blenheim road community primary school...between 8.30am and 4.30pm. to the south of these markings,...

JUNE 2014

BLENHEIM ROAD COMMUNITY

PRIMARY SCHOOL

TORFAEN COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL

3512543Z-HHC

Final

Blenheim Road CommunityPrimary School

TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT 3512543Z-HHC

Prepared forTorfaen County Borough Council

Civic CentrePontypoolNP4 6YB

Prepared byParsons Brinckerhoff

29 Cathedral RoadCardiff

9HA UK

02920 827048 www.pbworld.com

Blenheim Road Community Primary SchoolTransport Assessment

Blenheim Road Primary School TA FINAL Prepared by Parsons BrinckerhoffJune 2014 for Torfaen County Borough Council

CONTENTSPage

1 INTRODUCTION 61.1 Project Brief 6

2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 72.2 Site Location and Description 72.3 Local Highway Network 82.4 Base Traffic 92.5 Collision Identification and Review 102.6 Sustainable Transport Analysis 122.7 Local Amenities 18

3 POLICY REVIEW 193.2 National Policy 193.3 Regional Policy 213.4 Local Policy 22

4 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS 254.2 Proposed Primary School Development 254.3 Proposed Residential Development 274.4 Highway Improvements 274.5 Sustainable Transport Improvements 28

5 DEVELOPMENT TRAVEL DEMAND 295.1 Development Proposals 295.2 Trip Rates 305.3 Vehicle Trip Generation 315.4 Vehicle Trip Distribution 32

6 LOCAL HIGHWAY NETWORK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 336.2 Assessment Years and Traffic Growth 336.3 Committed Development 346.4 Development Traffic Assignment 34

7 JUNCTION CAPACITY ASSESSMENT 387.2 Traffic Modelling Results 387.3 Highway Assessment Summary 47

8 FRAMEWORK TRAVEL PLAN 488.2 Objectives of Framework Travel Plan 488.3 Travel Plan Co-ordinator 488.4 Contents of the Travel Plan 498.5 Encouraging Sustainable Travel Behaviour 49

9 SUMMARY AND MITIGATION MEASURES 509.1 Summary 509.2 Mitigation Measures 519.3 Conclusion 52



List of Tables

Table 2.1: Summary of Collision DataTable 2.2: Summary of Bus ServicesTable 2.3: Summary of Rail ServicesTable 2.4: Summary of Local AmenitiesTable 5.1: Pupil NumbersTable 5.2: School Trip RatesTable 5.3: Residential Trip RatesTable 5.4: Total Primary School Pupils Vehicular Trip GenerationTable 5.5: Additional Primary School Pupils Vehicular Trip GenerationTable 5.6: Residential Vehicular Trip GenerationTable 6.1: Scenarios to be testedTable 6.2: TEMPro Growth Factors for Background TrafficTable 6.3: Vehicular Trips for the Additional Primary School Pupils in 2016Table 6.4: Vehicular Trips for all Primary School Pupils in 2016Table 6.5: Residential Vehicular Trip GenerationTable 6.6: Vehicular Trips for the Additional Primary School Pupils in 2026Table 6.7: Vehicular Trips for all Primary School Pupils in 2026Table 7.1: 2014 Base Year Blenheim Road / Site Access PICADY AssessmentTable 7.2: 2016 Opening Year Blenheim Road / Site Access PICADY AssessmentTable 7.3: 2026 Future Year Blenheim Road / Site Access PICADY AssessmentTable 7.4: 2014 Base Year Blenheim Road / Greenmeadow Way PICADY AssessmentTable 7.5: 2016 Opening Year Blenheim Road / Greenmeadow Way PICADY AssessmentTable 7.6: 2026 Future Year Blenheim Road / Greenmeadow Way PICADY AssessmentTable 7.7: 2014 Base Year Blenheim Road / Henllys Way ARCADY AssessmentTable 7.8: 2016 Opening Year Blenheim Road / Henllys Way ARCADY AssessmentTable 7.9: 2026 Future Year Blenheim Road / Henllys Way ARCADY Assessment

List of Figures

Figure 2.1: Site LocationFigure 2.2: Junction LocationsFigure 2.3: Pedestrian Access to the School via Footways and FootpathsFigure 2.4: Pedestrian Access to the School via FootbridgeFigure 2.5: Cycle RoutesFigure 2.6: Site Entrance with Bus Stop on the western side of Blenheim RoadFigure 2.7: Bus Stop on the eastern side of Blenheim RoadFigure 2.8: Greenmeadow Way Bus StopFigure 4.1: Development Proposals

Appendices

Appendix A: Collision DataAppendix B: TRICS OutputAppendix C: Flow DiagramsAppendix D: Junction Modelling Output



- 6 -

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Brief

1.1.1 Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) has been commissioned by Torfaen County BoroughCouncil (TCBC) to develop a Transport Assessment in support of a proposeddevelopment for Blenheim Road Community Primary School.

1.1.2 The scope of this report has been agreed with TCBC. The report will assess thetraffic impact associated with the development of a new primary school to replace theexisting Blenheim Road Community Primary School.

1.1.1 The school currently has approximately 169 students, and employs 10 teachers and19 support staff. The new school is expected to accommodate 420 pupils and 50 fulltime staff.

1.1.2 In addition to the proposed new primary school, it is anticipated that part of thedevelopment site will be developed for residential use, potentially to include 50 units.This Transport Assessment (TA) assesses the proposed development of both thenew primary school and also the residential development.

1.1.3 This TA has been prepared in line with current guidance provided by the Departmentfor Transport (DfT) document, ‘Guidance on Transport Assessment’ (2007).

1.1.4 The remainder of this report is set out as follows:

· Section 2 – details the existing conditions of the development site and thelocal transport conditions in the base year.

· Section 3 – summarises relevant National, Regional and Local policies andobjectives.

· Section 4 – presents an overview of the development proposals.

· Section 5 – outlines the predicted travel demand of the proposeddevelopment.

· Section 6 – outlines the methodology for calculating the vehicular trafficimpact of the proposed development upon the local highway network

· Section 7 – details the operational performance of the local highwaynetwork before and after the proposed development.

· Section 8 – outlines objectives and proposals to be included within a TravelPlan.

· Section 9 – provides a summary, mitigation measures, and conclusion.



- 7 -

2 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1.1 This section of the TA provides an overview of existing conditions in the vicinity of theproposed development site and the surrounding area. It provides details of the site’slocation, its proximity to local facilities and amenities, and its accessibility by walking,cycling and public transport. Furthermore, this section considers the operation of thelocal highway network, and summarises a review of local Personal Injury Collisiondata.

2.2 Site Location and Description

2.2.1 The site is located to the west of Blenheim Road in St. Dials, a residential suburb insouth-west Cwmbran, approximately 1.4 km south-west of the town centre.

2.2.2 Other residential suburbs of Cwmbran surround the site, including Fairwater to thesouth-west, Greenmeadow to the north-west, and Two Locks to the south-east.

2.2.3 Blenheim Road is accessed from Henllys Way to the south and Greenmeadow Wayto the north. The site is surrounded to the north, east and south by residential areas,and an area of woodland to the west.

2.2.4 The A4051 is to the east of the site, accessed from Henllys Way. This road providesaccess to Newport, as well as the M4, providing access to other areas in SouthWales, Bristol, and London.

2.2.5 The site’s location is illustrated in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Site Location

This Figure contains Ordnance Survey data



- 8 -

2.2.6 The site is currently occupied by the existing Blenheim Road Community PrimarySchool. The existing school was established after an amalgamation of Fairwater Infantand Nursery School and Fairwater Junior School, and as such remains in two buildings.

2.2.7 On the site, in addition to the school buildings, the grounds contain a hard surfaceplaying area and a large playing field. They have also developed a wildlife area and a‘Sensory Garden’.

2.2.8 There are 20 parking spaces located within the onsite car park, one of which isreserved for the Head Teacher, and a further 2 spaces designated for disabled use.There are an additional 4 spaces on the access road to the site, located outside of theschool gate. The school prospectus outlines that the parking spaces are for use bythe school staff only, due to the limited space. The access way or driveway isunsuitable for drop-off and pick-up by parents due to its narrow width, restricting safemanoeuvres. The prospectus requests that parents do not bring their cars within theschool grounds, but identifies that parking is available at the Tamarind Restaurantand in the car park off Blenheim Road.

2.3 Local Highway Network

2.3.1 The site is located to the west of Blenheim Road, and is accessed via a priority T-junction. On site observation identified that this access road is very narrow, with acarriageway width of approximately 3m, which does not allow vehicles to pass oneanother. There are parking restrictions on either side, until at approximately 40m fromBlenheim Road. At this point the driveway widens to approximately 6m, which allowsfor parking along the south of the road. Parking is prohibited along the north of thelength of the driveway; however on site observation showed these restrictions beingignored. There are no speed restrictions in place, although there are two speedhumps along the access.

2.3.2 There is a footway on the western side of the carriageway along the length ofBlenheim Road. This footway continues on either side of the access road, providing agood standard of access to the school from the north and south. Currently, there is nofootway along the eastern side of Blenheim Road in the vicinity of the site access,only a grass verge.

2.3.3 Blenheim Road measures approximately 5m in the vicinity of the site, and due to thelocation in a residential area, it has a speed limit of 30mph. There are no signs alongBlenheim Road to remind drivers of the speed limit. There are ‘School Keep Clear’markings on the carriageway identifying the school access, and prohibiting vehiclesstopping. The signage states that there should be no stopping Monday to Fridaybetween 8.30am and 4.30pm. To the south of these markings, there is a bus stop forbuses travelling northbound along Blenheim Road.

2.3.4 There are further parking restrictions (double yellow lines) along both sides ofBlenheim Road to the south of the site access. These restrictions lift at the junctionwith Marston Path adjacent the stores, and at the entrance to the stores car parksouth of the site.

2.3.5 The school is located to the south of a bend on Blenheim Road. This is indicatedwhen driving northbound by a triangular warning sign that displays the bend to right.Conversely, when traveling southbound, there is a sign warning that the road bendsto the left. Both of these warning signs also display the warning that the road isapproaching a school.



