e a s a p s a : b 201/202 w a m t a a projects... · port of southampton, reconstruct the quay...
TRANSCRIPT
ABP Southampton
Environmental Statement
for Port of Southampton:
Berth 201/202 Works
Appendix M
Transport Assessment
david tucker associatest r a n s p o r t p l a n n i n g c o n s u l t a n t s
ABP Southampton - Berth 201 / 202 Works
Transport Assessment
© David Tucker Associates No part of this publication may be reproduced by any means without the prior permission of David Tucker Associates
Prepared by: David Tucker Associates Forester House Doctors Lane Henley-in-Arden B95 5AW Tel: 01564 793598 Fax: 01564 793983 [email protected] www.dtatransportation.co.uk Prepared for: ABP Southampton Ocean Gate Atlantic Way Southampton SO14 3QN
ABP Southampton - Berth 201 / 202 Works
Transport Assessment
20th October 2011
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docx
i
Contents Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 THE WORKS 3 2.1 Introduction 3 2.2 Employee Movements 3 2.3 Assessment Scenarios 3 2.4 Terminal Container Demand 4 2.5 Construction Traffic 6 3.0 POLICY CONTEXT 8 3.1 Introduction 8 3.2 National Planning and Transport Policies and Guidance 8 3.3 Regional Strategy 14 3.4 Local Policy and Guidance 15 4.0 EXISTING BACKGROUND CONDITIONS 21 4.1 Introduction 21 4.2 Highway Network 21 4.3 Base Line Traffic Flows 22 4.4 Accident Data 27 4.5 Air Quality Management Areas 28 5.0 TRAFFIC GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT 29 5.1 Introduction 29 5.2 Overall Annual Movements 29 5.3 Conversion of Box to HGV movements (Annual) 31 5.4 Conversion of Annual Movements to Average Daily Movements 33 5.5 Adjustment for Monthly Variation 35 5.6 Conversion of Peak Daily Flows to Hourly Flows 36 5.7 Forecast Peak Hour Movements from Container Movements 38 5.8 Employee Traffic Generation 39 5.9 Operational HGV Traffic Generation 39 5.10 Traffic Distribution - Strategic Network 39 5.11 Traffic Distribution Local Road Network 40 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS 42 6.1 Forecast Year Scenarios 42 6.2 Future Forecast Growth and Committed Development Traffic 43 6.3 Change in Flows 46 6.4 Operational Traffic Impact Conclusions 47 6.5 Construction Traffic Impacts 51 7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 52
ii
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location
Figure 2 Strategic Highway Network
Appendices
Appendix A Geldard Consulting Rail Report
Appendix B 2011 Base Traffic Counts
Appendix C 2011 DPWS Data
Appendix D Personal Injury Accident Data
Appendix E Traffic Generation Forecasts
Appendix F Overall Traffic Generation
Appendix G Strategic Traffic Distribution
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 DTA has been commissioned by ABP Southampton to assess the transport
implications of the proposed berth 201 / 202 works at the Port of Southampton
as shown on Figure 1.
1.2 In 2008 Associated British Ports (ABP) submitted applications for certain works
that, if consented, will bring berths 201 and 202 at the Container Terminal at the
Port of Southampton back into deep sea container use. These applications are
still being considered by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), as the
relevant determining body.
1.3 The applications, when submitted, were accompanied by an Environmental
Statement (ES). It has recently become clear that further information, to
supplement the ES, is required before a decision on the applications can be
made by the MMO. The traffic implications of the project are one area on which
further information is being produced.
1.4 This Transport Assessment (TA) has therefore been prepared to consider the
road traffic implications of the project and forms the basis of the relevant
assessment chapter provided in the further information. As well as being able to
be read as a stand-alone document, this TA also forms Appendix M to the
Environmental Statement.
1.5 This TA and the relevant ES chapter consider the road traffic implications of the
proposals in detail. The rail traffic implications of the proposals are considered
in a separate ES chapter which is based upon work undertaken by Geldard
Consulting. A technical note on the broad assumptions is included at Appendix
A. Where necessary, this TA makes references to findings of the rail
assessment.
1.6 The methodology used for this TA takes account of ‘Guidance on Transport
Assessment’ (GTA) issued by the Department for Transport (DfT) and
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in March 2007.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 2
1.7 The GTA places significant emphasis on requiring a review of accessibility of
development sites by all modes to assess acceptability and mitigation measures.
In this case, the majority of change in demand will be related to HGV
movements rather than staff or general public accessibility.
1.8 The assessment therefore focuses on the strategic implications of the
development and the HGV traffic generation which may arise as a result of the
project.
1.9 In particular it considers the potential road transport and highways impacts of
the proposals including the impact of the development generated traffic on the
capacity and safety of the surrounding road network.
1.10 Taking account of the various guidelines, the TA is structured as follows:
• Chapter 2: The Works – setting out base assumptions and
description of development.
• Chapter 3: Policy Background
• Chapter 4: Existing Background Conditions
• Chapter 5: Traffic Generation and Distribution Assessment
• Chapter 6: Assessment of Traffic Impacts
• Chapter 7: Summary and Conclusions
1.11 The base assumptions and scope of methodology set out in this report have
been submitted to and discussed with Southampton City Council (SCC),
Hampshire County Council (HCC) and the Highways Agency (HA). As a unitary
authority SCC are the relevant highway authority for the public road network to
which the Port immediately connects. HCC are the highway authority for the
other elements of the local road network close to the Port that are not controlled
by SCC. The HA are the highway authority for the strategic road network into
which the local network connects. Where appropriate their views have been
incorporated within the TA.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 3
2.0 THE WORKS
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 ABP propose to deepen the dredged pocket for berths 201 and 202 within the
Port of Southampton, reconstruct the quay walls to both berths and
subsequently bring the berths back into deep-sea container use.
2.1.2 As explained in detail within Chapter 7 of the ES, the assessment considers the
Container Terminal operating at the maximum capacity considered to be
achievable with the berth 201 / 202 works in place. This capacity is considered
to be 2.8m TEU (Twenty Foot Equivalent Units). As explained in Chapter 7 this
has been taken as the basis of the assessment even though the increase to 2.8m
TEU from current throughput levels will not solely be achieved by the berth 201 /
202 works. Throughout the following road traffic assessment this scenario is
subsequently referred to as The Future Position With the Works.
2.1.3 From a road transport perspective, as dealt with in this report and having regard
to the requirements of the GTA, the key issues arising from the project are the
impacts relating to any increased road travel demands arising from the change
in capacity of the Container Terminal. These are related back to the baseline
(i.e. what has occurred) and the fallback position (i.e. what could or would occur
without the Works). These matters are explained further in section 2.3.
2.2 Employee Movements
2.2.1 At present, the Container Terminal employs a total of 820 staff, working on two
shift patterns (0730-1930 and 1930-0730). In the anticipated year of opening
(2014), the berth operation will generate 36 jobs. Thereafter between 2015 and
2027, the berth operation is estimated to generate 12 additional jobs per year.
This results in an additional 192 jobs by 2027. As with the existing employees,
these will be split over two shifts, with neither involving start/finish times related
to traffic network peak hours. The absolute change in traffic flows arising from
increased staff levels will be negligible during peak hours and modest in terms of
daily flows.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 4
2.3 Assessment Scenarios
2.3.1 As indicated in section 2.1, it is necessary to determine what the position is
against which consideration of the road transport implications of the project is
undertaken. Throughout this TA a number of different terminal capacity and
throughput positions are referred to.
2.3.2 This section of the report sets out the details of those positions (subsequently
called scenarios). These are based on analysis undertaken by ABP and its
consultant team. The details leading to the definition of these scenarios is
provided in the ES.
2.3.3 The Historic Baseline scenario relates to the maximum annual level of
throughput of containers that to date has been handled by the Container
Terminal. This level was in the order of 1.9m TEU (1.87m TEU) and occurred in
2007.
2.3.4 The Current Baseline scenario relates to the level of throughput of containers
predicted to occur in 2011. As a result of the economic downturn, throughput at
the Container Terminal since 2007 has reduced. The overall 2011 throughput is
predicted to be in the order of 1.6m TEU.
2.3.5 The Future Position Without the Works scenario relates to the maximum
capacity of the Container Terminal that is considered to be achievable without
the berth 201 / 202 works. This capacity is considered to be 2.3m TEU.
2.3.6 The Historic Baseline and Current Baseline scenarios refer to throughput
levels at the terminal, whilst the Future Position Without the Works and
Future Position With the Works scenarios relate to capacity.
2.4 Terminal Container Demand
2.4.1 The above capacity assessments take no account of container traffic demand,
which is currently suppressed by the economic climate. They relate wholly to
the physical capacity of the terminal.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 5
2.4.2 It is expected that overall container traffic demand will rise by, on average 3.5%
per year. This increase over time is summarised in Table 1, together with the
likely changes in rail share over the same period. This rail share information has
been provided by Geldard Consulting.
Table 1 – Container Traffic Growth Forecasts with 3.5% growth
Year TEU per /
annum % to rail
2011 1,600,000 33%
2012 1,656,000 34%
2013 1,713,960 34%
2014 1,773,949 34%
2015 1,836,037 35%
2016 1,900,298 35%
2017 1,966,809 35%
2018 2,035,647 36%
2019 2,106,894 36%
2020 2,180,636 36%
2021 2,256,958 37%
2022 2,335,952 38%
2023 2,417,710 39%
2024 2,502,330 40%
2025 2,589,911 40%
2026 2,680,558 40%
2027 2,774,378 40%
2.4.3 This forecast demonstrates that up to 2021, Container Terminal throughput
(predicted to be circa 2.257m TEU) will be limited by demand rather than the
capacity that could be made available at the terminal. In other words, the 2.3m
TEU maximum capacity of the Container Terminal considered to be achievable
without the berth 201 / 202 works would be sufficient to accommodate predicted
demand up to 2021. Beyond 2021, the forecast demonstrates that growth in
containers would continue such that the 2.8m TEU maximum capacity of the
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 6
Container Terminal that would be possible with the berth 201 / 202 works would
be sufficient to accommodate predicted demand up to 2027.
2.4.4 It therefore follows that, in adopting a future forecast year of 2021, as required
by the Guidance on Transport Assessment1, the terminal could at this point in
time be operating at the same level of throughput regardless of whether the
berth 201 / 202 works are in place or not. It therefore follows that the berth 201
/ 202 works will potentially not have any impact on terminal generated traffic
movements up to 2021.
2.4.5 Beyond 2021, Table 1 shows that the additional capacity that would be created
by the berth 201 / 202 works will be taken up. In simple terms the works will
result in an additional 0.5m TEU of capacity being available at the terminal, and
this is predicted to be used over the subsequent 6 year period to 2027.
Sections 5 and 6 of this road traffic assessment therefore consider the position
in 2021 and in 2027.
2.5 Construction Traffic
2.5.1 The construction works are expected to commence in July 2012 and will take
approximately 14 months to complete. The construction process will in summary
involve the creation of a new quay wall in front of the existing wall formed with
driven piles. This will then be tied to an anchor wall and paved on the land side.
Following completion of the quay wall, the berth pocket will be dredged to a
depth of -16m CD.
2.5.2 It is anticipated that, where practicable, much of the construction material will
be delivered by water. However a number of road-based movements will be
required as follows. A lorry movement has been taken as being in or out of the
site i.e. 1 lorry making a delivery and then leaving site is 2 lorry movements:
• Concrete: Estimated quantity 25,000 m3 = 8,300 movements (at 6m3 per
1 Guidance on Transport Assessment (2007) Department for Transport and Department for Communities and Local Government
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 7
load). The total volume of concrete is considered borderline with regard
to justifying a batching plant on site. If a batching plant were to be used
the aggregates could be delivered by barge to reduce the lorry
movements significantly.
• Paving: Blocks, sand and stone (lean concrete included above); 14,500
tonnes = 2,000 lorry movements. It has been assumed that most of the
existing fill material that is excavated for placing the ties can be reused.
• Tie bars: 740 tonnes = 75 lorry movements.
• Fenders: 50 lorry movements.
• Sundry plant and materials = 500 lorry movements.
• Tubes and sheet piles: Assumed to be delivered by barge = 0 lorry
movements.
• Scour protection: Delivered and placed from the water = 0 lorry
movements.
• Total lorry movements over the construction period = 10,925.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 8
3.0 POLICY CONTEXT
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 This section of the report sets out the current transport policy context in terms
of local, regional and national guidance, to establish the framework against
which the assessment takes place.
3.1.2 On a local level, there are three Highway Authorities, each with their own policy
documents, which are relevant. Southampton City Council in relation to the City
road network, Hampshire County Council in relation to the County network and
the Highways Agency for the Trunk Roads and Motorways. In addition to the
relevant Local Transport Plans, these authorities have, collectively with others,
formed Transport for South Hampshire (TfSH) and Partnership for Urban South
Hampshire (PUSH). Relevant documents produced by these organisations are
discussed in turn below.
3.2 National Planning and Transport Policies and Guidance
3.2.1 National transportation policy on sustainability and integration of land use and
transport was first set out in the Government’s 1998 Integrated Transport White
Paper “A New Deal for Transport”. The White Paper was followed by a number
of associated documents including “Sustainable Distribution: A Strategy” in
March 1999, and an update of PPG13 Transport in March 2001. PPG13 was
further updated in January 2011.
Sustainable Distribution a Strategy
3.2.2 The Government’s report “Sustainable Distribution: A Strategy” emphasised the
need for strategic planning for the sustainable distribution of freight traffic. The
report stated that the Government would revise planning policy and procedures
to encourage more freight to be carried by rail and water, and would selectively
invest in infrastructure so as to support the objective of sustainable distribution.
3.2.3 In tackling congestion, the Government recognised that there was limited scope
for new road construction. The key being to managing demand, and they
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 9
proposed to improve the integration of the road network with major transport
interchanges so as to promote greater use of rail and water transport for freight.
3.2.4 “Sustainable Distribution” recognised that, in planning rail, port and airport hubs,
an unduly restrictive planning policy could result in unnecessary traffic
generation elsewhere.
PPG13: Transport
3.2.5 In March 2001, the Government published its revised Planning Policy Guidance
Note PPG13. This has been most recently updated in January 2011 and sets out
policies to reduce road traffic through the better integration of planning land
uses and transportation and between different transport modes. Specifically,
PPG13 aims to increase the amount of freight carried by rail or water, rather
than by road, wherever viable alternatives can be provided.
The Future of Rail and the Future of Transport
3.2.6 In July 2004, the Government published White Papers on “The Future of Rail”
and “The Future of Transport: A Network for 2030”. These documents set out
the Government’s commitment to increasing rail freight, viewing its growth as an
important contribution to its sustainable development strategy and set out the
Government’s strategy to achieve a more sustainable distribution of goods.
DFT Circular 02/2007
3.2.7 In March 2007 the Department for Transport (DfT) published Circular 02/2007,
‘Planning and the Strategic Road Network’. In setting out the Policy background,
the Circular confirms that:
‘It is Government transport policy, wherever possible, to look for
alternatives to building new roads, by reducing the impact of road users on
each other and the environment, improving road performance through
better network management and making smarter journey choices easier.
Any strategic road capacity constraint on sustainable economic
development should be identified at the RSS stage. Where appropriate,
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 10
measures to overcome such constraints should be overcome through the
Regional Transport Strategy (RTS), although the presumption should be to
give preference, where possible, to solutions other than the provision of
new road capacity.’
3.2.8 Circular 02/2007 indicates that guidance on the preparation of Transport
Assessments, and specifically details of assessment years, is contained in the
associated DfT/DCLG document ‘Guidance on Transport Assessment’ (GTA) also
issued in March 2007.
3.2.9 In identifying the assessment requirements for the strategic road network (SRN),
the TA guidance states that:
‘For the SRN, the future assessment year should normally be ten years
after the date of registration of a planning application for the development,
in line with the forward horizon of the RTS’.
3.2.10 Clearly, the change in approach to defining the assessment years and impact
assessment test has significant implications for the scale of impact that will be
identified and any corresponding mitigation measures that may be required.
3.2.11 In addition to this, Circular 02/2007 and GTA created a step change in the way
transport implications are assessed and subsequently the approach in identifying
any necessary mitigation measures. In particular, 02/2007 is clear that
infrastructure improvements for road traffic capacity should only be provided as
a last resort (Para 27) and this is followed through in GTA (para 4.3) which notes
that a Transport Assessment should:
“ensure as much as possible that the proposed mitigation measures avoid
unnecessary physical improvements to highways and promote innovative
and sustainable transport systems.”
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 11
National Ports Policy - Modern Ports
3.2.12 The Government's national ports policy "Modern Ports: A UK Policy" was
published in November 2000. It followed the policy of sustainability and
integration, which was first set out in the Governments White Paper "A New Deal
for Transport" (July 1998).
3.2.13 “Modern Ports” set out the Government’s commitment to creating successful,
safe and sustainable ports, which are fully integrated into the transport system.
The Government recognised the importance of port hubs in integrated transport
policy. “Modern Ports” summarises the relevance of current planning policy
documents, as they relate to port development.
3.2.14 The White Paper and associated documents provide guidance on a number of
related issues with the principal objective of fundamentally reviewing transport
strategies to create more integrated transport policies and deal with the
shortcomings of short-term transport planning. These revised policies
recognised the need to make more efficient use of the transport system to
reduce dependency on the private car and to minimise the need for more
highway capacity whilst supporting business and economic growth.
3.2.15 “Modern Ports” also recognises the need for good road and rail access to ports,
and within the ports themselves. Delays and congestion within a port will
significantly affect a customer’s business.
The Eddington Report
3.2.16 The Eddington Transport Study was a joint HM Treasury and Department for
Transport project examining the long-term links between transport and the UK’s
economic productivity, growth and stability, within the context of the
Government’s broader commitment to sustainable development and the
environment. The final report was issued in December 2006.
3.2.17 The Eddington Report confirms that globalization means that international trade
is of growing importance to the UK economy and that efficient use of the
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 12
transport network is of vital importance. The Eddington Report particularly
identified the importance of international gateways to the UK economy.
Delivering a Sustainable Transport System
3.2.18 In response to the Eddington Study and the subsequent Stern Review on the
economics of climate change, the Department for Transport (DfT) published the
document ‘Towards a Sustainable Transport System’ (TaSTS) in October 2007.
In this document, the DfT proposed a new approach to strategic transport
planning beyond 2014 to support the recommendations of the Eddington Study
and to reflect the findings of the Stern Review.
3.2.19 Since publishing TaSTS, the Government has engaged widely with stakeholders
and is now consulting formally on the transport goals, challenges and process
involved in taking this work forward. As part of this process, the DfT
commenced a formal consultation exercise and published in November 2008 the
document, ‘Delivering a Sustainable Transport System: Main Report’. This
document sets out how the Government are putting the new approach to
strategic planning for 2014 and beyond into practice. A key aim of the strategy
is to deliver multimodal transport networks to improve the efficiency of freight
distribution.
3.2.20 As with the Eddington Report, the above report recognises the importance of the
UK’s international gateway’s, such as the Port of Southampton, to the economy.
The document states that the Government is committed to supporting the
improvement of surface access to airports and ports, and has a direct delivery
role in part-funding schemes to improve the strategic national network.
3.2.21 The document acknowledges that container traffic into the country has grown
rapidly and is expected to grow in both volume and importance. The Report
indicates that the Department’s approach to freight has evolved considerably
over the past year and indicates that they are now engaging with the industry in
a different way to better understand the key issues and to define the main areas
of challenge. The report indicated that the Department were about to publish a
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 13
freight strategy document and that this, along with supporting analyses in
relation to container movements, would help inform their decisions on policy and
investment choices.
3.2.22 In December 2008, the DfT issued ‘Delivering a Sustainable Transport System:
The Logistics Perspective’. This document looks in more detail at the issues
concerning the movement of freight within Great Britain, across modes, including
the nature and composition of freight flows on the major corridors, and
discusses how Government and industry will need to work together to ensure
that freight benefits from and contributes to the Department’s goals.
3.2.23 The document indicates that the DfT have begun to work with industry to
address the key issues related to ensuring the efficient movement of freight. For
example the document refers to the additional funding announced for the
Sustainable Distribution Fund. The report indicates that this money will be
targeted to increase the use of rail and water transport to reduce emissions and
cut road congestion.
The Ports Policy Review
3.2.24 The Ports Policy Review was launched in May 2006, following a commitment in
The Future of Transport White Paper. It began with a consultation exercise
embracing port operators, environmental groups, shippers and other key
stakeholders. The Review covers England and Wales; ports policy is largely
devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
3.2.25 Alongside this Interim Report, the Government also submitted its formal
response to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee whose report
on the ports industry in England and Wales was published in January 2007.
