Bexhill Hastings Link Road Best and Final Funding Bid ... · Bexhill Hastings Link Road Best and...

Bexhill Hastings Link RoadBest and Final Funding BidAssignment Model Validation Report

Bexhill Hastings LinkRoad

Best and FinalFunding Bid

Assignment ModelValidation Report

East Sussex County CouncilCounty HallSt Anne's CrescentLewesEast Sussex


Bexhill Hastings LinkRoad

Best and FinalFunding Bid

Assignment ModelValidation Report

Issue and Revision RecordRev Date Originator Checker Approver Description

A March 2009 N Gordon/P Shears I Johnston I Johnston For Issue

B July 2011N Gordon

I Johnston I Johnston Issued for comments

C August2011

N GordonI Johnston I Johnston For Issue

Bexhill Hastings Link RoadBest and Final Funding BidAssignment Model Report

i

List of Contents Page

Chapters and Appendices

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

2 SATURN Model Description .....................................................................................2

2.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................2

2.2 Network Description..................................................................................................2

2.3 Zoning System..........................................................................................................4

3 SATURN Matrices ..................................................................................................11

3.1 Roadside Interview Surveys ...................................................................................11

3.2 Observed Matrix Building........................................................................................11

3.3 Prior Matrix .............................................................................................................13

3.4 Matrix Estimation ....................................................................................................14

4 SATURN Model Assignment...................................................................................22

4.1 Assignment.............................................................................................................22

4.2 Network calibration and model convergence ..........................................................22

5 SATURN Model Validation......................................................................................24

5.1 Validation Criteria ...................................................................................................24

5.2 Calibration Results .................................................................................................24

5.3 Flow Validation .......................................................................................................25

5.4 Journey Time Validation .........................................................................................32

5.5 Additional Journey Time Validation.........................................................................39

5.6 Internal Trip Distribution..........................................................................................41

6 Public Transport Model...........................................................................................46

6.1 Model Network........................................................................................................46

6.2 Matrices..................................................................................................................48

6.3 Bus Fares ...............................................................................................................53

6.4 Rail validation .........................................................................................................54

6.5 Bus validation .........................................................................................................55

7 Present Year Validation ..........................................................................................57

7.2 2011 Reference Highway Matrix Totals ..................................................................59

7.3 2011 Reference public transport matrices...............................................................60

7.4 2011 Present Year Highway Validation...................................................................62


2

7.5 A271 Flow Adjustment............................................................................................65

7.6 Journey Time Validation .........................................................................................73

8 Conclusion..............................................................................................................79

List of Figures

Figure 2-1: Glyne Gap September 2004 ATC daily profile ......................................................2Figure 2-2: Model Network Area.............................................................................................5Figure 2-3: Speed Flow Curves ..............................................................................................6Figure 2-4: Local Zoning System - Bexhill ..............................................................................7Figure 2-5: Local Zoning System – Hastings ..........................................................................8Figure 2-6: External Zoning System .......................................................................................9Figure 2-7: Zoning System UK .............................................................................................10Figure 3-1: Roadside Interview Locations.............................................................................18Figure 3-2: Sectors in the Study Area...................................................................................19Figure 3-3: AM Trip Length Distribution ................................................................................20Figure 3-4: IP Trip Length Distribution..................................................................................20Figure 3-5: PM Trip Length Distribution ................................................................................21Figure 5-1: AM Flow Validation Screenlines .........................................................................35Figure 5-2: IP Flow Validation Screenlines ...........................................................................36Figure 5-3: PM Flow Validation Screenlines .........................................................................37Figure 5-4: Journey Time Survey Routes .............................................................................38Figure 5-5: Baldslow Journey Time Routes ..........................................................................40Figure 5-6: Bexhill Ward Subsets .........................................................................................44Figure 5-7: Hastings Ward Subsets......................................................................................45Figure 6-1: Local Bus Routes ...............................................................................................47Figure 7-1: AM Peak Modelled Flows (total vehs (hgv%)) ....................................................69Figure 7-2: Interpeak Modelled Flows (total vehs (hgv%)) ....................................................70Figure 7-3: PM Peak Modelled Flows (total vehs (hgv%)) ....................................................71Figure 7-1: Journey Time Survey Routes .............................................................................74

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Speed Flow Curve Data.........................................................................................3Table 3.1: RSI Sample Rates ...............................................................................................11Table 3.2: Roadside Interview Survey Factors .....................................................................12Table 3.3: RSI Matrix User Class Split..................................................................................13Table 3.4: Matrix Data by Sector ..........................................................................................14Table 3.5: Pre Matrix Estimation Trips..................................................................................15Table 3.6: Post Matrix Estimation Trips ................................................................................16Table 4.1: Generalised Cost Parameters..............................................................................22Table 4.2: Convergence Parameters....................................................................................23Table 4.3: Achieved Convergence........................................................................................23Table 5.1: Assignment Validation - Acceptability Guidelines.................................................24Table 5.2: Flow Calibration Results (Counts used for Matrix Estimation)..............................25Table 5.3: AM Peak RSI Flow Calibration.............................................................................26Table 5.4: Inter Peak RSI Flow Calibration...........................................................................27Table 5.5: PM Peak RSI Flow Calibration.............................................................................28


3

Table 5.6: AM Peak Screenline Flow Validation ...................................................................29Table 5.7: Interpeak Screenline Flow Validation...................................................................30Table 5.8: PM Peak Screenline Flow Validation ...................................................................31Table 5.9: AM Peak Journey Time Validation .......................................................................33Table 5.10: Interpeak Journey Time Validation.....................................................................33Table 5.11: PM Peak Journey Time Validation .....................................................................34Table 5.12: Baldslow AM Peak Journey Time Comparison ..................................................40Table 5.13: Baldslow Interpeak Journey Time Comparison..................................................41Table 5.14: Baldslow PM Peak Journey Time Comparison ..................................................41Table 5.15: Bexhill Census Distribution ................................................................................42Table 5.16: Bexhill Modelled Distribution..............................................................................42Table 5.17: Hastings Census Distribution.............................................................................43Table 5.18: Hastings Modelled Distribution ..........................................................................43Table 6.1: Weekday and weekend assumed splits by ticket group .......................................49Table 6.2: Outward time of travel assumptions by ticket group.............................................50Table 6.3: Return time of travel assumptions by ticket group................................................50Table 6.4: Journey purpose by ticket group assumptions .....................................................51Table 6.5: Journey purpose by time of travel assumptions ...................................................51Table 6.6: Rail Trip Car Availability Split ...............................................................................52Table 6.7: Split of Trips by Time Period and Journey Purpose .............................................53Table 6.8: Bus Trip Car Availability Split ...............................................................................53Table 6.9: AM (0800-0900) Peak Rail Passenger Validation ................................................54Table 6.10: Interpeak (1000-1600 average) Rail Passenger Validation ................................55Table 6.11: PM Peak (1600-1800 average) Rail Passenger Validation.................................55Table 6.12: Bus Passengers Validation Results ...................................................................56Table 7.1: Main Business Developments in Bexhill and Hastings (2004-2011).....................57Table 7.2: Housing Completions 2004-2011.........................................................................58Table 7.3: Central Growth Rate for LGV and HGV ...............................................................59Table 7.4: AM Peak Matrix Totals.........................................................................................59Table 7.5: Interpeak Matrix Totals ........................................................................................60Table 7.6: PM Peak Matrix Totals.........................................................................................60Table 7.7: AM Peak Public Transport Matrix Totals ..............................................................61Table 7.8: Interpeak Public Transport Matrix Totals..............................................................61Table 7.9: PM Peak Public Matrix Totals ..............................................................................61Table 7-10: DIADEM parameters .........................................................................................62Table 7.11: AM Peak Flow Validation...................................................................................63Table 7.12: Inter Peak Flow Validation .................................................................................64Table 7.13: PM Peak Flow Validation...................................................................................65Table 7.14: AM Peak Flow Validation post matrix estimation................................................66Table 7.15: Inter Peak Flow Validation post matrix estimation..............................................67Table 7.16: PM Peak Flow Validation post matrix estimation................................................68Table 7.17: AM Peak Journey Time Validation .....................................................................76Table 7.18: Interpeak Journey Time Validation.....................................................................77Table 7.19: PM Peak Journey Time Validation .....................................................................78


24

5 SATURN Model Validation

5.1 Validation Criteria

5.1.1 The validation acceptability guidelines as set out in DMRB Volume 12Section 2 Part 1 Chapter 4 are summarised in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Assignment Validation - Acceptability Guidelines

Criteria and Measures Acceptability Guideline

1. Assigned hourly flows comparedwith observed flows

• For flows < 700 vph –Individual flows within 100vph;

• For flows 700 – 2700 vph -Individual flows within 15%;

• For flows > 2700 vph –Individual flows within 400vph.

> 85% of cases

2. Total screenline flows (normally >5 links) to be within 5%.

All (or nearly all) screenlines

3. GEH statistic

• GEH < 5 for individual flow;• GEH < 4 for screenline.

> 85% of casesAll (or nearly all) screenlines

5.2 Calibration Results

5.2.1 Counts at 117 locations were used in the matrix estimation process.Table 5.2 below shows how well modelled and observed flows at these locationsmeet the validation criteria. The modelled hgv flows at the calibration countlocations meet the validation criteria for all time periods. The light vehicles meetthe flow range criteria for all time periods with GEH values just outside the criteriafor am and pm peaks.


25

Table 5.2: Flow Calibration Results (Counts used for Matrix Estimation)

Time Period Vehicle Types % Flow with GEH < 5% Flow within DMRBRecommended Flow

Range

LV 81% 93%AMHGV 98% 100%

LV 87% 94%IPHGV 99% 99%

LV 83% 92%PMHGV 96% 100%

5.3 Flow Validation

5.3.1 Tables 5.3 to 5.5 detail the observed and modelled flow at each of theRSI sites, as well as the GEH statistics and comparison with required flow rangeaccuracy.

5.3.2 In the am peak, all RSI locations meet both the flow and GEH criteria. Inthe inter peak all RSI locations meet both the flow and GEH criteria. In the pmpeak, all locations meet both the flow and GEH criteria except for the eastboundA271 flow which is 1 vehicle above the required limit. Overall in each time period96% of all locations meet the flow levels validation and 100% meet the requiredGEH statistic criteria.


26

Table 5.3: AM Peak RSI Modelled vs Observed Flows

Flow Criteria

Diff % Diff

WithinDMRB

Criteria?

Eastbound Obs Mod <700

700 -2700

>2700

GEH Flow GEH

A271 804 771 -4.1 1.17 � �

B2095 409 489 80 3.79 � �

Crowhurst 304 294 -10 0.59 � �

Glyne Gap 1146 1099 -4.1 1.42 � �

TOTAL 2662 2652 0.4 0.20 � �

Westbound

A271 739 712 -3.8 1.03 � �

B2095 381 441 60 2.98 � �

Crowhurst 185 176 -8 0.61 � �

Glyne Gap 1172 1011 -13.8 4.89 � �

TOTAL 2477 2340 -5.5 2.79 x �


27

Table 5.4: Inter Peak RSI Modelled vs Observed Flows

Flow Criteria

Diff % Diff

WithinDMRB

Criteria?


