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

York Central Traffic Analysis – Emerging Findings

Movement Workshop 18th July 2017

2

2

Transport Modelling - Approach

Approach

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

3

3

Strategic Modelling

• CYC’s strategic model has been

used

• Considered traffic in 2033
• Included all approved developments

plus Local Plan growth

• Outer ring road improvements are

included (dualling is not)

• A “max development” scenario for

York Central has been used: – 2,500 residential units – 89,000 sqm office – 400 room hotel

• 3 highway configurations

considered

Highway configuration – Option 1

Two-way traffic under Marble Arch (existing situation)

Highway configuration – Option 2 (Proposed)

Shuttle running with traffic signals – pedestrian & cycle improvements

Highway configuration – Option 3

Bus Gate at Marble Arch

Traffic Flow Difference (AM)

Strategic Model Output

York Central vs Do Minimum

Strategic Model Output

City Wide Level

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

Saturn Modelling Summary

Option Network Delay (PCUhrs) Network Travel Time (PCUhrs)

• No. of Junctions

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

Saturn Output – Traffic Flows on Key Routes

Option Water End (E) A19 Clifton A59 Poppleton Rd (@Acomb Rd) Salisbury Terrace (SB) ORR – A64@ Copmanthorpe Option 1 (two lanes under Marble Arch – no controls) AM +99

• 3

+82

• 110

+26 PM

• 97
• 6

+9 +19

• 3

Option 2 (one-way shuttle working at Marble Arch

• signals)

AM +115 +1 +102

• 122

+31 PM

• 101

+9 +53 +2 +11 Option 3 (bus gate at Marble Arch) AM +303 +138 +271 +83 +164 PM

• 14

98 +263 +138 +112

Saturn Output – Traffic flows within York Central

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

1 2

12

Findings

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

scheme of this size.

• There are minor differences between Options 1 & 2 at strategic level
• Option 2 provides significant benefits for pedestrians & cyclists at Marble Arch
• Impacts of Option 3 on highway network are more significant than Options 1 & 2

Junctions for potential mitigation where:

• Flow difference > 50 additional vehicle movements per hour; and
• Junction Capacity > 80%

Option 1 & 2

Junctions Impacted

Option 3 Option 3 9 junctions identified 21 junctions identified

1 4

14

Microsimulation modelling approach

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

Option 2 - AM

1 6

16

Findings

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

1 7

17

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

which supports the planning application.

• The Transport Assessment will include the following:
• Description of the assessment process used, including future year scenarios
• Justification of the traffic flows generated by York Central
• Description of the modelling methods used to establish future traffic flows
• Modelling scenarios considered
• Strategic traffic model outputs
• Junction modelling outputs including proposed mitigation for impacted junctions
• Report of microsimulation findings
• Summary of impacts and mitigation proposals
• A Travel Plan will accompany the Planning Application. The Travel Plan will set
• ut a framework to encourage residents and workers at York Central to use

sustainable modes of transport.

Planning Application Documents

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

Strategic Model Output

Option 1 vs Do Minimum

Reductions in traffic through Livingstone Terrace / Salisbury Terrace Traffic displaced from Leeman road (now diverted) to Cinder Lane (new access road) Key: Decrease in traffic flow Increase in traffic flow

“Do Minimum” = 2033 situation without York Central

Traffic Flow Difference (PM)

Strategic Model Output

York Central vs Do Minimum

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

Strategic Model Output

Option 3 vs Do Minimum

Traffic Flow Difference Plots (AM Peak) Option 1

Strategic Model Output

City Wide Level

Option 2 Option 3

Option 2 - PM