Proof of Evidence - Traffic Appendices

INQUIRY DOCUMENT No. SD2/3/3 

A46 Newark to Widmerpool 

Improvement 

Supplementary Orders 

Proof of Evidence 

Traffic Appendices 

by 

David Elliott BSc (Hons), CMILT, MCIHT 

October 2011 

Highways Agency 

Balfour Beatty 

The Cube 

86 Station Road 

199 Wharfside Street Redhill 

Birmingham 

Surrey 

B1 1RN 

RH1 1PQ 

Jacobs 

Friars House 

Manor House Drive 

Coventry 

CV1 2TE 

URS Scott Wilson Ltd 

Royal Court 

Basil Close 

Chesterfield 

Derbyshire 

S41 7SL

A46 Newark to Widmerpool Improvement – Supplementary Orders 

Traffic Evidence Appendices: October 2011 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A: 

Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 

Appendix B: Comparison of Traffic Model Forecasts with the 2009 

Observed Flows at Farndon Roundabout 

Appendix C: 

Appendix D: 

Appendix E: 

Appendix F: 

Appendix G: 

Appendix H: 

Appendix I: 

Comparison of Planning Data from NTEM v5.3 With NTEM 

v6.2 

Transport Economics Tables for the Scheme 

Design Reference Flows for Farndon Roundabout 

Sites Served by the Access 

Trip Observations for Access 

Forecast Year Operation Analysis of Existing Access onto 

B6166 

Operation Analysis of Farndon Roundabout 

David Elliott 1 

A46NWI 2011PI Traffic Appendices v6.doc







APPENDIX A: 

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

Abbreviation Description 

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic Flow: the total flow of traffic per year divided by 365 

AAWT 

AIL 

AMCB 

ARCADY 

Assignment 

AST 

ATC 

BCR 

Capacity 

Cars 

Casualty 

COBA 

Committed 

Convergence 

CRF 

Destination 

DfT 

DIADEM 

Annual Average Weekday Traffic: the average traffic on a weekday 

(Monday-Friday) 

Abnormal Indivisible Load 

Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits: A table summarising a 

scheme’s monetary evaluation 

Computer programme for the design of roundabouts 

The process where SATURN routes the traffic stored in the matrices along 

the stored network of roads and junctions. It examines the cost of each 

potential route from one zone to another, and directs traffic along these 

routes, resulting in total flows along each link and through each junction. 

Appraisal Summary Table: A table that summarises the assessment of a 

scheme against the Government’s objectives for transport. The table is 

intended to be presented in a concise format and thereby facilitate 

comparisons between alternatives. 

Automatic Traffic Count 

Benefit to Cost Ratio: Used as a measure of the value for money of a 

scheme, this is the Present Value of Benefits (PVB) divided by the Present 

Value of Costs (PVC) 

The maximum number of vehicles able to go through a junction or along 

a road given the traffic conditions 

Passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of less than 3.5 tonnes. 

Such vehicles can normally accommodate not more than 15 seats. 

A person injured in a PIA (there may be more than one casualty in a PIA) 

The DoT's Cost Benefit Analysis programme to determine economic 

viability of road schemes. 

A development or road scheme which is contained within the Local Plan 

or the TPI, and can therefore be assumed to go ahead within the 

foreseeable future. This implies a degree of political and financial 

commitment 

A measure of how well the route choice decisions within the model are 

settling down to an stable set of traffic flows 

Congestion Reference Flow, the maximum sustainable daily throughput of 

a road as defined by TA46/97 Annex D. 

The end point of a trip 

Department for Transport 

Dynamic Integrated Assignment and Demand Modelling – a computer 

program designed to enable variable-demand modelling consistent with 

the advice in WebTAG 






DM 

DMRB 

DOS 

DS 

ECI 

EMM1TAM 

GDP 

GO 

HA 

HATRIS 

HGV 

INCA 

Iteration 

ITR 

Link 

LGV 

LMVR 

Do Minimum: in forecasting scenarios this means the road schemes which 

are already included in the Local Plan or TPI and would be undertaken 

regardless, but which are not part of the scheme being tested. 

The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges is a technical document for 

road designers 

Degree of Saturation at a traffic-signalled junction 

Do Something: a forecasting scenario which includes the road scheme 

being tested, as well as any other schemes which are already included in 

the Local Plan or TPI and would be undertaken regardless. 

Early Contractor Initiative: a scheme where the contractor is involved at 

an early stage of the design and takes on the design and financial risk 

involved. 

East Midlands M1 Traffic Appraisal Model – The traffic model built to 

forecast the traffic flows associated with the M1 widening scheme. 

