cpir transport strategy development - cornwall council€¦ · cpir transport strategy development...

Click here to load reader

Post on 21-Jun-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • CPIR Transport Strategy Development

    Appendix A – Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    May 2017

  • Camborne Pool RedruthTransport Package

    Assignment Model Validation Report

    August 2011Cornwall Council

  • 291073 ITD ITW 3 B

    P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR BFFB LMVR noFig AppAD RevB comp doc

    12 August 2011

    Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    Assignment Model Validation Report

    August 2011

    Cornwall Council

    Mott MacDonald, Stoneham Place, Stoneham Lane, Southampton SO50 9NW, United Kingdom T +44(0) 23 8062 8800 F +44(0) 23 8062 8801, W www.mottmac.com

    A3 Carrick House, Pydar Street, Truro, TR1 1EB

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    Mott MacDonald, Stoneham Place, Stoneham Lane, Southampton SO50 9NW, United Kingdom T +44(0) 23 8062 8800 F +44(0) 23 8062 8801, W www.mottmac.com

    Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description

    A June 2011 GS NG IJ First Draft

    B August 2011 GS IJ IJ Final

    Issue and revision record

    This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

    We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties

    This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.

  • 291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    Chapter Title Page

    1. Introduction 11.1 Background ________________________________________________________________________ 11.2 Project Location _____________________________________________________________________ 11.3 Purpose of this Report ________________________________________________________________ 1

    2. 2005 Highway Model Description 42.1 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ 42.2 Network Description__________________________________________________________________ 42.3 Zoning System ______________________________________________________________________ 4

    3. 2005 Trip Matrix Building 73.1 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ 73.2 Matrix Estimation ___________________________________________________________________ 10

    4. 2005 Base Year Assignment 15

    5. 2005 SATURN Model Calibration and Validation 165.1 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 165.2 Validation Criteria___________________________________________________________________ 165.3 Calibration Results__________________________________________________________________ 165.4 Flow Validation_____________________________________________________________________ 175.5 Journey Time Validation _____________________________________________________________ 31

    6. 2005 Public Transport Model 346.1 Model Network _____________________________________________________________________ 346.2 Matrices __________________________________________________________________________ 366.2.1 Rail Trip matrices ___________________________________________________________________ 366.2.2 Rail Fares matrices _________________________________________________________________ 386.2.3 Bus Trip Matrices ___________________________________________________________________ 386.3 Public Transport Assignment __________________________________________________________ 396.4 Rail validation______________________________________________________________________ 396.5 Bus validation______________________________________________________________________ 39

    7. 2010 Highway Model Update 417.1 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 417.2 Updated Highway Model Network ______________________________________________________ 417.3 Updated Trip Matrices _______________________________________________________________ 437.3.1 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 437.3.2 Car Matrices_______________________________________________________________________ 447.3.3 Goods Vehicle Matrices ______________________________________________________________ 467.4 Traffic Data________________________________________________________________________ 477.5 2010 Traffic Model Assignment ________________________________________________________ 477.6 2010 Calibration and Validation Results _________________________________________________ 487.6.1 Calibration and Validation Locations ____________________________________________________ 487.6.2 Validation Criteria___________________________________________________________________ 51

    Content

  • 291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    7.6.3 Calibration Results__________________________________________________________________ 517.6.4 AM Peak Validation Results___________________________________________________________ 647.7 Interpeak Validation Results __________________________________________________________ 677.8 PM Peak Validation Results___________________________________________________________ 70

    8. 2010 Public Transport Model Update 748.1 Network Update ____________________________________________________________________ 748.2 Matrix Update______________________________________________________________________ 748.3 Model Validation____________________________________________________________________ 74

    9. Conclusions 75

    Appendices 76Appendix A. Model Zoning System _______________________________________________________________ 77Appendix B. Roadside Interview Matrix Building Methodology __________________________________________ 80Appendix C. Comparison of 2005 prior and final matrices by sector ______________________________________ 84Appendix D. Detailed 2005 Model Validation Results _________________________________________________ 88Appendix E. Journey Time Validation Results 2005 _________________________________________________ 106Appendix F. Matrix Estimation 2010 Base – Sector Analysis __________________________________________ 121F.1. AM Peak_________________________________________________________________________ 121F.2. Interpeak ________________________________________________________________________ 122F.3. PM Peak_________________________________________________________________________ 123 Tables Table 3-1: Percentage of Traffic Interviewed at each RSI Site ____________________________________________ 7Table 3-2: AM RSI Matrices by Journey Purposes _____________________________________________________ 9Table 3-3: Interpeak RSI Matrices by Journey Purposes ________________________________________________ 9Table 3-4: PM RSI Matrices by Journey Purposes _____________________________________________________ 9Table 3-5: Final observed data purpose split ________________________________________________________ 10Table 4-1: Generalised Cost Coefficients ___________________________________________________________ 15Table 4-2: Convergence Criteria __________________________________________________________________ 15Table 4-3: Achieved Convergence ________________________________________________________________ 15Table 5-1: Assignment Validation - Acceptability Guidelines ____________________________________________ 16Table 5-2: Flow Calibration Results (Counts used for Matrix Estimation) ___________________________________ 17Table 5-3: Flow Validation Results (Validation Counts) ________________________________________________ 17Table 5-4: East Hill AM Peak Validation ____________________________________________________________ 18Table 5-5: East Hill Interpeak Peak Validation _______________________________________________________ 18Table 5-6: East Hill PM Peak Validation ____________________________________________________________ 19Table 5.7: AM Peak Light Vehicle Screenlines _______________________________________________________ 25Table 5.8: AM Peak Heavy Vehicle Screenlines ______________________________________________________ 26Table 5.9: Interpeak Light Vehicle Screenlines _______________________________________________________ 27Table 5.10: Interpeak Heavy Vehicle Screenlines_____________________________________________________ 28Table 5.11: PM Peak Light Vehicle Screenlines ______________________________________________________ 29Table 5.12: PM Peak Heavy Vehicle Screenlines _____________________________________________________ 30Table 5-13: Journey Time Survey Accuracy _________________________________________________________ 31Table 5-14: AM Peak Journey Time Validation Results ________________________________________________ 32Table 5-15: Interpeak Journey Time Validation Results ________________________________________________ 32Table 5-16: PM Peak Journey Time Validation Results ________________________________________________ 32

  • 291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    Table 6-1: Summary of Bus Routes _______________________________________________________________ 34Table 6-2: Ticket Group by Journey Purpose – assumed spilts __________________________________________ 36Table 6-3: Weekday and Weekend Spilt by Journey Purpose ___________________________________________ 36Table 6-4: Assumed Journey Purpose splits by Time of Travel – Cornwall only _____________________________ 37Table 6-5: Assumed Journey Purpose Splits by Time of Travel – Rest of UK _______________________________ 37Table 6-6: Split of Trips by Time Period and Journey Purpose___________________________________________ 38Table 6-7: Bus Passengers Validation Results _______________________________________________________ 39Table 7.1: Light Vehicle Proportions _____________________________________________________________ 43Table 7.2: Housing Completions 2006 to 2010_____________________________________________________ 44Table 7.3: Commercial Completions 2006 to 2010__________________________________________________ 45Table 7.4: Trip Rates_________________________________________________________________________ 46Table 7.5: Car Matrix Growth __________________________________________________________________ 46Table 7.6: Goods Vehicle Factors_______________________________________________________________ 46Table 7.7: East Hill Observed Data Adjustment Factors______________________________________________ 47Table 7.8: Generalised Cost Coefficients _________________________________________________________ 47Table 7.9: Convergence Parameters ____________________________________________________________ 48Table 7.10: Achieved Convergence ______________________________________________________________ 48Table 7.11: Assignment Validation - Acceptability Guidelines __________________________________________ 51Table 7.12: AM Peak Pre-Matrix Estimation Results _________________________________________________ 52Table 7.13: Interpeak Pre-Matrix Estimation Results _________________________________________________ 53Table 7.14: PM Peak Pre-Matrix Estimation Results _________________________________________________ 54Table 7.15: AM Peak Calibration Results __________________________________________________________ 58Table 7.16: Interpeak Calibration Results__________________________________________________________ 59Table 7.17: PM Peak Calibration Results __________________________________________________________ 60Table 7.18: AM Peak East Hill Turning Movement Results ____________________________________________ 61Table 7.19: Interpeak East Hill Turning Movement Results ____________________________________________ 62Table 7.20: PM Peak East Hill Turning Movement Results ____________________________________________ 63Table 7.21: AM Peak Flow Validation – Light Vehicles________________________________________________ 64Table 7.22: AM Peak HGV Validation_____________________________________________________________ 64Table 7.23: AM Journey Time Results ____________________________________________________________ 65Table 7.24: Interpeak Flow Validation – Light Vehicles _______________________________________________ 67Table 7.25: Interpeak HGV Validation ____________________________________________________________ 67Table 7.26: Interpeak Journey Time Results _______________________________________________________ 67Table 7.27: PM Peak Flow Validation _____________________________________________________________ 70Table 7.28: PM Peak HGV Validation_____________________________________________________________ 70Table 7.29: PM Peak Journey Time Results________________________________________________________ 71

    Figures Figure 1.1: Study Area _________________________________________________________________________ 2Figure 2.1: 2005 Highway Network _______________________________________________________________ 5Figure 2.2: Average Weekday Flow at Wesley Street, June 2005________________________________________ 6Figure 2.3: Local Monthly Profile _________________________________________________________________ 6Figure 3.1: RSI Locations_______________________________________________________________________ 8Figure 3-2: Traffic Count Locations ________________________________________________________________ 11Figure 3-3: AM Peak Trip Length Distribution Proportions ______________________________________________ 12Figure 3-4: Interpeak Trip Length Distribution Proportions ______________________________________________ 12Figure 3-5: PM Peak Trip Length Distribution Proportions ______________________________________________ 13

