8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
1/409
WYGTransport Planning
Proposed ResidenShelford Road Farm, R
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
2/409
WYGTransport Planning
REPORT CONTROL
Project: Proposed Residential Development Shelford Road Trent
Client: William Davis Ltd
Job Number: A079137
File Origin: N:\Projects\A079137 Shelford Road Farm, Radcliffe on Trent\repoTA\RT79137-04 Transport Assessment.doc
Document Checking:
Primary Author Jamie Cassie Initialled:
Contributor - Initialled:
Review By Colin Shields Initialled:
I D S Ch k d
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
3/409
WYGTransport Planning
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................2 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................3 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ...........................................................4 PLANNING POLICY .........................................................................5 SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT .............................................................6 DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT ....................................................7 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................
Tables
Table 1 2013 Junction Capacity Assessment Results .........................................
Table 2 Local Bus Services ...............................................................................
Table 3 2026 Do Minimum Junction Capacity Assessment Results ......................
Table 4 Proposed Development Person Trip Rates and Trip Generation ..............
Table 5 Proposed Development Trip Generation by Mode ..................................
Table 6 Primary School & Medical Centre Trip Rates and Trip Generation............
Table 7 2026 Do Something Junction Capacity Assessment Results ...................
Table 8 Proposed Junction Improvements Capacity Assessment Results .............
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Plan
Figure 2 2013 Base Traffic Flows
Figure 3 2km Walking Catchment
Figure 4 4km Cycling Catchment
Figure 5 2026 Base Traffic Flows
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
4/409
WYGTransport Planning
Appendices
Appendix A Shelford Road Vehicle Speed SurveysAppendix B Traffic Count SurveysAppendix C 2013 Junction Capacity Assessments
Appendix D Personal Injury Accident DataAppendix E Proposed Site Access JunctionAppendix F Bus Service DetailsAppendix G Committed Development DataAppendix H 2026 Do Minimum Junction Capacity AssessmentsAppendix I TRICS DataAppendix J Trip Distribution/AssignmentAppendix K 2026 Do Something Junction Capacity AssessmentsAppendix L Proposed Junction Improvements Capacity Assessments
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
5/409
WYGTransport Planning
1 INTRODUCTION1.1 PREAMBLE1.1.1 WYG has been appointed by William Davis Ltd to prepare a Tr
Residential Travel Plan to support the proposed development of a m
dwellings, a primary school and a medical centre on land to the s
Radcliffe on Trent, Nottinghamshire. A site location plan is attached a
1.1.2 Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC) is the local highway autRushcliffe Borough Council (RBC) is the local planning authority. Rad
north of the A52 Trunk Road, the operation and maintenance of wh
the Highways Agency (HA). Scoping discussions have been held with
the key parameters and methodology for this TA. This TA has ther
undertaken on an agreed basis
1.1.3 This TA report demonstrates that the proposed development site isaccess to public transport and local facilities and that the proencourage travel by all modes of transport, particularly alternative mo
terms of traffic impact by the private car; assessments have been ca
junctions, as agreed with NCC and the HA:
Shelford Road/Bingham Road/Hunts Close/Main Street mi A52 / Nottingham Road traffic signals A52 / Stragglethorpe Road traffic signals A52/A6011 Gamston roundabout
1.1.4 This TA has been prepared in accordance with the joint Department o
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
6/409
WYGTransport Planning
Sustainable accessibility promote accessibility by all modpublic transport, cycling and walking; assess the likely t
pattern to and from the proposed site; and develop
influence travel behaviour;
Dealing with residual trips provide accurate quantitativeof the predicted impacts of residual trips from the pro
ensure that suitable measures are proposed to manage the
Mitigation measures ensure as much as possible thatmeasures avoid unnecessary physical improvements to
innovative and sustainable transport solutions.
1.2 REPORT LAYOUT1.2.1 This TA investigates the highways and transportation issues assoc
residential development. The layout of the study is as follows:
Section 2 describes existing conditions; The development proposals are outlined in Section 3, Current local and national policy documents are reviewed w Section 5 investigates the sustainable transport facilities a
of the site and details potential Travel Plan measures;
Section 6 assesses the impact of residual development tnetwork; and
Section 7 summarises the report.
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
7/409
WYGTransport Planning
2 EXISTING CONDITIONS2.1 EXISTING HIGHWAY NETWORK
Shelford Road
2.1.1 The site is located on land to the south of Shelford Road and liesvillage of Radcliffe on Trent. The site currently comprises Shelford R
to the north by Shelford Road, open fields to the east, the Nottingh
line to the south and existing residential development (Clumber Drive
2.1.2 Shelford Road is a county road that forms a link between Radcliffe othe south-west, and the hamlet of Newton plus the A46 Trunk Road
the proposed development site frontage, Shelford Road has an o
approximately 11.3 metres, comprising a 1.8m wide footway to
carriageway and a 1.2m footway plus 2m wide verge to the south
side).
2.1.3 Shelford Road is subject to a 30mph speed limit along the vast development frontage, changing to 60mph towards the eastern bo
are street lighting columns on both sides of the urban section of She
no parking restrictions along the route.
2.1.4 The residential properties along the northern side of the route all haonto Shelford Road and all of the properties have off-street parking f
street parking does not appear to be an issue in the area. There
parking lay-by along the south side of Shelford Road towards the wes
2 2 TRAFFIC DATA
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
8/409
WYGTransport Planning
2.2.2 Weekday average peak hour flows were recorded as 219 vehicles norsouthbound during the morning peak hour and 336 vehicles north
southbound during the evening peak hour. It can therefore be seen
in nature with a 60/40 split to/from the south (Radcliffe village) d
hours.
2.2.3 Traffic speed surveys were undertaken by WYG on Shelford Road on and Thursday 1 November 2012 to establish the 85thpercentile wet w
on the route and subsequently identify the visibility requirements for
junction. The speed survey was undertaken from the existing fa
speeds of 100 vehicles in each direction on each day.
2.2.4 The results of the speed survey are contained in Appendix Aand percentile wet weather speed of vehicles is 34-35mph northbound an
For these vehicle speeds, a visibility splay of 90 metres would be req
junction (in accordance with DMRB document TD42/95).
2.2.5 Traffic flows at the Shelford Road/ Main Road / Bingham Road / Hujunction in the centre of Radcliffe on Trent were obtained through th
period turning counts at the junction on Thursday 8 November 2012.
are contained inAppendix B.
2.2.6 Traffic flows on the A52 corridor have been obtained from the HA year of 2009. These flows have then been growthed to 2013 using
(NTM) factors adjusted by local TEMPRO growth factors (Radcliffe o
surveyed flows are included in Appendix B, with the 2013 mornin
flows for the highway network study area being shown on Figure 2.
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
9/409
WYGTransport Planning
2.3 2013 JUNCTION CAPACITY ASSESSMENTS2.3.1 Capacity assessments have been undertaken at the junctions liste
establish the existing weekday peak hour operation of the local highw
assessments for the roundabout junctions have been undertaken usi
programme. This is the industry standard traffic modelling compute
for assessing roundabout junctions.
2.3.2 For roundabout junctions a Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) value bejunction operates within its theoretical capacity. Typically junctions
with RFC values between 0.85 and 1.00, whilst an RFC value greater
junction operates above its capacity.
2.3.3 The assessment of the off-site signal-controlled junctions has beLINSIG computer programme, which is an industry standard tr
software packages used for assessing the traffic capacity of signalised
2.3.4 For LINSIG assessments, the operation of individual junction arms Degree of Saturation (DoS), whereas overall junction performance i
Capacity (RC) or degree of overload to indicate whether or not a jun
theoretical capacity. The RC is the percentage of all round traffic gro
accommodate within its capacity. When there is no RC, a degree of o
by which the traffic flows exceed the capacity of the junction. Exper
at existing junctions indicates that queuing does not become partic
degree of overload reaches 10% (i.e. -10% RC and a DoS of 100
comparison, it can be assumed that a RC of 0% (and a DoS of 90%)
of 0.85.
