090925 tfsh fareham study

8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study

1/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

Fareham Borough Council

Civic Offices

Civic WayFareham

Hampshire

PO16 7AZ

Fareham SDA

Access Study

February 2009

Stoneham Place

Stoneham Lane

Southampton

Hampshire

SO50 9NW

Environment Department

Hampshire County Council

The Castle

Winchester

SO23 8UD


2/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

Fareham SDA

Access Study

Issue and Revision Record

Rev Date Originator Checker Approver Description

A 31.10.2008 A Palmer A Thompson G. Maclean 1st

DRAFT

B 12.12.2008 S Almond A Thompson G. Maclean

Amendments made in

light of Highways Agency

meeting

C 6.1.2009

S Almond A Thompson G Maclean

Final Issue

D 6.2.2009S Almond A Thompson G Maclean

2nd

Final Issue


3/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

List of Contents Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 3

2 ACCESS STUDY DATA SOURCES AND ASSUMPTIONS ................................................. 5

2.1 Solent Strategic Transport Model.................................................................................. 52.2 New Transport Model.................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Development Traffic...................................................................................................... 6

2.4 Past Reports ................................................................................................................... 7

2.5 Other Supporting Documents or Studies ..................................................................... 11

3 TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 13

3.1 Assessment Year.......................................................................................................... 13

3.2 Assessment Period....................................................................................................... 13

3.3 Study Area ................................................................................................................... 13

3.4 Assignment of Traffic.................................................................................................. 13

3.5 Design flows for lane requirements............................................................................. 14

4 ASSESSMENT OF ACCESS OPTIONS................................................................................. 15

4.1 General......................................................................................................................... 15

4.2 Description of Options................................................................................................. 15

4.3 Option Cost Review..................................................................................................... 16

4.4 Assessment Criteria ..................................................................................................... 17

4.5 Option Evaluations ...................................................................................................... 184.6 Merge and Diverge analysis ........................................................................................ 30

4.7 Summary of the Initial Option Assessment ................................................................. 34

5 TRAFFIC MODELLING......................................................................................................... 35


4/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

Figure 4.4 Option 4 M27 J10 all traffic movements with A32 realigned.............................................. 26Figure 4.5 Option 5 M27 J10 with A32 realigned and BRT ................................................................. 28

Figure 4.1: Taper merge ........................................................................................................................ 30Figure 4.2: Parallel merge ..................................................................................................................... 31Figure 4.3: Merge with lane gain .......................................................................................................... 31Figure 4.4: Lane gain with Ghost Island option 1................................................................................. 31Figure 4.5: Lane gain with Ghost Island merge option 2...................................................................... 32Figure 4.6: 2Two lane gain with Ghost Island ...................................................................................... 32Figure 4.7: Taper diverge ...................................................................................................................... 32Figure 4.8: Lane drop at taper diverge .................................................................................................. 33

Figure 4.9: Ghost Island diverge for lane drop...................................................................................... 33Figure 4.10: 2 lane drop ........................................................................................................................ 33

List of Tables

Table 4-1 Option Matrix....................................................................................................................... 15Table 4-3 Summary of the Interchange Parameters ............................................................................. 30Table 5-1: M27 Junction 11 Signalised Junction Modelling Results .................................................... 35


5/57


6/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

The Policy criterion in the evaluation process is deemed as the primary operator in terms of whether

the proposed access strategy would be a suitable option. Therefore if an option fails to satisfy current

transport policy then it would not go through for further traffic analysis. For example, where an optionis considered to be a new junction onto the M27 this would contravene Department for Transport

Policy set out in DfT Circular 02/07, which states that no new junctions would be permitted on the

SRN to facilitate new development, except for motorway service areas.

The traffic element of the study bases its traffic assessment on a simple reassignment of a traffic

network model. The model is based on an AM Peak period only and is not all coded is simulation.

That is, not all the junctions and links in the model include the geometric data that would influence the

assignment of the trip within the network. Therefore further work will be required to upgrade the

network in the locality of the proposed SDA and a PM peak period. This will provide confidence that

the preferred option is still a valid with the return trip. Nevertheless, in the absence of a fully

simulated model covering the Fareham area including the county roads, the existing SSTM represents

the best traffic data source available for this project, a view shared by the Highways Agency.

A sort summary of why each option was dismissed or considered suitable is provided for reference

below:

Option 1 The exiting junctions on the M27 do not have sufficient capacity to

accommodate the proposed SDA traffic.

Option 2 New M27 J10 all traffic movements would contravene policy set out DfT

Circular 02/07.

Option 3 The option would be viewed as a new M27 J10 and would therefore contravenepolicy set out DfT Circular 02/07.

Option 4 Provide west facing slip roads which would provide little benefit to the whole

scheme and does not easily prioritise BRT movements to Fareham Town Centre; and

Option 5 is viewed as the most suitable option and is therefore taken forward for more

detailed traffic modelling analysis.

The traffic levels likely to be generated by the proposed SDA will not be accommodated by any of the

options proposed. Therefore the solution for access to the proposed SDA will requiring a significant

proportion of the forecast car demand to be accommodated in an alternative way, eg containment or

mode shift.


7/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

1 INTRODUCTION

The South East Plan proposes that a Strategic Development Area (SDA) is built on land to the north of

Fareham. The proposed SDA is to consist of up to 10,000 dwellings and 121,000 square metres of

employment development, delivered between 2016 and 2026. It is recognised that this scale of

development will have a significant impact on the local transport infrastructure. The location of the

proposed SDA site is to the north of the M27 at Fareham, Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 Proposed Fareham SDA Site Location

J10

J11

A32SDA

M27

N

A32

Fareham

A27


8/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

Setting Strategic Direction, Fareham SDA Mott Gifford/MVA February 2008.

The study is to review options for providing access to the proposed SDA from the SRN. We haveapplied a two stage approach to the assessment. The first stage of this assessment considers all options

available and assesses the proposals against criteria such as; conformity with relevant policy or/and

compliance with the standards. The more feasible options are then taken forward to detailed traffic

modelling and junction analysis.

The scope of this assessment does not consider proposals for the internal network of the proposed

SDA.

The remainder of this report is structured as follows:

Chapter 2 states the data sources used for this study

Chapter 3 - describes the methodology for the assessment of the junctions

Chapter 4 provides an initial assessment of the options;

Chapter 5 - presents the results of the traffic modelling of each of the feasible options;

Chapter 6 - highlights the cost implications for each of the feasible options;

Chapter 7 - sets out summary of the report findings; and

Chapter 8 - highlights the conclusions and recommendations.


9/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

2 ACCESS STUDY DATA SOURCES AND ASSUMPTIONS

2.1 Solent Strategic Transport Model

Background traffic flow data for the study has been sourced from the Solent Strategic Traffic Model

(SSTM) developed by Atkins for Hampshire County Council to represent travel demand in the Solent

area. The SSTM represents an average hour within the morning peak period (0700-1000) and an

average hour within the inter peak period (1000-1600) in 2004. The evening peak period has not been

modelled within SSTM and has not been considered as part of this study. Assessment of the PM peak

will be important at some stage as a valid option for the AM peak may not be suitable for the PM peak

and additional refinement may potentially be needed.