  • 291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    Figure 3-6: AM Peak Trip Length Distribution Trip Numbers_____________________________________________ 13Figure 3-7: Interpeak Trip Length Distribution Trip Numbers ____________________________________________ 14Figure 3-8: PM Peak Trip Length Distribution Trip Numbers_____________________________________________ 14Figure 5-1: AM Peak Network Flows _______________________________________________________________ 20Figure 5-2: Interpeak Network Flows_______________________________________________________________ 21Figure 5-3: PM Peak Network Flows _______________________________________________________________ 22Figure 5-4: Screenlines _________________________________________________________________________ 24Figure 5-5: Journey Time Survey Routes ___________________________________________________________ 33Figure 6-1: Local Bus Routes ____________________________________________________________________ 35Figure 7.1: Highway Network ___________________________________________________________________ 42Figure 7.2: Count Locations 2010 _______________________________________________________________ 49Figure 7.3: Journey Time Routes 2010 ___________________________________________________________ 50Figure 7.4: AM Peak Trip Length Distribution Proportions_____________________________________________ 55Figure 7.5: Interpeak Trip Length Distribution Proportions ____________________________________________ 56Figure 7.6: PM Peak Trip Length Distribution Proportions_____________________________________________ 57Figure 7.7: AM Peak Journey Time Validation______________________________________________________ 65Figure 7.8: Interpeak Journey Time Validation _____________________________________________________ 68Figure 7.9: PM Peak Journey Time Validation______________________________________________________ 71Figure 7.10: 2010 AADT Flows (in vehicles)________________________________________________________ 73

  • 291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    1

    Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    1.1 Background

    In February 2011, the Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package was promoted to the Development Pool following a successful Expression of Interest in January 2011. A Best and Final Funding Bid (BAFFB) will be submitted to the Department for Transport (DfT) by 09 September 2011.

    The project received programme entry in 2008. Funding is now being sought for a project with a reduced scope, and the traffic and economic assessments are being updated to meet the requirements of Value for Money Guidance issued by the DfT in May 2011.

    This report describes the development and validation of a transport model which represents travel in the Camborne Pool Redruth area. A separate Existing Data & Traffic Survey Report describes the data used to develop the model, including roadside interview data, traffic counts and journey time surveys.

    Separate highway model and public transport models have been developed using SATURN and VISUM software respectively, for am peak, inter-peak and pm peak hours. The models were originally built for a 2005 base year, but have now been updated to 2010 to take account of network and land use changes since 2005.

    1.2 Project Location

    Camborne, Pool and Redruth taken together form a continuous corridor of urban development for over five miles along the inland western spine of Cornwall. The towns are located on the A30, A3047 and the London – Penzance railway line (see Figure 1.1). The A30 trunk road is one of the three road corridors that link Cornwall to the rest of the UK.

    1.3 Purpose of this Report

    This Assignment Model Validation Report outlines the methodology used to build and validate the base year highway and public transport models in 2005, and the updates to a 2010 base year.

    The report concludes that the updated 2010 model provides a good basis for updated traffic forecasts and economic assessments for the project.

    1. Introduction

  • 2910

    73/IT

    D/IT

    W/3

    /B 1

    2 A

    ugus

    t 201

    1 P

    :\Sou

    tham

    pton

    \ITW

    \Pro

    ject

    s\29

    1073

    cpr

    201

    1\w

    p\C

    PR

    _BFF

    B_L

    MV

    R_n

    oFig

    _App

    AD

    _Rev

    B_c

    omp.

    doc

    2

    Cam

    born

    e P

    ool R

    edru

    th T

    rans

    port

    Pac

    kage

    Figu

    re 1

    .1:

    Stud

    y A

    rea

    © C

    row

    n C

    opyr

    ight

    . Lic

    ence

    Num

    ber:

    LA

    0765

    38

  • 291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    3

    Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    This page is intentionally left blank.

  • 291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    4

    Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    2.1 Introduction

    Halcrow had been appointed in 2005 to develop the Camborne Pool Redruth (CPR) base year highway networks and build trip matrices using the results of six roadside interview surveys. Once these were complete Mott MacDonald (MM) carried out the highway model validation. The validated model was used for analysing the CPR Transport Strategy for inclusion in the Major Scheme Business Case (MSBC).

    2.2 Network Description

    The network set up in 2005 covered all the routes between Camborne and Redruth with connection to the rest of the country via A30. The majority of the local roads in the urban area were also included. Traffic models were developed for the AM peak hour of 0800-0900, a typical interpeak hour of 1100-1200 and the PM peak hour of 1700-1800 within June 2005. Figure 2.1 shows the extent of the highway network model.

    Analysis of the average weekday vehicle flow in June 2005 from the Automatic Traffic Counter on Wesley Street, Camborne (see Figure 2.2) shows that the am and pm peak hours are 0800-0900 and 1700-1800. The flow levels during 1100-1200 are typical of an interpeak hour. No other permanent data were available within the urban area of Camborne Pool and Redruth. Counters were situated on the A30 but these represented longer distance traffic patterns as opposed to the more local trips within Camborne, Pool and Redruth.

    Figure 2.3 compares the 12 hour weekday flow profile from the A30 counters and the Wesley Street counter throughout 2005. The A30 profiles show that flows rise from January reaching a peak in August and then falling to December. June flow on the A30 is some 9% higher than the annual average 12hour weekday flow. The profile for Wesley Street is much flatter with much lower flows in August and January. June flow on Wesley Street is only 4% higher than the annual average 12hour weekday flow. Comparing June flow on Wesley Street to the other neutral months of the year shows that June flow is just 2% higher than a neutral month average. This confirms that June is a suitable base for the model.

    2.3 Zoning System

    The zoning system provided by Halcrow has 182 zones with zone 181 covering Truro and the rest of the country. Analysis of census data for journeys to work and rail trips within Cornwall revealed that Truro and St Austell were significant origins and destinations for traffic within Camborne, Pool and Redruth. Therefore two additional zones, number 183 and 184, were created to represent Truro and St Austell, with zone 181 left to cover the rest of eastern Cornwall and the rest of the UK. Appendix A contains figures showing the zoning system.

    2. 2005 Highway Model Description

  • 2910

    73/IT

    D/IT

    W/3

    /B 1

    2 A

    ugus

    t 201

    1 P

    :\Sou

    tham

    pton

    \ITW

    \Pro

    ject

    s\29

    1073

    cpr

    201

    1\w

    p\C

    PR

    _BFF

    B_L

    MV

    R_n

    oFig

    _App

    AD

    _Rev

    B_c

    omp.

    doc

    5

    Cam

    born

    e P

    ool R

    edru

    th T

    rans

    port

    Pac

    kage

    Figu

    re 2

    .1:

    2005

    Hig

    hway

    Net

    wor

    k

    © C

    row

    n C

    opyr

    ight

    . Lic

    ence

    Num

    ber:

    LA

    0765

    38

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    6

    Figure 2.2: Average Weekday Flow at Wesley Street, June 2005

    0

    200

    400

    600

    800

    1000

    1200

    1400

    1600

    1800

    00:00

    01:00

    02:00

    03:00

    04:00

    05:00

    06:00

    07:00

    08:00

    09:00

    10:00

    11:00

    12:00

    13:00

    14:00

    15:00

    16:00

    17:00

    18:00

    19:00

    20:00

    21:00

    22:00

    23:00

    Time of day

    Ave

    rage

    Hou

    rly F

    low

    Figure 2.3: Local Monthly Profile

    0

    2,000

    4,000

    6,000

    8,000

    10,000

    12,000

    14,000

    16,000

    18,000

    Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

    Month

    Flow

    (12h

    r AW

    T) v

    ehs west of Camborne EB

    west of Camborne WBCamborne-Pool EBCamborne-Pool WBPool-Redruth EBPool-Redruth WBRedruth to A390 EBRedruth to A390 WBWesley Street 2-way

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    7

    3. 2005 Trip Matrix Building 3.1 Introduction

    Roadside Interview Surveys (RSI’s) had been carried out at four internal sites around the East Hill junction in March 2003 and at two outer sites in June 2005. (Figure 3.1) shows the location of each RSI site. The six sites included are:

    � Site A: Pendarves Road Eastbound

    � Site B1: A3047 (Dual Carriageway) Southbound

    � Site B2: Blowinghouse Hill Westbound

    � Site C: Tolvaddon Road Southbound

    � Site 1: A3047 Church Street Eastbound

    � Site 2: A393 Lanner Hill Southbound

    Table 3.1 shows the percentage of traffic interviewed at each RSI sites for each time period.

    Table 3-1: Percentage of Traffic Interviewed at each RSI Site RSI Sites AM (8-9) IP (11-12) PM (17-18)

    A 11% 25% 20%

    B1 14% 30% 16%

    B2 56% 26% 40%

    C 27% 32% 35%

    1 19% 25% 27%

    2 42% 41% 32%

    Halcrow prepared trip matrices using the RSI data and produced matrices for the am peak, interpeak and pm peak. The matrices were split by vehicle type into light vehicles which included cars and light goods vehicles (lgvs), and heavy vehicles which included ogv1 and ogv2. The matrices were also spilt into 6 different trip purpose types – education trips, employers business, commuting, non-home based trips, shopping trips and other trips. Appendix B is the Halcrow technical note describing the matrix building methodology and explaining how expansion factors were calculated.

