Traffic Assessment - Renfrewshire Council

Dargavel Village 

Proposed Village Core Development 

Transport Assessment 

Report




Report 

JMP Consultants Limited 

Mercantile Chambers 

53 Bothwell Street 

Glasgow 

G2 6TS 

T 0141 221 4030 

F 0800 066 4367 

E glasgow@jmp.co.uk 

www.jmp.co.uk 

Job No. SCT3526 

Report No. 1 

Prepared by S. Livingstone 

Verified S. Livingstone 

Approved by K. Clarke 

Status Final 

Issue No. 1 

Date 20 December 2012




Report 

Contents Amendments Record 

This document has been issued and amended as follows: 

Status/Revision Revision description Issue Number Approved By Date 

Draft 1 K. Clarke 03/12/2012 

Draft Client amendments 2 K. Clarke 07/12/2012 

Final Client Approval 1 K. Clarke 20/12/2012

Contents 

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 

Development History .................................................................................................................. 1 

Dargavel Village Centre Proposals ............................................................................................ 2 

Report Structure ......................................................................................................................... 3 

2 EXISTING AND COMMITTED TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE .......................................... 4 

Walking and Cycling ................................................................................................................... 5 

Public Transport ......................................................................................................................... 6 

Local Road Infrastructure ........................................................................................................... 8 

3 DARGAVEL VILLAGE CENTRE DEVELOPMENT TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS ............... 11 

Overview ................................................................................................................................... 11 

Travel Characteristics Methodology ......................................................................................... 11 

Step 1 – People Trip Assessment ............................................................................................ 12 

Step 2 – Mode Share and Trips by Mode ................................................................................. 13 

Step 3 – Ration of Dargavel Village & Bishopton Village Trips ................................................ 13 

Step 4 – Pass-By and Diverted Vehicle Trips .......................................................................... 14 

Step 5 – Distribution and Assignment ...................................................................................... 15 

Summary of Foodstore Travel Characteristics ......................................................................... 15 

4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 17 

General ..................................................................................................................................... 17 

Analysis Period ......................................................................................................................... 17 

Assessment Year ..................................................................................................................... 17 

Traffic Growth ........................................................................................................................... 17 

Committed Development .......................................................................................................... 18 

Analysis Scenarios ................................................................................................................... 19 

Greenock Road / Old Greenock Road / Newton Road ............................................................ 20 

A8 Greenock Road / Ferry Road / Rossland Crescent ............................................................ 20 

A8 Greenock Road / Kingston Road ........................................................................................ 21 

A8 Greenock Road / Station Road ........................................................................................... 21 

A8 Greenock Road / Station Road Mitigation Analysis ............................................................ 22 

Station Road Railway Bridge Underpass ................................................................................. 23 

Sensitivity Test – Rossland Crescent ....................................................................................... 23 

Summary of Traffic Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 26 

5 SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THE VILLAGE 

CENTRE ............................................................................................................................................ 27 

Walking and Cycling ................................................................................................................. 27 

Public Transport ....................................................................................................................... 29 

Station Road Potential Public Realm Improvements ............................................................... 30

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

6 CAR PARKING STRATEGY .................................................................................................... 32 

Management ............................................................................................................................. 32 

Parking Provision ...................................................................................................................... 32 

Disabled parking ....................................................................................................................... 35 

7 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 36 

Tables and Figures 

Table 1.1 Dargavel Village Centre Development .............................................................................. 2 

Table 2.1 Dargavel Masterplan Construction Phasing ...................................................................... 4 

Table 2.2 Schedule of Bus Services ................................................................................................. 7 

Table 2.3 Dargavel Masterplan - Bus Network Proposals ................................................................ 8 

Table 3.1 Dargavel Village Centre Development ............................................................................ 11 

Table 3.2 Total People Trips - 6,000m 2 Foodstore ......................................................................... 12 

Table 3.3 Weekday PM (1700-1800) Mode Share ......................................................................... 13 

Table 3.4 Internal & External People Trip Generation .................................................................... 14 

Table 3.5 External Vehicle Trips – 6,000m 2 Foodstore .................................................................. 15 

Table 4.1 List of 'Committed' Developments ................................................................................... 19 

Table 4.2 Greenock Road / Old Greenock Road / Newton Road ................................................... 20 

Table 4.3 A8 Greenock Road / Ferry Road / Rossland Crescent ................................................... 20 

Table 4.4 A8 Greenock Road / Kingston Road ............................................................................... 21 

Table 4.5 A8 Greenock Road / Station Road .................................................................................. 22 

Table 4.6 A8 Greenock Road / Station Road Mini-roundabout ...................................................... 22 

Table 4.7 Station Road Underpass Traffic Signals ......................................................................... 23 

Table 4.8 A8 Greenock Road / Ferry Road / Rossland Crescent Sensitivity Test .......................... 25 

Table 4.9 A8 Greenock Road / Station Road Sensitivity Test ........................................................ 25 

Table 5.1 Dargavel Masterplan - Bus Network Proposals .............................................................. 30 

Table 6.1 Parking Provision Guidelines .......................................................................................... 33 

Table 6.2 Town Centre Shared Trips .............................................................................................. 34 

Table 6.3 Maximum Parking Provision ............................................................................................ 34 

Table 6.4 Disabled Parking ............................................................................................................. 35 

Appendices 

APPENDIX A Consented Dargavel Village Masterplan 

APPENDIX B Indicative Village Centre Layout 

APPENDIX C Walking and Cycling Information 

APPENDIX D Park & Ride Proposed Layout 

APPENDIX E Proposed Bus Network Proposals 

APPENDIX F Traffic Data 

APPENDIX G 2008 Transport Assessment – Chapter 4 

APPENDIX H Proposed Road Infrastructure Improvements 

APPENDIX I TRICS and TRIP Generation Calculations 

APPENDIX J Junction Analysis Output Files 

APPENDIX K Renfrewshire Council Consultation

1 Introduction 

Development History 

1.1 Outline planning permission, planning permission in principle (PPP) was granted in 2009 for the 

Masterplan of a community growth area (Dargavel Village) on the site of the former Royal 

Ordnance works to the west of Bishopton, Renfrewshire (Ref: 06/0602/PP). The Masterplan for the 

village comprises a mixed use development consisting of residential, employment, retail, a number 

of community facilities and an expansion to the park and ride at the Bishopton Railway Station. A 

copy of the consented Masterplan layout is provided in Appendix A and the location is indicated by 

Figure 1.1 below. 

Figure 1.1 Site Location 

1.2 JMP Consultants Ltd (JMP) were responsible for preparing a number of studies in support of the 

Masterplan, including a Transport Assessment that identified a series of transport interventions that 

will seek to provide a sustainable development, helping to integrate it with the existing Bishopton 

Village and the surrounding local and strategic network. 

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page 

SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village 


1

1.3 The vehicular access strategy for the Masterplan consisted of creating 2 new roundabouts (and 

access roads) from the A8 Greenock Road, to the north and south of the existing Bishopton 

Village. In terms of the strategic network and to serve both the new development and the existing 

Bishopton settlement, it is proposed to construct a motorway junction on the M8 between junctions 

29 and 30. 

1.4 The consented Masterplan primarily consists of: 

• 2,500 residential units; 

• 138,000m 2 total gross floor area (GFA) of employment; 

• 12,000m 2 total GFA of community and local service facilities (library, health centre, shops, 

village hall, public parks); 

• A Primary School 

Dargavel Village Centre Proposals 

Overview 

1.5 BAE intend to submit a application for PPP for the village centre element of the Dargavel Village 

Masterplan proposal. The land uses coming forward with the planning application are set out in 

Table 1.1 below. 

Table 1.1 Dargavel Village Centre Development 

Land Use Approx. Scale 

Park & Ride 300 spaces 

Foodstore 6,000m 2 gross floor area 

Individual retail / commercial units 840m 2 total gross floor area 

Residential 40 units 

Library / learning resource centre and public realm 585 – 715m 2 gross floor area 

1.6 The fundamental difference to the consented Masterplan is the 6,000m 2 foodstore element of the 

village centre proposals. While the PPP allowed for a 1,000m 2 foodstore, a household survey that 

reviewed the existing shopping trends of the existing Bishopton Village established that residents 

are travelling outwith Bishopton to major foodstore in areas such as Erskine, Braehead, Linwood 

and Port Glasgow. 

1.7 The purpose of the increased floorspace being proposed is in response to shopping trends 

identified by the household survey. It is intended to provide the existing residents of Bishopton 

Village and the future residents of Dargavel with the option of a local foodstore, thereby reducing or 

indeed removing, the need to undertake longer distance trips outwith Bishopton. 

1.8 Notwithstanding the consented 1,000m 2 GFA foodstore, for the purposes of enabling a traffic 

analysis to be carried out, the Transport Assessment undertaken in 2008 to support the consented 

Masterplan considered a foodstore with a 2,500m 2 GFA. 

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 

2 SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village 

Proposed Village Core Development

1.9 JMP has been commissioned by BAE Systems to prepare the Transport Assessment in support of 

the PPP application for the village centre proposals. While the village centre will be developed in 

line with the sustainable transport principles adopted by the 2008 Transport Assessment (and other 

supporting studies), as all other development content and transport interventions will remain the 

same, only the traffic implications and the impact of the increase retail floor area will be assessed 

in terms of the local road network. 

Village Centre Access Strategy 

1.10 While the primary access to the village centre from for the existing residents of Bishopton Village 

will be via Station Road and this report will demonstrate that with local improvements, it can 

accommodate the traffic associated with the village centre and the enhanced foodstore, the 

proposed land uses are intended to be for the benefit of the existing residents of Bishopton Village. 

The Design Team are keen to maximise the integration of the village centre with the existing village 

and are exploring the option of providing an access by car via Rossland Crescent to complement 

the proposed walk and cycle links without, however, the opportunity to link to the remainder of 

Dargavel. 

1.11 Notwithstanding the previous Masterplan and any associated conditions, the sensitivity of the local 

road network and the potential benefits to the existing residents of Bishopton Village has been 

considered by examining travel times to the proposed village centre. This report also provides 

some recommendations for the layout and form of the link from Rossland Crescent and these 

would be developed at later stage, subject to further consultation with Renfrewshire Council. 

Report Structure 

1.12 Following on from this introductory chapter, the structure of the report is as follows: 

• Chapter 2 – Existing and Committed Transport Infrastructure 

• Chapter 3 – Dargavel Village Centre Development Travel Characteristics 

• Chapter 4 – Traffic Impact Analysis 

• Chapter 5 – Sustainable Transport Infrastructure to Support the Village Centre 

• Chapter 6 – Car Parking Strategy 

• Chapter 7 – Conclusions 

1.13 The Transport Assessment should be read in conjunction with the supporting JMP Appendices 

Report. 

1.14 This Transport Assessment has been undertaken in consultation with Renfrewshire Council’s 

Roads Department. JMP would like to take this opportunity to thank the Roads Department for their 

assistance in the preparation of this report. 




3

2 Existing and Committed Transport Infrastructure 

2.1 The proposed development content and land use mix for the consented Dargavel Village 

Masterplan was developed by a working group which included representatives of Renfrewshire 

Council and the then Scottish Government. The consented masterplan was refined to provide the 

following key elements that forms the nucleus of the consented PPP 

• 2,500 residential units; 

• 138,000m 2 GFA of employment; 

• 12,000m 2 total GFA of community and local service facilities (library, health centre, shops, 

village hall, public parks); 

• A Primary School 

2.2 Table 2.1 below indicates the current construction phasing programme for the consented 

Masterplan. 

Table 2.1 Dargavel Masterplan Construction Phasing 

Phases of 

development 

Output 

Housing (units) Employment (ha) Community 

Phase Cumulative Phase Cumulative 

2012-2016 745 745 19.13 19.13 Health Centre, Village 

2017-2018 

2019-2022 

388 

617 

1133 

1750 

2.86 

10.10 

21.99 

32.09 

Square, Library, Village 

Hall, Recreation 

Ground, Primary 

School. 

2023-2025 444 2194 13.94 46.03 --- 

2026-2027 306 2500 0.00 46.03 --- 

2,500 

Cass Associates Phasing Matrix 

46.03 --- 

2.3 The transport infrastructure for the consented Dargavel Village and the requirements for the 

Masterplan have previously been reviewed in considerable detail by the following reports 

undertaken by JMP: 

• Transport Assessment (2008); 

• STAG Assessments Parts 1 and 2 (Part 2 approved 2008); 

• Public Transport Study (2011); and 

• Park & Ride Demand Study (2011). 

2.4 This section of the report details the existing infrastructure and proposed transport interventions 

that will be taken forward for the overall Masterplan and provided at key stages of development. 

The above reports can be accessed and viewed from Renfrewshire Council’s website. 




Walking and Cycling 

2.5 The existing Bishopton settlement has a network of footways that provide linkage between the 

community facilities, shops and the residential development within the area. Formal pedestrian 

crossing facilities are available on Greenock Road. A pelican crossing is located just to the west of 

Kingston Road which provides linkage to the community centre, health centre and other local 

facilities to the south of Greenock Road including the existing transport interchange which is 

described in detail below. The traffic signals at the Greenock Road / Rossland Crescent junction 

have a pedestrian phase providing a safe crossing point for residents of the surrounding residential 

area. 

2.6 A “Safe Routes to School” scheme is in operation in the area around Bishopton Primary School 

with associated signing and part-time 20mph speed limit introduced to create a safe environment 

for children walking to and from the school. 

2.7 The proposed development site is physically accessible by a network of existing footpaths which 

link to the existing Bishopton settlement. Footpaths will be extended on Newton Road, Rossland 

Crescent and Station Road between the development and the existing settlement of Bishopton. 

There is no footway provision between the existing settlement of Bishopton and other settlements 

in the Renfrewshire area due to the distances involved. 

2.8 The nearest cycle link to the site is the ‘Clyde Panoramas’ route. This is a predominantly rural 

recreational cycle route that provides a link from Erskine in the east, through Bishopton along Old 

Greenock Road (this section is on-street) and onto Langbank and Kilmacolm in the west. 

2.9 In addition to Clyde Panoramas route, there is the Paisley and Clyde Railway Path (National Cycle 

Network Route 75) which routes through Linwood, passes to the south of Houston and Kilmacolm 

and then on through Port Glasgow to finish at Gourock. National Cycle Network Route 7 connects 

with this path at Linwood and provides a route to Glasgow and to Irvine. The site is approximately 

7km from NCN 75. The nearest formal cycle facilities between Houston (7 km away) and NCN75 is 

via a connection to the south of Houston. 

2.10 The linking of the cycle and pedestrian network to the existing Bishopton settlement is paramount 

to ensuring that genuine integration is achieved between the new development and the existing 

settlement. The network of cycle and footways will provide an alternative to the private car for 

shorter distance trips as well as providing opportunities for leisure trips and will ensure that local 

facilities will be accessible to all residents of the new and existing settlements. The existing and 

future cycle routes within and around Bishopton are indicated by Figure C3 in Appendix C. 

2.11 In order to link the Dargavel Village with the existing population, it is proposed to utilise the three 

existing links which cross the railway line in order to provide safe and convenient routes. These are 

the existing links along Newton Road, Rossland Crescent and Station Road. These existing routes 

leading from the existing settlement to the site will be enhanced through the provision of adequate 

lighting to improve the security of pedestrians and cyclists. This provides the permeability between 

existing and proposed facilities in the area, such as healthcare, retail and other community 

facilities. 




5

Public Transport 

2.12 Conditions 13 and 55 of the PPP required improvements to public transport services and park and 

ride to be provided and these were established by the ‘Public Transport Study’ (2011) and ‘Park 

and Ride Demand Study’ (2011) respectively. The outcome of each report is summarised below. 

Bishopton Railway Station 

2.13 Bishopton is an intermediate station on the electrified Inverclyde Line linking Gourock and Wemyss 

Bay with Paisley and Glasgow Central. In daytime on weekdays and Saturdays Bishopton is 

served by three trains an hour in each direction between Glasgow Central and Gourock and a 

fourth between Glasgow and Wemyss Bay. 

2.14 Bishopton Station has a large car park with 117 parking spaces including five designated for 

parking by disabled drivers. There is a second area of parking on the east side of the station 

forecourt that takes total public provision to 136 spaces on the north side of the railway, and a more 

recent additional 80 spaces have been create in a formal car-park on BAE land to the south of the 

railway. 

2.15 There are bus/rail interchange facilities at Bishopton in the form of a bus turning circle and bus 

stance with passenger shelter on the north side of the railway at the entrance to the main station 

car park. There is a limited network of local bus services. SPT provides financial support for two 

local bus services operated by Scottish Travel in daytime on Mondays to Saturdays using a single 

accessible vehicle. The two services both operate hourly – Service 520 is the Bishopton Local 

Service and Service 521 provides a link to the Bridgewater Shopping Centre in Erskine. In 

addition, commercial Scottish Travel Service X22 provides an hourly service between Greenock, 

Port Glasgow, Bishopton and Clydebank. 

Park and Ride 

2.16 Following the outcome of the ‘Park and Ride Demand Study’ (JMP, 2011), it is proposed to provide 

300 park and ride spaces to the west of the railway line by completion of the whole Bishopton Park 

development, with the expansion taking place in stages to correspond with growing demand as the 

development proceeds. This increase in parking spaces forms part of this application and the 

proposed layout is provided in Appendix D. 

Local Bus Services 

2.17 The railway station is the focal point for public transport in Bishopton. The First ScotRail Inverclyde 

service from Gourock and Wemyss Bay to Paisley and Glasgow Central provides the principal 

means of access to the village by public transport. 

2.18 When the examination of bus services was first undertaken in 2005, there was a limited network of 

local bus services providing little more than a local distributor service and a link to Erskine. 

2.19 At a meeting on 8 th August 2011, SPT advised that Service 521 was to be diverted via Mainshill in 

Erskine in order to replace another bus service that is to be withdrawn. The implication is that the 

vehicle operating Services 520/521 will become fully utilised and there will no longer be any scope 

for using it to extend Service 520 into the new development. 

2.20 Service X22 operates hourly in each direction in daytime on weekdays and Saturdays and there 

are four journeys each way on Sundays. First and departures towards Clydebank are at 07:30 and 

17:30 whilst the first and last buses towards Greenock are at 08:25 and 18:25. 




2.21 Bishopton, Erskine and Renfrew are served by the Renfrew MyBus demand responsive Service 

M45 provided for people who are unable to use or have difficulty in using mainstream public 

transport. Bishopton is also a possible destination for the Gryffe Valley MyBus Service 965 but it is 

not intended to meet the travel needs of Bishopton residents. Travel on both services must be 

booked in advance and services are available between 09:00 and 18:00 daily. 

2.22 Eligibility criteria restrict use to people aged over 80 years, blind people, recipients of particular 

DSS benefits (e.g. attendance allowance, disability living allowance paid at the higher mobility 

rate), and people with medical evidence of their inability to use buses and trains permanently or 

temporarily. The service provides access from home to local facilities. 

2.23 It is assumed that inclusion of the Bishopton development area in the MyBus M45 catchment area 

will happen automatically and will not require any financial support from the Section 75 provision for 

the development. Table 2.2 identifies the main bus services linking Bishopton with neighbouring 

centres. 

Table 2.2 Schedule of Bus Services 

Operator Service 

No. 

Route Frequency 

(Mon –Fri) 

McGills X22 Greenock – 

Bishopton - 

Clydebank 

520 Bishopton - 

Bishopton Station 

521 Erskine - Bishopton 

Station 

Colchri Ltd MyBus 965 Flexible - Gryffe 

Valley Ring ‘n’ Ride 

Colchri Ltd MyBus M45 Flexible - Renfrew 

Dial a Bus 

Every Hour (not 

evenings) 


evenings) 


evenings) 

Demand 

responsive 

(09:00-18:00) 

Demand 

responsive 

(09:00-18:00) 

CTG CB3 Bishopton - Erskine From 19:30 to 

21:30 

(Every Hour) 

Published bus maps and timetables (November 2012). 

Frequency (Sat) Frequency 

(Sun) 


evenings) 


evenings) 


evenings) 

Demand 

responsive 

(09:00-18:00) 

Demand 

responsive 

(09:00-18:00) 

2.24 In developing proposals for the bus network, three constraints have been applied: 

4 journeys each 

way 

No Service 

No Service 

Demand 

responsive 

(09:00-18:00) 

Demand 

responsive 

(09:00-18:00) 

No Service No Service 

• The introduction of additional east-west bus services would only duplicate existing Service X22 

and the faster service available by rail. 

• Demand for movement to some destinations is small scale and would not support a financially 

sustainable mainstream bus service. 

• Locations such as Ayrshire and North and South Lanarkshire are a substantial distance away, 

demand is small scale and dispersed, and bus journey times and the number of interchanges 

needed make bus an inappropriate option. 

2.25 The proposals for enhancing the local bus network in relation to the proposed phasing of Dargavel 

Village are summarised in Table 2.3. 




7

Table 2.3 Dargavel Masterplan - Bus Network Proposals 

Development Phases Network Development Proposals 

1 2012-2016 New Service A introduced in 2013* to coincide with first housing 

occupations to complement Service 521 providing a doubling of daytime 

frequency and additional evening and Sunday services between 

Bishopton and Erskine 

2 2017-2018 Extension of new Service A and diverted Service X22 into the new 

development. 

New hourly Service B to Inchinnan and Glasgow Airport in daytime on 

weekdays and Saturdays. 

Two journeys an hour on Service 23 extended from Erskine / Bargarran to 

Bishopton in daytime on weekdays and Saturdays. 

3 2019-2022 Proposed Service B to Inchinnan and Glasgow Airport extended to 

Linwood and Bridge of Weir hourly in daytime on weekdays and 

Saturdays. Frequency between Bishopton and Glasgow Airport increased 

to half-hourly. 

4 2023-2025 Adjustment of bus routes through the development to improve penetration 

and deliver acceptable walk distances. 

5 2026-2027 No change. 

Note:*The rate of build out for Dargavel Village is such that Service A is now likely to be introduced in 2014. 

2.26 The mechanism proposed for delivery of the new/improved bus services to serve the proposed 

development at Bishopton is Network Enhancement Grant managed and administered by SPT 

using the allocated Section 75 Agreement funding. 

2.27 Figure E1 in Appendix E indicates the routes for the enhanced bus services. 

Local Road Infrastructure 

Existing Infrastructure 

2.28 The primary route through Bishopton is the A8, a 10 metre wide single carriageway distributor road. 

The road is subject to a 30 mph speed restriction through Bishopton and street lighting is provided 

through the built-up area. Other main routes in the village include Ferry Road, Old Greenock Road 

and Kingston Road, all with frontage access and providing for movements to and from the main 

residential areas. 

2.29 There are 4 main junctions along the A8 through Bishopton and these are indicated by Figure 2.1 

and listed below. 

1. Greenock Road / Station Road priority controlled junction; 

2. Greenock Road / Kingston Road priority controlled junction; 

3. Greenock Road / Ferry Road / Rossland Crescent signal controlled junction; and 

4. Greenock Road / Old Greenock Road / Newton Road junction. 




Figure 2.1 A8 Greenock Road Junctions 

2.30 The vehicular access strategy for the consented Masterplan consists of creating 2 new 

roundabouts (and access roads) onto the A8 Greenock Road, to the north and south of the existing 

Bishopton Village. At the time of printing this report, the construction of the north roundabout is 

nearing completion while site clearance works have started at the southern roundabout. 

2.31 The third point of access will be via Station Road, via Greenock Road, where vehicle access will be 

restricted only to the community facilities immediately south of the railway line and to the station’s 

east car-park for park and ride. Renfrewshire Council stated at a meeting on 31 October they 

consider the visibility from Station Road to Greenock Road is substandard. JMP would advise that, 

having undertaken a site visit, we would agree that visibility is restricted, particularly to the left. 

2.32 Station Road, as its name suggests, provides access to the rail station and to part of the proposed 

development site. The existing road has frontage development along its length including a shop. 

There are parked cars along most of the length of the road associated with the frontage 

development. Some of the parking is likely to be associated with park and ride for the rail station 

when the formal off-street parking facilities are full. There is a rail over-bridge on the access to the 

development site which has a restricted height and width of 3.2 metres and 4.5 metres 

respectively. There is currently no formal pedestrian footway under the bridge at present. 

Local Road Infrastructure Improvements 

2.33 A number of improvements have been proposed in order to accommodate traffic generated by the 

proposed development and to mitigate the impact on the local road network. 




9

Greenock Road / Kingston Road 

2.34 The 2008 Transport Assessment confirmed that junctions 1, 3 and 4 above would operate with no 

significant problems during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. It also confirmed that Greenock 

Road / Kingston Road would experience considerable queues during the AM peak and require to 

be upgraded to traffic signal control. It is understood the traffic signals will be installed and 

operational from early 2013. 

Station Road – Railway Bridge Underpass 

2.35 While the 2008 analysis indicated that Greenock Road / Station Road junction will operate within 

capacity during the weekday AM and PM peak periods, it was subsequently agreed through the 

Section 75 Agreement that the road under the railway bridge to the west of the railway line would 

be brought under traffic signal control. 

2.36 The traffic signals are to firstly, accommodate the additional traffic movements for the park and ride 

and the community facilities and secondly, to provide a controlled pedestrian stage through the 

underpass. 




3 Dargavel Village Centre Development Travel 

Characteristics 

Overview 

3.1 The Dargavel Village Centre is intended to provide a development zone where community, retail, 

commercial and residential uses are intermixed. The purpose of this planning application is to 

establish the principle of the mix and potential scale of development. An indicative layout is 

provided in Appendix B of the Appendices Report, while a breakdown of the various land uses is 

indicated by Table 3.1 below. 

Table 3.1 Dargavel Village Centre Development 

Land Use Approx. Scale 

Park & Ride 300 spaces 

Foodstore 6,000m 2 gross floor area 

Individual retail / commercial units 840m 2 total gross floor area 

Residential 40 units 

Library / learning resource centre and public realm 585 – 715m 2 gross floor area 

Travel Characteristics Methodology 

3.2 In terms of the current proposals, only the foodstore element will change from that consented by 

the Masterplan, with all other elements remaining the same. Therefore, and as agreed with 

Renfrewshire Council, only the additional trips require to be generated by the proposed 6,000m 2 

foodstore will be considered by this Transport Assessment. 

3.3 The travel characteristics for the overall Masterplan were previously calculated by the Transport 

Assessment undertaken in 2008 with an extract provided in Appendix G. As previously indicated, 

these were based on a foodstore with GFA of 2,500m 2 . 

3.4 The 2008 Transport Assessment assumed that travel characteristics could be broken down into 

three categories: trips from the proposed development, trips from the existing village and trips to 

the employment opportunities within the proposed development. Consequently, the total external 

trips i.e. those that would impact on the wider road network were identified and these were used to 

undertake the detailed analysis. With regard to the foodstore, it was assumed all of the associated 

trips would be generated by the Masterplan development and therefore would not have an impact 

on the wider network. 

3.5 The proposed Masterplan is predominantly employment and residential and as such the 2008 

Transport Assessment considered the development’s impact for the weekday AM and PM peak 

periods. 

3.6 While it is acknowledged the scale of retail development now being proposed would normally 

require an analysis of the weekend peak period, the critical cumulative traffic generation for a 

development with 2,500 residential dwellings and 138,000m 2 of employment would continue to be 

on a weekday. As the transport interventions identified for the weekday peaks would mitigate the 

development’s impact for the weekend, it is not considered necessary to undertake an analysis of 

the weekend peak period. 




11

3.7 Furthermore, with the increase in GFA for the foodstore to 6,000m 2 , the critical cumulative 

weekday period for the revised masterplan will be the PM peak. Consequently, and as agreed with 

Renfrewshire Council, the travel characteristics and resultant impact have been considered for the 

weekday PM peak only. 

3.8 The following methodology has been adopted to calculate the travel characteristics and establish 

the additional trip generation for the proposed 6,000m 2 foodstore: 

• Step 1 – Calculate total people trips; 

• Step 2 – Calculate the mode share and trips by mode; 

• Step 3 – Calculate split of Dargavel and Bishopton generated people trips; 

• Step 4 – Determine number of pass-by / diverted vehicle trips; and 

• Step 5 – Distribute and assign the additional external vehicle trips to the wider road network. 

Step 1 – People Trip Assessment 

3.9 National policy focuses upon providing an integrated transport provision, in line with 

accommodation and provision of alternative modes of transport to the private car. It encourages 

and requires developers to promote alternative travel options, accepting that Transport 

Assessments should not be on the basis of accommodating car based trips by creating more road 

space through junction improvements, but should be balanced with more sustainable modes of 

transport. 

