Integrated Transport Block Network (ITB) Development All Major Schemes Network (AMS) Development

Transcription

1 PE PRISM Joint Application Team CEPOG Core Support Team CENTRO, Centro House 16 Summer Lane Birmingham B19 3SD Integrated Transport Block Network (ITB) Development All Major Schemes Network (AMS) Development December 2005 PRISM Joint Application Team Canterbury House 85 Newhall Street Birmingham B3 1LZ United Kingdom Tel: 44 (0) Fax: 44 (0) P:\214923_PRISM Reference Case\Progress Note\Final Reports\Draft ITB+AMS (v5).doc

2

3 PE PRISM Joint Application Team Integrated Transport Block Network (ITB) Development All Major Schemes Network (AMS) Development Issue and Revision Record Rev Date Originator Checker Approver Description A 5/04/05 AH, SSK MJC TVV Draft Report 1 B 22/11/05 AH MJC TVV 1 st Revision This document has been prepared for the titled project or named part thereof and should not be relied upon or used for any other project without an independent check being carried out as to its suitability and prior written authority of Mott MacDonald being obtained. Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequence of this document being used for a purpose other than the purposes for which it was commissioned. Any person using or relying on the document for such other purpose agrees, and will by such use or reliance be taken to confirm his agreement to indemnify Mott MacDonald for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility or liability for this document to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned.

4

5 PE PRISM Joint Application Team List of Contents Network Planning Data Time Period Base and Future Year Demand Classification Integrated Transport Block Network (ITB) Base Assumptions Methodology at a Glance Brief Observation and Potential Issues All Major Schemes Network (AMS) Overview LTP Major Schemes Not Included in the AMS Network ITB/SRPG Scenario AMS/SRPG Scenario 19! 22 Page 5 of 47

6 PE PRISM Joint Application Team List of Figures Figure 3.1: Future Showcase Routes Figure 3.2: PRISM All Major Schemes Network AMS (2011, 2021, 2031) Figure 4.1: All Day Pivoted Trips Growth over Base (Base=0%) for ITB/SRPG Scenario Figure 4.2: 5% Transfer Option: All Day Pivoted Trips Growth Comparisons for ITB/SRPG 2031 Scenario Figure 4.3: Comparison of All Day Pivoted Trips Growth over Base (0%) ITB/SRPG and NR1/SRPG (2031) Figure 4.4: All Day Synthetic Trips Growth Comparison - ITB/SRPG and NR1/SRPG (2031) Figure 4.5: All Day Pivoted Trips Growth over Base (Base=0%) for AMS/SRPG Scenario Figure 4.6: Comparison of All Day Pivoted Trips Growth over Base (0%) ITB/SRPG and AMS/SRPG (2011, 2031) List of Tables Table 3.1: Schemes Included in the Reference Network (NR1) Table 4.1: Bi-Directional Patronage Changes on Bus Showcase Corridors ITB/SRPG Appendices Appendix A : Scheme Details Appendix B : Model Outputs Appendix C : Standard Model Plots Page 6 of 47

7 PE PRISM Joint Application Team Ref /TVV/MJC/AH/RefC-03 PRISM Joint Application Team was commissioned by CEPOG Core Support Team in August 2004 to establish the PRISM Reference Network (NR1). The network incorporates the all the changes on the 2001 base network that have occurred, added by the current scheme commitments to the network. Regional Planning Guidance planning scenario is then used as the reference planning data for any future PRISM model runs. In addition to the Reference Network (NR1), two network scenarios have been built to assess the impact of implementing the current West Midlands LTP schemes, i.e. Integrated Transport Block Network (ITB) and All Major Schemes Network (AMS) using Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) planning scenario. Integrated Transport Block Network includes heart and minds and other minor programmes which aimed to achieve a 5% transfer of car-based trips. All Major Schemes Network incorporates a major scheme programme of approximately 1.25b. Both models were established to demonstrate the additional contribution of implementing the schemes in ameliorating the problem which may arise in the future. However, considering that PRISM is a strategic model, any assessment results should not be used as the base for any justification at a more local level. This requires further refinement of the model, as for example undertaken for Coventry-Solihull-Warwickshire Study as well as Black Country Study. This report outlines the individual LTP scheme coding, in addition to the Reference Network (NR1). A few underlying assumption were also taken and explained in the report, as much to incorporate certain schemes into the network. Page 7 of 47

8 PE PRISM Joint Application Team The models developed in this study will refer to the PRISM base year model description with respect to its data source, study area and software used. Reports regarding the development of PRISM Base Year 2001 assignment model and PRISM demand model are available from Mott MacDonald Ltd Network Integrated Transport Block Network (ITB) and All Major Schemes Network (AMS) have been built in addition to the Reference Network (NR1). Schemes included in the Reference Network (NR1) can be seen in The PRISM Reference Cases report by PRISM Joint Application Team. Integrated Transport Block Network (ITB) includes the minor scheme programme, continuation of bus showcase scheme and Hearts and Minds program which aims for a 5% car transfer. All Major Schemes Network (AMS) network includes all LTP Major Schemes submitted to the DfT under Annex E submission, of approximately 1.25bn. 2.2 Planning Data The planning data scenario used for this study is Regional Planning Guidance (SRPG). 2.3 Time Period All model runs will use the following time representation: Highway and PT peak periods: AM IP PM OP Highway peak hour (for assignment) : AM IP 6 hours average PM OP 12 hours average PT 2 hrs peak (for assignment) : AM IP PRISM Final Report, Mott MacDonald Ltd., Page 8 of 47

9 PE PRISM Joint Application Team 2.4 Base and Future Year The base year of the model is The future year runs are determined as 2011, 2021 and 2031 for all model runs. 2.5 Demand Classification The main output of PRISM model is classified as follows : Car-commute Car-business Car-education Car-other Train Metro Bus The above trip demand segments are the resultants of the pivoting process within the demand model. The term pivoted result refers to the final output of the PRISM model, i.e. the actual number of trips estimated in each modelled year and assigned to the network. Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) and Light Goods Vehicles (LGV) matrices are also assigned to the network. These demand segments are not estimated from the PRISM demand model. The HGV and LGV figures have been estimated from 2001 base year model and have been projected using MDS and NRTF data 2 for future year model runs. 2 See PRISM Matrix Building Report, Mott MacDonald Ltd., Page 9 of 47