  • 2910

    73/IT

    D/IT

    W/3

    /B 1

    2 A

    ugus

    t 201

    1 P

    :\Sou

    tham

    pton

    \ITW

    \Pro

    ject

    s\29

    1073

    cpr

    201

    1\w

    p\C

    PR

    _BFF

    B_L

    MV

    R_n

    oFig

    _App

    AD

    _Rev

    B_c

    omp.

    doc

    8

    Cam

    born

    e P

    ool R

    edru

    th T

    rans

    port

    Pac

    kage

    Figu

    re 3

    .1:

    RS

    I Loc

    atio

    ns

    © C

    row

    n C

    opyr

    ight

    . Lic

    ence

    Num

    ber:

    LA

    0765

    38

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    9

    Once MM received the final RSI matrices, some of the trip purposes were combined to give four final user classes, namely

    � Light vehicles commuting

    � Light vehicles employment business

    � Light vehicles other trips

    � Heavy vehicles

    Tables 3.2 to 3.4 show the split by journey purpose for each RSI site in each time period. This includes the effect of removing any trips that would have been observed at two or more of the RSI sites. The analysis shows commuting trips account for the biggest percentage of trips during the AM and PM peak. During the interpeak, most of the journeys recorded were Other trips.

    Table 3.3 shows the proportion of roadside interview records for each site by journey purpose in the interpeak hour of 1100-1200. For site B2 no interviews were recorded for commuting trips, but flows at this location are low (less than 200 cars/hour) and few commuting trips would be expected between 1100-1200. Table 3.4 provides the same information for the pm peak hour of 1700-1800. Before duplicated trips were removed, 50% of the survey responses at Site B1 were commuting trips. However the majority of these trips also passed through one of the other RSI sites, and the table only refers to trips which did not pass through another site.

    The journey purpose split of the raw site data is shown in Tables 3.2 to 3.4. The final purpose split for the total observed data for each time period is shown in Table 3.5.

    Table 3-2: AM RSI Matrices by Journey Purposes Site 1 Site 2 Site A Site B1 Site B2 Site C

    Commuting 59% 71% 47% 47% 47% 50%

    Business 6% 10% 12% 16% 14% 11%

    Other 33% 15% 29% 29% 35% 22%

    HGV 2% 4% 13% 8% 4% 17%

    Table 3-3: Interpeak RSI Matrices by Journey Purposes Site 1 Site 2 Site A Site B1 Site B2 Site C

    Commuting 8% 6% 12% 12% 0% 5%

    Business 18% 32% 13% 8% 51% 23%

    Other 71% 57% 71% 71% 43% 58%

    HGV 3% 6% 4% 9% 6% 15%

    Table 3-4: PM RSI Matrices by Journey Purposes Site 1 Site 2 Site A Site B1 Site B2 Site C

    Commuting 40% 53% 48% 12% 58% 53%

    Business 12% 7% 1% 6% 9% 8%

    Other 48% 39% 44% 74% 30% 31%

    HGV 0% 1% 8% 7% 3% 7%

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    10

    Table 3-5: Final observed data purpose split AM IP PM

    Commuting 52% 8% 44%

    Business 11% 19% 7%

    Other 28% 66% 45%

    HGV 8% 7% 5%

    3.2 Matrix Estimation

    Not all trips in the CPR area were interviewed, but total traffic needs to be represented in the model in order to properly represent congestion and journey times. Trips which were not interviewed were generated using a matrix estimation procedure.

    Prior matrices for use in matrix estimation were created by combining the RSI site matrices together with

    � A30 through traffic

    � Seeds for internal Camborne Pool Redruth trips

    All of the through A30 traffic was added between the zones representing the southwest part of Cornwall and the rest of the UK as no origin destination information for these trips was available. A30 through traffic was added to these matrices to ensure full traffic levels on the A30 were modelled. The ‘seeding’ of trips for the internal matrix areas was done by adding a very small number of trips e.g. 0.03 to all internal zone pairs. During the matrix estimation process trips between sectors that would pass through RSI locations were frozen.

    Forty one traffic counts were carried out within the study area in June 2005 and a selection of these were used in the matrix estimation process. Turning counts at 11 key junctions were retained for validation. Figure 3.2 shows the count locations and indicates which counts were used in matrix estimation and which were kept back for validation.

    Appendix C contains tables for the am, interpeak and pm peak period showing the percentage and absolute change in sector to sector trip numbers between the prior matrix and the final validation assignments. The highlighted cells indicate the sector to sector movements frozen during matrix estimation. In addition, tabulations of the absolute values for prior and post matrices are provided.

    During the definition of sectors for matrix estimation, two zones were incorrectly allocated which resulted in trips to and from these zones not being frozen. A sensitivity test has been undertaken to identify the impact of this error on the scheme benefits and is described in the Economic Assessment report. The conclusion is that correcting the error does not have a significant impact on scheme benefits.

    Figures 3.3 to 3.8 show the trip length distribution for the am, interpeak and pm peak period comparing the distribution of the prior assignment with the final assignments after matrix estimation. The estimation process has increased the proportion of shorter trips but the overall distribution remains similar. As expected, the additional short trips are primarily those within the RSI cordon within Camborne-Pool-Redruth.

  • 2910

    73/IT

    D/IT

    W/3

    /B 1

    2 A

    ugus

    t 201

    1 P

    :\Sou

    tham

    pton

    \ITW

    \Pro

    ject

    s\29

    1073

    cpr

    201

    1\w

    p\C

    PR

    _BFF

    B_L

    MV

    R_n

    oFig

    _App

    AD

    _Rev

    B_c

    omp.

    doc

    11

    Cam

    born

    e P

    ool R

    edru

    th T

    rans

    port

    Pac

    kage

    Figu

    re 3

    -2: T

    raffi

    c C

    ount

    Loc

    atio

    ns

    © C

    row

    n C

    opyr

    ight

    . Lic

    ence

    Num

    ber:

    LA

    0765

    38

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    12

    Figure 3-3: AM Peak Trip Length Distribution Proportions

    0

    5

    10

    15

    20

    25

    30

    2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 28+

    Distance in km

    Prop

    ortio

    n of

    trip

    s

    Prior Matrix EstimationPost Matrix Estimation

    Figure 3-4: Interpeak Trip Length Distribution Proportions

    0

    5

    10

    15

    20

    25

    30

    35

    2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 28 +

    Distance in km

    Prop

    ortio

    n of

    Trip

    s

    Prior Matrix EstimationPost Matrix Estimation

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    13

    Figure 3-5: PM Peak Trip Length Distribution Proportions

    0

    5

    10

    15

    20

    25

    30

    35

    2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 28+

    Distance in km

    Prop

    ortio

    n of

    trip

    s

    Prior Matrix EstimationPost Matrix Estimation

    Figure 3-6: AM Peak Trip Length Distribution Trip Numbers

    0

    500

    1000

    1500

    2000

    2500

    3000

    2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 28+

    Distance in km

    Num

    ber o

    f trip

    s

    Prior Matrix EstimationPost Matrix Estimation

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    14

    Figure 3-7: Interpeak Trip Length Distribution Trip Numbers

    0

    500

    1000

    1500

    2000

    2500

    3000

    3500

    2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 28 +

    Distance in km

    Num

    ber o

    f trip

    s

    Figure 3-8: PM Peak Trip Length Distribution Trip Numbers

    0

    500

    1000

    1500

    2000

    2500

    3000

    3500

    2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 28+

    Distance in km

    Num

    ber o

    f trip

    s

    Prior Matrix EstimationPost Matrix Estimation

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    15

    4. 2005 Base Year Assignment The trip matrices were assigned to the network using Wardrop user equilibrium and generalised cost coefficients calculated using time and operating cost coefficients from Webtag. Table 4.1 below shows the generalised cost coefficients used for the assignment.

    Table 4-1: Generalised Cost Coefficients Pence per minute (PPM) Pence per kilometre (PPK)

    AM IP PM AM IP PM

    Light vehicles - Commuting

    1.00 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.76 0.76

    Light vehicles – Employers Business

    1.00 1.00 1.00 0.23 0.23 0.23

    Light vehicles – Other trips

    1.00 1.00 1.00 0.58 0.58 0.58

    HGV 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.24 2.24 2.24

    The convergence criteria used for each of the am, interpeak and pm peak models from DMRB Volume 12 (Section 2 Part 1 Appendix H) are shown in Table 4.2.

    Table 4-2: Convergence Criteria Convergence Measure Acceptable Value

    Duality gap � Less than 1%

    AND one of the following

    Percentage of links with flow change < 5% Four consecutive iterations greater than 95%

    RAAD in flows Less than 1%

    AAD in flows Less than 1 veh/hr

    To ensure the model was well converged, the validation criteria for flow changes between assignment/simulation loops was tightened to a difference of 3%. Table 4.3 below shows the final convergence parameters achieved for each of the modelled periods.

    Table 4-3: Achieved Convergence Time period Duality Gap (%) No of loops with flow

    change

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    16

    5.1 Introduction

    Model calibration refers to the process of adjusting and confirming values of the various parameters to improve the performance of the model by making use of the data collected during the study, as necessary.

    Model validation demonstrates that the calibrated model reproduces observed conditions, within an acceptable range, when applied in the base year. The calibration and validation results of the models developed in the previous Chapters are presented and analysed in this Chapter.

    5.2 Validation Criteria

    The validation acceptability guidelines as set out in DMRB Volume 12 Section 2 Part 1 Chapter 4 are summarised in Table 5-1.

    Table 5-1: Assignment Validation - Acceptability Guidelines Criteria and Measures Acceptability Guideline

    Assigned hourly flows compared with observed flows For flows < 700 vph – Individual flows within 100 vph; For flows 700 – 2700 vph - Individual flows within 15%; For flows > 2700 vph – Individual flows within 400 vph.

    85% of all cases

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

    All (or nearly all) screenlines

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

    85% of cases All (or nearly all) screenlines

    Modelled journey times compared with observed times. Times within 15% or 1 min (if higher)

    > 85% of routes

    Notes: Screenlines containing high flow routes such as motorways should be presented both including and excluding such routes.