- 9 -

2.3.6 To the north of the bend, Blenheim Road continues at an incline until the priority T-junction with Greenmeadow Way. This junction is less than 300m north of the schoolsite. Greenmeadow Way is a main distributor road that is subject to a 30mph speedlimit. There is good visibility along Greenmeadow Way as the carriageway is fairlystraight in the vicinity of the junction.

2.3.7 This Blenheim Road / Greenmeadow Way junction has a pedestrian underpassallowing pedestrians who are travelling along Greenmeadow Way to cross BlenheimRoad. However there is no designated access point for pedestrians who wish to comefrom Greenmeadow Way to Blenheim Road or vice versa. There are traffic barriersthat deter pedestrian movements across the junction.

2.3.8 Approximately 400m to the south of the site, Blenheim Road joins with Henllys Wayat a mini-roundabout junction. Henllys Way is a main distributor road, and is subject toa 30mph speed restriction. There is an informal pedestrian crossing with droppedkerbs and a pedestrian refuge island on the western arm of Henllys Way forpedestrians to cross from Blenheim Road. There are also dropped kerbs north of thejunction for pedestrians to cross Blenheim Road. On site observation of the morningpeak showed that a school crossing patrol officer aids pedestrians across thisjunction.

2.4 Base Traffic

2.4.1 Traffic flow information has been obtained to establish the baseline traffic conditionsalong the local network and to enable junction capacity analysis of key junctionswithin the study area.

2.4.2 Figure 2.2 below identifies the junctions analysed as part of this TA. These junctionshave been agreed with TCBC as part of the scoping exercise.

Figure 2.2: Junction Locations

Site Access /Blenheim Road

Blenheim Road /Greenmeadow Way

Blenheim Road /Henllys Way

IndicativeSite Location

This productcontainsOrdnanceSurvey data© Crowncopyright anddatabase right2012.



- 10 -

2.4.3 PB commissioned Sky High Count On Us to carry out the surveys at the locationsidentified in Figure 2.2.

2.4.4 Manual Classified Counts (MCC) data was collected on Wednesday 2nd April 2014over a 12 hour period from 07:00 to 19:00. This provides turning data for each of thejunctions, which were used for the impact analysis in this TA.

2.4.5 The network peak hours during the survey were identified as 08:15 to 09:15 in the AMand 17:00 and 18:00 in the PM. It is worth noting that the network PM peak is laterthan the anticipated peak from the school demand; however, the identified networkpeak hours have been used as a baseline for the impact analysis.

2.5 Collision Identification and Review

2.5.1 In order to establish the existing highway safety record within the vicinity of the site,an assessment has been carried out of Personal Injury Collision (PIC) data.

2.5.2 PIC data has been provided by TCBC for the study area, coving the five year periodbetween 1st March 2009 and 28th February 2014. Appendix A presents the FullDetails Report Summary of all collisions during this period and the plot of collisiondata.

2.5.3 The PIC data received shows that within the five year study period, a total of 7collisions were recorded. This equates to 1.4 PIC per year.

2.5.4 Collisions are recorded as either ‘fatal’, ‘serious’, or ‘slight’. Table 2.1 is a summary ofthe recorded incidents.

Table 2.1: Summary of Collision DataCollision

Type2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total

Fatal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Serious 0 1 0 1 0 0 2

Slight 2 1 2 0 0 0 5

Total 2 2 2 1 0 0 7

2.5.5 The frequency of collisions is consistently low, with none in 2013 or during thebeginning of 2014. Apart from 2012, the rate of ‘serious’ incidents is either the sameor lower than ‘slight’, with an overall 86% of incidents classified as ‘slight’. There wereno ‘serious’ incidents recorded in 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2014.

2.5.6 Within the 7 recorded collisions, there were 14 separate casualties, of which:

· 8 were vehicle drivers

· 5 were vehicle passengers

· 1 pedestrian

· 0 cyclists

· 0 motorcyclists



- 11 -

2.5.7 It is worth noting that the collision involving a pedestrian casualty occurred onCamrose Walk, a residential estate to the east of Blenheim Road. The collisionoccurred due to the pedestrian getting impatient with her husband, who was reversingthe car at the time, and walking behind the slow moving vehicle. The severity of thecollision was slight, and did not involve any children.

2.5.8 This report will now consider any collisions within the vicinity of the site that may havean impact on the development. All other collisions not discussed were the result ofdriver or pedestrian error and occurred away from the immediate vicinity of theschool.

Blenheim Road

2.5.9 A ‘slight’ collision occurred to the south of the site access, when a vehicle collidedwith the rear of another vehicle waiting to turn right into the shop car park.

Blenheim Road/ Henllys Way junction

2.5.10 A ‘slight’ incident occurred at the southern junction of Blenheim Road, with a vehicletravelling out of Blenheim Road onto Henllys Way, into the path of an on-comingvehicle, causing a collision. This incident occurred in 2009, when the junction was aT-junction. It has since been redesigned as a mini roundabout as part of a safetyscheme within the area. Since the safety scheme was introduced in 2012, there havebeen no further collisions at this junction.

Blenheim Road/ Greenmeadow Way

2.5.11 A ‘slight’ incident occurred at this junction, where a vehicle collided with the rear ofanother vehicle that was waiting to turn right into Blenheim Road.

Summary

2.5.12 The study area around the proposed development site has recorded a relatively lowincident rate within the last five years, equating to 1.4 collisions per year. Analysis ofthe collision data has shown that driver or pedestrian error has been the contributingfactor to all 7 of the collisions that have occurred in the last five years in the vicinity ofthe primary school. Furthermore, the two ‘serious’ collisions occurred onGreenmeadow Way, some distance from the school.

2.5.13 There are no indications of existing potential highway alignment or road surfacequality issues that would be compounded by the proposed development or itsassociated traffic.



- 12 -

2.6 Sustainable Transport Analysis

Travel by Walking or Cycling

2.6.1 There are footways measuring approximately 1.5m along the western side ofBlenheim Road, as shown on Figure 2.3. These footways continue on either side ofthe access road, providing a good standard of access to the north and south of theschool.

2.6.2 There is an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing at the site access junction. On siteinvestigation showed that dropped kerbs with tactile paving at the crossing appear tohave been recently introduced on the footways.

2.6.3 Currently, there is no footway along the eastern side of Blenheim Road across fromthe site access, only a grass verge. There is street lighting provided along thesepedestrian routes.

2.6.4 Footpaths are provided away from the carriageway, facilitating pedestrian accessfrom the residential areas to the north and south of the site, as shown in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3: Pedestrian Access to the School via Footways and Footpaths

2.6.5 There is a step-free footbridge for pedestrians who wish to cross Blenheim Road toaccess the site from the east, as shown in Figure 2.4.

SITEACCESS

Footway to thesouth

Footway to thenorth



- 13 -

Figure 2.4: Pedestrian Access to the School via Footbridge

2.6.6 When considering access to the school for cyclists, the provision is limited. There arecurrently no cycle facilities offered on site, and Blenheim Road has no specific cycleprovision.

2.6.7 National Cycle Route information has been found using Sustrans. This shows thatRoute 49, which follows the Monmouthshire and Brecon canal towpath, runs to theeast of the school. This is shown in yellow on Figure 2.5.

2.6.8 Local traffic-free and on-road routes are found to the north and south of the school,including along Henllys Way. Route 492 branches from Route 49 at Forge Hammer,Cwmbran and runs northwards to Pontypool.

2.6.9 There is no dedicated cycle route to the site; however the good standard of localfootpaths have shared-use potential to provide access to the site for the schoolchildren.

SITEACCESS

Footbridge tothe east



- 14 -

Figure 2.5: Cycle Routes (Source: Sustrans)

Travel by Bus

2.6.10 The nearest bus stop to the site is situated less than 50m to the south of the siteaccess on Blenheim Road, as shown in Figure 2.6. The bus stop is located on abend and there is no dedicated layby for the bus to pull in from the carriageway.

2.6.11 The bus stop is a pole and flag, and has no shelters, nor seats, and there is notimetable nor live service information.

Route 49

Route 492

Local Routes

The Site



- 15 -

Figure 2.6: Site Entrance with Bus Stop on the western side of Blenheim Road

2.6.12 Across the road from the site to the north is another bus stop, as shown in Figure2.7. There are no dedicated pedestrian crossing facilities to the bus stop. This stop,although sheltered, does not have seats, timetable or service information. There aredropped kerbs for pedestrians to cross the road to access this bus stop.

Figure 2.7: Bus Stop on the eastern side of Blenheim Road

2.6.13 There are no barriers near the bus stops (or at any point near the site access) toprevent children from entering the road.

2.6.14 Both of these stops serve route number 5, although due to alternating direction oftravel, 5A stops by the site entrance, and 5C across the road.

SITEACCESS

SITEACCESS



- 16 -

2.6.15 For an alternate service, it is necessary to travel north to Greenmeadow Way, eitherby walking 400m or by using the 5A bus. The stops on Greenmeadow Way are withinthe recommended walking distance of 400m, as outlined by DfT guidance1.

2.6.16 This sheltered stop, as shown in Figure 2.8, serves route number 6.

Figure 2.8: Greenmeadow Way Bus Stop

2.6.17 Route number 5 runs to and from Cwmbran via St Dials and Fairwater. The route hastwo services, 5A and 5C, which alternate direction of travel through Fairwater and StDials. Route number 6 runs to and from Cwmbran via St Dials, Greenmeadow, andTy Canol. These services are summarised in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2: Summary of Bus Services

Service Route Frequency Operator

5ACwmbran – St Dials

– Fairwater –Cwmbran

Monday to Saturday every 10minutes

No Sunday ServiceStagecoach

5CCwmbran –

Fairwater – StDials – Cwmbran


No Sunday ServiceStagecoach

6Cwmbran – St Dials– Greenmeadow –

Cwmbran


Sunday & Bank Holidays every 30minutes

Stagecoach

1 DfT LTN 1/04, Policy, Planning and Design for Walking and Cycling



- 17 -

Travel by Rail

2.6.18 Cwmbran rail station is located approximately 2.8km from the site on foot, andapproximately 3.1km by bicycle. Rail services from here connect the site to placesfurther afield, including Cardiff, Newport, and Hereford. The rail station can beaccessed by using local bus services, such as the number 5 (discussed above).

