policy review & scheme appraisal - south gloucestershire · v5 final rch sb sb 02/08/06 v4...

Stoke Gifford Bypass Study

Policy Review & Scheme Appraisal

August 2006 JOB NUMBER: 5040208 DOCUMENT REF: StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

v5 Final RCH SB SB 02/08/06

v4 Draft for issue RCH SB SB 18/05/06

v3 Third Draft RCH SB 28/04/06

v2 Second Draft RCH 04/04/06

v1 First Draft RCH 08/02/06

Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

Revision Purpose Description

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

5040208/Report/Final i StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

Contents Section Page 1. Introduction 1.1

Background 1.1 Terms of Reference 1.2 This Report 1.3

2. Policy Review 2.1 Introduction 2.1 Objectives of the Stoke Gifford Bypass 2.3 Key Outcomes of the Stoke Gifford Bypass 2.3 Conclusions 2.16

3. Traffic Forecasting 3.1 BATS2 Model 3.1 Model Validation 3.2 Forecast Land-Use/Network Assumptions 3.7 Scheme Alternatives for Testing 3.9

4. Operational Assessment 4.1 Traffic Forecasts 4.1 Traffic Growth 4.1 Forecast Network Performance 4.1 Forecast Traffic Flows 4.2 Forecast Traffic Effects by Area 4.4 Changes in Bus Journey Times 4.5

5. Economic Appraisal 5.1 Construction Costs 5.1 Present Value Costs 5.2 Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits 5.3 TUBA Inputs 5.3 Economic Benefits of the Scheme 5.4 Accident Benefits 5.5 Summary of Accident Benefits 5.7 Summary of the Economic Appraisal 5.7

6. Conclusions 6.1

Appendix A 2016 Forecast Traffic Flows Appendix B 2016 Forecast Changes in Bus Journey Times


5040208/Report/Final ii StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

List of Figures Figure 2.1 – The Causal Chain Approach 2.2 Figure 3.1 – Location of Count Sites used for Model validation 3.6 Figure 3.2 – Alternative Options for Stoke Gifford Bypass 3.10 Figure 4.1 – Selected Links for Forecast Traffic Flows 4.10 Figure 4.2 – Forecast Traffic Effects of the Purple Route – 2016 AM Peak Hour 4.17 Figure 4.3 – Forecast Traffic Flows on the Purple Route – 2016 AM Peak Hour 4.18 Figure 4.4 – Bus Routes in GBBN Corridor 4 (Route 73) 4.19 Figure 5.1 – COBA Network 5.6

List of Tables Table 2.1 – National Policy Scheme Fit Matrix 2.4 Table 2.2 – Regional Policy Scheme Fit Matrix: Regional Transport Strategy 2.6 Table 2.3 – Regional Policy Scheme Fit Matrix: Funding Allocations 2.8 Table 2.4 – Sub Regional Policy Scheme Fit Matrix: Joint Replacement Structure Plan 2.10 Table 2.5 – Sub Regional Policy Scheme Fit Matrix: Greater Bristol Strategic Transport

Study 2.12 Table 2.6 – Sub Regional Policy Scheme Fit Matrix: Joint Local Transport Plan 2.14 Table 3.1 – Comparison of Modelled and Observed Flows – 2004 AM Peak Hour 3.4 Table 3.2 – Comparison of Modelled and Observed Flows – 2004 Inter-Peak 3.5 Table 3.3 – Summary of Scenario F Housing and Employment Forecasts 3.8 Table 4.1 – Forecast Network Performance – 2016 AM Peak Hour 4.6 Table 4.2 – Forecast Network Performance – 2016 Average Inter-peak Hour 4.7 Table 4.3 – Forecast Network Performance – 2031 AM Peak Hour 4.8 Table 4.4 – Forecast Network Performance – 2031 Average Inter-peak Hour 4.9 Table 4.5 – Forecast Traffic Flows – 2016 AM Peak Hour 4.11 Table 4.6 – Forecast Traffic Flows – 2016 Inter-peak Hour 4.12 Table 4.7 – Forecast Traffic Flows – 2031 AM Peak Hour 4.14 Table 4.8 – Forecast Traffic Flows – 2031 Inter-peak Hour 4.16 Table 5.1 – Scheme Costs 5.2 Table 5.2 – Economic Efficiency Benefits of the Stoke Gifford Bypass 5.4 Table 5.3 – Summary of Forecast Accident Benefits 5.7 Table 5.4 – Economic Appraisal of the Stoke Gifford Bypass Scheme 5.9


5040208/Report/Final 1.1 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

1. Introduction 1.1 In November 2005, Atkins Planning Consultants were commissioned by

South Gloucestershire Council (SGC) to undertake a review of the proposed Stoke Gifford Bypass, which would provide a link between Great Stoke Way (at its southern end) and the A4174 Avon Ring Road. This review was to be independent and impartial.

1.2 This report presents the findings of the Atkins study, including a policy review and an operational and economic appraisal of scheme options.

BACKGROUND Winterbourne Bypass

1.3 The Winterbourne bypass was first proposed in the mid-1980s to provide a strategic route between Yate and Bristol, which would bypass Winterbourne/ Frampton Cotterell, and improve access to the county and motorway network.

1.4 A proposal for the bypass was included in the Avon County Structure Plan of 1994, and assessed as part of the Avon North West Sector Study undertaken by MVA. This study recommended the full scheme on balance, but showed that the economic case for the southern section of the proposed route (from the B4057 to the Avon Ring Road at Harry Stoke) was stronger than that for the northern section (from Iron Acton to the B4057 Winterbourne Road). Subsequent work by Oscar Faber in 1997 confirmed the relative merits of the southern section. It was therefore promoted as a key element of the Bristol North Fringe Multi Modal Project for SGC’s TPP submission of 1997/98.

1.5 However, following further work by Steer Davies Gleave for LTP1 and the Public Examination of the Deposit Structure Plan, the by-pass was excluded from the revised Structure Plan of February 2000. It was formally abandoned by SGC in May 2000.

1.6 More recently, a full Winterbourne Bypass proposal has been re-examined by the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study. An economic appraisal of the scheme, based on a single 2031 AM peak hour assignment and limited to weekday peak period benefits only, showed that it would generate very significant user benefits and return a Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) of 8.3 over 60 years. Most of the user benefits would be travel time savings resulting from relief of congestion in the North Fringe area.

Stoke Gifford Bypass 1.7 The most southerly section of the Winterbourne bypass, formerly known as

the ‘Bradley Stoke Link’ or ‘Winterbourne Bypass Southern Section’ was originally intended to provide a connection between the southern end of Bradley Stoke Way and the A4174 Avon Ring Road. A first section of the bypass (now known as Great Stoke Way) was constructed and opened several years ago. It was constructed to dual carriageway standard between the B4057 Winterbourne Road and the roundabout junction with Hunts Ground Road.

1.8 The current proposal would complete the link between Great Stoke Way and the A4174 Avon Ring Road, traversing the main railway line and bypassing Stoke Gifford on its east side. It would also need to bypass new housing in



the Hunts Ground area, which has been developed on land formerly safeguarded for the proposed route.

1.9 The main aim of the bypass would be to provide traffic relief to the road network in Stoke Gifford, which already suffers significant congestion during peak periods, particularly on Winterbourne Road, Hatchet Road, Brierley Furlong and Great Stoke Way. It would also accommodate further traffic growth generated by proposed developments at Harry Stoke and elsewhere in the North Fringe area.

TERMS OF REFERENCE 1.10 The aims and objectives of the study, its requirements, scope of work and key

deliverables were set out in the Consultant’s brief of October 2005. These were discussed and clarified at a meeting with Officers and Elected Members of the Council on 19 October 2005.

1.11 The Atkins proposal letter of 2 November 2005 defined our approach to the study, based on our understanding of its requirements. The main aims of the study were outlined as follows:

♦ To assess the benefits and implications of a new link road in Stoke Gifford, between Great Stoke Way and the A4174 Avon Ring Road. A key aim of this road would be to provide relief to Stoke Gifford from existing congestion and future developments;

♦ To carry out an appropriate assessment of alternatives (including bus only);

♦ To consider implications on the highway network and propose, where necessary, a package of complementary measures to ensure traffic uses an appropriate route, that road safety is improved and that use of sustainable modes (cycling, walking and public transport) is encouraged;

♦ To carry out a brief policy review to determine how the bypass fits with local and regional policies;

♦ To carry out a desktop review of major engineering issues; and

♦ To consider the deliverability of the scheme and funding sources.

1.12 It was understood from the outset that officers of SGC would undertake an environmental assessment of the scheme, and that this would not form part of the Atkins brief.

1.13 The SGC scope of work was subsequently extended to include the desktop review of engineering issues, identification of scheme alternatives and estimation of preliminary construction costs for scheme appraisal.

1.14 It was agreed at the meeting of 19 October 2005 that traffic forecasts for 2016 and 2031 would be produced using the Bristol Area Transport Study model (BATS2), which was updated to appraise the JLTP Greater Bristol Bus Network Major Scheme Business Case of July 2005. Officers and Elected Members also accepted that study time constraints and the preliminary nature of the assessments required at this stage would not allow for a major recalibration and revalidation of the BATS2 model.



THIS REPORT 1.15 This report presents the results of the traffic modelling and economic analysis

of the scheme. It includes an assessment of how the scheme ‘fits’ with current local, regional and national transport policy followed by a detailed traffic analysis of scheme impacts on the local highway network.

1.16 The report concludes on whether the scheme should be considered for implementation to address local traffic, transportation and environmental considerations.



2. Policy Review INTRODUCTION

2.1 The likely cost of a Stoke Gifford Bypass would be well beyond the financial means of South Gloucestershire Council and its partners. The only realistic method of funding the scheme would be a combination of developer contributions and Department for Transport (DfT) Major Scheme funding.

2.2 The DfT guidance places heavy emphasis on a major scheme being fully consistent with local, regional and national policies.

2.3 Paragraphs 2.16 and 2.17 of the “Guidance to Local Authorities Seeking DfT Funding for Transport Major Schemes” states:

The Strategic Case is essentially the “fit” of the scheme in terms of wider objectives. We expect major scheme bids to be for those schemes that will enhance the objectives of the LTP or the wider objectives of the authority, such as regeneration and social inclusion. Major scheme bids should be explicit about how they would help to deliver LTP targets and to what extent targets could be stretched were the scheme to be funded. Where the benefits of a scheme would only be realised after the second LTP period, bids should make reference to the potential of the scheme to meet the longer term objectives of the authority.

The Strategic case will also need to show the fit with the strategies of regional authorities, notably the Regional Transport Strategy/Regional Spatial Strategy, within which the LTP sits. Where appropriate, the Strategic Case should also describe the fit with other transport delivery agencies' plans and objectives.

2.4 The concept of scheme “fit” is not simply about judging whether a scheme is broadly consistent with policy objectives. Rather it is about a scheme making an active contribution to delivering particular objectives. This can be explained by the concept of the causal chain (see Figure 2.1).

2.5 The causal chain approach shows how the inputs, outputs and outcomes the Stoke Gifford Bypass scheme should progress in a logical order so that the various local, regional and national objectives / targets are met.

2.6 The most important part of the causal chain is the link between the scheme outputs (in this case the new highway infrastructure) and the desired outcomes (reduced congestion on local roads and better quality public transport services that are well patronised). If the desired outcomes do not result from the inputs / outputs then the fit of the scheme with objectives will be seriously compromised.



Figure 2.1 – The Causal Chain Approach

Inputs (policy framework, capital / revenue investment and staff resources that are

invested in planning and constructing the Stoke Gifford Bypass)

Outputs (the highway and associated bus priority infrastructure delivered by the Stoke

Gifford Bypass)

Outcomes (the impact on travel behaviour and travel conditions resulting from delivery of

the highway infrastructure)

Objectives (the wider local, regional and national aims - towards which the outputs and

outcomes contribute)

Performance Indicators and Targets (a quantifiable measure showing how outputs / outcomes deliver objectives)

2.7 We have therefore undertaken a comprehensive review of the outputs and outcomes of the Stoke Gifford Bypass in order to judge their likely contribution to the following policy and strategy documents:

♦ DfT White Paper The Future of Transport: A Network for 2030.

♦ Regional Planning Guidance 10 and the replacement Regional Spatial Strategy (including the Regional Transport Strategy).

♦ GOSW Regional Funding Allocations Paper.

♦ South Gloucestershire Local Plan.

♦ Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study.

♦ South Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan.

♦ South Gloucestershire Road Traffic Reduction Act Report.

♦ Greater Bristol Joint Local Transport Plan.

2.8 In order to assess the fit of the scheme with the above documents we have devised a five point scale:

4: scheme demonstrably contributes to delivery of all the policy objectives. 3: scheme is broadly consistent with most or all of the policy objectives. 2: scheme is broadly consistent with a few of the policy objectives. 1: scheme has no obvious effect on the policy objectives. 0: scheme is contrary to some or all of the policy objectives.

2.9 For each policy document we have assessed the fit between the objectives, outputs and outcomes of the Stoke Gifford Bypass scheme with the various



national, regional and local policy / strategy documents. Depending on the available evidence we have then allocated a score between 0 and 4 for:

♦ Fit between each scheme objective and the related policy document objective.

♦ Fit between each scheme output / outcome and the related policy document objectives.

2.10 The score for each objective and output / outcome will be averaged to provide an overall score between 0 and 4 for the policy fit. The two average scores will then be added together. Therefore for each of the eight policy documents we have reviewed, the Stoke Gifford Bypass could score a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 8 points.

2.11 There is a crucial distinction between the two parts of the scoring process. It is relatively easy to demonstrate a fit between scheme objectives and wider policy objectives. However it is much more challenging for a scheme to actively demonstrate a good fit with the actual or predicted outputs and outcomes (which may or may not deliver the scheme objectives) and the wider policy objectives.

2.12 The purpose of the scoring is not to provide a definitive view on whether this particular scheme - if submitted as a major scheme bid - will meet the requirements of the DfT guidance. Rather it is an attempt to outline how the scheme, as it is currently defined, fits with current local, regional and national policy as a means of identifying strengths and weaknesses that promoters will need to develop and address.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS 2.13 The consultant brief issued by South Gloucestershire Council lists a number

of objectives for the Stoke Gifford Bypass:

♦ Provide relief to Stoke Gifford from the current heavy traffic and that associated with future developments.

♦ Ensure (through a range of complementary measures) that traffic follows the appropriate route.

♦ Improve road safety.

♦ Encouragement of sustainable modes including cycling, walking and public transport.

KEY OUTCOMES OF THE STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS 2.14 Tables 2.1 to 2.5 present a summary of how the proposed bypass ‘fits’ with

policy. It includes an assessment of the scheme infrastructure and the traffic impacts, details of which are included in Section 4.



Table 2.1 – National Policy Scheme Fit Matrix DfT White Paper The Future of Transport: A Network for 2030. National Policy Objective / Theme Stoke Gifford Bypass

Scheme Objectives Stoke Gifford Bypass Scheme Outputs and Outcomes

Road network to provide a more reliable and freer flowing service for personal travel and freight, with people making informed choices about how and when they travel. Road capacity to be provided where it is needed (and when environmental and social costs are justified). Benefits of new investment should be “locked in” through measures such as car pool lanes and road tolling.

A key objective is to reduce congestion locally in Stoke Gifford. There is also recognition of the potential wider impact of the bypass. However there no obvious link to the issue about allowing people to make informed choices. Environmental and social benefits are not explicitly stated as objectives but could be assumed to result from traffic relief. There is some recognition in the scheme objectives of locking in the capacity provided (via unspecified traffic management measures) Score: 3

The bypass provides traffic relief to the centre of Stoke Gifford, reducing the considerable impact of traffic congestion. The provision of additional local highway capacity also improves journey reliability and results in a more free-flowing network, reflected in the reduction in overall journey time and delay within the traffic model. This effect is however local to the scheme, and in some instances additional traffic is attracted to other routes as traffic takes advantage of the routing opportunities created by the scheme. Score: 2

The rail network providing a fast reliable and efficient service, particularly for inter urban journeys and commuting into large urban areas.

The scheme does have access to Bristol Parkway station as a key part of the wider objective for traffic relief in the Stoke Gifford area. Score: 3

The scheme provides improved access to Bristol Parkway from the south east (via the Ring Road and M32). The reduction of traffic and congestion in Stoke Gifford will also result in better traffic conditions and improved journey reliability for traffic and buses approaching the station from the south west and the north. Score: 4

Bus services that are reliable, flexible, convenient and tailored to local needs.

The scheme does aim to mitigate the effects of congestion on local bus services and will provide opportunities for greater bus priority. Score: 4

The relief of congestion through Stoke Gifford will reduce the impact traffic congestion has on bus services through the village. This bus corridor, via Hatchet Road and Brierley Furlong, is included in the Greater Bristol Bus Network. Opportunities for bus priority in the Stoke Gifford section of this corridor are significantly constrained by the Bristol Parkway railway bridge and by residential development in Stoke Gifford itself. Therefore the reduction in traffic and congestion on this route will



directly benefit buses, which will in turn increase their attractiveness as an alternative travel mode. Score: 4

Making walking and cycling a real alternative for local trips.

This is a key objective of the scheme although the detail of how this will be delivered is less clear. Score: 3

The reduction of traffic in Stoke Gifford will benefit pedestrians and cyclists, by improving the environment in terms of pollution, noise and visual intrusion. The bypass will also include a cycle track as a component of its design, so a new cycle route will be provided between the east of Stoke Gifford and Bradley Stoke and the Harry Stoke development, UWE and destinations to the east via the Ring Road Cycle track: Score: 4

Ports and airports providing improved international and domestic links.

No obvious direct link to this objective except as part of a wider strategy for improving access to the docks and Bristol Airport. Score: 2

The scheme has very local impacts, so it is difficult to link the bypass to benefits at ports and airports. However the provision of link between the M32 and the eastern access to Parkway Station may enable consideration of a Bristol Airport bus service to operate additionally from Bristol Parkway. Score: 2

Overall Assessment and Score The scheme objectives as currently defined are broadly consistent with national policy objectives although more detail would be required for submission as part of a major scheme bid Score: 3

The scheme broadly delivers the national policy objectives, but it is noted that its impacts are generally local, benefiting local travel patterns to Stoke Gifford and Bradley Stoke. Score: 3



Table 2.2 – Regional Policy Scheme Fit Matrix: Regional Transport Strategy Regional Spatial Strategy Regional Policy Objective Stoke Gifford Bypass


• Transport and the Strategically Significant Cities and Towns (SSCTs)

One of the scheme objectives does make reference to heavy traffic associated with future developments and its location in the largest SSCT in the south west demonstrates good synergy with RTS priorities. However the RTS places even greater emphasis on improving non car modes (which is covered by the study objectives) and demand management (which is not). Also the bypass is essentially local in nature and it is questionable whether it is a regionally significant scheme on its own. Score 3

The bypass supports the regional strategy by reducing traffic congestion in the north of the Greater Bristol SSCT and enabling improved access to services and facilities. This is shown by the reduction in traffic congestion in Stoke Gifford and in the area around Abbey Wood. However the impact of any demand management measures in the area has not been explicitly modelled and the wider impact of the scheme is not the primary source of the benefits. Score: 3

• Providing reliable connections to the UK, European and International markets.

There is no specific scheme objective related to impact on the strategic road network although this issue was looked at by GBSTS. Score 2

There is some evidence from GBSTS and this more recent work that there is a degree of traffic reduction benefit to the M4 / M5. Score 3

Ports and airports No obvious direct link to this objective except as part of a wider strategy for improving access to the docks and Bristol Airport. Score: 2

The scheme has very local impacts, so it is difficult to link the bypass to benefits at ports and airports. However the provision of link between the M32 and the eastern access to Parkway Station may enable consideration of a Bristol Airport bus service to operate additionally from Bristol Parkway. Score: 2

• Setting parking standards through accessibility planning

The study is not relevant to this issue. Score 1 The study is not relevant to this issue. Score 1

Regional Connectivity and Freight Transport There is no objective relating to regional connectivity although it could be argued that as the north of Bristol is a significant generator and attractor of freight traffic then the scheme will provide some benefit at one end of a longer journey. Score 2

The congestion benefits of the Stoke Gifford bypass will result in a reduction in journey time and greater journey time reliability for freight movements that have an origin / destination in the Bradley Stoke area. Score 2



Overall Assessment and Score The scheme objectives as currently defined are

partly consistent with the majority of regional policy objectives although more detail would be required for submission as part of a major scheme bid. As a free standing proposal the scheme does not have regional traffic movements as its primary objective. Score: 2

Although a local scheme with generally local impacts, the traffic analysis of the bypass shows that it is broadly consistent with most of the regional policy issues listed here. Score: 2



Table 2.3 – Regional Policy Scheme Fit Matrix: Funding Allocations Regional Funding Allocations: Advice from the South West Region Regional Policy Priorities for Investment Stoke Gifford Bypass


Promoting more sustainable patterns of transport The scheme does not have an explicit objective of promoting more sustainable patterns of development but instead seeks to address problems that have arguably been the result of unsustainable development in the past. However this is not to say that the scheme cannot be part of an integrated package of measures that could assist with promoting more sustainable travel patterns in the area. Score 2

The scheme does not directly support sustainable travel, but the cycle track alongside the bypass will be a new piece of cycle infrastructure and the relief of congestion in Stoke Gifford will directly benefit bus services in this corridor, which also forms a component of the GBBN. Score: 3

Supporting development and economic activity in the strategically significant towns and cities through improved public transport, demand management and selectively providing for new roads

The scheme could well fall into the category of being a “selective” new road if it can be demonstrated that there is no serious alternative to addressing the traffic problems in the Stoke Gifford area. Score 3

The bypass does demonstrate a benefit to the residents of Stoke Gifford, and is the only realistic alternative given the significant constraint of the railway line and development between Stoke Gifford and the Ring Road. Score: 3

Improving the reliability and resilience of inter and intra regional connectivity as a strategic route into the region, on regionally significant transport corridors and on other transport corridors

The scheme is not on the strategic road network but could make a contribution to making better use of the existing motorway network if it could be demonstrated that it caters for trips that would otherwise use the M4 / M5. Score 2

The scheme is very local in impact, but some relief to the M4 is shown between Junctions 19 and 20 as the bypass provides an alternative route between Bristol, the M32 and the Aztec West/Almondsbury Business Park areas. Score: 2

Tackling access to jobs and delivery of services in rural areas

There is no obvious benefit to any rural areas as a result of this scheme. Score 1

The scheme generally does not provide a significant benefit to rural areas, serving primarily an urban area and a suburban hinterland (between Stoke Gifford and Yate). Score: 1

Delivering against DfT / regional “shared priorities”

The scheme does have explicit objectives related to two of the four DfT / LGA shared priorities – congestion and safety. There is no explicit recognition of accessibility or air quality in the

The scheme does provide significant network-wide decongestion benefits, although accidents are shown to increase slightly overall because of changes in the length of some journeys. However



scheme objectives – although these could be inferred. Score 3

the reduction of traffic in Stoke Gifford centre, where pedestrian and cyclist activity may be expected, will make this area safer. The bypass also improves accessibility to Bristol Parkway and provides a new cycle link. Score: 3

Overall Assessment and Score The scheme fits slightly less well against a broader range of regional objectives mainly because it does not make any contribution to rural issues. However this lower score should be seen in the context that few, if any, schemes are going to perform equally well against rural and urban objectives. Score 2

The bypass scheme does have largely local benefits, and the score against the rural objective is understandably weak. Hence its score against these regional objectives is lower when compared to its ‘fit’ against other objectives. Score: 2



Table 2.4 – Sub Regional Policy Scheme Fit Matrix: Joint Replacement Structure Plan Joint Replacement Structure Plan Policy 58 Proposals for alterations to the non-trunk road network will be assessed and advanced only where: Local Policy Objective / Theme Stoke Gifford Bypass


(i) the improved access will assist urban regeneration or address problems from planned development or

The scheme has development related traffic problems as an explicit objective. Score 4

The scheme is shown to directly address and alleviate development-related traffic problems. Score: 4

(ii) they are necessary for the solution of a severe road safety or environmental problem; and

The scheme has an explicit objective to improve road safety and an implicit objective to improve the environment through traffic relief in built up areas in the north of Bristol. Score 3

The scheme is shown to directly address and alleviate development-related congestion, relieving Stoke Gifford and hence improving its environment. It will also improve safety locally in Stoke Gifford, although overall the effects of the scheme across a wider area suggests a slight increase in the number of accidents as a consequence of the scheme Score: 3

(iii) the potential for benefits to safety, the environment and public transport operations are clear; and

The scheme should improve safety by removing traffic from roads that are not able to cope with the large volumes now present – so that in theory the potential for conflict between motor vehicles should be reduced. Furthermore the removal of traffic from built up areas should help to reduce potential for collisions between motor vehicles and vulnerable road users. The scheme should deliver improvements to public transport operations through reducing general congestion and allowing implementation of greater levels of bus priority. Score 4

The scheme delivers against all of the multi modal scheme objectives by ensuring that traffic is removed from local roads and space is reallocated to walking, cycling and public transport. Score: 4



(iv) no reduction is likely in existing, or future, public transport usage; and

On its own the scheme cannot deliver this objective but can make a contribution by allowing public transport journeys to become faster and more reliable. Score 2

The scheme will provide a benefit to buses locally by reducing traffic flows, delays and journey time variability and hence improving service reliability in one of the key GBBN corridors. This is important as opportunities for further bus priority improvements in the Stoke Gifford area are severely constrained by the railway bridge at Bristol Parkway station. Hence the scheme will benefit bus services and their passengers. Score: 3

(v) all alternatives giving priority to other modes than the car have been considered; and

The scheme objectives make it clear that alternative modes such as cycling, walking and public transport will be encouraged. Score 4

The scheme has been developed having considered all other options in numerous traffic studies, including the Avon Ring Road and GBBN Major Scheme Bids. It has also been deleted from the Council’s policies in the recent past; its reconsideration now is a consequence of considering all other options. Score: 4

(vi) no significant reduction in journey time will result from car traffic along a main road corridor used for commuting; and

By its nature the scheme is going to allow traffic that uses the bypass to reduce its journey time compared with the current heavily congested route. The challenge is to ensure that the roads bypassed do not experience large increases in journey time for traffic that should be using an alternative route. The scheme has an explicit objective to use traffic management measures to ensure that traffic follows the appropriate route. Score 3

The scheme does provide congestion relief and hence journey times for all traffic will be reduced. However, although the reduction in journey time is measurable, it is not significant and hence will not result in a marked increase in commuting by car. Score: 3

(vii) facilities for pedestrians and cyclists are retained or enhanced.

