13 effects on pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians and road … · 200 715/m8 motorway & greenock...

200

715/M8 MOTORWAY & GREENOCK ROAD (A8), INCHINNAN CASS ASSOCIATES ROYAL ORDNANCE, BISHOPTON MARCH 2015

13 Effects on Pedestrians, Cyclists, Equestrians and Road Safety

Introduction

13.1 This chapter provides an assessment of the impact of the proposed M8 Junction 29A scheme on journeys that are made by pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians in the area. The layout of the proposed Interchange is shown in DBA Drawing No 06614/100/100 Revision K (Figure 13.1). For ease of reference the terms ‘pedestrians and others’ and Non-Motorised Users (NMUs) are used to describe this group.

13.2 This assessment, produced by Dougall Baillie Associates (DBA), has been prepared in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) (Volume 11, Section 3, Part 8) and focuses on the following aspects:

• Local travel patterns & changes in journey lengths and times;

• The effect on the amenity value of journeys; and

• Changes in existing and new severance of links with community facilities.

Methodology

13.3 The significance of the environmental effects on pedestrians and others as a result of the proposed M8 Junction 29A was undertaken in accordance with the general approach to environmental impact assessment outlined in DMRB Volume 11 Section 2 Part 5. Specific methodology followed the guidance in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 8, and included:

• Baseline data collection: identification of the key community facilities within the study area and their catchment area, to estimate the number of users of key routes affected by the Scheme and their existing journey times;

• Potential Impacts: assessment of any likely changes to existing non-motorised journeys as a result of the proposed scheme with respect to journey length, amenity and community severance, prior to mitigation;

• Mitigation design: incorporating mitigation design through an iterative process, in order to comply with legislation and national and local access policies; and

• Residual impacts: assessment of the residual impacts based on the mitigation proposals incorporated into the design.

Baseline Data Collection

13.4 For the purposes of journey length and amenity value assessments, the study area was defined as a corridor along the A8 Greenock Road west & east of the proposed M8 Junction 29A between Station Road and the Red Smiddy roundabout as shown on DBA Sketch No 14070-SK-01 (Figure 13.2). For community severance assessment, the study area was defined to include catchment areas of community facilities and recreational areas potentially affected by the proposed scheme or related traffic changes in the wider Bishopton area.

13.5 Baseline data was collated from the following sources:

• Site surveys to identify key community facilities and routes used by pedestrians and others;

• Liaison with the local Roads Authority, Renfrewshire Council, in particular their Access Officer

• Review of The Adopted Renfrewshire Local Plan to identify land use designations;

201


• Review of Renfrewshire Council Outdoor Access Strategy, Core Paths Plan & Out There on Bikes;

• Review of Ordnance Survey Maps to identify footpaths, cycle routes, settlements, facilities, etc; and

• A web based search to identify community facilities, bus routes, and population estimates for settlements.

13.6 A Non-Motorised User Survey (NMU) was carried out on the A8 Greenock Road in the vicinity of the M8 overbridge on Friday 4, Saturday 5 & Sunday 6 April 2014 between 08:00-18:00. The purpose of the survey was to determine the level of pedestrian, equestrian and pedal cycle usage along the key route directly affected by the proposed Scheme. A typical weekday and weekend were included to gather information on commuter and recreational use.

Determination of Impact Significance

13.7 Impact significance is determined as a function of a receptor’s sensitivity (environmental value) and the magnitude (extent of change) of the impact.

Sensitivity

13.8 In relation to the effect of the proposed scheme on Pedestrians & Others the level of useage has been utilised as a guide to sensitivity. A five point scale has been used as shown in Table 13.1 varying from negligible (never used) to very high (used frequently) based on advice in DMRB Volume 11 Section 2 (Table 2.1).

Sensitivity Typical Descriptors

Very High

The facilities are heavily used by a large number of pedestrians, cyclists and/or equestrian users. Any impact would result in

significant disruption and discontent amongst a large number of individuals.

High

The facilities are used regularly by a large number of pedestrians, cyclists and/or equestrian users. Any impact would result in

considerable disruption and discontent amongst a large number of individuals.

Medium

The facilities are used occasionally by a reasonable number of pedestrians, cyclists and/or equestrian users. Any impact would

result in a reasonable amount of disruption and discontent to those individuals concerned.

Low The facilities are rarely used by a small number of people. Any impact would result in slight disruption and discontent to those individuals.

Negligible The facilities are not used by pedestrians, cyclists and/or equestrians.

Table 13.1 – Sensitivity of Pedestrian & Others

13.9 The magnitude of impact is the degree of change that will be caused by the works. Typical descriptors are contained in DMRB Volume 11 Section 2 (Table 2.2) varying between No Change and Major. Details of Magnitude Criteria for Journey Length, Amenity & Severence are set out below.