2.6.19 The DfT Policy2 recommends that the mean average length for general walkingjourneys is approximately 1km and 4km for cycling, and the IHT3 suggest that amaximum acceptable walking distance for commuting and school trips is 2km. Thetrain station is therefore considered to not be within an acceptable walking distance,but it is within an acceptable cycling distance.

2.6.20 Rail services are provided by Arriva Trains Wales, and a summary of the servicesand frequencies are shown in Table 2.3 below.

Table 2.3: Summary of Rail Services

Route Frequency Operator

Manchester Piccadilly andWest Wales

Hourly Service(Two hourly service in peaks) Arriva Trains Wales

Holyhead and Cardiff Central Two Hourly Service Arriva Trains Wales

2.6.21 The station is open 24hrs, and has unsheltered bike storage areas and free carparking with 90 spaces. Taxis are located at the stations between 6am and 10pm onweekdays.

2 DfT LTN 1/04, Policy, Planning and Design for Walking and Cycling3 IHT, Guidelines for Providing Journeys on Foot, 2000



- 18 -

2.7 Local Amenities

2.7.1 The following table provides a summary of the key local facilities available withinproximity of the site, with the distances taken from the school gate. The journey timesprovided in the table have been based on guidance from DfT Core NationalAccessibility Statistics, IHT Providing for Journeys on Foot, and Manual for Streets.These documents suggest that an 800 metre walk can be achieved by an averageperson in around 10 minutes, in addition average cycling speed has been suggestedas 16 km/h.

Table 2.4: Summary of Local Amenities

Location/Facility DistanceJourneyTime on

Foot

JourneyTime onBicycle

Within 2km Blenheim Road

140m 2 minutes 1 minuteBlenheim Stores(Newsagents)

Hair Salon

Restaurant & Bar

Community EducationCentre 190m 3 minutes 1 minute

Henllys Way650m 7 minutes 2 minutes

Primary School

Cwmbran Stadium 1.9km 24 minutes 7 minutes

Greenmeadow Way

850m 10 minutes 3 minutesConvenience Store

Post Office

ATM

Fairwater Square

1.2km 16 minutes 5 minutes

Medical Centre

Dentist

Optician

Pharmacy

Ty Gwyn Way

1.9km 24 minutes 7 minutesLeisure Centre

High School

Within 4km Cwmbran 2.2km 26 minutes 8 minutes

2.7.2 Table 2.4 shows that the majority of local amenities, including healthcare and leisurefacilities in the vicinity of the site, and the wider range that is available in Cwmbrancentre, could reasonably be expected to be undertaken on foot or by bicycle, exceptwhere car use is an obvious prerequisite or indeed the reason for the trip.



- 19 -

3 POLICY REVIEW

3.1.1 This section of the TA provides a brief overview of all the relevant policy that willaffect the transportation aspect of the development. These policies include national,regional, and local policies.

3.2 National Policy

Planning Policy Wales

3.2.1 Planning Policy Wales (PPW) Edition 6 (February 2014) sets out the current land useplanning policy for Wales, and it is supplemented by Technical Advice Notes (TANs).Chapter 8 (Transport), outlines the objectives of the Welsh Government (WG), whoaim to extend choice in transport and secure accessibility in a way which supportssustainable development and helps to tackle climate change. A summary of how landuse planning can help to achieve the WG’s objectives for transport are set out below:

· Locate development where there is good access by public transport,walking and cycling.

· Locate developments near related uses to enable multi-purpose trips, thusreducing the number and length of journeys.

· Improve accessibility by walking, cycling and public transport.

· Ensure that transport is accessible to all, taking into account the needs ofdisabled and other less mobile people.

· Promote walking and cycling.

· Support the provision of high quality public transport.

· Support traffic management measures.

· Support necessary infrastructure improvements.

Technical Advice Note 18 (Transport)

3.2.2 Technical Advice Note 18: Transport (2007) (TAN 18) was published by the WG inMarch 2007 and is a supplementary document to Planning Policy Wales (PPW). Itprovides guidance on issues relating to sustainable development through transport.

3.2.3 By integrating land use planning and transport, TAN 18 can help the WG achieve itswider sustainable goals, such as:

· Promoting resource and travel efficient settlement patterns.

· Ensuring new development is located where there is good access by publictransport, walking and cycling, thus minimising the need to travel.

· Managing parking provision.

· Promoting cycling and walking.

· Supporting the provision of high quality public transport.



- 20 -

3.2.4 With particular relevance to the proposed development, TAN 18 states that newdevelopments or major alterations to existing developments must include appropriateprovision for pedestrians (including those with special access and mobilityrequirements), cyclists, public transport, and traffic managements and parkingprovision.

3.2.5 In addition, developments that may incur an increase in travel demand shouldconsider the potential for changing existing unsustainable travel through acoordinated approach to the development plan application and transportimprovement.

Wales Transport Strategy (2008)

3.2.6 The Wales Transport Strategy ‘One Wales: Connecting the Nation’ was published inApril 2008 by the WG. The main goal of this legislation is to ‘promote sustainabletransport networks that safeguard the environment while strengthening our country’seconomic and social life’.

3.2.7 The following have been identified as key points within the strategy:

· Integrate local public transport with any new developments

· Improve access to education, training, and lifelong learning

· Improve access to shops and leisure facilities

· Improve the impact of transport on the local environment while reducing thecontribution of transport to air pollution and other harmful emissions

· Improve the efficient, reliable and sustainable movement of people aroundand within the new development

Wales Infrastructure Investment Plan

3.2.8 The WG is responsible for planning, constructing, and maintaining all of Wales’ 1000miles of Trunk Roads and 75 miles of Motorways’. The Wales InfrastructureInvestment Plan (WIIP) for Growth and Jobs ‘sets out the WG strategic investmentpriorities’ through to 2014/15.

3.2.9 The priorities relevant to the proposed development are:

· Economic growth – addressing urban congestion and improving access to keyareas.

· Improving inter-modal transport links.

· Delivering more efficient and economical public services.

· Improving the quality of the educational estate, particularly schools.



- 21 -

Wales Parking Standards (2008)

3.2.10 The site is typical of a ‘Suburban or Near Urban’ (Zone 4) parking zone, as describedin Section 5 of the Wales Parking Standards 2008 framework:

‘The outer edges of the largest towns; suburban locations in towns; the whole ofsmaller settlements offering a range of local facilities. There is an at least hourly busservice to the town centre and there may also be a railway station in the town. Local

facilities include a local centre within 400m walking distance. Some other basicamenities such as a doctor’s surgery are also available within the same walking

distance.’

3.2.11 Section 9 (i) of the document outlines parking standards for EducationalEstablishments at a Zone 4 site:

· 1 commercial vehicle space

· 1 space per each member of teaching staff & 3 visitor spaces

· Non-operational parking area provided for the picking up and setting down ofschool children

· Area of sufficient off-street spaces provided for bus services which are to beoperated for the school pupils.

3.2.12 It is noted that this should be assessed when the school is at full capacity and thetotal number of staff should allow for all part time staff to be at work on the same day.

3.3 Regional Policy

Sewta Regional Transport Plan

3.3.1 The South East Wales Transport Alliance (Sewta) is one of the 4 transport consortiain Wales. Sewta’s Regional Transport Plan (RTP) (approved by the WG in January2010) is designed to deliver the objectives identified within the Wales TransportStrategy.

3.3.2 The following transport issues have formed the basis for the development of the RTP:

· Too many people are excluded from fully participating in society becausetheir transport is poor.

· People see the transport system as being unsafe. They fear the impact ofmotor traffic on their local communities.

· We have become over-dependent on the motor car. That leads to high levelsof traffic congestion and consequently an inefficient transport system.

· Carbon emissions hasten climate change and motor traffic degrades theenvironment.



- 22 -

3.3.3 Consequently, 7 key objectives have been identified within the regional transport plan:

· Reducing the demand for travel through better land use planning and localservice provision.

· Providing safer neighbourhoods for people to live in and to walk and cycle.

· Providing a much improved public transport system for medium and longerdistance travel.

· Getting the best out of the existing highways, particularly the core highwaynetwork.

· Working with others to seek joint solutions to problems.

3.3.4 The RTP includes a 5-year Capital Investment Plan for a prioritised programme ofworks. Such schemes in the Torfaen area are:

· Additional train services to provide at least half hourly frequencies andencourage an increased modal transfer on the Abergavenny - Newport -Cardiff rail corridor which is also proposed for capacity improvement works;

· Train station improvements (including Pontypool / New Inn Park andRide/Share) and integration measures across the region (improvements atCwmbran Train Station listed in the RTP have already been completed);

· Improvements to the Pontypool - Cwmbran - Newport strategic bus corridor;

· Improvements at Cwmbran and Pontypool bus interchanges;

· New cycle routes in Blaenavon;

· Road improvements to make better use of the A472 / A4043 New Inn toBlaenavon. (This is being investigated through the North Torfaen Highwayand Regeneration Study, which is looking at ways to improve the efficiency ofthe road network in North Torfaen.); and

· Improvements of the A4051 at Malpas in Newport. Whilst this scheme is notwithin Torfaen it will assist in improving the efficiency of the road networkserving Torfaen.

3.4 Local Policy

Torfaen County Borough Council Local Development Plan

3.4.1 The TCBC Local Development Plan (LDP) was adopted on 3rd December 2013 andcovers the period January 1st 2006 to 31st March 2021. The LDP is in line withTCBC’s vision for Torfaen in 2021:

‘At the eastern edge of the South Wales valleys, Torfaen will be part of a networkedcity region supporting thriving communities and a diverse economy in an outstanding

historical, cultural and natural environment.’



- 23 -

3.4.2 The plan itself complements the Wales Spatial Plan but The LDP does not repeatnational planning policy; rather it focuses on the issues which are specifically relevantto the plan area. Preparation of the LDP also considers the Council’s CommunityStrategy, as required by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

3.4.3 Sustainable development emerged as one of the key objective of the plan, where alldevelopment proposals must demonstrate how positive economic, social andenvironmental impacts will be achieved through a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) whichincorporates a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).

3.4.4 The transport objectives of the plan promoted the safeguarding of land for keytransport improvement schemes:

· North Torfaen Highway and Public Transport improvements (mainly A4043 &B4246 corridors).