10 PE PRISM Joint Application Team 3.1 Integrated Transport Block Network (ITB) The ITB network has been developed using the Reference Network (NR1) as the base. The schemes included in the NR1 network are summarised in Table 3.1. Table 3.1: Schemes Included in the Reference Network (NR1) NO. SCHEMES 1 M6 Toll (Higher Chage: Car: 3, LGV: 6 and HGV: 11) 2 Masshouse Circus 3 Birmingham Outer Circe Junction Improvements (Route 11) 4 Hagley Road Bus Routes 5 Northfield Regeneration 6 Selly Oak Access Road 7 Owen Street Level Crossing Relief Road 8 Cradley Heath Town Centre Strategy 9 Walsall Town Centre Transport Package 10 Birmingham City Centre Metro Extension (BCCE) 11 Wednesbury to Brierley Hill Metro Extension (WBHE) 12 Coventry Quality Bus Network 13 Brierley Hill Relief Road 14 Darlaston SDA Access Project 15 Longbridge Park and Ride 16 Chester Road 17 BIA/NEC Enhanced Public Transport Access 18 Dudley Road Improvements 19 A41 Expressway/All Saints Way Junction improvements 20 Bus Showcase Programme ( ) 21 Red Route and Bus Demonstration (Route 67 only) 22 Blackheath Eastern Bypass 23 A458 Lye Gyratory 24 Bus Service 404a Walsall to Cradley Heath 25 A5 Weeford-Fazeley Completion 26 Bruntwood Bypass 27 M42 ATM 28 Winter 2004 Train Time Table The ITB network assumes that there are no further major schemes network amended but some minor schemes listed under the Integrated Transport block in the LTP proposal. The bus showcase scheme is the only scheme which is considered to have a sensible impact on the model and has been incorporated into the network. Figure 3.1 shows the bus showcase programme, to which the ITB bus showcase coding has been referred, taken from Core Network from Future Showcase Route plan by FaberMaunsell (Drawing No TBM/P/100_revision A). PRISM Joint Application Team experienced difficulties in obtaining information regarding bus showcase schemes across the study area. The main constraints were due to the lack of definitive information from the authorities and time constraints for collecting the information. To overcome this, the assumptions in Section were made. Page 10 of 47

11 PRISM Joint Application Team Figure 3.1: Future Showcase Routes Page 11 of 47

12 PE PRISM Joint Application Team Base Assumptions In order to incorporate the bus showcase schemes and all other minor schemes, PRISM Joint Application Team was advised to use the following assumptions: a. Bus speed increase to 25 kph for all bus services on the bus showcase corridors throughout the study area. b. 5% overall decrease on the number of car driver trips. Given the both underlying assumptions above, there are some practical assumptions used : a. Only bus routes whose speed below 25 kph are to be increased. b. The speed increase only occurs along the certain corridors. These routes refer to the existing showcase/showcase schemes with committed funding and from the Figure 3.1 above Methodology at a Glance A total of 32 current and future bus routes were updated with the minimum speed of 25 kph, and were grouped into 23 major corridors. In the PT Network bus route speeds are not coded explicitly in the model by route but instead as timetable and distance. Thus for all routes where a given route intersects with an existing/future showcase route speed were calculated and checked to see if the thresholds speed of 25 kph was apparent for all links. Where the calculated speed across a link was less than 25 kph, the timetable was updated. If the calculated speed was greater than 25 kph, the timetable was left unchanged. To obtain a 5% reduction in the car-driver trips an artificial feature (by decreasing car driver trips utility) was imposed in the home based (HB) mode-destination travel choice models to make Car-driver mode 5% less attractive. This methodology was applied on the HB Work, HB Shop, HB Other, HB Secondary Education and HB Tertiary Education travel demand models. Since HB Business, NHB Business and NHB Other travel demand models are only single mode, i.e. Car-driver, the 5% reduction was done for all O-D pairs Brief Observation and Potential Issues With a reduction of approximately 30 minutes between the base PRC timetable and the NIT timetable The Outer circle/route 11 sees the biggest decrease in journey time. Route 11 benefits most from the outer circle showcase, being the primary route covering its entirety. Typically routes that have a limited stop along corridors have seen no or little improvement in the timetable, as these routes tend to be faster in the primary instance. This is typified by routes such as 950, 951 and MRW177 (Midland Red West 177). Other factors include only a small part of a route intersecting with a proposed/existing showcase. The link lengths associated with PT lines seldom tally with the corresponding links in the model. Thus when speeds are calculated from timetable and link distance, significantly high speeds are observed. This may also mean total improvement of bus speeds along the quality bus networks may not be totally reflected. The application of 5% reduction at the demand model level facilitates an appropriate diversion of the 5% reduced Car-driver trips on to all other modes available viz. Car-passenger, Train, Metro, Bus, Cycle, Walk and Taxi. As the model evaluates the travel costs at each O-D level, a reduction in Car-driver mode attractiveness by 5% results in a shift from Car-driver to all other available modes mentioned above in accordance to their relative attractiveness for each O-D pair. The full overview on the demand model and assignment results will be presented in the later section of this report. Page 12 of 47

