newquay aerohub supplementary transport assessment · 1.0.1 this supplementary transport assessment...

February 2013

NEWQUAY AEROHUB

SUPPLEMENTARY TRANSPORT

ASSESSMENT

Cornwall Development Company

3512404A-NAH

FINAL

Newquay Aerohub Supplementary Transport

Assessment

3512404A-NAH

Prepared for Cornwall Development Company

Pydar House Pydar Street

Truro TR1 1EA

Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff

11 High Cross Truro

TR1 2AJ

01872 245 860 www.pbworld.com

Newquay Aerohub Supplementary Transport Assessment

Newquay Aerohub Enterprise Zone Supplementary Transport Assessment 13-02-12 FINAL.docxPrepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff February 2013 for Cornwall Development Company

- 3 -

CONTENTS Page

1 Introduction 6

1.1 Purpose of Report 6

2 Pedestrian and Cycle Accessibility 8

2.1 Pedestrian Accessibility 8

2.2 Cycle Accessibility 8

2.3 Pedestrian and Cycle Accessibility Summary and Conclusions 9

3 Accident Analysis 11

3.2 Fatal and Serious Accident Summary 13

4 DEvelopmemt Flows and Modal Split 16

4.1 LDO Trip Rates 16

4.2 Modal Split 16

4.3 Development Traffic Distribution 18

5 Modelling Methodology 20

5.2 Summer Modelling 20

5.3 Individual Modelling 21

5.4 Henver Road / Rialton Road / Quintrell Road Priority Junction 22

5.5 A39 Trekenning Roundabout 23

5.6 A39 Halloon Roundabout 24

5.7 A30 Highgate Hill Roundabout 25

5.8 Additional flows though Quintrell Downs 28

6 Summary and Conclusions 30



- 4 -

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report has been prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff to address comments raised regarding the original Transport Assessment for the Local Development Order (LDO) scheme at Newquay Cornwall Airport. The report was commissioned by Cornwall Development Company. The LDO will for part of Newquay Aerohub Enterprise Zone (NAEZ). When complete, the NAEZ will comprise two LDOs (LDO1 and LDO2). LDO1 is currently in operation. The current proposals are for LDO 2 to be implemented on an adjacent parcel of land. Additional information is provided on the following areas:

Site Accessibility

Updated Travel Plan

Accident Analysis

Development Flows – Modal Split and Distribution

Additional Junction Modelling

Impact on A30

Impact on Quintrell Downs

It is demonstrated that the conclusions that the impact of the LDO2 proposals could not be regarded as ‘severe’ in transport terms, and that the development should therefore be acceptable.

This sheet is intended as a summary only



- 5 -

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION



- 6 -

INTRODUCTION

Purpose of Report

1.0.1 This Supplementary Transport Assessment addresses issues raised during post-application discussions regarding the Aerohub site at Newquay Cornwall Airport. It is not a stand-alone document, and should be read in conjunction with the main Transport Assessment (TA) for the scheme (dated December 2012).

1.0.2 Additional information is provided to cover the following points:

Site Accessibility

Updated Travel Plan

Accident Analysis



Impact on A30




- 7 -

SECTION 2

PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLE ACCESSIBILTY



- 8 -

PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLE ACCESSIBILITY

Pedestrian Accessibility

2.0.1 As is common for airport sites, Newquay Airport lies some distance from established residential areas. Pedestrian and cycle access to the site are therefore limited.

2.0.2 The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation document, Providing for Journeys on Foot sets out a series of walking distances that are likely to be acceptable at Table 3.2. For ease of reference, this table is reproduced below:

Town Centres (m) Commuting / school/ Sight-

seeing (m) Elsewhere (m)

Desirable 200 500 400

Acceptable 400 1000 800

Preferred Maximum 800 2000 1200

2.0.3 The LDO2 site lies more than 2000m from any significant residential areas. In addition, there are no dedicated footways that would provide access to the site. It is therefore considered that there is likely to be any significant volume of pedestrian traffic to the site.

Cycle Accessibility

2.1.1 The distances that commuters are prepared to cycle vary significantly between individuals. At an average cycling speed of 21kph (13mph), it would be possible to reach an area stretching from Winnards Perch, to Mawgan Porth, covering Newquay, Quintrell Downs, Indian Queens and St Columb Major with a half hour bike ride.

2.1.2 In this particular case, the A3059 is the only road that provides access to the site, with no alternative facilities available. The nature of the A3059 means that motorised vehicles generally travel at relatively high speeds, which is likely to be a significant deterrent to cycle access.

2.1.3 It would potentially be possible to create an alternative off-road route to the Aerohub site. This would involve upgrading footpath 401/1/1 that runs directly south from shortly to the west of the site access road, joining footpath 415/45/1 and the St Piran cycle trail, which would provide access to Newquay and St Columb Major.

2.1.4 Whilst the above would encourage cycle access to the site, it would not be a direct route and is unlikely to be particularly attractive. It is therefore not likely that it would have a significant effect on the number of motorised vehicles accessing the site and it is not considered that it would represent the best use of funds that could be spent more effectively on other accessibility measures (e.g. bus stops, etc.).



- 9 -

Pedestrian and Cycle Accessibility Summary and Conclusions

2.2.1 In summary, the site’s relatively remote location means that it is unlikely that there would be any significant number of pedestrian or cycle trips to the LDO2 development.

2.2.2 It must be noted that, despite the relatively poor accessibility of the site, the principle of development in this location has already been accepted by CC through the adoption of LDO1.

2.2.3 There are however still opportunities to reduce vehicle trips to the site through public transport and car sharing. These issues are addressed more fully within the Travel Plan.

2.2.4 A draft version of the Travel Plan was included within the original TA. This has now been updated to reflect comments received from Cornwall Council and The Highways Agency. The updated Plan is included as Appendix 1.

2.2.5 Discussions are currently ongoing with Western Greyhound, operators of the 591 bus service, regarding bringing the bus into the site. In the initial build-out phases, this would be to a bus stand and turning area within the site, extending to a loop through the site when complete. It is important that this service is in place at an early stage in order to allow people to establish their travel habits.



- 10 -

SECTION 3

ACCIDENT ANALYSIS



- 11 -

ACCIDENT ANALYSIS

3.0.1 Accident analysis was included with the original TA. Queries were raised in regard to the fatal and serious incidents and whether they might provide further insight into any existing road safety issues in the area. For ease of reference, the accident analysis section of the original TA is largely reproduced below, with additional information provided as requested.

3.0.2 Personal Injury Accident (PIA) data was obtained from Cornwall Council. The data obtained covered a five year period from 01/04/2007 to 31/03/2012.

3.0.3 The study area for the accident analysis is detailed in Figure 0-1 below. The area was agreed as part of the scoping process:

Figure 0-1: Accident Analysis Study Area

3.0.4 Scatter plots identifying the location of each PIA are provided in Appendix 1. The raw accident data is also included.

3.0.5 There have been 60 personal injury accidents in the study area in the last 5 years. Of these, 3 have been fatal, 9 serious and 48 slight. As is accepted practice, damage-only incidents have been omitted from this analysis.

