York Central Traffic Analysis – Emerging Findings

Movement Workshop 18th July 2017

2

2

Transport Modelling - Approach

Approach

• Strategic models – assesses city wide & Strategic Road Network impacts

• Junction models – assesses junction capacity & mitigation options

• Microsimulation models – assesses local network performance

3

3

Strategic Modelling

• CYC’s strategic model has been

used

• Considered traffic in 2033

• Included all approved developments

plus Local Plan growth

• Outer ring road improvements are

included (dualling is not)

• A “max development” scenario for

York Central has been used:

– 2,500 residential units

– 89,000 sqm office

– 400 room hotel

• 3 highway configurations

considered

Highway configuration – Option 1 Two-way traffic under Marble Arch (existing situation)

Highway configuration – Option 2 (Proposed) Shuttle running with traffic signals – pedestrian & cycle improvements

Highway configuration – Option 3 Bus Gate at Marble Arch

Traffic Flow Difference (AM)

Strategic Model Output York Central vs Do Minimum

Strategic Model Output City Wide Level

Traffic Flow Difference Plots - (AM Peak) - Option 2

Saturn Modelling Summary

Option Network Delay

(PCUhrs)

Network Travel

Time (PCUhrs)

No. of Junctions

Impacted

Local Highway

Impact

Access Road /

Marble Arch

Flows

Option 1

(two lanes under Marble

Arch – no controls)

AM 691 11314 8 Medium Medium

PM 733 12534 3 Medium Medium

Option 2

(one-way shuttle working

at Marble Arch - signals)

AM 692 11328 8 Medium Medium

PM 735 12555 3 Medium Medium

Option 3

(bus gate at Marble Arch)

AM 726 11509 16 High Low

PM 758 12702 14 High Low

Saturn Output – Traffic Flows on Key Routes

Option Water End (E) A19 Clifton A59 Poppleton

Rd (@Acomb Rd)

Salisbury

Terrace (SB)

ORR – A64@

Copmanthorpe

Option 1

(two lanes under

Marble Arch – no

controls)

AM +99 -3 +82 -110 +26

PM -97 -6 +9 +19 -3

Option 2

(one-way shuttle

working at Marble Arch

- signals)

AM +115 +1 +102 -122 +31

PM -101 +9 +53 +2 +11

Option 3

(bus gate at Marble

Arch)

AM +303 +138 +271 +83 +164

PM -14 98 +263 +138 +112

Saturn Output – Traffic flows within York Central

Option Access Road @Marble Arch

Option 1

(two lanes under Marble

Arch – no controls)

AM 1090 980

PM 1116 940

Option 2

(one-way shuttle working

at Marble Arch - signals)

AM 1047 900

PM 1046 825

Option 3

(bus gate at Marble Arch)

AM 733 52

PM 785 51

1

2

12

Findings

• Some additional queuing and delay is caused, but this is to be expected of a

scheme of this size.

• There are minor differences between Options 1 & 2 at strategic level

• Option 2 provides significant benefits for pedestrians & cyclists at Marble Arch

• Impacts of Option 3 on highway network are more significant than Options 1 & 2

Junctions for potential mitigation where:

• Flow difference > 50 additional vehicle movements per hour; and

• Junction Capacity > 80%

Option 1 & 2

Junctions Impacted

Option 3

Option 3

9 junctions identified 21 junctions identified

1

4

14

Microsimulation modelling approach

• Based on flows generated from the Strategic [SATURN] model

• Peak hours are modelled - therefore, a “worst case” is shown

• Highway improvements at York Station Front are included

• Incorporates pedestrian and cycle flows

Option 2 - AM

1

6

16

Findings

• Vehicle queues on east side do not extent back / interfere with Lendal Gyratory

• Traffic flows between peak periods are lower, therefore queues will be shorter

• Pedestrians and cyclists are integrated within the movement network

1

7

17

• Transport impacts of York Central will be reported in the Transport Assessment

which supports the planning application.

• The Transport Assessment will include the following:

• Description of the assessment process used, including future year scenarios

• Justification of the traffic flows generated by York Central

• Description of the modelling methods used to establish future traffic flows

• Modelling scenarios considered

• Strategic traffic model outputs

• Junction modelling outputs including proposed mitigation for impacted junctions

• Report of microsimulation findings

• Summary of impacts and mitigation proposals

• A Travel Plan will accompany the Planning Application. The Travel Plan will set

out a framework to encourage residents and workers at York Central to use

sustainable modes of transport.

Planning Application Documents

Traffic Flow Difference (AM) Traffic Flow Difference (PM)

Strategic Model Output Option 1 vs Do Minimum

Reductions in traffic

through Livingstone

Terrace / Salisbury Terrace

Traffic displaced from Leeman

road (now diverted) to Cinder

Lane (new access road)

Key:

Decrease in traffic flow

Increase in traffic flow

“Do Minimum” = 2033 situation without York Central

Traffic Flow Difference (PM)

Strategic Model Output York Central vs Do Minimum

Traffic Flow Difference (AM) Traffic Flow Difference (PM)

Strategic Model Output Option 3 vs Do Minimum

Traffic Flow Difference Plots

(AM Peak)

Option 1

Strategic Model Output City Wide Level

Option 2

Option 3

Option 2 - PM