3.2.26 More than 90% of the UK's visible foreign trade passes through sea-ports - a
total of almost 600M tonnes each year. There are three main ownership
categories for civilian ports: companies, which account for the majority of
commercial activity; municipal ports run directly by local authorities; and trust
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 14
ports, independent statutory bodies which account for around 30% of tonnage
throughput.
3.2.27 The Interim Report broadly continues the Government's 'light touch' approach to
regulation of sea-ports, recognising the commercial success of all three
ownership sectors and their vital economic importance. The Government's view
is that commercial port operators are best-placed to make decisions about where
and when to invest in the port sector: there is not the same need as was
identified in the case of airports for Government to indicate where it would
expect to see development brought forward.
Draft National Ports Policy Statement
3.2.28 The requirement for ports industry to have a National Policy Statement was the
result of the 2008 Planning Act which required a number of national statements,
including Marine Policy, Energy and Transport Networks. The draft Statement
(2009), which is earmarked for designation in late 2011, endorses the market led
approach to ports policy and also includes, for the first time on a national basis,
forecasts for bulk, ro-ro and container traffic up to 2030.
3.3 Regional Strategy
3.3.1 The South East Plan is the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East. Whilst
Regional Strategies have been revoked by the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government in July 2010, that revocation has been
challenged. As a result, at the time of writing, the Regional Strategies (including
the South East Plan) still form part of the statutory development plan. The
Government’s intention, however, remains to revoke the Regional Strategies
through the Localism Bill.
3.3.2 The South East Plan, in the supporting text to policy T10, confirms the vital role
the region’s ports play in supporting the UK economy. The Plan states that the
ports are, however, dependent upon the quality of the landside infrastructure
providing effective connections. The Plan makes it clear that it is for the port
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 15
sector to bring forward and justify proposals for future investment in individual
port infrastructure.
3.3.3 Following on from this the Plan states that:
‘In this context, the Port of Southampton is recognised as a major
international deep sea port with significantly global and economic
importance, and its infrastructure needs, both short and long term, require
further consideration. The geographical location and network of port
infrastructure in the region provides the opportunity to encourage the
development of short sea shipping services as a real alternative to land
transport.’
3.3.4 Policy T10: Ports and Short Sea Shipping of the Plan states that:
‘Relevant regional strategies, local development documents and local
transport plans will include policies and proposals for infrastructure that
maintain and enhance the role of the following ports:…..”
3.3.5 The listed ports include Southampton as the first named gateway port. The
emphasis on encouraging short-sea shipping is reiterated in the policy.
3.4 Local Policy and Guidance
LTP3 for South Hampshire
3.4.1 The LTP3 strategy for South Hampshire forms the overarching transport policy of
the three constituent local transport authorities of Hampshire County Council,
Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council, working together as
Transport for South Hampshire (TfSH). This strategy builds on the Joint Solent
Strategy developed as part of the previous LTP2.
3.4.2 The South Hampshire region is by far the largest and most complex of
Hampshire’s four transport strategy areas. The wider sub-region contains the
two major cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, as well as the surrounding
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 16
towns, villages and countryside falling with Hampshire, which form the
hinterland to the cities. It also acts as the gateway to the Isle of Wight.
3.4.3 The TfSH authorities have identified seven key outcomes and hence fourteen
policies that set out the framework through which the TfSH authorities will seek
to address the challenges. Policy B establishes the need to work with the
strategic transport network providers to ensure reliable access to the County’s
international gateway for freight and people.
3.4.4 The sub-region has a number of transport related challenges emanating from an
existing transportation infrastructure deficit, relatively high density, peninsula
geography, pockets of social deprivation and other specifically local issues. The
South East Plan proposes significant growth in the region over the next 20 years
and considerable investment will be needed to begin to accommodate this
proposed growth.
3.4.5 The overall strategy for TfSH incorporates the four shared LTP objectives of the
three authorities. These are accessibility, congestion, road safety and air quality.
The long term transport strategy for the sub-region is being formulated within
the context of the South East Plan. This strategy forms an important input to
this plan. The South East Plan leads the decision making process into the size
and location of new developments and the resulting need for transport
interventions.
3.4.6 In the development of plans to tackle particular transport issues a three-tiered
approach is followed. Reducing journey lengths and the need to travel is the
first objective pursued. Secondly, existing transportation infrastructure will be
made best use of and measures introduced to influence travel choice. Finally,
where these two strategies are not sufficient, new infrastructure is planned.
Hampshire Local Transport Plan
3.4.7 The Hampshire Local Transport Plan was approved in February 2011 and covers
the period from 2006 to 2011. The LTP sets out the County Council’s transport
strategy for the next five years. The LTP explains how the strategy has been
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 17
designed to achieve wider policy objectives, such as improving quality of life,
protecting the environment and securing economic prosperity. Chapter 7 of the
LTP sets out the South Hampshire Joint Strategy, which, as discussed above
covers the area in which the Port is located.
3.4.8 The LTP includes details of the Port of Southampton confirming it as the second
biggest container port in the UK by through-put and a key route for the import
and export of motor vehicles and bulk goods. One of key transport challenges
identified as facing the South Hampshire area is ensuring continued reliable
transport access to the area’s international gateway ports and airport.
Southampton Local Transport Plan (2011-2031)
3.4.9 Southampton City Council’s Third Local Transport Plan (LTP3) was adopted in
February 2011 and follows on and builds on the progress of the first two Local
Transport Plans. Although the LTP generally relates to the City, the first part of
the plan sets out a twenty year transport strategy for whole of South Hampshire,
covering the period 2011-2031. The second part is a four year implementation
plan identifying transport schemes planned for delivery between 2011 and 2015
within Southampton.
3.4.10 The transport vision for South Hampshire set out within the SCC LTP
incorporates the relevant Policy Background for Freight Strategy. This confirms
Southampton as being “essential to the economy of Southern Hampshire (and)
of significant national and European importance.” The document highlights the
expansion programme including the subject matter of this report/chapter.
The Port of Southampton
3.4.11 Being close to mainland Europe, South Hampshire has a number of European
linkages through the ports of Southampton and Portsmouth and Southampton
International Airport, which are all designated in the Regional Transport Strategy
as International Gateways.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 18
3.4.12 The importance of the Port of Southampton is described in the Solent Transport
Strategy as follows:
The Port of Southampton is owned by associated British Ports (ABP). ABP
are also the Statutory Harbour Authority for much of Southampton Water.
The Port directly employs about 12,000 people and contributes £2 billion to
the local economy. The Port handles 23% by value of the UK’s
international non-EU sea-borne trade, more than any other UK port. In
2004, 38.4 million tonnes of cargo passed through the Port, ranking it fifth
in the UK by tonnage. The Container Terminal is the second largest in the
UK, handling 1.4 million twenty foot equivalent units in 2004. Additionally,
Southampton is the UK’s largest vehicle import/export port handling
750,000 vehicles annually and is also the UK’s leading cruise port, being
used by 680,000 passengers in 2004.
The Port has a national hinterland and is a major trip generator. Its
interface with rail, road and water routes is of national strategic
importance. The majority of trip movements are by road, the principle
roads used in Hampshire being the A34, M27 and M3. The local approach
roads are the M271/A33 to Dock Gate 20 and the A33 to Dock Gate 4….
3.4.13 The Strategy goes on to discuss the wider impacts and implications of dock
growth in terms of the strategic road network and rail capacity and gauge
constraints.
Transport for South Hampshire (TfSH)
3.4.14 In order to implement the strategy set out by PUSH, the relevant Authorities
have set up Transport for South Hampshire (TfSH). This involves a new, formal
partnership between the principal Authorities, i.e. Hampshire County Council and
Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils. The new corporate body so formed
will be empowered to let contracts, collect and disburse funding, commission
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 19
research, influence, advise and lobby Government, and develop and deliver
transport schemes in line with its approved Business Plan.
3.4.15 The key objectives of the TfSH are:
• Developing and Delivering a seamless and coordinated public transport
operation in partnership with the operators across the sub-region and
securing infrastructure to support that.
• Developing and Delivering sub-regional transport schemes and innovations
and implementation of sub-regional transport policies (including strategic
traffic management).
• Pursuing and securing funding for sub-regional transport schemes (and
supporting each transport authority in doing so for local schemes).
• Holding and dispersing developer contributions for sub-regional transport
schemes.
• Holding and dispersing other transport funding allocated on a sub-regional
basis.
• Monitoring and reviewing delivery at sub-regional level.
• Developing and updating transport policies in support of the South Hampshire
Spatial Strategy, the Regional Transport Strategy and the Regional Spatial
Strategy (The South East Plan).
3.4.16 The TfSH joint committee is a formal partnership set up under Section 102(1) of
the Local Government Act 1972, and the core terms of reference require the
preparation and implementation of Annual Business Plans to promote and deliver
proposals to achieve the key objectives set out above. This process includes
involvement with key stakeholders, which includes Associated British Ports.
3.4.17 Since the current year is already well advanced, the first Business Plan covers
two years, June 2007 to May 2009. For this period, a total of over £400,000 has
been secured towards initial study work. A further £1.7m is identified as being
required to progress technical studies in relation to Transport Schemes, building
of a sub-regional transport model, the development of transport access
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 20
arrangements for SDAs and key employment zones, and developing a Freight
strategy. This funding is not yet secured and the source of funding unidentified.
3.4.18 Connected to this initiative, the Government Office for the South East have
invited the PUSH to engage in a Multi Area Agreement to enable a wider
perspective on the implementation of Local Area Actions plans.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 21
4.0 EXISTING BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 The location of the Port of Southampton in relation to the local and strategic
highway networks is shown on Figures 1 and 2 respectively.
4.2 Highway Network
4.2.1 The Port of Southampton is made up of the eastern and western docks. These
two parts are physically separated and accessed from different Dock Gates.
The Southampton Container Terminal is located in the Western Docks.
4.2.2 The Western Docks have three access points to the local highway network, being
Dock Gates 8, 10 and 20. Internally, an access / link road runs from east to
west (Western Avenue). This allows access to all parts of the Western Docks
from any of the above access points. In practice however (see below) the
significant majority of traffic relating to the Container Terminal uses Dock Gate
20 as its access and exit point.
4.2.3 Dock Gate 8 is located at the far eastern end of the Western Docks and is
normally kept locked shut except for specific uses / requirements.
4.2.4 Dock Gate 10 provides the main access to the eastern end of the Western Docks
and links to West Quay Road, which connects to the A3034 Mountbatten Way for
Southampton City Centre and the M271 at Redbridge. The junction of West
Quay Road and Southern Road is in the form of a large signal controlled
crossroads. Around 150m north of this junction, Southern Road connects with
Mountbatten Way at another major signalised junction. Similarly, some 250m
west of the new junction, West Quay Road connects with Mountbatten Way at a
signalised junction.
4.2.5 Mountbatten Way runs along the former shoreline and is the main radial route
into Southampton City Centre from the motorway and trunk road network.
Similarly, West Quay Road provides an alternative route to City Centre areas and
is the principal road access to the new West Quay retail centre.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 22
4.2.6 Dock Gate 20 is located within the Docks, access from First Avenue. It connects
the Western Docks directly to the A35 at Millbrook interchange. This is a large
grade separated junction, with traffic signal control on the gyratory. The four
main approaches are dual carriageway, the remaining approach is single
carriageway.
4.2.7 To the west of the Millbrook Interchange, Redbridge Road is a dual three lane
carriageway and connects to the M271 again via a large grade separated
junction with signalised gyratory. Around two miles to the north of the
Redbridge gyratory, the M271 connects to the M27 at junction 3, which is
another large grade separated signalised gyratory junction.
4.2.8 The M27, in turn, provides road access to the east and south-east of England,
South Wales, the Midlands and northwards via the M3 and A34. In addition, the
A36(T) provides a trunk road link to Bath and Bristol via Salisbury. The A36(T)
is accessible via junction 2 of the M27.
4.3 Base Line Traffic Flows
4.3.1 In order to inform the assessment, a number of base traffic surveys have been
undertaken. These surveys have been supplemented by data from DP World
Southampton, the operators of the Container Terminal.
Strategic and Local Network Flows
4.3.2 Headline traffic flows for the strategic highway network have been extracted
from the Highways Agency’s online traffic flow database “TRADS” for the
motorways and trunk roads and from SCC for the A35. Overall peak hour and
24 hour flows for the A35 and Mountbatten Way are summarised below in Table
2.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 23
Table 2 – Baseline Flows – Southampton Local Highway Network (5 day average 2010)
Am Peak
(0800-0900)
Pm Peak
(1700-1800) 24 Hour Flows
E/B W/B E/B W/B E/B W/B
Redbridge
Road 4,199 2,152 2,927 3,742 43,378 38,654
Millbrook
Road 1,109 2,014 1,716 1,500 20,328 21,474
Mountbatten
Way 2,406 1,116 1,441 2,251 22,949 22,783
4.3.3 TRADS data for the M271 and M27 has similarly been obtained and is
summarised in Table 3.
Table 3 – Baseline Flows – Strategic Highway Network (5 day average June 2010)
Am Peak
(0800-0900)
Pm Peak
(1700-1800) 24 Hour Flows
S/B N/B S/B N/B S/B N/B
M271 2,746 2,006 2,221 2,624 30,308 29,620
M27 (J3 –
J4) 4,874 5,522 5,909 5,496 70,087 70,105
M3 4,864 5,506 5,940 4,550 68,779 67,824
A34 1,905 1,759 2,206 1,618 26,535 24,071
Container Terminal Flows
4.3.4 In order to establish an existing base line of traffic generation, Container
Terminal flows have been determined from information obtained from the
Terminal’s Vehicle Booking System (VBS) and by surveys undertaken at Dock
Gate 20 in 2007 and 2011. This section sets out the headline findings.
4.3.5 HGV surveys are available for Dock Gate 20 dating from May 2007. These were
manual classified surveys undertaken for DTA on behalf of ABP. To compliment
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 24
these surveys, data from the VBS system at this time was also obtained
(operated at the time by SCT), which provides details of inbound HGV
movements to the Container Terminal.
4.3.6 The surveys from 2007 recorded flows at both Dock Gates 20 and 10. These
showed that the majority of all Container Terminal movements take place via
Dock Gate 20 (circa 95%). On this basis, the following assessments have
therefore focused on Dock Gate 20. SCC have confirmed that the operation of
Dock Gate 10 falls outside the scope of the assessment.
4.3.7 The surveys undertaken at Dock Gate 20 in 2007 consisted of a 24 hour manual
traffic survey (from 07.00 on 22nd May to 07.00 to 23rd May), and the installation
of an Automatic Traffic Counter at Dock Gate 20 between Tuesday 22 May and
Monday 28 May 2007. The weekday average flows measured at Dock Gate 20
between 22 May and 25 May 2007 are shown in Table 4. Data collected on
Monday 28th has been excluded from the following assessments as it was a Bank
Holiday.
Table 4 - Weekday Average Flow - Dock Gate 20 – May 2007
Weekday Average Flows –
Total Vehicles Weekday Average (HGVs)
In Out Total In Out Total
Am Peak (0800-0900) 321 220 541 101 160 263
Pm Peak (1700-1800) 177 374 551 91 132 222
12 Hour (0700-1900) 3,021 3,101 6,122 1,588 1,629 3,217
24 Hour 4,390 4,342 8,732 2,345 2,437 4,784
4.3.8 Further disaggregation of the data to exclude non container HGV movements
shows the following level of container vehicle movements (Table 5).
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 25
Table 5 – Container HGV Flow- Dock Gate 20 – May 2007 In Out Total
Am Peak (0800-0900) 76 122 198
Pm Peak (1700-1800) 69 116 185
12 Hour (0700-1900) 1,195 1,330 2,525
24 Hour AADT 1,883 2,055 3,938
4.3.9 The accuracy of this survey data has been assessed against data held by the
terminal operator (obtained from the VBS) for HGV trips generated by the
Container Terminal. This data provides a complete list of HGVs processed
through the terminal (inbound only). Table 6 below summarises the key data.
Table 6 – VBS Data – Two way HGV container vehicle flows – 2007
Date 24 Hour (0000
– 2400) Max Hour
Average
Hour Min Hour
21/05/07 3,454 250 144 10
22/05/07 3,892 256 162 2
23/05/07 3,970 246 165 80
24/05/07 3,984 248 166 90
25/05/07 3,528 238 147 46
Average 3,766 248 157 46
Note: VBS figures have been doubled to provide total movements
4.3.10 The above shows daily flows (midnight to midnight). The manual counts were
undertaken for a slightly different 24 hour period (0700 on 22.05 to 0700 on
23.05). The flows for that same period show a total of 4,014 HGV movements
through the VBS. The total container HGV movements surveyed through Dock
Gate 20 were 3,938. This exercise shows a good correlation between the figures
with only slightly more movements at the VBS than through Dock Gate 20. This
is to be expected given that an element of movement to and from the Container
Terminal, and therefore recorded at the VBS will be retained within the port
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 26
estate.
4.3.11 As part of this assessment, the previous survey work has been updated (in June
2011). The results of the updated container HGV movements at Dock Gate 20
are attached at Appendix B and summarised below in Table 7.
Table 7 – Container HGV Flow - Dock Gate 20 (23rd June 2011) In Out Total
Am Peak (0800-0900) 74 68 142
Pm Peak (1700-1800) 45 87 132
12 Hour (0700-1900) 1,136 1,050 2,186
24 Hour 1,526 1,468 2,994
4.3.12 The relevant accompanying data from the VBS system is attached at Appendix
C and summarised below in Table 8:
Table 8 – VBS Data – Two way container HGV flows – 2011
Date 24 Hour
(0000 – 2400) Max Hour
Average
Hour Min Hour
22/06/2011 3,534 288 147 38
23/06/2011 3,256 290 136 34
24/06/2011 2,910 264 121 52
25/06/2011 536 56 36 4
26/06/2011 136 40 19 6
27/06/2011 3,042 256 127 8
28/06/2011 3,354 288 147 38
Weekday Average 3,219 290 134 8
Note: VBS HGV Figures have been doubled to provide total movements
4.3.13 The HGV data from the manual survey was obtained during the period from
05.00 on 23th June for 24 hours. The corresponding VBS HGV flow for this
period was 3,266. Again this is higher than the surveyed flows at Dock Gate 20
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 27
and is explained by the internalisation of some trips within the port area.
4.4 Accident Data
4.4.1 Accident data for the local highway network has been obtained and reviewed.
The area of search and data collected is attached at Appendix D.
4.4.2 In total, 82 accidents were recorded in the search area which covers the last five
years. Of these 73 resulted in “slight” injuries and 9 in “serious” injuries. There
were no recorded fatal accidents. These have been split down to review three
key accident types, pedestrian, cyclists and HGVs.
4.4.3 There were a total of 3 accidents involving pedestrians. One, which resulted in
“serious” injuries was recorded as a drunken pedestrian crossing the dual
carriageway at night time. The other two accidents occurred at Redbridge and
Millbrook Roundabouts and both resulted in “slight” injuries, being the result of
conflicts at crossing points. Given the existing flows on the network, there is no
specific accident blackspot relating to pedestrians and no identifiable existing
issue to be addressed. The works carried out by SCC at Millbrook in the last
three years have been explicitly targeted at improving crossing points.
4.4.4 A total of 7 accidents involved cyclists, with one being classified as “serious” and
the remainder as “slight”. All of the accidents were the result of conflicts with
cars at the roundabouts or merges / access junctions. This type of accident is
fairly typical for a built up urban area. There are no specific accident clusters
and therefore no identifiable existing issue to be addressed.
4.4.5 In terms of HGV movements, a total of 9 “slight” accidents were recorded.
There were no fatal or “serious” accidents involving HGVs. One of the accidents
(on the M271 approach) related to driver distraction in the cab. All of the
remaining accidents were of lane usage / conflict at the roundabouts. Again,
there is no specific accident clusters and therefore no identifiable existing issue
to be addressed.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 28
4.4.6 Overall the number of accidents on the local network is consistent with the scale
of road links and junctions in place and the level of flows accommodated.
Despite the relatively high frequency of HGV movements on the network, the
existing highway safety record shows no specific area of concern relating to
either HGVs themselves or the impact on safety of vulnerable road users. There
are therefore no existing highway safety issues to be specifically to be taken
account of in the assessment of the project.