3.0.6 Closer examination of the accident records shows that several of them have causation factors that would generally be accepted to be outside the control of the highways designer. In this instance, the following incidents have been identified as having causation factors that are unlikely to be influenced significantly by the highway layout:

Image from Google Earth Licence Key: JCPMUZR2QCHE23K

Accident Study Area



- 12 -

Accident Reference

Date Severity Contributing Factor

08B32A041 04/01/2008 Slight Damp mud on road

08GN2L008 28/06/2008 Slight Stolen car in police pursuit

09GC2M006 27/05/2009 Slight Suspected drunk driver

09GC2J006 08/06/2009 Slight Passenger left vehicle whilst in

motion due to argument with driver

10GC2H017 07/08/2010 Slight Trailer caused tractor to overturn

10GC2J015 25/08/2010 Slight Drunk driver

10GC2J018 25/11/2010 Slight Horses in road at night

10GN2L024 07/12/2010 Serious Black ice on road (temperature -6oC)

11GC2M001 24/01/2011 Slight Suspected driver blackout (low blood

sugar confirmed at scene)

11GC2J003 04/02/2011 Slight Vehicle U turning in road

11GC2M008 20/07/2011 Slight Temporary traffic lights on road

11GC2J012 24/08/2011 Slight Loose gravel on road

11GN2L021 03/09/2011 Slight Drink driver

11GN2L023 11/09/2011 Serious Accident involved a go cart

suspected to be stolen

11GN2L027 05/12/2011 Slight Temporary traffic lights on road

Table 0-1: Accidents with Unusual Causation Factors

3.0.7 The above accidents are unlikely to have been significantly influenced by the highway layout, and are similarly unlikely to be influenced by the LDO2 proposals. They therefore do not offer any reliable insight into how the development could affect highways safety and have been omitted from the remainder of this accident analysis. This leaves a total of 3 fatal incidents, 7 serious and 35 slight.

3.0.8 A wet road surface was present in 10 of the remaining 45 incidents. This is a relatively low proportion and does not indicate a significant problem with the local highway network in wet conditions.

3.0.9 Seven of the 45 incidents involved rear shunt incidents. Given the two roundabouts within the study area, this is not a high number and not a cause for significant concern.



- 13 -

3.0.10 To put these numbers into context, reference has been made to Table 2.1 of TD16/07 Geometric Design of Roundabouts. This gives personal injury accident rates for various roundabout types. The Trekenning and Halloon Roundabouts both have 5 arms (excluding the small western arm access off Halloon). At Trekenning, all approaches are single carriageway; Halloon has one dual carriageway approach.

3.0.11 The lowest average personal injury accident frequency for these junctions would therefore be 1.72, or between 8 and 9 incidents in the study period. It should however be noted that paragraph 2.2 specifically states that, “On average, there are more accidents at roundabouts with at least one approach that is dual carriageway compared with roundabouts where none of the approaches are dual carriageway roads. Dual carriageway roundabouts generally have higher levels of traffic.”

3.0.12 Based on the data provided, there have been 11 accidents at Trekenning (6 damage only and 5 slight) and 10 (6 damage only, 2 slight and 2 serious) incidents at Halloon. These are below the national average for injury accidents and are therefore not considered to indicate an unusual pattern of accidents at these junctions.

3.0.13 The lack of any significant patterns of wet weather or rear shunt accidents suggests that there are no major issues with the condition of the road surface in the area. This is borne out by on-site observations during site visits.

3.0.14 A close reading of the accident descriptions indicates that 14 were loss of control incidents and a further 5 were associated with overtaking manoeuvres. When viewed in combination with the apparent lack of road surface issues, this suggests that excess speed may be a significant factor in many of the accidents.

3.0.15 Automatic traffic counter (ATC) surveys were conducted on the A3059 as part of the preparation of this report. These surveys included recording vehicle speeds. During the one-week survey period, 85

th percentile speeds were 49.6mph westbound and

50.4mph eastbound. However, 498 vehicles were recorded as travelling in excess of 61mph. This represents 7.4% of the 6,693 total vehicles.

Fatal and Serious Accident Summary

3.1.1 In the past 5 years, there have been 3 fatal accidents and 9 serious accidents within the analysis area. The locations of the fatal incidents are widely spread and there do not appear to be any common causation factors.

3.1.2 In regard to the serious accidents, they are reasonably evenly spread over the analysis area, although there is a cluster at the Halloon Roundabout (2 serious).

3.1.3 Of the 9 incidents, 2 are attributed to poor road conditions and 1 involves a stolen go-kart. Four of the incidents appear to involve loss of the control. Of the 12 incidents, 6 took place in wet conditions and 1 in icy conditions. Eight of the incidents involved at least 1 driver under the age of 25, suggesting that driver inexperience may be a contributing factor.



- 14 -

3.1.4 Clearly it is not possible to be definitive as to the cause of the 3 fatal incidents from the limited data available. However, subsequent research of contemporary news reports shows the following:

incident 10GC2M012) - victim was not wearing a seatbelt

incident 10GC2M006 - subsequently led to the conviction of the driver of a second vehicle for dangerous driving (witnesses described the drivers as having been racing prior to the incident)

incident 11GN2L015 - inquest recorded the most likely cause of the accident as a slow puncture.

3.1.5 Whilst all tragic, these incidents do not appear to demonstrate any identifiable patterns that could be exacerbated by the proposals.

3.1.6 There are no clearly identifiable collision types, such as rear shunts, etc. However, several of the incidents relate to loss of control. Statistics show that inappropriate speed is a significant causation factor and also tends to increase the severity of accidents. As set out in the TA, it is contended that the addition of the new access junction will help to reduce speeds along the A3059.



- 15 -

SECTION 4

DEVEOPMENT FLOWS AND MODAL SPLIT



- 16 -

DEVELOPMEMT FLOWS AND MODAL SPLIT

LDO Trip Rates

4.0.1 The derivation of the off-site committed development included within the modelling for the scheme is covered in full within the original TA. The intention of this section is to provide a fuller explanation of derivation of the trip rates associated with the Aerohub proposals. A consistent methodology was employed for both committed (LDO1) and proposed (LDO2) traffic.

4.0.2 In order to predict the amount of traffic expected to be generated as a result of the proposed development, trip rates were derived from the TRICS 2012(a) v6.9.1 database.

4.0.3 All person trip rates were derived from the TRICS database. The peak hour rates derived are set out in Table 0-1 below:

Development Type Unit AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures

Employment (B1 Office)

Per 100 m

2

1.91 0.17 0.14 1.57

Employment (B2 General Industry)

Per 100 m

2

0.53 0.102 0.058 0.432

Employment (B8 Warehousing)

Per 100 m

2

0.038 0.019 0.02 0.05

Table 0-1: Person Trip Rates for each LDO land use class

Modal Split

4.1.1 The modal split for LDO traffic was derived from Census travel to work data (daytime population). The Census data was based on those working at the Industrial Estate at St Columb Major (output area 15UGGK0012). The reason for this choice of comparison site was that it is a significant employment site in a relatively remote location, lying relatively close to the development site. The main Newquay Cornwall Airport has relatively few employees and was not considered to provide a suitable sample size.

4.1.2 Whist it is acknowledged that the St Columb Major Industrial Estate lies closer to residential areas than the LDO site, the modal split showed no walking or cycling to the site and a high proportion of car users. It was therefore considered to be a good proxy for the likely modal split at the development site. The modal split is set out below:



- 17 -

Variable People Percentage

Underground, metro, light rail or tram 0 0%

Train 0 0%

Bus, minibus or coach 6 4%

Taxi or minicab 0 0%

Driving a car or van 130 84%

Passenger in a car or van 12 8%

Motorcycle, scooter or moped 6 4%

Bicycle 0 0%

On foot 0 0%

Other 0 0%

Table 0-2 – St Columb Major Travel to Work Modal Splits

4.1.3 Applying the above modal spit to the floor areas set out in Section 5 of the original TA gives the following development trips associated with LDO 1 and LDO2 in 2014 and 2030:

Land Use

Vehicle trips

AM peak period PM peak period


B1 (4,000sqm) 65 6 5 53

B2 (4,000sqm) 19 4 3 15

B8 (2,000sqm) 1 0 0 1

Total 84 10 8 69

Table 0-3: 2014 LDO 1 Vehicular trips

Land Use

Vehicle trips



B1 (4,600sqm) 74 6 6 61

B2 (4,600sqm) 22 4 3 17

B8 (2,300sqm) 1 1 1 2

Total 97 11 9 80




- 18 -

Land Use

Vehicle trip rates



B1 (40,000sqm) 646 56 49 530

B2 (40,000sqm) 191 37 28 149

B8 (20,000sqm) 7 4 5 13

Total 844 98 82 692


Land Use

Vehicle trip rates



B1 (46,000sqm) 743 65 57 610

B2 (46,000sqm) 220 43 32 171

B8 (23,000sqm) 8 5 6 15

Total 971 113 94 796


Development Traffic Distribution

4.2.1 Given the size of the nearby NGA residential development, an allowance of 20% of LDO trips was assumed between the NGA and LDO for the Scenario 1 testing. This allowance also reflects the high quality nature of the proposed NGA housing and the ambition to attract high skilled employees to the Aerohub.