Magnitude - Journey Length

13.10 DMRB Volume 11 provides a method for predicting changes in journey lengths and patterns arising for a proposed scheme. Journey length includes both distance travelled and time taken. The method requires the

202


identification on a map of key community facilities and their catchment areas. This map is then utilised to assess any change in journey length between the catchment and community facility caused directly by the proposed road scheme or indirectly by changes in traffic flow on existing routes. Journey lengths can be measured on the map, and an estimate of journey time can then be calculated using average journey speeds and distance travelled.

13.11 The magnitude criteria are defined by change in journey length for pedestrians, in accordance with DMRB, ranging from Neutral (no change) to Major (>500m) as shown in Table 13.2.

Impact Magnitude

Criteria

Major Permanent loss/significant alteration of resource resulting in considerate

hindrance to pedestrians and others travel patterns, for example: increased journey distance for pedestrians by 500m or greater.

Moderate

Impact results in partial alteration to pedestrians, cyclist, equestrian or community facility such that the experience is diminished to a noticeable degree, for example: increased journey distance for pedestrians by 250-

500m.

Minor

Some measurable change from baseline conditions considered unlikely to impact existing travel patterns but may cause some hindrance to

movement, for example: increased journey distance for pedestrians by up to 250m.

Negligible Very minor alterations but will not impinge on use by pedestrians,

cyclists or equestrians. Existing travel patterns are unlikely to be altered.

No Change No loss or alteration of key characteristics, features or elements for pedestrians, cyclists or equestrians. Therefore no impact predicted.

Table 13.2 – Magnitude of Impact on Journey Length

Magnitude - Amenity Value

13.12 The amenity value of a journey is defined in DMRB as ‘the relative pleasantness of a journey’. This relates in particular to the exposure of pedestrians and others to traffic, and the associated factors of noise, air quality and safety. Visual impacts and the width of the routes are also considerations.

13.13 Amenity value is a subjective issue and it is acknowledged that any changes in amenity value resulting from a new road would therefore also be subjective. However, for the purposes of assessment, it has been assumed that where pedestrians and others would experience a reduction in traffic or road-related noise, or visual impact and improvement in air quality, there would be a perceived improvement in amenity value. Conversely, an increase in any such traffic or road-related impacts or reduction in safety has been assumed to constitute a reduction in amenity value.

13.14 The Magnitude criteria for change in amenity are described in Table 13.3.

203


Impact Magnitude

Criteria

Major

(Adverse) - Significant increase in Exposure to traffic and/or reduction in footway width or proximity to traffic.

(Beneficial) – Significant Reduction in Exposure to traffic and or large scale improvement in footway provision. Proposed route is

substantially safer and more pleasant for use by pedestrian & others.

Moderate

(Adverse) - Moderate or noticeable increase in Exposure to traffic and/or reduction in footway width or proximity to traffic.

(Beneficial) – Moderate or noticeable reduction in Exposure to traffic and or moderate improvement/addition to features & elements in footway

provision which positively enhance user experience.

Minor

(Adverse) - Some change in Exposure to traffic and/or reduction in footway width or proximity to traffic. May cause some hindrance to

movement but unlikely to change existing travel patterns.

(Beneficial) – Minor reduction in Exposure to traffic and or minor improvement/addition to features & elements in footway provision which

provide a small beneficial improvement foe users.

Negligible Very minor alterations but will not impinge on use by pedestrians or

others. Existing travel patterns are unlikely to be altered.

No Change No loss or alteration of characteristics.

Table 13.3 – Magnitude of Impact on Amenity

Magnitude - Severance

13.15 Community severance is defined in DMRB as ‘the separation of residents from facilities and services they use within their community caused by new or improved roads or by changes in traffic flows’. The construction of new roads, or even relatively minor changes to existing roads, can result in significant changes to travel patterns within a community. A road may act as a barrier deterring people from using certain community facilities, or conversely, a diversion of road traffic away from a busy road may make an existing road easier to cross, thereby reducing community severance.

13.16 Existing severance is considered to be the severance of communities from their facilities, as caused by the existing road network.

13.17 Relief from existing severance can be described using Slight, Moderate or Substantial according to the DMRB. A guide to the extent of relief can be gained by considering the predicted reduction in traffic as shown in Table 13.4. The relevance of severance is not considered to be significant where existing traffic flows are relatively light. Impact assessment is not conducted on roads with an existing AADT flow of less than 8,000 vehicles.

204


Impact

Magnitude

Criteria

Built-Up Area Rural Area

Slight

When existing traffic levels are reduced by approximately 30%.

When existing traffic levels are reduced by approximately 60-75%. If the existing road passes through a village or on the perimeter of a built-up area, use 30%.

Moderate

When existing traffic levels are reduced by between 30% and 60%.

When existing traffic levels are reduced by between 75% and 90%. If the existing road substantially bisects a village or small town, use half these figures.

Substantial

When existing traffic levels are reduced by 60% or more.

When existing traffic levels are reduced by 90% or more. If the existing road substantially bisects a village or small

Table 13.4 – Magnitude of Impact on Existing Severance

13.18 New severance is considered as the severance of pedestrians and others from community facilities such as schools, bus stops and recreational areas as a result of the proposed scheme.