4.5 Air Quality Management Areas
4.5.1 There are AQMA’s in the vicinity of the site of the berth 201/202 works. The air
quality implications on these areas as a result of traffic generated by the project
are dealt with in the relevant chapter of the ES.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 29
5.0 TRAFFIC GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 Based on the information set out in Section 2, this section of the TA considers
the road traffic generation of the project having regard to existing and future
conditions. The GTA notes at paragraph 4.59 that:
“There is a range of trip rate database tools available that contain national,
or in some cases more local, trip rates measured for typical land use sites.
However, obtaining an accurate comparison is not always straightforward,
especially for atypical developments. In these instances it is recommended
that, unless there is a clear valid comparable situation, the assessment
trips should be constructed from first principles based on a detailed
analysis of the daily operation of the proposed development.”
5.1.2 In this case there are no comparable sites in TRICS, so the following assessment
has been constructed from first principles, based on a number of key parameters
as derived and explained below.
5.2 Overall Annual Movements
Terminal Throughput
5.2.1 The key factor relating to inland road and rail movements is linked to the overall
throughput of the terminal. Throughput figures are quoted as per annum TEU
movements over the quay wall. These include all container lifts over the quay
wall excluding restows (boxes moved off the ship to facilitate access and then
replaced).
5.2.2 As explained in section 2 the following overall annual throughput assumptions
have been adopted:
• 2007 – 1.87m TEU – Peak historic throughput of port. (Historic
Baseline)
• 2011 - predicted 1.6m TEU for year. (Current Baseline)
• Terminal Capacity without the Works – 2.3m TEU. (Future Position
Without the Works)
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 30
• Terminal with the works Capacity – 2.8m TEU. (The Future Position
With the Works)
TEU / Box Ratio
5.2.3 Based on data from DPWS, the recorded TEU to box ratio in 2007 was 1.68 and
in 2011 (to date) is 1.66. However, the deep sea container east – west trade
(which forms the majority of DPWS trade) is migrating towards a much higher
usage of 40’ containers than 20’ containers. Based on current forecasts it is
expected that the ratio will peak at around 1.75 by 2019.
5.2.4 On this basis, 1.75 has been adopted in the forecast assessment scenarios. This
is consistent with the approach taken in assessing all recent major container port
developments, including Bristol Deep Sea Container Terminal and London
Gateway.
Transhipment
5.2.5 Data on existing transhipment rates have been obtained from DPWS records.
These show a rate of 9.3% in 2007 and 8.1% in 2011 to date. Going forward, it
is expected that this will increase marginally. A rate of 10% has therefore been
adopted for the 2021 forecast year.
Rail Share
5.2.6 Data on existing rail share has also been provided from DPWS records. This
shows a rail share of 26.1% of total throughput in 2007, rising to 33% in 2011
to date.
5.2.7 Geldard Consulting has considered likely changes in rail share that will occur
over time, and these are set out above in Table 1 as being 37% in 2021 and
40% in 2027.
Overall
5.2.8 Based on the above, the overall annual throughput position for each of the
various scenarios are summarised below in Table 9.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 31
Table 9 – Overall Annual Throughput Assumptions
Historic
Baseline
Current
Baseline
Future
Position
Without the
Works
Future
Position With
the works
Year 2007 2011 2021 2027
TEU throughput
of the Terminal 1,869,806 1,600,000 2,300,000 2,800,000
Ratio TEU to
boxes 1.68 1.66 1.75 1.75
Box throughput of
the Terminal 1,111,039 963,175 1,314,286 1,600,000
Transhipment 9.29% 8.09% 10% 10%
Transhipment
Boxes 103,189 77,947 131,429 160,000
Sub total inland
Generation Boxes 1,007,851 885,229 1,182,857 1,440,000
Prop of overall
throughput
moved by Rail
26.09% 33.10% 37% 40%
Rail Boxes 289,852 318,801 486,286 640,000
Total Road Based
Boxes 717,999 566,428 696,571 800,000
Note minor rounding errors (TEU to box ratio for existing conditions to more than 2 decimal places).
5.3 Conversion of Box to HGV movements (Annual)
5.3.1 The conversion of the total number of road based boxes to the number of HGVs
can be calculated in a number of different ways. The VBS records every HGV
movement and box movement. That data shows that for 2007, each HGV
moved an average of 1.56 boxes.
5.3.2 On the basis that each HGV generates a trip in and a trip out, this equates to an
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 32
average at the VBS of 1.28 HGV trips (in or out) per box. Although the 2011
figure shows a slightly different ratio, DPWS have advised that the 1.28 average
is likely to be maintained in the future.
5.3.3 This reflects the fact that a number of movements of HGVs are not loaded (and
also a proportion are loaded with two containers).
5.3.4 Given that a number of these movements will be internal to the port estate
(although external to DPWS), at Dock Gate 20 it can be seen that the ratio is
lower. Based on the 2011 surveys, the flows at Dock Gate 20 (First Avenue)
are 9.1% lower than those actually entering the VBS system.
5.3.5 For the wider network strategic network, the ratio can be expected to reduce
further. This is a function of the fact that it is not commercially viable for HGVs
to travel longer distances without a paying load.
5.3.6 The proportion on the wider road network was agreed at the Dibden Terminal
inquiry, based on surveys on the M271, the A14 and the approach to
Thamesport. This showed a ratio of 1.03. Whilst the surveys are now a little
dated, the overall principles remain the same and this parameter has been
accepted by the Highways Agency in relation to both London Gateway and
Bristol DSCT. It has therefore been adopted in assessing strategic road
movements.
5.3.7 The implications of the above are therefore summarised below in Table 10.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 33
Table 10 – Conversion from Boxes to HGV movements
Historic
Baseline
Current
Baseline
Future
Position
Without the
Works
Future
Position With
the Works
Total Road Based
Boxes 717,999 566,428 696,571 800,000
HGV to Box ratio
(VBS Gate) 1.28 1.299 1.28 1.28
Total VBS HGV
per year 921,931 735,620 894,417 1,027,222
HGV to Box Ratio
(Strategic) 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03
Strategic HGV
moves per year 739,539 583,421 717,469 824,000
5.3.8 Comparison of the DPWS Data and Dock Gate 20 surveys show that HGV flows
out through the VBS are higher than those actually out of the Port estate. The
ratio of VBS flows to Dock Gate 20 flows is therefore (2,994/3,266) = 0.9167.
5.4 Conversion of Annual Movements to Average Daily Movements
5.4.1 Annual flows have been converted to average weekly flows on the basis of 50
working weeks per year (on the assumption of significant reduction in
throughput at Christmas). These are set out below in Table 11.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 34
Table 11 – Conversion from Annual to Average Week
Historic
Baseline
Current
Baseline
Future
Position
Without the
Works
Future
Position
With the
Works
Total VBS HGVs
per year 921,931 735,620 894,417 1,027,222
Strategic HGV
moves per year 739,539 583,421 717,469 824,000
Average VBS HGVs
per week 18,439 14,712 17,888 20,544
Average Strategic
HGVs per week 14,791 11,668 14,349 16,480
5.4.2 Although the port is open 24 hours a day, and the VBS is open from Sunday 2pm
to Saturday 2pm, the peak daily road movement tends to be on a Wednesday.
This is shown by the following information in Table 12 which compares VBS
throughput throughout the week surveyed. DPWS have confirmed this is typical
across the year.
Table 12 – Daily proportion of movements
Date Day Total VBS Proportion of
week
22/06/2011 Wednesday 1767 21.1%
23/06/2011 Thursday 1628 19.4%
24/06/2011 Friday 1455 17.4%
25/06/2011 Saturday 268 3.2%
26/06/2011 Sunday 68 0.8%
27/06/2011 Monday 1521 18.1%
28/06/2011 Tuesday 1677 20.0%
5.4.3 Applying the 21.1% peak day flows gives the following average week peak daily
flows.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 35
Table 13 – Conversion from Average Week to Peak Day (average week)
Historic
Baseline
Current
Baseline
Future
Position
Without
the Works
Future
Position
With the
Works
Average VBS Trucks-
Peak Day 3,886 3,101 3,770 4,330
Average DG20
Trucks - Peak Day 3,562 2,843 3,456 3,969
Average Strategic
Truck - Peak Day 3,117 2,459 3,024 3,473
5.5 Adjustment for Monthly Variation
5.5.1 Historically, inland container traffic from the terminal has been subject to peak
periods, which broadly coincide with the run up to Christmas for example. This
has reduced in recent years but still has a slight effect as is demonstrated by
comparison of 2007 flows through the terminal as set out below:
Table 14 – Peak to average month ratio TEU
Total Annual 1,869,806
Peak Month (October) 166,791
Average month 155,817
Average month to peak month 1.070
5.5.2 To account for this, the daily movements set out in Table 13 have been
factored up by 1.070. The resulting peak daily movements for all scenarios are
therefore summarised below:
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 36
Table 15 – Peak Daily Traffic Flows
Historic
Baseline
Current
Baseline
Future
Position
Without the
Works
Future
Position With
the Works
Peak VBS HGVs 4,160 3,295 4,006 4,601
Peak DG 20 HGVs 3,813 3,020 3,672 4,218
Peak Strategic HGVs 3,337 2,613 3,213 3,690
5.5.3 Table 16 below summarises the changes in flows between the Historic Baseline
position and the Future Position With the Works, and between the Future
Position Without the Works position and the Future Position With the Works.
Table 16 – Change in peak daily HGV flows.
Change from Historic
Baseline to Future
Position With the Works
Change from Future
Position Without the
Works to Future Position
With the Works
Peak VBS HGVs + 441 + 595
Peak DG 20 HGVs + 404 + 545
Peak Strategic HGVs + 354 + 477
5.5.4 The overall spreadsheet summarising the above is provided at Appendix E.
5.6 Conversion of Peak Daily Flows to Hourly Flows
5.6.1 The hourly profile of the daily movements can be determined from any of the
four survey data sets available. Based on the most recent 2011 surveys, the
daily profile of container movements is as follows in Table 17.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 37
Table 17 – Daily Profile
DG20VBS
In Out Total
0000-0100 0.72% 0.75% 0.73% 1.40%
0100-0200 1.18% 1.36% 1.27% 1.64%
0200-0300 1.31% 0.68% 1.00% 1.68%
0300-0400 2.29% 2.11% 2.20% 2.49%
0400-0500 3.15% 3.88% 3.51% 3.89%
0500-0600 4.46% 5.31% 4.88% 4.40%
0600-0700 5.57% 4.97% 5.28% 4.37%
0700-0800 5.24% 6.95% 6.08% 3.84%
0800-0900 4.85% 4.63% 4.74% 3.62%
0900-1000 4.52% 4.22% 4.38% 3.70%
1000-1100 4.72% 3.41% 4.07% 4.30%
1100-1200 6.42% 4.97% 5.71% 6.08%
1200-1300 8.26% 5.72% 7.01% 7.40%
1300-1400 8.58% 7.77% 8.18% 7.82%
1400-1500 10.35% 8.24% 9.32% 8.50%
1500-1600 8.32% 8.58% 8.45% 8.34%
1600-1700 7.80% 7.36% 7.58% 7.03%
1700-1800 2.95% 5.93% 4.41% 4.75%
1800-1900 2.42% 3.75% 3.07% 3.41%
1900-2000 1.83% 3.34% 2.57% 2.81%
2000-2100 0.92% 2.59% 1.74% 2.27%
2100-2200 1.51% 1.16% 1.34% 2.21%
2200-2300 1.44% 1.16% 1.30% 2.23%
2300-2400 1.18% 1.16% 1.17% 1.80%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
5.6.2 The above profile has been applied to the daily flows as identified above in
Table 16 to provide a peak hour flow from the terminal for the various
scenarios. For robustness, the Dock Gate 20 derived profile has been used as it
shows slightly higher peak hour flows.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 38
5.7 Forecast Peak Hour Movements from Container Movements
5.7.1 Based on the above assumptions, Appendix F, provides a full breakdown of
traffic generation across the peak day, based on both Dock Gate 20 movements
and the strategic network. Peak hour flows at Dock Gate 20 and on the strategic
network for the various scenarios are set out below in Table 18 and 19.
Table 18 - Peak Hour Traffic Generation – Dock Gate 20 /First Avenue Am Peak Pm Peak
In Out Total In Out Total
Historic Baseline
(2007) 92 88 180 56 113 169
Current Baseline
(2011) 74 68 142 45 87 132
Future Position
Without the Works 89 85 174 54 109 163
Future Position
With the works 102 98 200 62 125 187
Table 19 - Peak Hour Traffic Generation – Strategic Network Am Peak Inter – Peak Pm Peak
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Historic Baseline (2007)
81 77 158 143 130 273 49 99 148
Current Baseline (2011)
63 61 124 112 101 214 39 77 116
Future Position without the
Works 78 74 152 138 125 263 47 95 143
Future Position With the Works
89 85 175 158 143 302 54 109 163
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 39
5.8 Employee Traffic Generation
5.8.1 At present, DPWS employs a total of 820 staff, working on two shift patterns
(0730-1930 and 1930-0730).
5.8.2 In the anticipated year of opening (2014), the berth operation will generate 36
jobs. Thereafter between 2015 and 2027, the berth operation is estimated to
generate 12 additional jobs per year. This results in an additional 192 jobs by
2027. As with the existing employees, these will be split over two shifts, with
neither involving start/finish times related to traffic network peak hours. The
absolute change in traffic flows arising from increased staff levels will be
negligible during peak hours and modest in terms of daily flows.
5.8.3 In terms of daily movements a car driver percentage of 71% is assumed (based
on ONS data for Southampton 019C super output area), giving rise to 137 cars
or 274 two-way movements.
5.9 Operational HGV Traffic Generation
5.9.1 In addition to the above, the facility also generates different movements per day
relating to vehicle servicing / repair, deliveries etc. Overall the project will not
change these requirements in any significant way. The implication of these
movements has therefore been discounted from further assessment.
5.10 Traffic Distribution - Strategic Network
5.10.1 Having established the above peak hour movements, the following assessment
considers the distribution and assignment of forecast traffic flows. The following
distribution and assignment given in Table 20 has been assumed. This has
been derived from the data reported in Figures 51 and 52 of the DfT Publication
“The Container Freight End-to-End Journey - December 2008.” This includes
the agreed position in terms of distribution for the Bristol Deep Sea Container
Terminal.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 40
Table 20 – Assumed HGV distribution In Out Average
Greater London 8.8% 19.1% 13.9%
South East 14.9% 16.2% 15.5%
East 5.1% 9.0% 7.1%
East Midlands 22.4% 5.9% 14.2%
West Midlands 16.3% 10.7% 13.5%
South West 7.4% 8.6% 8.0%
Wales 2.7% 4.4% 3.5%
North West 11.1% 10.7% 10.9%
Yorkshire & Humber 8.7% 11.7% 10.2%
North East 2.6% 3.6% 3.1%
Scotland 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
Total 100% 100% 100%
5.10.2 A breakdown of route choice and assignment is provided in Appendix G.
5.11 Traffic Distribution Local Road Network
5.11.1 It is clear from the expected strategic HGV distribution that the majority of
movements generated by the terminal are to and from the strategic road
network. The impact on the local road network will therefore be limited to those
roads within Southampton City Council that link the terminal with the strategic
road network.
5.11.2 Whilst some movements to and from the Port estate do currently use other
routes (for reasons of local access etc), any change to such movements as a
result of the project are not considered to be material, because the main
additional demand will follow the strategic distribution as set out above.
5.11.3 In terms of the New Forest, there are no additional flows forecast through the
area, with any additional growth focusing on the Trunk Road Network.
Therefore no further assessment has been undertaken on the local road network
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 41
within other adjacent local authority areas, including Test Valley Borough and
the New Forest (where Hampshire County Council is the relevant Highway
Authority).
5.11.4 In terms of additional staff traffic, commuting car journeys will quickly dissipate
on the highway network with employees likely to be drawn from across
Southampton and further afield. For the purposes of appraisal, it is assumed
that 50% of staff driving to the site, will route to the east and north as they
reach the A35, quickly spreading across numerous local routes. The remaining
50% are assumed to route to the west via Redbridge Road, in turn splitting
evenly between the A35 towards Totton (ie 25% of the extra staff traffic) and
the M271 (again 25%). Traffic reaching the M27 will take a number of routes,
and for the purposes of assessment, a total of 15% is assumed to route to the
east along the motorway.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 42
6.0 ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS
6.1 Forecast Year Scenarios
6.1.1 GTA advises that future year assessments should normally be undertaken 10
years from the date of submission of the proposals for development for the
Strategic Road Network and 5 years for the local road network. Although the
date of the application submission for the berth 201/202 works is 2008, (which
would give a forecast year of 2018 for the SRN and 2013 for the local road
network), this assessment, is being submitted for consideration in 2011,
therefore an assessment year of 2021 has been used.
6.1.2 As has already been explained, in 2021, the Container Terminal could be
operating at the same level of throughput, linked to demand, regardless of
whether the berth 201 / 202 works are in place or not. Table 1 above shows
that up to 2021, actual terminal throughput will be limited by demand rather
than capacity. It therefore follows that the berth 201 / 202 works will potentially
not have any impact on the level of terminal generated traffic movements up to
2021. Furthermore, despite the increase in throughput over time, there is likely
to be a reduction in external road based movements from the historic baseline
2007 position to the position in 2021 as a result of improved rail share.
6.1.3 Post 2021, the additional capacity that would be created by the 201/202 works
will be taken up. In simple terms the works will result in an additional 0.5m TEU
of capacity being provided and this is predicted to be used over the 6 year
period to 2027. On this basis, the traffic impact has been assessed by
comparing the Future Position With the Works scenario with the Future Position
Without the Works scenario.
6.1.4 The assessment of the traffic impact of the Future Position With the Works
scenario with the Future Position Without the Works is considered to represent
the most meaningful evaluation of impact. This relates to the practical capacity
of the site with and without the works, and removes the need for reliance on
future demand based assumptions of the current operation. Since the Future
Position Without the Works is, however, a capacity driven appraisal, and that
future demand is a symptom of market forces, it is acknowledged that it is also
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 43
appropriate to evaluate the impact of alternative comparisons. For robustness
therefore, the Future Position With the Works is also compared with the Current
Baseline and comment made on a comparison with the Historic Baseline position
as defined in Section 2.3. The comparison against the Current Baseline
generates the largest change in traffic flows between any of the relevant
scenarios. It is arguably a somewhat overly cautious analysis because, as
explained in detail in later paragraphs, the traffic flows currently occurring are
less than what has in reality occurred in the past, and what could be achieved in
the future.
6.2 Future Forecast Growth and Committed Development Traffic
6.2.1 As part of the assessment process, consideration has been given to the potential
in-combination effects of a number of developments. These developments have
been agreed with SCC as requiring consideration. These are discussed in turn
below in terms of their implications for the Transport Assessment.
Helius Biomass Generating Station
6.2.2 This scheme is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). An
application for consent has not yet been submitted to the IPC. As of 22nd August
2011 publicly available information from the project’s website confirms the
following in terms of road based traffic movements:
“It is intended that the majority of the fuel will be delivered to the site by
ship through the Port of Southampton however any local sourced fuel will
be delivered by road or rail. In normal operation, if it is assumed that
300,000 tonnes of fuel were to be sourced locally then if it all were
delivered by road, this would amount to around 39 lorry loads per working
day. In exception circumstances, e.g. the closure of the Port, all the fuel
feedstock may be delivered by road for an indeterminate period. Having
regard to this possibility, the application for a Development Consent Order
will include an assessment of the worst case scenario whereby all fuel
would be delivered to the site per road, assuming up to 111 one way lorry
movements per day.”
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 44
6.2.3 This generating station, if constructed, will be located within the existing Port
estate, on land used for other purposes. The level of traffic predicted to be
generated is considered likely to be commensurate with the level of traffic that
has been, or could be in the future be, generated by port uses permitted to
occur on the land. Traffic likely to be generated by this generating station is
therefore included in the general growth assessment of traffic movements. No
specific additional assessment is therefore required in terms of in combination
road traffic impacts.
Planning Permission 09/00106/FUL
6.2.4 This planning consent allows for certain changes to be made to internal port
access arrangements within the Port Estate in the vicinity of Dock Gate 20.
These changes are intended to secure internal safety improvements to the
access road network within the port estate and in particular to the existing
Vehicle Booking System. Other than providing internal improvements, the
consent, when implemented, will have no impact on the overall port related road
traffic movements. No specific additional assessment is therefore required in
terms of in combination road traffic impacts.
Planning Permission 10/00385/R3CFL - Council Depot and HWRC, First Avenue
6.2.5 This consented scheme is due to be opened in early 2012. The Transport
Assessment submitted with the application concluded that the scheme would
have minimal impact on existing junction operation. Minor improvements were
secured to the Millbrook Roundabout junction. In any event, the facility is a
replacement of any existing facility elsewhere within the City. Whilst the new
depot will divert trips from the existing site it will not in itself generate new trips.