3.10 As is consistent with the approach adopted for the 2008 Transport Assessment, the people trips for 

the proposed foodstore have been calculated using trip rates extracted from the TRICS database 

(version 2012b). Trip rates and total people trips for the weekday PM peak period are provided in 

Table 3.2 below. For comparison, the weekday PM people trip generation for the 2,500m 2 foodstore 

is also indicated. 

Table 3.2 Total People Trips - 6,000m 2 Foodstore 

Trip Rates PM Peak (1700-1800) People Trips PM Peak (1700-1800) 

In Out Total In Out Total 

6,000m 2 Foodstore 8.21 8.25 16.46 493 495 988 

2,500m 2 Foodstore 11.7 11.52 23.22 293 288 581 

3.11 The 2012(b) TRICS data indicates the proposed foodstore is likely to generate a total of 988 twoway 

people trips during the weekday PM peak period in comparison to the 581 two-way trips for the 

previous 2,500m 2 store, representing an increase of 407 people trips. 

3.12 It should be noted that the reduced trip rates from TRICS between 2008 and 2012 is a result of the 

increased floorspace i.e the trip rate reduces as the duration of stay at a larger foodstore is longer 

when compared to a smaller sized store. 




Step 2 – Mode Share and Trips by Mode 

3.13 The anticipated mode share and associated trips by mode have been calculated using multi-modal 

survey data from the TRICS 2012(b) database and are indicated by Table 3.3 below. 

Table 3.3 Weekday PM (1700-1800) Mode Share 

Multi-modal Trip Rates Multi-modal Total Trips % Split 

6,000m 2 Foodstore In Out Total In Out Total 

Walking 0.88 0.86 1.74 53 52 104 11% 

Cycling 0.04 0.05 0.09 2 3 5 1% 

Public Transport 0.13 0.15 0.28 8 9 17 2% 

Car Passenger 1.98 1.78 3.76 119 107 226 23% 

Vehicles 5.18 5.42 10.6 311 325 636 64% 

Total People 8.21 8.25 16.46 493 495 988 100% 

3.14 With a mode share of 11%, Table 3.3 indicates that the proposed foodstore will generate 104 twoway 

trips on foot during the weekday PM peak period. The TRICS data also indicates that of the 

988 total two-way people trips 862 people trips i.e. 87%, will be by car. 

Step 3 – Ration of Dargavel Village & Bishopton Village Trips 

3.15 It is expected that the majority of the trips that are attracted to the foodstore will be from within the 

Bishopton area (a mixture of Dargavel and the existing village) due the isolated nature of Bishopton 

and the nature of the shops which will result in few trips from outwith Bishopton. This is consistent 

with the findings of the Retail Impact Assessment. 

3.16 Most trips which are made to the local shopping facilities (i.e. non food retail elements) within the 

new development as a separate trip are likely to be outwith the peak periods. Some trips are likely 

to be made to the shops during peak periods but only as pass by trips for other destinations. 

3.17 The 2008 Transport Assessment assumed that all of the trips generated by a 2,500m 2 foodstore, 

would have originated from within the proposed Dargavel development. While an element of the 

trip generation for the proposed 6,000m 2 foodstore will still have originated from within the 

Dargavel, the increase in GFA has been proposed in response to Bishopton shopping trends that 

were identified by a household survey. 

3.18 Therefore, while the Dargavel trips will not use the wider existing road network, it is important to 

identify the additional trips that will. When considering the completed Dargavel Village in relation to 

Bishopton Village, there will be a 57% / 43% ratio in terms of the total number of houses. 

3.19 By adopting this ratio in the number of households, we are able to estimate of the number people 

trips that will be generated by Dargavel and Bishopton. The resultant split for each mode of 

transport is indicated by Table 3.4 below. 




13

Table 3.4 Internal & External People Trip Generation 

Dargavel Trips (57%) Bishopton Trips (43%) 

6,000m 2 Foodstore In Out Total In Out Total 

Walking 30 29 60 23 22 45 

Cycling 1 2 3 1 1 2 

Public Transport 4 5 10 3 4 7 

Car Passenger 68 61 129 51 46 97 

Vehicles 177 185 363 134 140 273 

Total People 281 282 563 212 213 425 

2,500m 2 Foodstore 293 288 581 

3.20 Table 3.4 indicates there will be 563 and 425 two-way people trips generated by Dargavel and 

Bishopton respectively during the weekday PM peak period. A comparison with the 2008 Transport 

Assessment indicates the Dargavel trips above are generally reflective of the people trips for the 

2,500m 2 foodstore. It is therefore considered appropriate to ‘discount’ the Dargavel element when 

going forward with the traffic impact analysis of the local road network which is consistent with the 

2008 approach. 

3.21 Therefore, there will be 425 two-way people trips and 273 two-way vehicle trips attracted to the 

6,000m2 foodstore from outwith Dargavel Village. 

Step 4 – Pass-By and Diverted Vehicle Trips 

3.22 Not all of the externally generated vehicle trips to the foodstore will actually be ‘new’ trips to the 

local road network. It is reasonable to assume that a number of these trips will be pass-by trips 

from within Dargavel Village (associated with either the railway park and ride or the masterplan 

employment opportunities that have originated from Bishopton Village) or diverted trips to the 

foodstore from people returning home from work to Bishopton (e.g. from Glasgow). 

3.23 As is the generally approved approach for assessing retail developments for the weekday PM 

peak, it is assumed that 30% of the vehicle trips on the local road network will be pass-by / diverted 

trips. 

3.24 In terms of any diverted trips, these will likely equate to a minor reassignment of existing traffic at 

each of the junctions along the A8 Greenock Road, thereby resulting in a no-net-increase in overall 

volume of vehicles. 

3.25 Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, we have assumed that the full 30% will be pass-by 

trips and are therefore already included in the total externally generated trips for the overall 

Masterplan (Appendix G). The amended total ‘new’ vehicle trips on the existing local road network 

for the weekday PM peak period are provided in Table 3.5. 




Table 3.5 External Vehicle Trips – 6,000m 2 Foodstore 

Table Header In Out Total 

Total Vehicle Trips 134 140 273 

Pass-by (30%) 40 42 82 

‘New’ Vehicle Trips 94 98 191 

3.26 Table 3.5 indicates that the proposed foodstore will generate 191 new two-way vehicle trips onto 

the existing local road network during the weekday PM peak period. 

Step 5 – Distribution and Assignment 

Distribution 

3.27 It is anticipated that the principal catchment area for the proposed foodstore will be the immediate 

local area of Bishopton, ostensibly capturing the existing demand that currently is lost to adjacent 

foodstores in Erskine, Port Glasgow, Braehead and Linwood. It is not anticipated that there will be 

a significant level of traffic attracted from areas outwith Bishopton. 

3.28 Given the distance to the proposed foodstore will be shorter than that currently undertaken by 

residents travelling to similar stores outwith Bishopton, the distribution of development traffic has 

been determined on the number of houses for each census output area in Bishopton. The 

distribution of development trips throughout Bishopton Village is indicated by Figure F8 in 

Appendix F in the Appendices Report. 

Assignment 

3.29 Given the location of the foodstore in relation to the existing Bishopton Village, it is anticipated the 

majority of existing residents from Bishopton will likely use Station Road as the main point of 

access from the A8 Greenock Road. While the northern access road may provide an alternatives 

route for residents in the north of Bishopton Village, Renfrewshire Council has requested we 

assume 100% of traffic will use Station Road. This will therefore provide a robust analysis of the 

development’s potential impact on this section of the local road network. 

3.30 Vehicle trips have been assigned to Station Road via the A8 Greenock Road based on the most 

appropriate route while taking into account not only distance but travel times from the various 

census output areas that make up Bishopton. This is indicated by Figure F2 in Appendix F. 

Summary of Foodstore Travel Characteristics 

• TRICS 2012(b) data indicates the 6,000m 2 foodstore is likely to generate a total of 988 two-way 

people trips during the weekday PM peak period; 

• TRICS 2012(b) data also indicates the foodstore will have a mode split of 11% walk, 1% cycle, 

2% public transport, 23% car passenger and 64% private car; 

• Of the total 636 two-way vehicle trips, 273 trips will originate from Bishopton Village using the 

existing local road network. The remaining 363 trips will be contained with Dargavel Village; 

• With an allowance of 30% pass-by / diverted trips, there will be 191 two-way vehicle trips on 

the local road network during the weekday PM peak period. This is in addition to the 2,096 twoway 

trips considered by the 2008 Transport Assessment and consented for the overall 

Dargavel Masterplan. 




15

3.31 Following the preparation of a File Note outlining the approach to calculate the travel 

characteristics of the proposed foodstore, the general methodology was agreed with Renfrewshire 

Council at a meeting on 31 October 2012. A copy of the agreed minutes from this meeting is 

provided in Appendix K. 

3.32 A copy of the TRICS output and the spreadsheet calculations for the trip generation characteristics 

are provided in Appendix I. 




4 Traffic Impact Analysis 

General 

4.1 As agreed with Renfrewshire Council, only the net-increase in traffic generated by the 6,000m 2 

foodstore has been considered when assessing the impact to the existing local road network. As 

the enhanced foodstore will predominantly serve the residents of Dargavel and Bishopton Village, 

the following junctions are considered as being within the area of influence: 

1. Greenock Road / Station Road priority controlled junction; 

2. Greenock Road / Kingston Road priority controlled junction; 

3. Greenock Road / Ferry Road / Rossland Crescent signal controlled junction; and 

4. Greenock Road / Old Greenock Road / Newton Road junction. 

Analysis Period 

4.2 It has been agreed with Renfrewshire Council that the critical assessment period for the 

development proposal is the weekday PM peak period. 

Assessment Year 

4.3 It is currently envisaged the foodstore will be complete and operational by 2020. In terms of the 

supporting roads infrastructure, it is understood these will be in place and include: 

• Upgrading Greenock Road / Kingston Road to traffic signal control; 

• The northern and southern roundabouts shall be constructed and linked via the Dargavel 

development; and 

• The upgrade of Station Road underpass to traffic signal control. 

4.4 Given the supporting road infrastructure has been proposed to accommodate the total volume of 

traffic that will be generated by the consented Masterplan, it is consider appropriate to assess the 

impact of the 6,000m 2 foodstore with full development. This therefore equates to a design year 

assessment of 2027. 

Traffic Growth 

4.5 The principle of using recent traffic surveys to identify traffic growth was discussed and agreed with 

Renfrewshire Council at a meeting on 31 October 2012. It was also agreed that should the surveys 

demonstrate a reduction in traffic volumes on the A8, data from the 2008 Transport Assessment 

should be used to provide a robust analysis. 

4.6 Numerous traffic surveys have been undertaken at several locations throughout Bishopton to 

support the various studies for the Masterplan. In terms of the analysis for the 2008 Transport 

Assessment, which was used to inform the access strategy and supporting local road infrastructure 

improvements, this was a combination of 2005 and 2002 traffic data. The 2005 data was used to 

establish a level of background growth from 2002, and therefore confirm its suitability for the 2008 

analysis. 




17

4.7 As the consented infrastructure for the Masterplan is based on the 2008 analysis, it is considered 

reasonable to assess the impact of the net-increase in traffic using this as the base scenario, 

assuming there has been no significant increase in traffic volumes in Bishopton. 

4.8 Traffic surveys were therefore undertaken at junctions 1 – 4 above in October 2012 in order to 

establish the level of background growth since the 2008 analysis. While a full breakdown of the 

calculations are provided in Appendix F, the exercise demonstrates there has been a reduction of 

3% in traffic volumes on the A8 entering and existing Bishopton Village from the east and west. 

The results also indicate there has been a reduction of 1% in traffic to and from the A8 from 

Kingston Road, Ferry Road and the east and west of Bishopton. 

4.9 Based on these results, not only is it considered appropriate to use the 2008 analysis as the basis 

to assess the traffic implications of the 6,000m 2 foodstore, the higher volume of ‘existing’ traffic will 

provide a robust traffic impact analysis on the local network. 

4.10 The traffic growth calculations were provided to Renfrewshire Council for approval and a copy of 

their agreement for zero traffic growth and the use of 2008 traffic data is provided in Appendix K. 

Committed Development 

4.11 The 2008 traffic impact analysis included a number of developments Renfrewshire Council had 

considered at the time to be committed (October 2008). At the meeting on 31 October 2012, 

Renfrewshire Council confirmed which developments had been completed and those 

developments where consent had lapsed or commencement had been delayed (primarily due to 

the recession). 

4.12 While this Transport Assessment does not require to include developments where the consent has 

lapsed, Renfrewshire Council indicated they are still likely to be completed at some point in the 

relatively near future. At list of ‘committed’ developments from 2008 and what we understand their 

current status to be are indicated in Table 4.1 below. 




Table 4.1 List of 'Committed' Developments 

Development Name Location Details 

Braehead Braehead Complete 

Rolls Royce Inchinnan New manufacturing facility employing 900 people, 

opened October 2004. Complete 

Candren M8 Junction 29 Consent not granted 

Phoenix Finishing Mill Linwood 60 apartments, 2,000m 2 business space, parking 

facilities plus 75,000 sq ft superstore and 470 space 

car park, opened September 2005. Start delayed 

Barbush Mills Houston 88 flats. Complete 

Glasgow Airport Expansion of Airport. Ongoing 

Cart Corridor Paisley Proposal to redevelop a stretch of the River Cart 

Arkleston 

extending from Paisley Town Centre towards 

Glasgow Airport. Phased mixed use regeneration of 

the area over a ten year period. Ongoing 

North Renfrew 

Development 

Status unknown 

Spanley Braehead Hotel and Housing – Hotel replaced with KFC – At 

pre-application stage 

Hillington Frontage On hold 

Renfrew Town Centre Renfrew Ongoing 

Retail Park Abbotsinch 15,350m 2 Retail Park. Consent lapsed. 

4.13 While not all of the above developments are likely to have a direct impact on the local roads in 

Bishopton, they have been considered by this Transport Assessment as being committed 

developments. Therefore, where traffic data from committed development was included on the 

local road network by the 2008 analysis, it has been retained by this Transport Assessment, 

thereby providing a more robust traffic impact analysis. 

Analysis Scenarios 

4.14 This Transport Assessment has considered the following traffic flow scenarios for the detailed 

junction assessments 

• 2027 Weekday PM Base + Committed Development + Consented Dargavel Masterplan 

(referred to as the ‘Base’ assessment); and 

• 2027 Weekday PM Base + 6,000m 2 foodstore. 

4.15 The detailed analysis of the junctions identified has been undertaken using ARCADY 6, PICADY 5 

and Linsig 3 which are industry standard tools for the assessment of roundabouts, priority junctions 

and signalised junctions respectively. 

4.16 In terms of roundabouts and priority controlled junctions, the maximum practical capacity is taken 

as 0.85 (ratio of flow to capacity). The maximum practical capacity, or degree of saturation (DoS) 

for traffic signals is 90%. 




19

4.17 With regard to the signalised junction assessments, we would comment that the 2008 Transport 

Assessment used version 1 of this software. However, since there has been a significant 

improvement in the algorithms and modelling techniques associated with the software, specifically 

modelling right turn manoeuvres, all signalised junctions have been assessed using the current 

Version 3. While the results of the base assessments will differ slightly from the 2008 assessment, 

it is considered appropriate to use the latest version of Linsig. 

Greenock Road / Old Greenock Road / Newton Road 

4.18 This junction is a 4-arm priority controlled crossroads and its operation has been modelled using 

PICADY 5. The results of the assessment are indicated by Table 4.2 below. 

Table 4.2 Greenock Road / Old Greenock Road / Newton Road 

Movement 2027 Base 2027 Base plus Development 

Max RFC Max Q Max RFC Max Q 

B – ACD 0.07 0 0.09 0 

AB – D 0.53 1 0.54 1 

D – AB 0.12 0 0.13 0 

D – C 0.48 1 0.49 1 

CD - B 0.04 0 0.04 0 

A: Greenock Road E; B: Newton Road; C: Greenock Road W; D: Old Greenock Road 

4.19 The results in Table 4.2 clearly demonstrate that this junction will operate within capacity with the 

consented Dargavel Village Masterplan for a weekday PM peak period. The results also indicate 

the additional traffic associated with the 6,000m 2 foodstore will have a negligible impact on junction 

performance. 

A8 Greenock Road / Ferry Road / Rossland Crescent 

4.20 The A8 Greenock Road / Ferry Road / Rossland Crescent is a traffic signal controlled junction with 

a cycle time of 120 seconds. Pedestrian crossings are provided on each arm of the junction and 

the analysis has allowed for an all red pedestrian stage every cycle. The results of the Linsig 

assessment are provided in Table 4.3 below. 

4.21 As advised above, an updated analysis of the base scenario (previously submitted in the 2008 TA) 

has been undertaken using Linsig V3 and the results are also provided in Table 4.3 below. 

Table 4.3 A8 Greenock Road / Ferry Road / Rossland Crescent 

Link 

Number 




Base Base plus Dev 

Lane Description DoS (%) Max Q DoS (%) Max Q 

1/1 Greenock Road (West) Left Ahead Right 50.7% 11 50.2% 11 

2/1 Ferry Road Right Left Ahead 75.4% 16 82.8% 18 

3/1+3/2 Greenock Road (East) Ahead Right Left 76.2% 16 81.9% 19 

4/1 Rossland Crescent Left Ahead Right 4.3% 1 4.8% 1 

DoS% = Degree of Saturation where 90% is considered to be the practical capacity

4.22 The updated Linsig analysis for the base situation indicates the junction will operate within capacity 

during the weekday PM peak period. The results for the base plus development traffic 

demonstrates the junction will continue to operate within capacity with the proposed 6,000m 2 

foodstore and there will be a negligible increase in terms of queues. 

A8 Greenock Road / Kingston Road 

4.23 The 2008 Transport Assessment identified this junction required to be upgraded from a priority 

controlled junction to traffic signal control, in order to mitigate the weekday AM peak from the 

consented Dargavel Masterplan. It is understood the newly installed traffic lights at this junction will 

be operational sometime early 2013. 

4.24 Using phase and intergreen times from the controller specification form (TR2500), we have 

undertaken an updated base analysis and a base plus development analysis using Linsig Version 

3. The results of each assessment for the weekday PM peak period are provided in Table 4.4 

below. 

Table 4.4 A8 Greenock Road / Kingston Road 

Link 

Number 

Base Base plus Dev 



2/1 Kingston Road Right Left 63.9% 5 76.9% 7 

3/1 Greenock Road (East) Ahead Right Left 63.1% 12 80.0% 17 

DoS% = Degree of Saturation where 90% is considered to be the practical capacity 

4.25 The results in Table 4.4 demonstrate the newly installed traffic signals will operate well within 

capacity following the increase on traffic volumes associated with the 6,000m 2 foodstore proposal 

for the Dargavel Village Centre. 

A8 Greenock Road / Station Road 

4.26 While there is potential for vehicle trips to access the village core and the foodstore via the northern 

access road from the A8 (access strategy for the consented Masterplan), Renfrewshire Council has 

requested the Transport Assessment considers 100% of the additional retail vehicle trips accesses 

the village core via the A8 Greenock Road / Station Road junction. This is principally a 3-arm 

priority controlled junction, although it is noted a commercial property takes access from Greenock 

Road opposite Station Road. As noted in Chapter 2, Renfrewshire Council have advise visibility 

from Station Road onto Greenock Road is substandard. 

4.27 Assuming 100% of additional trips use the Station Road junction, the results of the PICADY 

analysis are provided in Table 4.5 below. 




21

Table 4.5 A8 Greenock Road / Station Road 

ARM Base Base plus Development 


B - A 0.65 2 1.13 25 

B - C 0.71 2 1.10 11 

C - AB 0.52 1 0.80 5 

A: Greenock Road East; B: Station Road; C: Greenock Road West 

4.28 Station Road has been modelled with a short flare and the results indicate this arm will operate well 

over capacity with a maximum RFC of 1.13 and significant queuing on the approach to Greenock 

Road. Notwithstanding the RFC, as a result the on-street parking on Station Road, some 60m from 

Greenock Road, which reduces the carriageway width to one lane, this level of queuing could very 

quickly block all traffic movement on Station Road and potentially result in vehicles queuing back 

onto Greenock Road. 

4.29 It is acknowledged that, even with a route available from the north access road, the household 

distribution throughout Bishopton means it is highly unlikely a sufficient proportion of local trips 

would use this alternative route to provide adequate relief to Station Road. 

4.30 Therefore, based on the existing and consented road network infrastructure, improvements to the 

A8 Greenock Road / Station Road junction are required to mitigate the traffic impact associated 

with the 6,000m 2 foodstore. 

A8 Greenock Road / Station Road Mitigation Analysis 

4.31 The access for the adjacent commercial property presents a challenge when identifying an 

appropriate junction format to mitigate the proposed development’s impact. While we have 

considered the use of traffic signals, the proximity of the commercial property’s building and the 

constrained road space from the edge of Greenock Road to this building means it is difficult to 

accommodate the traffic signal equipment necessary to incorporate the access into the junction 

design. 

4.32 As a result of constraints imposed by the geometry of the junction and the adjacent land uses, JMP 

would consider the most appropriate junction format would be a mini-roundabout. A preliminary 

layout, in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads & Bridges, is indicated by JMP Drawing 

SCT3526/SR/001 provided in Appendix H. While the access to the commercial property has been 

incorporated into the preliminary design, the low level means we have assessed it as a 3-arm 

roundabout only. 

4.33 The results of the ARCADY analysis for the weekday PM peak period are indicated by Table 4.6 

below. 

Table 4.6 A8 Greenock Road / Station Road Mini-roundabout 

ARM Base plus Development 

Max RFC Max Q Ave RFC Ave Q 

A – Greenock Road (east) 0.70 2 0.63 2 

B – Station Road 0.90 7 0.78 4 

C – Greenock Road (west) 0.50 1 0.44 1 




4.34 The results indicate there will be a significant improvement to the operation of Station Road and 

while it is noted the maximum RFC is 0.90, the associated maximum queue is only 7 vehicles long. 

When considering the analysis has been undertaken using historical traffic flows that are greater 

than the current traffic volumes on the A8, JMP would consider the proposed mini-roundabout will 

operate with no significant problems and generally within capacity. 

4.35 This is supported by the average RFC and queue for Station Road which will be 0.78 and 4 

vehicles respectively which suggests the junction will operate within capacity for the majority of the 

day. 

4.36 Furthermore, not only will a mini-roundabout mitigate the traffic impact of the proposed foodstore, it 

will address the concerns of Renfrewshire Council with regards to the restricted visibility onto 

Greenock Road, thereby improving road safety for existing and future road users. 

Station Road Railway Bridge Underpass 

4.37 As indicated earlier, a rail bridge crosses Station Road which imposes a width restriction on the 

approach to the proposed development site. Given the anticipated increase in the volume of traffic 

and pedestrian movements, it is proposed to provide traffic signals to manage the flow of traffic and 

provide a safe facility for pedestrians. An indicative layout is provided in Appendix H. 

4.38 The results of the Linsig analysis for this facility are provided in Table 4.7 below. We can confirm 

the analysis has been undertaken with a pedestrian stage called every cycle and a cycle time of 60 

seconds. 

Table 4.7 Station Road Underpass Traffic Signals 

Base plus Development 

Link Number Lane Description DoS (%) Max Q 

1/1 Station Road South Ahead 41.0% 3 

2/1 Station Road North Ahead 42.5% 2 


4.39 The results clearly indicate that the traffic signals would operate well within capacity during the 

weekday PM peak period. 

Sensitivity Test – Rossland Crescent 

4.40 As the land uses associated with the village centre will be of a benefit to the existing residents of 

Bishopton, the Team are keen to maximise the accessibility and integration of the centre and 

community facilities with the existing village and are therefore, investigating the option of providing 

an alternative vehicular link via Rossland Crescent that would complement the proposed walking 

and cycling link. 

4.41 By undertaking a review of travel times (utilising Google route finder) in consideration with the 

potential delay incurred by the various traffic signals, we have sought to quantify the area of 

existing Bishopton Village where travel via Rossland Crescent may be a viable alternative to the 

community facilities. 




23

4.42 For the purposes of this exercise, we have assumed that Rossland Crescent will only be used if it 

will reduce the travel time by at least 1 minute. This equates to around 40% of the existing 

residents in Bishopton benefiting from a link via Rossland Crescent and this is indicated by Figure 

4.1 below. 

Figure 4.1 Extent of Bishopton Benefiting from Rossland Crescent Link 

4.43 It should be stressed that while this route will not provide a link to the wider area of Dargavel 

Village, consideration is being given to linking it to the foodstore, in addition to the community 

facilities. 

4.44 While the use of Rossland Crescent will have an impact on traffic volumes and turning proportions 

along the A8 in Bishopton, the greatest influence will be at the Greenock Road / Ferry Road / 

Rossland Crescent and Greenock Road / Station Road junctions. It is important to better 

understand the potential impact to these junctions should Rossland Crescent be available as an 

alternative link to Station Road. 

4.45 Assuming around 80 two-way vehicle trips could use Rossland Crescent, we have undertaken a 

further assessment of these junctions to quantify the likely impact to their performance and 

capacity. As the Greenock Road / Station Road junction will experience a reduction in traffic 

volumes, this has been evaluated as the existing priority controlled junction. 




4.46 Figures F3 and F5 in Appendix F demonstrate the effect this would have on foodstore traffic 

assignment to the village centre. The results of each analysis are provided in Table 4.8 and Table 

4.9 below. For ease of reference, the results for each junction with 100% of foodstore traffic using 

Station Road is also provided. 

Table 4.8 A8 Greenock Road / Ferry Road / Rossland Crescent Sensitivity Test 

Link 

Number 

Sensitivity Test Base plus Dev 



2/1 Ferry Road Right Left Ahead 78.9% 17 82.8% 18 

3/1 Greenock Road (East) Ahead Right Left 78.1% 17 81.9% 19 

4/1 Rossland Crescent Left Ahead Right 9.7% 2 4.8% 1 


Table 4.9 A8 Greenock Road / Station Road Sensitivity Test 

ARM Sensitivity Test Base plus Development 


B - A 0.98 10 1.13 25 

B - C 0.96 4 1.10 11 

C - AB 0.67 3 0.80 5 

A: Greenock Road East; B: Station Road; C: Greenock Road West 

4.47 The results provided in Table 4.8 indicate that Greenock Road / Ferry Road / Rossland Crescent 

would continue to operate within capacity if Rossland Crescent were to be made available as an 

alternative vehicular route to the proposed Dargavel Village Centre. 

4.48 In terms of the Greenock Road / Station Road analysis, the results of the sensitivity test in Table 

4.9 indicate that while there would be a significant improvement to the future operation of the 

priority controlled junction if Rossland Crescent were to be used as a vehicular route to the village 

centre, Station Road will still operate over capacity and require to be upgraded to a miniroundabout. 

4.49 It is recognised that Rossland Crescent is currently a minor access road and a key pedestrian / 

cyclist link to Dargavel and the Village Centre. While the feasibility of using Rossland Crescent as a 

vehicular link will require further consultation with Renfrewshire Council, discussions should focus 

on the character of this link to ensure it does not encourage excessive volumes of traffic, and 

remains a key link for pedestrians and cyclists. Measures should aim to promote a maximum speed 

of 20mph and may include a mix of: 

• Traffic calming features e.g. chicanes, build-outs, centre islands; 

• Reduced road dimensions and the alignment of the road. Avoiding excessive straight sections 

of road with frequent horizontal deflection will help reduce vehicle speeds; 

• Reduced forward visibility; 




25

• Junction format and is there a need for clear priorities at junctions; 

• Landscaping features and consideration of materials to provide an attractive environment for 

pedestrians and cyclists; 

Summary of Traffic Impact Analysis 

• The detailed analysis indicates the majority of junctions within the agreed area of influence will 

operate within capacity with the increased traffic volumes associated with the proposed 

6,000m 2 foodstore. 

• With 100% development traffic via Station Road, the analysis indicated the A8 Greenock Road 

/ Station Road priority controlled junction will operate significantly over capacity. 

• As an upgrade to traffic signals is challenging JMP would recommend upgrading Greenock 

Road / Station Road to a mini-roundabout. The ARCADY analysis suggests the miniroundabout 

would operate within capacity for the vast majority of the day. 

• In addition to the capacity benefits offered by a mini-roundabout, it will address the existing 

poor visibility from Station Road to Greenock Road and improve road safety. 

• A sensitivity test whereby Rossland Crescent provides a vehicular link to the village centre 

indicates the signalised junction with Ferry Road / Greenock Road will still operate within 

capacity and with a minor increase in queues. 

