)

+40% (+40%)

+17% (+17%)

B3004/Oakhanger Road

100%

+10% (+10%)

+16% (+16%)

-1% (-1%)

B3004/Paper Mill Lane

100%

-1%

+6% (+7%)

+9% (+10%)

0% (+1%)

B3004/B3002

100%

+6%

+6% (0%)

+8% (+2%)

0% (-6%)

A325/B3002 Station Road

100%

+6%

-26% (-32%)

-23% (-29%)

-32% (-38%)

A325/B3002 Budds Lane

100%

+14%

-34% (-48%)

-31% (-55%)

-38% (-52%)

A325/Chalet Hill

100%

+5%

-46% (-51%)

-48% (-53%)

-46% (-51%)

A325/Tesco Access/Woolmer Way

100%

+4%

-33% (-37%)

-32% (-36%)

A325/Conde Way/Woolmer Way

100%

-3%

-17% (-14%)

-20% (-17%)

A325/Liphook Road/Firgrove Road

100%

+21% (+21%)

+25% (+25%)

+11% (+11%)

A325/Petersfield Road

100%

+1%

+19% (+18%)

+22% (+21%)

+13% (+12%)

A325/A3 (EB) Slips

100%

-3%

+11% (+14%)

+18% (+21%)

+5% (+8%)

B3006/Petersfield Road

100%

+6%

0% (-6%)

-4% (-10%)

A3/B3006

100%

+3% (+3%)

+4% (+4%)

0% (0%)

A3 (WB) Slips/B2171

100%

+1% (+1%)

0% (0%)

(*numbers in brackets represent comparison with Fall Back (Option 4) Scenario)

00900001\003

Table 7.6: Summary of Key Junction Traffic Flow Impact Assessment â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2036 PM Peak 2036 Development Scenario (PM Peak) Key Junction Baseline

Fall Back (Option 4)

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

A31/B3001 Hickleys Corner

100%

+1% (+1%)

0% (0%)

A31/Weydon Lane

100%

-1%

+1% (+2%)

0% (+1%)

A31/A325 Coxbridge Roundabout

100%

-1%

+4% (+5%)

+5% (+6%)

+1% (+2%)

A325/School Hill Mini-roundabout

100%

-3%

+14% (+17%)

+16% (+19%)

+7% (+10%)

A325/B3384

100%

-3%

+17% (+20%)

+19% (+22%)

+9% (+12%)

A325/B3004

100%

-4%

+12% (+16%)

+14% (+18%)

+4% (+8%)

B3004/Oakhanger Road

100%

-3%

+4% (+7%)

+7% (+10%)

-2% (-1%)

B3004/Paper Mill Lane

100%

-3%

+2% (+5%)

+4% (+7%)

-1% (+2%)

B3004/B3002

100%

+8%

+9% (+1%)

+10% (+2%)

+4% (-4%)

A325/B3002 Station Road

100%

+1%

-25% (-26%)

-23% (-24%)

-22% (-23%)

A325/B3002 Budds Lane

100%

+9%

-34% (-43%)

-31% (-40%)

-36% (-45%)

A325/Chalet Hill

100%

+1%

-43% (-44%)

-41% (-42%)

-42% (-43%)

A325/Tesco Access/Woolmer Way

100%

+1%

-29% (-30%)

A325/Conde Way/Woolmer Way

100%

-5%

-18% (-13%)

-17% (-12%)

-19% (-14%)

A325/Liphook Road/Firgrove Road

100%

+16% (+16%)

+19% (+19%)

+8% (+8%)

A325/Petersfield Road

100%

+17% (+17%)

+19% (+19%)

+10% (+10%)

A325/A3 (EB) Slips

100%

-2%

+13% (+15%)

+14% (+16%)

+8% (+10%)

B3006/Petersfield Road

100%

+1%

-2% (-3%)

+1% (0%)

-4% (-5%)

A3/B3006

100%

+4% (+4%)

+1% (+1%)

A3 (WB) Slips/B2171

100%

+1% (+1%)

+2% (+2%)

+1% (+1%)

(*numbers in brackets represent comparison with Fall Back (Option 4) Scenario)

00900001\003

7.2.16

The above tables indicate that the key junctions would again observe an increase or decrease in traffic flow in a uniform pattern across the proposed development scenarios during the peak highway periods in the forecast year 2036.

7.2.17

The junctions that would observe the most significant increase or decrease in terms of traffic flow impact as a result of the various development proposals reflect those observing the significant impacts within the forecast 2026 development scenarios.

7.2.18

The junctions to the north and south of Whitehill Bordon along the A325 would again observe the most significant impacts in terms of traffic flow increase in the forecast year 2036 across all the development scenarios and across all of the peak highway periods as a result of development generated traffic accessing the strategic road network to the north and south of the town.

7.2.19

The junctions in the town centre would again observe the most significant impacts in terms of traffic flow decrease in the forecast year 2036 across all the development scenarios and across all of the peak highway periods as a result of the proposed relief road removing traffic from these junctions and traffic management measures along the existing A325.

7.2.20

When compared with 2036 baseline traffic flows at the junctions, the 2036 Fall Back (Option 4) scenario would again experience a generally moderate impact in terms of traffic flow increase or decrease during the peak highway periods. The most significant impacts of the Fall Back scenario would occur at the junctions along the A325 in the town centre, particularly the A325/B3002 Budds Lane junction, which would observe a more significant increase in traffic flow.

7.2.21

The traffic flow impact on the key junctions of each of the proposed development scenarios again follows a uniform pattern reflecting the quantum of the proposals within each different scenario across all of the peak highway periods. The traffic flow impacts of proposed scenario Option 1 are proportionately less than those associated with the increased quantum of development in proposed scenario Option 2, yet proportionately greater than those associated with the reduced quantum of development in proposed scenario Option 3.

7.2.22

In addition, further outputs have been derived from the Whitehill Bordon transport model to provide further assessment of the traffic impact of each of the development scenario options on the surrounding highway network. Each scenario option has been compared with appropriate baseline conditions in terms of increased traffic flow, congestion, and traffic volume over capacity on key links within the study area.

00900001\003

7.2.23

The proposed development options have been compared against baseline conditions in terms of peak hour link traffic flow for both 2026 and 2036 future years. The results are shown in diagrammatic form and are contained in full within Appendix J. Where a link would observe an increase in traffic as a result of a particular development scenario when compared with the appropriate baseline the link is shown in red, and where a decrease in traffic would be observed the link is highlighted in blue. The size of traffic flow increase/decrease on a particular link is indicated by the bandwidth of the highlighted link, a thicker line representing a larger increase/decrease and a thinner line representing a smaller variance in traffic flow as a result of the development. A comparison of the proposed development scenario against the baseline for the future year 2026 AM peak hour are shown in Figure 7.7 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Figure 7.10 below:

338

367

197

338

188

Figure 7.7: 2026 AM Peak Link Flow â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Development Option 1 v Baseline

-1061 68 4 574

56 9 217 -407

514

633

127

12 7

179 149 132

298

6 856 -61

819

-738

867

822

00900001\003

-210 -174

60 -917

-189

215

73 115

243

100

1 7510

896 -123 14

85 -215

68 63

-121

-226

471 -114 -576

-200

37 9

538

-735 534

637

266 -441 28 7

566

641

148

57 11 2 -16002 47 1 19 95 83 00 843 1 5275 8 106 75 20 83 76 7767 1 97 -82 76 -68 -62 -52 70 195

83 554 61 78 510 9 575 94 3 54

706 -64101

781 721

97 37-6 107

-293301

103

294

135

1 13

-6 271 8 5 275 341 -234 -411

51 125

2 11

-1 03

140

182

13 3

145

147

140

186 -11 0939 90-114 1

190

0 80 -243 91244 473 439

541

2 -2 26

484 -295

171 10 163

163

727

251

227

184

50 0

500

147

379

197

100

374

391

229

374

214

Figure 7.8: 2026 AM Peak Link Flow – Development Option 2 v Baseline

100

487 -576

-110

-134

896 -126 101

5 16

69 -916

9694

241

111 64

-189

12 0 120

-210 52

179 160 127

110 -215

51 52

272

-98

-735 632

254 -441 30 6

553

626

146

-94

42 3

36 9

572

606

72 569

662

-64106

70 649 53559 94 51

619

665 53

736 678

-293297

-6 278 8 5 285 314 -234 -383

72 160

579

138

170

188

110

288

172

140

53 61

15 9

165

151

203

206 0 14

212

313 168 3699 -6 1 17 131 81 78 10 210 75 -2 2 528 -295 185 -12 0135 95-114 0 1 78 60 -1 -243 12467 473 03 3 59 14 12 4 2 4 164 5 7 1 22 132 83 12 918 4 2 -98 65 6213 54 72 130 1 4 13 22 88 96 6911 1 109 -83 61 -70 -58 -54 92 181

284

707

175

5 15

398

229

-1061 62 6 663

423

58 1 224 -407

-174

57 324

825

100

910

821

899 -616

-738

-1061 749 411

304

324

336

100

304

Figure 7.9: 2026 AM Peak Link Flow – Development Option 3 v Baseline

54 5 198 -407

-174

-62 833

-210

820 -6 16

-738 824

-189

5383

71 -214

269 -441 28 0

00900001\003

66 -915

206

-51

190

-406

6787

-171

8523

-55

254

117

88 463

621 828

409 -174 -576

-735 341 -396

42 4

502

64 491 498 9 99 3

553

616

487

188

892 -120

54 -76

62 640

-6 279 85 344 281 -4 -234 87

-64 80 81

747 727

722

-1 03 55 71 8 -1570 47 - 68 95 122 67 5 10 62 - 53 63 91 84 68 76 -81 68 -64

-293272

490

270

130

77 67

128

734

1 75 -243 11487 329 7

121 78 90 45 42-8 52

125 0 67

8 -21 21 154 -11 0638 41-114 1

394 -295 102

121

621

113

101

-79

-63

Figure 7.10: 2026 AM Peak Link Flow â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Development Option 4 (Fall Back) v Baseline

-51

73 8 60

95 147 1418

-51

-62

-51

-5 0

98 77

-74

-63

7.2.24

The above diagrams indicate that during the AM peak period in 2026 the proposed development options would result in a similar level of traffic flow increase on links along the A325 to the south of the town and along the inner relief road within the town. Links on the A325 bypassed by the inner relief road in the town centre and to the north of the town would observe a level of decrease/increase in traffic flow in direct relation to the quantum of development proposed within each development option.

7.2.25

When comparing the development options it should also be noted that some of the most significant variances in traffic flow between the options would occur on the minor roads providing access between Whitehill Bordon and surrounding villages. Development Option 2 (5,300 dwellings) would observe an increase in traffic flow on Oakhanger Road through the village of Oakhanger and westwards along the B3004 towards East Worldham during the AM peak period in 2026. To the east of the town Option 2 would also result in an increase in traffic flow along the B3002 through the villages of Linford, Headley and Headley Down and along the B3004 through Liphook to the south-east.

00900001\003

102

7.2.26

In comparison, development Option 1 (4,000 dwellings) would also result in an increase in traffic flow on these links during the AM peak in 2026, however, the level of increase is less than that compared with development Option 2. The village of Oakhanger, for example, would observe an increase in traffic flow of 40 passenger car units (PCU) less than the increase observed within development Option 2. Development Option 3 (1,700 dwellings) would observe a further reduction in increase traffic flow on these links when compared with Option 2. For example, the village of Headley Down and the link between the village of Oakhanger and the B3004 to the north would not observe any increase in traffic flow within this scenario when compared with baseline conditions.

7.2.27

The development Option 4 (Fall Back scenario), as shown in Figure 7.10 above, would result in significantly reduced impact when compared against Options 1-3. Significantly the Fall Back scenario would observe drastically reduced flows on the A325 to the north and south of the town, on the vast majority of routes within Bordon, and on all main arterial routes between the town and surrounding villages when considered against the other development scenarios.

7.2.28

When compared with baseline conditions the B3002 between the villages of Oakhanger and Lindford would observe only a small increase in flow. Further small increases would be observed on the A325 in Bordon town centre and on the link between Oakhanger and the B3004 to the north. Small decreases in flow would be experienced on the A325 to the north of the town and on several links within Bordon and on links to the surrounding villages of Liphhook, Bramshott and Blackmoor.

7.2.29

Further outputs derived from the Whitehill Bordon transport model provide a comparison between the impacts of the proposed development options on link capacity. Tables C and I, within Appendix J, show a summary of the AM and PM peak traffic flow impact of the development scenarios on key link capacity when compared against the appropriate baseline. All links which meet the following criteria within one or more development scenario are included within the table:

7.2.30

•

Volume to Capacity ratio (V/C) of over 80%

•

V/C increased by more than 5%

•

Traffic flow increase by more than 50 PCUs

Within the table, where a particular link meets the above criteria, two crosses (88) represent a link where V/C increases significantly and is over 100%, and one cross (8) represents a link where V/C increases significantly and is over 80%.

7.2.31

Table 7.11 and Table 7.12 below show an extract of Table C and Table I indicating the links where the ratio of volume to capacity would increase above 80% or 100%, as set out above, as a result of the development options within the AM and PM peak periods, respectively, of the future year 2026.

00900001\003

103

Figure 7.11: Comparison of AM Peak Link V/C Impact in 2026 by Development Option Location

Link

2026 2026 Development Scenario 2026 2026 Baseline Baseline Capacity Option Option Option Option Flow/ Flow 1 2 3 4 Capacity

A325 NB

South of B3004 (Gold Hill) to B3004 (Gold Hill)

1272

1540

83%

A325 NB

Between B3004 & Louisburg Rd

1268

1540

82%

A325 NB

Between Conde Way & Viking Park Access Rd

822

1285

64%

A325 NB

Between Picketts Hill and B3004

1137

1540

74%

A325

Between Relief Rd (south jct) and New Rd

677

1285

53%

A325

Between Sutton Field & Liphook Rd

756

1285

59%

Figure 7.12: Comparison of PM Peak Link V/C Impact in 2026 by Development Option Link

Location

2026 2026 Development Scenario 2026 2026 Baseline Baseline Capacity Flow/ Option Option Option Option Flow 1 2 3 4 Capacity

A325

South of B3004 (Gold SB Hill) to B3004 (Gold Hill)

1296

1540

84%

A325

Between A31 and Weydon Lane

1311

1600

82%

A325

Between Picketts Hill and B3004

1098

1540

71%

A325

Between Relief Rd (south jct) and New Rd

944

1285

73%

A325

Between Sutton Field & Liphook Rd

799

1285

62%

A325

Between Weydon Lane and School Hill

1192

160

75%

905

1200

75%

Petersfield Between Forest Rd SB Rd and B3006

7.2.32

The above tables indicate that four northbound links and two southbound links on the A325 to the north and south of the town centre would observe a significant increase in V/C to over 80% in the 2026 AM peak if development Option 1 (Full Masterplan) or Option 2 (Upper masterplan) were implemented, but demonstrates that link capacity in 2026 is not exceeded. The reduced development quantum with development Option 3 would result in four of these links observing an increase in V/C to over 80% in 2026. The level of development associated with development Option 4 (Fall Back scenario) would result in no significant impact on any link capacity on the surrounding network in 2026.

00900001\003

104

7.2.33

Within the PM peak period a total of six southbound links on the A325 and on Petersfield Road would observe a significant increase in V/C to over 80% (but would operate within theoretical link capacity) in the 2026 PM peak if development Option 1 (Full Masterplan) was implemented. A further one southbound link on the A325 would observe an increase in V/C to over 80% if development Option 2 (Upper masterplan) were implemented. The reduced development quantum with development Option 3 would result in only two of these links observing an increase in V/C to over 80% in 2026. The level of development associated with development Option 4 (Fall Back scenario) would again result in no significant impact on any link capacity on the surrounding network in 2026.

7.2.34

Table 7.13 and Table 7.14 below show an extract of Table C and Table I indicating the links where the ratio of volume to capacity would increase above 80% or 100%, as set out above, as a result of the development options within the AM and PM peak periods, respectively, of the future year 2036, which includes further background traffic growth assumptions.

Figure 7.13: Comparison of AM Peak Link V/C Impact in 2036 by Development Option Link

Location

2036 2036 Development Scenario 2036 2026 Baseline Baseline Capacity Option Option Option Option Flow/ Flow 1 2 3 4 Capacity

A325 NB

South of B3004 (Gold Hill) to B3004 (Gold Hill)

1395

1540

91%

A325 NB

Between B3004 & Louisburg Rd

1403

1540

91%

A325 NB

Between Conde Way & Viking Park Access Rd

902

1285

70%

A325 NB

Between Picketts Hill and B3004

1247

1540

81%

A325 NB

Between Sutton Field & Liphook Rd

920

1285

72%

A325

South of B3004 (Gold Hill) to B3004 (Gold Hill)

835

1540

54%

A325

Between Blackmoor Rd & Petersfield Rd

1008

1540

65%

A325

Between Liphook Rd & New Whitehill Club

958

1540

62%

A325

Between New Whitehill Club & Blackmoor Rd

958

1540

62%

A325

Between Relief Rd (south jct) and New Rd

758

1285

59%

A325

Between Sutton Field & Liphook Rd

842

1285

66%

00900001\003

105

Figure 7.14: Comparison of PM Peak Link V/C Impact in 2036 by Development Option Link

Location

2036 2036 Development Scenario 2036 2036 Baseline Baseline Capacity Option Option Option Option Flow/ Flow 1 2 3 4 Capacity

A325

South of B3004 (Gold SB Hill) to B3004 (Gold Hill)

1296

1540

84%

A325

Between A31 and Weydon Lane

1311

1600

82%

A325

Between Picketts Hill and B3004

1098

1540

71%

A325

Between Relief Rd (south jct) and New Rd

944

1285

73%

A325

Between Sutton Field & Liphook Rd

799

1285

62%

A325

Between Weydon Lane and School Hill

1192

160

75%

905

1200

75%

Petersfield Between Forest Rd SB Rd and B3006

7.2.35

In the future year 2036 AM peak period the comparison between the proposed development options becomes more apparent. Development Option 1 would result in 8 links in total observing an increase in V/C to over 80%. The increased development quantum comprising Development Option 2 would result in 10 links in total observing an increase in V/C to over 80%. Significantly, two northbound links on the A325 to the north of the town are projected to observe an increase in V/C to over 100% in 2036. As such these links would be operating over theoretical capacity and would potentially observe periods of significant queuing and delay. Appropriate mitigation of these links would be required to accommodate predicted traffic levels associated with the development if either development Options 1 or 2 were implemented. Likely mitigation would range from localised widening, as a minimum, up to dualling of the over capacity links, but would be subject to further work.

7.2.36

Development Option 3 in the 2036 AM peak would result in a total of five links on the A325 observing an increase in V/C to over 80%. The level of development associated with the Fall Back scenario would result in no significant impact on any link capacity on the surrounding highway network during the AM peak period in 2036.

00900001\003

106

7.2.37

Within the PM peak period in 2036 a total of seven southbound links on the A325 and on Petersfield Road would observe a significant increase in V/C to over 80% if development Option 1 or development Option 2 were implemented. Significantly, two of these southbound links on the A325 to the north and south of the town centre would observe an increase in V/C to over 100% in 2036 within development Option 1, with an additional link to the north of the town observing the an increase in V/C to over 100% within development Option 2. Again, appropriate mitigation of these links would be required to accommodate predicted traffic levels associated with the development if either development Options 1 or 2 were implemented.

7.2.38

Development Option 3 in the 2036 PM peak would result in a total of five links on the A325 observing an increase in V/C to over 80%. The level of development associated with the Fall Back scenario would again result in no significant impact on any link capacity on the surrounding highway network during the PM peak period in 2036.

7.2.39

Based on the outputs of the Whitehill Bordon transport model, summarised above, development scenario Option 1 was identified to be taken forward for more detailed assessment. The traffic impacts of the development proposals comprising Option 1 are shown to be less significant than those associated with the increased quantum of development comprising development Option 2. Although the traffic impacts associated with development Option 3 are reduced when compared with Option 1, the quantum of development comprising Option 3 would potentially be financially unviable considering the likely infrastructure improvements and works required to enable the development; such as the proposed inner relief road. It is therefore considered, in accordance with the Framework Masterplan proposals, to test the Option 1 in further detail. Development Scenario Option 1 - Iterations Testing

7.2.40

Further high-level assessments of the remaining mode share, trip containment and A325 treatment scenario iterations for the proposed development scenario Option 1 (4,000 residential dwellings) have also been undertaken within the Whitehill Bordon transport model for the forecast year 2026.

7.2.41

Forecast traffic flows have again been recorded for each turning movement at the identified key junctions in and around Whitehill Bordon. The forecast traffic flows for each turning movement, and the total flow through each key junction as a whole, have been compared with the corresponding traffic flow from the 2026 baseline to establish the proportional increase or decrease in traffic as a result of each of the development scenario Option 1 iterations.

7.2.42

The results of the traffic flow impact assessments are contained in full within this report as Appendix I and a summary is provided by individual peak period in Table 7.15 to Table 7.17 below:

00900001\003

107

Table 7.15: Traffic Flow Impact Assessment - 2026 Development Scenario Option 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; AM Peak 2026 Development Scenario Option 1 (AM Peak) Key Junction

2026 Baseline

A325 Do Nothing

A325 Vehicular Traffic Restricted (excl. PT)

A325 Traffic Management

75%/30%

75%/50%

50%/50%

25%/50%

75%/30%

75%/50%

50%/50%

25%/50%

75%/30%

75%/50%

50%/50%

25%/50%

A31/B3001 Hickleys Corner

100%

+9%

+7%

+6%

+5%

+8%

+7%

+6%

+5%

+9%

+7%

+6%

+5%

A31/Weydon Lane

100%

-4%

+10%

+8%

+7%

+10%

+9%

+8%

+7%

+11%

+10%

+7%

A31/A325 Coxbridge Roundabout

100%

+9%

+7%

+4%

+3%

+8%

+7%

+6%

+3%

+9%

+7%

+4%

+2%

A325/School Hill Mini-roundabout

100%

+20%

+14%

+12%

+14%

+17%

+11%

+7%

+10%

+19%

+13%

+10%

+11%

A325/B3384

100%

+33%

+23%

+18%

+19%

+28%

+18%

+11%

+14%

+31%

+20%

+15%

A325/B3004

100%

+36%

+34%

+30%

+32%

+26%

+22%

+23%

+32%

+29%

+26%

B3004/Oakhanger Road

100%

+23%

+24%

+14%

+5%

+49%

+30%

+16%

+7%

+30%

+19%

+3%

B3004/Paper Mill Lane

100%

+18%

+12%

+6%

+18%

+11%

+6%

+1%

+15%

+9%

+4%

B3004/B3002

100%

+21%

+19%

+17%

+16%

+15%

+10%

+7%

+24%

+18%

+15%

+13%

A325/B3002 Station Road

100%

+7%

+1%

-8%

-18%

-43%

-44%

-46%

-48%

+2%

-7%

-17%

-23%

A325/B3002 Budds Lane

100%

-6%

-8%

-20%

-34%

-76%

-13%

-16%

-31%

-40%

A325/Chalet Hill

100%

-36%

-38%

-48%

-68%

-46%

-41%

-48%

-51%

A325/Tesco Access/Woolmer Way

100%

-26%

-27%

-32%

-41%

-50%

-49%

-51%

-52%

-34%

-36%

-42%

-46%

A325/Conde Way/Woolmer Way

100%

-9%

-5%

-11%

-25%

-7%

-2%

-10%

-23%

-12%

-9%

-16%

-27%

A325/Liphook Road/Firgrove Road

100%

+26%

+27%

+22%

+20%

+25%

+28%

+24%

+21%

+26%

+27%

+21%

+19%

A325/Petersfield Road

100%

+22%

+18%

+22%

+21%

+16%

+14%

+18%

+28%

+21%

+18%

+21%

A325/A3 (EB) Slips

100%

+18%

+13%

+14%

+15%

+11%

+9%

+13%

+20%

+15%

+18%

B3006/Petersfield Road

100%

+15%

+10%

+5%

+18%

+17%

+16%

+8%

+24%

+20%

+2%

A3/B3006

100%

+12%

+11%

+9%

+8%

+12%

+11%

+10%

+8%

+16%

+13%

+11%

+9%

A3 (WB) Slips/B2171

100%

+7%

+2%

-1%

+7%

+6%

+4%

-1%

+7%

+6%

+3%

-1%

00900001\003

108

Table 7.16: Traffic Flow Impact Assessment - 2026 Development Scenario Option 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Inter Peak 2026 Development Scenario Option 1 (Inter Peak) Key Junction

2026 Baseline

A325 Do Nothing

A325 Vehicular Traffic Restricted (excl. PT)