2 3 5 The full capacity assessment results are included as Appendix C and
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
10/409
WYGTransport Planning
Table 1 2013 Junction Capacity Assessment Results
JunctionAM Peak (08:00 09:00)
MaximumRFC/RC
MaximumQueue
Shelford Road/Bingham Road/HuntsClose/Main Road mini roundabout
0.664 2
A52 / Nottingham Road traffic signals 9.7% 19 A52 / Stragglethorpe Road traffic signals -29.0% 113
A52/A6011 Gamston roundabout 0.914 10
2.3.6 It can be seen from the above that the mini-roundabout junction in centre operates with some spare capacity during the morning and ev
A52 Gamston roundabout junction is approaching capacity during botthe A52/Stragglethorpe Road junction operates above theoretical c
periods. This corresponds with on-site observations and local kn
network in the area.
2.4 ACCIDENT HISTORY2.4.1 Personal injury accident data was obtained from NCC for the length
point approximately mile to the north of the site up to (and includ
junction with Bingham Road, Hunt Close and Main Road. The data ob
between 1 January 2007 and 31 May 2012 and indicated that there
accidents along this 2.5km length of Shelford Road during this per
included asAppendix D.
2.4.2 A total of three accidents were recorded at the Shelford Road mini-Bingham Road, Hunt Close and Main Road. All of the accidents resulte
single accident involving a pedestrian and a single accident invo
pedest ian accident in ol ed a ca t ning left f om Main Road to
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
11/409
WYGTransport Planning
pedal cycle with no other vehicles involved, another involved t
motorcycle in icy conditions (no other vehicle involved), and the th
involved a collision between vehicles travelling in opposite direction
Shelford Road, approximately 600m to the north-east of the proposed
2.4.4
The 6 recorded slight injury accidents occurred at various locations aof the accidents involved pedestrians crossing the carriageway (altho
was on Clumber Road near to the junction with Shelford Road). O
injury accidents, one involved a collision between a vehicle turnin
Avenue and a vehicle travelling along Shelford Road, one involved
vehicle was waiting to turn right off Shelford Road to New Road, and
control of a single vehicle in icy conditions.
2.4.5 For the A52 corridor, accident data was obtained from the HA for t2008 to 31 December 2011. The accident data is also included
following paragraphs summarise the accident records at the thre
included in the study area of this TA.
2.4.6 At the A52/Nottingham Road traffic signal junction there has been accident in the 4-year period analysed. The accident was a slight inju
as a result of a vehicle turning right out of Nottingham Road acro
travelling eastbound on the A52. It is not clear from the accident de
green light at the time of the accident.
2.4.7 A total of 10 injury accidents were recorded at the A52/Stragglethorthe 4-year period analysed. Two of the recorded accidents resulted in
of the accidents resulting in slight injuries. The two serious injury ac
loss of control of a single vehicle, with one accident resulting in a c
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
12/409
WYGTransport Planning
2.4.9 At the Gamston roundabout junction there have been a total oaccidents in the 4-year period, all of which resulted in slight injurie
involved a vehicle entering the junction across the path of a circu
accidents involved rear end collisions and two of the accidents involv
vehicle. None of the accidents involved vulnerable road users
although two of the accidents did involved motorcycles.
Accident Summary
2.4.10 Overall, it is not considered that a particular accident problem exianalysed and that there are no highway safety issues that would be e
additional traffic generated by the development proposed.
2.4.11 A number of the accidents at the A52/Stragglethorpe Road junctionvehicle speeds, with this section of the A52 being subject to a 7
cameras were installed on the A52 between Radcliffe on Trent and
2006 to monitor average vehicle speeds over this section of th
advanced warning signs on both the A52 approaches to the junctipresence of traffic signals and there is high friction surfacing on bo
the signal junction. It is therefore considered that appropriate ro
already in place at the junction.
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
13/409
WYGTransport Planning
3 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS3.1 INTRODUCTION3.1.1 The development proposals consist of a maximum of 400 new res
pupil Primary School and a Medical Centre for 6-7 GPs.
3.2 PROPOSED SITE ACCESS3.2.1 Following earlier access feasibility work, NCC expressed a desire to
this location accessed via a three-arm roundabout on Shelford Road t
boundary of the site. A proposed roundabout layout is shown inAppe
3.2.2 The proposed site access roundabout will act as a traffic managemethe urban area, encouraging reduced vehicle speeds on the appr
proposed roundabout will be complemented by appropriate village
existing change in speed limit. This will be in the form of a minor
speed limit further east and enhanced signing and lining works.
3.2.3 The design and layout of the proposed site access roundabout modified through consultation with NCC and the layout has been the
Safety Audit by NCC.
3.3 PEDESTRIAN / CYCLE ACCESS3.3.1 In addition to providing pedestrian and cycle access to the propose
any proposed vehicular access, it is also recommended that direct a
links are provided from the site to the existing bus stops on Shelford
3.3.2 A traffic free pedestrian and cycle link will be provided between the p
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
14/409
WYGTransport Planning
will be designed to facilitate bus access if it is required. The bus rou
development on the primary route, or a turning facility provided close
centre.
3.4.2 The development will be designed in a manner to ensure that it is adominated by the car. The area is to be designed so as it meets the there rather than the motorcar.
3.5 SERVICE AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES3.5.1 Service and emergency vehicles will gain access to the developme
access on Shelford Road.
3.6 PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES AND OTHER MOBILITY IMPA3.6.1 The detailed design of the development and its internal transpo
undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the 1995 (a
Discrimination Act and in accordance with current good practice as e
Inclusive Mobility document.
3.6.2 This approach will ensure that the completed development is fullyneeds of all users, including those with disabilities or temporary mob
those escorting elderly people or young children.
3.6.3 The requirement to design for disabled people will permeate all aspeand will include access to and movement within the site, the
development and the surrounding highway network, and, in particu
and public transport facilities.
3 7 PARKING
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
15/409
WYGTransport Planning
3.7.3 Cycle parking will be provided within each individual dwelling plot, wspace provided for each dwelling. Cycle parking will also be provided
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
16/409
WYGTransport Planning
4 PLANNING POLICY4.1 PREAMBLE4.1.1 This chapter examines national and local transport policies conside
proposed development. Consideration has been given in the prep
Assessment to the following documents:
National Planning Policy Framework; Rushcliffe Local Plan; Nottinghamshire Local Transport Plan 3 (2011-2026).
4.1.2 A summary of these policies is provided below.4.2 NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF)4.2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework was published on 27 Ma
guidance for local planning authorities and decision-takers both in
plans and as a material consideration in determining applications. Thplanning policy statements and planning policy guidance, including PP
4.2.2 At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable transport, one of the core planning principles is to actively manage p
the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cyclin
development in locations which are or can be made sustainable.
4.2.3 The NPPF states that all developments which generate significanshould supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessmen
should be located where the need to travel will be minimised an
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
17/409
WYGTransport Planning
by sustainable modes of transport. The inclusion of a primary school
site also reduces the need to travel for residents of the proposed de
the residual cumulative impacts of the development are considered no
4.3 RUSHCLIFFE LOCAL PLAN4.3.1 The Rushcliffe Local Plan will set out the spatial planning policie
Borough in the period to 2026. The key strategic planning documen
Core Strategy, which indicates the numbers and broad locations of ne
the plan period.
4.3.2 A publication version of the Core Strategy was submitted to the Sec2012. However, following serious concerns expressed by the Secr
soundness of the housing policies, the examination in public is cur
this period of suspension the Council will be consulting on proposal
target and allocate additional development at land south of Clifto
Edwalton and land east of Gamston.
4.3.3 The publication version of the Core Strategy includes for resideplanning permission has already been granted at Edwalton (1,200
Colliery (470 dwellings), together with other major residential sites
dwellings), RAF Newton (550 homes) and land south of Clifton (2,
Trent is defined within the Core Strategy document as a key settlem
of growth for a minimum of 400 dwellings.
4.3.4 Policy 13 of the Core Strategy relates to managing travel demand antravel, especially by private car, will be reduced by securing new dev
scale in the most accessible locations following the Spatial Strategy i
with the delivery of sustainable transport networks to serve these
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
18/409
WYGTransport Planning
sufficient package of measures to ensure that journeys by non
encouraged, and that residual car trips will not unacceptably compro
system in terms of its effective operation.