The scheme objectives make it clear that alternative modes such as cycling, walking and public transport will be encouraged. The removal of traffic from residential roads will allow pedestrian and cycle priority schemes to be delivered. Score 4

The scheme includes a cycle track within its planned infrastructure, and the relief to Stoke Gifford will improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. Score: 4

Overall Assessment and Score Overall there is a good fit between the scheme objectives and the Structure Plan Policy 58. Score 3

The scheme strongly supports the policy objectives detailed in this matrix. Score: 4



Table 2.5 – Sub Regional Policy Scheme Fit Matrix: Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study

Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study Local Policy Objective / Theme Stoke Gifford Bypass


Develop a series of integrated, multi-modal transport strategies over time for the study area identifying, analysing and appraising solutions to problems on the national strategic transport networks, on the local strategic transport networks and at the interface between them, so as to improve strategic transport movements into, out of and through the study area

There is no specific reference to strategic traffic movements or networks in the study objectives with relief to Stoke Gifford being the primary objective. However this is not to say that local traffic relief could not also have a benefit to the strategic network. Score 2

GBSTS model results show that if the Winterbourne Bypass was connected to the A4174 ARR with traffic crossing the M4 via the B4427 Old Gloucester Road, the scheme would provide some relief to the M4 and M5. Our more recent work on the Stoke Gifford bypass is consistent with the findings of GBSTS. Score 2

Develop transport strategies that support existing economic activity, continue sustainable development and assist economic regeneration of urban areas and the wider process of urban renewal within the study area

The study objective of providing traffic relief to Stoke Gifford is broadly consistent with the aim of supporting sustainable economic regeneration and development although much depends on the ability to limit future traffic growth and boost patronage of non car modes. Score 3

The GBSTS model concludes that there is a measurable congestion reduction benefit and as a result this will help to assist the attractiveness of the area for inward investment and regeneration. The work we have undertaken on the Stoke Gifford bypass is clearer on what the sustainability benefits will be – in particular positive impacts on public transport as a result of congestion relief. Score 3

Reduce the impact of transport on the environment

The scheme does aim to enhance the built environment by removing traffic and associated congestion from residential areas of north Bristol. Again there is recognition of the need to encourage sustainable travel modes. The main concern is that the additional highway capacity should not result in a significant increase in demand for car travel. Score 3

The bypass does reduce traffic volumes in the centre of Stoke Gifford, which is the aim of the bypass. However it also results in the redistribution of some traffic with a consequential increase in traffic on some other roads, notably on the southern section of Bradley Stoke Way and on Winterbourne High Street and Beacon Lane. On balance it is considered that the bypass provides a greater environmental benefit than it does a disbenefit, and enables local bus service to operate more efficiently. Score: 3



Overall Assessment and Score The main difference between GBSTS and the Stoke Gifford Bypass study is that the latter is primarily concerned with traffic relief of a local area and any benefits to the strategic road network will only come about if the bypass removes local traffic currently using the M4 and M5. If this geographical dimension is put to one side then the objectives of GBSTS and the Stoke Gifford bypass are in many ways fairly similar. Score 3

The modelling work between GBSTS and the Stoke Gifford bypass study does show broadly consistent results even though the latter is a more focussed study of a local area. Score 3

TOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Review and Scheme Appraisal


Table 2.6 – Sub Regional Policy Scheme Fit Matrix: Joint Local Transport Plan Greater Bristol Joint Local Transport Plan Local Policy Objective / Theme Stoke Gifford Bypass


To tackle congestion: • promote use of alternatives to the private car • encourage more sustainable patterns of

travel behaviour • manage the demand for travel by the private

car

Congestion relief is a key reason for consideration of the scheme. However this appears to be primarily because of the removal of traffic from a road that is unable to cope with current and future volumes and the provision of a new alignment with enhanced capacity. The extent to which the scheme could deliver a significant increase in use of alternative modes (as opposed to mere “encouragement”) is not clear. There is a potential danger that additional road capacity could, in the absence of suitable demand management measures, could lead to increased demand for car travel. Score 2

The traffic forecasts show relief to Stoke Gifford village centre. However, because of the generally congested nature of the highway network in the North Fringe, the effect of the scheme locally would appear to have a redistribution effect and flows on routes post-implementation are not of an order of magnitude that is likely to significantly encourage increased use of single-occupant vehicles for commuting; the Ring Road corridor remains congested and rat-running can also be detected. At the same time, there is a measurable reduction in journey times on the parallel routes through Stoke Gifford and these will benefit bus services in this corridor. Score: 3

To improve road safety for all road users: • ensure significant reductions in the number

of the most serious road casualties • achieve improvements for road safety for the

most vulnerable sections of the community

Safety is a key objective of the scheme. The scheme should improve safety by removing traffic from roads that are not able to cope with the large volumes now present – so that in theory the potential for conflict between motor vehicles should be reduced. Furthermore the removal of traffic from built up areas should help to reduce potential for collisions between motor vehicles and vulnerable road users. Score 4

The traffic model overall does suggest a slight network-wide increase in accidents as a result of the scheme. However the reduction of traffic flows through Stoke Gifford will reduce the incidence and severity of accidents in this corridor. Score: 3

To improve air quality: • improve air quality in the Air Quality

Management Areas

The scheme is not in a designated AQMA and has no specific air quality improvement objective. Nevertheless the removal of heavy volumes of traffic from roads that are close to residential

The bypass will reduce traffic volumes in Stoke Gifford, whilst those additional properties in developments to the east of Stoke Gifford centre represent a smaller population group and will be

S Policy



• ensure air quality in all other areas remains

better than national standards receptors could help to ensure that standards in non AQMAs will remain better than the national target limit. Score 3

close to free-flowing rather than stop-start traffic, so the net effect is likely to be a slight improvement in air quality. Score: 3

To improve accessibility: • improve accessibility for all residents to

educational services • improve accessibility for all residents to

health services • improve accessibility for all residents to

employment

The scheme does not have accessibility as an explicit objective. However the high peak hour traffic levels in the area is indicative of the demand for home to employment trips and therefore the scheme could well make a significant contribution to enhancing accessibility – albeit primarily by car. The removal of high volumes of traffic may also make access to local schools safer for children as long as there are cycling and walking facilities provided and that speeds on the traffic relieved roads are managed. Score 3

As detailed in earlier matrices, the scheme satisfies all of the objectives listed in this row. Score: 3

To improve the quality of life: • ensure quality of life is improved through the

other shared priority objectives, contributing towards the enhancement of public spaces and of community safety, neighbourhood renewal and regeneration, healthier communities, tackling noise and protecting landscape and biodiversity

• achieve balanced and sustainable communities

This is not an explicit objective of the scheme although there will be benefits related to noise reduction for some properties (perhaps counter balanced by an increase at others). If alternative modes are effectively encouraged then there will be health benefits associated with greater levels of walking and cycling. Score 2

Traffic conditions will be relieved in Stoke Gifford which will lead to a small environmental improvement within the village. However background traffic congestion across the wider network and the need for residents to travel between, say, Bradley Stoke, Filton and Horfield, does mean that there will remain a residual demand for travel through the village. Score: 2

Overall Assessment and Score The wide scope of the Provisional LTP objectives means that the scheme appears to fit less well with the relatively newer aspects of local transport planning such as accessibility and some aspects of the quality of life agenda. However the more traditional benefits of road schemes such as local congestion relief and safety improvements do tend to counter balance this. Score 3

The bypass scheme generally supports the JLTP objectives. It provides a local benefit to residents, pedestrians and cyclists in Stoke Gifford and complements the GBBN that proposes a showcase bus corridor through Stoke Gifford; the traffic relief suggested by the traffic model will contribute further to the aims and objectives of the GBBN, which is primarily to improve bus service reliability and to enhance the experience of bus passengers. Score: 3.


S Policy



CONCLUSIONS 2.15 The policy review demonstrates that the Stoke Gifford bypass has a

reasonable degree of consistency with the various national, regional and local policy objectives. Table 2.7 summarises the summed average scores for the six policy documents that have been reviewed:

Table 2.7: Summary of Policy Scores

Policy Document Summed Average Score (out of 8)The Future of Transport: A Network for 2030 6 Regional Spatial Strategy 4 Regional Funding Allocations: Advice from the South West Region 4 Joint Replacement Structure Plan 7 Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study 6 Greater Bristol Joint Local Transport Plan 6

2.16 In general terms, the scheme achieves higher scores against local objectives than regional objectives. This reflects the fact that it is essentially a local bypass scheme, albeit in the largest Strategic City and Town (SSCT) in the south west. There is also a good score against the Transport White Paper

2.17 The scoring in this policy review has also been relatively generous in that it assumes benefits to non car modes. Whilst it is certainly the case that the bypass can assist in delivering better bus services (through congestion relief) and multi-modal infrastructure improvements, it would be unwise to assume that such measures, on their own, will automatically deliver actual changes in travel behaviour away from the single occupancy private car.

2.18 In order to deliver against sustainable transport objectives the scheme needs to be set in its wider strategic context and it is particularly important to identify other capital funded schemes and revenue funded policy initiatives that will actively support travel by non car modes. Therefore the next Local Transport Plan and the longer term Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study recommendations will be important for ensuring that the Stoke Gifford bypass proposals don’t simply encourage more traffic through the reduction of journey times for car drivers.



3. Traffic Forecasting 3.1 The potential traffic impacts of the scheme in 2016 (assumed year of opening)

and 2031 (design year) have been forecast using the BATS2 transport model, which was developed for the Greater Bristol Bus Network Major Scheme Bid. This model and its validation against 2004 transport data are fully described in the “Model Development and Validation Report – 2004”, dated July 2005, which should be consulted for detailed technical information. The following paragraphs provide a brief overview of the model.

BATS2 MODEL 3.2 The BATS2 model was based on the original Bristol Area Transport Study

(BATS) model of the Bristol area which was developed for Bristol City Council (BCC) to appraise the proposed congestion charging scheme and associated improvements to the public transport network, including light rapid transit (LRT) options. As part of the updating process, the base year for the model was brought forward from 2001 to 2004, and the modelled highway network in the northern sector of Bristol was extended and refined using information drawn from SGC’s North Fringe traffic model.

3.3 The model is focussed on the Bristol urban area, bounded by the M5 to the west, the M4 to the north (with an extension along the A432 to Yate), the A4174 outer ring road to the east, and the Bristol City boundary to the south. Within this area, highway and public transport networks are defined in detail, road junctions are simulated for queues and delays, and a fine zoning system is employed to model patterns of trip movement. Outside this area, a coarser zoning system and network covers the rest of South Gloucestershire, North Somerset, and Bath and North-East Somerset.

3.4 It is clear from our assessment of potential scheme impacts that the BATS2 model covers a much wider area than that which would be affected by the Stoke Gifford bypass. Ideally therefore, the model should be cordoned to represent the area of influence of the scheme, and refined within this cordon to better represent local patterns of movement and travel choices. However, given the study time constraints, it was not possible to undertake this work, and the full model has been used for this preliminary assessment.

3.5 The BATS2 transport model is fully multi-modal, representing travel by all motorised modes. Logit functions calibrated from observed travel data or (where necessary) imported from other studies, are employed in a nested structure to forecast travel demand, including:

♦ levels of trip suppression resulting from increased traffic congestion, and induced traffic resulting from the provision of additional highway capacity;

♦ main mode choice between car, park and ride, and public transport;

♦ with congestion charging in place, the choice for car drivers between paying the charge, parking outside the charging zone and walking in, or retiming the journey to a lower tariff period;

♦ the choice for public transport users between bus, rail and LRT.

3.6 These choices are segmented by car availability and trip purpose, and are based on the generalised cost of travel by alternative modes, including travel time and monetary costs. For car users, these include vehicle operating



costs (mainly fuel), parking charges, and time spent searching for a space and walking between car park and destination. For public transport users, the costs include wait time, walking time and fares.

3.7 The demand model is used to forecast trip movements by mode and purpose, based on input generalised costs. These matrices are combined to represent all-purpose movements, and assigned to the modelled highway and public transport networks, which are skimmed for travel costs. The resultant costs are then fed back to the demand model as part of an iterative procedure which seeks to balance travel demand and travel costs, and thus to reach a converged position.

3.8 Trip movements by road are converted from drivers and passengers to vehicles, based on average occupancy, and combined as follows:

♦ Light vehicles (cars and light goods vehicles);

♦ Heavy goods vehicles.

3.9 Two time periods are modelled, as follows:

♦ AM peak hour (0800-0900);

♦ Average inter-peak hour (1000-1600).

3.10 The BATS2 model does not have a PM peak hour component. Therefore, for the purposes of this appraisal, PM peak benefits have been ignored.

MODEL VALIDATION 3.11 Development and validation of the BATS2 model is fully documented in the

“Model Development and Validation Report – 2004”.

3.12 The BATS2 traffic model was calibrated using standard matrix estimation techniques, and validated against observed traffic flows and journey times, based on advice contained in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB).

Traffic Flow Comparisons 3.13 Traffic flow comparisons were based on three cordons (Inner Ring Road,

Outer Central, and Outer External), and five screenlines (Bristol North West Outer, River Avon, Bristol North West Inner, Bristol East, and Bristol South). For acceptability, DMRB requires that cordon and screenline totals should have a GEH value of less than 4, and that 85% of the individual links in each case should have a GEH of less than 5. However, given the scale and complexity of the BATS2 model, the consultants (Atkins) recommended that these individual link targets should be relaxed for the Outer External Cordon and all screenlines, and suggested that 85% of these links should have a GEH value of less than 7.

3.14 Information presented in the report for the AM peak hour showed that all cordons and screenlines achieved a GEH value of less than 4 based on total flows, indicating that modelled patterns of movement are broadly correct at strategic level. For individual links, all cordons and screenlines achieved GEH values of less than 7 in 85% of cases (save one at 83%), but the Inner Ring Road and Outer Central Cordons missed their targets of 85% with a GEH of less than 5. (They achieved 78% and 83% respectively). For the Bristol North West Outer and North West Inner screenlines, located in the vicinity of Stoke Gifford, about 80% of links have a GEH of less than 5. As a



local model, this would not be adequate for DMRB approval, but is acceptable for a large urban area.

3.15 For the inter-peak model, all cordons and screenlines achieved a GEH value of less than 4 for total flows and in all cases 85% of links had a GEH value of less than 7. The Inner Ring Road cordon again missed the target of 85% of links with a GEH of less than 5 (it achieved 77%). However, most of the screenlines, including those for North West Bristol, had 85% of links with a GEH value of less than 5. On this basis, the inter-peak model is likely to be more reliable in the Stoke Gifford area than the AM peak model.

Journey Time Comparison 3.16 The DMRB recommends that modelled journey times should be within 15%

(or 1 minute) of the observed times on 85% of routes.

3.17 The “Model Development and Validation Report – 2004” compares modelled and observed journey times on nine routes surveyed in 2004. It shows that only 7 of 16 directional routes (44%) achieved the DMRB target in the AM peak hour, rising to 13 out of 17 (76%) in the average inter-peak hour. However, since most of the modelled journey times fall within the observed bounds, this was considered adequate for a large scale model of the city.

3.18 It should be noted that most of the nine observed routes are located well away from Stoke Gifford, except for the M32 route which validates well in both directions and both time periods. However, the general level of journey time validation achieved would not meet DMRB standards for a local model, and may not be sufficient to support an economic appraisal of the bypass scheme.

Validation Improvement 3.19 Given the time-scales for this study, it was not possible to develop a local

model of the Stoke Gifford area, or to undertake a significant revalidation of the BATS2 model. This was accepted by SGC officers and members at the meeting of 19 October 2005. However, we have attempted to improve the modelled highway network in the local area of the proposed scheme by refining saturation flows at a number of junctions and revising the allocation of centroid connectors.

3.20 Comparisons of modelled and observed flows at selected sites in the Stoke Gifford area (see Figure 3.1 for locations) are shown by direction for the AM and inter-peak hours in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. Table 3.2 shows that base year (2004) modelled flows in the inter-peak period meet the DMRB criteria based on the GEH statistic in 32 out of 35 cases (91%). However, Table 3.1 shows that the AM peak hour model meets these criteria in only 26 out of 37 cases (70%). On this basis, the peak hour model is probably not adequate at local level for scheme appraisal.

3.21 This is not a major concern given the preliminary nature of the appraisal at this stage. However, a further, more detailed appraisal in support of a major scheme bid would require significant improvements to the local model.



Table 3.1 – Comparison of Modelled and Observed Flows – 2004 AM Peak Hour

Ref Location Direction Count (pcus)

Model (pcus) Diff. GEH OK

?

N’bd 110 870 760 34.3 1 Coldharbour Lane

S’bd 1504 1315 -189 5.0

N’bd 695 173 -522 25.1 2 Coldharbour Lane

S’bd 2119 2161 42 0.9 N’bd 965 1021 56 1.8

3 Great Stoke Way S’bd 1000 882 -117 3.8 N’bd 354 359 4 0.2

4 Brierley Furlong S’bd 591 331 -261 12.1 W’bd 141 49 -92 9.4

5 Hambrook Lane E’bd 671 513 -158 6.5 S’bd 934 883 -51 1.7

6 Hatchett Road N’bd 558 584 26 1.1 N’bd 1158 1127 -31 0.9

7 B4427 Bristol Road S’bd 545 874 329 12.4

8 M32 Junction 1 Northbound On slip N’bd 1197 1209 12 0.4

9 M32 Junction 1 Southbound On slip S’bd 1798 1645 -153 3.7 S’bd 388 586 198 9.0

10 Filton Avenue N’bd 350 328 -22 1.2 E’bd 150 203 53 4.0

11 Trench Lane W’bd 656 663 7 0.3

12 M4 Junction 19 – M32 Junction 1 S’bd 4577 4295 -281 4.2 E’bd 2003 1960 -43 1.0

13 A4174 Avon Ring Road (East of M32) W’bd 1964 1963 -1 0.0 N’bd 1335 1497 162 4.3

14 A38 (North of Gypsy Patch Lane) S’bd 2516 2240 -276 5.7

N’bd 1456 1410 -46 1.2 15 A38 (South of Bradley Stoke Way)

S’bd 1950 2122 172 3.8 E’bd 1905 2122 217 4.8

16 Station Road W’bd 1431 1499 67 1.8 N’bd 714 774 60 2.2

17 A38 (North of Toronto Road) S’bd 778 803 25 0.9 N’bd 546 437 -110 4.9

18 Southmead Road S’bd 435 442 7 0.3 N’bd 624 568 -56 2.3

19 A38 (South of A4174 Avon Ring Road) S’bd 850 671 -179 6.5 E’bd 116 190 74 5.9

20 Northville Road W’bd 219 412 192 10.8

Notes: 1. Locations of count sites are shown in Figure 3.1.

2. Flows are in passenger car units (PCUs).

3. / = Pass/Fail DMRB requirement for acceptability, based on GEH statistic.



Table 3.2 – Comparison of Modelled and Observed Flows – 2004 Inter-Peak

Ref Location Direction Count (pcus)

Model (pcus) Diff. GEH OK

?

N’bd 110 413 303 18.7 1 Coldharbour Lane

S’bd 767 739 -28 1.0

N’bd 2 Coldharbour Lane S’bd N’bd 695 697 2 0.1

3 Great Stoke Way S’bd 799 807 8 0.3 N’bd 75 87 12 1.4

4 Brierley Furlong S’bd 231 0 -231 21.5 W’bd 91 105 14 1.4

5 Hambrook Lane E’bd 91 83 -8 0.9 S’bd 676 605 -71 2.8

6 Hatchett Road N’bd 806 794 -12 0.4 N’bd 696 666 -30 1.2

7 B4427 Bristol Road S’bd 651 663 12 0.5

8 M32 Junction 1 Northbound On slip N’bd 914 1021 107 3.5 9 M32 Junction 1 Southbound On slip S’bd 945 941 -4 0.1

S’bd 385 357 -28 1.4 10 Filton Avenue

N’bd 381 327 -54 2.8 E’bd 130 127 -3 0.3

11 Trench Lane W’bd 97 125 28 2.7

12 M4 Junction 19 – M32 Junction 1 S’bd 3031 2804 -227 4.2 E’bd 1893 1923 30 0.7

13 A4174 Avon Ring Road (East of M32) W’bd 1676 1782 106 2.5 N’bd 1731 1677 -54 1.3

14 A38 (North of Gypsy Patch Lane) S’bd 1526 1492 -34 0.9

N’bd 1185 1264 79 2.3 15 A38 (South of Bradley Stoke Way)

S’bd 1328 1187 -141 4.0 E’bd 1555 1481 -74 1.9

16 Station Road W’bd 1327 1333 6 0.2 N’bd 681 771 90 3.3

17 A38 (North of Toronto Road) S’bd 689 789 100 3.7 N’bd 474 477 3 0.2

18 Southmead Road S’bd 446 464 18 0.8 N’bd 689 713 24 0.9

19 A38 (South of A4174 Avon Ring Road) S’bd 713 781 68 2.5 E’bd 138 275 137 9.5

20 Northville Road W’bd 81 120 39 3.9

Notes: 1. Locations of count sites are shown in Figure 3.1.

2. Flows are in passenger car units (PCUs).

3. / = Pass/Fail DMRB requirement for acceptability, based on GEH statistic.



