south bristol link forecast report - · pdf file ·...

1

5083585 - SBL Forecasting Report v2.01.docx 1

South Bristol Link

Forecast Report

March 2010

Notice

This report was produced by Atkins Limited for the West of England Partnership for the specific purpose of South Bristol Link Major Scheme Bid Business Case Submission. This report may not be used by any person other than the West of England Partnership without the West of England Partnership's express permission. In any event, Atkins accepts no liability for any costs, liabilities or losses arising as a result of the use of or reliance upon the contents of this report by any person other than the West of England Partnership.

Document History

JOB NUMBER: 5083585 DOCUMENT REF: 5083585 - SBL Forecasting Report v2.01.docx

Revision Purpose Description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

2.01 Final RJ GB AA TM 17/3/10

Forecasting Report


Contents

Section Page

1. Introduction 6

Scope of Report 7

2. Forecasting Methods 8

The G-BATS3 Model 8

Model Development 9

Overall Approach 9

3. Future Year Demand Assumptions 10

Forecast Years 10

Reference Case Demand 10

LGV and HGV Growth 16

4. Future Year Supply Assumptions 17

Without-Intervention Case Networks 17

5. Forecasting Assumptions 18

Vehicle Occupancy 18

Vehicle Operating Costs and Values of Time 18

Bus Fares 21

Rail Fares 21

Parking Charges 22

Modelling Rapid Transit 22

6. Without-Intervention Case Results 23

Introduction 23

Model Convergence 23

Demand Response 23

Highway Network Performance 25

Public Transport Model Performance 27

7. Preferred Scheme Results 30


Demand Response 31



Economic Performance 47

8. Lower Cost Option Results 49


Demand Response 50



Economic Performance 66

Forecasting Report


9. Sensitivity Tests 68

Introduction 68

Low Growth Test Results 68

Highway Sensitivity Tests 77

10. Conclusion 80

Forecasting Approach 80

Scheme Performance 80

List of Tables

Table 3.1 – TEMPRO Population, Household and Employment Growth 12

Table 3.2 – LGV/HGV Growth factors 16

Table 5.1 – Annual Car Passenger Occupancy Growth Factors 18

Table 5.2 – Non Fuel Based Vehicle Operating Costs (Pence per km, 2009 prices) 18 Table 5.3 – Values of Time (Person Pence per Minute, 2009 prices) 19

Table 5.4 – Vehicle Values of Time and Distance (2009 prices) 20

Table 5.5 – Bus Fare Index (Constant Prices, Outside London) 21 Table 5.6 – Rail Fare Indices – Non London and South East Operators 22

Table 6.1 – G-BATS3 SBL Without-Intervention Case Demand Model Convergence Results 23

Table 6.2 – G-BATS3 SBL Without-Intervention Case Highway Model Convergence Results 23

Table 6.3 – Without-Intervention Case Person Trips by Mode and Purpose for Each Time Period 24

Table 6.4 – G-BATS3 Without-Intervention Case Mode Split 2009, 2016, 2031 24

Table 7.1 – G-BATS3 SBL Preferred Scheme Demand Model Convergence Results 31

Table 7.2 – G-BATS3 SBL Preferred Scheme Highway Model Convergence Results 31

Table 7.3 – Preferred Scheme Person Trips by Mode and Purpose for Each Time Period 32

Table 7.4 – Difference Between Preferred Scheme and Without Intervention Scheme Person Trips by Mode

and Purpose for Each Time Period 33

Table 7.5 – Preferred Scheme Mode Split 2009, 2016, 2031 for Preferred Scheme 34 Table 7.6 - SBL Preferred Scheme TEE Table 48

Table 8.1 – G-BATS3 SBL Lower Cost Option Demand Model Convergence Results 50

Table 8.2 – G-BATS3 SBL Lower Cost Option Highway Model Convergence Results 50

Table 8.3 – Lower Cost Option Person Trips by Mode and Purpose for Each Time Period 51

Table 8.4 – Difference between Lower Cost Option and Without Intervention Person Trips by Mode and

Purpose for Each Time Period 52 Table 8.5 – Lower Cost Option Mode Split 2009, 2016, 2031 for Low Cost Option 52

Table 8.6 - SBL Lower Cost Option TEE Table 67

Table 9.1 – G-BATS3 SBL Low Growth Without Intervention Demand Model Convergence Results 68

Table 9.2 – G-BATS3 SBL Low Growth Preferred Scheme Demand Model Convergence Results 68 Table 9.3 – G-BATS3 SBL Low Growth Without Intervention Highway Model Convergence Results 69

Table 9.4 – G-BATS3 SBL Low Growth Preferred Scheme Highway Model Convergence Results 69

Table 9.5 – Person Trips by Mode and Purpose for Each Time Period (Low Growth Without Intervention) 70

Table 9.6 – Person Trips by Mode and Purpose for Each Time Period (Low Growth With Intervention) 71 Table 9.7 – Low Growth Highway Network Performance (2016) 72

Table 9.8 – Low Growth Highway Network Performance (2031) 72

Table 9.9 – Low Growth Public Transport Network Performance (2016) 75 Table 9.10 – Low Growth Public Transport Network Performance (2031) 75

Table 9.11 - SBL Low Growth Option TEE Table 76

Table 9.12 – Source of Trips on SBL (Eastbound) 77

Forecasting Report


Table 9.13 – Source of Trips on SBL (Westbound) 78

Table 9.13 – Highway Network Speed Adjustments 78 Table 9.14 - Highway Network Speed Sensitivity Test 79

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 – South Bristol Link Preferred Scheme 6

Figure 2.1 – GBMF Study Area 8

Figure 2.2 – G-BATS3 Modelling Structure 9

Figure 3.1 - Sector System for TEMPRO Growth 13 Figure 3.2 - West of England Developments 2009 to 2016 14

Figure 3.3 - West of England Developments 2009 to 2031 15

Figure 6.1 – G-BATS3 Demand Model Sector System 25

Figure 6.2 – G-BATS3 SBL Without Intervention Case Highway Distance Travelled (pcu km) 26

Figure 6.3 – G-BATS3 SBL Without Intervention Case Highway Travel Time (pcu hrs) 26

Figure 6.4 – G-BATS3 SBL Without Intervention Case Average Highway Network Speed (kph) 26

Figure 6.5 – G-BATS3 SBL Without Intervention Case Highway Delay 27

Figure 6.6 – G-BATS3 SBL - Without Intervention Case Passenger Hours 28 Figure 6.7 – G-BATS3 SBL - Without Intervention Case Passenger Distance 28

Figure 6.8 – G-BATS3 SBL - Without Intervention Case Passenger Boardings 29

Figure 7.1 - South Bristol Link Preferred Scheme 30

Figure 7.2 – G-BATS3 SBL Preferred Scheme Change in Highway Distance Travelled (pcu km) 35

Figure 7.3 – G-BATS3 SBL Preferred Scheme Change in Highway Travel Time (pcu hrs) 35

Figure 7.4 – G-BATS3 SBL Preferred Scheme Change in Average Highway Network Speed (kph) 35

Figure 7.5 – G-BATS3 SBL Preferred Scheme Change in Highway Delay 36

Figure 7.6 – Morning Peak Hour Changes in Flow as a Result of SBL Preferred Scheme in 2031 36

Figure 7.7 –AADT Flows (Base Year, Without-Intervention Case and Preferred Scheme) 2016 37

Figure 7.8 –AADT Flows (Base Year, Without-Intervention Case and Preferred Scheme) 2031 38

Figure 7.9 – G-BATS3 SBL Preferred Scheme Changes in Passenger Hours 39 Figure 7.10 – G-BATS3 SBL Preferred Scheme Changes in Passenger Distance 39

Figure 7.11 – G-BATS3 SBL Preferred Scheme Changes in Passenger Boardings 40

Figure 7.12 – G-BATS3 SBL – Preferred Scheme AM peak one directional Boarding & Alighting Profile 201641

Figure 7.13 – G-BATS3 SBL – Preferred Scheme IP one directional Boarding & Alighting Profile 2016 42 Figure 7.14 – G-BATS3 SBL – Preferred Scheme PM peak one directional Boarding & Alighting Profile 201643


Figure 7.16 – G-BATS3 SBL – Preferred Scheme IP one directional Boarding & Alighting Profile 2031 45

Figure 7.17 – G-BATS3 SBL – Preferred Scheme PM peak one directional Boarding & Alighting Profile 203146 Figure 8.1 – South Bristol Link Lower Cost Option 49

Figure 8.2 – G-BATS3 SBL Lower Cost Option Change in Total Highway Distance Travelled 53

Figure 8.3 – G-BATS3 SBL Lower Cost Option Case Change in Total Highway Travel Time 53 Figure 8.4 – G-BATS3 SBL Lower Cost Option Case Change in Average Highway Network Speed 54

Figure 8.5 – G-BATS3 SBL Lower Cost Option Case Change in Total Highway Delay 54

Figure 8.6 – Morning Peak Hour Changes in Flow as a Result of Lower Cost Option SBL in 2031 55

Figure 8.7 –AADT Flows (Base Year, Without-Intervention Case and Lower Cost Option) 2016 56 Figure 8.8 –AADT Flows (Base Year, Without-Intervention Case and Lower Cost Option) 2031 57

Figure 8.9 – G-BATS3 SBL – Changes in Lower Cost Option Passenger Hours 58

Figure 8.10 – G-BATS3 SBL – Changes in Lower Cost Option Passenger Distance 58

Forecasting Report


Figure 8.11 – G-BATS3 SBL – Changes in Lower Cost Option Passenger Boardings 59

Figure 8.12 – G-BATS3 SBL – Low Cost Option AM peak one directional Boarding & Alighting Profile 201660 Figure 8.13 – G-BATS3 SBL – Low Cost Option IP one directional Boarding & Alighting Profile 2016 61

Figure 8.14 – G-BATS3 SBL – Low Cost Option PM peak one directional Boarding & Alighting Profile 201662

Figure 8.15 – G-BATS3 SBL – Low Cost Option AM peak one directional Boarding & Alighting Profile 203163

Figure 8.16 – G-BATS3 SBL – Low Cost Option IP one directional Boarding & Alighting Profile 2031 64 Figure 8.17 – G-BATS3 SBL – Low Cost Option PM peak one directional Boarding & Alighting Profile 203165

Figure 9.1 –AADT Flows (Base Year, Without-Intervention Case and Low Growth) 2016 73

Figure 9.2 –AADT Flows (Base Year, Without-Intervention Case and Low Growth) 2016 74

Appendices

Appendix A 81

Appendix B 94

Appendix C 101

Appendix D 108

Forecasting Report


1. Introduction 1.1 The West of England (WoE) Local Authorities - Bath and North East Somerset (B&NES), Bristol

City (BCC), North Somerset (NSC) and South Gloucestershire Councils (SGC) - are promoting the

South Bristol Link (SBL), a major transport scheme to address current and future transport

problems in the south Bristol area.

1.2 This scheme has been identified as a funding priority in the South West Region’s Regional

Funding Allocation (RFA). The authorities are preparing a Major Scheme Business Case (MSBC)

submission to the Department for Transport (DfT) for the scheme.

1.3 The South Bristol Link is a combined orbital highway and Rapid Transit link with adjacent

foot/cycleway between the A370 and Hartcliffe. The SBL would link the A370 with the A38 and the

A4174 at Hartcliffe Roundabout adjacent to Hengrove Park. The scheme is shown in Figure 1.1

and comprises:

SBL Rapid Transit starting from the Long Ashton park and ride site, and merging with the

single carriageway SBL highway link at South Liberty Lane;

Combined highway/ Rapid Transit link from South Liberty Lane to the A38, with segregated

Rapid Transit route adjacent to the highway lanes;

Combined highway/ Rapid Transit link from A38 to Hartcliffe roundabout, with segregated

bus-ways for Rapid Transit in the centre of the route, and highway lanes either side; and

Rapid Transit Line 2 extended from Long Ashton park and ride site to a new terminus at the

South Bristol Hospital to be built in Hengrove Park.

Figure 1.1 – South Bristol Link Preferred Scheme

Forecasting Report


1.4 A suite of models termed the Greater Bristol Modelling Framework (GBMF) covers the WoE’s

main urban areas. These Variable Demand Models follow the latest (DfT) guidance, and have

been designed to act as the starting point for the assessment of a range of potential transport

interventions in the sub-region. The G-BATS3 model is the component of the GBMF that focuses

on the main urban area of Bristol and is the starting point for the modelling of the SBL MSBC.

1.5 The G-BATS3 model has been updated specifically for the SBL study, and this version of the

model is referred to as G-BATS3 SBL. The G-BATS3 SBL modelling system consists of three key

elements:

a Highway Assignment Model (HAM) representing vehicle-based movements across the

Greater Bristol Area for a typical 2009 morning peak hour (08:00 – 09:00), an average inter-

peak hour (10:00 – 16:00) and an evening peak hour (17:00 – 18:00);

a Public Transport Assignment Model (PTAM) representing bus and rail-based movements

across the same area and time periods; and

a five-stage multi-modal incremental Demand Model that estimates frequency choice, main

mode choice, time period choice, destination choice, and sub mode choice in response to

changes in generalised costs across the 24-hour period (07:00 – 07:00).

1.6 In addition to updates to the transport models, the SBL forecasting approach has been to update

the land use distribution from previous versions to the latest land use distribution provided by the

four WoE Local Authorities and to control to TEMPRO v6.1.

Scope of Report 1.7 This Model Development Report consists of five sections. Following this introductory section:

Chapter 2 describes the Forecasting Methods;

Future Year Demand Assumptions are described in Chapter 3;

Future Year Supply Assumptions are described in Chapter 4;

Forecasting Assumptions are presented in Chapter 5;

Chapter 6 presents the Without-Intervention Case Results;

Chapter 7 presents the Preferred Scheme Results;

Chapter 8 presents the Lower Cost Option Results; and

Sensitivity Test Results are presented in Chapter 9

Forecasting Report


2. Forecasting Methods

The G-BATS3 Model 2.1 A suite of three models termed the Greater Bristol Modelling Framework (GBMF) covers the

WoE’s main urban areas (Figure 2.1). These Variable Demand Models have been developed

following Department for Transport (DfT) guidance.

Figure 2.1 – GBMF Study Area

G-BATS3

G-NSG-BATH

G-BATS3

G-NSG-BATH

G-BATS3

G-NSG-BATH

2.2 All three models have been developed in accordance with the requirements for appropriate

Variable Demand Modelling (TAG Unit 3.10), Modelling Public Transport Schemes (TAG Unit

3.11) and Modelling Road Pricing (TAG Unit 3.12). The overall structure of the G-BATS3 model is

shown below (Figure 2.2).

Forecasting Report


Figure 2.2 – G-BATS3 Modelling Structure

Model Development 2.3 The BATS3 v2.3 model, with a base year of 2006, was previously developed by Atkins for the

WoE local authorities. As part of the development of the G-BATS3 SBL model, G-BATS3 v2.3 was

updated and re-based to 2009. These update tasks included:

enhancing the zoning system for the assignment models to provide more detail in the SBL

study area;

enhancing the highway network to give more detail in the SBL area, and updating bus service

representation to the 2009 timetable;

updating the highway and public transport demand matrices to incorporate newly-collected

survey data;

revalidating the highway and public transport assignment models to a 2009 base year; and

changing the trip end modelling processes to be consistent with current guidance (WebTAG

Unit 3.15.2).

2.4 More detailed information can be found in the following reports:

SBL Highway Assignment Model Development Report (Atkins, February 2010);

SBL Public Transport Assignment Model Development Report (Atkins, February 2010); and

G-BATS3 SBL Demand Model Validation Report (Atkins, February 2010).

Overall Approach 2.5 Transport forecasting is a three stage process. The first stage requires the generation of future

year travel demand (without any change in cost) and is referred to as the ‘reference case’. The

second stage estimates the impact of known changes in the supply of transport to be incorporated

into the model, and is referred to as the ‘without intervention case’. The final stage predicts the

impact of the transport intervention and this is referred to as the ‘with intervention case’.

2.6 TEMPRO projections of population, employment and trip ends were used in the model to forecast

travel growth across the whole of the sub-region for the G-BATS3 SBL Model; however, in order

to more realistically reflect projected land use changes, travel demand growth has been

distributed throughout the area using more detailed local planning data supplied by the West of

England Partnership.