4.3.6 The proposed development on land off Shelford Road accords with by providing up to 400 dwellings in one of the key settlements in th
accompanying Residential Travel Plan, will seek to accord with the
sustainable travel as set out in policies 13 and 14 by seeking to
measures and improvements to sustainable travel modes b
enhancements.
4.4 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN 2011-20264.4.1 The third Nottinghamshire Local Transport Plan (LTP) details the t
County for the period between 2011 and 2026. The LTP consists of
the local transport strategy detailing how transport improvements
county; and an implementation plan setting out the types of measur
will be prioritised to deliver the local transport strategy.
4.4.2 The local transport strategy identifies the A52 through RadcliffNottinghamshires strategic road network and suggests that the ro
levels. The local transport strategy also adopts a hierarchical app
sustainable transport networks, with preference given to area wide
and improvements to public transport services, and walking and cyc
highway capacity enhancements. The strategy also encourages th
travel plans as part of new developments.
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
19/409
WYGTransport Planning
5 SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT5.1 INTRODUCTION5.1.1 This section considers the existing level of sustainable transport in th
development as well as considering those measures that could p
patterns in the delivery of sustainable transport to the site.
5.2 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES5.2.1 The Institution of Highways and Transportation in their document G
Journeys on Foot state that walking accounts for over a quarter of a
of journeys less than one mile. The document also provides guidandistances and suggests that a preferred maximum walking distance
commuting or school trips.
5.2.2 It can be concluded therefore that distances up to 2km can be conundertaken on foot, and that walking is a realistic mode to cons
distance. Whilst this does not preclude pedestrians from undertakconsidered that a distance of 2km is reasonable.
5.2.3 A 2km walking catchment is presented in Figure 3. This indidevelopment site is within a reasonable walking distance of the follo
facilities:
Radcliffe on Trent village centre South Nottinghamshire Academy School Radcliffe Infant and Nursery School Radcliffe on Trent Junior School
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
20/409
WYGTransport Planning
Road close to the mini-roundabout junction with Main Road that o
6pm, Monday to Saturday, and can accommodate 16-17 cars.
5.2.5 There are footways on both sides of Shelford Road between the prthe village centre and these are generally of a minimum width of 2m,
section (100m) on the south side of Shelford Road between the junc
and Oak Tree Avenue where the width reduces to approximately 1.5m
5.2.6 There are no formal pedestrian crossing facilities along Shelford Rcentral pedestrian refuges with dropped crossings and tactile pavin
Main Road and Hunt Close arms of the mini-roundabout junction in
zebra crossing on a raised speed table on the Bingham Road approac
5.2.7 The level of pedestrian accessibility will help to encourage a proporwithin the area to be made by foot. It is considered that travel on foo
travel for trips to Radcliffe on Trent. Walking should therefore be
appropriate mode of travel for local trips.
5.3 CYCLE FACILITIES5.3.1 The topography of the area in the immediate vicinity of the site
sustainable transport option, thus helping to encourage sustainable tr
5.3.2 In much the same way as pedestrian trip lengths are defined, the lengoverned by routes that are available and trip length, although a num
mitigate for or against making these trips.
5.3.3 The DfT in their Transport Statistics on Cycling in Great Britain statof a cycle journey is 2.4 miles (3.84km). It can therefore be conclude
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
21/409
WYGTransport Planning
5.4 PUBLIC TRANSPORT ROUTES AND FACILITIESBus
5.4.1 The Institute of Highways and Transportations (IHT) document Plain Developments states that new developments should be located
trips involve a walking distance of less than 400m from the nearest bu
5.4.2 The nearest bus stops to the site are located on Shelford Road, with bthe carriageway located at the western boundary of the site and
northbound carriageway close to the eastern boundary of the site. T
the Radcliffe Line service between Nottingham and Bingham operate
a 60 minute frequency service that operates between 6am and 9pm,
5.4.3 There are also bus stops located on Clumber Drive within 200m of the proposed development site. These stops are served by a version
runs between Nottingham and Radcliffe on Trent. The service operat
60 minute frequency, Monday to Saturday, between 7am and 6.30pm
5.4.4 The relevant bus service timetables are contained inAppendix F asummarised below inTable 2.
Table 2 Local Bus Services
Service
No. Route
Mon - Sat (min
Daytime(6am to 9pm)
RadcliffeLine
Nottingham - Radcliffe on Trent EastBridgford - Bingham
60
Radcliffe
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
22/409
WYGTransport Planning
5.4.6 It is also noted that the current services do not operate after 9pSundays and this was reflected in feedback received at a public co
development proposals held at St. Marys Hall in Radcliffe on Trent o
It is therefore proposed that bus service enhancements are p
development. Funding for the service enhancements will be prov
contribution of 300,000, secured as part of the S106 obligadevelopment. This sum would provide for an additional bus for a peri
5.4.7 The internal highway layout will be designed to accommodate bus abus route could loop through the development on the primary ro
provided close to the school and health centre, and a bus stop w
these facilities.
5.4.8 In terms of bus stop infrastructure, it is proposed that improvementclosest bus stops to the development on Shelford Road. The improv
provision of appropriate shelters, seating, information display cases
kerbs at the stops.
5.4.9 It is also proposed that residents of the development will be issueTravel Pack that would include details of the local bus services, p
redeemed for two, free, bus taster tickets per household.
Rail
5.4.10 The nearest rail station to the site is Radcliffe on Trent, which is locathe south-east of the proposed site off Shelford Road. The station
Grantham rail line and there are irregular daytime rail services to No
and Grantham (6 trains a day).
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
23/409
WYGTransport Planning
development. This is reflected by the local census travel to work
which suggests that only 1.4% of the existing resident population trav
5.5 SUMMARY5.5.1 The location of the site is such that existing sustainable travel oppo
wide range of local facilities and amenities (schools, shops, etc) being
or cycle distance of the proposed development.
5.5.2 Bus stops are located within 400m of the proposed developmenfrequency of 3 buses per hour to Nottingham during the main wo
development could generate an increase in peak hour demand
passengers and this increase in demand may result in a requirement provision. It is therefore proposed that a S106 contribution o
for local bus service enhancements and provision will be ma
access the proposed development.
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
24/409
WYGTransport Planning
6 DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT6.1 ASSESSMENT YEAR6.1.1 In accordance with the DfT/DCLG Guidance on Transport Ass
assessment year in respect of capacity analysis for the transport netw
with the size, scale and completion schedule of the proposed develop
the LDF.
6.1.2 The scale of development proposed (400 dwellings) would be providit is considered reasonable that the full development would be comp
the LDF period, which is 2026. It is therefore proposed that the futu
respect of capacity analysis for the transport network is 2026.
6.2 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH6.2.1 Traffic flows on the highway network for a future year of 2026 have
National Transport Model (NTM) factors adjusted by local TEMPRO gr
Trent area) to the 2013 baseline flows. The resulting growth factors a
AM 2013 to 2026 = 1.171 PM 2013 to 2026 = 1.173
6.2.2 The 2026 weekday morning and evening peak hour background traffare shown on Figure 5.
6.3 COMMITTED DEVELOPMENTS6.3.1 Committed schemes are defined as developments or transport schem
planning consent, but which are, as yet, unimplemented or incomplet
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
25/409
WYGTransport Planning
Former Cotgrave Colliery 470 dwellings plus 4.5ha employm
6.3.3 Peak hour traffic flow information for the local highway network hasrelevant transport assessments for each of the above developments.
of committed infrastructure improvements associated with the
improvements to the A52/Stragglethorpe Road junction and the A
junction. The various traffic flows and infrastructure improveme
committed developments are contained inAppendix Gof this report
6.3.4 It should be noted that the combined impact of committed devexceeds the TEMPRO forecast background traffic growth on parts o
period between 2013 and 2026. Therefore, in order to avoid a doub
development flows in the forecasts of background traffic growth, th
constrained to the local TEMPRO growth factors.
6.4 2026 WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT JUNCTION CAPACITY ASS6.4.1 The junction assessments carried out at the junctions listed in parag
been repeated using the 2026 traffic flows shown in Figure 5. The
also include for the committed infrastructure improvements at the
and A52 Gamston roundabout junctions. The results of the assessme
Appendix Hand summarised in Table 3, below.