The development will not materially alter base flows either in the peak hours and
therefore no specific additional assessment is therefore required in terms of in
combination road traffic impacts.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 45
Planning Application 10/01449/FUL – Redevelopment of BAT Co Ltd
6.2.6 This development relates to the replacement of an existing industrial building
with a Costco warehouse store. The Transport Assessment submitted with the
application suggests minimal changes in weekday flows from the existing
position. Increases in weekend flows are more marked, but these occur at a
time when port traffic is generally low (see Table 12). Furthermore, retail
development is likely to result in linked trips rather than wholly new ones on the
network.
6.2.7 On the basis of the above, no specific additional assessment is therefore
required in terms of in combination road traffic impacts.
General Growth in Network
6.2.8 In accordance with current WebTAG guidance (TAG unit 3.15.2, section 5.5),
where traffic growth factors are required, in the absence of a traffic model, the
Department's published forecasts from the National Traffic Model should be
used. The Department’s published forecasts are based on assumed population
and workforce projections and therefore include general growth in traffic arising
from future housing, employment and retail development. They will therefore
generally include an allowance for future traffic growth arising from the type of
developments considered above, in any event.
6.2.9 Accordingly, to establish the future year reference case, growth factors have
been derived from the most recent release of NTM which is 2009. The NTM
forecasts give traffic growth by region, road type and whether the area is built
up or not. TEMPRO factors are then used to tailor this published traffic forecast
to local circumstances. The most recent release of TEMPRO is v6.2 and has
been used here to adjust the NTM forecasts, which are based on the
Southampton area. The growth factors are provided in Table 21.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 46
Table 21 – Background Growth Rates
Urban
Principal
Urban
Trunk
Rural
Motorway
2011 - 2021 1.175 1.205 1.235
2011 - 2027 1.206 1.219 1.251
6.3 Change in Flows
6.3.1 Based on the preceding assessments, Table 22 shows the change in HGV flows
on the network between the Future Position Without the Works scenario and
Future Position With the Works scenario for 2027.
Table 22 – Additional HGV Flows – comparison of Future Position With the Works with the Future Position Without the Works scenario
Redbridge
Road M271
M3
(south of A34) A34
E/B W/B S/B N/B W/B E/B S/B N/B
Am Peak (0800 - 0900)
12 11 12 11 10 10 10 9
Inter Peak (1300-1400)
20 19 20 19 18 16 17 16
Pm Peak (1700 - 1800)
7 14 7 14 6 12 6 12
24 Hours 239 239 239 239 208 208 200 200
6.3.2 It can be seen from the above that the changes in HGV flows as a result of the
project are modest during the peak hours. The inter-peak is slightly higher, but
at a time when base flows on the network are significantly lower. The worse
case for assessment purposes is therefore the highway peak periods and the 24
Hour period.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 47
6.4 Operational Traffic Impact Conclusions
6.4.1 It is clear from the above that the additional traffic arising from the Works is
modest, when compared against the existing and future likely traffic flows.
6.4.2 Based on the above assessments, Table 23 and 24 compares the changes in
flows on the key links on the network.
Table 23 – Comparison of Total Traffic Flows – between the Future Position With the Works and the Future Position Without the Works scenario in 2027
2027 Without Works 2027 With Works % Change
AM PM 24 Hr AM PM 24 Hr AM PM 24 Hr
Redbridge E/B
5,068 3,533 52,254 5,080 3,540 52,561 0.2% 0.2% 0.6%
Redbridge W/B
2,598 4,517 46,674 2,609 4,531 46,981 0.4% 0.3% 0.6%
M271 S/B 3,350 2,710 36,983 3,362 2,717 37,256 0.3% 0.3% 0.7%
M271 N/B 2,447 3,202 36,144 2,458 3,216 36,416 0.5% 0.4% 0.7%
M27 W/B 6,100 7,396 87,710 6,110 7,402 87,952 0.2% 0.1% 0.3%
M27 E/B 6,911 6,878 87,732 6,921 6,891 87,974 0.1% 0.2% 0.3%
M3 S/B 6,088 7,435 86,073 6,097 7,441 86,274 0.2% 0.1% 0.2%
M3 N/B 6,891 5,694 84,878 6,901 5,706 85,078 0.1% 0.2% 0.2%
A34 S/B 2,384 2,761 33,207 2,388 2,763 33,285 0.2% 0.1% 0.2%
A34 N/B 2,201 2,025 30,123 2,205 2,029 30,200 0.2% 0.2% 0.3%
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 48
Table 24 – Comparison of HGV Flows - between the Future Position With the Works and the Future Position Without the Works scenario in 2027
2027 Without Works 2027 With Works % Change
AM PM 24 Hr AM PM 24 Hr AM PM 24 Hr
Redbridge
E/B 346 241 3,582 358 248 3,822 3.4% 2.9% 6.7%
Redbridge
W/B 178 309 3,202 189 323 3,442 6.3% 4.6% 7.5%
M271 S/B 303 278 5,495 315 285 5,735 3.8% 2.6% 4.4%
M271 N/B 393 219 5,507 405 233 5,747 2.8% 6.5% 4.4%
M27 W/B 640 386 9,193 650 392 9,402 1.6% 1.6% 2.3%
M27 E/B 725 358 9,195 735 371 9,405 1.3% 3.5% 2.3%
M3 S/B 596 405 9,687 606 411 9,889 1.6% 1.5% 2.1%
M3 N/B 657 398 9,827 667 410 10,029 1.4% 3.0% 2.1%
A34 S/B 355 246 5,746 359 249 5,825 1.1% 0.9% 1.4%
A34 N/B 330 249 5,651 334 253 5,730 1.1% 1.9% 1.4%
6.4.3 Assessing the impact of these additional flows on the wider network clearly
demonstrates very modest changes that are not significant. It can therefore be
concluded that the works do not warrant the need for any detailed analytical
assessment of off-site impact. It also follows from this that there are no
material adverse impacts arising in terms of highway safety or operation.
6.4.4 For robustness however, a similar appraisal has been undertaken comparing the
Current Baseline with the Future Position With the Works (see explanation given
in paragraph 6.1.4). Table 25 shows the resulting change in HGV flows on the
network.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 49
Table 25 Comparison between the Current Baseline and the Future Position With the Works scenario in 2027
Redbridge
Road M271
M3
(south of A34) A34
E/B W/B S/B N/B W/B E/B S/B N/B
Am Peak (0800 - 0900)
26 25 26 25 23 22 22 21
Inter Peak (1300-1400)
46 42 46 42 40 36 39 35
Pm Peak (1700 - 1800)
16 32 16 32 14 28 13 27
24 Hours 539 239 539 539 469 469 453 453
6.4.5 Tables 26 and 27 show the consequential increases in terms of total traffic and
HGV traffic.
Table 26 – Comparison of Total Traffic Flows – between the Current Baseline and the Future Position With the Works scenario in 2027
2027 with Current Baseline flows from Port 2027 With Works % Change
AM PM 24 Hr AM PM 24 Hr AM PM 24 Hr
Redbridge E/B
5,054 3,524 51,954 5,080 3,540 52,561 0.5% 0.5% 1.2%
Redbridge W/B
2,584 4,499 46,374 2,609 4,531 46,981 1.0% 0.7% 1.3%
M271 S/B 3,336 2,701 36,683 3,362 2,717 37,256 0.8% 0.6% 1.6%
M271 N/B 2,433 3,184 35,843 2,458 3,216 36,416 1.0% 1.0% 1.6%
M27 W/B 6,087 7,388 87,448 6,110 7,402 87,952 0.4% 0.2% 0.6%
M27 E/B 6,899 6,863 87,471 6,921 6,891 87,974 0.3% 0.4% 0.6%
M3 S/B 6,075 7,428 85,821 6,097 7,441 86,274 0.4% 0.2% 0.5%
M3 N/B 6,880 5,679 84,626 6,901 5,706 85,078 0.3% 0.5% 0.5%
A34 S/B 2,379 2,758 33,109 2,388 2,763 33,285 0.4% 0.2% 0.5%
A34 N/B 2,197 2,019 30,025 2,205 2,029 30,200 0.4% 0.5% 0.6%
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 50
Table 27 – Comparison of HGV Flows - between the Current Baseline and the Future Position With the Works scenario in 2027
2027 With Current Baseline flows from Port 2027 With Works % Change
AM PM 24 Hr AM PM 24 Hr AM PM 24 Hr
Redbridge E/B
331 232 3,281 358 248 3,820 7.9% 6.8% 16.4%
Redbridge W/B
164 291 2,902 189 323 3,440 15.2% 11.0% 18.6%
M271 S/B 289 269 5,195 315 285 5,733 9.0% 5.9% 10.4%
M271 N/B 379 201 5,207 404 233 5,746 6.6% 15.9% 10.3%
M27 W/B 627 378 8,932 650 392 9,401 3.6% 3.7% 5.3%
M27 E/B 713 343 8,934 735 371 9,403 3.0% 8.1% 5.3%
M3 S/B 584 397 9,435 606 411 9,888 3.8% 3.4% 4.8%
M3 N/B 646 383 9,575 667 410 10,028 3.2% 7.0% 4.7%
A34 S/B 350 243 5,649 359 249 5,824 2.4% 2.1% 3.1%
A34 N/B 326 243 5,553 334 253 5,729 2.5% 4.3% 3.2%
6.4.6 Whilst the differences when considering the Current Baseline are higher than the
comparison with the Future Position Without the Works, the additional flows on
the wider network remain modest. Clearly, the absolute 2027 Future Position
With Works are the same in each comparison. The percentage impacts increase
and are discussed in the relevant ES chapter, concluding that no significant
impact results.
6.4.7 The comparison between the Historic Baseline and the Future Position With the
Works has also been reviewed. The numbers are not tabulated since they are
extremely similar to those that result from the comparative differences between
the Future Position Without the Works and With the Works. This can be
interpreted from Table 19 whereby the peak hour traffic generation for Historic
Baseline and Future Position Without the Works are extremely similar.
Equivalent conclusions regarding the lack of material impact are therefore
drawn.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 51
6.4.8 In either event and regardless of the comparisons drawn between the various
scenarios, the operator controls inbound HGV movements through the VBS
system. It is therefore wholly within their control, if deemed appropriate, to
restrict peak hour movements.
6.5 Construction Traffic Impacts
6.5.1 As set out in Section 2, the worst case scenario for construction traffic will
require the importation of concrete by road. On this basis the construction
process would generate a total of around 11,000 delivery / service vehicle
movements (two way). Over a 14 month construction program this equates to
an average of 40 per day (20 in and 20 out). In order to provide a robust
assessment, the average number of construction HGVs are trebled in quantum to
120 per day. Occasional access by abnormal loads may be required for larger
items and cranes, but mostly these will be brought to site by barge.
6.5.2 Around 100 construction staff are expected on site at peak times. Based on a
car driver mode share of around 60% this would equate to a further 120
movements per day.
6.5.3 It is clear from the above that construction related movements are low,
particularly in relation to existing movements into and out of the port as a whole.
Furthermore, construction activity will occur in areas which are currently used for
port purposes and therefore generating vehicle movements. These movements
will not occur whilst construction activity is taking place. It can thus be
concluded that the construction related traffic will have no material impact on
the safety or operation of the adjacent highway network.
ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 52
7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
7.1 This Transport Assessment has been prepared by DTA on behalf of ABP to
assess the transport implications of the proposed berth 201 / 202 works. This
assessment forms the basis of the ES chapter to which this Transport
Assessment is appended.
7.2 The Transport Assessment reviews the transport policy basis against which the
scheme should be considered. This policy review confirms that the status of the
Port is of regional and national importance. The policy analysis concludes that
growth at the Port is encouraged at a Local, Regional and National level and that
the necessary strategic policies are in place to allow this growth to occur.
7.3 The Transport Assessment provides a detailed breakdown of likely road based
traffic generation of the terminal, both at present and in future years, the latter
with and without the works.
7.4 This assessment concludes that the overall peak hour traffic generation from the
works is modest, both in terms of existing generated flows and background
flows on the network.
7.5 Against this background, the TA concludes that, although there is no longer any
formal threshold for assessing materiality based on percentage change, it is clear
that the additional traffic generated by the works will have no material impact on
highway operation or safety. The provision of any off-site mitigation to be
provided as a result of this increase in capacity is therefore unnecessary and
would be unjustified.
7.6 In conclusion, the Future Position With the Works will have no material impact
on the safety or operation of the adjacent local and strategic highway networks.
SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docx 20th October 2011
Dra
win
g N
o :
13125-0
1
© C
row
n C
opyright
and D
ata
base
Rig
ht
2010 -
AL 1
000304 1
2
Da
vid
Tu
ck
er
Asso
cia
tes
Tra
nsp
ort
Pla
nnin
g C
onsu
ltancy
Fore
ster
House
, D
oct
ors
Lane, H
enle
y-in
-Ard
en
Warw
icksh
ire, B95 5
AW
Tel: +
44(0
) 1564 7
93598 F
ax:
+44(0
) 1564 7
93983
ww
w.d
tatr
ansp
ort
ation.c
o.u
k
Fig
ure
1D
raw
ing T
itle
Job T
itle
Clie
nt
Site L
oca
tion P
lan
South
am
pto
n C
onta
iner
Term
inal Expansi
on
ABP S
outh
am
pto
n
Sca
le :
NTS
NO
RTH
Note
s:
M2
7
J2
M2
7
J3
M2
7
J4
M2
7
J4
M2
7
J5
M2
7
J7
M2
71
J1
DP
W S
ou
tha
mp
ton
Co
nta
ine
r T
erm
ina
l
RE
DB
RID
GE
RO
UN
DA
BO
UT
MILLB
RO
OK
RO
UN
DA
BO
UT
DO
CK
GA
TE
10
DO
CK
GA
TE
2
0
We
ste
rn D
ock
s
Drawing No : 13125-03Figure 2Drawing TitleJob TitleClient
Strategic Location PlanSouthampton Container Terminal ExpansionABP Southampton
© Crown Copyright and Database Right 2010 - AL 1000304 12
David Tucker Associates
Transport Planning ConsultancyForester House, Doctors Lane, Henley-in-ArdenWarwickshire, B95 5AWTel: +44(0) 1564 793598 Fax: +44(0) 1564 793983www.dtatransportation.co.uk
Scale : NTS
NORTH
1.0 Introduction
1.1 This assessment, which has been prepared by Geldard Consulting, considers the
implications of the project on rail transportation conditions.
1.2 The Port of Southampton is already an established generator of rail freight
movements, with the Container Terminal being the main generator of rail freight
traffic. The existing rail related infrastructure (both routes and terminals) which
are currently used to handle the rail freight traffic generated by the terminal
have therefore effectively defined the geographical extent of the assessment.
2.0 Determining Rail Capacity
2.1 National Rail Network
2.1.1 Access to the national rail network is controlled by Network Rail. There are a
number of key factors that determine the capacity of any rail route. These are:
Physical Factors
Destination terminal. The number and limitations of tracks on the route. The design of signalling on the route which determines the minimum possible
headway (the distance between the tail of one train and the front of a following train) between services.
The formation of junctions on the route, as the extent to which services make conflicting moves will impact on capacity.
Operational Factors
The number and mix of service types on the route, as capacity can be more difficult to manage when there is a mix of fast and slow services.
Time of day when paths are required. The match of network paths and terminal access. Network Rail’s maintenance and enhancement plans. Type of equipment, (including locomotives) to be used and related train
speed and acceleration. 2.1.2 In practice the ability to identify additional train paths over a route is influenced
by a mix of these various factors.
2.1.3 As well as a routine half-yearly timetable review, Network Rail has a number of
other mechanisms to model and plan capacity. These attempt to incorporate
such details as the route characteristics, passenger timetable, and allocated
freight paths. Network Rail’s annual Network Statement provides guidance on
path allocation whilst their Strategic Access Planning (SAP) team looks at current
and future capacity requirements. In addition, work undertaken through the
Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) process provides the opportunity for wide
industry consultation and is aimed to plan and maximise capacity.
2.1.4 Rail capacity is never a straightforward issue. For example access may be
possible in one part of the network at one time of day and at a different time of
day elsewhere. Whilst any analysis highlights issues that exist in identifying
additional freight paths, it is always likely that additional paths can be identified
through a trade-off between end to end journey times and the time of day the
services will run. As a general rule daytime access is more difficult than evening
or overnight. This is particularly the case on main passenger routes that try to
combine freight with high speed and local passenger services especially on a 2-
track railway line or in large conurbations. These issues would certainly occur on
routes leading to the North West, the Midlands and the Scottish Central Belt.
2.1.5 It is important to recognise the significance of gauge in the context of the
capacity of the national rail network. In simple terms, gauge is the height
between the rails and any overhead structure such as bridges, tunnels, signals
and platform canopies. Most of the main routes in the past have operated at W8
gauge which will allow an 8ft 6in high container to pass on a standard height
wagon.
2.1.6 With an ever growing use of 9ft 6in containers by the major deep sea container
lines, improving the available gauge has become increasingly important because
these containers are too high to be carried on a W8 route without the use of
special low height wagons. Network Rail is now progressing with a major
programme of gauge enhancement to develop routes at W10 gauge which allow
high cube containers to be carried on standard height wagons. As over 30% of
the maritime box fleet is now high cube, gauge enhancement significantly
increases the potential traffic that can be carried by each train thereby
increasing network capacity by means other than building extra tracks and
signals.
2.2 Rail Terminals
2.2.1 Intermodal rail terminals throughout the UK vary considerably in terms of size,
and the available rail infrastructure and craneage. All of these factors, as well as
operating methods and service details will have a bearing on terminal capacity.
Facilities which are closely located to one another will also provide alternate, as
well as additional capacity to customers within the same area.
2.2.2 Currently around 30 locations are listed as providing intermodal terminals in the
UK. Of these 15 are inland terminals and the remaining are at 15 port locations,
several with more than one operating rail terminal.
2.2.3 There are five key features that will determine the capacity of any rail container
terminal:
Rail Access – this relates to access to and from the main national network. Access can be a restricting factor when terminals are located close to a busy main line such as the West Coast Main Line (WCML).
Terminal Rail Infrastructure – the number and length of sidings will impact on capacity. Working sidings should be long enough to avoid splitting trains whilst reception sidings are required to stable trains before or after loading.
Craneage – the number and type of cranes will impact on the speed of loading and the use of available land for container pre-positioning and storage. Overhead cranes such as rail mounted gantries (RMGs) or rubber tyred gantries (RTGs) provide good cycle speeds (moves per hour) and efficient land use whilst reachstackers are more versatile and flexible.
Terminal size – clearly large unrestricted sites provide the best option to maximise efficiencies through the provision of working sidings, equipment and vehicle access and container storage capacity.
Operations – as with the national rail network it is possible to increase terminal capacity through the efficiency of operations. Planned train arrival and departure times throughout a full 24hour period is essential whilst maximising terminal layout and the use of IT based control systems can significantly influence terminal capacity.
2.2.4 Whilst a combination of all the above factors will impact on terminal capacity
many of these factors are within the direct control of the terminal operator.
Investment in infrastructure and craneage as well as IT systems can markedly
increase terminal capacity.
2.3 Rail Operations – Equipment
2.3.1 The main locomotive being used on most intermodal services is the Class 66.
This vehicle has proved to be reliable and capable of handling most services on
most routes. It should be noted that intermodal traffic is by nature much lighter
than traditional bulk freight traffic. Normally, weight is not therefore a major
issue.
2.3.2 Nevertheless plans for longer trains may have implications on the weight of
trains and consequently on the future use of the Class 66 locomotive. Two
options are available to address this. The first option is to use the new Class 70
locomotive which has recently been introduced into the UK. This locomotive
provides lower emissions and greater power to accommodate heavier loads. The
second option is to use two Class 66 locomotives (double-heading).
2.3.3 A wide variety of wagon types are used for intermodal traffic. Three key issues
determine the capacity that can be achieved with differing wagon types.
Maximising the number of container platforms available for a set train length – this is a function of wagon design and is best illustrated through two examples:
Many of the newer standard 60ft wagons which are capable of
carrying 1 x 20ft and 1 x 40ft container are “twinned”. This is achieved through joining two twinned wagons with a rigid bar coupling rather than buffers and normal couplings. The effect is to reduce the length of the twin as compared with two normally coupled wagons with drawgear at both ends.