Figure 3.1 – Location of Count Sites used for Model validation

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

Win

tr

Roa

d

B405

7e

bour

ne

Lock

leaz

eB

room

hill

Sto

ke P

ark

ristol

Roa

d

B 4058 B

UW

E

Bris

tol

Busi

ness

Par

k

Hew

lett

Pac

kard

MO

D

Fren

chay

Hos

pita

l

Hot

elFi

lton

Road

BAE

Sys

tem

s /

Airb

us

Filto

n

South

mead R

oad

loucester Road

B4056

A38 G

Filto

nC

olle

geFilton A

venu

e

Stat

ion

Rd

Filton Avenue

Filto

n Ab

bey

Woo

d S

tatio

n

AXA

Filto

n H

igh

Sch

ool

B&Q

Sain

sbur

y’s

Ham

broo

k La

ne

B44d Gloucester Road

27 Ol

Romne

y Ave

nue

M32

Fren

chay

Ham

broo

k

Bro

mle

yH

eath

Dow

nend

Bla

ckho

rse

Man

gots

field

M32

J1

M4

J19

romley Heath Road

Moo

rendW

inte

rbou

rne

Dow

n

Ken

dles

hire

Emer

son’

sG

reen

A4017 B

A432

A432 B

Badmint

on R

d

adminton Road

Emer

son’

s G

reen

Dis

trict

Cen

tre

Em

eral

dPa

rk

Wes

terle

igh R

oad

Wes

terlei

gh R

oad

B446

5

Sta

ple

Hill

Sho

rtwoo

d

omph

rey

Hill

M4

B446

5 P

Hor

field

Em

erso

n’s

Gre

en E

ast

Mix

ed U

se D

evel

opm

ent

Sto

keG

iffor

d

Brad

ley

Sto

keLi

ttle

Sto

ke

Pat

chw

ayS

tatio

n

Rol

lR

oyce

Roy

alM

ail

s

Em

ploy

men

t and

hous

ing

deve

lopm

ent

Pat

chw

ay

Empl

oym

ent a

ndho

usin

g de

velo

pmen

t

Ret

ail

Par

k

Lock

leaz

eS

choo

l

Lock

leaz

e R

oad

M4

ypsy

Pat

ch L

ane

High

wood

Roa

d

loucester Road

B40

57 G

A38G

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

Bris

tol P

arkw

ay

Crib

bs C

ause

way

Rom

ney

Ave

nue

Bus

Lin

k

River Frome

Rive

r Fro

me

Bristol CitySouth Gloucestershire

Bris

tol C

ityS

outh

Glo

uces

ters

hire

B R

I S

T O

L

C I

T Y

S O

U T

H

G L

O U

C E

S T

E R

S H

I R

E

Azt

ec W

est

Bus

Lin

kAzt

ec W

est

Alm

onds

bury

Bus

ines

s P

ark

Filto

n A

irfie

ld

The

Mal

l

Sou

thm

ead

Hos

pita

l

Filto

n N

orth

field

Lin

k R

oad

ribbs Causeway

assage Road

estbury Road

enleazeRoad

Eas

tf ie l

dR

oad

Gre

ysto

keAv

enue

Mon

k’s

Park

Ave

Toro

nto

Rd

Wes

tbur

y-on

-Try

m

Sout

hmea

d

Bradley Stoke

Way

Broo

k Way

Braydon Ave

Little Stoke Lane

Tren

ch L

ane

A4018 C

A4018 P

A4018 W

B4056 H

B44 ld Gloucester Road

Bow

slan

d W

ay

Bra

dley

Sto

keD

istri

ct C

entre

27 O

Ret

ail

Par

k

Em

ploy

men

tde

velo

pmen

t

B4055

He

nbury

Road

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

M5

M5

M5

Junc

tion

16

M5

Junc

tion

17 Lysa

nder

Roa

d

The

Ven

ue

Knol

eLa

ne

Bren

try

Pen Park

Road

Co

Lane

Don

cast

er R

d

Kellaw

ayAve

nue

B4057 rw

B4468

A41

7 4

A41

4

A41

74

A41

74

A4174

A4174

7

A432

A4017 N

Down

end

Roa

d

orth Street

NA

lmon

dsbu

ryH

ousi

ngde

velo

pmen

tG

louc

este

r Roa

d

A38

M4

Com

bina

tion

Gro

und

Beac

on L

ane

ristol Road

High Street

Flax

pits

Lane

Down

Roa

d

Stoke G

ifford

Byp

ass

Har

ryS

toke

B405

7

B4058 B

B4058

Win

terb

ourn

e

Hatchet Road

B4058

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

Win

tr

Roa

d

B405

7e

bour

ne

Lock

leaz

eB

room

hill

Sto

ke P

ark

Bristol

Roa

d

B 4058

UW

E

Bris

tol

Busi

ness

Par

k

Hew

lett

Pac

kard

MO

D

Fren

chay

Hos

pita

l

Hot

elFi

lton

Road

BAE

Sys

tem

s /

Airb

us

Filto

n

South

mead R

oad

loucester Road

B4056

A38 G

Filto

nC

olle

geFilton A

venu

e

Stat

ion

Rd

Filton Avenue

Filto

n Ab

bey

Woo

d S

tatio

n

AXA

Filto

n H

igh

Sch

ool

B&Q

Sain

sbur

y’s

Ham

broo

k La

ne


27 Ol

Romne

y Ave

nue

M32

Fren

chay

Ham

broo

k

Bro

mle

yH

eath

Dow

nend

Bla

ckho

rse

Man

gots

field

M32

J1

M4

J19

romley Heath Road

Moo

rendW

inte

rbou

rne

Dow

n

Ken

dles

hire

Emer

son’

sG

reen

A4017 B

A432

A432 B

Badmint

on R

d

adminton Road

Emer

son’

s G

reen

Dis

trict

Cen

tre

Em

eral

dPa

rk

Wes

terle

igh R

oad

Wes

terlei

gh R

oad

B446

5

Sta

ple

Hill

Sho

rtwoo

d

omph

rey

Hill

M4

B446

5 P

Hor

field

Em

erso

n’s

Gre

en E

ast

Mix

ed U

se D

evel

opm

ent

Sto

keG

iffor

d

Brad

ley

Sto

keLi

ttle

Sto

ke

Pat

chw

ayS

tatio

n

Rol

lR

oyce

Roy

alM

ail

s

Em

ploy

men

t and

hous

ing

deve

lopm

ent

Pat

chw

ay

Empl

oym

ent a

ndho

usin

g de

velo

pmen

t

Ret

ail

Par

k

Lock

leaz

eS

choo

l

Lock

leaz

e R

oad

M4

ypsy

Pat

ch L

ane

High

wood

Roa

d

loucester Road

B40

57 G

A38G

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

Bris

tol P

arkw

ay

Crib

bs C

ause

way

Rom

ney

Ave

nue

Bus

Lin

k

River Frome

Rive

r Fro

me



Bris

tol C

ityS

outh

Glo

uces

ters

hire

Bris

tol C

ityS

outh

Glo

uces

ters

hire

B R

I S

T O

L

C I

T Y

S O

U T

H

G L

O U

C E

S T

E R

S H

I R

E

Azt

ec W

est

Bus

Lin

kA

ztec

Wes

tB

us L

inkA

ztec

Wes

t

Alm

onds

bury

Bus

ines

s P

ark

Filto

n A

irfie

ld

The

Mal

l

Sou

thm

ead

Hos

pita

l

Filto

n N

orth

field

Lin

k R

oad

ribbs Causeway

assage Road

estbury Road

enleazeRoad

Eas

tf ie l

dR

oad

Gre

ysto

keAv

enue

Mon

k’s

Park

Ave

Toro

nto

Rd

Wes

tbur

y-on

-Try

m

Sout

hmea

d

Bradley Stoke

Way

Broo

k Way

Braydon Ave

Little Stoke Lane

Tren

ch L

ane

A4018 C

A4018 P

A4018 W

B4056 H


Bow

slan

d W

ay

Bra

dley

Sto

keD

istri

ct C

entre

27 O

Ret

ail

Par

k

Em

ploy

men

tde

velo

pmen

t

B4055

He

nbury

Road

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

M5

M5

M5

Junc

tion

16

M5

Junc

tion

17 Lysa

nder

Roa

d

The

Ven

ue

Knol

eLa

ne

Bren

try

Pen Park

Road

Co

Lane

Don

cast

er R

d

Kellaw

ayAve

nue

B4057 rw

B4468

A41

7 4

A41

4

A41

74

A41

74

A4174

A4174

7

A432

A4017 N

Down

end

Roa

d

orth Street

NNA

lmon

dsbu

ryH

ousi

ngde

velo

pmen

tG

louc

este

r Roa

d

A38

M4

Com

bina

tion

Gro

und

Beac

on L

ane

ristol Road

High Street

Flax

pits

Lane

Down

Roa

d

Stoke G

ifford

Byp

ass

Har

ryS

toke

B405

7

B4058 B

B4058

Win

terb

ourn

e

Hatchet Road

B4058

Dra

win

g N

umbe

r (2)

Dra

win

g N

umbe

r (1)

Figu

re 3

.1

.R

ev 0

Sca

leD

raw

nC

heck

edA

utho

rised

Dat

eD

ate

Dat

e

NTS

Stok

e G

iffor

d B

ypas

s

Com

paris

on o

f Mod

elle

d an

d O

bser

ved

Flow

sD

ata

Ref

eren

ce S

ites

Title

Pro

jectA

tkin

s Tr

ansp

ort P

lann

ing

260

Azte

c W

est

Alm

onds

bury

Bris

tol B

S32

4SY

Tel:

0145

4 28

8362

Fa

x: 0

1454

618

844

Rev

Des

crip

tion

By

Dat

eC

hk’d

Aut

h

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e S

urve

y m

ater

ial w

ith p

erm

issi

on o

f Ord

nanc

eS

urve

y on

beh

alf o

f the

Con

trolle

r of H

er M

ajes

ty’s

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

©C

row

nco

pyrig

ht. U

naut

horis

ed re

prod

uctio

n in

fring

es C

row

n co

pyrig

ht a

nd m

ay le

ad to

pros

ecut

ion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs.

Sou

th G

louc

este

rshi

re C

ounc

il.Li

cenc

e N

o. 1

0002

3410

, 200

5.

SB

18/0

5/06

1 2

3

45

6

78 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

171819 20

1V

alid

atio

n C

ount

Site

Cou

nt S

ites

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

Win

tr

Roa

d

B405

7e

bour

ne

Lock

leaz

eB

room

hill

Sto

ke P

ark

Bristol

Roa

d

B 4058

UW

E

Bris

tol

Busi

ness

Par

k

Hew

lett

Pac

kard

MO

D

Fren

chay

Hos

pita

l

Hot

elFi

lton

Road

BAE

Sys

tem

s /

Airb

us

Filto

n

South

mead R

oad

loucester Road

B4056

A38 G

Filto

nC

olle

geFilton A

venu

e

Stat

ion

Rd

Filton Avenue

Filto

n Ab

bey

Woo

d S

tatio

n

AXA

Filto

n H

igh

Sch

ool

B&Q

Sain

sbur

y’s

Ham

broo

k La

ne


27 Ol

Romne

y Ave

nue

M32

Fren

chay

Ham

broo

k

Bro

mle

yH

eath

Dow

nend

Bla

ckho

rse

Man

gots

field

M32

J1

M4

J19

romley Heath Road

Moo

rendW

inte

rbou

rne

Dow

n

Ken

dles

hire

Emer

son’

sG

reen

A4017 B

A432

A432 B

Badmint

on R

d

adminton Road

Emer

son’

s G

reen

Dis

trict

Cen

tre

Em

eral

dPa

rk

Wes

terle

igh R

oad

Wes

terlei

gh R

oad

B446

5

Sta

ple

Hill

Sho

rtwoo

d

omph

rey

Hill

M4

B446

5 P

Hor

field

Em

erso

n’s

Gre

en E

ast

Mix

ed U

se D

evel

opm

ent

Sto

keG

iffor

d

Brad

ley

Sto

keLi

ttle

Sto

ke

Pat

chw

ayS

tatio

n

Rol

lR

oyce

Roy

alM

ail

s

Em

ploy

men

t and

hous

ing

deve

lopm

ent

Pat

chw

ay

Empl

oym

ent a

ndho

usin

g de

velo

pmen

t

Ret

ail

Par

k

Lock

leaz

eS

choo

l

Lock

leaz

e R

oad

M4

ypsy

Pat

ch L

ane

High

wood

Roa

d

loucester Road

B40

57 G

A38G

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

Bris

tol P

arkw

ay

Crib

bs C

ause

way

Rom

ney

Ave

nue

Bus

Lin

k

River Frome

Rive

r Fro

me


Bris

tol C

ityS

outh

Glo

uces

ters

hire

B R

I S

T O

L

C I

T Y

S O

U T

H

G L

O U

C E

S T

E R

S H

I R

E

Azt

ec W

est

Bus

Lin

kAzt

ec W

est

Alm

onds

bury

Bus

ines

s P

ark

Filto

n A

irfie

ld

The

Mal

l

Sou

thm

ead

Hos

pita

l

Filto

n N

orth

field

Lin

k R

oad

ribbs Causeway

assage Road

estbury Road

enleazeRoad

Eas

tf ie l

dR

oad

Gre

ysto

keAv

enue

Mon

k’s

Park

Ave

Toro

nto

Rd

Wes

tbur

y-on

-Try

m

Sout

hmea

d

Bradley Stoke

Way

Broo

k Way

Braydon Ave

Little Stoke Lane

Tren

ch L

ane

A4018 C

A4018 P

A4018 W

B4056 H


Bow

slan

d W

ay

Bra

dley

Sto

keD

istri

ct C

entre

27 O

Ret

ail

Par

k

Em

ploy

men

tde

velo

pmen

t

B4055

He

nbury

Road

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

M5

M5

M5

Junc

tion

16

M5

Junc

tion

17 Lysa

nder

Roa

d

The

Ven

ue

Knol

eLa

ne

Bren

try

Pen Park

Road

Co

Lane

Don

cast

er R

d

Kellaw

ayAve

nue

B4057 rw

B4468

A41

7 4

A41

4

A41

74

A41

74

A4174

A4174

7

A432

A4017 N

Down

end

Roa

d

orth Street

NA

lmon

dsbu

ryH

ousi

ngde

velo

pmen

tG

louc

este

r Roa

d

A38

M4

Com

bina

tion

Gro

und

Beac

on L

ane

ristol Road

High Street

Flax

pits

Lane

Down

Roa

d

Stoke G

ifford

Byp

ass

Har

ryS

toke

B405

7

B4058 B

B4058

Win

terb

ourn

e

Hatchet Road

B4058

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

Win

tr

Roa

d

B405

7e

bour

ne

Lock

leaz

eB

room

hill

Sto

ke P

ark

Bristol

Roa

d

B 4058

UW

E

Bris

tol

Busi

ness

Par

k

Hew

lett

Pac

kard

MO

D

Fren

chay

Hos

pita

l

Hot

elFi

lton

Road

BAE

Sys

tem

s /

Airb

us

Filto

n

South

mead R

oad

loucester Road

B4056

A38 G

Filto

nC

olle

geFilton A

venu

e

Stat

ion

Rd

Filton Avenue

Filto

n Ab

bey

Woo

d S

tatio

n

AXA

Filto

n H

igh

Sch

ool

B&Q

Sain

sbur

y’s

Ham

broo

k La

ne


27 Ol

Romne

y Ave

nue

M32

Fren

chay

Ham

broo

k

Bro

mle

yH

eath

Dow

nend

Bla

ckho

rse

Man

gots

field

M32

J1

M4

J19

romley Heath Road

Moo

rendW

inte

rbou

rne

Dow

n

Ken

dles

hire

Emer

son’

sG

reen

A4017 B

A432

A432 B

Badmint

on R

d

adminton Road

Emer

son’

s G

reen

Dis

trict

Cen

tre

Em

eral

dPa

rk

Wes

terle

igh R

oad

Wes

terlei

gh R

oad

B446

5

Sta

ple

Hill

Sho

rtwoo

d

omph

rey

Hill

M4

B446

5 P

Hor

field

Em

erso

n’s

Gre

en E

ast

Mix

ed U

se D

evel

opm

ent

Sto

keG

iffor

d

Brad

ley

Sto

keLi

ttle

Sto

ke

Pat

chw

ayS

tatio

n

Rol

lR

oyce

Roy

alM

ail

s

Em

ploy

men

t and

hous

ing

deve

lopm

ent

Pat

chw

ay

Empl

oym

ent a

ndho

usin

g de

velo

pmen

t

Ret

ail

Par

k

Lock

leaz

eS

choo

l

Lock

leaz

e R

oad

M4

ypsy

Pat

ch L

ane

High

wood

Roa

d

loucester Road

B40

57 G

A38G

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

Bris

tol P

arkw

ay

Crib

bs C

ause

way

Rom

ney

Ave

nue

Bus

Lin

k

River Frome

Rive

r Fro

me



Bris

tol C

ityS

outh

Glo

uces

ters

hire

Bris

tol C

ityS

outh

Glo

uces

ters

hire

B R

I S

T O

L

C I

T Y

S O

U T

H

G L

O U

C E

S T

E R

S H

I R

E

Azt

ec W

est

Bus

Lin

kA

ztec

Wes

tB

us L

inkA

ztec

Wes

t

Alm

onds

bury

Bus

ines

s P

ark

Filto

n A

irfie

ld

The

Mal

l

Sou

thm

ead

Hos

pita

l

Filto

n N

orth

field

Lin

k R

oad

ribbs Causeway

assage Road

estbury Road

enleazeRoad

Eas

tf ie l

dR

oad

Gre

ysto

keAv

enue

Mon

k’s

Park

Ave

Toro

nto

Rd

Wes

tbur

y-on

-Try

m

Sout

hmea

d

Bradley Stoke

Way

Broo

k Way

Braydon Ave

Little Stoke Lane

Tren

ch L

ane

A4018 C

A4018 P

A4018 W

B4056 H


Bow

slan

d W

ay

Bra

dley

Sto

keD

istri

ct C

entre

27 O

Ret

ail

Par

k

Em

ploy

men

tde

velo

pmen

t

B4055

He

nbury

Road

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

M5

M5

M5

Junc

tion

16

M5

Junc

tion

17 Lysa

nder

Roa

d

The

Ven

ue

Knol

eLa

ne

Bren

try

Pen Park

Road

Co

Lane

Don

cast

er R

d

Kellaw

ayAve

nue

B4057 rw

B4468

A41

7 4

A41

4

A41

74

A41

74

A4174

A4174

7

A432

A4017 N

Down

end

Roa

d

orth Street

NNA

lmon

dsbu

ryH

ousi

ngde

velo

pmen

tG

louc

este

r Roa

d

A38

M4

Com

bina

tion

Gro

und

Beac

on L

ane

ristol Road

High Street

Flax

pits

Lane

Down

Roa

d

Stoke G

ifford

Byp

ass

Har

ryS

toke

B405

7

B4058 B

B4058

Win

terb

ourn

e

Hatchet Road

B4058

Dra

win

g N

umbe

r (2)

Dra

win

g N

umbe

r (1)

Figu

re 3

.1

.R

ev 0

Sca

leD

raw

nC

heck

edA

utho

rised

Dat

eD

ate

Dat

e

NTS

Stok

e G

iffor

d B

ypas

s

Com

paris

on o

f Mod

elle

d an

d O

bser

ved

Flow

sD

ata

Ref

eren

ce S

ites

Title

Pro

jectA

tkin

s Tr

ansp

ort P

lann

ing

260

Azte

c W

est

Alm

onds

bury

Bris

tol B

S32

4SY

Tel:

0145

4 28

8362

Fa

x: 0

1454

618

844

Rev

Des

crip

tion

By

Dat

eC

hk’d

Aut

h

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e S

urve

y m

ater

ial w

ith p

erm

issi

on o

f Ord

nanc

eS

urve

y on

beh

alf o

f the

Con

trolle

r of H

er M

ajes

ty’s

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

©C

row

nco

pyrig

ht. U

naut

horis

ed re

prod

uctio

n in

fring

es C

row

n co

pyrig

ht a

nd m

ay le

ad to

pros

ecut

ion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs.

Sou

th G

louc

este

rshi

re C

ounc

il.Li

cenc

e N

o. 1

0002

3410

, 200

5.

SB

18/0

5/06

1 2

3

45

6

78 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

171819 20

1V

alid

atio

n C

ount

Site

Cou

nt S

ites



FORECAST LAND-USE/NETWORK ASSUMPTIONS 3.22 The BATS2 model has been used to produce forecast AM peak hour and

average inter-peak hour trip matrices for 2016 (assumed year of opening of the Stoke Gifford bypass) and 2031 (the design year). In accordance with the SGC terms of reference, these forecasts have been based on Scenario F as recently defined by the JSTPU for the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS).

3.23 Key housing and employment allocations for this scenario are summarised in Table 3.3. It assumes that new dwellings would be built at a rate of 4625 per annum within the four Unitary Authorities, representing a 25% increase on the rate of development proposed in RPG10 and providing 138,750 additional homes between 2001 and 2031; and that employment opportunities would increase at a rate of 3166 jobs per annum, to provide an additional 95,000 jobs by 2031. Forecast trip-ends for Scenario F were provided by the GBSTS study team, and converted for input to the BATS2 model.

3.24 However, given the limited time-frame for the Stoke Gifford Bypass study and the uncertain status of the schemes proposed for the GBSTS Final Strategy, most of the GBSTS schemes have not been included in the BATS2 forecast networks. Instead, the forecasts have been based on the Do Something networks developed for the Greater Bristol Bus Network Major Scheme Business Case, assuming that the showcase bus corridors and associated infrastructure improvements (North Fringe Development Major Schemes) would go ahead and would be completed by 2016.

3.25 To some extent, this approach means that the forecast tests are based on an unsustainable scenario, in which accelerated development growth (Scenario F) is assumed to take place without associated improvements to the highway and public transport networks (GBSTS Final Strategy). This would tend to encourage greater car use, and may therefore overestimate the potential benefits of the Stoke Gifford bypass (by overestimating congestion in the Do Minimum case). However, it is considered unlikely to have a major affect on the operational and economic appraisals of the scheme at this stage, or on the overall findings of the study.

3.26 One scheme included in the GBSTS Final Strategy which may have a direct impact on the Stoke Gifford bypass is the proposed widening of the M4 between Junctions 19 (M32) and 20 (M5). Sensitivity tests have therefore been run to identify the diversionary affects of this scheme.

3.27 The BATS2 model has been run once for each forecast year and time period, based on Scenario F land-use assumptions and the Greater Bristol Bus networks, which include the proposed showcase bus corridors and associated infrastructure improvements but exclude the Stoke Gifford bypass. The matrices of highway-based trips resulting from this multi-modal forecasting procedure represent the reference case for the bypass study. These matrices have then been assigned to test networks excluding the bypass (Do Minimum case) and to a number of Do Something networks including alternative scheme alignments. This testing therefore assumes that the bypass would have no impact on mode choice.


Table 3.3 – Summary of Scenario F Housing and Employment Forecasts Scenario F increases in housing and employment between 2001 and 2031:


Housing Employment Within Bristol PUA 47,630 35,350 Urban Extension Ashton Vale 15,833 7,550 Urban Extension Whitchurch 10,047 2,000 Urban Extension Hicks Gate 8 4,000 Urban Extension Cribbs Causeway 2,584 5,400 Urban Extension Harry Stoke 4,067 4,350 Urban Extension Pucklechurch 10,157 3,000 Urban Extension Earthcott 2,357 0 Urban Extension East of Coalpit Heath 101 0 Bristol PUA Total 92,784 61,650

Within Bath PUA 5,801 9,800 Urban Extension 226 -123 Bath PUA Total 6,027 9,677

Within Weston-super-Mare PUA 11,299 11,250 Urban Extension Weston-super-Mare 8,350 1,650 Weston-super-Mare PUA Total 19,650 12,900

Within Portishead 5,379 0 Urban Extension Portishead 4,102 3,900 Portishead Total 9,480 3,900

Within Keynsham & Urban Extension 3,485 1,500 Keynsham Total 3,485 1,500

Within Thornbury 434 -250 Within Clevedon 783 -350 Within Nailsea 629 350 Within Yate 886 0 Within Norton Radstock 1,053 500 Rural Windfall 3,536 -877 Bristol Airport 3 6,000 Elsewhere Total 7,324 5,373

Total 138,749 95,000

Scenario F/6 (RPG10 +25%)



SCHEME ALTERNATIVES FOR TESTING 3.28 Alternative bypass schemes tested in the model are shown in Figure 3.2.

These were identified by SGC, based on a desktop analysis of engineering opportunities and constraints. Scheme costs were also provided by SGC.

3.29 All four alternative schemes would provide a new dual-carriageway link from the roundabout at the southern end of Great Stoke Way to a signalised junction with the A4174 Avon Ring Road to the east of Coldharbour Lane. All would cross the railway line at a single bridged location. Other key features of the schemes are as follows:

♦ The Purple Route would take the more easterly of the two alignments to the south of the railway line. It would have an at-grade crossing of Hambrook Lane, which is assumed to be a roundabout allowing all turning movements. Further south, it would have a roundabout junction with the access road to the Harry Stoke development, and would link to the more easterly of the two ARR junction locations;

♦ The Pink Route would take the more westerly of the two alignments, requiring an additional roundabout junction at the north end of the scheme, and would link to the more westerly of the two ARR junction locations. It would have a roundabout connection to Harry Stoke, but no connection with Hambrook Lane;

♦ The Turquoise Route would be similar to the Pink Route but would link to the more easterly ARR junction;

♦ The Blue Route would be similar to the Purple Route, but would have a signalised junction with Hambrook Lane, allowing straight-ahead movements only (i.e. no movements between the bypass and Hambrook Lane), and would link to the more westerly ARR junction.