Table 3 2026 Do Minimum Junction Capacity Assessment R
JunctionAM Peak (08:00 09:00) MaximumRFC/RC
MaximumQueue
Shelford Road/Bingham Road/HuntsClose/Main Road mini roundabout
0.798 4
A52 / Nottingham Road traffic signals 6 6% 29
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
26/409
WYGTransport Planning
infrastructure improvements to the A52 Gamston roundabout juncti
operating better than in the 2013 peak periods, although the
approaching capacity in both peak periods.
6.5 TRIP GENERATION6.5.1 The proposed development comprises up to 400 dwellings on land a
built up area in Radcliffe on Trent. It is expected that the developme
of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings and there would be an element of a
site, in accordance with the requirements of the local planning author
6.5.2 In view of the above, the Houses privately owned land use categoand any sites in town centre or edge of town centre locations weLondon or outside of England were also excluded as unrepresentati
resulted in a sample size of 5 sites, with 5 weekday surveys. The T
Appendix Iand the resulting person trip rates (per dwelling) are sho
Table 4 Proposed Development Person Trip Rates and Trip G
Time Period
Person Trip Rates(per dwelling)
Pe
Arrival Departure 2-Way Arrival
AM Peak (08:00 to 09:00) 0.235 0.837 1.072 94
PM Peak (17:00 to 18:00) 0.584 0.367 0.951 234
6.5.3 In order to obtain the likely peak hour trip generation by mode odevelopment, travel to work data for the resident population of the
from the local census (2001). The existing travel to work percentage
peak hour trip generation, by mode, is shown in Table 5, below.
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
27/409
WYGTransport Planning
Table 5 Proposed Development Trip Generation by Mode
Mode of Travel Modal SplitAM Peak (08:00-09:00)
Arrivals Departures
Car Driver 69.9% 66 234
Car Passenger 7.2% 7 24
Walk 5.1% 5 17
Cycle 3.6% 3 12
Bus 11.4% 11 38
Rail 1.4% 1 5
Other 1.4% 1 5
Total 100% 94 335
6.5.4 It can be seen from the above that the predicted vehicular trip geneproposed development would be 300 trips (two-way) during a typic
hour and 266 trips (two-way) during a typical weekday evening pe
peak hour vehicular trip rates of 0.164 arrivals and 0.585 depart
morning peak hour and 0.408 arrivals and 0.257 departures per dw
hour.
6.5.5 It should be noted that the above vehicular trip generation does not modal shift that could be expected as a result of the introduction
measures/initiatives in association with the proposed development.
6.5.6 For the Primary School and Medical Centre, vehicular trip rates haveTRICS database. For the proposed Primary School, sites in sub
( l di L d ) ith b t 150 d 300 il l t d
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
28/409
WYGTransport Planning
Table 6 Primary School & Medical Centre Trip Rates and Tri
Primary School
Time Period
Vehicle Trip Rates(per pupil)
Ve
Arrival Departure 2-Way Arrival
AM Peak (08:00 to 09:00) 0.392 0.279 0.671 82
PM Peak (17:00 to 18:00) 0.007 0.026 0.033 2
Medical Centre
Time Period
Vehicle Trip Rates(per GP)
Ve
Arrival Departure 2-Way Arrival
AM Peak (08:00 to 09:00) 4.121 2.242 6.363 29
PM Peak (17:00 to 18:00) 1.545 2.394 3.939 11
6.5.8 It should be noted that the traffic flows associated with both the prcentre have been assigned to the proposed site access roundabou
additional facilities that are already available in Radcliffe village and
trips generated by these facilities would simply be transferred from
highway network. The only new trips likely to be generated by the f
the proposed dwellings and, to ensure a worse case assessment, no
to the trip generation for these internal trips.
6.6 VEHICULAR TRIP DISTRIBUTION6.6.1 Development-related vehicle trips have been distributed onto the hi
to journey to work patterns recorded within the 2001 census f
percentage of residents travelling to each employment location ward
development traffic generation and traffic assigned to the most log
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
29/409
WYGTransport Planning
Shelford Road East = 22.7% Radcliffe upon Trent = 12.5%
6.6.3 The resulting peak hour development trips on the local highway netw6, with the 2026 plus proposed development flows shown on Figure
6.7 2026 DO SOMETHING JUNCTION CAPACITY ASSESSMENT6.7.1 The capacity assessments at the off-site highway junctions, plus
roundabout, were then repeated for the with development scenario
from Figure 7. The results of the assessments are contained in Ap
below containing a summary of the results.
Table 7 2026 Do Something Junction Capacity Assessment
JunctionAM Peak (08:00 09:00)
MaximumRFC/RC
MaximumQueue
Shelford Road / Site Access Roundabout 0.427 1
Shelford Road/Bingham Road/HuntsClose/Main Road mini roundabout 1.081 40
A52 / Nottingham Road traffic signals -17.7% 56
A52 / Stragglethorpe Road traffic signals -56.3% 247
A52/A6011 Gamston roundabout 0.934 13
6.7.2 It can be seen from the above that the proposed development accesRoad would operate with spare capacity during both the weekday m
hours. The impact of development generated traffic at each of th
follows:
Shelford Road/Main Road mini-roundabout would be op
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
30/409
WYGTransport Planning
A52 / Stragglethorpe Road signals would be operating abpeak periods; queue lengths increased by between 31 an
required);
A52/A6011 Gamston roundabout Approaching capacity durthe committed infrastructure improvements mean that the ju
with similar capacity to the 2013 scenario (no mitigation requ
6.7.3 In order to mitigate the impact of development generated traffic on tthe following works are proposed:
Shelford Road/Main Road conversion of the mini-roundasignal junction, including the removal of the existing zebra c
and provision of controlled pedestrian crossings on all appro
Figure 8);
A52 / Nottingham Road signals Addition of A52 left turn fiflare length on Nottingham Road approach (scheme shown o
A52 / Stragglethorpe Road signals Addition of left turn approach and increase in right turn lane capacity on A52 eas
shown onFigure 10);
6.7.4 In addition to the proposed junction improvements, it is also proposcalming scheme along Shelford Road to reduce vehicle speeds alon
safer environment for pedestrians and cyclists. A potential scheme
The traffic calming proposals have been developed following com
public consultation event into the development proposals in July 201
have been undertaken for the potential traffic calming scheme show
is proposed that the developers of the site would provide a
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
31/409
WYGTransport Planning
Table 8 Proposed Junction Improvements Capacity Assessm
JunctionAM Peak (08:00 09:00)
MaximumRFC/RC
MaximumQueue
Shelford Road/Bingham Road/HuntsClose/Main Road traffic signals
0.7% 21
A52 / Nottingham Road traffic signals -13.9% 44
A52 / Stragglethorpe Road traffic signals -49.2% 220
6.7.6 Comparison of the results in Table 7 with those in Table 3 indicatesbe achieved at the Shelford Road/Main Road and A52/Stragglethor
the critical peak hours. At the A52/Nottingham Road junction full mit
in the evening peak hour, with partial mitigation being achieved in
However, it should be noted that the proposed junction improvem
assuming that there is no modal shift towards sustainable travel mo
development.
6.7.7 During pre-application discussions on the development proposals withthe view was expressed by the highway authority that every effort traffic going through Newton village. The traffic distribution used
22.7% of development generated traffic would be to/from the north
investigation of the origins/destinations of this traffic reveals that 5.
Newton Main Street, with a further 9.4% routing either via Newton M
Lane (to the A52). The remaining 7.9% would most likely use the A60
6.7.8 The potential impact of development traffic on Newton Main Street isand 14.5% of development traffic, which equates to between 15 and
peak hour and between 14 and 39 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour.
f f
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
32/409
WYGTransport Planning
6.7.10 In view of the above, it is considered that the residual impact of deveon the local and strategic highway network will not be severe and t
sustainable transport policies of the NPPF.
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
33/409
WYGTransport Planning
7 CONCLUSIONS7.1.1 This TA has been prepared in support of a planning application f
maximum of 400 new residential dwellings, a 210 pupil Primary Sc
Centre on land to the south of Shelford Road in Radcliffe on Trent, No
7.1.2 Access to the site will be provided via a new 3-arm roundabout junctiroundabout has been designed in accordance with relevant
complimented by an extension of the existing 30mph speed limit fur
Shelford Road and the provision of village gateway treatment to Shelf
7.1.3 The development proposals are in keeping with the policy objectivesthe emerging Rushcliffe Development Framework and the Notting
Plan 3.