13.19 New severance is assessed using a three point scale as described in DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 and summarised in Table 13.5. It should be noted that the DMRB guidelines apply specifically to pedestrians. Cyclists and equestrians are less susceptible to severance because they can travel more quickly than those on foot, although they may still be deterred from making journeys which require them to negotiate additional roads and especially junctions.

Impact

Magnitude

Criteria

Slight

When a journey pattern is likely to be maintained although there may also be some hindrance to movement (such as crossing of a new road), for example:

• Pedestrian at-grade crossing of a new road carrying below 8,000 vehicles per day (AADT); or

• A new bridge will need to be climbed or a subway traversed; or

• Journey distance will be increased by up to 250m.

Moderate

When some residents (particularly elderly or children) are likely to be dissuaded from making trips or trips will become longer or less attractive, for example:

• Two or more of the hindrances set out under ‘Slight’ applying to single trips; or

• Pedestrian at-grade crossing of a new road carrying between 8,000 –

205


16,000 vehicles per day (AADT) in the opening year; or

• Journey distance will be increased by 250-500m.

Severe

Residents are likely to experience considerable hindrance or be deterred from making trips to the extent that routes are changed, for example:

• Pedestrian at-grade crossing of a new road carrying over 16,000 vehicles per day (AADT) in the opening year; or

• An increase in journey distance of over 500m; or

• Three or more of the hindrances set out under ‘slight’ or two or more set out under ‘moderate’

Table 13.5 – Magnitude of Impact on New Severance

Assigning Impact Significance

13.20 Assigning impact significance relies on reasoned argument, professional judgement and consideration of the views and advice of appropriate organisations.

13.21 Assigning each impact to one-five significance categories enables different topic issues to be placed within the same scale to allow a direct comparison. The five significance categories (Very Large, Large, Moderate, Slight & Neutral) and their descriptors are set out in Table 2.3 of DMRB Volume 11 Section 2, Part 5.

13.22 It is important to note that significance categories are required for positive (beneficial) as well as negative (adverse) effects.

13.23 The greater the receptor sensitivity and the greater the impact magnitude, the more significant the impact. The consequence of a highly sensitive receptor suffering a major detrimental impact would be a Very Large significant impact. Combining the Sensitivity, Magnitude and Sensitivity categories gives rise to eight potential outcomes as shown in Table 2.4 of DMRB Volume 11 Section 2, Part 5 which has been reproduced as Table 13.6.

Sensitivity

Impact Magnitude

No Change

Negligible Minor Moderate Major

Very High Neutral Slight Moderate or Large

Large or Very Large

Very Large

High Neutral Slight Slight or Moderate

Moderate or Large

Large or Very Large

Medium Neutral Neutral or Slight

Slight Moderate Moderate or Large

Low Neutral Neutral or Slight

Neutral or Slight

Slight Slight or

Moderate

206


Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral or Slight

Neutral or Slight

Slight

Table 13.6 – Determination of Impact Significance

Mitigation Design & Residual Impact

13.24 Mitigation of negative impacts associated with a project is based on guidance provided within Planning Advice Note 1/2013 which involves a combination of three approaches:

• Prevention of negative effect at source

• Reduction of negative impacts that cannot be eliminated by prevention

• Offsetting impact by the provision of compensatory measures.

13.25 The determination of impact significance should be undertaken both with and without committed mitigation measures. This will allow the case for and the effectiveness of mitigation to be established as well as identifying any residual impact.

Baseline Conditions

Study Area

13.26 The location of the proposed M8 Junction 29A Interchange relative to existing local facilities is shown in DBA Drawing No 14070-SK-01 (Figure 13.2). For the purposes of journey length and amenity value assessments, the study area was defined as a corridor along the A8 Greenock Road west & east of the proposed M8 Junction 29A between Station Road and the Red Smiddy roundabout. For community severance assessment, the study area was defined to include catchment areas of community facilities and recreational areas potentially affected by the proposed scheme or related traffic changes in the wider Bishopton area.

Existing Road Infrastructure

13.27 The section of A8 Greenock Road within the study area (east of Bishopton) is a rural road subject to the national speed limit (60mph). The width of the existing road carriageway is approximately is 7.3m wide. A continuous footway is provided on the north side of the road between Bishopton and the Red Smiddy Roundabout. The footway varies in width between 1.2m & 1.6m. A verge is provided on the south side of the road.

13.28 On the M8 overbridge the north footway and south verge are both surfaced. The footway and verge are both 2.75m wide.

13.29 In keeping with its rural road character there are limited intersections on Greenock Road, there is no street lighting and access points are limited to the 4 properties on this section of Greenock Road. The existing traffic flow lies between 450 – 600 vehicles per hour (combined 2-way).