3.30 The four alternative schemes were coded into the test networks in detail, so that the model could simulate traffic movements through junctions and thus forecast their impacts on queues and delays. Roundabouts were assumed to be similar in dimension and capacity to those already in place on Great Stoke Way. The layout and signal timings for the proposed ARR junction were based on those already tested for the Greater Bristol Bus Network Major Scheme Bid (which included the junction to provide access for the Harry Stoke development).

3.31 The eventual route choice for the bypass will be influenced by a number of external developments, including:

• Proposals for a special school, currently being investigated by SGC Children & Young People which may be located in Stoke Gifford adjacent to existing development which would not allow for the alignment of Purple and Blue routes; the school is located at the northern end of these routes, immediately to the south of the roundabout junction with Great Stoke Way;

• Development proposals for Harry Stoke;

• North Fringe major schemes;

• Greater Bristol Bus Network; and

• Future RSS housing allocations for Harry Stoke.


Figure 3.2 – Alternative Options for Stoke Gifford Bypass




4. Operational Assessment TRAFFIC FORECASTS

4.1 The BATS2 model has been used to forecast the traffic impacts of the proposed Stoke Gifford bypass during the AM peak and average inter-peak hours in future years 2016 and 2031. Forecast land-use assumptions for both future years are based on Scenario F, which was developed by the JSPTU for the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study, assuming that the rate of housing and employment growth would be accelerated above RPG10 levels.

4.2 However, given study time constraints and the uncertain status of transport improvements proposed as part of the GBSTS Final Strategy, most of the GBSTS schemes have not been included in the forecast test networks. Instead, the tests have been based on future year Do Something networks developed for the Greater Bristol Bus Network Major Scheme Business Case.

4.3 Four alternative scheme alignments, defined by SGC and shown in Figure 3.2, have been tested in the model, along with a Do Minimum case which excludes a bypass. The BATS2 multi-modal model was run for each year and time period to forecast the level of traffic demand in the Do Minimum network, allowing that increased traffic congestion would cause some drivers to switch modes or suppress trips. Scheme tests were then run using the same (fixed) demand matrix for each time period, assuming that the bypass would not induce any additional trips, and that the potential impacts would therefore be limited to re-routing effects.

TRAFFIC GROWTH 4.4 Forecast trip totals for 2004, 2016 and 2031 are presented in Tables 4.1-4.4.

These show that light vehicle traffic demand in the Bristol area, after allowing for modal transfer and trip suppression, would increase by 16%-18% from 2004 to 2016, and by 29%-31% from 2004 to 2031. Heavy vehicles would grow at a higher rate, but form a relatively small proportion of the overall vehicle flow.

FORECAST NETWORK PERFORMANCE 4.5 Traffic growth would have a significant impact on levels of congestion in the

Do Minimum network, as shown by the increase in over-capacity queued time. Average speeds in the AM peak hour, based on the full Bristol network, would drop from 42.1 kph in 2004 to 28.6 kph in 2016, and to 19.6 kph in 2031. Average speeds in the inter-peak period would similarly drop from 50.6 kph in 2004 to 44.6 kph in 2016, and to 34.1 kph in 2031.

4.6 Within the local area network (north-west Bristol, including Stoke Gifford, Bradley Stoke, Patchway, Aztec West, Cribbs Causeway and Filton), average speeds are currently higher (by 6-9 kph) than those for the whole of Bristol. However, this difference is likely to become less significant with time, and would be largely eroded by 2031. In fact, the 2031 forecasts suggest that average inter-peak speeds in this area may then be lower than the Bristol average because of increased congestion at Cribbs Causeway.

4.7 Table 4.1 shows that the Stoke Gifford bypass would have a beneficial impact on peak hour congestion in 2016, reducing total travel times within the local area network by 300-500 pcu-hours. However, forecast travel distance would



increase as a result of drivers taking longer routes in order to gain access to the bypass. The net result is that average speeds in the local area would increase by about 1 kph, from about 33 kph to about 34 kph. Overall average speeds in Bristol would increase by 0.3 kph.

4.8 In 2031, the scheme would reduce total AM peak hour travel times in the local area network by 600-1000 pcu-hours, and increase average speeds by about 1 kph, from 21 kph to 22 kph (see Table 4.3). Average speeds in Bristol as a whole would increase by 0.4-0.5 kph.

4.9 From Tables 4.2 and 4.4, it is clear that the Stoke Gifford bypass would have a more marginal impact on travel times, distances, and average speeds in the inter-peak period, either in 2016 or 2031. This is because traffic flows in the inter-peak period are only about 70% of those in the peak hour, and would not even by 2031 have grown to current peak hour levels. Therefore, the scheme would offer less congestion relief outside the peak hours.

4.10 All of the bypass options demonstrate broadly similar effects, and there is little to choose between them in terms of network performance, based on either the local area network or Bristol as a whole.

FORECAST TRAFFIC FLOWS 4.11 Forecast AM peak and inter-peak traffic flows on selected links are presented

for 2016 and 2031 in Tables 4.5-4.8. Figure 4.1 shows the locations of these sites, as well as a number of others which were identified following a meeting with members on 21 March 2006. Forecast flows for all of these sites in the 2016 AM peak and inter-peak hours are presented in Appendix A and summarised in paragraphs 4.28-4.33.

4.12 Tables 4.5-4.8 show forecast traffic flows, in vehicles per hour summed over two directions, for the Do Minimum scenario and Do Something scheme options, so that the impacts of the bypass can be determined. The results of sensitivity tests, which assume that the M4 would be widened between Junctions 19 (M32) and 20 (M5), as recommended in the GBSTS Final Strategy, are also included in the tables.

4.13 Based on the traffic forecasts shown in Table 4.5, the Stoke Gifford bypass would attract 2-way flows of between 1610 and 1970 vehicles per hour (vph) in the 2016 peak hour. Flows would be at the lower end of this range if no junction was provided at Hambrook Lane (as for the Pink and Turquoise options); and at the higher end of the range if a full roundabout junction was provided (as for the Purple option). By 2031, traffic growth would have increased these peak hour flows to between 1750 vph and 2150 vph (see Table 4.7).

4.14 Tables 4.6 and 4.8 show that forecast traffic flows on the bypass during the inter-peak period would be significantly lower than in the peak hour, with a maximum flow of about 660 vph in 2016 and 920 vph in 2031.

4.15 On this basis, a single carriageway road of 10 metre width would be more than adequate to accommodate forecast traffic demand to 2031. This would significantly reduce the cost of the scheme, assuming that SGC would not want to make provision for later construction of a Winterbourne bypass.

4.16 Traffic attracted to the scheme would increase peak hour flows on southern sections of Bradley Stoke Way by 250 - 450 vph in 2016, rising to 550 – 650 vph in 2031. Two way flows would then be almost 2000 vph, representing a 65%-75% increase on current levels. However, these impacts are localised



and quickly dissipate with distance from the scheme. As a result, peak hour flows on northern sections of Bradley Stoke Way (i.e. already congested in 2006) would be increased by less than 250 vph in both 2016 and 2031.

4.17 Traffic flows on Winterbourne Road (to the west of Bradley Stoke Way) would also increase by up to 500 vph in the 2016 AM peak hour. However, the increase in 2031 would be less than 300 vph, suggesting that increased congestion in the local area would discourage access to the scheme via this route, and encourage greater use of Bradley Stoke Way (noted above).

4.18 Peak hour traffic flows on Old Gloucester Road to the north of Winterbourne Road would be reduced by up to 170 vph in 2016 and up to 310 vph in 2031. In both cases, the Purple Route would offer the greatest relief. Old Gloucester Road to the south of Winterbourne Road would also benefit from reduced flows in 2016.

4.19 Most of the bypass options would reduce peak hour traffic on Hambrook Lane to the east of the scheme by about 100 vph in both 2016 and 2031. This is evident even for the Purple Route which provides an all-movement junction with Hambrook Lane. As a roundabout, this junction would give priority to traffic on the bypass and cause delay for vehicles on the minor approaches, sufficient to discourage some rat-running traffic from using the lane. Signalisation of this junction in the Blue Route option would potentially cause greater delay to traffic on Hambrook Lane, encouraging significant diversion away from this route. The model forecasts suggest that some of this traffic would divert to Beacon Lane and Winterbourne Road. Forecast traffic flows on Hambrook Lane to the west of the bypass would similarly be reduced if a junction were provided.

4.20 On the basis of these varying traffic model results, it will be necessary to investigate the form of any potential junction with Hambrook Lane.

4.21 At the southern end of the bypass, traffic attracted to the scheme would increase peak hour flows through the Harry Stoke development on its access road by 450 – 550 vph in 2016, and by 600 – 700 vph in 2031, despite traffic calming on this road which would reduce speeds below 30 mph.

4.22 Peak hour flows on the A4174 ARR to the east of the bypass would also increase significantly by 600 – 700 vph in 2016, and 750 – 850 vph in 2031. However, the model shows that this additional traffic could be accommodated at the signalised ARR junction without imposing delays of more than 1 minute on any movement; minimal peak hour queues would therefore occur at this location in both 2016 and 2031.

4.23 The bypass would have little impact on M32 Junction 1 in the 2016 AM peak, adding a few seconds only to vehicles on the eastbound entry. Traffic growth to 2031 would be more difficult to accommodate, and the increased flow on the A4174 ARR would lengthen peak hour queues and add up to 2 minutes of additional delay to vehicles on the eastbound approach to M32 Junction 1, compared with the Do Minimum case. However, these queues would not stretch back to the junction with the bypass, and the ARR itself would have sufficient link capacity to accommodate the forecast flows. Also, it may be possible to reduce queuing on the approach by adjusting the signal timings at the motorway junction (not tested in the model).

4.24 To the west of the bypass, forecast flows on the A4174 ARR would decrease as a result of the scheme. Nevertheless, westbound flows with the scheme in place would exceed the available capacity at the Coldharbour Lane junction.



Long queues would form on the approach, although these would not extend back to the bypass junction even by 2031; and delays of about 2 minutes per vehicle would occur in 2016, increasing to almost 5 minutes by 2031.

4.25 Within Stoke Gifford itself, Brierly Furlong would get some limited relief from the scheme, while peak hour flows on Westfield Lane would generally be reduced by about 100 vph in 2016, and 200 – 300 vph in 2031 (given some diversion back to Brierly Furlong). Peak hour traffic on Hatchet Road would also be reduced by 150 – 300 vph in both 2016 and 2031. Congestion within the village centre would therefore be reduced accordingly. For the Blue Route option, these impacts would be even greater because more traffic would divert away from Hambrook Lane (as noted above).

4.26 The model forecasts suggest that all four route options would have broadly similar impacts on traffic routing, and would help to relieve the centre of Stoke Gifford. There is little to choose between them in this respect. The forecasts also suggest that a junction with Hambrook Lane is unlikely to cause a major increase in rat-running.

4.27 Tables 4.5-4.8 also include forecast flows assuming that the M4 would be widened between Junctions 19 and 20. These show that the proposed widening would have little impact on traffic using the bypass, or on other roads in the Stoke Gifford local area.

4.28 Figure 4.2 shows the forecast effects of the Purple Route option on 2016 AM peak hour traffic flows. It confirms that the scheme would increase traffic flows on Bradley Stoke Way, the Harry Stoke development access road, and the Avon Ring Road between the bypass and M32 Junction 1. Some of this traffic would be attracted from the M5/M4/M32 route between M5 Junction 16 and M32 Junction 1. Other roads relieved of traffic would include Hatchet Road, Brook Way, Brierley Furlong, Westfield Lane and Hambrook Lane. The scheme would also cause traffic to divert from Old Gloucester Road to B4058 Winterbourne Hill.

4.29 Forecast traffic using the Purple Route option is identified in Figure 4.3 for the 2016 AM peak hour. This shows that the bypass would be most attractive for traffic between the Bradley Stoke area and central Bristol, which would route via the scheme, the ARR, and M32.

FORECAST TRAFFIC EFFECTS BY AREA 4.30 Forecast 2016 traffic flows (peak and inter-peak) are shown for all links

(identified in Figure 4.1) in Appendix A. These have been grouped into a number of broad sectors, which are discussed below.

4.31 Routes which run broadly parallel to the Stoke Gifford bypass, like Hatchett Road, Hambrook Lane, Westfield Lane, Brierly Furlong and Old Gloucester Road would generally be relieved by the scheme, as noted above. This will provide an environmental improvement for residents, pedestrians and cyclists on these routes.

4.32 To the north and west, the bypass would attract additional traffic to routes like Bradley Stoke Way and Winterbourne Road. However, this would relieve other roads in the local area, notably Baileys Court Road, Orpheus Avenue and Braydon Avenue, i.e. through traffic is diverted to more appropriate routes. Some traffic would also be attracted from the A38.

4.33 Immediately to the west of the bypass, traffic flows on the A4174 Avon Ring Road would be reduced by up to 250 vph, some of which would transfer to



Great Stoke Way and the Harry Stoke Link Road. Flows on the A38 to the north and south of the ARR would also be reduced.

4.34 To the south, the bypass would increase peak hour traffic flows on the A4174 ARR west of the M32 by up to 700 vph, as noted above. This would have limited impact in 2016 (as discussed in paragraph 4.23), and would in part be compensated by a reduction of 300 – 400 vph on the ARR to the east of the M32, which reflects a shift of traffic from the B4058 (Bristol Road and Winterbourne Hill) to the bypass. The M32 itself would be little affected by the scheme, since forecast traffic flows would be constrained by the available capacity whether or not the bypass scheme is implemented.

4.35 To the north and east of the bypass, High Street, Dragon Road and Down Road in Winterbourne would attract slightly higher traffic flows. However, this would be compensated by significant reductions in Hambrook Lane, Hicks Common Road, Winterbourne Hill and the B4058 Bristol Road. Flows on Beacon Lane would increase by over 100 vph. With the bypass in place, this route would carry more traffic to and from the north via High Street and less traffic to and from the south via Winterbourne Hill. The effects of this change can also be seen in Figure 4.2. This may place more stress on the Beacon Lane/High Street junction, but the reduction in through traffic, especially northbound on Winterbourne Hill may result in little net change in queue and delay at the junction. The A432 Badminton Road would be little affected by the scheme.

CHANGES IN BUS JOURNEY TIMES 4.36 Appendix B presents a summary of the net changes in overall journey time for

buses generally passing through the Stoke Gifford and Abbey Wood areas. The bus routes, route number and frequencies are those assumed for Corridor 4 of the Greater Bristol Bus Network (which follows bus route 73 between Gloucester Road (at Filton Avenue), Bradley Stoke and Cribbs Causeway (The Mall)) in the forecast year 2010. These routes are shown schematically in Figure 4.4. It should be noted that some bus routes have already changed since the GBBN report was published in June 2005.

4.37 No bus routes are proposed to use the bypass. This is because to do so would mean services between Bradley Stoke, Stoke Gifford and Bristol could not reasonably serve UWE and the Abbey Wood area which would need to be served during the inter peak periods in particular when passenger flows are lower. This does not mean that peak hour only services could not be introduced to use the bypass if adequate demand between Bradley Stoke and Bristol could be realised (for example, diversion of Route X73 could be considered).

4.38 Appendix B shows that the reduction in traffic flows and congestion on Hatchet Road and Brierly Furlong through Stoke Gifford gained by the bypass generally reduces southbound bus journey times using these sections in the AM peak by between one and three minutes (varying by bypass alignment option). Northbound bus journey time reductions are about one minute in this time period. Inter peak journey times are not affected as traffic flows are lower across the whole area. Similar reductions in journey times could be expected in the PM peak period, although this has not been modelled.

4.39 Changes in journey time for all other routes shown in Figure 4.4 are marginal and are not affected by the bypass.



Table 4.1 – Forecast Network Performance – 2016 AM Peak Hour

2004 Base Year

2016 Do

Minimum

2016 DS 1

Purple

2016 DS 2 Pink

2016 DS 3

Turquoise

2016 DS 4 Blue

FULL NETWORK Forecast Matrices (vehs) Light vehicles 138,259 163,287 163,287 163,287 163,287 163,287Heavy vehicles 6,327 7,620 7,620 7,620 7,620 7,620Total 144,586 170,907 170,907 170,907 170,907 170,907 Simulation Network Running time (pcu-hrs) 20,001 25,393 25,419 25,423 25,392 25,319Transient queued time 4,822 6,730 6,744 6,774 6,749 6,754Over-capacity queued time 2,606 15,072 14,719 14,611 14,881 14,814Total Travel Time (pcu-hrs) 27,430 47,195 46,882 46,807 47,022 46,887Total Travel Distance (pcu-kms) 1,155,500 1,351,019 1,353,921 1,353,740 1,352,940 1,350,245Average Speed (kph) 42.1 28.6 28.9 28.9 28.8 28.8 Convergence after iteration 9 17 16 17 14 13Delta function (%) 0.178 0.324 0.361 0.366 0.333 0.351% links changing by <5% 99.5 95.1 94.7 94.7 94.7 94.6 LOCAL AREA NETWORK Simulation Network Running time 4,954 6,521 6,531 6,523 6525 6,476Transient queued time 914 1,369 1,385 1,388 1,387 1,374Over-capacity queued time 562 3,767 3,218 3,281 3,297 3,496Total Travel Time 6,430 11,658 11,135 11,192 11,209 11,347Total Travel Distance 328,547 383,341 385,825 385,517 385,419 383,914Average Speed (kph) 51.1 32.9 34.6 34.4 34.4 33.8 Notes: 1. pcu = passenger car unit (average pcu value of heavy goods vehicles = 2.4)

2. Travel times are in pcu-hours, distances in pcu-kms 3. Average speed = Total Travel Distance / Total Travel Time 4. The level of convergence of each assignment is defined by the delta function (which measures the %

difference between assigned costs and minimum costs), and the % of links with a flow difference of <2% between successive assignment-simulation loops



Table 4.2 – Forecast Network Performance – 2016 Average Inter-peak Hour

2004 Base Year

2016 Do

Minimum

2016 DS 1

Purple

2016 DS 2 Pink

2016 DS 3

Turquoise

2016 DS 4 Blue

FULL NETWORK Forecast Matrices (vehs) Light vehicles 100,318 116.381 116.381 116.381 116.381 116.381Heavy vehicles 6,903 8.313 8.313 8.313 8.313 8.313Total 107,221 124,694 124,694 124,694 124,694 124,694 Simulation Network Running time (pcu-hrs) 14,620 17,665 17,635 17,646 17,630 17,662Transient queued time 3,382 4,533 4,514 4,529 4,519 4,544Over-capacity queued time 462 1,879 1,901 1,927 2,009 1,825Total Travel Time (pcu-hrs) 18,464 24,077 24,050 24,102 24,157 24,032Total Travel Distance (pcu-kms) 934,012 1,075,024 1,074,853 1,074,645 1,074,185 1,075,594Average Speed (kph) 50.6 44.6 44.7 44.6 44.5 44.8 Convergence after iteration 9 7 6 7 6 7Delta function (%) 0.146 0.154 0.172 0.186 0.180 0.164% links changing by <5% 99.8 97.9 94.8 97.9 94.7 97.1 LOCAL AREA NETWORK Simulation Network Running time 2,894 4,695 4,689 4,684 4,683 4,690Transient queued time 543 945 938 938 937 946Over-capacity queued time 96 691 639 700 721 686Total Travel Time 3,532 6331 6267 6,323 6,342 6,323Total Travel Distance 201,360 316,012 316,397 315,976 316,086 316,312Average Speed (kph) 57.0 49.9 50.5 50.0 49.8 50.0 Notes: 1. pcu = passenger car unit (average pcu value of heavy goods vehicles = 2.4)





Table 4.3 – Forecast Network Performance – 2031 AM Peak Hour

2004 Base Year

2016 Do

Minimum

2016 DS 1

Purple

2016 DS 2 Pink

2016 DS 3

Turquoise

2016 DS 4 Blue

FULL NETWORK Forecast Matrices (vehs) Light vehicles 138,259 180,478 180,478 180,478 180,478 180,478Heavy vehicles 6,327 9,438 9,438 9,438 9,438 9,438Total 144,586 189,916 189,916 189,916 189,916 189,916 Simulation Network Running time (pcu-hrs) 20,001 27,157 27,288 27,208 27,306 27,210Transient queued time 4,822 7,130 7,219 7,151 7,213 7,175Over-capacity queued time 2,606 36,767 35,211 35,537 35,671 35,697Total Travel Time (pcu-hrs) 27,430 71,054 69,718 69,896 70,190 70,082Total Travel Distance (pcu-kms) 1,155,500 1,394,205 1,401,809 1,398,689 1,402,419 1,400,586Average Speed (kph) 42.1 19.6 20.1 20.0 20.0 20.0 Convergence after iteration 9 20 20 17 18 22Delta function (%) 0.178 0.620 0.357 0.557 0.450 0.420% links changing by <5% 99.5 94.5 94.9 94.7 94.6 94.6 LOCAL AREA NETWORK Simulation Network Running time 4,954 6,629 6,675 6,675 6,681 6,631Transient queued time 914 1,452 1,507 1,485 1,503 1,488Over-capacity queued time 562 9,972 9,002 9,035 9,212 9,352Total Travel Time 6,430 18,053 17,187 17,197 17,398 17,472Total Travel Distance 328,547 378,833 383,622 382,971 383,538 382,435Average Speed (kph) 51.1 21.0 22.3 22.3 22.0 21.9 Notes: 1. pcu = passenger car unit (average pcu value of heavy goods vehicles = 2.4)





Table 4.4 – Forecast Network Performance – 2031 Average Inter-peak Hour

2004 Base Year

2016 Do

Minimum

2016 DS 1

Purple

2016 DS 2 Pink

2016 DS 3

Turquoise

2016 DS 4 Blue

FULL NETWORK Forecast Matrices (vehs) Light vehicles 100,318 129,519 129,519 129,519 129,519 129,519Heavy vehicles 6,903 10,297 10,297 10,297 10,297 10,297Total 107,221 139,816 139,816 139,816 139,816 139,816 Simulation Network Running time (pcu-hrs) 14,620 19,230 19,210 19,225 19,169 19,209Transient queued time 3,382 5,166 5,160 5,175 5,156 5,186Over-capacity queued time 462 8,796 8,639 8,694 8,883 8,711Total Travel Time (pcu-hrs) 18,464 33,191 33,009 33,095 33,208 33,106Total Travel Distance (pcu-kms) 934,012 1,131,031 1,130,924 1,131,906 1,129,696 1,131,204Average Speed (kph) 50.6 34.1 34.3 34.2 34.0 34.2 Convergence after iteration 9 9 8 8 8 8Delta function (%) 0.146 0.294 0.209 0.232 0.280 0.411% links changing by <5% 99.8 95.4 95.9 94.5 94.9 94.6 LOCAL AREA NETWORK Simulation Network Running time 2,894 5,125 5,131 5,130 5,106 5,127Transient queued time 543 1,145 1,138 1,155 1,142 1,157Over-capacity queued time 96 6,378 6,290 6,225 6,246 6,273Total Travel Time 3,532 12,649 12,560 12,512 12,496 12,557Total Travel Distance 201,360 326,114 327,609 327,328 327,225 327,263Average Speed (kph) 57.0 25.8 26.1 26.2 26.2 26.1 Notes: 1. pcu = passenger car unit (average pcu value of heavy goods vehicles = 2.4)