13 PE PRISM Joint Application Team 3.2 All Major Schemes Network (AMS) The All Major Scheme Network (AMS) was developed using ITB network as the base for its coding. The network is a representation of the future case, by incorporating all LTP major schemes proposed by local authorities under approximately 1.25b fund from the Central Government. Similar to the ITB model, the 5% reduction on car trips was also applied using the same assumptions Overview A list of Major Schemes to be appended to the AMS network has been provided by George Parsons (CEPOG Core Support Team). Twenty six schemes were initially identified to be incorporated, in addition to the Integrated Transport Network (ITB). Contacts to local authorities have been made in order to gain information as much as possible regarding the individual schemes. Scheme details for most highway networks were obtained and provided a base for the coding. Some schemes were still being developed when this study was carried out and thus not all information are available for the coding. Some approximations and best guesses were then used for any missing information such as traffic signal data. As for public transport, a number of PT-based scheme were still at a very early stage of design process and thus no definitive plan available for the coding. This includes various super showcases and park and ride schemes (See Section 3.2.2). Cross City Line (South Frankley Rail Extension) is the main rail scheme incorporated to the network. Midland Metro Phase 2 Extension, which is only implemented in 2021 and 2031 AMS network, is the further extension of those of the NR1 network. Details of the individual scheme are shown in Appendix A, including some brief descriptions regarding any assumptions taken, source of information status and compatibility with PRISM coding requirement. Figure 3.2 summarises and plots the locations of most of the LTP major schemes appended into the AMS network. Page 13 of 47

14 PRISM Joint Application Team Figure 3.2: PRISM All Major Schemes Network AMS (2011, 2021, 2031) Based on Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of HMSO Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. jdt Licence number LA Page 14 of 47

15 PE PRISM Joint Application Team LTP Major Schemes Not Included in the AMS Network There are some schemes which were initially suggested to be incorporated into the AMS network but then considered inappropriate for the coding. Excluding the schemes from the AMS network are mainly due to two main reasons: 1. No definitive information available by the time this study was carried out. The schemes included in this group and therefore withdrawn from the scheme list are as follows : Wolverhampton Bus Station. The scheme is to provide better accessibility and interchanges between modes and a better integration with Wolverhampton central area. Quality Bus Network III Super Showcase III West Midlands Strategic Park and Ride II West Midlands Strategic Park and Ride III 2. Out of the scope of PRISM coding capability. This group includes : Rail Showcase Corridors. The scheme is out of PRISM scope, as it proposes improvements on the signalling system and platform enhancement measures. A copy of the proposal (Chase Line Station Enhancements by CENTRO, December 2004) has been obtained from David Brazier (CENTRO). Conurbation-wide Cycle Network. Cycling trip is not assigned to the network. Walking Major Scheme. Walking trip is not assigned to the network. Page 15 of 47

16 PE PRISM Joint Application Team PRISM Joint Application Team has conducted various model runs using both ITB and AMS networks. Regional Planning Guidance planning data scenario (SRPG) has been used for all model runs. The scenarios are as follows: a. Integrated Transport Block Network (ITB) using RPG planning data (SRPG) ITB/SRPG b. All Major Schemes Network (AMS) using RPG planning data (SRPG) AMS/SRPG The ITB/SRPG and AMS/SRPG model runs have been conducted for all scenario years (2011, 2021 and 2031). To provide a comparison of how each of the network scenarios performs and affects the model, the 2031 results will be compared to those of the NR1/SRPG scenario, which has been previously developed (See PRISM Reference Cases report). Additional ITB/SRPG and AMS/SRPG model runs have also been carried out without the 5% transfer option. This is to provide a description of how the feature gives impact to the model results. The following sections discuss the overall results of the model runs. Appendix B summarises all the above model results, while Appendix C plots the highway and public transport flows for the 2011 AM ITB/SRPG and AMS/SRPG model runs. 4.1 ITB/SRPG Scenario ITB/SRPG scenario includes a modification on the PRISM demand model to deal with the assumption of 5% reduction on private car trips as resultants of heart and minds program and other minor schemes. The primary reason of modelling this behavioural change is to account for the impact of hearts and minds measures and other soft measures which can not be represented as network attributes but have an impact on the perceptions of the population. A key point to be noted here is that the ITB with 5% transfer results are based on a single iteration of the PRISM model run. As the 5% switch from car-drivers to other modes is being implemented by reducing the utility (attractiveness) of car-driver mode externally, to result in a 5% switch to other modes, therefore the results represent a dis-equilibrium state of the model. So if the model was run over multiple iterations to achieve equilibrium it would start reverting the 5% switched trips back on to the car-driver mode as there would be reduced congestion on the roads. Therefore the results had to be derived from the first iteration of the model run itself. The main objective of the testing the 5% switch exercise was to observe the pattern of shift from car-driver to other modes. The pivoted result from Appendix B shows an increasing number of total trips by 8% in 2011, 13% in 2021 and 19% in Figure 3.1 summarises the daily trip growth over the 3 scenario years for each mode. TOTAL CAR denotes the growth of total all car-based trips, while TOTAL represents the total trips, inclusive of TOTAL CAR and all public transport trips. Page 16 of 47

17 PE PRISM Joint Application Team Figure 4.1: All Day Pivoted Trips Growth over Base (Base=0%) for ITB/SRPG Scenario 80% 70% 60% 63% 62% 67% Percentage Growth 50% 40% 30% 38% 26% 20% 10% 9% 12% 15% 4% 2% 7% 10% 21% 7% 16% 7% 13% 20% 18% 17% 17% 11% 9% 9% 8% 13% 19% 0% Car: Commute Car: Business Car: Education Car: Other TOTAL CAR Train Metro Bus TOTAL Modes It is noted that the assumption of 5% transfer has been set out as an approximation. It is then considered necessary to understand the extent of how this particular assumption gives impact to the model results. For that purpose, the following Figure 4.2 compares the ITB/SRPG 2031 assigned results with those of without the 5% transfer option. Figure 4.2: 5% Transfer Option: All Day Pivoted Trips Growth Comparisons for ITB/SRPG 2031 Scenario 80% ITB/SRPG without 5% transfer 70% 67% ITB/SRPG with 5% transfer 60% Percentage Growth 50% 40% 30% 43% 38% 33% 26% 26% 48% 20% 21% 20% 18% 22% 19% 15% 10% 10% 7% 7% 5% 9% 0% Car: Commute Car: Business Car: Education Car: Other TOTAL CAR Train Metro Bus TOTAL Modes Form the Figure 4.2 above, it can be seen that introducing the 5% transfer option to the ITB network causes approximately 6% reduction of total car trips. Transfers to other modes, i.e. train, metro and bus were also observed from the above figure. All the trips changes occurred for each mode made up to a 3% reduction of total assigned trips. Page 17 of 47