· Pontypool & New Inn Park and Ride / Share facility.

· Cwmbran Town Centre improvements; and Llanfrechfa Grange Link Roadserving Torfaen.

3.4.5 It also safeguards former transport routes where any developments would be likely toprejudice their future transport use:

· The National Cycle Route Network (49/492 former ‘High Level’ railway linebetween Waunavon and the British Action Area, Talywain).

· The ‘Low Level’ railway line between Blaenavon and Pontypool.

· The Monmouthshire and Brecon Canal.

3.4.6 It safeguards land to facilitate improvements to the walking and cycling route network.The N492 route has been identified as one needing improvements.

3.4.7 In addition, the development of residential sites will be permitted where proposals:

‘ensure...a high quality choice in sustainable locations, well served by essentialfacilities and are accessible by a range of transport modes’. – LDP Objective 16.

3.4.8 Furthermore, Objective 17 aims to:

‘develop integrated and efficient transport infrastructure, public transport andcommunication networks which are accessible and attractive to all, and encourage a

reduction in private car use’.

Torfaen Community Strategy

3.4.9 This document was produced by the Torfaen Partnership Board (TPB), comprising of:

· Torfaen County Borough Council

· Community Councils

· Torfaen Voluntary Alliance

· Torfaen Local Health Board



- 24 -

· B-Division Heddlu Gwent Police

· Torfaen Environment Network

· Local business representatives

3.4.10 All public, private and vocational sector activity in Torfaen over the period 2006-2015is framed within this document.

3.4.11 The key objective for education which is relevant to this project is that ‘Adults are ableto make choices that improve their lives and those of their children due to localaccess to skills, development, training and continued education’.

3.4.12 With regards to the environment, the TPB aims to conserve the natural beauty of theTorfaen area and address the challenges of climate change. This will be achievedthrough a number of approaches, including the promotion of SustainableCommunities by focussing new developments on existing settlements allowing thebest provision of services and employment locally.

Additionally the Strategy outlines the importance of an accessible, affordable andregular public transport system, which is complemented by improved walking andcycling facilities in order to fully realise the potential of Sustainable Communities.

Supplementary Planning Guidance – Highways and Transport Annex 2 (June 2011)

3.4.13 This document outlines planning obligations in all of Torfaen, which are relevant totransport.

3.4.14 The document states that all new schools must provide a ‘Transport Statement’ whichshould include an evidence based estimate of the modal split of trips to be generatedby the development. Examples of additional obligations include:

· Highway measures e.g. junction upgrades, signalisation of junctions, trafficmanagement schemes.

· Funding for improved public transport facilities / infrastructure.

· Funding for additional bus services linking the site with local facilities (~3 yearssubsidiary and promotional information).

· Funding for the creation and/or improvement of pedestrian and cycle routes.

· Funding of off-site car parks and controlled on-street parking zones.

3.4.15 Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) documents do not form part of any adoptedDevelopment Plans. SPGs ‘provide a means to enable a proposed development toproceed and to meet the needs of the local community associated with the newdevelopment by securing developer contributions towards the provision ofinfrastructure, services and other public benefits. They are commonly used to bringdevelopment proposals in line with the objectives of sustainable development as setout in local and national policy’.



- 25 -

4 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

4.1.1 The following section of the TA provides an overview of the development proposals,highlighting the key aspects of the proposal from a transport perspective.

4.1.2 The development will include a new primary school building in the southern corner ofthe development site to replace the existing Blenheim Road School. There is also apossibility that in the northern area of the site there may be an element of residentialdevelopment.

Figure 4.1: Development Proposals

4.1.3 For this assessment, it has been identified that the new primary school has beencommitted to, whereas the proposed residential development is a possibility.Therefore, these two uses have been considered individually.

4.2 Proposed Primary School Development

4.2.1 The proposed new school building will be a replacement for the existing buildings atBlenheim Road Community Primary School as part of the 21st Century Schoolsprogramme commissioned by the Welsh Government.

4.2.2 As described above, the site currently consists of two school buildings; what wasonce the Infant and Nursery School, and what was once the Junior School. The Juniorblock is the larger of the two, situated to the north of the site.

This product contains Ordnance Survey data© Crown copyright and database right 2012.

KEYIndicative Site Boundary‘Nursery block’ – to be demolished inOctober 2015, and rebuilt as newPrimary School to be opened inSeptember 2016 ‘Junior block’ – to be demolishedafter opening the new PrimarySchool. Possibility of redevelopmentinto residential units.



- 26 -

4.2.3 The anticipated process will involve transferring the pupils that are currently taught inthe Nursery block into the Junior block between July and September 2015. This willallow the Nursery block to be demolished in October 2015, and the new PrimarySchool building to commence construction in November 2015. All the pupils and staffwill then be able to move into the new school for the start of the school year inSeptember 2016.

4.2.4 Following discussions with the Council it has been identified that the school willcontinue to operate throughout the construction period. The assessment within thisreport does not include the impact of the development construction traffic on the localnetwork and site access. This will be considered in the Construction ManagementPlan, which will be prepared as a separate document at a later date. It is worthidentifying that a Construction Management Plan is essential due to the closeproximity of the proposed development site and the existing school buildings.

4.2.5 The school currently has a capacity for 410 pupils; however, there are currently only169 students on the school roll. The new school is expected to accommodate 420pupils, which will include the nursery. This is therefore a predicted increase of 251pupils than currently attend the school.

4.2.6 At present, the school employs 29 people; 10 teachers and 19 support staff. The newprimary school is expected to employ 50 full time staff.

School Car Parking Provision

4.2.7 Currently, there are 20 parking spaces located within the onsite car park, with 2spaces designated for disabled use. An additional 4 spaces are provided on thedriveway to the site, located outside the school gate.

4.2.8 At the time of preparing this TA, a site layout plan has not been prepared. However,CSS Wales Parking Standards (2008) state that 1 space should be provided for eachmember of teaching staff, 3 visitor spaces, and 1 commercial vehicle space. Thedevelopment will be in accordance with the Standards, providing a total of 54 spaces.

4.2.1 The Parking Standards state that bus and coach parking will be assessed on a site tosite basis and that parking will be provided as required. Furthermore, appropriateprovision should be provided for use by disabled people according to the assessedneed. Consultation will be undertaken with the school to identify the current and futurerequirement for both bus and coach parking, and parking for disabled users.

4.2.2 At present, parents are unable to use the on-site parking for drop-offs and pick-ups asthey are requested to not bring their cars within the school grounds. The schoolprospectus, available on the school website, requests that parents use the TamarindRestaurant and the car park off Blenheim Road.

4.2.3 The CSS Wales Parking Standards identify that a parking area must be provided forthe picking up and setting down of school children. Although the design of the schoolhas not been confirmed, the new school development will have space for a dedicateddrop-off and pick-up area. This parking area will include a facility for vehicles to turnwithout reversing.

4.2.4 It is considered that on-site parking will positively affect the local highway network,negating the need for inconsiderate parking close to the school gates.



- 27 -

School Cycle Parking Provision

4.2.5 CSS Wales Parking Standards (2008) state there should be 1 stand for 5 staff and 1stand per 20 children for long stay cycle parking provision, and 1 stand per 100 pupilsfor short stay. This results in a requirement for 35 spaces. The detailed design of thenew school will be in accordance with these standards.

4.3 Proposed Residential Development

4.3.1 Although no decision has been made, there is a potential that the northern corner ofthe site, following the development of the new school to the south, will be developedas residential units. This is anticipated to include up to 50 mixed dwellings.

4.3.2 As part of the original project scope, the client requested that the TA identify the localtraffic impact associated with both the proposed new school and the potentialresidential development. This TA will consider the traffic impact associated with thesedwellings during peak hours and the impact on the local highway network, in order tocreate a robust assessment and essentially a ‘worst case scenario’.

Residential Parking Provision

4.3.3 The CSS Wales Parking Standards (2008) state there should be 1 car parking spaceper bedroom for both houses and apartments, with a maximum requirement of 3spaces. For visitors there should be 1 space per 5 residential units. At this stage, theexact number and type of residential units is unknown, and as such the parkingprovision cannot be calculated. However, the requirement will be assessed when thedevelopment proposals have been confirmed, and parking provision will be incompliance with the parking standards.

Residential Cycle Parking Provision

4.3.4 Similar to the proposed parking provision, cycle provision will be considered followingconfirmation on the type of residential developments at the site,. The CSS WalesParking Standards (2008) state that cycle parking is required for apartments, with therequirement to provide 1 stand per 5 bedrooms.

4.4 Highway Improvements

4.4.1 The development proposals do not include any highway improvements.

4.4.2 Improvements to the Blenheim Road and Henllys Way junction to the south of theschool were made in 2012 as part of a safety scheme within the area. This changedthe junction from a T-junction into a mini roundabout and there have since been norecorded collisions.

4.4.3 The client is aware that the existing site access road is not fit for purpose and wouldbe unsuitable for the proposed school and residential development. This TA has beenproduced in support of an outline planning application and as such, there are nodetailed designs prepared to show the proposed site access. Once planningpermission has been granted, the improvements to the access road will bedetermined following a feasibility study.



- 28 -

4.5 Sustainable Transport Improvements

4.5.1 There is a good standard of both walking and cycling provisions in the local area,providing safe access to the proposed development site. As such no improvementshave been identified as part of this TA.



- 29 -

5 DEVELOPMENT TRAVEL DEMAND

5.1.1 This section of the TA provides an overview of the associated travel demand resultingfrom the proposed development by private car trips. It considers the vehicular trafficgeneration that is expected to occur, and what impact this will have on the highway.

5.1 Development Proposals

5.1.1 The proposed school development involves replacing the current school buildings toaccommodate 420 pupils. There is also the possibility that development will involveup to 50 residential units.

5.1.2 There are expected to be an additional 43 pupils enrolled in the school for 2015,whilst the construction of the new school building is occurring. It is anticipated that thenew school will open in September 2016, with an additional 18 pupils. The number ofpupils enrolled each year is expected to then increase until the school reaches itscapacity.

5.1.3 Table 5.1 below shows the expected pupil numbers in the opening year, and 10 yearsafter that. As can be seen, by 2026 the school is expected to have taken on anadditional 251 pupils on top of the number currently enrolled.