• Further consultation with Renfrewshire Council will be necessary to firstly, identify their position 

and requirements to potentially considering Rossland Crescent as an alternative vehicular 

access route and secondly, their requirements in terms of design. 

• We would strongly recommend that this link, while allowing vehicular access, should be 

designed as a high quality route for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with the guiding 

principles of Designing Streets. It should be designed to ensure pedestrians and cyclists have 

a sense of priority and to discourage excessive volumes of traffic. This can be achieved 

through traffic calming, landscaping, street furniture segregated lanes and high quality 

materials. 

• The Section 75 Agreement requires the railway bridge underpass on Station Road to be 

upgraded to traffic signal control. While the analysis indicates it will operate within capacity, we 

would also recommend that public realm improvements are investigated for Station Road (see 

Chapter 5). 




5 Sustainable Transport Infrastructure to Support the 

Village Centre 

5.1 A number of transport interventions have been identified to support the consented Masterplan and 

it will be fundamental for the proposed Village Centre to ensure it not only helps to realise these 

proposals, but acts as a catalyst for ensuring Dargavel integrates with the existing Bishopton 

Village. 

5.2 The following section details the supporting measures that will be available to support access to the 

proposed village centre by sustainable modes of transport. 


Dargavel Village Centre 

5.3 In accordance with available best practice including Designing Streets, the village centre will seek 

to reduce the dominance of vehicular traffic where possible. Pedestrians and cyclists will be 

catered for by providing a comprehensive network of footways, cycle paths and shared roads. The 

aim will be to provide an attractive and safe walking / cycling environment between the various 

elements of the village centre with strong links to Dargavel and Bishopton. 

5.4 Street lighting and security cameras will be provided throughout the village centre with the 

fundamental goal being to improve the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. Cycle parking will be 

provided throughout the village centre and where possible, covered and sheltered. The final 

number of cycle parking spaces and type will require to be agreed with Renfrewshire Council. 

5.5 Rossland Crescent will provide a key walking and cycling route between the village centre, 

Dargavel and Bishopton Village. It should be designed to ensure pedestrians and cyclists have a 

sense of priority and this can be achieved through traffic calming, landscaping, street furniture 

segregated lanes and high quality materials. 

5.6 In terms of links to Dargavel itself, these will be finalised at a later date when the planning 

applications for each element are submitted. However, strong pedestrian and cycle links will be 

essential to ensure a sustainable development is provided and in accordance with Designing 

Streets. 

Links to Bishopton Village 

5.7 In addition to Rossland Crescent, the main pedestrian and cycle link to / from Bishopton will be the 

underpass at the Station Road railway bridge. Proposals to upgrade this to traffic signal control will 

also incorporate a dedicated pedestrian stage through the underpass. This proposal will also 

provide a new footway connection along the south east boundary of Station Road (to the east of 

the railway line). Figure 5.1 below demonstrates the existing underpass, while Figure 5.2 provides 

an indication of how this new facility may look based on a similar system previously proposed by 

JMP. JMP drawing SCT3526/I/UP/001 in Appendix H demonstrates the indicative layout. 




27

Figure 5.1 Station Road Underpass 

Figure 5.2 Example of Signal Controlled Underpass 

Photograph: Crofthead Road, Kilmaurs 




5.8 The underpass is accessible from Greenock Road via both Station Road and Gledstane Road. 

These routes have footways and street lighting on both sides of the carriageway and currently 

provide access to residential properties, local shops (including the post office) and Bishopton 

Railway Station. 

5.9 Isochrones for 10, 20 and 30 minutes walking and cycling times from the site are provided in 

Appendix C, indicated by Figure C1 and Figure C2 respectively. These isochrones demonstrate 

that the village is within 20 minutes walk and a 10 minute cycle of the majority of Bishopton. 

Existing and future cycle links are indicated by Figure C3 also in Appendix C. 


Bishopton Railway Station - Park and Ride 

5.10 The planning application for the village centre includes 300 park and ride spaces on the west side 

of the railway line. These have been determined through a separate study and are primarily 

intended to meet the demands of both Dargavel and Bishopton Village. A preliminary layout of the 

300 space car park is indicated by JMP Figure 1.3 (from the Park and Ride Demand Study) in 

Appendix D of this report and includes a bus gate and turning circle. This will greatly improve the 

attractiveness of the railway station as a high quality public transport interchange. 

Bus Services 

5.11 Enhancements to the local bus services have been identified (Condition 13 of the Masterplan PPP) 

and these are to be phased in over a number of years. Table 5.1 below indicates the schedule of 

phasing for each service while Figure E1 in Appendix E indicates the indicative route for each 

service. 




29

Table 5.1 Dargavel Masterplan - Bus Network Proposals 

Development Phases Network Development Proposals 

1 2012-2016 New Service A introduced in 2013 to coincide with first housing 

occupations to complement Service 521 providing a doubling of daytime 

frequency and additional evening and Sunday services between 

Bishopton and Erskine 

2 2017-2018 Extension of new Service A and diverted Service X22 into the new 

development. 

New hourly Service B to Inchinnan and Glasgow Airport in daytime on 

weekdays and Saturdays. 

Two journeys an hour on Service 23 extended from Erskine / Bargarran to 

Bishopton in daytime on weekdays and Saturdays. 

3 2019-2022 Proposed Service B to Inchinnan and Glasgow Airport extended to 

Linwood and Bridge of Weir hourly in daytime on weekdays and 

Saturdays. Frequency between Bishopton and Glasgow Airport increased 

to half-hourly. 

4 2023-2025 Adjustment of bus routes through the development to improve penetration 

and deliver acceptable walk distances. 

5 2026-2027 No change. 

Note:*The rate of build out for Dargavel Village is such that Service A is now likely to be introduced in 2014. 

5.12 With the exception of a route adjustment for better penetration into Dargavel, each of the enhanced 

bus services should be operational by the anticipated 2020 opening year of the foodstore, which is 

the main element of the current planning application, ensuring the village centre will be well served 

by local public transport. 

Station Road Potential Public Realm Improvements 

5.13 Station Road will be the primary link to the village centre for all modes of transport and as such, 

there is an excellent opportunity to provide a high quality route that will help to integrate the existing 

Bishopton Village and existing the local amenities already on Station Road (post office, bank, 

newsagents). Figure 5.3 below provides an indication of the current junction arrangement of Station 

Road / Gledstane Road. 




Figure 5.3 Station Road / Gledstane Road 

5.14 The current layout of Station Road in terms of road width, on-street parking, junction arrangement 

(Gledstane Road / Poplar Avenue) already lends itself to some of the principles of Designing 

Streets. It is therefore recommended that it is designed with the aim being to reduce the dominance 

of the private car is explored by considering the character of the ‘street’ through use of landscaping 

and high quality materials to create an attractive environment for pedestrians and cyclists. 

Travel Plan 

5.15 A PPP for the consented Dargavel Village Masterplan required the preparation of a Travel Plan. 

Adopting the principles of the Plan, will be fundamental to achieving a sustainable development 




31

6 Car Parking Strategy 

Management 

6.1 In addition to the 300 parking spaces that will be brought forward with the park and ride, the 

remaining uses of the village centre planning application will also require to provide an element of 

car parking. 

6.2 Parking provision can have a significant impact on the choice of travel modes and it while it will be 

important to provide a suitable level of parking to serve the needs of the village centre, it will also 

be fundamental to ensure there is not an over provision. This would go against the principles of a 

sustainable development and negate the benefits that are intended to be provided by the enhanced 

bus services. 

6.3 There is an opportunity to provide a single car parking facility that would serve the whole of the 

village centre, essentially operating as a town centre car park. The location of this car park would 

have to be accessible to the village centre and based on the indicative layout, we would anticipate 

a single car park could be provided that would be no more than a 5 minute walk from each part of 

the village centre. 

6.4 While it is recognised the park and ride is clearly intended to provide long stay parking, a village 

centre car park could be managed as a short stay facility for a maximum duration of stay of up to 3 

hours. This will help to ensure parking is retained for use by visitors to the village centre and not 

taken up by staff or any overspill from the park and ride. 

6.5 While it is acknowledged the feasibility of providing a shared parking facility may be dependent on 

the final operator of the foodstore, it is recommended this is considered as it will better help to 

achieve the sustainable aspirations of the consented Masterplan. 

Parking Provision 

6.6 Regardless of whether parking for the village centre is provided as a single car park or individual 

units, the total number of spaces will be key to achieving a sustainable development. An over 

provision of spaces will make car use more attractive, while an under provision could deter visitors. 

6.7 SPP and Strathclyde Roads Development Guidelines (1986) provide national and local guidelines 

respectively for calculating the parking requirements for proposed developments. These are 

indicated by Table 6.1 below. It should be noted that while residential parking should be provided in 

accordance with local guidelines and are subject to the number of bedrooms for each unit. It is 

anticipated residential parking will be separate to village centre parking and have not be included in 

this calculation. 




Table 6.1 Parking Provision Guidelines 

Parking Ratio 

Land Use Approx. Scale SPP SRC (1986) 

Foodstore 6,000m 2 GFA 1 space / 14m 2 GFA 7 / 100m2 GFA 

Individual retail / 840m 

commercial units 

2 GFA N/A 5 / 100m2 GFA 

Library / learning 

resource centre and 

public realm 

585 – 715m 2 GFA N/A 3 space / 100m2 + 1 

space per 3 staff 

Note: SPP are maximum guidelines while it is understood SRC are generally minimum for individual units. 

6.8 In terms of the proposed village core, a number of factors need to be considered when calculating 

the required number of parking spaces. These include ‘pass-by’ trips from the park and ride, the 

propensity for shared trips between each element and the over arching need to provide an 

attractive and sustainable village centre. 

6.9 When calculating the vehicle trip generation for the proposed foodstore, a 30% level of pass-by has 

been agreed with Renfrewshire Council which is generally a mix of employment trips from Dargavel 

and return trips from the park and ride. For the purposes of this calculation, we have assumed that 

10% of the trips to the foodstore could be from the park and ride. 

6.10 Shared trips (also known as linked trips) occur when individuals visit more than one facility on the 

development site or a number of facilities in relative proximity such as a town centre during a single 

trip. 

6.11 The ability to undertake linked trips depends on the following interrelated factors: 

• The extent to which the development complements the town centre; 

• The distance and physical linkages between the two; 

• The relative size of the centre as compared with the development; and 

• Accessibility parking and orientation of the development. 

6.12 Various bodies of research into the traffic characteristics for town centre developments have 

previously been undertaken including Kittelson & Lawton (1987), Dickinson and MacIver (1990) 

and Kamali and Crow (1989) which are still relevant today. Table 6.2 below indicates the proportion 

of shared trips concluded from each research study. 




33

Table 6.2 Town Centre Shared Trips 

Kittelson & Lawton Dickinson & MacIver Kamali & Crow Average 

43% 35% 37% 38% 

6.13 By taking cognisance of available town centre research (assuming an average of 38% shared trips) 

and national and local parking guidelines, it is possible to estimate the parking provision for the 

village centre based on 2 scenarios: 

• Scenario 1 – Using SRC / SPP ratios with 10% reduction for foodstore, discounting parking for 

individual retail units and the library; and 

• Scenario 2 – Using SRC / SPP ratios with a 10% reduction for foodstore, include parking for 

individual retail units and library but allow for 38% shared trips. 

6.14 The results of each scenario are indicated by Table 6.3 below. For the purposes of this 

assessment, we have adopted the maximum GFA for the library / resource centre. 

Table 6.3 Maximum Parking Provision 

Using SPP Using SRC (1986) 

Scenario 1 

Totals 428 420 

10% for P & R 385 378 

Scenario 2 

Totals 492 484 

10% P&R for foodstore 449 436 

38% Shared Trips 278 270 

Results 

Maximum 385 378 

Minimum 278 270 

6.15 Using SPP guidelines to calculate parking for the foodstore, parking numbers would be between 

385 and 278 spaces. SRC guidelines for the foodstore result in parking numbers of between 378 

and 270 spaces. 

6.16 While it is acknowledged Renfrewshire Council currently use SRC 1986 guidelines, we have 

undertaken the same exercise using SRC 1995 ratios which with 6 spaces / 100m2 for a foodstore 

of this scale. The alternative range of parking numbers are between 252 and 324 spaces. 




6.17 While the final parking provision requires to be agreed with Renfrewshire Council, JMP would 

recommend that consideration is given to providing an overall parking provision of between 250 

and 320 spaces. This can quite clearly be supported by a parking accumulation assessment for the 

foodstore which indicates the maximum accumulation to be 225 on a weekday. It will also help to 

avoid an over provision of parking during the weekend when the park and ride is likely to be 

relatively under used and therefore potentially available for village centre car parking. A full 

breakdown of the parking accumulation assessment is provided in Appendix F. 

6.18 The parking strategy and layout will also have to consider the level of parking accessible from 

Bishopton and Dargavel. It is anticipated this would be split in terms of the household ratios but will 

require further consultation with Renfrewshire Council to establish an appropriate means of control. 

Disabled parking 

Whether parking is provided as a village centre car park or individual car parks, a number of 

parking spaces for the mobility impaired will need to be provided. These should be allocated to the 

various elements of the site in accordance with national and local guidelines and based on the 

maximum number of spaces for each land use (prior to any reductions). The minimum 

requirements are indicated by Table 6.4 below and should be in addition to the standard parking 

spaces. 

Table 6.4 Disabled Parking 

Parking Ratio Parking Numbers 

Foodstore 4 spaces + 4% 21 

Individual Units 6% of total / min 3 3 

Library 6% of total / min 3 3 

Total 27 spaces 




35

7 Conclusions 

7.1 JMP Consultants Ltd has been commissioned by BAE Systems to undertake a Transport 

Assessment in support of an application for planning permission in principle for the proposed 

village centre development associated with the consented Dargavel Masterplan (formerly 

Bishopton Park). The village centre comprises a 300 space park and ride, a large foodstore, 

smaller retail units, a library / learning resource centre (within a public realm area) and an element 

of residential land use. 

7.2 While Dargavel Masterplan was consented with a foodstore with a GFA of 1,000m 2 , the supporting 

Transport Assessment undertaken in 2008 by JMP considered a foodstore with a GFA of 2,500m 2 . 

In response to a household survey that reviewed the shopping trends of the existing Bishopton 

Village, it is now proposed to enhance the foodstore content by increasing the GFA to 6,000m 2 , 

which will serve both the existing Bishopton Village and the future residents of Dargavel Village. 

7.3 The consented Masterplan for Dargavel Village, developed in accordance with key sustainable 

principles, require to provide a number of improvements to the local transport infrastructure. These 

include an extension to Bishopton Rail Park and Ride, enhancement to local bus services and 

improvements to the local road network. This Transport Assessment has been prepared to 

consider the implications the village centre will have on the existing and future transport 

infrastructure along with the impact the additional retail floorspace will have on the local road 

network. 


• Strong pedestrians links will be provided from Dargavel Village to the village centre. These will 

be designed in accordance with Renfrewshire Council requirements and Designing Streets; 

• Direct pedestrian links will be available from Station Road and Rossland Crescent. The Station 

Road link will be improved with the installation of traffic signals at the railway bridge underpass 

and these will be designed to cater for a pedestrian stage every cycle. Rossland Crescent will 

be designed to provide a high quality link for both pedestrians and cyclists. 

• The current layout of Station Road / Gledstane Road is car dominant. It is recommended that 

that improvements to this area are investigated in order to provide a public realm area more in 

keeping with Designing Streets that will better integrate the proposed village centre with the 

existing Bishopton Village. 

• The village centre itself will be designed to reduce the dominance of vehicular traffic where 

possible. Pedestrians and cyclists would be catered for through a comprehensive network of 

footways, footpaths / cycle paths and shared surfacing. Street lighting and security cameras 

would also be provided. 

• Covered cycle parking will be provided throughout the centre in accordance with Renfrewshire 

Council requirements. 





• In addition to the 300 space park and ride, a considerable level of enhancement to local buses 

has been identified to serve the consented Dargavel Masterplan, in particular, the creation of a 

high quality interchange at the existing park and ride. 

• With the exception of a route adjustment for better penetration into Dargavel, each of the 

enhanced bus services should be operational by the anticipated 2020 opening year of the 

foodstore, which is the main element of the current planning application, ensuring the village 

centre will be well served by local public transport. 

Car Parking 

• A car parking strategy will require to be developed to the serve the needs of the village centre. 

While this may be somewhat dependent on the end users, based on Scottish Planning Policy, 

local guidelines and the need to provide a sustainable village centre, JMP would recommend 

between 250 and 320 parking spaces. A further 27 disabled parking spaces are also required, 

Travel Plan 

• The development could be supported by the Dargavel Village Travel Plan. The Plan would 

seek to provide a greater level of knowledge and understanding of the various modes of 

transport available, with the principle aim being to reduce the number of private car based trips. 

Local Road Network 

• A robust traffic impact analysis has been undertaken that considers 100% of the new 

development vehicle trips will access the village centre via Station Road. 

• In addition to the traffic already consented for the Masterplan, the detailed analysis indicates 

that the majority of the local road network will be able to accommodate the additional volume of 

traffic that will be generated by a 6,000m 2 foodstore. 

• The analysis indicates that the impact to the A8 Greenock Road / Station Road priority 

controlled junction will require to be mitigated. As a result of local constraints, JMP would 

consider the most appropriate format would be a mini-roundabout. 

• The ARCADY results suggest a mini-roundabout would operate with no significant problems 

during the peak periods with 100% development traffic via Station Road. 

• Upgrading Greenock Road / Station Road to a mini-roundabout will also provide a betterment 

to road safety for existing and future road users. 




37

Rossland Crescent Access 

• A further analysis has been undertaken based on the principle of providing vehicle access to 

the village centre through Rossland Crescent. The Linsig analysis clearly demonstrates the 

signal controlled junction with Ferry Road / Greenock Road will operate well within capacity. 

• The Transport Assessment recognises further consultation with Renfrewshire Council is 

required regarding the feasibility of promoting a vehicular link from Rossland Crescent. JMP 

would consider the aim of these discussions should be to agree a road layout that adopts the 

principles of Designing Streets, discourages excessive volumes of traffic and provides a key 

walking and cycling link to the village centre. 

7.4 In summary, the Transport Assessment concludes that the proposed village centre development 

will be well served by sustainable transport and can be integrated with the existing Bishopton 

Village. The Transport Assessment also concludes that the residual increase in traffic generated by 

a 6,000m 2 foodstore can be accommodated by the majority of the existing local road network and, 

if required, can be mitigated at the A8 Greenock Road / Station Road junction. 




Appendix A 

Consented Dargavel Village Masterplan 


SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village (ROF Bishopton) A1

Consented Masterplan 


A2 SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village (ROF Bishopton)

Appendix B 

Indicative Village Centre Layout 


SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village (ROF Bishopton) B1

Indicative Village Centre Layout 


B2 SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village (ROF Bishopton)

Figure 1.1 Village centre general arrangement 

715/PLANNING STATEMENT CASS ASSOCIATES 

DARGAVEL VILLAGE, BISHOPTON NOVEMBER 2012

Appendix C 

Walking and Cycling Information 


SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village (ROF Bishopton) C1

Walking and Cycling Information 

Figure C1 – Walking Isochrones 

Figure C2 – Cycling Isochrones 

Figure C3 – Existing & Proposed Cycle Network 


C2 SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village (ROF Bishopton)

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Licence number 100017562 

Proposed Site 10min Walk Isochrone 20min Walk Isochrone 30min Walk Isochrone 

Walking Isochrone 

figure 

1


Proposed Site 10min Cycle Isochrone 20min Cycle Isochrone 30mil Cycle Isochrone 

Site 

Cycling Isochrone 

figure 

C2

Key 

NCN 75 

NCN 7 

Existing National Cycle 

Network (NCN) routes 

Existing on road routes 

Existing cycle route 


Site 

Renfrewshire Council 

proposed cycle route 

Proposed leisure 

routes 

Possible future links 

Clyde Panoramas 

N 

NCN 7 

Existing and proposed cycle network 

figure 

C3

Appendix D 

Park & Ride Proposed Layout 


SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village (ROF Bishopton) D1

Park and Ride Indicative 

JMP 2011 Park & Ride Demand Study 


D2 SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village (ROF Bishopton)

Appendix E 

Proposed Bus Network Proposals 


SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village (ROF Bishopton) E1

Proposed Bus Network Proposals 

JMP 2011 Public Transport Study 


E2 SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village (ROF Bishopton)

Appendix F 

Traffic Data 


SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village (ROF Bishopton) F1

Traffic Data 

Figure F1 – Weekday PM Base Network Diagram 

Figure F2 – Distribution of Additional Foodstore Trips 

Figure F3 – Distribution of Additional Foodstore Trips (Sensitivity Test) 

Figure F4 – Additional Weekday PM Foodstore Trips 

Figure F5 – Additional Weekday PM Foodstore Trips (Sensitivity Test) 

Figure F6 – Weekday PM Base plus Development 

Figure F7 – Weekday PM Base plus Development (Sensitivity Test) 

Figure F8 – Bishopton Population Distribution & Assignment 

Figure F9 – 2002 / 2005 Two-Way Traffic Flows (1645-1745) 

Figure F10 – 2012 Two-Way Traffic Flows (1645-1745) 

Figure F11 – Comparison of Traffic Volumes 

Figure F12 – Weekday Parking Accumulation – 6,00m2 Foodstore 


F2 SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village (ROF Bishopton)

Old Greenock Road Ferry Road Kingston Road 

123 45 64 106 

358 120 9 35 354 269 40 190 243 

8 8 149 

271 

167 

190 498 

205 283 185 64 

382 13 10 7 30 440 229 134 

3 7 13 24 

Newton Road Rossland Crescent Station Road 

Weekday PM Base 

Figure F1


52% 

9% 1% 14% 27% 

96% 

44% 

1% 

27% 

14% 52% 4% 

9% 0% 0% 2% 2% 44% 96% 4% 

4% 4% 


Distribution of Additional Foodstore Trips 

Figure F2


52% 

9% 1% 0% 27% 0% 

14% 96% 

0% 

1% 

0% 

0% 52% 4% 

9% 14% 27% 0% 0% 0% 52% 4% 

4% 4% 


Distribution of Additional Foodstore Trips (Sensitivity Test) 

Figure F3

In 94 

Out 98 


0 0 0 49 

8 0 0 1 13 0 0 25 0 

0 0 0 

41 

90 

26 0 

1 14 51 4 

9 0 0 2 2 43 94 4 

0 0 4 4 


Additional Weekday PM Foodstore Trips 

Figure F4

In 94 

Out 98 


0 0 0 49 

8 0 0 1 0 0 25 0 0 

0 13 0 

0 

90 

0 0 

1 0 51 4 

9 14 26 0 0 0 51 4 

0 0 4 4 


Additional Weekday PM Foodstore Trips (Sensitivity Test) 

Figure F5


123 45 64 155 

366 120 9 36 367 269 40 215 243 

8 8 149 

312 

257 

216 498 

206 297 236 68 

391 13 10 9 32 483 323 138 

3 7 17 28 


Weekday PM Base plus Development 

Figure F6


123 45 64 155 

366 120 9 36 354 269 65 190 243 

8 21 149 

271 

257 

190 498 

206 283 236 68 

391 27 36 7 30 440 280 138 

3 7 17 28 


Weekday PM Base plus Development - (Sensitivity Test) 

Figure F7

Output Area Population Distribution 

60RC000006 0 0% 

60RC000976 0 0% 

60RC000977 171 4% 

60RC000980 162 3% 

60RC000981 237 5% 

60RC000982 168 4% 

60RC000983 165 3% 

60RC000984 134 3% 

60RC000985 190 4% 

60RC000986 166 3% 

60RC000987 132 3% 

Assignement 

60RC000988 101 2% Lyle Crescent Newton Road Old Greenoc Road Ferry Road Rossland Crescent Kingston Road West Kingston Road East 

60RC000989 104 2% 9% 4% 1% 27% 2% 52% 4% 

60RC000990 85 2% 

60RC000991 125 3% 

60RC000992 159 3% 

60RC000993 100 2% 

60RC000994 108 2% 

60RC000995 124 3% 

60RC000996 168 4% 

60RC000997 172 4% 

60RC000998 97 2% 

60RC000999 121 3% 

60RC001000 216 5% 

60RC001001 168 4% 

60RC001002 144 3% 

60RC001046 0 0% 

60RC001047 0 0% 

60RC001444 163 3% 

60RC001445 66 1% 

60RC001446 115 2% 

60RC001447 294 6% 

60RC000978 135 3% 

60RC000979 140 3% 

60RC001003 180 4% 

60RC001442 100 2% 

60RC001443 75 2% 

Total 4785 100% 

Bishopton Population Distribution & Assignment 

Figure F8

1645-1745) 


132 122 

Site 1 Site 2 142 265 Site 3 

216 145 

2002 Flows 

2005 Flows 

1645-1745 

241 311 


Site 4 

2002 / 2005 Two Way Traffic Flows (1645-1745) 

Figure F9

Old Greenock Road Ferry Road Kinston Road 

236 111 

Site 1 Site 2 123 235 Site 3 

165 146 

1645-1745 

242 351 


Site 4 

2012 Two Way Traffic Flows (1645-1745) 

Figure F10

Traffic Growth Comparison 

Each Site 

Traffic In 

Traffic Out 

Site 1 A8 Greenock Road / Old Greenock Road 

2005 2012 Diff +/- % +/- 

457 407 -50 -11% 

Site 2 A8 Greenock Road / Ferry Road Note: 2005 data was previously used to apply a factor to 2002 traffic data. 

We have therefore adopted the same level of growth to provide a consistent base year analysis. 

2002 2005 2012 Diff +/- % +/- 

274 285 359 74 26% Low growth 2002-2005 1.041 

Site 3 A8 Greenock Road / Kingston Road 

2002 2005 2012 Diff +/- % +/- 

387 403 346 -57 -14% 

Site 4 A8 Greenock Road / Station Road 

Total Flows to / from A8 

2002 2005 2012 Diff +/- % +/- 

456 475 497 22 5% 

Traffic Entering / Exiting Bishopton on A8 

2005 2012 Diff +/- % +/- 

804 863 59 7% 

2005 2012 Diff +/- % +/- 

816 746 -70 -9% 

2005 2012 Diff +/- % +/- 

1620 1609 -11 -1% 

2005 2012 Diff +/- % +/- 

932 904 -28 -3% 

Comparison of 2005 - 2012 data indicates there has generally been an overall reduction in traffic volumes in Bishopton 

It is therefore proposed to use the 2008 traffic analysis data 

Comparison of Traffic Volumes 

Figure F11

Weekday 

Arrivals Departures Totals 

Time Range Trip Rate (per 100sqm GFA) Trip Rate (per 6000sqm GFA) Trip Rate (per 100sqm GFA) Trip Rate (per 6000sqm GFA) Trip Rate (per 100sqm GFA) Trip Rate (per 6000sqm GFA) Parking Accumulation 

06:00-07:00 0.372 22 0.082 5 0.454 27 17 

07:00-08:00 1.389 83 0.83 50 2.219 133 51 

08:00-09:00 2.773 166 1.93 116 4.703 282 102 

09:00-10:00 4.193 252 3.141 188 7.334 440 165 

10:00-11:00 4.658 279 4.123 247 8.781 527 197 

11:00-12:00 5.338 320 5.067 304 10.405 624 213 

12:00-13:00 6.11 367 5.906 354 12.016 721 225 

13:00-14:00 5.892 354 6.01 361 11.902 714 218 

14:00-15:00 5.062 304 5.399 324 10.461 628 198 

15:00-16:00 5.043 303 5.169 310 10.212 613 190 

16:00-17:00 5.077 305 5.36 322 10.437 626 173 

17:00-18:00 5.18 311 5.423 325 10.603 636 159 

18:00-19:00 4.593 276 5.097 306 9.69 581 129 

19:00-20:00 3.186 191 3.923 235 7.109 427 84 

20:00-21:00 2.098 126 2.487 149 4.585 275 61 

21:00-22:00 1.065 64 1.509 91 2.574 154 34 

22:00-23:00 0.103 6 0.3 18 0.403 24 23 

23:00-24:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 

62.132 61.756 123.888 2262 

60 

Weekday Parking Accumulation - 6,000m2 Foodstore 

Figure F12

Appendix G 

2008 Transport Assessment – Chapter 4 


SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village (ROF Bishopton) G1

2008 Transport Assessment 

Chapter 4 


G2 SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village (ROF Bishopton)

4 Development Travel Characteristics 

Introduction 

4.1 The methodology and results of the people trip assessment and trip distribution outlined below 

have been agreed by both Transport Scoltand (the Scottish Executive) and Renfrewshire Council. 