NMU Survey

13.30 A Non-Motorised User Survey (NMU) was carried out on the A8 Greenock Road in the vicinity of the M8 overbridge on Friday 4, Saturday 5 & Sunday 6 April 2014 between 08:00-18:00. The purpose of the survey was to determine the level of pedestrian, equestrian and pedal cycle usage along the key route directly affected by the proposed Scheme. A typical weekday and weekend were included to gather information on existing commuter and recreational use. The results are shown in Table 13.7.

207


Pedestrian

Child/Adult/Elderly Cycle Equine

Friday E/B 0/4/0 11 0

W/B 0/3/0 10 0

Saturday E/B 0/1/0 17 0

W/B 0/2/0 18 0

Sunday E/B 0/8/0 27 0

W/B 0/4/0 30 0

Table 13.7 – NMU Survey Greenock Road

Pedestrians

13.31 As shown in the NUM survey pedestrian movement along Greenock Road is very low and intermittent. A maximum of 3 adult pedestrians was surveyed in any 1 hour period. The route was not used by any vulnerable groups.

13.32 The route is considered to have Low Sensitivity in terms of Pedestrian use.

13.33 Consultation with the Local Roads Authority confirmed that there are three existing Core Paths in the vicinity of the proposed scheme as shown in DBA Drawing No 14070-SK-01 (Figure 13.2).

• EI24 – This is an off-road circular recreational route through grazing land north of Greenock Road.

• BIS19 – This route is a section of the existing Greenock Road north footway between the edge of the village and the Barrangary Farm access.

• BIS10/11 – This route follows the Barrangary Farm access from Greenock Road south to the railway line.

Cyclists

13.34 As shown in the NUM survey cycle movement along Greenock Road is more significant than pedestrian use. A maximum of 5 cyclists was surveyed in any 1 hour period during the weekday, 9 on the Saturday and 13 on the Sunday. Observation has shown that leisure cycle groups use the Greenock Road route at weekends.

13.35 The route is considered to have Medium Sensitivity in terms of Cycle use largely due to travel demand at the weekend.

13.36 There are currently no formal cycle facilities either within Bishopton or passing close to the site. The nearest formal facility is the Paisley and Clyde Railway Path (National Cycle Network Route 75) which routes through Linwood, passes to the south of Houston and Kilmacolm and then on through Port Glasgow to finish at Gourock.

Equestrian

13.37 As shown in the NUM survey there is no equestrian movement along Greenock Road east of the village on a weekday or at the weekend. A popular equestrian centre is located to the west of the village and equestrian use is largely confined to this area.

13.38 The route is considered to have Negligible Sensitivity in terms of Equestrian use.

208


Community Effects

13.39 Key local facilities (schools, shops, churches, parks and play facilities) are located within the centre of Bishopton Village west of the proposed M8 Junction 29A Interchange scheme. Bishopton is clearly separated from neighbouring communities by a green belt and the closest settlement (Erskine) has its own provision of key facilities. The catchment area for key community facilities within Bishopton will be the extent of the Village.

Proposed RO Development

13.40 The M8 Junction 29A Interchange at Greenock Road is proposed in association with the redevelopment of the former Royal Ordnance site at Bishopton. The RO Development will be accessed via two new distributor roads which connect onto Greenock Road north and south of Bishopton village. The southern access road will be formed on Greenock Road immediately east of the Barrangary Farm access.

13.41 The proposed RO development will include some 2500 dwellings, community facilities, employment land, Community and Local services and a primary school.

13.42 A comprehensive network of pedestrian/cycle routes will be provided within the development site to provide safe and attractive movement between the various elements of the development. In particular, this network will provide sustainable linkages to the local services, primary education facilities, employment opportunities and the rail station from the residential development. The southern access road will incorporate a 3m wide combined footway/cycleway on the north/west side of the road.

13.43 The proposed M8 / Greenock Road Interchange will incorporate direct Eastbound on and Westbound off ramps between the A8 Greenock Road and the M8 Motorway constructed as a half diamond south of the M8 overbridge.

13.44 The west Interchange roundabout will be located ~300m west of the existing M8 overbridge and will have an Inscribed Circle Diameter (ICD) of 80m. The roundabout has been located north offline of the existing Greenock Road largely to avoid intrusion of the new Motorway off-slip into the former landfill site.

13.45 The east Interchange roundabout will be located ~175m east of the existing M8 overbridge and will have an ICD of 40m. The roundabout has been positioned slightly offline to the south of the existing Greenock Road in order to achieve the necessary entry path deflection.

13.46 In association with the proposed M8 Junction 29A Interchange Renfrewshire Council are likely to impose a 40mph speed limit on Greenock Road east from the existing Urban limit at Bishopton Village to the east Interchange roundabout. Likewise a 50mph speed limit will be imposed on Greenock Road between the east Interchange roundabout and the Red Smiddy.