Figure 4.1 – Selected Links for Forecast Traffic Flows

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

Win

tr

u R

oad

B405

7e

born

e

Lock

leaz

eB

room

hill

Stok

e Pa

rk

Bristol

Roa

d

B 4058

UW

E

Bris

tol

Bus

ines

s P

ark

Hew

lett

Pack

ard

MO

D

Fren

chay

Hos

pita

l

Hot

elFi

lton

Road

BAE

Sys

tem

s /

Airb

us

Filto

n

Southm

ead R

oad

loucester Road

B4056

A38 G

Filto

nC

olle

geFilton A

venu

e

Stat

ion

Rd

Filton Avenue

Filto

n Ab

bey

Woo

d St

atio

n

AX

A

Filto

n H

igh

Sch

ool

B&

QS

ains

bury

’s

Ham

broo

k La

ne


27 Ol

Romne

y Ave

nue

M32

Fren

chay

Ham

broo

k

Bro

mle

yH

eath

Dow

nend

Bla

ckho

rse

Man

gots

field

M32

J1

M4

J19

romley Heath Road

Moo

rendW

inte

rbou

rne

Dow

n

Ken

dles

hire

Emer

son’

sG

reen

A4017 B

A432

A432 B

Badmint

on R

d

adminton Road

Em

erso

n’s

Gre

enD

istri

ct C

entre

Emer

ald

Par

k

Wes

terle

igh

Road

Wes

terlei

gh R

oad

B446

5

Stap

le H

illS

hortw

ood

omph

rey

Hill

M4

B446

5 P

Hor

field

Em

erso

n’s

Gre

en E

ast

Mix

ed U

se D

evel

opm

ent

Sto

keG

iffor

d

Bra

dley

Stok

eLi

ttle

Sto

ke

Patc

hway

Stat

ion

Rol

lsR

oyce

Roy

alM

ail

Empl

oym

ent a

ndho

usin

g de

velo

pmen

t

Pat

chw

ay

Em

ploy

men

t and

hous

ing

deve

lopm

ent

Ret

ail

Par

k

Lock

leaz

eSc

hool

Lock

leaz

e R

oad

M4

Gyp

sy P

atch

Lan

e

High

wood

Roa

d

loucester Road

B40

57

A38G

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

Bris

tol P

arkw

ay

Crib

bs C

ause

way

Rom

ney

Ave

nue

Bus

Lin

k

River Frome

Rive

r Fro

me


Bris

tol C

ityS

outh

Glo

uces

ters

hire

B R

I S

T O

L

C I

T Y

S O

U T

H

G L

O U

C E

S T

E R

S H

I R

E

Azt

ec W

est

Bus

Lin

kAzt

ec W

est

Alm

onds

bury

Bus

ines

s Pa

rk

Filto

n Ai

rfiel

d

The

Mal

l

Sout

hmea

dH

ospi

tal

Filto

n N

orth

field

Lin

k R

oad

ribbs Causeway

assage Road

estbury Road

enleazeRoad

Eas

tf ie l

dR

oad

Gre

ysto

keAv

enue

Mon

k’s

Park

Ave

Toro

nto

Rd

Wes

tbur

y-on

-Try

m

Sout

hmea

d

Bradley Stoke

Way

Broo

k Way

Braydon Ave

Little Stoke Lane

Tren

ch L

ane

A4018 C

A4018 P

A4018 W

B4056 H

B44 d Gloucester Road

Bow

slan

d W

ay

Brad

ley

Stok

eD

istri

ct C

entre

27 Ol

Ret

ail

Par

k

Em

ploy

men

tde

velo

pmen

t

B4055

He

nbury

Road

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

M5

M5

M5

Junc

tion

16

M5

Junc

tion

17 Lysa

nder

Roa

d

The

Ven

ue

Kno

leLa

ne

Bren

try

Pen Park

Road

Cow

Lane

Don

cast

er R

d

Kellaw

ayAve

nue

B4057 r

B4468

A41

74

A41

74

A41

74

A417

4

A4174

A4174

A432

A4017 N

Dow

nend

Roa

d

orth Street

NA

lmon

dsbu

ryH

ousi

ngde

velo

pmen

tG

louc

este

r Roa

d

A38

M4

Com

bina

tion

Gro

und

BB

4057

B4058 B

B4058 H

eaco

n La

ne

ristol Road

igh Street

Flax

pits

Lane

Down

Roa

d

Stoke G

ifford

Byp

ass

Har

rySt

oke

Win

terb

ourn

e

Hatchet Road

B4058

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

Win

tr

u R

oad

B405

7e

born

e

Lock

leaz

eB

room

hill

Stok

e Pa

rk

Bristol

Roa

d

B 4058

UW

E

Bris

tol

Bus

ines

s P

ark

Hew

lett

Pack

ard

MO

D

Fren

chay

Hos

pita

l

Hot

elFi

lton

Road

BAE

Sys

tem

s /

Airb

us

Filto

n

Southm

ead R

oad

loucester Road

B4056

A38 G

Filto

nC

olle

geFilton A

venu

e

Stat

ion

Rd

Filton Avenue

Filto

n Ab

bey

Woo

d St

atio

n

AX

A

Filto

n H

igh

Sch

ool

B&

QS

ains

bury

’s

Ham

broo

k La

ne


27 Ol

Romne

y Ave

nue

M32

Fren

chay

Ham

broo

k

Bro

mle

yH

eath

Dow

nend

Bla

ckho

rse

Man

gots

field

M32

J1

M4

J19

romley Heath Road

Moo

rendW

inte

rbou

rne

Dow

n

Ken

dles

hire

Emer

son’

sG

reen

A4017 B

A432

A432 B

Badmint

on R

d

adminton Road

Em

erso

n’s

Gre

enD

istri

ct C

entre

Emer

ald

Par

k

Wes

terle

igh

Road

Wes

terlei

gh R

oad

B446

5

Stap

le H

illS

hortw

ood

omph

rey

Hill

M4

B446

5 P

Hor

field

Em

erso

n’s

Gre

en E

ast

Mix

ed U

se D

evel

opm

ent

Sto

keG

iffor

d

Bra

dley

Stok

eLi

ttle

Sto

ke

Patc

hway

Stat

ion

Rol

lsR

oyce

Roy

alM

ail

Empl

oym

ent a

ndho

usin

g de

velo

pmen

t

Pat

chw

ay

Em

ploy

men

t and

hous

ing

deve

lopm

ent

Ret

ail

Par

k

Lock

leaz

eSc

hool

Lock

leaz

e R

oad

M4

Gyp

sy P

atch

Lan

e

High

wood

Roa

d

loucester Road

B40

57

A38G

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

Bris

tol P

arkw

ay

Crib

bs C

ause

way

Rom

ney

Ave

nue

Bus

Lin

k

River Frome

Rive

r Fro

me



Bris

tol C

ityS

outh

Glo

uces

ters

hire

Bris

tol C

ityS

outh

Glo

uces

ters

hire

B R

I S

T O

L

C I

T Y

S O

U T

H

G L

O U

C E

S T

E R

S H

I R

E

Azt

ec W

est

Bus

Lin

kA

ztec

Wes

tB

us L

inkA

ztec

Wes

t

Alm

onds

bury

Bus

ines

s Pa

rk

Filto

n Ai

rfiel

d

The

Mal

l

Sout

hmea

dH

ospi

tal

Filto

n N

orth

field

Lin

k R

oad

ribbs Causeway

assage Road

estbury Road

enleazeRoad

Eas

tf ie l

dR

oad

Gre

ysto

keAv

enue

Mon

k’s

Park

Ave

Toro

nto

Rd

Wes

tbur

y-on

-Try

m

Sout

hmea

d

Bradley Stoke

Way

Broo

k Way

Braydon Ave

Little Stoke Lane

Tren

ch L

ane

A4018 C

A4018 P

A4018 W

B4056 H


Bow

slan

d W

ay

Brad

ley

Stok

eD

istri

ct C

entre

27 Ol

Ret

ail

Par

k

Em

ploy

men

tde

velo

pmen

t

B4055

He

nbury

Road

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

M5

M5

M5

Junc

tion

16

M5

Junc

tion

17 Lysa

nder

Roa

d

The

Ven

ue

Kno

leLa

ne

Bren

try

Pen Park

Road

Cow

Lane

Don

cast

er R

d

Kellaw

ayAve

nue

B4057 r

B4468

A41

74

A41

74

A41

74

A417

4

A4174

A4174

A432

A4017 N

Dow

nend

Roa

d

orth Street

NNA

lmon

dsbu

ryH

ousi

ngde

velo

pmen

tG

louc

este

r Roa

d

A38

M4

Com

bina

tion

Gro

und

BB

4057

B4058 B

B4058 H

eaco

n La

ne

ristol Road

igh Street

Flax

pits

Lane

Down

Roa

d

Stoke G

ifford

Byp

ass

Har

rySt

oke

Win

terb

ourn

e

Hatchet Road

B4058

Dra

win

g N

umbe

r (2)

Dra

win

g N

umbe

r (1)

Figu

re 4

.1

.R

ev 0

Sca

leD

raw

nC

heck

edA

utho

rised

Dat

eD

ate

Dat

e

NTS

Stok

e G

iffor

d B

ypas

s

Fore

cast

Tra

ffic

Dat

a Si

tes

Title

Pro

jectAt

kins

Tra

nspo

rt P

lann

ing

260

Azt

ec W

est

Alm

onds

bury

Bris

tol B

S32

4S

Y

Tel

: 014

54 2

8836

2 F

ax: 0

1454

618

844

Rev

Des

crip

tion

By

Dat

eC

hk’d

Aut

h

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e S

urve

y m

ater

ial w

ith p

erm

issi

on o

f Ord

nanc

eS

urve

y on

beh

alf o

f the

Con

trolle

r of H

er M

ajes

ty’s

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

©C

row

nco

pyrig

ht. U

naut

horis

ed re

prod

uctio

n in

fring

es C

row

n co

pyrig

ht a

nd m

ay le

ad to

pros

ecut

ion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs.

Sou

th G

louc

este

rshi

re C

ounc

il.Li

cenc

e N

o. 1

0002

3410

, 200

5.

SB18

/05/

06

1

23

45

6

789

10

11

1213

1415 16

17 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

262728

293031

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

4748

49

50

58

51

BP

59

BP 1 7 24 34 44 58

Sto

ke G

iffor

d B

ypas

s

(1 to

6) P

aral

lel r

oute

s to

the

bypa

ss

(7 to

23)

Rou

tes

to th

e no

rth &

wes

t

(24

to 3

3) R

oute

s to

the

wes

t

(34

to 4

3) R

oute

s to

the

sout

h

(44

to 5

7) R

oute

s to

the

north

& e

ast

(58

to 5

9) H

arry

Sto

ke ro

ads

Cou

nt S

ites

52

53

54

55

56

57

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

Win

tr

u R

oad

B405

7e

born

e

Lock

leaz

eB

room

hill

Stok

e Pa

rk

Bristol

Roa

d

B 4058

UW

E

Bris

tol

Bus

ines

s P

ark

Hew

lett

Pack

ard

MO

D

Fren

chay

Hos

pita

l

Hot

elFi

lton

Road

BAE

Sys

tem

s /

Airb

us

Filto

n

Southm

ead R

oad

loucester Road

B4056

A38 G

Filto

nC

olle

geFilton A

venu

e

Stat

ion

Rd

Filton Avenue

Filto

n Ab

bey

Woo

d St

atio

n

AX

A

Filto

n H

igh

Sch

ool

B&

QS

ains

bury

’s

Ham

broo

k La

ne


27 Ol

Romne

y Ave

nue

M32

Fren

chay

Ham

broo

k

Bro

mle

yH

eath

Dow

nend

Bla

ckho

rse

Man

gots

field

M32

J1

M4

J19

romley Heath Road

Moo

rendW

inte

rbou

rne

Dow

n

Ken

dles

hire

Emer

son’

sG

reen

A4017 B

A432

A432 B

Badmint

on R

d

adminton Road

Em

erso

n’s

Gre

enD

istri

ct C

entre

Emer

ald

Par

k

Wes

terle

igh

Road

Wes

terlei

gh R

oad

B446

5

Stap

le H

illS

hortw

ood

omph

rey

Hill

M4

B446

5 P

Hor

field

Em

erso

n’s

Gre

en E

ast

Mix

ed U

se D

evel

opm

ent

Sto

keG

iffor

d

Bra

dley

Stok

eLi

ttle

Sto

ke

Patc

hway

Stat

ion

Rol

lsR

oyce

Roy

alM

ail

Empl

oym

ent a

ndho

usin

g de

velo

pmen

t

Pat

chw

ay

Em

ploy

men

t and

hous

ing

deve

lopm

ent

Ret

ail

Par

k

Lock

leaz

eSc

hool

Lock

leaz

e R

oad

M4

Gyp

sy P

atch

Lan

e

High

wood

Roa

d

loucester Road

B40

57

A38G

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

Bris

tol P

arkw

ay

Crib

bs C

ause

way

Rom

ney

Ave

nue

Bus

Lin

k

River Frome

Rive

r Fro

me


Bris

tol C

ityS

outh

Glo

uces

ters

hire

B R

I S

T O

L

C I

T Y

S O

U T

H

G L

O U

C E

S T

E R

S H

I R

E

Azt

ec W

est

Bus

Lin

kAzt

ec W

est

Alm

onds

bury

Bus

ines

s Pa

rk

Filto

n Ai

rfiel

d

The

Mal

l

Sout

hmea

dH

ospi

tal

Filto

n N

orth

field

Lin

k R

oad

ribbs Causeway

assage Road

estbury Road

enleazeRoad

Eas

tf ie l

dR

oad

Gre

ysto

keAv

enue

Mon

k’s

Park

Ave

Toro

nto

Rd

Wes

tbur

y-on

-Try

m

Sout

hmea

d

Bradley Stoke

Way

Broo

k Way

Braydon Ave

Little Stoke Lane

Tren

ch L

ane

A4018 C

A4018 P

A4018 W

B4056 H


Bow

slan

d W

ay

Brad

ley

Stok

eD

istri

ct C

entre

27 Ol

Ret

ail

Par

k

Em

ploy

men

tde

velo

pmen

t

B4055

He

nbury

Road

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

M5

M5

M5

Junc

tion

16

M5

Junc

tion

17 Lysa

nder

Roa

d

The

Ven

ue

Kno

leLa

ne

Bren

try

Pen Park

Road

Cow

Lane

Don

cast

er R

d

Kellaw

ayAve

nue

B4057 r

B4468

A41

74

A41

74

A41

74

A417

4

A4174

A4174

A432

A4017 N

Dow

nend

Roa

d

orth Street

NA

lmon

dsbu

ryH

ousi

ngde

velo

pmen

tG

louc

este

r Roa

d

A38

M4

Com

bina

tion

Gro

und

BB

4057

B4058 B

B4058 H

eaco

n La

ne

ristol Road

igh Street

Flax

pits

Lane

Down

Roa

d

Stoke G

ifford

Byp

ass

Har

rySt

oke

Win

terb

ourn

e

Hatchet Road

B4058

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

Win

tr

u R

oad

B405

7e

born

e

Lock

leaz

eB

room

hill

Stok

e Pa

rk

Bristol

Roa

d

B 4058

UW

E

Bris

tol

Bus

ines

s P

ark

Hew

lett

Pack

ard

MO

D

Fren

chay

Hos

pita

l

Hot

elFi

lton

Road

BAE

Sys

tem

s /

Airb

us

Filto

n

Southm

ead R

oad

loucester Road

B4056

A38 G

Filto

nC

olle

geFilton A

venu

e

Stat

ion

Rd

Filton Avenue

Filto

n Ab

bey

Woo

d St

atio

n

AX

A

Filto

n H

igh

Sch

ool

B&

QS

ains

bury

’s

Ham

broo

k La

ne


27 Ol

Romne

y Ave

nue

M32

Fren

chay

Ham

broo

k

Bro

mle

yH

eath

Dow

nend

Bla

ckho

rse

Man

gots

field

M32

J1

M4

J19

romley Heath Road

Moo

rendW

inte

rbou

rne

Dow

n

Ken

dles

hire

Emer

son’

sG

reen

A4017 B

A432

A432 B

Badmint

on R

d

adminton Road

Em

erso

n’s

Gre

enD

istri

ct C

entre

Emer

ald

Par

k

Wes

terle

igh

Road

Wes

terlei

gh R

oad

B446

5

Stap

le H

illS

hortw

ood

omph

rey

Hill

M4

B446

5 P

Hor

field

Em

erso

n’s

Gre

en E

ast

Mix

ed U

se D

evel

opm

ent

Sto

keG

iffor

d

Bra

dley

Stok

eLi

ttle

Sto

ke

Patc

hway

Stat

ion

Rol

lsR

oyce

Roy

alM

ail

Empl

oym

ent a

ndho

usin

g de

velo

pmen

t

Pat

chw

ay

Em

ploy

men

t and

hous

ing

deve

lopm

ent

Ret

ail

Par

k

Lock

leaz

eSc

hool

Lock

leaz

e R

oad

M4

Gyp

sy P

atch

Lan

e

High

wood

Roa

d

loucester Road

B40

57

A38G

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

Bris

tol P

arkw

ay

Crib

bs C

ause

way

Rom

ney

Ave

nue

Bus

Lin

k

River Frome

Rive

r Fro

me



Bris

tol C

ityS

outh

Glo

uces

ters

hire

Bris

tol C

ityS

outh

Glo

uces

ters

hire

B R

I S

T O

L

C I

T Y

S O

U T

H

G L

O U

C E

S T

E R

S H

I R

E

Azt

ec W

est

Bus

Lin

kA

ztec

Wes

tB

us L

inkA

ztec

Wes

t

Alm

onds

bury

Bus

ines

s Pa

rk

Filto

n Ai

rfiel

d

The

Mal

l

Sout

hmea

dH

ospi

tal

Filto

n N

orth

field

Lin

k R

oad

ribbs Causeway

assage Road

estbury Road

enleazeRoad

Eas

tf ie l

dR

oad

Gre

ysto

keAv

enue

Mon

k’s

Park

Ave

Toro

nto

Rd

Wes

tbur

y-on

-Try

m

Sout

hmea

d

Bradley Stoke

Way

Broo

k Way

Braydon Ave

Little Stoke Lane

Tren

ch L

ane

A4018 C

A4018 P

A4018 W

B4056 H


Bow

slan

d W

ay

Brad

ley

Stok

eD

istri

ct C

entre

27 Ol

Ret

ail

Par

k

Em

ploy

men

tde

velo

pmen

t

B4055

He

nbury

Road

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

M5

M5

M5

Junc

tion

16

M5

Junc

tion

17 Lysa

nder

Roa

d

The

Ven

ue

Kno

leLa

ne

Bren

try

Pen Park

Road

Cow

Lane

Don

cast

er R

d

Kellaw

ayAve

nue

B4057 r

B4468

A41

74

A41

74

A41

74

A417

4

A4174

A4174

A432

A4017 N

Dow

nend

Roa

d

orth Street

NNA

lmon

dsbu

ryH

ousi

ngde

velo

pmen

tG

louc

este

r Roa

d

A38

M4

Com

bina

tion

Gro

und

BB

4057

B4058 B

B4058 H

eaco

n La

ne

ristol Road

igh Street

Flax

pits

Lane

Down

Roa

d

Stoke G

ifford

Byp

ass

Har

rySt

oke

Win

terb

ourn

e

Hatchet Road

B4058

Dra

win

g N

umbe

r (2)

Dra

win

g N

umbe

r (1)

Figu

re 4

.1

.R

ev 0

Sca

leD

raw

nC

heck

edA

utho

rised

Dat

eD

ate

Dat

e

NTS

Stok

e G

iffor

d B

ypas

s

Fore

cast

Tra

ffic

Dat

a Si

tes

Title

Pro

jectAt

kins

Tra

nspo

rt P

lann

ing

260

Azt

ec W

est

Alm

onds

bury

Bris

tol B

S32

4S

Y

Tel

: 014

54 2

8836

2 F

ax: 0

1454

618

844

Rev

Des

crip

tion

By

Dat

eC

hk’d

Aut

h

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e S

urve

y m

ater

ial w

ith p

erm

issi

on o

f Ord

nanc

eS

urve

y on

beh

alf o

f the

Con

trolle

r of H

er M

ajes

ty’s

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

©C

row

nco

pyrig

ht. U

naut

horis

ed re

prod

uctio

n in

fring

es C

row

n co

pyrig

ht a

nd m

ay le

ad to

pros

ecut

ion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs.

Sou

th G

louc

este

rshi

re C

ounc

il.Li

cenc

e N

o. 1

0002

3410

, 200

5.

SB18

/05/

06

1

23

45

6

789

10

11

1213

1415 16

17 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

262728

293031

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

4748

49

50

58

51

BP

59

BP 1 7 24 34 44 58

Sto

ke G

iffor

d B

ypas

s

(1 to

6) P

aral

lel r

oute

s to

the

bypa

ss

(7 to

23)

Rou

tes

to th

e no

rth &

wes

t

(24

to 3

3) R

oute

s to

the

wes

t

(34

to 4

3) R

oute

s to

the

sout

h

(44

to 5

7) R

oute

s to

the

north

& e

ast

(58

to 5

9) H

arry

Sto

ke ro

ads

Cou

nt S

ites

52

53

54

55

56

57



Table 4.5 – Forecast Traffic Flows – 2016 AM Peak Hour

2016 Do-Something M4 Widening Sensitivity Test

Link Location 2004 Base Year

2016 Do Min DS 1

Purple DS 2 Pink

DS 3 Turq

DS 4 Blue

DS 1 Purple

DS 2 Pink

DS 3 Turq

DS 4 Blue

37 M4 Junction 19 – 20 8946 9705 9597 9614 9608 9610 9389 9400 9403 9376 34 A4174 Avon Ring Road (E of Bypass) 3205 3866 4511 4537 4492 4565 4544 4610 4597 4663 26 A4174 Avon Ring Road (W of Bypass) 3950 3805 3658 3724 3615 3694 3611 3677 3586 3669 13 Bradley Stoke Way (north end) 675 917 1163 1068 1077 1082 1250 1154 1161 1158

7 Bradley Stoke Way (south end) 1129 1084 1438 1381 1507 1359 1475 1434 1553 1397 1 Great Stoke Way (N of Bypass) 411 1031 1401 1321 1364 1361 1411 1298 1352 1343 4 Brierley Furlong 1639 1105 997 1096 1101 1052 966 1057 1070 1029 5 Westfield Lane 21 728 628 604 609 461 593 608 613 471 3 Hatchet Road 1915 2081 1748 1825 1833 1736 1731 1822 1827 1753 2 Old Gloucester Road (south) 619 676 591 635 635 612 575 615 613 585

48 Beacon Lane 1583 1628 1733 1735 1740 1867 1758 1776 1773 1892 46 Winterbourne Hill 1140 1262 987 1063 1072 888 990 1079 1056 923 57 Old Gloucester Road (north) 380 676 511 523 521 551 538 549 541 578

8 Winterbourne Road 1423 1776 2161 2113 2008 2252 2180 2150 2048 2284 25 Coldharbour Lane 1347 2329 2286 2275 2271 2291 2263 2255 2251 2275 44 Hambrook Lane (E of Bypass) 544 792 687 659 669 204 716 651 653 199

6 Hambrook Lane (W of Bypass) 267 535 325 547 542 293 294 547 556 310 59 Harry Stoke Link Road - 1003 1553 1469 1508 1519 1563 1446 1502 1506

BP1 S Gifford Bypass (N of Hambrook Ln) - - 1969 1621 1611 1759 1961 1610 1607 1675 BP2 S Gifford Bypass (S of Hambrook Ln) - - 1665 1621 1611 1759 1651 1610 1607 1675

58 Stoke Gifford Bypass (north of A4174) - 1003 2331 2452 2378 2663 2368 2469 2405 2619 Notes: 1. All flows are in vehicles per hour

2. See Figure 4.1 for location of sites



Table 4.6 – Forecast Traffic Flows – 2016 Inter-peak Hour



2016 Do Min DS 1

Purple DS 2 Pink

DS 3 Turq

DS 4 Blue

DS 1 Purple

DS 2 Pink

DS 3 Turq

DS 4 Blue











Table 4.7 – Forecast Traffic Flows – 2031 AM Peak Hour



2031 Do Min DS 1

Purple DS 2 Pink

DS 3 Turq

DS 4 Blue

DS 1 Purple

DS 2 Pink

DS 3 Turq

DS 4 Blue












Table 4.8 – Forecast Traffic Flows – 2031 Inter-peak Hour



2031 Do Min DS 1

Purple DS 2 Pink

DS 3 Turq

DS 4 Blue

DS 1 Purple

DS 2 Pink

DS 3 Turq

DS 4 Blue









S Policy

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal Figure 4.2 – Forecast Traffic Effects of the Purple Route – 2016 AM Peak Hour




Figure 4.3 – Forecast Traffic Flows on the Purple Route – 2016 AM Peak Hour


Figure 4.4 – Bus Routes in GBBN Corridor 4 (Route 73)

Bus Routes

70

1

43

54

309

X73

X75

X84

Other routes

H1

X18

73

75

99

New routeFitted with RTIDiverted or extended routeChange in frequency

310

312 A4174 Station Road

Abbey WoodRoundabout

A38

Braydon Ave

Baileys Court Rd

Filto

n Av

enue

71

517 51871

73A

318 319312580482

71 574

X73

73B

Bradley Stoke Way

216215

216215

71 312

309 310 X1171

75A75580

Coniston Road75 580

312309 310

482 319318

A38

71 X11216215

Stoke Lane

319318 482 580312310309

X1875 X75

580318 319 483482

30975 X7573 X18

482 483 581

Pear Tree Road

A38

483

X84

via Aztec WestBus Link

via ParkwayBus Link

Aztec West

Cribbs Causeway

District Centre

Gipsy Patch Lane

Parkway 580

Filton AbbeyWood Station

99

H1

X18

581574

7071 73

318 319 518 581

X73

Winterbourne Road

625X25541 43

Almondsbury Business Park

X11X84

MOD

X18 X84

H1312

Stok

e G

iffor

dBy

pass

UWE

9970

Bus Routes

70

1

43

54

309

X73

X75

X84

Other routes

H1

X18

73

75

99


310

312

Bus Routes

70

1

43

54

309

X73

X75

X84

Other routes

H1

X18

73

75

99


310

312 A4174 Station Road


A38

Braydon Ave

Baileys Court Rd

Filto

n Av

enue

71

517 51871

73A

318 319312580482

71 574

X73

73B

Bradley Stoke Way

216215

216215

71 312

309 310 X1171

75A75580

Coniston Road75 580

312309 310

482 319318

A38

71 X11216215

Stoke Lane

319318 482 580312310309

X1875 X75

580318 319 483482

30975 X7573 X18

482 483 581

Pear Tree Road

A38

483

X84


via ParkwayBus Link

Aztec West

Cribbs Causeway

District Centre

Gipsy Patch Lane

Parkway 580


99

H1

X18

581574

7071 73

318 319 518 581

X73

Winterbourne Road

625X25541 43


X11X84

MOD

X18 X84

H1312

Stok

e G

iffor

dBy

pass

UWE

9970

A4174 Station Road


A38

Braydon Ave

Baileys Court Rd

Filto

n Av

enue

71

517 51871 517 51871

73A

318 319312 318 319312580482 580482

71 574

X73

73B

Bradley Stoke Way

216215 216215

216215 216215

71 31271 312

309 310 X11309 310 X1171

75A75580 75A75580

Coniston Road75 580

312309 310

482 319318482 319318

A38

71 X11216215

Stoke Lane

319318 482 580319318 482 580312310309 312310309

X1875 X75 X1875 X75

580318 319 483482 580318 319 483482

30975 X7573 X1830975 X7573 X18

482 483 581482 483 581

Pear Tree Road

A38

483

X84

483

X84


via ParkwayBus Link

Aztec West

Cribbs Causeway

District Centre

Gipsy Patch Lane

Parkway 580


99

H1

X18

581574581574

7071 73

318 319 518 581

X73

Winterbourne Road

625X25541 43 625X25541 43


X11X84

MOD

X18 X84X18 X84

H1312 H1312

Stok

e G

iffor

dBy

pass

UWE

9970




5. Economic Appraisal 5.1 A preliminary economic appraisal of the proposed Stoke Gifford bypass

scheme has been undertaken for all four of the alternative alignments outlined in Chapter 3.