Trip Generation / Attraction

Assignment

Time Period Choice

Mode Choice

Trip Distribution Demand Model

Supply Models

Trip Generation / Attraction

Assignment

Time Period Choice

Mode Choice

Trip Distribution Demand Model

Supply Models Public Transport Sub - Models (AM, IP, PM)

Highway Sub - Models (AM, IP, PM)

Forecasting Report


3. Future Year Demand Assumptions

Forecast Years 3.1 Centralised planning data forecasts are available for a range of forecast years from the DfT's

National Trip End Model (accessed via the TEMPRO software programme) between 2001 and

2031. The LTP cycle is focused on five-yearly intervals with LTP reflecting the period 2001-2006

whilst, more recently, LTP2 focussed on the period 2006-2011.

3.2 The recent submissions to the Regional Assembly have looked further ahead with assessments

made for 2016, 2021, 2026 and 2031 reflecting both medium and/or longer term planning

horizons. As such, the majority of the planning data currently available from the local authorities

reflects 2011, 2016, 2021, 2026 and 2031 forecast years.

3.3 The SBL modelling framework has been developed to represent a 2009 Base Year to which the

model has been calibrated and validated; and two forecast years: 2016 and 2031.

Reference Case Demand 3.4 Demand forecasting needs future year trip ends as an input to the Demand Model. Future year trip

ends for the G-BATS3 SBL model were derived using two datasets:

TEMPRO v6.1; and

Local data relating to future land use provided by the West of England Partnership, including

committed land use developments and the assumptions for core scenario land use

developments.

3.5 WebTAG Unit 3.15.2, para 5.7.8 states that trip end growth should be consistent with TEMPRO at

the study area level, in order to allow consistency between different parts of the country when

justifying transport proposals, as well as reducing the risk of optimism bias. Consequently, trip end

growth was controlled to TEMPRO forecasts at the study area level, but distributed throughout the

study area on the basis of the more detailed local planning data.

3.6 The trip end methodology adopted for the G-BATS3 SBL model may be summarised as:

Calculate TEMPRO background growth and TEMPRO forecast trip ends for each modelled

zone.

Within the WoE area, redistribute trip growth according to more detailed local planning data.

Produce reference case demand matrices by furnessing the base demand to the forecast trip

ends.

Segment reference case demand by mode and time period using base year proportions.

Finally, control demand to TEMPRO trip ends to correct for any numerical rounding errors.

3.7 Further details of each stage in the process are given below.

TEMPRO Background Growth

3.8 Table 3.1 summarises the overall population and employment figures for the WoE area from

TEMPRO, for the base year (2009), and future years 2016 and 2031, respectively.

3.9 There is a growth of approximately 6% in population between 2009 and 2016, compared with a

10% growth in households, due to an assumed reduction in household size over this period.

Forecasting Report


Employment growth is lower at 5% between 2009 and 2016. The growth from 2006 to 2031 is

largest for households, with an increase of 29%, though the population only increases by 21%

again due to reduction in household size. Job growth is healthier between these two years at

15%.

Greater Bristol Modelling Framework – G-BATS3 Forecasting Report


Table 3.1 – TEMPRO Population, Household and Employment Growth

Authority Population Households Employment

2009 2016 2031 2009 2016 2031 2009 2016 2031

Bath & NE Somerset 171,973 183,469 207,454 76,420 84,346 100,372 89,330 93,610 102,563

Bristol City 408,573 430,994 484,252 180,181 194,178 222,014 223,595 233,103 266,651

North Somerset 197,723 214,046 251,161 87,850 97,841 118,182 85,203 91,363 98,104

South Gloucestershire 256,574 273,456 311,063 108,749 120,401 145,020 157,026 166,947 173,479

Sub-Region Total 1,034,843 1,101,965 1,253,930 453,200 496,766 585,588 555,153 585,023 640,797

% Change from 2009

Bath & NE Somerset 7% 21% 10% 31% 5% 15%

Bristol City 5% 19% 8% 23% 4% 19%

North Somerset 8% 27% 11% 35% 7% 15%

South Gloucestershire 7% 21% 11% 33% 6% 10%

Sub-Region Total 6% 21% 10% 29% 5% 15%

Source: TEMPRO v6.1


/5083585 - SBL Forecasting Report v2.01.docx

3.10 WebTAG 3.10.2c (Para 1.6.18) recommends that TEMPRO growth be applied to base

productions and attractions at an all-day and all-modes level. TEMPRO background growth was

calculated for G-BATS3 following this guidance, separately for each purpose (HBW/ HBEB/

NHBEB/ HBO/ NHBO) and car availability sector car available, non car available (CA/ NCA).

3.11 The steps involved in creating TEMPRO background growth are presented below:

Aggregate base production/attraction (P/A) demand matrices over modes and time periods

and then create base production and attraction trip ends (PA_base);

Extract TEMPRO base year trip ends (TEMPRO_base) and future year trip ends

(TEMPRO_future) at an all-day and all-modes level; and

Calculate forecast year background trip ends by purpose and by car availability

(PA_Future_background), by applying TEMPRO growth factors to base P/A trip ends at an

all-day and all-modes level.

PA_Future_background = PA_base * (TEMPRO_future / TEMPRO_base)

3.12 To apply the TEMPRO background growth, a new sector system with 53 sectors has been created

as shown in Figure 3.1, aggregated over the 600 G-BATS3 zones and compatible with TEMPRO

zone, District, County or Region boundaries. Each TEMPRO zone within the G-BATS3 modelled

area is defined as a sector.

Figure 3.1 - Sector System for TEMPRO Growth

AVONMOUTH (Zone)

BACKWELL (Zone)

BATH (Zone)

BRISTOL(MAIN) (Zone)

BRISTOL(PART OF) (Zone)-B&NE

BRISTOL(PART OF) (Zone)-SG

Cheltenham (Authority)

CHIPPING SODBURY (Zone)

CLEVEDON (Zone)

Combined_Cheddar

Combined_Paulton

Combined_Rural

Combined_Wales

CONGRESBURY (Zone)

Cotsw old (Authority)

Devon & Cornw all (County)

EAST (Region)

EASTON-IN-GORDANO (Zone)

Forest of Dean (Authority)

FRAMPTON COTTERELL/WINTERBOURNE (Zone)

Gloucester (Authority)

Grouped_SE

Kennet (Authority)

KEYNSHAM (Zone)

KINGSWOOD (Zone)

LONG ASHTON (Zone)

MANGOTSFIELD (Zone)

NAILSEA (Zone)

NORTH SOMERSET (RURAL Zone)

North Wiltshire (Authority)

NORTON-RADSTOCK (Zone)

PORTISHEAD (Zone)

SALTFORD (Zone)

SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE (RURAL Zone)

South Somerset (Authority)

South West Wales (County)

STOKE GIFFORD (Zone)

Stroud (Authority)

Sw indon (Authority)

Taunton Deane (Authority)

Tew kesbury (Authority)

THORNBURY (Zone)

West Somerset (Authority)

West Wiltshire (Authority)

WESTON-SUPER-MARE (Zone)

WINSCOMBE (Zone)

YATTON (Zone)



Redistribution of Growth Within WoE Area

West of England Development Strategies

3.13 The West of England Partnership provided information regarding the committed land use

developments planned for the Greater Bristol area in the periods to 2016 and 2031.

3.14 Each new development within the planning data was classified by land-use type as follows:

Residential developments, specified as number of new dwellings.

Employment developments , specified in Gross Floor Area (GFA); further subcategorised

into, for example,

- Retail.

- Office; and

- Leisure.

3.15 Committed developments are shown in Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3 for 2009 to 2016 and 2009 to

2031 respectively.

Figure 3.2 - West of England Developments 2009 to 2016

Dwelling Growth 2009-2016

1,000 to 5,000

100 to 1,000

50 to 100

25 to 50

0 to 25



Figure 3.3 - West of England Developments 2009 to 2031

Dwelling Growth 2009-2031

1,000 to 5,000

100 to 1,000

50 to 100

25 to 50

0 to 25

Trip End Creation for Developments

3.16 The trip rate database package TRICS 2008 was used to calculate trip rates at all-day and all-

modes level. With extensive data collection from surveys throughout UK, TRICS is able to

calculate multi-modal average trip rates at daily level according to different types of land use.

3.17 The TRICS software requires the specification of an area type. In order to correctly model the

Greater Bristol area, the region was divided into city centre, suburban and rural sub-regions.

These were respectively associated with TRICS 2008 trip rates for:

Edge of Town Centre,

Suburban; and

Edge of Town sites.

3.18 It should be noted that Edge of Town Centre was chosen over Town Centre to represent the city

centre areas because the number of Town Centre survey sites in TRICS was particularly low.

3.19 In order to optimise sample size for the generation of the trip rates whilst keeping them

representative of the Greater Bristol area, the data used covered England but excluded the

Greater London area from the sample.

3.20 The total number of origin and destination trip ends generated by TRICS is shown Appendix A.

3.21 The trip ends were then converted from origin/ destination format to P/A format for the next stage

of the processing. In this step, the TEMPRO background P/A trip ends were replaced with the

development P/A trip ends within the WoE area. The WoE trip ends were then factored so that the



total forecast productions and attractions across the WoE area were controlled to the TEMPRO-

derived values.

Furnessing to Trip Ends

3.22 In general, the future year demand was distributed using the original distribution of trips in the

base year model. For brownfield (or greenfield) development zones, the base year demand

matrices could not provide a sound basis for the incremental choice model. In these cases the

base year trip matrices were "seeded" with a synthetic distribution taking account of the cost of

travel between zones and the relative attractiveness of each destination zone.

3.23 The P/A format seeded base matrices (aggregated across modes and time periods) were

furnessed to the forecast trip ends to produce the forecast reference case demand matrices.

Matrix Segmentation

3.24 WebTAG 3.10.2c recommends that segmentation of future year matrices by mode and time period

is undertaken by applying base proportions. Note that this segmentation process was applied

within each purpose (HBW / HBEB / NHBEB / HBO / NHBO) and person type (CA / NCA), as

TEMPRO background trip ends are extracted at this level.

3.25 It is a relatively simple process to apply base proportions for zones with existing traffic movements

to split by mode and time period at the matrix cell level.

3.26 For brownfield (or greenfield) development zones for which base trips are zero, or for which the

base patterns of trip making cannot be assumed to apply to the future year demand, the

segmentation cannot be applied at the matrix-cell level. Instead, the average base proportions

calculated across the whole matrix are applied to the brownfield and greenfield development

zones.

Finalising Forecast Demand

3.27 In the final step, the forecast reference case demand matrices were again factored to the

TEMPRO-derived trip ends to correct for any rounding errors. The above steps in trip end

modelling ensure consistency with national forecasts and thus avoid bias. In essence, the trip end

calculation uses local land use development assumptions but ensures that total trips across the

WoE area are constrained to be equal to the benchmark trip ends set by TEMPRO background

growth.

LGV and HGV Growth 3.28 Table 3.2 below shows the growth rates used to forecast Light Goods Vehicles (LGV) and Heavy

Goods Vehicles (HGV) from the Base Year to 2016 and 2031 respectively. Growth factors were

derived from the Department for Transport’s 2007 Road Transport Forecasts for England.

Table 3.2 – LGV/HGV Growth factors

Vehicle Type 2016 2031

LGV 1.32 2.02

HGV 1.05 1.15

Source: DfT, Road Transport Forecasts for England 2007



4. Future Year Supply Assumptions

Without-Intervention Case Networks 4.1 The Without-Intervention Case represents those elements of the planned package that can

reasonably be expected to be delivered by a specific forecast year. The Without-Intervention Case

schemes have been determined based on an uncertainty log which allocates schemes to one of

four categories as follows:

Near Certain : The outcome will happen or there is a high probability that it will happen;

More than likely: The outcome is likely to happen but there is some uncertainty;

Reasonably Foreseeable: The outcome may happen but there is significant uncertainty; and

Hypothetical: There is considerable uncertainty whether the outcome will ever happen.

4.2 Based on the uncertainty log, the Without-Intervention Case should include schemes that are

considered ‘near certain’ or ‘more than likely’. The Without-Intervention Case should represent a

realistic view of what is likely to happen in the absence of any specific scheme proposals. It

should focus on maintaining present transport facilities and implementing the more certain aspects

of regional and local transport strategies.

4.3 The Without-Intervention Case network includes modifications to the public transport and

highways networks. These are described in more detail below:

Recent highway improvements – Newfoundland Circus Gyratory, M32 J3 signalisation,

Jacobs Wells signalisation, M5 J19 capacity enhancements and Hartcliffe Roundabout

signalisation

Greater Bristol Bus Network – bus priority schemes and proposed service enhancements.

This includes the developer-funded schemes within South Gloucestershire.

A38 to Cribbs Causeway Distributor Road – part of the Filton Northfield development,

includes associated bus links through the development site

M4/M5 Managed Motorways – peak period capacity enhancements through dynamic hard

shoulder running and variable speed limits (this is a new addition to the Reference Case

compared with previous submissions)

Ashton Vale to Temple Meads Rapid Transit



5. Forecasting Assumptions 5.1 There are a number of key forecasting assumptions, in addition to changes in supply and

demand, that affect model forecasting:

Vehicle occupancy;

Vehicle operating costs;

Values of time;

Bus fares;

Rail fares; and

Parking charges.

5.2 It is noted that the models are defined to work in real terms – i.e. excluding the effects of inflation.

This means that only changes in real costs and values need to be included in the forecasts.

Vehicle Occupancy 5.3 Car passenger occupancies are assumed to increase per annum by the factors shown in Table

5.1 (WebTAG Unit 3.5.6).

Table 5.1 – Annual Car Passenger Occupancy Growth Factors

Time Period Purpose

Work Non-Work

AM 0.48% 0.67%

IP 0.40% 0.65%

PM 0.62% 0.43%

Source: DfT WebTAG Unit 3.5.6

Vehicle Operating Costs and Values of Time 5.4 Vehicle operating costs were taken from WebTAG Unit 3.5.6 and increased to 2009 prices. Non-

fuel costs are assumed to remain constant in real terms over the forecast period. The cost

parameters used are shown in Table 5.2 below. These parameters (non-fuel based vehicle

operating costs) are used in calculating the PPK (pence per kilometre) values. Fuel costs are

assumed to increase in line with WebTAG recommendations.

Table 5.2 – Non Fuel Based Vehicle Operating Costs (Pence per km, 2009 prices)

Vehicle Category Perceived Cost Parameters

a1 b1

Work Car 4.960 135.8

Non-Work Car 3.841 0.00

Average Car 4.033 23.2

Work LGV 7.205 47.1

Non-Work LGV 7.205 0.00



Average LGV 7.205 41.4

OGV1 6.706 263.5

OGV2 13.046 508.0

PSV 30.427 693.8

Source: Atkins, from DfT, WebTAG unit 3.5.6

5.5 Future year values of time per person were calculated in 2009 prices using the assumptions on

the growth in value of time set out in WebTAG Unit 3.5.6, and are shown in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3 – Values of Time (Person Pence per Minute, 2009 prices)

Purpose 2016 2031

HBW IL 6.93 8.46

HBW IM 11.27 13.78

HBW IH 16.40 20.04

Other IL 8.80 10.75

Other IM 11.35 13.87

Other IH 13.64 16.67

Work 57.56 73.88


5.6 The calculated overall vehicle operating costs in pence per kilometre are shown, along with values

of time per vehicle in pence per minute, in Table 5.4.


5077413/5083585 - SBL Forecasting Report v2.01.docx 20

Table 5.4 – Vehicle Values of Time and Distance (2009 prices)

2009 2016 2031

Purpose AM IP PM AM IP PM AM IP PM

PPM PPK PPM PPK PPM PPK PPM PPK PPM PPK PPM PPK PPM PPK PPM PPK PPM PPK

Work 61.30 14.52 59.49 13.95 63.44 15.15 70.12 14.14 68.15 13.59 72.38 14.75 89.08 13.96 86.86 13.42 91.46 14.56

Non-Work Low Income

9.64 7.30 11.25 6.97 11.08 7.67 10.68 7.02 12.39 6.70 12.24 7.37 12.79 6.80 14.70 6.50 14.61 7.14

Non-Work Med Income

13.18 7.30 15.37 6.97 15.14 7.67 14.60 7.02 16.94 6.70 16.74 7.37 17.49 6.80 20.09 6.50 19.97 7.14

Non-Work High Income

16.60 7.30 19.36 6.97 19.07 7.67 18.39 7.02 21.34 6.70 21.08 7.37 22.02 6.80 25.31 6.50 25.15 7.14

LGV

23.29 15.86 23.29 15.37 23.29 16.38 26.72 15.95 26.72 15.46 26.72 16.47 34.17 16.17 34.17 15.67 34.17 16.70

HGV

20.28 41.54 20.28 41.43 20.28 41.44 23.32 41.80 23.32 41.69 23.32 41.70 29.94 42.48 29.94 42.38 29.94 42.39


* Note: The PPK value decreases in future years since fuel efficiency is assumed to improve in future years. PPK = Pence Per Kilometre PPM = Pence Per Minute

Greater Bristol Modelling Framework - G-BATS3 Forecasting Report


Bus Fares 5.7 Changes in bus fares were derived using historical fare data taken from the Bulletin of Public

Transport Statistics1.