13.47 As a result of the new development traffic volumes are predicted to increase on Greenock Road. The predicted traffic volume on Greenock Road west of the Interchange is predicted to lie between 1700 - 1900 vehicles per hour (combined 2-way) during the weekday peak hours, 1200-1400 vehicles per hour (combined 2-way) on the overbridge and 650-700 vehicles per hour east of the Interchange. Due to the location of the development access points it is predicted that there would be minimal change in traffic flow on Greenock Road through the village.

13.48 Given the level of local community facilities provided within the new RO Bishopton development it is considered unlikely that there would be any significant increase in pedestrian use of Greenock Road as a result of the development. Community / informal leisure facilities to be provided within the RO development site may prove to be attractive to residents in Inchinnan/Erskine and could attract additional cycle use on Greenock Road between the site and the Red Smiddy.

209


Impact Assessment

13.49 The M8 Junction 29A Interchange design incorporates elements that have been developed in consultation with Renfrewshire Council which will mitigate potential impact on pedestrians and others.

13.50 Specifically a 3m wide combined footway/cycleway will be provided on both sides of Greenock Road east from the new RO southern access junction at Barrangary to the east of the new east Interchange on-ramp roundabout. In the vicinity of the existing M8 overbridge the combined footway/cycleway will be reduced to 2.5m overall width. In addition a new 2m wide north footway and a new 3m wide south footway/cycleway will be provided between the Barrangary roundabout and the Village. Details of these measures are shown in DBA Drawing No 06614/SK/60 Revision C in Figure 13.3.

Pedestrians

Journey Length

13.51 The main pedestrian movement in the vicinity of the proposed interchange will be linear along Greenock Road to/from Bishopton. There are no attractions or key facilities adjacent to Greenock Road which would create a demand to cross the road.

13.52 As a result of the proposed roadworks the distance travelled on foot between Station Road and the Red Smiddy would increase by some 45m on the north footway and 130m using the new south footway. The increase in journey distance is largely due to the offline position of the west interchange junction. This increase in journey distance would increase the walk time by some 33 seconds north side and 94 seconds south side at a speed of 5km/hr.

13.53 According to the criteria in Table 13.2 the predicted increase in pedestrian journey length would be equivalent to a Minor Adverse magnitude of impact. In accordance with Table 13.6 the significance of the impact on pedestrian journey distance on Greenock Road has been assessed as Slight as shown in Table 13.8.

Greenock Road Sensitivity Magnitude Significance

Garrangary to West Interchange Low Minor Adverse Slight

Adverse

Overbridge Low Minor Adverse Slight

Adverse

East Interchange to Red Smiddy Low Minor Adverse Slight

Adverse

Table 13.8 – Significance of Impact of Journey Distance on Pedestrians

Amenity

13.54 The proposed scheme will significantly increase the exposure of pedestrians to traffic on Greenock Road between Barrangary and the east Interchange junction. Between the east Interchange junction and the Red Smiddy the increase in traffic flow is considerably reduced.

13.55 According to the criteria in Table 13.3 the predicted increase in pedestrian exposure to traffic would be equivalent to a Major Adverse magnitude of impact. In accordance with Table 13.6 the significance of the impact on pedestrian amenity on Greenock Road has been assessed as shown in Table 13.9.

210



Garrangary to West Interchange Low Major Adverse Moderate Adverse

Overbridge Low Major Adverse Moderate Adverse

East Interchange to Red Smiddy Low Minor Adverse Slight Adverse

Table 13.9 – Significance of Impact of Amenity on Pedestrians

13.56 Although the exposure to traffic has an adverse effect on amenity the provision of enhanced pedestrian facilities have been proposed in mitigation. On the section of Greenock Road between Barrangary and the east Interchange junction the width of the existing north footway will be increased from a maximum of 1.6m to a combined footway/cycleway width of 3.0m and a 0.5m-1.0m verge will be provided between the road and the footway. In addition a completely new facility will be provided on the south side of the road between the Village and the east Interchange junction.

13.57 It is also proposed that the speed limit on Greenock Road will be reduced between the Village and the Red Smiddy in association with the new Interchange proposal. Consequently traffic speeds on Greenock Road will reduce from 60mph to 40-50mph. Street lighting will also be provided between Barrangary and the east Interchange junction. It is considered that these measures would represent a large scale improvement in footway provision which would make the route substantially safer and more pleasant to use.

13.58 In accordance with Table 13.3 the magnitude of the mitigation measures proposed on the section of Greenock Road between Barrangary and the east Interchange junction would be considered to the Major Beneficial. Taking account of the mitigation proposed the significance of the impact on pedestrian amenity on Greenock Road has been reassessed as shown in Table 13.10.


Garrangary to West Interchange Low Negligible Neutral

Overbridge Low Negligible Neutral

East Interchange to Red Smiddy Low Minor Adverse Neutral

Table 13.10 – Significance of Impact of Amenity on Pedestrians (Including Mitigation)

Community Severance

13.59 The proposed RO Bishopton development and M8 Junction 29A Interchange are not predicted to reduce traffic levels on Greenock Road through Bishopton. Consequently there will be no relief of Existing Severance.