The highway network has been modelled using the SATURN suite of programs. It was based on an

existing model developed by WSP for the Highways Agency, which was in turn based on based on the

M27 ITS study carried out by MVA.

The network density is shown in Figure 2.1. The model includes all the Motorways, A roads, B roads

and other roads that are considered to carry high volumes of traffic.

Figure 2.1: Highway Network Density

N

Southampton


10/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

The network has a mixture of buffer and simulation coding (simulation coding takes account of delays

due to junctions). The motorway network and associated junctions have been coded in simulation and

the Portsmouth area has also been coded in simulation; the rest of the network has been coded asbuffer using speed-flow curves to take account of delays. This type of coding is only suitable for areas

that are not congested.

Within the study area for this project, both M27 Junction 10 and 11 are simulated in the model,

although junctions on the A32 north and south of the motorway are coded in buffer making the

predicted reassignment of traffic on the wider network in response to any proposed changes at M27

Junctions 10 and 11 (e.g. realigned A32) potentially open to question. However, in the absence of a

fully simulated model covering the Fareham area including the county roads, the existing SSTM

represents the best traffic data source available for this project, a view shared by the Highways

Agency (Appendix A).

2.2 New Transport Model

The limitations of the existing SSTM to provide an accurate representation of the traffic implications

associated with new highway infrastructure are recognised by the two relevant highway authorities,

Hampshire County Council and the Highways Agency. A new more detailed model of the local area is

in preparation, with data collection currently ongoing. The new transport model will capture the

current network issues, such as queuing on the M27 mainline in the peak periods.

Any preliminary conclusions set out in this report will need to be reassessed once the new improved

modelling tool is available.

2.3 Development Traffic

Traffic forecasts for development proposals in the local area as set out in the draft core strategies

including the SDA, are taken from Peter Brett Associates (PBA) Transport Assessment titled

Assessing the Impact of Harbour Authorities LDF Proposals on the Strategic Highway Network and

produced in July 2008.

The PBA work provides a very detailed quantification and distribution analysis of traffic associated

with all development sites included within the draft core strategies for Fareham, Gosport, Havant and

Portsmouth. This study has taken the PBA figures at face value as scrutiny of the PBA report is not

part of this project scope. We understand from PBA that the following approach was applied to the

derivation of traffic forecasts associated with the SDA


11/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

PBA provided traffic turning movements for the study area network extracted from SSTM in the

with and without SDA development scenarios set out below. Where Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is

included in Scenario 3, a reduction in traffic demand as a result of mode switch to BRT by car usershas been allowed for in the PBA figures:

Scenario 1 Base (No Development SDA)

Scenario 2 Base + Development SDA existing highway network; and

Scenario 3 Base + Development SDA + BRT +A32 realigned to M27 J11.

Initial observations of the data show a considerable increase in traffic travelling eastwards towards

Fareham and Portsmouth. It is not possible with the data selected for this study from the PBA model to

determine the likely increase in traffic north of the proposed SDA.

2.4 Past Reports

As described above, three studies have been carried out over the past year to consider the transportimplications of the SDA. These previous reports are listed below and a short description of each report

follows:

BRT Alignment and Operation Assessment WSP August 2008;

Assessing the Impact of the Harbour Authorities Local Development Framework Proposals on

the Strategic Highways Network Peter Brett Associates July 2008; and

Setting Strategic Direction, Fareham SDA Mott Gifford/MVA February 2008.

2.4.1 BRT Alignment and Operation Assessment WSP (August 2008)

WSP Development and Transportation was commissioned by PRUPIM, a stakeholder in the

development for the proposed Fareham SDA, to assess the BRT alignment options between Fareham

Town Centre and the SDA.

The alignments investigated by the study were put forward by both PRUPIM and Hampshire County

Council as part of previous related studies.

The principle focus of the assessment was to identify a route that would best serve the SDA in terms


12/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

The study provided policy context for the development of a comprehensive BRT network in South

Hampshire. The BRT proposal developed from a light rail transit (LRT) which HCC was forced to

abandon by central government in 2005 on the grounds of cost. The LRT project proposed to linkFareham, Gosport and Portsmouth and was also known as the South Hampshire Rapid Transit

(SHRT).

Despite the abandonment of the LRT scheme, development of a new transit system continued. During

the development of LRT two alternative schemes were considered, with BRT seen as the next best

option to deliver some of the strategic benefits of the LRT for the area. This is supported in both the

Hampshire County Councils Local Transport Plan 2 (2006-2011) and Fareham Borough Council

transport strategies for the proposed SDA.

The WSP report therefore explored four BRT options, three of which had sub-options for routes

through Fareham. The options considered were as follows:

Option 1 Access via disused rail line route;

Option 2 Access Via Kiln Lane;

Option 3 Access via Funtley Hill; and

Option 4 Access via the A32 (M27 Junction 10).

The report tested the options in terms of operational requirements, assessing whether the options

provided an efficient network with high levels of accessibility. The assessment examined the potential

journey times, locations of bus stops and vehicle requirements to operate the route option and provided

an engineering assessment of each route.

The report ranked the options using a scoring matrix against the following Criteria:

Integration with the wider BRT system;

Ensuring Journey Time Reliability;

Provide access to central Fareham;

An efficient and accessible route throughout the SDA sectors;

Cost; and


13/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

The report did not select an option but provided data to inform debate on the options available to serve

the proposed SDA with BRT. This assessment cannot, and does not, determine the preferred BRT

routing. However, of the two highest scoring options, Option 4 provides a scheme that requiresconsiderably less traffic management measures to be implemented, as the route for BRT would follow

the A32 for the majority of its journey. Whereas, Option 3 would require considerable investment in

junction improvements to accommodate bus priority systems and permanent changes to the

management of residential traffic flows in the north Fareham area.

For the SDA Access Study it is assumed that Option 4 is used as the basis for BRT provision between

the SDA and Fareham Town Centre. However, it should be stressed that this selection is for the

assessment of SDA Access options to the M27 only and does not conclude the selection process

required for BRT routing. Indeed the final access strategy for the proposed SDA will need to consider

the wider impact of BRT options which is outside the scope of this study.

2.4.2 Assessing the Impact of the Harbour Authorities Local Development FrameworkProposals on the Strategic Highways Network Peter Brett Associates (July 2008)

The Peter Brett Associates (PBA) study focused on updating the Solent Strategic Transport Model and

calculating a detailed forecast of growth and distribution patterns related to the development proposals

set out in the Core Strategies of the Harbour Authorities. The model was for an AM peak period only.

PBA supplied Mott MacDonald with the model results for the M27 Junctions 10 and 11. Three

scenarios were provided which were the with and without the proposed SDA development.

The PBA assessment was not required to investigate mitigation measures for the traffic issues

identified in their model. Mott MacDonald therefore continues on from PBAs initial assessment andinvestigates suitable access options for the proposed SDA.

It was noted that the projected traffic flows at the M27 J10 and J11 showed that demand to and from

the east was considerably higher than those to and from the west.