4.2.2 Any trips not travelling to the NGA (i.e. 80% in Scenario 1 and 100% in Scenario 2) were assigned based on Travel to Work data for the Industrial Estate at St Columb Major (output area 15UGGK0012). Distribution maps are provided in Appendix 3 of this addendum report.



- 19 -

SECTION 5

MODELLING METHODOLOGY



- 20 -

MODELLING METHODOLOGY

5.0.1 A detailed description of the modelling methodology is set out within the original TA. However, it has been suggested that the SATURN model had not been calibrated and validated, and may therefore not reflect the operation of the local highway network.

5.0.2 The majority of the SATURN model was developed for Cornwall Council and has been used on a number of projects for the Council. It is assumed that this area of the model is not disputed.

5.0.3 As set out in the TA, the town centre area of the model has been cordoned off to minimise run times. The model has also been extended to the east to include the Trekenning and Halloon Roundabouts.

5.0.4 There is no realistic route choice within the model and it does therefore accurately reflect the additional development traffic on the various routes to and from the site. No calibration would be required relating to route choice.

5.0.5 This section includes individual modelling of the Trekenning Roundabout, the Halloon and Highgate Hill junctions.

Summer Modelling

5.1.1 For completeness, modelling has been carried out for Scenarios 1 and 2 for the Summer months.

5.1.2 Examination of the ATC data revealed that traffic flows in the AM peak in Newquay actually decrease in the summer months; therefore only the PM peak model has been used within these sensitivity tests. Table 0-1 shows the growth factors derived for June to August.



- 21 -

Rejerrah - A3075

To Chiverton To Newquay

AM PM AM PM

Jun-05 1 1 1 1

Aug-09 0.85 1.21 0.98 1.22

Quintrell Downs - A3058

To Quintrell Roundabout To Summercourt

AM PM AM PM

Jun-05 1 1 1 1

Aug-09 0.72 0.92 0.68 1.15

Rialton Barton - A3059

Trekenning Roundabout To Newquay

AM PM AM PM

Jun-05 1 1 1 1

Aug-09 0.75 1.35 0.74 0.94

Whitecross - A392

Indian Queens Quintrell Downs

AM PM AM PM

Jun-05 1 1 1 1

Aug-09 0.94 1.56 0.90 1.29

Trevemper Rd, Newquay

To Trevemper Roundabout To Newquay

AM PM AM PM

Jun-08 1 1 1 1

Aug-08 0.90 1.10 0.86 1.34

Table 0-1 - August Seasonality Factors

5.1.3 The above factors indicate that traffic flows generally reduce in the AM peak, but increase by an average of 20.8% in the PM peak. The Summer modelling therefore applies this uplift to the baseline 2030 traffic flows. Development flows are assumed to be unaffected.

5.1.4 Capacity mapping for this scenario is included as Appendix 4. This is provided for information only.

Individual Modelling

5.2.1 The individual roundabout and priority junction modelling within the TA was based on the standard ARCADY and PICADY assessment parameters. Due to the relatively unusual geometry of the junctions involved, the roundabout modelling has been repeated using the uneven lane usage function of Junctions 8, and the priority junction testing with LinSig. Additional modelling has also been carried out for the Halloon roundabout and the A30 Highgate Hill junction.



- 22 -

Henver Road / Rialton Road / Quintrell Road Priority Junction

5.3.1 This junction is identified within the SATURN model as experiencing capacity issues under Scenario 2. More detailed modelling using the Transport Research Laboratory’s PICADY software was therefore included within the TA.

5.3.2 For ease of reference, the original TA modelling results are reproduced below:

2030 DM AM Scenario 2 2030 DS AM

Queue (pcu)

Mean Arriving Vehicle

Delay (min)

RFC Queue (pcu)


Delay (min)

RFC

Rialton Road right to Henver Road

0.88 0.29 0.471 3.45 1.01 0.751

Rialton Road left to Quintrell Road

0.27 0.14 0.213 0.63 0.32 0.316

Quintrell Road right to Rialton Road

0.64 0.19 0.391 10.92 1.36 0.910

Table 0-2: Henver Road / Rialton Road / Quintrell Road PICADY Results - AM Peak

Arm

2030 DM PM Scenario 2 2030 DS PM

Queue

(pcu)


Delay (min)

RFC Queue

(pcu)


Delay (min)

RFC

Rialton Road right to Henver Road

0.72 0.23 0.419 0.88 0.30 0.471

Rialton Road left to

Quintrell Road 0.45 0.15 0.310 1.00 0.21 0.501

Quintrell Road right to

Rialton Road 0.05 0.11 0.047 0.09 0.12 0.081

Table 0-3: Henver Road / Rialton Road / Quintrell Road PICADY Results – PM Peak

5.3.3 A concern was raised in post-application discussions that the PICADY modelling might not take full account of the short flare length at the junction, and assume that it is used even when it is starved by queuing.

5.3.4 Reference to the PICADY manual shows that the software does, in fact, account for this:

The modelling of flared approaches at Priority Intersections is based on a variation of an equivalent two full-lane approach, with a capacity reduction to allow for the probability of access to one of the lanes being denied by a queue in the other lane.

5.3.5 However, in order to provide reassurance on this issue, the modelling has been repeated using LinSig, with the left lane represented as being two cars long, reflecting the road space available. Lane capacities when giving way and coefficients have been taken from the original PICADY modelling.



- 23 -

5.3.6 The full results are included in Appendix 4: Summer Capacity Maps



- 24 -

5.3.7 Appendix 5 and summarised below:

2030 DM AM Scenario 2 2030 DS AM

Mean Max

Queue

(pcu)

Average Delay per

PCU

(s/pcu)

PRC

Mean Max

Queue

(pcu)

Average Delay per

PCU

(s/pcu)

PRC

Henver Road Left and Ahead

0.8 3.0 60.3% 2.6 7.5 84.3%

Rialton Road

combined left and right out

0.3 4.7 38.3% 0.3 4.8 41.2%

Quintrell Road ahead

and right to Rialton Road

0.8 4.0 62.6% 4.0 16.1 89.6%

Table 0-4: Henver Road / Rialton Road / Quintrell Road LinSig Results - AM Peak

Arm

2030 DM PM Scenario 2 2030 DS PM

Mean Max

Queue

(pcu)

Average Delay per

PCU

(s/pcu)

PRC

Mean Max

Queue

(pcu)

Average Delay per

PCU

(s/pcu)

PRC

Henver Road Left and Ahead

0.6 2.7 55.2% 0.8 3.1 61.5%

Rialton Road combined left and

right out

0.3 4.0 38.5% 0.3 3.8 34.7%

Quintrell Road ahead

and right to Rialton Road

0.2 1.5 30.3% 0.3 1.6 37.0%

Table 0-5: Henver Road / Rialton Road / Quintrell Road LinSig Results – PM Peak

5.3.8 Comparison of the above tables with the PICADY results initially obtained demonstrates that the original results were reliable and did reflect any lane starvation issues. The results of both sets of modelling indicate that the junction would continue to operate under Scenario 2 (i.e. both LDO1 and LDO2 fully operational, no NGA development except for that already consented).

A39 Trekenning Roundabout

5.4.1 Within the original TA, this was modelled based on the ARCADY model within Junctions 8 software. This takes no real account of lane usage and assumes that vehicles will equally use the entire available entry width.

5.4.2 Due to the unusual entry geometry at the Trekenning junction, vehicles do not use the entry width equally. The modelling has therefore been repeated using the uneven lane usage model within Junctions 8.

