PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF KEITH SOWERBY BSc (Econ), FIHT … and... · undertaken surface access studies...

LAA/12/A

APP/L2250/V/10/2131934 & APP/L2250/V/10/2131936 SECTION 77 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – REFERENCE OF APPLICATIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (INQUIRIES PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) RULES 2000

PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF KEITH SOWERBY BSc (Econ), FIHT

TRANSPORT In respect of: Planning Application Reference: Y06/1647/SH (New Terminal

Building)

Planning Application Reference: Y06/1648/SH (Runway Extension)

Relating to land at London Ashford Airport, Lydd, Romney Marsh, Kent, TN29 9QL

Transport Evidence

Contents

CONTENTS

1 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE ............................................................................... 1

Introduction ........................................................................................... 1

The Applications ..................................................................................... 1

Reasons for Call-in ................................................................................... 1

Objections and Representations................................................................... 1

Scope of Evidence.................................................................................... 2

2 AIRPORT EXPANSION PROPOSALS ............................................................... 3

Introduction ........................................................................................... 3

Regional Air Travel .................................................................................. 3

Development Proposals ............................................................................. 4

3 POLICY CONTEXT ................................................................................... 5

National Policy ....................................................................................... 5

Regional Policy ....................................................................................... 6

Local Policy ........................................................................................... 7

4 EXISTING AIRPORT AND ACCESS ................................................................. 9

Site Context ........................................................................................... 9

Public Transport Access ............................................................................. 9

Road Access ........................................................................................... 9

5 AIR PASSENGER DEMAND PROFILES............................................................ 10

Introduction ......................................................................................... 10

Flight Profile ........................................................................................ 10

Passenger Demand Profile ........................................................................ 10

Airport Catchment Area .......................................................................... 11

Arrival and Departure Profiles ................................................................... 13

Mode Share .......................................................................................... 14

Passenger Demand by Mode ...................................................................... 15

6 STAFF TRAVEL DEMAND ......................................................................... 18

Introduction ......................................................................................... 18

Employment Density ............................................................................... 18

Shift Patterns ....................................................................................... 18

Employee Mode Share ............................................................................. 18

Employee Trip Rates............................................................................... 19

Transport Evidence

Contents

Servicing Trips ...................................................................................... 20

7 TOTAL TRAVEL DEMAND ......................................................................... 22

Introduction ......................................................................................... 22

Trip Generation .................................................................................... 22

Transport Networks ................................................................................ 23

8 SURFACE ACCESS STRATEGY .................................................................... 24

Introduction ......................................................................................... 24

Public Transport Access ........................................................................... 24

Highway Access ..................................................................................... 26

9 CAR PARKING AND SERVICING .................................................................. 27

Introduction ......................................................................................... 27

Car Parking Provision .............................................................................. 27

Car Parking Management ......................................................................... 28

Coach Facilities .................................................................................... 28

Servicing ............................................................................................. 28

10 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND PHASING ............................................... 29

Introduction ......................................................................................... 29

Runway Extension .................................................................................. 29

Terminal Development ............................................................................ 29

11 MITIGATION PROPOSALS ......................................................................... 31

Introduction ......................................................................................... 31

Travel Plan .......................................................................................... 31

Signage Strategy ................................................................................... 31

Shuttle Bus Service ................................................................................ 32

Highways Improvements .......................................................................... 32

Construction Traffic ............................................................................... 33

On Site Mitigation .................................................................................. 33

12 RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS ..................................................................... 34

Main Objections .................................................................................... 34

13 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................. 36

General .............................................................................................. 36

Summary ............................................................................................. 36

Transport Evidence

Contents

FIGURES

Figure 5.1 Airport Passenger Mode Share ........................................... 14

Figure 6.1 Office Staff Mode Share ................................................... 19

Figure 6.2 Operational Staff Mode Share ............................................ 19

Figure 8.1 Main Mode of Travel to UK Airport (2010) ............................. 24

TABLES

Table 5.1 Passenger Distribution (CAA Data 2006) ................................ 12

Table 5.2 Passenger HIghway Trip Distribution .................................... 13

Table 5.3 Airport Arrival and Departure Profiles .................................. 13

Table 5.4 Passenger Mode Share – Comparator Airports (CAA, 2009).......... 15

Table 5.5 Passenger Trips by Mode – AM Peak (08:00-09:00) ................... 16

Table 5.6 Passenger Trips by Mode – PM Peak (17:00-18:00) ................... 16

Table 5.7 Total vehicle Trips By Hour and Development Scenario ............. 16

Table 6.1 Staff Trips by Mode – AM Peak (08:00-09:00) .......................... 20

Table 6.2 Staff Trips by Mode – PM PEak (17:00-18:00) .......................... 20

Table 6.3 Service & Delivery Vehicle Trips ......................................... 20

Table 7.1 Total Trips by Mode – AM Peak Hour (08:00-09:00) .................. 22

Table 7.2 Total Trips by Mode – PM Peak Hour (17:00-18:00) ................... 22

Table 9.1 Proposed Car Parking Provision .......................................... 27

Table 10.1 Construction Timetable and Daily HGV Movements .................. 29

Transport Evidence

i

Keith Sowerby will say:

I am a Director of Steer Davies Gleave, responsible for major commercial and infrastructure

projects. I hold a BSc degree in Economics from the London School of Economics and I am a

fellow of the Institution of Highways and Transportation.

I have over 38 years’ experience as a transport planner, during which time I have been

responsible for the planning, appraisal and design of a wide range of transport infrastructure

projects, including major highways, rail, airport access, bus and traffic schemes. I have

undertaken surface access studies for Heathrow Airport on behalf of the British Airport

Authority (BAA) and Transport for London.

I have represented the Highways Agency and private sector clients at public inquiries in

Ashford and Shepway relating to the A259 and the A2070 trunk road.

Transport Evidence

1

1 Scope of Evidence

Introduction

1.1 London Ashford Airport (the “Applicant”) has submitted the Applications for the

expansion of airport facilities that have been called-in by the Secretary of State.

The Applications were submitted in 2006 and comprised Y06/1648/SH and

Y06/1647/SH. Shepway District Council (the “Council”) considered these

Applications in March 2010, when there was substantive agreement on all relevant

transport issues.

1.2 An Airport Surface Access Strategy has been developed to support the expansion,

including highway mitigation measures, and will be delivered by a Travel Plan

[CD1.35b]. Together, these measures provide an effective response to all

transport and sustainability issues raised during consultations on the Applications.

The Applications

1.3 The Applications were considered by the Council on 3 March 2010, when it resolved

to grant planning permission for the Applications.

1.4 The Officer’s report [CD 1.48] refers to extensive discussions with the Highways

Agency and Kent County Council Highways Department, which satisfactorily

resolved any outstanding objections. I refer to these discussions below.

1.5 There were outstanding surface transport objections from Ashford Borough Council

and East Sussex County Council. The Officer’s report notes at paragraph 7.67 that

the former are minor, while the latter are minor and can be mitigated.

1.6 The resolution to grant was subject to measures to improve the A259/B2075

(Hammond’s Corner) junction at an agreed passenger threshold and to implement

a Travel Plan [CD1.35b] that would encourage the use of non-car modes.

Reasons for Call-in

1.7 The Applications were called in by the Secretary of State (letter of 22 June 2010).

The call in letter makes no specific reference to transport issues.

Objections and Representations

1.8 Following submission of the Applications, significant further consultation was

carried out with both Kent Highways and the Highways Agency through meetings

and written correspondence. Both organisations raised queries as to the

assumptions used within the Transport Assessments supporting the Applications

[CD1.6 and 1.7].

1.9 This consultation resulted in the production of the Transport Assessment Additional

Analysis Technical Note (August 2008) [CD1.35a] which tested a series of

alternative modelling assumptions. As a result of this additional modelling and

sensitivity testing, the main concerns of both Kent County Council and the

Highways Agency were satisfactorily addressed. The Highways Agency withdrew its

holding objection in August 2008. Kent County Council Highways Department

provided input to the Officer’s Report at paragraph 5.25 [CD 1.48] in 2009,

Transport Evidence

2

confirming they had no objections to the Applications, subject to conditions and a

legal agreement.

1.10 All assessments detailed within my evidence reflect this additional analysis and are

based on the assumptions agreed with Kent County Council and the Highways

Agency.

1.11 The stated objection by East Sussex County Council relates to access routes to the

Airport from the west. These comments are summarised at paragraph 5.33 of the

Officer’s Report and relate, in particular, to the impacts on the minor highway

network through Camber to the southwest of the Airport.