4.2 Trip generation is dealt with in the first section of this Chapter but prior to the distribution of this 

traffic to the wider network, the trips that will remain within Bishopton are discussed in the Internal 

Trips section of this report. This allows an accurate assessment of the effect on the local and 

strategic road network to be established. 

4.3 The travel characteristics of the development can be broadly split into three categories which are 

as follows: 

a )Trips from the proposed development 

b) Trips from the existing village 

c) Trips to employment within proposed development 

4.4 There is an element of interaction between these and in particular a significant number of trips 

within a) and b) remain within the new development. These trips while having an effect on the 

traffic characteristics within Bishopton, both existing and proposed, will remain within Bishopton 

and not have an impact on the wider road network. 

4.5 Within these internal trips there will also be a number of trips which are made by residents of both 

the existing village and the proposed development to the new employment and as such will also 

have an effect on c) above. 

4.6 Consequently an examination of the types of trips which are likely to remain within the Bishopton 

boundary will be identified and quantified to allow their effect on Bishopton to be quantified and to 

allow a more accurate assessment to be carried out on the wider network. 

Internal Trips 

General 

4.7 The trip types require to be examined based on the general land use within the existing village and 

the proposed development. This will allow an assessment of where the trips start and end so that 

the trips which are identified as starting and stopping within Bishopton, both the existing village and 

the new development, can be identified as trips which do not create traffic beyond Bishopton. 

4.8 The trips types are considered below and the overall effect on the traffic distribution is discussed 

for each trip type. 

Education 

4.9 It is proposed that the Bishopton development site will house a new primary school. For the 

purposes of assessment, we have been informed that the primary school requirement will be for 

550 pupils, a figure provided by Renfrewshire Council’s Education Department. This will be 

catered for by spare capacity in the existing school for 150 pupils and a new school of 400 pupils 

being constructed as part of the new development.

4.10 It has been assumed that all people trips within the AM period will be arrivals and that 100% (550) 

of new primary pupil trips will be from within the development area. Consequently, no generated 

trips for primary school pupils will be considered for the wider road network. 

4.11 It has been assumed that all staff trips to the primary school will be external. 

4.12 With regard to secondary school education, we have been informed that pupils originating from the 

residential element of the proposed development will require to travel outwith the development site. 

The secondary school children from the existing village currently travel by special school bus to 

Erskine and the children from the new development will do likewise. 

4.13 The likely number of secondary school pupils has been determined from Census data, particularly 

household occupancy figures for Bishopton, which has been applied to the proposed total number 

of development houses. The results of this calculation are indicated in Table 4.1. 

Table 4.1 Likely Number of Secondary School Pupils 

No. of 

Houses 

Household 

Occupancy 

Factor 

Total 

Household 

Population 

Population of 

Bishopton 

Population 

Aged 12 

to 15 

Pecentage of 

Bishopton 

Population 

Total Pupils 

(based on 

household 

population) 

2,602 2.72 7,077 5,157 278 5.4% 382 

4.14 Table 4.1 indicates that the proposed development is likely to generate 382 secondary school pupil 

trips. Notwithstanding, it should be noted that the number of pupils has been taken from the 12 to 

15 age band and therefore does not account for 16 to 17 year olds attending secondary school. 

We would therefore consider the figure of 382 pupils to be robust in terms of assessment. 

4.15 On the basis that Erskine is remote from most of the main destinations from Bishopton it has been 

assumed that all people trips will be either by the provided bus service or as drop off from other 

trips with Erskine as a destination. Consequently, no additional generated trips for secondary 

school pupils will be considered for the wider road network. 

Further Education 

4.16 There is a large number of trips associated with students that will occur in the peak periods. 

However, the mode share associated with these trips is significantly different from that of the other 

residents. As a consequence of this, a separate mode share has been established for students 

and as a consequence further education student trips require to be deleted from the base trips 

which are being considered for all other users. 

Community Facilities 

4.17 There will be a number of Community Facilities within the new development, such as the Health 

Centre, which will equally serve the new development and the existing community. The isolated 

nature of Bishopton will lead to extremely low use of the Health Centre from any other locations 

outwith the existing Bishopton village and the proposed development. 

4.18 Consequently, there will be no generated trips for visitors to the Health Centre or other Community 

Facilities to be considered on the wider road network.

Leisure 

4.19 Trip purpose data presented within the Scottish Household Statistics report (TRN/2005/2) indicates 

that approximately 5-7% of trips made during the peak hour are for entertainment or leisure 

purposes. Therefore, we have assumed that 5% of the total residential trip generation will be 

internal trips to the local residential community (i.e. trips from one house to another) and leisure 

facilities such as the park. 

4.20 Internal trips associated with the leisure and community facilities are as shown in Table 4.2 below. 

Table 4.2 Residential Trip Composition 

Total 

Residential 

Generation 

Leisure Trips 

(5%) 

AM Peak Period PM Peak Period 

IN OUT Total IN OUT Total 

572 2,966 3,539 1,795 1,119 2,914 

29 148 177 90 56 146 

4.21 As a result of this analysis it can be assumed that the figures in Table 4.2 can be discounted from 

the total generated trips for the new development and will therefore not be considered for the wider 

road network. 

Commercial 

4.22 It is expected that the majority of the trips generated by the local commercial facilities will also 

remain within Bishopton due the isolated nature of Bishopton and the nature of the shops which will 

result in few trips to Bishopton from external locations. 

4.23 Most trips which are made to the local shopping facilities (i.e. non food retail elements) within the 

new development as a separate trip are likely to be outwith the peak periods. Some trips are likely 

to be made to the shops during peak periods but only as pass by trips for other destinations. 

Consequently no reduction to the overall trips on the wider network will be made. 

4.24 Most trips which are made to the supermarket element are likely to be discrete, as foodstuffs are 

not a commodity that is likely to be kept in a car for a long period of time. However, on the return 

journey to Bishopton it is possible that a number of trips may be made to the supermarket on the 

way home and as such it has been assumed that 30% of the trips will be pass by trips. 

4.25 Table 4.3 indicates the people trip generation associated with the 2,500 sqm GFA supermarket. 

The trip rates used have been obtained from an interrogation of the TRICS database as detailed 

before. The number of trips has been reduced to account for pass-by and linked trips. 

Table 4.3 Supermarket People Trip Generation 

AM Period PM Period 


Trip rate (per 100sqm) 5.92 3.74 9.66 11.70 11.52 23.22 

People Trips 148 94 242 293 288 581 

30% pass-by 44 28 72 88 86 174 

Internal People Trips 104 66 170 205 202 407

4.26 It should be noted that although the above calculations have been undertaken for a retail area of 

2500 sqm, this has been done purely for transport impact reasons. It is recognised that any retail 

element greater than 1000 sqm will require its own planning justification as part of a separate 

process. 

Employment 

4.27 JMP has analysed travel to work data from the 2001 census in order to determine the number of 

employees that work and live in the same ward. This analysis has been undertaken in order to 

estimate the number of internal trips between the employment and residential elements of the site. 

4.28 This data is based on the census data for residents and provides a figure for the number of 

employees with a residential origin and employment destination in the same ward. Consequently 

the total number of employees who live and work in the same ward can be established and this can 

then be expressed as a percentage of the total employees within each ward. 

4.29 Table 4.4 indicates the number of employees that live in the ward in which they work for the 

Bishopton and Erskine (South East)/Inchinnan wards which contain similar levels and types of 

employment to that envisaged at the new site. 

Table 4.4 Employees Residing and Working in the Same Ward 

Ward Total Employed that 

Reside within Ward 

Erskine SE and 

Inchinnan 

Number Employed that 

Reside and Work Within 

Ward 

Residents that live and 

work in the same ward 

(excluding self-employed) 

2,374 360 15.2% 

Bishopton 2,570 470 18.2% 

Average - - 16.7% 

4.30 Table 4.4 indicates that an average of 16.7% of residents are employed in the ward in which they 

live. In order to produce a robust estimate of external trips, JMP have assumed an internal trip rate 

of 15% for the employment element of the development i.e. 15% of those employed within the new 

development site will also live within the Bishopton area. 

4.31 This is a lower rate to the 20% figure agreed with the Scottish Executive for the Stirling Major 

Growth Area project and given the level of employment envisaged for the site. We would therefore 

consider this value to be robust. 

4.32 Internal trips (i.e. trips from residential element to employment on site) associated with the 

development have an effect on both the generated residential and employment trips. 

4.33 This percentage could be applied to either the residential population or the employment population 

and it was assumed that the percentage should be applied to the employment figure as this will 

relate to a percentage of the available jobs. If the percentage was applied to the residential figure 

then a number of jobs would require to be created to meet the demand rather than a percentage of 

the jobs which are available. 

4.34 Consequently, the percentage has been applied to the total employment available within the new 

development and is indicated in Table 4.5 below.

Table 4.5 Employment Trip Composition 

Total 

Employment 

Generation 


(15%) 

External Trips 

(85%) 



1,973 138 2,111 166 1,504 1,670 

296 21 317 25 226 251 

1,667 117 1,794 141 1,278 1,419 

4.35 While this figure demonstrates the number of employment trips which can be discounted as the 

origin of the trip will be within Bishopton, it must also be remembered that the figure for generated 

trips from the residential area to employment will also include the trips where the destination of the 

trip stays within the development employment in Bishopton. Consequently, this discounted figure 

will require to be discounted against both the residential and employment elements. 

Trip Generation 

Residential Element 

4.36 The number of people trips generated by the development has been estimated from the TRICS 

database as previously presented in the Scoping Report produced by JMP in June 2005. Table 4.6 

below indicates the residential trip rates obtained and the resultant people trips associated with the 

residential element of the proposed development. 

Table 4.6 Residential People Trip Generation 


IN Out Total In Out Total 

Residential Trip Rate (per house) 0.22 1.14 1.36 0.69 0.43 1.12 

Residential Trips (2602 Houses) 572 2,966 3,538 1,795 1,119 2,914 

Non Residential Element 

4.37 There is a significant non residential element (154,179sqm) within the development which is 

predominantly made up of employment development (138,000 sqm) which accounts for just under 

90% of the non residential element. The remainder (16,179 sqm) is a combination of commercial 

and community uses. For the purposes of the transport impact calculations, commercial uses are 

assumed to be a mix of general shops and a 2,500sqm supermarket, while the community uses will 

be made up of facilities such as a primary school and health centre.

Employment 

4.38 As with the residential element above, the employment element has been estimated from the 

TRICS database as previously presented in the Scoping Report produced by JMP in June 2005. 

Table 4.7 below indicates the employment trip rates obtained and the resultant people trips 

associated with the employment element of the proposed development. The trip rates have been 

applied to the employment element of the development which comprises a business park with a 

total GFA of 138,000 sqm. Within this floor area the 138,000 sqm will be split as 80% office space 

(110,400 sqm GFA) and 10% each of industrial and warehousing/distribution (13,800 sqm GFA). 

For the purpose of assessment, the same trip rate has been applied to all employment GFA. 

4.39 People trip numbers based on this site are as indicated by Table 4.7 below and it is proposed to 

adopt these rates for calculating the number of trips associated with the development’s main 

employment elements. 

Table 4.7 Employment People Trip Generation 

Trip Generation Rates (per 100sqm GFA) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 


Business Park (Based on 138,000 sqm) 1.43 0.10 1.53 0.12 1.09 1.21 

Employment People Trips (Based on 138,000 sqm) 1,973 138 2,111 166 1,504 1,670 

Commercial 

4.40 It is assumed for TA purposes that the Bishopton Park would house a number of small shops and a 

2,500sqm GFA supermarket to serve the new development. As stated previously the people trip 

numbers based on this shop element of the commercial development will not be discounted and 

consequently have not been calculated. This element also includes the pharmacy in the Health 

Centre. 

4.41 People trip numbers based on a supermarket are as indicated by Table 4.8 below and it is 

proposed to adopt these rates for calculating the number of trips associated with the development’s 

supermarket. 

Table 4.8 Commercial Trip Generation (Supermarket) 

Trip Generation Rates (per 100sqm GFA) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 


Commercial (Supermarket) (Based on 2,500sqm) 5.92 3.74 9.66 11.70 11.52 23.22 

Commercial (Supermarket) People Trips 

(Based on 2,500 sqm) 

148 94 242 293 288 581 

4.42 The effect of the pass-by trips has already been discussed in paragraph 4.25 and the figure relating 

to this is as shown in Table 4.3. The internal trips indicated on Table 4.3 will therefore be 

discounted from the overall generated trips on the wider road network.

Community 

4.43 It is proposed that the community element of the development will contain a Health Centre and a 

Primary School as well as other as yet unknown facilities. 

Health Centre 

4.44 The Health Centre will be comprised of Doctor’s and Dentist’s Practices with an associated 

pharmacy. The Doctor’s practice is assumed to have a floor area of 1,400sqm and the Dentist’s 

practice will contain a floor area of 200sqm. The floor area of the Pharmacy will be contained 

within the commercial element of the development as detailed in paragraph above. 

4.45 It is assumed that most trips to the Health Centre and other Community Facilities will take place as 

discrete trips except for a small number as pass-by trips. Consequently no discount will be taken 

as a result of the Community Facilities and therefore no trip generation figures will be calculated for 

the Community Facilities. 

Primary Education 

4.46 It is proposed that the Bishopton development site would house a new primary school and that 

secondary school pupils would be bussed out to Erskine as discussed in paragraphs 4.9 to 4.15. 

Consequently the only trip generation figures which will be considered are for staff at the Primary 

School and the bus trips for the secondary school pupils. 

4.47 We would envisage that the majority of staff trips to the site will be external and analysis of a 

database containing all the schools in the Renfrewshire Local Authority area has revealed the 

following ratios of full time equivalent (FTE) staff to pupils: 

• Primary – 1 FTE staff member to every 20 pupils 

4.48 Applying the analysis of staff numbers to the expected capacity of the school reveals the following 

people trip generation characteristics for staff members. 

4.49 Table 4.9 below shows the people trip generation for the primary school staff associated with the 

proposed development. It has been assumed that all trips in the AM period are arrivals and that all 

trips in the PM period are departures. 

Table 4.9 Education People Trip Generation 

Pupils Staff Ratio (1 member of staff to number of pupils) Staff Numbers 

Primary 550 20 28 

4.50 Table 4.9 indicates an estimated total of 28 staff. It has been assumed that all people trips 

associated with staff at the schools are arrivals during the AM peak period. It has been assumed 

that an additional 8 support staff will be required at the school giving a total of 36 staff. 

4.51 The PM peak period for primary schools is highlighted within TRICS as 15:00-16:00 (with the 

majority of trips in the first half hour of this period), clearly outwith the network peak for this area of 

Renfrewshire which is 16:45-17:45. However, it has been assumed that this peak relates to pupils 

leaving at the end of the school day and that staff would depart at a later time. Therefore, it has 

been assumed that 18 (50%) departures from the school will be made during the PM peak period 

by staff.

Secondary Education 

4.52 The secondary school trips from outwith the development site would potentially qualify for bus 

travel to and from the school. Assuming a bus occupancy figure of 50 pupils per bus would equate 

to a required provision of 8 buses to transport pupils to and from secondary school. 

Further Education 

4.53 As detailed in paragraph 4.16 further education student trips will be discounted. It is therefore 

necessary to establish the number of trips associated with students. 

4.54 By examining Table CAS218 in the National Census for the Bishopton ward it can be seen that 

there are 171 full time students in the 16 to 24 age group. Assuming that within this age group, 

students between 16 and 18 could still be at school. Consequently within the overall age band, two 

years can be discounted. To compensate for this, only 75% of the total will be considered giving a 

total of 128 students. Using the same principles for students who are also in employment a figure 

of a further 137 students is obtained. Additionally, there are another 69 older students which gives 

a student total of 334 students. 

4.55 As a percentage of the total population this equates to 11.2%. By applying this to the calculated 

trip rate, a trip rate for students can then be calculated and this equates to 296 trips in the AM and 

264 trips in the PM. 

External Trip Generation 

4.56 Table 4.10 indicates the number of people trips generated by the residential and employment 

elements of the development. 

Table 4.10 Peak Hour Trip Generation (total) 



Residential 572 2966 3538 1795 1119 2914 

Employment 1973 138 2111 166 1504 1670 

Education 

(Secondary 

buses) 

0 8 8 0 0 0 

Education Staff 36 0 36 0 18 18 

Total 2581 3112 5693 1961 2641 4602 

4.57 The internal trips which can be discounted from the external trip distribution have been identified in 

the previous section on Internal Trips and are summarised in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11 Peak Hour Trip Discounts (Internal Trips) 



Leisure 29 148 177 90 56 146 

Primary School - 550 550 - - - 

Education 

(University/College) 

Commercial 

(Supermarket) 

Residential to 

Employment 

Employment from 

Residential 

- 296 296 264 - 264 

104 66 170 205 202 407 

21 296 317 226 25 251 

296 21 317 25 226 251 

Total 450 1377 1827 810 509 1319 

4.58 The trip generation for off site trips can then be adjusted to discount the internal trips and create a 

figure that represents the actual trips from the development. The results of this are shown in Table 

4.12 which is determined by combining Table 4.10 and Table 4.11. 

Table 4.12 Peak Hour Trip Generation (Off Site People Trips) 



Total 2581 3112 5693 1961 2641 4602 

Internal 450 1377 1827 810 509 1319 

External 2131 1735 3866 1151 2132 3283 

4.59 Table 4.12 above indicates that the proposed development is likely to generate a total of 3,866 and 

3,283 two-way people trips during the weekday AM and PM Peak periods respectively. 

4.60 Table 4.13 indicates a breakdown of the total number of external trips indicated by Table 4.12for 

the residential and employment elements of the proposed development during both the weekday 

AM and PM Peak periods. Table 4.13 also identifies how the internal trip deductions have been 

applied to the respective elements.

Table 4.13 Peak Hour Residential and Employment External Trips 



RESIDENTIAL 572 2966 3538 1795 1119 2914 

Leisure -29 -148 -177 -90 -56 -146 

Primary School - -550 -550 - - - 

Education 

(University/College) 

Commercial 

(Supermarket) 

Residential to 

Employment 

Secondary 

Education (Buses) 

RESIDENTIAL 

TOTAL 

- -296 -296 -264 - -264 

-104 -66 -170 -205 -202 -407 

-21 -296 -317 -226 -25 -251 

- +8 +8 - - - 

418 1618 2036 1010 836 1846 


EMPLOYMENT 1973 138 2111 166 1504 1670 

Employment from 

Residential 

-296 -21 -317 -25 -226 -251 

School Staff +36 - +36 - +18 +18 

EMPLOYMENT 

TOTAL 

COMBINED 

RESIDENTIAL AND 

EMPLOYMENT 

TOTAL 

1713 117 1830 141 1296 1437 

2131 1735 3866 1151 2132 3283 

4.61 Table 4.13 indicates that, of the total 3,866 AM Peak external two-way people trips, 2,036 two-way 

trips will be generated by the residential element while the remaining 1,830 two-way trips will be 

generated by the employment element. 

4.62 Of the equivalent 3,283 PM Peak total external two-way trips, 1,846 two-way trips will be generated 

by the residential element while the remaining 1,437 two-way trips will be generated by the 

employment element. 

4.63 The above weekday AM and PM peak total external two-way trip figures indicated by Table 4.13 for 

both the residential and employment elements of the proposed development consequently form the 

basis of the following modal split and trip distribution section of the report. 

Modal Split and Trip Distribution 

General 

4.64 The people trip methodology is consistent with the guidelines provided by the Scottish Executive in 

the document, “Transport Assessment and Implementation: A Guide”, which refer to the use of 

people trip assessment methods and the use of Census data to determine existing travel 

characteristics and a potential base for assessing the characteristics of new development.

Methodology for Residential Development 

4.65 The general methodology which has been applied is as follows: 

• People Trip Generation – Calculated using information from the TRICS database for residential 

related trips. 

• Residential Development People Trip Distribution – Distribution will generally follow existing 

patterns of Bishopton residents and the wider patterns in Renfrewshire. The existing trip 

distribution was obtained through analysis of 2001 census travel to work data. The patterns 

arising from above indicate high proportions of residents working within 5km of Bishopton. It is 

considered appropriate to continue with this pattern because firstly, there will be a significant 

number of new jobs in Bishopton, which will encourage synergy between the land uses and 

secondly, the trip generation relates to all trips, not just trips to work and hence a high degree 

of non work related trips will occur, for example taking children to school. 

• Residential Development People Trip Distribution – The distribution of trips within distance 

travelled bands has been undertaken using gravity model principles. For the residential 

development this process is based on the number of jobs within ward areas (these are taken 

from Annual Business Inquiry (ABI) 2001 (ABI) Statistics) 

• Residential Mode Share - The mode share used is that currently occurring in Bishopton again 

taken from the 2001 census data of Bishopton. The mode share is applied in bands of 

distance travelled to reflect local walking and at the other end of the scale the high proportion 

of car trips on longer distances. The impact of the train is also included. However, no 

adjustment has been made to account for the likely future upgrading of services on the 

Bishopton line (or on the rail network generally) during the implementation phases of the 

development which could increase the percentage of travel by train. 

Key Information Regarding Residential Development People Trip Distribution 

4.66 The 2001 Census identified the distance which people from Bishopton currently travel to work and 

the Scottish Household Survey indicated the Council area of workplace. These are indicated in 

Table 4.14 and Table 4.15 below. 

Table 4.14 Distance Travelled to Work by Bishopton Residents 

Distance Travelled 0-5km 5km-10km 10km-20km 20km+ 

Percentage 20% 32% 41% 7% 

Table 4.15 Council Area of Residence and Workplace (1999 - 2002) 

Area of Workplace 

Area of Residence Glasgow Argyle/Dunbarton Renfrewshire / 

Inverclyde 

Others Total 

Renfrewshire / Inverclyde 28% 3% 62% 7% 100% 

4.67 JMP has combined both of the above data sets to determine an appropriate distribution of travel to 

work from the proposed development at Bishopton. Table 4.16 indicates the distribution of travel to 

work by employment location.

Table 4.16 Proposed Residential Development Trip Distribution (2-way) 

Distance 

Band 

Percentage by 

Band 

0-5km 20% Bishopton (area around main 

settlement) 

Employment Location AM Trips PM Trips Comments 

149 135 

Erskine West 237 214 

Erskine Central 22 20 

5-10km 32% Glasgow Airport 299 271 

St James 77 70 

Erskine SEast and Inchinnan 76 69 

Linwood (East and West) 46 41 

Houston/Bridge of Weir/ 

Brookfield/Craigend/ Langbank 

93 84 

Dumbartonshire / Argyle 61 55 3% 

10-20km 41% Paisley 140 125 

Johnstone 26 24 

Glasgow 586 530 28% 

Port Glasgow plus part 

Inverclyde 

46 42 

Kilmalcolm 6 6 

Renfrew / Braehead 63 57 

20km+ 7% Remainder of Inverclyde 143 129 

Total 100% 2070 1872 

4.68 Table 4.16 requires a correction for student trips to both Paisley and Glasgow. The trip generation 

was discounted as detailed in paragraphs 4.52 to 4.54 to account for student trips. However to 

account for the limited number of trips which are made by students in the peak hours 32 trips have 

been added in the AM peak (i.e. 2070 trips) and 27 trips in the PM peak (i.e. 1872 trips). These 

have been assigned as 50/50 split between Paisley and Glasgow. These student trips are included 

in Table 4.18, Table 4.19, Table 4.26 and Table 4.27. 

4.69 The mode share which has been applied to the above people trips has been taken from the 2001 

Census, where mode of travel by distance travelled to work is provided. For Bishopton, the 

Census details for mode share by distance are indicated by Table 4.17. 

Table 4.17 Mode Share by Distance Travelled to Work by Bishopton Residents 

Percentage Mode Share 0-5km 5km-10km 10km-20km 20km+ 

Walk 14% 2% 0% 0% 

Cycle 1% 1% 0% 0% 

Bus 3% 2% 1% 1% 

Train 3% 12% 26% 10% 

Car 66% 75% 65% 86% 

Other 13% 8% 8% 3% 

All Modes 100% 100% 100% 100% 

4.70 The application of the above mode share to the trip distribution identifies the following total trip 

movements by mode associated with AM and PM peak hour residential development related trips 

respectively.

4.71 The resulting trip distribution pattern by mode associated with the residential development at 

Bishopton is indicated by Table 4.18 for the AM peak period and by Table 4.19 for the PM peak 

scenario. 

Table 4.18 Residential AM Peak Trip Distribution by Mode 

Employment Location People 

Trips 

Walk/ 

Cycle 

Bus Train Car Car Passenger 

Bishopton 149 22 0 0 107 19 

Erskine West 237 35 11 11 148 31 

Erskine Central 22 3 1 1 13 3 

Glasgow Airport 299 12 9 53 201 24 

St James 77 3 2 14 52 6 

Erskine SEast and Inchinnan 76 3 2 0 64 6 

Linwood (East and West) 46 1 0 0 41 4 


Brookfield/Craigend/ 

Langbank 

93 1 0 0 85 7 

Dumbartonshire / Argyle 61 0 0 11 45 5 

Paisley 140 0 1 36 92 10 

Johnstone 26 0 0 0 24 2 

Glasgow 586 0 6 167 367 46 

Port Glasgow plus part Inverclyde 46 0 0 13 28 4 

Kilmalcolm 6 0 0 0 6 1 

Renfrew / Braehead 63 0 1 0 57 5 

Other Areas 143 0 1 14 123 4 

Total 2070 80 34 320 1453 177 

Table 4.19 Residential PM Trip Distribution by Mode 


Trips 

Walk/ 

Cycle 


Bishopton 135 20 0 0 97 18 

Erskine West 214 32 10 10 134 28 


Glasgow Airport 271 11 8 48 182 22 

St James 70 3 2 13 47 6 




Brookfield/Craigend/ 

Langbank 

84 1 0 0 77 7 

Dumbartonshire / Argyle 55 0 0 10 41 4 

Paisley 125 0 1 33 83 9 

Johnstone 24 0 0 0 21 2 

Glasgow 530 0 5 152 332 41 




Other Areas 129 0 1 13 111 4 

Total 1872 73 31 292 1316 160

Methodology for Employment Development 

4.72 The methodology applied to determine the distribution, mode share and assignment of vehicle trips 

associated with employment development is as follows: 

• People Trip Generation – Calculated using information from the TRICS database for 

employment related trips. 

• Employment Development People Trip Distribution - Distribution of development related trips 

generally follow existing patterns of a similar location, IBM Greenock, where the travel to work 

patterns to that ward reflect the dominant influence of the IBM plant and its associated rail 

station. Secondly, this information is considered in tandem with travel to work details for 

Bishopton and Inchinnan areas and adjusted to provide an appropriate pattern for new 

development at Bishopton. The patterns arising from the Census indicate that 36% of people 

who work in Renfrewshire travel no more than 5km to work. It is considered appropriate to 

continue with this pattern because there will be a significant number of new homes in 

Bishopton to access the new employment development. 

• Employment Development People Trip Distribution - Distribution of trips within distance travel 

bands has been undertaken using gravity model principles. The process is based on the 

number of people within ward areas taken from the Census. 

• Employment Mode Share - The mode share used is the mode share measured for employment 

in the Greenock Ward which is dominated by IBM, adjusted to account for the local 

circumstances measured in Bishopton and Inchinnan. Given that both sites have a strong 

relationship to a train station the impact of travel to work by train is also included. 

Key Information Regarding Employment Development People Trip Distribution 

4.73 The 2001 Census identified the distance that people working in Bishopton and Inchinnan travelled 

to work and the Scottish Household Survey indicated the Council area of workplace. These are 

indicated in Table 4.20 and Table 4.21 below. 

Table 4.20 Distance Travelled to Work in Bishopton / Inchinnan 

Distance Travelled 0-5km 5km-10km 10km-20km 20km+ 

Percentage 27% 21% 32% 20% 

Table 4.21 Council Area of Residence and Workplace (`1999-2002) 

Area of Workplace 

Area of Residence Glasgow Argyle/Dunbarton Renfrewshire / 

Inverclyde 

Others Total 

Renfrewshire / Inverclyde 13% 4% 63% 20% 100% 

4.74 By analysis the split between Renfrewshire and Inverclyde can be broken down into 63% 

Renfrewshire and 8% for Greenock and Gourock within Inverclyde, which has been used in further 

analysis. 

4.75 JMP has combined the above data sets to determine an appropriate distribution of travel to work at 

the proposed development at Bishopton. Table 4.22 below indicates the distribution of travel to 

work in Bishopton.