18 PE PRISM Joint Application Team Comparing the full ITB/SRPG scenario (i.e. with 5% transfer option) to the reference scenario (i.e. NR1/SRPG scenario) should give a more detailed description of the model results, as presented in Figure 4.3 below. Figure 4.3: Comparison of All Day Pivoted Trips Growth over Base (0%) ITB/SRPG and NR1/SRPG (2031) 80% NR1/SRPG % 67% ITB/SRPG % 57% Percentage Growth 50% 40% 30% 44% 38% 33% 26% 26% 20% 21% 15% 20% 16% 18% 23% 19% 10% 10% 7% 9% 3% 0% Car: Commute Car: Business Car: Education Car: Other CAR TOTAL Train Metro Bus TOTAL Modes Introducing the bus showcase and 5% transfer options causes 4% reduction of total assigned trips in 2031, as shown in the Figure 4.3 above. However, it should be noted that this does not necessarily mean reduction in total number of trips which includes car-passenger, walking, cycling and taxi trips. These trips are estimated by the demand model and not assigned to the network. Figure 4.4 below summarise the synthetic trips resultants of both ITB/SPRG and NR1/SRPG models. Figure 4.4: All Day Synthetic Trips Growth Comparison - ITB/SRPG and NR1/SRPG (2031) 35% 30% 29% NR1/SRPG ITB/SRPG DIFFERENCE 25% 22% 20% Percentage Growth 15% 10% 5% 7% 6% 7% 0% 2% 2% 0% Car-passenger Cycle 0% Walk Taxi -2% -5% -10% -7% -7% Mode Page 18 of 47

19 PE PRISM Joint Application Team A positive difference observed from each mode in the figure above indicates that the ITB network promotes an increase of the unassigned trips. In particular, to understand the direct impact of the scenario to the bus patronage on the network, Table 4.1 presents the patronage changes occur on the bus network. The table compares the ITB/SRPG and NR1/SRPG bus patronage, which are taken from a certain points on the corridors where the bus showcase scheme are implemented. It is to be noted that the figures shown in the table below include bus access train and metro passengers. Table 4.1: Bi-Directional Patronage Changes on Bus Showcase Corridors ITB/SRPG 2031 CORRIDOR BY 2001 AM 2031 AM Growth BY 2001 IP 2031 IP Growth NR1 ITB NR1 to ITB NR1 ITB NR1 to ITB Alcester road % % Alum Rock % % Bordesley Green % % Bristol Road % % Cov Binley Road % % Cov Foleshill Rd % % Cov Tilehill lane % % Halesowen Road % % Dudley Road % % Inner Circle % % Kingstanding % % Outer Circle % % Pershore Road % % Stratford Road % % The 404 Corridor % % Tyburn Road % % Bloxwich Road % % Walsall Road % % Warwick Road % % Washwood Heath % % Wednesfield Rd Sec % % Wednesfield Rd Sec % % Wednesfield Rd Sec % % The 331/313 Corridor % % Stafford Road % % Willenhall Road Sec % % Willenhall Road Sec % % As shown by the table above, combination of both schemes result in a significant bus patronage increase. Given the fact that some bus corridors have only a marginal increase in speed, the corresponding negative growth is then observed. This mainly caused by competition with adjacent corridors where bus speed has significantly improved. 4.2 AMS/SRPG Scenario By incorporating the Major Schemes, the pivoted results from Appendix B indicate an increasing number of trips by 8% in 2011, 13% in 2021 and 19% in These results are also due to the same assumption of imposing a 5% transfer from private car trips. Figure 4.5 summarises the daily trip growth over the 3 scenario years for each mode. TOTAL CAR denotes the growth of total all car-based trips, while TOTAL represents the total trips, inclusive of TOTAL CAR and all public transport trips. Page 19 of 47

20 PE PRISM Joint Application Team Figure 4.5: All Day Pivoted Trips Growth over Base (Base=0%) for AMS/SRPG Scenario 180% 160% 164% 160% % 120% Percentage Growth 100% 80% 75% 60% 40% 20% 15% 12% 9% 9% 5% 7% 10% 20% 37% 8% 17% 27% 8% 14% 21% 32% 33% 28% 9% 7% 6% 14% 9% 19% 0% Car: Commute Car: Business Car: Education Car: Other TOTAL CAR Train Metro Bus TOTAL Modes The significant increase of metro trips observed from the Figure 4.5 above is clearly due to the Metro Phase 2 Extensions, introduced in Train trips experienced a significant growth, not only due to the South Frankley Rail Extension but also the benefit from the enhanced train passenger access through the metro extension programme. Compared to the ITB/SRPG scenario, the AMS/SRPG results should provide an initial indicator of how the implementation of the major scheme programme would give impacts to the model results. The following Figure 4.6 compares the model outputs from the both scenarios. Figure 4.6: Comparison of All Day Pivoted Trips Growth over Base (0%) ITB/SRPG and AMS/SRPG (2011, 2031) 180% 180% ITB/SRPG % ITB/SRPG % 160% AMS/SRPG 2011 AMS/SRPG % 140% 120% 100% 120% 80% 75% Percentage Growth 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 62% 28% 17% 9% 9% 10% 10% 11% 5% 7% 8% 7% 8% 9% 2% 8% 9% Car: Commute Car: Business Car: Education Car: Other TOTAL CAR Train Metro Bus TOTAL 67% 60% 40% 20% 15% 15% 7% 9% 38% 37% 26% 27% 33% 20% 21% 18% 19% 19% 9% 6% 0% Car: Commute Car: Business Car: Education Car: Other TOTAL CAR Train Metro Bus TOTAL Modes Page 20 of 47

21 PE PRISM Joint Application Team From the comparisons above, it can be seen that implementing the major schemes will give only a little impact to car trips. The significant increase of metro trips in 2031 was again the result of implementing the Metro Phase 2 Extension in Similarly for the train trips, the 15% growth difference in 2031 was due to South Frankley Rail Extension and enhanced access through the new metro line extensions. Over and above that, even though the increasing number of train and metro passenger are obvious, the overall trips growth was not significantly changed. Page 21 of 47