    5.3 Calibration Results

    In total 250 counts (include 12 link counts and 238 turning counts) at 36 locations were used in the matrix estimation process of which all of them meet the DMRB validation requirement for both light vehicles and HGVs. The results were summarised in Table 5.2.

    5. 2005 SATURN Model Calibration and Validation

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    17

    Table 5-2: Flow Calibration Results (Counts used for Matrix Estimation)

    Time Period Vehicle Types % Flow with GEH < 5 % Flow within DMRB Recommended Flow Range LV 90% 97%

    AM HGV 92% 100%

    LV 94% 100% IP

    HGV 95% 100%

    LV 91% 95% PM

    HGV 94% 100%

    5.4 Flow Validation

    Table 5.3 shows the results of the 97 validation counts (not used in matrix estimation) at 12 different sites for the three time periods. Each vehicle type in each time period meets the validation criteria for GEH statistics and flow ranges. Details comparison between the observed and modelled flow for each of these 97 counts for three different time period (both Light Vehicles and Heavy Goods Vehicles) can be found in Appendix D. The locations which were validated are highlighted purple in Appendix D..

    Table 5-3: Flow Validation Results (Validation Counts)

    Time Period Vehicle Types % Flow with GEH < 5 % Flow within DMRB Recommended Flow Range LV 87% 92%

    AM HGV 88% 100%

    LV 87% 97% IP

    HGV 93% 100%

    LV 85% 94% PM

    HGV 88% 100%

    Figures 5.1 to 5.3 show modelled and observed flows on key links in the am peak, interpeak and pm peak periods.

    East Hill double mini roundabout in Pool is a key junction in the network and Tables 5.4 to 5.6 show how the modelled and observed flows compare for each turning movement at this junction in each time period.

    In each time period all bar one of the turning movements meets the required flow criteria of being within 100 vehicles of the observed count. The validation against the GEH statistic is not as good with the modelled flows between Trevenson Road and Tolvaddon Road being lower than the observed in each direction and time period.

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    18

    Table 5-4: East Hill AM Peak Validation Turning Movement Observed

    Flow (veh) Modelled Flow

    (veh) GEH Flow

    Difference Criteria

    East Hill to Tolvaddon Road 464 529 2.90 �

    East Hill to Trevenson Road 464 506 1.89 �

    East Hill to Dudnance Lane 82 69 1.53 �

    Tolvaddon Road to Trevenson Road 191 77 9.88 x

    Tolvaddon Road to Dudnance Lane 101 92 0.87 �

    Tolvaddon Road to East Hill 194 246 3.48 �

    Trevenson Road to Dudnance Lane 32 9 5.01 �

    Trevenson Road to East Hill 399 407 0.39 �

    Trevenson Road to Tolvaddon Road 130 53 8.07 �

    Dudnance Lane to East Hill 79 52 3.39 �

    Dudnance Lane to Tolvaddon Road 153 144 0.75 �

    Dudnance Lane to Trevenson Road 47 8 7.43 �

    Table 5-5: East Hill Interpeak Peak Validation Turning Movement Observed

    Flow Modelled Flow GEH Flow

    Difference

    East Hill to Tolvaddon Road 244 279 2.16 �

    East Hill to Trevenson Road 390 470 3.88 �

    East Hill to Dudnance Lane 100 57 4.81 �

    Tolvaddon Road to Trevenson Road 172 60 10.42 x

    Tolvaddon Road to Dudnance Lane 117 98 1.81 �

    Tolvaddon Road to East Hill 200 265 4.26 �

    Trevenson Road to Dudnance Lane 74 24 7.11 �

    Trevenson Road to East Hill 411 470 2.83 �

    Trevenson Road to Tolvaddon Road 162 71 8.41 �

    Dudnance Lane to East Hill 105 53 5.88 �

    Dudnance Lane to Tolvaddon Road 116 115 0.08 �

    Dudnance Lane to Trevenson Road 62 24 5.82 �

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    19

    Table 5-6: East Hill PM Peak Validation Turning Movement Observed

    Flow (veh) Modelled Flow

    (veh) GEH Flow

    Difference

    East Hill to Tolvaddon Road 346 343 0.14 �

    East Hill to Trevenson Road 375 344 1.65 �

    East Hill to Dudnance Lane 77 34 5.73 �

    Tolvaddon Road to Trevenson Road 109 21 10.93 �

    Tolvaddon Road to Dudnance Lane 99 137 3.54 �

    Tolvaddon Road to East Hill 349 347 0.13 �

    Trevenson Road to Dudnance Lane 43 13 5.68 �

    Trevenson Road to East Hill 479 495 0.74 �

    Trevenson Road to Tolvaddon Road 193 66 11.18 x

    Dudnance Lane to East Hill 121 62 6.13 �

    Dudnance Lane to Tolvaddon Road 126 171 3.66 �

    Dudnance Lane to Trevenson Road 38 8 6.30 �

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    20

    Figure 5-1: AM Peak Network Flows

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    21

    Figure 5-2: Interpeak Network Flows

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    22

    Figure 5-3: PM Peak Network Flows

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    23

    Figure 5.4 shows five screen lines, including one East–West screenline south of the A30 and four North-South screenlines through the study area. The appropriate values have been extracted from the validation and calibration spreadsheets and are shown in Tables 5.7 to 5.12 below. The screenlines contain a combination of validation (independent) and calibration (matrix estimated) locations.

    The key screenlines which include most traffic and would be most affected by the scheme are South of A30, Pool, and Camborne East. In the am peak, the screenline DMRB criteria are met for both light and heavy vehicles. In the inter-peak, the model under-estimates heavy vehicle traffic across the South of A30 screenline. The maximum shortfall on any link is 25 heavy vehicles/hour. In the pm peak, the model over-estimates heavy vehicle traffic across the Camborne East and Pool screenlines. The maximum over-estimate on any link is 90 heavy vehicles/hour.

    The model therefore provides a good representation of light vehicle traffic, and does not have a systematic over- or under-estimate of heavy vehicle traffic.

  • Cam

    born

    e P

    ool R

    edru

    th T

    rans

    port

    Pac

    kage

    2910

    73/IT

    D/IT

    W/3

    /B 1

    2 A

    ugus

    t 201

    1 P

    :\Sou

    tham

    pton

    \ITW

    \Pro

    ject

    s\29

    1073

    cpr

    201

    1\w

    p\C

    PR

    _BFF

    B_L

    MV

    R_n

    oFig

    _App

    AD

    _Rev

    B_c

    omp.

    doc

    24

    Figu

    re 5

    -4: S

    cree

    nlin

    es

    © C

    row

    n C

    opyr

    ight

    . Lic

    ence

    Num

    ber:

    LA

    0765

    38

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    25

    Table 5.7: AM Peak Light Vehicle Screenlines

    Diff % DiffLocation Date 2700 GEH Flow GEHSouth of A30 Screenline - Southbound

    A 566 704 138 - - 5.5 � �B,C 213 204 -9 - - 0.6 � �D 623 635 12 - - 0.5 � �E 333 336 3 - - 0.2 � �F 701 636 - -9.3% - 2.5 � �G 991 1021 - 3.0% - 0.9 � �

    All 3427 3536 - - 109 1.9 � �South of A30 Screenline - Northbound

    A 570 634 64 - - 2.6 � �B,C 89 116 27 - - 2.7 � �D 464 484 20 - - 0.9 � �E 245 263 18 - - 1.1 � �F 681 703 22 - - 0.8 � �G 426 337 -89 - - 4.6 � �

    All 2475 2537 - 2.5% - 1.2 � �

    Camborne West Screenline - EastboundA,B 173 163 -10 - - 0.8 � �C 545 492 -53 - - 2.3 � �D 528 554 26 - - 1.1 � �

    All 1246 1209 - -3.0% - 1.1 � �Camborne West Screenline - Westbound

    A,B 224 315 91 - - 5.5 � �C - - - - - -D 459 503 44 - - 2.0 � �

    All 683 818 135 - - 4.9 � �

    Camborne East Screenline - EastboundA 156 178 22 - - 1.7 � �B 720 745 - 3.5% - 0.9 � �C 64 47 -17 - - 2.3 � �

    All 940 970 - 3.2% - 1.0 � �Camborne East Screenline - Westbound

    A 122 225 103 - - 7.8 � �B 488 428 -60 - - 2.8 � �C 121 122 1 - - 0.1 � �

    All 731 775 - 6.0% - 1.6 � �

    Pool Screenline - EastboundA 75 73 -2 - - 0.2 � �B 181 184 3 - - 0.2 � �C 584 680 96 - - 3.8 � �

    All 840 937 - 11.5% - 3.3 � �Pool Screenline - Westbound

    A - - - - - -B - - - - - -C 652 648 -4 - - 0.2 � �

    All 652 648 -4 - - 0.2 � �

    Redruth Screenline - EastboundA 122 118 -4 - - 0.4 � �B - - - - - -C 300 159 -141 - - 9.3 � �D - - - - - -

    All 422 277 -145 - - 7.8 � �Redruth Screenline - Westbound

    A - - - - - -B 83 65 -18 - - 2.1 � �C 96 44 -52 - - 6.2 � �D 197 226 29 - - 2.0 � �

    All 376 335 -41 - - 2.2 � �

    Flow Criteria (vph)Observed

    FlowModelled

    FlowWithin DMRB

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    26

    Table 5.8: AM Peak Heavy Vehicle Screenlines

    Diff % DiffLocation 2700 GEH Flow GEHSouth of A30 Screenline - Southbound

    A 16 13 -3 - - 0.8 � �B,C 12 8 -4 - - 1.3 � �D 25 18 -7 - - 1.5 � �E 3 1 -2 - - 1.4 � �F 53 39 -14 - - 2.1 � �G 48 45 -3 - - 0.4 � �

    All 157 124 -33 - - 2.8 � �South of A30 Screenline - Northbound

    A 26 15 -11 - - 2.4 � �B,C 5 2 -3 - - 1.6 � �D 21 33 12 - - 2.3 � �E 1 0 -1 - - 1.4 � �F 54 56 2 - - 0.3 � �G 13 25 12 - - 2.8 � �

    All 120 131 11 - - 1.0 � �

    Camborne West Screenline - EastboundA,B 12 3 -9 - - 3.3 � �C 13 11 -2 - - 0.6 � �D 8 12 4 - - 1.3 � �

    All 33 26 -7 - - 1.3 � �Camborne West Screenline - Westbound

    A,B 9 2 -7 - - 3.0 � �C - - - - - -D 14 8 -6 - - 1.8 � �

    All 23 10 -13 - - 3.2 � �Camborne East Screenline - Eastbound

    A 7 17 10 - - 2.9 � �B 21 33 12 - - 2.3 � �C 2 0 -2 - - 2.0 � �

    All 30 50 20 - - 3.2 � �Camborne East Screenline - Westbound

    A 6 16 10 - - 3.0 � �B 20 7 -13 - - 3.5 � �C 1 1 0 - - 0.0 � �

    All 27 24 -3 - - 0.6 � �

    Pool Screenline - EastboundA 1 0 -1 - - 1.4 � �B 4 1 -3 - - 1.9 � �C 54 58 4 - - 0.5 � �

    All 59 59 0 - - 0.0 � �Pool Screenline - Westbound

    A - - - - - -B - - - - - -C 41 51 10 - - 1.5 � �

    All 41 51 10 - - 1.5 � �

    Redruth Screenline - EastboundA 1 9 8 - - 3.6 � �B - - - - - -C 18 11 -7 - - 1.8 � �D - - - - - -

    All 19 20 1 - - 0.2 � �Redruth Screenline - Westbound

    A - - - - - -B 0 7 7 - - 3.7 � �C 11 2 -9 - - 3.5 � �D 30 57 27 - - 4.1 � �

    All 41 66 25 - - 3.4 � �

    Flow Criteria (vph)Observed

    FlowModelled

    FlowWithin DMRB

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    27

    Table 5.9: Interpeak Light Vehicle Screenlines

    Diff % DiffLocation 2700 GEH Flow GEHSouth of A30 Screenline - Southbound

    A 360 400 40 - - 2.1 � �B,C 179 182 3 - - 0.2 � �D 476 508 32 - - 1.4 � �E 175 174 -1 - - 0.1 � �F 479 427 -52 - - 2.4 � �G 561 616 55 - - 2.3 � �

    All 2230 2307 - 3.5% - 1.6 � �South of A30 Screenline - Northbound

    A 301 323 22 - - 1.2 � �B,C 91 97 6 - - 0.6 � �D 251 278 27 - - 1.7 � �E 231 238 7 - - 0.5 � �F 532 543 11 - - 0.5 � �G 256 235 -21 - - 1.3 � �

    All 1662 1714 - 3.1% - 1.3 � �

    Camborne West Screenline - EastboundA,B 95 103 8 - - 0.8 � �C 480 409 -71 - - 3.4 � �D 262 271 9 - - 0.6 � �

    All 837 783 - -6.5% - 1.9 � �Camborne West Screenline - Westbound

    A,B 180 218 38 - - 2.7 � �C - - - - - -D 516 531 15 - - 0.7 � �

    All 696 749 53 - - 2.0 � �

    Camborne East Screenline - EastboundA 115 159 44 - - 3.8 � �B 661 614 -47 - - 1.9 � �C 64 88 24 - - 2.8 � �

    All 840 861 - 2.5% - 0.7 � �Camborne East Screenline - Westbound

    A 148 232 84 - - 6.1 � �B 534 543 9 - - 0.4 � �C 118 137 19 - - 1.7 � �

    All 800 912 - 14.0% - 3.8 � �

    Pool Screenline - EastboundA 66 61 -5 - - 0.6 � �B 71 83 12 - - 1.4 � �C 729 802 - 10.0% - 2.6 � �

    All 866 946 - 9.2% - 2.7 � �Pool Screenline - Westbound

    A - - - - - -B - - - - - -C 635 703 68 - - 2.6 � �

    All 635 703 68 - - 2.6 � �

    Redruth Screenline - EastboundA 327 310 -17 - - 1.0 � �B - - - - - -C 190 160 -30 - - 2.3 � �D - - - - - -

    All 517 470 -47 - - 2.1 � �Redruth Screenline - Westbound

    A - - - - - -B 50 37 -13 - - 2.0 � �C 84 44 -40 - - 5.0 � �D 226 291 65 - - 4.0 � �

    All 360 372 12 - - 0.6 � �

    Flow Criteria (vph)Observed

    FlowModelled

    FlowWithin DMRB

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    28

    Table 5.10: Interpeak Heavy Vehicle Screenlines

    Diff % DiffLocation 2700 GEH Flow GEHSouth of A30 Screenline - Southbound

    A 24 10 -14 - - 3.4 � �B,C 15 6 -9 - - 2.8 � �D 44 20 -24 - - 4.2 � �E 10 2 -8 - - 3.3 � �F 54 29 -25 - - 3.9 � �G 41 32 -9 - - 1.5 � �

    All 188 99 -89 - - 7.4 � �South of A30 Screenline - Northbound

    A 27 3 -24 - - 6.2 � �B,C 6 4 -2 - - 0.9 � �D 9 2 -7 - - 3.0 � �E 8 2 -6 - - 2.7 � �F 50 34 -16 - - 2.5 � �G 4 6 2 - - 0.9 � �

    All 104 51 -53 - - 6.0 � �

    Camborne West Screenline - EastboundA,B 12 2 -10 - - 3.8 � �

    C 21 25 4 - - 0.8 � �D 3 6 3 - - 1.4 � �

    All 36 33 -3 - - 0.5 � �Camborne West Screenline - Westbound

    A,B 14 60 46 - - 7.6 � �C - - - - - -D 17 12 -5 - - 1.3 � �

    All 31 72 41 - - 5.7 � �

    Camborne East Screenline - EastboundA 2 6 4 - - 2.0 � �B 30 9 -21 - - 4.8 � �C 4 1 -3 - - 1.9 � �

    All 36 16 -20 - - 3.9 � �Camborne East Screenline - Westbound

    A 9 30 21 - - 4.8 � �B 16 8 -8 - - 2.3 � �C 3 8 5 - - 2.1 � �

    All 28 46 18 - - 3.0 � �

    Pool Screenline - EastboundA 3 0 -3 - - 2.4 � �B 1 1 0 - - 0.0 � �C 39 50 11 - - 1.6 � �

    All 43 51 8 - - 1.2 � �Pool Screenline - Westbound

    A - - - - - -B - - - - - -C 54 47 -7 - - 1.0 � �

    All 54 47 -7 - - 1.0 � �

    Redruth Screenline - EastboundA 0 31 31 - - 7.9 � �B - - - - - -C 13 3 -10 - - 3.5 � �D - - - - - -

    All 13 34 21 - - 4.3 � �Redruth Screenline - Westbound

    A - - - - - -B 1 4 3 - - 1.9 � �C 4 3 -1 - - 0.5 � �D 26 8 -18 - - 4.4 � �

    All 31 15 -16 - - 3.3 � �

    Flow Criteria (vph)Observed

    FlowModelled

    FlowWithin DMRB

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    29

    Table 5.11: PM Peak Light Vehicle Screenlines

    Diff % DiffLocation 2700 GEH Flow GEHSouth of A30 Screenline - Southbound

    A 845 890 - 5.3% - 1.5 � �B,C 245 231 -14 - - 0.9 � �D 644 616 -28 - - 1.1 � �E 226 241 15 - - 1.0 � �F 750 723 - -3.6% - 1.0 � �G 745 805 - 8.1% - 2.2 � �

    All 3455 3506 - - 51 0.9 � �South of A30 Screenline - Northbound

    A 463 547 84 - - 3.7 � �B,C 115 125 10 - - 0.9 � �D 368 390 22 - - 1.1 � �E 398 397 -1 - - 0.1 � �F 659 668 9 - - 0.3 � �G 435 442 7 - - 0.3 � �

    All 2438 2569 - 5.4% - 2.6 � �

    Camborne West Screenline - EastboundA,B 145 155 10 - - 0.8 � �C 654 658 4 - - 0.2 � �D 312 409 97 - - 5.1 � �

    All 1111 1222 - 10.0% - 3.2 � �Camborne West Screenline - Westbound

    A,B 233 309 76 - - 4.6 � �C - - - - - -D 568 626 58 - - 2.4 � �

    All 801 935 - 16.7% - 4.5 � �

    Camborne East Screenline - EastboundA 125 135 10 - - 0.9 � �B 775 607 - -21.7% - 6.4 � �C 89 237 148 - - 11.6 � �

    All 989 979 - -1.0% - 0.3 � �Camborne East Screenline - Westbound

    A 223 324 101 - - 6.1 � �B 713 620 - -13.0% - 3.6 � �C 151 151 0 - - 0.0 � �

    All 1087 1095 - 0.7% - 0.2 � �

    Pool Screenline - EastboundA 84 84 0 - - 0.0 � �B 119 125 6 - - 0.5 � �C 850 849 - -0.1% - 0.0 � �

    All 1053 1058 - 0.5% - 0.2 � �Pool Screenline - Westbound

    A - - - - - -B - - - - - -C 707 704 - -0.4% - 0.1 � �

    All 707 704 - -0.4% - 0.1 � �

    Redruth Screenline - EastboundA 363 334 -29 - - 1.6 � �B - - - - - -C 303 238 -65 - - 4.0 � �D - - - - - -