7.1.4 The site is well located in an existing residential area, is close to exisinfrastructure and is accessible for pedestrians, cyclists and bus use
close proximity to Radcliffe on Trent village centre where resident
educational, retail, employment and leisure purposes.
7.1.5 The location of the site is such that existing sustainable travel oppThe highway network is such that local journeys, particularly within
be undertaken on foot or by cycle.
7.1.6 The proposed development includes for the followinmeasures/improvements:
A S106 contribution of 300,000 towards local bus servicewith provision for bus penetration of the site and a bus
WYG T t Pl i
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
34/409
WYGTransport Planning
Provision of New Household Sustainable Travel Packs for eac7.1.7 The proposed site access junction would operate with sufficient spa
assessment year. A number of off-site highway junctions have also b
year with development scenario and the following highway improvem
Conversion of the existing Shelford Road/Main Road mini-rousignal control, including provision of controlled pedestrian cro
Capacity improvements at the A52/Nottingham Road signal ju Capacity improvements at the A52/Stragglethorpe Road signa A S106 contribution of 200,000 towards the provision of
along Shelford Road; and
S106 contribution of 27,000 towards a traffic management/Newton.
7.1.8 In transportation terms, it is considered that, subject to delivery of travel measures/initiatives and highway improvements, there are no
the proposed development that should prevent the granting of planni
WYG T t Pl i
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
35/409
WYGTransport Planning
Date
Date
ecked
Approved
wingNo.
Revision
WYG
C
26/10/12
ASG
29/10/12
001
-
BY
CHKAPP
DATE
GroupLtd.
ataC
rowncopyright
ation
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
36/409
JJC
26/10/12
A079137
ProjectNo.
Scale@
Drawn
Date
Che
Dra
Office
Type
Project:
DrawingTitle:
EXECUTIVEPARK
AVALONWAY
ANSTEY
LEICESTER
LE77GR
TEL:
+44(0)1162348000
FAX:
+44(0)1162348001
e-mail:
18
JI
NTS
35
REV
DESCRIPTION
SHELFORDROADFARM,
RADCLIFFE-ON-TRENT
FIGURE1
SITELOCATIONPLAN
Client:
ContainsOrdnanceSurveyda
anddatabaseright2012.
WILLIAMDAVISLTD
0
100
200
300
400M
etre
s
Legend S
iteLoca
A3
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
37/409
Date
Date
Checked
Approved
DrawingNo.
Revision
WYG
JIC
06/11/12
ASG
06/11/12
003
-
BY
CHKAPP
DATE
GroupLtd.
, ENT
dataC
rowncopyright
cation
alkingCatchment
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
38/409
JJC
06/11/12
A079137
ProjectNo.
Scale@
Drawn
Date
C D
Office
Type
Project:
DrawingTitle:
EXECUTIVEPARK
AVALONWAY
ANSTEY
LEICESTER
LE77GR
TEL:
+44(0)1162348000
FAX:
+44(0)1162348001
e-mail:
18
NTS
35
REV
DESCRIPTION
SHELFORDROADFARM,
RADCLIFFE-ON-TRENT
FIGURE3
2KMWALKINGCATCHM
Client:
ContainsOrdnanceSurveyd
anddatabaseright2012.
WILLIAMDAVISLTD
0
200
400
600
800M
etre
s
Legend S
iteLoc
2kmWa
A3
Date
Date
Checked
Approved
DrawingNo.
Revision
WYG
JIC
06/11/12
ASG
06/11/12
004
-
BY
CHKAPP
DATE
GroupLtd.
M, E
NT
dataC
rowncopyright
cation
yclingCatchment
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
39/409
JJC
06/11/12
A079137
ProjectNo.
Scale@
Drawn
Date
Office
Type
Project:
DrawingTitle:
EXECUTIVEPARK
AVALONWAY
ANSTEY
LEICESTER
LE77GR
TEL:
+44(0)1162348000
FAX:
+44(0)1162348001
e-mail:
18
NTS
35
REV
DESCRIPTION
SHELFORDROADFARM
RADCLIFFE-ON-TRENT
FIGURE4
4KMCYCLINGCATCHM
Client:
ContainsOrdnanceSurvey
anddatabaseright2012.
WILLIAMDAVISLTD
0
400
800
1,2
00
1,6
00M
etre
s
Legend S
iteLo
4kmCy
A3
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
40/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
41/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
42/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
43/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
44/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
45/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
46/409
WYGTransport Planning
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
47/409
p g
Appendix A Shelford Road Vehicle S
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
48/409
VehicleSpeedSurveyAnalysi
s
Client
WilliamDavisLtd
Site
ShelfordRoad
Direction
Southbound
Day
Tuesday
Date
30/10/2012
Time
09:20-11:10
W
eather
Dry/dull
IN
PUTDATAHERE(Max200persite)
LISTALLREADINGS
38
35
34
30
30
27
25
29
31
27
28
30
28
39
31
41
29
37
23
30
29
38
30
28
28
34
31
29
30
29
34
32
25
28
32
31
45
34
25
31
29
28
32
30
26
33
26
30
29
28
30
35
32
29
29
32
33
28
32
38
33
29
31
27
29
30
25
26
31
37
39
33
28
33
26
26
29
27
33
30
25
27
37
33
35
32
36
37
24
30
39
30
35
28
24
26
36
29
29
37
35
31
39
30
28
30
31
26
31
27
26
27
27
35
27
38
25
40
27
31
27
26
28
31
27
28
28
32
33
35
28
32
29
29
28
24
25
28
34
28
Min
23.0mph
Max
45.0mph
Median
29.0mph
Total
2964.0
Counts
100
Average
29.64mph
StdDev
3.93
meanplusstddev)
85%ile
33.57
Iflessthan200samples(meanplu
sstddev)
owance)
IfDry
2.49mph
(deductforwetweatherallowance)
85%
wet
31.0
8mph
Lessthan200samples
ed
Equals
50.02kph
85th%ilewetweatherspeed
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
49/409
VehicleSpeedSurveyAnalysis
C
lient
WilliamDavisLtd
Site
ShelfordRoad
Direction
Southbound
Day
Thursday
Date
01/11/12
Time
12:30-13:55
W
eather
Dull/dry
IN
PUTDATAHERE(Max200persite)
LISTALLREADINGS
38
35
30
30
40
29
29
26
35
43
29
31
30
28
36
35
34
27
36
32
31
31
29
30
36
36
36
31
34
33
31
31
28
31
32
31
28
35
32
31
34
29
28
30
35
35
35
32
34
29
40
27
31
32
31
32
31
39
41
32
30
38
38
28
29
32
30
27
29
29
33
29
43
42
42
27
26
30
35
36
28
41
44
32
37
31
33
35
32
29
32
28
35
34
36
33
32
29
48
36
31
31
30
33
40
23
27
27
29
29
25
33
33
38
27
35
33
28
33
29
40
29
32
25
27
23
26
31
29
35
33
29
44
43
38
32
36
45
30
29
Min
23.0mph
Max
45.0mph
Median
31.0mph
Total
3207.0
Counts
100
Average
32.07mph
StdDev
4.72
meanplusstddev)
85%ile
36.79
Iflessthan200samples(meanplu
sstddev)
owance)
IfDry
2.49mph
(deductforwetweatherallowance
)
85%
wet
34.3
0mph
Lessthan200samples
ed
Equals
55.20kph
85th%ilewetweatherspeed
WYGTransport Planning
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
50/409
Appendix B Traffic C
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
51/409
N
Forand
on
behalfof:
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
52/409
N
Forand
on
behalfof:
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
53/409
08/11/20
12
//
09170919
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
54/409
08/11/20
12
//
2
1
2
2
1
2
3
4
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
55/409
08/11/20
12
//
2
1
2
2
1
2
5
6
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
56/409
08/11/20
12
//
2
1
2
2
1
2
7
8
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
57/409
08/11/20
12
//
2
1
2
2
1
2
9
10
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
58/409
08/11/20
12
/
/
2
1
2
2
1
2
11
12
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
59/409
08/11/2012
/
/
2
1
2
2
1
2
13
14
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
60/409
08/11/2012
/
/
2
1
2
2
1
2
15
16
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
61/409
08/11/2012
/
/
2
1
2
2
1
2
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
62/409
08/11/2012
/
/
2
1
2
2
1
2
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
63/409
08/11/2012
/
/
2
1
2
2
1
2
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
64/409
08/11/2012
/
/
2
1
2
2
1
2
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
65/409
08/11/2012
/
/
2
1
/
/
/
2
/
1
A52 Nottingham - Manual Traffic Survey, Thursday 21 J8 Notti J8 J8 A52 J8 J8 N/A 7 1 ## FALSE FALS
Produced by Road Data Services Ltd.