A325 Traffic Management

75%/30%

75%/50%

50%/50%

25%/50%

75%/30%

75%/50%

50%/50%

25%/50%

75%/30%

75%/50%

50%/50%

25%/50%

A31/B3001 Hickleys Corner

100%

+6%

+5%

+4%

+6%

+5%

+4%

+6%

+5%

+4%

A31/Weydon Lane

100%

+8%

+7%

+6%

+5%

+8%

+7%

+6%

+5%

+9%

+7%

+6%

+5%

A31/A325 Coxbridge Roundabout

100%

+9%

+7%

+6%

+4%

+8%

+7%

+5%

+4%

+9%

+7%

+6%

+4%

A325/School Hill Mini-roundabout

100%

+30%

+26%

+24%

+20%

+29%

+25%

+23%

+20%

+30%

+26%

+24%

+20%

A325/B3384

100%

+48%

+43%

+39%

+34%

+47%

+42%

+38%

+33%

+48%

+42%

+38%

+34%

A325/B3004

100%

+52%

+46%

+39%

+31%

+45%

+38%

+32%

+26%

+47%

+40%

+35%

+29%

B3004/Oakhanger Road

100%

+49%

+32%

+16%

+1%

+52%

+33%

+19%

+3%

+40%

+25%

+11%

-1%

B3004/Paper Mill Lane

100%

+27%

+18%

+10%

+2%

+29%

+18%

+11%

+3%

+21%

+14%

+7%

B3004/B3002

100%

+14%

+12%

+10%

+8%

-3%

-4%

-6%

-7%

+9%

+8%

+7%

+6%

A325/B3002 Station Road

100%

-9%

-12%

-17%

-22%

-40%

-43%

-45%

-18%

-19%

-23%

-26%

A325/B3002 Budds Lane

100%

-19%

-17%

-23%

-31%

-71%

-31%

-28%

-32%

-36%

A325/Chalet Hill

100%

-38%

-35%

-39%

-44%

-63%

-43%

-42%

-44%

-47%

A325/Tesco Access/Woolmer Way

100%

-26%

-25%

-28%

-30%

-31%

-30%

-29%

-30%

-31%

A325/Conde Way/Woolmer Way

100%

-11%

-6%

-16%

-24%

-2%

+4%

-9%

-17%

-8%

-4%

-14%

-23%

A325/Liphook Road/Firgrove Road

100%

+43%

+37%

+26%

+15%

+47%

+415

+30%

+17%

+43%

+35%

+24%

+13%

A325/Petersfield Road

100%

+33%

+26%

+20%

+13%

+33%

+24%

+19%

+13%

+37%

+27%

+21%

+14%

A325/A3 (EB) Slips

100%

+32%

+24%

+12%

+8%

+30%

+24%

+20%

+7%

+35%

+25%

+18%

+6%

B3006/Petersfield Road

100%

-8%

-2%

-5%

-8%

-12%

-3%

+1%

-1%

-5%

A3/B3006

100%

+6%

+4%

+2%

+1%

+6%

+4%

+2%

+1%

+9%

+6%

+3%

+1%

A3 (WB) Slips/B2171

100%

+1%

+2%

+1%

00900001\003

109

Table 7.17: Traffic Flow Impact Assessment - 2026 Development Scenario Option 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; PM Peak 2026 Development Scenario Option 1 (PM Peak) Key Junction

2026 Baseline

A325 Do Nothing

A325 Vehicular Traffic Restricted (excl. PT)

A325 Traffic Management

75%/30%

75%/50%

50%/50%

25%/50%

75%/30%

75%/50%

50%/50%

25%/50%

75%/30%

75%/50%

50%/50%

25%/50%

A31/B3001 Hickleys Corner

100%

+3%

+2%

+1%

+2%

+1%

+3%

+2%

+1%

A31/Weydon Lane

100%

+4%

+2%

+1%

+2%

+1%

+4%

+2%

+1%

A31/A325 Coxbridge Roundabout

100%

+8%

+6%

+4%

+3%

+8%

+6%

+4%

+3%

+8%

+6%

+4%

+3%

A325/School Hill Mini-roundabout

100%

+22%

+18%

+14%

+10%

+18%

+15%

+14%

+10%

+21%

+17%

+14%

+10%

A325/B3384

100%

+27%

+22%

+18%

+12%

+23%

+19%

+17%

+12%

+27%

+21%

+16%

+12%

A325/B3004

100%

+26%

+20%

+14%

+9%

+16%

+12%

+9%

+4%

+22%

+17%

+12%

+7%

B3004/Oakhanger Road

100%

+23%

+13%

+6%

+1%

+24%

+12%

+5%

-1%

+19%

+10%

+4%

-2%

B3004/Paper Mill Lane

100%

+14%

+8%

+3%

-1%

+15%

+8%

+3%

+12%

+6%

+2%

-1%

B3004/B3002

100%

+13%

+11%

+10%

+4%

+2%

+11%

+10%

+9%

+8%

A325/B3002 Station Road

100%

-12%

-15%

-19%

-24%

-39%

-38%

-41%

-43%

-18%

-20%

-24%

-28%

A325/B3002 Budds Lane

100%

-21%

-19%

-26%

-32%

-64%

-29%

-26%

-33%

-37%

A325/Chalet Hill

100%

-34%

-33%

-37%

-40%

-55%

-38%

-37%

-41%

-44%

A325/Tesco Access/Woolmer Way

100%

-24%

-23%

-25%

-27%

-28%

-29%

-28%

-27%

-28%

-29%

A325/Conde Way/Woolmer Way

100%

-14%

-8%

-16%

-22%

-6%

-1%

-10%

-18%

-14%

-9%

-16%

-22%

A325/Liphook Road/Firgrove Road

100%

+30%

+27%

+20%

+14%

+30%

+27%

+22%

+15%

+29%

+26%

+19%

+13%

A325/Petersfield Road

100%

+24%

+22%

+19%

+15%

+23%

+20%

+19%

+15%

+24%

+22%

+19%

+14%

A325/A3 (EB) Slips

100%

+19%

+18%

+12%

+9%

+16%

+14%

+13%

+10%

+19%

+15%

+10%

B3006/Petersfield Road

100%

-2%

+1%

+4%

+3%

+1%

-1%

+3%

-2%

-1%

A3/B3006

100%

+6%

+4%

+3%

+6%

+4%

+3%

+7%

+5%

+4%

+3%

A3 (WB) Slips/B2171

100%

+2%

+1%

+2%

+1%

+2%

+1%

00900001\003

110

7.2.43

The above summary tables indicate that, as would be expected, the traffic impact of the development scenario iterations generally decreases as the level of non-car mode share and trip containment increases across all of the A325 treatment iterations and across all of the peak periods in 2026.

7.2.44

The 75% car mode share and 30% trip containment iterations, across all of the A325 treatments, would result in the most significant impacts in terms of traffic flow increase at the identified key junctions. The 75% car mode share and 50% trip containment iterations would result in the key junctions outside of Whitehill Bordon observing a decrease in traffic flow impact as a greater number of development generated trips are made internal to the town. The 50% car mode share and 50% trip containment iterations would result in a general decrease in traffic flow impact at all of the key junctions due to an increase in the use of sustainable forms of transport when compared with the worst case scenario.

7.2.45

The 25% car mode share and 50% trip containment iterations would also result in a general decrease in traffic flow impact at the identified key junctions. It should be noted, however, that the majority of junctions along the A325 to the north and south of the town would observe a similar impact in terms of traffic flow, across all of the A325 treatments, in the AM peak period when compared with the 50% car mode share and 50% trip containment iteration. The reason for this is that within the 25% car mode share and 50% trip containment iteration there is less traffic on the A325 in Whitehill Bordon and as a result the junctions within town operate more efficiently and, therefore, the journey time through the town is reduced. This reduction in journey time causes some longer distance trips within the model to divert from competing routes onto the A325 resulting in natural balancing of trips on the surrounding network within this scenario iteration.

7.2.46

The various treatments of the A325 have a varied effect on the traffic flow impact on the identified key junctions. At the majority of junctions the variance between the A325 treatment options is moderate across all of the peak periods with a variance of 5% or less. The most significant variance between the A325 treatment options would occur at the junctions within the town centre of Whitehill Bordon. The A325 ‘Vehicular Traffic Restricted (excl. PT)’ iteration would observe a significant decrease in traffic flow through the central junctions when compared with the alternative A325 iterations due to the implementation a ‘car free’ area within the town centre forcing all through traffic to use the proposed inner relief road . A consequence of this, however, is a significant increase in traffic flow through the B3004/Oakhanger Road junction within this scenario iteration.

00900001\003

111

7.2.47

The A325 ‘Do Nothing’ iteration would generally cause the greatest traffic impact at the key junction across all of the peak periods in 2026. This would be most evident at the junctions on the A325 within Whitehill Bordon town centre which would observe significantly greater traffic flows than within the A325 ‘Vehicular Traffic Restricted (excl. PT)’ and A325 ‘Traffic Management’ iterations, but it should be noted less than the baseline situation. This is due to the fact that motorists would be afforded a straight choice between the existing route of the A325 and the alternative inner relief road route without any incentive to make either route more attractive than the other. This therefore encourages a more even split of traffic taking either route.

7.2.48

The traffic flow impacts at the identified key junctions associated with the A325 ‘Traffic Management’ iteration would sit between the alternative A325 treatment iterations. This would again be most evident at the junctions on the A325 within Whitehill Bordon town centre which would observe significantly less traffic than within the A325 ‘Do Nothing’ iteration yet significantly more traffic than within the A325 ‘Vehicular Traffic Restricted (excl. PT)’ iteration. This is due to the proposed implementation of traffic calming along the existing A325 which would improve the attractiveness of the alternative route for through traffic but not provide a physical barrier to through traffic along the A325 as within the A325 ‘Vehicular Traffic Restricted (excl. PT)’ iteration.

7.2.49

As discussed within the Development Scenario Testing section of the report above, further outputs have been derived from the Whitehill Bordon transport model to provide further assessment of the traffic impact of each of the development scenario iterations on the surrounding highway network. Each of the development scenarios and mode share, trip containment and A325 treatment iterations, as set out in the comprehensive list contained within Appendix J, have been compared with appropriate baseline conditions in terms of increased traffic flow, traffic volume over capacity, journey time, and total vehicle journey duration/distance on key links within the study area. Link Flow Impact

7.2.50

Table A, within Appendix J, shows a summary of the AM peak traffic flow impact of the development scenarios in terms of additional traffic flow within forecast years compared with the appropriate baseline. All links which meet the following criteria within one or more development scenario are included within the table: •

Traffic flow increases by more than 150 PCUs

•

Traffic flow increases by 5% or more

00900001\003

112

7.2.51

Within the table, where a particular link would observe an increase in traffic flow of greater than 250 PCUs in the AM peak the increase in link flow is highlighted in red, and an increase in traffic flow of between 150 -250 PCUs is highlighted in amber. The corresponding summaries for the inter peak and PM peak are shown in Table E and Table G, within Appendix J, respectively.

7.2.52

Table B, within Appendix J, shows the corresponding increase in traffic flow as a percentage difference when compared with the appropriate baseline. Within the table, an increase on a particular link of over 50% is highlighted in red, an increase of between 25% and 50% is highlighted in amber; and an increase of less than 25% is highlighted in green. The corresponding summaries for the inter peak and PM peak are shown in Table F and Table H, within Appendix J, respectively.

7.2.53

It should be noted when looking at the tables that a blank entry in a cell does not necessarily mean there is no impact, it is simply attributed to the specific link impact not meeting the criteria listed above.

7.2.54

In general, the outputs of the model indicate that the most significant impacts in terms of increased traffic flow on the modelled highway network would occur within the development scenarios which contain a car mode share iteration of 75%, as would be expected, particularly within the scenarios which also contain a trip containment iteration of 30%. The impacts in terms of additional traffic flow on the surrounding road network generally lessen as the car mode share also decreases.

7.2.55

It should be noted, however, that there are a number of trends identified within the outputs, particularly within Whitehill Bordon itself, which contradict the general pattern described above. A summary of these trends together with an explanation for them are set out below: • Lower mode share scenarios produce greater increases in traffic on the A325 to the north and south of Whitehill Bordon – Within the higher mode share scenarios the road network in Whitehill Bordon would observe higher levels of delay causing through traffic to re-route via Selborne or Hindhead. In the lower mode share scenarios the roads in Bordon are less delayed and more through traffic uses the A325. This is particularly the case with HGV traffic. It is also the case that this effect is most noticeable in the southbound direction as in the northbound direction the delays are generally higher in all scenarios. • The A325 to the north of Bordon shows the greatest increases in traffic in the ‘Do Nothing’ scenarios – In the ‘Do Nothing’ scenarios the capacity through Whitehill Bordon is highest as traffic has the option of either the new inner relief road or the existing A325. As a consequence of this the ‘Do Nothing’ networks experiences more through traffic in Whitehill Bordon than any other network. The traffic from both the

00900001\003

113

existing route and the old route combine to the north of the town leading to the increases in traffic shown in the outputs. â&#x20AC;˘ Higher Flows in Whitehill Bordon in 50/50 (mode share / trip containment) tests compared to the 75/30 tests â&#x20AC;&#x201C; At certain locations within Whitehill Bordon, noticeably on the existing A325 near Conde Way, traffic flows would be slightly higher in the 50/50 tests compared to the 75/30 tests which when taken at face value would seem counter intuitive. The reason for this is that within the 75/30 tests much more traffic leaves the town, whereas in the 50/50 tests, whilst there are less car trips overall, more of these trips (an extra 20%) are contained within the town. At these locations the increased containment overrides the lower mode share. It should also be noted that the 50/50 test has a slightly higher amount of through traffic as explained in the previous point; 7.2.56

The links within the modelled area that would experience the greatest impact in terms of increased traffic flow as a result of each of the development scenarios, when compared with the appropriate baseline, have also been shown diagrammatically for each of the peak highway periods individually and are contained within Appendix J. Where a link would observe an increase in traffic as a result of a particular development scenario when compared with the appropriate baseline the link is shown in red, and where a decrease in traffic would be observed the link is highlighted in blue. The size of traffic flow increase/decrease on a particular link is indicated by the bandwidth of the highlighted link, a thicker line representing a larger increase/decrease and a thinner line representing a smaller variance in traffic flow as a result of the development. The traffic flow impacts of each development scenario are shown on two separate diagrams for each peak period, one showing the wider model area and one zoomed-in to show the impact on Whitehill Bordon in greater detail.

7.2.57

The diagrams indicate that the key impacts of the development proposals would occur on the road network within and immediately surrounding Whitehill Bordon within all of the proposed development scenarios. In particular, the existing A325 to the north and south of Whitehill Bordon would experience a significant increase in traffic within each peak period. Moderate increases in traffic flow would be experienced on the surrounding road network, particularly on the A31, A3, B3002, B3004 (aside from the southbound B3004 in scenario 20. Scenario 20 would observe the highest levels of delay at the B3002/A325 junction in the AM peak period, the result of this is longer distance southbound traffic would divert along the B3004 and through Hindley instead of along the A325) and B3006 links. It should also be noted that, within all of the development scenarios and all peak highway periods, the A325 within Whitehill Bordon town centre would experience varying levels of decreased traffic flow as a result of the proposed relief road.

00900001\003

114

Link Capacity Impact 7.2.58

Table C, within Appendix J, shows a summary of the AM peak traffic flow impact of the development scenarios on key link capacity when compared against the appropriate baseline. All links which meet the following criteria within one or more development scenario are included within the table:

7.2.59

•

Volume to Capacity ratio (V/C) of over 80%

•

V/C increased by more than 5%

•

Traffic flow increase by more than 50 PCUs

7.2.60

Table D, within Appendix J, shows the corresponding increase in flow of traffic where the above criteria are met. Where a particular link would observe an increase in traffic flow of greater than 250 PCUs in the AM peak the increase in link flow is highlighted in red, and an increase in traffic flow of between 50 -250 PCUs is highlighted in amber.

7.2.61

As noted in point 7.2.55, a blank entry in a cell does not necessarily mean there is no impact, it is simply attributed to the specific link impact not meeting the criteria listed above.

7.2.62

The majority of links that would potentially meet the link capacity criteria, as set out above, within any of the proposed development scenarios are situated along the A325 to the north and south of Whitehill Bordon town centre. The greatest impacts on link capacity would be expected on this north-south route as it would provide the principal access into the proposed Eco-town from the surrounding strategic road network.

7.2.63

There are three locations where V/C exceeds 100% (unless otherwise stated). These are all located on the northbound carriageway of the A325 at the following points: •

South of B3004 (Gold Hill) Northbound

•

Between B3004 and Louisburg Rd

•

Between Picketts Hill and B3004 (In scenario 13 only)

At these locations V/C exceeds 100% in the following scenarios: •

2026 Scenario 12: Option 1 Masterplan (4,000 homes), 50 / 50 (mode share / trip containment) Do Nothing (treatment of the A325)

•

00900001\003

2026 Scenario 13: Option 1 Masterplan, 75/30, Do Nothing

115

•

2026 Scenario 14: Option 1 Masterplan, 75,50, Do Nothing

•

2026 Scenario 20: Option 1 Masterplan, 75/30, Traffic Management

•

2026 Scenario 21: Option 1 Masterplan, 75/50, Traffic Management

•

2036 Scenario 7: Option 1 Masterplan, 50/50, Traffic Management

•

2036 Scenario 8: Option 2 Upper Masterplan (5,300 homes), 50/50, Traffic Management

7.2.64

As was described in point 7.2.55, in the Do Nothing scenario the capacity for northbound traffic in Whitehill Bordon is greatest, via both the new inner relief road and the existing A325. This allows capacity for both the development traffic and through traffic, which in other network scenarios re-routes away from the A325 due to the treatment proposed for this road. At the locations mentioned the traffic from these two routes has merged. Whilst the capacity of the A325 is lower in the traffic management treatment of the A325, for similar reasons to those detailed above, v/c exceeds 100% in scenarios 20, 21, 7 and 8.

7.2.65

In the PM peak the following southbound links on the A325 have a v/c that exceeds 100%: •

South of B3004 (Gold Hill)

•

Between A31 and Weydon Lane

•

Between Relief Rd (southern junction) and New Rd

In all of the following scenarios (unless stated): •

2026 Scenario 13: Option 1 Masterplan, 75/30, Do Nothing

•

2026 Scenario 14: Option 1 Masterplan, 75,50, Do Nothing (excluding South of B3004 (Gold Hill))

•

2026 Scenario 17: Option 1 Masterplan, 75/30, PT only

•

2026 Scenario 18: Option 1 Masterplan, 75/50, PT only (excluding South of B3004 (Gold Hill))

•

2026 Scenario 20: Option 1 Masterplan, 75/30, Traffic Management (excluding Between Relief Rd (southern junction) and New Rd)

•

2026 Scenario 21: Option 1 Masterplan, 75/50, Traffic Management ((excluding South of B3004 (Gold Hill))

00900001\003

116

•

2036 Scenario 7: Option 1 Masterplan, 50/50, Traffic Management ((excluding South of B3004 (Gold Hill))

•

2036 Scenario 8: Option 2 Upper Masterplan (5,300 homes), 50/50, Traffic Management.

7.2.66

The A325’s link capacity is exceeded at Gold Hill in all the 75% mode share scenarios. The A325 is also over capacity between the A31 and Weydon Lane in the 30% containment target tests but not the 50% containment targets. The latter effect is as a result of the more widespread impacts of the 30% containment target tests. A point to note is if the 50 / 50 Traffic management option is met across the scenarios in 2026 then link capacity is not exceeded.

7.2.67

In 2036 the A325 at Gold Hill is over capacity in northbound in the AM Peak and the southbound in the PM peak for both the full development 50/50 scenario and the Upper development scenario. The impact increases between 2026 and 2036 as the 2036 baseline network traffic flow is greater and thus does not have as much spare capacity to accommodate the development traffic. The AM impact in 2036 at Gold Hill does not appear in Table C in Appendix J as the baseline was so close to capacity at that point that although there was an increase taking it over capacity it was less than the 200 vehicle threshold. Local Village Impact

7.2.68

To provide an indication on the traffic impacts of development at Whitehill Bordon on the surrounding roads and villages, the key outputs from the previous sections have been grouped together according to location. This highlights the differences in traffic flows created by each development scenario in terms of additional or reduced numbers of vehicles in each village location.

7.2.69

Also included for illustrative purposes are the baseline link flows and the practical link capacity for each of these roads. The spare link capacity for each section of road is calculated to act as a comparison between in the increase in traffic in each of the scenarios and the available link capacity, and this provides a benchmark to assess the impact of development on link capacity.

00900001\003

117

Table 7.18: Changes in local village traffic flow: AM peak

00900001\003

118

Table 7.19: Changes in local village traffic flow: PM peak

00900001\003

119

7.2.70

The following key trends are apparent from the spreadsheets: •

Blacknest and Bentley are likely to experience a significant increase in traffic across the development scenarios in the AM peak, but no change in the PM peak. However, baseline flows in these villages are very low, and even with the addition of development traffic there is significant spare capacity;

•

East Worldham experiences a moderate increase in traffic in the AM peak and PM peak across all development scenario’s;

•

In Greatham there is a potentially significant increase in southbound traffic in both the AM and PM peak. Minimal changes in northbound flow are expected. There is however significant link capacity available on this link;

•

Lindford is likely to experience a noticeable increase in traffic on the B3002 and B3004 in the AM and PM peaks. However there is significant reserve capacity meaning the link capacity of the local roads is not reached;

•

Oakhanger experiences a potentially significant increase in traffic across the majority of development scenarios in both the AM and PM peak, but these increases are contained within link capacity;

•

Wrecclesham experiences significant increase SB in traffic across the majority of development scenarios in the AM peak. In the PM peak, Wrecclesham experiences potentially significant increases in traffic on the A325 across the majority of scenarios. However; link capacity on the A325 is still not exceeded.

•

Headley experiences moderate traffic increases in both peak periods across most development scenarios. There is significant reserve link capacity on the B3002 to accommodate these increases.

•

Blackmoor experiences a small increase in traffic flows across all development scenarios in the AM peak and a nil detriment impact during the PM peak. There is sufficient existing spare link capacity to accommodate predicted flows;

•

Kingsley experiences a modest increase in traffic on the B3004 in the AM peak and a decrease in traffic in the PM peak across all development scenarios. There is adequate link capacity available to accommodate the increased flows in the AM Peak; and

•

Liphook / Passfield / Standford and Selbourne experience low flow changes across the development scenarios in both the AM and PM peaks with some links experiencing reductions in traffic. This is potentially attributed to re-routing in these area associated with the opening of the A3 Hindhead Tunnel. The exception is the AM Peak on the northbound B3006 link in Selbourne, which is likely to experience a potentially significant increase in traffic. There is however adequate link capacity available to accommodate this increase.

00900001\003

120

7.2.71

It should be noted that in all instances with increases in traffic flow across the links highlighted, link flow capacity is not breached in either peak period on any link and there is adequate spare link capacity across these links to accommodate the additional traffic created in any specific scenario.

7.2.72

Link capacity is only one measure of performance, and whilst there is significant spare link capacity identified across majority of the study area, it is recognised that the increased traffic identified in this section will impact on local villages. Further work is required to consider potential mitigation measures in the areas affected and identified above. Vehicle Journey Time Impact

7.2.73

A further output form the Whitehill Bordon transport model compares vehicle journey times within all of the proposed development scenarios with those from the appropriate baseline along a number of key routes within and around the proposed Eco-town. The vehicle journey times along these routes highlight the level of delay that could be expected on the road network within the forecast year peak highway periods for each of the proposed development scenarios.

7.2.74

Vehicle journey times have been assessed on 7 key routes on the road network in and around the proposed Eco-town development. The routes that have been chosen for vehicle journey time assessment reflect those that have been used for validation purposes for the Whitehill Bordon transport model as detailed within associated MVA Consultancy document ‘Model Validation Report’ (February 2011). The 7 assessed routes are summarised below: •

Route 1 – A325 between A3 at Longmoor and B3384 at Wrecclesham via Bordon

•

Route 2 – B3004 between Alton and Lindford, and B3002 through Headley to the A3

•

Route 3 – B3006 from the A31 to West Worldham, Oakhanger Road to B3002 Station Road at Bordon, and B3004 at Lindford to the A3

•

Route 4 – Honey Lane from Selborne to Oakhanger, Oakhanger Road to B3002 Budds Lane, and A325 to the B3004 via Chalet Hill and Hollywater Road

•

Route 5 – B3006 from the A3 to Empshott, Empshott to Whitehill via Bradshott Hall and Drift Road, and Liphook Road and Whitehill Road to the B3004 at Standford

•

Route 6 – Oakhanger to West Worldham via the B3004, B3006 to Petersfield Road, and Greatham to Blackmoor via the A325 and Blackmoor Road

•

Route 7 – A3 between B3006 and A287 at Hindhead, and A287 to Lindford via Churt, Spats Lane and Frensham Lane

00900001\003

121

7.2.75

The vehicle journey time outputs are presented in full in tabular and graphical format and are contained within this report as Appendix J. Within the table element of the outputs a red figure within the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;time differenceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; column for each development scenario represents and increase in vehicle journey time, whereas a blue figure represents a decrease in vehicle journey time.