Table 4.22 Proposed Employment Development People Trip Distribution 

Distance 

Band 

Percentage by 

Band 

Resident Location AM Trips PM Trips Comments 

0-5km 36% Bishopton 280 220 

Erskine West 108 85 

Erskine Central 106 83 

5-10km 22% Shotroods 32 25 

Erskine SEast and Inchinnan 90 70 

Linwood (East and West) 68 54 

Bridge of Weir 86 67 

Houston/Craigend/ Langbank 36 28 

Dumbartonshire / Clydebank 73 57 4% 

10-20km 26% Paisley 176 138 

Johnstone 71 56 

Glasgow 238 187 13% 

Port Glasgow plus part 

Inverclyde 

20km+ 16% Remainder of Inverclyde and 

other Local Authority Areas 

37 29 

Kilmalcolm 12 9 

Renfrew / Braehead 52 41 

366 287 

Total 100% 1831 1436 

4.76 The mode share which has been applied to the above people trips has been taken from the 2001 

Census, where mode of travel by distance travelled to work is provided. For Bishopton, the 

Census details for mode share by distance are indicated by Table 4.23. 

Table 4.23 Mode Share by Distance Travelled to Work in Bishopton 

Percentage Mode Share Total 0-5km 5km-10km 10km-20km 20km+ 

All Modes 100% 36% 22% 26% 16% 

Train 4% 0% 1% 10% 10% 

Bus 19% 21% 28% 13% 13% 

Car / Taxi 52% 37% 50% 65% 65% 

Car Passenger 16% 19% 20% 12% 12% 

Motorcycle 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Bicycle 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Foot 9% 23% 1% 0% 0% 

4.77 The application of the above mode share to the trip distribution identifies the following total trip 

movements by mode associated with AM and PM peak hour employment development related trips 

respectively. 

4.78 The resulting trip distribution patterns by mode associated with the employment development at 

Bishopton are indicated by Table 4.24 and Table 4.25 for the AM and PM peak scenarios.

Table 4.24 Employment Development – AM Peak Trip Distribution by Mode 


Trips 

Walk/ 

Cycle 


Bishopton 280 64 0 0 162 53 

Erskine West 108 25 52 0 10 20 


Glasgow Airport and St James 32 1 16 1 8 6 



Bridge of Weir 86 2 45 2 21 17 

Houston/Craigend/Langbank 36 0 0 0 29 7 

Dumbartonshire / Clydebank 73 0 0 1 57 15 

Paisley 176 0 23 23 108 21 

Johnstone 71 0 9 0 53 9 

Glasgow 238 0 32 31 147 29 




Remainder of Inverclyde and other 

Local Authority Areas 

366 0 48 37 238 44 

Total 1831 118 336 100 994 284 

Table 4.25 Employment Development – PM Peak Trip Distribution by Mode 


Trips 

Walk/ 

Cycle 


Bishopton 220 51 0 0 128 42 

Erskine West 85 19 41 0 8 16 





Bridge of Weir 67 1 35 1 16 13 

Houston/Craigend/Langbank 28 0 0 22 6 


Paisley 138 0 18 18 85 17 

Johnstone 56 0 7 0 42 7 

Glasgow 187 0 25 24 115 22 






287 0 37 29 187 34 

Total 1436 91 262 77 780 223 

Full Development Trip Patterns 

4.79 The combination of both the residential and development related trip patterns are indicated by 

Table 4.26 and Table 4.27 below. The assignment of development related traffic will be reflected in 

part by the analysis later in this report and in the other detailed studies that flow from the STAG 

Part 2 appraisal.

Table 4.26 Combined Residential and Employment AM Peak Trip Distribution 

Location People 

Trips 

Walk/ 

Cycle 


Bishopton 429 86 0 0 269 72 

Erskine West 345 60 63 11 158 51 





Bridge of Weir 132 3 45 2 62 21 


Dunbartonshire / Clydebank 134 0 0 12 102 20 

Paisley 316 0 24 59 200 31 

Johnstone 97 0 9 0 77 11 

Glasgow 824 0 38 198 514 75 



Renfrew / Braehead 115 0 8 96 11 



509 0 49 51 361 48 

Total 3901 198 370 420 2447 461 

Table 4.27 Combined Residential and Employment PM Peak Trip Distribution 


Trips 

Walk/ 

Cycle 


Bishopton 355 71 0 0 225 60 

Erskine West 299 51 51 10 142 44 





Bridge of Weir 108 1 35 1 54 16 



Paisley 263 0 19 51 168 26 

Johnstone 80 0 7 0 63 9 

Glasgow 717 0 30 176 447 63 






416 0 38 42 298 38 

Total 3308 164 293 369 2096 383

Conclusion 

4.80 The residual car trips estimated by the above development travel characteristics process is 

considered to be the worst case scenario as no account has been taken of measures that will be 

introduced to reduce car travel. Measures such as the improvement of the public transport 

interchange and the introduction of other sustainable transport measures and infrastructure will be 

a primary area of focus in the delivery of the development. Alongside the land use mix, this should 

have the effect of reducing the need to travel outwith Bishopton and also provide the necessary 

mode choice when this longer distance travel is necessary. The following Chapter will seek to 

estimate the impact that new Transport Intervention Measures will have on the development modal 

split. 

Traffic Assignment 

4.81 The traffic assignment is based on the assignment figures presented in the STAG part 1 document. 

These figures only covered an area, as far south and east as M8 J30 (St James Interchange). 

Therefore, they were extended eastwards to include the M8 and A8 to J25, which also included 

Renfrew. 

4.82 The assignment pattern is shown in Table 4.28 and Table 4.29, for the cases of without and with a 

new motorway junction, as part of the Development proposals. 

Table 4.28 AM and PM Peak Traffic Assignment (No New Junction) 

Route Locations Included AM Car 

Trips 

From 

Devt 

To 

Devt 

PM 

Car 

Trips 

From 

Devt 

M8 West via J31 Inverclyde 338 231 107 275 133 142 

Bishopton Existing Village 522 264 258 541 312 229 

A737 via J30 Johnstone, Paisley, Linwood 278 75 203 314 217 97 

B790 Houston 231 145 86 134 78 56 

A726 South via 

J30 

B815 Dumbarton, Clydebank, 

Erskine, Glasgow 

To 

Devt 

Paisley 398 245 153 340 186 154 

224 145 79 169 90 79 

A8 Renfrew, Glasgow 314 207 107 262 132 130 

M8 East via J30 Glasgow 142 104 38 61 14 47 

Total 2447 1416 1031 2096 1162 934

Table 4.29 AM and PM Peak Traffic Assignment (With New Junction) 

Route Locations Included AM Car 

Trips 

From 

Devt 

To Devt PM 

Car 

Trips 

From 

Devt 

M8 West via J31 Inverclyde 338 231 107 275 133 142 

Bishopton Existing Village 522 264 258 541 312 229 

A737 via J30 or New 

Junction 

Johnstone, Paisley, 

Linwood 

To 

Devt 

278 75 203 314 217 97 

B790 Houston 231 145 86 134 78 56 

A726 South via J30 

or New Junction 

B815 Dumbarton, Clydebank, 

Erskine, Glasgow 

Paisley 398 245 153 340 186 154 

224 145 79 169 90 79 

A8 Renfrew, Glasgow 71 26 45 163 69 94 

M8 East via New 

Junction 

Glasgow 385 285 100 160 77 83 

Total 2447 1416 1031 2096 1162 934

Appendix H 

Proposed Road Infrastructure Improvements 


SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village (ROF Bishopton) H1

Proposed Road Infrastructure Improvements 

JMP Drawing – SCT3526/I/SR/001 – Proposed Mini-roundabout (Greenock Rd / Station Rd) 

JMP Drawing – SCT3526/I/UP/001 – Station Road Railway Bridge Underpass 


H2 SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village (ROF Bishopton)

Rev. 

Client 

Project 

Title 

Date 

Drawing Status 

Revision details Drawn Checked Approved 

© This drawing is the property of JMP Consultants Limited and the 

information can only be reproduced with their prior permission. 

Drawn Checked 

Approved 

Original drg. size 

BAE Systems 

Mercantile Chambers, 

53 Bothwell Street, 

Glasgow, 

G2 6TS 

T 0141 221 4030 

F 0800 066 4367 

E glasgow@jmp.co.uk 

W www.jmp.co.uk 

Dargavel Village Court Proposal 

Station Road / A8 

Proposed Mini Roundabout 

DD SL 

Date Scale 

A3 Nov '12 1:250 

Drawing Number Rev. 

Information SCT3526/I/SR/001

Appendix I 

TRICS and TRIP Generation Calculations 


SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village (ROF Bishopton) I1

TRICS and Trip Generation Calculations 

TRICS Multi-modal Survey Data 

Figure I1 – 6,000m2 Foodstore – Travel Characteristic Calculations 

Figure I2 – Potential Additional Park and Ride Trips 

Figure I3 – Total Traffic at Station Road Bridge 


I2 SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village (ROF Bishopton)

TRICS 2012(b)v6.10.2 171012 B15.27 (C) 2012 JMP Consultants Ltd on behalf of the TRICS Consortium Tuesday 23/10/12 

Page 1 

JMP Consultants Ltd. Bothwell Street Glasgow Licence No: 846405 

TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS: 

Land Use : 01 - RETAIL 

Category : A - FOOD SUPERSTORE 

MULTI-MODAL VEHICLES 

Selected regions and areas: 

02 SOUTH EAST 

SC SURREY 1 days 

WN WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD 1 days 

03 SOUTH WEST 

DV DEVON 1 days 

05 EAST MIDLANDS 

LE LEICESTERSHIRE 1 days 

NR NORTHAMPTONSHIRE 1 days 

NT NOTTINGHAMSHIRE 1 days 

10 WALES 

CP CAERPHILLY 1 days 

12 CONNAUGHT 

MA MAYO 1 days 

Filtering Stage 2 selection: 

Parameter: Gross floor area 

Actual Range: 4746 to 8900 (units: sqm) 

Range Selected by User: 2000 to 10000 (units: sqm) 

Public Transport Provision: 

Selection by: Include all surveys 

Date Range: 01/01/04 to 05/11/11 

Selected survey days: 

Tuesday 1 days 

Thursday 1 days 

Friday 6 days 

Selected survey types: 

Manual count 8 days 

Directional ATC Count 0 days 

Selected Locations: 

Town Centre 1 

Edge of Town Centre 1 

Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) 3 

Edge of Town 2 

Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre) 1 

Selected Location Sub Categories: 

Development Zone 1 

Residential Zone 2 

Retail Zone 3 

No Sub Category 2


Page 2 


TRIP RATE for Land Use 01 - RETAIL/A - FOOD SUPERSTORE 

MULTI-MODAL VEHICLES 

Calculation factor: 100 sqm 

BOLD print indicates peak (busiest) period 

ARRIVALS DEPARTURES TOTALS 

No. Ave. Trip No. Ave. Trip No. Ave. Trip 

Time Range Days GFA Rate Days GFA Rate Days GFA Rate 

00:00 - 01:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

01:00 - 02:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

02:00 - 03:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

03:00 - 04:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

04:00 - 05:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

05:00 - 06:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

06:00 - 07:00 5 6610 0.372 5 6610 0.082 5 6610 0.454 

07:00 - 08:00 8 6749 1.389 8 6749 0.830 8 6749 2.219 

08:00 - 09:00 8 6749 2.773 8 6749 1.930 8 6749 4.703 

09:00 - 10:00 8 6749 4.193 8 6749 3.141 8 6749 7.334 

10:00 - 11:00 8 6749 4.658 8 6749 4.123 8 6749 8.781 

11:00 - 12:00 8 6749 5.338 8 6749 5.067 8 6749 10.405 

12:00 - 13:00 8 6749 6.110 8 6749 5.906 8 6749 12.016 

13:00 - 14:00 8 6749 5.892 8 6749 6.010 8 6749 11.902 

14:00 - 15:00 8 6749 5.062 8 6749 5.399 8 6749 10.461 

15:00 - 16:00 8 6749 5.043 8 6749 5.169 8 6749 10.212 

16:00 - 17:00 8 6749 5.077 8 6749 5.360 8 6749 10.437 

17:00 - 18:00 8 6749 5.180 8 6749 5.423 8 6749 10.603 

18:00 - 19:00 8 6749 4.593 8 6749 5.097 8 6749 9.690 

19:00 - 20:00 8 6749 3.186 8 6749 3.923 8 6749 7.109 

20:00 - 21:00 8 6749 2.098 8 6749 2.487 8 6749 4.585 

21:00 - 22:00 8 6749 1.065 8 6749 1.509 8 6749 2.574 

22:00 - 23:00 5 6610 0.103 5 6610 0.300 5 6610 0.403 

23:00 - 24:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

Total Rates: 6 2.132 6 1.756 123.888 

Parameter summary 

Trip rate parameter range selected: 4746 - 8900 (units: sqm) 

Survey date date range: 01/01/04 - 05/11/11 

Number of weekdays (Monday-Friday): 8 

Number of Saturdays: 0 

Number of Sundays: 0 

Surveys manually removed from selection: 0


Page 3 



MULTI-MODAL CYCLISTS 






00:00 - 01:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

01:00 - 02:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

02:00 - 03:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

03:00 - 04:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

04:00 - 05:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

05:00 - 06:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

06:00 - 07:00 5 6610 0.000 5 6610 0.000 5 6610 0.000 

07:00 - 08:00 8 6749 0.022 8 6749 0.026 8 6749 0.048 

08:00 - 09:00 8 6749 0.019 8 6749 0.017 8 6749 0.036 

09:00 - 10:00 8 6749 0.024 8 6749 0.026 8 6749 0.050 

10:00 - 11:00 8 6749 0.022 8 6749 0.024 8 6749 0.046 

11:00 - 12:00 8 6749 0.028 8 6749 0.015 8 6749 0.043 

12:00 - 13:00 8 6749 0.020 8 6749 0.017 8 6749 0.037 

13:00 - 14:00 8 6749 0.041 8 6749 0.019 8 6749 0.060 

14:00 - 15:00 8 6749 0.037 8 6749 0.024 8 6749 0.061 

15:00 - 16:00 8 6749 0.044 8 6749 0.030 8 6749 0.074 

16:00 - 17:00 8 6749 0.044 8 6749 0.046 8 6749 0.090 

17:00 - 18:00 8 6749 0.044 8 6749 0.048 8 6749 0.092 

18:00 - 19:00 8 6749 0.026 8 6749 0.039 8 6749 0.065 

19:00 - 20:00 8 6749 0.028 8 6749 0.041 8 6749 0.069 

20:00 - 21:00 8 6749 0.015 8 6749 0.022 8 6749 0.037 

21:00 - 22:00 8 6749 0.011 8 6749 0.024 8 6749 0.035 

22:00 - 23:00 5 6610 0.000 5 6610 0.003 5 6610 0.003 

23:00 - 24:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

Total Rates: 0.425 0.421 0.846 









Page 4 



MULTI-MODAL VEHICLE OCCUPANTS 






00:00 - 01:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

01:00 - 02:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

02:00 - 03:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

03:00 - 04:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

04:00 - 05:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

05:00 - 06:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

06:00 - 07:00 5 6610 0.424 5 6610 0.094 5 6610 0.518 

07:00 - 08:00 8 6749 1.598 8 6749 0.963 8 6749 2.561 

08:00 - 09:00 8 6749 3.382 8 6749 2.343 8 6749 5.725 

09:00 - 10:00 8 6749 5.425 8 6749 4.006 8 6749 9.431 

10:00 - 11:00 8 6749 6.097 8 6749 5.241 8 6749 11.338 

11:00 - 12:00 8 6749 7.449 8 6749 6.692 8 6749 14.141 

12:00 - 13:00 8 6749 8.136 8 6749 7.914 8 6749 16.050 

13:00 - 14:00 8 6749 7.840 8 6749 8.012 8 6749 15.852 

14:00 - 15:00 8 6749 6.956 8 6749 7.303 8 6749 14.259 

15:00 - 16:00 8 6749 7.171 8 6749 7.299 8 6749 14.470 

16:00 - 17:00 8 6749 7.169 8 6749 7.508 8 6749 14.677 

17:00 - 18:00 8 6749 7.156 8 6749 7.195 8 6749 14.351 

18:00 - 19:00 8 6749 6.640 8 6749 7.051 8 6749 13.691 

19:00 - 20:00 8 6749 4.623 8 6749 5.653 8 6749 10.276 

20:00 - 21:00 8 6749 3.008 8 6749 3.558 8 6749 6.566 

21:00 - 22:00 8 6749 1.367 8 6749 2.163 8 6749 3.530 

22:00 - 23:00 5 6610 0.127 5 6610 0.333 5 6610 0.460 

23:00 - 24:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

Total Rates: 8 4.568 8 3.328 167.896 









Page 5 



MULTI-MODAL PEDESTRIANS 






00:00 - 01:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

01:00 - 02:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

02:00 - 03:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

03:00 - 04:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

04:00 - 05:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

05:00 - 06:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

06:00 - 07:00 5 6610 0.036 5 6610 0.006 5 6610 0.042 

07:00 - 08:00 8 6749 0.278 8 6749 0.241 8 6749 0.519 

08:00 - 09:00 8 6749 0.528 8 6749 0.591 8 6749 1.119 

09:00 - 10:00 8 6749 0.598 8 6749 0.543 8 6749 1.141 

10:00 - 11:00 8 6749 0.717 8 6749 0.683 8 6749 1.400 

11:00 - 12:00 8 6749 0.782 8 6749 0.922 8 6749 1.704 

12:00 - 13:00 8 6749 0.856 8 6749 0.833 8 6749 1.689 

13:00 - 14:00 8 6749 0.924 8 6749 1.045 8 6749 1.969 

14:00 - 15:00 8 6749 0.758 8 6749 0.707 8 6749 1.465 

15:00 - 16:00 8 6749 0.858 8 6749 0.861 8 6749 1.719 

16:00 - 17:00 8 6749 0.859 8 6749 0.993 8 6749 1.852 

17:00 - 18:00 8 6749 0.880 8 6749 0.858 8 6749 1.738 

18:00 - 19:00 8 6749 0.733 8 6749 0.804 8 6749 1.537 

19:00 - 20:00 8 6749 0.498 8 6749 0.639 8 6749 1.137 

20:00 - 21:00 8 6749 0.337 8 6749 0.417 8 6749 0.754 

21:00 - 22:00 8 6749 0.196 8 6749 0.207 8 6749 0.403 

22:00 - 23:00 5 6610 0.009 5 6610 0.018 5 6610 0.027 

23:00 - 24:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

Total Rates: 9.847 1 0.368 2 0.215 









Page 6 



MULTI-MODAL PUBLIC TRANSPORT USERS 






00:00 - 01:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

01:00 - 02:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

02:00 - 03:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

03:00 - 04:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

04:00 - 05:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

05:00 - 06:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

06:00 - 07:00 5 6610 0.009 5 6610 0.000 5 6610 0.009 

07:00 - 08:00 8 6749 0.067 8 6749 0.074 8 6749 0.141 

08:00 - 09:00 8 6749 0.119 8 6749 0.039 8 6749 0.158 

09:00 - 10:00 8 6749 0.182 8 6749 0.031 8 6749 0.213 

10:00 - 11:00 8 6749 0.248 8 6749 0.137 8 6749 0.385 

11:00 - 12:00 8 6749 0.339 8 6749 0.332 8 6749 0.671 

12:00 - 13:00 8 6749 0.319 8 6749 0.178 8 6749 0.497 

13:00 - 14:00 8 6749 0.239 8 6749 0.194 8 6749 0.433 

14:00 - 15:00 8 6749 0.185 8 6749 0.146 8 6749 0.331 

15:00 - 16:00 8 6749 0.163 8 6749 0.113 8 6749 0.276 

16:00 - 17:00 8 6749 0.124 8 6749 0.141 8 6749 0.265 

17:00 - 18:00 8 6749 0.130 8 6749 0.150 8 6749 0.280 

18:00 - 19:00 8 6749 0.170 8 6749 0.087 8 6749 0.257 

19:00 - 20:00 8 6749 0.106 8 6749 0.067 8 6749 0.173 

20:00 - 21:00 8 6749 0.056 8 6749 0.057 8 6749 0.113 

21:00 - 22:00 8 6749 0.017 8 6749 0.024 8 6749 0.041 

22:00 - 23:00 5 6610 0.003 5 6610 0.000 5 6610 0.003 

23:00 - 24:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

Total Rates: 2.476 1.770 4.246 









Page 7 



MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE 






00:00 - 01:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

01:00 - 02:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

02:00 - 03:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

03:00 - 04:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

04:00 - 05:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

05:00 - 06:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

06:00 - 07:00 5 6610 0.469 5 6610 0.100 5 6610 0.569 

07:00 - 08:00 8 6749 1.965 8 6749 1.304 8 6749 3.269 

08:00 - 09:00 8 6749 4.047 8 6749 2.989 8 6749 7.036 

09:00 - 10:00 8 6749 6.229 8 6749 4.606 8 6749 10.835 

10:00 - 11:00 8 6749 7.084 8 6749 6.086 8 6749 13.170 

11:00 - 12:00 8 6749 8.597 8 6749 7.960 8 6749 16.557 

12:00 - 13:00 8 6749 9.331 8 6749 8.942 8 6749 18.273 

13:00 - 14:00 8 6749 9.044 8 6749 9.270 8 6749 18.314 

14:00 - 15:00 8 6749 7.936 8 6749 8.181 8 6749 16.117 

15:00 - 16:00 8 6749 8.236 8 6749 8.303 8 6749 16.539 

16:00 - 17:00 8 6749 8.197 8 6749 8.688 8 6749 16.885 

17:00 - 18:00 8 6749 8.210 8 6749 8.251 8 6749 16.461 

18:00 - 19:00 8 6749 7.569 8 6749 7.981 8 6749 15.550 

19:00 - 20:00 8 6749 5.254 8 6749 6.399 8 6749 11.653 

20:00 - 21:00 8 6749 3.415 8 6749 4.054 8 6749 7.469 

21:00 - 22:00 8 6749 1.591 8 6749 2.419 8 6749 4.010 

22:00 - 23:00 5 6610 0.139 5 6610 0.354 5 6610 0.493 

23:00 - 24:00 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 

Total Rates: 9 7.313 9 5.887 193.200 








Bishopton Retail 

Trip Generation Calculations 

Calculate Weekday PM Net-increase in People Trips from 2008 TA Masterplan 

Step 1: Calculate 2012 People Trips 

2008 2012 

GFA 2500 6000 

Trip Rates Trips 


2008 People Trips 11.7 11.52 23.22 293 288 581 

2012 People Trips * 8.21 8.25 16.46 493 495 988 

Step 2: Calculate Modal Split and Trips by Mode 

2012(b) Trip Rates 

Trips 

In Out Total In Out Total % 

Walking 0.88 0.86 1.74 53 52 104 11% 

Cycling 0.04 0.05 0.09 2 3 5 1% 

Public Transport 0.13 0.15 0.28 8 9 17 2% 

Car Passenger 1.98 1.78 3.76 119 107 226 23% 

Vehicles 5.18 5.42 10.6 311 325 636 64% 

Total People 8.21 8.25 16.46 493 495 988 100% 

Vehicle Occ. 7.16 7.2 14.36 

Step 3: Calculate Split of Internal / External Trips 

Previous TA assumed all retail trips were internally generated. Proposed retail is to serve ROF Bishopton and the existing village of Bishopton 

Household Demographics. 57% ROF, 43% existing village 

In Out Total 

2012 People Trips 493 495 988 

Internal Trips (ROF) 281 282 563 57% 

External (Existing) 212 213 425 43% 

2008 Internal Trips 293 288 581 

Comparison of 2012 internal people trips to 2008 TA trips are relatively similar (albeit slightly greater in 2008). 

For the purposes of this analaysis, it will therefore be assumed that 43% of the vehicle trips will external trips 


In Out Total 

Walking 30 29 60 

Cycling 1 2 3 

Public Transport 4 5 10 

Car Passenger 68 61 129 

Vehicles 177 185 363 ` 

Total People 281 282 563 

External Trips 

In Out Total 

Walking 23 22 45 

Cycling 1 1 2 

Public Transport 3 4 7 

Car Passenger 51 46 97 

Vehicles 134 140 273 

Total People 212 213 425 

Step 4: Calculation of Pass-by / Diverted Trips 

Not all externally generated trips to the foodstore will be 'new' trips to the wider network. It is reasonable to assume a certain number will be pass-by / diverted trips. 

It is also reasonable to assume pass-by / diverted trips are associated with the Park and Ride and the employment opportunities associated with ROF Bishopton. 

It is proposed to assume 30% of the trips to the retail development will be pass-by / diverted and these will be reduced from the total trips. 

In Out Total 

External Vehicle Trips 134 140 273 

30% Pass-by 40 42 82 

Amended Total Trips 94 140 233 

New' Vehicle Trips 94 98 191 These are onto the wider network 

*Trip rates from TRICS 2012(b) 

6,000m2 Foodstore - Travel Characteristic Calculations 

Figure I1

Bishopton Retail Transport Assessment 

Additional trips generated by P&R during weekday PM peak 

Proposed number of spaces for Park and Ride to the west of the railway line = 300 

This was indentified by the Demand Study undertaken by JMP (Report dated 1 December 2012) 

The 300 space car park would be split into 2 sections with 200 spaces in the north section and 100 spaces in south section. 

The new car park would incorporate the existing 80 space car park to west of railway line. 

The study identifies the phasing of the 300 spaces, for the north and southern sections and where the demand will originate. 

This has been used to estimate the number of new trips that will access the P & R from Station Road 

Phase 1 Phase 2 North Section South Section New Station Rd Trips Total Station Road Trips 

Existing car park 80 - 80 - - 80 

Dargavel Village 45 35 - 80 - 

From M8 via new motorway junction 5 75 60 20 - 60 

On-street parking (on Station Road) 20 N/A 20 - - 20 

Existing latent demand - 40 40 - 40 40 

Total 150 150 200 100 40 200 

We have assumed that all of the demand from the M8 will access the P&R from the southern access road. 

Not all of the 40 trips onto Station Road will be during the weekday PM peak period. 

Using ATC data collected on 23 October 2012, we are able to establish the proportion of trips to / from the existing P & R during the weekday PM peak. 

The ATC site was located to the east of the railway bridge on Station Road. This therefore allows for an estimate of the existing 80 space car park to the west of the railway line 

The ATC results indicated following eastbound and westbound movements from 100 new spaces accessed from Station Road during the weekday PM peak will be: 

ATC % of Exisitng New Trips 

Eastbound (Out) 29 36% 15 

Westbound (In) 17 21% 9 

The additional 40 trips onto Station Road equates to only 24 two-way movements onto the wider road network. 

It is considered appropriate to discount them from the overall vehicle trip generation as they are negligible in terms of total traffic generated by the Masterplan. 

Note: For Station Road Analysis, all traffic requires to be assessed. Using the ratio of arrivals and departures, this can be calculated as follows: 

ATC % of Exisitng New Trips 

Eastbound (Out) 29 36% 73 

Westbound (In) 17 21% 43 

Potential Additional Park & Ride Trips 

Figure I2

Bishopton Retail Transport Assessment 

Calculation of vehicle trips at Station Road Bridge 

While additional traffic from the new retail store (and park and ride) may not all be new to the wider network, 

it needs to be considered in its entirety at the new traffic signals at the Station Road bridge. 

Foodstore 

In Out Total 

Retail Total Traffic 134 140 273 

30% Pass-by 40 42 82 

New' Vehicle Trips 94 98 191 

The pass-by trips will predominantly be a mix of employment from Dargavel and the P&R. 

Park & Ride 

In Out Total 

PM peak from Station Rd 43 73 115 

The Park & Ride trips include a portion of the pass-by-trips. 