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
66/409
Junction: (8) Nottingham Road / A52 Grantham Road
Vehicle Class:
Start Time:
End Time:
3980 19
4204 30
11645 11223
Note: The above diagram represents the Junction surveyed although m
A52 Grantham
Road (East)
NottinghamRoad
A52 Grantham
Road (West)
ALL CLASSES
1) 0700
1) 1900
Peak Hour
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
67/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
68/409
ngham-Ma
nualTrafficSurvey,T
hursday2ndJuly200
9
oadDataServicesL
td.
NottinghamRoad/A52GranthamRoad
2GranthamRoad(East)
YCLE
M/CYCLE
CAR
LGV
OGV1
OGV2
BUS
TOTAL
P/CYCLE
M/CYCLE
CAR
LGV
OGV1
OGV2
BUS
TOTAL
0
4
223
26
9
12
1
275
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
259
30
12
11
2
318
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
268
24
12
10
2
320
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
278
22
11
11
3
332
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
102
8
102
44
44
8
1245
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
267
22
16
10
7
324
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
3
247
22
9
13
4
298
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
228
23
12
11
4
279
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
223
24
9
17
2
279
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
10
965
91
46
51
17
1180
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
3
0
1
228
23
14
12
1
279
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
222
34
12
12
1
283
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
233
32
10
12
0
289
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
224
16
12
11
3
268
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
907
105
48
47
5
1119
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
4
212
21
15
9
2
263
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
173
29
18
11
2
234
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
184
23
13
14
2
236
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
159
26
22
17
2
227
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
728
99
68
51
8
960
0
0
2
1
2
0
0
5
0
1
157
24
16
9
2
209
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
140
33
19
21
2
215
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
139
23
13
10
1
187
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
126
21
16
13
2
178
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
562
101
64
53
7
789
0
0
4
1
0
0
0
5
0
2
151
22
16
12
1
204
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
152
33
13
15
1
216
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
151
27
21
20
1
224
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
144
31
14
16
2
207
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
598
113
64
63
5
851
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
4
148
30
15
15
1
213
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
154
22
12
10
1
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
152
20
10
12
2
197
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
141
31
21
10
2
206
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
7
595
103
58
47
6
816
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
138
24
14
15
2
193
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
150
24
13
12
1
201
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
144
39
13
14
2
213
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
132
31
15
16
5
199
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
564
118
55
57
10
806
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
150
20
13
10
6
199
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
134
33
15
11
2
197
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
137
33
14
9
2
195
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
W
/BtoA52GranthamRoad(West)
RighttoNottinghamRoad
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
69/409
A52 Nottingham - Manual Traffic Survey, Thursday 22 J7 A52 J7 J7 A52 J7 J7 N/A 7 1 ## FALSE FALS
Produced by Road Data Services Ltd.
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
70/409
Junction: (7) A52 Radcliffe Road / Stragglethorpe Road
Vehicle Class:
Start Time:
End Time:
14934 14253
2120 947
2504 912
Note: The above diagram represents the Junction surveyed although m
A52 Radcliffe
Road (East)
Str
agglethorpeRoad
A52 Radcliffe
Road (West)
ALL CLASSES
1) 0700
1) 1900
Peak Hour
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
71/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
72/409
ngham-Ma
nualTrafficSurvey,T
hursday2ndJuly200
9
oadDataServicesLtd.
A52RadcliffeRoad/StragglethorpeRoad
agglethorpeRoad
YCLE
M/CYCLE
CA
R
LGV
OGV1
OGV2
BUS
TOTAL
P/CYCLE
M/CYCLE
CAR
LGV
OGV1
OGV2
BUS
TOTAL
0
2
46
6
0
0
0
54
0
1
3
4
1
0
0
9
0
0
74
4
4
0
1
83
0
0
9
0
1
0
0
10
0
1
71
12
2
0
2
88
0
0
7
1
0
0
0
8
0
1
74
6
5
1
0
87
0
0
10
0
1
0
1
12
0
4
265
28
11
1
3
312
0
1
29
5
3
0
1
39
0
0
94
8
2
1
3
108
0
0
18
2
0
0
7
27
0
1
77
6
4
0
1
89
0
0
13
1
0
1
0
15
1
2
67
7
1
2
1
81
1
0
16
1
1
0
0
19
0
1
54
5
1
1
1
63
0
0
15
0
1
0
0
16
1
4
292
26
8
4
6
341
1
0
62
4
2
1
7
77
0
1
64
10
3
0
0
78
1
0
17
4
0
0
0
22
0
0
74
7
2
0
1
84
0
1
17
2
1
0
0
21
0
0
46
7
1
1
0
55
1
1
17
2
2
0
0
23
0
1
37
4
3
0
1
46
0
0
16
5
2
0
0
23
0
2
221
28
9
1
2
263
2
2
67
13
5
0
0
89
0
0
39
9
0
2
1
51
0
0
10
5
0
0
0
15
0
1
35
7
1
1
1
46
0
0
9
1
0
0
0
10
0
1
33
3
1
2
0
40
0
0
16
2
0
0
0
18
0
0
35
7
3
2
1
48
1
0
18
0
0
0
0
19
0
2
142
26
5
7
3
185
1
0
53
8
0
0
0
62
0
1
30
6
3
0
1
41
0
0
13
0
1
0
0
14
0
0
27
6
4
0
1
38
0
0
10
3
1
0
0
14
0
1
33
5
3
2
0
44
0
0
12
1
3
0
0
16
0
0
25
5
1
0
1
32
0
1
16
0
2
0
0
19
0
2
115
22
11
2
3
155
0
1
51
4
7
0
0
63
0
0
42
6
0
0
1
49
0
0
10
3
0
0
0
13
0
0
27
4
2
1
2
36
0
0
13
1
3
0
0
17
0
0
35
4
1
1
0
41
2
0
12
2
0
0
0
16
0
2
35
9
3
0
2
51
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
13
0
2
139
23
6
2
5
177
2
0
48
6
3
0
0
59
0
0
21
7
0
1
0
29
0
0
14
5
0
0
0
19
0
0
42
7
1
2
1
53
1
0
12
2
0
0
0
15
0
1
37
3
1
0
1
43
0
1
9
4
2
0
0
16
0
0
44
4
3
2
0
53
0
0
10
3
0
1
0
14
0
1
144
21
5
5
2
178
1
1
45
14
2
1
0
64
0
1
30
5
1
2
1
40
0
0
19
2
0
0
1
22
0
0
38
6
1
0
2
47
0
1
14
4
0
0
0
19
0
1
32
5
3
1
1
43
0
0
12
4
0
0
0
16
0
1
28
11
2
1
1
44
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
9
0
3
128
27
7
4
5
174
0
1
54
10
0
0
1
66
0
0
37
6
0
2
2
47
0
3
14
2
0
0
0
19
0
0
34
1
1
0
0
36
0
0
23
5
0
0
0
28
0
0
30
3
1
0
2
36
0
0
15
3
1
0
0
19
L
efttoA52RadcliffeRoad(West)
Righ
ttoA52RadcliffeRoad(East)
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
73/409
A52 Nottingham - Manual Traffic Survey, Thursday 213 J6 Trav J6 J6 A52 J6 J6 N/A 7 1 ## FALSE FALS
Produced by Road Data Services Ltd.