Table 5.1: Pupil Numbers

AssessmentYears Year Additional Pupil

IntakeEnrolmentNumbers

Base Year 2014 169

2015 43 212

Opening Year 2016 18 230

2017 30 260

2018 30 290

2019 25 315

2020 15 330

2021 15 345

2022 15 360

2023 15 435

2024 15 390

2025 15 405

Future Year 2026 15 420

251



- 30 -

5.2 Trip Rates

5.2.1 Trip rates were obtained from the Trip Rate Information Computer System (TRICS)database. The TRICS database was interrogated for sites that would provide asuitable comparison for the development in advance of any supporting TravelPlanning measures in order to present a robust analysis of the potential traffic impactsof the development on the local highway network. This ‘baseline’ assessment takesno account of the mode shift anticipated as a result of these measures. It is worthmentioning that modal shift is likely to be achieved following the development of aschool travel plan.

5.2.2 More detailed information pertaining to the TRICS sites chosen is included inAppendix B. These selected sites reflect the type, size and location of the proposeddevelopment.

5.2.3 Based on traffic surveys, the observed AM and PM network traffic peak hours are08:15 - 09:15 and 17:00 - 18:00. It is recognised that these periods do not representthe entire travel demand resulting from the development proposals, for instance thepeak school demand in the afternoon occurs between 15:00 - 16:00. The networkpeak periods, however, provide a recognised benchmark from which to consider theaccess and movement needs of the future residents and occupants of the site. As triprates are only available for each hour, trip rates for the hours 8:00 - 9:00 and 17:00 -18:00 have been extracted from the TRICS outputs.

5.2.4 The trip rates for the proposed primary school development are shown in Table 5.2below. As can be seen, the PM peak is lower than the AM peak due to the observedexisting network peak occurring at 17:00 – 18:00, after the peak demand for primaryschools occurs.

Table 5.2: School Trip Rates

Land UseTRICS Land

UseReference

AM: 08:00 – 09:00 PM: 17:00 – 18:00

Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures

School Education/A –Primary 0.319 0.233 0.026 0.039

5.2.5 The trip rates for the proposed residential development are shown in Table 5.3 below.

Table 5.3: Residential Trip Rates

Land UseTRICS Land

UseReference

AM: 08:00 – 09:00 PM: 17:00 – 18:00

Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures

ResidentialResidential /

Mixed PrivateHousing

0.092 0.376 0.278 0.165



- 31 -

5.3 Vehicle Trip Generation

5.3.1 Using the trip rates obtained from TRICS and presented in Tables 5.2 and 5.3, it hasbeen possible to calculate the vehicle trips that the development will generate duringthe network’s peak hours.

Primary School Vehicle Trip Generation Methodology

5.3.2 As outlined in the development proposals above, the primary school is expected tohave an additional 251 pupils over the next five years, increasing the number ofpupils enrolled at the school from 169 to the new capacity of 420 pupils.

5.3.3 Table 5.4 shows the resulting vehicular trip generation for the whole school, based ona 420 pupil capacity. The trip rates use pupil numbers as the calculation factor for thenumber of trips generated, however, this includes all travel demand generated by theschool, including from staff and visitors.

Table 5.4: Total Primary School Pupils Vehicular Trip GenerationPupil

Number AM: 08:00 – 09:00 PM: 17:00 – 18:00

420Arrivals Departures Two-way Arrivals Departures Two-way

134 98 232 11 16 27

5.3.1 Sections 6 and 7 of this TA will be considering vehicular traffic impact of the proposeddevelopment upon the local highway network. Those who currently attend the schoolwill be included in the base traffic data collected for this assessment at the twojunctions with Blenheim Road – Greenmeadow Way and Henllys Way. It isnecessary, therefore to consider the total number of vehicular trips based on theadditional pupil demand at the school which equates to 251 pupils. This is shown inTable 5.5 below.

Table 5.5: Additional Primary School Pupils Vehicular Trip GenerationPupil

Number AM: 08:00 – 09:00 PM: 17:00 – 18:00


80 58 139* 7 10 16*

*Inaccuracies due to rounding



- 32 -

Residential Vehicle Trip Generation Methodology

5.3.2 The development is anticipated to potentially have up to 50 residential dwellings.Although this is not definite at this stage of the planning process, trip generation forthe full number of units has been considered for a robust ‘worst case scenario’assessment. This has been done using the Mixed Private Housing trip rates outlinedin Table 5.3.

Table 5.6: Residential Vehicular Trip GenerationDwellings AM: 08:00 – 09:00 PM: 17:00 – 18:00


5 19 23* 14 8 22


5.4 Vehicle Trip Distribution

5.4.1 Manual Classified Counts were undertaken by Sky High Count On Us at threejunctions within the study area. These are as follows:

· Blenheim Road / Site Access Priority T-Junction

· Blenheim Road / Greenmeadow Way Priority T-Junction

· Blenheim Road / Henllys Way mini roundabout Junction

5.4.2 The survey data provided AM and PM peak hour traffic flows. These are shown inFigures 5.1 and 5.2 respectively, and are attached in Appendix C.

5.4.3 Development traffic has been assigned across the local highway network using theexisting distribution calculated using this survey data, in order to model the keyjunctions within this assessment. The AM and PM distribution are shown in Figures5.3 and 5.4 respectively, attached in Appendix C.



- 33 -

6 LOCAL HIGHWAY NETWORK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

6.1.1 Sections 6 and 7 of this TA consider the vehicular traffic impact of the proposeddevelopment upon the local highway network. The conclusions will quantify theseverity of the traffic impact at the key junctions and confirm whether intervention willbe required to mitigate the traffic impact.

6.2 Assessment Years and Traffic Growth

6.2.1 In accordance with DfT Guidance on Transport Assessments, and scopingdiscussions with TCBC, it has been agreed that the following assessment years willbe used for traffic impact assessments:

· 2014 - Base situation

· 2016 - Opening Year

· 2026 - Future Year

6.2.2 The Traffic Impact Assessment will be tested in a number of scenarios in theseassessment years. These are outlined in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1: Scenarios to be tested

Scenario Description

2014 Base Year This is the year that the surveys were undertaken, andrepresents the base year conditions and the junction as itcurrently operates.

2016 Opening YearDo Nothing

2016 is the expected opening year of the school. Thisscenario represents the network as it will operate in 2016,based on national background traffic growth. No committeddevelopments have been specified by TCBC for this scenario.

2016 Opening YearDo Something

Option 1

This scenario represents the network in 2016 (specifiedabove), plus the Blenheim Road Community Primary Schooldevelopment.

2016 Opening YearDo Something

Option 2

This scenario represents the network in 2016 (specifiedabove), plus the Blenheim Road Community Primary Schooldevelopment and the residential development (assuming 50units).

2026 Future YearDo Nothing

In accordance with DfT’s ‘Guidance on TransportAssessment’, the future year is 10 years after the openingyear. This scenario represents the network as it will operate in2026, based on national traffic growth. No committeddevelopments have been specified by TCBC for this scenario.

2026 Future YearDo Something

Option 1

This scenario represents the network in 2026 (specifiedabove), plus the Blenheim Road Community Primary Schooldevelopment.

2026 Future YearDo Something

Option 2

This scenario represents the network in 2026 (specifiedabove), plus the Blenheim Road Community Primary Schooldevelopment and the residential development (assuming 50units).



- 34 -

6.2.3 Central traffic growth factors can be calculated using the Trip End Model PresentationProgram (TEMPro) version 6.2 growth factors, which have been adjusted withNational Road Traffic Forecasts (NRTF) for the study area of 00PM1 Cwmbran. Thisused National Transport Model (NTM) AF09 Dataset from 2003 to 2035.

6.2.4 The calculated growth factors are shown in Table 6.2:

Table 6.2: TEMPro Growth Factors for Background Traffic

Base Year Forecast YearGrowth Factors

AM PM

2014 2016 1.02 1.02

2014 2026 1.17 1.17

6.3 Committed Development

6.3.1 In order to accurately assess the future year scenarios, account should be taken ofany local committed developments in the study area and the traffic arising from thosedevelopments that would potentially impact on the network. A detailed review of theLocal Development Plan and also scoping discussions have been carried out withTCBC in order to determine the validity of any sites with the local area. It was agreedwith TBCB that there are no specified committed developments that will affect thenetwork in the vicinity of the site.

6.3.2 Furthermore, there are no proposed highway improvements within the study area thatwould affect the assessments.

6.4 Development Traffic Assignment

2016 - Opening Year Do Nothing

6.4.1 The surveyed AM and PM peak hour traffic flows, shown in Figures 5.1 and 5.2respectively attached in Appendix C, have been adjusted using the TEMPRO growthrates to form the 2016 Opening Year Do Nothing scenario. The resultant traffic flow isshown on Figures 6.1 and 6.2.

2016 - Opening Year Do Something Option 1

6.4.2 Option 1 consists of the proposed primary school development only. In 2016, it isanticipated that the school will have an additional 61 pupils attending the school.Table 6.3 shows the vehicular trip generation for these additional pupils using theTRICS data, showing 34 two-way trips in the AM peak and 4 two-way trips in the PMpeak.

Table 6.3: Vehicular Trips for the Additional Primary School Pupils in 2016Pupil

NumberAM PM


19 14 34* 2 2 4




- 35 -

6.4.3 The development traffic that is generated from the additional pupils attending theschool has been distributed through the Blenheim Road / Greenmeadow Way and theBlenheim Road / Henllys Way junctions using the distribution methodology outlined inSection 5.4.

6.4.4 Currently, parents are requested to not bring their cars within the school grounds, andtherefore applying the methodology above to the site access junction would not beappropriate.

6.4.5 It is anticipated that the new school will allow parents to use an improved site accessto come into the school grounds where there will be a dedicated drop-off and pick-uparea. It is therefore necessary to consider the traffic that will be generated from allpupils attending the school in the opening year at the site access. This will alsoinclude the existing pupils who currently attend the school, this equates to 230 pupils.

6.4.6 Table 6.4 shows the vehicular trip generation for the total number of pupils enrolled inthe opening year. There are 127 two-way trips in the AM peak and 415 two-way tripsin the PM peak that will be using the site access junction.