2.4.3 Setting Strategic Direction, Fareham SDA Mott Gifford/MVA (February 2008)

The report considered the transport implications of the proposed large development area included in

the South East Plan known as North Fareham Strategic Development Area (SDA). The Summary of

the report provides a concise review of the report main findings and is provided in Appendix B for

reference. A distilled version of the summary is provided below, focusing on the main transportation

issues pertinent to this Access Study.


14/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

A containment factor of 40% was assumed for the purposes of the study, i.e. 40% of the economically

active population will live and work in the SDA. If the containment factor were lower, the movements

to and from the SDA during the peaks could be very significantly higher. The robustness of the 40%figure should be considered in detail before any clear conclusions are drawn regarding transport

measures required to deliver the SDA;

The distribution of trips associated with the SDA during the peak periods is orientated strongly

towards Portsmouth as the main employment and retail centre;

Public transport connectivity to key destinations is critical and Bus Rapid Transit is the centrepiece of

the public transport strategy for the SDA, with a route proposed to penetrate the site through M27 J10.

Consideration of highway access from the Strategic Road Network (SRN) involved the M27 J10 and

M27 J11, as well as a combination of the two. Any solution will need to complement the SDAs public

transport package rather than compete against it and any option which allows movement for all traffic

through M27 J10 will dilute the attractiveness of the BRT by limiting its journey time advantage over

the car for trips between the SDA and Fareham;

With a 40% containment factor applied and a progressive approach to the impact of smarter choices,

the preferred option for highway access from the SRN is to realign the A32 just south of Albany Farm

to tie in the M27 J11. The link will need to be a dual carriageway with two lanes both north and

southbound. M27 J11 would be improved through the introduction of a single lane free-flow

eastbound on-slip.

The existing A32 through M27 J10 and its existing east-facing slip roads would operate as bus/High

Occupancy Vehicle only, thus accommodating the buses on a north/south alignment whilst providingquick access from the SDA to/from the M27 and the proposed bus/HOV lane using the M27 hard

shoulder. Careful consideration would be needed regarding the enforcement of this proposal, as with

any HOV scheme and the time periods in which the restrictions would apply;

Only a small percentage of trips associated with the SDA would be distributed to the north towards

Alton. The A32 north of the SDA would carry significant traffic levels with or without the SDA going

ahead, as background traffic using this route is forecast to increase in 2026; and

Although a transport strategy has been identified which will provide multi-modal access between the

SDA and its key destinations, the strategy has not been considered in the context of demand

management measures such as city centre parking controls. The aspirations for sustainable

development are only likely to be realised in terms of transport if area wide demand management of

t i i l t d t i t th t 20


15/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

2.5 Other Supporting Documents or Studies

2.5.1 Circular 2/07: Planning and the Strategic Road Network - Department for Transport

Circular 2/07 provides an explanation of how the Highways Agency (HA) is to participate in all stages

of the planning process. The document sets out a framework for collaborative working coordinating a

number of organisations including Government Offices, regional and local planning authorities, local

highway authorities, public transport providers and developers. The aim of this working alliance is to

ensure national and regional objectives are aligned with a common objective in terms of the strategic

road network and standards.

In summary the circular details how:

The HA will have an active involvement in the development of Regional Spatial Strategies,

Local Development Frameworks;

Working together and in partnership will establish mutual goals and assist in the production of

a sustainable development policy; and

Sets out how the HA will deal with planning applications.

The circular emphasises the importance of consultation in securing delivery of sustainable and

effective outcomes for the road network, which will not burden other road users should a development

go ahead.

With regard to this assessment, an access study, 'The Capacity enhancements and access to the

network' section is the most pertinent in determining the appropriate access strategy for the SDA ontothe SRN.

In section 41 of the DfT document it states that:

There is a general presumption that there will be no additional accesses to motorways and other

routes of strategic national importance, other than the provision of service areas, facilities for the

travelling public, maintenance compounds and, exceptionally, other major transport interchanges.

Access from other types of development to motorways and other routes of strategic national

importance will be limited to existing junctions with all-purpose roads. Modifications to existing

junctions will be carried out only where traffic flows and safety will not be adversely affected.

Connections to slip roads and/or connector roads will not be permitted.

Therefore based on the above statement if an option for access to the SDA requires a new junction on


16/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

For the Fareham SDA the Companion Document states:

At Fareham: careful balance between maintaining settlement identity and maximising opportunitiesfor sustainable movement between the SDA and the existing urban area; quality of public transport

connections with Portsmouth, including the development of an attractive bus based service linking

Portsmouth and Fareham via Gosport; sensitive treatment of the relationship with Portsdown Hill to

the east of the SDA location, and of the setting of the neighbouring settlements

This statement therefore confirms regional planning policy support for providing options that improve

transport links eastwards, towards Portsmouth.

2.5.3 A32 Access Study - Mott Gifford (December 2008)

Although not part of this assessment the realignment of the A32, as identified in the Mott Gifford/

MVA report above plays a significant role in the development of any access improvements for the

proposed Fareham SDA. A high level assessment of the route options for the A32 realignment has

been undertaken for the A32 Realignment Study carried out by Mott Gifford. The realignment study

assesses seven potential routes between the existing A32 and M27 Junction 11.

The implication of the A32 realignment has also been considered in the WSP and PBA reports. Indeed

the PBA model provided a projection of likely reassignment of trips between M27 J10 and J11, should

the link be provided. For this assessment the exact line of the route is not important, however the

likely reassignment of trips between M27 J10 and J11 with improved infrastructure in place is a key

issue.

2.5.4 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Fact Sheet 2002 and ICARO 1999 (Leeds City Council)

The use of an High Occupancy Vehicle lanes is considered in this study. To determine the likely

reassignment of traffic movements the High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Fact Sheet 2002 and ICARO

1999 has been referenced. The link to the online document is provided below.

(www.konsult.leeds.ac.uk/private/level2/instruments029/12_029c.htm accessed on 29/10/2008

The study investigated HOV lanes and provides case studies. In essence an HOV lane is designed to

discourage single or low occupancy car use by providing priority to vehicles with more than a

minimum number of people (usually 2 or 3). In turn, possible congestion will be reduced as there will

be fewer vehicles on the road. In order to gain public support for HOV lanes, it is crucial to police the

appropriate use of this lane. Enforcement, according top the case study at the above link, can be either
http://www.konsult.leeds.ac.uk/private/level2/instruments029/12_029c.htm%20accessed%20on%2029/10/2008http://www.konsult.leeds.ac.uk/private/level2/instruments029/12_029c.htm%20accessed%20on%2029/10/2008http://www.konsult.leeds.ac.uk/private/level2/instruments029/12_029c.htm%20accessed%20on%2029/10/2008


17/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

3 TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

3.1 Assessment Year

The year of assessment is 2026 when it assumed that the SDA will be completed.

3.2 Assessment Period

In the absence of a PM peak model, and with confirmation that an AM peak assessment using SSTM

is acceptable to the Highways Agency for the purposes of assessing impact of Farehams core strategy

on the Strategic Highway Network, the SSTM 2026 AM peak hour period is the assessment period.

3.3 Study Area

The study area includes M27 Junctions 10 and 11 including motorway slip roads. Non-motorwayjunctions are not considered within this study.