Gross Domestic Product 

Government Office – The Government Office works in coordination to 

deliver polices on behalf of the DLTR, the Department for Education and 

Skills, DTI, the Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and 

Sport, DEFRA, and the Department for Work and Pensions 

Highways Agency 

Highways Agency Trunk Road Information System – A Database of flow 

and delay information for all trunk roads. 

Heavy Goods Vehicle – Goods carrying vehicle over 3,500 kg design gross 

weight. Within this evidence OGV is used. HGV is not a defined vehicle 

class and so some witnesses also refer to these as Large Goods Vehicles 

(LGV). 

Incident Cost-Benefit Analysis: A spreadsheet-based computer program 

for calculating delays and travel time variability costs relating to 

incidents, and the benefits that may arise from remedial measures to 

reduce their impact. 

SATURN runs SATALL then SATASS, the results of this are then fed into 

another run of SATALL. Each time SATALL and SATASS is run is known 

as an iteration or loop. 

Indirect tax revenue (e.g. fuel duty). 

The representation of a road within the SATURN model. In the simulation 

area these connect the junctions (nodes), in the buffer area they 

represent the road as a whole including the effects of any junctions. 

Light Goods Vehicle – Goods vehicle not exceeding 3,500 kg design gross 

weight. This term is used in relation to one of the vehicle types included 

in the traffic model. 

Note: Other witnesses may use LGV to mean ‘Large Goods Vehicle’. 

Local Model Validation Report – Showing that the SATURN Model is 

correctly representing the observed traffic movements 






Loops 

MAC 

MCC 

MMS 

Mode 

Model 

Node 

Network 

NPV 

NRTF 

NTEM 

NTM 

NTS 

OGV 

OGV1 

OGV2 

SATURN runs SATALL then SATASS, the results of this are then fed into 

another run of SATALL. Each time SATALL and SATASS combination is 

one iteration or loop. 

Managing Agents Contractor – This is meaning for a term maintenance 

contactor 

Manual Classified Count. Traffic count conducted by enumerators at the 

side of the road. Enumerators record vehicles by standard type 

classifications. 

Multi Modal Studies – The overall aim of these studies is to make 

recommendations for long-term strategies to address passenger and 

freight transport needs within study corridors, several Multi-Modal 

Studies being undertaken on behalf of Regional Government Offices 

throughout the country 

The type of travel undertaken: the main modes of travel are cars, OGVs, 

public transport (road), rail, air, sea. 

A computer based mathematical representation of the road network and 

trips using it, used to forecast effects of traffic growth and change in road 

structure. 

The representation of a junction within the SATURN model. In the 

simulation area, the modelling of nodes represents capacity restraint and 

delay associated with junctions. In the buffer area, capacity restraint and 

delay are not modelled at nodes. 

SATURN representation of the road system, with all roads and junctions 

of interest described mathematically. 

Net Present Value – Is the difference between the Present Value of Costs 

(PVC) and the Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 

National Road Traffic Forecasts. Forecasts of traffic taking into account 

the length of trips. Outputs from NRTF should be considered in terms of 

vehicle-kilometres. 

National Trip End Model. A component of the NTM that outputs growth in 

trips for a study area. The NTEM calculates the trips rates for Districts, 

and large communities within each Districts (NTEM zones) based upon 

population data and land use (i.e. jobs and households). 

National Transport Model. An integrated multi-modal model, developed 

and maintained by the Department of Transport, which represents travel 

movements across the UK and makes forecasts. 

National Travel Survey. 

Other Goods Vehicle (category 1 or 2). A vehicle greater than 3,500 kg 

design gross weight (i.e. not light goods). OGV is a vehicle class used in 

manual classified traffic counts and is a vehicle type represented by the 

traffic model. 

Other Goods Vehicle – Category 1 (rigid goods vehicle with three axles or 

less, bus or coach) 

Other Goods Vehicle – Category 2 (rigid goods vehicles with four or more 

axles, or articulated goods vehicles, or OGV1 goods vehicles towing 

caravans or trailers). 






Origin 

PIA 

PICADY 

PSA 

PSV 

PVB 

PVC 

RFC 

RPF 

RPS 

RPI 

RSI 

RTA 

SATURN 

Simulation 

SPECS 

Stabilized 

TAME 

TEE 

TEMPRO 

TPI 

The start point of a trip 

Personal Injury Accident 

Computer programme for assessing the capacity and design of priority 

junctions 

Public Service Agreement – a set of Department for Transport and 

Highways Agency performance targets 

Passenger Service Vehicle (with a gross vehicle weight of 3.5 tonnes or 

more, usually having more than 16 seats) 

Present Value of Benefits 

Present Value of Costs (including indirect tax revenue as a negative cost) 

Ratio of Flow to Capacity 

Relative Price Factor 

Registration Plate Survey: a traffic survey in which vehicles’ registration 

plate details are recorded, then matched up to examine where vehicles 

enter and leave the surveyed area 

Retail Price Index 

Road Side Interview – a surveying technique where drivers are 

interviewed to determine journey and purpose details 

Road Traffic Accident: An accident on the highway that has been recorded 

by the police on their database. 