On some services it has been necessary to use European style intermodal wagons. These wagons are generally designed to carry 45ft as well as 40ft and 2 x 20ft containers. Clearly, with a 45ft platform being used for deep sea traffic dominated by 40ft and 20ft containers; these wagons are inefficient with 5ft of wasted space per wagon.
Wagon suitability for container mix – this relates to the ability to provide a
balance of 20ft and 40ft containers when using 60ft platform wagons. Generally the growth in the market is in 40ft containers whilst 20ft containers are not growing at the same pace. The result is that it is currently becoming increasingly difficult to fill all the 20ft slots on 60 ft wagons.
Wagon availability – both of the two points above are compounded by the
current inability to source and operate with the most efficient wagon types. As has been stated, 45ft wagons have to be used on some services whilst much needed 40ft wagons are not yet available.
2.3.4 The issue of gauge as explained above has significant implications on wagon
type and capacity on the W8 routes. Where gauge clearance to W10 has not
been achieved the only way of transporting high cube containers by rail is on
special low height wagons. The well-wagon provides a low height platform
situated between standard-height bogies. This is particularly inefficient as a
significant part of the wagon length is unproductive.
2.3.5 A second alternative is a wagon with a low height platform mounted on small
wheel bogies. In some cases these are 40ft platforms and have been twinned as
described above. Unfortunately, these wagons have proved to be
disproportionately expensive to purchase and to maintain although a new design
has recently been type approved and is soon to enter service.
Figure 1 Intermodal Equipment
Class 66 locomotive Class 70 locomotive
Standard twin 60ft wagon well wagon Source: Freightliner and GB Railfreight
2.4 Rail Operations - Utilisation
2.4.1 Utilisation is key in achieving maximum capacity on any rail service. The aim of
any Freight Operating Company (FOC) is always to achieve total train fill on a
consistent basis. In reality, for a variety of reasons, as explained below, this is
difficult to accomplish. However given W10 gauge cleared routes, efficient
terminal operations and good wagon availability, high levels of utilisation can be
achieved.
2.4.2 Ideally, volumes per service would be consistent on a day-by-day and season-
by-season basis. This, however, is not the case. When large deep-sea container
services make, for example, their weekly port call a significant volume of
containers to be moved by rail is immediately available. The availability of
containers for rail movement will diminish as the week progresses and this may
well reduce utilisation. In addition, deep sea container traffic from the Far East is
also prone to seasonality. Peak periods are predictably in line with main British
holidays although the slack periods at other times of year can impact on levels of
utilisation.
2.5 Rail Operations - Train length
2.5.1 Train length is one of the most important issues in determining service capacity.
Recognising any limitations in path or terminal slot availability is essential to
maximise train length to make best use of available path and slot capacity. The
following are key factors in determining train length:
Network passing loops - Network Rail makes use of passing loops to allow freight trains to pull off the main line to allow faster passenger services to pass. Passing loops must be long enough to accommodate longer freight trains. A dynamic loop is sufficiently long to allow this manoeuvre to take place without the need for the freight train to stop and is the most efficient option.
Terminal siding length - this should ideally match the length of trains thereby avoiding the need to “split trains”. Where splitting is necessary some reduction in operational efficiency is inevitable due to increased siding occupancy and extended terminal turn-round times. However, terminals are generally able to plan and organise their operations to accommodate longer services.
Equipment - as described in paragraph F2.35 train length can impact on locomotive choice. This is a manageable situation as is the case with increased wagon numbers for longer services.
3.0 The Current Situation
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 The preceding paragraphs have provided general background information
relating to rail freight operations. The following paragraphs provide detailed
information on rail freight information specific to container operations at
Southampton.
3.2 Volumes and Services
3.2.1 The total volume of containers handled by the container terminal at
Southampton in 2010 was 1,539,000 TEU. The total volume of these containers
moved by rail was 415,530 TEU which represented a 27% share to rail.
3.2.2 Two FOCs operate rail services for container traffic from the Port of
Southampton. In 2010 the split in volume was as follows:
DB Schenker (UK) Ltd 59,000 containers Freightliner Ltd 230,000 containers
3.2.3 The intermodal services currently operated by DB Schenker from the port are
summarised in Table 1.
Table 1 - Services currently operated by DB Schenker.
Destination Departure Time
Departure Day
Days per week
Number of wagons
Trafford Park, Manchester 00.42 Tues - Sat 5 32
BIFT, Birmingham 09.32 Mon - Fri 5 30
Wakefield 16.10 Mon - Fri 5 30 incl lpw
Hams Hall, Birmingham 02.11 Mon - Thu &
Sat 5 32
3.2.4 DB Schenker therefore timetable a total of 4 daily round trip services all
operating 5 days per week. Many of the European type 45ft wagons currently
used by DB Schenker are being replaced by standard 60ft wagons to maximise
capacity. Low-platform wagons (lpw) must be used for hi-cube containers on the
Wakefield service. All DB Schenker services are operated with Class 66
locomotives.
3.2.5 The intermodal services currently operated by Freightliner from the port are
summarised in Table 2.
Table 2 - Services currently operated by Freightliner.
Destination Departure Time
Departure Day
Days per week
Number of wagons
Leeds 19.01 Mon - Fri 5 26 00.01 Tues - Sun 6 26 02.14 Mon - Fri 5 26 lpw
Trafford Park, Manchester
03.48 Mon - Fri 5 .24 12.55 Mon - Fri 5 24 17.02 Mon - Fri 5 24
F2.34 Mon - Fri & Sun 6 24
Lawley Street, Birmingham
08.58 Mon - Fri 5 24 22.55 Mon - Fri 5 24
BIFT, Birmingham 14.55 Mon - Sat 6 30 Daventry, East
Midlands 00.56 Tues - Sat 5 26
Garston, Liverpool 18.00 Mon - Fri 5 26 Ditton, Widnes 09.34 Mon - Fri 5 14
Coatbridge, Glasgow 09.34 Mon - Fri 5 14 Cardiff 03.00 Mon -Sat 6 26 lpw
3.2.6 Freightliner therefore timetable a total of 15 daily round trip services with 11 of
them operating 5 days per week and 4 operating 6 days per week. All services
operate with standard 60ft wagons other than the use of lpw to Leeds and
Cardiff. Between two and three, depending on circumstances, Class 70
locomotives are deployed on the Southampton services whilst the remaining
services are hauled by Class 66 locomotives.
3.2.7 In addition to the preceding intermodal services, several other rail services (as
shown in Table 3) currently arrive into the Port of Southampton.
Table 3 - Other services currently arriving into the Port of Southampton.
Traffic From Arrival Time Arrival Day Days per
week FOC
Cars Halewood or Castle 03.31 Mon - Sat 5 STVA/DB
Schenker
Bromwich Halewood or
Castle Bromwich
10.09 Mon - Sat Only run as required
STVA/DB Schenker
Gypsum Mountfield 19.55
dep Mon - Fri Currently 1 GB Railfreight.
Cruise
Victoria, London 13.18 Varied 8 per year DB Schenker
Glasgow
14.35 arr
10.45 dep
Varied 27 per year DRS
Edinburgh
15.10 arr
10.30 dep
Varied 27 per year DRS
3.2.8 Car trains operate on one or on occasions two per day as dictated by production
and demand - 10 paths per week are allocated. Imported gypsum demand is low
and consequently this service only operates on one day per week. 5 paths per
week are allocated. The Victoria cruise service operates mainly during the
summer months. The Scottish cruise services have built up during the course of
the year. They arrive with passengers to start the cruise and depart days later
after the cruise has been completed.
3.3 Network Capacity
3.3.1 All services shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3 are already accommodated on the
national network to the destinations and at the times as shown. This equates to
19 daily intermodal services operating a round-trip and up to 5 services per day
for the non-intermodal traffic.
3.3.2 The route currently used as first choice for all intermodal services is via
Eastleigh, Basingstoke, Reading and Didcot and is shown on Figure 2. The
most congested parts of this route are around Basingstoke and Reading and
here the capacity constraints are most significant.
3.3.3 Network Rail has provided details of paths currently allocated to the FOCs for
services operating, planned to be operated or recently discontinued from the
Port. This identifies that currently 24 intermodal services from Southampton are
planned to pass through Basingstoke in any 24hour period. These are split
between the various FOCs according to their current needs. With agreement
from Network Rail, timings and details of services are often changed to suit
specific requirements. In addition and where necessary, reallocation between
FOCs can, and has occurred.
3.3.4 The current position is therefore that 19 daily intermodal services operate from
Southampton with a further five paths currently available and unused.
3.3.5 In addition, it is important to note the work that has been undertaken to achieve
gauge enhancement to W10 on the main route from Southampton. This is
clearly illustrated on Figure 2. In April 2011 the main route from Southampton
to the West Midlands was opened to W10 at a cost of approximately £62m.
3.3.6 ABP along with other funding partners made a significant contribution to the cost
of this project. Today 16 of the 19 services from the port can accommodate hi-
cube containers on standard height wagons. It should be noted that W10 gauge
is currently not available to the following destinations which are serviced daily
from Southampton:
Wakefield Leeds Cardiff
3.4 Southampton Terminal Capacity
3.4.1 The movement of containers by rail at the Port of Southampton is undertaken at
three terminals within, or close to, the port estate. These are the Maritime
Terminal, the Millbrook Terminal and the Herbert Walker Avenue Terminal.
These are all discussed in turn in the following paragraphs.
Maritime Terminal
3.4.2 The Maritime Terminal is situated on the Southampton port estate adjacent to
the Container Terminal and is operated by Freightliner. It occupies a site of
approximately 13.5 hectare (33 acre) and is accessed directly from the main line
from Southampton to Bournemouth between Redbridge and Millbrook Stations.
3.4.3 The rail infrastructure comprises an arrival and departure line with access in
both easterly and westerly directions. The adjoining maintenance depot offers
reception sidings and the main terminal operating area provides 4 working
sidings under the cranes, each of 480 metres. Two further working sidings of
280 metres are also available outside the crane reach. Wagon repair and
stabling sidings are also available.
3.4.4 Train loading is undertaken by two rail mounted gantry cranes operating across
the longer working sidings. These are supplemented by one reachstacker to
provide additional capacity on the shorter sidings. The delivery of containers to
and from the Container Terminal is provided by the terminal operator using
“sprinter” straddle carriers which have dedicated access across the main dock
road.
3.4.5 The terminal currently handles 11 services per day with a further 4 services
operating at weekends. In terms of daily services the operator advises that this
is close to the current terminal capacity. The handling of increased volumes on
these services, partly resulting from the recent W10 gauge enhancement, is
being achieved through better utilisation and train lengthening on certain routes.
Terminal throughput in 2010 was 158,000 lifts.
3.4.6 The Millbrook Terminal is situated to the north of Southampton port estate
alongside Millbrook Road and is operated by Freightliner. It occupies a site of
approximately 3.5 hectare (8 acre) and is accessed directly from the main line
from Southampton to Bournemouth to the east of Millbrook Station.
3.4.7 The rail infrastructure comprises access in both easterly and westerly directions.
There are limited reception sidings and the main terminal operating area
provides 3 working sidings each of 440 metres of which only 320 metres is
accessible under the crane.
3.4.8 Train loading is affected by two rail mounted gantry cranes operating across the
working sidings. The delivery of containers to and from the Container Terminal is
provided by shunting tractors and trailers which access the site via Dock Gate 20
and the public highway.
3.4.9 The terminal is currently handling 4 services per day. Similar to the Maritime
Terminal the operator advises that this is close to the current terminal capacity
in terms of daily services. However, the handling of increased volumes on these
services, partly resulting from the recent W10 gauge enhancement, is proving
possible through better utilisation and train lengthening on certain routes.
Terminal throughput in 2010 was 72,000 lifts.
Herbert Walker Avenue Terminal
3.4.10 This terminal is situated on the port estate to the east of the Container Terminal
and is operated by Pentalver on behalf of DB Schenker. It occupies a long
narrow site of only 3.6 hectares (9 acres) but is adjacent to an approximate 6.4
hectare (16 acre) area within the Port estate used for container storage. It is
accessed directly from the main line from Southampton to Bournemouth close to
Millbrook Station.
3.4.11 The rail infrastructure comprises an arrival and a departure line with access to
the national network only in a westerly direction. There are no direct reception
sidings although the arrival and departure lines can provide stabling capacity for
limited periods. The main terminal operating area provides 2 working sidings of
almost 700 metres and a third runround line. Further lines on the adjacent site
can be used for limited stabling.
3.4.12 Train loading is undertaken by three sideloaders operating from the narrow
terminal pad constructed within and alongside the working sidings. The delivery
of containers to and from this terminal is undertaken by a fleet of internal
movement vehicles (IMVs) and trailers operating between the terminal and the
adjacent container storage area. This area also provides a buffering facility as
containers are collected from the Container Terminal and held in this area in
readiness for timed delivery for train loading.
3.4.13 The terminal is currently handling 4 services per day including some Saturday
working. It has the capacity to handle an increased number of daily services,
although currently efforts are focused on increasing capacity through the use of
more efficient wagons and also through a programme of train lengthening. In
the past, up to 8 services per day have been operated from this facility with
shorter trains and much lower levels of utilisation. The current view is that the
terminal is capable of servicing up to a maximum of 7 longer, well utilised trains
per day. Terminal throughput in 2010 was 59,000 lifts.
3.5 Inland terminals
3.6 The following terminals, shown on Figure 2, are currently handling
Southampton intermodal services:
Freightliner Leeds (Leeds) Freightliner Trafford Park (Trafford Park, Manchester) Freightliner Birmingham (Lawley Street, Birmingham) Freightliner Garston (Garston, Liverpool) Freightliner Coatbridge (Coatbridge, Glasgow) Freightliner Cardiff (terminal not shown on Figure F2.2 but to the east of
Cardiff) DB Schenker Wakefield (Wakefield) DB Schenker Trafford Park (Trafford Park, Manchester) ABP Hams Hall (Hams Hall, east of Birmingham) WH Malcolm Daventry (Daventry, south of Rugby) Roadways BIFT (Birch Coppice, east of Birmingham)
3.6.1 The map at Figure 2 shows all the major intermodal terminals in England and
Scotland. It provides a clear illustration of how terminals are grouped and how
alternate facilities are readily available. There are currently no known issues with
inland terminal capacity and further capacity is also being planned.
4.0 Assessment of the Project
4.1 Volumes and assumptions
4.1.1 The maximum capacity of the Container Terminal at Southampton that is
considered possible with the berth 201/202 works is 2.8m TEU (referred to as
the Future Position with the Works scenario). Table 4 provides calculations of
the projected rail volumes associated with throughput at the Container Terminal
up to 2.8m TEU, which is predicted to occur in 2027/8.
Table 4 Projected Rail Volumes
Year TEU per annum
TEU to cont-ainer ratio
Containers
% to rail
Containers to rail
Av container
s per train round trip
Trains per
annum
Av trains per wee
k
Av working days
per week
Trains per day
2011 1,600,000 1.66 963,855 33% 318,072 66 4,747 95 5.0 19
2012 1,656,000 1.67 991,617 34% 332,192 67 4,958 99 5.1 19
2013 1,713,960 1.68 1,020,214 34% 344,322 68 5,064 101 5.2 19
2014 1,773,949 1.69 1,049,674 34% 356,364 69 5,165 103 5.3 19
2015 1,836,037 1.70 1,080,022 35% 372,607 71 5,248 105 5.4 19
2016 1,900,298 1.72 1,104,824 35% 386,689 76 5,088 102 5.5 19
2017 1,966,809 1.73 1,136,884 35% 400,751 77 5,205 104 5.6 19
2018 2,035,647 1.74 1,169,912 36% 415,319 78 5,325 106 5.7 19
2019 2,106,894 1.75 1,203,940 36% 430,408 79 5,448 109 5.8 19
2020 2,180,636 1.75 1,246,078 36% 448,588 80 5,607 112 5.9 19
2021 2,256,958 1.75 1,289,690 37% 473,703 81 5,848 117 6.0 19
2022 2,335,952 1.75 1,334,829 38% 500,561 82 6,104 122 6.0 20
2023 2,417,710 1.75 1,381,548 39% 531,896 83 6,408 128 6.0 21
2024 2,502,330 1.75 1,429,903 40% 564,812 84 6,724 134 6.0 22
2025 2,589,911 1.75 1,479,949 40% 591,980 85 6,964 139 6.0 23
2026 2,680,558 1.75 1,531,748 40% 612,699 86 7,124 142 6.0 24
2027 2,774,378 1.75 1,585,359 40% 634,143 87 7,289 146 6.0 24
2028 2,800,000 1.75 1,600,000 40% 640,000 88 7,272 145 6.0 24
4.1.2 A number of key assumptions have been made in compiling this table:
Container growth is based on the current growth forecasts of 3.5% per annum provided by the operator of the Container Terminal
TEU to container conversion for 2011 is 1.66:1. This increases on a gradual basis until 2019 when at 1.75:1 the conversion remains constant. The increase reflects the increased use of 40ft, especially high cube containers and the reduced proportion of 20ft containers.
% to rail is a variable figure beginning at 33% a reflection of current predicted 2011 levels and increasing year on year to 40% as a projected maximum. This is explained further in paragraphs F2.82 to F2.83.
Average containers per train, round trip is a key function of rail economics which is being pursued by all FOCs and Network Rail. The number initially reflects current levels and increases gradually until 2015 when network enhancements will increase the opportunity for train lengthening, see paragraph F2.77. In addition, through operational improvements it is expected that all FOCs will achieve higher levels of utilisation, see paragraph F2.73.
Average trains per week is based on the railfreight industry norm of 50 working weeks per annum.
Average working days per week commences at 5 with a gradual increase to 6 by 2021. The justification for this assumption is explained in paragraph F2.78 below.
The resultant number of trains-per-day in 2028 is only a modest increase from 2011 as TEU growth and percentage to rail increases are balanced by the increase in containers per train and 6 day working.
4.1.3 Significantly and based on the assumptions above, it is clear that the current 19
trains will be capable of accommodating rail demand until 2021, and the
available 5 paths will accommodate demand up to 2028.
4.2 Services
Changes to existing services
4.2.1 There are three main developments that are expected to impact on existing
services. The first relates to utilisation. The principles of train utilisation have
earlier been explained. Both FOCs operating from Southampton are already
engaged in programmes to optimise wagon type to conform to the mix of traffic.
Twinned and tripled 40ft wagons are being introduced to compensate for a
proportional reduction in 20ft containers and resultant empty 20ft slots on 60ft
wagons. The first batch of 200 x 40ft wagons is due for delivery to Freightliner in
April 2012. In addition, the less efficient well-wagons and eurotwins are also
being phased out.
4.2.2 A good example of mixing wagon types to maximise utilisation is shown in Table
5.
Table 5 Wagon type, train length and utilisation
Train option
60ft wagon
(number)
Twin length (m)
40ft wagon
(number)
Twin length (m)
Train length
incl loco (m)
Utilisation %
Containers per train, round trip
1 24 40 0 27.8 501 73% 70 2 30 40 0 27.8 621 73% 88 3 18 40 16 27.8 603 90% 94
4.2.3 The table shows with train option 1, how current services with 24 x 60ft wagons
can, with a 73% utilisation achieve 70 containers per train round trip. With train
option 2, by increasing train length to 30 x 60ft wagons this increases to 88
containers. In option 3 by mixing wagon types, slightly reducing train length but
increasing utilisation to 90%, containers per round trip increase to 94.
4.2.4 FOCs are also working to reduce poor utilisation resulting from daily and
seasonal volume fluctuations. Poor utilisation is currently partly a result of overall
reduced container volumes. However, it expected that growth in container
volumes will, over time, increase from the current position and that utilisation of
available space will increase.
4.2.5 The second development that will impact on existing services is train
lengthening. As described in paragraph above this is mainly a function of
suitable infrastructure on the route and at terminals. Generally, terminals are
able to operate with longer trains through a mix of splitting and shunting
manoeuvres. On the main rail network the solution is less simple. This issue has
been recognised by Network Rail and a significant programme of enhancements
is already planned. The impact of this programme of work is reflected in the
step change in containers per train between 2015 and 2016 shown in Table 4.
4.2.6 The third factor that will improve existing service levels will be the extension into
regular 6 day working. As can be seen from Table 2, Freightliner is already
running some services 6 days per week. This maximises equipment utilisation as
well as network capacity and is a clear objective of all FOCs. The industry has
now formed a “Joint Network Availability Plan” (JNAP) which charts a plan to
migrate towards greater network opening hours for freight over the medium to
long term. This will be achieved through;
Improved engineering processes which will shorten line closures. Better planning processes to ensure that diversionary routes are made
available. Enhancement of diversionary routes – in particular their gauge to match the
capability of the primary route. 4.2.7 Network Rail has recognised that freight has a growing need for 6 (and 7) day
access and has committed to deliver improvements that achieve this through its
leadership of the industry JNAP process. It is therefore considered realistic to
assume that over time the average number of working days per week will
increase to 6.