3.4 Assignment of Traffic

The short study programme does not allow for an iterative approach to testing and developing all the

potential access strategy options. Ideally, proposed modifications to the network would be coded into

the SATURN model with assignments run to understand the resultant redistribution of traffic betweenthe two junctions (including background traffic), prior to more detailed analysis. The approach to

reassignment in this study is therefore mainly a first principles manual approach based upon a number

of assumptions. The one exception is the option to realign the A32 to tie in to M27 Junction 11, which

PBA had assumed in their study and the reassignment of traffic from the wider area in response this

scheme has been allowed for in the flows extracted from SSTM. Assumptions applied to the manual

assignment of traffic are : -

If a new all moves junction is provided at J10 then traffic to and from the A27 will be shared

between J11 and J10 70%/30% respectively. The distribution of these trips east and west is in

the same proportion to the base data;

Where BRT priority is proposed at the M27 Junction 10, only BRT vehicles are permitted on


18/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

Figure 3.1: Illustration of Trip Reassignment Assumptions

J10

J11

N

M27

SDA35%

SDA

65%

SDA

A32

30%

A32

70%

A27Fareham

3.5 Design flows for lane requirements

The design flows for the traffic lanes requirements are based on the Highways Agency Design Manual

for Roads Bridges standards TD22/06 Layout of Grade Separated Junctions. It is assumed that the

design flow per lane is 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) for all-purpose roads, and 1,800vph per lane for

motorways Although these figures do not represent the maximum throughput per lane greater traffic


19/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

4 ASSESSMENT OF ACCESS OPTIONS

4.1 General

This section reviews the highway options proposed for access to the Fareham SDA from the M27. For

reference an indicative highway layout is presented with each option. For this first stage the internal

layout of the proposed SDA and details of lane layouts at the junctions is not considered.

4.2 Description of Options

Five broad options have been proposed which provide access to the proposed SDA from the M27.

Three of the options have previously been considered in the Setting Strategic Direction, Fareham

SDA report produced by Mott Gifford/MVA Consultancy.

The options which are considered in this study are:

Option 1 Do Minimum Only minor changes to the highway network are made in this

scenario.

Option 2 New all traffic movements junction is provided west of the existing M27 J10

with the Bus Rapid Transit route using the existing M27 J10.

Option 3 West facing slip roads are provided to the west of M27 J10 with the A32

realigned to M27 J11. A BRT route is provided through the existing M27 J10;

Option 4 Existing M27 J10 is upgraded to accommodate all traffic movements and the

A32 is realigned to join M27 J11; and

Option 5 M27 J10 remains unchanged with a dedicated BRT route in peak periods and the

A32 is realigned to join M27 J11.

A matrix of which features are included in each option is presented in Table 4.1 below. A description

of the elements is also provided for reference.

Table 4-1 Option Matrix


20/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

Additional West facing slip roads at J10 The option proposes to provide west facing slip roads

at M27 Junction 10 but as a separate junction.

New All moves junction at M27 J10 - A new junction is constructed to the west of M27 J10. This

would be an all moves junction allowing traffic from the north and south of the M27 to access the

M27 east and westbound mainlines.

A32 Realigned to tie into M27 J11 - Assumes a link between the existing A32 and the M27 J11.

For this study the alignment of the link is not significant and therefore the reassignment of traffic

between the junctions is the same for each option that includes this element.

The realignment of the A32 at M27 J11 assumes the provision of a segregated left turn lane from A32

to the M27 eastbound slip road. The type of segregated lane is illustrated in the Highways Agency

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges TD51/03 at Figure 2/6. This shows a segregated lane feeding

directly into the offside lane of the slip road. This arrangement takes advantage of the current M27 J11

layout where two lanes are provided on the slip road to M27 eastbound mainline

BRT & HOV Lane Assumes that access at the existing M27 is restricted to Bus Rapid Transit

(BRT) and High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV). This restriction is assumed to be applied across the

whole peak assessment, ie the AM peak period. BRT and HOV could be phased in at stages of

development, with the HOV element of the proposal coming in much later. Once the development

matures, an HOV policy could be initiated, furthering the cumulative impact of modal shift to ease

possible congestion. As per the Leeds case study, the restrictions on access through the junctions

would most probably be for peak periods only.

As highlighted in the WSP report, reducing congestion on the Fareham/Gosport peninsula is a priorityfor Hampshire County Council. This will be achieved in part by the provision of a dedicated route for

high speed bus travel between Gosport and Fareham. The proposed BRT link between the proposed

SDA and Fareham Town Centre is seen as a key element of that scheme.

All traffic on M27 J10 Slip roads Some options assume that certain turning moves would be

banned for all motorists as a result of HOV or BRT at M27 J10. Therefore if no restrictions are

implemented then an all moves/ all traffic junction is possible.

4.3 Option Cost Review

An order of magnitude cost for each option has been estimated which allows comparison between

each option. However, the estimates were based upon basic information with a high level of risk.


21/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

Statutory undertakings

Major road land drainage

Design

4.4 Assessment Criteria

The options will be assessed against the following criteria:

Policy

o Whether the proposal meets the aspiration of providing a suitable BRT link betweenSDA, Fareham and towards Portsmouth;

o In line with Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East that the option prioritises

improvements to eastern facing transport links between the SDA and the Portsmouth

area; and

o The access strategy conforms to Department for Transport Circular 02/07.

Design Standards - Compliance with HA DMRB;

Traffic Capacity - Suitability in terms of providing appropriate level of traffic capacity;

Cost/ Benefit Whether the scheme is Value for money considering the likely traffic flows

using the proposed facility; and

Deliverability Issues Assesses likely land take and construction issues such as likely impact

on existing structures, road infrastructure (outline design level only) or communities.

As this is a high level assessment the identification of deliverability issues for each option is in broad

terms only. This study does not investigate detailed issues such as; geotechnical constraints, structural

suitability, construction phasing issues, exact land take and associated works. The deliverability

assessment is to determine whether the option has any fundamental risks that would result in the

option being wholly undeliverable. Therefore there may still be some construction challenges/ riskseven if the scheme is viewed in this assessment as a suitable option.

The assessment may not provide commentary on every aspect identified above as analysis may reveal

that a single criterion is sufficiently detrimental for the option to be discounted eg if the scheme

contravenes policy set out in DfT Circular 02/07.


22/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

4.5 Option Evaluations

4.5.1 Option 1 Do Minimum

(i) Description of Option

This option assumes that there would be no improvements made to the existing road network. Access

to the proposed development would therefore be achieved via J10 where east facing only slip roads arecurrently provided. Trips arriving from the west on the M27 would be required to u-turn at J11 then

travel west to J10 to access the development. All egress from the proposed development onto the M27

is achieved at J10 through the east facing slip road. Therefore vehicles from the development wishing

to travel west would need to undertake a u-turn at J11.

This option is identified as the Do Minimum scenario and is illustrated in Figure 4.1 below.

Figure 4.1 Option 1 Do Minimum

N

A32

SDA

J10

M27

J11A32

FarehamA27


23/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

In addition the alternative BRT alignments through North Fareham west of the A32 are likely to be

challenging to deliver as they could require substantial traffic management measures and bus priority

junction improvements to be made. Such an option would reduce journey time advantages for the BRTand could result in additional land take requirements.