Table 6.4: Vehicular Trips for all Primary School Pupils in 2016Pupil

NumberAM PM


73 54 127 6 9 15

6.4.1 The development traffic that is generated from the total number of pupils attending theschool has been distributed through the Blenheim Road / Site Access junction usingthe distribution methodology outlined in Section 5.4.

6.4.2 The development traffic using the two methodologies outlined above has been addedto the base traffic on the network to determine the 2016 Opening Year Do SomethingOption 1 scenario. This is shown in Figures 6.3 and 6.4, attached in Appendix C.

2016 - Opening Year Do Something Option 2

6.4.3 Option 2 represents both proposed developments; the new primary school and up to50 residential units. Although it is unknown when construction of these dwellings willoccur, and therefore when all of the units will be open, this assessment has includedthem all in the opening year, to ensure robustness.

6.4.4 Table 6.5 shows the vehicular trip generation for these dwellings.

Table 6.5: Residential Vehicular Trip GenerationDwellings AM PM


5 19 23* 14 8 22




- 36 -

6.4.5 The development traffic for both the primary school and the residential units has beendistributed onto the network and applied to the base traffic, to determine the 2016Opening Year Do Something Option 2 scenario. This is shown in Figures 6.5 and 6.6,attached in Appendix C.

2026 - Future Year Do Nothing

6.4.6 The surveyed AM and PM peak hour traffic flows have been adjusted using theTEMPRO growth rates to form the 2026 Future Year Do Nothing scenario. Theresultant traffic flow is shown on Figures 6.7 and 6.8.

2026 - Future Year Do Something Option 1

6.4.7 In 2026, the school will be at its capacity of 420 pupils, which is an additional 251pupils than are currently enrolled. Table 6.6 shows the vehicular trip generation forthese additional pupils.

Table 6.6: Vehicular Trips for the Additional Primary School Pupils in 2026Pupil

NumberAM PM


80 58 139* 7 10 16*


6.4.8 The development traffic that is generated from the additional pupils attending theschool has been distributed through the Blenheim Road / Greenmeadow Way and theBlenheim Road / Henllys Way junctions using the distribution methodology outlined inSection 5.4.

6.4.9 Similar to the 2016 assessment, the proposed improvements associated with the newschool development will allow parents to enter the school grounds and use thededicated drop-off and pick-up area. To determine the traffic impact at the site accessjunction, the capacity model needs to consider the traffic demand associated with all420 pupils attending the school. Table 6.7 shows the vehicular trip generation for thetotal number of pupils enrolled in the future year.

Table 6.7: Vehicular Trips for all Primary School Pupils in 2026Pupil

NumberAM PM


134 98 232 11 16 27

6.4.10 The development traffic that is generated from the total number of pupils attending theschool has been distributed through the Blenheim Road / Site Access junction usingthe distribution methodology outlined in Section 5.4.

6.4.11 The development traffic using the two methodologies outlined above has been addedto the base traffic on the network to determine the 2026 Future Year Do SomethingOption 1 scenario. This is shown in Figures 6.9 and 6.10, attached in Appendix C.



- 37 -

2026 - Future Year Do Something Option 2

6.4.12 The development traffic for both the primary school and the 50 residential units hasbeen distributed onto the network and applied to the 2026 base traffic, to determinethe Future Year Do Something Option 2 scenario. This is shown in Figures 6.11 and6.12, attached in Appendix C.



- 38 -

7 JUNCTION CAPACITY ASSESSMENT

7.1.1 As previously agreed with TCBC in the scoping statement, the following junctionshave been assessed in terms of the traffic impact associated with the proposeddevelopment:

· Blenheim Road / Site Access Junction

· Blenheim Road / Greenmeadow Way Junction

· Blenheim Road / Henllys Way Junction

7.1.2 To assess the operational performance of the key junctions on the local highwaynetwork, the transport modelling software ‘Junctions 8’ was utilised.

7.1.3 The priority T-junctions at the site access and at Blenheim Road / Greenmeadow Waywere modelled using the PICADY package of Junctions, while Blenheim Road /Henllys Way mini-roundabout were modelled using ARCADY.

7.1.4 The output files for the junction modelling are presented in Appendix D.

7.2 Traffic Modelling Results

7.2.1 This section presents the model output for each junction. The modelling results withinthis assessment outline the impact of the proposed development traffic on the keyjunctions in the network based on the scenarios outlined in Table 6.1.

The Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) is a ratio of the demand to capacity on eachapproach to the junctions, with a value of 100% (1.0) signifying that the capacity ofthe road has been reached, thus resulting in vehicle queues. With Junction 8, RFCvalues over 85% are typically regarded as suffering from traffic congestion, withqueues of vehicles beginning to form. It is generally accepted that RFC values of lessthan 0.85 means that the junction is operating at an acceptable level.

Blenheim Road / Site Access Junction

7.2.2 The site is currently accessed via a priority T-junction onto Blenheim Road, and assuch is modelled using PICADY.

7.2.3 Table 7.1 below provides the modelling results for the 2014 Base Year at thisjunction, representing how it currently operates.

Table 7.1: 2014 Base Year Blenheim Road / Site Access PICADY AssessmentBlenheim Road/ Site Access

Junction

AM Peak (08:15 – 09:15) PM Peak (17:00 – 18:00)Queue

(Vehicle)Delay(Secs) RFC Queue

(Vehicle)Delay(Secs) RFC

2014 Base Year

Site Access 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 7.34 0.02

Blenheim Road(North) 0.02 5.38 0.01 0.00 5.26 0.00

Blenheim Road(South) - - - - - -



- 39 -

7.2.4 As can be seen in Table 7.1, the site access junction is operating within capacity, withthe site access road showing zero queues, delays, or capacity issues in the AM peak,and a minimal RFC in the PM peak.

7.2.5 As previously discussed in section 2.3.1, on-site investigation showed the drivewayproviding access to the existing school is very narrow at 3m, and does not havesufficient width to safely allow vehicles to pass one another. However, parents areasked not to bring their vehicles on to the site; instead the school suggests theyshould park nearby and walk to the school. This would explain the very low number ofvehicles observed using the site access in the peak hours, and why the access roadhas no capacity constraints.

7.2.6 Table 7.2 below provides the modelling results for the 2016 opening year at thisjunction. It considers three scenarios as follows:

· 2016 Opening Year Do Nothing

· 2016 Opening Year Do Something Option 1 – the new school development

· 2016 Opening Year Do Something Option 1 – the new school developmentand 50 residential units

7.2.7 The proposed development will have a drop-off and pick-up area inside the schoolgates, so all vehicles will use this junction for access to the school. To determine thetraffic impact at the site access junction in the ‘Do Something’ scenarios, the capacitymodel considers the traffic demand associated with all 230 pupils who will attend theschool in 2016.

Table 7.2: 2016 Opening Year Blenheim Road / Site Access PICADY AssessmentBlenheim Road/ Site Access

Junction




2016 Opening Year - Do Nothing

Site Access 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 7.10 0.01



2016 Opening Year - Do Something Option 1

Site Access 0.14 7.91 0.12 0.04 7.30 0.03




Site Access 0.19 8.29 0.16 0.05 7.48 0.05





- 40 -

7.2.8 Table 7.2 shows that this junction will continue to operate in 2016 in all scenarios.Despite an increase in traffic using this junction in the Do Something scenarios, thehighest RFC is 0.16 on the Site Access Road in the AM peak.

7.2.9 Table 7.3 provides the modelling results for the 2026 future year at this junction.

Table 7.3: 2026 Future Year Blenheim Road / Site Access PICADY AssessmentBlenheim Road/ Site Access

Junction




2026 Future Year - Do Nothing

Site Access 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 7.23 0.02



2026 Future Year - Do Something Option 1

Site Access 0.29 9.41 0.23 0.06 7.55 0.05




Site Access 0.36 9.95 0.27 0.08 7.77 0.07



7.2.10 Table 7.3 shows that this junction will continue to operate in 2026 in all scenarios.This is despite an increase from 22 vehicles using the access road in the AM peak inthe Do Nothing scenario, to 255 vehicles and 277 vehicles in the Do Somethingscenarios options 1 and 2 respectively. The highest RFC of 0.27 occurs on the SiteAccess Road in the AM peak with the full development, including 50 residential units.

7.2.11 In terms of capacity modelling this junction will continue to operate within capacity,however the geometric characteristics of the entry lane are below recommendedguidance (i.e. being quite narrow). On site investigation showed that cars were unableto safely pass one another or manoeuvre in the road. The proposed increase invehicle numbers using this access road will intensify existing safety issues along thesite access driveway.

7.2.12 The width of the access road will be increased as part of the construction of the newschool. Manual for Streets 24 identifies that UK practice has generally adopted astandard lane width of 3.65m, but states that 2 - 2.5m wide lanes are sufficient formost vehicles. This reduces the overall carriageway width requirements, making itmuch easier for pedestrians to cross the carriageway and encourages low trafficspeeds without causing a significant loss of traffic capacity. The access road will bewidened to at least 4m to meet current guidance and to ensure that two way vehicleflows can be provided safely.

4 CIHT, Manual for Streets 2: Wider Application of the Principles



- 41 -

Blenheim Road / Greenmeadow Way Junction

7.2.13 The Blenheim Road / Greenmeadow Way Junction is a priority T-junction, whereBlenheim Road is the minor arm. It has been modelled using PICADY.

7.2.14 Table 7.4 provides the modelling results for the 2014 Base Year at this junction,representing how it currently operates. It shows the junction operating within capacity.

Table 7.4: 2014 Base Year Blenheim Road / Greenmeadow Way PICADY AssessmentBlenheim Road/ GreenmeadowWay Junction




2014 Base Year

Blenheim Road 0.39 9.37 0.28 0.49 10.24 0.33

GreenmeadowWay (West) 0.03 5.41 0.02 0.03 5.59 0.02

GreenmeadowWay (East) - - - - - -

7.2.15 Table 7.5 below provides the modelling results for the 2016 opening year at thisjunction.

7.2.16 As outlined earlier in this TA, development traffic that is generated from the additionalpupils attending the school has been distributed through the Blenheim Road /Greenmeadow Way junction. In 2016, this is 61 pupils, which generate 34 two-waytrips in the AM peak and 4 two-way trips in the PM peak. Option 2 includes the schooltraffic and the traffic associated with residential units.