Simulation and Assignment of Traffic in Urban Road Networks – A suite of 

computer programmes designed to store traffic and road based 

information, route the traffic through the road network (assignment), and 

analyse the operational capabilities of the junctions (simulation) 

The process within SATURN of calculating the amount of delay caused by 

the level of traffic wishing to use each junction. 

Average speed cameras, which time vehicles between two fixed points 

and record the registration numbers of vehicles that exceed the speed 

limit. 

The condition where the assignment process within the traffic model no 

longer causes traffic to move from one route to another depending on its 

stage along the assignment looping process. 

Traffic Appraisal, Modelling and Economics section of the Highways 

Agency 

Transport Economic Efficiency: A sub-objectives in the AST under the 

Economy Objective; the savings in the cost of travel is compared against 

the cost of providing a scheme. 

Trip End Model Programme – A database of planning intentions and data 

from which traffic growth in local areas can be derived. 

Targeted Programme of Improvements – This is a group of projects set 

for the upgrading of existing roads and the construction of new roads to 

improve the Motorway and Trunk road Network, to improve Traffic 

congestion and noise 






TUBA 

VaDMA 

Validation 

VAT 

VDM 

WebTAG 

Zone 

Transport Users Benefit Appraisal – Similar to COBA but assesses under 

elastic assignment conditions. 

Variable Demand Modelling Advice – Government guidance on elastic and 

other assignment techniques 

A process showing how correctly a calibrated traffic model represents the 

observed movements 

Value Added Tax 

Variable Demand Model – this is a model where the amount of traffic on 

the road network can go up or down depending on overall conditions. 

Web based Traffic Appraisal Guidance – A series of Department for 

Transport advisory documents available through the Internet. 

A point in the SATURN traffic model representing a geographical area as 

an origin or destination of trips. The NTEM also defines its outputs in 

terms of zones. 









APPENDIX B: 

COMPARISON OF TRAFFIC MODEL FORECASTS 

WITH THE 2009 OBSERVED FLOWS AT FARNDON 

ROUNDABOUT 

1) Observed flows from Manual Classified Count at Farndon Roundabout 12 th May 

2009 

2) Modelled flows from ‘Do-Nothing’ traffic forecast for the year 2010. 

AM Peak (0800 to 0900) in vehicles per hour 

Differenc 

Observed Modelled 

e 

% 

Difference 

Road Two-way Two-way 

A46 North 1,749 1,720 29 2% 

Farndon Rd 1,019 914 105 10% 

A46 South 2,347 2,353 -6 0% 

Totals 5,115 4,987 128 3% 

PM Peak (1700 to 1800) in vehicles per hour 

Differenc 


e 

% 

Difference 


A46 North 1,782 1,845 -63 -4% 

Farndon Rd 1,088 1,210 -122 -11% 

A46 South 2,407 2,390 17 1% 

Totals 5,277 5,445 -168 -3% 

Inter-peak (1200 to 1300) in vehicles per hour 

Differenc 


e 

% 

Difference 


A46 North 1,174 1,465 -291 -25% 

Farndon Rd 660 757 -97 -15% 

A46 South 1,561 1,663 -102 -7% 

Totals 3,395 3,885 -490 -14% 





BLANK 





APPENDIX C: 

COMPARISON OF PLANNING DATA FROM 

NTEM V5.3 WITH NTEM V6.2 

Reference Demand Forecasts used during 2007 scheme development to develop 2031 Design 

Year Forecasts based on 2004 Base Year model: 

Car Driver Trip Ends: Growth Factor from 2004 to 2031 

Data Extracted From NTEM for PM period (16:00 to 19:00) 

Base Year: 2004 

Forecast Year: 2031 

NTEM v5.3 NTEM v6.2 

Area Description All purposes All purposes 

Level Name Origin Destination Origin Destination 

GB GB 1.204 1.204 1.213 1.213 

Region EM 1.218 1.218 1.212 1.212 

County Nottinghamshire 1.158 1.167 1.250 1.236 

Authority Newark and Sherwood 1.154 1.141 1.460 1.381 

37UG2 Newark-on-Trent 1.136 1.114 1.414 1.325 

Authority Rushcliffe 1.147 1.119 1.217 1.138 

Factors that would be derived in a 2011 traffic forecasting study to apply to an updated 2010 

base year traffic model: 