The option does not provide an improved access for east facing slip roads and therefore could be seen

as contravening Regional Spatial Strategy aspirations.

The option does not provide any improvements to accommodate the additional traffic demand. The

Highways Agency, in accordance with DfT Circular 02/07, would not endorse this option as this could

compromise the level of service on the M27 by placing addition traffic pressure on slip roads andjunctions that are currently over capacity.

Conclusion

To dismiss any improvements would exacerbate existing queuing problems, due to the additional

development traffic demand.

This scheme has been discounted as a viable access option as it does not satisfy current transportpolicy.


24/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

4.5.2 Option 2 New M27 J10 all traffic movements


Option 2 proposes to provide a new all moves junction, located to the west of the existing J10. For

Option 2 a BRT route is provided through the existing M27 J10 and therefore southbound access for

traffic travelling to Fareham is restricted. Access north bound for local traffic is still permitted. A

sketch of Option 2 is shown at Figure 4.2 (schematic layout only).

Figure 4.2 Option 2 new M27 J10 with BRT

A32

N SDA

J10

M27

J11

A32Fareham

A27

(ii) Option Appraisal

Policy

This option would allow a high speed bus link to be provided between the SDA and Fareham through

the existing M27 J10. Therefore this option is considered a suitable option in policy terms. Priorities


25/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

Design Standards

Notwithstanding the above policy failure of such an access proposal, a major risk for the suitability ofproviding a new all moves M27 J10 is achieving the weaving length specified in the Highways

Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). The minimum distance specified for the

weaving length is 2km between junctions (DMRB Vol. 6 TD22/06).

An alternative solution would be to reduce the weaving distance required by lowering the existing

speed limit on this section of the M27. It is questionable whether the Highways Agency (HA) would

find such a strategy an acceptable solution.

Traffic Capacity

The PBA traffic model for the AM peak scenario indicates that the A32 would need to be upgraded to

a dual carriageway with three lanes southbound and two lanes northbound. To reduce the A32

southbound carriageway to a two lane carriageway the development traffic would need to be reduced

by between 10% and 20% in the AM Peak. Beyond the SDA development the number of lanes

required is likely to be less.

Having such a major road travelling through the site on a north-south axis would result in a major

severance issue within the proposed SDA development compromising the east/ west permeability of

the site.

Cost/ Benefit

The order of magnitude cost for Option 2 has been estimated to be in the region of 11,535,000

The PBA model flows indicate that westbound demand is considerably lower than eastbound demand.

Such low levels of demand could make it difficult to justify a large expenditure on infrastructure and

land purchase when investment in the A32 link and associated M27 J11 improvements could provide

similar benefits to this westbound traffic, as well as improve eastbound access capacity.

Deliverability Issues

The provision of a new major grade separated junction on the M27 will require considerable land take.

As well as land take for the junction itself, consideration will need to be made on how such a junction

could be linked to the existing highway network. It is likely that any connector roads could result in

moderate severance issues for both the proposed SDA and considerable traffic impact on the

residential area north of Fareham Town Centre.


26/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

To satisfy DMRB standards the new junction would be located and aligned in such a manner

that the connector roads would result in considerable traffic impact on the residential area

north of Fareham Town Centre. The connector roads would also impact on the aspirations ofthe SDA master plan layouts by splitting the site into two parts.

This option will therefore not be considered for further assessment.

F h SDA


27/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

4.5.3 Option 3 Split M27 J10 all traffic movements


Option 3 proposes to upgrade M27 J10 to an all moves junction for access to the SDA only. The

junction improvement would essentially be a mirror of the existing junction providing the missing

west facing slip roads. Option 3 would therefore have the following improvements or features:

New west facing slip roads for all traffic moves at M27 J10.

Realigned A32 to M27 J11;

Southbound access to Fareham through J10 would be restricted to BRT only;

Slip roads at J10 would be restricted to HOV and BRT access only.

A sketch of Option 3 is presented in Figure 4.3 below (schematic layout only see Mott Giffordreport A32 Realignment, Options Identification)

Figure 4.3 Option 3 split M27 J10 with A32 realigned

J10

J11

M27

A32

A32

SDAN

F h SDA


28/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

In terms of the Regional Spatial Strategy this proposal does provide improvements for east facing

transport links via the realigned A32 to the M27 J11. However, the Highways Agency, in accordance

with DfT Circular 02/07, would not endorse this option as the new slip roads would be viewed as anew junction onto the M27.

Design Standards

For the west facing slip roads it is assumed that any new junction designed at this site will be designed

in accordance with HA DMRB standards.

To satisfy DMRB standards the new slip road could be located and aligned in such a manner that theconnector roads could result in considerable traffic impact on the aspirations of the SDA master plan

layouts by splitting the site into two parts.

This study does not consider issues associated with the potential alignment of the new A32 link road.

A separate Mott Gifford study provides an assessment of potential link alignments called Fareham

Strategic Development Area, A32 Realignment Options Identification.

It is assumed that the M27 J11 segregated left turn lane from the new A32 link to the eastbound M27mainline will be designed in accordance to TD51/03.

Traffic Capacity

With these probable changes in flows it is envisaged that no alterations would be required for the

existing A32. However, the new A32 realignment would need to be a dual carriageway with three

lanes eastbound to M27 J11 and two lanes westbound from the junction. To reduce the realigned A32

to a dual carriageway with two lanes in both directions the eastbound development traffic would need

to be reduced by up to 10%.

Based on the reassignment of PBA flows the new connector roads at the split J10 could be single

carriageway.

It should be noted that the proposed junction improvements at J11 might not have sufficient capacity

to accommodate the eastbound flows derived from the PBA model. Therefore it is assumed that any

demand over and above the capacity of the segregated left turn lane will be dealt with by reducing

trips from the SDA. The likely reduction of trips required from the site may be in the order of between

50-60% of east bound trips after the BRT and HOV reassignment.

Cost/ Benefit

Fareham SDA


29/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

As discussed above in the option descriptions the A32 will connect to M27 J11. For eastbound traffic

from the SDA a segregated left turn lane will be provided. There is a risk that the additional traffic on

this slip road could require the merging section of the slip road to be extended beyond the bridge forDownend Road. This could result in the span of the bridge needing to be increased.

Conclusion

The Option is considered unsuitable for the following reasons:

The option does not conform to policy set out in DfT Circular 02/07 as this is considered to be

a new junction onto the SRN.

The likely cost to benefit ratio may be disproportionate for a new west facing slip roads as the

flows to and from the west that the junction would facilitate are low.

To satisfy DMRB standards the new junction may be located and aligned in such a manner

that the connector roads compromise the aspirations of the SDA master plan layouts by

severing the site into two parts.

This option is therefore not considered further due to the cost and severance issues identified above.

Fareham SDA


30/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

4.5.4 Option 4 Existing M27 J10 all traffic movements


Option 4 proposes to provide a dumbbell type junction. Option 4 would therefore have the following

improvements or features:

Two new roundabout junctions located on the existing A32 either side of the M27

New west facing slip roads for all traffic moves at M27 J10.