22 PE PRISM Joint Application Team! Integrated Transport Block Network (ITB) has been developed as well as All Major Schemes Network (AMS) have been developed. Both networks incorporate various LTP schemes proposed by the Local Authorities in relation to the 1.25b fund from the Central Government. However, considering the level of detail, not all schemes can be coded into PRISM network. To represent the effect of hearts and minds programme and minor schemes, a 5% reduction on car-based trips has been introduced to the ITB model. At this stage of the study, this feature has only been implemented within one iteration and might become an issue of overall model equilibrium. Therefore, it is then suggested that a further development of this transfer option in the demand model should be considered. Model runs using both network scenarios have been conducted using Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) planning data scenario for 2011, 2021 and The model outputs can be seen as the initial indicator of the future transport condition and the overall movement within the study area. It is found that the impact of both scenarios on highway movement is insignificant. The most apparent impacts on public transport are due to the bus showcase and metro extension programmes. Page 22 of 47

23 PE PRISM Joint Application Team Appendix A : Scheme Details Appendix B : Model Outputs Appendix C : Standard Model Plots Page 23 of 47

24 PRISM Joint Application Team " #$ A.1. BIRMINGHAM a. Longbridge Link Road Coding Source : Drawing no. TP/36356/PROJMAN/NEWFIGS/FIG2.AI has been obtained from Faber Maunsell. Comments : The link connects A441 to Lickey Road in Longbridge area. Since there is no information regarding the preferred option, the Southern Link Road option has been selected as the network coding reference. Integrated Transport Block (ITB) All Major Schemes (AMS) b. Minworth/Chemsley Wood Link Road Coding Source : Drawing no. LP-MIN-02 has been provided by Brett Dennett (Birmingham City Council). Comments : The new link road has been classified as a B road, to provide a connection between A4097 Kingsbury Road and B4118 Water Orton Road. Integrated Transport Block (ITB) All Major Schemes (AMS) Appendix A : Scheme Details

25 PRISM Joint Application Team c. Sutton Coldfield Environment & PT Improvements Coding Source : Drawing no \MID\104 Rev. P1 has been obtained from Brett Dennett (Birmingham City Council) with some additional drawings no \MID\101 Rev. P1 from Mark Bagnall (Mott MacDonald). Comments : The scheme proposes a relief road to Sutton Coldfield high street and some traffic redirection around the central area. Also included in the scheme is to ban access for private traffic to the central shopping centre and provide access for buses to the new station. Due to the new relief road, the existing High St has been downgraded to a B road. The new signal timings have been estimated using a standard 90 second cycle time. Integrated Transport Block (ITB) All Major Schemes (AMS) d. Birmingham East Side Regeneration Coding Source : General plan has been provided by George Parsons (CEPOG). Comments : The scheme proposes a new development on the eastside of Birmingham City Centre. The development includes road closures, local road managements and removal of Jennens Road roundabout, replaced by a signalised junction. There is no signal information available for the new junction between Jennens Road and Birmingham middle ringroad (A4540) hence the signal setting was taken from a junction with similar network characteristics. Integrated Transport Block (ITB) All Major Schemes (AMS) Appendix A : Scheme Details

26 PRISM Joint Application Team A.2. COVENTRY a. Canley Area Regeneration Scheme (CARS) Coding Source : The plan has been obtained from Faber Maunsell.. Comments : The scheme proposes a bypass to provide a connection between A45 in Allesley area to the Kenilworth Bypass at Stoneleigh Road, as well as to provide access to the new regeneration area of Canley, Coventry. Some major intersections have been coded as roundabout. Integrated Transport Block (ITB) All Major Schemes (AMS) b. Coventry Station Transport Hub Coding Source : The brief description has been provided by Colin Eastman (Coventry City Council). Comments : The scheme is to enhance bus interchange at Coventry Rail stations. There are no highway network coding required and from the PT side, some bus lines are rerouted to the interchange. c. Canley Area Regeneration Scheme (CARS) Coding Source : The SARS VISUM model was obtained from Mott MacDonald. Comments : The scheme is proposed to support the Canley regeneration area by converting the some existing elevated intersections on the Coventry Ring Road to a set of roundabout and signalised junction. Integrated Transport Block (ITB) All Major Schemes (AMS) Appendix A : Scheme Details

27 PRISM Joint Application Team A.3. SANDWELL and DUDLEY a. Burnt Tree Island Coding Source : Plan has been supplied by Shokrollah Pilwar (Sandwell MBC). Comments : The scheme is to replace the existing Burnt Tree roundabout with a signalised junction with some junction geometric improvements. The preferred option has been selected as the coding reference. It includes the realignment of Tividale Road to intersect with New Birmingham Road. Integrated Transport Block (ITB) All Major Schemes (AMS) A.4. WALSALL a. Bradford Place Bus Station Coding Source : Scheme proposal by CENTRO (Bradford Place Interchange Walsall, Redevelopment of Bus Interchange, December 2004) and general drawing have been obtained from Khatun Husna (Walsall City Council). Comments : The scheme is to propose a new bus interchange in Walsall central area. It includes road closures and realignments. Integrated Transport Block (ITB) All Major Schemes (AMS) Appendix A : Scheme Details

28 PRISM Joint Application Team b. Brownhill Bypass and Clayhanger Link Coding Source : Option Identification and Appraisal report has been provided by Faber Maunsell. Option C of the bypass has been selected as the network coding reference. Comments : The scheme is to build a bypass for Brownhill town supported by local traffic management on Brownhill high street and to provide a connection between Clayhanger area and Brownhill town centre. Integrated Transport Block (ITB) All Major Schemes (AMS) c. M6 Junction 10 Coding Source : Drawing no. E has been obtained from Walsall City Council. Two proposed new signal settings on the roundabout have been guesstimated. Comments : The scheme proposes a new bridge over the M6, which only takes traffic from Black Country Route to Walsall and reverse; all turning traffic uses roundabout. The scheme is aimed to increase the overall capacity of the junction. Integrated Transport Block (ITB) All Major Schemes (AMS) Appendix A : Scheme Details