7.2.76

Table 7.20 overleaf shows a summary of the impact of the proposed development scenarios on route journey times in the AM peak period within the forecast year 2026. Route journey times have been derived by adding the journey time impacts on each of the links comprising a particular route.

00900001\003

122

Table 7.20: Journey Time Impact Assessment - 2026 Development Scenario Option 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; AM Peak 2026 Development Scenario Option 1 (AM Peak) 2026 Baseline Route

(mm:ss)

00900001\003

A325 Do Nothing

Journey Time

A325 Vehicular Traffic Restricted (excl. PT)

A325 Traffic Management

75%/30%

75%/50%

50%/50%

25%/50%

75%/30%

75%/50%

50%/50%

25%/50%

75%/30%

75%/50%

50%/50%

25%/50%

Route 1 (Northbound)

16:35

00:22

00:14

00:10

00:06

00:54

00:49

00:47

00:46

01:03

00:55

00:51

00:49

Route 1 (Southbound)

17:33

00:08

00:17

Route 2 (Eastbound)

25:35

00:08

Route 2 (Westbound)

24:24

00:00

Route 3 (Eastbound)

24:31

00:35

Route 3 (Westbound)

22:20

00:04

00:02

00:01

00:00

00:06

00:03

00:01

00:00

00:04

00:02

00:01

00:00

Route 4 (Eastbound)

19:24

00:03

00:07

00:06

Route 4 (Westbound)

18:11

01:16

01:13

01:12

01:11

01:18

01:15

01:13

01:12

01:15

01:14

01:13

01:12

Route 5 (Eastbound)

14:24

00:00

Route 5 (Westbound)

13:07

00:00

Route 6 (Anti-clockwise)

24:20

00:01

00:00

00:01

00:00

00:01

00:00

Route 6 (Clockwise)

24:50

00:00

Route 7 (Eastbound)

23:37

00:00

Route 7 (Westbound)

25:18

00:25

123

7.2.77

The journey time impacts summary above indicates that the variance between the various proposed development scenarios is generally negligible. This is due to the fact that the journey times are derived from journey times on individual links, the vast majority of which, have been shown to be operating within capacity. The level of traffic using each link, therefore, would only have a negligible impact on link journey time unless an increase in traffic on a particular link causes the link to operate over capacity.

7.2.78

The above table indicates that only Route 1 (northbound) and Route 4 (westbound) would experience any significant impact in terms of journey time delay as a result of any of the proposed development scenarios being implemented. The main impacts in terms of increased journey time occur as a result of changes in the surrounding highway network, such as the implementation of the proposed inner relief road and the connecting junctions with the A325. The most significant journey time impacts occur on Route 1 and Route 4 as they both encompass sections of the A325 which would be subject to change within the proposed development scenarios when compared with baseline conditions. Total Vehicle Journey Duration/Distance

7.2.79

The Whitehill Bordon transport model has also been used to derive a comparison between baseline conditions and the proposed development scenarios in terms of the absolute increase/decrease in total vehicle journey duration (hours) and distance (kilometres). Table 7.21 below shows a summary of the total daily journey duration and distance and Table 7.22 and Table 7.23 summarise the AM and PM peak hours respectively:

00900001\003

124

Table 7.21: Total Vehicle Journey Duration/Distance Impact – Daily Summary Development Scenario Baseline 2026 Opt 1 (50%/50%/A325 TM) 2026 Opt 2 (50%/50%/A325 TM) 2026 Opt 3 (50%/50%/A325 TM) 2026 Opt 4 (50%/50%/ Do Nothing) 2036 Opt 1 (50%/50%/A325 TM) 2036 Opt 2 (50%/50%/A325 TM) 2036 Opt 3 (50%/50%/A325 TM) 2036 Opt 4 (50%/50%/ Do Nothing) 2026 Opt 1 (25%/50%/Do Nothing) 2026 Opt 1 (50%/50%/ Do Nothing) 2026 Opt 1 (75%/30%/ Do Nothing) 2026 Opt 1 (75%/50%/ Do Nothing) 2026 Opt 1 (25%/50%/A325 PT only) 2026 Opt 1 (50%/50%/A325 PT only) 2026 Opt 1 (75%/30%/A325 PT only) 2026 Opt 1 (75%/50%/A325 PT only) 2026 Opt 1 (25%/50%/A325 TM) 2026 Opt 1 (75%/30%/A325 TM) 2026 Opt 1 (75%/50%/A325TM)

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Total Vehicle Journey Duration change (Hours) 13,858 +3,142 +3,864 +1,431 +357 +3,223 +3,985 +1,416 +106 +1,726 +3,056 +5,618 +4,612 +1,900 +3,319 +6,070 +5,064 +1,755 +5,940 +4,784

Total Vehicle Journey Distance change (Kilometres) 789,786 +148,485 +183,709 +61,636 +10,398 +151,148 +184,803 +60,862 - 829 +76,864 +139,505 +265,265 +206,368 +83,537 +147,796 +276,463 +217,299 +80,603 +297,024 +225,221

Table 7.22: Total Vehicle Journey Duration/Distance Impact – AM Peak Summary Development Scenario

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Baseline 2026 Opt 1 (50%/50%/A325 TM) 2026 Opt 2 (50%/50%/A325 TM) 2026 Opt 3 (50%/50%/A325 TM) 2026 Opt 4 (50%/50%/ Do Nothing) 2036 Opt 1 (50%/50%/A325 TM) 2036 Opt 2 (50%/50%/A325 TM) 2036 Opt 3 (50%/50%/A325 TM) 2036 Opt 4 (50%/50%/ Do Nothing) 2026 Opt 1 (25%/50%/Do Nothing) 2026 Opt 1 (50%/50%/ Do Nothing) 2026 Opt 1 (75%/30%/ Do Nothing) 2026 Opt 1 (75%/50%/ Do Nothing) 2026 Opt 1 (25%/50%/A325 PT only) 2026 Opt 1 (50%/50%/A325 PT only) 2026 Opt 1 (75%/30%/A325 PT only) 2026 Opt 1 (75%/50%/A325 PT only) 2026 Opt 1 (25%/50%/A325 TM) 2026 Opt 1 (75%/30%/A325 TM) 2026 Opt 1 (75%/50%/A325TM)

00900001\003

125

Total Vehicle Journey Duration change (Hours) 1,916 +477 +585 +213 +75 +509 +643 +225 +37 +290 +474 +877 +716 +325 +529 +1,003 +833 +289 +909 +724

Total Vehicle Journey Distance change (Kilometres) 109,992 +21,814 +26,881 +8,757 +1,927 +23,298 +28,687 +9,293 +129 +12,468 +21,091 +38,216 +30,158 +13,644 +22,621 +39,991 +32,169 +12,846 +42,282 +32,205

Table 7.23: Total Vehicle Journey Duration/Distance Impact – PM Peak Summary Development Scenario

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 7.2.80

Total Vehicle Journey Duration change (Hours) 1,489 +260 +329 +105 +12 +257 +330 +94 -31 +124 +255 +517 +403 +139 +280 +544 +441 +126 +536 +414

Total Vehicle Journey Distance change (Kilometres) 84,619 +12,792 +16,086 +4,996 -464 +12,411 +15,697 +4,457 -2,315 +6,249 +12,321 +25,395 +18,741 +6,816 +13,004 +26,925 +19,798 +6,498 +27,263 +19,717

The above tables indicate that the most significant increases in vehicle journey durations and distance would occur within the proposed development scenarios with the greatest quantum of development and the highest car mode share of 75%, as would be expected.

7.2.81

Furthermore, the scenarios incorporating the ‘Do Nothing’ treatment of the A325 would observe the least significant increase in vehicle journey durations and distance. The scenarios incorporating the A325 ‘Traffic Management’ and ‘Public Transport and Access only’ treatments would observe a similar impact in terms of vehicle journey durations and distance.

7.2.82

The total vehicle journey durations and distances within the AM and PM peak hours follow a similar pattern to the daily outputs. It should be noted, however, that the Fall Back scenarios (Scenarios 6 and 10) are predicted to observe a decrease in vehicle journey duration and distance compared with baseline conditions. Although the proposed development within these scenarios would generate additional traffic on the surrounding road network, the increased level of trip containment in Whitehill Bordon would result in the travel distance and travel time of vehicular journeys reducing.

00900001\003

126

Proposed Inner Relief Road Traffic Flows 7.2.83

The predicted traffic flows along the proposed Inner Relief Road within Whitehill Bordon town centre have also been derived from the SATURN model for each of the proposed development scenarios. It should be noted that the Inner Relief Road is not incorporated within the baseline and Fall Back scenarios (Scenarios 1, 2, 6 and 10).

7.2.84

The predicted inner relief road traffic flows have been recorded in both directions at 3 nominal locations summarised below: 1) Northern end of inner relief road, just to the south of connecting junction with the A325 2) Central location, adjacent to existing B3002 3) Southern end of inner relief road, just to the north of connecting junction with the A325

7.2.85

Table 7.24 below shows a summary of the predicted daily 12 hour traffic flows within each development scenario and Table 7.25 and Table 7.26 summarise the AM and PM peak hours respectively: Table 7.24: Proposed Inner Relief Road Traffic Flow â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Daily (12hr) Summary Development Scenario

Location 1

Location 2

Location 3

2026 Opt 1 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

4,562 3,825 5,280

4,324 4,413 3,509

2026 Opt 2 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

4,737 4,048 5,485

4,589 4,678 3,723

2026 Opt 3 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

4,122 3,162 4,741

3,536 3,809 2,834

2036 Opt 1 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

4,876 3,919 5,515

4,432 4,628 3,573

2036 Opt 2 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

4,955 4,180 5,633

4,719 4,929 3,856

2036 Opt 3 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

4,264 3,386 4,803

3,732 3,876 3,015

2026 Opt 1 (25%/50%/Do Nothing)

3,968 3,628 4,207

3,766 3,902 3,029

2026 Opt 1 (50%/50%/ Do Nothing)

4,046 3,865 4,785

4,412 4,336 3,427

2026 Opt 1 (75%/30%/ Do Nothing)

4,156 4,418 5,095

4,897 4,863 3,922

2026 Opt 1 (75%/50%/ Do Nothing)

4,166 4,152 5,399

4,937 4,830 3,864

2026 Opt 1 (25%/50%/A325 PT only)

5,922 4,653 6,236

4,872 4,199 3,178

2026 Opt 1 (50%/50%/A325 PT only)

6,249 5,119 7,281

5,569 4,731 3,666

2026 Opt 1 (75%/30%/A325 PT only)

6,554 6,158 7,974

5,713 5,127 4,167

2026 Opt 1 (75%/50%/A325 PT only)

6,514 5,604 8,286

6,021 5,170 4,091

2026 Opt 1 (25%/50%/A325 TM)

4,303 3,578 4,559

3,687 3,972 3,097

2026 Opt 1 (75%/30%/A325 TM)

4,625 4,204 5,777

4,658 4,956 3,900

2026 Opt 1 (75%/50%/A325 TM)

4,716 3,973 5,927

4,752 4,898 3,840

00900001\003

127

Table 7.25: Proposed Inner Relief Road Traffic Flow – AM Peak Summary Development Scenario

Location 1

Location 2

Location 3

2026 Opt 1 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

508

405

575

467

481

396

2026 Opt 2 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

481

400

562

479

483

421

2026 Opt 3 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

600

387

602

442

489

333

2036 Opt 1 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

480

401

557

455

475

395

2036 Opt 2 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

439

388

533

473

491

433

2036 Opt 3 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

539

413

549

456

471

346

2026 Opt 1 (25%/50%/Do Nothing)

501

451

516

452

476

360

2026 Opt 1 (50%/50%/ Do Nothing)

445

407

560

467

461

379

2026 Opt 1 (75%/30%/ Do Nothing)

344

351

608

507

490

481

2026 Opt 1 (75%/50%/ Do Nothing)

411

412

625

517

501

448

2026 Opt 1 (25%/50%/A325 PT only)

680

601

752

500

514

368

2026 Opt 1 (50%/50%/A325 PT only)

712

608

932

523

532

417

2026 Opt 1 (75%/30%/A325 PT only)

754

616

1,101

478

523

478

2026 Opt 1 (75%/50%/A325 PT only)

738

630

1,123

554

577

463

2026 Opt 1 (25%/50%/A325 TM)

524

434

527

445

478

367

2026 Opt 1 (75%/30%/A325 TM)

339

287

577

468

510

459

2026 Opt 1 (75%/50%/A325 TM)

466

378

605

499

515

445

Table 7.26: Proposed Inner Relief Road Traffic Flow – PM Peak Summary Development Scenario

Location 1

Location 2

Location 3

2026 Opt 1 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

470

420

582

484

523

402

2026 Opt 2 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

488

461

611

518

566

422

2026 Opt 3 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

399

330

505

369

416

325

2036 Opt 1 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

513

444

605

505

549

425

2036 Opt 2 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

508

492

620

537

576

450

2036 Opt 3 (50%/50%/A325 TM)

446

349

536

388

441

346

2026 Opt 1 (25%/50%/Do Nothing)

401

362

466

406

452

352

2026 Opt 1 (50%/50%/ Do Nothing)

423

512

498

516

397

2026 Opt 1 (75%/30%/ Do Nothing)

420

582

510

556

575

431

2026 Opt 1 (75%/50%/ Do Nothing)

433

486

562

559

571

440

2026 Opt 1 (25%/50%/A325 PT only)

594

460

659

544

477

373

2026 Opt 1 (50%/50%/A325 PT only)

614

546

733

604

537

422

2026 Opt 1 (75%/30%/A325 PT only)

556

751

689

652

560

452

2026 Opt 1 (75%/50%/A325 PT only)

610

639

774

677

563

470

2026 Opt 1 (25%/50%/A325 TM)

449

363

520

400

462

359

2026 Opt 1 (75%/30%/A325 TM)

465

573

585

556

577

430

2026 Opt 1 (75%/50%/A325 TM)

490

482

634

539

577

441

00900001\003

128

7.2.86

To provide an initial assessment of the IRR, the peak hour flows have been compared against guidance provided within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) TA 79/99, Traffic capacity of Urban Roads. It has been assumed at this stage that the IRR will have a continuous width of 7.3 metres. The intended character of the IRR would fall into the category of Urban All-purpose (UAP) road type 3, as determined within the DMRB. A UAP3 road is a variable standard road carrying mixed traffic with frontage access, side roads, bus stops and at-grade pedestrian crossings; and with a speed limit of 30-40mph.

7.2.87

DMRB TA 79/99 recommends that a UAP3 two-way road with a width of 7.3 metres would have a capacity of 1300 vehicles in the busiest direction. As such the predicted flows on the IRR within all proposed development scenarios, as summarised in the above tables, would be within the recommended capacity of the link. It should be noted, however, that this is only a preliminary assessment and a more detailed assessment will be required during the design process of the IRR.

7.3

Detailed Assessment

7.3.1

Comparison of flow changes and link assessment provides a good indication of proportionate impact of each development scenario, but is not in itself always sufficient to consider the likely impact on highway operation. To gain a greater understanding of the traffic impact of the development proposals on the surrounding highway network detailed junction assessments have been undertaken at each of the identified key junctions within and surrounding Whitehill Bordon.

7.3.2

Junction assessments have been undertaken to represent the operation of the junctions during the AM and PM peak highway periods for the 2026 baseline and 2026 ‘worst case’ scenario iterations using appropriate industry standard modelling software PICADY for priority junctions, ARCADY for roundabouts and LinSig for signalised junctions. This allows for a comparison between the ‘worst case’ traffic impacts of the Eco-town proposals against traffic conditions in Whitehill Bordon in 2026 without the Eco-town proposals implemented, and examines how well the future network will operate.

7.3.3

To understand how each of the junctions currently operates, and to allow the calibration of the junction assessments within the forecast scenarios, 2010 Base assessments have also been undertaken. At traffic signal controlled junctions the 2010 Base junction assessments have incorporated signal timing data where it has been provided. The results of the 2010 Base junction assessments have not been summarised within the following chapter to minimise the number of results tables, however the full assessment results are contained within this report for review within Appendix K.

00900001\003

129

7.3.4

In terms of the A325 treatment iteration within the forecast development scenarios, it has been agreed with project group that the A325 ‘Traffic Management’ iteration will be used uniformly across all of the detailed junction assessments with only the mode share and trip containment targets varying. Therefore, the ‘worst case’ scenario iteration consists of a car mode share target of 75%, a trip containment target of 30% and the A325 ‘Traffic Management’ option. The AM and PM peak highway periods have been established as 0800-0900 and 1700-1800 respectively.

7.3.5

The results of the ‘worst case’ scenario junction assessments have been analysed and an iterative approach taken to test sensitivity at junctions operating above capacity within this scenario. The junctions operating over capacity during the ‘worst case’ have then been assessed within alternative scenario iterations in the following order until they operate within capacity or at their optimum operation without engineering improvement. This approach establishes whether trip constraint measures alone would be sufficient to ameliorate the impact of development:

7.3.6

•

75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management

•

50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management

•

25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management

The method used to model each of the individual junctions and the results of the capacity assessments are set out below on a junction by junction basis.

7.3.7

It is important to note that the following modelling predictions of maximum queue lengths within ARCADY, PICADY and LinSig are inaccurate after a junction reaches its theoretical capacity (where RFC = 1 within ARCADY and PICADY or where DoS = 100% within LinSig) and tend to increase disproportionately to what would be observed on the ground. These should be used as a comparative guide rather than detailed estimates of queuing.

00900001\003

130

A31/B3001 Hickleys Corner 7.3.8

The A31/B3001 Hickleys Corner junction has been assessed using LinSig v3 software as the junction is a signal controlled crossroads. The traffic flow data incorporated into the assessments has been derived from the Whitehill Bordon SATURN transport model which provides traffic flow outputs grouped into two categories, ‘Cars’ and ‘Goods’. The ‘Cars’ category consists of cars only. The ‘Goods’ category consists of light, medium and heavy goods vehicles in addition to buses.

7.3.9

As LinSig software requires traffic flow input in passenger car units (PCUs) a standard PCU conversion factor has been calculated based upon the RSI traffic surveys to be applied to the ‘Goods’ vehicle category for each separate peak period. These calculations determined that the ‘Goods’ vehicle category consists of 83% light goods vehicles (LGV) in the AM peak and 84% LGV in the PM peak. As such the following conversion factors have been calculated and applied to the ‘Goods’ vehicle category in the respective peak periods to determine the traffic flows in PCUs:

7.3.10

•

AM Peak

1.15

•

PM Peak

1.14

The traffic signals at the junction are currently controlled by MOVA which attempts to continuously optimise the timing of the signals depending on the traffic demand. The detailed signal controller specification has been used to incorporate the existing phasing and staging data of the traffic signals within the model. However, due to limitations within current modelling software, LinSig is only able to model a signal controlled junction with fixed cycle and stage lengths.

7.3.11

Average green times at the junction have not been provided, however, to provide as robust a model as possible, and best represent the operation of the junction within 2026 baseline conditions, it was decided to optimise the junction within LinSig. Although the 2026 baseline scenario intends to assess the impact of general traffic growth and committed development on the existing highway network, it is expected that the signal timings in operation at the junction would be subject to review in the next 15 years (2011-2026) as traffic conditions change within the surrounding area.

7.3.12

The overall cycle time of the junction has been optimised for each separate modelling scenario and for each separate assessment period. A maximum cycle time of 90 seconds has been allowed at this junction due to the presence of pedestrian phases within the control of the junction. The stage lengths constituting the overall cycle time have also been optimised within LinSig based upon traffic demand as this is, in effect, what MOVA control attempts to achieve.

00900001\003

131

7.3.13

It is recognised that MOVA operated junctions on street will achieve on average an increase in capacity in the range of 5%-7% when compared to a fixed time traffic model due to the continuous process of optimisation throughout the model period. It is, therefore, important to consider this when analysing the results of the modelling in relation to the MOVA controlled junction.

7.3.14

In terms of saturation flows, Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) Research Report 67 (RR67) â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The prediction of saturation flows for road junctions controlled by traffic signalsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; values have been derived within the LinSig program based upon the geometric layout of the junction which has been measured from ordnance survey mapping.

7.3.15

The junction has been assessed during weekday AM and PM peak hours for the 2026 baseline and initially the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management). A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.27 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

Table 7.27: A31/B3001 Hickleys Corner - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

7.3.16

2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+30%+A325 TM)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

A31 Farnham Bypass(N)

2045

116.5%

75.4

2225

120.6%

96.1

B3001 Station Hill

693

115.0%

46.5

693

127.1%

65.2

A31 Farnham Bypass(S)

1530

116.0%

74.4

1788

125.8%

115.8

B3001 South Street

505

118.4%

40.4

514

128.3%

53.4

A31 Farnham Bypass(N)

2236

131.3%

128.1

2347

140.1%

158.9

B3001 Station Hill

573

117.8%

44.1

592

121.6%

50.8

A31 Farnham Bypass(S)

1353

100.7%

30.3

1377

102.5%

34.6

B3001 South Street

676

131.4%

75.4

702

136.6%

86.3

The above results indicate that the junction would operate significantly over capacity, on all arms of the junction, during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026 even if the development does not go ahead as a result of general background traffic growth and traffic associated with committed developments in the surrounding area. The junction would observe significant queuing and delay in its current form and the results suggest that appropriate mitigation is required at the junction to accommodate general growth in future traffic levels in the area in any event.

00900001\003

132

7.3.17

It is understood that a previous study at the junction, undertaken by consultants Mouchel, made recommendations for the grade separation of the Hickleys Corner junction, however, these recommendations have not been progressed due to the lack of available funding for the scheme and an unsuccessful bid was submitted to the DfT for major scheme funding in 2008.

7.3.18

By comparison, if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worst caseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; car mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved, the junction would again operate significantly over capacity during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026. The additional traffic flow through the junction as a result of the development would cause a proportional increase in queuing and delay on each of the arms of the junction.

7.3.19

As the junction clearly operates over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to re-assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.28 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

Table 7.28: A31/B3001 Hickleys Corner - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

7.3.20

2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+50%+A325 TM)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

A31 Farnham Bypass(N)

2045

116.5%

75.4

2227

123.5%

104.5

B3001 Station Hill

693

115.0%

46.5

693

122.7%

59.0

A31 Farnham Bypass(S)

1530

116.0%

74.4

1726

123.9%

107.2

B3001 South Street

505

118.4%

40.4

513

121.8%

45.8

A31 Farnham Bypass(N)

2236

131.3%

128.1

2291

135.8%

143.6

B3001 Station Hill

573

117.8%

44.1

592

121.6%

50.8

A31 Farnham Bypass(S)

1353

100.7%

30.3

1373

102.2%

33.8

B3001 South Street

676

131.4%

75.4

703

136.8%

86.8

The above results indicate that the junction would still operate significantly over capacity on all arms during the AM peak and on all but one arm during the PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved.

00900001\003

133

7.3.21

Both the AM and PM peak results do improve slightly when compared with the 2026 â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worst caseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) in terms of Degree of Saturation (DoS) and queue lengths on all arms of the junction as a result of a small decrease in traffic through the junction.

7.3.22

As the junction still operates over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to re-assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.29 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

Table 7.29: A31/B3001 Hickleys Corner - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

7.3.23

2026 Scenario Option 1 (50%+50%+A325 TM)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

A31 Farnham Bypass(N)

2045

116.5%

75.4

2221

123.1%

103.2

B3001 Station Hill

693

115.0%

46.5

693

122.7%

59.0

A31 Farnham Bypass(S)

1530

116.0%

74.4

1680

120.5%

95.1

B3001 South Street

505

118.4%

40.4

513

121.8%

45.8

A31 Farnham Bypass(N)

2236

131.3%

128.1

2257

133.1%

134.4

B3001 Station Hill

573

117.8%

44.1

592

121.6%

50.8

A31 Farnham Bypass(S)

1353

100.7%

30.3

1369

101.9%

32.9

B3001 South Street

676

131.4%

75.4

703

136.8

86.8

The above results indicate that the junction would still operate significantly over capacity on all arms during the AM peak and on all but one arm during the PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved.

7.3.24

Both the AM and PM peak results do again improve slightly when compared with the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) iteration in terms of DoS and queue lengths on all arms of the junction as a result of a small decrease in traffic through the junction.

00900001\003

134

7.3.25

As the junction still operates over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to re-assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.30 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix J.

Table 7.30: A31/B3001 Hickleys Corner - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

7.3.26

2026 Scenario Option 1 (25%+50%+A325 TM)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

A31 Farnham Bypass(N)

2045

116.5%

75.4

2215

122.6%

101.6

B3001 Station Hill

693

115.0%

46.5

693

122.7%

59.0

A31 Farnham Bypass(S)

1530

116.0%

74.4

1638

117.4%

83.9

B3001 South Street

505

118.4%

40.4

511

121.3%

44.9

A31 Farnham Bypass(N)

2236

131.3%

128.1

2225

133.9%

133.3

B3001 Station Hill

573

117.8%

44.1

592

120.3%

48.8

A31 Farnham Bypass(S)

1353

100.7%

30.3

1363

104.0%

37.3

B3001 South Street

676

131.4%

75.4

703

135.3%

84.4

The above results indicate that the junction would still operate significantly over capacity on all arms during the AM peak and on all but one arm during the PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved.

