Traffic Assessment - Renfrewshire Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 DoS% = Degree of Saturation where 90% is considered to be the practical capacity 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. Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village Proposed Village Core Development 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. Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 24 SCT3526 1 1 Dargavel Village Proposed Village Core Development
Page 1 and 2: Dargavel Village Proposed Village C
Page 3 and 4: Dargavel Village Proposed Village C
Page 5 and 6: Travel Plan........................
Page 7 and 8: 1.3 The vehicular access strategy f
Page 9 and 10: 2 Existing and Committed Transport
Page 11 and 12: Public Transport 2.12 Conditions 13
Page 13 and 14: Table 2.3 Dargavel Masterplan - Bus
Page 15 and 16: Greenock Road / Kingston Road 2.34
Page 17 and 18: 3.7 Furthermore, with the increase
Page 19 and 20: Table 3.4 Internal & External Peopl
Page 21 and 22: 3.31 Following the preparation of a
Page 23 and 24: 4.7 As the consented infrastructure
Page 25 and 26: 4.17 With regard to the signalised
Page 27: Table 4.5 A8 Greenock Road / Statio
Page 31 and 32: • Junction format and is there a
Page 33 and 34: Figure 5.1 Station Road Underpass F
Page 35 and 36: Table 5.1 Dargavel Masterplan - Bus
Page 37 and 38: 6 Car Parking Strategy Management 6
Page 39 and 40: Table 6.2 Town Centre Shared Trips
Page 41 and 42: 7 Conclusions 7.1 JMP Consultants L
Page 43 and 44: Rossland Crescent Access • A furt
Page 45: Consented Masterplan Page Job No Re
Page 49 and 50: Indicative Village Centre Layout Pa
Page 52 and 53: Appendix C Walking and Cycling Info
Page 54 and 55: © Crown copyright. All rights rese
Page 56: Key NCN 75 NCN 7 Existing National
Page 59: Park and Ride Indicative JMP 2011 P
Page 63: Proposed Bus Network Proposals JMP
Page 67 and 68: Traffic Data Figure F1 - Weekday PM
Page 69 and 70: Old Greenock Road Ferry Road Kingst
Page 71 and 72: In 94 Out 98 Old Greenock Road Ferr
Page 73 and 74: Old Greenock Road Ferry Road Kingst
Page 75 and 76: Output Area Population Distribution
Page 77 and 78: Old Greenock Road Ferry Road Kinsto
Page 79 and 80:
Weekday Arrivals Departures Totals
Page 81 and 82:
2008 Transport Assessment Chapter 4
Page 83 and 84:
4.10 It has been assumed that all p
Page 85 and 86:
4.26 It should be noted that althou
Page 87 and 88:
Employment 4.38 As with the residen
Page 89 and 90:
Secondary Education 4.52 The second
Page 91 and 92:
Table 4.13 Peak Hour Residential an
Page 93 and 94:
Table 4.16 Proposed Residential Dev
Page 95 and 96:
Methodology for Employment Developm
Page 97 and 98:
Table 4.24 Employment Development -
Page 99 and 100:
Conclusion 4.80 The residual car tr
Page 102 and 103:
Appendix H Proposed Road Infrastruc
Page 104:
Rev. Client Project Title Date Draw
Page 108 and 109:
TRICS and Trip Generation Calculati
Page 110 and 111:
TRICS 2012(b)v6.10.2 171012 B15.27
Page 112 and 113:
TRICS 2012(b)v6.10.2 171012 B15.27
Page 114 and 115:
TRICS 2012(b)v6.10.2 171012 B15.27
Page 116 and 117:
Bishopton Retail Trip Generation Ca
Page 118 and 119:
Bishopton Retail Transport Assessme
Page 120 and 121:
Junction Analysis Output Files 1 -
Page 122 and 123:
ENUMERATOR : JOB NUMBER : SCT3526 S
Page 124 and 125:
-----------------------------------
Page 126 and 127:
TIME PERIOD BEGINS 16.00 AND ENDS 1
Page 128 and 129:
I D-C 1.51 5.79 0.260 0.00 0.34 4.9
Page 130 and 131:
I A-D 3.78 I I AB-C ( 7.23) I I AB-
Page 132 and 133:
I 17.00-17.15 I I B-ACD 0.40 6.18 0
Page 134 and 135:
------------------------- TIME NO.
Page 136 and 137:
I C-A I 503.8 I 335.8 I I I I I I C
Page 138 and 139:
-----------------------------------
Page 140 and 141:
. QUEUE AND DELAY INFORMATION FOR E
Page 142 and 143:
I C-A 5.36 I I C-B 0.12 I I CD-A (
Page 144 and 145:
I AB-D ( 3.89) 7.31 0.532 1.09 1.11
Page 146 and 147:
I A-B 0.30 I I A-C 4.79 I I A-D 2.5
Page 148 and 149:
. QUEUE FOR STREAM CD-B -----------
Page 150 and 151:
TRL LIMITED (C) COPYRIGHT 2006 CAPA
Page 152 and 153:
I MAJOR ROAD RIGHT TURN - WIDTH I (
Page 154 and 155:
I ARM C I 15.00 I 45.00 I 75.00 I 6
Page 156 and 157:
I C-A 1.49 I I A-B 1.02 I I A-C 7.4
Page 158 and 159:
I B-C 4.84 6.15 0.787 24.60 8.50 24
Page 160 and 161:
. 16.30 1.8 ** 16.45 4.5 **** 17.00
Page 162 and 163:
TIME PERIOD BEGINS 16.00 AND ENDS 1
Page 164 and 165:
I TIME DEMAND CAPACITY DEMAND/ PEDE
Page 166 and 167:
I I .------------------------------
Page 168 and 169:
ENDING IN QUEUE 16.15 0.6 * 16.30 0
Page 170 and 171:
Output Summary Output Summary User
Page 172 and 173:
Output Summary Scenario 2: 'Scenari
Page 174 and 175:
Output Summary Scenario 3: 'Scenari
Page 176 and 177:
Output Summary Lane Input Data Junc
Page 178 and 179:
Output Summary Stage Diagram 1 Min
Page 180 and 181:
Basic Results Summary Basic Results
Page 182 and 183:
Basic Results Summary Scenario 2: '
Page 184 and 185:
Basic Results Summary Scenario 3: '
Page 186 and 187:
Basic Results Summary Lane Input Da
Page 188 and 189:
Basic Results Summary Stage Sequenc
Page 190 and 191:
Basic Results Summary Basic Results
Page 192 and 193:
Basic Results Summary Lane Input Da
Page 194 and 195:
___________________ A R C A D Y 6 _
Page 196 and 197:
E = entry width Vm = minimum approa
Page 198 and 199:
I 16.00-16.15 I I ARM A 7.10 15.65
Page 200 and 201:
-----------------------------------
Page 202 and 203:
.QUEUE AT ARM C -------------- TIME
Page 205 and 206:
Appendix K Renfrewshire Council Con
Page 207 and 208:
Meeting Minutes Date 1 November 201
Page 209 and 210:
Meeting at Renfrewshire Council Job
Page 211 and 212:
This e-mail, and any files transmit
Page 213:
[D] 0141 226 6926 [T] 0141 221 4030
show all

Traffic Assessment - Renfrewshire Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?