Appendix e Strategic and Town Centre Transport Modelling

Appendix E
Strategic and Town Centre

Transport Modelling (VISSIM
Model and SEDMMTS)

Part of the Transport Study 2011

Prepared for the Bournemouth Town Centre
Area Action Plan

Bournemouth Town Centre
AAP Appraisal
VISSIM Assessment Final Report

05 August 2011

Export House
Cawsey Way
Woking
Surrey
GU21 6QX
UK

T +44 (0)1483 731000
F +44 (0)1483 731003

Bournemouth Town Centre AAP Appraisal
August 2011

S:\Projects\1035372 Bournemouth VISSIM 2011\09 Documents\09 Final Report\Aug 05 11 - AAP VISSIM
Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
i
Document Control Sheet
Project Title Bournemouth Town Centre AAP Appraisal

Report Title VISSIM Assessment Final Report

Revision D

Status Final

Control Date 05/08/11

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date
A Draft D Westbury
26/5/11
R Surl
26/5/11
R Surl
26/5/11
B Draft D Westbury 24/6/11 I Baker 27/6/11 R Surl 29/6/11
C Draft D Westbury 05/7/11 R Surl 06/7/11 R Surl 06/7/11
D Final D Westbury 05/8/11 R Surl 05/8/11 R Surl 05/8/11

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies
Bournemouth Borough Council Geoff Turnbull electronic
Bournemouth Borough Council Mike Campkin electronic
Bournemouth Borough Council Alexis Edwards electronic
Bournemouth Borough Council Planning & Transport 3

August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
ii
Contents
Document Control Sheet............................................................................................... i
Contents ........................................................................................................................ ii
Tables ........................................................................................................................... iv
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background........................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose of this study............................................................................................. 1
1.3 Scope of the study................................................................................................. 2
2 ST1 Removal of all background traffic growth.............................................. 4
2.1 Previous assessment of background growth......................................................... 4
2.2 Background traffic growth datasets....................................................................... 4
2.3 Revised AAP assumptions.................................................................................... 4
3 ST2 Removal of internal background traffic growth only............................. 5
3.1 Previous assessment of background traffic growth............................................... 5
4 ST3 Trip Generation Review............................................................................ 6
4.1 Background traffic growth...................................................................................... 6
4.2 Changes to the AAP Strategy............................................................................... 6
4.3 Changes to the Parking Strategy.......................................................................... 7
4.4 Hotel Developments - Trip Generation Review..................................................... 7
4.5 Residential Developments - Trip Generation Review............................................ 9
4.6 Leisure and Cultural Developments - Trip Generation Review........................... 10
4.7 Employment Developments - Trip Generation Review....................................... 12
4.8 Retail Developments - Trip Generation Review.................................................. 13
4.9 Adjustment for access to Public Transport.......................................................... 14
4.10 Revised Trip Generation Figures ........................................................................ 14
5 Modelling results from sensitivity tests .......................................................... 16
5.1 Sensitivity Test 1 (ST1) ....................................................................................... 16
5.2 Sensitivity Test 2 (ST2) ....................................................................................... 16
5.3 Sensitivity Test 3................................................................................................. 17
5.4 Summary of findings............................................................................................ 17
6 Further modelling.............................................................................................. 18
6.1 Trip Generation................................................................................................... 18
6.2 Background Traffic Growth.................................................................................. 18
6.3 AM peak.............................................................................................................. 19
August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
iii
6.4 PM peak.............................................................................................................. 19
6.5 Saturday peak..................................................................................................... 20
6.6 Saturday evening peak........................................................................................ 21
7 Possible mitigation measures to be considered: developing the Do
Something network ........................................................................................... 22
7.1 The need for mitigation measures....................................................................... 22
7.2 Mitigation measures identified by examining the 2021 PM peak ........................ 22
7.3 Mitigation measures identified by examining the Saturday peak periods............ 23
8 Summary and conclusions............................................................................... 25
8.1 Sensitivity tests 1 and 2....................................................................................... 25
8.2 Sensitivity Test 3................................................................................................. 25
8.3 AM peak.............................................................................................................. 25
8.4 PM peak.............................................................................................................. 25
8.5 Saturday peak..................................................................................................... 26
8.6 Saturday evening peak........................................................................................ 26
8.7 Summary of mitigation and further recommendations......................................... 26

Appendicies
A AAP Sites and Trip Rate Methodology
B AAP Trip Generation
C AAP Land Use Class Trip Rates
D Background Traffic Growth
E VISSIM Modelling Network Statistics

August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
iv
Tables
Table 1: Alterations to the AAP development sites........................................................... 7
Table 2: Alterations to the Parking Strategy..................................................................... 7
Table 3: Hotel use PM peak trip rates .............................................................................. 8
Table 4: Residential use PM peak trip rates..................................................................... 9
Table 5: Winter Gardens leisure use PM peak trip rates derived from TRICS ............... 11
Table 6: Swimming Pool use PM peak trip rates............................................................ 11
Table 7: Employment use PM peak trip rates................................................................. 12
Table 8: Summary of reductions to vehicle trip generation for AAP land uses............... 15
Table 9: Summary of AAP site development trip generation in the PM peak................. 15
Table 10: Comparison of total vehicles flows in 2016 PM peak DMO and ST1 models. 16
Table 13: Summary of development trip generation by assessment year and peak hour
................................................................................................................................ 18