5.2 Traffic forecasts for 2016 (assumed opening year of the scheme) and 2031 (design year), representing the AM peak and average inter-peak hours, have been input to the DfT’s TUBA and COBA programs to assess the transport efficiency and accident benefits of the scheme. These benefits have then been compared against the costs of construction to determine its net present value (NPV) and the benefit/cost ratio (BCR).

CONSTRUCTION COSTS 5.3 The TUBA program has been used to compare the user benefits of the Stoke

Gifford bypass scheme with its costs, including:

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

the costs of construction; land and property costs; preparation and supervision costs; allowances for risk and optimism bias.

5.4 Delay costs during construction are likely to be small, given that most of the scheme would be constructed off line, and have therefore been ignored. Maintenance costs have also been ignored at this stage of the appraisal process.

5.5 The costs of construction, based on current (2006) prices, are itemised in Table 5.1. These were provided by SGC.

Main Works Costs 5.6 The main works cost is estimated to be between £5.72m and £8.83m,

depending on the alignment. This covers all earthworks, road and footpath construction, drainage, structures (including the bridge over the railway line), signing, lighting, landscaping, and environmental mitigation. Ancillary and other works would increase the total construction cost to between £6.45m and £9.28m.

5.7 It is assumed that the developer of the proposed Harry Stoke development would provide for the construction of a suitable single carriageway access road into the site from a signalised junction with the A4174 ARR. On this basis, the construction costs for the bypass at its southern end include only for an additional single carriageway (for conversion to dual standard), and a roundabout at the junction with the access road immediately to the east of the Harry Stoke site.

Land and Property Costs 5.8 Land and property costs are estimated to be between £7.43m and £8.72m,

based on current (2006) prices. This includes costs for re-housing, and compensation for mineral and other rights.



Preparation and Supervision Costs 5.9 Preparation costs are estimated by SGC to be between £0.39m and £0.59m

(at 2006 prices), which represents 2.6% - 3.5% of the construction and land costs.

5.10 Supervision costs are estimated to be between £0.26m and £0.40m (at 2006 prices), representing 1.7% - 2.4% of construction and land costs. This is also significantly less than the HA default of 5%. Allowance for Risk and Optimism Bias

5.11 SGC have included a 10% contingency in the total works cost to allow for uncertainty. An allowance for optimism bias has also been included, based on DfT advice. This represents 25% of total works, supervision, and preparation costs.

Table 5.1 – Scheme Costs

Cost Category Cost (£000’s)

Purple/Blue Pink/Turquoise

A Main Works Contract 5,715 8,828

B Survey & Ancillary Works 407 352

C Work by Other Authorities 330 99

Total Works Cost 6,452 9,279

D Supervision Costs 260 401

E Preparation Costs 394 592

F Land (cost estimate includes mineral and other compensation) 8,721 7,427

G Allowance for Optimism Bias 1,776 2,568

Total 17,602 20,267 Notes: 1. All costs in £000s, based on current (2006) prices.

2. Costs for Main Works, Survey & Ancillary Works, and Work by Other Authorities include a 10% contingency.

3. Optimism Bias assumed to be 25% of total works, supervision and preparation costs.

PRESENT VALUE COSTS 5.12 TUBA requires that all costs (and benefits) are measured at constant 2002

prices. The costs shown in Table 2.1 have therefore been adjusted by TUBA, to remove the effects of inflation, as indicated by the relative change in the retail price index (RPI). Construction costs have also been adjusted by the relative price factor (RPF) which takes account of the change in the cost of road construction relative to the general price level.

5.13 Scheme costs have been allocated to future years, assuming that construction would start in 2014 and that the scheme would open in 2016. Construction costs have been distributed through the construction period as follows, based on DMRB advice:



♦ ♦ ♦

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

♦

2014 - 47% 2015 - 50% 2016 - 3%

5.14 Land and property costs would be incurred largely at the start of construction, in 2014. Preparation costs would be spread through the years up to 2014; supervision costs would be spread through the construction period from 2014 to the 2016 opening year.

5.15 These costs (and benefits) have then been converted by TUBA to ‘present values’, based on the principle that, generally, society prefers to receive goods and services now, rather than later, and to defer costs to future generations. A discount rate of 3.5% per annum is used for the first 30 years of the appraisal (3.0% thereafter), based on the advice of the Treasury’s Green Book.

TRANSPORT ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY BENEFITS 5.16 The economic benefits of the scheme have also been calculated by TUBA,

based on input data extracted from the forecast traffic assignments for 2016 (opening year) and 2031 (design year).

5.17 The TUBA program uses input trip matrices, together with associated time and distance skims of the modelled network to calculate the travel time costs and operating costs of all vehicles in the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios, for each of the modelled time periods. These hourly costs are expanded, based on input annualisation factors, and combined to estimate annual costs for 2016 and 2031. Annual costs for other years are interpolated, and summed over the 60 year assumed life of the scheme, in accordance with DfT advice. The program then compares these Do Minimum and Do Something travel costs to determine the user benefits for consumers (non-work trips) and business users (work trips, including HGVs).

TUBA INPUTS 5.18 The traffic forecasts were interrogated to provide matrices of trips, journey

times and journey distances for each:

modelled year (2016 opening year and 2031 design year); time period (AM peak hour and average inter-peak hour); scenario (Do Minimum and Do Something); and vehicle type (light and heavy vehicles).

5.19 Matrices of journey times and distances were extracted from the models based on the combined routes saved during the assignments, and therefore represent the average travel times and distances for all trips through the network. (They were not based on single least cost trees). These matrices have been input to TUBA for each of the modelled time periods.

5.20 Annualisation factors represent the number of hours in the year that would be similar in traffic terms to each of the hours modelled. For this appraisal, they have been drawn from the TUBA files set up for the appraisal of the Greater Bristol Bus Network, as follows:

AM peak hour factor – 759, assuming that conditions represented by the AM peak hour model would extend over a 3 hour morning peak period, for all 253 working days of the year;



♦ Inter-peak hour factor – 1518, assuming that the inter-peak model represents the 6 hour inter-peak period (10:00-16:00) for all 253 working days.

5.21 Benefits which would accrue during the PM peak period, during night-times and at weekends have been ignored.

5.22 Other inputs to the TUBA program are drawn from the DfT’s Transport Economics Note (TEN), and are provided as default values by the TUBA program.

5.23 Based on these input parameters and the forecast traffic data extracted from the model assignments, TUBA calculates the annual time and vehicle operating cost benefits of the scheme for the 2016 opening year and 2031 design year. Benefits for the intervening years are interpolated from the modelled years. Those for the years 2031-2075 are calculated assuming that there would be no traffic growth beyond 2031. Annual benefits for each year in the appraisal period are then discounted to present year (2002) values, and combined.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE SCHEME 5.24 The economic benefits of the scheme, as calculated by TUBA, are

summarised in Table 5.2. This shows that the total discounted present value of the benefits (PVB) would be between £461 and £663 million at 2002 prices, over the 60 year appraisal period. This range is greater than anticipated, given the relatively small differences between the scheme options, and will to some extent reflect high levels of congestion and routing instability in the future year assignments. Sector analysis has shown that only 60% of these benefits would accrue to road users passing through or operating within the local area, with 40% going to other road users outside this area. However, in all cases, the scheme would still generate very significant benefits for users.

Table 5.2 – Economic Efficiency Benefits of the Stoke Gifford Bypass

Benefits (£000s) TRANSPORT ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY BENEFITS (TEE) Purple Pink Turquoise Blue

Consumers User Benefits

- Travel Time 246,938 230,317 172,270 172,899 - Vehicle Operating Costs 7,964 9,641 7,112 6,620 - User Charges - During Maintenance

Net Consumer Benefits 254,902 239,958 179,382 179,519 Business User Benefits


Net Business Benefits 416,065 386,869 288,228 291,444 Total Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 662,818 618,951 461,742 462,121



Notes: 1. Output from TUBA

2. All benefits are in £000s, at 2002 prices

3. Based on a 60 year appraisal period (2016–2075)

5.25 Business benefits would contribute about 60% of the total PVB; consumer (non-work) benefits would contribute about 40%. Table 5.2 shows that time savings make up the majority of these user benefits, reflecting the significant level of congestion relief that the scheme would provide.

5.26 The TUBA program compares the discounted travel time and vehicle operating cost benefits of the Stoke Gifford bypass against the discounted costs of constructing the scheme, in order to determine its net present value (NPV) and Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR).

ACCIDENT BENEFITS 5.27 Forecast traffic flows for 2016 (opening year) and 2031 (design year) have

been input to the DfT’s COBA program to estimate the number of accidents and casualties by severity that would be saved by the scheme over the 60 year appraisal period, 2016-2075. These savings have then been converted (by the program) to 2002 monetary values, and discounted to 2002 based on the recommended annual discount rates of 3.5% (for the first 30 years) and 3.0% (thereafter).

5.28 Forecast Do Minimum and Do Something traffic flows for 2016 and 2031 were extracted from the traffic model assignments for each time period. These were combined to estimate AADT flows for input to COBA. Traffic flows for other years in the 60 year appraisal period have been interpolated by the program, which projects backwards and forwards from the modelled years based on the National Road Traffic Forecasts (NRTF). No growth was assumed beyond 2031.

5.29 The DMRB recommends that observed accident data covering a 5 year period should be used to determine existing accident rates for appraisal purposes. However, this information generally takes some time to obtain from the relevant authorities, organise for the study area, and analyse for input to COBA. Given the short time-frame for the study, this appraisal has therefore been based on default accident rates supplied by the program.

5.30 Although the BATS2 model covers the whole of Bristol, a localised COBA network has been developed to include only that part of the road network which would be directly affected by the proposed Stoke Gifford bypass. This area, defined by comparing the SATURN model assignments for the Do Something and Do Minimum scenarios, is shown in Figure 5.1

5.31 The COBA program has used the default accident rates and forecast traffic flows to calculate the number of accidents and casualties for the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios, for each year of the appraisal period. Accident savings have then been determined by comparing the number of forecast accidents in each year, and summing over all years. These savings are split by severity (using default proportions) and converted to 2002 monetary values, based on the following average (default) casualty costs:

♦ fatal - £1,249,890;

♦ serious - £140,450;

♦ slight - £10,830.



Figure 5.1 – COBA Network

SATU

RN N

etw

ork

Link

CO

BA N

etw

ork

Link

s

Dra

ft©

Cro

wn

Cop

yrig

ht. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

200

4

thom

6981

- 03/

02/2

006

Figu

re 5

.1 -

CO

BA

net

wor

k St

oke

Giff

ord

Byp

ass



SUMMARY OF ACCIDENT BENEFITS 5.32 The results of the COBA accident analysis are summarised in Table 5.3. The

table shows that the Stoke Gifford bypass would increase the number of personal injury accidents within the study area (shown in Figure 5.1) by between 180 and 290 over the 60 year appraisal period. This would increase accident costs by between £5.8 and £8.9 million.

Table 5.3 – Summary of Forecast Accident Benefits

Casualties Scenario No of

Accidents Fatal Serious Slight Accident Costs

(£000)

Do Minimum 17594.6 110.6 1555.5 23371.1 592,832

Purple Route 17752.5 112.2 1571.5 23728.6 600,980

Saving -257.9 -1.6 -21.0 -357.5 -8,149

Pink Route 17845.0 112.0 1571.0 23710.6 600,707

Saving -250.0 -1.4 -20.5 -339.6 -7,876

Turquoise Route 17781.3 111.7 1565.6 23630.7 598,700

Saving -186.7 -1.1 -15.1 -259.6 -5,868

Blue Route 17876.9 112.2 1573.9 23754.5 601,674

Saving -282.3 -1.6 -23.4 -383.4 -8,842

Notes: 1. Accident savings calculated by COBA for the study area shown in Figure 5.1

2. Based on a 60 year appraisal period (2016–2075)

3. Accident costs and benefits are in constant 2002 prices, discounted to 2002 at 3.5% per annum (for the first 30 years) and 3.0% (thereafter).

5.33 Although the bypass would be built to high standards and would itself be expected to exhibit a relatively low accident rate, the increase in vehicle-kilometres caused by the scheme would have an adverse impact over the wider network.

SUMMARY OF THE ECONOMIC APPRAISAL 5.34 The results of the economic appraisal are presented in Table 5.4. All costs

and benefits are expressed in 2002 prices.

5.35 The costs of constructing the scheme, including land and property costs, preparation, supervision, and allowances for contingencies and optimism bias, have been estimated at £17.6 million for the Purple and Blue Routes, and £20.3 million for the Pink and Turquoise options, at current (2006) prices. Table 5.4 shows that the discounted cost of this investment would be £10.9 and 12.5 million respectively.

5.36 The appraisal also includes the costs to central government, in the form of lost revenues from indirect taxation.



5.37 The total present value of the transport economic efficiency benefits, excluding accident savings, is estimated to be between £461 million and £663 million. Given the extent of the modelled network and levels of congestion in the forecast networks, some spurious benefits from outside the local area could be included in these estimates. Sector analysis has suggested that these could be 40% or more of the total benefits. On the other hand, the current appraisal takes account of benefits accrued during the AM peak and inter-peak periods only, and excludes potential benefits in other time periods.

5.38 Accident costs have been estimated using the DfT’s COBA program. On this basis, the number of personal injury accidents in the local area would increase as a result of the scheme, by up to 1.5% over the 60 year appraisal period. This reflects an increase in vehicle-kilometres travelled by drivers accessing the bypass. The present value of these additional accident costs, which represent a disbenefit to the scheme, is estimated to be between £5.8 million and £8.9 million.

5.39 The Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) varies between 23 and 31. On this basis, the Stoke Gifford bypass would offer very good value for money.

5.40 At a meeting of 21 March 2006 to discuss the preliminary findings of the study, members expressed concern that the Scenario F land-use assumptions included housing development at Earthcott, to the north of the M4. Sensitivity tests have therefore been undertaken on the Purple Route option in order to determine the potential impact of the site on scheme benefits.

5.41 These tests, which removed trips generated by the proposed housing from the forecast trip matrices without relocating them elsewhere, showed that the BCR (excluding accident benefits) would be reduced from 32 to 15 as a result. This is likely to represent a maximum impact given that the sensitivity test is based on smaller forecast trip matrices. If the housing development is removed from the trip matrices without any adjustment to the travel time and distance skims, the BCR would remain at 32.



Table 5.4 – Economic Appraisal of the Stoke Gifford Bypass Scheme

Benefits (£000s) TRANSPORT ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY BENEFITS (TEE) Purple Pink Turquoise Blue

USER BENEFITS Consumers


Net Consumer Benefits 254,902 239,958 179,382 179,519 Business


Net Business Benefits 416,065 386,869 288,228 291,444 Total Present Value of TEE Benefits 662,818 618,951 461,742 462,121

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS Local Government Funding

- Revenue - Operating Costs - Investment Costs 10,915 12,539 12,539 10,915 - Developer Contributions - Grant/ Subsidy Payments

Central Government Funding - Indirect Tax Revenues 10,109 11,618 7,395 6,154

Total Present Value of Costs (PVC) 21,024 24,157 19,934 17,069

OVERALL IMPACT – INCLUDING ACCIDENT BENEFITS Total Present Value of TEE Benefits 662,818 618,951 461,742 462,121 Present Value of Accident Benefits -8,149 -7,876 -5,868 -8,842 Total Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 654,669 611,075 455,874 453,279 Total Present Value of Costs (PVC) 21,024 24,157 19,934 17,069

Net Present Value (NPV) 633,645 586,918 435,940 436,210 Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 31 25 23 27

Notes: 1. 60 year appraisal period: 2016 – 2075

2. All costs and benefits are at constant 2002 prices with future costs and benefits discounted to 2002 at 3.5% per annum



6. Conclusions 6.1 Four route options have been considered for the Stoke Gifford Bypass.

Shown in Figure 3.2, the key features of the schemes are as follows:

♦ The Purple Route would take the more easterly of two alignments to the south of the railway line. It would have an at-grade crossing of Hambrook Lane, which is assumed to be a roundabout allowing all turning movements. Further south, it would have a roundabout junction with the access road to the Harry Stoke development, and would link to the more easterly of the two ARR junction locations;

♦ The Pink Route would take the more westerly of the two alignments, requiring an additional roundabout junction at the north end of the scheme, and would link to the more westerly of the two ARR junction locations. It would have a roundabout connection to Harry Stoke, but no connection with Hambrook Lane;

♦ The Turquoise Route would be similar to the Pink Route but would link to the more easterly ARR junction;

♦ The Blue Route would be similar to the Purple Route, but would have a signalised junction with Hambrook Lane, allowing straight-ahead movements only (i.e. no movements between the bypass and Hambrook Lane), and would link to the more westerly ARR junction.

6.2 These alternative schemes were coded into the test networks in detail, so that the model could simulate traffic movements through junctions and thus forecast their impacts on queues and delays. Roundabouts were assumed to be similar in dimension and capacity to those already in place on Great Stoke Way. The layout and signal timings for the proposed ARR junction were based on those already tested for the Greater Bristol Bus Network Major Scheme Bid (which included the junction to provide access for the Harry Stoke development).

6.3 Forecast AM peak and inter-peak traffic flows have been analysed for 2016 and 2031 for each scheme option so that the impacts of the bypass can be determined. Based on the traffic forecasts:

♦

♦

♦

The section of the Stoke Gifford bypass to the north of Hambrook Lane (where it crosses the railway line) would attract 2-way flows of between 1610 and 1970 vehicles per hour (vph) in the 2016 AM peak hour. Flows would be at the lower end of this range if turning movements were restricted at Hambrook Lane (as for the Blue option) or if no connection was made (as for the Pink and Turquoise options), and at the high end of the range if a full roundabout junction was provided (as for the Purple option). By 2031, traffic growth would have increased these peak hour flows to between 1750 vph and 2150 vph. Other sections of the bypass to the south of Hambrook Lane would attract lower peak hour flows, not exceeding 1760 vph by 2016 or 1900 vph by 2031. Inter-peak flows on all sections of the route would be significantly lower than peak hour flows, not exceeding 700 vph by 2016 or 925 vph by 2031.



6.4 On this basis, a single carriageway road of 10 metre width would be adequate to accommodate forecast traffic demand to 2031. This would significantly reduce the cost of the scheme, assuming that SGC would not want to make provision for later construction of a Winterbourne bypass (Note: the scheme costs and modelling in this assessment have assumed a dual-carriageway bypass link).

6.5 Traffic attracted to the scheme would increase peak hour flows on southern sections of Bradley Stoke Way by 275-425 vph in 2016, and by 575-660 vph in 2031. Two way flows would then be about 1950 vph in 2031. Peak hour flows on northern sections of Bradley Stoke Way would be increased by about 250 vph in both 2016 and 2031.

6.6 Routes which run broadly parallel to the Stoke Gifford bypass, like Hatchett Road, Hambrook Lane, Westfield Lane, Brierly Furlong and Old Gloucester Road would generally be relieved by the scheme. This will provide an environmental improvement for residents, pedestrians and cyclists on these routes.

6.7 To the north and west, the bypass would attract additional traffic to routes like Bradley Stoke Way and Winterbourne Road. However, this would relieve other roads in the local area, notably Baileys Court Road, Orpheus Avenue and Braydon Avenue, i.e. through traffic is diverted to more appropriate routes. Some traffic would also be attracted from the A38.

6.8 Immediately to the west of the bypass, traffic flows on the A4174 Avon Ring Road would be reduced by up to 250 vph, some of which would transfer to Great Stoke Way and the Harry Stoke Link Road. Flows on the A38 to the north and south of the ARR would also be reduced.

6.9 To the south, the bypass would increase peak hour traffic flows on the A4174 ARR west of the M32 by up to 700 vph. This would have limited impact in 2016, and would in part be compensated by a reduction of 300 – 400 vph on the ARR to the east of the M32, which reflects a shift of traffic from the B4058 (Bristol Road and Winterbourne Hill) to the bypass. The M32 itself would be little affected by the scheme, since forecast traffic flows would be constrained by the available capacity whether or not the bypass scheme is implemented.

6.10 To the north and east of the bypass, High Street, Dragon Road and Down Road in Winterbourne would attract slightly higher traffic flows. However, this would be compensated by significant reductions in Hambrook Lane, Hicks Common Road, Winterbourne Hill and the B4058 Bristol Road. Flows on Beacon Lane would increase by over 100 vph. With the bypass in place, this route would carry more traffic to and from the north via High Street and less traffic to and from the south via Winterbourne Hill. This may place more stress on the Beacon Lane/High Street junction, but the reduction in through traffic, especially northbound on Winterbourne Hill may result in little net change in queue and delay at the junction. The A432 Badminton Road would be little affected by the scheme.

6.11 The model forecasts suggest that all four route options would have broadly similar impacts on traffic routing, and would help to relieve the centre of Stoke Gifford. There is little to choose between them in this respect. The forecasts also suggest that a junction with Hambrook Lane is unlikely to cause a major increase in rat-running.



6.12 The results suggest that widespread traffic mitigation measures to manage changes in traffic routing are not required since traffic does appear to be routing along the main corridors and away from inappropriate residential routes. However this should be confirmed in future modelling analysis.

6.13 A comparison of bus journey times shows that the reduction in traffic flows and congestion on Hatchet Road and Brierly Furlong as a consequence of Stoke Gifford bypass generally reduces southbound bus journey times through the village in the AM peak hour by between one and three minutes (varying by bypass alignment option). Northbound bus journey time reductions are about one minute in this time period. Inter peak journey times are not affected as traffic flows are lower across the whole area. Similar reductions in journey times could be expected in the PM peak period, although this has not been modelled.