A sketch of the layout is presented in Figure 4.4 below (schematic layout only see Mott Gifford

report A32 Realignment, Options Identification). The assessment of this proposal assumes that the

new A32 link would be provided to M27 J11.

Figure 4.4 Option 4 M27 J10 all traffic movements with A32 realigned

J10

N

M27

A32

SDA

J11A32

FarehamA27

Fareham SDA


31/57

Access Study

(ii) Option Appraisal

Policy

This option requires access to the southern section of the junction to be open to all traffic for the west

facing slip roads. This option would therefore not be able to provide a priority route for BRT through

M27 J10. The proposed A32 Link Road prioritises eastbound movement by providing a second link

to/from the SDA site.

Although an alternative BRT route could be provided, as discussed above in Section 2, BRT

alignments through North Fareham west of the A32 are likely to be challenging to deliver as theycould require substantial traffic management measures and bus priority junction improvements to be

constructed. Such measures could result in additional land take requirements.

Providing west facing slips at M27 J10 may have considerable impact on the residential area in North

Fareham as additional trips could reassign from M27 J9 and J11 to this junction.

With regard to DfT Circular 02/07, this option is viewed as a junction improvement, so is acceptable.

Cost/ Benefit

The order of magnitude cost for Option 4 has been estimated to be in the region of 79,096,000.

The PBA model flows indicate that westbound demand is considerably lower than eastbound demand.

Such low levels of demand might make it difficult to justify a large expenditure on infrastructure and

land purchase when investment in M27 J11 improvements could provide similar benefits to this

westbound traffic, as well as improve the junctions performance for eastbound access.

Conclusion

This scheme has been discounted as the access option does not provide a priority route for BRT from

the proposed site to Fareham. An alternative BRT route could be used instead, however such a scheme

could be complex to deliver compared to a direct route along the A32 through J10 which would have

better journey time savings.

There is a considerable risk of trips currently using M27 J9 and J11 reassigning to use this junction to

travel west. This could greatly increase congestion in this area of north Fareham.

In cost benefit terms the infrastructure investment for the west bound slip roads may be

Fareham SDA


32/57

Access Study

4.5.5 Option 5 Existing M27 J10 BRT/HOV only with A32 link to J11


Option 5 would have the following improvements or features:

No major infrastructure changes to M27 J10;


Segregated left turn lane at J11 to allow direct access to M27 eastbound mainline;

Southbound access to Fareham through J10 would be restricted to BRT only; and

Slip roads at J10 would be restricted to BRT access only.

Option 5 is illustrated in Figure 4.5 below (schematic layout only see Mott Gifford report A32

Realignment, Options Identification).

Figure 4.5 Option 5 M27 J10 with A32 realigned and BRT

J10

N

M27

SDAA32

J11A32

Fareham SDA


33/57

Access Study

In terms of the Regional Spatial Strategy this proposal does provide improvements for east facing

transport links via the realigned A32 to the M27 J11.

With regard to DfT Circular 02/07, this option is viewed as a junction improvement.

Traffic Capacity

It is assumed that there would be no need for any improvements to the existing A32 southbound. The

new A32 realignment to M27 J11 would need to be a dual carriageway with two lanes to and from the

M27 J11. It is recognised that the proposed segregated left turn lane at J11 would not have sufficient

capacity for the eastbound demand. Therefore the eastbound trips generated by the development in theAM peak would need to reduce by between 50% and 60%.

Cost/ Benefit

The order of magnitude cost for Option 5 has been estimated to be in the region of 46,035,000.

This option is focused on providing improvements to the M27 J11 and the realignment of the A32.

The changes proposed at J10 could be minimal such as additional road markings and road signsbacked up by suitable enforcement measures.

Deliverability Issues

The connector road to J10 may still have substantial traffic flows as it is assumed that 35% of the trips

generated by the site may be HOV. This could still result in moderate severance issues for the

proposed SDA if the site was spilt east and west of the current A32.

Conclusion

The Option will be taken forward for further analysis for the following reasons:

It facilitates BRT access from the SDA to Fareham;

Provides improved east facing transport links;

Conforms with DfT Circular 02/07; and

The option provides additional junction capacity.

This option is therefore taken forward for further analysis in the next section

Fareham SDA

A S d


34/57

Access Study

4.6 Merge and Diverge analysis

All options have been assessed to determine the number of lanes required to meet merge and diverge

standards as set out in HA DMRB guidance. The required merging and diverging parameters have

been extracted from the DMRB standards TD22/06 Layout of Grade Separated Junctions. The

assessment is presented in Table 4.2 below. Option 2 has not been analysed as it is assumed that the

junction will be designed to HA DMRB standards, whereas the other options are improvements to

existing junction layouts and therefore require analysis.

Table 4-2 Summary of the Interchange Parameters

Existing Option 1 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5

M27 EB J10 Diverge (New) n/a n/a A A n/a

J10 Merge A F A B E

J11 Merge (New) n/a n/a F F F

M27 WB J10 Diverge A A A A A

J10 Merge (New) n/a n/a A G n/a

A32 SB J10 Diverge C D A C A

J10 Merge E E E E E

Merge Diverge

A - Taper merge A - Taper diverge

B - Parallel merge C - Lane drop at Taper diverge

E - Lane gain D - Ghost Island diverge for lane drop

F - Lane gain with Ghost Island E - 2 Lane drop

G - 2 Lane gain with Ghost Island

For reference some broad descriptions and the illustration from DMRB for the merge and diverge

layouts are provided below:

o Taper Merge Is where a slip road from a junction joins the mainline carriageway through anarea forming a funnel to the mainline carriageway (Figure 4.1).

Fareham SDA

Access St d


35/57

Access Study

Figure 4.2: Parallel merge

o Lane Gain The slip road from the junction does not taper but forms a new lane on the

mainline carriageway (Figure 4.3).

Figure 4.3: Merge with lane gain

o Lane gain with ghost island This is where a two lane slip road is provided from the junction .

The off side lane of the slip road merges with the mainline carriageway and the inside lanecontinues on to form a new lane on the mainline. The two slip road lanes are separated by a

ghost island (Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5).

Figure 4.4: Lane gain with Ghost Island option 1

Fareham SDA

Access Study


36/57

Access Study

Figure 4.5: Lane gain with Ghost Island merge option 2

o 2 Lane gain with ghost island A two lane slip road from a junction form two new lanes on

the mainline carriageway. The slip road lanes are separated by a ghost island (Figure 4.6).

Figure 4.6: 2Two lane gain with Ghost Island

o Taper Diverge - Where the slip road from the junction leaves the mainline carriageway

through an area forming a funnel from the mainline carriageway (Figure 4.7).

Fareham SDA

Access Study


37/57

Access Study

Figure 4.8: Lane drop at taper diverge

o Ghost island diverge for lane drop Where a two lane off slip road is provided by diverting

the nearside lane to form the first lane of the slip road and an additional taper diverge type slip

for lane two of the mainline carriageway. The diverging lanes are separated with a ghost

island (Figure 4.9).

Figure 4.9: Ghost Island diverge for lane drop

o 2 lane drop Two lanes on the mainline carriageway divert to form the off slip roads ( Figure4.10).