August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
1
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
In order to plan the development and regeneration of the town centre effectively over
the next 15 years, Bournemouth Borough Council (BBC) are seeking to implement
an Area Action Plan (AAP) which will be used to help coordinate change and control
planning applications and permissions. To understand the views of the towns
residents a series of consultation exercises was undertaken and these led to in the
formation of a preferred strategy - the Town Centre AAP.
The Town Centre AAP sets out the overall development capacity for the town centre
by identifying the possible scale and location of residential, employment, commercial
and leisure developments on sites within the town centre. The AAP also envisages
measures to improve transport, parking and movement within the town centre. The
allocation and scale of development and land use at specific AAP sites is not yet
confirmed in policy, but the Council consider it to be a good representation of what
may occur.
The work undertaken described in this report is based on a previous commission to
develop a Town Centre VISSIM model which examined the impact of traffic
management and development scenarios. The assumptions made in the previous
stage were based on the Site Uses and Amounts document provided on the 19
th

J anuary 2011.
1.2 Purpose of this study
In the first phase of this study
1
, VISSIM model tests were based on the development
scenario in the Site Uses and Amounts document. A methodology was agreed with
the Council for assessing the level of trip generation and background traffic growth
that would occur, leading to the creation of the Do Minimum (DM0) models.
These initial model runs suggested that the level of development identified in the
AAP Town Centre AAP, and the level of new trips assumed to be generated by this
development, would create an unacceptable level of congestion in the town centre.
Such a finding is not unusual when forecasting future traffic impacts on an
unimproved network, but in this instance it also raised questions about the agreed
methodology which had assumed that:
All developments were equally likely and all would be delivered in the plan
period;
Each development would generate traffic independently of other developments;
and
Development growth would be additional to background traffic growth.

1
Bournemouth Town Centre Vision Appraisal, April 2011
August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
2
It was agreed with the Council that these assumptions represented an extremely
cautious, worst case scenario and in combination - may not be realistic. At the
same time, the development aspirations in the AAP were recognised as very
ambitious, implying an exceptionally high rate of growth in the town centre. In purely
modelling terms, a conventional approach would have been to constrain this implied
growth to a more conservative total, in line with TEMPRO forecasts. However, as the
specific purpose of this model is to examine the full implications of the AAP, it is
important that it reflects all the development that is envisaged for the town centre in
the AAP.
It was therefore agreed that the assumptions used in trip generation for the DM0
models should be re-visited. The issues considered were:
Possible double counting of growth through the cumulative assessment
of forecast background traffic growth and estimated development
growth;
Cumulative assessment of all AAP sites;
Possible interactions between trip generators at AAP sites;
Possible interactions between AAP sites and existing trip generators;
Assumed trip rates for the AAP sites; and
Further clarification of likely development uses at the AAP sites.
The aim of this exercise was to develop a revised model which would be both
realistic and fit for its specific purpose of examining the likely effects of the AAP
proposals in the town centre.
1.3 Scope of the study
1.3.1 Sensitivity Tests
To ascertain the impact of the issues with the DM0 models, it was agreed that three
sensitivity tests should be undertaken, representing different ways to create a more
conservative assessment of development growth:
ST1. The removal of background traffic growth for the whole network;
ST2. The removal of background traffic growth related to internal zones
only;
ST3. The re-assessment of trip generation for land use classes on a site by
site basis. This test also provided an opportunity to take account of
changes in the Councils assumptions about some development sites.
These initial sensitivity tests were conducted for the PM peak hour only (17:00 to
18:00) as this is the most critical time period for the network. It was agreed to model
the 2016 assessment year only in the first instance.
August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
3
1.3.2 Modelled Network
The sensitivity tests were conducted using the Do Minimum highway network, as
used in previous tests. This network includes the following consented schemes
2

which had already been proposed to mitigate the effect of the proposed
developments:
Bath Road development car park access the existing priority
accesses to the Bath Road North and Bath Road South car parks is
replaced with a four arm signalised junction which includes a dedicated
all-round pedestrian stage;
Bath Road/ Westover/Road/ Hinton Road the existing roundabout
which included access to Westover Road and egress from Hinton Road
is removed with both roads having junctions with Bath Road, separated
by about 40m;
Bath Road/ Upper Hinton Road/ Russell Cotes Road the junction
which currently forms a priority crossroads is fully signalised with a
dedicated all-round pedestrian stage;
Exeter Road/ Cranbourne Road/ Exeter Crescent the existing
staggered crossroads is replaced by a signalised junction; and
BIC Roundabout the four-arm priority controlled roundabout is
replaced by a signalised crossroads including a dedicated all-round
pedestrian stage.
A number of schemes on Tregonwell Road which were implemented
after the base model was built.
The three sensitivity tests are described in more detail in sections 2, 3 and 4 below.
The results of these initial sensitivity tests are set out in Chapter 5.