    All 666 572 -94 - - 3.8 � �Redruth Screenline - Westbound

    A - - - - - -B 51 60 9 - - 1.2 � �C 199 75 -124 - - 10.6 � �D 306 364 58 - - 3.2 � �

    All 556 499 -57 - - 2.5 � �

    Flow Criteria (vph)Observed

    FlowModelled

    FlowWithin DMRB

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    30

    Table 5.12: PM Peak Heavy Vehicle Screenlines

    Diff % DiffLocation 2700 GEH Flow GEHSouth of A30 Screenline - Southbound

    A 25 18 -7 - - 1.5 � �B,C 5 1 -4 - - 2.3 � �D 22 14 -8 - - 1.9 � �E 4 1 -3 - - 1.9 � �F 20 40 20 - - 3.7 � �G 18 35 17 - - 3.3 � �

    All 94 109 15 - - 1.5 � �South of A30 Screenline - Northbound

    A 10 8 -2 - - 0.7 � �B,C 5 2 -3 - - 1.6 � �D 5 3 -2 - - 1.0 � �E 3 0 -3 - - 2.4 � �F 13 37 24 - - 4.8 � �G 9 4 -5 - - 2.0 � �

    All 45 54 9 - - 1.3 � �

    Camborne West Screenline - EastboundA,B 6 38 32 - - 6.8 � �C 17 4 -13 - - 4.0 � �D 6 10 4 - - 1.4 � �

    All 29 52 23 - - 3.6 � �Camborne West Screenline - Westbound

    A,B 9 42 33 - - 6.5 � �C - - - - - -D 9 99 90 - - 12.2 � �

    All 18 141 123 - - 13.8 � �

    Camborne East Screenline - EastboundA 2 36 34 - - 7.8 � �B 11 34 23 - - 4.8 � �C 1 21 20 - - 6.0 � �

    All 14 91 77 - - 10.6 � �Camborne East Screenline - Westbound

    A 5 19 14 - - 4.0 � �B 11 10 -1 - - 0.3 � �C 3 2 -1 - - 0.6 � �

    All 19 31 12 - - 2.4 � �

    Pool Screenline - EastboundA 0 1 1 - - 1.4 � �B 1 0 -1 - - 1.4 � �C 16 43 27 - - 5.0 � �

    All 17 44 27 - - 4.9 � �Pool Screenline - Westbound

    A - - - - - -B - - - - - -C 24 54 30 - - 4.8 � �

    All 24 54 30 - - 4.8 � �

    Redruth Screenline - EastboundA 0 9 9 - - 4.2 � �B - - - - - -C 8 3 -5 - - 2.1 � �D - - - - - -

    All 8 12 4 - - 1.3 � �Redruth Screenline - Westbound

    A - -B 1 1 0 - - 0.0 � �C 2 4 2 - - 1.2 � �D 15 1 -14 - - 4.9 � �

    All 18 6 -12 - - 3.5 � �

    Flow Criteria (vph)Observed

    FlowModelled

    FlowWithin DMRB

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    31

    5.5 Journey Time Validation

    Observed journey time had been collected on 5 different routes (see Figure 5.5) inside the study area in November 2005. An analysis had been carried out to make sure the journey times collected for each route are within the DMRB acceptability requirement. The journey time surveys are required to have an accuracy of 10% or less. The journey time surveys carried out in June 2005 were not accurate enough for the routes around Redruth so additional runs were carried out in November 2005. Also for a number of the routes in the pm peak, the majority of the journey time surveys were carried out in the hour proceeding the modelled pm peak hour. To ensure journey times appropriate to the modelled hour were surveyed additional runs were carried out in the pm peak.

    Table 5.13 shows the number of runs carried out to collect the journey time information and the journey time accuracy for each route respectively. A minimum of 3 runs had been carried out to collect journey time for each particular route in each time period to calculate the average journey time. Exceptional cases, such as accident, which cause unusually long delays were removed from the calculation. Even with the additional surveys undertaken not all of the routes meet the required accuracy for each of the time periods. Route 3.2 has the worst statistics. This journey time route passed through three signal junctions which led to the variation in surveyed run times.

    Journey Time survey graphs are included in Appendix E to this report.

    Table 5-13: Journey Time Survey Accuracy AM IP PM

    Routes No of runs Accuracy

    No of runs Accuracy

    No of runs Accuracy

    Route 1 - (Clockwise) 6 3.9% 6 3.2% 6 7.1%

    Route 1 - (Anti-Clockwise) 4 2.8% 6 6.7% 4 11.3%

    Route 2 - (Clockwise) 3 1.6% 6 5.8% 6 7.0%

    Route 2 - (Anti-Clockwise) 3 2.4% 6 5.8% 4 11.2%

    Route 3.1 - (Clockwise) 11 12.1% 6 5.7% 3 0.6%

    Route 3.1 - (Anti-Clockwise) 6 3.7% 7 8.4% 3 8.7%

    Route 3.2 - (Clockwise) 7 14.1% 10 11.1% 13 15.8%

    Route 3.2 - (Anti-Clockwise) 6 6.3% 12 8.4% 11 11.8%

    Route 3.3 - (Clockwise) 6 7.6% 9 11.1% 6 7.9%

    Route 3.3 - (Anti-Clockwise) 6 4.2% 6 7.3% 5 1.9%

    A comparison of observed and modelled journey times is shown in Tables 5.14 to 5.16 The acceptability criteria in DMRB Volume 12 are that more than 85% of routes should have modelled journey times within 15% of the observed times or 1 minute if higher. All routes in all time periods meet the validation criteria.

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    32

    Table 5-14: AM Peak Journey Time Validation Results Observed (Sec) Modelled (Sec) Percentage Difference

    Route 1 Clockwise 582 569 1.02

    Route 1 Anti-Clockwise 633 573 1.11

    Route 2 Clockwise 715 623 1.15

    Route 2 Anti-Clockwise 557 516 1.08

    Route 3-1 Clockwise 654 579 1.13

    Route 3-1 Anti-Clockwise 438 465 0.94

    Route 3-2 Clockwise 367 333 1.10

    Route 3-2 Anti-Clockwise 311 312 1.00

    Route 3-3 Clockwise 252 244 1.03

    Route 3-3 Anti-Clockwise 229 239 0.96

    Table 5-15: Interpeak Journey Time Validation Results Observed (Sec) Modelled (Sec) Percentage Difference

    Route 1 Clockwise 586 551 1.06

    Route 1 Anti-Clockwise 594 536 1.11

    Route 2 Clockwise 710 625 1.14

    Route 2 Anti-Clockwise 554 497 1.11

    Route 3-1 Clockwise 558 547 1.02

    Route 3-1 Anti-Clockwise 493 440 1.12

    Route 3-2 Clockwise 322 316 1.02

    Route 3-2 Anti-Clockwise 304 326 0.93

    Route 3-3 Clockwise 244 240 1.02

    Route 3-3 Anti-Clockwise 220 238 0.92

    Table 5-16: PM Peak Journey Time Validation Results Observed (Sec) Modelled (Sec) Percentage Difference

    Route 1 Clockwise 627 570 1.10

    Route 1 Anti-Clockwise 757 680 1.11

    Route 2 Clockwise 736 711 1.03

    Route 2 Anti-Clockwise 656 625 1.05

    Route 3-1 Clockwise 607 581 1.05

    Route 3-1 Anti-Clockwise 517 482 1.07

    Route 3-2 Clockwise 361 349 1.03

    Route 3-2 Anti-Clockwise 294 329 0.89

    Route 3-3 Clockwise 261 242 1.08

    Route 3-3 Anti-Clockwise 249 241 1.03

  • Cam

    born

    e P

    ool R

    edru

    th T

    rans

    port

    Pac

    kage

    2910

    73/IT

    D/IT

    W/3

    /B 1

    2 A

    ugus

    t 201

    1 P

    :\Sou

    tham

    pton

    \ITW

    \Pro

    ject

    s\29

    1073

    cpr

    201

    1\w

    p\C

    PR

    _BFF

    B_L

    MV

    R_n

    oFig

    _App

    AD

    _Rev

    B_c

    omp.

    doc

    33

    Figu

    re 5

    -5: J

    ourn

    ey T

    ime

    Sur

    vey

    Rou

    tes

    ©

    Cro

    wn

    Cop

    yrig

    ht. L

    icen

    ce N

    umbe

    r: L

    A07

    6538

  • Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    34

    6. 2005 Public Transport Model 6.1 Model Network

    In order to assess possible public transport improvements which may form part of the Package, and to assess any mode changes as a result of highway improvements, a multi-modal public transport model has been developed using VISUM software. The software has been used to model the rail and bus networks in the Camborne - Redruth area.

    The network includes rail and bus routes with their main stops. Within the Camborne and Redruth corridor, the rail service is modelled and includes all stations. Outside of the corridor the rail network stretches from Hayle in the west to St Austell in the east and includes all main stops along the line.

    All buses passing through Camborne and Redruth were included in the model with all stops coded between Camborne and Redruth and only strategic stops were coded outside the corridor. Two operators (First Bus and Truronian) run bus services inside the study area. A list of services is included in Table 6.1 and shown on Figure 6.1.

    Table 6-1: Summary of Bus Routes Number Operator Description

    14 First Bus Truro - St Ives

    18 First Bus Truro - Penzance

    40 First Bus Camborne - Truro

    41 First Bus Troon - Falmouth

    42 First Bus Camborne - Penmarth

    44 First Bus Camborne - Portreath

    45 First Bus Troon - Redruth

    T7 Truronian Truro - Portreath

    T20 Truronian Redruth - Camborne

    T34 Truronian Redruth - Helston

    Both rail and bus services have been coded according to timetables June 2005. In order to model accessibility to bus and rail stations, stops have been connected to all zones within a radius of 2 kilometres of a rail station or a radius of 300m from a bus stop.