Junction: (6) Gamston Roundabout
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
74/409
Junction: (6) Gamston Roundabout
Vehicle Class:
Start Time:
End Time:
20 49 21
19
8143 19
2953 8108
8587
2946 55 8830
Note: The above diagram represents the Junction surveyed although m
A52 Radcliffe RoadA6011 Radcliffe Road
TravellerSite
A52Gamston
LingsBarRd
ALL CLASSES
1) 0700
1) 1900
Peak Hour
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
75/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
76/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
77/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
78/409
WYGTransport Planning
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
79/409
Appendix C 2013 Junction Capacity
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
80/409
http://www.trlsoftware.co.uk/mailto:[email protected]8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
81/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
82/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
83/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
84/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
85/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
86/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
87/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
88/409
http://www.trlsoftware.co.uk/mailto:[email protected]8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
89/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
90/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
91/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
92/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
93/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
94/409
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
95/409
Full Input Data And Results
Full Input Data And Results
User and Project Details
Project:
Title:
Location:
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
96/409
File name: Radcliffe Notts.lsg3x
Author:
Company:
Address:
Notes:
Network Layout Diagram
A52/Nottingham Rd
Arm 1 -
1
2
3
1/1
1/2
1/3
Arm
1
2
3
2/1
2/2
2/3
Arm
3-No
ttingh
amRd
12 3
/13/2
Arm
4-
1
4/1
Arm 6 -
1
2
6/1
6/2
A
Intergreens to phase C and Phase Cminimum green reduced to reflectfrequency of appearance due to lowdemand
Full Input Data And Results
Phase Diagram
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
97/409
A
Phase Input Data
Phase Name Phase Type Assoc. Phase Street Min Cont Min
A Traffic 7 7
B Traffic 7 7
C Traffic 1 1
D Traffic 7 7
Phase Intergreens Matrix
Starting Phase
A B C D
A 2 8
Full Input Data And Results
Stage Diagram
A
B
C
D
1 Min >= 7
A
B
C
D
2 Min >= 0
A
B
C
D
3 Min >= 7
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
98/409
Phase Delays
Term. Stage Start Stage Phase Type Value Cont value
There are no Phase Delays defined
Prohibited Stage Change
To Stage
FromStage
1 2 3
1 2 8
2 8 8
3 7 7
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
99/409
FullInp
utDataAndResults
Give-W
ayLaneInputData
Junctio
n:A52/NottinghamRd
Therea
renoOpposedLanesinthisJunction
Full Input Data And Results
Lane Input Data
Junction: A52/Nottingham Rd
LaneLaneType
PhasesStartDisp.
EndDisp.
PhysicalLength(PCU)
SatFlowType
Def UserSaturation
Flow(PCU/Hr)
LaneWidth
(m)Gradie
1/1 U A 2 3 14.0 Geom - 4.00 0.00
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
100/409
1/2 U A 2 3 110.0 Geom - 3.50 0.00
1/3 U A 2 3 110.0 Geom - 3.20 0.00
2/1
(A52Grantham
Rd)
U B 2 3 60.0 Geom - 3.20 0.00
2/2(A52
GranthamRd)
U B 2 3 60.0 Geom - 3.60 0.00
2/3(A52
GranthamRd)
U C 2 3 9.0 Geom - 4.00 0.00
3/1(Nottingham
Rd)U D 2 3 3.0 Geom - 2.80 0.00
3/2(Nottingham
Rd)U D 2 3 60.0 Geom - 2.80 0.00
4/1 U 2 3 60.0 Inf - - -
5/1 U 2 3 60.0 Inf - - -
5/2 U 2 3 60.0 Inf - - -
6/1 U 2 3 10.0 Inf - - -
6/2 U 2 3 10.0 Inf - - -
Traffic Flow Groups
Flow Group Start Time End Time Duration Formula
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
101/409
Full Input Data And Results
Lane Saturation Flows
Junction: A52/Nottingham Rd
LaneLaneWidth
(m)Gradient
NearsideLane
AllowedTurns
TurningRadius
(m)
TurningProp.
Sat Flo(PCU/H
1/1 4.00 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead 18.00 100.0 % 1860
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
102/409
1/2 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 5 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1965
1/3 3.20 0.00 N Arm 5 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 2075
2/1(A52 Grantham Rd)
3.20 0.00 Y Arm 6 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1935
2/2(A52 Grantham Rd)
3.60 0.00 N Arm 6 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 2115
2/3(A52 Grantham Rd)
4.00 0.00 Y Arm 4 U-Turn 14.00 100.0 % 1820
3/1(Nottingham Rd)
2.80 0.00 YArm 5 U-Turn 7.00 0.0 %
1788 Arm 6 Ahead 25.00 100.0 %
3/2(Nottingham Rd)
2.80 0.00 Y Arm 6 Ahead 25.00 100.0 % 1788
4/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf
5/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf
5/2 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf
6/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf
6/2 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf
Scenario 2: '2013 PM Base'(FG2: '2013 PM Base', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1')
Traffic Flows, DesiredDesired Flow :
Destination
Origin
A B C Tot.
A 0 720 1410 2130
B 297 0 1 298
C 968 2 0 970
Tot. 1265 722 1411 3398
Full Input Data And Results
Traffic Lane Flows
LaneScenario 2:
2013 PM Base
Junction: A52/Nottingham Rd
1/1(short) 720
1/2 1283(In)
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
103/409
1/2(with short)
1283(In)563(Out)
1/3 847
2/1 445
2/2(with short)
525(In)523(Out)
2/3(short)
2
3/1(short)
156
3/2(with short)
298(In)142(Out)
4/1 722
5/1 564
5/2 847
6/1 600
6/2 665
Lane Saturation Flows
Junction: A52/Nottingham Rd
LaneLaneWidth
(m)Gradient
NearsideLane
AllowedTurns
TurningRadius
(m)
TurningProp.