Station Road Bridge 

In Out Total 

Total Station Rd Trips 136 170 306 

Total Traffic at Station Road Bridge 

Figure I3

Appendix J 

Junction Analysis Output Files 


SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village (ROF Bishopton) J1

Junction Analysis Output Files 

1 – Greenock Rd / Newton Rd / Old Greenock Road PICADY File 

2 – Greenock Rd / Station Rd PICADY File 

3 – Greenock Rd / Ferry Rd / Rossland Crescent LINSIG File 

4 – Greenock Road / Kingston Rd LINSIG File 

5 – Station Road Underpass LINSIG File 

6 – Greenock Rd / Station Rd ARCADY File 


J2 SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village (ROF Bishopton)

TRL LIMITED 

(C) COPYRIGHT 2006 

CAPACITIES, QUEUES, AND DELAYS AT 3 OR 4-ARM MAJOR/MINOR PRIORITY JUNCTIONS 

PICADY 5.1 ANALYSIS PROGRAM 

RELEASE 4.0 (SEPT 2008) 

ADAPTED FROM PICADY/3 WHICH IS CROWN COPYRIGHT 

BY PERMISSION OF THE CONTROLLER OF HMSO 

-------------------------------------------------------- 

FOR SALES AND DISTRIBUTION INFORMATION, 

PROGRAM ADVICE AND MAINTENANCE CONTACT: 

TRL SOFTWARE BUREAU 

TEL: CROWTHORNE (01344) 770758, FAX: 770356 

EMAIL: Software@trl.co.uk 

-------------------------------------------------------- 

THE USER OF THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR THE SOLUTION OF AN ENGINEERING PROBLEM IS 

IN NO WAY RELIEVED OF HIS/HER RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SOLUTION 

Run with file:- 

"U:\SCT\2012\SCT3475-3599\SCT3526_BishoptonRetail\CALCULATIONS\TRAFFIC\PICADY\Old Greenock Road_Newton Road\ 

Old Greenock Rd_Newton Rd.vpi" 

(drive-on-the-left) at 12:01:11 on Wednesday, 14 November 2012 

.RUN INFORMATION 

*************** 

RUN TITLE : Old Greenock Rd/Newton Rd 

LOCATION : Bishopton 

DATE : 12/11/12 

CLIENT :

ENUMERATOR : 

JOB NUMBER : SCT3526 

STATUS : 

DESCRIPTION : 

.MAJOR/MINOR JUNCTION CAPACITY AND DELAY 

*************************************** 

INPUT DATA 

---------- 

ARM A IS Greenock Road E 

ARM B IS Newton Road 

ARM C IS Greenock Road W 

ARM D IS Old Greenock Road 

MINOR ROAD (ARM D) 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

MAJOR ROAD (ARM C) --------------------- MAJOR ROAD (ARM A) 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

MINOR ROAD (ARM B) 

.STREAM LABELLING CONVENTION 

--------------------------- 

STREAM A-B CONTAINS TRAFFIC GOING FROM ARM A TO ARM B 

STREAM B-AC CONTAINS TRAFFIC GOING FROM ARM B TO ARM A AND TO ARM C 

ETC.

.GEOMETRIC DATA 

-------------- 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I DATA ITEM I MINOR ROAD B I MINOR ROAD D I 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I TOTAL MAJOR ROAD CARRIAGEWAY WIDTH I ( W ) 9.00 M. I ( W ) 9.00 M. I 

I CENTRAL RESERVE WIDTH I (WCR ) 0.00 M. I (WCR ) 0.00 M. I 

I I I I 

I MAJOR ROAD RIGHT TURN - WIDTH I (WC-B) 2.20 M. I (WA-D) 2.20 M. I 

I - VISIBILITY I (VC-B) 90.00 M. I (VA-D) 50.00 M. I 

I - BLOCKS TRAFFIC I NO I NO I 

I I I I 

I MINOR ROAD - VISIBILITY TO LEFT I (VB-C) 24.0 M. I (VD-A) 14.0 M. I 

I - VISIBILITY TO RIGHT I (VB-A) 26.0 M. I (VD-C) 36.0 M. I 

I - LANE 1 WIDTH I (WB-C) 3.90 M. I (WD-A) - I 

I - LANE 2 WIDTH I (WB-A) 0.00 M. I (WD-C) - I 

I WIDTH AT 0 M FROM JUNCTION I - I 10.00 M. I 





I - LENGTH OF FLARED SECTION I - I 2 VEHS I 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

.SLOPES AND INTERCEPT 

-------------------- 

(NB:Streams may be combined, in which case capacity will be adjusted) 

STREAM B-A 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I Intercept For Slope For Opposing Slope For Opposing Slope For Opposing Slope For OpposingI 

I STREAM B-A STREAM A-C STREAM A-D STREAM A-B STREAM C-A I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I 543.03 0.22 0.22 0.09 0.14 I 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I Slope For Opposing Slope For Opposing Slope For Opposing Slope For OpposingI 

I STREAM D-A STREAM C-B STREAM D-B I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I 0.14 0.31 0.31 I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

STREAM D-C 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


I STREAM D-C STREAM C-A STREAM C-B STREAM C-D STREAM A-C I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


I STREAM B-C STREAM A-D STREAM B-D I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

* Due to the presence of a flare, data is not available 

STREAM CD-B 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


I STREAM CD-B STREAM A-B STREAM A-C STREAM A-D I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I 602.92 0.21 0.21 0.22 I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

STREAM AB-D 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


I STREAM AB-D STREAM C-D STREAM C-A STREAM C-B I

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I 602.92 0.20 0.20 0.00 I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

STREAM B-CD 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


I STREAM B-CD STREAM A-C STREAM A-D STREAM A-B I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I 698.00 0.24 0.24 0.09 I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

STREAM D-AB 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


I STREAM D-AB STREAM C-A STREAM C-B STREAM C-D I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


.TRAFFIC DEMAND DATA 

------------------- 

----------------------- 

I ARM I FLOW SCALE(%) I 

----------------------- 

I A I 100 I 

I B I 100 I 

I C I 100 I 

I D I 100 I 

----------------------- 

.Demand set: 2012 PM Base + Development

TIME PERIOD BEGINS 16.00 AND ENDS 17.30 

LENGTH OF TIME PERIOD - 90 MIN. 

LENGTH OF TIME SEGMENT - 15 MIN. 

.DEMAND FLOW PROFILES ARE SYNTHESISED FROM TURNING COUNT DATA 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

I I NUMBER OF MINUTES FROM START WHEN I RATE OF FLOW (VEH/MIN) I 

I ARM I FLOW STARTS I TOP OF PEAK I FLOW STOPS I BEFORE I AT TOP I AFTER I 

I I TO RISE I IS REACHED I FALLING I PEAK I OF PEAK I PEAK I 

I I I I I I I I 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

I ARM A I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 7.81 I 11.72 I 7.81 I 

I ARM B I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 0.34 I 0.51 I 0.34 I 

I ARM C I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 6.21 I 9.32 I 6.21 I 

I ARM D I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 2.06 I 3.09 I 2.06 I 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

.Demand set: 2012 PM Base + Development 

-------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I I TURNING PROPORTIONS I 

I I TURNING COUNTS I 

I I (PERCENTAGE OF H.V.S) I 

I ----------------------------------------------- 

I TIME I FROM/TO I ARM A I ARM B I ARM C I ARM D I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I 16.00 - 16.15 I I I I I I 

I I ARM A I 0.000 I 0.045 I 0.626 I 0.330 I 

I I I 0.0 I 28.0 I 391.0 I 206.0 I 

I I I ( 0.0)I ( 10.0)I ( 10.0)I ( 10.0)I 

I I I I I I I 

I I ARM B I 0.630 I 0.000 I 0.111 I 0.259 I 

I I I 17.0 I 0.0 I 3.0 I 7.0 I 

I I I ( 10.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 10.0)I ( 10.0)I 

I I I I I I I 

I I ARM C I 0.736 I 0.016 I 0.000 I 0.247 I 

I I I 366.0 I 8.0 I 0.0 I 123.0 I

I I I ( 10.0)I ( 10.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 10.0)I 

I I I I I I I 

I I ARM D I 0.218 I 0.055 I 0.727 I 0.000 I 

I I I 36.0 I 9.0 I 120.0 I 0.0 I 

I I I ( 10.0)I ( 10.0)I ( 10.0)I ( 0.0)I 

I I I I I I I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------- 

TURNING PROPORTIONS ARE CALCULATED FROM TURNING COUNT DATA 

DEFAULT PROPORTIONS OF HEAVY VEHICLES ARE USED 

. QUEUE AND DELAY INFORMATION FOR EACH 15 MIN TIME SEGMENT 

-------------------------------------------------------- 

FOR DEMAND SET 2012 PM Base + Development 

AND FOR TIME PERIOD 1 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY GEOMETRIC DELAY AVERAGE 

DELAY I 

I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ (VEH.MIN/ PER 

ARRIVING I 

I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE 

(MIN) I 

I 16.00-16.15 

I 

I B-ACD 0.34 6.65 0.051 0.00 0.05 0.8 0.16 

I 

I A-B 0.35 

I 

I A-C 4.91 

I 

I A-D 2.58 

I 

I AB-C ( 4.94) 

I 

I AB-D ( 2.67) 7.87 0.340 0.00 0.50 7.1 0.19 

I 

I D-AB 0.56 7.85 0.072 0.00 0.08 1.1 0.14 

I

I D-C 1.51 5.79 0.260 0.00 0.34 4.9 0.23 

I 

I C-D 1.54 

I 

I C-A 4.59 

I 

I C-B 0.10 

I 

I CD-A ( 5.04) 

I 

I CD-B ( 0.21) 7.83 0.027 0.00 0.03 0.4 0.13 

I 

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

I 16.15-16.30 

I 

I B-ACD 0.40 6.18 0.065 0.05 0.07 1.0 0.17 

I 

I A-B 0.42 

I 

I A-C 5.86 

I 

I A-D 3.09 

I 

I AB-C ( 5.90) 

I

I AB-D ( 3.19) 7.62 0.419 0.50 0.70 10.1 0.22 

I 

I D-AB 0.67 7.41 0.091 0.08 0.10 1.5 0.15 

I 

I D-C 1.80 5.24 0.343 0.34 0.51 7.2 0.29 

I 

I C-D 1.84 

I 

I C-A 5.48 

I 

I C-B 0.12 

I 

I CD-A ( 6.02) 

I 

I CD-B ( 0.25) 7.51 0.034 0.03 0.03 0.5 0.14 

I 

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

I 16.30-16.45 

I 

I B-ACD 0.50 5.53 0.090 0.07 0.10 1.4 0.20 

I 

I A-B 0.51 

I 

I A-C 7.17 

I

I A-D 3.78 

I 

I AB-C ( 7.23) 

I 

I AB-D ( 3.91) 7.28 0.537 0.70 1.11 15.7 0.29 

I 

I D-AB 0.83 6.59 0.125 0.10 0.14 2.1 0.17 

I 

I D-C 2.20 4.49 0.490 0.51 0.91 12.6 0.43 

I 

I C-D 2.26 

I 

I C-A 6.72 

I 

I C-B 0.15 

I 

I CD-A ( 7.37) 

I 

I CD-B ( 0.31) 7.07 0.044 0.03 0.05 0.7 0.15 

I 

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

I 16.45-17.00 

I 

I B-ACD 0.50 5.53 0.090 0.10 0.10 1.5 0.20 

I

I A-B 0.51 

I 

I A-C 7.17 

I 

I A-D 3.78 

I 

I AB-C ( 7.23) 

I 

I AB-D ( 3.91) 7.28 0.537 1.11 1.14 16.9 0.30 

I 

I D-AB 0.83 6.55 0.126 0.14 0.14 2.1 0.17 

I 

I D-C 2.20 4.49 0.491 0.91 0.94 13.9 0.44 

I 

I C-D 2.26 

I 

I C-A 6.72 

I 

I C-B 0.15 

I 

I CD-A ( 7.38) 

I 

I CD-B ( 0.31) 7.07 0.044 0.05 0.05 0.7 0.15 

I 

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I

I 17.00-17.15 

I 

I B-ACD 0.40 6.18 0.065 0.10 0.07 1.1 0.17 

I 

I A-B 0.42 

I 

I A-C 5.86 

I 

I A-D 3.09 

I 

I AB-C ( 5.90) 

I 

I AB-D ( 3.19) 7.62 0.419 1.14 0.74 11.7 0.23 

I 

I D-AB 0.67 7.38 0.091 0.14 0.10 1.6 0.15 

I 

I D-C 1.80 5.23 0.344 0.94 0.54 8.6 0.30 

I 

I C-D 1.84 

I 

I C-A 5.48 

I 

I C-B 0.12 

I 

I CD-A ( 6.03) 

I 

I CD-B ( 0.26) 7.51 0.034 0.05 0.04 0.5 0.14 

I 

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

I 17.15-17.30 

I 

I B-ACD 0.34 6.64 0.051 0.07 0.05 0.8 0.16 

I 

I A-B 0.35 

I 

I A-C 4.91 

I 

I A-D 2.58 

I 

I AB-C ( 4.94) 

I 

I AB-D ( 2.67) 7.87 0.340 0.74 0.52 8.2 0.19 

I 

I D-AB 0.56 7.83 0.072 0.10 0.08 1.2 0.14 

I 

I D-C 1.51 5.78 0.261 0.54 0.36 5.6 0.24 

I 

I C-D 1.54 

I 

I C-A 4.59 

I 

I C-B 0.10 

I 

I CD-A ( 5.05) 

I 

I CD-B ( 0.21) 7.83 0.027 0.04 0.03 0.4 0.13 

I 

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

. 

QUEUE FOR STREAM B-ACD

------------------------- 

TIME NO. OF 

SEGMENT VEHICLES 

ENDING IN QUEUE 

16.15 0.1 

16.30 0.1 

16.45 0.1 

17.00 0.1 

17.15 0.1 

17.30 0.1 

. 

QUEUE FOR STREAM AB-D 

------------------------- 

TIME NO. OF 



16.15 0.5 * 

16.30 0.7 * 

16.45 1.1 * 

17.00 1.1 * 

17.15 0.7 * 

17.30 0.5 * 

. 

QUEUE FOR STREAM D-AB 

------------------------- 

TIME NO. OF 



16.15 0.1 

16.30 0.1 

16.45 0.1 

17.00 0.1 

17.15 0.1 

17.30 0.1 

. 

QUEUE FOR STREAM D-C 

------------------------- 

TIME NO. OF



16.15 0.3 

16.30 0.5 * 

16.45 0.9 * 

17.00 0.9 * 

17.15 0.5 * 

17.30 0.4 

. 

QUEUE FOR STREAM CD-B 

------------------------- 

TIME NO. OF 



16.15 0.0 

16.30 0.0 

16.45 0.0 

17.00 0.0 

17.15 0.0 

17.30 0.0 

. 

QUEUEING DELAY INFORMATION OVER WHOLE PERIOD 

-------------------------------------------- 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I STREAM I TOTAL DEMAND I * QUEUEING * I * INCLUSIVE QUEUEING * I 

I I I * DELAY * I * DELAY * I 

I I----------------------------------------------------------------I 

I I (VEH) (VEH/H) I (MIN) (MIN/VEH) I (MIN) (MIN/VEH) I 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I B-ACD I 37.2 I 24.8 I 6.6 I 0.18 I 6.6 I 0.18 I 

I A-B I 38.5 I 25.7 I I I I I 

I A-C I 538.2 I 358.8 I I I I I 

I A-D I 283.5 I 189.0 I I I I I 

I AB-C I( 542.3)I( 361.5)I I I I I 

I AB-D I( 293.2)I( 195.4)I 69.7 I 0.24 I 69.7 I 0.24 I 

I D-AB I 61.9 I 41.3 I 9.5 I 0.15 I 9.5 I 0.15 I 

I D-C I 165.2 I 110.1 I 52.9 I 0.32 I 52.9 I 0.32 I 

I C-D I 169.3 I 112.9 I I I I I

I C-A I 503.8 I 335.8 I I I I I 

I C-B I 11.0 I 7.3 I I I I I 

I CD-A I( 553.3)I( 368.8)I I I I I 

I CD-B I( 23.4)I( 15.6)I 3.2 I 0.14 I 3.2 I 0.14 I 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I ALL I 1808.6 I 1205.7 I 141.9 I 0.08 I 141.9 I 0.08 I 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

* DELAY IS THAT OCCURRING ONLY WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD 

* INCLUSIVE DELAY INCLUDES DELAY SUFFERED BY VEHICLES 

WHICH ARE STILL QUEUEING AFTER THE END OF THE TIME PERIOD 

* THESE WILL ONLY BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT IF THERE IS 

A LARGE QUEUE REMAINING AT THE END OF THE TIME PERIOD. 

*******END OF RUN******* 


-------------------- 


STREAM B-A 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


I STREAM B-A STREAM A-C STREAM A-D STREAM A-B STREAM C-A I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I 543.03 0.22 0.22 0.09 0.14 I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


I STREAM D-A STREAM C-B STREAM D-B I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I 0.14 0.31 0.31 I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

STREAM D-C

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


I STREAM D-C STREAM C-A STREAM C-B STREAM C-D STREAM A-C I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


I STREAM B-C STREAM A-D STREAM B-D I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


STREAM CD-B 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


I STREAM CD-B STREAM A-B STREAM A-C STREAM A-D I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I 602.92 0.21 0.21 0.22 I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

STREAM AB-D 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


I STREAM AB-D STREAM C-D STREAM C-A STREAM C-B I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I 602.92 0.20 0.20 0.00 I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

STREAM B-CD 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


I STREAM B-CD STREAM A-C STREAM A-D STREAM A-B I

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I 698.00 0.24 0.24 0.09 I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

STREAM D-AB 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


I STREAM D-AB STREAM C-A STREAM C-B STREAM C-D I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 



------------------- 

----------------------- 


----------------------- 

I A I 100 I 

I B I 100 I 

I C I 100 I 

I D I 100 I 

----------------------- 

.Demand set: 2012 PM Base 





------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

I I NUMBER OF MINUTES FROM START WHEN I RATE OF FLOW (VEH/MIN) I




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

I ARM A I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 7.64 I 11.46 I 7.64 I 

I ARM B I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 0.29 I 0.43 I 0.29 I 

I ARM C I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 6.11 I 9.17 I 6.11 I 

I ARM D I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 2.05 I 3.07 I 2.05 I 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

.Demand set: 2012 PM Base 

-------------------------------------------------------------------- 




I ----------------------------------------------- 

I TIME I FROM/TO I ARM A I ARM B I ARM C I ARM D I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I 16.00 - 16.15 I I I I I I 

I I ARM A I 0.000 I 0.039 I 0.625 I 0.336 I 

I I I 0.0 I 24.0 I 382.0 I 205.0 I 

I I I ( 0.0)I ( 10.0)I ( 10.0)I ( 10.0)I 

I I I I I I I 

I I ARM B I 0.565 I 0.000 I 0.130 I 0.304 I 

I I I 13.0 I 0.0 I 3.0 I 7.0 I 

I I I ( 10.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 10.0)I ( 10.0)I 

I I I I I I I 

I I ARM C I 0.732 I 0.016 I 0.000 I 0.252 I 

I I I 358.0 I 8.0 I 0.0 I 123.0 I 

I I I ( 10.0)I ( 10.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 10.0)I 

I I I I I I I 

I I ARM D I 0.213 I 0.055 I 0.732 I 0.000 I 

I I I 35.0 I 9.0 I 120.0 I 0.0 I 

I I I ( 10.0)I ( 10.0)I ( 10.0)I ( 0.0)I 

I I I I I I I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------- 


DEFAULT PROPORTIONS OF HEAVY VEHICLES ARE USED


-------------------------------------------------------- 

FOR DEMAND SET 2012 PM Base 


.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

I 16.00-16.15 

I 

I B-ACD 0.29 6.86 0.042 0.00 0.04 0.6 0.15 

I 

I A-B 0.30 

I 

I A-C 4.79 

I 

I A-D 2.57 

I 

I AB-C ( 4.83) 

I 

I AB-D ( 2.66) 7.89 0.337 0.00 0.50 7.1 0.19 

I 

I D-AB 0.55 7.87 0.070 0.00 0.07 1.1 0.14 

I 

I D-C 1.51 5.84 0.258 0.00 0.34 4.8 0.23 

I 

I C-D 1.54 

I 

I C-A 4.49 

I 

I C-B 0.10 

I

I CD-A ( 4.93) 

I 

I CD-B ( 0.21) 7.87 0.027 0.00 0.03 0.4 0.13 

I 

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

I 16.15-16.30 

I 

I B-ACD 0.34 6.41 0.054 0.04 0.06 0.8 0.16 

I 

I A-B 0.36 

I 

I A-C 5.72 

I 

I A-D 3.07 

I 

I AB-C ( 5.77) 

I 

I AB-D ( 3.18) 7.65 0.415 0.50 0.69 10.0 0.22 

I 

I D-AB 0.66 7.43 0.089 0.07 0.10 1.4 0.15 

I 

I D-C 1.80 5.30 0.339 0.34 0.50 7.1 0.28 

I 

I C-D 1.84 

I

I C-A 5.36 

I 

I C-B 0.12 

I 

I CD-A ( 5.89) 

I 

I CD-B ( 0.25) 7.56 0.034 0.03 0.03 0.5 0.14 

I 

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

I 16.30-16.45 

I 

I B-ACD 0.42 5.78 0.073 0.06 0.08 1.1 0.19 

I 

I A-B 0.44 

I 

I A-C 7.01 

I 

I A-D 3.76 

I 

I AB-C ( 7.06) 

I 

I AB-D ( 3.89) 7.31 0.532 0.69 1.09 15.4 0.29 

I 

I D-AB 0.81 6.64 0.122 0.10 0.14 2.0 0.17 

I

I D-C 2.20 4.56 0.483 0.50 0.89 12.3 0.41 

I 

I C-D 2.26 

I 

I C-A 6.57 

I 

I C-B 0.15 

I 

I CD-A ( 7.21) 

I 

I CD-B ( 0.31) 7.12 0.044 0.03 0.05 0.7 0.15 

I 

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

I 16.45-17.00 

I 

I B-ACD 0.42 5.78 0.073 0.08 0.08 1.2 0.19 

I 

I A-B 0.44 

I 

I A-C 7.01 

I 

I A-D 3.76 

I 

I AB-C ( 7.06) 

I

I AB-D ( 3.89) 7.31 0.532 1.09 1.11 16.6 0.29 

I 

I D-AB 0.81 6.61 0.122 0.14 0.14 2.1 0.17 

I 

I D-C 2.20 4.55 0.484 0.89 0.91 13.5 0.42 

I 

I C-D 2.26 

I 

I C-A 6.57 

I 

I C-B 0.15 

I 

I CD-A ( 7.21) 

I 

I CD-B ( 0.31) 7.12 0.044 0.05 0.05 0.7 0.15 

I 

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

I 17.00-17.15 

I 

I B-ACD 0.34 6.41 0.054 0.08 0.06 0.9 0.16 

I 

I A-B 0.36 

I 

I A-C 5.72 

I

I A-D 3.07 

I 

I AB-C ( 5.77) 

I 

I AB-D ( 3.18) 7.65 0.415 1.11 0.73 11.5 0.23 

I 

I D-AB 0.66 7.41 0.089 0.14 0.10 1.5 0.15 

I 

I D-C 1.80 5.29 0.340 0.91 0.53 8.5 0.29 

I 

I C-D 1.84 

I 

I C-A 5.36 

I 

I C-B 0.12 

I 

I CD-A ( 5.89) 

I 

I CD-B ( 0.26) 7.56 0.034 0.05 0.04 0.5 0.14 

I 

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

I 17.15-17.30 

I 

I B-ACD 0.29 6.86 0.042 0.06 0.04 0.7 0.15 

I

I A-B 0.30 

I 

I A-C 4.79 

I 

I A-D 2.57 

I 

I AB-C ( 4.83) 

I 

I AB-D ( 2.66) 7.89 0.337 0.73 0.52 8.1 0.19 

I 

I D-AB 0.55 7.85 0.070 0.10 0.08 1.2 0.14 

I 

I D-C 1.51 5.82 0.259 0.53 0.36 5.6 0.23 

I 

I C-D 1.54 

I 

I C-A 4.49 

I 

I C-B 0.10 

I 

I CD-A ( 4.93) 

I 

I CD-B ( 0.21) 7.87 0.027 0.04 0.03 0.4 0.13 

I 

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

. 

QUEUE FOR STREAM B-ACD 

------------------------- 

TIME NO. OF 



16.15 0.0 

16.30 0.1 

16.45 0.1 

17.00 0.1

17.15 0.1 

17.30 0.0 

. 

QUEUE FOR STREAM AB-D 

------------------------- 

TIME NO. OF 



16.15 0.5 

16.30 0.7 * 

16.45 1.1 * 

17.00 1.1 * 

17.15 0.7 * 

17.30 0.5 * 

. 

QUEUE FOR STREAM D-AB 

------------------------- 

TIME NO. OF 



16.15 0.1 

16.30 0.1 

16.45 0.1 

17.00 0.1 

17.15 0.1 

17.30 0.1 

. 

QUEUE FOR STREAM D-C 

------------------------- 

TIME NO. OF 



16.15 0.3 

16.30 0.5 

16.45 0.9 * 

17.00 0.9 * 

17.15 0.5 * 

17.30 0.4

. 

QUEUE FOR STREAM CD-B 

------------------------- 

TIME NO. OF 



16.15 0.0 

16.30 0.0 

16.45 0.0 

17.00 0.0 

17.15 0.0 

17.30 0.0 

. 


-------------------------------------------- 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 



I I----------------------------------------------------------------I 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I B-ACD I 31.7 I 21.1 I 5.3 I 0.17 I 5.3 I 0.17 I 

I A-B I 33.0 I 22.0 I I I I I 

I A-C I 525.8 I 350.5 I I I I I 

I A-D I 282.2 I 188.1 I I I I I 

I AB-C I( 529.9)I( 353.3)I I I I I 

I AB-D I( 291.8)I( 194.5)I 68.6 I 0.24 I 68.7 I 0.24 I 

I D-AB I 60.6 I 40.4 I 9.2 I 0.15 I 9.2 I 0.15 I 

I D-C I 165.2 I 110.1 I 51.8 I 0.31 I 51.8 I 0.31 I 

I C-D I 169.3 I 112.9 I I I I I 

I C-A I 492.8 I 328.5 I I I I I 

I C-B I 11.0 I 7.3 I I I I I 

I CD-A I( 540.9)I( 360.6)I I I I I 

I CD-B I( 23.4)I( 15.6)I 3.2 I 0.14 I 3.2 I 0.14 I 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I ALL I 1771.5 I 1181.0 I 138.2 I 0.08 I 138.3 I 0.08 I 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

* DELAY IS THAT OCCURRING ONLY WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD





*******END OF RUN*******

TRL LIMITED 

(C) COPYRIGHT 2006 

CAPACITIES, QUEUES, AND DELAYS AT 3 OR 4-ARM MAJOR/MINOR PRIORITY JUNCTIONS 

PICADY 5.1 ANALYSIS PROGRAM 

RELEASE 4.0 (SEPT 2008) 

ADAPTED FROM PICADY/3 WHICH IS CROWN COPYRIGHT 

BY PERMISSION OF THE CONTROLLER OF HMSO 

-------------------------------------------------------- 

FOR SALES AND DISTRIBUTION INFORMATION, 

PROGRAM ADVICE AND MAINTENANCE CONTACT: 

TRL SOFTWARE BUREAU 

TEL: CROWTHORNE (01344) 770758, FAX: 770356 

EMAIL: Software@trl.co.uk 

-------------------------------------------------------- 


IN NO WAY RELIEVED OF HIS/HER RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SOLUTION 


"U:\SCT\2012\SCT3475-3599\SCT3526_BishoptonRetail\CALCULATIONS\TRAFFIC\PICADY\Station Rd_Greenock Rd\ 

Station Rd_Greenock Rd.vpi" 

(drive-on-the-left) at 10:28:40 on Tuesday, 13 November 2012 

.RUN INFORMATION 

*************** 

RUN TITLE : Greenock Rd/Station Rd 

LOCATION : Bishopton 

DATE : 09/11/12 

CLIENT :

ENUMERATOR : 

JOB NUMBER : SCT3526 

STATUS : 

DESCRIPTION : 

.MAJOR/MINOR JUNCTION CAPACITY AND DELAY 

*************************************** 

INPUT DATA 

---------- 

ARM A IS Greenock Road (E) 

ARM B IS Station Road 

ARM C IS Greenock Road (W) 

MAJOR ROAD (ARM C) --------------------- MAJOR ROAD (ARM A) 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

MINOR ROAD (ARM B) 

.STREAM LABELLING CONVENTION 

--------------------------- 

STREAM A-B CONTAINS TRAFFIC GOING FROM ARM A TO ARM B 

STREAM B-AC CONTAINS TRAFFIC GOING FROM ARM B TO ARM A AND TO ARM C 

ETC. 