Car Driver Trip Ends: Growth Factor from 2010 to a 2027 forecast year 







GB GB 1.116 1.116 1.138 1.138 

Region EM 1.128 1.128 1.141 1.141 





Car Driver Trip Ends: Growth Factor from 2010 to a 2031 forecast year 







GB GB 1.133 1.133 1.162 1.162 

Region EM 1.151 1.151 1.164 1.164 









BLANK 





APPENDIX D: 

TRANSPORT ECONOMICS TABLES FOR THE 

SCHEME 

Tables extracted from the: 

“Post PI Economics Appraisal Report” (EAR); 

Working Paper No: D123246/4/001; Issue 1 dated April 2009. 

The Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) summary results table for the User Benefit of the 60- 

year TUBA 1.7b analysis is shown in the following Table. 

Transport Economic Efficiency 

Central Forecast 

Consumers 

User benefits 

Travel Time (TUBA) 428.8 

Vehicle operating costs (TUBA) -185.4 

User charges (TUBA) 0.0 

During Construction (Table 9-2) -4.1 

NET CONSUMER BENEFITS 239.4 

Business 

User benefits 

Travel Time (TUBA) 728.4 

Vehicle operating costs (TUBA) -54.4 

User charges (TUBA) 0.0 

During Construction (Table 9-2) -5.8 

Subtotal 668.2 

Private Sector Provider Impacts 

Revenue (TUBA) 0.0 

Operating costs (TUBA) 0.0 

Investment costs (TUBA) 0.0 

Grant/subsidy (TUBA) 0.0 

Subtotal (TUBA) 0.0 

Other business Impacts 

Developer contributions (TUBA) 0.0 

NET BUSINESS IMPACT 668.2 

TOTAL 

Present Value of Transport Economic 

Efficiency Benefits (TEE) 907.6 

Note: Benefits appear as positive numbers, while costs appear as negative numbers. 

Note: All entries are discounted to a 2002 present value year, in 2002 prices, £Millions 

All entries have been directly extracted and rounded from the TUBA printouts; this may cause apparent 

discrepancies between total and component entries. 

Table entries marked TUBA are from the TUBA printout; other references relate to the EAR. 





The Public Accounts table summarises the discounted cost of government expenditure since 

2007; i.e. during Scheme preparation, construction and during maintenance over the 60-year 

period of operation. 

Public Accounts 


Local Government Funding 


Operating costs (TUBA) 0.0 

Investment costs (TUBA) 0.0 

Developer Contributions (TUBA) 0.0 

Grant/Subsidy Payments (TUBA) 0.0 

NET IMPACT 0.0 

Central Government Funding 


Operating costs (sect 10.1.7) 4.7 

Investment costs (sect 7.2.8) 244.2 

Developer Contributions (TUBA) 0.0 

Grant/Subsidy Payments (TUBA) 0.0 

Tax Revenues (Construction, Table 9-3) 0.6 

Indirect Tax Revenues (TUBA) -196.4 

NET IMPACT 53.1 

TOTAL 

TOTAL Present Value of Costs (PVC) 53.1 

Note: Costs appear as positive numbers, while revenues and developer contributions appear as negative 

numbers. 

Note: All entries are discounted to a 2002 present value year, in 2002 prices, £Millions. 

All entries have been directly extracted and rounded from the TUBA printouts; this may cause apparent 

discrepancies between total and component entries. 

Table entries marked TUBA are taken from the TUBA printout; others references relate to the EAR. 

The following Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) table takes the accident benefit 

(calculated using COBA version 11R7) and carbon benefit (calculated using TUBA version 1.7b) 

into account. There are summaries for the PVB, PVC and NPV, appraised over the 60-year 

operational period. 





Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits 


Non-Exchequer Impacts 

Consumer User Benefits (Table 11-5) 239.3 

Business User Benefits (Table 11-5) 668.2 

Private Sector Provider Impacts (Table 11-5) 0.0 

Other Business Impacts (Table 11-5) 0.0 

Accident Benefits (Table 8-1) 114.0 

Carbon Benefits during Construction (Table 9-4) 0.1 

Carbon Benefits (TUBA) -35.3 

Net present Value of Benefits (PVB) 986.3 

Local Government Funding (11-6) 0.0 

Central Government Funding (11-6) 53.1 

Net present Value Costs (PVC) 53.1 

Overall Impact 

Net present Value (NPV) 933.2 

Note: All entries are discounted to a 2002 present value year, in 2002 prices, £Millions 

Entries have been directly extracted and rounded from the TUBA printouts; this may cause apparent discrepancies 

between total and component entries. 