1.12 Further details of all consultations are provided in Chapter Twelve.

Scope of Evidence

1.13 In response to the Secretary of State’s reasons for call in, my evidence addresses

the following matters in relation to the proposed Airport layout and access:

I Section Two describes the Airport expansion proposals and how these relate to

passenger demands.

I Section Three provides the policy context for the Applications.

I Section Four describes the existing Airport and its access and parking

arrangements.

I Section Five explains how future passenger demand profiles have been

generated.

I Section Six describes staff numbers and travel characteristics.

I Section Seven provides a summary of the overall travel demand of the

developments.

I Section Eight presents the overall Surface Access Strategy.

I Section Nine describes Airport-related car parking and servicing.

I Section Ten explains the proposed construction management and phasing

arrangements.

I Section Eleven describes proposals to mitigate impacts, including highway

works.

I Section Twelve summarises responses to Rule 6 Parties’ objections.

I Section Thirteen provides a summary of my evidence.

1.14 My evidence shows that the Applicant has fully considered the expansion of the

Airport in transportation terms and that it has a comprehensive strategy for

managing access by all modes of travel. If and to the extent that there are any

further detailed or additional comments which Rule 6 Parties seek to make

subsequently, I reserve the ability to deal with these by way of rebuttal evidence

as required.

Transport Evidence

3

2 Airport Expansion Proposals

Introduction

2.1 The proposed development of the Airport as a small regional airport for the south-

east will provide a viable alternative for residents of Kent, East Sussex and the

wider south east area for short haul air travel.

2.2 The Airport served less than 1,000 passengers in 2009, with scheduled flights

between Lydd and Le Touquet. The Airport currently caters for significant numbers

of flights by private aircraft.

2.3 The proposals included in the Applications, as described below, have a two-fold

and related purpose – firstly, to provide a longer runway to accommodate larger

aircraft with full payloads, and, secondly, to expand terminal capacity and

facilities. The latter would not be viable without a longer runway.

Regional Air Travel

2.4 The last few years has seen significant increase in the use of regional airports in

the UK and a considerable expansion in the number of flights offered by regional

airports.

2.5 Air travel in the UK increased more than four-fold between 1980 and 2006, from 53

million passenger movements to 235 million passenger movements1. Regional

airports grew at a faster annual rate (6.7%) than the main London airports (4.9%).

2.6 The growth in air travel, in general, and the focus on regional airports,

demonstrates that demand exists across the UK for access to short haul flights.

Kent/East Sussex

2.7 There is a significant population to the south east of London that does not

currently have a conveniently located regional airport. Currently, the nearest

significant airport for residents of Kent and East Sussex is Gatwick Airport.

Although this provides considerable air travel options and facilities, the rail links

between Gatwick and Kent are relatively poor, as are the direct road links.

Coupled with this, there are limited expansion opportunities at present due to the

existing restrictions on the construction of an additional runway at Gatwick.

2.8 Despite the lack of existing growth opportunities, the demand for short haul air

travel continues to increase.

2.9 Kent International Airport (Manston) went into liquidation in 2006 following the

collapse of its main operator (EU Jet) but has since re-opened with flights to

Manchester and Edinburgh, together with seasonal flights to Jersey and charter

flights to Verona and other European destinations.

2.10 Ms Congdon [LAA/4/A] deals in more detail in her evidence with the market for

the Airport.

1 CAA, ‘Air Services at Regional Airports: An Update on Developments’ (2007) – Appendix 1

Transport Evidence

4

Development Proposals

Runway Extension

2.11 The development proposals for the Airport are in two parts. The first application

relates to the extension of the existing runway at the Airport. This extension is

required to enable the Airport to handle a wider range of commercial aircraft.

Specifically, it would enable the larger B737-700 and A319 aircraft to take off from

the Airport with full payloads.

2.12 This application does not propose any changes to the terminal buildings, which

could handle up to 300,000 passenger movements per year with internal

modifications to passenger handling facilities.

2.13 The proposed runway extension would increase the length of the runway by 444

metres from 1,505 metres to 1,949 metres.

2.14 For the purposes of the planning application, it was forecast at that time that the

Airport patronage would increase to a maximum of 300,000 annual passenger

movements with or without a runway extension.

Terminal Development

2.15 The second planning application relates to the construction of a new terminal

building to the north west of the existing buildings. This new facility would allow

the Airport to accommodate 500,000 passenger movements per year.

2.16 The terminal development would provide all facilities required of a small regional

airport. The basic passenger processing functions are offered on a single floor level

with arriving and departing passengers processed in parallel but segregated. The

terminal would provide 510 square metres of retail space, comprising 118 square

metres land-side and 392 square metres air-side.

2.17 Departing passengers would enter the building via an entrance door leading

directly into a shared departure concourse. Once passengers have checked in,

they would move to the security screening area for domestic and international

departures. This would mean passengers would use a shared departure lounge

which can be divided into two distinct areas should it be necessary.

2.18 Arrival passengers would make use of two gates – one for international passengers,

one for domestic. The arrivals area would provide security screening facilities,

along with baggage claim. Passengers would then pass through to the arrivals hall

where access to pick up points, taxi ranks and parking areas would be available.

Flight Services

2.19 The physical developments detailed above would allow the Airport to offer short

haul services to a range of destinations.

Transport Evidence

5

3 Policy Context

National Policy

Future for Air Transport White Paper

3.1 The publication of The Future of Air Transport [CD5.24] sets out a long-term

strategic framework for the development of air services in the UK. The

Department for Transport published this White Paper in December 2003. It was the

result of the Government’s recognition of the need for specific airport policies

acknowledged in the White Paper ‘A New Deal for Transport’ produced in 1998.

The paper sets out a measured and balanced approach providing a strategic

framework for the development of air travel over the next 30 years.

3.2 The White Paper, in relation to the South East, concludes that ‘There is scope for

other existing South east airports, including London City, Norwich, Southampton

and some smaller airports, to help meet local demand, and their future

development is supported in principle, subject to the relevant environmental

considerations’.

3.3 With regards to specific mention of Lydd it states that “The operators of Southend,

Lydd and Manston argue that their airports could grow substantially and each has

plans for development….We consider that all these airports could play a valuable

role in meeting local demand and could contribute to regional economic

development. In principle, we would support their development, subject to

relevant environmental considerations.”

3.4 Chapter 4 of the report is entitled ‘The Future of Air Transport’. This chapter

emphasises the importance of the major London airports. Around 80% of passenger

traffic, excluding connecting traffic, has an origin or destination that is within

London; the South East; or the East of England, highlighting the high level of

demand from these regions which amounts to almost half of the total demand

within the UK.

3.5 In order to serve regional and local demand, and to remove existing pressures from

the main London Airports, the Government is encouraging the growth of regional

airports, subject to environmental constraints. The benefits of this will be:

I ‘Supporting the growth of the economies of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland

and the English regions;

I Relieving congestion at more over-crowded airports, particularly in the South-

East, and therefore making better use of existing capacity;

I Reducing the need for long-distance travel to and from airports; and

I Giving passengers greater choice.

Airport Surface Access Strategies

3.6 The Airports White Paper also established the concept of Airport Surface Access

Strategies as a means of delivering higher levels of public transport use to airports.

Many UK airports have now adopted such strategies and these principles are

Transport Evidence

6

incorporated into the Travel Plan [CD1.35b] proposals for the Airport, as I will

describe in this Proof.

Towards a Sustainable Transport System (2007)

3.7 This report [CD8.17] was produced in October 2007 and was aimed at addressing

the need to create and maintain a transport system for the future providing

sufficient capacity whilst being sustainable and limiting the wider environmental

impacts.

3.8 With regards to aviation, the report highlights the economic benefits of airport

capacity expansion in the UK, whilst recognising the detrimental impacts of air

travel on the wider environment.

3.9 Of particular relevance within the report is the recognition that “Accessibility of

international transport links – both ports and airports – is identified…as critical to

their economic growth prospects.. The challenge is to identify economically

efficient ways of delivering it.”

PPG13: Transport

3.10 Planning Policy Guidance PPG13: Transport [CD6.6] is the planning guidance on

transportation. The overall objective of this guidance is to integrate planning and

transport at national, regional, strategic and local levels. The key objectives of

PPG13 are as follows:

I promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and moving

freight;

I promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public

transport, walking and cycling; and

I reduce the need to travel, especially by car.