5.4.3 For ease of reference, the ARCADY model based results are reproduced below for comparison with the uneven lane usage model results. The full modelling is included as Appendix 6.



- 25 -

Scenario 2 2030 DS PM

ARCADY Model Scenario 2 2030 DS PM Uneven Lane Use Model

Arm Queue (PCU)

Max

Delay (sec)

RFC Queue (PCU)

Max

Delay (sec)

RFC

A39 (N) 1.71 6.26 0.63 8.84 30.92 N/A

Unnamed Road 0.39 4.55 0.28 1.37 15.40 N/A

A39 (S) 0.88 3.91 0.47 1.36 5.84 N/A

A3059) 2.93 8.83 0.75 7.23 21.28 N/A

Station Road 0.19 4.18 0.16 0.22 4.84 N/A

Table 0-6: Trekenning Roundabout Junctions 8 Modelling Results

5.4.4 The uneven lane usage model does indicate longer queues than the ARCADY model, but the delays and queues show are minimal and would be acceptable to road users.

A39 Halloon Roundabout

5.5.1 The Halloon roundabout was not identified within the SATURN modelling as likely to experience significant congestion. However, for completeness, it has now been modelled using the uneven lane usage model within Junctions 8.

5.5.2 Modelling was carried out for the Scenario 1 AM and PM 2030 DS scenarios. The full modelling is included as Appendix 6 and summarised below:

Scenario 1 2030 DM AM

ARCADY Model Scenario 1 2030 DS AM Uneven Lane Use Model

Arm Queue (PCU)

Max Delay (sec)

RFC Queue (PCU)

Max Delay (sec)

RFC

A39 (N) 1.45 6.48 0.59 1.67 7.00 0.63

Parka Road (N) 0.04 6.20 0.03 0.04 6.34 0.04

A39 (E) 0.91 3.13 0.48 1.52 4.14 0.60

Parka Road (S) 0.32 9.18 0.24 0.43 12.65 0.30

A392 0.52 4.46 0.34 0.61 5.32 0.38

Table 0-7: Halloon Roundabout Junctions 8 AM Peak Modelling Results



- 26 -

Scenario 1 2030 DM PM

ARCADY Model Scenario 1 2030 D S PM Uneven Lane Use Model

Arm Queue (PCU)

Max

Delay (sec)

RFC Queue (PCU)

Max

Delay (sec)

RFC

A39 (N) 2.15 8.50 0.68 36.34 99.25 1.00

Parka Road (N) 0.02 6.75 0.02 0.03 9.66 0.03

A39 (E) 0.69 2.85 0.41 0.77 2.99 0.43

Parka Road (S) 0.34 8.53 0.26 0.37 9.09 0.27

A392 0.68 4.60 0.40 0.73 4.83 0.42

Table 0-8: Halloon Roundabout Junctions 8 PM Peak Modelling Results

5.5.3 The modelling indicates that the junction would continue to operate freely during the 2030 AM Peak. There is some congestion during the PM peak, but the delays are not great (99 seconds) and, whilst significant in percentage terms, the impact could not be considered to be ‘severe’ in absolute terms. The operation of the junction is therefore considered to be acceptable.

A30 Highgate Hill Roundabout

5.6.1 The nearby A30 forms part of the strategic highway network and will be a key link to and from LDO 2.

5.6.2 The extent of the SATURN modelling only covered roads up to the Halloon Roundabout, near the Highgate Hill junction on the A30. For the purpose of this additional modelling, it has been assumed that all trips leaving the model area use the A30 Highgate hill Roundabout.

5.6.3 The modelling is based on a manual classified count undertaken on the 15th August

2008. This was growthed up to 2030 using factors derived from Tempro version 6.2 and National Trip End Model (NTEM) dataset versions 6.2 (AM growth factor = 1.2726, PM growth factor = 1.2912). It should be noted that August is a peak traffic month within Newquay due to high seasonal flows. The assessment should therefore be regarded as robust.

5.6.4 It has been assumed that development traffic is distributed on a pro-rata basis according to the observed flows during the survey. Flows were used from the Scenario 1 modelling (i.e. including the full Newquay Growth Area development).

5.6.5 The results of the modelling are included within Appendix 6 and summarised in the following tables:



- 27 -

Scenario 1 2030 AM DM Scenario 1 2030 AM DM

Arm Queue (PCU)

Max Delay

(sec)

RFC Queue (PCU)

Max Delay

(sec)

RFC

A30 (N) 0.18 2.07 0.15 0.51 2.94 0.34

B3279 0.16 2.12 0.13 0.41 3.39 0.29

A30 (S) 0.18 2.17 0.15 0.66 4.01 0.40

A39 0.27 1.52 0.21 0.43 1.75 0.30

C763 0.14 2.98 0.12 0.24 3.60 0.19

Table 0-9: Highgate Hill Roundabout Junctions 8 Modelling Results – AM Peak

Scenario 1 2030 AM DM Scenario 1 2030 AM DM

Arm Queue (PCU)

Max Delay (sec)

RFC Queue (PCU)

Max Delay (sec)

RFC

A30 (N) 0.49 3.22 0.33 1.68 8.44 0.63

B3279 0.11 2.57 0.10 0.26 4.45 0.21

A30 (S) 0.49 3.11 0.33 1.02 4.89 0.51

A39 0.51 1.91 0.34 1.68 3.52 0.63

C763 0.32 4.19 0.24 1.03 10.53 0.51

Table 0-10: Highgate Hill Roundabout Junctions 8 Modelling Results – PM Peak

5.6.6 The modelling demonstrates that the effect of the development on the high-capacity Highgate Hill junction is minimal, even under the robust conditions assessed.



- 28 -

SECTION 6

QUINTRELL DOWNS



- 29 -

Additional flows though Quintrell Downs

5.7.1 The additional development-related flows through the Quintrell Downs roundabout for Scenarios 1 and 2 are set out in the following tables:

A – A3058(N), B – East Road, C – A3058 (S), D – West Road

Scenario 1 2030 AM DM

Scenario 1 2030 AM DS

Scenario 1 2030 AM Change

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 204 256 49

A 0 184 258 56

A 0 -20 2 7

B 221 1 88 338

B 221 1 85 341

B 0 0 -3 3

C 198 35 5 124

C 272 36 5 125

C 74 1 0 1

D 16 250 107 0

D 87 259 107 0

D 71 9 0 0

Scenario 1 2030 PM DM

Scenario 1 2030 PM DS

Scenario 1 2030 PM Change

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 204 119 37

A 0 208 224 49

A 0 4 105 12

B 209 1 37 423

B 201 1 37 443

B -8 0 0 20

C 302 93 5 171

C 314 94 5 170

C 12 1 0 -1

D 82 375 135 0

D 92 380 136 0

D 10 5 1 0

Scenario 2 2030 AM DM

Scenario 2 2030 AM DS

Scenario 2 2030 AM Change

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 181 192 192

A 0 154 218 219

A 0 -27 26 27

B 155 0 85 374

B 164 0 84 376

B 9 0 -1 2

C 159 38 0 134

C 255 36 0 134

C 96 -2 0 0

D 168 268 113 0

D 315 238 111 0

D 147 -30 -2 0

Scenario 2 2030 PM DM

Scenario 2 2030 PM DS

Scenario 2 2030 PM Change

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 155 149 299

A 0 166 226 396

A 0 11 77 97

B 159 0 43 480

B 208 0 43 463

B 49 0 0 -17

C 185 94 0 233

C 206 94 0 214

C 21 0 0 -19

D 54 375 157 0

D 61 378 157 0

D 7 3 0 0

5.7.2 These figures vary from 145 vehicles per hour up to 245 depending on the scenario

examined. This equates to just over 2-4 vehicles per minute in total during the peak hours.



- 30 -

SECTION 7

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS



- 31 -

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

6.0.1 This report has been prepared by Parson Brinckerhoff to address post-application issues raised regarding the proposal to introduce a Local Development Order (LDO) at Newquay Cornwall Airport. The report was commissioned by Cornwall Development Company. The LDO will for part of Newquay Aerohub Enterprise Zone (NAEZ).