Table 7.5: 2016 Opening Year Blenheim Road / Greenmeadow Way PICADY AssessmentBlenheim Road/ GreenmeadowWay Junction





Blenheim Road 0.40 9.45 0.29 0.51 10.38 0.34




Blenheim Road 0.42 9.61 0.30 0.51 10.38 0.34




Blenheim Road 0.45 9.79 0.31 0.51 10.45 0.34





- 42 -

7.2.17 Table 7.5 shows that the junction will operate within capacity in 2016, with minimalimpact on the junction from the development traffic. The modelling results show thatthe highest RFC of 0.34 occurs on Blenheim Road in the PM peak in all scenarios,and therefore the development traffic does not significantly impact the junction.

7.2.18 Table 7.6 below provides the modelling results for the 2026 future year at thisjunction.

Table 7.6: 2026 Future Year Blenheim Road / Greenmeadow Way PICADY AssessmentBlenheim Road/ GreenmeadowWay Junction





Blenheim Road 0.50 10.33 0.34 0.65 11.61 0.40




Blenheim Road 0.61 11.07 0.38 0.66 11.66 0.40




Blenheim Road 0.64 11.30 0.39 0.66 11.73 0.40



7.2.19 Again, it can be seen that the junction will continue to operate within capacity in thefuture year. The RFC on Blenheim Road increases by 0.05 in the AM peak in Option2, but does not increase in the PM peak. The highest RFC of 0.40 occurs in the PMpeak in all scenarios. The biggest increase in delay of just under 1 second occurs inthe AM peak on Blenheim Road.

Blenheim Road / Henllys Way Junction

7.2.20 As discussed previously in section 2.5.10, this junction has undergone improvementsin recent years as part of a safety scheme. The mini roundabout received funding toreconfigure it from a priority T-junction, which was implemented in 2012. This was toimprove road safety, as there had been a number of collisions in the area and at thejunction. There have been no recorded collisions at the junction since theimprovements.

7.2.21 Based on design to build drawings provided by TCBC, the junction has beenmodelled as a mini-roundabout following the safety improvements.



- 43 -

7.2.22 Table 7.7 below provides the modelling results for the 2014 Base Year.

Table 7.7: 2014 Base Year Blenheim Road / Henllys Way ARCADY AssessmentBlenheim Road/ Henllys Way

Junction




2014 Base Year

Blenheim Road 0.58 11.72 0.37 0.45 9.56 0.31

Henllys Way(East) 1.51 11.87 0.61 16.28 79.85 0.98

Henllys Way(West) 43.72 180.77 1.09 3.58 22.83 0.79

7.2.23 As can be seen, this junction has been modelled as operating over capacity in thebase year, in particularly in the AM peak on the western arm of Henllys Way, with anRFC of 1.09.

7.2.24 The observed flows showed 118 vehicles on this arm turning left onto Blenheim Road,and 626 continuing east on Henllys Way. The modelling results show a queue of 44vehicles and a 181 second delay. In the PM peak, the major flow of traffic is inreverse, and although the highest RFC of 0.98 on the eastern arm of Henllys Wayshows the junction is within capacity, it is beyond the generally accepted level of 0.85.

Table 7.8: 2016 Opening Year Blenheim Road / Henllys Way ARCADY AssessmentBlenheim Road/ Henllys Way

Junction





Blenheim Road 0.59 11.86 0.38 0.47 9.78 0.32

Henllys Way(East) 1.58 12.22 0.62 20.07 94.34 1.00

Henllys Way(West) 50.64 208.83 1.11 3.90 24.55 0.81


Blenheim Road 0.65 12.15 0.40 0.48 9.84 0.33

Henllys Way(East) 1.63 12.51 0.62 20.19 94.84 1.00

Henllys Way(West) 55.27 234.78 1.12 3.90 24.55 0.81


Blenheim Road 0.72 12.68 0.42 0.51 10.05 0.34

Henllys Way(East) 1.65 12.63 0.63 21.99 101.67 1.01

Henllys Way(West) 56.37 240.80 1.12 4.04 25.34 0.81

7.2.25 Table 7.8 above provides the modelling results for the 2016 opening year at thisjunction.



- 44 -

7.2.26 As the junction is already beyond capacity in the 2014 base year, the results show thejunction is continuing to operate over capacity in the 2016 Do Nothing scenario. Byadding the Option 1 development traffic, the queue increases by approximately 5cars, the delay increases by 25.95 seconds, and the RFC increases by 0.01 in the AMpeak. In the PM peak, the Option 1 development traffic marginally increases thequeue and delay, but not the RFC given the junction is already at capacity.

7.2.27 Option 2 increases the RFC of the junction by 0.01 from the Do Nothing scenario inboth the AM and PM peak.

7.2.28 Table 7.9 below shows the modelling results for the 2026 future year of this junction.

Table 7.9: 2026 Future Year Blenheim Road / Henllys Way ARCADY AssessmentBlenheim Road/ Henllys Way

Junction





Blenheim Road 0.75 13.05 0.43 0.66 11.95 0.40

Henllys Way(East) 2.42 16.45 0.71 71.37 313.06 1.16

Henllys Way(West) 130.31 611.06 1.28 9.21 51.76 0.93


Blenheim Road 0.99 14.40 0.50 0.70 12.29 0.42

Henllys Way(East) 2.80 18.55 0.74 73.78 326.91 1.16

Henllys Way(West) 164.42 758.67 1.33 9.39 52.66 0.93


Blenheim Road 1.10 15.17 0.53 0.75 12.64 0.43

Henllys Way(East) 2.86 18.96 0.75 77.32 346.86 1.17

Henllys Way(West) 166.88 769.52 1.34 9.91 55.20 0.93

7.2.29 The 2026 Do Nothing scenario shows this junction substantially over capacity, with anRFC of 1.28 in the AM peak on the western arm of Henllys Way. In the PM peak, theRFC on the eastern arm of Henllys Way is above capacity.

7.2.30 The results of the Do Something scenarios with the proposed developments show aminor impact in terms of RFC on the Do Nothing scenario during the AM peak. TheRFC value increases by just 0.06 on Henllys Way (west), but as the junction isalready over capacity the queue increases by approximately 37 vehicles. The othertwo arms are operating within capacity. There is also very minimal impact in the PMpeak with the developments.

7.2.31 In conclusion, the impact in the AM peak hour is considered to be exaggerated by theRFC value being over capacity in the Do Nothing scenario.



- 45 -

7.2.32 Following discussions with the Council and the identification that this junction hasbeen recently converted into a mini-roundabout as part of a safety scheme, it wasdetermined that no further changes/improvements to the junction were necessary.However, the Council identified a need to gain a better understanding of theassociated impact at the mini-roundabout in terms of queue impact. In order to testthis and to validate this modelling exercise, sensitivity analysis has been carried out.

Blenheim Road / Henllys Way Junction Sensitivity Test

7.2.33 In order to assess the junction capacity modelling with the existing operatingconditions of the Blenheim Road / Henllys Way mini roundabout, queue surveys havebeen undertaken. The results of these surveys provide evidence of queuing at thisjunction, which can be used to validate the Arcady model.

7.2.34 The surveys were undertaken in May 2014, with the PM peak monitored on Thursday22nd, and the AM peak monitored on Friday 23rd.

7.2.35 The results show that during the busiest morning and evening peak hours, thejunction is operating and any queues were observed to be rolling queues and clearreasonably quickly.

7.2.36 Table 7.10 compares the observed vehicle queues with the modelled queues found inthe Arcady report. The percentage increase or decrease has been considered in thisanalysis.

Table 7.10: Analysis of Queue SurveysBlenheim

Road /Henllys Way

Junction

AM Peak (08:15 – 09:15) PM Peak (17:00 – 18:00)Modelled

Queue(Vehicle)

ObservedQueue

(Vehicle)Difference

ModelledQueue

(Vehicle)

ObservedQueue

(Vehicle)Difference

2014 Base YearBlenheim

Road 1 2 +50% 0 2 N/A*

Henllys Way(East) 2 0 -100% 16 5 -69%

Henllys Way(West) 44 8 -82% 4 4 0%

*Percentage change cannot be calculated with a modelled queue of 0

7.2.37 As can be seen from Table 7.10, the queue survey showed the model is significantlyoverestimating the queues due to the RFC value reaching the theoretical capacity.The RFC is an indicator of the likely performance of a junction approach under agiven traffic loading. Once the RFC reaches the theoretical capacity of 1 the queuelengths within the model become difficult to assess and the model will overestimatethe length.

7.2.38 This analysis of the surveyed queue length in the base year has been used to assessthe opening and future year model results. These results have been updated toprovide a true representation of the queue lengths.



- 46 -

7.2.39 Table 7.11 shows the adjusted model results for the opening year.

Table 7.11: Analysis of Queues in the Opening YearBlenheim

Road /Henllys Way

Junction

AM Peak (08:15 – 09:15) PM Peak (17:00 – 18:00)ModelQueue

(Vehicle)Change Result

ModelQueue


2016 Opening Year - Do NothingBlenheim

Road 1 +50% 2 0 +2 2

Henllys Way(East) 2 -100% 0 20 -69% 6

Henllys Way(West) 51 -82% 9 4 0% 4

2016 Opening Year - Do Something Option 1Blenheim

Road 1 +50% 2 0 +2 2

Henllys Way(East) 2 -100% 0 20 -69% 6


2016 Opening Year - Do Something Option 2Blenheim

Road 1 +50% 2 1 +2 3

Henllys Way(East) 2 -100% 0 22 -69% 7


7.2.40 This analysis adjusts the queues in the Do Something scenarios, so that the longestqueue of 10 vehicles occurs on Henllys Way (west) in the AM peak.



- 47 -

7.2.41 Table 7.12 shows the adjusted model results for the future year.

Table 7.12: Analysis of Queues in the Future Year

Blenheim Road/ Henllys Way

Junction

AM Peak (08:15 – 09:15) PM Peak (17:00 – 18:00)ModelQueue


ModelQueue



Blenheim Road 1 +50% 2 1 +2 3

Henllys Way(East) 2 -100% 0 71 -69% 22

Henllys Way(West) 130 -82% 23 9 0% 9



Henllys Way(East) 3 -100% 0 74 -69% 23

Henllys Way(West) 164 -82% 30 9 0% 9



Henllys Way(East) 3 -100% 0 77 -69% 24

Henllys Way(West) 167 -82% 30 10 0% 10

7.2.42 This analysis adjusts the queues in the Do Something scenarios so that the worstqueue of 30 vehicles occurs on Henllys Way (west) in the AM peak. This is anincrease of 7 vehicles queuing on this arm at the junction than in the Do Nothingscenario.