.GEOMETRIC DATA 

-------------- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I DATA ITEM I MINOR ROAD B I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I TOTAL MAJOR ROAD CARRIAGEWAY WIDTH I ( W ) 7.30 M. I 

I CENTRAL RESERVE WIDTH I (WCR ) 0.00 M. I 

I I I

I MAJOR ROAD RIGHT TURN - WIDTH I (WC-B) 2.20 M. I 

I - VISIBILITY I (VC-B) 90.00 M. I 

I - BLOCKS TRAFFIC I YES I 

I I I 

I MINOR ROAD - VISIBILITY TO LEFT I (VB-C) 22.0 M. I 

I - VISIBILITY TO RIGHT I (VB-A) 50.0 M. I 

I - LANE 1 WIDTH I (WB-C) - I 

I - LANE 2 WIDTH I (WB-A) - I 

I WIDTH AT 0 M FROM JUNCTION I 10.00 M. I 





I - LENGTH OF FLARED SECTION I 2 VEHS I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


-------------------- 


--------------------------------------------------------- 

I Intercept For Slope For Opposing Slope For Opposing I 

I STREAM B-C STREAM A-C STREAM A-B I 

--------------------------------------------------------- 

I 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 

--------------------------------------------------------- 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


I STREAM B-A STREAM A-C STREAM A-B STREAM C-A STREAM C-B I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------- 


I STREAM C-B STREAM A-C STREAM A-B I 

--------------------------------------------------------- 

I 626.08 0.23 0.23 I 

--------------------------------------------------------- 

(NB These values do not allow for any site specific corrections) 


------------------- 

----------------------- 


----------------------- 

I A I 100 I 

I B I 100 I 

I C I 100 I 

----------------------- 






------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 





------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

I ARM A I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 7.07 I 10.61 I 7.07 I 

I ARM B I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 5.76 I 8.64 I 5.76 I

I ARM C I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 6.25 I 9.38 I 6.25 I 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 


----------------------------------------------------------- 




I -------------------------------------- 

I TIME I FROM/TO I ARM A I ARM B I ARM C I 

----------------------------------------------------------- 

I 16.00 - 16.15 I I I I I 

I I ARM A I 0.000 I 0.120 I 0.880 I 

I I I 0.0 I 68.0 I 498.0 I 

I I I ( 0.0)I ( 10.0)I ( 10.0)I 

I I I I I I 

I I ARM B I 0.299 I 0.000 I 0.701 I 

I I I 138.0 I 0.0 I 323.0 I 

I I I ( 10.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 10.0)I 

I I I I I I 

I I ARM C I 0.486 I 0.514 I 0.000 I 

I I I 243.0 I 257.0 I 0.0 I 

I I I ( 10.0)I ( 10.0)I ( 0.0)I 

I I I I I I 

----------------------------------------------------------- 




-------------------------------------------------------- 

FOR DEMAND SET 2012 PM Base + Development 


.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I


(MIN) I 

I 16.00-16.15 

I 

I B-C 4.05 8.54 0.475 0.00 0.88 12.3 0.22 

I 

I B-A 1.73 4.48 0.387 0.00 0.61 8.3 0.35 

I 

I C-AB 4.63 10.03 0.461 0.00 1.05 15.3 0.18 

I 

I C-A 1.65 

I 

I A-B 0.85 

I 

I A-C 6.25 

I 

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

I 16.15-16.30 

I 

I B-C 4.84 7.52 0.644 0.88 1.70 23.2 0.36 

I 

I B-A 2.07 3.76 0.550 0.61 1.13 15.3 0.57 

I 

I C-AB 6.01 10.19 0.589 1.05 1.78 26.9 0.24 

I

I C-A 1.49 

I 

I A-B 1.02 

I 

I A-C 7.46 

I 

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

I 16.30-16.45 

I 

I B-C 5.93 5.46 1.085 1.70 13.29 123.6 1.88 

I 

I B-A 2.53 2.36 1.074 1.13 7.29 70.0 2.66 

I 

I C-AB 8.31 10.44 0.796 1.78 4.48 65.1 0.43 

I 

I C-A 0.87 

I 

I A-B 1.25 

I 

I A-C 9.14 

I 

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

-----

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

I 16.45-17.00 

I 

I B-C 5.93 5.24 1.131 13.29 24.60 285.3 3.95 

I 

I B-A 2.53 2.32 1.091 7.29 11.73 143.6 4.77 

I 

I C-AB 8.39 10.50 0.799 4.48 4.88 76.9 0.49 

I 

I C-A 0.78 

I 

I A-B 1.25 

I 

I A-C 9.14 

I 

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

I 17.00-17.15 

I

I B-C 4.84 6.15 0.787 24.60 8.50 248.2 2.95 

I 

I B-A 2.07 2.71 0.764 11.73 5.12 127.1 3.59 

I 

I C-AB 6.11 10.28 0.594 4.88 2.01 33.5 0.27 

I 

I C-A 1.38 

I 

I A-B 1.02 

I 

I A-C 7.46 

I 

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

I 17.15-17.30 

I 

I B-C 4.05 8.19 0.495 8.50 1.01 24.6 0.31 

I 

I B-A 1.73 4.37 0.396 5.12 0.69 16.1 0.48 

I 

I C-AB 4.66 10.06 0.464 2.01 1.13 17.2 0.19 

I 

I C-A 1.61 

I 

I A-B 0.85 

I

I A-C 6.25 

I 

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

*WARNING* NO MARGINAL ANALYSIS OF CAPACITIES AS MAJOR ROAD BLOCKING MAY OCCUR 

. 

QUEUE FOR STREAM B-C 

------------------------- 

TIME NO. OF 



16.15 0.9 * 

16.30 1.7 ** 

16.45 13.3 ************* 

17.00 24.6 ************************* 

17.15 8.5 ******** 

17.30 1.0 * 

. 

QUEUE FOR STREAM B-A 

------------------------- 

TIME NO. OF 



16.15 0.6 * 

16.30 1.1 * 

16.45 7.3 ******* 

17.00 11.7 ************ 

17.15 5.1 ***** 

17.30 0.7 * 

. 

QUEUE FOR STREAM C-AB 

------------------------- 

TIME NO. OF 



16.15 1.1 *

. 

16.30 1.8 ** 

16.45 4.5 **** 

17.00 4.9 ***** 

17.15 2.0 ** 

17.30 1.1 * 


-------------------------------------------- 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 



I I----------------------------------------------------------------I 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I B-C I 444.6 I 296.4 I 717.2 I 1.61 I 717.3 I 1.61 I 

I B-A I 189.9 I 126.6 I 380.5 I 2.00 I 380.5 I 2.00 I 

I C-AB I 571.6 I 381.0 I 234.9 I 0.41 I 235.0 I 0.41 I 

I C-A I 116.7 I 77.8 I I I I I 

I A-B I 93.6 I 62.4 I I I I I 

I A-C I 685.5 I 457.0 I I I I I 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I ALL I 2101.8 I 1401.2 I 1332.6 I 0.63 I 1332.8 I 0.63 I 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

* DELAY IS THAT OCCURRING ONLY WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD 





*******END OF RUN******* 


-------------------- 


---------------------------------------------------------


I STREAM B-C STREAM A-C STREAM A-B I 

--------------------------------------------------------- 

I 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 

--------------------------------------------------------- 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


I STREAM B-A STREAM A-C STREAM A-B STREAM C-A STREAM C-B I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


--------------------------------------------------------- 


I STREAM C-B STREAM A-C STREAM A-B I 

--------------------------------------------------------- 

I 626.08 0.23 0.23 I 

--------------------------------------------------------- 

(NB These values do not allow for any site specific corrections) 


------------------- 

----------------------- 


----------------------- 

I A I 100 I 

I B I 100 I 

I C I 100 I 

----------------------- 

.Demand set: 2012 PM Base + Development - Option 2





------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 





------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

I ARM A I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 7.07 I 10.61 I 7.07 I 

I ARM B I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 5.22 I 7.84 I 5.22 I 

I ARM C I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 5.74 I 8.61 I 5.74 I 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

.Demand set: 2012 PM Base + Development - Option 2 

----------------------------------------------------------- 




I -------------------------------------- 


----------------------------------------------------------- 

I 16.00 - 16.15 I I I I I 

I I ARM A I 0.000 I 0.120 I 0.880 I 

I I I 0.0 I 68.0 I 498.0 I 

I I I ( 0.0)I ( 10.0)I ( 10.0)I 

I I I I I I 

I I ARM B I 0.330 I 0.000 I 0.670 I 

I I I 138.0 I 0.0 I 280.0 I 

I I I ( 10.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 10.0)I 

I I I I I I 

I I ARM C I 0.529 I 0.471 I 0.000 I 

I I I 243.0 I 216.0 I 0.0 I 

I I I ( 10.0)I ( 10.0)I ( 0.0)I

I I I I I I 

----------------------------------------------------------- 




-------------------------------------------------------- 

FOR DEMAND SET 2012 PM Base + Development - Option 2 


.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

I 16.00-16.15 

I 

I B-C 3.51 8.50 0.413 0.00 0.69 9.7 0.20 

I 

I B-A 1.73 4.76 0.364 0.00 0.55 7.6 0.32 

I 

I C-AB 3.89 10.03 0.388 0.00 0.80 11.6 0.16 

I 

I C-A 1.87 

I 

I A-B 0.85 

I 

I A-C 6.25 

I 

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

-----


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

I 16.15-16.30 

I 

I B-C 4.20 7.62 0.550 0.69 1.18 16.5 0.29 

I 

I B-A 2.07 4.17 0.496 0.55 0.93 12.9 0.46 

I 

I C-AB 5.05 10.18 0.495 0.80 1.26 19.0 0.19 

I 

I C-A 1.83 

I 

I A-B 1.02 

I 

I A-C 7.46 

I 

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

I 16.30-16.45 

I 

I B-C 5.14 5.49 0.935 1.18 6.25 67.5 1.12 

I

I B-A 2.53 2.81 0.902 0.93 4.20 45.7 1.61 

I 

I C-AB 6.97 10.43 0.669 1.26 2.59 38.7 0.28 

I 

I C-A 1.45 

I 

I A-B 1.25 

I 

I A-C 9.14 

I 

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

I 16.45-17.00 

I 

I B-C 5.14 5.22 0.983 6.25 9.83 123.0 1.95 

I 

I B-A 2.53 2.65 0.957 4.20 6.34 80.5 2.60 

I 

I C-AB 7.01 10.46 0.671 2.59 2.70 41.7 0.30 

I 

I C-A 1.41 

I 

I A-B 1.25 

I 

I A-C 9.14 

I

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

I 17.00-17.15 

I 

I B-C 4.20 7.05 0.595 9.83 1.57 40.6 0.53 

I 

I B-A 2.07 3.98 0.519 6.34 1.17 28.5 0.75 

I 

I C-AB 5.09 10.23 0.497 2.70 1.36 21.2 0.20 

I 

I C-A 1.79 

I 

I A-B 1.02 

I 

I A-C 7.46 

I 

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I


(MIN) I 

I 17.15-17.30 

I 

I B-C 3.51 8.44 0.416 1.57 0.73 11.7 0.21 

I 

I B-A 1.73 4.74 0.366 1.17 0.60 9.6 0.34 

I 

I C-AB 3.91 10.05 0.389 1.36 0.84 12.7 0.17 

I 

I C-A 1.85 

I 

I A-B 0.85 

I 

I A-C 6.25 

I 

I 

I 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

*WARNING* NO MARGINAL ANALYSIS OF CAPACITIES AS MAJOR ROAD BLOCKING MAY OCCUR 

. 

QUEUE FOR STREAM B-C 

------------------------- 

TIME NO. OF 



16.15 0.7 * 

16.30 1.2 * 

16.45 6.2 ****** 

17.00 9.8 ********** 

17.15 1.6 ** 

17.30 0.7 * 

. 

QUEUE FOR STREAM B-A 

------------------------- 

TIME NO. OF 

SEGMENT VEHICLES


16.15 0.6 * 

16.30 0.9 * 

16.45 4.2 **** 

17.00 6.3 ****** 

17.15 1.2 * 

17.30 0.6 * 

. 

QUEUE FOR STREAM C-AB 

------------------------- 

TIME NO. OF 



16.15 0.8 * 

16.30 1.3 * 

16.45 2.6 *** 

17.00 2.7 *** 

17.15 1.4 * 

17.30 0.8 * 

. 


-------------------------------------------- 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 



I I----------------------------------------------------------------I 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I B-C I 385.4 I 256.9 I 268.8 I 0.70 I 268.9 I 0.70 I 

I B-A I 189.9 I 126.6 I 184.8 I 0.97 I 184.9 I 0.97 I 

I C-AB I 478.8 I 319.2 I 145.0 I 0.30 I 145.0 I 0.30 I 

I C-A I 153.0 I 102.0 I I I I I 

I A-B I 93.6 I 62.4 I I I I I 

I A-C I 685.5 I 457.0 I I I I I 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I ALL I 1986.2 I 1324.1 I 598.6 I 0.30 I 598.8 I 0.30 I 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

* DELAY IS THAT OCCURRING ONLY WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD





*******END OF RUN*******

Output Summary 


User and Project Details 

Project: Dargavel Village 

Title: Proposed Village Centre Development 

Location: Greenock Road / Ferry Road / Rossland Crescent 

File name: Greenock Rd_Ferry Rd.lsg3x 

Author: F. Ocran 

Company: JMP Consultants Ltd 

Address: Glasgow 

Notes: 

Scenario 1: 'Scenario 1' (FG3: '2012 PM Base', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') 

Network Layout Diagram 

Greenock Road_Ferry Road 

PRC: 18.2 % 

Total Traffic Delay: 16.1 pcuHr 

A 

50.7% 

803 

1967 

Arm 1 - Greenock Road West 

Arm 5 - Greenock Road West Exit 

1 Inf Inf 0.0% 

1 


1 1832 702 4.3% 

Arm 6 - Ferry Road North Exit 

B 

Arm 2 - Ferry Road North 

Arm 4 - Rossland Crescent 

Arm 8 - Rossland Crescent Exit 

D 

1 1727 662 75.4% 


0.0% 

Inf 

Inf 

Arm 7 - Greenock Road East Exit 

Arm 3 - Greenock Road East 

1 1948 660 76.2% 

1 

C


Network Results 

Item 

Network: 

Proposed 


Development 

Greenock 

Road_Ferry 

Road 

1/1 

2/1 

3/1 

4/1 

Lane 

Description 

Lane 

Type 

Full 

Phase 

Arrow 

Phase 

Num 

Greens 

Total 

Green 

(s) 

Arrow 

Green 

(s) 

Demand 

Flow 

(pcu) 

Sat Flow 

(pcu/Hr) 

Capacity 

(pcu) 

Deg 

Sat 

(%) 

Turners 

In Gaps 

(pcu) 

Turners 

When 

Unopposed 

(pcu) 

Turners In 

Intergreen 

(pcu) 

Total 

Delay 

(pcuHr) 

Av. 

Delay 

Per PCU 

(s/pcu) 

- - - - - - - - - 76.2% 472 0 2 16.1 - - 

- - - - - - - - - 76.2% 472 0 2 16.1 - - 

Greenock 

Road West 

Left Ahead 

Right 

Ferry Road 

North Right 

Left Ahead 

Greenock 

Road East 

Ahead Right 

Left 

Rossland 

Crescent Left 

Ahead Right 

O A 1 48 - 407 1967 803 50.7% 8 0 0 3.5 31.0 10.6 

O B 1 45 - 499 1727 662 75.4% 269 0 0 6.0 43.0 15.9 

O C 1 48 - 503 1948 660 76.2% 188 0 2 6.4 46.1 16.4 

O D 1 45 - 30 1832 702 4.3% 7 0 0 0.2 25.9 0.6 

C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): 18.2 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 16.12 Cycle Time (s): 120 

PRC Over All Lanes (%): 18.2 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 16.12 

Mean 

Max 

Queue 

(pcu)


Scenario 2: 'Scenario 2' (FG1: '2012 PM Base plus Dev - Option 1', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') 



PRC: 8.7 % 


A 

50.2% 

836 

1968 




1 


1 1827 670 4.8% 


B 




D 

1 1726 633 82.8% 


0.0% 

Inf 

Inf 



1 1948 665 81.9% 

1 

C



Item 

Network: 

Proposed 


Development 

Greenock 

Road_Ferry 

Road 

1/1 

2/1 

3/1 

4/1 

Lane 

Description 

Lane 

Type 

Full 

Phase 

Arrow 

Phase 

Num 

Greens 

Total 

Green 

(s) 

Arrow 

Green 

(s) 

Demand 

Flow 

(pcu) 

Sat Flow 

(pcu/Hr) 

Capacity 

(pcu) 

Deg 

Sat 

(%) 

Turners 

In Gaps 

(pcu) 

Turners 

When 

Unopposed 

(pcu) 

Turners In 

Intergreen 

(pcu) 

Total 

Delay 

(pcuHr) 

Av. 

Delay 

Per PCU 

(s/pcu) 

- - - - - - - - - 82.8% 500 0 2 18.6 - - 

- - - - - - - - - 82.8% 500 0 2 18.6 - - 

Greenock 

Road West 

Left Ahead 

Right 

Ferry Road 

North Right 

Left Ahead 

Greenock 

Road East 

Ahead Right 

Left 

Rossland 

Crescent Left 

Ahead Right 

O A 1 50 - 420 1968 836 50.2% 8 0 0 3.4 29.5 10.7 

O B 1 43 - 524 1726 633 82.8% 269 0 0 7.3 50.5 18.2 

O C 1 50 - 545 1948 665 81.9% 214 0 2 7.5 49.7 18.7 

O D 1 43 - 32 1827 670 4.8% 9 0 0 0.2 27.4 0.7 



Mean 

Max 

Queue 

(pcu)


Scenario 3: 'Scenario 3' (FG2: '2012 PM Base plus Dev - Sen', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') 



PRC: 14.0 % 


A 

52.5% 

800 

1959 




1 


1 1878 720 9.7% 


B 




D 

1 1737 664 78.9% 


0.0% 

Inf 

Inf 



1 1948 644 78.1% 

1 

C



Item 

Network: 

Proposed 


Development 

Greenock 

Road_Ferry 

Road 

1/1 

2/1 

3/1 

4/1 

Lane 

Description 

Lane 

Type 

Full 

Phase 

Arrow 

Phase 

Num 

Greens 

Total 

Green 

(s) 

Arrow 

Green 

(s) 

Demand 

Flow 

(pcu) 

Sat Flow 

(pcu/Hr) 

Capacity 

(pcu) 

Deg 

Sat 

(%) 

Turners 

In Gaps 

(pcu) 

Turners 

When 

Unopposed 

(pcu) 

Turners In 

Intergreen 

(pcu) 

Total 

Delay 

(pcuHr) 

Av. 

Delay 

Per PCU 

(s/pcu) 

- - - - - - - - - 78.9% 485 0 2 17.5 - - 

- - - - - - - - - 78.9% 485 0 2 17.5 - - 

Greenock 

Road West 

Left Ahead 

Right 

Ferry Road 

North Right 

Left Ahead 

Greenock 

Road East 

Ahead Right 

Left 

Rossland 

Crescent Left 

Ahead Right 

O A 1 48 - 420 1959 800 52.5% 21 0 0 3.7 31.5 11.1 

O B 1 45 - 524 1737 664 78.9% 269 0 0 6.6 45.4 17.3 

O C 1 48 - 503 1948 644 78.1% 188 0 2 6.7 47.8 16.8 

O D 1 45 - 70 1878 720 9.7% 7 0 0 0.5 26.5 1.5 



Mean 

Max 

Queue 

(pcu)


Lane Input Data 

Junction: Greenock Road_Ferry Road 

Lane 

1/1 

(Greenock 

Road West) 

2/1 

(Ferry Road 

North) 

3/1 

(Greenock 

Road East) 

4/1 

(Rossland 

Crescent) 

5/1 

(Greenock 

Road West 

Exit) 

6/1 

(Ferry Road 

North Exit) 

7/1 

(Greenock 

Road East 

Exit) 

8/1 

(Rossland 

Crescent Exit) 

Lane 

Type 

Phase Input Data 

Phases Start 

Disp. 

End 

Disp. 

Physical 

Length 

(PCU) 

Sat 

Flow 

Type 

Def User 

Saturation 

Flow 

(PCU/Hr) 

Lane 

Width 

(m) 

Gradient Nearside 

Lane 

O A 2 3 60.0 Geom - 3.90 0.00 Y 

O B 2 3 60.0 Geom - 3.50 0.00 Y 

O C 2 3 60.0 Geom - 3.50 0.00 Y 

O D 2 3 60.0 Geom - 4.00 0.00 Y 

Turns 

Arm 6 

Left 

Arm 7 

Ahead 

Arm 8 

Right 

Arm 5 

Right 

Arm 7 

Left 

Arm 8 

Ahead 

Arm 5 

Ahead 

Arm 6 

Right 

Arm 8 

Left 

Arm 5 

Left 

Arm 6 

Ahead 

Arm 7 

Right 

U 2 3 60.0 Inf - - - - - - 

U 2 3 60.0 Inf - - - - - - 

U 2 3 60.0 Inf - - - - - - 

U 2 3 60.0 Inf - - - - - - 

Phase Name Phase Type Assoc. Phase Street Min Cont Min 

A Traffic 7 7 

B Traffic 7 7 

C Traffic 7 7 

D Traffic 7 7 

E Pedestrian 7 7 

Turning 

Radius 

(m) 

10.00 

Inf 

10.00 

10.00 

10.00 

Inf 

Inf 

Inf 

10.00 

10.00 

Inf 

10.00


Phase Diagram 

A 

Phase Intergreens Matrix 

Terminating 

Phase 

Phases in Stage 

Starting Phase 

A B C D E 

A - 7 - 5 8 

B 5 - 5 - 8 

C - 5 - 7 8 

D 5 - 5 - 8 

E 5 5 5 5 - 

Stage No. Phases in Stage 

1 A C 

2 B D 

3 E 

B 

E 

D 

C


Stage Diagram 

1 Min >= 7 

A 

B 

E 

D 

C 

2 Min >= 7 

A 

B 

E 

D 

C 

3 Min >= 7 

Stage Sequence Diagram 


1 Min: 7 

A C 

5 48s 

2 Min: 7 

B 

D 

7 45s 

A 

B 

E 

D 

3 Min: 7 

E 

8 7s 


1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 3 Min: 7 

A C 

5 50s 

B 

D 

7 43s 

E 

8 7s 


1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 3 Min: 7 

A C 

5 48s 

B 

D 

7 45s 

E 

8 7s 

C


Traffic Flows, Actual 


Actual Flow : 

Origin 

Destination 

A B C D Tot. 

A 0 45 354 8 407 

B 269 0 190 40 499 

C 283 190 0 30 503 

D 13 10 7 0 30 

Tot. 565 245 551 78 1439 


Actual Flow : 

Origin 

Destination 

A B C D Tot. 

A 0 45 367 8 420 

B 269 0 215 40 524 

C 297 216 0 32 545 

D 13 10 9 0 32 

Tot. 579 271 591 80 1521 


Actual Flow : 

Origin 

Destination 

A B C D Tot. 

A 0 45 354 21 420 

B 269 0 190 65 524 

C 283 190 0 30 503 

D 27 36 7 0 70 

Tot. 579 271 551 116 1517

Basic Results Summary 



Project: Dargavel village 


Location: A8 Greenock Road / Kinston Road 

File name: Kingston Rd_ Greenock Rd.lsg3x 




Notes: 

Scenario 1: 'Scenario 1' (FG3: 'Base', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') 


Kingston Rd_Greenock Road 

PRC: 40.7 % 


A 

41.3% 

1016 

1866 




1 


Arm 5 - Kingston Road Exit 

B 

Arm 2 - Kingston Road 

1 1709 266 63.9% 

0.0% 

Inf 

Inf 



1 1965 990 63.1% 

1 

C



Item 

Network: 

Proposed Village 

Centre 

Development 

Kingston 

Rd_Greenock 

Road 

1/1 

2/1 

3/1 

Lane 

Description 

Lane 

Type 

Full 

Phase 

Arrow 

Phase 

Num 

Greens 

Total 

Green 

(s) 

Arrow 

Green 

(s) 

Demand 

Flow 

(pcu) 

Sat Flow 

(pcu/Hr) 

Capacity 

(pcu) 

Deg 

Sat 

(%) 

Turners 

In Gaps 

(pcu) 

Turners 

When 

Unopposed 

(pcu) 

Turners In 

Intergreen 

(pcu) 

Total 

Delay 

(pcuHr) 

Av. 

Delay 

Per PCU 

(s/pcu) 

- - - - - - - - - 63.9% 185 0 0 7.9 - - 

- - - - - - - - - 63.9% 185 0 0 7.9 - - 

Greenock 

Road West 

Left Ahead 

Kingston 

Road Right 

Left 

Greenock 

Road East 

Ahead Right 

U A 1 48 - 420 1866 1016 41.3% - - - 1.8 15.1 6.4 

U C 1 13 - 170 1709 266 63.9% - - - 2.6 54.1 4.8 

O B 1 48 - 625 1965 990 63.1% 185 0 0 3.6 20.9 12.1 



Mean 

Max 

Queue 

(pcu)





PRC: 12.5 % 


A 

46.1% 

999 

1874 




1 



B 


1 1709 285 76.9% 

0.0% 

Inf 

Inf 



1 1965 899 80.0% 

1 

C



Item 

Network: 


Centre 

Development 

Kingston 

Rd_Greenock 

Road 

1/1 

2/1 

3/1 

Lane 

Description 

Lane 

Type 

Full 

Phase 

Arrow 

Phase 

Num 

Greens 

Total 

Green 

(s) 

Arrow 

Green 

(s) 

Demand 

Flow 

(pcu) 

Sat Flow 

(pcu/Hr) 

Capacity 

(pcu) 

Deg 

Sat 

(%) 

Turners 

In Gaps 

(pcu) 

Turners 

When 

Unopposed 

(pcu) 

Turners In 

Intergreen 

(pcu) 

Total 

Delay 

(pcuHr) 

Av. 

Delay 

Per PCU 

(s/pcu) 

- - - - - - - - - 80.0% 236 0 0 11.8 - - 

- - - - - - - - - 80.0% 236 0 0 11.8 - - 

Greenock 

Road West 

Left Ahead 

Kingston 

Road Right 

Left 

Greenock 

Road East 

Ahead Right 

U A 1 47 - 461 1874 999 46.1% - - - 2.1 16.3 7.5 

U C 1 14 - 219 1709 285 76.9% - - - 3.8 61.9 6.8 

O B 1 47 - 719 1965 899 80.0% 236 0 0 6.0 30.0 17.3 



Mean 

Max 

Queue 

(pcu)





PRC: 20.6 % 


A 

43.1% 

974 

1866 




1 



B 


1 1709 304 72.1% 

0.0% 

Inf 

Inf 



1 1965 906 74.6% 

1 

C



Item 

Network: 


Centre 

Development 

Kingston 

Rd_Greenock 

Road 

1/1 

2/1 

3/1 

Lane 

Description 

Lane 

Type 

Full 

Phase 

Arrow 

Phase 

Num 

Greens 

Total 

Green 

(s) 

Arrow 

Green 

(s) 

Demand 

Flow 

(pcu) 

Sat Flow 

(pcu/Hr) 

Capacity 

(pcu) 

Deg 

Sat 

(%) 

Turners 

In Gaps 

(pcu) 

Turners 

When 

Unopposed 

(pcu) 

Turners In 

Intergreen 

(pcu) 

Total 

Delay 

(pcuHr) 

Av. 

Delay 

Per PCU 

(s/pcu) 

- - - - - - - - - 74.6% 236 0 0 10.5 - - 

- - - - - - - - - 74.6% 236 0 0 10.5 - - 

Greenock 

Road West 

Left Ahead 

Kingston 

Road Right 

Left 

Greenock 

Road East 

Ahead Right 

U A 1 46 - 420 1866 974 43.1% - - - 1.9 16.5 6.8 

U C 1 15 - 219 1709 304 72.1% - - - 3.4 55.5 6.4 

O B 1 46 - 676 1965 906 74.6% 236 0 0 5.2 27.4 15.2 



Mean 

Max 

Queue 

(pcu)



Junction: Kingston Rd_Greenock Road 

Lane 

1/1 

(Greenock 

Road West) 

2/1 

(Kingston 

Road) 

3/1 

(Greenock 

Road East) 

4/1 

(Greenock 

Road West 

Exit) 

5/1 

(Kingston 

Road Exit) 

6/1 

(Greenock 

Road East 

Exit) 

Lane 

Type 


Phases Start 

Disp. 

End 

Disp. 