700 -2700

>2700

GEH Flow GEH

A271 527 449 -79 3.55 � �

B2095 251 239 -12 0.76 � �

Crowhurst 59 87 28 3.27 � �

Glyne Gap 1064 1037 -2.6 0.85 � �

TOTAL 1902 1811 -4.7 2.09 � �

Westbound

A271 512 442 -70 3.20 � �

B2095 242 309 67 4.01 � �

Crowhurst 131 138 8 0.67 � �

Glyne Gap 1074 1052 -2.0 0.67 � �

TOTAL 1959 1941 0.9 0.39 � �


28

Table 5.5: PM Peak RSI Modelled vs Observed Flows

Flow Criteria

Diff % Diff

WithinDMRB

Criteria?


700 -2700

>2700

GEH Flow GEH

A271 730 840 15.1 3.95 � �

B2095 394 484 90 4.29 � �

Crowhurst 124 86 -38 3.74 � �

Glyne Gap 1204 1148 -4.7 1.65 � �

TOTAL 2452 2558 4.3 2.11 � �

Westbound

A271 702 789 12.5 3.21 � �

B2095 435 443 8 0.38 � �

Crowhurst 202 147 -55 4.15 � �

Glyne Gap 1249 1144 -8.4 3.02 � �

TOTAL 2588 2524 -2.5 1.26 � �

5.3.3 Tables 5.6 to 5.8 detail the observed and modelled flows across each ofthe validation screenlines by direction, as well as the GEH statistics andcomparison with required flow range accuracy. In addition appropriate flowranges around the observed counts are provided giving an indication of theaccuracy of this data.

5.3.4 There are two screenlines in Hastings, East and West with individuallocations numbered HE or HW. Likewise there are two screenlines in Bexhill,East and West with individual locations numbered BE or BW. Flows across eachscreenline have been assessed eastbound and westbound separately. Figures5.1 to 5.3 show the location of the screenline and the individual points that theycomprise, together with the comparison of observed and modelled flows againsteach screenline location.

5.3.5 Of the 41 validation locations 80% met the required flow criteria and93% meet the required GEH criteria in the am peak. In the interpeak 95% met therequired flow criteria and 93% met the GEH criteria. In the pm peak 88% met therequired flow criteria and 93% meet the GEH criteria. In each time period theflows across the roadside interview screenline, which covers the traffic that couldtransfer to the Link Road, all meet the required flow and GEH criteria.


29

Table 5.6: AM Peak Screenline Flow Validation

Diff % DiffObs Mod <700 700-2700 >2700 GEH Flow GEH

Hastings West ScreenlineEastboundHW1 945 851 - 1040 826 - -12.6% - 3.99 � �HW2 1073 966 - 1180 1024 - -4.6% - 1.51 � �HW3 498 448 - 547 606 109 - - 4.62 � �HW4 536 509 - 562 435 -101 - - 4.57 � �HW5 873 786 - 960 879 - 0.7% - 0.20 � �All 3924 3770 -3.9% 2.48 � �

WestboundHW1 638 574 - 702 773 135 - - 5.07 � �HW2 975 877 - 1072 924 - -5.2% - 1.66 � �HW3 358 322 - 393 439 81 - - 4.08 � �HW4 358 340 - 376 459 101 - - 5.00 � �HW5 781 703 - 859 677 - -13.4% - 3.87 � �All 3110 3271 5.2% 2.86 � �

Hastings East ScreenlineEastboundHE1 422 380 - 464 335 -87 - - 4.47 � �HE2 425 382 - 467 394 -31 - - 1.52 � �HE3 189 170 - 208 206 17 - - 1.23 � �HE4 503 453 - 553 475 -28 - - 1.25 � �All 1539 1411 -8.3% 3.34 � �

WestboundHE1 647 583 - 712 541 -107 - - 4.38 � �HE2 541 487 - 595 532 -10 - - 0.42 � �HE3 181 163 - 199 250 69 - - 4.67 � �HE4 750 675 - 825 638 - -15.0% - 4.26 � �All 2120 1960 -7.5% 3.54 � �

Bexhill West ScreenlineEastboundBW1 716 645 - 788 879 - 22.7% - 5.75 � �BW2 915 823 - 1006 1043 - 14.1% - 4.11 � �BW3 439 395 - 482 393 -45 - - 2.23 � �BW4 169 152 - 186 129 -40 - - 3.28 � �BW5 50 48 - 53 58 8 - - 1.14 � �BW6 153 145 - 161 166 13 - - 1.00 � �All 2442 2668 9.3% 4.48 � �

WestboundBW1 721 649 - 793 732 - 1.5% - 0.41 � �BW2 869 782 - 956 693 - -20.3% - 6.32 � �BW3 329 296 - 362 314 -14 - - 0.80 � �BW4 79 71 - 87 106 27 - - 2.83 � �BW5 70 67 - 74 73 2 - - 0.28 � �BW6 123 117 - 130 93 -30 - - 2.92 � �All 2191 2011 -8.2% 3.94 � �

Bexhill East ScreenlineEastboundBE1 586 528 - 645 641 55 - - 2.20 � �BE2 635 603 - 667 639 5 - - 0.19 � �BE3 203 183 - 223 188 -15 - - 1.10 � �BE4 149 134 - 164 100 -49 - - 4.42 � �BE5 249 224 - 274 200 -50 - - 3.31 � �All 1822 1767 -3.0% 1.30 � �

WestboundBE1 441 397 - 486 515 73 - - 3.36 � �BE2 742 705 - 779 622 - -16.1% - 4.58 � �BE3 185 167 - 204 226 41 - - 2.86 � �BE4 250 225 - 248 228 -23 - - 1.49 � �BE5 223 200 - 245 211 -12 - - 0.79 � �BE6 239 215 - 263 249 10 - - 0.62 � �All 2081 2051 -1.5% 0.66 � �

Flow Criteria (vph)Within DMRB GuidelinesConfidence

Interval Obs


30

Table 5.7: Interpeak Screenline Flow Validation


Hastings West ScreenlineEastboundHW1 587 528 - 646 594 7 - - 0.27 � �HW2 917 826 - 1009 807 - -12.1% - 3.77 � �HW3 396 357 - 436 432 36 - - 1.77 � �HW4 314 298 - 329 322 8 - - 0.48 � �HW5 753 678 - 828 699 - -7.2% - 2.01 � �All 2967 2853 -3.8% 2.11 � �

WestboundHW1 593 534 - 653 666 72 - - 2.89 � �HW2 936 843 - 1030 946 - 1.0% - 0.31 � �HW3 348 313 - 383 407 59 - - 3.04 � �HW4 199 189 - 209 249 50 - - 3.36 � �HW5 750 675 - 825 711 - -5.2% - 1.45 � �All 2827 2979 5.4% 2.82 � �

Hastings East ScreenlineEastboundHE1 482 434 - 530 421 -61 - - 2.86 � �HE2 333 300 - 367 424 90 - - 4.65 � �HE3 144 129 - 158 192 48 - - 3.72 � �HE4 637 573 - 701 622 -15 - - 0.60 � �All 1596 1659 3.9% 1.56 � �

WestboundHE1 464 417 - 510 410 -53 - - 2.56 � �HE2 357 321 - 392 339 -18 - - 0.96 � �HE3 141 127 - 155 149 9 - - 0.73 � �HE4 547 492 - 601 666 119 - - 4.84 � �All 1508 1564 3.8% 1.45 � �

Bexhill West ScreenlineEastboundBW1 625 563 - 688 669 43 - - 1.71 � �BW2 717 645 - 789 793 - 10.6% - 2.76 � �BW3 301 271 - 331 303 2 - - 0.13 � �BW4 145 130 - 159 174 29 - - 2.33 � �BW5 23 22 - 24 19 -4 - - 0.91 � �BW6 91 87 - 96 88 -4 - - 0.38 � �All 1902 2045 7.5% 3.23 � �

EastboundBW1 684 616 - 752 623 -61 - - 2.39 � �BW2 758 682 - 833 783 - 3.3% - 0.90 � �BW3 321 289 - 353 326 5 - - 0.25 � �BW4 109 98 - 119 55 -54 - - 5.95 � �BW5 44 42 - 46 68 24 - - 3.23 � �BW6 56 53 - 59 104 48 - - 5.32 � �All 1971 1957 -0.7% 0.31 � �

Bexhill East ScreenlineEastboundBE1 377 339 - 415 421 44 - - 2.18 � �BE2 612 582 - 643 563 -49 - - 2.02 � �BE3 192 172 - 211 198 6 - - 0.44 � �BE4 330 297 - 363 421 91 - - 4.68 � �BE5 362 326 - 398 343 -19 - - 1.00 � �All 1873 1946 3.9% 1.66 � �

WestboundBE1 349 314 - 384 453 104 - - 5.22 � �BE2 603 573 - 633 686 83 - - 3.25 � �BE3 83 75 - 91 111 28 - - 2.81 � �BE4 321 289 - 318 379 57 - - 3.07 � �BE5 305 274 - 335 260 -45 - - 2.67 � �BE6 314 283 - 346 296 -18 - - 1.04 � �All 1976 2185 10.6% 4.59 � �


Interval Obs


31

Table 5.8: PM Peak Screenline Flow Validation


Hastings West ScreenlineEastboundHW1 961 865 - 1058 820 - -14.7% - 4.72 � �HW2 1174 1057 - 1291 1216 - 3.6% - 1.23 � �HW3 469 422 - 516 585 116 - - 5.05 � �HW4 414 394 - 435 354 -61 - - 3.09 � �HW5 794 715 - 874 794 - -0.1% - 0.02 � �All 3813 3769 -1.1% 0.71 � �

WestboundHW1 648 583 - 712 649 2 - - 0.06 � �HW2 1039 935 - 1143 1045 - 0.5% - 0.17 � �HW3 467 421 - 514 558 90 - - 4.00 � �HW4 383 364 - 402 482 98 - - 4.74 � �HW5 737 663 - 810 711 - -3.5% - 0.95 � �All 3274 3444 5.2% 2.94 � �

Hastings East ScreenlineEastboundHE1 752 677 - 827 678 - -9.8% - 2.75 � �HE2 633 570 - 697 633 -1 - - 0.03 � �HE3 224 202 - 246 274 50 - - 3.16 � �HE4 706 636 - 777 765 - 8.4% - 2.17 � �All 2315 2350 1.5% 0.72 � �

WestboundHE1 499 449 - 549 431 -68 - - 3.15 � �HE2 382 344 - 421 428 46 - - 2.29 � �HE3 197 177 - 217 221 24 - - 1.63 � �HE4 571 514 - 628 682 111 - - 4.45 � �All 1649 1762 6.9% 2.74 � �

Bexhill West ScreenlineEastboundBW1 658 592 - 724 761 103 - - 3.87 � �BW2 808 727 - 888 800 - -1.0% - 0.28 � �BW3 306 275 - 336 362 57 - - 3.10 � �BW4 156 141 - 172 112 -44 - - 3.81 � �BW5 48 46 - 50 20 -28 - - 4.72 � �BW6 141 134 - 148 158 16 - - 1.34 � �All 2117 2213 4.5% 2.07 � �

EastboundBW1 821 739 - 903 731 - -11.0% - 3.25 � �BW2 873 786 - 961 796 - -8.8% - 2.66 � �BW3 325 292 - 357 291 -33 - - 1.89 � �BW4 151 136 - 167 116 -36 - - 3.09 � �BW5 79 75 - 83 93 14 - - 1.48 � �BW6 205 194 - 215 229 24 - - 1.64 � �All 2454 2256 -8.1% 4.09 � �

Bexhill East ScreenlineEastboundBE1 496 446 - 545 634 138 - - 5.81 � �BE2 666 632 - 699 539 -127 - - 5.16 � �BE3 237 213 - 261 233 -4 - - 0.29 � �BE4 349 315 - 384 415 66 - - 3.35 � �BE5 350 315 - 385 349 -2 - - 0.08 � �All 2098 2169 3.4% 1.54 � �

WestboundBE1 405 365 - 446 455 50 - - 2.40 � �BE2 676 642 - 710 762 86 - - 3.20 � �BE3 78 70 - 86 97 19 - - 2.06 � �BE4 182 164 - 180 146 -36 - - 2.83 � �BE5 213 191 - 234 229 17 - - 1.11 � �BE6 312 281 - 343 318 6 - - 0.34 � �All 1866 2008 7.6% 3.21 � �


Interval Obs


32

5.4 Journey Time Validation

5.4.1 Four routes were defined covering all main roads between Hastings andBexhill as well as the A259 and B2182 access routes to Bexhill from the west.These can be seen in Figure 5.4. Journey time data was collected for theseroutes over one week with a minimum of 8 observations for each route at eachtime period. An average journey time was calculated for each journey section tocompare against the modelled journey times. The only east-west route betweenBexhill and Hastings not surveyed was the route via Crowhurst. This was due toonly low flows on this route with a maximum flow of 300 vehicles one-wayobserved in the modelled hours.