13.60 Key local facilities (schools, shops, churches, parks and play facilities) are located within the centre of Bishopton Village west of the proposed M8 Junction 29A Interchange scheme. The catchment area for these local facilities is confined to the existing village limits. Likewise new community facilities are proposed within the new RO Bishopton development. The proposed M8 Junction 29A improvement scheme will not have any effect on local travel patterns between residents and local community facilities.

13.61 According to the magnitude criteria in Table 13.4 & 13.5 and in accordance with Table 13.6 the significance of the impact on Community Severance for pedestrians has been assessed as shown in Table 13.11.

211


Sensitivity Magnitude Significance

Existing Severance Low No Change Neutral

New Severance Low Negligible Neutral

Table 13.11 – Significance of Community Severance on Pedestrians

Effect on Pedestrians - Impact Significance Summary

13.62 A summary of the significance of the impact of the scheme on Pedestrians is summarised in Table 13.12.

Criteria Significance

Journey Distance Slight Adverse

Amenity Moderate Adverse

Amenity with Mitigation Neutral

Existing Severance Neutral

New Severance Neutral

Table 13.12 – Pedestrians - Impact Significance Summary

Cyclists

Journey Length

13.63 The main cycle movement in the vicinity of the proposed interchange will be linear along Greenock Road to/from Bishopton. There are no attractions or key facilities adjacent to Greenock Road which would create a demand to cross the road.

13.64 As a result of the proposed roadworks the distance travelled on cycle between Station Road and the Red Smiddy would increase by some 45m on the north cycleway and 130m using the new south cycleway. The increase in journey distance is largely due to the offline position of the west interchange junction. This increase in journey distance would increase the cycle time by some 8 seconds north side and 24 seconds south side at a speed of 20km/hr.

13.65 In addition the Journey time on the south cycleway would also be affected by additional at-grade crossings over the new on and off ramps which carry peak hour traffic volumes of 600-900 vehicles. According to Figure 1 (DMRB Volume 11, Section 3 Part 8) each road crossing would incur a mean delay of 5 seconds. The overall increase in Journey Distance on the south cycleway would be 34 seconds.

13.66 According to the criteria in Table 13.2 the predicted increase in cycle journey length would be equivalent to a minor adverse magnitude of impact. In accordance with Table 13.6 the significance of the impact of cycle journey distance on Greenock Road has been assessed as shown in Table 13.13.


Barrangary to West Interchange Medium Minor Adverse Slight

Adverse

Overbridge Medium Minor Adverse Slight

Adverse

212


East Interchange to Red Smiddy Medium Minor Adverse Slight

Adverse

Table 13.13 – Significance of Impact of Journey Distance on Cyclists

Amenity

13.67 The proposed scheme will significantly increase the exposure of cyclists to traffic on Greenock Road between Barrangary and the east Interchange junction. Between the east Interchange junction and the Red Smiddy the increase in traffic flow is considerably reduced. Without mitigation cyclists would also have to negotiate two new roundabout junctions without segregation from vehicles.

13.68 According to the criteria in Table 13.3 the predicted increase in cyclist exposure to traffic would be equivalent to a Major Adverse magnitude of impact. In accordance with Table 13.6 the significance of the impact on cyclist amenity on Greenock Road has been assessed as shown in Table 13.14.


Garrangary to West Interchange Medium Major Adverse Large Adverse

Overbridge Medium Major Adverse Large Adverse

East Interchange to Red Smiddy Medium Minor Adverse Slight Adverse

Table 13.14 – Significance of Impact of Amenity on Cyclists

13.69 Although the exposure to traffic has an adverse effect on amenity the provision of enhanced segregated cycle facilities have been proposed in mitigation. On the section of Greenock Road between Barrangary and the east Interchange junction a combined footway/cycleway width of 3.0m and a 0.5m-1.0m verge will be provided between the road and the cycleway. In addition a completely new facility will be provided on the south side of the road between the Village and the east Interchange junction.

13.70 It is also proposed that the speed limit on Greenock Road will be reduced between the Village and the Red Smiddy in association with the new Interchange proposal. Consequently traffic speeds on Greenock Road will reduce from 60mph to 40-50mph. Street lighting will also be provided between Barrangary and the east Interchange junction. It is considered that these measures would represent a large scale improvement in cycleway provision which would make the route substantially safer and more pleasant to use.

13.71 In accordance with Table 13.3 the magnitude of the mitigation measures proposed on the section of Greenock Road between Barrangary and the east Interchange junction would be considered to the Major Beneficial. Taking account of the mitigation proposed the significance of the impact on cycle amenity on Greenock Road has been reassessed as shown in Table 13.15.


Garrangary to West Interchange Medium Negligible Neutral

Overbridge Medium Negligible Neutral

East Interchange to Red Smiddy Medium Minor Adverse Slight Adverse

Table 13.15 – Significance of Impact of Amenity on Cyclists (Including Mitigation)

Community Severance

13.72 According to Table 13.11 the significance of the impact on Community Severance for pedestrians has been assessed as Neutral. Cyclists are less susceptible to severance because they can travel more quickly that

213


people on foot. The significance of Community Severance on Cyclists has consequently also been assessed as Neutral.