References are to the source tables in the EAR. 

On the basis of available costing information, and based on 2002 prices discounted to a 2002 

present value year over a 60-year period, the Scheme has a benefit to users (PVB) of £986.3M, 

and a fiscal cost (PVC) of £53.1M, resulting in a total Net Present Value (NPV) of £933.2 

million benefit. 

On the basis of the evaluation undertaken in 2009, the Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) under 

central forecast conditions would be 18.6. 

The notes on the next page document the changes made by DfT to the scheme economic 

evaluation process since April 2009 when the above tables were produced. 





DfT Changes to Scheme Appraisal Guidance In 2011 

Since the AMCB table was produced, there have been a number of amendments to the DfT’s 

TAG guidance. These updates were published in April 2011. The main changes to the advice 

provided in the DfT’s TAG documents are summarised as follows: 

a) Adoption of latest Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) values for the 

cost of carbon emissions (adopted cross-government in June). 

b) Revised Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) formula. 

c) Updated economic parameters including values of travel time growth, reliability, the 

prevention of accidents, noise, fuel costs, fuel duty and VAT. 

d) New monetary valuations of the health impact of air pollutants. 

e) A requirement for assessments of social and distributional impacts. 

f) Changes to the Appraisal Summary Table (AST) consistent with reform of the decision 

making process. 

g) National Trip End Model (NTEM) new dataset v6.2. 

h) Revised guidance on uncertainty, variable demand and the treatment of costs. 

Changes a, c, d and g would change the net present value of the Scheme. However the scale 

of the changes identified in the April 2011 TAG documents are small in relation to the size of the 

present value of benefits delivered to road users by the Scheme. 

Of the above changes, the most significant for the A46 Newark Widmerpool Improvement 

scheme is the revised Benefit Cost Ration (BCR) formula (change b). With the Scheme, the 

road users will pay more Indirect tax revenue (ITR) to HM Treasury which is accounted as part 

of the increased fuel costs within the vehicle operating costs calculation in the TEE table above. 

The revised guidance is to treat ITR as part of the wider public finances and any increase in ITR 

collected is to be considered as a benefit to society. As a result, ITR should be included in the 

Present Value Benefits (PVB) rather than as a reduction to the Present Value Costs (PVC). 

Therefore the PVC will increase overall as will the PVB of the Scheme. 

If this change was applied to the above tables, notwithstanding that the other changes should 

also applied, then the extra ITR (£195.8 million) paid by Road Users to HM Treasury would no 

longer reduce the PVC total but would be contribute to the total PVB. The BCR would thus 

become: 

PVB (including Wider Public Finances): £986.3 + £195.8 = £1,182.1 million 

PVC (Broad Transport Budget): £53.1 + £195.8 = £248.9 million 

NPV: PVB - PVC = £933.2 million 

BCR: PVB / PVC = 4.75 

The Net Present Value (NPV) is not changed by the change to the treatment of ITR and 

confirms that the Scheme would deliver strong transport economic benefits to the national 

economy. 

The recalculated BCR remains high at 4.75. This value is greater than 2.0 and confirms that the 

Scheme will provide very good value for money. 





APPENDIX E: 

DESIGN REFERENCE FLOWS FOR FARNDON 

ROUNDABOUT 





Farndon Roundabout: Design Reference Flows: 2031 Central Growth: AM Peak (0800 to 0900) 

Flows in Vehicles, except where PCU is indicated 1 

Cars Old A46 S A46 N B6166 New A46 S Totals: 

Old A46 S 0 64 120 10 194 

A46 N 15 0 61 773 849 

B6166 109 21 0 488 617 

New A46 S 0 1210 433 0 1643 

Totals: 124 1295 614 1271 3305 

OGV1 Old A46 S A46 N B6166 New A46 S Totals: 

PCU Old A46 S 0 2 2 0 4 

A46 N 2 0 7 62 70 

B6166 6 12 0 30 47 

New A46 S 0 94 41 0 135 

Totals: 7 109 49 91 257 


PCU Old A46 S 0 3 2 0 5 

A46 N 4 0 10 214 228 

B6166 3 19 0 65 87 

New A46 S 0 165 39 0 204 

Totals: 7 187 52 279 525 

Vehicle Old A46 S A46 N B6166 New A46 S Totals: 