5.4.2 Road works were taking place on the A2100 south of Battle during thejourney time survey. This affected the purple and blue routes. To eliminate theeffect of the road works, the time spent queuing as a result of the road works wasdeducted from the overall observed journey time. Table 5.9 to 5.11 summarisedthe observed and modelled journey time for each route in the AM, interpeak andPM peak periods, respectively. For the AM Peak only journey time surveysundertaken in the modelled hour of 0800-0900 have been used for thecomparison.

5.4.3 In Appendix C time-distance graphs have been added to demonstratehow well the observed and modelled travel times match throughout the journeytime routes. Separate graphs have been created for each route and each timeperiod.

5.4.4 The journey time routes in all three time periods meet the requiredvalidation criteria with more than 85% of routes having modelled journey timeswithin 15% of observed.


33

Table 5.9: AM Peak Journey Time Validation

Route Direction ObservedRange

ObservedAverage

Modelled Modelled /Observed

Eastbound 913 – 1464 1082 1133 1.05BlueRoute

Westbound 855 - 1139 977 1070 1.10

Anti-Clockwise

1179 - 1390 1280 1202 0.94GreenRoute

Clockwise 1166 - 1513 1267 1249 0.99

Westbound 775 – 941 847 916 1.08PurpleRoute

Eastbound 826 – 1200 1011 948 0.94

Clockwise 1707 – 3489 2539 2495 0.98YellowRoute

Anti-Clockwise

1732 - 3150 2820 2242 0.80

Table 5.10: Interpeak Journey Time Validation


ObservedAverage



Westbound 877 – 1092 947 1021 1.08

Anti-Clockwise

1145 – 1415 1241 1137 0.92GreenRoute

Clockwise 1121 – 1327 1221 1205 0.99


Eastbound 813 – 1067 931 790 0.85


Anti-Clockwise

1406 - 2095 1668 1903 1.14


34

Table 5.11: PM Peak Journey Time Validation


ObservedAverage



Westbound 931 – 1084 1014 1143 1.13

Anti-Clockwise

1249 – 1382 1322 1227 0.93GreenRoute

Clockwise 1186 – 1476 1302 1297 1.00


Eastbound 833 – 1434 1063 1008 0.96


Anti-Clockwise

1782 - 3351 2510 2365 0.94


39

5.5 Additional Journey Time Validation

5.5.1 Further journey time data were available from work carried out on theA21/A28 Baldslow junction improvement scheme by the HighwaysAgency. This data was received after the Bexhill Hastings base modelvalidation was completed. The Baldslow journey time results which leadthrough Hastings from the coast to the Baldslow area have beencompared against the Bexhill Hastings base model. These additional tworoutes can be seen in Figure 5.5.

5.5.2 The Baldslow journey time observations took place in May and June2006. Tables 5.12 to 5.14 show the comparison of observed andmodelled journey times for each route and Appendix C shows time-distance diagrams for each route and time period.

5.5.3 The routes were surveyed between 0700-1000 in the am period, 1100 –1400 in the interpeak and 1600-1900 for the pm period. Survey data forruns undertaken between 0800-0900 only have been used for thecomparison of am peak modelled and observed journey times. Similarlyin the pm, survey data for runs undertaken between 1600-1800 onlyhave been used.

5.5.4 A number of the survey runs across all routes and time periods wereincomplete and data was only available for part of the survey routes. Allavailable data during the modelled hours has been used for thecomparison. Where observed journey time ranges are identified in thefollowing tables, this relates to fully timed survey runs only. The averageobserved times do include data from all full and partial survey runs.

5.5.5 The model is within 80% of the observed data for all routes and timeperiods.


40

Figure 5-5: Baldslow Journey Time Routes

Table 5.12: Baldslow AM Peak Journey Time Comparison


ObservedAverage


Southbound 652 - 892 779 631 0.81Route 1

Northbound 555 - 769 662 584 0.88


Northbound 439 - 571 511 422 0.83


41

Table 5.13: Baldslow Interpeak Journey Time Comparison


ObservedAverage



Northbound 459 - 780 627 579 0.92

Southbound 407-607 489 438 0.89Route 2

Northbound 423 - 653 495 426 0.86

Table 5.14: Baldslow PM Peak Journey Time Comparison


ObservedAverage



Northbound 597 – 927 738 635 0.86


Northbound 442 - 638 530 441 0.83

5.6 Internal Trip Distribution

5.6.1 Trips wholly within Bexhill and wholly within Hastings (which would notuse the Link Road) were generated by a matrix estimation procedure, with theprior matrix for these elements taken from the 1997 Hastings Bexhill TransportStudy model. The 1997 estimate of trips was based on household interviewsurveys in Hastings and Bexhill from the 1970s. Although trips wholly withinBexhill and Hastings would not use the Link Road, they could encounter benefitsor dis-benefits as a result of completion of the Link Road.

5.6.2 In order to assess the robustness of these benefits and dis-benefits, wehave reviewed the base year trip distributions for am peak commuting trafficagainst 2001 census journey to work data for car drivers. Wards within Bexhilland Hastings have been grouped into four areas as shown in Figures 5-6 and 5-7.

5.6.3 Tables 5.15 and 5.16 show the internal distributions for Bexhill from thecensus and the model. Tables 5.17 and 5.18 show the internal distributions for


42

Hastings. The observed and modelled distributions are similar with the modelreplicating the main movements within Bexhill and Hastings well.

Table 5.15: Bexhill Census Distribution

NE Bexhill NW Bexhill SW Bexhill SE Bexhill

NE Bexhill 8% 2% 3% 9%

NW Bexhill 3% 11% 4% 12%

SW Bexhill 3% 3% 13% 13%

SE Bexhill 2% 2% 3% 10%

Table 5.16: Bexhill Modelled Distribution

NE Bexhill NW Bexhill SW Bexhill SE Bexhill

NE Bexhill 5% 2% 2% 8%

NW Bexhill 2% 3% 4% 8%

SW Bexhill 4% 4% 10% 14%

SE Bexhill 7% 7% 6% 15%


43

Table 5.17: Hastings Census Distribution

North StLeonards

South StLeonards

Central EastHastings

North StLeonards

15% 5% 6% 2%

South StLeonards

8% 9% 4% 2%

Central 9% 4% 9% 2%

EastHastings

8% 4% 5% 8%

Table 5.18: Hastings Modelled Distribution

North StLeonards

South StLeonards

Central EastHastings

North StLeonards

16% 7% 5% 2%

South StLeonards

7% 8% 5% 1%

Central 4% 4% 12% 4%

EastHastings

2% 2% 7% 14%

Bex

hill

Has

tings

Link

Roa

dB

esta

ndF

inal

Fun

ding

Bid

Ass

ignm

entM

odel

Val

idat

ion

Rep

ort

44

Fig

ure

5-6:

Bex

hill

War

dA

reas

Bex

hill

Has

tings

Link

Roa

dB

esta

ndF

inal

Fun

ding

Bid

Ass

ignm

entM

odel

Val

idat

ion

Rep

ort

45

Fig

ure

5-7:

Has

tin

gs

War

dA

reas


46

6 Public Transport Model

6.1 Model Network

6.1.1 A public transport model has been developed using the VISUM software.The software has been used to model the east-west rail and bus networks in theBexhill and Hastings area. Only the bus services which travel between Bexhilland Hastings have been included as it is these services which will be impactedby the proposed Link Road. All of the rail services serving Bexhill, Hastings andother local rail stations have been included.

6.1.2 The network includes rail and bus routes with their main stops. All busespassing through Glyne Gap were included in the model with all stops codedwithin Hastings and Bexhill and only strategic stops were coded outside thecorridor. There is one main operator in the area, namely Stagecoach, and it istheir services 98 and 710 which travel between Bexhill and Hastings. Figure 6.1shows the bus routes.

6.1.3 Bus and rail services have been coded according to September 2004. Inorder to model accessibility to bus and rail stations, stops have been connectedto all zones within a radius of 2 kilometres of a rail station or a radius of 300mfrom a bus stop.

Bex

hill

Has

tings

Link

Roa

dB

esta

ndF

inal

Fun

ding

Bid

Ass

ignm

entM

odel

Val

idat

ion

Rep

ort

47

Fig

ure

6-1:

Lo

calB

us

Ro

ute

s


48

6.2 Matrices

6.2.1 LENNON sales data by appropriate station origin and destination pointswere obtained. The data included all sales independent of where they wereissued. The origins and destinations requested were:

• Bexhill

• Collington

• Cooden Beach

• Crowhurst

• Hastings

• Ore

• St Leonards Warrior Square

• West St Leonards

• Polegate

• Robertsbridge & Etchingham

• Battle

• Winchelsea to Ham Street

• Eastbourne & Hampden Park

• Pevensey (including Pevensey Bay and Pevensey & Westham)

6.2.2 In addition, the above stations were requested as origins or destinationsto the following stations or groups of stations:

• Brighton, Hove, Aldrington, Portslade and Fishersgate

• London

• Surrey

• West Kent

• Kent

• Crowborough and East Grinstead

• E & W Sussex

• Haywards Heath and Burgess Hill

• Crawley to Horley (including Gatwick Airport)

• Rest of UK


49

Rail Trip matrices

6.2.3 The LENNON output included Origin, Destination, Product code (CTOT),Gross and Net Receipts, Journeys and Miles on an annual basis. This data wasthen checked and non-travel products, e.g., refunds; removed. To aid with laterassumptions product codes were further grouped into off-peak return, off-peaksingle, peak return, peak single and season.

6.2.4 There was only limited survey data available on time of travel (for 4stations on a weekday and only for passengers entering each station) andnothing of any significance for journey purpose. Assumptions on the proportion ofweekend travel were made based on National Passenger Survey (NPS) data forSpring 2003 which showed that 10% of the journeys on South Eastern and SouthCentral (now called Southern Railway) took place at the weekend. The split ofthese by the 5 main ticket groups are shown in Table 6.1 below.

Table 6.1: Weekday and weekend assumed splits by ticket group

Weekday proportion off-peak return 85%

off-peak single 85%

peak return 100%

peak single 100%

season 95%

Weekend proportion off-peak return 15%

off-peak single 15%

peak return 0%

peak single 0%

season 5%

6.2.5 Assumptions regarding time of outward and return travel within theweekday or weekend were made based on ticket type data assumptions. Theseare shown below in Tables 6.2 and 6.3.