Effect on Cyclists - Impact Significance Summary

13.73 A summary of the significance of the impact of the scheme on Pedestrians is summarised in Table 13.16.

Criteria Significance

Journey Distance Slight Adverse

Amenity Large Adverse

Amenity with Mitigation Neutral / Slight

Adverse

Existing Severance Neutral

New Severance Neutral

Table 13.16 – Cyclists - Impact Significance Summary

Mitigation & Residual Impact

13.74 Potential adverse impacts in relation to Journey Distance and Amenity have been identified for Pedestrians & Cyclists on Greenock Road between Barrangary and the Red Smiddy. These potential impacts have been minimised through the Scheme Design for the M8 Junction 29A Interchange which has been developed through extensive consultation with Renfrewshire Council and Transport Scotland.

13.75 The remaining non-neutral Residual Impacts after the inclusion of the mitigation measures proposed are shown in Table 13.17.

Receptor Criteria Sensitivity Magnitude Significance

Pedestrians Journey Distance

Low Minor Adverse Slight Adverse

Cyclists Journey Distance

Medium Minor Adverse Slight Adverse

Cyclists Amenity Medium Minor Adverse Slight Adverse

Table 13.17 – Residual Impact

13.76 The increase in journey distance along Greenock Road is caused by the introduction of two additional roundabout junctions. The proposed roundabout junctions have been designed in accordance with the DMRB to provide adequate capacity to accommodate predicted traffic volumes in a safe manner. The Interchange design cannot be modified to eliminate the increase in journey distance.

13.77 The residual adverse Amenity for cyclists relates to the section of Greenock Road between the east Interchange and the Red Smiddy roundabouts. The slight adverse impact is due to Medium Sensitivity and the increase in traffic flow on Greenock Road resulting from the proposed RO Bishopton development rather than the M8 Junction 29A Interchange design. The Sensitivity level was taken from the weekend (Sunday) travel demand which is significantly higher than a typical weekday. If the Sensitivity is considered to be more closely related to Low then the Significance of the Amenity Impact would also reduce to Neutral/Slight.

243


Figures

A8 E

AST

REA

LIG

NM

ENT

SER

IES

100

DR

AWIN

GS

M8

OFF

RAM

P S

ERIE

S20

0 D

RAW

ING

S

A8 W

EST

REA

LIG

NM

ENT

SER

IES

200

DR

AWIN

GS

M8

ON

RAM

P S

ERIE

S10

0 D

RAW

ING

S

CO

MM

ON

SID

ER

OU

ND

ABO

UT

CR

AIG

MU

IRR

OU

ND

ABO

UT

A8

A8

A8

M8

EAS

TBO

UN

D (T

O G

LAS

GO

W)

M8

WES

TBO

UN

D (T

O G

REE

NO

CK

)

Proj

ect:

Dra

win

g Ti

tle:

Sca

le:

Dat

e:

Dra

wn:

No:

Dat

e:

Dw

g.

Che

cked

:

Clie

nt:

Rev

.

Dat

e:

Che

cked

:

Dat

e:

By:

c C

opyr

ight

of t

his

docu

men

t is

rese

rved

by

Dou

gall

Bai

llie A

ssoc

iate

s Lt

d.D

O N

OT

sca

le f

rom

th

is d

raw

ing

@A0

Dw

g S

tatu

s:

Not

es:

Dou

gall

Bai

llie

Ass

ocia

tes

3 G

lenf

ield

Roa

d, K

elvi

n

East

Kilb

ride

G75

0R

A

t: 01

355

2664

80

f: 01

355

2219

91

e: e

nqui

ries@

doug

allb

aillie

.com

w: w

ww

.dou

gallb

aillie

.com

civi

l. st

ruct

ural

. tra

nspo

rtatio

n. w

ater

man

agem

ent.

BAE

SYS

TEM

S

M8

INTE

RC

HAN

GE

JUN

CTI

ON

29A

KEY

PLA

N

S.L

.

21.0

8.06

1:12

50

A.A.

T.

21.0

8.06

0661

4/10

0/10

0

For A

ppro

val

19.0

9.06

J.A.

19.0

9.06

S.L

.O

FF R

AMP

LAYO

UT

REV

SIE

DA

22.0

8.08

J.A.

22.0

8.08

S.L

.R

OAD

LAY

OU

T R

EVIS

EDB

13.1

1.08

J.A.

13.1

1.08

S.L

.N

OR

TH P

OIN

T AM

END

EDC

18.0

5.10

J.A.

18.0

5.10

S.L

.O

N A

ND

OFF

RAM

P R

EVIS

EDD

10.0

6.10

J.A.

10.0

6.10

S.L

.O

N R

AMP

REV

SIE

DE

21.0

7.10

J.A.