3.11 It also recognises that the operational needs of airports are important to such

transport interchanges. The needs include runway and terminal facilities, aircraft

maintenance, handling provision and warehousing and distribution services related

to goods passing through the airport.

Regional Policy

Regional Spatial Strategy

3.12 The South East Plan [CD7.1] currently forms part of the development plan.

3.13 The Secretary of State has stated in a letter to all Chief Planning Officers in

England, dated 10 November 2010 that a previous letter dated 27 May 2010 noting

that regional planning strategies would be revoked should be regarded as a

material consideration in any decisions they are currently taking. The statement in

this letter is under challenge at the time of writing this proof of evidence. On

Monday 13 December 2010, the Coalition Government laid before Parliament the

Localism Bill and this proposes removal of the regional tier of planning policy.

3.14 The Government Office Network is now in discussion with the Department for

Communities and Local Government (CLG) regarding transitional arrangements for

the planning work carried out previously at regional level. These discussions will

continue through the Government’s Spending Review period.

Transport Evidence

7

Regional Transport Strategy

3.15 The Regional Transport Strategy [CD8.16] relevant to this area was published in

July 2004 and supersedes Chapter 9 of the Regional Planning Guidance for the

South East (RPG9) issued by the Government Office for the South East in March

2001.

3.16 As part of RPG9 the Regional Transport Strategy provides the framework for the

preparation of Local Transport Plans as well as other strategies and programmes

and is material to decisions on individual planning applications and appeals.

3.17 The Regional Transport Strategy [CD8.16] contains information with specific

regard to airports. The basis for this information was set out in the 1985 White

Paper: Airports Policy which has since been superseded by a new White Paper on

Aviation, published in December 2003 [CD5.24], following consultation on the

South East and East of England Regional Air Services Study (SERAS).

3.18 The Regional Transport Strategy [CD8.16] includes the main issues raised in the

2003 White Paper ‘The Future of Air Transport’ for the South East, these include:

I The urgent need for additional runway capacity in the South East;

I Provision should be made for two new runways in the South East by 2030; and

I There is scope for other existing South East Airports...to help meet local

demand, and their further development is supported in principle subject to

environmental considerations.

Policy T6: Airports

3.19 Relevant Regional Strategies, development plans and Local Transport Plans should

include policies and proposals that:

I Support the development of Gatwick and Heathrow Airports within levels of

growth agreed prior to the publication of the Aviation White Paper, though

these will need to be reassessed in the light of the framework established by

the White Paper;

I Take account of airport operator master plans produced in accordance with the

Aviation White Paper; and

I Encourages Southampton Airport to sustain and enhance its role as an airport of

regional significance.

3.20 Airport Surface Access Strategies should set out ways of achieving a modal shift in

favour of public transport.

Local Policy

Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2006)

3.21 The Kent and Medway Structure Plan was adopted in July 2006 and contains

transport policies relating to the development of aviation facilities in the county of

Kent. Policy TP25 states that:

“The expansion of aviation at Lydd Airport will be supported. Proposals related

to the development of the airport will be assessed for acceptability against the

following criteria (inter alia):

Transport Evidence

8

I The requirements for surface access being adequately accommodated within

the capacity of the existing or committed local transport network; and

I Measures being identified and secured to improved access by public transport

modes.”

3.22 The Structure Plan was superseded by the South East Regional Spatial Strategy on 6

May 2009.

Shepway District Plan

3.23 The Shepway District Adopted Local Plan Review (Adopted March 2006) [CD7.5]

includes the Airport as a site for expansion.

3.24 Policy TR8 refers to the A259 between Brenzett and Folkestone, which was de-

trunked in 2004, and the need for environmental improvements. The supporting

text also makes reference to the need for safety improvements along the A259.

Transport Evidence

9

4 Existing Airport and Access

Site Context

4.1 The Airport is located on the south coast of Kent, mid-way between Folkestone

and Hastings on Denge Marsh, close to the village of Lydd.

4.2 The airline, Silver City, built Lydd Airport in 1954 operating flights between Kent

and Le Touquet in Northern France. At one stage, the Airport was one of the

world’s busiest, operating a departure every two minutes. It was primarily used

for air car-ferries, which transported passengers and their cars to northern France.

At its peak, the Airport handled over 250,000 passengers per year. The historical

use of the Airport is given by Mr Tim Maskens in his evidence [LAA/3/A].

4.3 With the development of the roll-on/roll-off car sea ferries, the popularity of Lydd

Airport declined. The Airport served less than 1,000 passengers in 2009, with

flights scheduled between Lydd and Le Touquet.

Public Transport Access

4.4 The Airport has bus and connecting train transport links available to it, and is

therefore accessible by both bus and train. The Airport is currently served by bus

services running along the B2075 on an hourly frequency in each direction. The

nearest bus stop to the Airport is adjacent to the Airport access road. Bus services

provide links between the Airport and Ashford to the north and Rye and Hastings to

the west.

4.5 The nearest rail station is Appledore, 13 kilometres to the north of the Airport.

The station is on the Brighton to Ashford via Hastings line. An hourly service

operates from the station in each direction, following improvements to the line

since the Applications were submitted.

4.6 Wider rail links are available from Ashford. In particular, domestic high speed rail

services commenced from Ashford International in 2009, linking the station with

St. Pancras station in less than 45 minutes.

4.7 Ashford International Station, 26 kilometres to the north, is a significant transport

interchange with several bus services and rail links to London Bridge and Charing

Cross. Eurostar services also provide links to Mainland Europe.

Road Access

4.8 The Airport is 27 kilometres from Junction 10 of the M20, reached via the B2075 to

Hammond’s Corner, the A259 to Brenzett and the A2070 to Ashford.

4.9 The Airport access road connects with the local highway network via the B2075

Romney Road, two kilometres from the A259 (Hammond’s Corner). The A259 east

of Brenzett was ‘de-trunked’ in September 2003, with the A2070 becoming the

trunk road to Ashford and the M20. The A259 to the west of Brenzett is the south

coast trunk road, connecting the Airport with Hastings and Brighton.

Transport Evidence

10

5 Air Passenger Demand Profiles

Introduction

5.1 Airport surface access requirements are based on passenger demand profiles –

these were forecast using a range of data from existing comparator regional

airports and data provided by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). This data was

used to assess likely passenger home origins, modes of travel to the airport and

arrival/departure time profiles.

5.2 Passenger demand profiles have been related to aircraft movements by time and

seating capacity, based on assumed take-off and landing timetables. Passenger and

aircraft profiles have been aligned to derive real time arrival and departure

profiles at the Airport.

5.3 Actual services operated by the Airport in future will depend upon markets and

competitive forces and cannot be predicted with certainty. Realistic assumptions

were made based on available data and these were iterated to enable a worst case

to be tested, based on discussions with Kent County Council and the Highways

Agency, as reported in the Technical Note [CD1.35a].

5.4 Due to these assumptions and discussions with Kent County Council and the

Highways Agency, the agreed flight profiles and modelling assumptions used within

the Transport Assessments differ marginally from those given within the Socio-

Economic Proof of Evidence of Louise Congdon of York Aviation [LAA/4/A].

5.5 The descriptions below relate to assumptions used for the purposes of the

Transport Assessments to ensure that the Transport Assessment is robust for the

purposes for which it is required. The data and assumptions referred to in the

socio-economic evidence would not generate a greater amount of peak travel to

the Airport.

Flight Profile

5.6 For the two scenarios, 300,000 passengers per annum (ppa) with the runway

extension and 500,000 ppa with the new terminal building, aircraft movements by

type were agreed with the Applicant and indicative flight timetables derived.

Leeds Bradford airport was taken as an appropriate comparator airport for arrival

and departure profiles by time of day.

5.7 The Leeds Bradford timetable was adjusted to replicate the actual numbers of

flights at the Airport required to serve 300,000 or 500,000 ppa based on average

load factors. Further adjustments were made in discussion with Kent County

Council and the Highways Agency in order to generate more passenger arrivals and

departures at peak times and these worst case assumptions form the basis of my

evidence.

Passenger Demand Profile

5.8 The annual passenger demand for each scenario was converted into monthly and

daily passenger estimates using data for Leeds Bradford airport. The peak month is

Transport Evidence

11

assumed to be August with 10.3% of annual passenger movements and Monday is

the peak day with 16.2% of weekly movements.

5.9 Daily passenger movements were distributed to align with the assumed flight

profile and used to generate hourly arrival and departure times at the Airport, as I

discuss below. Full profiles are given in the Technical Note [CD1.35a].