Sat Flo(PCU/H
1/1 4.00 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead 18.00 100.0 % 1860
1/2 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 5 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1965
1/3 3.20 0.00 N Arm 5 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 2075
2/1
(A52 Grantham Rd)3.20 0.00 Y Arm 6 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1935
2/2(A52 Grantham Rd)
3.60 0.00 N Arm 6 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 2115
2/3
Full Input Data And Results
Scenario 1: '2013 AM Base'(FG1: '2013 AM Base', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1')
Stage Sequence Diagram
A
B
1 Min: 7
7 35s
B
C
2 Min: 1
2 1s
D
3 Min: 7
8 37s
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
104/409
Stage Timings
Stage 1 2 3
Duration 35 1 37
Change Point 0 42 45
Signal Timings Diagram
0
0
10
10
20
20
30
30
40
40
50
50
60
60
70
70
8
8
Time in cycle (sec)
Phases
1 7 : 350
22 : 142
3 8 : 3745
DCBA
-A52G
rantham
Rd
79.7%
668
81.5%
747
81.5%
1
371
339
Arm
5-
1 2
0.0
0.0%
0.0
0.0%
B
C
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
105/409
FullInp
utDataAndResults
Netwo
rkLayoutDiagram
A52/Nottingham
Rd
PRC:9.7%
TotalTrafficDelay:3
0.9pcuHr
Arm1-
1 2 3
78.8%
265
13.4
78.8%
556
13.7
72.0%
598
Arm
2-
123
16.2
18.3
Arm3
-Nottin
ghamR
d
12
82.0
%
14.7
82.0
%
Arm
4-
1
0.0
0.0%
266
556
598
Arm
6-
12
0.0
0.0%
1039
0.0
0.0%
1086
A
B
IntergreenstophaseCa
ndPhaseC
minimumg
reenreduced
toreflect
frequencyofappearance
duetolow
demand
and(pcu)
S
atFlow
(p
cu/Hr)
Capacity
(pcu)
DegSat
(%)
-
-
-
82.0%
-
-
-
82.0%
21
1965:1860
705+336
78.8:
78.8%
98
2075
830
72.0%
68
1935
839
79.7%
48
2115:1820
916+1
81.5:
81.5%
10
1788:1788
413+452
82.0:
82.0%
66
Inf
Inf
0.0%
56
Inf
Inf
0.0%
98
Inf
Inf
0.0%
039
Inf
Inf
0.0%
086
Inf
Inf
0.0%
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
106/409
FullInp
utDataAndResults
Netwo
rkResults
Item
Lane
Description
Lane
Type
Controller
Stream
PositionIn
FilteredRoute
FullPhase
Arrow
Phase
Num
Greens
TotalGreen
(s)
Arrow
Green(s)
Dema
Flow
Network
-
-
N/A
-
-
-
-
-
A52/No
ttingham
Rd
-
-
N/A
-
-
-
-
-
1/2+1/1
AheadAhead2
U
N/A
N/A
A
1
35
-
82
1/3
Ahead
U
N/A
N/A
A
1
35
-
59
2/1
A52Grantham
RdAhead
U
N/A
N/A
B
1
38
-
66
2/2+2/3
A52Grantham
RdU-Turn
Ahead
U
N/A
N/A
B
C
1
38:1
-
74
3/2+3/1
NottinghamR
d
U-TurnAhead
U
N/A
N/A
D
1
37
-
7
4/1
U
N/A
N/A
-
-
-
-
26
5/1
U
N/A
N/A
-
-
-
-
55
5/2
U
N/A
N/A
-
-
-
-
59
6/1
U
N/A
N/A
-
-
-
-
10
6/2
U
N/A
N/A
-
-
-
-
10
Delay
PCU
cu)
M
ax.Backof
U
niform
Q
ueue(pcu)
Rand+
Oversat
Queue(pcu)
Mean
Max
Queue
(pcu)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
29.4
11.6
1.8
13.4
30.4
12.5
1.3
13.7
32.4
14.3
1.9
16.2
32.7
16.2
2.1
18.3
32.0
12.4
2.2
14.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
s):
90
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
107/409
FullInp
utDataAndResults
Item
Arriving(pcu)
Leaving
(pcu)
TurnersIn
Gaps(pcu)
TurnersWhen
Unopposed
(pcu)
TurnersIn
Intergreen
(pcu)
Uniform
Delay
(pcuHr)
Rand+
Oversat
Delay
(pcuHr)
Sto
rageArea
Uniform
Delay
(pc
uHr)
Total
Delay
(pcuHr)
Av.D
PerP
(s/pc
Network
-
-
0
0
0
21.5
9.4
0.0
30.9
A52/No
ttingham
Rd
-
-
0
0
0
21.5
9.4
0.0
30.9
1/2+1/1
821
821
-
-
-
4.9
1.8
-
6.7
2
1/3
598
598
-
-
-
3.8
1.3
-
5.1
3
2/1
668
668
-
-
-
4.1
1.9
-
6.0
3
2/2+2/3
748
748
-
-
-
4.6
2.1
-
6.8
3
3/2+3/1
710
710
-
-
-
4.1
2.2
-
6.3
3
4/1
266
266
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
0
5/1
556
556
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
0
5/2
598
598
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
0
6/1
1039
1039
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
0
6/2
1086
1086
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
0
C1
PRCforSignalledLanes(%):
9.7
TotalDelayforSignalledLanes(pcuH
r):
30.89
CycleTime(s
PRCOverAllLanes(%):
9.7
TotalDelayOverAllLanes(pcuH
r):
30.89
Full Input Data And ResultsScenario 2: '2013 PM Base'(FG2: '2013 PM Base', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1')
Stage Sequence Diagram
A
B
1 Min: 7
7 58s
B
C
2 Min: 1
2 1s
D
3 Min: 7
8 14s
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
108/409
Stage Timings
Stage 1 2 3
Duration 58 1 14
Change Point 0 65 68
Signal Timings Diagram
0
0
10
10
20
20
30
30
40
40
50
50
60
60
70
70
8
8
Time in cycle (sec)
Phases
1 7 : 58
0
22 : 1
65
3 8 :
68
DCBA
2-A52Grantham
Rd
33.4%
445
35.9%
523
35.9%
2
15614
2
Arm
5-
1 2
0.0
0.0%
0.0
0.0%
B
C
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
109/409
FullInputDataAndResults
Netwo
rkLayoutDiagram
A52/Nottingham
Rd
PRC:17.5%
TotalTrafficDelay:1
3.7pcuHr
Arm1-
1 2 3
76.6%
720
11.6
76.6%
563
13.1
62.3%
847
Arm
2
123
4.7
5.7
Arm3
-Nottin
ghamR
d
12
73.1
%
5.5
73.1
%
Arm4
-
1
0.0
0.0%
722
564
847
Arm
6-
12
0.0
0.0%
600
0.0
0.0%
665
A
IntergreenstophaseCandPhaseC
minimumg
reenreduced
toreflect
frequencyofappearance
duetolow
demand
mand
ow(pcu)
S
atFlow
(pcu/Hr)
Capacity
(pcu)
DegSat
(%)
-
-
-
76.6%
-
-
-
76.6%
1283
1965:1860
735+940
76.6:
76.6%
847
2075
1360
62.3%
445
1935
1333
33.4%
525
2115:1820
1457+6
35.9:
35.9%
298
1788:1786
194+214
73.1:
73.1%
722
Inf
Inf
0.0%
564
Inf
Inf
0.0%
847
Inf
Inf
0.0%
600
Inf
Inf
0.0%
665
Inf
Inf
0.0%
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
110/409
FullInputDataAndResults
NetworkResults
Item
Lane
Description
Lane
Type
Controller
Stream
PositionIn
FilteredRoute
FullP
hase
Arrow
Phase
Num
Greens
TotalGreen
(s)
Arrow
Green(s)
Dem
Flo
Network
-
-
N/A
-
-
-
-
-
A52/Nottingham
Rd
-
-
N/A
-
-
-
-
-
1/2+1/1
AheadAhead2
U
N/A
N/A
A
1
58
-
1/3
Ahead
U
N/A
N/A
A
1
58
-
2/1
A52Grantham
RdAhead
U
N/A
N/A
B
1
61
-
2/2+2/3
A52Grantham
RdU-Turn
Ahead
U
N/A
N/A
B
C
1
61:1
-
3/2+3/1
NottinghamR
d
U-TurnAhead
U
N/A
N/A
D
1
14
-
4/1
U
N/A
N/A
-
-
-
-
5/1
U
N/A
N/A
-
-
-
-
5/2
U
N/A
N/A
-
-
-
-
6/1
U
N/A
N/A
-
-
-
-
6/2
U
N/A
N/A
-
-
-
-
v.Delay
erPCU
pcu)
M
ax.Backof
U
niform
Q
ueue(pcu)
Rand+
Oversat
Queue(pcu)
Mean
Max
Queue
(pcu)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.7
10.0
1.6
11.6
12.5
12.2
0.8
13.1
7.7
4.4
0.3
4.7
7.9
5.4
0.3
5.7
50.2
4.1
1.3
5.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
e(s):
90
8/13/2019 File 19 Traffic Transport Assessment
111/409
FullInputDataAndResults
Item
Arriving(pcu)
Leaving
(pcu)
TurnersIn
Gaps(pcu)
TurnersWhen
Unopposed
(pcu)
Turne
rsIn
Interg
reen
(pcu)
Uniform
Delay
(pcuHr)
Rand+
Oversat
Delay
(pcuHr)
StorageArea
Un
iform
De
lay
(pc
uHr)
Total
Delay
(pcuHr)
AvPe(s/
Network
-
-
0
0
0
9.4
4.3
0.0
13.7
A52/Nottingham
Rd
-
-
0
0
0
9.4
4.3
0.0
13.7
1/2+1/1
1283
1283
-
-
-
2.9
1.6
-
4.5
1/3
847
847
-
-
-
2.1
0.8
-
2.9
2/1
445
445
-
-
-
0.7
0.3
-
1.0
2/2+2/3
525
525
-
-
-
0.9
0.3
-
1.1
3/2+3/1
298
298
-
-
-
2.8
1.3
-
4.2
4/1
722
722
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
5/1
564
564
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
5/2
847
847
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
6/1
600
600
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
6/2
665
665
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
C1
PRCforSignalledLanes(%):
17.5
TotalDelayforSignalledLanes(pcuH
r):
13.73
CycleTime
PRCOverAllLanes(%):
17.5
TotalDelayOverAllLanes(pcuH
r):
Top Related