Table 5.5 shows the changes in bus fare receipts since 1990/91. On this

basis, a linear bus fare growth factor of 1.096% p.a. in real terms was calculated for the period

1990/91 – 2005/06, and this was assumed to apply from 2009 base year onwards.

Table 5.5 – Bus Fare Index (Constant Prices, Outside London)

Year Fare Index, (constant prices)

1990/91 90.3

1991/92 93.7

1992/93 95.8

1993/94 97.8

1994/95 99.3

1995/96 100.5

1996/97 103.4

1997/98 105.9

1998/99 107.6

1999/00 110.6

2000/01 112.4

2001/02 116.0

2002/03 118.2

2003/04 119.5

2004/05 120.8

2005/06 125.4

Source: Bulletin of Public Transport Statistics, Great Britain, 2002 Edition, DfT, November 2002, Annex B Table 9

Rail Fares 5.8 Similarly, fares indices were derived for non-London and South East operators from data

published in National Rail Trends2. It was considered that only data collected after rail

privatisation in 1997 was representative. A linear rail fare growth of 1.05% p.a. in constant prices

was calculated for the period January 1998 – January 2004. This was applied to factor up base

year rail fares for each forecast year (Table 5.6).

1 Bulletin of Public Transport Statistics, Great Britain, 2002 Edition, DfT, November 2002, Annex B Table 9.

2 National Rail Trends 2003-2004, Q3, SRA, March 2004



Table 5.6 – Rail Fare Indices – Non London and South East Operators

Year Fares Index (Constant Prices) 1995=100

1998 99.4

1999 100.8

2000 102.9

2001 103.4

2002 105.7

2003 106.0

2004 105.9 Source: National Rail Trends 2003-2004, Q3, SRA, March 2004

Parking Charges 5.9 It was assumed that there would be no increase of parking charges in real terms or changes in

parking supply for the Without-Intervention Case.

Modelling Rapid Transit 5.10 Rapid Transit is modelled alongside bus in the Demand Model hierarchy. However, there is

evidence to suggest that Rapid Transit has a higher degree of attractiveness compared to other

public transport modes.3 ‘Attractiveness’ in this context means the propensity for travellers to

choose Rapid Transit over other options, other things such as time and cost, being equal.

5.11 The relative attractiveness of Rapid Transit is modelled using a modal constant of, on average, 9

minutes, added to the in-vehicle time. The actual constant applied for each journey depends on

the time spent on the Rapid Transit service (passengers spending more time on the service(s) will

incur a higher modal constant) but the modal constant is calculated such that the average

reduction in generalised cost for all Rapid Transit passengers is 9 minutes.

3 for more details, see technical note: Modelling the Relative Attractiveness of BRT, 2009 Atkins



6. Without-Intervention Case Results

Introduction 6.1 This section presents a set of headline indicators for the Without-Intervention Case forecasts for

2016 and 2031. The key indicators for option performance are:

model convergence;

demand response;

highway network performance; and

public transport network performance.

Model Convergence 6.2 Model convergence is an indicator of the stability of the model. Convergence is measured by the

% Gap between supply and demand curves with the demand model. Perfectly converged models

would have a % Gap of zero and the guidance recommends values of less that 0.2%.

6.3 The demand model convergence is shown in Table 6.1 and it can be seen that suitable

convergence is reached in 21 loops in 2016 and a convergence well below 0.2 in 29 loops in

2031. Highway model convergence is shown in Table 6.2. The nature of the public transport

model assignment (i.e. without capacity restraint) means that very high levels of convergence are

always reached.

Table 6.1 – G-BATS3 SBL Without-Intervention Case Demand Model Convergence Results

Criteria 2016 (24 hr) 2031 (24 hr)

Convergence after Loop # 21 29

% Gap 0.0862 0.1403

Source: Atkins Demand Model Run - BSB0052

Table 6.2 – G-BATS3 SBL Without-Intervention Case Highway Model Convergence Results

Criteria AM Peak Inter Peak PM Peak

2009 2016 2031 2009 2016 2031 2009 2016 2031

Convergence after loop # 34 22 31 31 9 22 15 16 80

% flows differing by<5% 99 99.9 100 98.9 99.4 100 99.2 100 100

% Gap 0.007 0.048 0.044 0.005 0.043 0.044 0.089 0.046 0.062

Source: Atkins SBL HAM Model Runs: BATS3_16BSB0052A, BATS3_16BSB0052I, BATS3_16BSB0052P

Demand Response

Response by Purpose

6.4 The demand model forecasts demand by mode and purpose for the given forecast year. The

forecast demand by car, bus and rail modes for home based work (HBW), other non-work trips

(Other) and employer’s business trips (EB) are shown in Table 6.3 below.



Table 6.3 – Without-Intervention Case Person Trips by Mode and Purpose for Each Time Period

Mode Purpose Total

Other EB HBW

2016 2031 2016 2031 2016 2031 2016 2031

Morning Peak

Car 50,245 56,591 17,300 20,119 86,458 98,516 154,003 175,227

Bus 5,169 5,541 529 572 8,503 8,921 14,200 15,034

BRT 71 88 14 18 127 158 212 264

Rail 2,029 2,517 680 838 3,984 4,830 6,693 8,185

P&R 287 305 2 2 1,057 1,155 1,347 1,463

Total 57,802 65,043 18,525 21,549 100,129 113,580 176,455 200,172

Inter-Peak

Car 94,837 115,475 21,862 27,038 18,528 22,251 135,227 164,764

Bus 7,374 8,100 258 283 2,502 2,652 10,134 11,035

BRT 75 97 5 6 24 31 104 134

Rail 1,105 1,359 271 325 486 587 1,862 2,270

P&R 452 544 1 1 113 131 566 676

Total 103,844 125,575 22,397 27,652 21,653 25,652 147,894 178,879

Evening Peak

Car 100,810 116,184 8,235 9,782 61,638 71,378 170,683 197,345

Bus 6,107 6,652 190 218 6,020 6,334 12,317 13,204

BRT 104 128 3 4 92 116 199 247

Rail 2,786 3,418 274 334 3,338 4,053 6,399 7,806

P&R 133 159 0 0 647 713 781 873

Total 109,940 126,541 8,703 10,339 71,735 82,595 190,378 219,475


6.5 Mode split for motorised travel modes (i.e. excluding walking and cycling) is summarised in Table

6.4 for 2009, 2016 and 2031.

Table 6.4 – G-BATS3 Without-Intervention Case Mode Split 2009, 2016, 2031

Mode AM IP PM

2009 2016 2031 2009 2016 2031 2009 2016 2031

Car 89% 87% 88% 92% 91% 92% 90% 90% 90%

Bus 7% 8% 8% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6%

BRT 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Rail 3% 4% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 4%

P&R 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%




Response by Location

6.6 The demand by mode has been sectored using the sector system shown in Figure 6.1. This

system splits the modelled area into the following five sectors:

Within Bristol Central Cordon

Within Bristol Inner Cordon

Within Bristol Outer Cordon

Rest of Greater Bristol sub-region; and

Rest of UK

Figure 6.1 – G-BATS3 Demand Model Sector System

Sectors

Sector 1 - Central Cordon

Sector 2 - Inner Cordon

Sector 3 - Outer Cordon

Sector 4 - Rest of Greater Bristol Area

Sector 5 - External

Source: Atkins G-BATS3 Sector and Zone System

6.7 Demand by mode and time period for each sector to sector movement is shown in Appendix B.

Highway Network Performance 6.8 The overall network performance for the whole of the G-BATS3 modelled area is summarised in

terms of the following:

Total Distance Travelled (pcu kilometres) - the sum (over all zone pairs) of the total distance

travelled on the modelled highway network for every zone pair multiplied by the number of

passenger car units (pcu's) for that zone pair;

Total Travel Time (pcu hours) - the sum (over all zone pairs) of the total time travelled on the

modelled highway network for every zone pair multiplied by the number of passenger car

units (pcu's) for that zone pair;

Average Network Speed (km/hr) - the average speed is the total distance travelled divided by

the total travel time; and



Total Delay (pcu hours) - total delay is taken as the difference between congested and free

flow travel time on the modelled highway network in pcu hours.

6.9 These are shown in Figures 6.2 to 6.5 respectively for Bristol Urban Area (sectors 1-3).

Figure 6.2 – G-BATS3 SBL Without Intervention Case Highway Distance Travelled (pcu km)

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

AM IP PM

2009

2016

2031


Figure 6.3 – G-BATS3 SBL Without Intervention Case Highway Travel Time (pcu hrs)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

AM IP PM

2009

2016

2031


Figure 6.4 – G-BATS3 SBL Without Intervention Case Average Highway Network Speed (kph)



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

AM IP PM

2009

2016

2031


Figure 6.5 – G-BATS3 SBL Without Intervention Case Highway Delay

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

AM IP PM

2009

2016

2031


Public Transport Model Performance 6.10 The overall public transport network performance for the whole of the G-BATS3 modelled area is

summarised in terms of the following:

Total Travel Time (passenger hours) - the total time travelled on the modelled public transport

network;

Total Distance Travelled (passenger kilometres) - the total distance travelled on the modelled

public transport network multiplied by the number of passengers;

Passenger boardings – the number of public transport boardings.

6.11 These are shown in Figures 6.6 to 6.8 respectively for Bristol Urban Area (sectors 1-3). The

morning peak is the busiest time period and shows the greatest increase over time.



Figure 6.6 – G-BATS3 SBL - Without Intervention Case Passenger Hours

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

AM IP PM

2009

2016

2031


Figure 6.7 – G-BATS3 SBL - Without Intervention Case Passenger Distance

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

AM IP PM

2009

2016

2031




Figure 6.8 – G-BATS3 SBL - Without Intervention Case Passenger Boardings

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

AM IP PM

2009

2016

2031




7. Preferred Scheme Results 7.1 The South Bristol Link is a combined orbital highway and Rapid Transit link with adjacent

foot/cycleway between the A370 and Hartcliffe. The SBL would link the A370 with the A38 and the

A4174 at Hartcliffe Roundabout adjacent to Hengrove Park. The scheme is shown in Figure 7.1

and comprises:

SBL Rapid Transit starting from the Long Ashton park and ride site, and merging with the

single carriageway SBL highway link at South Liberty Lane;

Combined highway/ Rapid Transit link from South Liberty Lane to the A38, with segregated

Rapid Transit route adjacent to the highway lanes;

Combined highway/ Rapid Transit link from A38 to Hartcliffe roundabout, with segregated


The SBL Rapid Transit service is formed by extending the Ashton Vale to City Centre Rapid

Transit along the SBL to a new terminus at the South Bristol Hospital to be built in Hengrove

Park. One out of every three peak services will be extended, and half of the inter-peak

services, giving a service headway of 18 minutes in the morning and evening peak periods,

and 24 minutes in the inter-peak period.

Figure 7.1 - South Bristol Link Preferred Scheme

7.2 The key indicators for option performance are:

model convergence;

demand response;





Model Convergence 7.3 The demand model convergence is shown in Table 7.1 and it can be seen that suitable

convergence is reached in 22 loops in 2016 and a convergence below 0.2 in 29 loops in 2031.

Highway model convergence is shown in Table 7.2. The nature of the public transport model

assignment (i.e. without capacity restraint) means that very high levels of convergence are always

reached.

Table 7.1 – G-BATS3 SBL Preferred Scheme Demand Model Convergence Results

Criteria 2016 (24 hr) 2031 (24 hr)


% Gap 0.0869 0.1782

Source: Atkins Demand Model Run – BSB1052

Table 7.2 – G-BATS3 SBL Preferred Scheme Highway Model Convergence Results


2009 2016 2031 2009 2016 2031 2009 2016 2031


% flows differing by<5% 99 99.9 99.9 98.9 99.3 99.9 99.2 100 99.4

% Gap 0.007 0.041 0.041 0.005 0.048 0.045 0.089 0.044 0.056


Demand Response

Response by Purpose



(Other) and employer’s business trips (EB) are shown in Table 7.3 below and the difference

between the Preferred Scheme and Without Intervention scheme is shown in Table 7.4.

The Preferred Scheme has the effect of decreasing car and bus use in the morning peak and

inter-peak but increasing rapid transit and park and ride use. In the evening peak there is an

increase in car demand but also an increase in rapid transit use. Overall, there is a shift in

demand towards the evening peak period.



Table 7.3 – Preferred Scheme Person Trips by Mode and Purpose for Each Time Period

Mode Purpose Total

Other EB HBW

2016 2031 2016 2031 2016 2031 2016 2031

Morning Peak

Car 50,220 56,517 17,299 20,112 86,447 98,529 153,965 175,159

Bus 5,153 5,505 526 567 8,472 8,849 14,151 14,921

BRT 86 115 19 25 145 199 251 339

Rail 2,036 2,522 679 835 3,993 4,840 6,707 8,198

P&R 300 311 2 2 1,099 1,188 1,401 1,502

Total 57,795 64,971 18,525 21,542 100,156 113,606 176,475 200,119

Inter-Peak

Car 94,779 115,390 21,858 27,034 18,518 22,245 135,155 164,669

Bus 7,364 8,079 255 279 2,496 2,642 10,116 10,999

BRT 91 119 8 11 28 36 126 166

Rail 1,094 1,346 269 323 485 585 1,847 2,254

P&R 462 555 1 1 117 134 580 691

Total 103,789 125,488 22,392 27,647 21,643 25,643 147,825 178,778

Evening Peak

Car 100,976 116,524 8,244 9,798 61,623 71,382 170,843 197,705

Bus 6,098 6,629 190 217 5,994 6,290 12,281 13,135

BRT 119 153 4 6 111 141 234 300

Rail 2,778 3,400 273 333 3,344 4,059 6,395 7,792

P&R 137 162 0 0 671 734 808 897

Total 110,108 126,869 8,711 10,354 71,743 82,606 190,562 219,829




Table 7.4 – Difference Between Preferred Scheme and Without Intervention Scheme Person Trips by

Mode and Purpose for Each Time Period

Mode Purpose Total

Other EB HBW

2016 2031 2016 2031 2016 2031 2016 2031

Morning Peak

Car -25 -74 -1 -7 -11 13 -38 -68

Bus -16 -36 -3 -5 -31 -72 -49 -113

BRT 15 27 5 7 18 41 39 75

Rail 7 5 -1 -3 9 10 14 13

P&R 13 6 0 0 42 33 54 39

Total -7 -72 0 -7 27 26 20 -53

Inter-Peak

Car -58 -85 -4 -4 -10 -6 -72 -95

Bus -10 -21 -3 -4 -6 -10 -18 -36

BRT 16 22 3 5 4 5 22 32

Rail -11 -13 -2 -2 -1 -2 -15 -16

P&R 10 11 0 0 4 3 14 15

Total -55 -87 -5 -5 -10 -9 -69 -101

Evening Peak

Car 166 340 9 16 -15 4 160 360

Bus -9 -23 0 -1 -26 -44 -36 -69

BRT 15 25 1 2 19 25 35 53

Rail -8 -18 -1 -1 6 6 -4 -14

P&R 4 3 0 0 24 21 27 24

Total 168 328 8 15 8 11 184 354

Source: Atkins Demand Model Run – BSB1052 – BSB0052


7.5 for 2009, 2016 and 2031. There is no notable change in city-wide mode share compared with

the Without Intervention Case.



Table 7.5 – Preferred Scheme Mode Split 2009, 2016, 2031 for Preferred Scheme

Mode AM IP PM

2009 2016 2031 2009 2016 2031 2009 2016 2031

Car 89% 87% 88% 92% 91% 92% 90% 90% 90%

Bus 7% 8% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6%

BRT 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Rail 3% 4% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 4%

P&R 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


Response by Location

7.6 The demand by mode has been sectored using the sector system shown in Figure 6.1. This

system splits the modelled area into the following five sectors:

Within Bristol Central Cordon

Within Bristol Inner Cordon

Within Bristol Outer Cordon

Rest of Greater Bristol sub-region; and

Rest of UK

7.7 Demand by mode and time period for each sector to sector movement is shown in Appendix C.

Highway Network Performance 7.8 The overall network performance for the whole of the G-BATS3 modelled area is summarised in


Total Distance Travelled (pcu kilometres)

Total Travel Time (pcu hours);

Total Delay (pcu hours)); and

Average Network Speed (km/hr).