6.2.6 Non-season and weekly season journeys were assumed to take place inthe period they were bought. Longer term season journeys were spread acrossall the periods based on the Rail Settlement Plan (RSP) Season Ticket Suspensejourney factors. This is a standard spread which takes into account the fact thatseason tickets are used less in some periods (e.g., summer). Other assumptionsregarding time of travel were based on sensibility and previous experience.


50

Table 6.2: Outward time of travel assumptions by ticket group

Weekday am peak inter-peak pm peak evening

Outward off-peak return 50% 0% 0%

off-peak single 0% 75% 20% 5%

peak return 50% 0% 0% 0%

peak single 100% 0% 0% 0%

season 50% 0% 0% 0%

Weekend am peak inter-peak pm peak evening

Outward off-peak return 20% 30%

off-peak single 30% 55% 10% 5%

peak return

peak single

Season 50% 0%

Table 6.3: Return time of travel assumptions by ticket group

Weekday am peak inter-peak pm peak evening

Return off-peak return 25% 20% 5%

off-peak single

peak return 10% 35% 5%

peak single

Season 10% 35% 5%

Weekend am peak inter-peak pm peak evening

Return off-peak return 30% 15% 5%

off-peak single

peak return

peak single

Season 10% 40%

6.2.7 As LENNON data does not count return legs of journeys separately,return legs for return tickets and season tickets were created and journeys halvedbetween each leg using the above time of travel assumptions.


51

6.2.8 As a result, 6 matrices were created showing journeys by Origin-Destination for the six different time periods. Note that evening (after 1900) wasnot data that was requested; however, some assumption was necessary on thistime period and this resulted in a small reduction to the number of journeys.

6.2.9 As noted above, there was no data available on journey purpose.Therefore, assumptions based on experience were made regarding the split ofjourney purpose over different ticket groups. These are shown in Table 6.4below.

Table 6.4: Journey purpose by ticket group assumptions

Commuting Business Other

off-peak return 10% 10% 80%

off-peak single 10% 5% 85%

peak return 40% 50% 10%

peak single 10% 50% 40%

season 100% 0% 0%

6.2.10 When this table was multiplied through by the splits in Tables 6.2 and6.3, the following table (Table 6.5) was created. Note that, as a reasonablenesscheck, journeys by ticket group and timeband were multiplied through by thejourney purpose-ticket group splits in Table 6.4. This resulted in an overalljourney split of Commuting 49%, Business 11% and Other 40%.

Table 6.5: Journey purpose by time of travel assumptions

Commuting Business Other

Weekday am peak 74.3% 16.3% 9.3%

Weekday inter-peak 20.8% 9.5% 69.6%

Weekday pm peak 64.5% 8.8% 26.7%

Weekend am peak 5.0% 0.0% 95.0%

Weekend inter-peak 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Weekend pm peak 5.0% 0.0% 95.0%


52

6.2.11 The 6 time of travel matrices were then multiplied using the splits inTable 6.5 to create 18 matrices (journeys by journey purpose and time of travelfor each O-D pair). Finally, in order to create an average weekday, the weekdaymatrices were divided by 240. To create an average weekend the weekendmatrices were divided by 50. Period by period data for the relevant flows showedthat September (RSP Period 7) was not significantly different from average;therefore, no seasonality adjustment was applied.

6.2.12 The matrices showing journey by time period and journey purpose werestill using station to station movements. These now needed to be converted tozonal matrices. Journey to work census data was obtained for East Sussex at anoutput area definition level. Using GIS software, the output areas were allocatedto the equivalent modelled zones and a matrix of journey to work trips by zoneproduced.

6.2.13 Each zone within a 2km radius of a rail station was then assumed topotentially include trips to and from that station and trips from each station wereallocated to the appropriate zones according to the proportions from the journeyto work matrix.

6.2.14 Lastly the rail zonal matrices by journey purpose and time period weresplit into car available and car non-available proportions based on Hastings andTEMPRO data for 2005 on car availability for households by journey purpose.Average weekday TEMPRO data for Hastings and Rother local authorities wereused. Table 6.6 shows the splits obtained for rail trips.

Table 6.6: Rail Trip Car Availability Split

Journey Purpose Car AvailableProportion

Car Not AvailableProportion

Commuting 0.81 0.19

Employers Business 0.87 0.13

Other 0.67 0.33

Rail Fares matrices

6.2.15 Fare information was also obtained with fare and trip informationextracted from LENNON and each trip or receipt being labelled peak or off-peak.

6.2.16 Total O-D matrices for peak and off-peak journeys, and peak and off-peak gross receipts were created. Fare matrices for peak and off-peak werethen created by dividing gross receipts by journeys for each O-D pair.

6.2.17 These “fares” are average receipts per journey. However, they do takeinto account the fact that many tickets are bought with a discount such asrailcards or child rate tickets. This complexity would not have been very easy totake account of if the published fares had been used instead.


53

Bus Trip Matrices

6.2.18 Passenger boardings and alightings on the bus routes between Bexhilland Hastings (see Figure 6.1) have been obtained from the Stagecoach buscompany. These have been converted to matrices using the journey to workcensus data in the same way as the rail matrices. The split of trips betweenjourney purpose in each time period was taken from WebTAG unit 3.5.6.

Table 6.7: Split of Trips by Time Period and Journey Purpose

Time Period Commuter Business Leisure Total

0600-0900 30.0% 3.9% 66.1% 100.0%

0900-1600 11.1% 2.0% 86.9% 100.0%

1600-1900 36.6% 3.9% 59.5% 100.0%

6.2.19 Lastly the bus zonal matrices by journey purpose and time period weresplit into car available and car non-available proportions in the same way as therail trips. Table 6-8 below shows the splits obtained for bus trips.

Table 6.8: Bus Trip Car Availability Split

Journey Purpose Car AvailableProportion

Car Not AvailableProportion

Commuting 0.59 0.41

Employers Business 0.74 0.26

Other 0.50 0.50

6.3 Bus Fares

6.3.1 No bus fares were available in order to build fare matrices. Consequently,no bus or rail fares were included into the VISUM model validation process.


54

6.4 Rail validation

6.4.1 Counts of passengers entering the station at Hastings, Bexhill, StLeonards Warrior Square and West St Leonards had been undertaken in January2000 by SDG for their study into new stations in the Hastings area reported inMay 2000. In addition a count of boarding and alighting passengers at Battle trainstation was undertaken in November 2005.

6.4.2 These counts were converted to September equivalent counts usingseasonality factors obtained from the LENNON ticket data. Non-season andweekly season journeys were assumed to take place in the period they werebought. Longer term season journeys were spread across all the periods basedon the Rail Settlement Plan (RSP) Season Ticket Suspense journey factors. Thisis a standard spread which takes into account the fact that season tickets areused less in some periods (e.g., summer). The counts were also converted to2004 data using an assumed growth rate of 1% per annum. This rate was used inthe previous Glyne Gap station study by SDG in February 2000.

6.4.3 The modelled flows in all three period compare very well with theaverage observed flows and meet the required validation criteria.

Table 6.9: AM (0800-0900) Peak Rail Passenger Validation

Station Direction Observed Modelled Observed/Modelled

(%)

Bexhill-on-Sea Entering station 144 127 0.88

Hastings Entering station 156 127 0.82

St LeonardsWarrior Square

Entering station 194 208 1.07

West St Leonards Entering station 11 11 0.96

Boarding 87 76 0.87Battle

Alighting 40 44 1.09


55

Table 6.10: Interpeak (1000-1600 average) Rail Passenger Validation

Station Direction Observed Modelled Observed/Modelled

(%)

Bexhill-on-Sea Entering station 92 89 0.97

Hastings Entering station 73 72 0.98


Entering station 61 58 0.94

West St Leonards Entering station 11 11 0.96

Entering station 22 21 0.93Battle

Leaving Station 19 19 1.01

Table 6.11: PM Peak (1600-1800 average) Rail Passenger Validation

Station Direction Observed Modelled Observed/Modelled(%)

Bexhill-on-Sea Enteringstation

128 134 1.05

Hastings Enteringstation

142 156 1.10


Enteringstation

112 120 1.07

West StLeonards

Enteringstation

25 25 0.98

Enteringstation

41 44 1.07Battle

LeavingStation

86 97 1.13

6.5 Bus validation

6.5.1 Bus passenger surveys were carried out in November 2005 at GlyneGap on the A259 between Bexhill and Hastings between 07:00 and 10:00, 12:00


56

to 14:00 and 16:00 to 19:00. For each bus that passed a numerator boarded thebus and noted down the number of passengers on board.

6.5.2 DfT guidance on public transport modelling states that for individualcounts modelled flows should be within 25% of the survey data, except whereobserved flows are particularly low (less than 150). Table 6.7 below shows thesurvey data and the modelled flows of passengers for the am, interpeak and pmpeak modelled periods.

Table 6.12: Bus Passengers Validation Results

Observed ModelledModelled vsObserved

Glyne Gap EB 39 32 0.82

AM Glyne Gap WB 38 36 0.95


IP Glyne Gap WB 62 68 1.11


PM Glyne Gap WB 51 48 0.94

6.5.3 The modelled flows in all three period compare very well with theaverage observed flows and meet the required validation criteria.


57

7 Present Year Validation

7.1.1 A present year validation of the highway model has been undertakenwith forecast modelled flows for 2011 compared against May 2011 survey data.The survey data collected is discussed in chapter 8 of the June 2011 TrafficSurvey Report.

7.1.2 The model has been run in full forecast mode to generate 2011modelled flows. Housing and employment completions data has been obtainedfrom Hastings Borough Council, Rother District Council and Seaspace, the localeconomic development company. This information has been used to generatetrips from Bexhill and Hastings together with TRICS trip rates. The total car tripscalculated have then been split into the three user classes, commuting,employers business and other trips using the matrix proportions from the 2004validated assignments.

7.1.3 Analysis of the RSI data shows that a maximum of 3% of trips using theA259 through Glyne Gap have an origin and destination outside of Bexhill andHastings, i.e. are external trips. There is another permanent automatic trafficcount maintained by East Sussex on the A271 at Boreham Street just north ofBexhill which provides an insight into how traffic levels external to Bexhill andHastings have changed. A comparison of counts in September 2004 and May2011 in each modelled hour is shown in Table 8-2 of the Existing Data and TrafficSurvey Report, showing a reduction in traffic. This contrasts with an 8% growthin car driver weekday trips in East Sussex from 2004 to 2011 from TEMPRO62,plus an additional 8% growth as a result of income and fuel cost adjustmentfactors.

7.1.4 External trips have therefore not been growthed up using TEMPRO62data but instead have used growth factors calculated from the continuous ATCcounter on the A271 at Boreham Street, just north of Bexhill.

Car trip growth

7.1.5 The main business developments as supplied by Seaspace aresummarised in Table 7-1. Total increases in housing numbers from 2004 to 2011are set out in Table 7-2.