29 PRISM Joint Application Team A.5. WOLVERHAMPTON a. I54 Regeneration Corridor Coding Source : Drawing no. D105997/D020/001 and LINSIG signal timing data have been provided by Richard Leonard (Wolverhampton City Council). Comments : Information regarding the new access from M54 to the regeneration area has not been obtained; however, the only available information is about the replacement of the existing Vine Island with signalised junction. Integrated Transport Block (ITB) All Major Schemes (AMS) b. Wolverhampton Railway Station Coding Source : Signal settings from the SATURN model have been obtained from Darren Fidler (Mott MacDonald). Comments : The scheme is to improve the linkages between bus and rail stations (and the proposed new metro line), the town centre environment, accessibility and intermodality, and to support urban regeneration. Considering the level of PRISM network detail, the scheme has only incorporated one new signal coding at Horseley Field/Corn Hill and one signal setting change at Middle Cross/Horseley Fields Junction. New signalised junction New signal setting HIGHWAY CODING Appendix A : Scheme Details

30 PRISM Joint Application Team A.6. CENTRO a. Bristol Road Rapid Transit (Showcase II) Coding Source : The Bristol Road BRT Annex E proposal has been supplied by George Parsons (CEPOG). Summary of Options (Option Summary-rev by Faber Maunsell) has been obtained from CENTRO. Comments : There is no information available regarding which option has been opted for further development. For the study, the low-cost option for each segment has been selected to be coded into the network. This includes capacity reduction due to the bus priority on links as well as intersections at the various locations according to the plan provided. Bus service No. 63 has been converted into the bus rapid transit system. The following assumptions apply for the bus service changes : a. The north-bound bus service has been re-routed via the Holloway circus in the Birmingham city centre b. Only stops at certain location shown on the plan. c. The bus speed has been increased to 27 kph from the previously coded 25 kph (bus showcase scheme). d. Bus service interval increase from every 15 to every 10 minutes. b. Cross City Line, South Frankley Rail Extension Coding Source : Technical information has been provided by Sandeep Shingadia (CENTRO), as follows: Station X-coord. Y-coord. Rubery Lane Frankley Links Time (minutes) Longbridge - Rubery Lane 2.56 Rubery Lane - Frankley 1.82 Service 30 minute service Comments : Dwell time is assumed 10 seconds, applied at each stop. King s Norton Stn Rubery Lane Stn Frankley Stn Longbridge Stn PUBLIC TRANSPORT CODING Appendix A : Scheme Details

31 PRISM Joint Application Team c. Midland Metro Phase 2 Extension Coding Source : The plans were provided by Atkins. The service pattern information has been obtained from Simon Sadler (CENTRO). Comments : The network coding includes the following extensions : Quinton Extension Airport Extension Varsity North 5 Ws The service pattern are as follows : 5 W s Brierley Hill Wolverhampton Airport Varsity North Quinton Wolverhampton Five Ways Brierley Hill Wednesbury Parkway The highway network coding used the same assumptions as the coding for BCCE and BHWE (See PRISM Reference Cases reports). The Midland Metro Phase 2 Extension is only applied for 2021 and 2031 scenario years. 5 W s Varsity North Airport Extension Quinton Extension PUBLIC TRANSPORT CODING Appendix A : Scheme Details

32 PRISM Joint Application Team A.7. WEST MIDLANDS NETWORKS a. East Birmingham Quality Bus Network Coding Source : The list of bus route changes (EBNSRZ Suggested Network Improvements for Revenue Evaluation) has been provided by Keith Homer (TWM). Comments : The scheme proposes changes in the existing bus routes as well as additional and withdrawal of some routes in the east Birmingham area bus network. The changes consists of the following bus routes : a. Services 55 and 92 b. Services 26 and 590 (Washwood Heath Coleshill section) c. Services 96, 97 and 99 d. Services 15, 17 and 590 (Coventry Road Coleshill section) e. Services 71, 72 and 966 (also some minor route changes to 69) f. Services 36 and 89 (also involves 28 and 41) g. Service 32 and 42 b. Red Route Network, remaining network Coding Source : The overall red route plan in West Midlands in the metropolitan area has been obtained from The Red Route proposal for Annex E Submission (The Red Route Network Package 1 Main Report) by Faber Maunsell. Comments : Reference Case network (NR1) has incorporated some of the red route schemes. However, appending the rest of the red route network is reasonably difficult particularly because of the unavailability of definitive information. Bus red route scheme was considered to give more impact to the highway model rather than to public transport model. This is because PRISM PT model only sensitive to service changes, such as time table changes. Red route scheme includes minor road closures, on-street parking and stopping restriction, which provide a better network performance. However, dual carriageway roads or other major roads assigned as the red route have been identified of already having maximum width and normally are restricted for on-street parking. Given those facts above, to include the impact of red route schemes to the model, some assumptions for the network coding are then used : a. For all red route links, the link type is to be upgraded one level to pick the higher speed-flow curve during the assignment, for example 2 lanes narrow road becomes 2 lanes average road, etc. b. For the wide roads, the link type remains the same. Appendix A : Scheme Details