4.2.8 The significance of these three points is reflected in Table F2.4. The average
number of containers per round trip is a function of longer and better filled
trains. Similarly, by operating for 6 rather than 5 days per week, growth and
demand can be regulated and path requirements controlled. The net effect is
that despite a growth in container throughput of 3.5% per annum and an
increase in the percentage of traffic to rail, the increase in the number of daily
services required will be relatively low.
New services
4.2.9 Despite the efficiency changes detailed above it is inevitable that, over time,
there will be the need to increase the number of rail services operating from the
port, see Table 4. Indications from the FOCs reveal that the introduction of new
routes looks unlikely and new services will augment some of the routes that are
currently operated.
4.2.10 To reach the level of 24 daily services only a further 5 services are required. As
previously explained paths to accommodate these extra services are available.
The following are considered the most likely routes from which additional
services could be chosen by each of the FOCs:
Freightliner – Leeds, Trafford Park, Midlands, North West .
DB Schenker – Wakefield, Trafford Park, Scotland.
4.3 Percentage to rail
4.3.1 A further factor to be recognised is the overall percentage of containers handled
by the container terminal being carried by rail. Table 4 predicts the percentage
to rail will gradually increase from current levels of 33% to a maximum of 40%
by 2024. This growth is an established trend and reflects the increase in service
quality now being provided by the railfreight industry through infrastructure and
operational improvements and the policy support encouraging modal shift from
road to rail.
4.3.2 It could be argued that this percentage may increase beyond 40%, however
when taking into account some of the key geographical features that influence
the rail share from Southampton it is not expected that this percentage will be
exceeded within the period being considered. Such factors include:
Economically viable rail distance for rail services from Southampton is unlikely to be reduced below 100 miles.
The competitiveness of road transport will in general be maintained. Road will continue to offer greater levels of flexibility than can normally be
offered by rail. Most of the large volumes of traffic to the London area are unlikely to switch to
rail. 4.3.3 It should be noted that an increase in percentage to rail does not necessarily
reflect an increase in overall container volumes through the ports, in fact the
opposite is often true. When rail services are contracted on a term basis to a
container line, the line takes the risk to fill the train. Therefore if the line’s overall
volumes were to decrease, they still have the incentive to fill the train in order to
utilise the fixed cost of their contracted rail service. The result is that the line is
likely to consequently reduce its use of road transport, and correspondingly the
percentage to rail will increase.
4.4 Network Capacity
4.4.1 Through their “Strategic Freight Network” programme Network Rail are seeking
to significantly develop intermodal freight capacity and capability throughout the
country. Despite the general reduction in public expenditure, the planned
enhancements identified for the period 2009 to 2014 (known by Network Rail as
their Control Period 4 (2009 - 2014)) received Government support in the recent
Comprehensive Spending Review. Beyond 2014 and into the next Control Period
(CP5 (2014 – 2019)) the situation is still to be determined, but Network Rail is
engaged with industry partners to prioritise their wishes for further freight
enhancements during the next control period.
4.4.2 The current “Strategic Freight Network” programme focuses on three main areas
of enhancement. The first area is in respect of operating longer trains on all the
main routes. This involves the lengthening of passing loops to accept trains of up
to 665 metres by 2014 and 775 metres by 2019. The second area relates to
specific major infrastructure enhancements and the third area is to continue
gauge enhancement to W10 on the remaining routes to the main destinations.
4.4.3 In respect of the first area of enhancement (operating longer trains), works to
accommodate train lengthening to 665 metres by March 2014 will include
extension loops with an anticipated final cost (AFC) of £45m, have been
approved in the following locations of relevance to Southampton:
Southampton Maritime Southampton Western Dock Eastleigh up loop Waller’s Ash up loop Oxford to Wolvercot down loop Dorridge down loop Washwood Heath down goods
4.4.4 In addition, train lengthening to 775m is planned for 2015 after completion of
the Reading area remodelling work and the Oxford resignalling work, which is
further discussed in paragraphs F2.90 and F2.91. This additional train
lengthening is subject to approval in CP 5 for Strategic Freight Network funding
and includes loops at:
Fenny Compton Hatton
Waller’s Ash down loop 4.4.5 In respect of the second area of enhancements (specific infrastructure
enhancements), there are certain major improvements to the network which are
approved and progressing. Most significant is the complete Reading area
remodelling scheme with a cost of £850m. This involves upgrading the station,
building a viaduct, constructing new bridges and embankments, making some
significant alterations to track layout, renewing signalling and building a train
depot. The completion of grade separation at Reading West will significantly
improve freight capacity. Completion is planned for 2015.
4.4.6 In addition, the Oxford area resignalling scheme, planned to complete in 2015,
will close headways between Oxford and Heyford. Furthermore, the Banbury
area resignalling scheme, planned to complete a year later, will close the
headways between Heyford and Banbury.
4.4.7 Gauge enhancement is the third area in which significant enhancements are
planned. As already described, the core route from Southampton to the West
Midlands completed its W10 gauge enhancement in April 2011. It was always
recognised that further robustness to the network was required from
Southampton and plans are already progressing to provide a W10 diversionary
route via Laverstock (near Salisbury) to Basingstoke.
4.4.8 The gauge enhancement on the Laverstock diversionary route is scheduled to be
completed in April 2013 at a cost of £34m. This route avoids Southampton
station and tunnel, providing capacity at weekends when maintenance is being
undertaken and accommodating an extra 6 high cube trains per night.
4.4.9 Further from Southampton, although relevant to some of Southampton’s daily
services, is gauge enhancement to W10 to terminals at Leeds, Wakefield,
Doncaster, Burton-on-Trent and Castle Donnington, via Water Orton. This work
is also under way with a cost of £31m and is programmed to be completed by
April 2014.
4.4.10 Full details of all the committed gauge enhancement schemes are shown on the
map at Figure 3.
4.4.11 All of these various enhancements listed above will increase capacity on routes
from Southampton. Major infrastructure improvements on the network,
particularly at Reading will improve pathing options for freight, improve journey
times and thereby increase overall capacity. Significantly, wherever W10 gauge
becomes available, the removal of low-platform wagons could increase train
capacity on some services by up to 20%.
4.5 Southampton Terminal Capacity
Maritime Terminal
4.5.1 The operator of this terminal recognises that there are current capacity
constraints at this facility, which stem from the craneage and layout of the site
area, and has identified a series of improvements which are to take place.
4.5.2 Investment in new craneage is proposed, and this will have the greatest impact
on the capacity of the terminal. The operator is proposing to replace the current
cranes with three new rail mounted gantry cranes capable of operating at 29
lifts per hour (lph) as compared with the current 16 lph (an 81% increase in
productivity). In addition to new cranes the operator is also seeking to undertake
improvements to the site layout and introduce additional track and working
sidings.
4.5.3 In total, a budget of £9m has been approved for the recraneage and
infrastructure improvements at the terminal. Overall capacity is expected to
increase to 470,000 lifts per annum with 3 cranes.
Millbrook Terminal
4.5.4 There are no plans to further develop the Millbrook Terminal due to the
restrictions of the site. The long term requirement may involve the replacement
of the existing 2 cranes at some stage in the future.
4.5.5 Overall the plan for the Millbrook Terminal is to continue the current operation,
as required and with an annual throughput of around 72,000 lifts per annum.
Possible longer term crane replacement would not significantly increase capacity.
Figure 3: W10 Network as at April 2014
Source: Network Rail Herbert Walker Avenue Terminal Developments 4.5.6 The Herbert Walker Avenue Terminal, will maintain its current mode of operation
with the benefit of longer and better utilised trains. It is considered that the
terminal will be able to service a maximum of 7 trains per day, that would result
in the movement of around 100,000 containers per annum.
Inland terminals
4.5.7 As has already been demonstrated a number of inland rail freight terminals are
currently available. As summarised below several of these terminals are currently
undergoing capacity improvements and several are seeking consent for
development through the planning process or are soon to commence
construction.
Castle Donnington (planning approved) DIRFT 3 (planning application) Rossington (planning approved) Port Salford (planning approved) Trafford Park x 2 (DB Schenker re-opened and Freightliner
improvements being undertaken) Lawley Street (improvements being undertaken) Widnes (improvements being undertaken)
4.5.8 All of the above except DIRFT 3 (which has recently been subject to an
application for planning permission) have either received development consent
or can develop within existing permitted powers.
4.6 Impact Identification and Assessment
4.6.1 The capacity of the Container Terminal at Southampton as a result of the project
is considered to be 2.8m TEU. Based on forecast growth of 3.5% per annum,
this capacity is expected to be reached around 2028. In considering the impact
of this growth on rail resources for inland movement of containers by rail the key
issues revolve around container volume and required train paths.
4.6.2 In assessing the impacts on rail resources the rail growth considered likely to
occur in the future takes account of the predicted growth in container trade at
the Container Terminal of 3.5% per annum and a gradual increase in the
percentage of movements being undertaken by rail mode increasing from a
current level of 33% to 40% in 2024. This results in the number of containers to
rail growing progressively from 318,000 containers in 2011 to 640,000 by 2028.
4.6.3 In considering the potential impacts of this increase in respect of the number of
trains required, the assessment has demonstrated that the FOCs are, and will
continue to, put in place measures to improve the use that is made of each train
in transporting containers.
4.6.4 Table 4 demonstrates that a growth in containers to rail from 318,000 to
640,000 would result in an increase from 19 train paths per day (2011) to 24
paths per day (2028). Table F2.4 and the text which follows the table explains
that this is achieved through the following three main realistic operational
efficiencies which the industry is currently progressing with:
Train lengthening, by increasing from an average of 24 wagons per train to 30 wagons per train.
Improved utilisation, through the use of more space efficient wagons and a better match of wagon lengths to suit the mix of 20ft and 40ft containers.
Increasing all services to operate 6 days per week rather than the current 5 days per week.
4.6.5 These efficiency measures are fully supported by Network Rail and the FOCs as
such efficiencies reflect current railfreight policy of maximising existing resources
and minimising the need for major capital expenditure.
4.6.6 Having identified the number of trains that would be required to serve the rail
freight requirements of the project the assessment has gone on to consider
whether this would generate any significant impacts on rail resources, which
have been broken down into consideration of network capacity, local rail freight
terminal capacity and wider inland rail freight terminal capacity.
4.7 Network Capacity
4.7.1 The position in respect of network capacity can be summarised as;
Currently, network capacity accommodates 19 intermodal services operating from the Port of Southampton. A further 5 paths are also available but currently unused.
Committed investment in passing loops improvements to allow the deployment of longer trains, which will be completed by 2015.
The improvement of the Laverstock diversionary route to W10 gauge will be completed by 2014.
The major remodelling scheme at Reading will be completed by 2015. Further gauge enhancements to W10 are expected to be completed by 2014
such that high cube containers will be able to be carried to all inland destinations served by the Port on standard wagons, with the exception of Cardiff.
4.7.2 As previously indicated, these improvements referred to above are already at
different stages of being delivered. The assessment concludes that as a result of
the gradual increase in path requirements to the known inland destinations that
is predicted to occur from Southampton over time and the above infrastructure
commitments that are already programmed and in the process of being
delivered, the necessary network capacity can reasonably be expected to be
available to accommodate the pathing requirements that would be generated.
4.8 Southampton Rail Terminal Capacity
4.8.1 The position in respect of rail terminal capacity at Southampton can be
summarised as follows.
The Maritime Terminal currently operates up to 11 services per day. Increased train length and better utilisation (measures which are being taken forward by the FOCs) and the investment in new cranes and improved infrastructure will provide additional capacity such that 470,000 containers will be able to be handled per annum.
The Millbrook Terminal currently operates up to 4 services per day. As with the Maritime Terminal, measures being taken to lengthen trains and improve utilisation will provide some additional capacity such that 72,000 containers will be able to be handled per annum.
At the Herbert Walker Avenue Terminal an increase from 4 to 7 trains per day is forecast as well as increasing train length and better utilisation, such that 100,000 containers will be able to be handled per annum.
4.8.2 Overall the current capacity at the rail terminals at Southampton is sufficient to
accommodate a volume of 340,000 containers per year handled by rail. With the
various future changes described above, the overall capacity provided by the
three existing rail terminals at Southampton will be capable of handling the
projected levels of 640,000 containers on 24 services by 2027/8.
4.8.3 The assessment has demonstrated that the number of containers to rail
predicted to be generated as a result of the berth 201/202 works can be
accommodated by the capacity that will be available at the existing rail terminals
at Southampton.
4.9 Inland Terminal Capacity
4.9.1 In considering the impacts of the project on inland terminal capacity it is clear
that projected growth over a 16 year period, on the specified routes, will be able
to be accommodated at existing, extended and new terminals that will be
available. In total 20 terminals are available in the areas of the 11 destinations
served from Southampton.
4.9.2 Overall and recognising the numerous developments that are taking place to
develop efficient and cost effective solutions for the carriage of railfreight from