  • Cam

    born

    e P

    ool R

    edru

    th T

    rans

    port

    Pac

    kage

    2910

    73/IT

    D/IT

    W/3

    /B 1

    2 A

    ugus

    t 201

    1 P

    :\Sou

    tham

    pton

    \ITW

    \Pro

    ject

    s\29

    1073

    cpr

    201

    1\w

    p\C

    PR

    _BFF

    B_L

    MV

    R_n

    oFig

    _App

    AD

    _Rev

    B_c

    omp.

    doc

    35

    Figu

    re 6

    -1: L

    ocal

    Bus

    Rou

    tes

  • 291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    36

    Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    6.2 Matrices

    6.2.1 Rail Trip matrices

    LENNON sales data by appropriate station origin and destination points was obtained. The data included all sales independent of where they were issued. The origins and destinations requested were Redruth and Camborne, plus trips to or from those stations to/from Hayle-Penzance (including St Erth and St Ives), Perranwell & Penryn, Penmere to Falmouth, Truro, St Austell, Rest of Cornwall and the rest of Great Britain.

    The LENNON output included Origin, Destination, Product code (CTOT), Gross and Net Receipts, Journeys and Miles on an annual basis. This data was then checked and non-travel products, e.g., refunds; removed. As LENNON data does not count return legs of journeys separately, return legs for return tickets and season tickets were created and journeys halved between each leg. The journeys across all ticket types for each O-D pair were then summed to create the initial or total matrix.

    There was no survey data available on journey purpose and time of travel. Therefore, assumptions were made using ticket type data. Table 6.2 below shows the assumptions made about how the broad ticket groups created split between commuting, business and other.

    Table 6-2: Ticket Group by Journey Purpose – assumed spilts Commuting Business Other

    Cheap Return 1% 2% 97%

    Cheap single 2% 2% 96%

    First Open Return 60% 40%

    First Return-cheap 10% 90%

    First Single 20%

    First Single-cheap 5%

    Season 100%

    Standard Day Return 10% 40% 50%

    Standard Open Return 70% 30%

    Standard Single 2% 10% 88%

    The total matrix generated was multiplied by the splits shown in Table 6.2 to create 3 journey purpose matrices (Commuting, Business and Other).

    As journey purpose is likely to be a reasonable predictor of travel time, further assumptions were then made regarding weekday and weekend and time of travel within the day (am peak, inter-peak and pm peak). The overall weekend proportion was informed by National Passenger Survey (NPS) data for Spring 2003 which showed that 22% of the journeys on Wessex Trains took place at the weekend. This is shown in Table 6.3, below.

    Table 6-3: Weekday and Weekend Spilt by Journey Purpose Commuting Business Other

    Weekday 98.0% 98.0% 75.0%

    Weekend 2.0% 2.0% 25.0%

  • 291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    37

    Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    The assumed splits between journey purpose and travel time are shown in Tables 6.4 and 6.5 below. Note that as travel to the rest of Britain was likely to take longer and therefore leave earlier, a separate table of assumptions was used (Table 6.5).

    Table 6-4: Assumed Journey Purpose splits by Time of Travel – Cornwall only weekday Commuter Business Other

    0600-0900 50.0% 50.0% 10.0%

    0900-1600 10.0% 10.0% 55.0%

    1600-1900 35.0% 35.0% 25.0%

    after 1900 5.0% 5.0% 10.0%

    weekend Commuter Business Other

    0600-0900 50.0% 50.0% 20.0%

    0900-1600 50.0%

    1600-1900 50.0% 50.0% 20.0%

    after 1900 10.0%

    Table 6-5: Assumed Journey Purpose Splits by Time of Travel – Rest of UK Weekday Commuter Business Other

    0600-0900 50.0% 50.0% 10.0%

    0900-1600 10.0% 35.0% 80.0%

    1600-1900 35.0% 10.0% 10.0%

    after 1900 5.0% 5.0%

    Weekend Commuter Business Other

    0600-0900 50.0% 50.0% 30.0%

    0900-1600 60.0%

    1600-1900 50.0% 50.0% 10.0%

    after 1900

    The three journey purpose matrices were then multiplied through by the assumptions in Tables 6.3 to 6.5 to create 6 time of travel matrices (am peak, inter-peak and pm peak for weekday and weekend) for each journey purpose.

    Finally, in order to create an average weekday, the weekday matrices were divided by 240. To create an average weekend the weekend matrices were divided by 50. Period by period data for the relevant flows showed that June (RSP Period 3) was not significantly different from average; therefore, no seasonality adjustment was applied.

    The matrices showing journey by time period and journey purpose were still using station to station movements. These now needed to be converted to zonal matrices. Journey to work census data was obtained from Cornwall at an output area definition level. Using GIS software, the output areas were allocated to the equivalent modelled zones and a matrix of journey to work trips by zone produced.

  • 291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    38

    Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    Each zone within a 2km radius of a rail station was then assumed to potentially include trips to and from that station and trips from each station were allocated to the appropriate zones according to the proportions from the journey to work matrix.

    Lastly the rail zonal matrices by journey purpose and time period were split into car available and car non-available proportions based on Carrick and Kerrier household census data for rail users taken from TEMPRO.

    6.2.2 Rail Fares matrices

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

    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 were then created by dividing gross receipts by journeys for each O-D pair.

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

    6.2.3 Bus Trip Matrices

    Passenger boardings and alightings on the bus routes within Camborne, Pool and Redruth (see Figure 6.1) have been obtained from the Truronian and First bus companies. These have been converted to matrices using the journey to work census data in the same way as the rail matrices. The split of trips between journey purpose in each time period was taken from WebTAG unit 3.5.6.

    Table 6-6: 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%

    Lastly the bus zonal matrices by journey purpose and time period were split into car available and car non-available proportions based on Carrick and Kerrier household census data for bus users taken from TEMPRO.

  • 291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    39

    Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    6.3 Public Transport Assignment

    The public transport uses a headway based assignment method, with a generalised cost definition for Perceived Journey Time (PJT) of

    PJT = In-vehicle time + 2*(Access Time + Egress Time + Walking Time)+ 2.5* (Origin Wait Time + Transfer Wait Time) + 10min *No of Transfers

    This uses the TAG unit 3.5.6 weightings for walking and wait times. This does not use an all or nothing assignment along the best path. DIADEM models the change in mode choice etc. as a function of the change in generalised costs of travel. Therefore any components of the generalised cost that do not change between the reference and forecast scenarios can be left out of the generalised cost formulation. We have assumed that PT fares do not change in the study area and have therefore not included them in the generalised cost.

    6.4 Rail validation

    There was no available independent data against which to validate the rail modelled flows so validation has not been possible.

    6.5 Bus validation

    Bus passenger surveys were carried out in November 2005 on the west side of the A3047 East Hill junction for each of the modelled hours. For each bus that passed the service number and number of passengers on board were noted down.

    Draft DfT guidance on public transport modelling states that for individual counts modelled flows should be within 25% of the survey data, where observed flows are particularly low (less than 150). Table 6.7 below shows the survey data and the modelled flows of passengers for the am, interpeak and pm peak modelled periods.

    Table 6-7: Bus Passengers Validation Results

    Observed ModelledModelled vs Observed

    West of East Hill Junction EB 88 73 0.83

    AM West of East Hill Junction WB 36 43 1.19

    West of East Hill Junction EB 81 77 0.95

    IP West of East Hill Junction WB 50 55 1.10

    West of East Hill Junction EB 33 26 0.79

    PM West of East Hill Junction WB 53 58 1.09

  • 291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    40

    Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    The modelled flows in all three period compare very well with the average observed flows and meet the required validation criteria. Figures showing the bus passenger flows from the validated assignments are included in the Traffic Forecasting Report.

  • 291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    41

    Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    7.1 Introduction

    Between 2005 and 2010, there have been changes to the local highway network and land use changes. In order to take account of these changes, the highway model has been updated to 2010 and validated against traffic count and journey time data collected in 2010. The updated traffic data are described in the June 2011 Existing Data & Traffic Survey Report.

    As the new journey time data for 2010 was collected in March, the 2010 model was validated to an average March weekday. From the Wesley Street monthly profile for 2009 it is apparent that March traffic flows are about 1% above the annual average.

    7.2 Updated Highway Model Network

    Updating the model to 2010 included adding Barncoose link, which opened in 2007, and updating East Hill junction from a double mini-roundabout to a signalised junction. This was completed in January 2010. Figure 7.1 shows the extent of the updated highway network model.

    The East Hill signal junction operation was initially modelled with LinSig which was calibrated to represent traffic flows and queue lengths in February 2010. These calibrated signal stagings, timings and LinSig capacities were used in SATURN, but the signal timings were re-optimised in SATURN to take account of March 2010 traffic flow volumes.

    7. 2010 Highway Model Update

  • 2910

    73/IT

    D/IT

    W/3

    /B 1

    2 A

    ugus

    t 201

    1 P

    :\Sou

    tham

    pton

    \ITW

    \Pro

    ject

    s\29

    1073

    cpr

    201

    1\w

    p\C

    PR

    _BFF

    B_L

    MV

    R_n

    oFig

    _App

    AD

    _Rev

    B_c

    omp.

    doc

    42

    Cam

    born

    e P

    ool R

    edru

    th T

    rans

    port

    Pac

    kage

    Figu

    re 7

    .1:

    Hig

    hway

    Net

    wor

    k

    © C

    row

    n C

    opyr

    ight

    . Lic

    ence

    Num

    ber:

    LA

    0765

    38

  • 291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    43

    Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    7.3 Updated Trip Matrices

    7.3.1 Introduction

    Following the 2005 matrix validation the matrix structure was changed to the 7 user classes of car commuting, car employers business, car other, LGV commuting, LGV employers business, LGV other and HGV. Separating the LGV user classes and the car user classes was based on the RSI data, which gave the proportions shown in Table 7.1.