7.9 The changes in these statistics against the Without Intervention Case are shown in Figures 7.2 to

7.5 respectively for Bristol Urban Area (sectors 1-3).

7.10 The Preferred Scheme gives significant reductions in total vehicle delay, particularly in the

evening peak where delays across the whole urban area are cut by over 2%. This feeds through

to reductions in travel time and increases in average network speeds of approximately 0.6% in the

morning peak and over 1% in the evening peak by 2031. There is a small increase in the total

distance travelled.



Figure 7.2 – G-BATS3 SBL Preferred Scheme Change in Highway Distance Travelled (pcu km)

0.00%

0.05%

0.10%

0.15%

0.20%

0.25%

AM IP PM

2016

2031


Figure 7.3 – G-BATS3 SBL Preferred Scheme Change in Highway Travel Time (pcu hrs)

-1.4%

-1.2%

-1.0%

-0.8%

-0.6%

-0.4%

-0.2%

0.0%

AM IP PM

2016

2031


Figure 7.4 – G-BATS3 SBL Preferred Scheme Change in Average Highway Network Speed (kph)

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.4%

1.6%

AM IP PM

2016

2031




Figure 7.5 – G-BATS3 SBL Preferred Scheme Change in Highway Delay

-3.0%

-2.5%

-2.0%

-1.5%

-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

AM IP PM

2016

2031


7.11 Changes in flow as a result of the SBL are shown in Figures 7.6 for the morning peak in 2031, as

a means of showing the most significant changes. It can be seen that the SBL attracts local traffic

from the Bedminster Down and Headley Park area.

Figure 7.6 – Morning Peak Hour Changes in Flow as a Result of SBL Preferred Scheme in 2031

Source: Atkins SBL HAM Model Run BATS3_31BSB1052A - BATS3_31BSB0052A

7.12 The differences in AADT flows on key links between the Base Year, Without-Intervention Case

and the Preferred Scheme are shown in Figure 7.7 and 7.8 for 2016 and 2031 respectively..



Figure 7.7 –AADT Flows (Base Year, Without-Intervention Case and Preferred Scheme) 2016

Source: Atkins SBL HAM Model Runs: BATS3_09, BATS3_16BSB0052, BATS3_16BSB1052



Figure 7.8 –AADT Flows (Base Year, Without-Intervention Case and Preferred Scheme) 2031




Public Transport Model Performance 7.13 The overall public transport network performance for the whole of the G-BATS3 modelled area is

summarised in Figures 7.9 to 7.11 respectively for Bristol Urban Area (sectors 1-3). There are

small increases in passenger hours and passenger distance travelled across the network

compared with the Without Intervention Case. Boardings decrease slightly in 2031, but this is

mainly due to a reduction in the average number of interchanges. The total public transport

demand (including park and ride) is almost unchanged in 2031.

Figure 7.9 – G-BATS3 SBL Preferred Scheme Changes in Passenger Hours

0.0%

0.1%

0.1%

0.2%

0.2%

0.3%

0.3%

0.4%

0.4%

0.5%

AM IP PM

2016

2031


Figure 7.10 – G-BATS3 SBL Preferred Scheme Changes in Passenger Distance

0.0%

0.1%

0.1%

0.2%

0.2%

0.3%

0.3%

0.4%

0.4%

0.5%

AM IP PM

2016

2031




Figure 7.11 – G-BATS3 SBL Preferred Scheme Changes in Passenger Boardings

-0.8%

-0.6%

-0.4%

-0.2%

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

AM IP PM

2016

2031


7.14 The profile of boardings and alightings for the SBL Rapid Transit is shown in Figures 7.12 to 7.17

for each time period in 2016 and 2031.

7.15 There are a total of 79 passengers boarding the SBL Rapid Transit service on the new section

between Hengrove Park and the Long Ashton park and ride site in the morning peak hour in 2016,

rising to 130 by 2031.




-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

He

ngr

ove

Par

k

Imp

eri

al P

ark

Sou

th

Har

ecl

ive

Ro

ad

Qu

ee

ns

Ro

ad

Hig

hri

dge

Co

mm

on

Cas

tle

Far

m

Bro

okg

ate

Ash

ton

Val

e P

&R

Silb

ury

Ro

ad

Ash

ton

Gat

e

Spik

e I

slan

d

Mu

seu

m o

f B

rist

ol

Arn

olf

ini

Tem

ple

Me

ads

Cab

ot

Cir

cus

Bro

adm

ead

The

Ce

ntr

e

Arn

olf

ini

Mu

seu

m o

f B

rist

ol

Spik

e I

slan

d

Ash

ton

Gat

e

Silb

ury

Ro

ad

Ash

ton

Val

e P

&R

Bro

okg

ate

Cas

tle

Far

m

Hig

hri

dge

Co

mm

on

Qu

ee

ns

Ro

ad

Har

ecl

ive

Ro

ad

Imp

eri

al P

ark

Sou

th

He

ngr

ove

Par

k

RT Volume

SBL Alight

SBL Board




Figure 7.13 – G-BATS3 SBL – Preferred Scheme IP one directional Boarding & Alighting Profile 2016

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

He

ngr

ove

Par

k

Imp

eri

al P

ark

Sou

th

Har

ecl

ive

Ro

ad

Qu

ee

ns

Ro

ad

Hig

hri

dge

Co

mm

on

Cas

tle

Far

m

Bro

okg

ate

Ash

ton

Val

e P

&R

Silb

ury

Ro

ad

Ash

ton

Gat

e

Spik

e I

slan

d

Mu

seu

m o

f B

rist

ol

Arn

olf

ini

Tem

ple

Me

ads

Cab

ot

Cir

cus

Bro

adm

ead

The

Ce

ntr

e

Arn

olf

ini

Mu

seu

m o

f B

rist

ol

Spik

e I

slan

d

Ash

ton

Gat

e

Silb

ury

Ro

ad

Ash

ton

Val

e P

&R

Bro

okg

ate

Cas

tle

Far

m

Hig

hri

dge

Co

mm

on

Qu

ee

ns

Ro

ad

Har

ecl

ive

Ro

ad

Imp

eri

al P

ark

Sou

th

He

ngr

ove

Par

k

RT Volume

SBL Alight

SBL Board




Figure 7.14 – G-BATS3 SBL – Preferred Scheme PM peak one directional Boarding & Alighting Profile 2016





-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

He

ngr

ove

Par

k

Imp

eri

al P

ark

Sou

th

Har

ecl

ive

Ro

ad

Qu

ee

ns

Ro

ad

Hig

hri

dge

Co

mm

on

Cas

tle

Far

m

Bro

okg

ate

Ash

ton

Val

e P

&R

Silb

ury

Ro

ad

Ash

ton

Gat

e

Spik

e I

slan

d

Mu

seu

m o

f B

rist

ol

Arn

olf

ini

Tem

ple

Me

ads

Cab

ot

Cir

cus

Bro

adm

ead

The

Ce

ntr

e

Arn

olf

ini

Mu

seu

m o

f B

rist

ol

Spik

e I

slan

d

Ash

ton

Gat

e

Silb

ury

Ro

ad

Ash

ton

Val

e P

&R

Bro

okg

ate

Cas

tle

Far

m

Hig

hri

dge

Co

mm

on

Qu

ee

ns

Ro

ad

Har

ecl

ive

Ro

ad

Imp

eri

al P

ark

Sou

th

He

ngr

ove

Par

k

RT Volume

SBL Alight

SBL Board




Figure 7.16 – G-BATS3 SBL – Preferred Scheme IP one directional Boarding & Alighting Profile 2031

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

He

ngr

ove

Par

k

Imp

eri

al P

ark

Sou

th

Har

ecl

ive

Ro

ad

Qu

ee

ns

Ro

ad

Hig

hri

dge

Co

mm

on

Cas

tle

Far

m

Bro

okg

ate

Ash

ton

Val

e P

&R

Silb

ury

Ro

ad

Ash

ton

Gat

e

Spik

e I

slan

d

Mu

seu

m o

f B

rist

ol

Arn

olf

ini

Tem

ple

Me

ads

Cab

ot

Cir

cus

Bro

adm

ead

The

Ce

ntr

e

Arn

olf

ini

Mu

seu

m o

f B

rist

ol

Spik

e I

slan

d

Ash

ton

Gat

e

Silb

ury

Ro

ad

Ash

ton

Val

e P

&R

Bro

okg

ate

Cas

tle

Far

m

Hig

hri

dge

Co

mm

on

Qu

ee

ns

Ro

ad

Har

ecl

ive

Ro

ad

Imp

eri

al P

ark

Sou

th

He

ngr

ove

Par

k

RT Volume

SBL Alight

SBL Board




Figure 7.17 – G-BATS3 SBL – Preferred Scheme PM peak one directional Boarding & Alighting Profile 2031

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

He

ngr

ove

Par

k

Imp

eri

al P

ark

Sou

th

Har

ecl

ive

Ro

ad

Qu

ee

ns

Ro

ad

Hig

hri

dge

Co

mm

on

Cas

tle

Far

m

Bro

okg

ate

Ash

ton

Val

e P

&R

Silb

ury

Ro

ad

Ash

ton

Gat

e

Spik

e I

slan

d

Mu

seu

m o

f B

rist

ol

Arn

olf

ini

Tem

ple

Me

ads

Cab

ot

Cir

cus

Bro

adm

ead

The

Ce

ntr

e

Arn

olf

ini

Mu

seu

m o

f B

rist

ol

Spik

e I

slan

d

Ash

ton

Gat

e

Silb

ury

Ro

ad

Ash

ton

Val

e P

&R

Bro

okg

ate

Cas

tle

Far

m

Hig

hri

dge

Co

mm

on

Qu

ee

ns

Ro

ad

Har

ecl

ive

Ro

ad

Imp

eri

al P

ark

Sou

th

He

ngr

ove

Par

k

RT Volume

SBL Alight

SBL Board




Economic Performance 7.16 The TEE Table for the SBL Preferred Scheme is shown in Table 7.6. The BCR is 5.8. Highway

benefits represent the vast majority of total benefits.

7.17 Sectored highway benefits are shown in Appendix D.



Table 7.6 - SBL Preferred Scheme TEE Table

Economy:Economic Efficiency of the Transport System(TEE)

Consumers ALL MODES Road Bus Rail

User benefits TOTAL

Travel Time 167629 150746 16102 782

Vehicle operating costs 7423 7423 0 0

User charges -429 0 0 -429

During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 0 0

NET CONSUMER BENEFITS 174623 158169 16102 352

Business

User benefits Personal Freight Personal Freight Personal Freight

Travel Time 185697 119140 63882 2198 0 477 0

Vehicle operating costs 12571 4909 7662 0 0 0 0

User charges 169 0 0 0 0 169 0

During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 198437 124049 71544 2198 0 646 0

Private Sector Provider Impacts

Revenue 1044 0 2582 -1538

Operating costs -6883 0 -6883 0

Investment costs 0 0 0 0

Grant/subsidy 0 0 0 0

Subtotal -5839 0 -4301 -1538

Other business Impacts

Developer contributions 0 0 0 0

NET BUSINESS IMPACT 192598

TOTAL

Present Value of Transport Economic

Efficiency Benefits (PVB) 367221

Note: Benefits appear as positive numbers, while costs appear as negative numbers.

Note: All entries are present values discounted to 2002, in 2002 prices

Public Accounts ALL MODES Road Bus Rail

TOTAL

Local Government Funding

Revenue 0 0 0 0

Operating costs 9733 9733 0 0


Developer Contributions 0 0 0 0

Grant/Subsidy Payments 0 0 0 0

NET IMPACT 16265 16265 0 0

Central Government Funding

Revenue 0 0 0 0





Indirect Tax Revenues 3629 3472 422 -265

NET IMPACT 43372 43215 422 -265

TOTAL

TOTAL Present Value of Costs (PVC) 59637

Note: Costs appear as positive numbers, while revenues and developer contributions appear as negative numbers.


Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits

Non-Exchequer Impacts

Consumer User Benefits 174623

Business User Benefits 198437

Private Sector Provider Impacts -5839

Other Business Impacts 0

Accident Benefits Not assessed by TUBA-21900

Carbon Benefits 518

Net present Value of Benefits (PVB) 345839

Local Government Funding 16265

Central Government Funding 43372

Net present Value Costs (PVC) 59637

Overall Impact

Net present Value (NPV) 286202

Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 5.80

Appraisal Period 2012 to 2071

Note: There may also be other significant costs and benefits, some of which cannot be presented in monetised

form. Where this is the case, the analysis presented above does NOT provide a good measure of value for money

and should not be used as the sole basis for decisions.



8. Lower Cost Option Results 8.1 The key difference between the Lower Cost Option and the Preferred Scheme is that the rapid

transit shares the highway link for its full route, rather than having a dedicated rapid transit only

access to Long Aston Park and Ride site.

8.2 The scheme is shown in Figure 8.1 and comprises:

Combined highway/ Rapid Transit link from the Long Ashton park and ride site to the A38,

with a segregated Rapid Transit route adjacent to the highway lanes;

Combined highway/ Rapid Transit link from the A38 to Hartcliffe roundabout, with segregated


Rapid Transit Line 2 extended from Long Ashton park and ride site to a new terminus at the

South Bristol Hospital to be built in Hengrove Park.

Figure 8.1 – South Bristol Link Lower Cost Option

8.3 The key indicators for option performance are:

model convergence;

demand response;



Model Convergence 8.4 Model convergence is an indicator of the stability of the model. Convergence is measured by the

% Gap between supply and demand curves with the demand model. Perfectly converged models

would have a % Gap of zero and the guidance recommends values of less that 0.2%.



8.5 The demand model convergence is shown in Table 8.1 and it can be seen that suitable

convergence is reached in 23 loops in 2016 and a convergence below 0.2 in 29 loops in 2031.

Highway model convergence is shown in Table 8.2. The nature of the public transport model

assignment (i.e. without capacity restraint) means that very high levels of convergence are always

reached.

Table 8.1 – G-BATS3 SBL Lower Cost Option Demand Model Convergence Results

Criteria 2016 (24 hr) 2031 (24 hr)


% Gap 0.0907 0.1362


Table 8.2 – G-BATS3 SBL Lower Cost Option Highway Model Convergence Results


2009 2016 2031 2009 2016 2031 2009 2016 2031


% flows differing by<5% 99 100 100 98.9 99.4 100 99.2 100 99.3

% Gap 0.007 0.044 0.048 0.005 0.042 0.047 0.089 0.048 0.092


Demand Response

Response by Purpose



(Other) and employer’s business trips (EB) are shown in Table 8.3 below for the Low Cost Option.

The difference between the Low Cost Option and the Without Intervention case is shown in Table

8.4.

8.7 The Lower Cost Option results in a reduction in Rapid Transit passengers across the day

compared with the Preferred Scheme, but a corresponding increase in bus passengers. The

number of car trips is slightly higher in the morning peak compared with the Preferred Scheme.


8.5 for 2009, 2016 and 2031. There is no notable change in city-wide mode share compared with

the Without Intervention Case or Preferred Scheme.