7.3.27

The Eco-town development would have an impact on the operation of the Hickleys Corner junction in its current form during the highway peaks in 2026 if any of the proposed Eco-town scenario iterations were implemented. It is important to note, however, that the above assessments show that the junction would operate significantly over capacity during peak highway periods within the 2026 Baseline scenario as a result of general traffic growth and traffic generated by committed development. Appropriate mitigation should be explored at the junction to accommodate future traffic levels irrespective of whether the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town development goes ahead or not.

00900001\003

135

7.3.28

As the junction is shown to operate over capacity in 2026 with or without the proposed development, it is important to establish the proportional impact of the development proposals in terms of traffic flow through the junction compared with baseline conditions. Table 7.31 below provides a summary of the impact of each of the development scenario iterations in terms of increased traffic flow for the 2026 future year AM and PM peak highway periods.

Table 7.31: A31/B3001 Hickleys Corner – Proportional Impact of Development Proposals 2026 Scenario Peak Period

7.3.29

Arm

Baseline

75%+30%

75%+50%

50%+50%

25%+50%

Flow

%Dif

Flow

%Dif

Flow

%Dif

Flow

%Dif

A31 (N)

2045

2225

+9%

2227

+9%

2221

+9%

2215

+8%

B3001 (E)

693

A31 (S)

1530

1788 +17% 1726

+13% 1680

+10% 1638

+7%

B3001 (W)

505

514

+2%

513

+2%

513

+2%

511

+1%

Total

4773

5220

+9%

5159

+8%

5107

+7%

5057

+6%

A31 (N)

2236

2347

+5%

2291

+2%

2257

+1%

2225

B3001 (E)

573

592

+3%

592

+3%

592

+3%

592

+3%

A31 (S)

1353

1377

+2%

1373

+1%

1369

+1%

1363

+1%

B3001 (W)

676

702

+4%

703

+4%

703

+4%

703

+4%

Total

4838

5018

+4%

4959

+3%

4921

+2%

4883

+1%

The above table indicates that the development Option 1 scenario iterations would have a ‘worst case’ impact of a 9% increase in flow in the AM peak and a 4% increase in the PM peak at the junction if the 75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. The A31 Farnham Bypass (S) arm of the junction would observe the most significant traffic flow impact within this scenario with an increase of 17% during the 2026 AM peak.

7.3.30

The traffic flow impacts at the junction lessen through the scenario iterations as the level of non-car mode share and trip containment decrease. The 50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iteration, for example, would result in an impact of a 7% increase in traffic flow in the AM peak and a 2% increase in the PM peak at the junction.

00900001\003

136

A31/Weydon Lane Junction 7.3.31

The A31/Weydon Lane junction has been assessed using LinSig v3 software as the junction is signal controlled. The traffic flow data incorporated into the assessments has been derived from the Whitehill Bordon SATURN transport model.

7.3.32

The same modelling methodology as that adopted for the A31/B3001 Hickleys Corner junction has been used to assess the MOVA operated traffic signal junction.

7.3.33

The overall cycle time of the junction has been optimised for each separate modelling scenario and for each separate assessment period. A maximum cycle time of 120 seconds has been allowed at this junction in line with DfT guidance and as there are no pedestrian phases within the control of the junction. The green times within the stages constituting the overall cycle time have also been optimised within LinSig based upon traffic demand as this is, in effect, what MOVA control attempts to achieve.

7.3.34

7.3.35

The junction has been assessed during weekday AM and PM peak hours for the 2026 baseline and initially the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management). A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.32 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

Table 7.32: A31/Weydon Lane - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+30%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

A31 Farnham Bypass (E)

1809

83.3%

27.3

1992

98.1%

43.7

Weydon Lane

441

82.4%

15.6

594

98.4%

29.3

A31 Farnham Bypass (W)

1347

69.1%

19.4

1451

78.9%

24.9

A31 Farnham Bypass (E)

2035

72.8%

12.0

2149

77.4%

24.1

Weydon Lane

166

70.9%

1.0

182

76.9%

6.9

A31 Farnham Bypass (W)

1493

61.7%

9.1

1495

62.0%

12.5

AM Peak

PM Peak

00900001\003

137

7.3.36

The above results indicate that the junction would operate comfortably within capacity on all of its arms during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026 if the development was not implemented.

7.3.37

By comparison, if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worst caseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; car mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved, the junction would again operate within capacity on all of its arms during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026. It should be noted, however, that the A31 (E) and Weydon Lane arms of the junction would be approaching full capacity during the AM peak period.

7.3.38

As the junction operates close to full capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to re-assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.33 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

Table 7.33: A31/Weydon Lane - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

A31 Farnham Bypass (E)

1809

83.3%

27.3

1992

94.4%

37.8

Weydon Lane

441

82.4%

15.6

535

94.4%

23.2

A31 Farnham Bypass (W)

1347

69.1%

19.4

1447

76.3%

23.5

A31 Farnham Bypass (E)

2035

72.8%

12.0

2094

75.4%

22.7

Weydon Lane

166

70.9%

1.0

180

76.0%

6.8

A31 Farnham Bypass (W)

1493

61.7%

9.1

1493

61.9%

12.4

AM Peak

PM Peak

7.3.39

The above results indicate that the junction would operate within capacity on all of its arms during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved.

00900001\003

138

A31/A325 Coxbridge Roundabout 7.3.40

The A31/A325 Coxbridge Roundabout has been assessed using ARCADY 5 software. The traffic flow data incorporated into the assessments has been derived from the Whitehill Bordon SATURN transport model. The proportion of heavy vehicles has been incorporated into the assessments by turning movement. The junction geometries have been measured from ordnance survey (OS) mapping.

7.3.41

The roundabout has been assessed during weekday AM and PM peak hours for the 2026 baseline and initially the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management). A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.34 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

Table 7.34: A31/A325 Coxbridge Roundabout - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+30%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (N)

366

0.598

1.5

384

0.670

2.0

A31 Farnham Bypass(E)

1535

0.907

8.8

1697

1.018

39.7

A325 (S)

1211

1.491

249.8

1251

1.511

269.2

A31 Farnham Bypass(W)

1326

0.775

3.4

1496

0.884

7.1

A325 (N)

718

1.172

64.4

880

1.439

163.5

A31 Farnham Bypass(E)

1909

1.227

210.6

2022

1.308

305.1

A325 (S)

960

1.145

74.2

1014

1.178

97.1

A31 Farnham Bypass(W)

1160

0.642

1.8

1162

0.656

1.9

AM Peak

PM Peak

7.3.42

The above results indicate that the junction would operate significantly over capacity during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026 even if the development was not implemented as a result of general traffic growth and committed development within the surrounding area. The A325 (S) arm in the AM peak and the A325 (N), A31 Farnham Bypass (E) and A325 (S) arms in the PM peak would observe particularly long delays and queuing and the results suggest that appropriate mitigation is required at the junction to accommodate general growth in future traffic levels in the area.

00900001\003

139

7.3.43

By comparison, if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worst caseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; car mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved, the junction would again operate significantly over capacity during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026. The additional traffic flow through the junction as a result of the development would cause a proportional increase in the maximum ratio of flow to capacity (RFC) and queue lengths on each of the arms of the junction.

7.3.44

As the junction operates over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to reassess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.35 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

Table 7.35: A31/A325 Coxbridge Roundabout - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (N)

366

0.598

1.5

378

0.673

2.0

A31 Farnham Bypass(E)

1535

0.907

8.8

1688

1.017

39.0

A325 (S)

1211

1.491

249.8

1179

1.421

214.4

A31 Farnham Bypass(W)

1326

0.775

3.4

1491

0.881

6.9

A325 (N)

718

1.172

64.4

836

1.350

130.0

A31 Farnham Bypass(E)

1909

1.227

210.6

1967

1.275

264.4

A325 (S)

960

1.145

74.2

1037

1.225

120.1

A31 Farnham Bypass(W)

1160

0.642

1.8

1133

0.637

1.7

AM Peak

PM Peak

7.3.45

The above results indicate that the junction would still operate significantly over capacity on the A31 (E) and particularly the A325 (S) arms during the AM peak and on all but one arm during the PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved.

7.3.46

Both the AM and PM peak results do improve slightly when compared with the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) iteration in terms of maximum RFC and queue lengths on all arms of the junction as a result of a decrease in traffic through the junction.

00900001\003

140

7.3.47

As the junction operates over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to reassess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.36 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

Table 7.36: A31/A325 Coxbridge Roundabout - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (N)

366

0.598

1.5

370

0.641

1.7

A31 Farnham Bypass(E)

1535

0.907

8.8

1693

1.012

36.0

A325 (S)

1211

1.491

249.8

1144

1.381

190.5

A31 Farnham Bypass(W)

1326

0.775

3.4

1425

0.837

5.0

A325 (N)

718

1.172

64.4

805

1.299

110.5

A31 Farnham Bypass(E)

1909

1.227

210.6

1932

1.252

238.3

A325 (S)

960

1.145

74.2

1032

1.235

123.5

A31 Farnham Bypass(W)

1160

0.642

1.8

1133

0.635

1.7

AM Peak

PM Peak

7.3.48

The above results indicate that the junction would still operate significantly over capacity, particularly on the A325 (S) arm, during the AM peak and on all but one arm during the PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved.

7.3.49

Within this scenario iteration the junction would observe a slight improvement in operation when compared with the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) iteration in terms of maximum RFC and queue lengths on all arms of the junction as a result of a small decrease in traffic through the junction.

7.3.50

As the junction operates over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to reassess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.37 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

00900001\003

141

Table 7.37: A31/A325 Coxbridge Roundabout - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (N)

366

0.598

1.5

363

0.634

1.7

A31 Farnham Bypass(E)

1535

0.907

8.8

1687

1.006

33.0

A325 (S)

1211

1.491

249.8

1115

1.293

149.3

A31 Farnham Bypass(W)

1326

0.775

3.4

1383

0.821

4.5

A325 (N)

718

1.172

64.4

777

1.251

93.3

A31 Farnham Bypass(E)

1909

1.227

210.6

1899

1.231

214.8

A325 (S)

960

1.145

74.2

1028

1.245

127.0

A31 Farnham Bypass(W)

1160

0.642

1.8

1133

0.633

1.7

AM Peak

PM Peak

7.3.51

The above results indicate that the junction would still operate significantly over capacity, particularly on the A325 (S) arm, during the AM peak and on all but one arm during the PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved.

7.3.52

The Eco-town development would impact on the operation of the Coxbridge roundabout in its current form during the highway peak periods in 2026 if any of the proposed Eco-town scenario iterations were implemented. It is important to note, however, that the above assessments show that the junction would operate significantly over capacity during peak highway periods within the 2026 Baseline scenario even without development at Whitehill Bordon, as a result of general traffic growth and traffic generated by committed development. Appropriate mitigation should be explored at the junction to accommodate future traffic levels irrespective of whether the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town development goes ahead or not.

7.3.53

As the junction is shown to operate over capacity in 2026 with or without the proposed development, and is outside of HCCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s authority, it is important to establish the proportional impact of the development proposals in terms of traffic flow through the junction compared with baseline conditions. Table 7.38 below provides a summary of the impact of each of the development scenario iterations in terms of increased traffic flow for the 2026 future year AM and PM peak highway periods.

00900001\003

142

Table 7.38: A31/A325 Coxbridge Roundabout – Proportional Impact of Development Proposals 2026 Scenario Peak Period

7.3.54

Arm

Baseline

75%+30%

75%+50%

50%+50%

25%+50%

Flow

%Dif

Flow

%Dif

Flow

%Dif

Flow

%Dif

A325 (N)

366

384

+5%

378

+3%

370

+1%

363

-1%

A31 (E)

1535

1697 +11% 1688

A325 (S)

1211

1251

A31 (W)

1326

Total

+3%

1179

+10% 1693 +10% 1687 +10% -3%

1144

-6%

1115

-8%

1496 +13% 1491

+12% 1425

+7%

1383

+4%

4438

4828

+9%

4736

+7%

4632

+4%

4548

+2%

A325 (N)

718

880

+23%

836

+16%

805

+12%

777

+8%

A31 (E)

1909

2022

+6%

1967

+3%

1932

+1%

1899

-1%

A325 (S)

960

1014

+6%

1037

+8%

1032

+8%

1028

+7%

A31 (W)

1160

1162

1133

-2%

1133

-2%

1133

-2%

Total

4747

5078

+7%

4973

+5%

4902

+3%

4837

+2%

The above table indicates that the development Option 1 scenario iterations would have a ‘worst case’ impact of a 9% increase in flow in the AM peak and a 7% increase in the PM peak at the junction if the 75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. The over capacity A325 (N) arm of the junction would observe the most significant traffic flow impact within this scenario with an increase of 23% during the 2026 PM peak.

7.3.55

The traffic flow impacts at the junction lessen through the scenario iterations as the level of non-car mode share and trip containment decrease. The 50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iteration, for example, would result in an impact of a 4% increase in traffic flow in the AM peak and a 3% increase in the PM peak at the junction.

7.3.56

It should also be noted that the A325 (N) and A325 (S) approaches, within the AM peak, and the A31 (W) approach in the PM peak, would observe a reduction in flow in certain development scenarios when compared with baseline conditions. The increasing reduction in flow on the A325 (S) approach through the development scenario iterations in the AM peak is likely to be due to the decreased car use within Whitehill Bordon, as proposed within each iteration.

7.3.57

The constant reduction in traffic flow on the A31 (W) approach through the development scenario iterations in the PM peak is likely due to the increased level of trip containment within Whitehill Bordon. As a result, less traffic would return to Whitehill Bordon in the evening as a greater proportion of people would potentially be working or shopping within the town as opposed to travelling to external locations.

00900001\003

143

A325/School Hill Mini-Roundabout 7.3.58

The A325/School Hill mini-roundabout in Wrecclesham has been assessed using ARCADY 5 software. The traffic flow data incorporated into the assessments has been derived from the Whitehill Bordon SATURN transport model. The proportion of heavy vehicles has been incorporated into the assessments by turning movement. The junction geometries have been measured from ordnance survey (OS) mapping.

7.3.59

The roundabout has been assessed during weekday AM and PM peak hours for the 2026 baseline and initially the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management). A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.39 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

Table 7.39: A325/School Hill Mini-Roundabout - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+30%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

7.3.60

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (N)

797

0.842

5.0

970

1.039

35.6

Private Access

0.000

0.0

0.000

0.0

School Hill

479

0.651

1.8

479

0.736

2.7

A325 (S)

549

1.100

36.0

731

1.447

144.3

A325 (N)

1190

1.230

140.1

1508

1.573

404.1

Private Access

0.000

0.0

0.000

0.0

School Hill

233

0.378

0.6

233

0.398

0.7

A325 (S)

563

0.865

5.6

669

1.040

27.7

The above results indicate that the junction would operate over capacity during both the AM peak and PM peak highway periods in 2026 even if the development was not implemented due to general traffic growth and committed development in the surrounding area The A325 (N) arm, in particular, would observe significant queuing and delay during the PM peak if the junction were to remain in its current form and the results suggest that appropriate mitigation is required at the junction to accommodate general growth in future traffic levels in the area in any event.

00900001\003

144

7.3.61

By comparison, if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worst caseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; car mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved, the junction would operate significantly over capacity during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026. The additional traffic flow through the junction as a result of the development would cause a proportional increase in queuing and delay on each of the arms of the junction. The A325 (S) arm in the AM peak and the A325 (N) arm in the PM peak would observe particularly heavy queuing and delay.

7.3.62

As the junction operates over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to reassess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.40 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

Table 7.40: A325/School Hill Mini-Roundabout - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

7.3.63

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (N)

797

0.842

5.0

972

1.042

36.8

Private Access

0.000

0.0

0.000

0.0

School Hill

479

0.651

1.8

479

0.737

2.7

A325 (S)

549

1.100

36.0

603

1.204

63.5

A325 (N)

1190

1.230

140.1

1411

1.474

319.5

Private Access

0.000

0.0

0.000

0.0

School Hill

233

0.378

0.6

233

0.393

0.6

A325 (S)

563

0.865

5.6

690

1.072

36.6

The above results indicate that the junction would still operate significantly over capacity on the A325 (S) arm during the AM peak and the A325 (N) arm during the PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. The A325 (N) and A325 (S) arms would also be operating slightly over capacity during the AM and PM peak periods respectively and would observe some queuing and delay.

00900001\003

145

7.3.64

7.3.65

As the junction operates over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to reassess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.41 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

Table 7.41: A325/School Hill Mini-Roundabout - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

7.3.66

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (N)

797

0.842

5.0

967

1.038

35.0

Private Access

0.000

0.0

0.000

0.0

School Hill

479

0.651

1.8

479

0.735

2.7

A325 (S)

549

1.100

36.0

569

1.160

50.4

A325 (N)

1190

1.230

140.1

1345

1.407

265.1

Private Access

0.000

0.0

0.000

0.0

School Hill

233

0.378

0.6

233

0.389

0.6

A325 (S)

563

0.865

5.6

680

1.056

32.1

The above results indicate that the junction would still operate significantly over capacity on the A325 (S) arm during the AM peak and the A325 (N) arm during the PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. The A325 (N) and A325 (S) arms would also be operating slightly over capacity during the AM and PM peak periods respectively and would observe some queuing and delay.

7.3.67

Both the AM and PM peak results do improve slightly when compared with the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) iteration in terms of maximum RFC and queue lengths on all arms of the junction as a result of a small decrease in traffic through the junction.

00900001\003

146

7.3.68

As the junction operates over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to reassess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.42 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

Table 7.42: A325/School Hill Mini-Roundabout - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

7.3.69

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (N)

797

0.842

5.0

1030

1.115

69.6

Private Access

0.000

0.0

0.000

0.0

School Hill

479

0.651

1.8

479

0.752

2.9

A325 (S)

549

1.100

36.0

523

1.081

30.7

A325 (N)

1190

1.230

140.1

1284

1.345

217.6

Private Access

0.000

0.0

0.000

0.0

School Hill

233

0.378

0.6

233

0.386

0.6

A325 (S)

563

0.865

5.6

670

1.042

28.1

The above results indicate that the junction would operate over capacity on the A325 (N) and A325 (S) arms of the junction during the AM and PM peak periods in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved.

7.3.70

Both the AM and PM peak results do improve slightly when compared with the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) iteration in terms of maximum RFC and queue lengths on the majority of arms as a result of a small decrease in traffic through the junction.

7.3.71

The A325/School Hill mini-roundabout in its current form could not accommodate the highway peak traffic demand in 2026 if any of the proposed Eco-town scenario iterations were implemented. It is important to note, however, that the above assessments show that the junction would operate significantly over capacity during peak highway periods within the 2026 Baseline scenario as a result of general traffic growth and traffic generated by committed development if no development went ahead at Whitehill Bordon. Appropriate mitigation should be explored at the junction to accommodate future traffic levels irrespective of whether the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town development goes ahead or not.

00900001\003

147

7.3.72

As the junction is shown to operate over capacity in 2026 with or without the proposed development, and is outside of HCC’s authority, it is important to establish the proportional impact of the development proposals in terms of traffic flow through the junction compared with baseline conditions. Table 7.43 below provides a summary of the impact of each of the development scenario iterations in terms of increased traffic flow for the 2026 future year AM and PM peak highway periods.

Table 7.43: A325/School Hill Mini-Roundabout – Proportional Impact of Development Proposals 2026 Scenario Peak Period

7.3.73

Arm

Baseline

75%+30%

75%+50%

50%+50% %Dif

25%+50%

Flow

%Dif

Flow

%Dif

Flow

%Dif

A325 (N)

797

970

+22%

972

+22%

967

Private Access

School Hill

479

A325 (S)

549

731

+33%

603

+10%

569

+4%

523

-5%

Total

1825

2180 +19% 2020 +11% 2015 +10% 2032 +11%

A325 (N)

1190

1508 +27% 1411 +19% 1345 +13% 1284

Private Access

School Hill

233

A325 (S)

563

669

+19%

690

+23%

680

+21%

670

+19%

Total

1986

2410 +21% 2334 +18% 2258 +14% 2187 +10%

+21% 1030 +29%

+8%

The above table indicates that the development Option 1 scenario iterations would have a ‘worst case’ impact of a 19% increase in flow in the AM peak and a 21% increase in the PM peak at the junction if the 75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. The over capacity A325 (N) arm of the junction would observe the most significant traffic flow impact within this scenario with an increase of 27% during the 2026 PM peak.

7.3.74

The traffic flow impacts at the junction generally lessen through the scenario iterations as the level of non-car mode share and trip containment decrease. The 50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iteration, for example, would result in an impact of a 10% increase in traffic flow in the AM peak and a 14% increase in the PM peak at the junction.

00900001\003

148

A325/B3384 Echo Barn Lane Junction 7.3.75

The A325/B3384 junction, south of Wrecclesham, has been assessed using PICADY 4.1 software as it is a priority T-junction. The traffic flow data incorporated into the assessments has been derived from the Whitehill Bordon SATURN transport model. The proportion of heavy vehicles has been incorporated into the assessments by turning movement. The junction geometries have been measured from ordnance survey (OS) mapping.

7.3.76

The junction has been assessed during weekday AM and PM peak hours for the 2026 baseline and initially the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management). A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.44 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

Table 7.44: A325/B3384 Junction - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+30%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

7.3.77

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (N)

473

646

B3384 Echo barn Lane

124

0.227

0.29

145

0.295

0.42

A325 (S)

805

0.274

0.38

1053

0.440

0.78

A325 (N)

795

1113

B3384 Echo barn Lane

164

0.362

0.56

184

0.500

0.98

A325 (S)

686

0.245

0.32

786

0.282

0.39

The above results indicate that the junction would operate comfortably within capacity during both AM and PM peak periods in 2026 if the development was not implemented.

7.3.78

By comparison, if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worst caseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; car mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved, the junction would still operate comfortably within capacity during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026. Therefore, the junction in its current form is able to accommodate traffic generated by any of the proposed Eco-town development scenario iterations as detailed within this TA.

00900001\003

149

A325/B3004 Junction 7.3.79

The A325/B3004 junction has been assessed using LinSig v3 software as the junction is signal controlled. The traffic flow data incorporated into the assessments has been derived from the Whitehill Bordon SATURN transport model.

7.3.80

The same modelling methodology as that adopted for the A31/B3001 Hickleys Corner junction has been used to assess the MOVA operated traffic signal junction.

7.3.81

Average green times recorded at the junction have been provided by HCC; however, to provide as robust a model as possible, and best represent the operation of the junction within 2026 baseline conditions, it was decided to optimise the junction within LinSig. Although the 2026 baseline scenario intends to assess the impact of general traffic growth and committed development on the existing highway network, it is expected that the signal timings in operation at the junction would be subject to review in the next 15 years (20112026) as traffic conditions change within the surrounding area.

7.3.82

7.3.83

7.3.84

The junction has been assessed during weekday AM and PM peak hours for the 2026 baseline and initially the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management). A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.45 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

00900001\003

150

Table 7.45: A325/B3004 - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+30%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

7.3.85

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

A325(N)

668

60.6%

8.0

1060

73.5%

18.0

A325 (S)

1281

94.4%

42.8

1669

116.2%

183.9

B3004

336

92.7%

12.5

328

115.9%

35.7

A325(N)

1105

89.0%

33.2

1518

114.7%

160.5

A325 (S)

775

62.5%

13.6

853

64.9%

15.7

B3004

382

88.5%

13.7

401

114.7%

43.7

The above results indicate that the junction would operate close to capacity in 2026 in Baseline conditions if the development was not implemented. The AM peak period in particular would observe some heavy queuing on the A325 (S) arm of the junction as the Degree of Saturation (DoS) reaches over 90% of capacity.

7.3.86

By comparison the junction would operate over capacity within both the AM and PM peak periods in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worst caseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; car mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved. The A325 (S) and B3004 arms of the junction within the AM peak and the A325 (N) and B3004 arms of the junction within the PM peak period would observe significant queuing and delay.

7.3.87

The deterioration in the operation of the junction when compared with the 2026 baseline scenario is due to the increase in traffic flow through the junction, particularly heading north out of Whitehill Bordon in the AM peak and heading south into the town within the PM peak.

7.3.88

As the junction is shown to operate over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to re-assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.46 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

00900001\003

151

Table 7.46: A325/B3004 - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

7.3.89

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

A325(N)

668

60.6%

8.0

1070

75.7%

20.8

A325 (S)

1281

94.4%

42.8

1571

112.2%

149.5

B3004

336

92.7%

12.5

345

109.9%

29.9

A325(N)

1105

89.0%

33.2

1397

107.1%

104.4

A325 (S)

775

62.5%

13.6

873

67.7%

17.3

B3004

382

88.5%

13.7

388

104.9%

27.2

The above results indicate that the junction would again operate over capacity on the A325 (S) and B3004 arms during the AM peak and on the A325 (N) and B3004 arms of during the PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved.