33 PRISM Joint Application Team "# B.1. Integrated Transport Block RPG Planning Data (ITB/SRPG Pivoted Results, 2011), with 5% transfer. Observed Base B, Trips: AM Peak 520, , , ,557 44,040 3, ,126 1,160,225 Inter Peak 263, , , ,565 47,916 7, ,353 2,221,432 PM Peak 527, ,756 58, ,004 41,801 3, ,613 1,557,812 Off Peak 156,115 88,455 7, ,509 17,637 1,224 79, ,534 Total 1,466, , ,334 2,327, ,394 15, ,360 5,933,004 Pivoted Future P, Trips: AM Peak 566, , , ,768 51,914 6, ,749 1,257,408 Inter Peak 284, , ,160 1,029,201 56,721 10, ,663 2,391,107 PM Peak 575, ,114 65, ,276 48,837 6, ,769 1,690,147 Off Peak 169,232 88,596 8, ,958 19,338 2,078 87,396 1,052,942 Total 1,596, , ,179 2,481, ,810 25,570 1,000,577 6,391,605 Growth in Assigned Trips AM Peak 9% 0% 8% 6% 18% 68% 12% 8% Inter Peak 8% 2% 11% 7% 18% 51% 10% 8% PM Peak 9% 3% 11% 7% 17% 74% 12% 8% Off Peak 8% 0% 14% 5% 10% 70% 10% 6% Total 9% 2% 10% 7% 17% 62% 11% 8% B.2. Integrated Transport Block RPG Planning Data (ITB/SRPG Pivoted Results, 2021), with 5% transfer. Observed Base B, Trips: AM Peak 520, , , ,557 44,040 3, ,126 1,160,225 Inter Peak 263, , , ,565 47,916 7, ,353 2,221,432 PM Peak 527, ,756 58, ,004 41,801 3, ,613 1,557,812 Off Peak 156,115 88,455 7, ,509 17,637 1,224 79, ,534 Total 1,466, , ,334 2,327, ,394 15, ,360 5,933,004 Pivoted Future P, Trips: AM Peak 581, , , ,056 51,530 6, ,988 1,293,312 Inter Peak 294, , ,335 1,123,539 57,512 10, ,016 2,516,232 PM Peak 593, ,146 70, ,854 48,472 6, ,582 1,762,514 Off Peak 174,959 90,121 9, ,295 19,236 2,062 84,706 1,117,708 Total 1,644, , ,547 2,698, ,750 25, ,292 6,689,766 Growth in Assigned Trips AM Peak 12% 1% 18% 15% 17% 67% 9% 11% Inter Peak 12% 5% 24% 17% 20% 54% 9% 13% PM Peak 13% 4% 20% 16% 16% 74% 9% 13% Off Peak 12% 2% 27% 15% 9% 68% 7% 12% Total 12% 4% 21% 16% 17% 63% 9% 13% B.3. Integrated Transport Block RPG Planning Data (ITB/SRPG Pivoted Results, 2031), with 5% transfer. Observed Base B, Trips: AM Peak 520, , , ,557 44,040 3, ,126 1,160,225 Inter Peak 263, , , ,565 47,916 7, ,353 2,221,432 PM Peak 527, ,756 58, ,004 41,801 3, ,613 1,557,812 Off Peak 156,115 88,455 7, ,509 17,637 1,224 79, ,534 Total 1,466, , ,334 2,327, ,394 15, ,360 5,933,004 Pivoted Future P, Trips: AM Peak 595, , , ,917 51,980 6, ,620 1,339,385 Inter Peak 303, , ,810 1,221,324 59,167 11, ,086 2,666,184 PM Peak 608, ,124 79, ,660 48,791 6, ,255 1,844,443 Off Peak 179,953 92,448 10, ,646 19,282 2,074 83,195 1,186,375 Total 1,687, , ,317 2,925, ,219 26, ,156 7,036,386 Growth in Assigned Trips AM Peak 14% 4% 34% 24% 18% 69% 9% 15% Inter Peak 15% 10% 43% 27% 23% 61% 10% 20% PM Peak 16% 7% 35% 26% 17% 76% 9% 18% Off Peak 15% 5% 47% 24% 9% 69% 5% 19% Total 15% 7% 38% 26% 18% 67% 9% 19% Appendix B : Model Outputs

34 PRISM Joint Application Team B.4. Integrated Transport Block RPG Planning Data (ITB/SRPG Pivoted Results, 2011), without 5% transfer. Observed Base B, Trips: AM Peak 520, , , ,557 44,040 3, ,126 1,160,225 Inter Peak 263, , , ,565 47,916 7, ,353 2,221,432 PM Peak 527, ,756 58, ,004 41,801 3, ,613 1,557,812 Off Peak 156,115 88,455 7, ,509 17,637 1,224 79, ,534 Total 1,466, , ,334 2,327, ,394 15, ,360 5,933,004 Pivoted Future P, Trips: AM Peak 595, , , ,757 46,961 5, ,717 1,289,718 Inter Peak 301, , ,167 1,072,803 52,810 10, ,268 2,449,010 PM Peak 605, ,150 67, ,644 44,175 5, ,496 1,742,135 Off Peak 181,686 93,918 8, ,527 18,222 1,831 83,328 1,123,177 Total 1,684, , ,663 2,615, ,169 23, ,809 6,604,039 Growth in Assigned Trips AM Peak 14% 3% 14% 10% 7% 47% 8% 11% Inter Peak 15% 4% 15% 12% 10% 41% 8% 10% PM Peak 15% 6% 15% 12% 6% 54% 8% 12% Off Peak 16% 6% 18% 14% 3% 50% 5% 13% Total 15% 5% 15% 12% 7% 46% 7% 11% B.5. Integrated Transport Block RPG Planning Data (ITB/SRPG Pivoted Results, 2021), without 5% transfer. Observed Base B, Trips: AM Peak 520, , , ,557 44,040 3, ,126 1,160,225 Inter Peak 263, , , ,565 47,916 7, ,353 2,221,432 PM Peak 527, ,756 58, ,004 41,801 3, ,613 1,557,812 Off Peak 156,115 88,455 7, ,509 17,637 1,224 79, ,534 Total 1,466, , ,334 2,327, ,394 15, ,360 5,933,004 Pivoted Future P, Trips: AM Peak 610, , , ,158 46,304 5, ,743 1,325,456 Inter Peak 311, , ,393 1,163,821 53,326 10, ,584 2,565,325 PM Peak 624, ,237 73, ,961 43,553 5, ,140 1,816,760 Off Peak 188,006 95,911 9, ,681 18,060 1,794 80,488 1,199,594 Total 1,733, , ,526 2,842, ,243 23, ,956 6,907,135 Growth in Assigned Trips AM Peak 17% 5% 24% 19% 5% 45% 5% 14% Inter Peak 18% 6% 28% 21% 11% 43% 6% 15% PM Peak 18% 8% 25% 21% 4% 52% 5% 17% Off Peak 20% 8% 32% 25% 2% 47% 2% 21% Total 18% 7% 26% 22% 7% 46% 5% 16% B.6. Integrated Transport Block RPG Planning Data (ITB/SRPG Pivoted Results, 2031), without 5% transfer. Observed Base B, Trips: AM Peak 520, , , ,557 44,040 3, ,126 1,160,225 Inter Peak 263, , , ,565 47,916 7, ,353 2,221,432 PM Peak 527, ,756 58, ,004 41,801 3, ,613 1,557,812 Off Peak 156,115 88,455 7, ,509 17,637 1,224 79, ,534 Total 1,466, , ,334 2,327, ,394 15, ,360 5,933,004 Pivoted Future P, Trips: AM Peak 625, , , ,424 46,378 5, ,044 1,374,473 Inter Peak 318, , ,827 1,261,679 54,507 10, ,775 2,710,182 PM Peak 641, ,649 82, ,978 43,508 5, ,500 1,903,025 Off Peak 193,102 98,368 11, ,437 18,020 1,784 78,758 1,279,546 Total 1,778, , ,986 3,085, ,413 23, ,078 7,267,226 Growth in Assigned Trips AM Peak 20% 7% 40% 29% 5% 44% 4% 18% Inter Peak 21% 10% 48% 31% 14% 48% 7% 22% PM Peak 22% 11% 39% 31% 4% 52% 4% 22% Off Peak 24% 11% 51% 37% 2% 46% -1% 29% Total 21% 10% 43% 33% 7% 48% 5% 22% Appendix B : Model Outputs