Table 8.3 – Lower Cost Option Person Trips by Mode and Purpose for Each Time Period

Mode Purpose Total

Other EB HBW

2016 2031 2016 2031 2016 2031 2016 2031

Morning Peak

Car 50,224 56,528 17,301 20,113 86,450 98,537 153,975 175,178

Bus 5,158 5,513 526 568 8,478 8,867 14,162 14,948

BRT 81 104 18 24 139 178 239 306

Rail 2,035 2,523 679 835 3,992 4,840 6,706 8,199

P&R 301 311 2 2 1,100 1,186 1,403 1,500

Total 57,799 64,979 18,526 21,542 100,158 113,609 176,484 200,130

Inter-Peak

Car 94,776 115,393 21,858 27,034 18,517 22,245 135,151 164,672

Bus 7,367 8,086 256 280 2,497 2,644 10,121 11,009

BRT 86 111 7 9 27 34 119 154

Rail 1,094 1,346 269 323 485 585 1,848 2,254

P&R 463 555 1 1 117 134 580 691

Total 103,786 125,490 22,392 27,647 21,642 25,642 147,819 178,780

Evening Peak

Car 100,977 116,514 8,243 9,798 61,625 71,386 170,845 197,698

Bus 6,104 6,639 190 217 6,000 6,302 12,294 13,158

BRT 112 140 4 5 104 128 219 273

Rail 2,778 3,400 273 333 3,343 4,059 6,394 7,791

P&R 137 162 0 0 672 733 809 896

Total 110,107 126,855 8,711 10,354 71,743 82,607 190,561 219,815




Table 8.4 – Difference between Lower Cost Option and Without Intervention Person Trips by Mode

and Purpose for Each Time Period

Mode Purpose Total

Other EB HBW

2016 2031 2016 2031 2016 2031 2016 2031

Morning Peak

Car -21 -63 1 -6 -8 21 -28 -49

Bus -11 -28 -3 -4 -25 -54 -38 -86

BRT 10 16 4 6 12 20 27 42

Rail 6 6 -1 -3 8 10 13 14

P&R 14 6 0 0 43 31 56 37

Total -3 -64 1 -7 29 29 29 -42

Inter-Peak

Car -61 -82 -4 -4 -11 -6 -76 -92

Bus -7 -14 -2 -3 -5 -8 -13 -26

BRT 11 14 2 3 3 3 15 20

Rail -11 -13 -2 -2 -1 -2 -14 -16

P&R 11 11 0 0 4 3 14 15

Total -58 -85 -5 -5 -11 -10 -75 -99

Evening Peak

Car 167 330 8 16 -13 8 162 353

Bus -3 -13 0 -1 -20 -32 -23 -46

BRT 8 12 1 1 12 12 20 26

Rail -8 -18 -1 -1 5 6 -5 -15

P&R 4 3 0 0 25 20 28 23

Total 167 314 8 15 8 12 183 340 Source: Atkins Demand Model Run – BSB2052 – BSB0052

Table 8.5 – Lower Cost Option Mode Split 2009, 2016, 2031 for Low Cost Option

Mode AM IP PM

2009 2016 2031 2009 2016 2031 2009 2016 2031

Car 89% 87% 88% 92% 91% 92% 90% 90% 90%

Bus 7% 8% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6%

BRT 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Rail 3% 4% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 4%

P&R 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%




Highway Network Performance 8.9 The changes in the key statistics against the Without Intervention Case are shown in Figures 8.2

to 8.5 respectively for Bristol Urban Area (sectors 1-3). The results are much like the Preferred

Scheme, with a reduction in delays across the urban area and increases in average network

speed,, especially in the evening peak.

Figure 8.2 – G-BATS3 SBL Lower Cost Option Change in Total Highway Distance Travelled

0.00%

0.05%

0.10%

0.15%

0.20%

0.25%

AM IP PM

2016

2031


Figure 8.3 – G-BATS3 SBL Lower Cost Option Case Change in Total Highway Travel Time

-1.4%

-1.2%

-1.0%

-0.8%

-0.6%

-0.4%

-0.2%

0.0%

AM IP PM

Series1

Series2




Figure 8.4 – G-BATS3 SBL Lower Cost Option Case Change in Average Highway Network Speed

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.4%

1.6%

AM IP PM

2016

2031


Figure 8.5 – G-BATS3 SBL Lower Cost Option Case Change in Total Highway Delay

-3.5%

-3.0%

-2.5%

-2.0%

-1.5%

-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

AM IP PM

2016

2031


8.10 Network-wide changes in flow as a result of the SBL are shown in Figures 8.6 for the morning

peak.



Figure 8.6 – Morning Peak Hour Changes in Flow as a Result of Lower Cost Option SBL in 2031

Source: Atkins SBL HAM Model Run BATS3_31BSB2052A

8.11 The differences in AADT flows on key links between the Base Year, Without-Intervention Case

and the Preferred Scheme are shown in Figure 8.7 and Figure 8.8 for 2016 and 2031 respectively.

.



Figure 8.7 –AADT Flows (Base Year, Without-Intervention Case and Lower Cost Option) 2016




Figure 8.8 –AADT Flows (Base Year, Without-Intervention Case and Lower Cost Option) 2031




Public Transport Model Performance 8.12 The overall public transport network performance is shown in Figures 8.9 to 8.11 respectively for

Bristol Urban Area (sectors 1-3). There are small increases in passenger hours and passenger

distance travelled across the network, although increases in passenger distance are less

significant than for the Preferred Scheme. As in the Preferred Scheme, boardings slightly

decrease in 2031, mainly as a result of a reduction in the average number of interchanges.

Figure 8.9 – G-BATS3 SBL – Changes in Lower Cost Option Passenger Hours

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

AM IP PM

2016

2031


Figure 8.10 – G-BATS3 SBL – Changes in Lower Cost Option Passenger Distance

0.0%

0.1%

0.1%

0.2%

0.2%

0.3%

0.3%

0.4%

0.4%

AM IP PM

2016

2031




Figure 8.11 – G-BATS3 SBL – Changes in Lower Cost Option Passenger Boardings

-0.5%

-0.4%

-0.3%

-0.2%

-0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

AM IP PM

2016

2031


8.13 The boarding and alighting profile for the SBL Rapid Transit is shown in Figures 8.12 to 8.17 for

each time period in 2016 and 2031.

8.14 There are a total of 60 passengers boarding the SBL Rapid Transit service on the new section

between Hengrove Park and the Long Ashton park and ride site in the morning peak hour in 2016,

rising to 92 by 2031. This is a 24% reduction in boardings relative to the Preferred Scheme in

2016 and a 29% reduction in 2031, indicating that the less favourable routing for the SBL Rapid

Transit scheme has an impact on patronage.




-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

He

ngr

ove

Par

k

Imp

eri

al P

ark

Sou

th

Har

ecl

ive

Ro

ad

Qu

ee

ns

Ro

ad

Hig

hri

dge

Co

mm

on

Ash

ton

Val

e P

&R

Silb

ury

Ro

ad

Ash

ton

Gat

e

Spik

e I

slan

d

Mu

seu

m o

f B

rist

ol

Arn

olf

ini

Tem

ple

Me

ads

Cab

ot

Cir

cus

Bro

adm

ead

The

Ce

ntr

e

Arn

olf

ini

Mu

seu

m o

f B

rist

ol

Spik

e I

slan

d

Ash

ton

Gat

e

Silb

ury

Ro

ad

Ash

ton

Val

e P

&R

Hig

hri

dge

Co

mm

on

Qu

ee

ns

Ro

ad

Har

ecl

ive

Ro

ad

Imp

eri

al P

ark

Sou

th

He

ngr

ove

Par

k

RT Volume

SBL Alight

SBL Board




Figure 8.13 – G-BATS3 SBL – Low Cost Option IP one directional Boarding & Alighting Profile 2016

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

He

ngr

ove

Par

k

Imp

eri

al P

ark

Sou

th

Har

ecl

ive

Ro

ad

Qu

ee

ns

Ro

ad

Hig

hri

dge

Co

mm

on

Ash

ton

Val

e P

&R

Silb

ury

Ro

ad

Ash

ton

Gat

e

Spik

e I

slan

d

Mu

seu

m o

f B

rist

ol

Arn

olf

ini

Tem

ple

Me

ads

Cab

ot

Cir

cus

Bro

adm

ead

The

Ce

ntr

e

Arn

olf

ini

Mu

seu

m o

f B

rist

ol

Spik

e I

slan

d

Ash

ton

Gat

e

Silb

ury

Ro

ad

Ash

ton

Val

e P

&R

Hig

hri

dge

Co

mm

on

Qu

ee

ns

Ro

ad

Har

ecl

ive

Ro

ad

Imp

eri

al P

ark

Sou

th

He

ngr

ove

Par

k

RT Volume

SBL Alight

SBL Board





-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

He

ngr

ove

Par

k

Imp

eri

al P

ark

Sou

th

Har

ecl

ive

Ro

ad

Qu

ee

ns

Ro

ad

Hig

hri

dge

Co

mm

on

Ash

ton

Val

e P

&R

Silb

ury

Ro

ad

Ash

ton

Gat

e

Spik

e I

slan

d

Mu

seu

m o

f B

rist

ol

Arn

olf

ini

Tem

ple

Me

ads

Cab

ot

Cir

cus

Bro

adm

ead

The

Ce

ntr

e

Arn

olf

ini

Mu

seu

m o

f B

rist

ol

Spik

e I

slan

d

Ash

ton

Gat

e

Silb

ury

Ro

ad

Ash

ton

Val

e P

&R

Hig

hri

dge

Co

mm

on

Qu

ee

ns

Ro

ad

Har

ecl

ive

Ro

ad

Imp

eri

al P

ark

Sou

th

He

ngr

ove

Par

k

RT Volume

SBL Alight

SBL Board





-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

He

ngr

ove

Par

k

Imp

eri

al P

ark

Sou

th

Har

ecl

ive

Ro

ad

Qu

ee

ns

Ro

ad

Hig

hri

dge

Co

mm

on

Ash

ton

Val

e P

&R

Silb

ury

Ro

ad

Ash

ton

Gat

e

Spik

e I

slan

d

Mu

seu

m o

f B

rist

ol

Arn

olf

ini

Tem

ple

Me

ads

Cab

ot

Cir

cus

Bro

adm

ead

The

Ce

ntr

e

Arn

olf

ini

Mu

seu

m o

f B

rist

ol

Spik

e I

slan

d

Ash

ton

Gat

e

Silb

ury

Ro

ad

Ash

ton

Val

e P

&R

Hig

hri

dge

Co

mm

on

Qu

ee

ns

Ro

ad

Har

ecl

ive

Ro

ad

Imp

eri

al P

ark

Sou

th

He

ngr

ove

Par

k

RT Volume

SBL Alight

SBL Board




Figure 8.16 – G-BATS3 SBL – Low Cost Option IP one directional Boarding & Alighting Profile 2031

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

He

ngr

ove

Par

k

Imp

eri

al P

ark

Sou

th

Har

ecl

ive

Ro

ad

Qu

ee

ns

Ro

ad

Hig

hri

dge

Co

mm

on

Ash

ton

Val

e P

&R

Silb

ury

Ro

ad

Ash

ton

Gat

e

Spik

e I

slan

d

Mu

seu

m o

f B

rist

ol

Arn

olf

ini

Tem

ple

Me

ads

Cab

ot

Cir

cus

Bro

adm

ead

The

Ce

ntr

e

Arn

olf

ini

Mu

seu

m o

f B

rist

ol

Spik

e I

slan

d

Ash

ton

Gat

e

Silb

ury

Ro

ad

Ash

ton

Val

e P

&R

Hig

hri

dge

Co

mm

on

Qu

ee

ns

Ro

ad

Har

ecl

ive

Ro

ad

Imp

eri

al P

ark

Sou

th

He

ngr

ove

Par

k

RT Volume

SBL Alight

SBL Board





-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

He

ngr

ove

Par

k

Imp

eri

al P

ark

Sou

th

Har

ecl

ive

Ro

ad

Qu

ee

ns

Ro

ad

Hig

hri

dge

Co

mm

on

Ash

ton

Val

e P

&R

Silb

ury

Ro

ad

Ash

ton

Gat

e

Spik

e I

slan

d

Mu

seu

m o

f B

rist

ol

Arn

olf

ini

Tem

ple

Me

ads

Cab

ot

Cir

cus

Bro

adm

ead

The

Ce

ntr

e

Arn

olf

ini

Mu

seu

m o

f B

rist

ol

Spik

e I

slan

d

Ash

ton

Gat

e

Silb

ury

Ro

ad

Ash

ton

Val

e P

&R

Hig

hri

dge

Co

mm

on

Qu

ee

ns

Ro

ad

Har

ecl

ive

Ro

ad

Imp

eri

al P

ark

Sou

th

He

ngr

ove

Par

k

RT Volume

SBL Alight

SBL Board




Economic Performance 8.15 The TEE Table for the SBL Lower Cost Option is shown in Table 8.6. The BCR is 5.88, which is

marginally higher than the Preferred Scheme as the Lower Cost Option is little altered but the

costs are lower.

8.16 Sectored highway benefits are shown in Appendix D.



Table 8.6 - SBL Lower Cost Option TEE Table



User benefits TOTAL

Travel Time 161128 147033 14028 67





Business


Travel Time 179031 116556 61817 1411 0 -753 0


User charges -121 0 0 0 0 -121 0


Subtotal 190936 121294 69106 1411 0 -874 0


Revenue -105 0 1814 -1919




Subtotal -5095 0 -3176 -1919




TOTAL






TOTAL


Revenue 0 0 0 0





NET IMPACT 16862 16862 0 0


Revenue 0 0 0 0






NET IMPACT 39616 39649 298 -331

TOTAL











Carbon Benefits 460





Overall Impact









9. Sensitivity Tests

Introduction 9.1 This section describes the performance of a range of sensitivity tests undertaken as part of the

SBL MSBC. The following investigations and tests were undertaken:

Low Growth (without-intervention and with intervention)

Highway Model Sensitivity Tests

9.2 No public transport sensitivity tests have been undertaken at this stage. The benefits from public

transport are approximately 10% of the total benefits. As the public transport benefits are small

component of the total scheme benefits, any sensitivity tests will have a limited impact on total

benefits.

Low Growth Test Results The low growth test reflects uncertainty regarding economic growth and fuel prices and is based

upon a sensitivity test suggested in WebTAG (Unit 3.15.3) where reference case demand growth

is reduced by 2.5% per annum for car, 2.0% per annum for rail and 1.5% per annum for bus, rising

with the square root of the number of years. This is equivalent to a reduction in growth of:

4.0% (Bus), 5.3% (Rail) and 6.6% (Car) for 2016; and

corresponding values of 7.0%, 9.4% and 11.7% respectively for 2031.

Model Convergence

9.3 The demand model convergence is shown in Table 9.1 and Table 9.2 for Without-Intervention and

Preferred Scheme respectively and it can be seen that suitable convergence is reached in 2016

convergence is below 0.2 in 2031. Highway model convergence is shown in Table 9.3 and Table

9.4 for Without-Intervention and Preferred Scheme respectively. The nature of the public

transport model assignment (i.e. without capacity restraint) means that very high levels of

convergence are always reached.

Table 9.1 – G-BATS3 SBL Low Growth Without Intervention Demand Model Convergence Results

Criteria 2016 (24 hr) 2031 (24 hr)


% Gap 0.0921 0.159

Source: Atkins Demand Model Run – CSB0060

Table 9.2 – G-BATS3 SBL Low Growth Preferred Scheme Demand Model Convergence Results

Criteria 2016 (24 hr) 2031 (24 hr)


% Gap 0.0997 0.1254




Table 9.3 – G-BATS3 SBL Low Growth Without Intervention Highway Model Convergence Results


2009 2016 2031 2009 2016 2031 2009 2016 2031


% flows differing by<5% 99 99.9 100 98.9 99.2 99.9 99.2 100 99.2

% Gap 0.007 0.049 0.043 0.005 0.045 0.046 0.089 0.049 0.067

Source: Atkins SBL HAM Model Runs: BATS3_16CSB0060A, BATS3_16CSB0060I, BATS3_16CSB0060P

Table 9.4 – G-BATS3 SBL Low Growth Preferred Scheme Highway Model Convergence Results


2009 2016 2031 2009 2016 2031 2009 2016 2031


% flows differing by<5% 99 99.9 99.9 98.9 99.2 100 99.2 100 100

% Gap 0.007 0.043 0.044 0.005 0.042 0.036 0.089 0.049 0.081

Source: Atkins SBL HAM Model Runs: BATS3_16CSB1060A, BATS3_16CSB1060I, BATS3_16CSB1060P

Demand Response

Response by Purpose



(Other) and employer’s business trips (EB) are shown in Table 9.5 and Table 9.6 for Without-

Intervention and Preferred Scheme respectively below.