5.10 Air Services at Regional Airports – CAP775 [CD16.3] shows that Leeds Bradford has

typical seasonality characteristics for regional airports.

Airport Catchment Area

5.11 The Airport was assumed to serve passengers from a wide catchment area in south

east England, though this will depend upon the range of services offered and

competition from other airports. However, assumed passenger home origins have

been estimated in order to inform the surface access strategy and the assumed

mode of travel.

5.12 The catchment area assessment was based on journey times by car as this is the

predominant mode of travel to regional airports. The majority of passengers travel

less than 60 minutes to regional airports – CAA data for Leeds Bradford shows that

83% of passengers have journey times less than this. However, a 90-minute

catchment area has been considered as there are likely to be some car trips to the

Airport from this wider area.

5.13 The 60-minute catchment area for the Airport extends from Dover in the east,

Bexhill to the west and Tonbridge to the north. The population living within this

area is 848,000 based on the 2008 Census estimates. The number of households

within this area is 362,000.

5.14 All Kent residents can reach the Airport within 90 minutes, along with most East

Sussex residents. The population living within this catchment is 3,650,000 with a

total of 1,563,000 households.

5.15 The 60 and 90 minute catchment areas are shown in the Airport Transport

Assessments [CD1.6 and CD1.7].

5.16 CAA data for 2006 was used to assess likely home origins for trips to/from the

Airport. The data extracted covered existing charter passengers in Kent and East

Sussex using London Gatwick, London Stansted and Luton airports for the year

2006. Passengers living outside Kent and East Sussex were discounted given the

availability of closer airports.

5.17 The distribution of potential passengers in Kent and East Sussex is predominantly

in the local authority areas with the highest populations (Maidstone, Canterbury,

Medway and Brighton and Hove). The percentage distribution of existing (2006)

charter passengers by area is shown in Table 5.1. The passenger distribution is not

weighted by proximity to the Airport or likely market share.

Transport Evidence

12

TABLE 5.1 PASSENGER DISTRIBUTION (CAA DATA 2006)

Home District Passengers

(%)

City of Brighton & Hove 10.5

Medway 10.4

Maidstone District 7.5

Thanet District 6.8

Canterbury District 6.4

Sevenoaks District 5.8

Dartford District 5.8

Swale District 5.2

Hastings District 4.8

Tonbridge District 4.5

Gravesham District 4.1

Ashford District 4.0

Wealden District 3.8

Tunbridge Wells District 3.6

Eastbourne District 3.5

Shepway District 3.0

Dover District 2.8

Lewes District 2.7

Gillingham District 2.4

Rother District 1.6

Other 0.7

Total 100.0

Traffic Distribution

5.18 The home origins of trips to/from the Airport derived from the analysis of the CAA

data was converted to likely highway access routes used by passengers. The broad

distribution of passenger movements by highway route is shown in Table 5.2. This

distribution forms the basis of the highway assessments agreed with the Highways

Agency and Kent County Council.

Transport Evidence

13

TABLE 5.2 PASSENGER HIGHWAY TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Origin Passengers

(%)

Highway Route

North/Northwest (Medway,

Sevenoaks (N), Maidstone etc.) 45 A2070/M20 Junction 10

Ashford/Tunbridge Wells/North

Wealden, Sevenoaks 10 A2070/A28 (W)

Canterbury/Swale 10 A2070/A28 (N)

Dover/Thanet/Shepway 10 A259 (E)

West (Brighton, Eastbourne,

Lewes, Hastings etc.) 25 A259 (W)

Arrival and Departure Profiles

5.19 Passengers would arrive at and depart from the Airport according to the assumed

flight arrival and departure times. However, actual entry and exit times to/from

the Airport are dependent upon passenger processing times. Entry and exit times

have been estimated as these inform the surface access strategy.

5.20 Passengers would enter the Airport and proceed through check-in and security

before departing. Passengers would exit the Airport after arrival dependent upon

time required to collect baggage and clear customs. Passengers will behave in

different ways when arriving or departing and this generates arrival and departure

profiles of passengers relative to flight times. Table 5.3 summarises the assumed

processing times in the Transport Assessments [CD1.6 and CD1.7].

TABLE 5.3 AIRPORT ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE PROFILES

Arrivals: Exit Airport Departures: Enter Airport

Exiting Minutes After Landing (%) Entering Minutes Before Take-Off (%)

<30 30-45 >45 >75 60-75 45-60 30-45

40 50 10 25 35 20 20

5.21 Recent changes to security procedures may have altered the assumed arrival and

departure profiles but these would have the effect of spreading the assumed peak

movements and would not have a material effect on travel patterns.

5.22 Table 5.3 shows that only 10% of passengers have not left the terminal 45 minutes

after landing but 80% of passengers are assumed to have arrived at the terminal at

least 45 minutes before departure.

Transport Evidence

14

5.23 The passenger arrival and departure profiles for the busiest day, a Monday in

August, were derived using the assumed flight timetable and converted to Airport

entry/exit profiles usi

Mode Share

5.24 Passengers will travel to the Airport mainly by car

East Sussex passengers has been used to derive a likely mode share for the Airport.

Existing travel patterns will not be re

travel to Gatwick and other airport

5.25 An adjusted mode split for the Airport is shown in Figure 5.1.

assumes the introduction of a new shuttle bus service to Ashford

station once the Airport has reached a significant level of demand

section 106 agreement provides for the Shuttle Bus to be in operation prior to the

Airport reaching a throughput of 30,000ppa)

FIGURE 5.1 AIRPORT PASSENGER MO

5.26 The majority of passengers are predicted

taxi, including those who park for the duration of their trip

dropped-off or picked

movement related to each arrival or departure.

5.27 In general, mode of travel to regional airports is a function of available

services. Travel to several r

range of use of public transport services. Table 5.4 summarises CAA data

regional airports from the CAA Passenger Survey Report 2009. The relevant extract

from this report is provided at

The passenger arrival and departure profiles for the busiest day, a Monday in


entry/exit profiles using the assumptions shown in Table 5.3.

Passengers will travel to the Airport mainly by car or taxi. CAA data for Kent and


Existing travel patterns will not be replicated exactly as air travellers are able to

el to Gatwick and other airports in the south east by rail.

An adjusted mode split for the Airport is shown in Figure 5.1.The bus mode share

assumes the introduction of a new shuttle bus service to Ashford International

station once the Airport has reached a significant level of demand (the proposed


Airport reaching a throughput of 30,000ppa).

AIRPORT PASSENGER MODE SHARE

he majority of passengers are predicted to travel to/from the Airport by car

including those who park for the duration of their trip and those who are

off or picked-up. Drop-off and pick-up trips generate a two-

movement related to each arrival or departure.

In general, mode of travel to regional airports is a function of available

services. Travel to several regional airports has been reviewed and this shows the

range of use of public transport services. Table 5.4 summarises CAA data


from this report is provided at Annex 1.

The passenger arrival and departure profiles for the busiest day, a Monday in


. CAA data for Kent and


plicated exactly as air travellers are able to

The bus mode share

International

(the proposed


irport by car or

and those who are

-way vehicle

In general, mode of travel to regional airports is a function of available access

egional airports has been reviewed and this shows the

range of use of public transport services. Table 5.4 summarises CAA data for seven


Transport Evidence

15

TABLE 5.4 PASSENGER MODE SHARE – COMPARATOR AIRPORTS (CAA, 2009)

Mode

Passengers by Mode (%)

Aber-

deen

Durham

Tees

Valley

Edin-

burgh Glasgow

Inver-

ness

Man-

chester

New-

castle

Private 92.5 98.0 73.0 88.6 89.3 86.8 86.0

Public 5.5 1.2 26.6 11.4 8.9 13.0 12.3

Other 2.0 0.8 0.4 0.0 1.7 0.2 1.2

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

5.28 The above table shows significant variation in mode share across airports but

private car trips, including taxis, exceeds 86% at all airports except Edinburgh. In

addition, Prestwick has a direct rail service, and Newcastle is connected to the

Metro light rail system. All of the above airports have direct bus services to the

nearest main city centre.

5.29 Based on the comparison airports, a 10% mode share for public transport is

considered to be appropriate as a basis for the initial Surface Access Strategy,

though the Travel Plan will aim to exceed this level.

5.30 In order to verify that the assumed mode share is appropriate, the 90-minute drive

catchment has been analysed to identify the catchment population that is within

10 minutes walk of a rail station and are, therefore, able to access the Airport by

public transport from Ashford International station.