7.3.90

Both the AM and PM peak results do improve when compared with the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) iteration in terms of DoS and queue lengths on all arms of the junction.

7.3.91

As the junction is shown to still operate over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to re-assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.47 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

00900001\003

152

Table 7.47: A325/B3004 - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

7.3.92

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

A325(N)

668

60.6%

8.0

1062

76.4%

21.9

A325 (S)

1281

94.4%

42.8

1512

110.5%

133.3

B3004

336

92.7%

12.5

366

108.9%

30.6

A325(N)

1105

89.0%

33.2

1309

100.4%

63.1

A325 (S)

775

62.5%

13.6

860

66.7%

16.7

B3004

382

88.5%

13.7

376

101.1%

21.4

The above results indicate that the junction would still operate over capacity on the A325 (S) and B3004 arms during the AM peak but would operate within capacity during the PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. It should be noted, however, that the A325 (N) and B3004 arms of the junction would be operating close to full capacity within the PM peak period.

7.3.93

Both the AM and PM peak results do improve when compared with the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) iteration in terms of DoS and queue lengths on all arms of the junction.

7.3.94

As the junction is shown to still operate over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to re-assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.48 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

00900001\003

153

Table 7.48: A325/B3004 - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

7.3.95

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

A325(N)

668

60.6%

8.0

1141

82.2%

26.8

A325 (S)

1281

94.4%

42.8

1468

107.3%

109.7

B3004

336

92.7%

12.5

362

107.3%

27.9

A325(N)

1105

89.0%

33.2

1231

95.2%

44.6

A325 (S)

775

62.5%

13.6

855

66.8%

16.9

B3004

382

88.5%

13.7

358

93.3%

14.9

7.3.96

The junction in its current form could not accommodate the highway peak traffic demand in 2026 if any of the proposed Eco-town scenario iterations were implemented. Appropriate mitigation would be required at the junction to accommodate future traffic levels if the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town development is implemented.

00900001\003

154

B3004/Oakhanger Road Junction 7.3.97

The B3004/Oakhanger Road junction has been assessed using PICADY 4.1 software as it is a priority T-junction. The traffic flow data incorporated into the assessments has been derived from the Whitehill Bordon SATURN transport model. The proportion of heavy vehicles has been incorporated into the assessments by turning movement. The junction geometries have been measured from ordnance survey (OS) mapping.

7.3.98

The junction has been assessed during weekday AM and PM peak hours for the 2026 baseline and initially the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management). A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.49 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

Table 7.49: B3004/Oakhanger Road Junction - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+30%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

7.3.99

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

B3004 (E)

403

428

Oakhanger Road

340

0.782

3.3

568

1.292

83.1

B3004 (W)

378

0.251

0.5

465

0.478

1.2

B3004 (E)

250

207

Oakhanger Road

132

0.289

0.4

206

0.428

0.7

B3004 (W)

489

0.315

0.7

549

0.449

1.1

The above results indicate that the junction would operate comfortably within capacity during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026 if the development was not implemented.

7.3.100 By comparison, the junction would operate over capacity during the AM peak period yet comfortably within capacity within the PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worst caseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; car mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved. A significant increase in traffic on the Oakhanger Road arm of the junction during the AM peak when compared with the 2026 Baseline would exceed the capacity of the arm causing heavy queuing and delay.

00900001\003

155

7.3.101 As the junction is shown to operate over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to re-assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.50 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.50: B3004/Oakhanger Road Junction - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

B3004 (E)

403

424

Oakhanger Road

340

0.782

3.3

464

1.061

25.2

B3004 (W)

378

0.251

0.5

450

0.412

0.9

B3004 (E)

250

207

Oakhanger Road

132

0.289

0.4

206

0.428

0.7

B3004 (W)

489

0.315

0.7

549

0.449

1.1

7.3.102 The above results indicate that the junction would operate slightly over capacity during the AM peak but would operate comfortably within capacity during the PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. 7.3.103 Both the AM and PM peak results do improve when compared with the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) iteration in terms of maximum RFC and queue lengths on all arms of the junction. 7.3.104 As the junction is shown to still operate over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to re-assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction, and the impact of achieving mode shift away from the car as part of the Eco-town development. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.51 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

00900001\003

156

Table 7.51: B3004/Oakhanger Road Junction - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

B3004 (E)

403

420

Oakhanger Road

340

0.782

3.3

390

0.900

6.8

B3004 (W)

378

0.251

0.5

433

0.337

0.7

B3004 (E)

250

202

Oakhanger Road

132

0.289

0.4

194

0.403

0.7

B3004 (W)

489

0.315

0.7

510

0.382

0.9

7.3.105 The above results indicate that the junction would operate within capacity during the AM peak and comfortably within capacity during the PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. 7.3.106 The assessments of the B3004/Oakhanger Road junction, therefore, show that the junction in its current form would be able to accommodate the traffic impacts of the proposed Ecotown development if the mode share and trip containment targets of 50% are achieved or bettered. Appropriate mitigation would be required to increase the capacity of the junction if the development is implemented and these targets are not met.

00900001\003

157

B3004/Paper Mill Lane Junction 7.3.107 The B3004/Paper Mill Lane junction has been assessed using PICADY 4.1 software as it is a priority staggered crossroads junction. The traffic flow data incorporated into the assessments has been derived from the Whitehill Bordon SATURN transport model. The proportion of heavy vehicles has been incorporated into the assessments by turning movement. The junction geometries have been measured from ordnance survey (OS) mapping. 7.3.108 The junction has been assessed during weekday AM and PM peak hours for the 2026 baseline and initially the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management). A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.52 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.52: B3004/Paper Mill Lane Junction - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+30%+A325 TM)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

B3004 (E)

630

0.831

6.04

835

0.907

12.14

Ashdell Road

315

1.772

75.66

315

7.985

175.50

Paper Mill Lane

477

0.894

9.80

519

0.916

10.24

B3004 (N)

292

1.594

56.69

316

3.169

115.74

B3004 (E)

484

0.376

0.82

529

0.428

1.06

Ashdell Road

176

0.530

1.10

176

0.579

1.32

Paper Mill Lane

258

0.632

2.43

353

0.699

3.57

B3004 (N)

406

0.859

5.23

426

0.950

10.12

7.3.109 The above results indicate that the junction would operate significantly over capacity during the AM peak period yet within capacity during the PM peak period in 2026 if the development was not implemented. The Ashdell Road and B3004 (N) arms of the junction would observe significant delays and queuing in the AM peak period if appropriate mitigation was not implemented. It should also be noted that the B3004 (N) arm of the junction would be approaching full capacity during the PM peak and some queuing and delay would be observed.

00900001\003

158

7.3.110 By comparison, if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worst caseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; car mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved, the junction would again operate significantly over capacity during the AM peak period and approaching full capacity within the PM peak period in 2026. Both side roads at the junction, Ashdell Road and the B3004 (N), would observe congestion during the AM peak causing heavy queuing and delay. The significant deterioration in the operation of these arms when compared to the 2026 Baseline is caused by vehicles on the major roads queuing in the centre of the junction waiting to turn right into the side roads, thereby reducing the capacity of the side roads considerably. 7.3.111 As the junction is shown to operate over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to re-assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.53 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.53: B3004/Paper Mill Lane Junction - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+50%+A325 TM)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

B3004 (E)

630

0.831

6.04

749

0.888

10.18

Ashdell Road

315

1.772

75.66

315

3.272

121.07

Paper Mill Lane

477

0.894

9.80

510

0.889

9.94

B3004 (N)

292

1.594

56.69

306

2.201

88.45

B3004 (E)

484

0.376

0.82

510

0.409

0.97

Ashdell Road

176

0.530

1.10

176

0.563

1.24

Paper Mill Lane

258

0.632

2.43

302

0.679

3.11

B3004 (N)

406

0.859

5.23

419

0.916

7.76

7.3.112 The above results indicate that the junction would operate significantly over capacity during the AM peak but would operate within capacity during the PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. 7.3.113 Again both side roads at the junction, Ashdell Road and the B3004 (N), would observe congestion during the AM peak causing heavy queuing and delay due to vehicles on the major roads queuing in the centre of the junction and effectively blocking movements out of the side roads.

00900001\003

159

7.3.114 As the junction is shown to operate over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to re-assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.54 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.54: B3004/Paper Mill Lane Junction - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

2026 Scenario Option 1 (50%+50%+A325 TM)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

B3004 (E)

630

0.831

6.04

679

0.867

7.91

Ashdell Road

315

1.772

75.66

315

2.347

99.76

Paper Mill Lane

477

0.894

9.80

501

0.894

10.12

B3004 (N)

292

1.594

56.69

297

1.883

73.02

B3004 (E)

484

0.376

0.82

495

0.391

0.88

Ashdell Road

176

0.530

1.10

176

0.538

1.13

Paper Mill Lane

258

0.632

2.43

269

0.644

2.59

B3004 (N)

406

0.859

5.23

414

0.881

6.05

7.3.115 The above results indicate that the junction would still operate significantly over capacity during the AM peak but would operate within capacity during the PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. 7.3.116 Again both side roads at the junction, Ashdell Road and the B3004 (N), would observe congestion during the AM peak causing heavy queuing and delay due to vehicles on the major roads queuing in the centre of the junction and effectively blocking movements out of the side roads. 7.3.117 As the junction is shown to operate over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to re-assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.55 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

00900001\003

160

Table 7.55: B3004/Paper Mill Lane Junction - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

2026 Scenario Option 1 (25%+50%+A325 TM)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

B3004 (E)

630

0.831

6.04

615

0.834

6.35

Ashdell Road

315

1.772

75.66

315

1.859

80.8

Paper Mill Lane

477

0.894

9.80

493

0.893

9.90

B3004 (N)

292

1.594

56.69

295

1.628

59.38

B3004 (E)

484

0.376

0.82

483

0.379

0.83

Ashdell Road

176

0.530

1.10

176

0.526

1.08

Paper Mill Lane

258

0.632

2.43

240

0.625

2.33

B3004 (N)

406

0.859

5.23

410

0.859

5.23

7.3.118 The above results indicate that the junction would operate significantly over capacity during the AM peak but would operate within capacity during the PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. 7.3.119 Again both side roads at the junction, Ashdell Road and the B3004 (N), would observe congestion during the AM peak causing heavy queuing and delay due to vehicles on the major roads queuing in the centre of the junction and effectively blocking movements out of the side roads. 7.3.120 The B3004/Paper Mill Lane junction in its current form could not accommodate the highway peak traffic demand in 2026 if any of the proposed Eco-town scenario iterations were implemented. It is important to note, however, that the above assessments show that the junction would operate significantly over capacity during the AM peak highway period within the 2026 Baseline scenario as a result of general traffic growth and traffic generated by committed development even if development at Whitehill Bordon did not go ahead. Appropriate mitigation is required at the junction to accommodate future traffic levels irrespective of whether the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town development goes ahead or not. 7.3.121 As the junction is shown to operate over capacity in 2026 with or without the proposed development it is important to establish the proportional impact of the development proposals in terms of traffic flow through the junction compared with baseline conditions. Table 7.56 below provides a summary of the impact of each of the development scenario iterations in terms of increased traffic flow for the 2026 future year AM and PM peak highway periods.

00900001\003

161

Table 7.56: B3004/Paper Mill Lane Junction – Proportional Impact of Development Proposals 2026 Scenario Peak Period

Arm

Baseline

75%+30%

75%+50%

50%+50%

25%+50%

Flow

%Dif

Flow

%Dif

Flow %Dif Flow %Dif

B3004 (E)

630

835

+33%

749

+19%

679

+8%

615

-2%

Ashdell Road

315

Paper Mill Lane

477

519

+9%

510

+7%

501

+5%

493

+3%

B3004 (N)

292

316

+8%

306

+5%

297

+2%

295

+1%

Total

1714

1985 +16% 1880 +10% 1792 +5% 1718

B3004 (E)

484

529

+9%

510

+5%

495

+2%

483

Ashdell Road

176

Paper Mill Lane

258

353

+37%

302

+17%

269

+4%

240

-7%

B3004 (N)

406

426

+5%

419

+3%

414

+2%

410

+1%

Total

4752

5454 +12% 5167

+6%

4938 +2% 4745

-1%

7.3.122 The above table indicates that the development Option 1 scenario iterations would have a ‘worst case’ impact of a 16% increase in flow in the AM peak and a 12% increase in the PM peak at the junction if the 75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. The most significant impact would occur on the over capacity B3004 (N) arm of the junction with a traffic flow increase of 8% during the AM peak within this scenario. 7.3.123 The traffic flow impacts at the junction generally lessen through the scenario iterations as the level of non-car mode share and trip containment decrease. The 50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iteration, for example, would result in an impact of a 5% increase in traffic flow in the AM peak and a 2% increase in the PM peak at the junction.

00900001\003

162

B3004/B3002 Junction 7.3.124 The B3004/B3002 junction in Lindford has been assessed using PICADY 4.1 software as it is a priority crossroads junction. The traffic flow data incorporated into the assessments has been derived from the Whitehill Bordon SATURN transport model. The proportion of heavy vehicles has been incorporated into the assessments by turning movement. The junction geometries have been measured from ordnance survey (OS) mapping. 7.3.125 The junction has been assessed during weekday AM and PM peak hours for the 2026 baseline and initially the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management). A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.57 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.57: B3004/B3002 Junction - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+30%+A325 TM)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

B3004 (N)

446

0.076

0.14

659

0.107

0.23

B3002

192

0.630

1.63

186

0.740

2.59

B3004 (S)

418

0.055

0.09

484

0.066

0.11

Chase Road

122

0.342

0.51

126

0.397

0.65

B3004 (N)

782

0.190

0.54

877

0.228

0.70

B3002

174

0.621

1.57

198

0.761

2.86

B3004 (S)

259

0.037

0.05

264

0.039

0.06

Chase Road

0.136

0.16

0.161

0.19

7.3.126 The above results indicate that the junction would operate comfortably within capacity during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026 if the development was not implemented. 7.3.127 By comparison, if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worst caseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; car mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved, the junction would again operate comfortably within capacity during both the AM and PM peak highway periods. Therefore, the junction in its current form is able to accommodate traffic generated by any of the proposed Eco-town development scenario iterations as detailed within this TA.

00900001\003

163

A325/B3002 Station Road Junction 7.3.128 The A325/B3002 Station Road junction has been assessed using LinSig v3 software as the junction is a signal controlled crossroads. The traffic flow data incorporated into the assessments has been derived from the Whitehill Bordon SATURN transport model. 7.3.129 The same modelling methodology as that adopted for the A325/B3004 junction has been used to assess the MOVA operated traffic signal junction. 7.3.130 The overall cycle time of the junction has been optimised for each separate modelling scenario and for each separate assessment period. A maximum cycle time of 120 seconds has been allowed at this junction in line with DfT guidance and as there are no pedestrian phases within the control of the junction. The green times within the stages constituting the overall cycle time have also been optimised within LinSig based upon traffic demand as this is, in effect, what MOVA control attempts to achieve. 7.3.131 It is recognised that MOVA operated junctions on street will achieve on average an increase in capacity in the range of 5%-7% when compared to a fixed time traffic model due to the continuous process of optimisation throughout the model period. It is, therefore, important to consider this when analysing the results of the modelling in relation to the MOVA controlled junction. 7.3.132 The junction has been assessed during weekday AM and PM peak hours for the 2026 baseline and initially the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management). A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.58 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

00900001\003

164

Table 7.58: A325/B3002 Station Road - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+30%+A325 TM)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

A325 (N)

505

92.2%

20.6

158

29.4%

4.3

B3002 Lindford Road

638

102.8%

37.1

835

128.9%

130.0

A325 (S)

747

104.1%

50.9

987

128.6%

151.9

B3002 Station Road

289

102.8%

21.0

397

127.9%

61.5

A325 (N)

818

93.2%

30.9

656

89.1%

23.5

B3002 Lindford Road

374

91.5%

12.4

440

88.9%

13.3

A325 (S)

690

74.6%

13.6

388

74.2%

7.9

B3002 Station Road

229

91.9%

11.6

247

88.8%

11.1

7.3.133 The above results indicate that the junction would operate near to or at full capacity in 2026 if the development was not implemented. The AM peak period in particular would observe some heavy queuing on all arms of the junction as the DoS approaches 100% of capacity. 7.3.134 By comparison the junction would operate significantly over capacity during the AM peak but comfortably within capacity during the PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worst caseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; car mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved. 7.3.135 Within this scenario the junction would observe a general increase in traffic flow through the junction and certain movements would observe a significant increase in flow, such as the opposed right turn from the A325(S) to the B3002 Lindford Road arm. The traffic flow into the junction is also very unbalanced and together with the increase in flow at opposed links could explain the deterioration in the operation of the junction from the 2026 baseline scenario. 7.3.136 As the junction still operates over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to re-assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.59 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

00900001\003

165

Table 7.59: A325/B3002 Station Road - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+50%+A325 TM)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

A325 (N)

505

92.2%

20.6

310

61.7%

9.8

B3002 Lindford Road

638

102.8%

37.1

738

102.9%

42.3

A325 (S)

747

104.1%

50.9

757

104.2%

49.3

B3002 Station Road

289

102.8%

21.0

274

104.2%

20.9

A325 (N)

818

93.2%

30.9

624

86.1%

21.2

B3002 Lindford Road

374

91.5%

12.4

423

85.9%

12.0

A325 (S)

690

74.6%

13.6

399

73.6%

8.1

B3002 Station Road

229

91.9%

11.6

237

84.9%

9.9

7.3.137 The above results indicate that the junction would operate near to or at full capacity during the AM peak but comfortably within capacity during the PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. 7.3.138 The AM peak results do improve significantly when compared with the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) iteration in terms of DoS and queue lengths on the congested arms of the junction. 7.3.139 As the junction still operates at or very close to full capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to re-assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.60 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

00900001\003

166

Table 7.60: A325/B3002 Station Road - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

2026 Scenario Option 1 (50%+50%+A325 TM)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

A325 (N)

505

92.2%

20.6

309

80.3%

11.4

B3002 Lindford Road

638

102.8%

37.1

712

92.0%

24.5

A325 (S)

747

104.1%

50.9

563

89.7%

19.5

B3002 Station Road

289

102.8%

21.0

268

88.7%

11.8

A325 (N)

818

93.2%

30.9

585

81.7%

19.4

B3002 Lindford Road

374

91.5%

12.4

404

80.9%

11.2

A325 (S)

690

74.6%

13.6

373

68.7%

7.8

B3002 Station Road

229

91.9%

11.6

236

82.8%

9.8

7.3.140 The above results indicate that the junction would operate within capacity during the AM peak and PM peak highway periods in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. 7.3.141 The operation of the junction within this scenario is improved when compared with the 2026 baseline scenario due to the significant decrease in traffic flow through the junction as a result through traffic choosing to use the proposed Inner Relief Road in light of the traffic calming measures proposed along the existing A325. 7.3.142 The assessments of the A325/B3002 Station Road junction, therefore, show that the junction in its current form would be able to accommodate the traffic impacts of the proposed Ecotown development if the mode share and trip containment targets of 50% are achieved or bettered, and that the junction would operate more efficiently than in baseline conditions. Appropriate mitigation would be required to increase the capacity of the junction if the development was implemented and these targets are not met.

00900001\003

167

A325/B3002 Budds Lane 7.3.143 The A325/B3002 junction in Bordon has been assessed using PICADY 4.1 software as it is a priority T-junction. The traffic flow data incorporated into the assessments has been derived from the Whitehill Bordon SATURN transport model. The proportion of heavy vehicles has been incorporated into the assessments by turning movement. The junction geometries have been measured from ordnance survey (OS) mapping. 7.3.144 The junction has been assessed during weekday AM and PM peak hours for the 2026 baseline and initially the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management). A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.61 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.61: A325/B3002 Budds Lane Junction - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+30%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (S)

1036

920

B3002 Budds Lane

125

0.443

0.78

169

0.352

0.54

A325 (N)

681

0.000

0.00

510

0.115

0.13

A325 (S)

922

543

B3002 Budds Lane

153

0.748

2.60

103

0.246

0.32

A325 (N)

888

0.015

0.01

747

0.071

0.08

7.3.145 The above results indicate that the junction would operate within capacity during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026 if the development was not implemented. 7.3.146 By comparison, the junction would operate comfortably within capacity in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and ‘worst case’ car mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved. 7.3.147 The operation of the junction is improved when compared with the 2026 baseline scenario due to the significant decrease in traffic flow through the junction as a result of through traffic choosing to use the proposed Inner Relief Road in light of the traffic management measures proposed along the existing A325. Furthermore, as the junction is located within the town centre, the low level of trip containment within this development scenario results in the majority of traffic heading out of the town as opposed to making journeys within it. As a result this scenario may not represent the ‘worst case’ scenario for this junction.

00900001\003

168

7.3.148 It has therefore been decided to also assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) as a sensitivity test as this scenario would likely represent the ‘worst case’ scenario at this junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.62 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.62: A325/B3002 Budds Lane Junction - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (S)

1036

774

B3002 Budds Lane

125

0.443

0.78

164

0.323

0.47

A325 (N)

681

0.000

0.00

602

0.144

0.17

A325 (S)

922

568

B3002 Budds Lane

153

0.748

2.60

159

0.406

0.67

A325 (N)

888

0.015

0.01

719

0.64

0.07

7.3.149 The above results indicate that the junction would still operate comfortably within capacity during both the AM and PM peak periods in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. 7.3.150 The assessments of the A325/B3002 Budds Lane junction, therefore, show that the junction would be able to accommodate the ‘worst case’ traffic impacts of the developments proposals.

00900001\003

169

A325/Chalet Hill 7.3.151 The A325/Chalet Hill junction has been assessed using LinSig v3 software as the junction is a signal controlled staggered crossroads. The traffic flow data incorporated into the assessments has been derived from the Whitehill Bordon SATURN transport model. 7.3.152 The traffic signals at the junction are currently controlled by Cableless Linking Facility (CLF) whereby the controller contains fixed green times for each traffic signal stage. The CLF plans have been provided by HCC; however, to provide as robust a model as possible, and best represent the operation of the junction within 2026 baseline conditions, it was decided to optimise the junction within LinSig. Although the 2026 baseline scenario intends to assess the impact of general traffic growth and committed development on the existing highway network, it is expected that the signal timings in operation at the junction would be subject to review in the next 15 years (2011-2026) as traffic conditions change within the surrounding area. 7.3.153 The overall cycle time of the junction has been optimised for each separate modelling scenario and for each separate assessment period. A maximum cycle time of 90 seconds has been allowed at this junction as there is a pedestrian phase within the control of the junction. The detailed signal controller specification has been used to incorporate the existing phasing and staging data of the traffic signals within the model. 7.3.154 The junction has been assessed during weekday AM and PM peak hours for the 2026 baseline and initially the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management). A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.63 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

00900001\003

170

Table 7.63: A325/Chalet Hill Junction - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+30%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

A325 (N)

830

98.1%

28.5

426

54.4%

7.2

Chalet Hill

457

134.9%

75.4

268

72.0%

6.6

A325 (S)

700

135.1%

115.3

365

72.4%

8.8

Car Park Access

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

A325 (N)

1074

111.9%

89.3

765

81.6%

16.0

Chalet Hill

309

121.0%

37.8

225

81.9%

6.1

A325 (S)

801

126.2%

110.2

357

53.3%

6.4

Car Park Access

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

7.3.155 The above results indicate that the junction would operate significantly over capacity, on the A325 (N), Chalet Hill and A325 (S) arms of the junction, during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026 even if the development does not go ahead as a result of general background traffic growth and traffic associated with committed developments in the surrounding area. 7.3.156 By comparison the junction would operate within capacity during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and ‘worst case’ car mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved. 7.3.157 The operation of the junction is dramatically improved when compared with the 2026 baseline scenario due to the significant decrease in traffic flow through the junction as a result of through traffic choosing to use the proposed Inner Relief Road in light of the traffic calming measures proposed along the existing A325. Furthermore, as the junction is located within the town centre, the low level of trip containment within this development scenario results in the majority of traffic heading out of the town as opposed to making journeys within it. As a result this scenario may not represent the ‘worst case’ scenario for this junction. 7.3.158 It has therefore been decided to also assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) as a sensitivity test as this scenario would likely represent the ‘worst case’ scenario at this junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.64 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

00900001\003

171

Table 7.64: A325/Chalet Hill Junction - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

A325 (N)

830

98.1%

28.5

535

66.7%

8.3

Chalet Hill

457

134.9%

75.4

297

72.8%

7.5

A325 (S)

700

135.1%

115.3

330

69.5%

7.6

Car Park Access

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

A325 (N)

1074

111.9%

89.3

777

82.3%

16.4

Chalet Hill

309

121.0%

37.8

229

83.5%

6.4

A325 (S)

801

126.2%

110.2

367

54.7%

6.6

Car Park Access

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

7.3.159 The above results indicate that the junction would still operate comfortably within capacity during both the AM and PM peak periods in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. 7.3.160 The assessments of the A325/Chalet Hill junction, therefore, show that the junction would be able to accommodate the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worst caseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; traffic impacts of the developments proposals. It should also be noted that the junction would observe significant congestion and delay during peak highway periods in 2026 if the development were not implemented as a result of general traffic growth and committed development in the surrounding area.