Table 9.5 – Person Trips by Mode and Purpose for Each Time Period (Low Growth Without

Intervention)

Mode Purpose Total

Other EB HBW

2016 2031 2016 2031 2016 2031 2016 2031

Morning Peak

Car 50,004 55,386 17,208 19,617 86,062 96,454 153,274 171,457

Bus 5,162 5,486 529 567 8,490 8,848 14,180 14,902

BRT 70 86 14 18 126 154 211 258

Rail 2,010 2,427 673 808 3,946 4,638 6,629 7,872

P&R 286 302 2 2 1,055 1,141 1,344 1,445

Total 57,533 63,687 18,425 21,012 99,679 111,236 175,637 195,934

Inter-Peak

Car 94,258 112,080 21,722 26,186 18,422 21,637 134,402 159,903

Bus 7,367 8,029 258 281 2,500 2,635 10,125 10,945

BRT 75 94 5 6 24 30 104 130

Rail 1,094 1,310 268 314 481 562 1,844 2,186

P&R 449 527 1 1 113 128 563 656

Total 103,244 122,040 22,253 26,788 21,540 24,993 147,036 173,821

Evening Peak

Car 100,330 113,620 8,190 9,522 61,334 69,735 169,853 192,877

Bus 6,093 6,583 190 215 6,012 6,287 12,295 13,085

BRT 104 125 3 4 92 113 198 242

Rail 2,759 3,291 271 322 3,306 3,888 6,336 7,502

P&R 133 154 0 0 645 704 778 858

Total 109,417 123,773 8,654 10,064 71,389 80,726 189,461 214,563




Table 9.6 – Person Trips by Mode and Purpose for Each Time Period (Low Growth With Intervention)

Mode Purpose Total

Other EB HBW

2016 2031 2016 2031 2016 2031 2016 2031

Morning Peak

Car 49,989 55,314 17,208 19,609 86,049 96,461 153,246 171,383

Bus 5,146 5,454 526 563 8,460 8,784 14,132 14,801

BRT 86 110 19 24 144 191 249 326

Rail 2,017 2,433 671 806 3,955 4,649 6,644 7,887

P&R 299 308 2 2 1,098 1,177 1,399 1,487

Total 57,536 63,619 18,427 21,004 99,706 111,262 175,669 195,885

Inter-Peak

Car 94,209 112,002 21,718 26,182 18,412 21,631 134,339 159,815

Bus 7,356 8,011 255 277 2,494 2,626 10,106 10,913

BRT 90 115 8 10 27 35 125 161

Rail 1,084 1,297 266 312 480 561 1,830 2,169

P&R 459 538 1 1 116 132 576 671

Total 103,197 121,962 22,249 26,783 21,530 24,984 146,976 173,729

Evening Peak

Car 100,468 113,932 8,196 9,538 61,318 69,734 169,983 193,205

Bus 6,085 6,561 189 214 5,987 6,247 12,261 13,023

BRT 118 146 4 6 110 136 232 287

Rail 2,751 3,275 270 321 3,311 3,894 6,333 7,490

P&R 136 158 0 0 670 726 806 884

Total 109,557 124,073 8,661 10,079 71,397 80,737 189,615 214,889


Highway Network Performance

9.5 The overall network performance for the whole of the G-BATS3 modelled area is summarised in


Total Distance Travelled (pcu kilometres) - the total distance travelled on the modelled

highway network multiplied by the number of passenger car units (pcu's);

Total Travel Time (pcu hours) - the total time travelled on the modelled highway network

including delays multiplied by the number of passenger car units (pcu's);

Average Network Speed (km/hr) - the average speed is the total distance travelled divided by

the total travel time; and

Total Delay (pcu hours) - total delay is taken as the difference between congested and free

flow travel time on the modelled highway network in hours multiplied by the number of

passenger car units (pcu’s).

9.6 These are shown in Table 9.7 for 2016 and 9.8 for 2031 for Bristol Urban Area (sectors 1-3).



Table 9.7 – Low Growth Highway Network Performance (2016)

Without Intervention Preferred Scheme Difference

AM IP PM AM IP PM AM IP PM

Travel Distance

1386063 1112248 1278223 1387763 1113968 1280123 0.1% 0.2% 0.1%

Travel Time

35995 24163 32020 36003 24030 31685 0.0% -0.6% -1.0%

Average Speed

39 46 40 39 46 40 0.1% 0.7% 1.2%

Total Delay

15887 8227 13328 15890 8087 12994 0.0% -1.7% -2.5%

Source: Atkins Model Runs – CSB0060 and CSB1060

Table 9.8 – Low Growth Highway Network Performance (2031)



Travel Distance

1671001 1395274 1564312 1673635 1398340 1566167 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%

Travel Time

56217 34467 48379 56024 34217 47709 -0.3% -0.7% -1.4%

Average Speed

30 40 32 30 41 33 0.5% 1.0% 1.5%

Total Delay

31985 14440 25565 31782 14177 24889 -0.6% -1.8% -2.6%

Source: Atkins Model Runs – CSB0060 and CSB1060

9.7 AADT Flows are shown in Figure 9.1 and Figure 9.2 for 2016 and 2031 respectively.



Figure 9.1 –AADT Flows (Base Year, Without-Intervention Case and Low Growth) 2016

Source: Atkins SBL HAM Model Runs: BATS3_09, BATS3_16CSB0052, BATS3_16CSB1052



Figure 9.2 –AADT Flows (Base Year, Without-Intervention Case and Low Growth) 2016

Source: Atkins SBL HAM Model Runs: BATS3_09, BATS3_32CSB0052, BATS3_32CSB1052



Public Transport Model Performance

9.8 The overall public transport network performance for the whole of the G-BATS3 modelled area is

summarised in terms of the following:

Total Travel Time (passenger hours) - the total time travelled on the modelled public transport

network time;

Total Distance Travelled (passenger kilometres) - the total distance travelled on the modelled

public transport network multiplied by the number of passengers;

Passenger boardings – the number of public transport boardings.

9.9 These are shown in Table 9.9 for 2016 and Table 9.10 for 2031 for Bristol Urban Area (sectors 1-

3).

Table 9.9 – Low Growth Public Transport Network Performance (2016)



Travel Distance

11536 5692 10356 11579 5704 10398 0.4% 0.2% 0.4%

Travel Time

527184 223511 513584 529203 224063 515356 0.4% 0.2% 0.3%

Boarding 30617 16119 25622 30775 16135 25705 0.5% 0.1% 0.3%

Source: Atkins Demand Model Runs – CSB0060 and CSB1060

Table 9.10 – Low Growth Public Transport Network Performance (2031)



Travel Distance

13125 6564 11841 13160 6572 11887 0.3% 0.1% 0.4%

Travel Time

580396 249517 564726 582053 250037 565875 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%

Boarding 33468 17752 28404 33643 17763 28406 0.5% 0.1% 0.0%

Source: Atkins Demand Model Runs – CSB0060 and CSB1060

Economic Performance

9.10 The TEE Table for the SBL Low Growth sensitivity test is shown in Table 9.11. The share of

benefits between highway and public transport is consistent with the Preferred Scheme test. The

BCR of this test is slightly lower than Preferred Scheme test, suggesting that a High Growth Test

would result in a slightly higher BCR.



Table 9.11 - SBL Low Growth Option TEE Table



User benefits TOTAL

Travel Time 164238 149750 13726 762





Business


Travel Time 180280 115399 62821 1606 0 454 0


User charges 241 0 0 0 0 241 0


Subtotal 192104 119854 69949 1606 0 695 0


Revenue 1160 0 2863 -1703




Subtotal -5723 0 -4020 -1703




TOTAL






TOTAL


Revenue 0 0 0 0





NET IMPACT 16265 16265 0 0


Revenue 0 0 0 0






NET IMPACT 43491 43275 505 -289

TOTAL











Carbon Benefits 527





Overall Impact









Highway Sensitivity Tests

Origin and Destination of SBL Traffic

9.11 To demonstrate the fitness of purpose of the Base Year model for testing the SBL scheme, we

have undertaken an analysis of the traffic using the SBL. The test used the SATRAP function of

SATURN to assign selected matrices to the paths of from a particular assignment. The aim of the

test is to determine the proportion of traffic that comes from observed and estimated sources. In

this case, the test assigns the following base year matrices to the 2016 AM peak paths:

Pre-RSI trip matrix

RSI trip matrix

Matrix estimated (ME2) trip matrix

9.12 The results of the test demonstrate the provenance of the trips using the SBL (Table 9.12 and

9.13). The analysis shows that in the eastbound direction approximately 5% of trips would come

from the pre-RSI matrix, almost 75% of trips would come from the RSI matrix and 20% would

come from matrix estimation. In the westbound direction approximately 25% of trips would come

from the pre-RSI matrix, almost 60% of trips would come from the RSI matrix and 15% would

come from matrix estimation.

9.13 From this analysis we conclude that the source of data for the majority of trips using the SBL is

observed data.

Table 9.12 – Source of Trips on SBL (Eastbound)

Direction %Original %RSI %ME2 Total

Long Ashton

Hengrove

7% 71% 22% 100%

7% 71% 22% 100%

10% 68% 22% 100%

12% 65% 23% 100%

10% 68% 22% 100%

4% 73% 23% 100%

6% 72% 22% 100%

2% 77% 21% 100%

2% 77% 21% 100%

7% 79% 14% 100%

5% 82% 13% 100%



Table 9.13 – Source of Trips on SBL (Westbound)

Direction %Original %RSI %ME2 Total

Hengrove

Long Ashton

29% 60% 11% 100%

29% 60% 11% 100%

31% 60% 10% 100%

29% 59% 12% 100%

27% 58% 15% 100%

16% 63% 20% 100%

21% 58% 21% 100%

35% 53% 13% 100%

35% 53% 13% 100%

27% 52% 21% 100%

23% 58% 19% 100%

Highway Network Speed Sensitivity Test

9.14 This sensitivity test was undertaken to determine some of the uncertainty regarding the highway

model validation. The test makes adjustments to the highway network speeds to reflect the

variation in model and observed journey times. The test undertaken increased the highway

network speeds to reflect the greatest differences between modelled and observed journey times.

The adjustments are shown in Table 9.13.

Table 9.14 – Highway Network Speed Adjustments

Time Period Greatest difference between modelled and observed journey

times

Factors to reduce link journey time

AM -23% 0.3

IP -16% 0.19

PM -9% 0.16

9.15 Changes were made to the Without-Intervention Case and the Preferred Scheme.

Economic Performance

9.16 The TEE Table for the highway network speed sensitivity test is shown in Table 9.14. It shows

very little difference between in BCR between this test and the Preferred Scheme. As such,

changes to the highway model, reflecting concerns over validation have little effect on the results.



Table 9.15 - Highway Network Speed Sensitivity Test



User benefits TOTAL

Travel Time 171619 150633 13104 7881


User charges -4334 0 0 -4334



Business


Travel Time 182765 118218 64321 1594 0 -1368 0


User charges -389 0 0 0 0 -389 0


Subtotal 194955 123075 72043 1594 0 -1758 0


Revenue 5213 0 1233 3980




Subtotal -1670 0 -5650 3980




TOTAL






TOTAL


Revenue 0 0 0 0





NET IMPACT 16265 16265 0 0


Revenue 0 0 0 0





Indirect Tax Revenues 3819 2928 203 688

NET IMPACT 43562 2678 206 430

TOTAL










Accident Benefits -21900

Carbon Benefits 437





Overall Impact









10. Conclusion

Forecasting Approach 10.1 A suite of three models termed the Greater Bristol Modelling Framework (GBMF) covers the

WoE’s main urban areas All three models have been developed in accordance with the

requirements for appropriate Variable Demand Modelling (TAG Unit 3.10), Modelling Public

Transport Schemes (TAG Unit 3.11) and Modelling Road Pricing (TAG Unit 3.12). The overall

structure of the G-BATS3 model is shown below (Figure 2.2).

Scheme Performance 10.2 The Preferred Scheme and Low Cost Option both have robust benefit cost ratios. The schemes

generate significant highway benefits and some public transport benefits.

10.3 Sensitivity tests have confirmed that a lower growth land use scenario would also yield significant

benefits and the investment in the scheme would still be justified.

10.4 Sensitivity tests on the highway model, the source of most of the benefits, confirm that the

modelling tools have provided robust answers.



Appendix A

Trip Rates



A.1.1 Following the process set out above the trip rates generated using TRCIS2008 are presented

below in for land uses: retail; residential; and employment sub-categories B1, B2, B8.

A.1.2 Further to this, Table A1 and Table A2 respectively detail highway and public transport trip rates

for ‘other employment’. This is in response to some developments in the WEPO planning data that

are detailed per employee instead of by GFA, and therefore required trip rates per employee

instead of per 100 sq m. In addition these employment developments were not sub-categorised as

either B1; B2; or B8 and therefore the trip rates calculated were an average of these three sub-

LUs.

Table A.1 - Highway Residential Trip Rates (per household)

Time Period Model TRICS Productions Attractions Total

AM

Peak

City Centre Edge of Town Centre 0.497 0.207 0.704

Suburban Suburban 0.652 0.227 0.879

Rural Edge of Town 0.768 0.171 0.939

Inter

Peak




PM

Peak




Daily Rate






Table A.2 - Public Transport Residential Trip Rates (per household)


AM

Peak




Inter

Peak




PM

Peak




Daily Rate




Table A.3 - Highway Trips for Other Employment (per employee)


AM

Peak




Inter

Peak




PM

Peak




Daily Rate




Table A.4 - Public Transport Trips for Other Employment (per employee)


AM

Peak




Inter

Peak




PM

Peak




Daily Rate






Table A.5 - Highway Trip Rates for Retail and Employment Developments (per 100 sq m)

Time

Period Model TRICS

Productions Attractions Total

Retail Employment

B1 B2 B8

Retail Employment

B1 B2 B8

Retail Employment

B1 B2 B8

AM

Peak

City Centre

Edge of Town Centre

1.911 0.116 0.046 0.007 3.621 1.129 0.213 0.015 5.532 1.245 0.259 0.022

Suburban Suburban 2.437 0.129 0.215 0.055 4.117 1.299 0.341 0.128 6.554 1.429 0.556 0.182

Rural Edge of Town 2.601 0.189 0.185 0.089 4.310 1.780 0.451 0.145 6.911 1.969 0.637 0.234

Inter

Peak

City Centre

Edge of Town Centre

7.903 0.434 0.077 0.024 8.075 0.420 0.067 0.019 15.978 0.854 0.145 0.042



PM

Peak

City Centre

Edge of Town Centre

8.870 0.783 0.216 0.007 6.986 0.214 0.029 0.000 15.857 0.997 0.245 0.007



Daily Rate

City Centre

Edge of Town Centre

86.203 4.866 1.013 0.201 84.518 5.731 0.968 0.202 170.722 10.597 1.981 0.402





Table A.6 - Public Transport Trip Rates for Retail and Employment Developments (per 100 sq m)

Time

Period Model TRICS

Productions Attractions Total

Retail Employment

B1 B2 B8

Retail Employment

B1 B2 B8

Retail Employment

B1 B2 B8

AM

Peak

City Centre

Edge of Town Centre 0.008 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.065 0.214 0.005 0.000 0.073 0.220 0.005 0.000