5.31 There are 3,650,000 people living within 90-minute drive time, of which 1,011,100

live within a 10-minute walk of a national rail station. Of these, 241,800 live

around stations with direct rail services to Ashford International.

Passenger Demand by Mode

5.32 Given the passenger entry/exit profiles for the Airport on the busiest weekday and

the assumed mode of travel, peak hour movements by mode have been derived.

Passenger movement profiles by mode have been generated for the entire day and

are given in the Technical Note [CD1.35a].

5.33 For the purposes of assessment, trips by mode have been extracted for the busiest

hours: 8 to 9 am and 5 to 6 pm and these flows are summarised below.

5.34 Table 5.5 below shows the total passenger trips by mode for the morning peak

hour (08:00-09:00) for each development scenario.

Transport Evidence

16

TABLE 5.5 PASSENGER TRIPS BY MODE – AM PEAK (08:00-09:00)

Development

Scenario

Car

Parked

Car Drop-

Off/Pick-

Up

Bus Taxi TOTAL

In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out

300,000 ppa 57 35 61 61 13 8 43 43 174 147

500,000 ppa 60 37 65 65 14 9 46 46 186 157

5.35 Table 5.6 details the forecast passenger trips during the evening peak hour (17:00-

18:00) for each development scenario.

TABLE 5.6 PASSENGER TRIPS BY MODE – PM PEAK (17:00-18:00)

Development

Scenario

Car

Parking

Car Drop-

Off/Pick-

Up

Bus Taxi TOTAL


300,000 ppa 24 28 35 35 6 7 25 25 88 94

500,000 ppa 25 34 39 39 6 8 28 28 98 109

5.36 Passenger trips by car have been translated into vehicle trips using passenger

group size as a proxy for car occupancy. CAA data records group size and this was

calculated as 3.3 persons per group for Kent and East Sussex passengers. However,

the Highways Agency requested that a more robust assessment using a group size

of 2.5 be used, giving a higher number of vehicles.

5.37 Total peak vehicle trips to/from the Airport are summarised in Table 5.7. Vehicles

include car parked, drop-off and pick-up vehicles and taxis.

TABLE 5.7 TOTAL VEHICLE TRIPS BY HOUR AND DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO

Hour

Starting

300,000 ppa 500,000 ppa

In Out In Out

08:00 64 55 67 59

17:00 33 35 37 40

Total 289 289 484 484

Transport Evidence

17

5.38 The peak hour for passenger vehicle trip generation is 08:00-09:00 with up to 67

inbound vehicles and 59 outbound vehicles depending on the Airport scenario.

This peak has intentionally been modelled to coincide with the background

network peak hour in order to model the worst-case impact on the local road

network.

Transport Evidence

18

6 Staff Travel Demand

Introduction

6.1 This part of my evidence deals with travel to the Airport by staff and is based on

assumed staffing levels and shift patterns. I also discuss vehicle movements

generated by airport servicing activities.

Employment Density

6.2 Staff levels at comparable regional airports were assessed, from which it was

concluded that a figure of 600 employees per million passengers provided an

appropriate estimate of likely employment at the Airport in order to provide a

robust transport assessment. The Highways Agency, however, identified airports

with higher levels of staffing and so it was agreed that a worst case assessment

with 800 employees per million passengers would be used in the Technical Note

[CD1.35a]. It should be noted that the socio-economic evidence presented in the

Proof of Evidence of Louise Congdon [LAA/4/A] uses a lower employment density

for the purposes of assessing the most likely job creation arising from the Airport

proposals.

Shift Patterns

6.3 Under the development proposals, the Airport would have no night flights but

would be staffed at all times. Operational staff will work a three-shift system. The

assumed shift patterns used for the purposes of traffic modelling were as follows:

I 08:00 – 16:00

I 16:00 – 00:00

I 00:00 – 08:00

6.4 Office staff are assumed to work a single daytime shift (09.00 – 17.00).

Employee Mode Share

6.5 Operational staff are assumed to travel to the Airport by car given the absence of

public transport services at most shift change-over times. Most office staff will also

travel by car but some public transport use is assumed.

6.6 The mode shares applied to the staff are shown below in Figures 6.1 and 6.2. Car

driver trips are assumed to be single occupancy vehicles and car passengers are

assumed to be staff that are dropped-off or picked-up.

FIGURE 6.1 OFFICE

FIGURE 6.2 OPERATIONAL

Employee Trip Rates

6.7 The number of trips per day by staff

per employee, derived using the TRICS databas

Assessments [CD1.6 and CD1.7

multiple trips during the day

6.8 Based on this trip rate

trips by mode are forecast for each

mode for the morning peak hour for each development scenario. Table 6.2 details

the trips generation during the evening peak by mode.

Transport Evidence

OFFICE STAFF MODE SHARE

OPERATIONAL STAFF MODE SHARE

Employee Trip Rates

er of trips per day by staff has been assumed to be 1.22

per employee, derived using the TRICS database as explained in the

CD1.6 and CD1.7]. The trip rate accounts for leave/absence and

during the day.

Based on this trip rate and the mode shares detailed above, the following staff

trips by mode are forecast for each of the scenarios. Table 6.1 details the trips by


the trips generation during the evening peak by mode.

85%

5%

10%

95%

5%

Transport Evidence

19

has been assumed to be 1.22 one-way trips

e as explained in the Transport

The trip rate accounts for leave/absence and

and the mode shares detailed above, the following staff

Table 6.1 details the trips by


Car Driver

Car Passenger

Bus

Car Driver

Car Passenger

Transport Evidence

20

TABLE 6.1 STAFF TRIPS BY MODE – AM PEAK (08:00-09:00)

Development

Scenario

Car Driver Car Pick-

up/Drop-off

Bus

In Out In Out In Out

300,000 ppa 54 11 3 1 3 0

500,000 ppa 90 19 5 1 4 1

TABLE 6.2 STAFF TRIPS BY MODE – PM PEAK (17:00-18:00)

Development

Scenario

Car Driver Car Pick-

up/Drop-off

Bus

In Out In Out In Out

300,000 ppa 4 48 0 3 0 2

500,000 ppa 7 81 0 4 1 3

Servicing Trips

6.9 Service vehicle trips comprise deliveries to the retail and catering facilities, refuse

collections, aviation fuel deliveries and collections from the on-site septic tank.

6.10 The Transport Assessments [CD 1.6 and 1.7] detailed the levels of waste

production and delivery levels forecast for each development scenario. Table 6.3

shows that there are no forecast service vehicle trips for each of the Applications

during the morning and evening network peak hours.

TABLE 6.3 SERVICE & DELIVERY VEHICLE TRIPS

Time Period

300,000 Passengers per

Annum

500,000 Passengers per

Annum

In Out In Out

08:00-09.00 0 0 0 0

17:00-18.00 0 0 0 0

DAILY 6 6 10 10

Transport Evidence

21

6.11 There are no forecast service and delivery trips during the peak hours. A total of

20 one-way service vehicle trips are forecast to be generated per day with the

terminal development scenario. This compares with a total of 12 one-way service

trips generated by the runway extension application.

Transport Evidence

22

7 Total Travel Demand

Introduction

7.1 Trips generated by passengers, staff and servicing vehicles have been assessed to

identify the combined travel demands generated by the Airport. Total trips by

mode have been used to develop the surface access strategy and mitigation

measures.

Trip Generation

7.2 Chapters five and six detailed the travel demand for passengers and staff. These

numbers have been combined with the servicing trips to identify the total vehicle

and public transport trip generation for both Applications (on a worst case

assessment).

7.3 Table 7.1 provides a breakdown of the total trips by mode for each development

scenario during the morning peak hour. Table 7.2 provides the same breakdown

for evening peak hour.

TABLE 7.1 TOTAL TRIPS BY MODE – AM PEAK HOUR (08:00-09:00)

Development

Scenario

Car

Parked*

Car Drop-

Off/Pick-

Up*

Bus Taxi*

Service

Vehicles


300,000 ppa 77 25 27 25 16 9 17 17 0 0

500,000 ppa 114 33 31 27 19 9 19 19 0 0

*Vehicle Trips

TABLE 7.2 TOTAL TRIPS BY MODE – PM PEAK HOUR (17:00-18:00)

Development

Scenario

Car

Parking*

Car Drop-

Off/Pick-

Up*

Bus Taxi*

Service

Vehicles


300,000 ppa 13 60 14 16 6 9 10 10 0 0

500,000 ppa 17 94 16 20 7 11 11 11 0 0

*Vehicle Trips

Transport Evidence

23

Transport Networks

7.4 The Airport is accessible from the local highway network and connections to

national trunk roads. There is currently only one bus service to the Airport but this

will be supplemented by a shuttle bus operating between the Airport and Ashford

International station (the proposed section 106 agreement provides for the Shuttle

Bus to be in operation prior to the Airport reaching a throughput of 30,000ppa).