Table 7.1: Main Business Developments in Bexhill and Hastings (2004-2011)

DevelopmentWard

Site Location Development Type2004 – 2011 Gross

Floor Area (m2)

HastingsHollington

Northwest ofQueensway, south

70% B130% B2

2,350

Hastings Castle Gap Site B1 3,330

Hastings Castle Gap Site Retail 825


58

Table 7.2: Housing Completions 2004-2011

Location2004-11 housingunits

Crowhurst 11BexhillBexhill Central 378Bexhill Collington 105Bexhill Kewhurst 14Bexhill Old Town (including North East Bexhill) 62Bexhill Sackville 46Bexhill St Marks (including West Bexhill) 66Bexhill St Michaels 157Bexhill St Stephens 20Bexhill Sidley (including North Bexhill) 169Bexhill total 1017

Remainder of RotherMarsham 53Rye 82Eastern Rother 190

Total Rother 1470Battle 117HastingsAshdown 236Baird -76Braybrooke 73Castle 211Central St. Leonards 260Conquest 12Gensing 181Hollington 72Maze Hill 70Old Hastings 66Ore 27Silverhill 56St. Helens 14Tressell 32West St. Leonards 72Wishing Tree 201Hastings total 1507


59

7.1.6 Comparison of the September 2004 and May 2011 count data showed asignificant decrease in traffic flows along the A271 in 2011. To confirm that thetwo single day classified counts, before conversion to an average month, werenot anomalies, data from the ATC at Boreham Street further west on the A271was analysed. This showed an average 8% decrease in flows across a 12 hourweekday period. Consequently external trips were factored by 0.92 in the ampeak, 0.92 in the interpeak and 0.95 in the pm peak, with these factors calculatedfor the modelled hours from the ATC data

LGV and HGV traffic growth

7.1.7 Table 7-3 shows the growth rate for LGV and HGV based on NTM2009for the South East region. The split of articulated and rigid HGVs has been takenfrom the classified count at Glyne Gap roundabout and used to calculate anoverall HGV growth factor.

Table 7.3: Central Growth Rate for LGV and HGV

LGV HGV

2004-2011 1.171 1.069

7.2 2011 Reference Highway Matrix Totals

7.2.1 Tables 7-4 to 7-6 below shows the matrix totals by user class for 2004and 2011 with the overall growth factors.

Table 7.4: AM Peak Matrix Totals

2004 2011 2011 /2004

Cars - commuting 15,599 16,179 1.04

Cars – employers business 2,718 2,824 1.04

Cars – other 7,892 8,217 1.04

LGV 3,381 3,959 1.17

HGV 2,091 2,237 1.07


60

Table 7.5: Interpeak Matrix Totals

2004 2011 2011 /2004

Cars - commuting 3,161 3,180 1.01


Cars - other 14,999 15,158 1.01

LGV 3,459 4,050 1.17

HGV 1,716 1,835 1.07

Table 7.6: PM Peak Matrix Totals

2004 2011 2011 /2004

Cars - commuting 12,438 12,642 1.02


Cars - other 12,297 12,534 1.02

LGV 4,407 5,161 1.17

HGV 1,427 1,527 1.07

7.3 2011 Reference public transport matrices

7.3.1 Bus trip numbers have been factored up from 2004 to 2010 in line withlocal annual passenger growth reported by the Hastings Quality Bus Partnershipand provided in chapter 9 of the June 2011 Traffic Survey Report. Data from theQBP gives overall growth of 15.78%. TEMPRO6.2 growth for Hastings from 2010to 2011 of 0.9995 has been added on top giving total growth of 15.73%. Matriceswere then divided into car available and car non-available trips using 2011proportions from TEMPRO62.

7.3.2 Rail trip numbers have been factored up from 2004 to 2011 using growthobtained from passenger numbers entering and exiting rail stations until 2009/10in the study area as published by the Office of the Rail Regulator and forecastgrowth from the Sussex Route Utilisation Strategy published in January 2010.The data from the Office of the Rail Regulator is provided in chapter 9 of the June2011 Traffic Survey Report and shows an overall average growth of 23% from2004/05 to 2009/10.


61

7.3.3 Total rail demand in the Susssex RUS area is predicted to be 22%growth from 2008 to 2020. This equates to an average of 1.67% per annum. Thisannual increase has been applied on top of the observed 23% growth up to2009/10 to give a total growth in rail trips of 24.67% until 2010/11

7.3.4 Tables 7-7 to 7-9 show the 2004 and 2011 reference matrix totals forbus and rail separately by car availability. The tables also include growth factors.

Table 7.7: AM Peak Public Transport Matrix Totals

2004 2011 2011/2004

Bus – car available 146 165 1.136

Bus – car not available 125 148 1.182

Rail – car available 1938 2420 1.249

Rail – car not available 461 611 1.326

Table 7.8: Interpeak Public Transport Matrix Totals

2004 2011 2011/2004





Table 7.9: PM Peak Public Matrix Totals

2004 2011 2011/2004






62

7.4 2011 Present Year Highway Validation

7.4.1 DIADEM assessments were set up to model the following demandresponses:

• Frequency

• Modal split

• Re-distribution

7.4.2 Doubly constrained re-distribution has been used for commuting trips,and singly constrained re-distribution for employers business and other trips.

7.4.3 2011 reference highway and PT trip matrices, 2011 PT costs and baseyear highway and PT costs were input to DIADEM. The demand responseparameters for each journey purpose (i.e. commuting, employers business,other) are shown in the following table. These are based on WebTAG, but withadjustments made following the realism testing undertaken on the 2004 validatedbase model and reported in the MSBC March 2008 Demand Modelling Report.

Table 7-10: DIADEM parameters

Variable Demand Response Parameter

JourneyPurpose

HWYRedistribution

PTRedistribution

Mode Choice TripFrequency

Cars -commuting

- 0.054 -0.033 0.50 0.05

Cars -employersbusiness

-0.038 -0.036 0.26 0.05

Cars – other -0.060 -0.036 0.27 0.05

7.4.4 Following the DIADEM assessments the final highway matrices wereassigned to the networks and modelled flows and journey times comparedagainst those observed. Tables 7-11 to 7-13 detail the observed and modelledflow in vehicles at each of the screenline count sites, as well as the GEHstatistics and comparison with required flow range accuracy.

7.4.5 Even with the use of a reduction in external growth, flows along theA271 are too high in all time periods. Modelled flows along Telham Lane are alittle lower than observed but observed flows are low. Eastbound modelled flowsalong Crowhurst Road are higher than observed. This was another locationwhere flows had decreased significantly from 2004 levels.


63

Table 7.11: AM Peak Flow Initial Validation

Flow Criteria

Diff % Diff

WithinDMRB

Criteria?


700 -2700

>2700

GEH Flow GEH

A271 439 759 320 13.07 x x

B2095 406 492 86 4.06 � �

Telham Lane 75 26 -49 6.85 � x

Crowhurst 217 340 122 7.34 x x

Glyne Gap 1253 1161 -7.4% 2066 � �

TOTAL 2390 2778 16.2% 7.62 x x

Westbound

A271 528 777 205 8.17 x x

B2095 384 425 41 2.02 � �

Telham Lane 106 38 -68 8.08 � x

Crowhurst 177 189 12 0.86 � �

Glyne Gap 1331 1187 -10.7% 5.02 � �

TOTAL 2526 2573 1.8% 0.92 � �


64

Table 7.12: Inter Peak Flow Initial Validation

Flow Criteria

Diff % Diff

WithinDMRB

Criteria?


700 -2700

>2700

GEH Flow GEH

A271 313 448 135 6.90 x x

B2095 231 228 -4 0.25 � �

Telham Lane 53 32 -21 3.27 � �

Crowhurst 76 55 -21 2.63 � �

Glyne Gap 1128 1042 -7.7% 2.62 � �

TOTAL 1802 1804 0.1% 0.04 � �

Westbound

A271 288 475 187 9.58 x x

B2095 249 250 1 0.05 � �

Telham Lane 46 49 3 0.48 � �

Crowhurst 77 104 27 2.88 � �

Glyne Gap 1103 1044 -5.3% 1.79 � �

TOTAL 1762 1922 9.1% 3.73 � �


65

Table 7.13: PM Peak Flow Initial Validation

Flow Criteria

Diff % Diff

WithinDMRB

Criteria?


700 -2700

>2700

GEH Flow GEH

A271 496 819 323 12.59 x x

B2095 394 449 55 2.69 � �

Telham Lane 75 19 -57 8.29 � x

Crowhurst 155 105 -50 4.38 � �

Glyne Gap 1207 1246 3.2% 1.10 � �

TOTAL 2328 2638 13.3% 6.22 � x

Westbound

A271 437 817 380 15.16 x x

B2095 458 419 -39 1.88 � �

Telham Lane 69 23 -46 6.77 � x

Crowhurst 168 168 -1 0.07 � �

Glyne Gap 1253 1200 -4.2% 1.51 � �

TOTAL 2385 2626 10.1% 4.8 � x

7.5 A271 Flow Adjustment

7.5.1 As a result of the modelled flows on the A271 being significantly higherthan observed, these flows have been adjusted. Select link analysis has beenused to factor down the flow levels along the A271 through the count site on thepost DIADEM assignments. The revised matrices have then been re-assigned tothe network and tables 7-14 to 7-16 provide the updated comparisons ofobserved and modelled flows. Figures 7.1 to 7.3 show the am peak, interpeakand pm peak total modelled flows and hgv percentages.

7.5.2 After the flow adjustment total screenline flows are within the requiredvalidation criteria in both directions in all time periods. Modelled flows alongTelham Lane are a little lower than observed but observed flows are low.Eastbound modelled flows along Crowhurst Road are higher than observed in theam peak. This was another location where flows had decreased significantly from2004 levels.


66

Table 7.14: AM Peak Flow Validation post flow adjustment

Flow Criteria

Diff % Diff

WithinDMRB

Criteria?


700 -2700

>2700

GEH Flow GEH

A271 439 467 28 1.31 � �

B2095 406 436 30 1.47 � �

Telham Lane 75 20 -55 7.94 � x

Crowhurst 217 320 102 6.26 x x

Glyne Gap 1253 1091 -13.0% 4.75 � �

TOTAL 2390 2333 -2.4% 1.17 � �

Westbound

A271 528 554 26 1.13 � �

B2095 384 384 0 0.02 � �

Telham Lane 106 41 -65 7.57 � x

Crowhurst 177 174 -3 0.25 � �

Glyne Gap 1331 1188 -10.8% 4.05 � �

TOTAL 2526 2340 -7.4% 3.77 � �


67

Table 7.15: Inter Peak Flow Validation post flow adjustment

Flow Criteria

Diff % Diff

WithinDMRB

Criteria?


700 -2700

>2700

GEH Flow GEH

A271 313 247 -67 3.99 � �

B2095 231 222 -9 0.61 � �

Telham Lane 53 31 -22 3.45 � �

Crowhurst 76 87 11 1.18 � �

Glyne Gap 1128 1026 -9.1% 3.12 � �

TOTAL 1802 1612 -10.6% 4.60 � x

Westbound

A271 288 253 -35 1.44 � �

B2095 249 260 11 0.71 � �

Telham Lane 46 48 2 0.34 � �

Crowhurst 77 110 33 3.41 � �

Glyne Gap 1103 1041 -5.6% 1.90 � �

TOTAL 1762 1711 -2.9% 1.21 � �


68

Table 7.16: PM Peak Flow Validation post flow adjustment

Flow Criteria

Diff % Diff

WithinDMRB

Criteria?