Inter

Peak

City Centre




PM

Peak

City Centre




Daily Rate

City Centre






Table A.7 - TRICS Origins and Destinations by Zone

Zone 2016 2031

Origins Destinations Origins Destinations

10001 735 1211 2353 4037

10102 0 0 105 104

10202 187 259 251 315

10401 21 18 49 63

10501 130 201 234 349

10602 28 24 44 38

10604 5 5 21 19

10701 615 553 966 938

10801 6904 6034 9864 8750

10901 180 229 900 1407

11001 68 60 171 193

11101 1285 1634 2279 2944

11201 24 38 103 109

11301 6 5 23 21

11501 949 1334 2177 2675

11601 131 232 975 1570

11701 18 16 66 58

11702 5 4 20 18

11801 29 25 29 25

11803 11 9 42 37

19401 0 0 591 1002

20001 0 0 68 65

20002 501 483 547 528

20003 634 612 704 679

20004 58 56 58 56

20005 10 9 10 9

20006 36 35 48 47

20007 24 23 24 23

20008 126 121 535 516

20009 324 313 324 313

20101 22 21 162 156

20102 5 5 5 5

20103 283 273 540 521

20203 3780 3368 8100 7217

20207 105 94 105 94

20210 15 13 15 13

20211 1253 1116 1253 1116

20212 170 153 170 153

20214 36 35 36 35

20301 201 194 2917 2813

20302 82 79 82 79

20303 0 0 148 142

20304 310 299 341 329

20305 5 5 5 5

20402 61 58 61 58



Zone 2016 2031


20403 0 0 46 44

20404 39 37 39 37

20405 257 247 257 247

20406 2 2 2 2

20407 407 392 407 392

20502 15 14 1486 1433

20503 12 12 12 12

20504 48 47 48 47

20505 15 14 15 14

20590 0 0 934 901

20602 191 184 232 224

20603 10 9 10 9

20604 0 0 68 65

20702 7 7 27 26

20704 12 12 12 12

20801 95 85 284 255

20802 1267 1141 1267 1141

20803 695 670 695 670

20805 208 201 368 355

20806 7 7 7 7

20807 12 12 12 12

20808 29 28 29 28

20809 419 351 419 351

20901 508 490 508 490

20902 0 0 479 462

21001 1795 1732 2240 2164

21002 44 42 44 42

21003 119 115 119 115

21004 25 25 122 118

21005 2147 2078 2147 2078

21006 2760 2639 2760 2639

21102 840 813 1528 1478

21103 46 45 937 909

21202 10 9 3153 3057

21203 2 2 17 16

21206 288 266 1028 943

21209 375 362 399 385

21301 199 191 199 191

21302 411 394 414 396

21303 84 82 290 280

21304 -666 -605 -641 -582

21402 65 63 65 63

21403 12 12 12 12

21404 15 14 29 28

21405 123 119 123 119

21406 10 9 10 9



Zone 2016 2031


21501 2 2 2 2

21502 24 23 24 23

21503 24 23 24 23

21504 215 208 225 217

21601 10 9 41 40

21602 0 0 19 19

21603 7 7 29 28

21701 10 9 10 9

21702 58 56 58 56

21703 7 7 24 23

21704 5 5 5 5

21705 10 9 107 103

21706 17 16 46 44

21707 22 21 22 21

21802 63 61 63 61

21803 12 12 12 12

21804 22 21 605 584

21807 48 47 87 84

21901 334 322 334 322

21902 0 0 871 840

21903 61 58 4307 4153

21904 491 474 600 579

21905 182 175 3254 3137

21906 95 85 189 170

21907 506 488 661 637

22001 7 7 7 7

22002 61 58 92 89

22003 85 82 99 96

22004 10 9 857 826

22005 0 0 1399 1349

22006 34 33 53 51

22007 2 2 36 35

22101 625 602 2852 2763

22102 102 98 102 98

22103 19 19 1186 1144

22104 17 16 17 16

22201 264 254 351 338

22202 107 103 230 222

22203 230 222 269 259

22301 2177 2054 2177 2054

22302 0 0 3476 3352

22303 19 19 19 19

22304 29 28 68 65

22305 39 37 123 119

22401 17 16 17 16

22403 44 42 61 58



Zone 2016 2031


22404 2 2 2 2

22405 5 5 5 5

22406 0 0 31 30

22501 10 9 10 9

22502 17 16 22 21

22503 219 212 219 212

22504 10 9 31 30

22505 387 374 387 374

22601 5 5 5 5

22603 29 28 174 168

22604 56 54 70 68

22605 428 413 428 413

22801 7 7 7 7

22802 17 16 148 142

22803 15 14 15 14

22806 116 112 116 112

22902 284 274 819 792

22903 917 885 917 885

22904 792 763 1878 1746

22905 45 44 3580 3458

22907 1026 990 2734 2642

22908 382 369 460 444

23001 119 114 119 114

23002 5 5 5 5

23003 145 140 145 140

23101 121 117 133 128

23102 31 30 31 30

23103 11273 9502 11300 9528

23104 29 28 97 93

23105 174 168 341 329

23106 90 86 90 86

23201 3951 3685 3951 3685

23202 2476 2392 2476 2392

23203 618 600 698 677

23401 140 135 140 135

23402 19 19 19 19

23403 322 310 322 310

23404 5 5 5 5

23405 620 598 2145 2068

23406 407 392 1111 1072

23409 0 0 194 187

23410 2 2 2 2

23411 2 2 310 299

23412 2 2 2 2

23502 36 35 36 35

23503 41 40 41 40



Zone 2016 2031


23504 19 19 19 19

23601 63 61 126 121

23602 182 175 182 175

23603 7 7 29 28

23606 82 79 143 138

23607 7 7 424 409

23701 131 126 254 245

23702 15 14 111 107

23703 281 271 412 397

23704 10 9 10 9

23705 87 84 281 271

23706 162 156 162 156

23707 109 105 109 105

23801 2 2 2 2

23802 56 54 56 54

23803 286 275 353 341

23805 448 432 632 609

23901 978 943 1060 1022

23903 75 72 114 110

23904 24 23 65 63

23905 5 5 7 7

23906 155 149 453 437

23907 143 138 143 138

23908 0 0 446 432

23909 244 236 244 236

24001 0 0 155 147

24002 0 0 10 9

24003 0 0 232 224

24004 15 14 15 14

24102 17 16 56 54

24103 2 2 97 93

24104 53 51 53 51

24201 2 2 5 5

24202 10 9 10 9

24203 0 0 140 135

24204 7 7 29 28

24205 0 0 24 23

24206 2 2 31 30

24302 823 794 823 794

24303 17 16 36 35

24304 668 560 692 584

24401 1695 1634 1695 1634

24402 0 0 97 93

24403 145 140 203 196

24404 34 33 34 33

24405 547 528 726 700



Zone 2016 2031


24406 17 16 58 56

30002 9 17 9 17

30301 4 3 4 3

30801 144 113 144 113

30901 44 42 44 42

30902 52 47 52 47

30903 56 44 56 44

30904 185 165 185 165

31201 46 40 46 40

31301 8562 14245 11684 16970

31401 3 3 3 3

31501 11 9 11 9

31601 402 647 402 647

31701 592 758 592 758

31801 94 82 94 82

31901 3 3 3 3

32201 13 21 13 21

32301 168 288 168 288

32401 31 27 31 27

32501 10 18 10 18

32601 3 3 3 3

32705 1831 1699 1831 1699

39101 1572 1491 1572 1491

40001 290 275 290 275

40101 95 80 95 80

40301 114 110 545 525

40302 114 110 545 525

40303 128 123 1227 1187

40304 114 110 545 525

40305 61 58 61 58

40306 182 175 182 175

40501 728 1186 1064 1481

40502 85 80 85 80

40604 42 36 378 331

40701 85 80 85 80

40802 298 287 298 287

40904 224 216 224 216

40906 91 84 91 84

41103 3397 2860 3397 2860

41104 540 521 540 521

41105 65 63 65 63

41201 73 70 73 70

41203 402 388 402 388

41401 75 72 75 72

41501 1126 1086 1126 1086

41502 150 145 150 145



Zone 2016 2031


41602 53 51 484 467

41603 143 138 574 553

41604 1488 1417 2014 1917

41605 114 110 545 525

41606 337 326 990 957

41607 114 110 545 525

41608 3007 2899 5355 5164

41682 453 440 453 440

41706 734 654 734 654

41707 1620 1443 10260 9142

41709 562 500 562 500

41801 102 98 102 98

42001 73 70 73 70

42002 73 70 73 70

42003 145 140 145 140

42004 95 85 473 426

42006 73 70 73 70

42008 225 217 225 217

42009 299 289 299 289

42010 73 70 73 70

42101 506 480 506 480

42201 155 149 155 149

42202 317 306 317 306

42402 24 23 24 23

42405 3264 2971 4532 4194

42502 3078 2599 3078 2599

42602 691 633 691 633

42604 2203 2124 2203 2124

42605 1101 1062 1304 1258

42702 133 128 1210 1167

42802 41 32 41 32

42901 1132 1071 1132 1071

43002 85 80 85 80

43003 85 80 85 80

43004 85 80 85 80

43005 85 80 85 80

43101 289 273 289 273

43102 85 80 85 80

43103 85 80 85 80

43201 212 185 551 481

43302 14 12 14 12

43401 42 37 381 332

43501 61 58 61 58

43502 5704 4813 5704 4813

43505 61 58 61 58

43602 5 4 5 4



Zone 2016 2031


43603 5464 4584 5464 4584

43606 57 52 57 52

49301 12 9 12 9

49302 227 204 417 375

49402 3607 3420 13775 12643

80001 15 13 31 27

80002 0 0 3865 3216

80004 13 10 13 10

80005 73 70 968 934

80006 29 28 491 474

80007 53 51 685 661

80008 23 43 23 43

80009 31 40 31 40

80010 6 5 6 5

80015 391 696 391 696

80016 4 3 4 3

80017 186 169 186 169

80018 12 21 12 21

80019 140 212 140 212

80024 281 271 281 271

80026 85 80 85 80

80028 73 70 73 70

80031 72 68 72 68

80032 61 58 61 58

80033 85 80 85 80

80035 85 80 85 80

80037 -2828 -2583 -1751 -1544

80039 0 0 2673 2592

80041 506 442 1519 1325

80043 0 0 2078 1839

80045 61 58 61 58

80046 61 58 61 58

80048 77 75 77 75

80050 1190 1144 1341 1280

80051 76 63 76 63



Appendix B

Without Intervention Demand



Table B.1 - G-BATS3 SBL Sector Summary Without Intervention Morning Peak Hour – 2016

Sector 1 Sector 2 Sector 3 Sector 4 Sector 5 Total

Car

Sector 1 3,837 2,915 2,355 2,116 693 11,917

Sector 2 5,356 8,208 5,930 4,319 1,281 25,094

Sector 3 2,870 6,240 30,191 10,262 2,996 52,559

Sector 4 2,896 4,533 11,783 21,330 6,782 47,324

Sector 5 1,369 816 3,731 6,231 4,961 17,108

Total 16,328 22,713 53,990 44,258 16,712 154,002

Bus

Sector 1 712 573 970 564 36 2,856

Sector 2 1,436 562 737 281 7 3,024

Sector 3 2,359 704 1,666 398 2 5,128

Sector 4 1,957 370 422 913 56 3,718

Sector 5 65 5 2 9 147 227

Total 6,528 2,214 3,797 2,165 248 14,953

BRT

Sector 1 10 70 5 50 0 134

Sector 2 36 11 0 16 3 66

Sector 3 5 0 0 0 0 5

Sector 4 528 71 0 1 0 600

Sector 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 579 152 5 67 3 806

Rail

Sector 1 0 4 300 750 437 1,492

Sector 2 24 14 58 272 129 497

Sector 3 225 46 17 139 216 643

Sector 4 1,204 254 180 314 454 2,407

Sector 5 219 73 122 275 965 1,654

Total 1,673 391 676 1,751 2,202 6,693




Table B.2 - G-BATS3 SBL Sector Summary Without Intervention Inter-Peak Hour -2016


Car

Sector 1 4,412 3,612 3,207 2,216 785 14,232

Sector 2 3,394 6,756 5,334 3,956 709 20,149

Sector 3 2,869 5,300 26,343 9,873 2,640 47,026

Sector 4 1,947 3,859 9,351 20,214 4,651 40,022

Sector 5 679 769 2,612 4,770 4,967 13,797

Total 13,301 20,296 46,846 41,030 13,754 135,226

Bus

Sector 1 587 744 976 859 85 3,251

Sector 2 760 444 418 255 7 1,883

Sector 3 984 396 1,372 264 12 3,029

Sector 4 826 243 279 754 14 2,116

Sector 5 62 5 5 22 122 216

Total 3,219 1,831 3,049 2,154 241 10,494

BRT

Sector 1 1 30 3 124 1 158

Sector 2 18 6 0 8 0 33

Sector 3 1 0 0 0 0 1

Sector 4 113 5 0 1 0 119

Sector 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 133 42 3 132 1 311

Rail

Sector 1 0 5 45 198 152 401

Sector 2 3 8 14 53 39 117

Sector 3 54 19 6 46 56 182

Sector 4 155 56 37 78 134 460

Sector 5 150 40 65 158 289 702

Total 362 127 168 533 671 1,862




Table B.3 - G-BATS3 SBL Sector Summary Without Intervention Evening Peak Hour -2016


Car

Sector 1 4,204 5,049 4,010 3,335 1,684 18,282

Sector 2 3,390 8,078 6,831 5,064 989 24,353

Sector 3 3,345 6,856 32,748 13,207 3,956 60,113

Sector 4 2,753 4,740 12,397 23,187 6,242 49,319

Sector 5 963 1,377 3,318 6,685 6,273 18,616

Total 14,656 26,100 59,304 51,478 19,144 170,681

Bus

Sector 1 745 1,126 1,746 1,374 115 5,105

Sector 2 711 500 574 291 6 2,082

Sector 3 1,093 565 1,333 368 2 3,361

Sector 4 469 219 300 1,059 6 2,055

Sector 5 57 6 5 20 94 182

Total 3,076 2,416 3,958 3,111 223 12,784

BRT

Sector 1 5 48 11 314 0 378

Sector 2 47 12 1 35 0 95

Sector 3 3 0 0 0 0 3

Sector 4 22 13 0 1 0 36

Sector 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 76 74 12 350 0 512

Rail

Sector 1 7 20 169 921 332 1,449

Sector 2 5 19 46 203 117 391

Sector 3 207 51 21 224 305 808

Sector 4 586 215 165 362 314 1,641

Sector 5 417 136 317 416 823 2,110

Total 1,223 440 718 2,127 1,891 6,399




Table B.4 - G-BATS3 SBL Sector Summary Without Intervention Morning Peak Hour - 2031


Car

Sector 1 4,774 3,621 2,742 2,330 753 14,220

Sector 2 6,148 9,606 6,472 4,641 1,253 28,120

Sector 3 3,149 6,879 35,671 11,151 3,191 60,041

Sector 4 2,811 4,973 12,442 25,826 7,818 53,870

Sector 5 1,355 801 4,103 7,077 5,639 18,974

Total 18,237 25,880 61,430 51,024 18,654 175,225

Bus

Sector 1 836 614 960 516 39 2,965

Sector 2 1,494 572 718 331 7 3,122

Sector 3 2,424 706 1,777 519 2 5,428

Sector 4 1,811 416 548 1,144 66 3,986

Sector 5 72 5 2 11 158 248

Total 6,636 2,313 4,006 2,521 272 15,749

BRT

Sector 1 10 80 5 68 0 163

Sector 2 43 12 0 18 3 77

Sector 3 7 1 0 0 0 8

Sector 4 670 91 0 2 0 763

Sector 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 730 184 6 89 3 1,011

Rail

Sector 1 0 4 334 966 387 1,691

Sector 2 28 16 81 416 132 673

Sector 3 266 66 29 240 239 840

Sector 4 1,460 359 287 487 555 3,148

Sector 5 213 76 138 353 1,054 1,834

Total 1,966 522 870 2,462 2,366 8,185




Table B.5 - G-BATS3 SBL Sector Summary Without Intervention Inter-Peak Hour -2031


Car

Sector 1 5,528 4,419 3,927 2,607 896 17,376

Sector 2 4,182 8,320 6,337 4,712 784 24,335

Sector 3 3,541 6,304 32,163 11,739 3,187 56,934

Sector 4 2,409 4,662 11,378 25,747 5,672 49,868

Sector 5 822 840 3,102 5,740 5,744 16,249

Total 16,482 24,546 56,908 50,544 16,283 164,762

Bus

Sector 1 689 806 1,027 861 95 3,479

Sector 2 830 469 428 305 7 2,040

Sector 3 1,047 404 1,459 343 14 3,266

Sector 4 852 283 350 895 19 2,399

Sector 5 69 5 5 27 132 238

Total 3,487 1,967 3,269 2,430 268 11,422

BRT

Sector 1 1 34 3 171 1 211

Sector 2 21 7 0 10 0 38

Sector 3 1 0 0 0 0 1

Sector 4 165 7 0 1 0 173

Sector 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 187 48 4 183 1 423

Rail

Sector 1 0 5 54 242 152 454

Sector 2 3 9 20 76 44 152

Sector 3 62 25 11 74 66 237

Sector 4 200 85 64 126 171 645

Sector 5 145 43 74 201 319 782

Total 411 168 222 718 752 2,270




Table B.6 - G-BATS3 SBL Sector Summary Without Intervention Evening Peak Hour -2031