35 PRISM Joint Application Team B.7. All Major Schemes RPG Planning Data (AMS/SRPG Pivoted Results, 2011), with 5% transfer. Observed Base B, Trips: AM Peak 520, , , ,557 44,040 3, ,126 1,160,225 Inter Peak 263, , , ,565 47,916 7, ,353 2,221,432 PM Peak 527, ,756 58, ,004 41,801 3, ,613 1,557,812 Off Peak 156,115 88,455 7, ,509 17,637 1,224 79, ,534 Total 1,466, , ,334 2,327, ,394 15, ,360 5,933,004 Pivoted Future P, Trips: AM Peak 566, , , ,261 58,516 7, ,308 1,268,930 Inter Peak 285, , ,504 1,042,709 60,890 11, ,876 2,414,545 PM Peak 574, ,216 64, ,109 54,778 6, ,630 1,706,105 Off Peak 169,507 94,178 8, ,315 20,291 2,251 86,074 1,066,928 Total 1,595, , ,564 2,513, ,475 27, ,887 6,456,508 Growth in Assigned Trips AM Peak 9% 4% 9% 8% 33% 83% 10% 9% Inter Peak 8% 6% 11% 8% 27% 61% 9% 9% PM Peak 9% 6% 10% 9% 31% 92% 10% 10% Off Peak 9% 6% 13% 7% 15% 84% 9% 7% Total 9% 5% 10% 8% 28% 75% 9% 9% B.8. All Major Schemes RPG Planning Data (AMS/SRPG Pivoted Results, 2021), with 5% transfer. Observed Base B, Trips: AM Peak 520, , , ,557 44,040 3, ,126 1,160,225 Inter Peak 263, , , ,565 47,916 7, ,353 2,221,432 PM Peak 527, ,756 58, ,004 41,801 3, ,613 1,557,812 Off Peak 156,115 88,455 7, ,509 17,637 1,224 79, ,534 Total 1,466, , ,334 2,327, ,394 15, ,360 5,933,004 Pivoted Future P, Trips: AM Peak 582, , , ,384 59,349 10, ,898 1,309,141 Inter Peak 290, , ,372 1,124,264 63,720 16, ,509 2,516,157 PM Peak 593, ,601 70, ,296 55,758 10, ,869 1,786,947 Off Peak 173,921 95,564 9, ,054 20,506 3,498 82,605 1,132,255 Total 1,639, , ,267 2,723, ,334 40, ,880 6,744,500 Growth in Assigned Trips AM Peak 12% 4% 18% 17% 35% 165% 7% 13% Inter Peak 10% 7% 22% 17% 33% 133% 7% 13% PM Peak 13% 7% 20% 18% 33% 199% 7% 15% Off Peak 11% 8% 24% 16% 16% 186% 4% 14% Total 12% 7% 20% 17% 32% 160% 7% 14% B.9. All Major Schemes RPG Planning Data (AMS/SRPG Pivoted Results, 2031), with 5% transfer. Observed Base B, Trips: AM Peak 520, , , ,557 44,040 3, ,126 1,160,225 Inter Peak 263, , , ,565 47,916 7, ,353 2,221,432 PM Peak 527, ,756 58, ,004 41,801 3, ,613 1,557,812 Off Peak 156,115 88,455 7, ,509 17,637 1,224 79, ,534 Total 1,466, , ,334 2,327, ,394 15, ,360 5,933,004 Pivoted Future P, Trips: AM Peak 595, , , ,154 59,782 10, ,639 1,355,222 Inter Peak 299, , ,486 1,220,359 65,396 17, ,451 2,656,878 PM Peak 609, ,018 79, ,951 56,057 10, ,613 1,869,224 Off Peak 178,972 98,082 10, ,542 20,573 3,505 81,148 1,201,319 Total 1,682, , ,660 2,949, ,807 41, ,851 7,082,644 Growth in Assigned Trips AM Peak 14% 7% 34% 26% 36% 167% 7% 17% Inter Peak 14% 9% 41% 27% 36% 141% 7% 20% PM Peak 16% 10% 34% 28% 34% 202% 6% 20% Off Peak 15% 11% 43% 26% 17% 186% 2% 21% Total 15% 9% 37% 27% 33% 164% 6% 19% Appendix B : Model Outputs

36 "# Appendix C : Standard Model Plots

37 Appendix C : Standard Model Plots

38 Appendix C : Standard Model Plots

39 Appendix C : Standard Model Plots

40 Appendix C : Standard Model Plots

41 Appendix C : Standard Model Plots

42 Appendix C : Standard Model Plots

43 Appendix C : Standard Model Plots

44 Appendix C : Standard Model Plots

45 Appendix C : Standard Model Plots

46 Appendix C : Standard Model Plots