700 -2700

>2700

GEH Flow GEH

A271 496 492 -5 0.21 � �

B2095 394 411 17 0.86 � �

Telham Lane 75 17 -59 8.68 � x

Crowhurst 155 88 -67 6.07 � x

Glyne Gap 1207 1114 -7.7% 2.74 � �

TOTAL 2328 2121 -8.9% 4.38 � x

Westbound

A271 437 445 8 0.38 � �

B2095 458 415 -43 2.08 � �

Telham Lane 69 17 -52 7.92 � x

Crowhurst 168 158 -11 0.85 � �

Glyne Gap 1253 1152 -8.0% 2.91 � �

TOTAL 2385 2232 -8.3% 4.16 � x

Bex

hill

Has

tings

Link

Roa

dB

esta

ndF

inal

Fun

ding

Bid

Ass

ignm

entM

odel

Val

idat

ion

Rep

ort

69

Fig

ure

7-1:

AM

Pea

kM

od

elle

dF

low

s(t

ota

lveh

s(h

gv%

))

Bex

hill

Has

tings

Link

Roa

dB

esta

ndF

inal

Fun

ding

Bid

Ass

ignm

entM

odel

Val

idat

ion

Rep

ort

70

Fig

ure

7-2:

Inte

rpea

kM

od

elle

dF

low

s(t

ota

lveh

s(h

gv%

))

Bex

hill

Has

tings

Link

Roa

dB

esta

ndF

inal

Fun

ding

Bid

Ass

ignm

entM

odel

Val

idat

ion

Rep

ort

71

Fig

ure

7-3:

PM

Pea

kM

od

elle

dF

low

s(t

ota

lveh

s(h

gv%

))

Bex

hill

Has

tings

Link

Roa

dB

esta

ndF

inal

Fun

ding

Bid

Ass

ignm

entM

odel

Val

idat

ion

Rep

ort

72


73

7.6 Journey Time Validation

7.6.1 Journey time data was collected for six routes over one week with aminimum of 6 observations for each route at each time period. An averagejourney time was calculated for each journey section to compare against themodelled journey times. Figure 7-1 shows the journey time routes surveyed. Thegreen, blue and pink routes cover the main east-west routes between Bexhill andHastings, that will be the key routes affected by the scheme.

Bex

hill

Has

tings

Link

Roa

dB

esta

ndF

inal

Fun

ding

Bid

Ass

ignm

entM

odel

Val

idat

ion

Rep

ort

74

Fig

ure

7-4:

Jou

rney

Tim

eS

urv

eyR

ou

tes


75

7.6.2 There were road works on the pink route in Harley Shute Road south ofGillsmans Hill/ Queensway roundabout with temporary traffic lights in operation.There were also road works on Queensway south of the junction with A2100 TheRidge. Delays due to the road works were recorded and excluded from thesurvey analysis.

7.6.3 In Appendix D time-distance graphs have been added to demonstratehow well the observed and modelled travel times match throughout the journeytime routes. Separate graphs have been created for each route and each timeperiod.

7.6.4 Of the east-west journey time routes between Bexhill and Hastings in theam peak, only one is outside the validation criteria, the green route eastbound.For the green route, the modelled journey time is slower than observed at onesingle point, the approach to A2100 The Ridge/Junction Road. The orange routeeastbound and the red route in both directions are outside the required validationlimits. Along the red route the modelled journey times are quicker than observedfor the A21 from Harrow Lane to the A2101 in both directions.

7.6.5 In the interpeak, all the east-west routes meet the required validationcriteria. Of the remaining routes, only the red route has modelled journey timesquicker than observed, all other routes validate.

7.6.6 Of the east-west journey time routes in the pm peak, the green routeeastbound and the pink route eastbound are outside the validation criteria. Aswith the am peak, it is the approach to A2100 The Ridge/Junction Road wheremodelled journey times are quicker than observed for the green route. Two of thesix journey time runs on the pink route in the pm peak suffered over 10mins ofdelay between the A259/London Road and A259/Dorset Road junctions withinBexhill. Delays at the same point were minimal for all other runs undertaken andthe modelled jourmey time is within the range of observed journey times.

7.6.7 Of the remaining routes, only the red route southbound is outside therequired validation criteria.

7.6.8 Of the routes that do not meet the validation criteria, all have modelledjourney times faster than observed. This will result in an underestimate ofscheme benefits.


76

Table 7.17: AM Peak Journey Time Validation

Route Direction ObservedRange(secs)

ObservedAverage(secs)


Eastbound 1381-1866 1617 1292 0.80GreenRoute

Westbound 1335-1545 1435 1292 0.91

Eastbound 1269-1700 1480 1518 1.03PinkRoute

Westbound 1425-1886 1575 1764 1.12

Eastbound 1042-1277 1157 1094 0.95BlueRoute

Westbound 997 -1273 1141 1101 0.96

Eastbound 608 - 797 697 580 0.84OrangeRoute

Westbound 588 -826 693 639 0.92

Northbound 573 -795 638 585 0.92YellowRoute

Southbound 465-774 614 617 1.00

Northbound 560-744 645 522 0.81RedRoute

Southbound 561-788 648 521 0.80


77

Table 7.18: Interpeak Journey Time Validation


ObservedAverage


Eastbound 1348 - 1436 1407 1234 0.88GreenRoute

Westbound 1319 - 1434 1363 1234 0.91


Westbound 1310-1633 1457 1530 1.05


Westbound 1146-1206 1171 1140 0.97

Eastbound 576-692 636 562 0.88OrangeRoute

Westbound 604-856 691 584 0.85

Northbound 540-687 639 565 0.88YellowRoute

Southbound 573-684 618 572 0.92


Southbound 634-786 713 508 0.71


78

Table 7.19: PM Peak Journey Time Validation


ObservedAverage


Eastbound 1341-1795 1563 1288 0.82GreenRoute

Westbound 1355-1529 1463 1288 0.88


Westbound 1373-2431 1937 1649 0.85


Westbound 1115-1249 1178 1148 0.97

Eastbound 593-722 646 592 0.92OrangeRoute

Westbound 653-933 745 642 0.86

Northbound 494-799 612 634 1.04YellowRoute

Southbound 589-761 667 611 0.92


Southbound 580-843 691 522 0.76


79

8 Present Year Validation Sensitivity Test

8.1.1 A sensitivity test has been run using the 2011 reference highway and PTtrip matrices, 2011 PT costs and base year highway and PT costs as inputs forDIADEM. This time the DIADEM parameters are those used for the forecastassessments following realism testing on the 2011 present year validationreported in chapter 7. Table 8-1 below confirms the DIADEM parameters used.

Table 8.1: DIADEM parameters

Variable Demand Response Parameter

JourneyPurpose

HWYRedistribution

PTRedistribution

Mode Choice TripFrequency

Cars -commuting

- 0.054 -0.033 0.50 0.05

Cars -employersbusiness

-0.038 -0.036 0.26 0.05

Cars – other -0.090 -0.036 0.27 0.05

8.1.2 Following the DIADEM assessments the final highway matrices wereassigned to the networks and modelled flows compared against those observed.Tables 8-2 to 8-4 detail the observed and modelled flow in vehicles at each of thescreenline count sites, as well as the GEH statistics and comparison withrequired flow range accuracy.

8.1.3 The modelled flows are very similar to those obtained for the initialvalidation with the 2004 base model DIADEM parameters detailed in Tables 7-11to 7-13. The 2011 present year validation is therefore robust.


80

Table 8.2: AM Peak Flow Initial Validation – forecast DIADEM parameters

Flow Criteria

Diff % Diff

WithinDMRB

Criteria?


700 -2700

>2700

GEH Flow GEH

A271 439 766 327 13.31 x x

B2095 406 479 73 3.48 � �

Telham Lane 75 52 -23 2.84 � �

Crowhurst 217 351 133 7.92 x x

Glyne Gap 1253 1186 -5.4% 1.94 � �

TOTAL 2390 2833 18.5% 8.67 x x

Westbound

A271 528 715 187 13.31 x x

B2095 384 431 47 2.31 � �

Telham Lane 106 37 -69 8.15 � x

Crowhurst 177 192 15 1.08 � �

Glyne Gap 1331 1190 -10.6% 3.98 � �

TOTAL 2526 2565 1.5% 0.76 � �


81

Table 8.3: Inter Peak Flow Initial Validation – forecast DIADEM parameters

Flow Criteria

Diff % Diff

WithinDMRB

Criteria?


700 -2700

>2700

GEH Flow GEH

A271 313 469 156 7.87 x x

B2095 231 245 13 0.86 � �

Telham Lane 53 34 -19 2.93 � �

Crowhurst 76 50 -26 3.31 � �

Glyne Gap 1128 1064 -5.7% 1.95 � �

TOTAL 1802 1861 3.3% 1.37 � �

Westbound

A271 288 522 234 11.64 x x

B2095 249 270 21 1.29 � �

Telham Lane 46 51 5 0.76 � �

Crowhurst 77 104 27 2.88 � �

Glyne Gap 1103 1066 -3.3% 1.11 � �

TOTAL 1762 2013 14.2% 5.78 � x


82

Table 8.4: PM Peak Flow Initial Validation – forecast DIADEM parameters

Flow Criteria

Diff % Diff

WithinDMRB

Criteria?


700 -2700

>2700

GEH Flow GEH

A271 496 807 311 12.17 x x

B2095 394 465 71 3.44 � �

Telham Lane 75 19 -57 8.29 � x

Crowhurst 155 111 -44 3.81 � �

Glyne Gap 1207 1273 5.4% 1.87 � �

TOTAL 2328 2675 14.9% 6.94 � x

Westbound

A271 437 819 311 15.23 x x

B2095 458 431 -27 1.30 � �

Telham Lane 69 18 -51 7.72 � x

Crowhurst 168 176 7 0.54 � �

Glyne Gap 1253 1212 -3.3% 1.18 � �

TOTAL 2385 2654 11.3% 5.36 � x


83

9 Conclusion

9.1.1 This report describes the 2004 base Bexhill Hastings SATURN modeland VISUM public transport model for Bexhill Hastings.

9.1.2 RSI survey data from surveys carried out for LATS or by East SussexCounty Council on all the east-west routes in the model has been used to buildthe matrices. Journey time surveys have been carried out along the main east-west alternative routes.

9.1.3 The SATURN model has been calibrated and validated at a September2004 base using turning count data received from East Sussex County Council.Separate models for the am peak hour (0800-0900), average interpeak hour(1000-1600 ave) and an average pm peak hour (1600-1800) have been built andvalidated.

9.1.4 The model has been validated across four flow screenlines, two inBexhill and two in Hastings, with flows across the RSI screenline calibratedagainst the survey data used to build the model. Of the 41 validation locations80% met the required flow criteria and 93% meet the required GEH criteria in theam peak. In the interpeak 95% met the required flow criteria and 93% met theGEH criteria. In the pm peak 88% met the required flow criteria and 93% meetthe GEH criteria. In each time period the flows across the roadside interviewscreenline, which covers the traffic that could transfer to the Link Road, all meetthe required flow and GEH criteria except one location which has a flow 1 vehicleabove the validation criteria.

9.1.5 88% of the journey time routes in the am peak meet the requiredvalidation criteria. 100% of the routes meet the validation criteria in the inter peakand pm peak.

9.1.6 The VISUM public transport model includes all rail services stopping atthe local stations in the study area and bus routes between Bexhill and Hastings.The trip matrices have been built using LENNON rail ticket data and bus ticketdata received from Stagecoach. Validation has been undertaken againstpassenger counts at rail stations and on board bus passenger counts. In each ofthe modelled time periods, the bus and rail passengers meet the WebTAGcriteria for validation.