7.5 The forecast patterns of movement to/from the Airport have been used to develop

the Surface Access Strategy described in the following chapter. Proposals for

mitigating the impacts of additional trips on transport networks are outlined in

Chapter Eleven.

Transport Evidence

24

8 Surface Access

Introduction

8.1 A Surface Access Strategy (SAS) and associated Travel Plan

developed for the Airport as

travel demand profiles. The

modes to the Airport and to provide opportunities for journeys to be made by non

car modes wherever feasible.

8.2 The latest Department for Transport data

used a vehicle on their last journey to an airport (45% car driver, 23% car

passenger and 20% taxi). Given the location

to expect that travel t

which includes many airports with

shows the mode of travel used to travel to UK airports

FIGURE 8.1 MAIN MODE OF TRAVEL

8.3 The objectives of the SAS are to establish public transport services as a viable

travel choice and to maximise opportunities for passengers to travel by taxi or in

larger groups.

Public Transport Access

8.4 The Airport is currently accessible by bus routes serving a stop at the end of the

Airport Access Road.

to serve the Airport terminal building

2 Office of National Statistics Omnibus Survey, Department for Transport, February 2010 quoted within DfT Report

“Public Experience of And Attitudes Towards Air

6%

20%

6%4%

2%

Access Strategy

Surface Access Strategy (SAS) and associated Travel Plan [CD1.35b]

developed for the Airport as direct responses to the projected staff and passenger

avel demand profiles. The objectives of the SAS are to facilitate travel by all

irport and to provide opportunities for journeys to be made by non

car modes wherever feasible.

t Department for Transport data2 [CD8.11] shows that 88% of passengers


passenger and 20% taxi). Given the location of the Airport, it would not be realistic

to expect that travel to the Airport would vary significantly from this average,

which includes many airports with very good public transport links. Figure 8.1

shows the mode of travel used to travel to UK airports.

MAIN MODE OF TRAVEL TO UK AIRPORT (2010)

he objectives of the SAS are to establish public transport services as a viable


Access

The Airport is currently accessible by bus routes serving a stop at the end of the

Airport Access Road. It is proposed that these existing bus routes will be extended

irport terminal building. Stagecoach, the local bus operator, has

Office of National Statistics Omnibus Survey, Department for Transport, February 2010 quoted within DfT Report

“Public Experience of And Attitudes Towards Air Travel [CD8.11]

44%

17%

4%

0% 1%

Long-stay Parking

Car Share Drop

Car Share Long

Taxi

Rail

Bus

Underground/Light Rail

Walk

Other

[CD1.35b] have been

direct responses to the projected staff and passenger

ate travel by all

irport and to provide opportunities for journeys to be made by non-

shows that 88% of passengers


, it would not be realistic

irport would vary significantly from this average,

Figure 8.1

he objectives of the SAS are to establish public transport services as a viable


The Airport is currently accessible by bus routes serving a stop at the end of the

existing bus routes will be extended

us operator, has

Office of National Statistics Omnibus Survey, Department for Transport, February 2010 quoted within DfT Report

stay Parking

Car Share Drop-off

Car Share Long-Stay

Underground/Light Rail

Transport Evidence

25

expressed an interest in pursuing these route enhancements, subject to

negotiation with the Airport and financial contributions where appropriate.

Shuttle Bus

8.5 A key element of the Travel Plan [CD1.35b] is the implementation of a shuttle bus

service between the Airport and Ashford International Station to provide

significantly improved links by public transport for passengers travelling from the

north.

8.6 Following the Runway Extension coming into operation (meaning the use of the

Runway Extension by aeroplanes departing from the Airport), and prior to a

throughput of 30,000 ppa, the Airport will submit to the Council for approval a

scheme for this service.

8.7 The service will commence at least two hours before the first commercial aircraft

departs and continue until at least one hour after the last arrival. During the day,

the service will operate according to a timetable commensurate with flight arrivals

and departures, ensuring that all passengers have the option of using the shuttle

bus to and from Ashford International. The demand for the service will be

monitored and the timetable adjusted accordingly.

8.8 The service would be wholly funded by the Airport in the first instance, with the

Airport aiming to reduce the subsidy as the Airport grows and the service moves

towards self sufficiency. Further details of the operation of such a shuttle service

will be devised and agreed as part of the Travel Plan [CD1.35b] and the Section

106 agreement.

8.9 The service patronage would be monitored on a quarterly basis with patronage

figures to be submitted to the Council showing daily and monthly demand.

Bus and Coach Facilities

8.10 The Applications provide for coach and bus pick-up and drop-off facilities adjacent

to the terminal buildings. The terminal development provides a new coach parking

facility with sufficient capacity for 14 coaches.

Rail Links

8.11 Since the submission of the Applications, rail services calling at the nearby

Appledore Station have improved with an hourly service now available between

Brighton and Ashford via Hastings stopping at the station. This service will be

promoted by the Airport as an alternative mode of access by public transport.

8.12 The feasibility of operating further shuttle bus links between Appledore station

and the Airport will also be investigated as airport patronage increases.

Taxi Services

8.13 Taxis provide an alternative form of public transport for passengers, especially

those with heavy luggage, who value their flexibility. A total of 84 two-way taxi

trips per day are forecast with 300,000 annual passenger movements. The

terminal development scenario is forecast to generate 141 daily two-way taxi

trips.

Transport Evidence

26

8.14 The Airport will provide taxi drop-off and pick-up facilities close to the terminal

and also provide information on local taxi companies within the terminal building.

Highway Access

8.15 The nature of the Airport development and its location is such that the dominant

mode of access will continue to be the car either by taxi or private vehicle.

8.16 The forecast traffic impacts have been modelled and detailed in both the

Transport Assessments [CD1.6 and CD1.7] and the subsequent Technical Note

[CD1.35a].

8.17 The Airport is accessed from the B2075, Lydd Road, and the A259 at Hammond’s

Corner. The A259 provides a direct connection to Folkestone to the east and the

M20 to the north via the A2070 to Ashford.

8.18 The A259 to the west follows the south coast through Rye, Hastings, and Brighton

and beyond.

8.19 Signage would be provided to the Airport via the most suitable routes and

information also provided to passengers to reinforce this. All designated routes are

suitable for Airport access traffic, although the A259 Hammond’s Corner junction

would require improvement works to be carried out once passengers exceed an

agreed threshold level.

Transport Evidence

27

9 Car Parking and Servicing

Introduction

9.1 The Airport aims to provide an appropriate level of parking on-site for staff and

passengers in order to avoid queues on access routes or parking on surrounding

roads. Equally, the Airport does not wish to over-provide car parking given the

objective of the Travel Plan [CD1.35b] to minimise the number of unique car

trips.

9.2 Airport car parking will be expanded sequentially to cater for the planned

passenger growth but this will be managed and monitored to ensure that its

operation is satisfactory.

Car Parking Provision

9.3 The Airport currently has 143 marked parking bays adjacent to the terminal

building but space is available for informal parking giving a total of 223 spaces. For

the runway extension (300,000 ppa), a further 287 car spaces will be provided, a

total of 510 spaces. For the terminal building (500,000 ppa), a further 352 spaces

will be provided, a total of 862 spaces.

9.4 Car parking provision for each Application has been provided in accordance with

car parking demand by staff and passengers, determined according to levels of car

use and occupancy, times of arrival/departure and duration of stay.

9.5 Table 9.1 shows the maximum accumulation of short and long stay passenger

parking and staff parking at the Airport.

TABLE 9.1 PROPOSED CAR PARKING PROVISION

Parking Type Car Spaces

300,000 ppa 500,000 ppa

Long-Stay Parking 400 682

Short-Stay Parking 40 60

Staff Parking 70 120

TOTAL 510 862

9.6 The above totals will include wider spaces for disabled drivers and wheelchair

users and these would be located as close to the terminal building as possible with

clearly designated step-free routes. The Airport will aim to provide at least 4% of

spaces for disabled drivers.

Transport Evidence

28

Car Parking Management

9.7 Car parking will be monitored and managed in accordance with a ‘Car Parking

Management Scheme’ included within the section 106 agreement. This will provide

details of the car parking layout and provision for disabled users; operational

arrangements; charging framework as necessary; and signage provision.