00900001\003

172

A325/Tesco Access/Woolmer Way Junction 7.3.161 The A325/Tesco Access/Woolmer Way junction has been assessed using LinSig v3 software as the junction is a signal controlled crossroads. The traffic flow data incorporated into the assessments has been derived from the Whitehill Bordon SATURN transport model. 7.3.162 The same modelling methodology as that adopted for the A325/Chalet Hill junction has been used to assess the CLF controlled traffic signal junction. 7.3.163 The junction has been assessed during weekday AM and PM peak hours for the 2026 baseline and initially the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management). A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.65 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.65: A325/Tesco/Woolmer Way Junction - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+30%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

A325 (N)

566

63.4%

10.9

332

42.0%

4.7

Tesco Access

146

62.1%

3.1

150

47.4%

2.6

A325 (S)

823

72.9%

14.7

515

47.4%

6.9

Woolmer Way

9.2%

0.4

3.0%

0.1

A325 (N)

876

108.0%

61.3

720

95.5%

23.3

Tesco Access

359

110.8%

29.2

355

92.7%

10.8

A325 (S)

622

59.9%

8.4

301

84.3%

5.9

Woolmer Way

60.6%

2.9

15.4%

0.6

7.3.164 The above results indicate that the junction would operate within capacity during the AM peak yet over capacity on the A325 (N) and Tesco Access arms within the PM peak period in 2026 if the development was not implemented. 7.3.165 By comparison the junction would operate within capacity during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worst caseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; car mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved. It should be noted, however, that the A325 (N) and Tesco Access arms of the junction would be operating at close to full capacity during the PM peak period.

00900001\003

173

7.3.166 The operation of the junction is improved when compared with the 2026 baseline scenario due to a significant decrease in traffic flow through the junction as a result of through traffic choosing to use the proposed Inner Relief Road in light of the traffic calming measures proposed along the existing A325. Furthermore, as the junction is located within the town centre, the low level of trip containment within this development scenario results in the majority of traffic heading out of the town as opposed to making journeys within it. As a result this scenario may not represent the ‘worst case’ scenario for this junction. 7.3.167 It has therefore been decided to also assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) as a sensitivity test as this scenario would likely represent the ‘worst case’ scenario at this junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.66 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.66: A325/Tesco/Woolmer Way Junction - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

A325 (N)

566

63.4%

10.9

347

44.1%

4.9

Tesco Access

146

62.1%

3.1

158

44.0%

2.6

A325 (S)

823

72.9%

14.7

462

44.3%

6.1

Woolmer Way

9.2%

0.4

9.1%

0.4

A325 (N)

876

108.0%

61.3

723

95.9%

23.7

Tesco Access

359

110.8%

29.2

362

93.8%

11.4

A325 (S)

622

59.9%

8.4

310

84.9%

6.0

Woolmer Way

60.6%

2.9

16.0%

0.7

7.3.168 The above results indicate that the junction would operate within capacity during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. It should again be noted, however, that the A325 (N) and Tesco Access arms of the junction would be operating at close to full capacity during the PM peak period.

00900001\003

174

7.3.169 Although the above assessments show that the junction would operate within capacity, due to the fact that the junction would be operating very close to full capacity during the PM peak period it has been decided to also assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) as a sensitivity test as this scenario would likely represent the ‘worst case’ scenario at this junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.67 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.67: A325/Tesco/Woolmer Way Junction - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

A325 (N)

566

63.4%

10.9

340

42.7%

4.9

Tesco Access

146

62.1%

3.1

147

42.4%

2.5

A325 (S)

823

72.9%

14.7

385

37.3%

4.7

Woolmer Way

9.2%

0.4

3.1%

0.1

A325 (N)

876

108.0%

61.3

718

95.3%

23.1

Tesco Access

359

110.8%

29.2

356

92.8%

10.8

A325 (S)

622

59.9%

8.4

294

83.1%

5.7

Woolmer Way

60.6%

2.9

15.4%

0.6

7.3.170 The above results indicate that the junction would operate within capacity during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. It should again be noted, however, that the A325 (N) and Tesco Access arms of the junction would be operating at close to full capacity during the PM peak period. 7.3.171 As the junction is shown to still operate near to capacity within the PM peak it has been decided to also assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) as a sensitivity test as this scenario would likely represent the ‘worst case’ scenario at this junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.68 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

00900001\003

175

Table 7.68: A325/Tesco/Woolmer Way Junction - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max DoS

Mean Max Q (veh)

A325 (N)

566

63.4%

10.9

332

41.8%

4.8

Tesco Access

146

62.1%

3.1

137

40.3%

2.4

A325 (S)

823

72.9%

14.7

348

34.3%

4.0

Woolmer Way

9.2%

0.4

3.1%

0.1

A325 (N)

876

108.0%

61.3

713

94.7%

22.5

Tesco Access

359

110.8%

29.2

351

92.1%

10.5

A325 (S)

622

59.9%

8.4

293

81.9%

5.4

Woolmer Way

60.6%

2.9

14.8%

0.6

7.3.172 The above results indicate that the junction would operate within capacity during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. It should again be noted, however, that the A325 (N) and Tesco Access arms of the junction would be operating at close to full capacity during the PM peak period. 7.3.173 The assessments of the A325/Tesco Access/Woolmer Way junction, therefore, indicate that, although the junction would operate within capacity if any of the proposed development scenarios were implemented, the junction would also operate close to full capacity during the PM peak period within all of the development scenarios. Any significant increase in traffic flow through the junction would result in significant queuing and delay at the junction during the PM peak period. 7.3.174 Appropriate mitigation will be required at the junction, on the A325 (N) and Tesco Access arms in particular, to increase capacity and avoid congestion during the PM peak period in 2026 and beyond irrespective of whether the proposed Whitehill Bordon Eco-town in implemented or not. It should be noted, however, that the operation of the junction in 2026 would be significantly improved if any of the proposed Eco-town development scenario iterations were achieved when compared with baseline conditions if the development were not implemented.

00900001\003

176

7.3.175 As the junction is shown to operate at or over capacity in 2026 with or without the proposed development it is important to establish the proportional impact of the development proposals in terms of traffic flow through the junction compared with baseline conditions. Table 7.69 below provides a summary of the impact of each of the development scenario iterations in terms of increased traffic flow for the 2026 future year AM and PM peak highway periods. Table 7.69: A325/Tesco/Woolmer Way Junction – Proportional Impact of Development Proposals 2026 Scenario Peak Period

Arm

Baseline Flow

75%+30%

75%+50%

50%+50%

25%+50%

Flow %Dif Flow %Dif Flow %Dif Flow %Dif

A325 (N)

566

332

-41%

347

-39%

340

-40%

332

-41%

Tesco Access

146

150

+3%

158

+8%

147

+1%

137

-6%

A325 (S)

823

515

-37%

462

-44%

385

-53%

348

-58%

Woolmer Way

-64%

Total

1549

1002 -35%

981

-37%

877

-43%

822

-47%

A325 (N)

876

720

-18%

723

-17%

718

-18%

713

-19%

Tesco Access

359

355

-1%

362

+1%

356

-1%

351

-2%

A325 (S)

622

301

-52%

310

-50%

294

-53%

293

-53%

Woolmer Way

-73%

-72%

-73%

-74%

Total

5045

3404 -28% 3382 -27% 3146 -29% 3024 -29%

7.3.176 The above table indicates that the development Option 1 scenario iterations would have a ‘worst case’ impact of a 35% decrease in flow in the AM peak and a 28% decrease in the PM peak at the junction if the 75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. The most significant impact would occur on the over capacity Tesco Access arm of the junction with a traffic flow decrease of 1% during the PM peak within this scenario. 7.3.177 The traffic flow impacts at the junction generally lessen through the scenario iterations as the level of non-car mode share and trip containment decrease. The 50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iteration, for example, would result in an impact of a 43% decrease in traffic flow in the AM peak and a 29% decrease in the PM peak at the junction.

00900001\003

177

A325/Conde Way/Woolmer Way Roundabout 7.3.178 The A325/Conde Way/Woolmer Way Roundabout has been assessed using ARCADY 5 software. The traffic flow data incorporated into the assessments has been derived from the Whitehill Bordon SATURN transport model. The proportion of heavy vehicles has been incorporated into the assessments by turning movement. The junction geometries have been measured from ordnance survey (OS) mapping. 7.3.179 The roundabout has been assessed during weekday AM and PM peak hours for the 2026 baseline and initially the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management). A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.70 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.70: A325/Conde Way/Woolmer Way - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+30%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (N)

568

0.580

1.4

375

0.395

0.7

Conde Way

529

0.560

1.3

765

0.726

2.6

A325 (S)

841

0.811

4.1

484

0.512

1.0

Woolmer Way

115

0.166

0.2

186

0.215

0.3

A325 (N)

895

0.994

20.6

766

0.851

5.3

Conde Way

199

0.252

0.3

325

0.368

0.6

A325 (S)

684

0.561

1.3

404

0.345

0.5

Woolmer Way

290

0.331

0.5

279

0.266

0.4

AM Peak

PM Peak

7.3.180 The above results indicate that the junction would operate within capacity during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026 if the development was not implemented. It should be noted, however, that the A325 (S) arm in the AM peak and particularly the A325 (N) arm in the PM peak would be approaching full capacity and some queuing and delay would be observed. 7.3.181 By comparison the junction would operate comfortably within capacity during the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worst caseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; car mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved.

00900001\003

178

7.3.182 The operation of the junction is improved when compared with the 2026 baseline scenario due to the significant decrease in traffic flow through the junction as a result of through traffic choosing to use the proposed Inner Relief Road in light of the traffic calming measures proposed along the existing A325. Furthermore, as the junction is located within the town centre, the low level of trip containment within this development scenario results in the majority of traffic heading out of the town as opposed to making journeys within it. As a result this scenario may not represent the ‘worst case’ scenario for this junction. 7.3.183 It has therefore been decided to also assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) as a sensitivity test as this scenario would likely represent the worst case scenario at this junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.71 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.71: A325/Conde Way/Woolmer Way - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (N)

568

0.580

1.4

377

0.406

0.7

Conde Way

529

0.560

1.3

769

0.732

2.7

A325 (S)

841

0.811

4.1

245

0.271

0.4

Woolmer Way

115

0.166

0.2

219

0.212

0.3

A325 (N)

895

0.994

20.6

768

0.867

5.9

Conde Way

199

0.252

0.3

401

0.454

0.8

A325 (S)

684

0.561

1.3

389

0.333

0.5

Woolmer Way

290

0.331

0.5

323

0.306

0.4

AM Peak

PM Peak

7.3.184 The above results indicate that the junction would still operate within capacity during both the AM and PM peak periods in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. 7.3.185 The assessments of the A325/Conde Way/Woolmer Way roundabout, therefore, indicate that the junction would be able to accommodate the ‘worst case’ traffic impacts of the developments proposals.

00900001\003

179

A325/Liphook Road/Firgrove Road Roundabout 7.3.186 The A325/Liphook Road/Firgrove Road Roundabout has been assessed using ARCADY 5 software. The traffic flow data incorporated into the assessments has been derived from the Whitehill Bordon SATURN transport model. The proportion of heavy vehicles has been incorporated into the assessments by turning movement. The junction geometries have been measured from ordnance survey (OS) mapping. 7.3.187 The roundabout has been assessed during weekday AM and PM peak hours for the 2026 baseline and initially the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management). A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.72 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.72: A325/Liphook Rd/Firgrove Rd - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+30%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (N)

735

0.865

5.8

1012

1.304

145.7

Liphook Road

289

0.342

0.5

377

0.501

1.0

A325 (S)

916

0.908

8.3

1002

0.983

19.1

Firgrove Road

265

0.367

0.6

392

0.577

1.3

A325 (N)

781

0.844

5.0

1006

1.178

93.8

Liphook Road

201

0.243

0.3

337

0.427

0.7

A325 (S)

577

0.562

1.3

871

0.904

8.0

Firgrove Road

319

0.351

0.5

348

0.504

1.0

7.3.188 The above results indicate that the junction would operate within capacity during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026 if the development was not implemented. It should be noted, however, that the A325 (S) arm in the AM peak, in particular, would be approaching full capacity. 7.3.189 By comparison the junction would operate over capacity within both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worst caseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; car mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved. The A325 (N) arm of the junction would observe heavy queuing and delay during both peak periods. In addition the A325 (S) arm of the junction would be operating close to full capacity during both peaks and would observe some queuing.

00900001\003

180

7.3.190 As the junction clearly operates over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to re-assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.73 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.73: A325/Liphook Rd/Firgrove Rd - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (N)

735

0.865

5.8

1025

1.287

141.3

Liphook Road

289

0.342

0.5

421

0.527

1.1

A325 (S)

916

0.908

8.3

990

1.010

26.2

Firgrove Road

265

0.367

0.6

357

0.539

1.1

A325 (N)

781

0.844

5.0

1010

1.168

89.7

Liphook Road

201

0.243

0.3

295

0.378

0.6

A325 (S)

577

0.562

1.3

855

0.877

6.4

Firgrove Road

319

0.351

0.5

328

0.462

0.8

7.3.191 The above results indicate that the junction would still operate over capacity during both the AM and PM peak periods in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. Again within this scenario iteration the A325 (N) arm of the junction would observe heavy queuing and delay during both peak periods. In addition the A325 (S) arm of the junction would be operating slightly over capacity during the AM peak and close to full capacity during the PM peak and would observe some heavy queuing and delay. 7.3.192 As the junction clearly operates over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to re-assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.74 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

00900001\003

181

Table 7.74: A325/Liphook Rd/Firgrove Rd - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (N)

735

0.865

5.8

1033

1.263

132.5

Liphook Road

289

0.342

0.5

334

0.428

0.7

A325 (S)

916

0.908

8.3

950

0.978

17.6

Firgrove Road

265

0.367

0.6

300

0.453

0.8

A325 (N)

781

0.844

5.0

975

1.111

63.8

Liphook Road

201

0.243

0.3

270

0.350

0.5

A325 (S)

577

0.562

1.3

816

0.824

4.4

Firgrove Road

319

0.351

0.5

298

0.406

0.7

7.3.193 The above results indicate that the junction would operate over capacity during both the AM and PM peak periods in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. The A325 (N) arm of the junction would observe heavy queuing and delay and the A325 (S) arm of the junction would be operating close to full capacity during both peak periods. 7.3.194 As the junction clearly operates over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to re-assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.75 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

00900001\003

182

Table 7.75: A325/Liphook Rd/Firgrove Rd - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (N)

735

0.865

5.8

1037

1.260

132.6

Liphook Road

289

0.342

0.5

309

0.405

0.7

A325 (S)

916

0.908

8.3

1018

1.043

37.9

Firgrove Road

265

0.367

0.6

250

0.401

0.7

A325 (N)

781

0.844

5.0

943

1.064

43.4

Liphook Road

201

0.243

0.3

243

0.317

0.5

A325 (S)

577

0.562

1.3

765

0.762

3.1

Firgrove Road

319

0.351

0.5

276

0.360

0.6

7.3.195 The above results indicate that the junction would operate over capacity during both the AM and PM peak periods in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. The A325 (N) arm of the junction would observe heavy queuing and delay during the AM peak and would be over capacity within the PM peak. The A325 (S) arm of the junction would be operating over capacity during the AM peak and close to full capacity during the PM peak period. 7.3.196 The A325/Liphook Road/Firgrove Road Roundabout in its current form could not accommodate the highway peak traffic demand in 2026 if any of the proposed Eco-town scenario iterations were implemented. Appropriate mitigation is required at the junction to accommodate future traffic levels if the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town development is implemented.

00900001\003

183

A325/Petersfield Road Roundabout 7.3.197 The A325/Petersfield Road Roundabout has been assessed using ARCADY 5 software. The traffic flow data incorporated into the assessments has been derived from the Whitehill Bordon SATURN transport model. The proportion of heavy vehicles has been incorporated into the assessments by turning movement. The junction geometries have been measured from ordnance survey (OS) mapping. 7.3.198 The roundabout has been assessed during weekday AM and PM peak hours for the 2026 baseline and initially the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management). A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.76 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.76: A325/Petersfield Rd - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+30%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (N)

896

0.787

3.6

1323

1.175

121.6

A325 (E)

854

0.533

1.1

944

0.627

1.7

Petersfield Road

137

0.169

0.2

148

0.195

0.2

A325 (N)

838

0.721

2.5

1036

0.900

7.9

A325 (E)

618

0.380

0.6

792

0.512

1.0

Petersfield Road

153

0.163

0.2

168

0.199

0.2

7.3.199 The above results indicate that the junction would operate within capacity during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026 if the development was not implemented. 7.3.200 By comparison, if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worst caseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; car mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved, the junction would operate over capacity within the AM Peak hour with the A325 (N) arm observing heavy queuing and delay. The junction would operate within capacity during the PM peak period, however, it should be noted that the A325 (N) arm of junction would be approaching full capacity.

00900001\003

184

7.3.201 As the junction operates over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to reassess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.77 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.77: A325/Petersfield Rd - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (N)

896

0.787

3.6

1204

1.076

59.5

A325 (E)

854

0.533

1.1

932

0.618

1.6

Petersfield Road

137

0.169

0.2

146

0.192

0.2

A325 (N)

838

0.721

2.5

1019

0.885

7.0

A325 (E)

618

0.380

0.6

780

0.497

1.0

Petersfield Road

153

0.163

0.2

163

0.192

0.2

7.3.202 The above results indicate that the junction would still operate over capacity during the AM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. The junction would operate within capacity during the PM peak period. 7.3.203 As the junction still operates over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to re-assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.78 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

00900001\003

185

Table 7.78: A325/Petersfield Rd - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (N)

896

0.787

3.6

1136

1.018

31.3

A325 (E)

854

0.533

1.1

942

0.617

1.6

Petersfield Road

137

0.169

0.2

145

0.193

0.2

A325 (N)

838

0.721

2.5

1005

0.874

6.4

A325 (E)

618

0.380

0.6

743

0.478

0.9

Petersfield Road

153

0.163

0.2

160

0.184

0.2

7.3.204 The above results indicate that the junction would still operate over capacity on the A325 (N) arm during the AM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. The junction would operate within capacity during the PM peak period. 7.3.205 As the junction still operates over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to re-assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.79 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.79: A325/Petersfield Rd - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

AM Peak

PM Peak

00900001\003

Link Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (N)

896

0.787

3.6

1151

1.044

42.1

A325 (E)

854

0.533

1.1

983

0.647

1.8

Petersfield Road

137

0.169

0.2

148

0.204

0.3

A325 (N)

838

0.721

2.5

992

0.863

5.8

A325 (E)

618

0.380

0.6

691

0.446

0.8

Petersfield Road

153

0.163

0.2

157

0.175

0.2

186

7.3.206 The above results indicate that the junction would still operate over capacity on the A325 (N) arm during the AM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. The junction would operate within capacity during the PM peak period. 7.3.207 The A325/Petersfield Road Roundabout in its current form could not accommodate the highway peak traffic demand in 2026 if any of the proposed Eco-town scenario iterations were implemented. Appropriate mitigation is required at the junction, particularly on the A325 (N) arm of the junction, to increase capacity to accommodate future traffic levels if the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town development is implemented.

00900001\003

187

A325/A3 (Eastbound) Slip-Roads 7.3.208 The A325/A3 slip-roads roundabout has been assessed using ARCADY 5 software. The traffic flow data incorporated into the assessments has been derived from the Whitehill Bordon SATURN transport model. The proportion of heavy vehicles has been incorporated into the assessments by turning movement. The junction geometries have been measured from ordnance survey (OS) mapping. 7.3.209 The roundabout has been assessed during weekday AM and PM peak hours for the 2026 baseline and initially the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management). A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.80 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.80: A325/A3 Slip-Roads - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+30%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (N)

777

0.751

2.9

1044

1.007

25.9

A3 On-slip (*Exit Only)

A325 (S)

175

0.158

0.2

194

0.177

0.2

A3 Off-slip

869

0.565

1.3

944

0.623

1.6

A325 (N)

702

0.653

1.9

805

0.751

2.9

A3 On-slip (*Exit Only)

A325 (S)

183

0.165

0.2

184

0.166

0.2

A3 Off-slip

550

0.350

0.5

724

0.464

0.9

7.3.210 The above results indicate that the junction would operate comfortably within capacity during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026 if the development was not implemented. 7.3.211 By comparison, the junction would operate slightly over capacity within the AM Peak yet within capacity during the PM Peak in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worst caseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; car mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved. The A325 (N) arm of the junction, in particular, would observe some queuing and delay during the AM peak highway period.

00900001\003

188

7.3.212

It has, therefore, been decided to also assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.81 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

Table 7.81: A325/A3 Slip-Roads - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (N)

777

0.751

2.9

962

0.938

11.3

A3 On-slip

A325 (S)

175

0.158

0.2

169

0.153

0.2

A3 Off-slip

869

0.565

1.3

958

0.628

1.7

A325 (N)

702

0.653

1.9

817

0.766

3.2

A3 On-slip

A325 (S)

183

0.165

0.2

195

0.175

0.2

A3 Off-slip

550

0.350

0.5

701

0.452

0.8

7.3.213 The above results indicate that the junction would operate within capacity during both the AM and PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. It should be noted, however, that the A325 (N) arm of the junction would operate very close to full capacity during the AM peak highway period. 7.3.214 The operation of all of the arms of the junction are improved when compared with the results of the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) iteration assessments as a result of lower car demand in the town. 7.3.215 As the junction is shown to operate at very close to full capacity within this scenario it has been decided to also assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.82 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

00900001\003

189

Table 7.82: A325/A3 Slip-Roads - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (N)

777

0.751

2.9

953

0.940

11.4

A3 On-slip

A325 (S)

175

0.158

0.2

142

0.129

0.1

A3 Off-slip

869

0.565

1.3

994

0.650

1.8

A325 (N)

702

0.653

1.9

788

0.737

2.7

A3 On-slip

A325 (S)

183

0.165

0.2

203

0.182

0.2

A3 Off-slip

550

0.350

0.5

655

0.425

0.7

7.3.216 The above results indicate that the junction would again operate within capacity during both the AM and PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. It should be noted, however, that the A325 (N) arm of the junction would again operate very close to full capacity during the AM peak highway period. 7.3.217 As such it has been decided to also assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.83 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

00900001\003

190

Table 7.83: A325/A3 Slip-Roads - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

A325 (N)

777

0.751

2.9

966

0.962

14.7

A3 On-slip

A325 (S)

175

0.158

0.2

141

0.128

0.1

A3 Off-slip

869

0.565

1.3

1034

0.680

2.1

A325 (N)

702

0.653

1.9

773

0.723

2.6

A3 On-slip

A325 (S)

183

0.165

0.2

190

0.171

0.2

A3 Off-slip

550

0.350

0.5

617

0.399

0.7

7.3.218 The above results indicate that the junction would operate within capacity during both the AM and PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. It should be noted, however, that the A325 (N) arm of the junction would again operate very close to full capacity during the AM peak highway period. 7.3.219 The A325/A3 (eastbound) slip-roads roundabout assessments show that the junction would operate over capacity if the proposed Eco-town development goes ahead and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worst caseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; mode share and trip containment targets are achieved. Furthermore, the junction would operate very close to full capacity, particularly during the AM peak, if any of the other mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved. Appropriate mitigation should, therefore, be considered to increase the capacity of the junction, at the A325 (N) arm in particular, if the development is implemented.

00900001\003

191

B3006/Petersfield Road Junction 7.3.220 The B3006/Petersfield Road junction has been assessed using PICADY 4.1 software as it is a priority T-junction. The traffic flow data incorporated into the assessments has been derived from the Whitehill Bordon SATURN transport model. The proportion of heavy vehicles has been incorporated into the assessments by turning movement. The junction geometries have been measured from ordnance survey (OS) mapping. 7.3.221 The junction has been assessed during weekday AM and PM peak hours for the 2026 baseline and initially the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management). A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.84 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.84: B3006/Petersfield Road Junction - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+30%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

B3006 (NW)

421

428

Petersfield Road

222

0.623

1.6

380

1.041

19.1

B3006 (S)

753

0.170

0.2

925

0.170

0.2

B3006 (NW)

914

869

Petersfield Road

150

0.483

0.9

223

0.680

2.0

B3006 (S)

360

0.184

0.2

371

0.179

0.2

7.3.222 The above results indicate that the junction would operate comfortably within capacity during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026 if the development was not implemented. 7.3.223 By comparison the junction would operate slightly over capacity within the AM peak highway period and comfortably within capacity during the PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worst caseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; car mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved. The Petersfield Road arm of junction would operate over capacity with some queuing and delay observed during the AM peak.