7.2.43 Overall the effects of the proposed development on the operation of this junction arewithin acceptable limits.

7.3 Highway Assessment Summary

7.3.1 The junction assessment summarised within this section of the TA demonstrates thatthere is sufficient capacity within the Site Access junction and the BlenheimRoad/Greenmeadow Way junction to accommodate the predicted traffic demand fromthe two proposed development options.

7.3.2 The Blenheim Road/ Henllys Way roundabout, however, is modelled at operating overcapacity in the base year, worsening in the future years, even without the addeddevelopment traffic.

7.3.3 Following on-site observation, it is considered that the model is substantiallyoverestimating the queues at this junction. A sensitivity test has therefore beencompleted, which adjusts the modelled queues so that they are in line with what hasbeen observed at the junction. This confirmed that the impact of the developmentproposals on the junction is minimal when compared to the Do Nothing scenarios ineach case. Therefore, the overall conclusion is that mitigation measures are notconsidered necessary at this junction as a result of the proposed development.



- 48 -

8 FRAMEWORK TRAVEL PLAN

8.1.1 This section of the TA outlines objectives and proposals to be included within a TravelPlan for the new Blenheim Road Community Primary School.

8.2 Objectives of Framework Travel Plan

8.2.1 The aim of any Travel Plan is to reduce local road congestion and achieve a balancebetween the needs of the organisation, staff, local community, environment andGovernment policy.

8.2.2 This Framework Travel Plan aims to help reduce the predicted vehicular impact of theproposed development which is to be submitted to TCBC for consideration forplanning permission.

8.2.3 It is imperative that any measures contained within the Travel Plan are implementedprior to the commencement of the development to ensure that sustainable travelbehaviour is encouraged from the outset.

8.3 Travel Plan Co-ordinator

8.3.1 The Travel Plan Co-ordinator (TPC) is the person who is responsible for themanagement of the Travel Plan. They may be an existing member of staff or anemployee who has been appointed specifically for this role. The TPC should be a firstpoint of contact for any travel queries and all employees should be made aware of theTPC’s role.

8.3.2 The role of the TPC should include (but not be limited to);

· Being a first point of contact for employees regarding travel options andissues;

· Liaising with TCBC, service providers and other stakeholders regardingTravel Planning issues;

· Ensuring that travel related information (on notice boards etc.) is kept up todate;

· Organising and encouraging participation in specific travel schemes andevents such as the National Walk to School Week;

· Assisting in the undertaking of travel surveys and prepare reports on thesuccess of the Travel Plan initiatives;

· Preparing revisions or updates of Travel Plans where necessary.



- 49 -

8.4 Contents of the Travel Plan

8.4.1 The Travel Plan should include (but not be limited to) the following information:

· Name and contact details of the Travel Plan Co-ordinator;

· Up-to-date timetables for bus and rail routes which service Cwmbran;

· Details of any promotional travel related events and any associated actionsto be implemented which help promote participation in such events;

· Details of how the travel information will be communicated to pupils, parentsand staff members – newsletters, staff notice boards, etc.

· Modal Split Targets – targets set out in the travel plan should be for both theshort term and the long term, be both achievable and realistic and be at alevel which is agreed with TCBC.

· Details of how the Travel Plan should be monitored and reviewed. Thisshould also include details on how information relating to the success of theTravel Plan is related to TCBC and the frequency with which thisinformation is to be provided.

8.5 Encouraging Sustainable Travel Behaviour

8.5.1 As well as providing details of existing alternative travel choices, the travel planshould also contain specific, site-related measures and initiatives in order to ensurethe success of the travel plan in meeting its objectives.

8.5.2 It is considered that the following measures and initiatives are to be implemented atthe development site and should be delivered through the use of planning conditionsto be attached to any grant of planning permission:

· Secure cycle parking stands which are situated within close vicinity of thebuildings;

· Safe pedestrian footpaths throughout the site, and in the local area;

· A drop off zone in order to provide a space for parents, minibuses and taxisto pick up and drop off pupils;

· Sufficient car parking provision to meet the needs of staff.



- 50 -

9 SUMMARY AND MITIGATION MEASURES

9.1 Summary

9.1.1 This Transportation Assessment (TA) has been prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff(PB) on behalf of Torfaen County Borough Council (TCBC) and presents acomprehensive assessment of the highway and transportation impacts of theproposed development of Blenheim Road Community Primary School, to include anew school, and perhaps residential units, on Blenheim Road in St Dials, Cwmbran.

9.1.2 This TA has been prepared in accordance with advice set out within ‘Guidance onTransport Assessment’ (GTA) (Department for Transport, March 2007) and PB hasconsulted with TCBC, the local highway authority, throughout the process.

9.1.3 The development proposals include replacing the school building that is currently onthe site to accommodate 420 pupils. The definitive proposals have not beendetermined, for instance parking provision and the site access road. However, it isanticipated that the proposals may include an element of residential use, andtherefore this TA has considered this as an option in the junction assessments. Thiswill support further planning applications at this site.

9.1.4 A comprehensive review of the local study area has been undertaken, and this hasconfirmed that the site is located within a residential suburb in south-west Cwmbran,within walking distance of a range of facilities and amenities.

9.1.5 As the site is currently a school, it is well provisioned for pedestrian access within thelocal area. Footpaths, footways, and footbridges provide a good standard and safeaccess to and from residential areas in the vicinity.

9.1.6 National Cycle Route 49 is close, connected by a local traffic-free route along HenllysWay, providing potential future residents of the site access to the Monmouthshire andBrecon canal path. However, on-site provision for cyclists is limited.

9.1.7 The site is well provisioned with public transport services. There is a bus stop lessthan 100 metres from the current site access, providing regular bus services to localresidential areas as well as Cwmbran. The nearest train station is located inCwmbran, which meets DfT LTN cycle distance standard from the site.

9.1.8 A highway safety assessment has been carried out through a review of local PersonalInjury Collision (PIC) data. The PIC data confirmed a total of 7 collisions over a fiveyear period, averaging a low rate of 1.4 collisions per year. In the vicinity of the site,‘slight’ incidents have occurred due to pedestrian or driver error. There do not appearto be any existing local safety concerns or inherent highway design problems acrossthe local area.

9.1.9 Analysis of vehicular trip generation predicted to arise from the developmentproposals has been presented making the use of data extracted from the TRICSdatabase. The methodology for determining the level of trips associated with theproposed development has been agreed with TCBC.

9.1.10 Three junctions on the local strategic highway network have been assessed andmodelled to determine the effect on junction capacity of the predicted developmenttraffic in both the opening year (2016) and future year (2026).



- 51 -

9.1.11 The modelling software used was Junctions 8, and the assessment demonstrated thatthere is sufficient capacity within the Site Access junction and the BlenheimRoad/Greenmeadow Way junction to accommodate the predicted traffic demand fromthe two proposed development options.

9.1.12 The Blenheim Road/ Henllys Way roundabout operates over capacity in the baseyear, worsening in the future years without the added development traffic. Thedevelopment traffic intensifies the capacity issues at this junction, althoughexaggerated by the modelling software given the RFC is over capacity in the DoNothing scenarios. It should be noted that this junction has been designed to addresssafety concerns. Existing constraints on capacity are therefore considered to bejustifiable.

9.1.13 Results from on-site observation and queue length surveys were used to compare theobserved queues with those provided when running the model, in a validationexercise. This showed that the model is significantly overestimating the worst queues,which are found on the western arm of Henllys Way in the AM peak, and on theeastern arm in the PM peak. The validation exercise confirmed that the impact of thedevelopment proposals on the junction is minimal when compared to the Do Nothingscenarios in each case.

9.1.14 A Framework Travel Plan has been included to outline the objectives and proposalsto be included as part of the development, in order to encourage sustainable travelbehaviour and reduce vehicle trips to and from the site.

9.2 Mitigation Measures

Proposed Site Access Road

9.2.1 The current site access road has been evaluated, and the mitigation measures are asfollows:

· Widen the site access road from 3m to 5m.

· Reduce the speed limit on the site access road from 30mph to 20mph.

Site Access Road / Blenheim Road Junction

9.2.2 This junction operates within capacity with the additional traffic demand and as such,no mitigation measures have been identified.

Greenmeadow Way / Blenheim Road Junction

9.2.3 This junction operates within capacity with the additional traffic demand and as such,no mitigation measures have been identified.

Henllys Way / Blenheim Road Junction

9.2.4 Sensitivity testing has shown that the additional traffic demand from the proposeddevelopment has minimal impact on this junction. Mitigation measures have thereforenot been identified.



- 52 -

9.3 Conclusion

9.3.1 This Transport Assessment has considered the proposals to redevelop the existingBlenheim Road Primary School to include an increased capacity school, as well aspotentially the development of 50 residential units.

9.3.2 Junction Capacity Assessments have concluded the site access junction is predictedto continue to operate within capacity, despite the predicted significant increase intraffic. Due to safety concerns, however, the access road will be widened to allow forcars to safely pass one another.

9.3.3 Concerns have been raised over the capacity of the mini roundabout junction withHenllys Way to the south of Blenheim Road. Sensitivity testing has shown the impactof the development will be minimal. Furthermore, as this junction design wasimplemented as part of a safety scheme, the local highway authority has said thatmitigation measures are not necessary.

9.3.4 Given the site is currently a primary school; it is well served to accommodate thedevelopment of a new primary school. The site is also located within a residentialarea, and therefore the proposals to include 50 dwellings are considered to beappropriate, with various facilities in the area within walking distance.

9.3.5 In conclusion and based on the findings of this report, it is considered that there areno valid highway or transportation reasons that should prevent the developmentproposals from being awarded planning consent.

blenheim road community primary school...between 8.30am and 4.30pm. to the south of these markings,...

Documents