9.1.7 A present year validation has been undertaken against 2011 count andjourney time data. Trip matrices have been updated from 2004 using housing andemployment development information supplied by East Sussex County Council,with external growth taken from a local ATC site. 2011 DIADEM forecasts havethen been prepared with output flows compared against the observed data.Traffic flows along the A271 have been adjusted as the observed reduction inflows from 2004 to 2011 at the count location was significantly lower thanobserved at the nearest ATC site.

9.1.8 After the flow adjustment total screenline flows are within the requiredvalidation criteria in both directions in all time periods. The east-west routesbetween Bexhill and Hastings will be the key routes affected by the scheme. Ofthese, five out of six validate in the am peak, all six validate in the interpeak and


84

four out of six validate in the pm peak. Of the routes that do not meet thevalidation criteria, all have modelled journey times faster than observed. This willresult in an underestimate of scheme benefits.


85

Appendix A Generalised Cost CoefficientCalculation

This

she

et c

alcu

late

s ge

nera

lised

cos

t coe

ffici

ents

for u

se in

ass

ignm

ent

Not

e th

at it

igno

res

chan

ges

in o

ccup

ancy

afte

r 200

2

Ave

rage

net

wor

k sp

eed

(km

/h)

50.0

2002

VO

C c

alcu

latio

nsO

GV1

OG

V2PS

VW

ork

Non

wor

kW

ork

Non

wor

kW

ork

Wor

kFu

el c

onsu

mpt

ion

litre

s/km

0.07

0.07

0.10

0.10

0.16

0.69

0.28

Fuel

cos

t p/k

m4.

134.

856.

307.

4010

.46

44.1

418

.29

Non

-fuel

VO

C c

ost p

/km

6.30

3.81

6.68

7.15

9.82

19.0

436

.34

Mod

el b

ase

year

VO

C c

alcu

latio

nsN

ote:

exc

lude

non

-fuel

VO

C fo

r non

-wor

k tri

psB

ase

year

2004

OG

V1O

GV2

PSV

Wor

kN

on w

ork

Wor

kN

on w

ork

Wor

kW

ork

Fuel

cos

t p/k

m4.

394.

396.

736.

7311

.25

47.4

720

.07

Non

-fuel

VO

C c

ost p

/km

6.30

3.81

6.68

7.15

9.82

19.0

436

.34

Tota

l VO

C p

/km

10.6

84.

3913

.41

6.73

21.0

866

.51

56.4

1

VOT

Per

ceiv

ed c

osts

, £/h

r per

veh

icle

OG

V1O

GV2

PSV

EBC

omm

ute

Oth

e rW

ork

Non

wor

kW

ork

Wor

k20

0224

.49

5.69

8.08

10.1

16.

7010

.18

10.1

874

.68

2004

25.5

35.

888.

3510

.54

6.93

10.6

110

.61

77.8

5

Vehi

cle

split

s

LGV

% w

ork

% n

onw

ork

88%

12%

(from

Web

TAG

Tab

le 7

)

OG

V%

OG

V1%

OG

V247

%53

%(fr

om C

OB

A m

anua

l Tab

le 8

/1, a

vera

ge a

ll ro

ads)

Cal

cula

te S

ATU

RN

coe

ffici

ents

for 2

004

LGV

OG

VEB

Com

mut

eO

the r

VOT

(£/h

r)25

.53

5.88

8.35

10.1

010

.61

VOC

(p/k

m)

10.6

84.

394.

3912

.61

44.9

5

SATU

RN

PPM

42.5

59.

8013

.92

16.8

417

.69

SATU

RN

PP K

10.6

84.

394.

3912

.61

44.9

5

Nor

mal

ised

SATU

RN

PPM

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

SATU

RN

PP K

0.25

0.45

0.32

0.75

2.54

Car

LGV

Car

Car

LGV

Car

LGV


87

Appendix B Model Calibration

B.1 Route Choice checking

Origins and destinations were chosen either in Bexhill and Hastings to identifythe routes chosen by the traffic in the model. The screenshot above shows thepoint where the route choice changes from travelling along the A269 via GlyneGap to choosing the next alternative route along the north. From the numbers onthe routes it can be identified that 97% of traffic travel along the southern routewhile 3% would travel along the north.

Choosing origins and destinations further north or south the proportions of trafficusing either route changes accordingly as it can be seen in the screenshotsbelow.


88


89


90

B.2 Junction coding calibration against site photographs

B.2.1 Queensway/ Ridge West

View from Ridge West east


91

SATURN node 792 – displaying saturation flows

B.2.2 Battle Road/ The Ridge West

View from A2100 Battle Road


92

View from The Ridge West

View from Battle Road A2159


93

SATURN coding of main roads at roundabout

B.2.3 The Ridge/ A259 Rye Road


94

View northbound from A259 Old London Road

SATURN node 511 displayed with saturation flows

Link distance checking

Link identifier MapInfo distance Model distance Link symmetry in model Notes Model match5055-5054 no distance 100 same both sides Yes5054-5052 706 706 same both sides Yes5054-5053 no distance 100 same both sides Yes5053-5052 100 100 same both sides Yes5054-5058 3105 3105 same both sides Yes5058-5056 1083 1083 same both sides Yes5056-5051 2291 2291 same both sides Yes5052-5051 1945 1945 same both sides Yes5056-5057 100 100 same both sides Yes5051-5014 3283 3283 same both sides Yes5014-5050 100 100 same both sides Yes5014-5009 6288 6288 same both sides Yes5009-5013 3218 3218 same both sides Yes5009-5008 5726 5726 same both sides Yes5008-5007 672 672 same both sides Yes5008-5011 2022 2022 same both sides Yes5007-5030 10 10 same both sides Yes5007-5006 2328 2328 same both sides Yes5011-5004 3223 3223 same both sides Yes5004-5005 262 262 same both sides Yes5005-5006 774 774 same both sides Yes5006-5028 4834 4834 same both sides Yes5028-5029 no distance 100 same both sides Yes5011-5012 335 335 same both sides Yes5012-8051 1827 1827 same both sides Yes8051-807 100 100 same both sides Yes807-8056 1606 1606 same both sides Yes8056-8058 474 474 same both sides Yes8058-8059 no distance 10 same both sides Yes8058-8060 1157 1157 same both sides Yes8060-8062 110 110 same both sides Yes8062-957 70 70 same both sides Yes957-896 10 10 same both sides Yes896-955 200 200 same both sides Yes955-817 95 95 same both sides Yes817-1304 225 225 same both sides Yes1304-818 75 75 same both sides Yes818-803 345 345 same both sides Yes803-9003 110 110 same both sides Yes9003-802 548 548 same both sides Yes802-804 150 150 same both sides Yes804-805 300 300 same both sides Yes805-9010 585 585 same both sides Yes9010-3502 200 200 same both sides Yes3502-1700 10 10 same both sides Yes1700-1701 30 30 one side only roundabout Yes1701-1702 30 30 one side only roundabout Yes1702-1703 30 30 one side only roundabout Yes1703-1700 30 30 one side only roundabout Yes1702-950 150 150 same both sides Yes1703-3503 10 10 same both sides Yes3503-808 630 630 same both sides Yes808-8026 12 12 same both sides Yes808-951 655 655 same both sides Yes808-8027 18 18 same both sides Yes804-809 180 180 same both sides Yes809-810 500 500 same both sides Yes951-952 65 65 same both sides Yes951-810 40 40 same both sides Yes810-952 35 35 same both sides Yes952-6026 240 240 same both sides Yes6026-811 155 155 same both sides Yes811-844 130 130 same both sides Yes844-6027 120 120 same both sides Yes

P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\222333\PublicEnqu\Southampton_Checks\Link Lengths\Link distance check_BHLR_AM04.xls

6027-6048 70 70 same both sides Yes6048-6050 70 70 same both sides Yes6050-6029 80 80 same both sides Yes6029-6030 150 150 same both sides Yes6030-6049 100 100 same both sides Yes6049-6050 85 85 same both sides Yes6030-6031 150 150 same both sides Yes6031-6032 80 80 same both sides Yes6032-6033 210 210 same both sides Yes6033-6028 80 80 same both sides Yes6032-6035 190 190 same both sides Yes6035-6034 210 210 same both sides Yes6033-6034 135 135 same both sides Yes6034-839 90 90 same both sides Yes6035-840 115 115 same both sides Yes840-839 190 190 same both sides Yes840-6009 78 78 same both sides Yes839-6008 74 74 same both sides Yes6009-6008 202 202 one side only one-way road Yes6009-6010 76 76 same both sides Yes6010-6007 226 226 one side only one-way road Yes6008-6007 74 74 one side only one-way road Yes6010-850 46 46 same both sides Yes850-6001 222 222 same both sides Yes6001-6002 30 30 same both sides Yes6007-6002 100 100 one side only one-way road Yes850-6011 66 66 same both sides Yes6001-6016 64 64 one side only one-way road Yes6011-6016 194 194 one side only one-way road Yes6011-6012 62 62 same both sides Yes6016-6015 62 62 one side only one-way road Yes6012-6015 184 184 one side only one-way road Yes6015-6014 72 72 one side only one-way road Yes6012-6013 74 74 same both sides Yes6013-6014 174 174 one side only one-way road Yes6014-6000 74 74 one side only one-way road Yes6000-1720 150 150 same both sides Yes514-524 660 660 same both sides Yes524-523 20 20 same both sides Yes523-543 520 520 same both sides Yes543-8103 118 118 same both sides Yes8103-8104 10 10 same both sides Yes8103-8105 215 215 same both sides Yes8105-546 167 167 same both sides Yes546-4085 400 400 same both sides Yes4085-537 400 400 same both sides Yes4038-537 265 265 same both sides Yes537-4055 94 94 same both sides Yes4055-4041 37 37 same both sides Yes4041-4057 35 35 same both sides Yes4057-4056 32 32 same both sides Yes4056-4042 50 50 same both sides Yes4042-4073 20 20 same both sides Yes4073-4043 20 20 same both sides Yes4043-679 125 125 same both sides Yes4073-4072 140 140 same both sides Yes4072-679 40 40 same both sides Yes679-4020 70 70 same both sides Yes4020-4021 20 20 one side only one-way road Yes4021-4022 200 200 one side only one-way road Yes4020-4019 230 230 same both sides one-way road Yes4019-678 15 15 same both sides Yes678-4010 30 30 same both sides Yes4010-715 300 300 same both sides Yes715-675 50 50 same both sides Yes715-4009 90 90 same both sides Yes4009-646 590 590 same both sides Yes646-647 70 70 one side only one-way road Yes