00900001\003

192

7.3.224 As the junction operates over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to reassess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.85 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.85: B3006/Petersfield Road Junction - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

B3006 (NW)

421

422

Petersfield Road

222

0.623

1.6

338

0.940

8.7

B3006 (S)

753

0.170

0.2

922

0.170

0.2

B3006 (NW)

914

867

Petersfield Road

150

0.483

0.9

194

0.591

1.4

B3006 (S)

360

0.184

0.2

333

0.178

0.2

7.3.225 The above results indicate that the junction would operate close to full capacity within the AM peak highway period and comfortably within capacity during the PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. 7.3.226 As the junction operates near to full capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to re-assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.86 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

00900001\003

193

Table 7.86: B3006/Petersfield Road Junction - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

B3006 (NW)

421

418

Petersfield Road

222

0.623

1.6

277

0.779

3.2

B3006 (S)

753

0.170

0.2

863

0.169

0.2

B3006 (NW)

914

867

Petersfield Road

150

0.483

0.9

211

0.657

1.8

B3006 (S)

360

0.184

0.2

333

0.178

0.2

7.3.227 The above results indicate that the junction would operate within capacity within the AM peak and comfortably within capacity during the PM peak period in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. 7.3.228 The assessments of the B3006/Petersfield Road junction, therefore, show that the junction in its current form would be able to accommodate the traffic impacts of the proposed Eco-town development if the mode share and trip containment targets of 50% are achieved or bettered. Appropriate mitigation would be required to increase the capacity of the junction if the development is implemented and these targets are not met.

00900001\003

194

A3/B3006 Roundabout 7.3.229 The A3/B3006 Roundabout has been assessed using ARCADY 5 software. The traffic flow data incorporated into the assessments has been derived from the Whitehill Bordon SATURN transport model. The proportion of heavy vehicles has been incorporated into the assessments by turning movement. The junction geometries have been measured from ordnance survey (OS) mapping. 7.3.230 The roundabout has been assessed during weekday AM and PM peak hours for the 2026 baseline and initially the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management). A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.87 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.87: A3/B3006 Roundabout - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+30%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

B3006 (N)

506

0.712

2.4

665

0.948

11.3

A3 (E)

1743

0.945

13.5

2028

1.226

218.3

B3006 (S)

170

0.348

0.5

311

0.702

2.3

A3 (W)

2095

1.093

109.7

2234

1.222

240.6

B3006 (N)

903

1.231

99.3

935

1.434

164.8

A3 (E)

1930

1.126

130.5

2020

1.152

163.5

B3006 (S)

127

0.319

0.5

138

0.336

0.5

A3 (W)

1707

0.851

5.5

1887

0.946

14.0

7.3.231 The above results indicate that the junction would operate over capacity during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026 if the development was not implemented. The A3 (W) arm of the junction would observe heavy queuing and delays during the AM peak where it should also be noted that the A3 (E) arm would be operating close to full capacity. The PM peak would observe even greater congestion with both the B3006 (N) and A3 (E) arms of the junction would observe significant queuing and delay. 7.3.232 By comparison, the junction would operate significantly over capacity during both peak highway periods in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worst caseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; car mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved.

00900001\003

195

7.3.233 The A3 (E) and A3 (W) arms of the junction in the AM peak and the B3006 (N) and A3 (E) arms in the PM peak period would observe heavy queuing and delay. It should also be noted that the B3006 (N) arm and the A3 (W) arm would be operating very close to full capacity within the AM and PM peaks respectively. The additional traffic flow through the junction as a result of the development scenario would cause a proportional increase in queuing and delay on each of the arms of the junction. 7.3.234 As the junction clearly operates over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to re-assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.88 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.88: A3/B3006 Roundabout - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

B3006 (N)

506

0.712

2.4

622

0.878

6.2

A3 (E)

1743

0.945

13.5

1952

1.106

112.7

B3006 (S)

170

0.348

0.5

311

0.680

2.0

A3 (W)

2095

1.093

109.7

2210

1.212

228.2

B3006 (N)

903

1.231

99.3

906

1.362

139.2

A3 (E)

1930

1.126

130.5

2036

1.156

166.6

B3006 (S)

127

0.319

0.5

132

0.323

0.5

A3 (W)

1707

0.851

5.5

1827

0.915

9.6

7.3.235 The above results indicate that the junction would still operate significantly over capacity within both the AM peak and PM peak highway periods in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. The A3 (E) and A3 (W) arms of the junction in the AM peak and the B3006 (N) and A3 (E) arms in the PM peak period would again observe heavy queuing and delay.

00900001\003

196

7.3.236 As the junction is shown to operate over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to re-assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.89 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.89: A3/B3006 Roundabout - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

B3006 (N)

506

0.712

2.4

561

0.809

4.0

A3 (E)

1743

0.945

13.5

1930

1.076

86.7

B3006 (S)

170

0.348

0.5

311

0.664

1.9

A3 (W)

2095

1.093

109.7

2189

1.202

216.3

B3006 (N)

903

1.231

99.3

924

1.354

140.2

A3 (E)

1930

1.126

130.5

2008

1.157

165.1

B3006 (S)

127

0.319

0.5

128

0.316

0.5

A3 (W)

1707

0.851

5.5

1785

0.893

7.8

7.3.237 The above results indicate that the junction would still operate significantly over capacity within both the AM peak and PM peak highway periods in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. The A3 (E) and A3 (W) arms of the junction in the AM peak and the B3006 (N) and A3 (E) arms in the PM peak period would again observe heavy queuing and delay. 7.3.238 As the junction still operates over capacity within 2026 Scenario Option 1 (50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management), it has, therefore, been necessary to re-assess the junction for the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) to test the sensitivity of the scenario iterations on the operation of the junction. A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.90 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K.

00900001\003

197

Table 7.90: A3/B3006 Roundabout - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (25%+50%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

B3006 (N)

506

0.712

2.4

483

0.707

2.3

A3 (E)

1743

0.945

13.5

1946

1.060

75.2

B3006 (S)

170

0.348

0.5

310

0.641

1.7

A3 (W)

2095

1.093

109.7

2175

1.195

208.5

B3006 (N)

903

1.231

99.3

926

1.325

132.0

A3 (E)

1930

1.126

130.5

1994

1.155

161.5

B3006 (S)

127

0.319

0.5

124

0.309

0.4

A3 (W)

1707

0.851

5.5

1750

0.876

6.7

7.3.239 The above results indicate that the junction would still operate significantly over capacity within both the AM peak and PM peak highway periods in 2026 if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and 25% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. The A3 (E) and A3 (W) arms of the junction in the AM peak and the B3006 (N) and A3 (E) arms in the PM peak period would again observe heavy queuing and delay. 7.3.240 The assessments of the A3/B3006 Roundabout, therefore, show that the junction in its current form could not accommodate the highway peak traffic demand in 2026 if any of the proposed Eco-town scenario iterations were implemented. It is important to note, however, that the above assessments show that the junction would operate significantly over capacity during peak highway periods within the 2026 Baseline scenario as a result of general traffic growth and traffic generated by committed development even if the Eco-town doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t go ahead. Appropriate mitigation is required at the junction to accommodate future traffic levels irrespective of whether the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town development goes ahead or not. 7.3.241 As the junction is shown to operate over capacity in 2026 with or without the proposed development, and is outside of HCCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s authority, it is important to establish the proportional impact of the development proposals in terms of traffic flow through the junction compared with baseline conditions. Table 7.91 below provides a summary of the impact of each of the development scenario iterations in terms of increased traffic flow for the 2026 future year AM and PM peak highway periods.

00900001\003

198

Table 7.91: A3/B3006 Roundabout – Proportional Impact of Development Proposals 2026 Scenario Peak Period

Arm

Baseline

75%+30%

75%+50%

50%+50%

25%+50%

Flow

%Dif

Flow

%Dif

Flow

%Dif

Flow

%Dif

B3006 (N)

506

665

+31%

622

+23%

561

+11%

483

-5%

A3 (E)

1743

2028 +16% 1952

+12% 1930 +11% 1946 +12%

B3006 (S)

170

311

+83%

311

+83%

311

+83%

310

+82%

A3 (W)

2095

2234

+7%

2210

+5%

2189

+4%

2175

+4%

Total

4514

5238 +16% 5095

+11% 4914

+9%

B3006 (N)

903

935

+4%

906

924

+2%

926

+3%

A3 (E)

1930

2020

+5%

2036

+5%

2008

+4%

1994

+3%

B3006 (S)

127

138

+9%

132

+4%

128

+1%

124

-2%

A3 (W)

1707

1887 +11% 1827

+7%

1785

+5%

1750

+3%

Total

4667

4980

+5%

4845

+4%

4794

+3%

+7%

4901

+13% 4991

7.3.242 The above table indicates that the development Option 1 scenario iterations would have a ‘worst case’ impact of a 16% increase in flow in the AM peak and a 7% increase in the PM peak at the junction if the 75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management iterations were achieved. The B3006 (S) arm of the junction would observe the most significant traffic flow impact within this scenario with an increase of 83% during the 2026 AM peak, however, it should be noted that the arm would still operate comfortably within capacity. 7.3.243 The traffic flow impacts at the junction lessen through the scenario iterations as the level of non-car mode share and trip containment decrease. The 50% car mode share + 50% trip containment + A325 traffic management iteration, for example, would result in an impact of a 11% increase in traffic flow in the AM peak and a 4% increase in the PM peak at the junction. 7.3.244 The critical links within the junction, those operating at or over capacity within the baseline scenario, are the A3 (E) and A3 (W) arms in the AM peak and the B3006 (N) and A3 (E) arms in the PM peak. The traffic flow impacts of the development scenario iterations range between +16% and +12% on the A3 (E) and between +7% and +4% on the A3 (W) arm in the AM peak; and between +4% and +3% on the B3006 (N) and between +5% and +3% on the A3 (E) arm in the PM peak.

00900001\003

199

A3 (Westbound) Slip-Roads/B2171 Junction 7.3.245 The A3 slip-roads/B2171 junction has been assessed using PICADY 4.1 software as it is a priority T-junction. The traffic flow data incorporated into the assessments has been derived from the Whitehill Bordon SATURN transport model. The proportion of heavy vehicles has been incorporated into the assessments by turning movement. The junction geometries have been measured from ordnance survey (OS) mapping. 7.3.246 The junction has been assessed during weekday AM and PM peak hours for the 2026 baseline and initially the 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management). A summary of the results of the assessments are shown within Table 7.92 below. The full assessment output reports are contained within this report as Appendix K. Table 7.92: A3 (WB) Slip-Roads/B2171 Junction - 2026 Baseline + 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75% car mode share + 30% trip containment + A325 traffic management) - Weekday Peak Hours 2026 Scenario Option 1 (75%+30%+A325 TM)

2026 Baseline Peak Period

Link

AM Peak

PM Peak

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

Flow (Total)

Max RFC

Max Queue (veh)

B2171 (N)

A3 (WB) on/off slip

340

0.610

1.53

384

0.695

2.20

B2171 (S)

156

0.113

0.13

156

0.113

0.13

B2171 (N)

A3 (WB) on/off slip

299

0.512

1.04

309

0.532

1.12

B2171 (S)

216

0.071

0.08

220

0.071

0.08

7.3.247 The above results indicate that the junction would operate comfortably within capacity during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026 if the development was not implemented. 7.3.248 By comparison, if development scenario Option 1 was implemented and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worst caseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; car mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved, the junction would again operate comfortably within capacity on all of its arms during both the AM and PM peak highway periods in 2026. Therefore, the junction in its current form is able to accommodate traffic generated by any of the proposed Eco-town development scenario iterations as detailed within this TA.

00900001\003

200

Detailed Junction Assessment Summary 7.3.249 To provide a summary of the operation of the identified key junctions across the 2026 baseline and 2026 development scenario Option 1 iterations, Table 7.93 below shows, at a glance, whether each of the junctions would operate within or over capacity within the AM and PM peak highway periods. A green tick (√) indicates that the junction would operate within capacity within a particular scenario iteration peak period, an amber circle (O) indicates that the junction is operating with less than 10% spare capacity; and a red cross (X) indicates that the junction would operate over capacity. 7.93: Forecast 2026 Key Junction Operation Summary – AM & PM Peaks Key Junction

2026 Scenario Baseline

75%/30%

75%/50%

50%/50%

25%/50%

A31/B3001 Hickleys Corner

A31/Weydon Lane

√

A31/A325 Coxbridge Roundabout

A325/School Hill Mini-roundabout

A325/B3384

√

A325/B3004

√

B3004/Oakhanger Road

√

B3004/Paper Mill Lane

√

B3004/B3002

√

A325/B3002 Station Road

√

A325/B3002 Budds Lane

√

A325/Chalet Hill

√

A325/Tesco Access/Woolmer Way

√

A325/Conde Way/Woolmer Way

√

A325/Liphook Road/Firgrove Road

√

A325/Petersfield Road

√

A325/A3 (EB) Slips

√

B3006/Petersfield Road

√

A3/B3006

A3 (WB) Slips/B2171

√

00900001\003

201

7.3.250 The above table shows that, of the 20 identified key junctions, 7 junctions would operate over capacity in either or both peak highway periods in the 2026 baseline scenario, assuming that the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town development is not implemented, as a result of general background traffic growth and committed development within the surrounding area. 7.3.251 Of the 7 junctions that would operate over capacity in 2026 in their current form, 6 junctions would also operate over or near to full capacity in either or both peak highway periods in 2026 if the proposed development scenario Option 1 is implemented and any of the mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved. The A325/Chalet Hill junction is shown to operate within capacity if any of the development scenario iterations were implemented due to the decrease in traffic through the junction as a result of the proposed Inner Relief Road. These 6 junctions will require some level of appropriate mitigation to increase capacity to accommodate future traffic levels irrespective of whether the proposed Eco-town development is implemented or not. These 6 junctions are: •

A31/B3001 Hickleys Corner

•

A31/A325 Coxbridge Roundabout

•

A325/School Hill Mini-roundabout

•

B3004/Paper Mill Lane Junction

•

A325/Tesco Access/Woolmer Way Junction

•

A3/B3006 Roundabout

7.3.252 In addition to the 6 junctions listed above, a further 4 junctions would also operate over or near to full capacity in either or both peak highway periods in 2026 if the proposed development scenario Option 1 is implemented and any of the mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved; giving a total of 10 junctions over or at capacity. These 4 junctions, which would not operate over capacity within the 2026 baseline scenario, would require appropriate mitigation to increase capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the development proposals if the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town development is implemented. These 4 junctions are: •

A325/B3004 Junction

•

A325/Liphook Road/Firgrove Road Roundabout

•

A325/Petersfield Road Roundabout

•

A325/A3 (Eastbound) Slips

7.3.253 Of the remaining 10 junctions, which would potentially operate within capacity in 2026 if the proposed development scenario Option 1 is implemented; 7 junctions would operate within capacity even if the ‘worst case’ mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved; and would therefore operate within capacity if any of the mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved. These 7 junctions are:

00900001\003

202

•

A31/Weydon Lane Junction

•

A325/B3384 Junction

•

B3004/B3002 Junction

•

A325/B3002 Budds Lane Junction

•

A325/Chalet Hill Junction

•

A325/Conde Way/Woolmer Way Junction

•

A3 (Westbound) Slips/B2171

7.3.254 The remaining 3 junctions, which would potentially operate within capacity in 2026 if the proposed development scenario Option 1 were implemented, would require a minimum of the 50% car mode share and 50% trip containment scenario iteration to be achieved for the junctions to operate within capacity. If the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town development was implemented and these mode share and trip containment targets were not achieved, the junctions would require a level of appropriate mitigation to increase capacity to accommodate additional traffic generated by the development. These 3 junctions are: •

B3004/Oakhanger Road Junction

•

A325/B3002 Station Road Junction

•

B3006 Petersfield Road

7.3.255 Also of particular note when summarising the operation of the identified key junctions in 2026 are the A325/B3002 Station Road junction and the A325 Chalet Hill junction, which would both operate over or near to full capacity within the 2026 baseline scenario yet would potentially operate within capacity in 2026 if the proposed development scenario Option 1 were implemented. 7.3.256 The above information is shown graphically overleaf:

00900001\003

203

7.94: Forecast 2026 Key Junction Operation Summary

00900001\003

204

Summary and Recommendations

8.1.1

This section of the report provides a summary of the assessment undertaken to define the proposals for the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town and gain an understanding of their potential impacts upon the surrounding transport network.

8.1.2

The key findings derived from the assessment work will be presented and recommendations for improvement and further required assessments will be provided.

8.2

Summary

8.2.1

The aim of this Transport Assessment (TA) is to form part of a robust and credible evidence base to support proposals for the potential re-development and expansion of Whitehill Bordon as an Eco-town. The study develops and tests a number of development assumptions, derived from a comprehensive masterplanning process, to assess the potential transport impacts of the proposed Eco-town development. The outcomes of the study will inform the East Hampshire District Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy.

8.2.2

The development proposals, as set out within the Whitehill Bordon Framework Masterplan, have been considered in the context of latest national and local planning and transport planning policy and guidance within Chapter 2. The TA identifies the key policies, particularly PPS Eco-towns, and provides a commentary of how the development proposals would satisfy those policies.

8.2.3

Chapter 3 of the TA describes the town of Bordon and the neighbouring district of Whitehill in the current day in terms of its location, size, characteristics and existing transport conditions.

8.2.4

Current transport provision is set out, including an assessment of walking and cycling, public transport and road based networks and conditions. The town currently has a poor provision of public transport to provide access between Whitehill Bordon and surrounding towns and villages which results in a low level of public transport usage, with only 4% of trips made to/from Whitehill Bordon use the bus as the main mode of travel at present.

8.2.5

There are, at present, no direct rail services to/from the town. Alton, Farnham and Liphook are the nearest railway stations which provide access to London, and are accessible by bus, but the levels of current service are not conducive to encouraging bus access to the rail network.

00900001\003

205

8.2.6

Whitehill Bordon currently has a good provision of footways throughout the residential areas of the town, however, a number of gaps in provision and the cul-de-sac nature of many of the residential streets mean that a continuous and cohesive footway network is not provided and do not necessarily satisfy natural pedestrian desire lines to key town centre facilities and services. Furthermore, the town currently has a poor provision of facilities for cyclists such as dedicated cycle lanes and adequate crossing facilities.

8.2.7

The A325 within the town centre has been identified by existing residents as a barrier to walking and cycling connectivity. Heavy traffic flows combined with a lack of appropriate crossing facilities causes severance between areas to the east and west of the road.

8.2.8

Whitehill Bordon is well connected to the surrounding strategic road network via the A325 providing connection to the A31 to the north and the A3 to the south. The A325 acts as the principal north-south link in the surrounding area, making it a significant link within the local highway network. The A325 corridor carries approximately 16,000 vehicles per day, of which 40% is estimated to be ‘through traffic’.

8.2.9

Existing travel patterns within the town have been established from previous studies undertaken on behalf of the project, which suggest that 51% of all trips are made internal to the town due to the high proportion of residents associated with the MoD who also work within the town. It has also been established that approximately 67% of trips are currently made by private car and only 4% of all trips are made by public transport.

8.2.10

A desktop collision analysis was undertaken based upon Personal Injury Collision (PIC) data obtained for a five year period from September 2005 through to September 2010. The analysis indicates that 114 collisions have occurred within the study area during the 5 year study period. Of these 114 collisions, 4 collisions were ‘fatal’ and 17 were recorded as ‘serious’. The analysis indicates that there are no obvious main clusters or common causes of collisions identifiable from the collision data provided.

8.2.11

Chapter 4 of the TA sets out the various proposed development options and iterations relating to mode share and trip containment targets and potential treatments to the existing A325 in the town centre which will be assessed within the Whitehill Bordon transport model to evaluate their potential impacts on the surrounding transport network.

8.2.12

It was agreed with the project steering group to assess four alternative proposed development options, driven by different quantum of residential dwellings, in addition to future year baseline conditions. The initial development option and baseline scenarios are summarised below: •

Baseline - do nothing scenario for comparative purposes incorporating general traffic growth derived from TEMPRO and committed developments.

•

00900001\003

Option 1 (Masterplan) – 4,000 residential dwellings & employment to support 5,500 jobs

206

•

Option 2 (Upper Masterplan) – 5,300 residential dwellings & employment to support 6,800 jobs

•

Option 3 (Phase 1 Masterplan) – 1,700 residential dwellings & employment to support 3,200 jobs

•

Option 4 – (Fall-back Scenario) – based upon the potential re-use of existing MoD buildings for non-MoD uses.

8.2.13

In addition to the above, a number of mode share and trip containment targets and proposals for the existing A325 in the town centre have been established through the masterplanning process. These have been combined with the proposed development options above to establish a number of scenario iterations to be tested within the Whitehill Bordon transport model to assess the transport impacts of a range of potential development outcomes.

8.2.14

The mode share targets were initially based upon the proportion of car mode share that could potentially be achieved within the proposed Eco-town. The most challenging target of achieving 25% car mode share goes beyond the targets set out within latest Eco-town guidance. The other car mode share targets were set at 50% (as required by the Eco-towns standards) and 75% (representing current conditions). Three alternative iterations of the future modal split were then developed based upon the target car mode shares set out above, proposed public transport and pedestrian/cyclist provision and improvements as part of the Eco-town proposals and detailed mode share work previously undertaken within the Whitehill Bordon Transport Strategy.

8.2.15

Targets for the level of trip containment were also derived through the masterplanning process and have been established as 30% and 50%. The level of trip containment is defined as the proportion of all trips generated by residents of Whitehill Bordon being made internal to the proposed Eco-town. It is important to note that the level of trip containment which could be achieved within Whitehill Bordon in the future would be closely linked to the modal split achieved within the town, and the ability of Whitehill Bordon to attract inward investment.

8.2.16

An integral part of the development proposals is the implementation of an Inner Relief Road to the west of the existing town centre, which provides access to the development areas and offers an alternative route to the A325, allowing relief of existing peak hour congestion issues on the A325 and the creation a quality and attractive environment in the town centre affording priority to sustainable forms of transport. A number of options have been established to assess the traffic impacts of implementing alternative treatments on the existing route of the A325 in addition to the proposed Inner Relief Road. The alternative A325 treatments are summarised below:

00900001\003

207

•

A325 Do Nothing – assumes no improvements to the existing A325 in the town centre and provides motorists with a free choice between the A325 route and the proposed relief road.

•

A325 All Vehicular Traffic Restricted (excl. Public Transport) – assumes that all vehicular traffic with the exception of public transport and local access is restricted from using the A325 in town centre and is re-routed via the inner relief road. This restriction is enforced by a car-free area within the proposed retail core in Whitehill Bordon.

•

A325 Traffic Management – assumes the implementation of traffic calming measures along the A325 to create shared slow-speed space in the town centre and to encourage the perception of the A325 as a less attractive route for through traffic.

8.2.17

Chapter 5 of the TA identifies a range of measures, developed in the context of appropriate guidance and relevant best practice, which could potentially achieve the higher end mode share targets established for the proposed Whitehill Bordon Eco-town. Whilst there can be no definitive mode shift quantities attached to the measures proposed, the measures discussed would be central in delivering the optimum mode shift away from car user to alternative modes of travel.

8.2.18

The key to achieving mode share targets is the challenge of developing sustainable travel mindsets among residents. Regardless of innovation and provision of alternative transport options, new and proposed residents travel behaviour remains a function of personal circumstances, demographic profile, personality traits and perception of alternative travel options; which in many cases form a collection of reasons to use a private car over sustainable transport alternatives and it is difficult to overcome these culturally embedded travel habits.

8.2.19

Measures that alter residents’ established travel habits and intrinsic perceptions of travel are fundamental to creating behaviour change. These factors cannot be directly addressed though the implementation of infrastructural solutions only. The existing Transport Strategy documents largely focus on managing travel demand through the provision of transport infrastructure. Altering modal choice requires a carefully tailored, well targeted strategy which must identify individual or collective travel motivations, and satisfy as many of them as possible.

8.2.20

Mode shift can generally be achieved via incentivising alternative options; however these measures will only elicit a modest mode shift. In the context of existing mode share in the town, and an aspiration for 50% car mode share in the future Whitehill Bordon, following a review of available best practice and its potential application in Whitehill Bordon, it is considered that the 50% car mode share target is achievable.

00900001\003

208

8.2.21

The Whitehill Bordon Eco-ton project seeks to extend beyond the targets set out by the Government in the PPS Eco-towns, and as such maintains an aspiration to achieve lower levels of car use, working towards a long term goal of a maximum of 25% of trips being made by car. This is clearly a challenging aspiration, and a number of potential measures have been identified that would need to be considered, in addition to those measures identified to achieve the 50% car mode share. The longer term application of these measures will need to be carefully considered.

8.2.22

Chapter 6 of the TA provides a summary of the trip generation methodology adopted by MVA Consultancy and incorporated into the Whitehill Bordon transport model. Due to the size and mixed-use nature of the development proposals the National Trip End Model (NTEM) has been used to derive person trip productions and attractions, which uses forecast year planning data, such as car ownership and population age/employment status, to establish the number of person trips produced by the residential element of the development. The demand model within the Whitehill Bordon transport model then estimates the number of person trips attracted to the various other proposed land uses from each zone and from areas outside of the model area. The mode choice and destination choice processes within the model have been synthesised so that the modal split and level of trip containment of future year trips are in accordance with the proposed development scenarios to be tested.