6.14 Traffic model results show that the proposed M4 widening between J19 and J20 would have little impact on traffic using the bypass, or on other roads in the Stoke Gifford local area.

6.15 Preliminary economic analysis of the scheme shows that it is likely to return a very good economic benefit. However further analysis is required to refine the benefit forecast by the modelling work to date.


5040208/Report/Final A.1 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

Appendix A 2016 Forecast Traffic Flows

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

Win

tr

Roa

d

B405

7e

bour

ne

Lock

leaz

eB

room

hill

Sto

ke P

ark

Bristol R

oad

B 4058

UW

E

Bris

tol

Busi

ness

Par

k

Hew

lett

Pack

ard

MO

D

Fren

chay

Hos

pita

l

Hot

elFi

lton

Road

BA

E S

yste

ms

/A

irbus

Filto

n

Southm

ead R

oad

loucester Road

B4056

A38 G

Filto

nC

olle

geFilton

Ave

nue

Stat

ion

Rd

Filton Avenue

Filto

n A

bbey

Woo

d S

tatio

n

AX

A

Filto

n H

igh

Scho

ol

B&

QSa

insb

ury’

s

Ham

broo

k La

ne


27 Ol

Romne

y Ave

nue

M32

Fren

chay

Ham

broo

k

Bro

mle

yH

eath

Dow

nend

Bla

ckho

rse

Man

gots

field

M32

J1

M4

J19

romley Heath Road

Moo

rendW

inte

rbou

rne

Dow

n

Ken

dles

hire

Em

erso

n’s

Gre

en

A4017 B

A432

A432 B

Badmint

on R

d

adminton Road

Emer

son’

s G

reen

Dis

trict

Cen

tre

Emer

ald

Park

Wes

terle

igh R

oad

Wes

terlei

gh R

oad

B446

5

Sta

ple

Hill

Sho

rtwoo

d

omph

rey

Hill

M4

B446

5 P

Hor

field

Emer

son’

s G

reen

Eas

tM

ixed

Use

Dev

elop

men

t

Sto

keG

iffor

d

Bra

dley

Sto

keLi

ttle

Sto

ke

Pat

chw

ayS

tatio

n

Rol

lR

oyce

Roy

alM

ail

s

Empl

oym

ent a

ndho

usin

g de

velo

pmen

t

Pat

chw

ay

Em

ploy

men

t and

hous

ing

deve

lopm

ent

Ret

ail

Par

k

Lock

leaz

eS

choo

l

Lock

leaz

e R

oad

M4

Gyp

sy P

atch

Lan

e

High

wood

Roa

d

loucester Road

B405

7

A38G

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

Bris

tol P

arkw

ay

Crib

bs C

ause

way

Rom

ney

Aven

ueB

us L

ink

River Frome

Rive

r Fro

me


Bris

tol C

itySo

uth

Glo

uces

ters

hire

B R

I S

T O

L

C I

T Y

S O

U T

H

G L

O U

C E

S T

E R

S H

I R

E

Azte

c W

est

Bus

Lin

kAzt

ec W

est

Alm

onds

bury

Busi

ness

Par

k

Filto

n A

irfie

ld

The

Mal

l

Sout

hmea

dH

ospi

tal

Filto

n N

orth

field

Lin

k R

oad

ribbs Causeway

assage Road

estbury Road

enleazeRoad

Eas

tfiel

dR

o ad

Gre

ysto

keAv

enue

Mon

k’s

Park

Ave

Toro

nto

Rd

Wes

tbur

y-on

-Try

m

Sout

hmea

d

Bradley Stoke W

ay

Broo

k Way

Braydon Ave

Little Stoke Lane

Tren

ch L

ane

A4018 C

A4018 P

A4018 W

B4056 H


Bow

slan

d W

ay

Bra

dley

Sto

keD

istri

ct C

entre

27 O

Ret

ail

Par

k

Em

ploy

men

tde

velo

pmen

t

B4055

H

enbury

Road

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

M5

M5

M5

Junc

tion

16

M5

Junc

tion

17 Lysa

nder

Roa

d

The

Ven

ue

Knol

eLa

ne

Bre

ntry

Pen Park

Road

CrowLa

ne

Donc

aste

r Rd

Kellaw

ayAve

nue

B4057

B4468

A417

4

A417

4

A417

4

A417

4

A4174

A4174

A432

A4017 N

Down

end

Roa

d

orth Street

NA

lmon

dsbu

ryH

ousi

ngde

velo

pmen

tG

louc

este

r Roa

d

A38

M4

Com

bina

tion

Gro

und

BB4

057

B4058 B

B4058 H

eaco

n La

ne

ristol Road

igh Street

Flax

pits

Lane

Down

Roa

d

Stoke G

ifford

Byp

ass

Har

ryS

toke

Win

terb

ourn

e

Hatchet Road

B4058

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

Win

tr

Roa

d

B405

7e

bour

ne

Lock

leaz

eB

room

hill

Sto

ke P

ark

Bristol R

oad

B 4058

UW

E

Bris

tol

Busi

ness

Par

k

Hew

lett

Pack

ard

MO

D

Fren

chay

Hos

pita

l

Hot

elFi

lton

Road

BA

E S

yste

ms

/A

irbus

Filto

n

Southm

ead R

oad

loucester Road

B4056

A38 G

Filto

nC

olle

geFilton

Ave

nue

Stat

ion

Rd

Filton Avenue

Filto

n A

bbey

Woo

d S

tatio

n

AX

A

Filto

n H

igh

Scho

ol

B&

QSa

insb

ury’

s

Ham

broo

k La

ne


27 Ol

Romne

y Ave

nue

M32

Fren

chay

Ham

broo

k

Bro

mle

yH

eath

Dow

nend

Bla

ckho

rse

Man

gots

field

M32

J1

M4

J19

romley Heath Road

Moo

rendW

inte

rbou

rne

Dow

n

Ken

dles

hire

Em

erso

n’s

Gre

en

A4017 B

A432

A432 B

Badmint

on R

d

adminton Road

Emer

son’

s G

reen

Dis

trict

Cen

tre

Emer

ald

Park

Wes

terle

igh R

oad

Wes

terlei

gh R

oad

B446

5

Sta

ple

Hill

Sho

rtwoo

d

omph

rey

Hill

M4

B446

5 P

Hor

field

Emer

son’

s G

reen

Eas

tM

ixed

Use

Dev

elop

men

t

Sto

keG

iffor

d

Bra

dley

Sto

keLi

ttle

Sto

ke

Pat

chw

ayS

tatio

n

Rol

lR

oyce

Roy

alM

ail

s

Empl

oym

ent a

ndho

usin

g de

velo

pmen

t

Pat

chw

ay

Em

ploy

men

t and

hous

ing

deve

lopm

ent

Ret

ail

Par

k

Lock

leaz

eS

choo

l

Lock

leaz

e R

oad

M4

Gyp

sy P

atch

Lan

e

High

wood

Roa

d

loucester Road

B405

7

A38G

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

Bris

tol P

arkw

ay

Crib

bs C

ause

way

Rom

ney

Aven

ueB

us L

ink

River Frome

Rive

r Fro

me



Bris

tol C

itySo

uth

Glo

uces

ters

hire

Bris

tol C

itySo

uth

Glo

uces

ters

hire

B R

I S

T O

L

C I

T Y

S O

U T

H

G L

O U

C E

S T

E R

S H

I R

E

Azte

c W

est

Bus

Lin

kAz

tec

Wes

tB

us L

inkA

ztec

Wes

t

Alm

onds

bury

Busi

ness

Par

k

Filto

n A

irfie

ld

The

Mal

l

Sout

hmea

dH

ospi

tal

Filto

n N

orth

field

Lin

k R

oad

ribbs Causeway

assage Road

estbury Road

enleazeRoad

Eas

tfiel

dR

o ad

Gre

ysto

keAv

enue

Mon

k’s

Park

Ave

Toro

nto

Rd

Wes

tbur

y-on

-Try

m

Sout

hmea

d

Bradley Stoke W

ay

Broo

k Way

Braydon Ave

Little Stoke Lane

Tren

ch L

ane

A4018 C

A4018 P

A4018 W

B4056 H


Bow

slan

d W

ay

Bra

dley

Sto

keD

istri

ct C

entre

27 O

Ret

ail

Par

k

Em

ploy

men

tde

velo

pmen

t

B4055

H

enbury

Road

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

M5

M5

M5

Junc

tion

16

M5

Junc

tion

17 Lysa

nder

Roa

d

The

Ven

ue

Knol

eLa

ne

Bre

ntry

Pen Park

Road

CrowLa

ne

Donc

aste

r Rd

Kellaw

ayAve

nue

B4057

B4468

A417

4

A417

4

A417

4

A417

4

A4174

A4174

A432

A4017 N

Down

end

Roa

d

orth Street

NNA

lmon

dsbu

ryH

ousi

ngde

velo

pmen

tG

louc

este

r Roa

d

A38

M4

Com

bina

tion

Gro

und

BB4

057

B4058 B

B4058 H

eaco

n La

ne

ristol Road

igh Street

Flax

pits

Lane

Down

Roa

d

Stoke G

ifford

Byp

ass

Har

ryS

toke

Win

terb

ourn

e

Hatchet Road

B4058

Dra

win

g N

umbe

r (2)

Dra

win

g N

umbe

r (1)

Figu

re 4

.1

.R

ev 0

Scal

eD

raw

nC

heck

edA

utho

rised

Dat

eD

ate

Dat

e

NTS

Stok

e G

iffor

d B

ypas

s

Fore

cast

Tra

ffic

Dat

a Si

tes

Title

Proj

ectAtk

ins

Tran

spor

t Pla

nnin

g26

0 Az

tec

Wes

tA

lmon

dsbu

ryB

risto

l BS3

2 4S

Y

Tel

: 014

54 2

8836

2 F

ax: 0

1454

618

844

Rev

Des

crip

tion

By

Dat

eC

hk’d

Aut

h

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e S

urve

y m

ater

ial w

ith p

erm

issi

on o

f Ord

nanc

eS

urve

y on

beh

alf o

f the

Con

trolle

r of H

er M

ajes

ty’s

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

©C

row

nco

pyrig

ht. U

naut

horis

ed re

prod

uctio

n in

fring

es C

row

n co

pyrig

ht a

nd m

ay le

ad to

pros

ecut

ion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs.

Sou

th G

louc

este

rshi

re C

ounc

il.Li

cenc

e N

o. 1

0002

3410

, 200

5.

SB18

/05/

06

1

23

45

6

789

10

11

1213

1415 16

17 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

262728

293031

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

4748

49

50

58

51

BP

59

BP 1 7 24 34 44 58

Sto

ke G

iffor

d B

ypas

s

(1 to

6) P

aral

lel r

oute

s to

the

bypa

ss

(7 to

23)

Rou

tes

to th

e no

rth &

wes

t

(24

to 3

3) R

oute

s to

the

wes

t

(34

to 4

3) R

oute

s to

the

sout

h

(44

to 5

7) R

oute

s to

the

north

& e

ast

(58

to 5

9) H

arry

Sto

ke ro

ads

Cou

nt S

ites

52

53

54

55

56

57

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

Win

tr

Roa

d

B405

7e

bour

ne

Lock

leaz

eB

room

hill

Sto

ke P

ark

Bristol R

oad

B 4058

UW

E

Bris

tol

Busi

ness

Par

k

Hew

lett

Pack

ard

MO

D

Fren

chay

Hos

pita

l

Hot

elFi

lton

Road

BA

E S

yste

ms

/A

irbus

Filto

n

Southm

ead R

oad

loucester Road

B4056

A38 G

Filto

nC

olle

geFilton

Ave

nue

Stat

ion

Rd

Filton Avenue

Filto

n A

bbey

Woo

d S

tatio

n

AX

A

Filto

n H

igh

Scho

ol

B&

QSa

insb

ury’

s

Ham

broo

k La

ne


27 Ol

Romne

y Ave

nue

M32

Fren

chay

Ham

broo

k

Bro

mle

yH

eath

Dow

nend

Bla

ckho

rse

Man

gots

field

M32

J1

M4

J19

romley Heath Road

Moo

rendW

inte

rbou

rne

Dow

n

Ken

dles

hire

Em

erso

n’s

Gre

en

A4017 B

A432

A432 B

Badmint

on R

d

adminton Road

Emer

son’

s G

reen

Dis

trict

Cen

tre

Emer

ald

Park

Wes

terle

igh R

oad

Wes

terlei

gh R

oad

B446

5

Sta

ple

Hill

Sho

rtwoo

d

omph

rey

Hill

M4

B446

5 P

Hor

field

Emer

son’

s G

reen

Eas

tM

ixed

Use

Dev

elop

men

t

Sto

keG

iffor

d

Bra

dley

Sto

keLi

ttle

Sto

ke

Pat

chw

ayS

tatio

n

Rol

lR

oyce

Roy

alM

ail

s

Empl

oym

ent a

ndho

usin

g de

velo

pmen

t

Pat

chw

ay

Em

ploy

men

t and

hous

ing

deve

lopm

ent

Ret

ail

Par

k

Lock

leaz

eS

choo

l

Lock

leaz

e R

oad

M4

Gyp

sy P

atch

Lan

e

High

wood

Roa

d

loucester Road

B405

7

A38G

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

Bris

tol P

arkw

ay

Crib

bs C

ause

way

Rom

ney

Aven

ueB

us L

ink

River Frome

Rive

r Fro

me


Bris

tol C

itySo

uth

Glo

uces

ters

hire

B R

I S

T O

L

C I

T Y

S O

U T

H

G L

O U

C E

S T

E R

S H

I R

E

Azte

c W

est

Bus

Lin

kAzt

ec W

est

Alm

onds

bury

Busi

ness

Par

k

Filto

n A

irfie

ld

The

Mal

l

Sout

hmea

dH

ospi

tal

Filto

n N

orth

field

Lin

k R

oad

ribbs Causeway

assage Road

estbury Road

enleazeRoad

Eas

tfiel

dR

o ad

Gre

ysto

keAv

enue

Mon

k’s

Park

Ave

Toro

nto

Rd

Wes

tbur

y-on

-Try

m

Sout

hmea

d

Bradley Stoke W

ay

Broo

k Way

Braydon Ave

Little Stoke Lane

Tren

ch L

ane

A4018 C

A4018 P

A4018 W

B4056 H


Bow

slan

d W

ay

Bra

dley

Sto

keD

istri

ct C

entre

27 O

Ret

ail

Par

k

Em

ploy

men

tde

velo

pmen

t

B4055

H

enbury

Road

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

M5

M5

M5

Junc

tion

16

M5

Junc

tion

17 Lysa

nder

Roa

d

The

Ven

ue

Knol

eLa

ne

Bre

ntry

Pen Park

Road

CrowLa

ne

Donc

aste

r Rd

Kellaw

ayAve

nue

B4057

B4468

A417

4

A417

4

A417

4

A417

4

A4174

A4174

A432

A4017 N

Down

end

Roa

d

orth Street

NA

lmon

dsbu

ryH

ousi

ngde

velo

pmen

tG

louc

este

r Roa

d

A38

M4

Com

bina

tion

Gro

und

BB4

057

B4058 B

B4058 H

eaco

n La

ne

ristol Road

igh Street

Flax

pits

Lane

Down

Roa

d

Stoke G

ifford

Byp

ass

Har

ryS

toke

Win

terb

ourn

e

Hatchet Road

B4058

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0km

1km

2km

3km

4km

5km

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

0 m

iles

½m

ile1

mile

1½m

iles

2½m

iles

2 m

iles

3 m

iles

Win

tr

Roa

d

B405

7e

bour

ne

Lock

leaz

eB

room

hill

Sto

ke P

ark

Bristol R

oad

B 4058

UW

E

Bris

tol

Busi

ness

Par

k

Hew

lett

Pack

ard

MO

D

Fren

chay

Hos

pita

l

Hot

elFi

lton

Road

BA

E S

yste

ms

/A

irbus

Filto

n

Southm

ead R

oad

loucester Road

B4056

A38 G

Filto

nC

olle

geFilton

Ave

nue

Stat

ion

Rd

Filton Avenue

Filto

n A

bbey

Woo

d S

tatio

n

AX

A

Filto

n H

igh

Scho

ol

B&

QSa

insb

ury’

s

Ham

broo

k La

ne


27 Ol

Romne

y Ave

nue

M32

Fren

chay

Ham

broo

k

Bro

mle

yH

eath

Dow

nend

Bla

ckho

rse

Man

gots

field

M32

J1

M4

J19

romley Heath Road

Moo

rendW

inte

rbou

rne

Dow

n

Ken

dles

hire

Em

erso

n’s

Gre

en

A4017 B

A432

A432 B

Badmint

on R

d

adminton Road

Emer

son’

s G

reen

Dis

trict

Cen

tre

Emer

ald

Park

Wes

terle

igh R

oad

Wes

terlei

gh R

oad

B446

5

Sta

ple

Hill

Sho

rtwoo

d

omph

rey

Hill

M4

B446

5 P

Hor

field

Emer

son’

s G

reen

Eas

tM

ixed

Use

Dev

elop

men

t

Sto

keG

iffor

d

Bra

dley

Sto

keLi

ttle

Sto

ke

Pat

chw

ayS

tatio

n

Rol

lR

oyce

Roy

alM

ail

s

Empl

oym

ent a

ndho

usin

g de

velo

pmen

t

Pat

chw

ay

Em

ploy

men

t and

hous

ing

deve

lopm

ent

Ret

ail

Par

k

Lock

leaz

eS

choo

l

Lock

leaz

e R

oad

M4

Gyp

sy P

atch

Lan

e

High

wood

Roa

d

loucester Road

B405

7

A38G

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

Bris

tol P

arkw

ay

Crib

bs C

ause

way

Rom

ney

Aven

ueB

us L

ink

River Frome

Rive

r Fro

me



Bris

tol C

itySo

uth

Glo

uces

ters

hire

Bris

tol C

itySo

uth

Glo

uces

ters

hire

B R

I S

T O

L

C I

T Y

S O

U T

H

G L

O U

C E

S T

E R

S H

I R

E

Azte

c W

est

Bus

Lin

kAz

tec

Wes

tB

us L

inkA

ztec

Wes

t

Alm

onds

bury

Busi

ness

Par

k

Filto

n A

irfie

ld

The

Mal

l

Sout

hmea

dH

ospi

tal

Filto

n N

orth

field

Lin

k R

oad

ribbs Causeway

assage Road

estbury Road

enleazeRoad

Eas

tfiel

dR

o ad

Gre

ysto

keAv

enue

Mon

k’s

Park

Ave

Toro

nto

Rd

Wes

tbur

y-on

-Try

m

Sout

hmea

d

Bradley Stoke W

ay

Broo

k Way

Braydon Ave

Little Stoke Lane

Tren

ch L

ane

A4018 C

A4018 P

A4018 W

B4056 H


Bow

slan

d W

ay

Bra

dley

Sto

keD

istri

ct C

entre

27 O

Ret

ail

Par

k

Em

ploy

men

tde

velo

pmen

t

B4055

H

enbury

Road

Hou

sing

deve

lopm

ent

M5

M5

M5

Junc

tion

16

M5

Junc

tion

17 Lysa

nder

Roa

d

The

Ven

ue

Knol

eLa

ne

Bre

ntry

Pen Park

Road

CrowLa

ne

Donc

aste

r Rd

Kellaw

ayAve

nue

B4057

B4468

A417

4

A417

4

A417

4

A417

4

A4174

A4174

A432

A4017 N

Down

end

Roa

d

orth Street

NNA

lmon

dsbu

ryH

ousi

ngde

velo

pmen

tG

louc

este

r Roa

d

A38

M4

Com

bina

tion

Gro

und

BB4

057

B4058 B

B4058 H

eaco

n La

ne

ristol Road

igh Street

Flax

pits

Lane

Down

Roa

d

Stoke G

ifford

Byp

ass

Har

ryS

toke

Win

terb

ourn

e

Hatchet Road

B4058

Dra

win

g N

umbe

r (2)

Dra

win

g N

umbe

r (1)

Figu

re 4

.1

.R

ev 0

Scal

eD

raw

nC

heck

edA

utho

rised

Dat

eD

ate

Dat

e

NTS

Stok

e G

iffor

d B

ypas

s

Fore

cast

Tra

ffic

Dat

a Si

tes

Title

Proj

ectAtk

ins

Tran

spor

t Pla

nnin

g26

0 Az

tec

Wes

tA

lmon

dsbu

ryB

risto

l BS3

2 4S

Y

Tel

: 014

54 2

8836

2 F

ax: 0

1454

618

844

Rev

Des

crip

tion

By

Dat

eC

hk’d

Aut

h

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e S

urve

y m

ater

ial w

ith p

erm

issi

on o

f Ord

nanc

eS

urve

y on

beh

alf o

f the

Con

trolle

r of H

er M

ajes

ty’s

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

©C

row

nco

pyrig

ht. U

naut

horis

ed re

prod

uctio

n in

fring

es C

row

n co

pyrig

ht a

nd m

ay le

ad to

pros

ecut

ion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs.

Sou

th G

louc

este

rshi

re C

ounc

il.Li

cenc

e N

o. 1

0002

3410

, 200

5.