9.8 The Car Park Management Scheme will be agreed with the Council prior to the

Runway Extension coming into operation (meaning the use of the Runway

Extension by aeroplanes departing from the Airport). The Car Park Management

Scheme will be subject to regular monitoring with a Car Park Management

Monitoring Report to be produced annually.

9.9 If the demand for car parking exceeds that proposed to be provided, the Car Park

Management Scheme will identify appropriate mitigation. This may include a valet

parking scheme, increased car park charges or pre-booking of parking spaces. All

car parking requirements will be accommodated on-site and within the Airport

boundary.

Coach Facilities

9.10 The existing terminal provides capacity to accommodate coaches within the car

park on an ad hoc basis. There is also a large area in front of the main entrance

for coach drop-off and pick-up.

9.11 For the runway extension, no further coach parking is proposed but existing hard-

standing areas will be utilised, as required.

9.12 As part of the terminal development proposals, enhanced coach parking drop-off

and pick-up facilities adjacent to the new terminal entrance will be provided. A

total of 14 coach parking spaces will also be provided.

Servicing

9.13 The Airport will be required to be serviced as with any other commercial premises.

Service vehicles will be required to access to deliver goods, collect waste and

deliver fuel.

9.14 The Airport currently uses, and will continue to, a cesspit to collect waste water.

This waste is then collected by tanker. At 300,000 passengers per annum there are

forecast to be 5 sewage/waste water collections per week by tanker. This will

increase to 10 collections per week with 500,000 passengers per annum.

9.15 As discussed in Chapter Six, overall a total of 6 daily two-way service trips are

forecast at 300,000 ppa and 10 daily two-way trips are forecast at 500,000 ppa.

9.16 The terminal development provides loading bay facilities for the delivery of goods

and collection of waste.

Transport Evidence

29

10 Construction Management and Phasing

Introduction

10.1 The construction of both development phases will be subject to Construction

Management Plans detailing the level of traffic generated by construction, the

routes that traffic will take and any further mitigation measures to be

implemented.

Runway Extension

10.2 The construction programme will require the construction of a temporary access

road to the runway as well as the runway extension itself.

10.3 The majority of construction vehicle movements will be generated by the

construction of the access road rather than the runway extension. It has therefore

been assumed that most of the construction vehicle movements will be generated

in the first month of construction. In making this assumption, assessment is made

of the worst-case levels of additional construction vehicle trips.

10.4 The construction is forecast to require 10,000 cubic metres of aggregate. This will

be transported to the site by HGVs with a capacity of 20 cubic metres. This

equates to 500 two-way vehicle trips with an average daily flow of 50 HGV trips

per weekday. The increase in HGV trips does not increase the levels of HGV on the

B2075, the A259 or the A2070 to more than 10% of total traffic flow.

10.5 The operational hours of the construction site may be restricted in order to

prevent additional heavy traffic during the peak periods of the day. The

concentration of vehicle movements in the initial stages of the construction will

reduce the longer term impacts on the road network.

Terminal Development

10.6 The construction programme will require the construction of the new terminal

building whilst the existing terminal remains in operation. The estimated

construction timetable will comprise four main stages as follows:

TABLE 10.1 CONSTRUCTION TIMETABLE AND DAILY HGV MOVEMENTS

Construction Procedure Period

Excavation 6 weeks – 20 HGV movements

Steelwork 5 weeks – 40 HGV movements

Ground floor sub-base and concrete 4 weeks – 30 HGV movements

Fixing and Finishing 29 weeks – no HGVs

Total Construction Period 44 weeks

Transport Evidence

30

10.7 HGV movements generated by the construction period do not increase the HGV

traffic above 10% on any of the affected routes.

Transport Evidence

31

11 Mitigation Proposals

Introduction

11.1 The Airport will provide significant new facilities for passengers to facilitate access

by car, taxi and public transport as outlined in the Surface Access Strategy above.

The Environmental Statements [CD1.14 and CD1.17] identified residual impacts

and these have been addressed with a series of mitigation measures discussed and

agreed with Kent County Council and the Highways Agency.

11.2 The proposed mitigation measures have associated financial costs and have, as

appropriate, been included in the proposed Section 106 agreement.

Travel Plan

11.3 A Travel Plan has been submitted with the Applications [CD1.35b], which forms

the basis of a specific "Runway Extension Updated Travel Plan" (to cater for up to

300,000 ppa) and a "Terminal Building Updated Travel Plan" (to cater for up to

500,000 ppa). These travel plans will be secured in the proposed section 106

Agreement. The overall objective of the Travel Plans is to maximise the

opportunity for staff and air passengers to travel to the site by alternative modes

to the private car. Over and above the specific measures detailed below, the

Travel Plan provides a mechanism by which all travel options to access the Airport

are made available where possible and promoted to all Airport users.

11.4 The Travel Plans will include measures such as a car sharing opportunities for

staff, promotion of local bus services and the provision of cycle facilities including

secure parking, showers and locker facilities. In agreeing the Travel Plan with the

Council, all relevant sustainable transport measures will be considered for their

appropriateness in this location.

11.5 The Runway Extension Updated Travel Plan and the Terminal Building Updated

Travel Plan will be agreed with the Council and will include the identification of a

transport co-ordinator at the Airport. The transport co-ordinator will be

responsible for marketing and promoting all relevant transport measures to

passengers and staff. The co-ordinator will also be responsible for monitoring the

Travel Plans and preparing an annual monitoring report to be submitted to the

Council. This monitoring will continue for ten years after the operation of the

Runway Extension.

Signage Strategy

11.6 The Airport is currently signposted from surrounding approach roads, including the

A259 and A2070. Signs are provided and maintained by the respective highway

authorities and would need to be reviewed for an expanded airport. This will

ensure that longer distance traffic accessing the Airport uses the most suitable

routes.

11.7 A ‘Signage Strategy’ is included within the proposed section 106 agreement, to be

provided by the Applicant prior to the Runway Extension coming into operation

(meaning use of the Runway Extension by aeroplanes departing from the Airport).

Transport Evidence

32

As part of the strategy, the Airport will review existing signage with Kent County

Council and others, and provide information to passengers on suitable routes to be

used.

11.8 Traffic accessing the Airport from the west via the A259 through Rye is currently

signposted via the C24 Camber Road (which becomes the B2075 Lydd Road). This is

not considered appropriate and would be addressed in the Signage Strategy and

changed subject to agreement with the relevant highway authorities. The aim

would be to direct traffic along the A259 to Hammond’s Corner.

11.9 Camber Road (C24) is in East Sussex and the County Council has objected to

potential use of this route to access the Airport. Measures to limit the use of the

Camber Road have been discussed with the County Council and agreement reached

on the implementation of remedial measures.

Shuttle Bus Service

11.10 As detailed in Chapter Eight, once the Airport is in operation and before

throughput reaches 30,000 passengers per annum, a shuttle bus service will be

implemented to provide a link between the Airport and Ashford International

Station for passengers and staff.

11.11 The service will commence at least two hours before the first commercial aircraft

departs and continue until at least one hour after the last arrival. During the day,

the service will operate according to a timetable commensurate with flight arrivals

and departures, ensuring that all passengers have the option of using the shuttle

bus to and from Ashford International. The demand for the service will be

monitored and the timetable adjusted accordingly.

Highways Improvements

11.12 Travel to the Airport will be predominantly by vehicle, including taxis, and this

will generate additional traffic on access routes. Traffic volumes to be

accommodated have been agreed with the highway authorities.

11.13 Following analysis of impacts on access routes, improvements to both the

Hammond’s Corner and Airport road junctions are proposed.

Hammond’s Corner

11.14 A scheme has been developed (and provisionally approved by Kent County Council)

to replace the existing priority junction with a roundabout scheme; this would

improve safety and provide additional capacity at the junction of the A259 and

B2075.

11.15 Based on junction assessments, a threshold of 30,000 passenger movements per

annum has been agreed as a threshold for the implementation of the roundabout

scheme and secured by planning condition.

11.16 The preliminary junction design is provided at Appendix 2 and provisionally

approved by Kent County Council. This scheme would be implemented before

passenger demand reached 30,000 movements per annum.

Transport Evidence

33

Airport Access Road

11.17 The junction of the Airport access road with the B2075 has been shown to provide

sufficient capacity to support the Airport development proposals. However, in

order to improve safety at the junction and provide improved access, a roundabout

scheme has been proposed.