8.2.23

The traffic impacts of the various development scenario tests are assessed and discussed within Chapter 7 of the report. The potential impacts of each development scenario have been assessed for the future years 2026, as the intended year of opening, and 2036, as the horizon year 10 years after the intended year of opening.

8.2.24

Due to the large number of development scenario iterations to be tested it was decided to adopt a two-tiered approach to provide an assessment of the traffic impacts of a wide range of potential development outcomes as concisely as possible. It was agreed with the project steering group to assess the impact of each proposed scenario on a number of key junctions and links within and around Whitehill Bordon. The identified key junctions encompass all existing junctions along the A325, at connections with the strategic road network and at sensitive/important junctions on the surrounding local network.

8.2.25

High-level assessments were carried out to compare the potential traffic impacts of the initial proposed development options against appropriate future year baseline conditions. The high-level assessments compare AM, Inter-peak and PM peak forecast traffic flows for each turning movement, and the total flow through each key junction as a whole, with the corresponding traffic flow from the appropriate baseline to establish the proportional increase or decrease in traffic as a result of each of the proposed development scenarios.

00900001\003

209

8.2.26

To provide a valid comparison of the initial development options it was necessary to fix the mode share and trip containment iterations at 50% for both across the scenarios. The 50% targets for mode share and trip containment were chosen as they represent a significant and achievable shift in travel behaviour towards the Eco-town vision. The A325 treatment was also fixed as the ‘A325 Traffic Management’ option for the development options with the exception of the baseline and Option 4 (fall-back) scenarios where the ‘A325 Do Nothing (without inner relief road)’ option was applied. The baseline and fall-back scenarios would not support the implementation of the proposed Inner Relief Road and associated A325 improvements.

8.2.27

The key findings of the initial high-level assessments across all of the development scenarios and forecast year peak highway periods are summarised below: •

The results of the initial high-level assessments follow an expected pattern whereby the traffic flow through the key junctions increases or decreases in proportion to the difference in size of the development proposals within each scenario. For example, the greatest traffic impacts would be observed if development Option 2 were implemented as this represents the largest quantum of development.

•

The most significant impacts in terms of increase in traffic flow as a result of the development scenarios would occur on the junctions on the A325 to the north and south of the proposed Inner Relief Road as this route would remain as the principal route for north/south traffic connecting to the strategic road network and surrounding settlements.

•

The most significant impacts in terms of decrease in traffic flow as a result of the development scenarios would occur on the junctions on the A325 within Whitehill Bordon town centre as a result of the implementation of the proposed Inner Relief Road.

•

The traffic impact of the various development scenarios lessens the further from the development a particular junction is located as greater choice and opportunities for alternative routes are provided to motorists.

8.2.28

Further high-level assessments were then undertaken to understand the impact of the mode share, trip containment and A325 treatment iterations of development Option 1 (Masterplan), as this represented the quantum of development as established through the masterplanning process. The outputs of the assessments again compare AM; Inter-peak and PM peak forecast traffic flows through the key identified junctions with the corresponding baseline flow.

8.2.29

The key findings of the further high-level assessments across all of the development scenario iterations within the 2026 peak highway periods are summarised below:

00900001\003

210

•

The results of the assessments indicate that the traffic impact of the development scenario iterations generally decreases as the level of non-car mode share and trip containment increases across all of the A325 treatment iterations, as would be expected.

•

Within the AM peak period, however, the scenarios containing a car mode share of 25% would observe a similar impact in terms of traffic flow at a number of junctions along the A325 when compared with scenarios containing a 50% car mode share. This is due to the fact that by achieving a 25% car mode share the journey times along the A325 are reduced, therefore, causing some trips to divert from alternative routes and use the A325 through Whitehill Bordon as a through route resulting in natural balancing of trips on the surrounding network.

•

The difference in traffic impact at the key junctions between the alternative A325 treatments would generally only be moderate. The ‘A325 Public Transport only’ option would result in the lowest traffic flows along the A325 in the town centre although would cause congestion issues at B3004/Oakhanger Road junction as a result. The ‘A325 Do Nothing’ option would result in a more even split of traffic between the A325 and proposed Inner Relief Road. The ‘A325 Traffic Management’ treatment would represent a ‘middle-ground’ option whereby a greater split of traffic would be encouraged to use the proposed Inner Relief Road providing a low trafficked town centre without as significant impacts on surrounding junctions.

8.2.30

To provide further assessment of the traffic impact of each of the potential development scenarios on the surrounding highway network further outputs have been derived from the Whitehill Bordon transport model. Each of the scenarios tests were compared with appropriate baseline conditions in terms of changes in traffic flow, journey time, and traffic volume over capacity on key links within the study area.

8.2.31

The further outputs of the transport model indicate the following: •

The most significant impacts in terms of increased traffic flow and congestion on the modelled highway network would generally occur within the development scenarios which contain a car mode share iteration of 75%, as would be expected, particularly within the scenarios which also contain a trip containment iteration of 30%.

•

The traffic impacts of the development generally lessen as the level of non-car mode share and trip containment increases.

•

There are however a number of trends identified within the outputs, particularly within Whitehill Bordon itself, which contradict the general pattern described above. Trends such as lower mode share scenarios producing greater increases in traffic on the A325 to the north and south of Whitehill Bordon, the A325 to the north of Bordon showing the greatest increases in traffic within the ‘Do Nothing’ scenarios; and higher flows within Whitehill Bordon in 50/50 (mode share / trip containment) tests compared to the 75/30

00900001\003

211

tests. These trends are caused by the interaction of the development quantum, mode share and trip containment targets and specific treatment of the A325. •

The most significant traffic impacts of the development proposals would occur on links along the existing A325 to the north and south of Whitehill Bordon and the proposed inner relief road link within the town centre would experience a significant increase in traffic within each peak period.

•

Moderate increases in traffic flow would be experienced on the surrounding road network, particularly on the A31, A3, B3002, B3004 and B3006 links. It should also be noted that, within all of the development scenarios and all peak highway periods, the A325 within Whitehill Bordon town centre would experience varying levels of decreased traffic flow as a result of the proposed relief road bypassing this route.

•

Significantly, some links on the A325 to the north and south of Whitehill Bordon are projected to observe significant increases in the ratio of volume to capacity to over 100% in the peak highway periods in the future year 2036. These links would be operating over theoretical capacity and would be likely to observe periods of significant queuing and delay. Appropriate mitigation of these links would be required to accommodate predicted traffic levels in 2036 associated with the development if either development Options 1 or 2 were implemented.

8.2.32

The second tier of the overall traffic impact assessment was to undertake detailed junction assessments to evaluate in greater detail the impact of the development proposals on the key identified junctions. Junction assessments were undertaken to assess the operation of the junctions during the AM and PM peak highway periods for the 2026 baseline and 2026 ‘worst case’ scenario iterations using PICADY, ARCADY and LinSig modelling software as appropriate.

8.2.33

The results of the ‘worst case’ scenario iteration junction assessments were analysed and an iterative approach taken to test sensitivity at the junctions operating above capacity within this scenario. The junctions operating over capacity were then assessed for alternative scenario iterations below until they were shown to operate within capacity or at their optimum operation without appropriate mitigation, which is in line with the DfT approach set out in the ‘Guidance to Transport Assessment’ of trying to reduce or constrain the level of car trips before investing in infrastructure. The A325 treatment was fixed as the ‘A325 Traffic Management’ option as agreed with the project steering group.

8.2.34

The results of the junction assessments of the identified key junctions within the forecast year 2026 peak highway periods are summarised below:

00900001\003

212

•

Of the 20 identified key junctions assessed, 7 junctions would operate over capacity in either or both peak highway periods in the 2026 baseline scenario, even assuming that the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town development is not implemented, as a result of general background traffic growth and committed development within the surrounding area.

•

Of the 7 junctions that would operate over capacity in 2026 in their current form, 6 junctions would also operate over or near to full capacity in either or both peak highway periods in 2026 if the proposed development scenario Option 1 is implemented and any of the mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved. These 6 junctions will require some level of appropriate mitigation to increase capacity to accommodate future traffic levels irrespective of whether the proposed development is implemented or not. These 6 junctions are:

•

A31/B3001 Hickleys Corner

A31/A325 Coxbridge Roundabout

A325/School Hill Mini-roundabout

B3004/Paper Mill Lane Junction

A325/Tesco Access/Woolmer Way Junction

A3/B3006 Roundabout

In addition to the 6 junctions listed above, a further 4 junctions would also operate over or near to full capacity in either or both peak highway periods in 2026 if the proposed development scenario Option 1 is implemented and any of the mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved; giving a total of 10 junctions over or at capacity. These 4 junctions, which would not operate over capacity within the 2026 baseline scenario, would require appropriate mitigation to increase capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the development proposals if the Whitehill Bordon Ecotown development is implemented. These 4 junctions are:

•

A325/B3004 Junction

A325/Liphook Road/Firgrove Road Roundabout

A325/Petersfield Road Roundabout

A325/A3 (Eastbound) Slips

Of the remaining 10 junctions, which would potentially operate within capacity in 2026 if the proposed development scenario Option 1 is implemented; 7 junctions would operate within capacity if the ‘worst case’ mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved; and would therefore operate within capacity if any of the mode share and trip containment iterations were achieved. These 7 junctions would, therefore, not require any mitigation works and are listed below:

00900001\003

A31/Weydon Lane Junction

A325/B3384 Junction

213

•

B3004/B3002 Junction

A325/B3002 Budds Lane Junction

A325/Chalet Hill Junction

A325/Conde Way/Woolmer Way Junction

A3 (Westbound) Slips/B2171

The remaining 3 junctions, which would potentially operate within capacity in 2026 if the proposed development scenario Option 1 were implemented, would require a minimum of the 50% car mode share and 50% trip containment scenario iteration to be achieved for the junctions to operate within capacity. If the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town development was implemented and these mode share and trip containment targets were not achieved, the junctions would require a level of appropriate mitigation to increase capacity to accommodate additional traffic generated by the development. These 3 junctions are:

•

B3004/Oakhanger Road Junction

A325/B3002 Station Road Junction

B3006 Petersfield Road

As described above, providing the development is well planned and supported by necessary transport infrastructure and travel planning measures, it is considered that the 50% target for maximum car mode share is achievable.

•

Also of particular note when summarising the operation of the identified key junctions in 2026 are the A325/B3002 Station Road junction and the A325 Chalet Hill junction, which would both operate over or near to full capacity within the 2026 baseline scenario yet would potentially operate within capacity in 2026 if the proposed development scenario Option 1 were implemented.

8.2.35

The journey time and vehicle distance tables in Chapter 7 indicated that the most significant increases in vehicle journey durations and distance would occur within the proposed development scenarios with the greatest quantum of development and the highest car mode share of 75%, as would be expected.

8.2.36

Furthermore, the scenarios incorporating the ‘Do Nothing’ treatment of the A325 observe the least significant increase in vehicle journey durations and distance. The scenarios incorporating the A325 ‘Traffic Management’ and ‘Public Transport and Access only’ treatments would observe a similar impact in terms of vehicle journey durations and distance.

00900001\003

214

8.2.37

8.2.38

In terms of local village impacts, in terms of absolute increases or decreases in traffic, whilst a number of villages see a reduction in traffic or nil detriment situation across the development scenarios (Tables 7.16 and 7.17), there are a number of local settlements where absolute vehicle numbers increase, potentially significantly. Whilst link capacity is not breached in any of the development scenario’s this increase in vehicle numbers may have a detrimental effect on local highway operation and amenity. The impact of the proposed Ecotown on these local villages should be investigated further.

8.2.39

Further to guidance presented in DMRB TA 79/99, cross referenced with the peak hour flows shown in tables 7.22 – 7.24 for all development scenarios, a 7.3 metre two way road would have adequate capacity across all development scenarios to accommodate traffic flows created on the Inner Relief Road.

8.2.40

However as suggested in TA79/99, these standards cannot be used alone as definitive design tool, regarded only as a starting point for more detailed analysis of traffic, economic and environmental aspects.

8.3

Recommendations

8.3.1

This TA has provided an assessment of the transport and traffic impacts of a range of potential development proposals for the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town. The key findings of the study provide direction on the comparative benefits and impacts of the quantum of development proposed, the car mode share and trip containment targets; and the alternative treatments of the A325 that have been tested within the Whitehill Bordon forecast transport model. Refine Option and Re-test

8.3.2

In order to progress the proposed Whitehill Bordon Eco-town development it is necessary to focus on a single ‘preferred’ proposal or a significantly reduced number of potential proposals. This process would allow the Eco-town proposals to be developed in much greater detail in terms of designing the internal layout of the development and associated infrastructure, determining appropriate mitigation of the transport impacts of the proposals, and establishing monetary costs of the proposed development and associated works.

00900001\003

215

8.3.3

Once a single development option is determined, transport modelling work should be re-run with appropriate detail included and network changes undertaken to include the infrastructure that would be required to support the development. A325 Treatment Options

8.3.4

The assessments comparing the options for the treatment of the A325 in Whitehill Bordon indicate that there would only be a moderate difference in traffic impact between the alternative options. The A325 ‘Do Nothing’ option would allow motorists a free choice between the existing A325 route and the proposed alternative route via the Inner Relief Road; resulting in more traffic using the A325 in the town centre when compared with the other treatments. The lack of any further provision of facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, or any measures to enhance the attractiveness of the town centre environment within this option mean that the A325 ‘Do Nothing’ option should be considered as the least appropriate option for resolving the severance and connectivity issues currently observed in the town centre.

8.3.5

Both the A325 ‘Public Transport only’ and A325 ‘Traffic Management’ options would provide a more attractive and user-friendly environment in the town centre, in accordance with Manual for Streets principals, affording priority to non-motorised users and public transport. In terms of traffic impact the A325 ‘Public Transport only’ option would result in the least flow of traffic on the A325 as all through traffic would be forced onto the proposed Inner Relief Road due to the physical restriction of a ‘car free’ area within the town centre. A consequence of this option, however, would be a significant increase of traffic at the B3004/Oakhanger Road junction when compared with the A325 ‘Traffic Management’ option. This would also be likely to transfer existing severance issues to the Inner Relief Road which would provide a constraint to sustainable movement.

8.3.6

The A325 ‘Traffic Management’ option would allow a greater choice for motorists but would encourage use of the proposed Inner Relief Road through a number of traffic management measures aimed at ultimately slowing vehicle speeds and increasing safety for all road users. The traffic impact of this option would result in a slight increase in flows through the town centre but would reduce the ‘knock on’ impacts at surrounding junctions when compared with the A325 ‘Public Transport only’ option. An additional benefit of the A325 ‘Traffic Management’ option would be a greater amount of flexibility in the road network in case of, for example, future road works within the town allowing the temporary diversion of traffic to avoid significant congestion.

8.3.7

It is, therefore, considered that the A325 ‘Traffic Management’ option would be the most appropriate option for creating a quality town centre environment whilst also minimising the traffic impacts on the surrounding network.

00900001\003

216

A325 Treatment Design 8.3.8

The preferred treatment of the existing A325 in Whitehill Bordon town centre will require appropriate design in order to ensure that the proposals meet the original objectives for a quality and attractive town centre environment. The design process would involve the consultation of relevant stakeholders, such as bus operators, local residents and emergency services to ensure that the proposals best meet the needs of all future users.

8.3.9

The design of the A325 should be undertaken in consideration of the key principals of the ‘Manual for Streets’ guidance to ensure that the proposals encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport from the outset and deliver a truly accessible and user-friendly town centre for the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town. Highway Network Mitigation Studies

8.3.10

Once a ‘preferred’ development option is identified further assessment work will allow the details of the development proposal to be considered and a more focused approach taken to understanding the impacts of the proposal in terms of necessary enabling works and potential funding streams. For the development to be progressed it will be necessary to consider the costs involved in undertaking appropriate mitigation works at key junctions, identified in this study as operating over capacity, required to enable the development.

8.3.11

Junction Mitigation studies are recommended to be undertaken on the key junctions, which are shown to operate at or over capacity in 2026 if the proposed Eco-town is implemented. The studies would utilise forecast traffic flows extracted from the preferred development option scenario within the Whitehill Bordon transport model to aid the design of appropriate mitigation measures at each junction. Each junction study would provide proposed mitigation design, associated junction assessment outputs and a cost estimate for the improvements.

8.3.12

It is recommended that Junction Mitigation Studies are undertaken at the following key junctions which would operate at or over capacity in 2026 within baseline conditions and if proposed development were implemented:

8.3.13

A31/Hickleys Corner Junction

A31/A325 Coxbridge Roundabout

A325/School Hill Mini-roundabout

B3004/Paper Mill Lane Junction

A325/Tesco Access/Woolmer Way Junction

A3/B3006 Roundabout

It is recommended that Junction Mitigation Studies are undertaken at the following key junctions which would operate at or over capacity in 2026 if proposed development were implemented:

00900001\003

217

A325/B3004 Junction

A325/Liphook Road/Firgrove Road Roundabout

A325/Petersfield Road Roundabout

10. A325/A3 (Eastbound) Slips 8.3.14

The recommended Junction Mitigation Studies would provide likely costs involved in critical enabling works associated with the development proposals which would inform decisionmaking processes.

8.3.15

A further mitigation study is recommended to be undertaken on those links identified within this report to be operating over theoretical capacity in the future year 2036 if either development Option 1 or development Option 2 were implemented. It is likely that appropriate mitigation works to these links would be range from local widening of the carriageway up to the potential dualling of certain sections of the A325.

8.3.16

Once the extents of initial works to enable the development are understood it will be necessary to work up the development proposals in greater detail. Further elements of work which will be required to develop the detailed proposals are set out below: Proposed Inner Relief Road Options Appraisal

8.3.17

The Masterplan provides an indicative route of the proposed Inner Relief Road to the west of Whitehill Bordon town centre. It will be necessary to undertake an options appraisal to establish the optimum route and design for the Inner Relief Road. The process will involve consideration of the building footprint and development layout in order to ensure appropriate access to the proposed development. The appraisal will also need to consider environmental and land ownership issues.

8.3.18

Feasibility designs have been produced for the connecting junctions with the existing A325 at the northern and southern ends of the inner relief road. The options appraisal will need to assess the feasibility designs to ensure they are appropriate and can accommodate future levels of traffic and revisions to the design undertaken if required. The appraisal would also consider the most appropriate layout for the Inner Relief Road link. Internal Highway Layout

8.3.19

The above design recommendations would also feed into the design of the internal highway layout of the proposed Eco-town development. The internal highway layout would need to ensure that the layout of carriageways, footways and crossing facilities support the intended aspirations of the development in terms of connectivity and accessibility. The design would again be undertaken in consideration of the key principals of the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Manual for Streetsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; guidance.

00900001\003

218

8.3.20

The design process would need to consider the routing of vehicles and access to key services and facilities, the interaction between motor vehicles and pedestrians and cyclists and the natural desire lines for non-motorised traffic. The development of an internal road network would involve an iterative process of junction assessments to ensure that forecast traffic demand can be accommodated.

8.3.21

The internal highway layout would need to be developed in partnership with an appropriate project team to create a detailed Masterplan proposal which be required to consider all critical features which would impact upon the efficiency and quality of the proposed Ecotown. These would include:

8.3.22

•

Connections to the surrounding area

•

Connectivity through the development

•

Street layout and dimensions

•

Building footprints and heights

•

Parking provision, design and control

•

Landscape design

•

Appropriate materials to be used

•

Servicing and access for emergency vehicles

•

Routes for utilities

•

Construction management

The finalised highway layout should then be assessed further through undertaking appropriate audits to ensure that the development would deliver road safety, Disability Discrimination Act 2004 (DDA) compliance, appropriate cycle infrastructure and ‘Manual for Streets’ compliance. •

Stage 1/2 Road Safety Audit – the safety audit process would enable a development layout which provides a safe environment for all potential road users.

•

Equalities Act Audit – of the proposals would identify any barriers to access within the design to promote a development which is inclusive for all.

•

Cycle Infrastructure Audit – would identify any shortfalls in provision for cyclists within the proposals and identify improvements to provide a connected and appropriate cycle network within and around the proposed Eco-town.

•

‘Manual for Streets’ Audit – would provide a critique of the proposed highway layout in terms of whether design policy objectives are met, connectivity and permeability, street function and hierarchy, street specification and access to public transport and parking.

00900001\003

219

Travel Behaviour Strategies 8.3.23

The existing Travel Plan and Transport Strategy documents largely focus on managing travel demand through the provision of transport infrastructure. Therefore supplementary strategy documents relating to walking, cycling, car parking, public transport and freight are required to support the physical implementation of infrastructure.

8.3.24

Whilst existing bus strategy work produced by Alan Baxter and Mott Gifford respectively has produced a comprehensive bus network, the outputs from the PT model suggest a useful exercise would be to complete a refresher document to determine where efficiencies in the existing network in terms of bus service frequency can be made to ensure a truly fit for purpose network is determined.

8.3.25

It is also recommended that the emerging Transport Strategy and the Draft Travel Plan are updated as a result of the recent work undertaken here and through other ongoing work on the Eco-town. Traffic Management Strategy

8.3.26

As set out in Chapter 7, the development of Whitehill Bordon as an Eco-town is likely to generate an impact on some local roads and villages surrounding the towns. The level of impact will depend upon the quantum of development brought forward and the level of car mode share achieved through the Transport Strategy.

8.3.27

Where the development proposals and impact assessment work has identified that there will be a significant increase in traffic through local villages, as considered in paragraph 7.2.60, additional work will be required to consider the potential for traffic management and engineering works to mitigate the impact of development and to manage any associated impact. It is recommended that a Traffic Management Strategy is produced to consider mitigation measures in local villages and communities.

8.4

Summary of Recommendations â&#x20AC;˘

â&#x20AC;˘

A mitigation study is recommended to be undertaken on the links that are predicted to operate over capacity in 2036 if the proposed Eco-town is implemented.

â&#x20AC;˘

Once a single development option is determined, transport modelling work should be rerun with appropriate demand data refined, and network changes undertaken to the model to include the infrastructure that would be required to support the development.

00900001\003

220

•

It is recommended that a Traffic Management Strategy is produced to consider mitigation measures in local villages and communities.

•

It is recommended that the A325 ‘Traffic Management’ option would be the most appropriate option for creating a quality town centre environment whilst also minimising the traffic impacts on the surrounding network and should be considered further.

•

The design of the A325 should be brought forward and be undertaken in consideration of the key principals of the ‘Manual for Streets’ guidance to ensure that the proposals encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport from the outset and deliver a truly accessible and user-friendly town centre for the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town.

•

It will be necessary to undertake an options appraisal to establish the optimum route and produce an outline design for the Inner Relief Road.

•

The internal highway layout would need to ensure that the layout of carriageways, footways and crossing facilities support the intended aspirations of the development in terms of connectivity and accessibility. The design should be undertaken in consideration of the key principals of the ‘Manual for Streets’ guidance.

•

Behavioural Strategy documents relating to walking, cycling, car parking, public transport and freight are required to support the physical implementation of infrastructure, and should be prepared to inform the Transport Strategy. This should include a refresh previous Mott Gifford Sub-Regional Bus Strategy based on the additional information produced through this Transport Assessment.

•

It is recommended that the Smarter Choices measures identified in this work are included in future strategy and implemented in line with the Eco-town.

•

On the basis of the work undertaken in this Assessment, it is recommended that the Eco-town development targets a maximum of 50% of all trips by car, and retains a longer-term aspiration to achieve higher levels of mode shift towards a longer term goal of a maximum of 25% of all trips being undertaken by car.

•

It is recommended that the emerging Transport Strategy and the Draft Travel Plan are updated as a result of the recent work undertaken in this Transport Assessment and through other ongoing transport work on the Eco-town. This should inform the updating of the Framework Masterplan.

00900001\003

221

Appendix A:

00900001\003

222

Local Bus Timetables

Appendix B:

00900001\003

223

Traffic Survey Locations Plans

Appendix C:

00900001\003

224

PIC Data

Appendix D:

Mode Share and Containment Targets for Assessment

00900001\003

225

Appendix E:

Inner Relief Road & A325 Feasibility Designs

00900001\003

226

Appendix F:

00900001\003

227

MVA TN03 Technical Note

Appendix G:

00900001\003

228

Modelling Scenario List

Appendix H:

00900001\003

229

HCC Key Junctions Plan

Appendix I:

Key Junction Traffic Flow Impact Assessments

00900001\003

230

Appendix J:

High-level Link Flow, Capacity & Journey Time Outputs

00900001\003

231

Appendix K:

Detailed Junction Assessment Outputs

00900001\003

232

www.whitehillbordon.com

Produced on behalf of Whitehill Bordon Eco-town East Hampshire District Council Penns Place Petersfield Hampshire GU31 4EX

01730 234 329

00900001\003

233