646-645 140 140 same both sides Yes645-644 70 70 one side only one-way road Yes645-633 410 410 same both sides Yes633-722 580 580 same both sides Yes633-8037 157 157 same both sides Yes8037-8035 824 824 same both sides Yes8037-8038 10 10 same both sides Yes8035-606 119 119 same both sides Yes606-605 450 450 same both sides Yes606-737 150 150 same both sides Yes737-738 260 260 same both sides Yes738-8039 429 429 same both sides Yes8039-8040 10 10 same both sides Yes8039-605 71 71 same both sides Yes605-604 510 510 same both sides Yes604-789 600 600 same both sides Yes789-8028 10 10 same both sides Yes789-3501 1310 1310 same both sides Yes3501-1701 10 10 same both sides Yes1701-1702 30 30 one side only roundabout Yes1702-950 150 150 same both sides Yes1702-1703 30 30 one side only roundabout Yes1703-3503 10 10 same both sides Yes3503-808 630 630 same both sides Yes808-8027 18 18 same both sides Yes808-8026 12 12 same both sides Yes808-951 655 655 same both sides Yes951-952 65 65 one side only roundabout Yes952-6026 240 240 same both sides Yes6026-811 155 155 same both sides Yes811-844 130 130 same both sides Yes844-6027 120 120 same both sides Yes6027-6028 70 70 same both sides Yes6028-6031 185 185 same both sides Yes6031-6032 80 80 same both sides Yes6032-6035 190 190 same both sides Yes6032-6033 210 210 same both sides Yes6033-6034 135 135 same both sides Yes6034-839 90 90 same both sides Yes839-6008 74 74 one side only one-way road Yes6008-6007 74 74 one side only one-way road Yes6007-6002 100 100 one side only one-way road Yes6002-6001 30 30 same both sides Yes6002-6003 42 42 same both sides Yes6003-854 274 274 one side only one-way road Yes854-6018 78 78 same both sides Yes6018-6046 70 70 same both sides Yes6018-6017 240 240 same both sides Yes6017-6045 75 75 same both sides Yes6045-6042 80 80 same both sides Yes6042-915 380 380 same both sides Yes915-6043 90 90 same both sides Yes6045-6043 375 375 same both sides Yes6043-852 270 270 same both sides Yes852-868 310 310 same both sides Yes868-870 335 335 same both sides Yes870-6044 200 200 same both sides Yes6044-869 320 320 same both sides Yes869-887 590 590 same both sides Yes887-931 1335 1335 same both sides Yes931-3001 422 422 same both sides Yes3001-3002 350 350 same both sides Yes3002-3003 427 427 same both sides Yes3003-3004 141 141 same both sides Yes3001-3004 665 665 same both sides Yes3004-881 207 207 same both sides Yes881-1706 265 265 same both sides Yes1706-1707 10 10 one side only one-way road Yes


1707-888 1690 1690 same both sides Yes888-1301 1470 1470 same both sides Yes5017-5016 1280 1280 same both sides Yes5016-1324 4010 4010 same both sides Yes1324-798 2600 2600 same both sides Yes2016-713 71 71 same both sides Yes2016-1397 4029 4029 same both sides Yes5001-1397 768 768 same both sides Yes5001-5005 3263 3263 same both sides Yes5004-5003 2245 2245 same both sides Yes5003-1316 815 815 same both sides Yes1316-795 815 815 same both sides Yes795-579 270 270 same both sides Yes579-2014 60 60 one side only one-way road Yes2014-2015 60 60 one side only one-way road Yes9005-9006 127 127 same both sides Yes9006-9007 188 188 same both sides Yes9007-9008 283 283 same both sides Yes9008-9009 224 224 same both sides Yes9009-8024 10 10 same both sides Yes9009-9010 52 52 same both sides Yes



95

Appendix C Time-Distance Graphs

C.1 Validation Journey Time Routes

AM Blue Route Eastbound

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

in)

observed

modelled

AM Blue Route Westbound

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

in)

observed

modelled


96

AM Green Route Anti-Clockwise

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

0 5 10 15 20

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

in)

observed

modelled

AM Green Route Clockwise

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

0 5 10 15 20

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

in)

observed

modelled

AM Purple Route Westbound

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

in)

observed

modelled


97

AM Purple Route Eastbound

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

in)

observed

modelled

AM Yellow Route Clockwise

00:00

08:00

16:00

24:00

32:00

40:00

0 5 10 15 20

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

in)

observed

modelled

AM Yellow Route Anti-Clockwise

00:00

08:00

16:00

24:00

32:00

40:00

48:00

56:00

0 5 10 15 20

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

in)

observed

modelled


98

IP Blue Route Eastbound

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

in)

observed

modelled

IP Blue Route Westbound

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

in)

observed

modelled

IP Green Route Anti-Clockwise

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

0 5 10 15 20

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

in)

observed

modelled


99

IP Green Route Clockwise

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

0 5 10 15 20

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

in)

observed

modelled

IP Purple Route Westbound

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

in)

observed

modelled

IP Purple Route Eastbound

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

in)

observed

modelled


100

IP Yellow Route Clockwise

00:00

08:00

16:00

24:00

32:00

40:00

0 5 10 15 20

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

in)

observed

modelled

PM Blue Route Eastbound

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

in)

observed

modelled

PM Blue Route Westbound

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

in)

observed

modelled


101

PM Green Route Anti-Clockwise

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

0 5 10 15 20

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

in)

observed

modelled

PM Green Route Clockwise

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

0 5 10 15 20

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

in)

observed

modelled

PM Purple Route Westbound

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

in)

observed

modelled


102

PM Purple Route Eastbound

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

in)

observed

modelled

PM Yellow Route Clockwise

00:00

08:00

16:00

24:00

32:00

40:00

0 5 10 15 20

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

in)

observed

modelled

PM Yellow Route Anti-Clockwise

00:00

08:00

16:00

24:00

32:00

40:00

0 5 10 15 20

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

in)

observed

modelled


103

C.2 Baldslow Journey Time Routes

AM Route 1 Northbound

00:00

02:00

04:00

06:00

08:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

ins)

Observed

Modelled

AM Route 1 Southbound

00:00

02:00

04:00

06:00

08:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

ins)

Observed

Modelled


104

AM Route 2 Northbound

00:00

02:00

04:00

06:00

08:00

10:00

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

ins)

Observed

Modelled

AM Route 2 Southbound

00:00

02:00

04:00

06:00

08:00

10:00

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

ins)

Observed

Modelled

IP Route 1 Northbound

00:00

02:00

04:00

06:00

08:00

10:00

12:00

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

ins)

Observed

Modelled


105

IP Route 1 Southbound

00:00

02:00

04:00

06:00

08:00

10:00

12:00

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

ins)

Observed

Modelled

IP Route 2 Northbound

00:00

02:00

04:00

06:00

08:00

10:00

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

ins)

Observed

Modelled

IP Route 2 Southbound

00:00

02:00

04:00

06:00

08:00

10:00

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

ins)

Observed

Modelled


106

PM Route 1 Northbound

00:00

02:00

04:00

06:00

08:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

ins)

Observed

Modelled

PM Route 1 Southbound

00:00

02:00

04:00

06:00

08:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

ins)

Observed

Modelled

PM Route 2 Northbound

00:00

02:00

04:00

06:00

08:00

10:00

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

ins)

Observed

Modelled


107

PM Route 2 Southbound

00:00

02:00

04:00

06:00

08:00

10:00

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

ins)

Observed

Modelled


108

Appendix D 2011 Time-Distance Graphs

Green Route Eastbound - AM

00:00

02:53

05:46

08:38

11:31

14:24

17:17

20:10

23:02

25:55

28:48

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Distance (km)

Tm

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled

Green Route Westbound - AM

00:00

02:53

05:46

08:38

11:31

14:24

17:17

20:10

23:02

25:55

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (mm:ss)

Dis

tan

ce(k

m)

Observed

Modelled


109

Pink Route - AM

00:00

07:12

14:24

21:36

28:48

36:00

43:12

50:24

57:36

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled

Orange Route Eastbound - AM

00:00

01:26

02:53

04:19

05:46

07:12

08:38

10:05

11:31

12:58

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled


110

Orange Route Westbound - AM

00:00

01:26

02:53

04:19

05:46

07:12

08:38

10:05

11:31

12:58

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled

Blue Route Eastbound - AM

00:00

02:53

05:46

08:38

11:31

14:24

17:17

20:10

23:02

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Distance(km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled


111

Blue Route Westbound - AM

00:00

02:53

05:46

08:38

11:31

14:24

17:17

20:10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled

Yellow Route Northbound - AM

00:00

01:26

02:53

04:19

05:46

07:12

08:38

10:05

11:31

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled


112

Yellow Route Southbound - AM

00:00

01:26

02:53

04:19

05:46

07:12

08:38

10:05

11:31

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled

Red Route Northbound - AM

00:00

01:26

02:53

04:19

05:46

07:12

08:38

10:05

11:31

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled


113

Red Route Southbound - AM

00:00

01:26

02:53

04:19

05:46

07:12

08:38

10:05

11:31

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled

Green Route Eastbound - Interpeak

00:00

02:53

05:46

08:38

11:31

14:24

17:17

20:10

23:02

25:55

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled


114

Green Route Westbound - Interpeak

00:00

02:53

05:46

08:38

11:31

14:24

17:17

20:10

23:02

25:55

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled

Pink Route - Interpeak

00:00

07:12

14:24

21:36

28:48

36:00

43:12

50:24

57:36

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled


115

Orange Route Eastbound - Interpeak

00:00

01:26

02:53

04:19

05:46

07:12

08:38

10:05

11:31

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled

Orange Route Westbound - Interpeak

00:00

01:26

02:53

04:19

05:46

07:12

08:38

10:05

11:31

12:58

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled


116

Blue Route Eastbound - Interpeak

00:00

02:53

05:46

08:38

11:31

14:24

17:17

20:10

23:02

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled

Blue Route Westbound - Interpeak

00:00

02:53

05:46

08:38

11:31

14:24

17:17

20:10

23:02

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled


117

Yellow Route Northbound - Interpeak

00:00

01:26

02:53

04:19

05:46

07:12

08:38

10:05

11:31

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled

Yellow Route Southbound - Interpeak

00:00

01:26

02:53

04:19

05:46

07:12

08:38

10:05

11:31

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled


118

Red Route Northbound - Interpeak

00:00

01:26

02:53

04:19

05:46

07:12

08:38

10:05

11:31

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled

Red Route Southbound - Interpeak

00:00

01:26

02:53

04:19

05:46

07:12

08:38

10:05

11:31

12:58

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled


119

Green Route Eastbound - PM

00:00

02:53

05:46

08:38

11:31

14:24

17:17

20:10

23:02

25:55

28:48

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled

Green Route Westbound - PM

00:00

02:53

05:46

08:38

11:31

14:24

17:17

20:10

23:02

25:55

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled


120

Pink Route - PM

00:00

07:12

14:24

21:36

28:48

36:00

43:12

50:24

57:36

04:48

12:00

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled

Orange Route Eastbound - PM

00:00

01:26

02:53

04:19

05:46

07:12

08:38

10:05

11:31

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled


121

Orange Route Westbound - PM

00:00

01:26

02:53

04:19

05:46

07:12

08:38

10:05

11:31

12:58

14:24

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled

Blue Route Eastbound - PM

00:00

02:53

05:46

08:38

11:31

14:24

17:17

20:10

23:02

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled


122

Blue Route Westbound - PM

00:00

02:53

05:46

08:38

11:31

14:24

17:17

20:10

23:02

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled

Yellow Route Northbound - PM

00:00

01:26

02:53

04:19

05:46

07:12

08:38

10:05

11:31

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled


123

Yellow Route Northbound - PM

00:00

01:26

02:53

04:19

05:46

07:12

08:38

10:05

11:31

12:58

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled

Red Route Northbound - PM

00:00

01:26

02:53

04:19

05:46

07:12

08:38

10:05

11:31

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled


124

Red Route Southbound - PM

00:00

01:26

02:53

04:19

05:46

07:12

08:38

10:05

11:31

12:58

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Distance (km)

Tim

e(m

m:s

s)

Observed

Modelled

Bexhill Hastings Link Road Best and Final Funding Bid ... · Bexhill Hastings Link Road Best and...

Documents

Transcript of Bexhill Hastings Link Road Best and Final Funding Bid ... · Bexhill Hastings Link Road Best and...