Physical 

Length 

(PCU) 

Sat 

Flow 

Type 

Def User 

Saturation 

Flow 

(PCU/Hr) 

Lane 

Width 

(m) 


Lane 

U A 2 3 60.0 Geom - 3.50 0.00 Y 

U C 2 3 60.0 Geom - 3.50 0.00 Y 

O B 2 3 60.0 Geom - 3.50 0.00 Y 

Turns 

Arm 5 

Left 

Arm 6 

Ahead 

Arm 4 

Right 

Arm 6 

Left 

Arm 4 

Ahead 

Arm 5 

Right 

U 2 3 60.0 Inf - - - - - - 

U 2 3 60.0 Inf - - - - - - 

U 2 3 60.0 Inf - - - - - - 




C Traffic 7 7 

D Pedestrian 6 6 

E Pedestrian 6 6 

F Pedestrian 6 6 

Turning 

Radius 

(m) 

10.00 

Inf 

10.00 

10.00 

Inf 

Inf


Phase Diagram 

C 

E 

A D 

F 

B 


Terminating 

Phase 



A B C D E F 

A - - 5 6 8 8 

B - - 5 7 8 6 

C 5 5 - 9 6 9 

D 9 9 9 - - - 

E 8 8 8 - - - 

F 8 8 8 - - - 


1 A B 

2 C 

3 D E F 

Stage Diagram 

1 Min >= 7 

C 

E 

A D 

F B 

2 Min >= 7 3 Min >= 6 

C 

E 

A D 

F B 

C 

E 

A D 

F B




1 Min: 7 

A B 

9 48s 

2 Min: 7 

C 

5 13s 

3 Min: 6 

D 

E 

9 6s 


1 Min: 7 

A B 

9 47s 

2 Min: 7 

C 

5 14s 

3 Min: 6 

D 

E 

9 6s 


1 Min: 7 

A B 

9 46s 

2 Min: 7 

C 

5 15s 

3 Min: 6 

D 

E 

9 6s 



Actual Flow : 

Origin 

Destination 

A B C Tot. 

A 0 149 271 420 

B 64 0 106 170 

C 440 185 0 625 

Tot. 504 334 377 1215 


Actual Flow : 

Origin 

Destination 

A B C Tot. 

A 0 149 312 461 

B 64 0 155 219 

C 483 236 0 719 

Tot. 547 385 467 1399 

F 

F 

F



Actual Flow : 

Origin 

Destination 

A B C Tot. 

A 0 149 271 420 

B 64 0 155 219 

C 440 236 0 676 

Tot. 504 385 426 1315




Project: Dargavel Village 


Location: Station Road Underpass 

File name: Station Road.lsg3x 




Notes: 



Station Road 

PRC: 111.2 % 


A 

41.0% 

415 

1915 

Arm 1 - Station Road South 

Arm 3 - Station Road South Exit 


1 

0.0% 

Inf 

Inf 

Arm 4 - Station Road North Exit 

Arm 2 - Station Road North 

1 1915 319 42.6% 

1 

B



Item 

Network: 


Centre 

Development 

Lane 

Description 

Lane 

Type 

Full 

Phase 

Arrow 

Phase 

Num 

Greens 

Total 

Green 

(s) 

Arrow 

Green 

(s) 

Demand 

Flow 

(pcu) 

Sat Flow 

(pcu/Hr) 

Capacity 

(pcu) 

Deg 

Sat 

(%) 

Turners 

In Gaps 

(pcu) 

Turners 

When 

Unopposed 

(pcu) 

Turners In 

Intergreen 

(pcu) 

Total 

Delay 

(pcuHr) 

Av. 

Delay 

Per PCU 

(s/pcu) 

- - - - - - - - - 42.6% 0 0 0 2.5 - - 

Station Road - - - - - - - - - 42.6% 0 0 0 2.5 - - 

1/1 

2/1 

Station Road 

South Ahead 

Station Road 

North Ahead 

U A 1 12 - 170 1915 415 41.0% - - - 1.3 27.6 2.8 

U B 1 9 - 136 1915 319 42.6% - - - 1.2 32.2 2.4 



Mean 

Max 

Queue 

(pcu)



Junction: Station Road 

Lane 

1/1 

(Station 

Road South) 

2/1 

(Station 

Road North) 

3/1 

(Station 

Road South 

Exit) 

4/1 

(Station 

Road North 

Exit) 

Lane 

Type 


Phases Start 

Disp. 

End 

Disp. 

Physical 

Length 

(PCU) 

Sat 

Flow 

Type 

Def User 

Saturation 

Flow 

(PCU/Hr) 

Lane 

Width 

(m) 


Lane 

U A 2 3 60.0 Geom - 3.00 0.00 Y 

U B 2 3 60.0 Geom - 3.00 0.00 Y 

Turns 

Arm 4 

Ahead 

Arm 3 

Ahead 

U 2 3 60.0 Inf - - - - - - 

U 2 3 60.0 Inf - - - - - - 




C Pedestrian 7 7 

Phase Diagram 

A C 

B 

Turning 

Radius 

(m) 

Inf 

Inf



Terminating 

Phase 



A B C 

A - 6 8 

B 6 - 8 

C 18 18 - 


1 A 

2 B 

3 C 

Stage Diagram 

1 Min >= 7 

A C 

B 

2 Min >= 7 

A C 

B 

3 Min >= 7 

A C 

B 



1 Min: 7 

A 

18 12s 

2 Min: 7 

6 9s 

B 

3 Min: 7 

C 

8 7s 



Actual Flow : 

Origin 

Destination 

A B Tot. 

A 0 170 170 

B 136 0 136 

Tot. 136 170 306

___________________ A R C A D Y 6 ___________________ 

ASSESSMENT OF ROUNDABOUT CAPACITY AND DELAY 

Analysis Program: Release 5.0 (JANUARY 2009) 

(c) Copyright TRL Limited, 2004 

Adapted from ARCADY/3 which is Crown Copyright 

by permission of the controller of HMSO 

______________________________________________________ 

For sales and distribution information, 

program advice and maintenance, contact: 

TRL Limited Tel: +44 (0) 1344 770758 

Crowthorne House Fax: +44 (0) 1344 770356 

Nine Mile Ride Email: software@trl.co.uk 

Wokingham, Berks. Web: www.trlsoftware.co.uk 

RG40 3GA,UK 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


IN NO WAY RELIEVED OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SOLUTION 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


"u:\SCT\2012\SCT3475-3599\SCT3526_BishoptonRetail\CALCULATIONS\TRAFFIC\ARCADY\ 

Station Rd_A8 Greenock Rd Option 1.vai" 

(drive-on-the-left ) at 11:07:21 on Tuesday, 27 November 2012 

.FILE PROPERTIES 

*************** 

RUN TITLE: Station Rd Test

LOCATION: 

DATE: 14/11/12 

CLIENT: 

ENUMERATOR: focran [GLA0728] 

JOB NUMBER: 

STATUS: 

DESCRIPTION: 

.INPUT DATA 

********** 

ARM A - A8 Greenock Rd E 

ARM B - Station Rd 

ARM C - A8 Greenock Rd W 

.MINI-ROUNDABOUT GEOMETRIC DATA 

------------------------------ 

LIGHTING CONDITIONS : NORMAL 

ROAD SURFACE CONDITION: NORMAL 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

--------- T5 

I ARM I V (M) I E (M) I Lm(M) I Vm(M) I A (M) I K (M) I G (%) I SLOPE I 

INTERCEPT I 

I I I I I I I I I I 

(PCU/MIN) I 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

--------- 

I ARM A I 4.10 I 6.80 I 4.50 I 3.90 I 16.00 I 3.00 I 0.00 I 0.596 I 

17.561 I 

I ARM B I 3.50 I 7.00 I 7.20 I 3.50 I 10.00 I 2.00 I 0.00 I 0.598 I 

14.869 I 

I ARM C I 3.63 I 3.50 I 0.00 I 3.50 I 19.99 I 20.00 I 0.00 I 1.106 I 

21.550 I 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

--------- 

V = approach half-width Lm = effective flare length A = distance between arms

E = entry width Vm = minimum approach half-width K= entry corner kerb line G=gradient over 50 m 


------------------- 

Only sets included in the current run are shown 

.SCALING FACTORS 

.----------------------- T13 

IARM I FLOW SCALE(%) I 

----------------------- 

I A I 100 I 

I B I 100 I 

I C I 100 I 

----------------------- 

TIME PERIOD BEGINS(16.00)AND ENDS(17.30) 

.LENGTH OF TIME PERIOD -( 90) MINUTES 

.LENGTH OF TIME SEGMENT - (15) MINUTES 

.DEMAND FLOW PROFILES ARE SYNTHESISED FROM THE TURNING COUNT DATA 

.DEMAND SET TITLE: PM Peak 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ T15 





------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

I ARM A I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 7.07 I 10.61 I 7.07 I 

I ARM B I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 5.76 I 8.64 I 5.76 I 

I ARM C I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 6.25 I 9.38 I 6.25 I 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEMAND SET TITLE: PM Peak 

.----------------------------------------------------------- T33 




I -------------------------------------- 


.----------------------------------------------------------- 

I 16.00 - 17.30 I I I I I 

I I ARM A I 0.000 I 0.120 I 0.880 I 

I I I 0.0 I 68.0 I 498.0 I 

I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I 

I I I I I I 

I I ARM B I 0.299 I 0.000 I 0.701 I 

I I I 138.0 I 0.0 I 323.0 I 

I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I 

I I I I I I 

I I ARM C I 0.486 I 0.514 I 0.000 I 

I I I 243.0 I 257.0 I 0.0 I 

I I I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I ( 0.0)I 

I I I I I I 

.----------------------------------------------------------- 


-------------------------------------------------------- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- T70 

I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDESTRIAN START END DELAY AVERAGE 

DELAY I 

I (VEH/MIN) (VEH/MIN) CAPACITY FLOW QUEUE QUEUE (VEH.MIN/ PER 

ARRIVING I 

I (RFC) (PEDS/MIN) (VEHS) (VEHS) TIME SEGMENT) VEHICLE 

(MIN) I 

- 

-

I 16.00-16.15 

I 

I ARM A 7.10 15.65 0.454 - - - 0.0 0.8 11.7 - 0.116 

I 

I ARM B 5.78 11.16 0.518 - - - 0.0 1.0 14.7 - 0.181 

I 

I ARM C 6.27 19.66 0.319 - - - 0.0 0.5 6.8 - 0.074 

I 

I 

I 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

- 

- 

I 16.15-16.30 

I 

I ARM A 8.48 15.27 0.555 - - - 0.8 1.2 17.6 - 0.146 

I 

I ARM B 6.91 10.43 0.663 - - - 1.0 1.9 25.9 - 0.275 

I 

I ARM C 7.49 19.28 0.389 - - - 0.5 0.6 9.2 - 0.085 

I 

I 

I 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

- 

- 

I 16.30-16.45 

I 

I ARM A 10.39 14.76 0.704 - - - 1.2 2.3 31.5 - 0.222 

I 

I ARM B 8.46 9.45 0.896 - - - 1.9 5.9 70.3 - 0.685 

I 

I ARM C 9.18 18.85 0.487 - - - 0.6 0.9 13.6 - 0.103 

I 

I 

I 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

- 

- 

I 16.45-17.00 

I 

I ARM A 10.39 14.75 0.704 - - - 2.3 2.3 34.5 - 0.229 

I 

I ARM B 8.46 9.41 0.899 - - - 5.9 6.9 97.7 - 0.881 

I 

I ARM C 9.18 18.78 0.489 - - - 0.9 0.9 14.2 - 0.104 

I 

I 

I

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

- 

- 

I 17.00-17.15 

I 

I ARM A 8.48 15.26 0.556 - - - 2.3 1.3 20.2 - 0.151 

I 

I ARM B 6.91 10.37 0.666 - - - 6.9 2.1 39.0 - 0.346 

I 

I ARM C 7.49 19.16 0.391 - - - 0.9 0.6 10.0 - 0.086 

I 

I 

I 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 


DELAY I 


ARRIVING I 


(MIN) I 

- 

- 

I 17.15-17.30 

I 

I ARM A 7.10 15.63 0.454 - - - 1.3 0.8 13.1 - 0.118 

I

I ARM B 5.78 11.12 0.520 - - - 2.1 1.1 17.7 - 0.192 

I 

I ARM C 6.27 19.61 0.320 - - - 0.6 0.5 7.3 - 0.075 

I 

I 

I 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----- 

.QUEUE AT ARM A 

-------------- 

TIME SEGMENT NO. OF 

ENDING VEHICLES 

IN QUEUE 

16.15 0.8 * 

16.30 1.2 * 

16.45 2.3 ** 

17.00 2.3 ** 

17.15 1.3 * 

17.30 0.8 * 

.QUEUE AT ARM B 

-------------- 



IN QUEUE 

16.15 1.0 * 

16.30 1.9 ** 

16.45 5.9 ****** 

17.00 6.9 ******* 

17.15 2.1 ** 

17.30 1.1 *

.QUEUE AT ARM C 

-------------- 



IN QUEUE 

16.15 0.5 

16.30 0.6 * 

16.45 0.9 * 

17.00 0.9 * 

17.15 0.6 * 

17.30 0.5 

.QUEUEING DELAY INFORMATION OVER WHOLE PERIOD 

.-------------------------------------------- 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- T75 

I ARM I TOTAL DEMAND I * QUEUEING * I * INCLUSIVE QUEUEING * I 


I I------------------------------------------------------------------I 


---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I A I 779.1 I 519.4 I 128.7 I 0.17 I 128.7 I 0.17 I 

I B I 634.5 I 423.0 I 265.2 I 0.42 I 265.2 I 0.42 I 

I C I 688.2 I 458.8 I 61.0 I 0.09 I 61.0 I 0.09 I 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I ALL I 2101.8 I 1401.2 I 454.9 I 0.22 I 455.0 I 0.22 I 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

* DELAY IS THAT OCCURRING ONLY WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD. 

* INCLUSIVE DELAY INCLUDES DELAY SUFFERED BY VEHICLES WHICH ARE STILL QUEUEING AFTER THE END OF THE TIME 

PERIOD.

* THESE WILL ONLY BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT IF THERE IS A LARGE QUEUE REMAINING AT THE END OF THE TIME 

PERIOD. 

END OF JOB

Appendix K 

Renfrewshire Council Consultation 


SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village (ROF Bishopton) K1

Renfrewshire Council Consultation 

1 – Note of Meeting 31 October 2012 

2 – Agreement of Meeting Note 

3 – Agreement of Zero Growth 


K2 SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village (ROF Bishopton)

Meeting Minutes 

Date 1 November 2012 

Meeting date 31 October 2012 

Venue Renfrewshire Council, Paisley 

Job No/ Name SCT3526 

Present John Everett (Council-Roads), John McDonald (JMP), Steven Livingstone (JMP) 

Subject ROF Bishopton Retail 

Meeting items Actions 

1. Introductions 

2. Development Overview 

JMcD summarised the current development proposals for Dargavel Village (ROF Bishopton), 

confirming that the only element that will change from the consented Masterplan is the foodstore. 

The 2008 Transport Assessment considered a foodstore with a gross floor area of 2,500m 2 

(although it is acknowledged the outline consent is for 1,000m 2 ). It is proposed to enhance the 

foodstore content from 2,500m 2 to 6,000m 2 . This increase in GFA is in response to a household 

survey that reviewed Bishopton shopping trends and the consideration of the requirements of a 

2,500 increase in housing supply. 

3. People Trip Generation 

SL advised that as the 2008 TA had already considered a 2,500m2 foodstore, it is proposed to 

only assess the net-increase in vehicle trips on the wider local road network. JMP had prepared a 

note of the proposed methodology to calculate the travel characteristics and vehicle trips for the 

6,000m 2 foodstore and this was discussed at the meeting. 

a) Analysis Period – JE agreed the critical assessment period for the proposed Masterplan with 

a 6,000m 2 foodstore is the weekday PM peak period. 

b) People Trip Assessment – JMP proposes to use latest survey data from the TRICS database 

(2012b) to calculate the total people trips and the mode share. JE confirmed this is 

acceptable. 

c) External & Internal Trip Distribution – The 2008 TA assumed that all of the trips associated 

with the 2,500m 2 foodstore would originate from the Masterplan site and have no impact on 

the wider road network. While the increase in floorspace will clearly generate trips from 

outwith the Dargavel, JMP propose to adopt a similar approach to the 2008 TA by discounting 

‘internally’ generated trips. JE agreed this approach was acceptable. 

SL advised that while the retail impact assessment has yet to be completed, the early results 

indicate that the vast majority of the additional custom will come from the existing Bishopton 

Village. It is proposed to base the ratio of internal (Dargavel) and external (Bishopton) trips on 

the number of houses upon full completion of Dargavel. This equates to 57% Dargavel and 

43% Bishopton. 

Page 1 of 3

Meeting at Renfrewshire Council JobNo. SCT3526 

31 October 2012 

Table 3 of the note indicated the ratio of external and internal trips by mode and included a 

comparison of the trips generated, and subsequently discounted, by the 2,500m 2 foodstore. 

JE agreed the methodology of calculating the ratio of internal and external trips was 

acceptable. JE also confirmed it is appropriate to discount the internally generated trips from 

the wider local road network of Bishopton Village. 

d) Pass-by / Diverted Trips – SL set out JMPs proposal to discount pass-by / diverted vehicle 

trips from the ‘total’ external vehicle trips. It was agreed by all that 30% pass-by / diverted is 

acceptable and this would likely be a mix of pass-by trips from the employment opportunities 

in Dargavel and from the park and ride and diverted trips from the existing Bishopton Village 

(returning from work). 

SL proposed that pass-by trips from Dargavel employment opportunities and the park and ride 

would already be included in the vehicle trip calculations for the Masterplan. SL also proposed 

that any diverted trips to the new store from Bishopton would be locally reassigned 

movements on the immediate local road network, therefore having no impact on traffic 

volumes. JMP therefore propose to discount 30% pass-by trips from the total vehicle trips, 

thereby providing a final net-increase of 191 two-way vehicle trips on the wider local road 

network of Bishopton, during the weekday PM peak period. JE confirmed this is acceptable. 

e) Distribution & Assignment – The distribution of vehicle trips to / from Bishopton will be based 

on a gravity model using population census output areas for Bishopton. JE agreed this is 

acceptable. 

The assignment of traffic to the local road network will be based on travel times with 100% of 

traffic via Station Road. JMcD advised that the northern and southern access points are likely 

to be constructed and linked via Dargavel by the time the foodstore is opened. SL highlighted 

there is therefore an alternative route for residents from the northern area of Bishopton. JE is 

reluctant to discount any further traffic that could go through Station Road and while it is 

accepted there may be an alternative route, the TA should still consider 100% via Station 

Road in the first instance. 

4. Growth Factor 

JMP assumes there will have been little or no growth in background traffic since traffic surveys 

were previously carried out in 2005. JMcD confirmed traffic surveys have been carried out along 

the A8, Station Rd and Rossland Crescent and these will be used to determine the actual level of 

growth. 

JE confirmed 0% growth would be acceptable if supported by the recent surveys. 

Note: It was generally agreed that should the recent traffic surveys demonstrate a reduction in 

traffic volumes, the flows used for the 2008 TA would be used to provide a robust analysis as all 

transport interventions have been based on the previous analysis. 

5. Assessment Years 

JMcD confirmed the year of completion for the full Dargavel Village is currently estimated to be 

around 2027 / 2028. In terms of the opening year of the foodstore, this will be market led but is 

likely to be around 2020. 

JE agreed that as the local roads infrastructure will be in place before Dargavel is fully built out 

and also prior to the opening of the foodstore, it is acceptable to assess a year of completion only 

for all of Dargavel i.e. 2027 with traffic growth if required. 

6. Committed Developments 

SL presented a table indicating all of the committed development that had been considered by the 

2008 TA. JE confirmed which developments had been completed and those developments where 

consent had lapsed or commencement had been delayed (primarily due to the recession). 

While it was acknowledged that the TA currently being prepared for the foodstore does not need 

to consider developments where the consent has lapsed, JE requested these are included as they 

Page 2of 3 

JMP 

JMP

Meeting at Renfrewshire Council JobNo. SCT3526 

31 October 2012 

are likely to be built out at some point and will also provide a robust analysis. SL and JMcD 

agreed this is acceptable as it will provide further support for using the 2008 analysis. 

7. Sensitivity Analysis – Rossland Crescent 

JMcD advised that there are currently ongoing discussions regarding Rossland Crescent (via 

Birch Road) and how this may operate as a vehicular link. The 2008 TA assumed this route would 

be subject to minimal change in use being predominantly a shared pedestrian / cyclist route. 

As with the use of the northern access road, JE is reluctant to consider any further reduction of 

traffic at Station Road which is seen to be a critical part of the local road network. However, JE did 

acknowledge Rossland Crescent could potentially be considered as a route to the Village Centre if 

it is designed as a high quality route to attract trips away from the A8 and Station Road. JE also 

stated it would be beneficial if a definitive layout could be identified sooner rather than later. 

JMcD confirmed the layout for Rossland Crescent is being considered but not as part of the TA 

(although it will include recommendations on its design). It is therefore proposed to only undertake 

a sensitivity analysis of retail traffic flows if this link is made available. 

8. Submission Programme 

JMcD briefly discussed the programme for submitting the planning application, highlighting it is 

JMP’s intention to have the TA completed by the end of November 2012. 

9. AOB 

SL raised the issue of parking for the retail development and the remainder of the land uses 

coming forward with the planning application (park & ride, housing, health centre, library, small 

retail units). In terms of the foodstore, it is hoped part its parking allocation could be shared with 

the park and ride, consequently allowing for the ‘on-site’ parking for the foodstore to be reduced. 

JE queried if it is intended to provide a town centre parking facility and, if so, how would this relate 

to the various land uses and their relevant locations within the site. SL highlighted that using 

foodstore parking as a shared town centre facility would depend on the operator of the store. As 

an end user has not yet been identified, SL anticipates there will be a range of parking numbers 

within the TA, with an upper and lower limit dependent on the range of sharing possible between 

each element. It was generally agreed this was appropriate. 

In addition, JE advised that this is seen as a town centre development and on-street parking could 

be incorporated into the design of the road. 

Distribution Attendees, Client Team 

Name/ Signed Steven Livingstone 

Page 3of 3 

JMP 

JMP 

JMP

Steven Livingstone 

From: john.everett@renfrewshire.gov.uk 

Sent: 14 November 2012 14:39 

To: Steven Livingstone 

Subject: Re: Bishopton Retail 

hi steven 

I confirm the content of the note to be representative 

regards 

John Everett 

Supervisory Engineer, Roads Development Team, Planning & Transport Services 

Renfrewshire Council, Cotton St, Paisley, PA1 1ST Tel 0300 3000 144 Fax 0141 618 7935 

Direct Dial 0141 618 7878 

Steven Kerrigan 0141 618 7871 Austin Reid 0141 618 7873 Stewart Marshall 0141 618 7879 Kathryn Cooper 0141 618 7882 

From: Steven Livingstone 

To: "John Everett (john.everett@renfrewshire.gov.uk)" , 

Cc: John McDonald , Kelvin Clarke 

Date: 02/11/2012 14:46 

Subject: Bishopton Retail 

link to doc 

John 

Thank you for meeting with myself and John McDonald to have what we believe was a productive discussion regarding the 

traffic impact for the enhanced foodstore. 

I would be grateful if you could review the attached file and confirm if it is an accurate note of our meeting? 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. 

Kind Regards 

Steven 

Regards, 


Senior Engineer 

JMP Consultants Ltd, Mercantile Chambers, 53 Bothwell Street, Glasgow G2 6TS 

[D] 0141 226 6926 

[T] 0141 221 4030 

[F] 0800 066 4367 

[W] http://www.jmp.co.uk 

JMP is on Twitter! Follow us - http://twitter.com/#!/_JMP 

Please consider the environment before printing this email. 

********************************************************************** 

JMP Consultants Ltd 

Registered office: Mercantile Chambers, 53 Bothwell Street, Glasgow, G2 6TS 

Registration number: SC88006 

1

This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, may contain confidential information 

and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you 

should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender 

immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this email 

from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that 

disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of 

this information is strictly prohibited. 

Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses 

are present in this e-mail, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or 

damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments. 

You are invited to read our full email disclaimer transcript at: 

http://www.jmp.co.uk/email.htm 

********************************************************************** 

********************************************************************** 

Renfrewshire Council Website - http://www.renfrewshire.gov.uk 

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for 

the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received 

this email in error please notify the system manager. 

Renfrewshire Council may, in accordance with the Telecommunications(Lawful Business 

Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000, intercept e-mail messages 

for the purpose of monitoring or keeping a record of communications on the Council's 

system. If a message contains inappropriate dialogue it will automatically be 

intercepted by the Council's Internal Audit section who will decide whether or not the 

e-mail should be onwardly transmitted to the intended recipient(s). 

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by Sophos for the 

presence of computer viruses. 

********************************************************************** 

2


From: john.everett@renfrewshire.gov.uk 

Sent: 14 November 2012 14:43 

To: Steven Livingstone 

Subject: Re: Bishopton Retail - Traffic Growth 

hi steven 

I confirm agreement with the rational being used 

regards 

John Everett 

Supervisory Engineer, Roads Development Team, Planning & Transport Services 

Renfrewshire Council, Cotton St, Paisley, PA1 1ST Tel 0300 3000 144 Fax 0141 618 7935 

Direct Dial 0141 618 7878 

Steven Kerrigan 0141 618 7871 Austin Reid 0141 618 7873 Stewart Marshall 0141 618 7879 Kathryn Cooper 0141 618 7882 

From: Steven Livingstone 

To: "John Everett (john.everett@renfrewshire.gov.uk)" , 

Date: 07/11/2012 09:26 

Subject: Bishopton Retail - Traffic Growth 

link to [attachment "Traffic Growth.xls" deleted by John Everett/PlanningTransport/Renfrewshire_Council] 

John 

As we discussed at the recent meeting, we have carried out recent surveys to determine if there has been any growth in 

background in traffic volumes in Bishopton since the 2008 Transport Assessment. 

As you may recall, there has been a significant level of data collected over the past decade to support the various studies for the 

Masterplan. While we have tried to utilise the most recent data where possible, we have had to use a mix of 2002 and 2005 

data. For confirmation, the 2002 data was still used by the 2008 TA and factored to the design year using low growth. This 

growth factor was established by comparing 2005 data to 2002 and while we recognise it is now 10 years old, we would 

consider that it still provides an appropriate basis to determine the level of traffic growth in Bishopton. 

The results indicate that there has been a mixture of growth and reduction in traffic but overall, traffic has reduced on the A8 

through Bishopton. Based on these results, we would propose to use the traffic analysis and flows from the 2008 TA to assess 

the impact the additional trips generated by the 6,000m2 foodstore will have on the local road network. In doing so, this will 

provide a robust analysis against the 2008 TA which identified the infrastructure improvements for the Masterplan. 

Furthermore, by using the 2008 analysis, traffic flows will include development that was considered ‘committed’ at the time but 

have not been completed for a variety of reasons. 

I would be grateful if you could review the above along with the attached spreadsheet and confirm if you are happy with our 

conclusion. As discussed at the recent meeting, timescales for completing the TA are extremely tight so your earliest response 

would be gratefully appreciated. 

Kind Regards 

Steven 

Regards, 


Senior Engineer 

JMP Consultants Ltd, Mercantile Chambers, 53 Bothwell Street, Glasgow G2 6TS 

1

[D] 0141 226 6926 

[T] 0141 221 4030 

[F] 0800 066 4367 

[W] http://www.jmp.co.uk 

JMP is on Twitter! Follow us - http://twitter.com/#!/_JMP 

Please consider the environment before printing this email. 

********************************************************************** 

JMP Consultants Ltd 

Registered office: Mercantile Chambers, 53 Bothwell Street, Glasgow, G2 6TS 

Registration number: SC88006 

This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, may contain confidential information 

and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you 

should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender 

immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this email 

from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that 

disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of 

this information is strictly prohibited. 

Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses 

are present in this e-mail, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or 

damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments. 

You are invited to read our full email disclaimer transcript at: 

http://www.jmp.co.uk/email.htm 

********************************************************************** 

********************************************************************** 

Renfrewshire Council Website - http://www.renfrewshire.gov.uk 

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for 

the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received 

this email in error please notify the system manager. 

Renfrewshire Council may, in accordance with the Telecommunications(Lawful Business 

Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000, intercept e-mail messages 

for the purpose of monitoring or keeping a record of communications on the Council's 

system. If a message contains inappropriate dialogue it will automatically be 

intercepted by the Council's Internal Audit section who will decide whether or not the 

e-mail should be onwardly transmitted to the intended recipient(s). 

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by Sophos for the 

presence of computer viruses. 

********************************************************************** 

2

Traffic Assessment - Renfrewshire Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?