Fareham SDA

Access Study


38/57

y

The results indicate that for the M27 eastbound merge at J10 only Option 3 satisfies the standards for a

taper merge. All the other options could require the merging to be upgraded. Option 5, the preferred

access option, will require a review of mainline flows to determine the actual design of the merge.

Based on the PBA data indicates that the diverge movement for all the options satisfy the standards

and therefore no changes would be required for options that include westbound diverge movements at

M27 J10.

4.7 Summary of the Initial Option Assessment

The initial review of options reveals that OPTION 5 is the best option to satisfy the brief to provide

access for the proposed SDA from the Strategic Road Network.

The merge and diverge analysis revealed that Option 5 might require additional slip road capacity at

J11 for eastbound trips. This can be achieved by increasing the slip road length and alignment.

However, any such improvements could require the span of Downend Road bridge to be lengthened toaccommodate any additional lanes on the M27. In this study such infrastructure improvements are not

considered.

The assessment of the option is therefore not a predict and provide based assessment but uses a

reverse engineering approach where analysis is made only on improvements that can be constructed

within the limitations of the existing highway infrastructure. The traffic that cannot be accommodated

within the improvements is then highlighted as the amount of demand that needs to be dealt with in

some other manner, eg containment or mode switch. In the case of Option 5, based on thereassignment of PBA traffic forecasts, the eastbound SDA traffic could need to be reduced by between

50% and 60% in the AM peak.

Fareham SDA

Access Study


39/57

y

5 TRAFFIC MODELLING

This chapter presents the results of the traffic modelling (Stage 2) for Option 5, which is the only

option to be assessed.

Option 5 requires the M27 Junction 11 to be modelled. The junction is fully signalised in Option 5 and

therefore the TRANSYT computer program has been used for the capacity assessment. TRANSYT is

the industry standard program, developed by Transport Research Laboratories to analyse fully-

signalised or partially-signalised roundabouts. The junctions can be modelled, and their delay

minimised, by calculating timings which reduce blocking-back by keeping the circulating carriagewayfree flowing.

The base traffic model has been provided by WSP. The year of assessment for the proposed SDA is

2026 when it is assumed that the site will be fully developed. The assessment was carried out for the

morning peak period (AM) as per the PBA traffic data.

It is assumed that improvements to M27 J11 will be required to accommodate the SDA development

Flows and proposed A32 realignment. The model therefore includes the following alterations to the

existing layout:

Eastbound traffic from the A32 does not enter the roundabout but uses the segregated left turnlane; and

A third lane on the M27 Mainline West Off Slip at the stop line.

This is for an AM peak period only and additional changes or improvements may be required for a PM

peak period to accommodate the return trip.

A summary table of the results is provided below:

Table 5-1: M27 Junction 11 Signalised Junction Modelling Results

2026 Base Case No Development 2026 With Development andimprovements

ArmMax Degree Of

Saturation(%)

Max QMax Degree Of

Saturation(%)

Max Q

Proposed A32Link

37 0 70 9

M27 MainlineEast Off slip

83 26 83 26

Fareham SDA

Access Study


40/57

It should be noted that this assessment assumes that the majority of demand for M27 Junction 11

channelled into a segregated left turn lane between the realigned A32 and the M27 east mainline.

Further assessment of the mainline flows and the merge arranges is required to confirm that this option

is suitable.

It should also be noted that the provision of the segregated left turn lane requires a significant

reduction in vehicle trips generated by the proposed SDA development.

Further refinement of the strategic model and the junction layouts should be undertaken to confirm

that M27 J11 is suitable for the propose Fareham SDA.

Fareham SDA

Access Study


41/57

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusions

This study approached the selection of the options for access to the SDA from the M27 in two parts.

The first part assessed each proposal against broad evaluation criteria to narrow down the number of

access options to be taken forward to detailed traffic assessment. The second section of the report

provided a more detailed traffic assessment of the preferred option.

This study reviewed five access options for the proposed Fareham SDA from/to the M27. The option

appraisal section provided outline designs to illustrate the proposed access options. The five options

were:

Option 1 Do Minimum Only minor changes to the highway network are made in this

scenario.

Option 2 New all traffic movements junction is provided west of the existing M27 J10with the Bus Rapid Transit route using the existing M27 J10.

Option 3 West facing slip roads are provided to the west of M27 J10 with the A32

realigned to M27 J11. A BRT route is provided through the existing M27 J10;

Option 4 Existing M27 J10 is upgraded to accommodate all traffic movements and the

A32 is realigned to join M27 J11; and

Option 5 M27 J10 remains unchanged with a dedicated BRT route in peak periods and the

A32 is realigned to join M27 J11.

The option evaluation section assessed each access proposal against five criteria which were:

Policy;

Design Standards;

Traffic Capacity;

Cost/ Benefit; and

Fareham SDA

Access Study


42/57

The traffic review element of the study based its traffic assessment on the reassignment of PBA

SATURN traffic model data. The model used was for an AM peak period only and therefore there is

an element of risk when considering the traffic implications of each option. The return trip in the PM

peak could reveal that a valid option for the AM peak is not suitable for the PM peak and therefore

require additional refinement or an alternative option, previously dismissed on other grounds, be

considered.

It is important to note that all the options which were considered beneficial in traffic terms included

the A32 realignment.

After the first stage of the assessment only Option 5 was taken forward for further analysis. The trafficdata was input into a TRANSYT Model, a programme used to model linked traffic signals. This

revealed that Option 5 in the AM peak period worked satisfactorily.

It was concluded that OPTION 5 is the most suitable access option for the proposed Fareham SDA,

based on an AM peak period traffic assessment.

6.2 Recommendations

The traffic assessment of each option was based on the manual reassignment of an AM peak period

model only. It would be advisable that the preferred option, Option 5, is coded into the new traffic

model currently being developed. As well as providing more robust reassignment, this will reveal

whether Option 5 is suitable, in traffic terms, for a PM peak period.

Fareham SDA

Access Study


43/57

Appendix A HA Letter

Fareham SDA

Access Study


44/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study


45/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study


46/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study


47/57


48/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study


49/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study


50/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study


51/57

Appendix C TRANSYT Results


52/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

M M U if R d M M A


53/57

C-2227552/01/C - 6 February 2009/C-2 of 6P:\Southampton\HCC\Projects\227552\JD Fareham SDA Access\02 Documents\Out\MG-Fareham SDA Access Study Report-01D.doc/AP

Link NodeActualFlow

(PCU/H)

Sat.Flow

(PCU/H)

Degree OfSaturation

(%)

MeanCruise Time

Per PCU(sec)

MeanDelay TimePer PCU

(sec)

UniformDelay(PCU-H/H)

Rand +OverSatDelay

(PCU-H/H)

Cost OfDelay(/H)

MeanStops Per

PCU(%)

Cost OfStops(/H)

MeanMax

Queue(PCU)

AverageExcessQueue(PCU)

P.I.(/H)