6.0.2 When complete, the NAEZ will comprise two LDOs (LDO1 and LDO2), permitting the construction and occupation of employment uses (up to a floor area limit) without the need to apply for individual planning consents. The aim is to encourage and facilitate private sector investment within the aerospace sector by creating a new aviation/aerospace hub that will create high value, highly skilled, permanent jobs.

6.0.3 LDO1 is currently in operation. The current proposals are for LDO 2 to be implemented on an adjacent parcel of land.

6.0.4 This report should be read in conjunction with the original TA for the LDO2 proposals. It provides additional information on the following areas:

Site Accessibility

Updated Travel Plan

Accident Analysis



Impact on A30


6.0.5 It is demonstrated that the conclusions that the impact of the LDO2 proposals could

not be regarded as ‘severe’ in transport terms, and that the development should therefore be acceptable.

Appendix 1: Revised Travel Plan

Newquay Aerohub Enterprise Zone LDO2

Travel Plan

Cornwall Development Company

February 2013

Newquay Aerohub Enterprise Zone LDO2 Travel Plan

3512404A-NAH

Prepared for Cornwall Development Company

Pydar House Pydar Street

Truro TR1 1EA

Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff

11 High Cross Truro

TR1 2AJ 01872 245860 www.pbworld.com

Report Title : Newquay Aerohub Enterprise Zone LDO2 Travel

Plan PIMS Number : Report Status : Job No : Date : February 2013 Prepared by : .......................................................................... Checked by : .......................................................................... Approved by : ..........................................................................

Document History and Status Report Issue

Date of Issue Prepared By: Checked By: Approved By:

AUTHORISATION SHEET

Client: Project: Address:

PREPARED BY Name: Chris Hill Position: Graduate Transportation Planner Date:

AGREED BY Name: Ben Smith-Laing Position: Principal Transportation Planner Date:

AUTHORISED FOR ISSUE Name: Position: Date:

DISTRIBUTION

ACCEPTED BY Name: Position: Date:

ACCEPTED BY Name: Position: Date:

CONTENTS Page

Introduction 3

1 Introduction 4 1.1 Background 4 1.2 The Development 4 1.3 Structure of the Travel Plan 5

Policy Review 6

2 Travel Planning Policies 8 2.1 National Planning Policies 8 2.2 Local Planning Policies 9

Site Accessibility 11

3 Site Accessibility 12 3.1 Introduction 12 3.2 Walking and Cycling 12 3.3 Public Transport 12 3.4 Car Sharing 13 3.5 Sustainable Transport Summary 13

The Case for Change 14

4 The Case for Change 16 4.1 Introduction 16 4.2 Benefits for the NAEZ 16 4.3 Sustainability 16 4.4 Personal health and fitness 16 4.5 Financial 16

Modal Split Targets 18

5 Targets 20 5.1 Introduction 20

Sustainable Travel Measures and Initiatives 22

6 Sustainable Travel Measures and Initiatives 23 6.1 Main Objectives of the Travel Plan 23 6.2 Walking and Cycling measures and initiatives 23 6.3 Public Transport measures and initiatives 24 6.4 Vehicle-based Measures and Initiatives 24 6.5 Personalised Travel Planning 25

Travel Plan Management 26

7 Management of the Travel Plan 28

7.1 Travel Plan Co-ordinator 28 7.2 Promotion and Communication 28

Implementation, Monitoring & Reviewing 30

8 Implementation, Monitoring and Review 32 8.1 Implementation 32 8.2 Monitoring of the Travel Plan 32 8.3 Reviewing the Travel Plan 32

Action Timetable 34

9 Action Timetable 36 9.1 Introduction 36

Conclusion 40

10 Conclusion 41 10.1 Summary 41


Newquay Aerohub Travel Plan 13-02-11 DRAFT.docx Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff February 2013 for Cornwall Development Company - 3 -

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION



1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.1.1 This framework Travel Plan (TP) is for the proposed Local Development Order 2 (LDO2) at Newquay Aerohub Enterprise Zone (NAEZ) at Newquay Cornwall Airport.

1.1.2 This framework Travel Plan highlights the measures and initiatives that should be implemented to order to maximise the sustainability of the development site.

1.1.3 LDO2 will encourage and facilitate private sector investment within the aerospace sector by creating a new aviation/aerospace hub that will deliver high value, highly skilled permanent jobs. Flexibility is important for this enterprise zone, and it is unlikely that there will be individual Travel Plans.

1.1.4 It is likely that this framework Travel Plan would form part of any letting agreement at LDO2 in order to maximise convenience to tenants (i.e. a “turnkey” business premise). It is thus important that this framework document sets out a range of option for encouraging sustainable travel as well a methodology for setting targets and measuring progress.

1.1.5 The operation of the Travel Plan will be managed and monitored through Cornwall Council’s iOnTRAVEL sytem (http://www.iontravel.co.uk/cornwall/).

1.2 The Development

1.2.1 The Airport is looking to develop NAEZ as a major aerospace business location and to make use of the capacity which exists across the whole aerodrome site. It is envisaged that the south side of the Airport will become an international hub for aerospace businesses, drawing on the area’s commercial and defence sector heritage and skills to create an outstanding new business location within a high quality business environment. LDO2 will form part of this aspiration.

1.2.2 Aerohub is one of the largest development opportunities within the South West and is linked directly to an airport with both air and road connectivity. The significant scale of the site enables it to accommodate major investment and growth. An Airport Local Development Order (LDO) has already been delivered for the northern side of the airport. The LDO allows development to take place within limits defined by the LDO, without the need for express planning permissions. LDO2 will operate under a similar arrangement on an adjacent area of land.



1.3 Structure of the Travel Plan

1.3.1 This document is structured as follows:

Section 2 – Discusses national and local policies relating to Travel Planning;

Section 3 – Analyses the site’s accessibility, giving an overview of the area as a whole in terms of walking, cycling and public transport links;

Section 4 – Discusses the Case for Change – why a Travel Plan is required;

Section 5 – Identifies the modal split targets;

Section 6 – Discusses the possible measures and initiatives to promote alternative and sustainable modes of transport;

Section 7 – Details the management of the Travel Plan;

Section 8 – Details Implementation, Monitoring and Review – how the Travel Plan will be continually monitored to ensure its success;

Section 9 – Identifies actions and timetables explaining the measures and initiatives that will be achieved at LDO2, who is responsible and when they will be completed.

Section 10 – Draws conclusions from the Travel Plan



SECTION 2

POLICY REVIEW



2 TRAVEL PLANNING POLICIES

2.1 National Planning Policies

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

2.1.1 As part of the simplification of the planning process, the National Planning Policy Framework came into effect in March 2012 and replaced most of the existing Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and Guidance Notes (PPGs) with immediate effect.

2.1.2 The main aims of the NPPF are the following:

That sustainable development embraces social and environmental as well as economic objectives and does so in a balanced way;

Councils should look for net improvements on all dimensions of sustainability;

The presumption in favour of sustainable development;

Recognises the intrinsic value and beauty of the countryside (whether specifically designated or not);

Requires local authorities to allow for a 5% ‘contingency’ of housing supply over and above 5 years already required or 20% where a local authority has consistently missed its housing targets.

2.1.3 The emphasis in favour of sustainable development is reinforced at paragraph 14:

At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.

2.1.4 Chapter 4 of the NPPF sets out how transport should be considered within the context of planning decisions and sustainable development. The framework states that encouragement should be given to solutions which offer to reduce congestion and serve to facilitate the use of sustainable transport.

Guidance on Transport Assessment

2.1.5 The DCLG / DfT document ‘Guidance on Transport Assessment’ (2007) echoes the NPPF which states that new developments should contain either a Transport Statement or a Transport Assessment (TA) as part of the planning application. It goes on to define a TA stating that consideration should be given to encouraging sustainable access, managing the existing network and mitigating residual impacts. It also states that the goal of a TA is to anticipate the transportation impacts, improve accessibility and safety for all transport modes whilst putting emphasis on walking, cycling and public transport.