the Port of Southampton it is concluded that the timely growth in demand for rail
services generated by container operations at the Port can be met by the inland
intermodal rail terminal capacity that will be available.
4.9.3 Essentially, adequate inland terminal capacity, with a growing portfolio of
options is available throughout the UK for services from Southampton.
5.0 Conclusion
5.1 Although port container volumes are forecast to increase year on year and the
percentage of traffic being carried by rail is also forecast to increase, the
capacity of rail resources at the Southampton rail terminals, on the national rail
network and at the inland terminals have been demonstrated to be sufficient to
accommodate the rail requirements generated as a result of the berth 201/202
works
SJT/Rail Traffic Assessment.doc 20th October 2011
MANUAL CLASSIFIED COUNTS
JOB RE
F:14
820
JOB NAME:
SOUTH
AMPT
ON DOCK
S
SITE:
1DATE:
23/06/20
11 TO 24/06
/201
1
LOCA
TION:
SOUTH
AMPT
ON DOCK
SDAY:
THURS
DAY TO
FRIDAY
CONTA
INER
LO
ADED
1 BOX
CONTA
INER
LO
ADED
2
BOXE
S
CONTA
INER
UNLO
ADED
FLATB
ED
LOADED
FLATB
ED
UNLO
ADED
VEH
ICLE
TRANSPORT
ERALL OTH
ER
HGV'S
05:00
00
70
190
50
00
132
PCL
LVPSV
HEA
VY GOODS VEH
ICLES
TOT
TIME
MOVEM
ENT 1 ‐ SOUTH
BOUND
PED
05:00
00
70
190
50
00
132
05:15
00
130
123
30
00
031
05:30
06
420
110
10
01
364
05:45
25
740
102
20
01
197
H/TOT
211
136
052
511
00
25
224
06:00
01
370
280
10
02
675
06:15
05
450
200
40
03
683
06:15
05
450
200
40
03
683
06:30
05
640
180
00
05
799
06:45
14
790
120
20
04
6108
H/TOT
115
225
078
07
00
1425
365
07:00
00
690
201
40
00
599
07:15
01
610
191
21
01
490
07:30
11
580
180
11
00
787
07:30
11
580
180
11
00
787
07:45
04
500
131
00
01
271
H/TOT
16
238
070
37
20
218
347
08:00
10
280
212
21
05
464
08:15
00
220
150
10
01
544
08:30
00
250
200
21
01
453
08:45
00
410
90
20
02
862
H/TOT
10
116
065
27
20
921
223
09:00
10
330
221
20
10
767
09:15
00
290
100
30
10
750
09:30
00
260
190
10
01
1057
09:45
10
240
110
01
13
445
H/TOT
20
112
062
16
13
428
219
MANUAL CLASSIFIED COUNTS
JOB RE
F:14
820
JOB NAME:
SOUTH
AMPT
ON DOCK
S
SITE:
1DATE:
23/06/20
11 TO 24/06
/201
1
LOCA
TION:
SOUTH
AMPT
ON DOCK
SDAY:
THURS
DAY TO
FRIDAY
CONTA
INER
LO
ADED
1 BOX
CONTA
INER
LO
ADED
2
BOXE
S
CONTA
INER
UNLO
ADED
FLATB
ED
LOADED
FLATB
ED
UNLO
ADED
VEH
ICLE
TRANSPORT
ERALL OTH
ER
HGV'S
PCL
LVPSV
HEA
VY GOODS VEH
ICLES
TOT
TIME
MOVEM
ENT 1 ‐ SOUTH
BOUND
PED
1000
00
250
170
10
01
953
10:00
00
250
170
10
01
953
10:15
00
230
102
20
01
1149
10:30
10
210
160
01
01
1151
10:45
00
240
200
41
00
1261
H/TOT
10
930
632
72
03
43214
11:00
01
200
153
20
21
246
11:15
12
140
261
00
12
956
11:15
12
140
261
00
12
956
11:30
00
160
200
20
02
444
11:45
00
240
280
10
01
1266
H/TOT
13
740
894
50
36
27212
12:00
00
260
240
02
01
659
12:15
10
300
251
21
15
1076
12:30
00
223
361
00
03
772
12:30
00
223
361
00
03
772
12:45
00
220
360
10
03
1173
H/TOT
10
100
3121
23
31
1234
280
13:00
00
163
330
10
02
560
13:15
00
201
242
40
02
1265
13:30
00
223
270
20
01
560
13:45
10
140
370
11
10
762
13:45
00
30
062
H/TOT
10
727
121
28
11
529
247
14:00
00
180
310
20
11
962
14:15
10
200
462
00
06
580
14:30
00
130
363
10
01
761
14:45
00
120
333
10
22
760
H/TOT
10
630
146
84
03
1028
263
MANUAL CLASSIFIED COUNTS
JOB RE
F:14
820
JOB NAME:
SOUTH
AMPT
ON DOCK
S
SITE:
1DATE:
23/06/20
11 TO 24/06
/201
1
LOCA
TION:
SOUTH
AMPT
ON DOCK
SDAY:
THURS
DAY TO
FRIDAY
CONTA
INER
LO
ADED
1 BOX
CONTA
INER
LO
ADED
2
BOXE
S
CONTA
INER
UNLO
ADED
FLATB
ED
LOADED
FLATB
ED
UNLO
ADED
VEH
ICLE
TRANSPORT
ERALL OTH
ER
HGV'S
PCL
LVPSV
HEA
VY GOODS VEH
ICLES
TOT
TIME
MOVEM
ENT 1 ‐ SOUTH
BOUND
PED
1500
00
190
352
11
00
058
15:00
00
190
352
11
00
058
15:15
00
140
322
32
05
664
15:30
00
80
273
21
01
244
15:45
10
120
200
01
03
542
H/TOT
10
530
114
76
50
913
208
16:00
00
130
310
01
02
653
16:15
00
60
311
10
00
140
16:15
00
60
311
10
00
140
16:30
00
80
252
10
01
340
16:45
00
60
223
20
12
541
H/TOT
00
330
109
64
11
515
174
17:00
00
70
100
10
00
422
17:15
01
120
140
10
00
028
17:30
00
240
50
20
03
135
17:30
00
240
50
20
03
135
17:45
10
270
100
20
00
141
H/TOT
11
700
390
60
03
6126
18:00
00
90
140
20
03
129
18:15
00
220
50
00
02
231
18:30
01
330
100
00
11
551
18:45
00
230
60
00
00
332
18:45
00
30
60
00
00
332
H/TOT
01
870
350
20
16
11143
19:00
00
80
70
00
00
015
19:15
00
10
60
00
01
19
19:30
00
20
40
00
00
28
19:45
00
30
80
30
00
115
H/TOT
00
140
250
30
01
447
MANUAL CLASSIFIED COUNTS
JOB RE
F:14
820
JOB NAME:
SOUTH
AMPT
ON DOCK
S
SITE:
1DATE:
23/06/20
11 TO 24/06
/201
1
LOCA
TION:
SOUTH
AMPT
ON DOCK
SDAY:
THURS
DAY TO
FRIDAY
CONTA
INER
LO
ADED
1 BOX
CONTA
INER
LO
ADED
2
BOXE
S
CONTA
INER
UNLO
ADED
FLATB
ED
LOADED
FLATB
ED
UNLO
ADED
VEH
ICLE
TRANSPORT
ERALL OTH
ER
HGV'S
PCL
LVPSV
HEA
VY GOODS VEH
ICLES
TOT
TIME
MOVEM
ENT 1 ‐ SOUTH
BOUND
PED
2000
00
30
50
00
01
110
20:00
00
30
50
00
01
110
20:15
00
50
60
10
02
115
20:30
00
30
00
00
01
04
20:45
10
30
20
00
00
06
H/TOT
10
140
130
10
04
235
21:00
00
20
41
00
01
19
21:15
00
10
50
10
00
18
21:15
00
10
50
10
00
18
21:30
00
40
40
10
00
09
21:45
00
40
60
10
00
011
H/TOT
00
110
191
30
01
237
22:00
00
20
40
00
00
06
22:15
00
20
40
00
00
06
22:30
00
20
42
00
00
08
22:30
00
20
42
00
00
08
22:45
00
50
70
10
00
013
H/TOT
00
110
192
10
00
033
23:00
00
00
80
00
00
08
23:15
00
60
20
00
00
08
23:30
00
20
20
00
00
04
23:45
00
40
50
10
00
010
23:45
00
05
00
00
010
H/TOT
00
120
170
10
00
030
00:00
00
20
21
00
00
05
00:15
00
00
21
00
00
03
00:30
00
60
50
00
00
011
00:45
00
10
00
00
00
01
H/TOT
00
90
92
00
00
020
MANUAL CLASSIFIED COUNTS
JOB RE
F:14
820
JOB NAME:
SOUTH
AMPT
ON DOCK
S
SITE:
1DATE:
23/06/20
11 TO 24/06
/201
1
LOCA
TION:
SOUTH
AMPT
ON DOCK
SDAY:
THURS
DAY TO
FRIDAY
CONTA
INER
LO
ADED
1 BOX
CONTA
INER
LO
ADED
2
BOXE
S
CONTA
INER
UNLO
ADED
FLATB
ED
LOADED
FLATB
ED
UNLO
ADED
VEH
ICLE
TRANSPORT
ERALL OTH
ER
HGV'S
PCL
LVPSV
HEA
VY GOODS VEH
ICLES
TOT
TIME
MOVEM
ENT 1 ‐ SOUTH
BOUND
PED
0100
00
20
10
00
00
03
01:00
00
20
10
00
00
03
01:15
00
10
40
40
00
09
01:30
00
00
10
10
00
02
01:45
00
10
61
00
00
19
H/TOT
00
40
121
50
00
123
02:00
00
30
80
10
00
113
02:15
00
10
20
00
00
03
02:15
00
10
20
00
00
03
02:30
00
10
20
00
00
03
02:45
00
10
50
20
00
19
H/TOT
00
60
170
30
00
228
03:00
00
20
90
30
00
014
03:15
00
00
30
10
00
15
03:30
00
10
20
20
20
07
03:30
00
10
20
20
20
07
03:45
00
20
120
30
00
017
H/TOT
00
50
260
90
20
143
04:00
00
40
100
30
00
017
04:15
00
50
51
10
00
012
04:30
00
40
110
20
00
017
04:45
00
60
140
10
00
021
04:45
00
60
00
00
021
H/TOT
00
190
401
70
00
067
P/TO
T15
371577
101361
49116
1715
96315
3608
MANUAL CLASSIFIED COUNTS
JOB RE
F:14
820
JOB NAME:
SOUTH
AMPT
ON DOCK
S
SITE:
1DATE:
23/06/20
11 TO 24/06
/201
1
LOCA
TION:
SOUTH
AMPT
ON DOCK
SDAY:
THURS
DAY TO
FRIDAY
CONTA
INER
LO
ADED
1 BOX
CONTA
INER
LO
ADED
2
BOXE
S
CONTA
INER
UNLO
ADED
FLATB
ED
LOADED
FLATB
ED
UNLO
ADED
VEH
ICLE
TRANSPORT
ERALL OTH
ER
HGV'S
05:00
00
70
113
00
00
223
TIME
MOVEM
ENT 2 ‐ N
ORT
HBO
UND
PED
PCL
LVPSV
HEA
VY GOODS VEH
ICLES
TOT
05:00
00
70
113
00
00
223
05:15
00
30
91
10
00
721
05:30
11
150
262
11
02
453
05:45
00
150
240
00
00
039
H/TOT
11
400
706
21
02
13136
06:00
00
230
260
00
00
251
06:15
00
100
71
20
00
020
06:15
00
100
71
20
00
020
06:30
00
90
90
10
02
021
06:45
00
250
230
40
02
357
H/TOT
00
670
651
70
04
5149
07:00
00
210
183
61
13
457
07:15
01
110
132
30
01
1546
07:30
00
90
212
30
01
1046
07:30
00
90
212
30
01
1046
07:45
00
110
251
50
11
549
H/TOT
01
520
778
171
26
34198
08:00
00
120
100
40
12
332
08:15
00
140
130
50
07
1150
08:30
00
100
151
70
01
337
08:45
00
100
110
20
04
128
H/TOT
00
460
491
180
114
18147
09:00
00
390
80
10
06
458
09:15
00
230
180
50
03
756
09:30
00
350
130
10
15
661
09:45
00
460
120
40
05
774
H/TOT
00
143
051
011
01
1924
249
MANUAL CLASSIFIED COUNTS
JOB RE
F:14
820
JOB NAME:
SOUTH
AMPT
ON DOCK
S
SITE:
1DATE:
23/06/20
11 TO 24/06
/201
1
LOCA
TION:
SOUTH
AMPT
ON DOCK
SDAY:
THURS
DAY TO
FRIDAY
CONTA
INER
LO
ADED
1 BOX
CONTA
INER
LO
ADED
2
BOXE
S
CONTA
INER
UNLO
ADED
FLATB
ED
LOADED
FLATB
ED
UNLO
ADED
VEH
ICLE
TRANSPORT
ERALL OTH
ER
HGV'S
TIME
MOVEM
ENT 2 ‐ N
ORT
HBO
UND
PED
PCL
LVPSV
HEA
VY GOODS VEH
ICLES
TOT
1000
00
390
101
02
05
562
10:00
00
390
101
02
05
562
10:15
00
500
71
10
22
871
10:30
00
620
151
20
04
690
10:45
00
350
90
31
01
958
H/TOT
00
186
041
36
32
1228
281
11:00
00
350
200
00
04
867
11:15
00
340
180
00
00
759
11:15
00
340
180
00
00
759
11:30
10
150
230
00
10
040
11:45
00
140
83
10
10
532
H/TOT
10
980
693
10
24
20198
12:00
00
270
232
20
00
660
12:15
10
360
161
10
10
864
12:30
00
360
90
30
12
657
12:30
00
360
90
30
12
657
12:45
00
250
220
50
01
457
H/TOT
10
124
070
311
02
324
238
13:00
00
190
280
51
08
1071
13:15
00
200
220
40
12
756
13:30
00
270
191
50
00
1163
13:45
00
190
261
30
01
858
13:45
00
90
63
00
858
H/TOT
00
850
952
171
111
36248
14:00
10
301
260
40
02
670
14:15
10
280
310
20
04
571
14:30
00
240
320
40
03
972
14:45
01
231
190
30
01
856
H/TOT
21
105
2108
013
00
1028
269
MANUAL CLASSIFIED COUNTS
JOB RE
F:14
820
JOB NAME:
SOUTH
AMPT
ON DOCK
S
SITE:
1DATE:
23/06/20
11 TO 24/06
/201
1
LOCA
TION:
SOUTH
AMPT
ON DOCK
SDAY:
THURS
DAY TO
FRIDAY
CONTA
INER
LO
ADED
1 BOX
CONTA
INER
LO
ADED
2
BOXE
S
CONTA
INER
UNLO
ADED
FLATB
ED
LOADED
FLATB
ED
UNLO
ADED
VEH
ICLE
TRANSPORT
ERALL OTH
ER
HGV'S
TIME
MOVEM
ENT 2 ‐ N
ORT
HBO
UND
PED
PCL
LVPSV
HEA
VY GOODS VEH
ICLES
TOT
1500
00
360
240
40
13
674
15:00
00
360
240
40
13
674
15:15
02
400
250
50
10
679
15:30
11
380
203
51
00
675
15:45
02
321
330
70
01
278
H/TOT
15
146
1102
321
12
420
306
16:00
01
590
280
80
03
1100
16:15
11
220
141
60
01
147
16:15
11
220
141
60
01
147
16:30
24
980
171
50
10
3131
16:45
00
430
222
40
13
176
H/TOT
36
222
081
423
02
76
354
17:00
03
600
191
60
11
394
17:15
00
340
90
30
02
351
17:30
03
400
180
70
04
072
17:30
03
400
180
70
04
072
17:45
00
380
181
50
02
064
H/TOT
06
172
064
221
01
96
281
18:00
00
500
131
20
00
268
18:15
03
290
100
10
10
145
18:30
10
190
90
50
00
236
18:45
00
250
110
30
03
042
18:45
00
50
03
00
30
42H/TOT
13
123
043
111
01
35
191
19:00
03
180
120
30
00
137
19:15
00
100
121
20
01
329
19:30
00
90
90
10
02
223
19:45
00
80
90
00
00
017
H/TOT
03
450
421
60
03
6106
MANUAL CLASSIFIED COUNTS
JOB RE
F:14
820
JOB NAME:
SOUTH
AMPT
ON DOCK
S
SITE:
1DATE:
23/06/20
11 TO 24/06
/201
1
LOCA
TION:
SOUTH
AMPT
ON DOCK
SDAY:
THURS
DAY TO
FRIDAY
CONTA
INER
LO
ADED
1 BOX
CONTA
INER
LO
ADED
2
BOXE
S
CONTA
INER
UNLO
ADED
FLATB
ED
LOADED
FLATB
ED
UNLO
ADED
VEH
ICLE
TRANSPORT
ERALL OTH
ER
HGV'S
TIME
MOVEM
ENT 2 ‐ N
ORT
HBO
UND
PED
PCL
LVPSV
HEA
VY GOODS VEH
ICLES
TOT
2000
02
60
71
10
01
119
20:00
02
60
71
10
01
119
20:15
00
80
110
00
00
120
20:30
00
70
80
10
00
016
20:45
00
70
70
20
10
017
H/TOT
02
280
331
40
11
272
21:00
00
20
30
00
00
05
21:15
00
30
71
10
01
215
21:15
00
30
71
10
01
215
21:30
00
80
00
10
11
011
21:45
00
60
30
10
00
111
H/TOT
00
190
131
30
12
342
22:00
00
30
10
00
02
06
22:15
00
30
20
10
00
17
22:30
00
60
20
50
00
013
22:30
00
60
20
50
00
013
22:45
00
50
30
30
00
011
H/TOT
00
170
80
90
02
137
23:00
00
30
10
20
00
06
23:15
00
00
40
40
01
110
23:30
00
40
30
10
00
08
23:45
00
10
10
10
00
14
23:45
00
00
00
04
H/TOT
00
80
90
80
01
228
00:00
00
20
00
10
00
03
00:15
00
10
40
20
00
07
00:30
00
10
20
10
00
15
00:45
00
30
00
10
00
04
H/TOT
00
70
60
50
00
119
MANUAL CLASSIFIED COUNTS
JOB RE
F:14
820
JOB NAME:
SOUTH
AMPT
ON DOCK
S
SITE:
1DATE:
23/06/20
11 TO 24/06
/201
1
LOCA
TION:
SOUTH
AMPT
ON DOCK
SDAY:
THURS
DAY TO
FRIDAY
CONTA
INER
LO
ADED
1 BOX
CONTA
INER
LO
ADED
2
BOXE
S
CONTA
INER
UNLO
ADED
FLATB
ED
LOADED
FLATB
ED
UNLO
ADED
VEH
ICLE
TRANSPORT
ERALL OTH
ER
HGV'S
TIME
MOVEM
ENT 2 ‐ N
ORT
HBO
UND
PED
PCL
LVPSV
HEA
VY GOODS VEH
ICLES
TOT
0100
00
40
40
00
00
08
01:00
00
40
40
00
00
08
01:15
00
30
51
00
00
110
01:30
00
30
50
00
00
210
01:45
00
20
50
00
00
07
H/TOT
00
120
191
00
00
335
02:00
00
40
00
00
00
04
02:15
10
40
40
20
00
213
02:15
10
40
40
20
00
213
02:30
00
50
00
10
00
17
02:45
00
30
30
00
00
06
H/TOT
10
160
70
30
00
330
03:00
00
40
41
00
00
09
03:15
00
60
70
00
00
316
03:30
00
60
91
00
00
016
03:30
00
60
91
00
00
016
03:45
00
20
90
00
00
112
H/TOT
00
180
292
00
00
453
04:00
00
40
150
10
00
020
04:15
00
100
120
00
00
123
04:30
00
50
160
20
00
023
04:45
00
30
110
00
00
115
04:45
00
30
00
00
015
H/TOT
00
220
540
30
00
281
P/TO
T11
281801
31205
43220
719
117
294
3748
YearTotal Units Handled (Chargeable Units):
2007 1,062,0432008 926,8172009 782,6712010 886,062
2011 - June YTD 426,002
Dwell Time:
Dwell Time Avg Overall N.o Days2004 5.42005 4.92006 4.92007 5.32008 4.92009 4.92010 4.9
2011: June YTD 4.4
Staff Headcount:
Head Count Jun-11Actual DPWS & CNS 584Secondments (excluded from 1Full time 567Part time 17DP World Southampton 563
Mod
al Split: 200
5 ‐ Jun
e 20
11
Ann
ual Figure ba
sed on
tim
e Pe
riod
: April ‐ M
arch
Year
2005
/06
2006
/07
2007
/08
2008
/09
2009
/10
2010
/11
2011
/12 June
YTD
Rail Volum
eFreightline
r23
5,93
922
0,41
221
5,66
920
1,99
117
5,35
521
0,27
456
,380
DB Sche
nker
33,872
39,713
59,286
63,077
55,268
44,800
13,894
Total R
ail V
olum
e26
9,81
126
0,12
527
4,95
526
5,06
823
0,62
325
5,07
470
,274
Feed
er Volum
e56
,280
57,097
86,778
65,872
61,788
75,632
18,936
Road
Volum
e50
4,03
866
0,27
369
2,20
659
9,12
254
4,13
160
3,86
512
3,10
5
Qua
yside Moves
830,12
997
7,49
51,05
3,93
993
0,06
283
6,54
293
4,57
121
2,31
5
Rail ‐ %
of Q
uay Side
Moves:
33%
27%
26%
29%
28%
27%
33%
Feed
er ‐ % of Q
uay Side
Moves:
7%6%
8%7%
7%8%
9%
Road
‐ % of Q
uay Side
Moves:
61%
68%
66%
64%
65%
65%
58%
Note:
In Ja
nuary 20
06 P&O Ned
lLoyd were intergrated into M
aersk which saw
rail volum
e drop
.As of beginning
of Jun
e 20
09 th
e last M
aersk service had called Southampton
.
Time
VBS Ve
hicles
Containe
r vs.
Truck ratio
Boxes
Time
VBS Ve
hicles
Containe
r vs.
Truck ratio
Boxes
Time
VBS Ve
hicles
Containe
r vs.
Truck ratio
Boxes
Time
VBS Ve
hicles
Containe
r vs.
Truck ratio
Boxes
22.0
6 - 0
0.00
281.82
5123
.06 ‐ 0
0.00
171.59
2724
.06 ‐ 0
0.00
281.25
3525
.06 ‐ 0
0.00
241.29
3122
.06
- 01.
0033
1.79
5923
.06 ‐ 0
1.00
281.57
4424
.06 ‐ 0
1.00
281.50
4225
.06 ‐ 0
1.00
222.05
4522
.06
- 02.
0035
1.86
6523
.06 ‐ 0
2.00
311.35
4224
.06 ‐ 0
2.00
261.50
3925
.06 ‐ 0
2.00
281.61
4522
.06
- 03.
0055
1.71
9423
.06 ‐ 0
3.00
381.76
6724
.06 ‐ 0
3.00
311.48
4625
.06 ‐ 0
3.00
251.24
3122
.06
- 04.
0090
1.73
156
23.06 ‐ 0
4.00
451.62
7324
.06 ‐ 0
4.00
511.53
7825
.06 ‐ 0
4.00
271.48
4022
.06
- 05.
0093
1.68
156
23.06 ‐ 0
5.00
751.60
120
24.06 ‐ 0
5.00
521.46
7625
.06 ‐ 0
5.00
151.47
2222
.06
- 06.
0091
1.60
146
23.06 ‐ 0
6.00
951.56
148
24.06 ‐ 0
6.00
611.43
8725
.06 ‐ 0
6.00
171.59
2722
.06
- 07.
0072
1.49
107
23.06 ‐ 0
7.00
851.58
134
24.06 ‐ 0
7.00
461.43
6625
.06 ‐ 0
7.00
231.26
2922
.06
- 08.
0062
1.53
9523
.06 ‐ 0
8.00
781.33
104
24.06 ‐ 0
8.00
501.36
6825
.06 ‐ 0
8.00
171.35
2322
.06
- 09.
0070
1.53
107
23.06 ‐ 0
9.00
491.43
7024
.06 ‐ 0
9.00
541.43
7725
.06 ‐ 0
9.00
191.32
2522
.06
- 10.
0074
1.66
123
23.06 ‐ 1
0.00
711.46
104
24.06 ‐ 1
0.00
561.48
8325
.06 ‐ 1
0.00
231.09
2522
.06
- 11.
0011
61.70
197
23.06 ‐ 1
1.00
881.57
138
24.06 ‐ 1
1.00
971.57
152
25.06 ‐ 1
1.00
141.29
1822
.06
- 12.
0012
01.68
201
23.06 ‐ 1
2.00
132
1.49
197
24.06 ‐ 1
2.00
118
1.42
168
25.06 ‐ 1
2.00
101.40
1422
.06
- 13.
0012
91.66
214
23.06 ‐ 1
3.00
131
1.48
194
24.06 ‐ 1
3.00
124
1.40
174
25.06 ‐ 1
3.00
21.00
222
.06
- 14.
0014
01.71
240
23.06 ‐ 1
4.00
145
1.56
226
24.06 ‐ 1
4.00
132
1.36
179
25.06 ‐ 1
4.00
21.50
3.00
22.0
6 - 1
5.00
144
1.58
228
23.06 ‐ 1
5.00
130
1.45
189
24.06 ‐ 1
5.00
125
1.42
178
22.0
6 - 1
6.00
122
1.65
201
23.06 ‐ 1
6.00
120
1.52
182
24.06 ‐ 1
6.00
103
1.35
139
22.0
6 - 1
7.00
811.56
126
23.06 ‐ 1
7.00
531.45
7724
.06 ‐ 1
7.00
591.41
8322
.06
- 18.
0061
1.74
106
23.06 ‐ 1
8.00
501.52
7624
.06 ‐ 1
8.00
431.37
5922
.06
- 19.
0046
1.63
7523
.06 ‐ 1
9.00
481.52
7324
.06 ‐ 1
9.00
431.47
6322
.06
- 20.
0034
1.85
6323
.06 ‐ 2
0.00
371.70
6324
.06 ‐ 2
0.00
341.44
4922
.06
- 21.
0027
1.59
4323
.06 ‐ 2
1.00
301.53
4624
.06 ‐ 2
1.00
281.18
3322
.06
- 22.
0025
1.68
4223
.06 ‐ 2
2.00
321.25
4024
.06 ‐ 2
2.00
391.08
4222
.06
- 23.
0019
1.79
3423
.06 ‐ 2
3.00
201.30
2624
.06 ‐ 2
3.00
271.26
3417
6740
2929
016
2836
2460
014
5534
2050
026
821
380
Time
VBS Ve
hicles
Containe
r vs.
Truck ratio
Boxes
Time
VBS Ve
hicles
Containe
r vs.
Truck ratio
Boxes
Time
VBS Ve
hicles
Containe
r vs.
Truck ratio
Boxes
Time
VBS Ve
hicles
Containe
r vs.
