York Central Traffic Analysis Emerging Findings Movement Workshop - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

York Central Traffic Analysis – Emerging Findings Movement Workshop 18 th July 2017

Transport Modelling - Approach Approach • Strategic models – assesses city wide & Strategic Road Network impacts • Junction models – assesses junction capacity & mitigation options • Microsimulation models – assesses local network performance 2 2

Strategic Modelling • CYC’s strategic model has been used • Considered traffic in 2033 • Included all approved developments plus Local Plan growth • 3 Outer ring road improvements are included (dualling is not) • A “max development” scenario for York Central has been used: – 2,500 residential units – 89,000 sqm office – 400 room hotel • 3 highway configurations considered 3

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

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

Highway configuration – Option 3 Bus Gate at Marble Arch

Strategic Model Output York Central vs Do Minimum Traffic Flow Difference (AM)

Strategic Model Output City Wide Level Traffic Flow Difference Plots - (AM Peak) - Option 2

Saturn Modelling Summary Option Network Delay Network Travel No. of Junctions Local Highway Access Road / (PCUhrs) Time (PCUhrs) Impacted Impact Marble Arch Flows Option 1 AM 691 11314 8 Medium Medium (two lanes under Marble PM 733 12534 3 Medium Medium Arch – no controls) Option 2 AM 692 11328 8 Medium Medium (one-way shuttle working PM 735 12555 3 Medium Medium at Marble Arch - signals) Option 3 AM 726 11509 16 High Low (bus gate at Marble Arch) PM 758 12702 14 High Low

Saturn Output – Traffic Flows on Key Routes ORR – A64@ Option Water End (E) A19 Clifton A59 Poppleton Salisbury Rd (@Acomb Rd) Terrace (SB) Copmanthorpe Option 1 AM +99 -3 +82 -110 +26 (two lanes under Marble Arch – no PM -97 -6 +9 +19 -3 controls) Option 2 AM +115 +1 +102 -122 +31 (one-way shuttle working at Marble Arch PM -101 +9 +53 +2 +11 - signals) Option 3 AM +303 +138 +271 +83 +164 (bus gate at Marble Arch) PM -14 98 +263 +138 +112

Saturn Output – Traffic flows within York Central Option Access Road @Marble Arch Option 1 AM 1090 980 (two lanes under Marble Arch – no controls) PM 1116 940 Option 2 AM 1047 900 (one-way shuttle working at Marble Arch - signals) PM 1046 825 Option 3 AM 733 52 (bus gate at Marble Arch) PM 785 51

Findings • Some additional queuing and delay is caused, but this is to be expected of a scheme of this size. • There are minor differences between Options 1 & 2 at strategic level • Option 2 provides significant benefits for pedestrians & cyclists at Marble Arch • Impacts of Option 3 on highway network are more significant than Options 1 & 2 1 2 12

Junctions Impacted Junctions for potential mitigation where: • Flow difference > 50 additional vehicle movements per hour; and • Junction Capacity > 80% Option 3 Option 1 & 2 Option 3 9 junctions identified 21 junctions identified

Microsimulation modelling approach • Based on flows generated from the Strategic [SATURN] model • Peak hours are modelled - therefore, a “worst case” is shown • Highway improvements at York Station Front are included • Incorporates pedestrian and cycle flows 1 4 14

Option 2 - AM

Findings • Vehicle queues on east side do not extent back / interfere with Lendal Gyratory • Traffic flows between peak periods are lower, therefore queues will be shorter • Pedestrians and cyclists are integrated within the movement network 1 6 16

Planning Application Documents • Transport impacts of York Central will be reported in the Transport Assessment which supports the planning application. • The Transport Assessment will include the following: • Description of the assessment process used, including future year scenarios • Justification of the traffic flows generated by York Central 1 • Description of the modelling methods used to establish future traffic flows 7 • Modelling scenarios considered • Strategic traffic model outputs • Junction modelling outputs including proposed mitigation for impacted junctions • Report of microsimulation findings • Summary of impacts and mitigation proposals • A Travel Plan will accompany the Planning Application. The Travel Plan will set out a framework to encourage residents and workers at York Central to use sustainable modes of transport. 17

Strategic Model Output Option 1 vs Do Minimum “Do Minimum” = 2033 situation without York Central Traffic Flow Difference (AM) Traffic Flow Difference (PM) Reductions in traffic Traffic displaced from Leeman Key: through Livingstone road (now diverted) to Cinder Decrease in traffic flow Terrace / Salisbury Terrace Lane (new access road) Increase in traffic flow

Strategic Model Output York Central vs Do Minimum Traffic Flow Difference (PM)

Strategic Model Output Option 3 vs Do Minimum Traffic Flow Difference (AM) Traffic Flow Difference (PM)

Strategic Model Output City Wide Level Option 2 Option 1 Option 3 Traffic Flow Difference Plots (AM Peak)

Option 2 - PM