2.1.6 All of the above documents emphasise the need to manage future travel demand and to encourage the use of public transport, walking and cycling as viable alternatives to the car. These areas are all addressed within this Travel Plan.



2.2 Local Planning Policies

Connecting Cornwall 2030 (LTP3)

2.2.1 Connecting Cornwall: 2030 is the third Cornwall local transport plan. One of the primary aims of the plan to shift travel away from private car use to sustainable alternatives by use of Travel Plans.

2.2.2 The stated aims of Connecting Cornwall 2030 are as follows:

Tackling climate change

1 Reduce reliance on fossil fuels and support the introduction of low carbon technologies.

2 Support communities to live locally and reduce the need to travel. 3 Adapt and improve the transport network to ensure resilience to climate

change.

Supporting economic prosperity

4 Improve connectivity of Cornwall to the rest of the world. 5 Ensure a resilient and reliable transport system for people, goods and

services. 6 Support the vitality and integrity of our town centres and rural

communities.

Respecting and enhancing the environment

7 Make the most of opportunities to protect and enhance the environment.

8 Minimise the use of natural resources and minimise waste. 9 Provide sustainable access to Cornwall’s environment.

Encouraging healthy active lifestyles

10 Improve the health of our communities through provision for active travel.

11 Increase awareness and an understanding of the health benefits of walking and cycling.

Supporting community safety and individual wellbeing

12 Improve road safety. 13 Increase public confidence in a safer transport network. 14 Reduce noise and air quality impacts.

Supporting equality of opportunity

15 Improve access to employment, education, healthcare and leisure. 16 Improve access to public transport. 17 Encourage community participation in shaping and delivering transport

services.



2.2.3 The NAEZ clearly has the potential to make a significant, positive contribution to the second aim. From a Travel Planning perspective, aims 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are also particularly relevant.

2.2.4 Policy 2 of the Local Transport Plan states that Cornwall Council will seek to work with partners to undertake education, training and awareness initiatives to encourage responsible and sustainable travel choices.

2.2.5 It is identified that Travel Plans can deliver benefits to employees and the local community. They provide greater travel choice, give those who do not own a car better access to employment and services and reduce parking demand.

2.2.6 In addition, Travel Plans also work towards achieving objective 1 of the plan which aims to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels and support the introduction of low carbon technologies.



SECTION 3

SITE ACCESSIBILITY



3 SITE ACCESSIBILITY

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 This section of the report discusses the existing transportation infrastructure and access within the study area. Information is provided with respect to the current provision for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, in addition to the current highway network surrounding the site.

3.2 Walking and Cycling

3.2.1 As is common for airport sites, Newquay Airport lies some distance from established residential areas. Pedestrian and cycle access to the site are therefore limited.

3.2.2 There are no pedestrian facilities in the area surrounding the site. Given the distance of the site from residential settlements, it is very unlikely that any significant level of commuting would be undertaken on foot. The lack of pedestrian facilities is therefore unlikely to influence the choice of transport mode for those working at the site.

3.2.3 There are no dedicated cycle facilities that run close to the site. The A3059 is largely unlit and is a national speed limit road. It is unlikely to be attractive to cyclists.

3.3 Public Transport

Rail Services 3.3.1 The rail service within Newquay is along the Par-Newquay branch line, known as The

Atlantic Coast Line. Stations situated along this line are located at Par, Luxulyan, Bugle, Roche, St Columb Road, Quintrell Downs and Newquay. Newquay is the terminus of the line.

3.3.2 There are services running approximately 2 hourly from Monday – Friday, with reduced services on a Sunday. Additional services run during the summer months.

Bus Services 3.3.3 Bus routes within the area are service numbers 510, 592, 593 and 597. These routes

currently run past the site along the A3059, but do not stop at the site (although many do stop at the nearby Trebarber bus stop).

3.3.4 The timetables and routes for these services are set out in Table 3-1 below:

Sevice Route Mon-Sat Peak Frequency Sunday

Frequency

510

Newquay - Camelford -

Okehampton - Exeter

Every 2 hours No service

591

Newquay - Perranporth St Columb Major -

Newquay

Hourly Every 2 hours

592 Newquay - Truro -

Perranporth - Newquay

Hourly No Service



593

Newquay - St Columb Major -

Bodmin - Liskeard - Plymouth

Hourly Hourly

597

Newquay - Cubert - Perranporth - St Agnes - Truro -

Newquay

5 per day (evening service) Hourly

598

Newquay - St Columb Major -

Truro - St Agnes - Perranporth -

Newquay

4 per day (evening service) Hourly

Table 3-1: Bus Routes Close to Site

3.3.5 Discussions are currently ongoing with Western Greyhound, operators of the 591 bus service, regarding bringing the bus into the site. In the initial build-out phases, this would be to a bus stand and turning area within the site, extending to a loop through the site when complete. It is important that this service is in place at an early stage in order to allow people to establish their travel habits.

3.4 Car Sharing

3.4.1 Due to limited pedestrian and cycling facilities, the most practical approach to sustainable transport to LDO2 is to encourage car sharing.

3.4.2 Cornwall Council has set up a website (http://www.shareacar.com/cornwall_carshare_index.php) dedicated to maximising people’s travel options. This offers a way of reducing solo occupancy car journeys encouraging people to share travel costs and reduce the impact on the Environment.

3.4.3 LDO2 could prioritise parking to car sharers to encourage this scheme. Advertising and promoting this scheme is very important to make people aware of the savings they could be making.

3.5 Sustainable Transport Summary

3.5.1 Pedestrian and cycle routes are very limited at the Aerohub so emphasis must be placed on public transport and car sharing.

3.5.2 Buses 510 and 597 run past the entrance to the site and provide a possibility for commuters.

3.5.3 Advertising and priority parking for car sharers is important as this could potentially make up most of the commuters journeys to the site.



SECTION 4

THE CASE FOR CHANGE



4 THE CASE FOR CHANGE

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 This section will highlight the need for a Travel Plan. The reasons for a Travel Plan will be promoted to our tenants.

4.2 Benefits for the NAEZ

4.2.1 The operation of a Travel Plan will help to demonstrate LDO2’s commitment to a low carbon future by actively reducing the transport-related emissions associated with the site.

4.2.2 In addition, the Travel Plan helps us to reduce our parking demand and make the most productive use of the site.

4.2.3 By supporting staff that chose to travel by sustainable modes of transport we will enable them to reap the financial and health rewards associated with non-car travel. In return we will have a workforce that is healthier and more motivated.

4.3 Sustainability

4.3.1 There is great importance placed upon the sustainability of new developments and that every effort should be taken in reducing carbon emissions. It will be promoted to LDO2 tenants that each individual can play a part and make a difference by reducing the need to travel, especially by car.

4.4 Personal health and fitness

4.4.1 Walking just 30 minutes per day can help meet Government targets for recommended daily activity. All LDO2 tenants will be encouraged to walk all or part of their journey to work. Walking to work has many benefits including saving money on fuel, improving health and fitness (particularly for office-based staff) and environmental benefits.

4.5 Financial

4.5.1 The increasing cost of fuel, the cost of owning a car, and costs to the environment are some of the many expenses associated with driving. By encouraging and supporting sustainable transport choices, we anticipate that we will be able to reduce these costs for workers at LDO2.



SECTION 5

MODAL SPLIT TARGETS



5 TARGETS

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 The main aim of this Travel Plan is to reduce the existing level of single occupancy car usage by 15% when compared to Census Travel to Work data for the area (Department for Transport report ‘Smarter Choices: Changing the way we travel’ Chapter 3: Workplace Travel Plans (2004)).