SB18

/05/

06

1

23

45

6

789

10

11

1213

1415 16

17 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

262728

293031

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

4748

49

50

58

51

BP

59

BP 1 7 24 34 44 58

Sto

ke G

iffor

d B

ypas

s

(1 to

6) P

aral

lel r

oute

s to

the

bypa

ss

(7 to

23)

Rou

tes

to th

e no

rth &

wes

t

(24

to 3

3) R

oute

s to

the

wes

t

(34

to 4

3) R

oute

s to

the

sout

h

(44

to 5

7) R

oute

s to

the

north

& e

ast

(58

to 5

9) H

arry

Sto

ke ro

ads

Cou

nt S

ites

52

53

54

55

56

57



Stok

e G

iffor

d B

ypas

sFo

reca

st T

raffi

c Fl

ows

- 201

6 AM

Pea

k H

our

Two-

way

Flo

w (v

ehic

les/

hour

)Lo

catio

nR

ef20

0420

16 D

o M

inD

S1

-Pur

ple

DS2

- Pi

nkD

S3 -

Turq

uois

eD

S4

- Blu

eD

S1 -P

urpl

eD

S2 -

Pin

kD

S3 -

Turq

uois

eD

S4 -

Blue

Stok

e G

iffor

d By

pass

(cen

tral s

ectio

n)BP

n/a

n/a

1665

1621

1611

1759

1665

1621

1759

1759

Gre

at S

toke

Way

, nor

th o

f Byp

ass

141

110

3114

0113

2113

6413

6137

029

033

333

0B4

427

Old

Glo

uces

ter R

oad

(nor

th o

f Ham

broo

k La

ne)

261

967

659

163

563

561

2-8

5-4

1-4

1-6

4H

atch

et R

oad,

Sto

ke G

iffor

d3

1915

2081

1748

1825

1833

1736

-332

-256

-248

-345

Brie

rly F

urlo

ng4

1639

1105

997

1096

1101

1052

-108

-9-3

-53

Wes

tfiel

d La

ne, s

outh

of H

ambr

ook

Lane

521

728

628

604

609

461

-100

-124

-119

-266

Ham

broo

k La

ne, w

est o

f Byp

ass

626

753

532

554

754

229

3-2

1012

7-2

42Br

adle

y St

oke

Way

, nor

th o

f Gre

at S

toke

Rou

ndab

out

711

2910

8414

3813

8115

0713

5935

529

842

427

6B4

057

Win

terb

ourn

e R

oad,

wes

t of G

reat

Sto

ke R

ound

abou

t8

1423

1776

2161

2113

2008

2252

385

337

232

476

Baile

ys C

ourt

Roa

d, e

ast o

f Bro

ok W

ay9

638

772

641

612

772

648

-131

-160

0-1

24O

rphe

us A

venu

e10

845

888

799

795

809

803

-88

-93

-78

-85

Bray

don

Ave

nue

1119

338

331

230

830

832

3-7

2-7

5-7

6-6

0Br

ook

Way

, nor

th o

f Sav

ages

Woo

d R

oad

1263

466

267

470

269

570

612

4033

43Br

adle

y St

oke

Way

, sou

th o

f Pat

chw

ay B

rook

Rou

ndab

out

1367

591

711

6310

6810

7710

8224

615

116

016

5Tr

ench

Lan

e14

820

1025

1094

1104

1100

1071

6979

7546

Woo

dlan

ds L

ane,

nor

th o

f Bra

dley

Sto

ke W

ay15

1362

1040

990

975

979

967

-50

-65

-61

-73

Brad

ley

Stok

e W

ay, e

ast o

f Woo

dlan

ds L

ane

1619

5122

0723

3122

8022

7922

8512

472

7278

A38,

nor

th o

f Azt

ec W

est R

ound

abou

t17

3210

2601

2614

2614

2601

2630

1313

-129

A38,

sou

th o

f Azt

ec W

est R

ound

abou

t18

3478

3089

3087

3083

3071

3099

-2-5

-18

10A3

8, n

orth

of C

allic

roft

Roa

d19

2752

2717

2651

2648

2648

2683

-66

-69

-69

-34

Filto

n N

orth

field

Lin

k R

oad

20n/

a13

3713

4713

5013

5213

4911

1315

12A3

8, s

outh

of G

ypsy

Pat

ch L

ane

2138

4241

7738

9339

2039

0738

86-2

83-2

57-2

70-2

90Li

ttle

Stok

e La

ne, n

orth

of G

ypsy

Pat

ch L

ane

2269

410

2210

8810

9410

9610

8267

7274

61B4

057

Gyp

sy P

atch

Lan

e, w

est o

f Litt

le S

toke

Lan

e23

1456

1798

1720

1680

1677

1691

-78

-118

-121

-107

A417

4, w

est o

f Byp

ass

Junc

tion

2432

0531

5729

2730

1428

9829

96-2

30-1

43-2

59-1

61C

oldh

arbo

ur L

ane,

sou

th o

f A41

7425

1347

2329

2286

2275

2271

2291

-44

-54

-58

-38

A417

4, e

ast o

f Abb

ey W

ood

Rou

ndab

out

2639

5038

0536

5837

2436

1536

94-1

46-8

0-1

90-1

10G

reat

Sto

ke W

ay, n

orth

of A

bbey

Woo

d R

ound

abou

t27

1833

1297

1408

1316

1379

1167

111

1981

-130

A417

4, w

est o

f Abb

ey W

ood

Rou

ndab

out

2834

2239

3940

1540

3840

1139

0775

9972

-32

Filto

n Av

enue

, sou

th o

f A41

7429

1182

1412

1881

1870

1878

1769

469

458

466

357

A417

4, w

est o

f Filt

on A

venu

e30

1833

2578

2522

2568

2529

2440

-56

-9-4

8-1

37A3

8, n

orth

of F

ilton

Rou

ndab

out

3130

5035

0332

1332

5932

4131

84-2

90-2

44-2

62-3

19B4

056

Sout

hmea

d R

oad,

wes

t of F

ilton

Rou

ndab

out

3221

4626

6327

6027

4127

2126

9698

7859

33A3

8, s

outh

of F

ilton

Rou

ndab

out

3311

3913

6912

9613

0312

8113

34-7

3-6

6-8

8-3

5A4

174,

eas

t of B

ypas

s Ju

nctio

n34

3205

3866

4511

4537

4493

4565

645

671

627

699

M32

, sou

th o

f M32

Jun

ctio

n 1

3563

7476

1976

3876

3576

1276

2319

16-7

4M

32, n

orth

of M

32 J

unct

ion

136

6600

8739

8718

8733

8690

8670

-21

-7-4

9-6

9M

4, b

etw

een

Junc

tions

19

and

2037

8946

9705

9597

9614

9608

9610

-109

-92

-97

-95

M4,

bet

wee

n Ju

nctio

ns 1

8 an

d 19

3869

9282

0982

4382

3282

2782

4233

2218

32A4

174,

eas

t of M

32 J

139

3560

4432

4019

4059

4097

4057

-413

-373

-335

-375

B405

8 Br

isto

l Roa

d, n

orth

of B

egbr

ook

Par

k40

823

1106

1107

1099

1075

1221

1-8

-31

114

A417

4, e

ast o

f Ham

broo

k C

ross

road

s41

3168

3908

3989

3989

4002

3997

8180

9389

A401

7 Br

omle

y H

eath

Roa

d, s

outh

of A

4174

4212

7814

0014

6914

4814

5214

8869

4752

88A4

174,

eas

t of B

rom

ley

Hea

th R

ound

abou

t43

2458

2205

2172

2174

2164

2134

-33

-31

-41

-71

Ham

broo

k La

ne, e

ast o

f Byp

ass

4454

479

268

765

966

920

4-1

05-1

33-1

23-5

88B4

058

Bris

tol R

oad,

nor

th o

f Ham

broo

k C

ross

road

s45

1777

2105

1690

1646

1667

1400

-415

-459

-438

-705

B405

8 W

inte

rbou

rne

Hill

4611

4012

6298

710

6310

7288

8-2

75-1

98-1

90-3

74B4

057

Win

terb

ourn

e R

oad,

eas

t of G

reat

Sto

ke R

ound

abou

t47

2409

2617

2678

2706

2707

2765

6289

9114

8B4

057

Beac

on L

ane

4815

8316

2817

3317

3517

4018

6710

510

711

223

9B4

058

Hig

h St

reet

, Win

terb

ourn

e49

1664

1704

1843

1861

1857

1675

139

157

153

-29

Dra

gon

Roa

d, W

inte

rbou

rne

5015

928

730

645

440

336

919

166

116

81H

icks

Com

mon

Roa

d, W

inte

rbou

rne

5192

797

087

876

481

091

2-9

2-2

06-1

60-5

7D

own

Roa

d, K

endl

eshi

re52

1047

1117

1232

1204

1189

1196

115

8672

78A4

32 B

adm

into

n R

oad,

nor

th o

f Dow

ns R

oad

5346

832

030

230

730

429

8-1

8-1

3-1

6-2

2A4

32 B

adm

into

n R

oad,

sou

th o

f Dow

ns R

oad

5419

1620

5920

6920

6420

4220

2310

6-1

7-3

6A4

174,

eas

t of W

ick

Wic

k R

ound

abou

t55

3287

3650

3665

3672

3660

3648

1422

10-2

A432

Bad

min

ton

Roa

d, s

outh

of W

ick

Wic

k R

ound

abou

t56

1458

1781

1741

1722

1750

1782

-40

-59

-31

1O

ld G

louc

este

r Roa

d 57

380

676

511

523

521

551

-166

-153

-155

-125

Har

ry S

toke

App

roac

h R

oad,

nor

th o

f A41

7458

n/a

1003

2331

2452

2378

2663

1328

1449

1375

1659

Har

ry S

toke

Lin

k R

oad

59n/

a10

0315

5314

6915

0815

1955

046

650

551

6

Diff

eren

ce D

S- D

M

Parallel Routes Routes to the north & west Routes to the west Routes to the south Routes to the north & east



Stok

e G

iffor

d B

ypas

sFo

reca

st T

raffi

c Fl

ows

- 201

6 In

ter-

peak

Hou

r Tw

o-w

ay F

low

(veh

icle

s/ho

ur)

Loca

tion

Ref

2004

2016

Do

Min

DS1

-Pur

ple

DS2

- Pi

nkD

S3

- Tur

quoi

seD

S4

- Blu

eD

S1 -P

urpl

eD

S2 -

Pink

DS3

- Tu

rquo

ise

DS4

- Bl

ueS

toke

Giff

ord

Bypa

ss (c

entra

l sec

tion)

BPn/

an/

a65

745

444

653

165

745

444

653

1G

reat

Sto

ke W

ay, n

orth

of B

ypas

s1

189

612

1039

945

946

976

426

333

334

363

B44

27 O

ld G

louc

este

r Roa

d (n

orth

of H

ambr

ook

Lane

)2

675

874

795

820

822

825

-79

-54

-52

-49

Hat

chet

Roa

d, S

toke

Giff

ord

312

8612

6911

1011

2911

4210

88-1

58-1

40-1

26-1

80B

rierly

Fur

long

412

0482

967

968

469

466

8-1

50-1

45-1

35-1

61W

estfi

eld

Lane

, sou

th o

f Ham

broo

k La

ne5

2631

630

834

034

231

9-8

2426

3H

ambr

ook

Lane

, wes

t of B

ypas

s6

163

207

125

164

159

125

-83

-43

-49

-83

Bra

dley

Sto

ke W

ay, n

orth

of G

reat

Sto

ke R

ound

abou

t7

479

601

651

640

633

667

5039

3266

B40

57 W

inte

rbou

rne

Roa

d, w

est o

f Gre

at S

toke

Rou

ndab

out

811

2513

1112

5412

5012

6112

59-5

7-6

0-5

0-5

2B

aile

ys C

ourt

Roa

d, e

ast o

f Bro

ok W

ay9

229

372

194

196

195

208

-179

-176

-177

-164

Orp

heus

Ave

nue

1046

859

450

951

751

350

1-8

5-7

7-8

1-9

3B

rayd

on A

venu

e11

3986

4746

4346

-39

-40

-42

-40

Bro

ok W

ay, n

orth

of S

avag

es W

ood

Roa

d12

408

459

441

445

435

438

-18

-14

-24

-21

Bra

dley

Sto

ke W

ay, s

outh

of P

atch

way

Bro

ok R

ound

abou

t13

312

389

412

416

413

426

2427

2538

Tren

ch L

ane

1424

233

536

636

336

236

631

2827

32W

oodl

ands

Lan

e, n

orth

of B

radl

ey S

toke

Way

1580

285

483

583

783

583

7-1

9-1

6-1

9-1

6B

radl

ey S

toke

Way

, eas

t of W

oodl

ands

Lan

e16

1109

1258

1268

1278

1260

1282

1120

325

A38

, nor

th o

f Azt

ec W

est R

ound

abou

t17

2299

2760

2734

2741

2744

2731

-26

-19

-16

-29

A38

, sou

th o

f Azt

ec W

est R

ound

abou

t18

2210

2616

2598

2597

2606

2589

-19

-19

-10

-28

A38

, nor

th o

f Cal

licro

ft R

oad

1920

7619

0619

2519

3119

5319

3119

2547

24Fi

lton

Nor

thfie

ld L

ink

Roa

d20

n/a

1448

1451

1450

1444

1444

42

-4-4

A38

, sou

th o

f Gyp

sy P

atch

Lan

e21

2822

3625

3573

3589

3585

3572

-53

-36

-40

-54

Littl

e S

toke

Lan

e, n

orth

of G

ypsy

Pat

ch L

ane

2263

581

782

382

082

181

56

33

-2B

4057

Gyp

sy P

atch

Lan

e, w

est o

f Litt

le S

toke

Lan

e23

1133

1252

1196

1203

1226

1197

-56

-49

-26

-56

A41

74, w

est o

f Byp

ass

Junc

tion

2418

3118

0616

8317

3217

1317

67-1

23-7

4-9

3-3

9C

oldh

arbo

ur L

ane,

sou

th o

f A41

7425

821

1422

1439

1445

1439

1444

1723

1722

A41

74, e

ast o

f Abb

ey W

ood

Rou

ndab

out

2626

3224

4022

9423

3223

2523

42-1

45-1

07-1

14-9

8G

reat

Sto

ke W

ay, n

orth

of A

bbey

Woo

d R

ound

abou

t27

1431

824

1021

923

936

948

197

9911

212

4A

4174

, wes

t of A

bbey

Woo

d R

ound

abou

t28

2666

2662

2737

2700

2696

2750

7638

3488

Filto

n Av

enue

, sou

th o

f A41

7429

922

1241

1774

1774

1772

1765

533

533

532

524

A41

74, w

est o

f Filt

on A

venu

e30

1483

1233

1292

1255

1244

1318

5922

1184

A38

, nor

th o

f Filt

on R

ound

abou

t31

2240

2945

2875

2901

2883

2893

-70

-44

-62

-51

B40

56 S

outh

mea

d R

oad,

wes

t of F

ilton

Rou

ndab

out

3213

2318

3218

7218

4918

2219

0140

17-1

069

A38

, sou

th o

f Filt

on R

ound

abou

t33

1380

1513

1495

1505

1511

1466

-17

-7-1

-46

A41

74, e

ast o

f Byp

ass

Junc

tion

3418

3122

5221

7622

0422

0522

40-7

7-4

8-4

7-1

2M

32, s

outh

of M

32 J

unct

ion

135

4837

5569

5573

5563

5574

5581

4-6

512

M32

, nor

th o

f M32

Jun

ctio

n 1

3646

6253

9253

8053

7853

8053

79-1

3-1

5-1

3-1

4M

4, b

etw

een

Junc

tions

19

and

2037

7765

8476

8481

8461

8469

8476

5-1

5-7

0M

4, b

etw

een

Junc

tions

18

and

1938

5740

6631

6647

6626

6633

6640

16-4

29

A41

74, e

ast o

f M32

J1

3932

6138

3736

0136

8836

7937

12-2

35-1

48-1

57-1

25B

4058

Bris

tol R

oad,

nor

th o

f Beg

broo

k Pa

rk40

367

398

390

391

389

394

-8-7

-9-4

A41

74, e

ast o

f Ham

broo

k C

ross

road

s41

3089

3310

3330

3341

3335

3341

2131

2631

A40

17 B

rom

ley

Hea

th R

oad,

sou

th o

f A41

7442

1078

1235

1245

1242

1240

1239

107

54

A41

74, e

ast o

f Bro

mle

y H

eath

Rou

ndab

out

4325

4619

0619

4119

2119

0519

3135

14-1

25H

ambr

ook

Lane

, eas

t of B

ypas

s44

162

173

247

158

154

113

74-1

5-1

9-6

0B

4058

Bris

tol R

oad,

nor

th o

f Ham

broo

k C

ross

road

s45

1106

1416

1287

1299

1301

1287

-129

-117

-116

-130

B40

58 W

inte

rbou

rne

Hill

4658

079

369

169

869

668

3-1

02-9

5-9

6-1

10B

4057

Win

terb

ourn

e R

oad,

eas

t of G

reat

Sto

ke R

ound

abou

t47

1580

1870

1935

1976

1981

2003

6510

611

113

3B

4057

Bea

con

Lane

4897

910

8611

3611

6911

6911

8851

8383

102

B40

58 H

igh

Stre

et, W

inte

rbou

rne

4911

5811

8111

8412

0912

0912

214

2928

40D

rago

n R

oad,

Win

terb

ourn

e50

164

245

205

219

217

216

-39

-26

-27

-29

Hic

ks C

omm

on R

oad,

Win

terb

ourn

e51

330

292

291

305

306

307

-113

1315

Dow

n R

oad,

Ken

dles

hire

5255

960

563

960

360

259

834

-2-3

-6A

432

Badm

into

n R

oad,

nor

th o

f Dow

ns R

oad

5340

339

139

739

339

338

76

32

-4A

432

Badm

into

n R

oad,

sou

th o

f Dow

ns R

oad

5411

8211

3110

6910

8610

8510

72-6

2-4

6-4

7-6

0A

4174

, eas

t of W

ick

Wic

k R

ound

abou

t55

2546

2662

2630

2661

2651

2661

-32

-1-1

00

A43

2 Ba

dmin

ton

Roa

d, s

outh

of W

ick

Wic

k R

ound

abou

t56

894

1069

1081

1076

1077

1077

127

88

Old

Glo

uces

ter R

oad

5715

017

124

523

924

124

574

6870

74H

arry

Sto

ke A

ppro

ach

Roa

d, n

orth

of A

4174

58n/

a60

883

782

282

585

122

921

521

724

4H

arry

Sto

ke L

ink

Roa

d59

n/a

608

1039

945

946

976

432

338

339

368

Diff

eren

ce D

S- D

M

Parallel Routes Routes to the north & west Routes to the west Routes to the south Routes to the north & east


Appendix B 2016 Forecast Changes in Bus Journey Times All units are minutes.

5040208/Report/Final B.1 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

Stok

e G

iffor

d B

ypas

sC

hang

es in

bus

rout

e jo

urne

y tim

es

AMIn

ter P

eak

Rou

teD

M

DM

O

pt 1

Opt

2O

pt 3

Opt

4O

pt 1

Opt

2O

pt 3

Opt

4M

inM

axAv

eM

inM

axAv

e70

N32

.22

21.2

24.

07-0

.44

1.43

-0.0

6-0

.23

-0.3

4-0

.19

-0.2

1-0

.44

4.07

1.25

-0.3

4-0

.19

-0.2

470

S32

.66

21.5

4-0

.96

-1.7

60.

06-1

.06

-0.2

80.

06-0

.15

0.15

-1.7

60.

06-0

.93

-0.2

80.

15-0

.05

71 N

39.8

228

.23

4.73

0.78

3.24

0.03

-0.0

9-0

.01

0.04

0.14

0.03

4.73

2.20

-0.0

90.

140.

0271

Sa

36.5

925

.83

-2.6

7-3

.08

-2.4

1-1

.10

0.59

0.82

0.43

0.63

-3.0

8-1

.10

-2.3

20.

430.

820.

6271

Sb

48.3

631

.09

-3.0

2-3

.39

-3.0

3-1

.54

0.24

0.46

0.07

0.27

-3.3

9-1

.54

-2.7

50.

070.

460.

2673

S61

.58

44.3

1-4

.19

-4.4

5-3

.84

-1.8

30.

220.

210.

070.

33-4

.45

-1.8

3-3

.58

0.07

0.33

0.21

73 N

59.8

946

.24

3.36

-0.1

20.

97-1

.35

-0.4

1-0

.42

-0.3

5-0

.32

-1.3

53.

360.

72-0

.42

-0.3

2-0

.38

75 N

86.1

855

.56

3.63

0.44

1.28

-0.7

10.

020.

042.

35-0

.45

-0.7

13.

631.

16-0

.45

2.35

0.49

75 S

a67

.33

54.1

7-0

.64

-0.3

1-0

.17

1.07

0.14

0.41

0.15

0.36

-0.6

41.

07-0

.01

0.14

0.41

0.26

75 S

b58

.79

45.8

2-1

.06

-0.7

4-0

.50

0.61

0.11

0.32

0.13

0.30

-1.0

60.

61-0

.42

0.11

0.32

0.22

312

N38

.89

31.4

90.

160.

070.

21-0

.23

0.88

0.83

0.87

0.86

-0.2

30.

210.

050.

830.

880.

8631

2 S

43.9

229

.38

-3.4

9-3

.27

-3.5

6-2

.77

0.75

0.81

0.79

0.78

-3.5

6-2

.77

-3.2

70.

750.

810.

7831

8 N

76.7

254

.09

-2.1

2-1

.18

-2.0

9-2

.12

0.18

0.65

0.08

0.19

-2.1

2-1

.18

-1.8

80.

080.

650.

2731

8 S

65.9

344

.82

-12.

84-1

0.75

-6.8

9-1

1.14

-0.3

0-0

.06

-0.1

10.

32-1

2.84

-6.8

9-1

0.41

-0.3

00.

32-0

.04

319

N62

.57

48.3

0-0

.10

-0.2

0-1

.21

-0.7

00.

110.

640.

020.

18-1

.21

-0.1

0-0

.55

0.02

0.64

0.24

319

S48

.45

38.7

0-2

.56

-2.5

3-2

.74

-1.6

40.

080.

280.

270.

54-2

.74

-1.6

4-2

.37

0.08

0.54

0.29

483

E51

.36

41.9

1-0

.91

-0.9

2-0

.81

-0.6

00.

180.

100.

170.

20-0

.92

-0.6

0-0

.81

0.10

0.20

0.16

483

W54

.66

41.8

3-1

.49

-1.5

3-1

.15

-0.0

9-0

.03

0.12

0.08

0.12

-1.5

3-0

.09

-1.0

7-0

.03

0.12

0.07

517

E55

.76

34.8

0-5

.11

-4.8

6-5

.50

-6.6

5-0

.45

-0.3

0-0

.29

-0.3

6-6

.65

-4.8

6-5

.53

-0.4

5-0

.29

-0.3

551

7 W

49.3

134

.93

0.44

0.14

0.72

-1.5

8-0

.36

-0.1

80.

090.

01-1

.58

0.72

-0.0

7-0

.36

0.09

-0.1

151

8 N

a65

.32

41.0

22.

77-0

.06

-0.9

60.

91-0

.13

-0.0

10.

000.

28-0

.96

2.77

0.67

-0.1

30.

280.

0351

8 Sa

63.0

041

.79

-3.9

2-3

.57

-4.8

0-3

.19

0.22

-0.1

2-0

.50

-0.1

2-4

.80

-3.1

9-3

.87

-0.5

00.

22-0

.13

518

Nb

78.5

547

.71

2.37

-0.0

5-1

.19

0.13

-0.1

5-0

.04

-0.0

10.

26-1

.19

2.37

0.32

-0.1

50.

260.

0251

8 Sb

74.3

348

.99

-5.1

8-4

.26

-4.9

9-4

.59

0.16

-0.1

1-0

.48

-0.0

6-5

.18

-4.2

6-4

.76

-0.4

80.

16-0

.12

574

S23

.98

17.1

7-2

.53

-2.4

9-1

.96

-2.1

10.

110.

120.

120.

12-2

.53

-1.9

6-2

.27

0.11

0.12

0.12

580

N31

.37

17.8

0-0

.85

-0.6

7-0

.58

-0.8

10.

590.

753.

010.

08-0

.85

-0.5

8-0

.73

0.08

3.01

1.11

580

Sa17

.56

14.4

3-0

.89

-0.8

5-0

.92

-0.7

20.

080.

170.

120.

12-0

.92

-0.7

2-0

.84

0.08

0.17

0.12

580

Sb15

.62

12.8

5-1

.29

-1.2

6-1

.23

-1.1

70.

070.

160.

120.

11-1

.29

-1.1

7-1

.24

0.07

0.16

0.12

581

N69

.69

48.3

2-1

.86

-1.5

1-1

.22

-0.8

00.

150.

170.

140.

12-1

.86

-0.8

0-1

.35

0.12

0.17

0.15

581

S69

.86

53.1

3-3

.17

-3.3

6-2

.51

-0.4

1-0

.36

1.08

0.58

0.67

-3.3

6-0

.41

-2.3

6-0

.36

1.08

0.49

624

S21

.50

22.1

00.

290.

320.

170.

56-1

.09

-0.0

20.

00-0

.65

0.17

0.56

0.34

-1.0

90.

00-0

.44

H1

N34

.97

31.2

2-0

.13

-0.3

4-0

.11

0.07

0.70

0.07

-0.1

40.

04-0

.34

0.07

-0.1

3-0

.14

0.70

0.17

H1

S37

.34

29.2

50.

66-0

.27

2.07

-0.4

4-0

.09

-0.0

9-0

.02

-0.0

7-0

.44

2.07

0.50

-0.0

9-0

.02

-0.0

7X

18 N

37.2

632

.87

-0.9

8-0

.69

-0.4

9-0

.06

-0.0

3-0

.12

-0.0

10.

02-0

.98

-0.0

6-0

.55

-0.1

20.

02-0

.03

X18

S45

.89

36.1

30.

97-0

.51

1.67

-0.6

2-0

.38

-0.1

7-0

.27

-0.1

3-0

.62

1.67

0.38

-0.3

8-0

.13

-0.2

4X

73 S

38.5

826

.88

-3.3

5-3

.00

-3.4

6-2

.98

-0.0

6-0

.02

0.00

-0.0

1-3

.46

-2.9

8-3

.20

-0.0

60.

00-0

.02

X84

Na

45.4

631

.69

-1.4

9-2

.03

-2.9

3-2

.62

0.17

0.07

0.13

0.13

-2.9

3-1

.49

-2.2

70.

070.

170.

12X

84 S

a44

.19

33.4

9-1

.10

-0.6

5-1

.12

-1.5

90.

040.

070.

140.

13-1

.59

-0.6

5-1

.12

0.04

0.14

0.09

X84

Nb

54.9

237

.19

-2.1

0-2

.68

-3.0

9-3

.41

0.14

0.06

0.11

0.10

-3.4

1-2

.10

-2.8

20.

060.

140.

10X

84 S

b54

.45

38.1

5-1

.56

-0.5

5-1

.29

-1.5

90.

030.

060.

130.

1 2-1

.59

-0.5

5-1

.25

0.03

0.13

0.09

Rou

te N

umbe

r: N

- N

orth

; S -

Sout

h; E

- Ea

st; W

- W

est.

Lette

rs a

and

b in

dica

te ro

ute

varia

tions

.Al

l diff

eren

ces

are

in m

inut

es a

nd re

pres

ent t

he fu

ll ro

ute

jour

ney

time.

A n

egat

ive

valu

e in

dica

tes

a jo

urne

y tim

e re

duct

ion

with

the

SGBP

sch

eme.

AMIP

2016

Diff

eren

ceAM

IP

policy review & scheme appraisal - south gloucestershire · v5 final rch sb sb 02/08/06 v4...

Documents