Green1Start

Green1End

Green2Start

Green2End

101 1 1702 3856 83 11 17 5.5 2.4 112.2 82 79.6 26 0.0 191.8 39 10

102 1 763 1978 72 11 17 2.3 1.3 50.4 77 33.6 11 0.0 84.0 39 10

103 1 218 2015 70 8 28 1.1 0.6 24.1 99 12.3 8 0.0 85.7 17 34

104 1 207 2015 70 8 24 0.8 0.6 19.4 111 13.2 8 0.0 32.5 17 34

105 1 278 1978 61 8 25 1.4 0.6 27.9 92 14.6 6 0.0 100.9 17 34

106 1 84 1978 61 8 21 0.3 0.2 6.9 106 5.1 6 0.0 11.9 17 34

107 1 2127 6000 35 11 1 0.0 0.3 3.9 1 0.9 0 0.0 4.8

201 2 873 1908 83 18 21 2.7 2.4 72.8 89 17.3 14 0.0 90.1 5 37

202 2 1000 1965 93 18 32 3.4 5.5 126.3 111 24.7 20 0.0 150.9 5 37

203 2 978 2105 84 18 21 3.1 2.6 81.3 89 19.5 16 0.0 100.8 5 37

204 2 284 1965 51 5 27 1.6 0.5 29.8 110 17.9 5 0.0 47.7 44 0

206 2 363 2061 76 5 24 1.2 1.2 34.5 69 14.4 7 0.1 110.1 44 0

207 2 78 2061 76 5 32 0.4 0.3 9.9 119 5.3 7 0.1 18.8 44 0

208 2 400 1917 74 5 24 1.3 1.4 37.4 62 14.2 5 0.0 108.2 44 0

210 2 1235 4000 31 11 1 0.0 0.2 3.2 1 0.8 0 0.0 3.9

301 3 527 1864 85 11 37 2.7 2.6 76.2 113 34.1 11 0.0 110.3 44 3

302 3 541 1915 85 11 36 2.8 2.6 77.1 113 34.8 11 0.0 111.9 44 3

303 3 450 1980 82 8 16 0.8 1.2 28.7 68 17.4 13 0.0 115.5 10 39

304 3 363 1980 82 8 28 1.8 1.0 39.4 115 23.9 13 0.0 63.3 10 39

305 3 394 1908 83 8 18 0.8 1.2 27.6 73 16.6 14 0.0 110.5 10 39

Fareham SDA

Access Study

306 3 761 1908 80 8 12 0 6 1 9 36 4 26 11 4 4 0 0 47 8 10 39


54/57


306 3 761 1908 80 8 12 0.6 1.9 36.4 26 11.4 4 0.0 47.8 10 39

307 3 1607 4000 60 11 1 0.0 0.5 7.1 2 1.7 1 0.0 8.7

308 3 400 1908 83 8 30 2.1 1.2 46.5 117 26.7 14 0.0 73.2 10 39

309 3 777 4000 60 11 1 0.0 0.2 3.4 2 0.8 1 0.0 4.2

401 4 496 1852 37 18 2 0.0 0.3 4.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 4.2

402 4 291 4000 26 9 1 0.0 0.0 0.7 1 0.2 0 0.0 0.9

403 4 761 4000 26 9 1 0.0 0.1 1.8 1 0.4 0 0.0 2.3

404 4 761 2400 32 11 1 0.0 0.2 3.3 2 0.8 0 0.0 4.1


55/57

Fareham SDA

Access Study

2026 AM


56/57


2026 AM

Link NodeActualFlow

(PCU/H)

Sat.Flow

(PCU/H)

Degree OfSaturation

(%)

MeanCruise Time

Per PCU(sec)

MeanDelay Time

Per PCU(sec)

UniformDelay

(PCU-H/H)

Rand +OverSat

Delay(PCU-H/H)

Cost OfDelay

(/H)

MeanStops Per

PCU(%)

Cost OfStops

(/H)

MeanMax

Queue(PCU)

AverageExcess

Queue(PCU)

P.I.

(/H)

Green1

Start

Green1

End

Green2

Start

Green2

End

101 1 1702 3856 83 11 17 5.5 2.4 112.2 82 79.6 26 0.0 191.8 40 11

102 1 763 1978 72 11 17 2.3 1.3 50.4 77 33.6 11 0.0 84.0 40 11

103 1 218 2015 70 8 12 0.1 0.6 10.0 22 2.8 5 0.0 23.8 18 35

104 1 207 2015 70 8 22 0.7 0.6 17.9 106 12.5 5 0.0 30.4 18 35

105 1 278 1978 61 8 9 0.1 0.6 10.2 17 2.6 2 0.0 23.3 18 35

106 1 84 1978 61 8 18 0.2 0.2 5.9 94 4.5 2 0.0 10.5 18 35

107 1 2127 6000 35 11 1 0.0 0.3 3.9 1 0.9 0 0.0 4.8

201 2 873 1908 83 18 21 2.7 2.4 72.8 89 17.3 14 0.0 90.1 7 39

202 2 1000 1965 93 18 32 3.4 5.5 126.3 111 24.7 20 0.0 150.9 7 39

203 2 978 2105 84 18 21 3.1 2.6 81.3 89 19.5 16 0.0 100.8 7 39

204 2 284 1965 51 5 26 1.5 0.5 28.8 110 17.9 5 0.0 46.7 46 2

206 2 363 2061 76 5 23 1.1 1.2 33.4 71 14.7 7 0.1 110.6 46 2

207 2 78 2061 76 5 28 0.3 0.3 8.7 118 5.2 7 0.1 17.9 46 2

208 2 400 1917 74 5 23 1.2 1.4 36.0 63 14.4 5 0.0 107.8 46 2

210 2 1235 4000 31 11 1 0.0 0.2 3.2 1 0.8 0 0.0 3.9

301 3 527 1864 85 11 37 2.7 2.6 76.2 113 34.1 11 0.0 110.3 46 5

302 3 541 1915 85 11 36 2.8 2.6 77.1 113 34.8 11 0.0 111.9 46 5

303 3 450 1980 82 8 16 0.8 1.2 28.7 68 17.4 13 0.0 115.5 12 41

304 3 363 1980 82 8 28 1.8 1.0 39.4 115 23.9 13 0.0 63.3 12 41

Fareham SDA

Access Study

305 3 394 1908 83 8 18 0 8 1 2 27 6 74 16 6 14 0 0 110 5 12 41


57/57


305 3 394 1908 83 8 18 0.8 1.2 27.6 74 16.6 14 0.0 110.5 12 41

306 3 761 1908 80 8 12 0.6 1.9 36.4 26 11.4 4 0.0 47.8 12 41

307 3 1607 4000 60 11 1 0.0 0.5 7.1 2 1.7 1 0.0 8.7

308 3 400 1908 83 8 30 2.1 1.2 46.7 117 26.7 14 0.0 73.4 12 41

309 3 777 4000 60 11 1 0.0 0.2 3.4 2 0.8 1 0.0 4.2

401 4 496 3856 70 18 31 3.2 1.2 61.5 101 11.2 9 0.0 72.7 17 27

402 4 291 5632 29 9 2 0.1 0.1 2.2 8 1.3 9 0.0 3.5 34 12

403 4 761 5632 29 9 6 1.1 0.1 17.6 56 24.1 9 0.0 41.7 34 12404 4 761 2400 32 11 3 0.4 0.2 8.9 45 19.7 11 0.0 28.6