5.1.2 Existing travel to work patterns (based on Census data) for the local area (St Columb Major) have been adapted to exclude people travelling on foot and include people using the bus service and are as follows:

Variable People Percentage Underground, metro, light rail or tram 0 0% Train 0 0% Bus, minibus or coach 6 4% Taxi or minicab 0 0% Driving a car or van 130 84% Passenger in a car or van 12 8% Motorcycle, scooter or moped 6 4% Bicycle 0 0% On foot 0 0% Other 0 0%

Table 5-1 – St Columb Major Travel to Work Modal Splits

5.1.3 It is hoped that a 10% shift away from the private car could be achieved. This would result in the modal share for car drivers reducing from its existing rate of 84% to 76% of all trips to LDO2.

5.1.4 It is predicted that the resulting modal shift would result in a proportional increase in sustainable travel modes, although it is expected that the greatest potential is for car sharing as this could be considered the most convenient alternative.

5.1.5 Table 5.1 sets out the existing and target modal splits for the LDO2 site. Key to these is the reduction in car driver trips. The exact redistribution of these trips across the other modes is less important.

Variable Percentage Existing Target Underground, metro, light rail or tram 0% 0% Train 0% 0% Bus, minibus or coach 4% 7% Taxi or minicab 0% 0% Driving a car or van 84% 76% Passenger in a car or van 8% 13% Motorcycle, scooter or moped 4% 4% Bicycle 0% 0% On foot 0% 0% Other 0% 0% Table 5-2 - Modal Split Targets for LDO2 Employees

5.1.6 Travel Plans should also include appropriate timescales in which the agreed targets

are to be met as and when new development comes forward and there is a measurable increase in employment numbers on the site. The timescales are to be for the short and long term objectives, be ambitious and achievable.



5.1.7 Given the unknown tenancy arrangements at LDO2, it is difficult to give precise time scales for the target to be met. It is however anticipated that all tenants should undertake to make best efforts to achieve the above targets within 2 years of their occupancy of the site.



SECTION 6

SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL MEASURES AND INITIATIVES



6 SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL MEASURES AND INITIATIVES

6.1 Main Objectives of the Travel Plan

6.1.1 The main objective of this Travel Plan is to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips and promote alternative, sustainable forms of transport in order to achieve the modal split targets outlined in Section 5 of this Framework Travel Plan.

6.1.2 This chapter sets out the main measures and initiatives to be considered in the preparation of individual Travel Plans in order to help achieve the modal split targets set out in Section 5.

6.2 Walking and Cycling measures and initiatives

6.2.1 Given the location walking and cycling to the Aerohub seems unlikely, however there are measures that can be taken to accommodate and encourage any people who will be walking or cycling. These would include the provision of high quality, secure, sheltered, convenient cycle parking (which takes into account a future growth in cycling), showers, lockers and drying areas should be provided, and promotion and discounts applied for the use of public transport.

6.2.2 The proposed modal split targets for both walking and cycling are very low due to the location, however modal shifts towards cycling and walking is to be encouraged. In developing individual Travel Plans for the existing businesses and proposed developments, the proposed measures in Table 6-1 are to be considered in order to encourage modal shift to walking and cycling:

Measure

Description

Secure cycle parking

The provision of secure cycle parking stands should be situated within close vicinity of buildings where people work.

Cycle to work scheme

The introduction of a bicycle purchasing scheme such as Cyclescheme. Cyclescheme is one of the Government’s Green Work Initiatives whereby employees are offered the opportunity to receive vouchers to purchase a bicycle and equipment. The cost of the voucher is then deducted from their pre-tax income, spread out over a period of time.

Changing facilities The provision of showering and changing facilities for employees, including the provision of secure lockers for the storage of personal items

Table 6-1 - Proposed walking and cycling measures



6.3 Public Transport measures and initiatives

6.3.1 The proposed modal split targets for public transport usage is an increase from 4% to 7%. The measures identified in Table 6-2 should be taken into consideration when preparing individual Travel Plans.

Measure

Description

Rescheduling of publictransport services

Consideration should be given to the possibility of the rescheduling of existing public transport services to better fit in with shift patterns. The retiming of certain bus and rail services would allow for greater integration between public transport services and shift patterns.

Reduced travel costs The provision of a subsidy for public transport tickets (bus or rail) for employees.

Dedicated bus for employees

Providing a dedicated bus service for employees may not be an economically viable option for individual employers. However, there may be scope for this initiative to be developed as a joint, ‘cross-company’ measure.

Table 6-2 – Proposed public transport measures 6.3.2 The possibility of altering the existing public transport services to better fit in with shift

patters should be examined by the developer and service providers as a possible initiative to help encourage bus and rail patronage.

6.3.3 Travel costs are often a major factor influencing people’s travel choices and so reduced costs through the use of subsidised public transport tickets may also be an important initiative which should be considered.

6.4 Vehicle-based Measures and Initiatives

6.4.1 It is not always possible or practical for all employees to travel to work by walking, cycling or public transport. Therefore, in order to reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles it is recommended that vehicle-based initiatives such as car sharing are promoted to help reduce the overall impact of the proposed development upon the surrounding highway network.



6.4.2 Table 6-3 identifies potential vehicle-based measures which would need to be taken into consideration when preparing final Travel Plans.

Measure

Description

Car share database The car sharing website www.carsharecornwall.com is a county-wide database available for all organisations to use free of charge. There is the ability to create individual employer based groups within the database which should increase the opportunity of participants finding suitable matches.

Priority parking The allocation of car parking spaces situated in prime locations for the sole use of individuals who car share. This will form part of a wider car parking strategy.

Guaranteed transport home

Guaranteed transport home in case of an emergency or if a car share passenger is let down by their driver.

Table 6-3 – Proposed vehicle-based measures

6.4.3 The car sharing website www.carsharecornwall.com is a county-wide database available for all organisations to use free of charge. All new and existing employees will be made aware of the database and its benefits.

6.4.4 A robust car parking strategy for the whole site which provides a fair and equitable method of allocating parking between the occupiers is required and will form part of tenancy agreements. This will include priority parking for car sharers.

6.5 Personalised Travel Planning

6.5.1 It is recommended that Personalised Travel Planning is considered to encourage efficient and sustainable travel to LDO2.

6.5.2 Personalised Travel Planning employs targeted marketing techniques to create a unique and personal Travel Plan that recognises individual travel needs and promotes the positive impact that sustainable travel can create. A personalised Travel Plan will include information and incentives specifically targeted to that person.

https://liftshare.com/uk/community/cornwallhttps://liftshare.com/uk/community/cornwall



SECTION 7

TRAVEL PLAN MANAGEMENT


Newquay Aerohub Travel Plan 13-02-11 DRAFT.docx Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff February 2013 for Cornwall Development Company

- 28 -

7 MANAGEMENT OF THE TRAVEL PLAN

7.1 Travel Manager

7.1.1 Commitment will be needed to appoint a travel manager covering the whole of the LDO and the neighbouring LDO for the airport operational activities. The travel manager will liaise with all occupiers to ensure consistency and to enable more efficient working with the bus operators and local authority.

7.2 Travel Plan Co-ordinator

7.2.1 Each business should identify a person who is to be responsible for management of the plan. This person will be known as the Travel Plan Co-ordinator (TPC). The TPC may be an existing member of staff or an employee who has been appointed specifically for this role.

7.2.2 The Travel Plan should contain the contact details of the TPC and all employees should be made aware of the TPC and their role. The TPC should be a first point of contact for employees with any travel queries. The names of the various TPCs will be recorded on the IOnTravel website. Each new tenant would complete steps 1-5 of the registration process prior to occupation.

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

Be a first point of contact for employees regarding travel options and issues;

Liaise with Cornwall Council, service providers and other stakeholders regarding Travel Planning issues;

Ensure that travel related information (on notice boards etc.) is kept up to date;

Encouraging participation in schemes such as Carshare Cornwall;

Organise and encourage participation in specific travel events (for example Bike Week);

Assist in the undertaking of travel surveys and prepare reports on the success of the Travel Plan initiatives;

Prepare revisions or updates of Travel Plans where necessary.

Create dedicated Aerohub ‘one stop shop’ travel website for all travel information relating to travel to work and business travel associated with the site

7.3 Promotion and Communication

7.3.1 A successful Travel Plan should comprise of a package of measures that facilitate sustainable travel, in addition to a package of measures that promote the initiatives and encourage participation.