Car

Sector 1 5,279 5,974 4,336 3,391 1,683 20,664

Sector 2 4,134 9,769 7,629 5,688 1,035 28,255

Sector 3 3,862 7,645 38,650 14,411 4,509 69,077

Sector 4 3,031 5,234 13,798 28,702 7,374 58,139

Sector 5 1,006 1,391 3,735 7,877 7,198 21,208

Total 17,313 30,014 68,149 60,069 21,799 197,343

Bus

Sector 1 840 1,170 1,796 1,344 130 5,280

Sector 2 749 521 573 339 7 2,188

Sector 3 1,097 557 1,426 470 2 3,552

Sector 4 443 263 390 1,351 7 2,456

Sector 5 63 6 5 23 100 198

Total 3,192 2,517 4,191 3,527 246 13,674

BRT

Sector 1 6 56 13 409 0 485

Sector 2 53 13 2 46 0 114

Sector 3 3 0 0 0 0 3

Sector 4 31 16 0 1 0 49

Sector 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 93 86 15 456 0 650

Rail

Sector 1 7 22 208 1,125 319 1,681

Sector 2 6 22 69 296 131 523

Sector 3 239 74 34 347 365 1,059

Sector 4 751 334 276 557 382 2,299

Sector 5 362 142 360 482 899 2,244

Total 1,364 593 946 2,807 2,096 7,806




Appendix C

Preferred Scheme Demand



Table C.1 - G-BATS3 SBL Sector Summary Preferred Scheme Morning Peak Hour – 2016


Car

Sector 1 3,816 2,902 2,347 2,165 689 11,920

Sector 2 5,330 8,162 5,913 4,369 1,278 25,054

Sector 3 2,860 6,219 30,145 10,294 2,997 52,515

Sector 4 2,935 4,611 11,811 21,243 6,771 47,372

Sector 5 1,366 816 3,730 6,231 4,961 17,104

Total 16,308 22,711 53,946 44,303 16,696 153,964

Bus

Sector 1 712 574 970 569 36 2,860

Sector 2 1,428 558 729 276 7 2,998

Sector 3 2,354 701 1,665 400 2 5,121

Sector 4 1,966 364 425 898 56 3,708

Sector 5 65 5 2 9 147 227

Total 6,524 2,200 3,790 2,152 247 14,914

BRT

Sector 1 9 65 4 57 0 135

Sector 2 35 10 0 23 3 71

Sector 3 5 0 0 2 0 7

Sector 4 569 86 0 19 0 674

Sector 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 617 162 5 102 3 888

Rail

Sector 1 0 4 298 737 436 1,475

Sector 2 24 14 64 297 132 532

Sector 3 223 50 17 140 216 644

Sector 4 1,188 280 178 305 451 2,401

Sector 5 218 76 121 273 965 1,654

Total 1,654 423 678 1,751 2,201 6,707




Table C.2 - G-BATS3 SBL Sector Summary Preferred Scheme Inter-Peak Hour -2016


Car

Sector 1 4,399 3,594 3,195 2,251 783 14,222

Sector 2 3,378 6,723 5,319 4,010 709 20,140

Sector 3 2,863 5,287 26,289 9,905 2,636 46,980

Sector 4 1,977 3,895 9,364 20,134 4,649 40,020

Sector 5 678 767 2,604 4,775 4,967 13,792

Total 13,296 20,268 46,772 41,074 13,744 135,154

Bus

Sector 1 585 742 974 866 85 3,250

Sector 2 755 441 416 252 7 1,870

Sector 3 983 395 1,371 265 12 3,025

Sector 4 832 242 280 749 14 2,118

Sector 5 62 5 5 22 122 216

Total 3,216 1,824 3,045 2,154 241 10,479

BRT

Sector 1 1 29 2 134 1 167

Sector 2 20 6 0 15 0 41

Sector 3 1 0 0 1 0 2

Sector 4 121 8 0 5 0 133

Sector 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 142 43 3 155 1 343

Rail

Sector 1 0 5 45 193 151 394

Sector 2 2 8 14 57 40 121

Sector 3 52 20 6 46 56 180

Sector 4 147 60 37 76 133 452

Sector 5 149 40 65 157 289 700

Total 349 132 167 529 670 1,847




Table C.3 - G-BATS3 SBL Sector Summary Preferred Scheme Evening Peak Hour -2016


Car

Sector 1 4,191 5,032 4,009 3,392 1,674 18,297

Sector 2 3,380 8,042 6,832 5,143 986 24,383

Sector 3 3,341 6,852 32,773 13,251 3,954 60,172

Sector 4 2,817 4,828 12,437 23,065 6,234 49,381

Sector 5 961 1,380 3,318 6,677 6,273 18,609

Total 14,690 26,135 59,368 51,527 19,122 170,842

Bus

Sector 1 742 1,121 1,741 1,374 114 5,093

Sector 2 710 496 571 284 6 2,068

Sector 3 1,093 561 1,332 372 2 3,360

Sector 4 473 217 303 1,055 6 2,054

Sector 5 57 6 5 20 94 182

Total 3,075 2,400 3,953 3,105 223 12,756

BRT

Sector 1 5 47 11 349 0 412

Sector 2 45 12 1 45 0 103

Sector 3 3 0 0 0 0 3

Sector 4 28 16 0 5 0 49

Sector 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 81 75 12 398 0 567

Rail

Sector 1 7 19 167 908 330 1,431

Sector 2 5 18 48 221 120 413

Sector 3 205 55 20 224 304 807

Sector 4 577 231 163 353 311 1,635

Sector 5 416 139 316 413 823 2,108

Total 1,210 463 714 2,119 1,888 6,395




Table C.1 - G-BATS3 SBL Sector Summary Preferred Scheme Morning Peak Hour – 2031


Car

Sector 1 4,738 3,616 2,732 2,411 745 14,243

Sector 2 6,123 9,539 6,454 4,742 1,244 28,101

Sector 3 3,134 6,852 35,605 11,191 3,189 59,971

Sector 4 2,870 5,063 12,512 25,627 7,811 53,883

Sector 5 1,352 797 4,115 7,058 5,639 18,960

Total 18,216 25,867 61,417 51,029 18,628 175,157

Bus

Sector 1 835 614 957 517 39 2,961

Sector 2 1,483 568 710 324 7 3,092

Sector 3 2,420 704 1,773 516 2 5,416

Sector 4 1,787 404 544 1,123 66 3,923

Sector 5 72 5 2 12 158 248

Total 6,597 2,294 3,987 2,491 272 15,640

BRT

Sector 1 9 73 5 72 0 159

Sector 2 42 12 0 27 3 84

Sector 3 9 1 0 9 0 18

Sector 4 724 114 0 22 0 860

Sector 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 784 200 5 130 3 1,122

Rail

Sector 1 0 4 335 956 385 1,680

Sector 2 28 16 88 436 134 702

Sector 3 263 71 28 237 237 837

Sector 4 1,448 382 286 479 552 3,146

Sector 5 212 78 138 351 1,054 1,832

Total 1,951 550 876 2,459 2,362 8,198




Table C.2 - G-BATS3 SBL Sector Summary Preferred Scheme Inter-Peak Hour -2031


Car

Sector 1 5,514 4,399 3,903 2,654 889 17,360

Sector 2 4,165 8,252 6,307 4,792 781 24,296

Sector 3 3,530 6,281 32,087 11,798 3,185 56,881

Sector 4 2,457 4,747 11,413 25,629 5,652 49,898

Sector 5 819 837 3,092 5,740 5,744 16,233

Total 16,484 24,517 56,802 50,613 16,251 164,668

Bus

Sector 1 685 803 1,025 865 95 3,473

Sector 2 825 466 426 300 7 2,023

Sector 3 1,045 401 1,457 341 14 3,257

Sector 4 858 281 351 889 19 2,397

Sector 5 68 5 6 27 132 238

Total 3,481 1,956 3,264 2,421 267 11,389

BRT

Sector 1 1 32 3 185 1 222

Sector 2 23 7 0 20 0 50

Sector 3 1 0 0 2 0 3

Sector 4 176 11 0 5 0 192

Sector 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 201 50 4 211 1 467

Rail

Sector 1 0 5 53 237 150 446

Sector 2 3 9 21 79 44 155

Sector 3 60 27 10 74 65 236

Sector 4 189 88 64 125 171 636

Sector 5 143 43 73 201 319 780

Total 395 172 222 715 750 2,254




Table C.3 - G-BATS3 SBL Sector Summary Preferred Scheme Evening Peak Hour -2031


Car

Sector 1 5,249 5,964 4,336 3,483 1,662 20,694

Sector 2 4,121 9,719 7,624 5,824 1,026 28,314

Sector 3 3,857 7,643 38,663 14,534 4,510 69,207

Sector 4 3,145 5,411 13,889 28,497 7,347 58,290

Sector 5 1,001 1,392 3,737 7,872 7,198 21,199

Total 17,373 30,129 68,249 60,209 21,743 197,704

Bus

Sector 1 836 1,164 1,790 1,332 129 5,251

Sector 2 748 517 571 329 6 2,171

Sector 3 1,093 552 1,420 472 2 3,539

Sector 4 446 259 393 1,347 7 2,452

Sector 5 63 6 5 23 100 197

Total 3,186 2,498 4,179 3,503 245 13,611

BRT

Sector 1 6 55 16 453 0 530

Sector 2 50 14 2 61 0 126

Sector 3 4 0 0 0 0 4

Sector 4 38 20 0 1 0 60

Sector 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 98 89 18 516 0 720

Rail

Sector 1 7 22 204 1,114 318 1,664

Sector 2 6 21 71 309 130 537

Sector 3 239 79 33 346 364 1,062

Sector 4 744 346 271 548 379 2,289

Sector 5 361 142 358 480 899 2,241

Total 1,356 611 938 2,797 2,091 7,792




Appendix D

Sectored Benefits



Introduction

D.1.1 This Appendix shows details of sectored highway benefits. The benefits are sectored as shown in

Figure D.1. The SBL scheme runs between sector 4 and sector 6.

Figure D.1 –Benefits Sector System



Table D.1 – Preferred Scheme Highway Benefits

Highway Time Benefits

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Total

1 3.1 -0.5 0.9 6.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.6 0.3 0.8 1.0 0.1 0.2 -0.6 1.0 -0.3 11.4

2 0.4 -1.6 0.7 4.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.3 0.9 1.3 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.6 1.0 7.3

3 1.7 0.9 1.8 2.2 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 -0.2 0.1 0.2 8.7

4 4.3 2.8 1.4 30.4 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 -0.3 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.8 0.2 50.0

5 -0.1 -0.3 1.1 2.1 -0.4 -0.1 0.2 -0.1 -0.3 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.5 -0.6 3.1

6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.6 1.3 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.3 3.6

7 -0.2 0.1 0.4 -0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.8

8 0.2 0.2 0.2 -0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.2

9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.3 1.0

10 -0.2 -0.5 0.1 1.5 -0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 2.2

11 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.3

12 1.3 1.1 0.3 1.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 -0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 6.3

13 1.7 0.7 1.3 1.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.2 -0.1 -0.1 1.0 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.1 1.2 0.2 8.5

14 0.1 -0.1 0.1 2.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 -0.1 0.1 0.4 -0.3 3.9

15 0.2 -0.1 0.1 2.2 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.7 5.2

16 0.4 0.1 0.2 3.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 5.7

17 -0.3 -0.4 -0.1 3.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 2.4

18 1.3 0.5 0.6 4.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.7 10.6

19 1.3 0.4 0.5 3.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 2.0 0.4 0.4 0.1 -0.3 1.4 2.1 13.1

20 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.3

21 0.0

Total 16.7 4.3 8.9 68.9 5.9 4.0 0.8 1.5 0.4 1.7 1.5 3.6 7.8 2.6 1.8 2.4 -0.1 8.2 9.4 0.7 0.0 150.7



Table D.2 – Preferred Scheme Bus and BRT Benefits

Bus & BRT Time Benefits

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Total

1 -0.2 0.1 1.6 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 2.0 0.1 3.8

2 0.4 0.3 -0.1 0.5 1.2

3 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.2 -0.1 0.7 1.8

4 1.2 0.2 0.4 1.6 0.2 0.1 0.7 4.4

5 0.2 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.4 0.2

6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6

7 0.0

8 0.1 0.1 0.1

9 0.1 0.1

10 -0.1 0.0

11 0.2

12 0.1 0.2

13 0.1 0.1 0.3

14 0.0

15 0.0

16 0.0

17 0.0

18 0.3 0.2 0.2 -0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9

19 0.0

20 1.0 0.1 1.1

21 0.0

Total 3.9 0.2 0.9 4.3 0.7 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.2 -0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 14.9



Table D.3 – Preferred Scheme Rail Benefits

Rail Time Benefits

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Total

1 0.1 0.2

2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.7 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.1 4.6

3 0.0

4 -0.4 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -1.4

5 0.2 0.3 -0.2 0.2

6 0.1 -0.1 0.0

7 0.0

8 0.1 0.1 0.2

9 0.6 1.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 1.5

10 -0.1 -0.1

11 0.2 -0.3 0.1

12 0.1 0.1 0.2

13 0.1 0.3 0.4

14 0.1

15 0.1

16 -0.1 -0.1 -0.3

17 0.1 0.1 0.2

18 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.6

19 0.1 0.4 -0.1 0.1 0.5

20 0.0

21 0.0

Total 1.6 2.8 0.0 -1.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 -0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.1 -0.2 0.1 0.3 1.2 0.0 0.0 7.0



Table D.4 – Lower Cost Option Highway Benefits

Highway Time Benefits

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Total

1 7.2 -0.9 1.9 12.5 -0.3 0.4 -0.2 0.2 -1.6 0.6 1.8 1.8 -0.1 0.5 -1.2 2.2 -0.2 24.6

2 0.6 -4.0 2.3 11.0 -0.5 0.8 -0.1 0.4 0.2 -0.4 0.7 2.4 2.3 -0.1 -0.3 0.3 -1.2 2.6 0.3 17.4

3 3.7 1.4 3.7 4.6 -0.4 2.0 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 -0.2 0.2 -0.3 0.2 0.2 16.3

4 9.0 5.8 3.0 65.2 0.8 -3.7 0.3 -0.6 -1.2 0.4 -0.2 -0.3 -0.2 2.4 1.5 3.2 3.4 4.4 5.8 0.2 99.1

5 -0.2 -0.7 -0.2 2.3 4.7 -0.6 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.5 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 -0.1 1.0 -0.1 9.7

6 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.7 2.5 0.1 0.3 -0.2 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 6.6

7 0.1 -0.7 0.2 0.9 -0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.3 0.2 2.0

8 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.6 1.3 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 5.6

9 0.3 0.2 0.1 -0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.4 1.5

10 -0.5 -0.9 0.2 3.1 -0.9 0.2 -0.1 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.2 -0.1 1.1 1.3 6.7

11 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 -0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 8.4

12 2.7 2.5 0.5 2.4 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.1 -0.1 -0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 1.6 13.4

13 3.3 1.3 2.5 3.3 0.6 0.2 0.3 -0.1 0.3 -0.1 -0.3 2.3 0.4 0.2 -0.1 -0.1 0.4 3.4 0.2 18.0

14 0.1 -0.1 0.2 5.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.8 -0.1 -0.2 0.3 0.9 -0.4 9.5

15 0.4 -0.1 0.1 4.9 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.8 11.7

16 0.8 0.2 0.4 7.8 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.1 12.6

17 -0.6 -0.9 -0.2 6.7 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 0.1 0.2 -0.2 5.7

18 2.9 1.4 1.5 9.3 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.7 0.2 0.2 -0.1 2.6 0.7 24.2

19 3.0 0.6 1.0 6.7 0.2 1.2 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.8 5.7 0.7 0.9 0.2 -0.9 3.4 5.8 31.2

20 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.6 1.1

21 0.0

Total 35.9 7.5 18.5 148.6 9.8 6.8 2.0 3.1 -0.1 3.5 4.2 9.0 18.4 5.4 3.4 5.2 -0.3 17.8 26.1 0.6 0.0 325.4



Table D.5 – Lower Cost Option Bus and BRT Benefits

Bus & BRT Time Benefits

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Total

1 -0.2 -0.1 0.1 1.5 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.2 1.7 -0.1 0.1 3.2

2 0.5 0.3 -0.1 0.4 -0.1 1.0

3 1.1 0.1 0.3 -0.1 0.6 -0.1 2.2

4 1.2 0.2 0.4 1.4 0.1 0.9 -0.2 4.2

5 0.3 -0.1 -0.1 0.2 -0.1 -0.1 0.4 0.5

6 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9

7 0.0

8 0.1 0.1 0.1

9 0.1 0.2

10 -0.1 -0.1

11 0.1

12 0.1 0.2

13 0.1 0.1 0.2

14 0.0

15 0.0

16 0.0

17 0.0

18 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.4

19 0.0

20 1.0 0.1 1.1

21 0.0

Total 4.9 0.1 1.0 4.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 -0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 3.5 -0.4 0.1 0.0 14.3



Table D.6 – Lower Cost Option Rail Benefits

Rail Time Benefits

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Total

1 0.2

2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.9 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.7 4.4

3 -0.1

4 -0.6 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.3 -0.3 -1.8

5 0.1 0.3 -0.1 -0.2 0.2

6 0.1 -0.1 0.1

7 -0.1 -0.1

8 0.1 0.1 0.2

9 0.4 1.3 -0.2 -0.2 1.2

10 -0.1 -0.1

11 0.3 -0.4 0.1 -0.1

12 0.1 0.1

13 0.1 0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3

14 0.1

15 0.1 0.1

16 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.5

17 0.1 0.1 0.2

18 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.7

19 -0.4 0.4 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.7 -1.1

20 0.0

21 0.0

Total 0.6 3.2 -0.3 -1.5 -0.3 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 1.7 -0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.2 -0.3 0.1 -0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 4.0



Figure D.2 – Preferred Scheme Highway Benefits Map

Total Benefit (£m)

333.3

33.9

Filter

1%

Bandwidth

100

Select Mode

Highway

Select Time

Total



Figure D.3 – Preferred Scheme Bus Benefits Map

Total Benefit (£m)

16.2

2.5

Filter

1%

Bandwidth

100

Select Mode

Bus

Select Time

Total

south bristol link forecast report - · pdf file ·...

Documents