21.0

7.10

G.A

.C

LIEN

T N

AME

REV

ISED

F

15.0

8.11

J.A.

15.0

8.11

S.L

.S

UD

S P

ON

DS

REV

ISED

AN

D B

UR

ND

IVER

SIO

NS

AD

DED

G

20.1

1.12

J.A.

20.1

1.12

S.L

.R

OAD

LAY

OU

T AM

END

ED T

O S

UIT

CO

UN

CIL

, HAL

CR

OW

AN

D S

AFET

Y AU

DIT

CO

MM

ENTS

H

06.0

8.13

J.A.

06.0

8.13

S.L

.O

N R

AMP

RO

UN

DAB

OU

T AM

END

ED A

ND

OFF

RAM

P FA

RM

LAY

BYE

AD

DED

I

06.1

1.13

J.A.

06.1

1.13

S.L

.O

N R

AMP

RO

UN

DAB

OU

T IC

D L

ARG

ER T

OS

UIT

CO

MM

ENTS

FR

OM

TR

ANS

POR

TS

CO

TLAN

D

J

21.1

1.13

J.A.

21.1

1.13

S.L

.C

OM

BIN

ED F

OO

TPAT

H /

CYC

LEW

AYAM

END

ED T

O S

UIT

REN

FREW

HIR

EC

OU

NC

IL C

OM

MEN

TS

K

7

8

6

5

34

12

Core Path EI/24

Core Path BIS/10

Core Path BIS/19

Core Path BIS/11

Project:

Drawing Title:

Scale:

Date:

Drawn:

No:

Date:

Dwg.

Checked:

Client:

Rev. Revision details:

Date:

Checked:

Date:

By:

c Copyright of this document is reserved byDougall Baillie Associates Ltd.DO NOT scale from this drawing

@A3Dwg Status:

Notes:

Dougall Baillie Associates3 Glenfield Road, Kelvin

East Kilbride G75 0RA

t: 01355 266480

f: 01355 221991

e: [email protected]

w: www.dougallbaillie.comcivil. structural. transportation. water management.

Print:

BAE SYSTEMS

BISHOPTION EIA

BISHOPTON COMMUNITY FACILITIES

CW

11.04.2014

N.T.S

DT

11.04.2014

14070-SK-01

DRAFT COLOUR

1 - Post Office and Bank2 - Railway Station3 - Bishopton Health Centre and Nursery School4 - Dentist5 - Rugby / Sports Club6 - Library7 - Public House8 - Equestrian Centre

Places of Worship

School

Shops / Take-Away Restaurants

Core Paths

Study Corridor

Bishopton Catchment

2.0m

FO

OTW

AY6m

CAR

RIAG

EWAY

3m C

OM

BIN

EDCY

CLEW

AY /

FO

OTW

AY

2.0m

FO

OTW

AY6m

CAR

RIAG

EWAY

3m C

OM

BIN

EDCY

CLEW

AY /

FO

OTW

AY

Proj

ect:

Dra

win

g Ti

tle:

Scal

e:

Dat

e:

Dra

wn:

No:

Dat

e:

Dw

g.

Chec

ked:

Clie

nt:

Rev.

Dat

e:

Chec

ked:

Dat

e:

By:

c C

opyr

ight

of

this

doc

umen

t is

res

erve

d by

Dou

gall

Baill

ie A

ssoc

iate

s Lt

d.D

O N

OT

sca

le f

rom

th

is d

raw

ing

@A0

Dw

g St

atus

:

Not

es:

Dou

gall

Bai

llie

Ass

ocia

tes

3 G

lenf

ield

Roa

d, K

elvi

n

East

Kilb

ride

G75

0RA

t: 0

1355

266

480

f: 0

1355

221

991

e: e

nqui

ries

@do

ugal

lbai

llie.

com

w:

ww

w.d

ouga

llbai

llie.

com

civi

l. s

truc

tura

l. t

rans

port

atio

n. w

ater

man

agem

ent.

BAE

SYST

EMS

M8

INTE

RCH

ANG

E JU

NCT

ION

29A

PRO

POSE

D C

YCLE

RO

UTE

S.L.

08.1

1.13

1:50

0

J.A.

21.0

8.06

0661

4/SK

/60

For

Appr

oval

12.1

1.13

J.A.

12.1

1.13

S.L.

DRA

WIN

G A

MEN

DED

TO

SU

ITRE

NFR

EWSH

IRE

COU

NCI

L CO

MM

ENTS

A

13.1

1.13

J.A.

13.1

1.13

S.L.

VERG

E W

IDTH

S AN

D C

ROSS

ING

PO

INTS

AMEN

DED

B

19.1

1.13

J.A.

19.1

1.13

S.L.

AMEN

DM

ENTS

TO

ON

RAM

P RO

UN

DAB

OU

TFO

OTP

ATH

AN

D A

8 FO

OTP

ATH

SC

13 effects on pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians and road … · 200 715/m8 motorway & greenock...

Documents