11.18 The operation of the junction will be monitored regularly (as secured in the

section 106 agreement). Should this monitoring indicate that improvements are

required on either capacity or safety grounds, then a roundabout scheme similar to

that proposed may need to be funded by the Airport and implemented through

agreement with Kent Highways Services.

11.19 A preliminary design for this junction is provided at Appendix 3.

Construction Traffic

11.20 As discussed in Chapter Ten, construction traffic will be restricted to the main

highway network between the Airport and Ashford and the M20.

11.21 A Routing Plan, which will be secured in the section 106 agreement, will be

devised which will include the designated construction traffic routes. A

construction environmental management plan (CEMP), which will be secured by

planning condition, will also be agreed with the Council and a planning condition

will restrict the operating hours of the construction site to prevent additional

heavy traffic during peak periods.

On Site Mitigation

Car Parking

11.22 Sufficient parking will be provided on site as detailed in Chapter 9. The

breakdown of proposed parking provision was provided in Table 9.1.

11.23 A Car Park Management Plan will be developed and agreed with the Council to

monitor parking uptake to ensure that sufficient car parking is provided for all

passengers and staff. Where car parking is under-utilised, the management plan

will allow for its removal.

Transport Evidence

34

12 Response to Objections

12.1 Following the submission of the Applications, a number of transport related

objections and comments were submitted. The majority of comments and

objections have been addressed through consultation and additional assessments.

The only outstanding objections were detailed within the Officer’s Report

[CD1.48].

12.2 I summarise the nature of such objections and comments below along with details

of how they have been addressed.

Main Objections

Highways Agency- Holding objection withdrawn August 2008

12.3 The Highways Agency initially responded to the Applications with a holding

objection subject to the clarification of certain modelling assumptions. The main

points of clarification were as follows:

I Passenger group size assumptions;

I Employment levels;

I Flight timetable;

I Passenger trip distribution;

I Staff trip distribution;

I Provision of 2016 Review Period;

I Mode Share assumptions;

I Impacts on Brenzett roundabout;

I Impacts on M20 junction

12.4 The majority of the points raised were related to the provision of additional

justification for assumptions used. Sensitivity analysis was carried out, as detailed

within this proof of evidence, with these assessments outlining any further

transport impacts generated.

12.5 Following the provision of this additional information, the Highways Agency

withdrew their holding objection in August 2008, as detailed in paragraph 5.25 of

the Officer’s Report [CD 1.48].

Kent County Council – Objection Withdrawn September 2009

12.6 A series of clarification requests and comments were received from Kent County

Council, originally in November 2007. The main issues were as follows:

I Passenger group size assumptions;

I Impacts on Hammond’s Corner;

I Travel Plan;

I Employment assumptions; and

I Internal layout and parking provision.

Transport Evidence

35

12.7 Following the provision of supplementary information, Kent County Council

withdrew their objections to the Applications, as detailed in paragraph 5.25 of the

Officer’s Report [CD1.48].

East Sussex County Council- Concern Addressed in Section 106 Agreement

12.8 East Sussex County Council supports the proposals in principle, but has raised

concerns with regards to the impact of the Airport development on the highway

network within the neighbouring county to the west. These comments are

summarised at paragraph 5.33 of the Officer’s Report [CD1.48]. In particular,

their concern was with regards to the impact on Camber Road to the west of the

Airport.

12.9 Following recent discussions with East Sussex County Council, provision would be

made to monitor the traffic levels through Camber with a view to the Airport

providing contributions to mitigation measures should traffic levels increase

significantly.

12.10 It has been agreed that traffic will be monitored along Camber Road (B2075)

between Camber and Lydd prior to the Airport operating with the completed

runway extension. Once the airport throughput has reached 30,000 passengers per

annum, the survey will be repeated annually.

12.11 Should the survey results show an increase in traffic along the B2075 Camber Road

in excess of 20%, then the Airport will make a contribution to the cost of traffic

calming measures through Camber as recommended by East Sussex County Council.

12.12 On the basis that the agreed measures to safeguard Camber are included within

the proposed s106 agreement, East Sussex County Council will formally withdraw

its objection.

Ashford Borough Council

12.13 Ashford Borough Council raised concerns in a number of areas where they

considered that insufficient information had been provided. One of these areas

was in relation to traffic generation and the potential detrimental impact on the

highway network within Ashford Borough.

12.14 Based on the responses and agreements reached with both the Highways Agency

and Kent County Council with regards to highways impacts, the level of traffic

impact upon the Ashford area is likely to be minor. This conclusion is one shared

by the Planning Officer, as detailed in paragraph 7.67 of the Officer’s report

[CD1.48].

Transport Evidence

36

13 Summary and Conclusions

General

13.1 In my evidence, I have described how an expanded Lydd Airport would attract

additional passengers from surrounding areas of Kent and East Sussex, and how

these passengers would access the Airport by various modes of travel. I have also

described how facilities at the Airport would be developed to cater for an

increased number of passengers.

13.2 The transport response to the expansion of the Airport aims to strike a balance

between making suitable provision for staff and passengers travelling by car or taxi

and the need to promote other modes of travel. This core objective is underpinned

by a Surface Access Strategy and Travel Plan [CD1.35b] that promote sustainable

travel. As the airport expands, opportunities to promote and develop non-car

alternatives are secured within the proposed section 106 agreement.

Summary

13.3 The Airport proposals are highly capable of being supported by efficient and

convenient means of access. The Applications were supported by robust

assessments of the impacts of additional trips to/from the airport and by

additional assessments agreed with the Highways Agency and Kent County Council.

13.4 The main findings and conclusions of my evidence are as follows:

i. The Airport proposals have been assessed for 300,000 and 500,000

passengers per annum based on assumed flight and passenger profiles drawn

from data for comparable airports in the UK.

ii. All assumptions that form the basis of my evidence were agreed with the

Highways Agency and Kent County Council as representative of a worst case

sensitivity test for the purposes of assessing mitigation measures.

iii. The expansion of the Airport has broad policy support at regional, county

and local level and is consistent with Government policies on airports.

iv. There is a significant demand for air travel from the parts of Kent and East

Sussex within 60 minutes drive time of the Airport, sufficient to generate at

least 500,000 air passenger movements.

v. A flight schedule for the Airport for use in the Transport Assessment has

been developed based on a comparable UK airport and related air passenger

movements assessed for a peak month (August) and peak day (Monday).

vi. Travel to the Airport by staff and passengers will be predominantly by car or

taxi, which is supported by CAA data for comparable regional airports.

Transport Evidence

37

vii. The Airport would generate in the worst case analysis 343 passenger

movements in the peak hour (08.00 to 09.00) with 500,000 annual passenger

movements.

viii. There would be 126 vehicle movements by passengers in the peak hour with

500,000 annual passenger movements and 115 vehicle movements by staff.

ix. Car parking spaces would be provided on-site for staff and passengers

equivalent to estimated demand, but would be monitored and reviewed as

the Airport expands to ensure appropriate provision and management.

x. The Surface Access Strategy and Travel Plan [CD1.35b] include several

measures to minimise car use and to encourage the development of bus and

taxi services, these being underwritten by the section 106 agreement.

xi. All residual impacts of the proposals would be mitigated through the Travel

Plan [CD1.35b], the provision of additional bus services and external works

to highways to improve safety and capacity.

xii. On the basis of the measures proposed, there are no material or significant

objections to the Airport from the relevant highway authorities or transport

operators.

13.5 In summary, all the effects or impacts of the proposals are capable of being

managed and mitigated within well-defined structures agreed as part of the

proposed section 106 agreement. The Airport, as it expands, will introduce a range

of measures that will encourage and promote sustainable travel and minimise

impacts on surroundings roads and transport networks.

U:\London\Projects\223\1\97\01\Outputs\Reports\Keith Sowerby Transport Evidence 22 December 2010.docx

Control Sheet

CONTROL SHEET

Project/Proposal Name London Ashford Airport

Document Title Transport Evidence

Client Contract/Project No. N/A

SDG Project/Proposal No. 22319701

ISSUE HISTORY

Issue No. Date Details

1 22/12/2010 Final

REVIEW

Originator Keith Sowerby

Other Contributors Hannah Shrimpton

Review by: Print Keith Sowerby

Sign

DISTRIBUTION

Client: London Ashford Airport Ltd

Steer Davies Gleave:

PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF KEITH SOWERBY BSc (Econ), FIHT … and... · undertaken surface access studies...

Documents

Transcript of PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF KEITH SOWERBY BSc (Econ), FIHT … and... · undertaken surface access studies...