Old A46 S 0 67 122 10 199 

A46 N 18 0 70 911 999 

B6166 114 36 0 535 684 

New A46 S 0 1340 473 0 1813 

Totals: 132 1442 665 1456 3695 


Old A46 S 0 67 122 10 199 

A46 N 18 0 70 911 999 

B6166 114 36 0 535 684 

New A46 S 0 1340 473 0 1813 

Totals: 132 1442 665 1456 3695 

Turning Flows 

Vehicles per hour 

A46 N (Newark Bypass) 

18 

911 

67 70 

122 

10 B6166 Newark 

Exg A46 S 36 

(Farndon) 114 

0 535 

1340 

473 

New A46 S 

Turning Flows at Farndon Roundabout in Vehicles 

2031 With Scheme: AM Peak 

Veh A46 N B6166 New A46 S Exg A46 S Total 

A46 N 0 70 911 18 999 

B6166 36 0 535 114 684 

New A46 S 1340 473 0 0 1813 

Exg A46 S 67 122 10 0 199 

Total 1442 665 1456 132 3695 





Farndon Roundabout: Design Reference Flows: 2031 Central Growth: Inter-peak 



Old A46 S 0 38 31 20 89 

A46 N 14 0 94 768 876 

B6166 27 146 0 266 440 

New A46 S 0 870 350 0 1220 

Totals: 41 1054 475 1054 2625 


PCU Old A46 S 0 3 0 0 3 

A46 N 1 0 12 72 85 

B6166 2 16 0 23 42 

New A46 S 0 51 26 0 77 

Totals: 3 70 39 95 207 


PCU Old A46 S 0 0 0 0 0 

A46 N 1 0 20 167 188 

B6166 3 26 0 60 89 

New A46 S 0 143 43 0 186 

Totals: 4 169 63 227 463 


Old A46 S 0 39 31 20 90 

A46 N 15 0 111 887 1013 

B6166 30 167 0 308 505 

New A46 S 0 967 384 0 1352 

Totals: 44 1174 526 1215 2960 


Old A46 S 0 39 31 20 90 

A46 N 15 0 111 887 1013 

B6166 30 167 0 308 505 

New A46 S 0 967 384 0 1352 

Totals: 44 1174 526 1215 2960 

Turning Flows 



15 

887 

39 111 

31 


Exg A46 S 167 

(Farndon) 30 

0 308 

967 

384 

New A46 S 


2031 With Scheme: Inter-peak 


A46 N 0 111 887 15 1013 

B6166 167 0 308 30 505 

New A46 S 967 384 0 0 1352 

Exg A46 S 39 31 20 0 90 

Total 1174 526 1215 44 2960 





Farndon Roundabout: Design Reference Flows: 2031 Central Growth: PM Peak (1700 to 1800) 



Old A46 S 0 41 87 3 131 

A46 N 35 0 88 1158 1280 

B6166 270 130 0 228 627 

New A46 S 0 1167 610 0 1777 

Totals: 305 1338 785 1388 3815 


PCU Old A46 S 0 1 1 0 2 

A46 N 1 0 5 24 29 

B6166 2 5 0 5 12 

New A46 S 0 47 24 0 71 

Totals: 2 54 29 28 114 


PCU Old A46 S 0 0 0 0 0 

A46 N 1 0 9 110 121 

B6166 2 11 0 25 38 

New A46 S 0 109 32 0 141 

Totals: 3 120 42 135 299 


Old A46 S 0 41 88 3 132 

A46 N 35 0 95 1225 1355 

B6166 272 138 0 242 652 

New A46 S 0 1245 638 0 1883 

Totals: 307 1424 820 1470 4022 


Old A46 S 0 41 88 3 132 

A46 N 35 0 95 1225 1355 

B6166 272 138 0 242 652 

New A46 S 0 1245 638 0 1883 

Totals: 307 1424 820 1470 4022 

Turning Flows 



35 

1225 

41 95 

88 


Exg A46 S 138 

(Farndon) 272 

0 242 

1245 

638 

New A46 S 


2031 With Scheme: PM Peak 


A46 N 0 95 1225 35 1355 

B6166 138 0 242 272 652 

New A46 S 1245 638 0 0 1883 

Exg A46 S 41 88 3 0 132 

Total 1424 820 1470 307 4022 





APPENDIX F: SITES SERVED BY THE ACCESS 

The main sites served by the Access are indicated in the following aerial photo, 

which was used during the development stage of the Scheme. 