7.3.2 To ensure the success of the Travel Plan, effective communication and promotion will be required to increase staff awareness of the alternatives to single occupancy



vehicle use. Promotion and communication of the Travel Plan shall primarily be the responsibility of the appointed TPCs.

7.3.3 There are a number of methods that can be used to promote the plan amongst employees. The best techniques for each tenant to promote the different initiatives will be identified by their TPC. These may include;

Posters / notice boards

Newsletters

Promotional presentations

Competitions

Team meetings

Company-wide emails

7.3.4 Additional events aimed at encouraging individuals to consider switching to more

sustainable travel modes are national events such as Bike Week, Liftshare Week and Commute Smart Week. A commitment to participation in such events should be included in Travel Plans to help promote sustainable travel choices.

7.3.5 The TPCs should provide information on cycling safely. This should include advice on wearing brightly coloured or high- visibility clothing, wearing reflective clothing or wrist / ankle bands in the dark and information on compulsory lighting and reflectors for riding in the dark.

7.3.6 The TPCs should also advise employees on cycle training providers for anyone wanting to improve their road cycling proficiency.

7.3.7 In addition to travel information for employees, TPCs should also make available information on travel options for visitors to the site and visitors should be able to receive clear information on how to travel to the NAEZ by sustainable modes.



SECTION 8

IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING & REVIEWING



8 IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING AND REVIEW

8.1 Implementation

8.1.1 To gain acceptance from employees it is imperative that the measures identified within the Travel Plan and any necessary infrastructure are in place at the outset. How the Travel Plan is implemented, enforced and administered will be crucial in gaining acceptance from employees.

8.1.2 Car sharing can be highly cost effective as there are no set up costs and it has the benefit of being available all year round.

8.1.3 Measures to encourage walking and cycling can also be relatively cost effective; the only costs for physical equipment would be providing the bicycle stands and changing facilities in buildings at the NAEZ.

8.1.4 Measures to improve the overall usage of public transport can also be cost effective.

8.1.5 The provision of Personalised Travel Plans and working with Cornwall Council to improve transport infrastructure can be implemented.

8.2 Monitoring of the Travel Plan

8.2.1 Travel Plans should be developed and implemented as and when new development proposals comes forward and thereafter reviewed annually in order to monitor the effectiveness of the initiatives and to identify where further measures are required to increase modal shift. This Travel Plan will be monitored through the IOnTravel website (http://www.iontravel.co.uk/cornwall/).

8.2.2 The review of the Travel Plan should involve the undertaking of an employee travel to work survey. This will provide a snapshot of travel patterns in order to determine whether the targets set out in the Travel Plan are being met. A 30% survey response rate should be aimed for. An example survey is provided in Appendix C.

8.2.3 Incentives to complete the questionnaire may be necessary. This could include suitable prizes such as an offer of free bus travel for a month or a prize draw to win a bike. The Travel Plan Coordinators will identify appropriate incentives.

8.2.4 If it is identified through the monitoring process that the proposed modal share targets are not being achieved, further initiatives are to be identified which can be implemented to help the meet the aims and objectives of the plan.

8.2.5 The TPCs should develop action timetables which identifies when specific initiatives are to be implemented along with timescales for undertaking monitoring processes.

8.2.6 Dissemination of information relating to the monitoring of the Travel Plan will be necessary so that the Travel Plan is inclusive for employees / visitors and they can see the results of their success. Details on how the results of travel surveys and progress reports will be disseminated to all employees should be included.

8.3 Reviewing the Travel Plan

8.3.1 The Travel Plan is to be considered an evolving document and should be reviewed every 12 months. The review needs to include updated information on current modal share.



8.3.2 The Travel Plan also needs to be reviewed regularly to ensure that current information relating to public transport services is kept up to date.

8.3.3 In the instance that the modal split targets identified within the plan are not being met, then Travel Plans need to identify additional measures to be implemented in order to ensure that the Travel Plan continues to meet its objectives.

8.3.4 The TPCs from the tenants will meet on a regular basis to discuss and update the Travel Plan.



SECTION 9

ACTION TIMETABLE



9 ACTION TIMETABLE

9.1 Introduction

9.1.1 Each TPC should prepare an action timetable which identifies actions relating to the implementation of the plan. This must illustrate measures to be implemented against timescales and associated costs. This will include the provision of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator and will identify who is responsible for delivery of the measures.

9.1.2 Actions and timescales identified within the timetable are to be agreed with Cornwall Council prior to the granting of any associated planning permission.

9.1.3 Table 9-1 provides an example of an action timetable and should be used as a basis for future timetables. The list in the table below should be considered indicative of the measures available and not exhaustive.

9.1.4 The measures in Table 9-1 are indicative and each measure will need to be assessed for its suitability within a travel plan as detailed planning applications come forward:

Action from Travel Plan Timescale Responsibility

Walking and Cycling Measures

Secure, convenient, sheltered cycle storage will need to be provided which provides capacity for existing users and future growth in cycling

Individual tenants will need to outline implementation timescales prior to occupation of any new development

Developer

Showers, drying rooms and lockers provided for cyclists and walkers/runners

Developer

Cycle to work scheme set up for all employees of the NAEZ with regular publicity

Developer / TPC

Well lit cycle and walking routes between the NAEZ and residential areas should be identified and promoted to the employees, with maps provided

TPC

Cycle buddy scheme where existing cyclists accompany new cyclists on their journey to work

TPC

Site design should provide a pedestrian and cycle friendly layout with safe crossings and routes identified which should limit conflict between vehicles and cyclists

Developer



Promotional events held which highlight the benefits of active travel to work and the cost savings of reducing car travel

TPC

“Doctor Bike” sessions, where existing and new cyclists can bring their bikes to work for a free service and advice on maintenance

TPC

Bicycle User Group (BUG) created for new and existing cyclists TPC

Car Sharing

Car sharing scheme for staff which provides incentives such as reserved car parking spaces


TPC

Emergency taxi home scheme for staff who have travelled by sustainable modes but need to leave following a domestic emergency, such as a sick child.

TPC

Ongoing car sharing events held where employees can meet up with potential car sharers

TPC

Ongoing promotion of the benefits of car sharing to work TPC

Promote the www.carsharecornwall.com website to staff

TPC

Reserved car parking in prime spot for car sharers TPC

Set up a private car share group NAEZ on the carsharecornwall.com website

Developer

Public Transport

Promote extension of bus services to and from the site. Individual tenants

will need to outline implementation timescales prior to occupation of any new development

Developer

Onsite promotion of bus and rail services which accord with shift times.

TPC

Timetables and maps illustrating distance and walking times to the

TPC

https://liftshare.com/uk/community/cornwall



nearest bus stop provided to staff

Discounts applied for staff who use bus or rail to travel to work, or taster tickets (weekly) provided each year to encourage staff to switch to public transport

TPC

Personal travel advice offered to staff which provides tailored journey planning

TPC

Promotion and Engagement

Inclusion of sustainable travel information and incentives in induction packages


TPC

Sustainable travel options provided for visitors to NAEZ TPC

National sustainable transport initiatives promoted to staff, such as Walk to Work Week, Bike Week and Liftshare Week

TPC

Online journey planning tools promoted to staff, such as www.travelinesw.com and www.transportdirect

TPC

Personal Travel Planning (Travel information tailored by individual) TPC

Monitoring

Annual staff travel survey carried out with results provided to Cornwall Council and communicated to staff Individual tenants

will need to outline implementation timescales prior to occupation of any new development

TPC

Travel plan review carried out on an annual basis TPC

Individual measures within travel plans will need to outline implementation timescales prior to occupation of any new development

TPC

Table 9-1 - Action Timetable

http://www.travelinesw.com/



SECTION 10

CONCLUSION



10 C

newquay aerohub supplementary transport assessment · 1.0.1 this supplementary transport assessment...

Documents