Truck ratio
Boxes
27.06 ‐ 0
0.00
61.33
828
.06 ‐ 0
0.00
331.42
4729
.06 ‐ 0
0.00
231.57
3627
.06 ‐ 0
1.00
41.50
628
.06 ‐ 0
1.00
351.49
5229
.06 ‐ 0
1.00
301.67
5027
.06 ‐ 0
2.00
91.22
1128
.06 ‐ 0
2.00
371.19
4429
.06 ‐ 0
2.00
241.79
4327
.06 ‐ 0
3.00
241.42
3428
.06 ‐ 0
3.00
521.44
7529
.06 ‐ 0
3.00
401.48
5927
.06 ‐ 04
.00
401.30
5228
.06 ‐ 0
4.00
771.62
125
29.06 ‐ 0
4.00
721.57
113
27.06 ‐ 0
5.00
521.27
6628
.06 ‐ 0
5.00
781.45
113
29.06 ‐ 0
5.00
741.72
127
27.06 ‐ 0
6.00
541.30
7028
.06 ‐ 0
6.00
471.47
6929
.06 ‐ 0
6.00
731.55
113
27.06 ‐ 0
7.00
711.35
9628
.06 ‐ 0
7.00
541.46
7929
.06 ‐ 0
7.00
421.74
7327
.06 ‐ 0
8.00
511.59
8128
.06 ‐ 0
8.00
631.44
9129
.06 ‐ 0
8.00
451.44
6527
.06 ‐ 0
9.00
811.54
125
28.06 ‐ 0
9.00
521.48
7729
.06 ‐ 0
9.00
501.38
6927
.06 ‐ 1
0.00
801.53
122
28.06 ‐ 1
0.00
631.54
9729
.06 ‐ 1
0.00
701.37
9627
.06 ‐ 1
1.00
108
1.48
160
28.06 ‐ 1
1.00
103
1.68
173
29.06 ‐ 1
1.00
741.64
121
27.06 ‐ 1
2.00
112
1.59
178
28.06 ‐ 1
2.00
125
1.72
215
29.06 ‐ 1
2.00
106
1.60
170
27.06 ‐ 1
3.00
128
1.65
211
28.06 ‐ 1
3.00
134
1.76
236
29.06 ‐ 1
3.00
107
1.62
173
26.06 ‐ 1
4.00
62.00
1227
.06 ‐ 1
4.00
128
1.63
209
28.06 ‐ 1
4.00
141
1.65
233
29.06 ‐ 1
4.00
133
1.53
204
27.06 ‐ 1
5.00
120
1.52
182
28.06 ‐ 1
5.00
141
1.67
235
29.06 ‐ 1
5.00
143
1.54
220
27.06 ‐ 1
6.00
111
1.60
178
28.06 ‐ 1
6.00
117
1.68
196
29.06 ‐ 1
6.00
104
1.61
167
27.06 ‐ 1
7.00
761.51
115
28.06 ‐ 1
7.00
881.63
143
29.06 ‐ 1
7.00
101
1.55
157
26.06 ‐ 1
8.00
91.56
1427
.06 ‐ 1
8.00
481.75
8428
.06 ‐ 1
8.00
611.70
104
29.06 ‐ 1
8.00
651.66
108
26.06 ‐ 1
9.00
201.50
3027
.06 ‐19.00
541.57
8528
.06 ‐ 1
9.00
331.67
5529
.06 ‐ 1
9.00
471.62
7626
.06 ‐ 2
0.00
101.70
1727
.06 ‐ 2
0.00
401.78
7128
.06 ‐ 2
0.00
401.78
7129
.06 ‐ 2
0.00
341.71
5826
.06 ‐ 2
1.00
91.78
1627
.06 ‐ 2
1.00
381.61
6128
.06 ‐ 2
1.00
381.79
6829
.06 ‐ 2
1.00
521.48
7726
.06 ‐ 2
2.00
111.73
1927
.06 ‐ 2
2.00
491.57
7728
.06 ‐ 2
2.00
291.76
5129
.06 ‐ 2
2.00
411.88
7726
.06 ‐ 2
3.00
31.00
327
.06 ‐ 2
3.00
371.24
4628
.06 ‐ 2
3.00
361.56
5629
.06 ‐ 2
3.00
341.38
470
6811
111
015
2136
2328
016
7738
2705
015
8438
2499
Total V
BSTo
tal H
GV
Total Boxes
Prop
ortio
n of week
22/06/20
11Wed
nesday
1767
3534
2929
21.1%
23/06/20
11Thursday
1628
3256
2460
19.4%
24/06/20
11Friday
1455
2910
2050
17.4%
25/06/20
11Saturday
268
536
380
3.2%
26/06/20
11Sund
ay68
136
111
0.8%
27/06/20
11Mon
day
1521
3042
2328
18.1%
28/06/20
11Tuesday
1677
3354
2705
20.0%
Week
8384
1676
812
963
100.0%
3370
38Wed
nesday
1584
3168
2499
Average weekday
1610
3219
2494
0
Total
Max
Average
Min
AM Peak
PM Peak
Total
Max
Average
Min
AM Peak
PM Peak
22/06/20
11Wed
nesday
1767
144
7419
6281
3534
288
147
3812
416
223
/06/20
11Thursday
1628
145
6817
7853
3256
290
136
3415
610
624
/06/20
11Friday
1455
132
6126
5059
2910
264
121
5210
011
825
/06/20
11Saturday
268
2818
253
656
364
00
26/06/20
11Sund
ay68
2010
313
640
196
00
27/06/20
11Mon
day
1521
128
63.375
451
7630
4225
612
78
102
152
28/06/20
11Tuesday
1677
141
69.875
2963
8833
5428
214
058
126
176
Two Way
Inbo
und
Dra
win
g N
o :
13125-0
9
© C
row
n C
opyright
and D
ata
base
Rig
ht
2010 -
AL 1
000304 1
2
Da
vid
Tu
ck
er
Asso
cia
tes
Tra
nsp
ort
Pla
nnin
g C
onsu
ltancy
Fore
ster
House
, D
oct
ors
Lane, H
enle
y-in
-Ard
en
Warw
icksh
ire, B95 5
AW
Tel: +
44(0
) 1564 7
93598 F
ax:
+44(0
) 1564 7
93983
ww
w.d
tatr
ansp
ort
ation.c
o.u
k
Dra
win
g T
itle
Job T
itle
Clie
nt
Overa
ll Acc
idents
Searc
hABP S
outh
am
pto
n -
Bert
h 2
01 /
202 W
ork
sABP S
outh
am
pto
n
Sca
le :
NTS
NO
RTH
Note
s:
Slig
ht
Serious
Fata
l
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! ( ! (! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! ( ! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
! (! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (! (
! (
! (! (
! (
! (
! (! (! (
! (! (
! (
! (
! (! (
! (
! (
! ( ! (! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (! (
! (
Searc
h E
xte
nt
01/0
7/0
6 -
30/0
6/1
1
! (
! (
! (
GFGF
GF
GF
GF
GF GF
_̂
_̂_̂
_̂
_̂
_̂
_̂ _̂
_̂
Dra
win
g N
o :
13125-0
8
© C
row
n C
opyright
and D
ata
base
Rig
ht
2010 -
AL 1
000304 1
2
Da
vid
Tu
ck
er
Asso
cia
tes
Tra
nsp
ort
Pla
nnin
g C
onsu
ltancy
Fore
ster
House
, D
oct
ors
Lane, H
enle
y-in
-Ard
en
Warw
icksh
ire, B95 5
AW
Tel: +
44(0
) 1564 7
93598 F
ax:
+44(0
) 1564 7
93983
ww
w.d
tatr
ansp
ort
ation.c
o.u
k
Dra
win
g T
itle
Job T
itle
Clie
nt
Pedest
rian/C
ycl
e a
nd H
GV A
ccid
ents
ABP S
outh
am
pto
n -
Bert
h 2
01 /
202 W
ork
sABP S
outh
am
pto
n
Sca
le :
NTS
NO
RTH
Note
s:
Slig
ht
Serious
Fata
l
Pedest
rian
Cycl
eH
GV
F( _
Searc
h E
xte
nt
2007
Position
2011
Ann
ualised
Max Cap
acity witho
ut
Project (Do Minim
um)
Max Terminal Cap
acity
with Project (Do
Something
Chan
ge from
200
7 to
existing
cap
acity with
Project
Chan
ge from
DN to DS
Chan
ge from
200
7 to
max terminal cap
acity
with project
Year
2007
2011
2021
2027
2021
2007
‐ 20
27TEU th
roughp
ut of the
Port
1,86
9,80
61,60
0,00
02,30
0,00
02,80
0,00
0Ra
tio TEU
to boxes
1.68
1.66
1.75
1.75
Box throughp
ut of p
ort
1,11
1,03
996
3,17
51,31
4,28
61,60
0,00
0Transhipmen
t9.29
%8.09
%10
%10
%Transhipmen
t Boxes
103,18
977
,947
131,42
916
0,00
0Sub total inland Gen
eration Bo
xes
1,00
7,85
188
5,22
91,18
2,85
71,44
0,00
0Overall % M
oved
by Ra
il26
.09%
33.10%
37%
40%
Rail Bo
xes
289,85
231
8,80
148
6,28
664
0,00
0To
tal Road Ba
sed Bo
xes
717,99
956
6,42
869
6,57
180
0,00
0
Trucks to
Box ratio (V
BS Gate)
1.28
1.29
91.28
1.28
Total V
BS Trucks pe
r year
921,93
173
5,62
089
4,41
71,02
7,22
2Trucks to
Box Ratio (e
xternal)
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
Strategic OGV2
moves per year
739,53
958
3,42
171
7,46
982
4,00
0
Average VBS
Trucks pe
r week
18,439
14,712
17,888
20,544
Average Strategic Trucks pe
r week
14,791
11,668
14,349
16,480
Average week to peak day ratio
21
.1%
21.1%
21.1%
21.1%
Average VBS
TRU
CKS ‐ P
eak Day
3,88
63,10
13,77
04,33
0Average DG20
Trucks ‐ P
eak Day
3,56
22,84
33,45
63,96
9Average Strategic Truck ‐ Peak Day
3,11
72,45
93,02
43,47
3
Peak VBS
Trucks
4,16
03,29
54,00
64,60
1‐154
595
441
Peak DG 20 Trucks
3,81
33,02
03,67
24,21
8‐141
545
404
Peak Strategic Trucks
3,33
72,61
33,21
33,69
0‐123
477
354
Total A
nnual
1,86
9,80
6Pe
ak M
onth (O
ctob
er)
166,79
1Average m
onth
155,81
7Average m
onth to
peak mon
th
1.07
0Surveyed
3,93
84,01
4
InOut
Total
InOut
Total
InOut
Total
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
0000
‐0100
3426
6011
1122
1414
2813
1427
1516
312
35
45
92
24
12
301
00‐0200
2741
6818
2038
2226
4822
2547
2529
544
59
79
163
47
23
502
00‐0300
3337
7020
1030
2513
3824
1337
2814
424
37
84
124
25
31
403
00‐0400
6338
101
3531
6644
4084
4239
8148
4593
78
1513
1427
66
125
49
0400
‐0500
106
7317
948
5710
560
7413
458
7112
966
8214
810
1424
1825
439
1119
68
1405
00‐0600
122
111
233
6878
146
8510
118
682
9817
994
112
206
1420
3326
3460
1214
279
1120
0600
‐0700
109
106
215
8573
158
106
9520
110
291
194
117
105
222
1718
3632
3264
1514
2911
1021
0700
‐0800
9612
121
780
102
182
100
132
232
9612
822
411
114
725
716
2642
3145
7514
1933
1114
2508
00‐0900
7612
219
874
6814
292
8818
189
8517
410
298
200
1517
3228
3058
1313
2610
919
0900
‐1000
5690
146
6962
131
8681
167
8378
161
9589
184
1416
3026
2753
1212
249
918
1000
‐1100
7092
162
7250
122
9065
155
8763
149
9972
171
1513
2727
2249
139
2210
716
1100
‐1200
117
8620
398
7317
112
295
217
118
9120
913
510
524
020
1838
3732
6918
1431
1310
2312
00‐1300
123
116
239
126
8421
015
710
926
715
210
525
717
412
129
526
2147
4837
8523
1638
1712
2813
00‐1400
144
121
265
131
114
245
164
148
312
158
143
300
181
164
345
2729
5550
5010
023
2145
1716
3314
00‐1500
135
9322
815
812
127
919
715
735
519
015
134
121
817
439
232
3062
6053
113
2822
5121
1738
1500
‐1600
125
135
260
127
126
253
159
164
322
153
158
310
175
181
356
2632
5748
5510
323
2346
1717
3416
00‐1700
109
147
256
119
108
227
149
140
289
143
135
278
164
155
320
2427
5145
4793
2120
4116
1531
1700
‐1800
6911
618
545
8713
256
113
169
5410
916
362
125
187
922
3117
3855
816
246
1218
1800
‐1900
7591
166
3755
9246
7111
845
6911
351
7913
08
1421
1424
387
1017
58
1219
00‐2000
5096
146
2849
7735
6499
3461
9539
7010
96
1218
1121
325
914
47
1020
00‐2100
3571
106
1438
5217
4967
1748
6419
5574
310
125
1722
37
102
57
2100
‐2200
4549
9423
1740
2922
5128
2149
3224
565
49
97
164
37
32
522
00‐2300
3839
7722
1739
2722
5026
2148
3024
554
49
87
164
37
32
523
00‐2400
2638
6418
1735
2222
4522
2143
2524
494
48
77
143
36
22
512
Hou
r 1,19
51,33
02,52
51,13
61,05
02,18
61,41
91,36
42,78
31,36
71,31
32,68
01,57
01,50
83,07
823
126
349
443
445
889
220
319
539
815
014
529
518
hou
r1,49
81,72
93,22
71,32
61,26
12,58
71,65
71,63
83,29
51,59
51,57
73,17
31,83
21,81
13,64
426
931
658
650
655
01,05
723
723
447
117
617
434
9Daily
1,88
32,05
53,93
81,52
61,46
82,99
41,90
71,90
73,81
31,83
61,83
63,67
22,10
92,10
94,21
831
036
867
858
364
11,22
427
327
354
520
220
240
4
InOut
Total
InOut
Total
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
0000
‐010
09
1019
1213
2512
1224
1314
272
24
44
82
24
11
301
00‐0200
1518
3320
2342
1922
4122
2547
44
86
714
33
62
24
0200
‐0300
179
2622
1133
2111
3224
1337
42
67
411
32
52
14
0300
‐0400
3028
5838
3573
3734
7142
3981
76
1312
1124
55
114
48
0400
‐0500
4151
9252
6511
751
6211
358
7213
09
1221
1721
388
917
67
1205
00‐0600
5869
128
7489
163
7285
157
8298
180
1316
2924
2953
1113
238
917
0600
‐0700
7365
138
9383
176
8980
169
103
9219
517
1532
3027
5713
1225
109
1907
00‐0800
6891
159
8711
620
384
112
196
9712
822
516
2137
2837
6613
1729
912
2208
00‐0900
6361
124
8177
158
7874
152
8985
175
1514
2826
2551
1211
239
817
0900
‐1000
5955
114
7570
146
7368
141
8378
161
1413
2624
2347
1110
218
715
1000
‐1100
6244
106
7957
136
7655
131
8763
150
1410
2425
1844
118
198
614
1100
‐1200
8465
149
107
8319
010
380
183
119
9221
019
1534
3527
6115
1227
119
2012
00‐1300
108
7518
313
895
233
133
9222
515
210
625
825
1742
4431
7520
1433
1510
2513
00‐1400
112
101
214
143
130
273
138
125
263
158
143
302
2623
4946
4288
2019
3915
1429
1400
‐1500
135
108
243
173
138
310
166
132
299
191
152
343
3125
5656
4410
025
2044
1815
3315
00‐1600
109
112
221
139
143
282
134
138
272
154
158
312
2526
5145
4691
2020
4015
1530
1600
‐1700
102
9619
813
012
325
312
511
824
314
413
628
023
2245
4240
8219
1836
1413
2717
00‐1800
3977
116
4999
148
4795
143
5410
916
49
1827
1632
487
1421
510
1618
00‐1900
3249
8140
6310
339
6099
4569
114
711
1913
2033
69
154
711
1900
‐2000
2444
6831
5686
2954
8334
6295
610
1610
1828
48
123
69
2000
‐2100
1234
4615
4358
1542
5617
4865
38
115
1419
26
82
56
2100
‐2200
2015
3525
1944
2419
4328
2149
53
88
614
43
63
25
2200
‐2300
1915
3424
1943
2319
4227
2148
43
88
614
33
63
25
2300
‐2400
1515
3120
1939
1919
3822
2143
43
76
613
33
62
24
Daily
1,30
61,30
62,61
31,66
81,66
83,33
71,60
71,60
73,21
31,84
51,84
53,69
030
030
060
053
953
91,07
723
923
947
717
717
735
412
Hou
r 0
00
973
934
1,90
71,24
21,19
32,43
51,19
61,14
92,34
51,37
41,32
02,69
322
321
543
840
138
578
617
817
134
813
212
625
818
hou
r0
00
1,13
51,12
22,25
81,45
01,43
32,88
31,39
61,38
02,77
61,60
31,58
53,18
826
125
851
946
846
393
120
720
541
215
415
230
6
Differen
ce from
1.6m in
201
1 to
2.8m
in 202
1 / 20
27Differen
ce from
Max historic to
max propo
sed
Traffic
Flows at Dock Gate 20
2007
Surveys
2.8m
Capacity
Differen
ce from
Max historic to
max propo
sed
Differen
ce from
1.6m 201
1 to
2.3m
in 202
1
Strategic Traffic
Flows
Diffiren
ce DN Vs DS
Diffiren
ce DN Vs DS
Differen
ce from
1.6m in
201
1 to
2.8m
in 202
1 / 20
2720
11 Surveys DPW
S
Highe
st Historic 20
072.3m
Capacity
Differen
ce from
1.6m 201
1 to
2.3m
in 202
12.8m
Capacity
Base Case (200
7)2.3m
Capacity
Base Case (2
011)
Strategic Distribution
OGV2
Trip Distribution by
Regions
InOut
Average
M27
1M27
, 2 ‐ 3
M27
, 3 ‐ 4
M27
, 5 ‐ 7
M3 (sou
th
of A34
)M3 (north
of A34
)A34
North
Tebo
urba
Way
Wim
pson
Lane
First A
veMillbroo
k Ro
ad W
est
Redb
ridge Ro
adRe
dbridge
Causew
ay
Greater Lon
don
8.8%
19.1%
13.9%
14%
14%
14%
14%
0%0%
14%
0%14
%0%
South East
14.9%
16.2%
15.5%
16%
12%
3%9%
12%
0%0%
16%
0%16
%0%
East
5.1%
9.0%
7.1%
7%7%
7%7%
0%0%
7%0%
7%0%
East M
idland
s22
.4%
5.9%
14.2%
14%
14%
14%
14%
0%0%
14%
0%14
%0%
West M
idland
s16
.3%
10.7%
13.5%
13%
13%
13%
13%
0%0%
13%
0%13
%0%
South West
7.4%
8.6%
8.0%
8%8%
0%0%
8%0%
8%0%
Wales
2.7%
4.4%
3.5%
4%2%
2%2%
2%0%
0%4%
0%4%
0%North W
est
11.1%
10.7%
10.9%
11%
11%
11%
11%
0%0%
11%
0%11
%0%
Yorkshire & Hum
ber
8.7%
11.7%
10.2%
10%
10%
10%
10%
0%0%
10%
0%10
%0%
North East
2.6%
3.6%
3.1%
3%3%
3%3%
0%0%
3%0%
3%0%
Scotland
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
10%
87%
3%84
%55
%33
%0%
0%10
0%0%
100%
0%
Traffic Gen
eration
Future Pos with
works vs Future with
out
E/B
W/B
S/B
N/B
E/B
W/B
W/B
E/B
W/B
E/B
S/B
N/B
S/B
N/B
Am Peak (080
0 ‐ 0
900)
1313
1211
1211
11
1010
00
109
66
Inter Pe
ak (13
00‐140
0)23
2120
1920
192
218
161
117
1611
10Pm
Peak (170
0 ‐ 1
800)
816
714
714
11
612
00
612
48
24 Hou
rs
273
273
239
239
239
239
2323
208
208
77
200
200
130
130
Traffic Gen
eration
The project from 201
1 Ba
seIn
Out
E/B
W/B
S/B
N/B
E/B
W/B
W/B
E/B
W/B
E/B
S/B
N/B
S/B
N/B
Am Peak (080
0 ‐ 0
900)
2625
2625
2625
32
2322
11
2221
1414
Inter Pe
ak (13
00‐140
0)46
4246
4246
425
440
361
139
3525
23Pm
Peak (170
0 ‐ 1
800)
1632
1632
1632
23
1428
01
1327
917
24 Hou
rs
539
539
539
539
539
539
5353
469
469
1717
453
453
294
294
Redb
ridge
Redb
ridge
Route
M27
1M27
, 2 ‐ 3
M27
, 3 ‐ 4
M27
, 5 ‐ 7
M3 (sou
th of A
34)
M3 (north of A
34)
M27
1M27
, 2 ‐ 3
M27
, 3 ‐ 4
M27
, 5 ‐ 7
M3 (sou
th of A
34)
M3 (north of A
34)