Access 







08/08/2011 

Monday… 

09/08/2011 

Tuesday 

10/08/2011 

Wednesday 

11/08/2011 

Thursday 

12/08/2011 

Friday 

18/08/2011 

Thursday… 

19/08/2011 

Friday 

30/08/2011 

Tuesday… 

31/08/2011 

Wednesday 

01/09/2011 

Thursday 

02/09/2011 

Friday 

05/09/2011 

Monday… 

06/09/2011 

Tuesday 



APPENDIX G: 

TRIP OBSERVATIONS FOR ACCESS 

VehClass (All) 

Weekend Weekday AM Peak 

Hour Start 8 

Sum of Veh 

In Out Grand Total 

Week 33 Monday 08/08/2011 6 2 8 

Tuesday 09/08/2011 16 5 21 

Wednesday 10/08/2011 19 4 23 

Thursday 11/08/2011 19 10 29 

Friday 12/08/2011 13 8 21 

Week 34 Thursday 18/08/2011 16 5 21 

Friday 19/08/2011 16 7 23 

Week 36 Tuesday 30/08/2011 18 5 23 

Wednesday 31/08/2011 16 4 20 

Thursday 01/09/2011 16 4 20 

Friday 02/09/2011 14 5 19 

Week 37 Monday 05/09/2011 13 5 18 

Tuesday 06/09/2011 11 5 16 

Grand Total 193 69 262 

Average 14.8 5.3 20.2 

20 

18 

In 

Out 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 



08/08/2011 

Monday… 

09/08/2011 

Tuesday 

10/08/2011 

Wednesday 

11/08/2011 

Thursday 

12/08/2011 

Friday 

18/08/2011 

Thursday… 

19/08/2011 

Friday 

30/08/2011 

Tuesday… 

31/08/2011 

Wednesday 

01/09/2011 

Thursday 

02/09/2011 

Friday 

05/09/2011 

Monday… 

06/09/2011 

Tuesday 



VehClass (All) 

Weekend Weekday PM Peak 

Hour Start 17 

Sum of Veh 

In Out Grand Total 

Week 33 Monday 08/08/2011 3 9 12 

Tuesday 09/08/2011 5 5 

Wednesday 10/08/2011 2 10 12 

Thursday 11/08/2011 5 9 14 

Friday 12/08/2011 8 9 17 

Week 34 Thursday 18/08/2011 4 12 16 

Friday 19/08/2011 4 9 13 

Week 36 Tuesday 30/08/2011 2 7 9 

Wednesday 31/08/2011 2 11 13 

Thursday 01/09/2011 3 8 11 

Friday 02/09/2011 4 12 16 

Week 37 Monday 05/09/2011 1 10 11 

Tuesday 06/09/2011 2 9 11 

Grand Total 40 120 160 

Average 3.3 9.2 12.3 

20 

18 

16 

In 

Out 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 





APPENDIX H: 

FORECAST YEAR OPERATION ANALYSIS OF 

EXISTING ACCESS ONTO B6166 

A PICADY model has been produced for the existing priority junction that provides 

access onto the B6166. Models were prepared with the 2027 forecast demands in 

the AM and PM peak hours assigned on the B6166. All of P A Freight trips were 

assumed to turn right into and right out of the site (i.e. a worst case scenario for 

capacity). 

PICADY approach labels 

Arm A: B6166 North 

Arm B: Site Access 

Arm C: B6166 South 

PICADY Results 

Table H.1: 2027 Forecast (NTEM v6.2): Analysis of Priority B6166 / P A Freight 

Access 

Approach 

Max RFC 

AM 

Max 

Queue 

Max RFC 

PM 

Max 

Queue 

Site Access 0.03 0.0 0.06 0.1 

B6166 South (Right Turn) 0.07 0.1 0.01 0.0 

The target RFC for the design of a new rural priority junction is 0.75. The 

maximum RFC values in the table above are much less than the target value 

indicating that the existing Access has sufficient capacity for the expected demand 

forecast. 

Queues and delays would be small. 





BLANK 





APPENDIX I: 

OPERATION ANALYSIS OF FARNDON 

ROUNDABOUT 

An ARCADY model has been produced for the proposed Farndon roundabout. The 

drawing extract below shows the expected road markings at Farndon roundabout. 

The geometric parameters used for the ARCADY analysis were measured from the 

drawing. 

The A46 South (Arm A) is a standard dual carriageway. The approach half-width is 

7.3 metres (i.e. measured between the 1 metre wide hard strips marked on either 

side of the carriageway). 