    Table 7.1: Light Vehicle Proportions AM IP PM

    Car Commuting 49% 11% 41%

    LGV Commuting 4% 1% 5%

    Car Employers Business 10% 16% 9%

    LGV Employers Business 4% 5% 2%

    Car Other 31% 63% 38%

    LGV Other 2% 4% 5%

    Total 100% 100% 100%

    The starting point for building 2010 matrices was the matrices used for the 2005 validation. The matrix update to 2010 was undertaken by considering local development completions, including the TESCO store in Pool which opened in 2006.

    The modelled time periods remained unchanged as AM peak 8:00 to 9:00, interpeak 11:00 to 12:00 and PM peak 17:00 to 18:00.

  • 291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    44

    Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    7.3.2 Car Matrices

    From Cornwall Council we received the following details about development completions that were registered between 2006 and March 2010. Tables 7.2 and 7.3 below show the completions and Table 7.4 shows the trip rates used to calculate the development related car traffic increase. These trip rates were extracted from TRICS 2010(a) v6.5.2. The purpose split proportions per zone in the 2006 matrices were applied to the development trips to split them into the three car user classes.

    Table 7.2: Housing Completions 2006 to 2010 Site Address No of dwellings

    Trevithick Road CSM 64

    East/West Charles Street 14

    Adj Cadogan Road, Camborne 19

    Vyvyans Court, Camborne 56

    Laity Fields, Pengegon, Camborne 49

    Lamorna, East Hill, Tuckingmill 14

    Gladys Holman House (blocks) 12

    Crembling Well, Barncoose 14

    Old Redruth Hospital (conv) 23

    Former Redruth Hospital 37

    Plain an Gwarry Chapel, Redruth 12

    Former Builders Yard, Treleigh Ave' 18

    Whym Kibbal, Pednandrea, Redruth 31

    Whym Kibbal, Pednandrea, Redruth 9

    1 Higher Fore Street, Redruth 13

    School Lane, Redruth 17

    Sandy Lane/Carknown Gardens 29

    Adj Clinton Farm, South Albany Road, Redruth 20

    Treruffe Terrace, Redruth 14

    The Old Corona Works 12

    Former Pengegon Motors, Foundry L 12

    Vivian Park, Pengegon 12

    Cadogan Road (Medlands) 21 Source: Cornwall Council

  • 291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    45

    Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    Table 7.3: Commercial Completions 2006 to 2010

    Scheme Category

    Floorspace per 100sqm

    Pool Innovation Centre B1 36.95

    Former Endeva Site, Dudnance Lane B2 3.92

    The Fireplace, Unit 7 Dudnance Lane B1c 1.01

    Unit 1B Dudnance Lane B1a 0.45

    Unit 12 Carn Brea Business Park B8 10.67

    Kernow Building, Wilson Way B1 0.33

    Wilson Way, Redruth B8 4.80

    Roach Foods, Wilson Way B2 2.00

    Treleigh Industrial Estate B2 46.50

    Treleigh Industrial Estate B8 5.40

    Unit B Jon Davey Drive, Treleigh B1a 0.48

    Cardrew Industrial Estate, Redruth B2 47.00

    Site 53 Cardrew Industrial Estate B2 6.46

    Unit 15 Cardrew Business Park B8 2.19

    Site 53 Cardrew Industrial Estate B2 6.45

    Cardrew Industrial Estate B1c 3.80

    Jenson House, Cardrew Ind Estate B8 18.95

    Plot 2 Cardrew Industrial Estate B8 3.60

    Oil Depot, Cardrew Ind Est B8 1.77

    Seton Self Storage, Scorrier B8 8.16

    CCC Scorrier B1a 2.02

    Forge, Kehelland B1a 0.17

    Plot 9 Barncoose Industrial Estate B2 1.20

    Unit 14 Barncoose Industrial Estate B8 3.72

    Wilson Way, Barncoose Ind Estate B2 21.60

    Barncoose Industrial Estate, Adj Brewer & Bunney B1c, B2, B8 3.00 Source: Cornwall Council

  • 291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    46

    Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    Table 7.4: Trip Rates Units AM IP PM

    In Out In Out In Out

    Private housing Per dwelling 0.16 0.44 0.18 0.17 0.40 0.23

    Affordable housing Per dwelling 0.10 0.20 0.15 0.12 0.24 0.15

    Office Per 100sqm 1.48 0.18 0.29 0.28 0.15 1.27

    Industrial Unit Per 100sqm 0.39 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.32

    Warehousing Per 100sqm 0.69 0.11 0.16 0.15 0.09 0.61

    Industrial Estate Per 100sqm 0.50 0.26 0.31 0.34 0.14 0.40

    Mixed Commercial Use

    Per 100sqm 0.69 0.11 0.16 0.15 0.09 0.61 Source: TRICS v6.5.2

    The 2010 car matrices were produced by furnessing the equivalent 2005 matrices in each time period using the 2010 estimated trip ends. Car matrix growth is compared against forecast TEMPRO 6.1 growth in Table 7.5. It is apparent that the predicted TEMPRO growth is higher than the development growth. Consequently, the total matrices were factored to match this growth representing the total increase in traffic.

    Table 7.5: Car Matrix Growth AM IP PM

    TEMPRO Growth 1.052 1.058 1.052

    Development Growth 1.022 1.014 1.020

    7.3.3 Goods Vehicle Matrices

    The LGV and HGV matrices for 2010 were also based on the equivalent 2005 validated matrices. National Transport Model 2009 factors were calculated and are shown in Table 7.6. The factor for LGV’s was applied to all three LGV user classes.

    Table 7.6: Goods Vehicle Factors AM IP PM

    LGV 1.06 1.06 1.06

    HGV 1.00 1.00 1.00 Source: Based on NTM 2009 data

  • 291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    47

    Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    7.4 Traffic Data

    Details of the traffic data collected in 2010 are set out in the Existing Data & Traffic Survey Report. The data include turning movement counts at East Hill, automatic traffic counts, journey time surveys, and queue length surveys. The turning movement and queue length surveys were carried out in February 2010, and the journey time surveys in March 2010. The turning movement counts have been factored to average March 2010 values based on the average two-way flow profiles along Wesley Street, A3047 Barncoose and Barncoose Link between the date of the survey and average March flows. Table 7.7 shows the factors applied.

    Table 7.7: East Hill Observed Data Adjustment Factors AM IP PM

    Factor 1.02 1.03 1.06

    7.5 2010 Traffic Model Assignment

    SATURN assignments were undertaken for the AM, Interpeak and PM peak periods in 2010. The trip matrices were assigned to the network using Wardrop user equilibrium and generalised cost coefficients calculated for 2010 using the values of time and operating costs from WebTag unit 3.5.6 (April 2011). Table 7.8 shows the final generalised cost coefficients used for the assignment. The details of the calculation are also provided in a spreadsheet file provided with this report.

    Table 7.8: Generalised Cost Coefficients

    Pence per minute (PPM) Pence per kilometre (PPK)

    AM IP PM AM IP PM

    Cars - Commuting 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.57 0.57 0.59

    Cars – Employers Business 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.26 0.26

    Cars – Other trips 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 0.42 0.47

    LGV 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 0.71 0.71

    HGV 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.38 2.38 2.38

    Convergence of the model was checked against the parameters set out in DMRB Volume 12 (Section 2 Part 1 Appendix H) and shown in Table 7.9.

  • 291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    48

    Camborne Pool Redruth Transport Package

    Table 7.9: Convergence Parameters

    Convergence Measure Acceptable Value

    Duality gap � Less than 1%

    AND one of the following

    Percentage of links with flow change < 5% Four consecutive iterations greater than 95%

    RAAD in flows Less than 1%

    AAD in flows Less than 1 veh/hr

    To ensure the model was well converged, the validation criteria for flow changes between loops were tightened to a difference of 3%. Table 7.10 shows the final convergence parameters for each of the modelled periods. The acceptable values set out in DMRB were achieved.

    Table 7.10: Achieved Convergence

    Time period Duality Gap (%) No of loops with flow change

  • 2910

    73/IT

    D/IT

    W/3

    /B 1

    2 A

    ugus

    t 201

    1 P

    :\Sou

    tham

    pton

    \ITW

    \Pro

    ject

    s\29

    1073

    cpr

    201

    1\w

    p\C

    PR

    _BFF

    B_L

    MV

    R_n

    oFig

    _App

    AD

    _Rev

    B_c

    omp.

    doc

    49

    C

    ambo

    rne

    Poo

    l Red

    ruth

    Tra

    nspo

    rt P

    acka

    ge

    Figur

    e 7.

    2:

    Cou

    nt L

    ocat

    ions

    201

    0

    ©

    Cro

    wn

    Cop

    yrig

    ht. L

    icen

    ce N

    umbe

    r: L

    A07

    6538

  • 2910

    73/IT

    D/IT

    W/3

    /B 1

    2 A

    ugus

    t 201

    1 P

    :\Sou

    tham

    pton

    \ITW

    \Pro

    ject

    s\29

    1073

    cpr

    201

    1\w

    p\C

    PR

    _BFF

    B_L

    MV

    R_n

    oFig

    _App

    AD

    _Rev

    B_c

    omp.

    doc

    50

    C

    ambo

    rne

    Poo

    l Red

    ruth

    Tra

    nspo

    rt P

    acka

    ge

    Figur

    e 7.

    3:

    Jour

    ney

    Tim

    e R

    oute

    s 20

    10

    © C

    row

    n C

    opyr

    ight

    . Lic

    ence

    Num

    ber:

    LA

    0765

    38

  • 291073/ITD/ITW/3/B 12 August 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\291073 cpr 2011\wp\CPR_BFFB_LMVR_noFig_AppAD_RevB_comp.doc

    51

    Camborne Pool R