ARCADY Parameters 

For the ARCADY analysis the approaches were labelled as: 

Arm A: A46 (South) 

Arm B: Fosse Road 

Arm C: A46 (North) 

Arm D: Farndon Road (B6166) 

Arm E: Access 

Table I.1: Roundabout parameters measured using drawing SK127 

Arm V (m) E (m) L (m) R (m) D (m) 

PHI 

(DEG) 

A 7.30 9.50 45.00 38.00 130.00 41.0 

B 3.50 8.50 16.00 45.00 130.00 26.0 

C 7.30 10.00 20.00 38.00 130.00 44.0 

D 3.25 8.00 14.00 43.00 130.00 35.0 

E 3.50 7.50 19.00 44.00 130.00 34.0 

V = approach road half-width; E = entry width; L = effective flare length; R = entry 

radius; 

D = inscribed circle diameter; PHI = entry angle 

ARCADY Results – No Trips On The Access 

An ARCADY analysis was undertaken using the 2031 DRF forecasts (using NTEM 

v5.2 growth) in AM and PM peaks. 

Table I.2: 2031 Design Reference Flows 

Approach 

Max RFC 

AM 

Max 

Queue 

Max RFC 

PM 

Max 

Queue 

ARM A 0.752 3.0 0.806 4.1 

ARM B 0.221 0.3 0.154 0.2 

ARM C 0.493 1.0 0.637 1.7 

ARM D 0.622 1.6 0.620 1.6 

ARM E 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 

The target RFC for the design of a new roundabout is 0.85. All of the maximum 

RFC values in the table above are less than the target value indicating that the 

roundabout design has sufficient capacity for the expected demand forecast. 





ARCADY Results With Observed Use Of the Access 

Adding the average weekday use of the access, in the AM and PM peak hours (as 

calculated in Appendix G) to Approaches C and E gives the following results. 

Table I.3: 2031 Design Reference Flows 

Approach 

Max RFC 

AM 

Max 

Queue 

Max RFC 

PM 

Max 

Queue 

ARM A 0.752 3.0 0.806 4.1 

ARM B 0.221 0.3 0.154 0.2 

ARM C 0.501 1.0 0.639 1.8 

ARM D 0.625 1.7 0.621 1.6 

ARM E 0.005 0.0 0.010 0.0 

Compared with the analysis with no trips on the access (Table H.2) there is no 

material difference in the operational performance of the roundabout (assuming 

that the level of use of the site is remains as observed). 

ARCADY Results With Alternative Forecast (and Observed Use Of the 

Access) 

A further ARCADY analysis was undertaken using 2027 flow forecast (using NTEM 

v6.2 growth factors) in the AM and PM peak hours, which is presented in Table H.4 

below. These 2027 forecast flows are higher than the 2031 DRF forecasts used to 

design the Farndon roundabout because NTEM v6.2 has larger growth factors as 

documented in Appendix C. To convert from the 2031 DRF flows to a 2027 

equivalent (using NTEM 6.2 growth) a factor of 1.076 was applied. The ARCADY 

results for the Farndon roundabout are: 

Table I.4: 2027 Flow Forecasts (using NTEM v6.2) 

Approach 

Max RFC 

AM 

Max 

Queue 

Max RFC 

PM 

Max 

Queue 

ARM A 0.813 4.3 0.874 6.8 

ARM B 0.261 0.4 0.184 0.2 

ARM C 0.543 1.2 0.692 2.2 

ARM D 0.696 2.3 0.695 2.3 

ARM E 0.006 0.0 0.011 0.0 





In summary, the tables above show: 

‣ The 2027 AM and PM peaks demands based on NTEM v6.2 growth factors 

have been assigned to the ARCADY models. 

‣ Differences between 2031 DRF and 2027 forecasts: The 2027 flows were 

derived using NTEM v6.2 growth factors applied to 2010 counts (17 years 

growth), whereas the historical 2031 flows were derived using NTEM v5.3 

growth factors applied to 2004 observations (27 years growth), which turns 

out to be less because NTEM now includes significantly more growth in 

Newark. See tables at Appendix C. 

‣ The analysis with the 2031 DRF demands shows the roundabout to be 

operating within the target RFC for new designs. 

‣ The analysis using the 2027 forecasts with NTEM v6.2 growth factors shows 

maximum RFC values less than the target value of 0.85, except on the A46 

South approach (arm A) which shows an RFC of 0.87. However, the ratio 

remains less than 1.0 and therefore it is more than likely that the roundabout 

would operate acceptably. The NTEM v6.2 growth factors reflect an increase 

in allocated development in the Newark area and these developments may 

have to fund improvement works to mitigate their traffic impacts. 

‣ In both analyses, queues and delays are shown to be minimal. 

‣ The impact of the trips on the Access, assuming no intensification of use of 

the ‘PA Freight’ site, is forecast to be negligible. 





BLANK

Proof of Evidence - Traffic Appendices

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?