2
Previously consented schemes may not come forward in the form assumed in the planning
applications however mitigation at these locations will be required to deliver the AAP
aspirations.
August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
4
2 ST1 Removal of all background traffic growth
2.1 Previous assessment of background growth
It was agreed that the DM0 models were a robust worst case scenario for assessing
the future operation of the network. They assumed there would be background traffic
growth (as predicted by TEMPRO utilising National Trip End Model (NTEM) version
5.4) on top of which development growth from the AAP sites is treated as additional
traffic. This method was agreed as no information was available on which new
developments were included within the TEMPRO dataset.
Using this approach, background traffic growth in the PM peak period between 2008
and 2016 added 1,166 additional trips to the modelled network. Approximately half of
these trips were associated with growth in internal (town centre) zones.
Within the same peak, the level of vehicle growth identified with the development
sites of the AAP was 1,684 trips.
It can be seen that development trips from the AAP sites vastly outweighed trips
associated with background traffic growth. For this sensitivity test (ST1) is assumed
that the level of development envisaged in the Town Centre AAP is so large that it
must in fact include and subsume all the background traffic growth. Therefore, the
first sensitivity test (ST1) examines the effect of removing all background traffic
growth from the origin and destination matrix.
2.2 Background traffic growth datasets
Since the DM0 modelling, a new version of the NTEM datasets (TEMPRO) has been
released by the DfT. These datasets are the first to reflect how the continued
recession has impacted the project changes in trip making. Although these new
datasets have not been officially accepted (expected J uly 2011) they are useful for
comparison with the previous versions.
The new datasets clearly show how forecasts for future trip making in both
Bournemouth and Dorset have significantly reduced since the 2008 datasets were
released. In the PM peak, the equivalent level of vehicle growth between 2008 and
2016 would be 350 compared with the previous forecast of 1,166.
As ST1 assumes no background traffic growth, the change in TEMPRO is not an
issue for this test, but the fact that lower growth is forecast in Version 6.2 arguably
makes the test more realistic.
2.3 Revised AAP assumptions
It was highlighted by Bournemouth Borough Council that two of the AAP sites, NCP
Exeter Road and The Former Winterbourne Hotel, previously anticipated for
development by 2026, should now be brought forward into the assessment for 2021.
Trip generation figures for these sites were subsequently added to the matrix.
Although background traffic has been removed, this scenario is still considered to be
a worst-case in terms of generated traffic associated with the AAP sites.
August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
5
3 ST2 Removal of internal background traffic
growth only
3.1 Previous assessment of background traffic growth
During the DM0 modelling the prediction of background traffic growth assumed
different growth rates for traffic which interacted with the modelled internal zones (i.e.
had an origin or destination within the town centre) than for trips purely between
external zones (through traffic).
Whereas ST1 removed all background traffic growth in the area, the second test
(ST2) simply assumes that the level of development within the internal zones will
have no bearing on the growth of through-traffic. ST2 therefore retains the
background traffic growth forecasts for through-traffic (i.e. that with both origin and
destinations in external zones).
ST2 clearly contains all of the traffic identified in ST1 plus additional traffic from the
background traffic growth forecast. Clearly, if the ST1 tests show that there is no
spare capacity (gridlock), there is no need to actually perform the ST2 as the
outcome can only be worse.

August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
6
4 ST3 Trip Generation Review
This section describes the recent changes made by the Town Centre AAP team to
their assumptions for the development sites and car park strategy. It goes on to
discuss the trip generation methodology for each land use class before finally
summarising the rationale behind changes to the trip matrix for each of the AAP
sites.
Appendix A contains the full list of AAP sites showing the expected development
proposals and detailing the assumptions made on trip generation.
4.1 Background traffic growth
The third sensitivity test (ST3) retains the assumption from ST1 that background
traffic growth will be subsumed within that generated by the AAP developments.
4.2 Changes to the AAP Strategy
Since the previous stage of the commission there has been further clarification of the
strategy for the AAP. The Council has provided updates to the development strategy
for the town centre after review by the planning and urban design teams. These
changes were identified in the following email correspondence:
11/04/2011 Mouchel modelling table queries response; and
23/05/2011 - Town centre modelling appraisal response.
Table 1 describes changes to the aspirations at certain development sites, as
advised by the Town Centre AAP team since the last iteration of the modelling.
Site Change to AAP Aspiration
1 NCP Exeter Road
Extant planning permission is not expected to come
forward and the development is expected to
become a bus hub. Supporting uses are to be
forthcoming including residential and small scale
retail. The bus hub has not been developed
significantly to be modelled in any detail within this
assessment
2 Winter Gardens
It is unrealistic to expect that a cinema complex will
be built on this site as well as the consented
location at Bath Road north. The expected use is
assumed to be a cultural/ leisure use such as a
museum or bowling alley.
3 Bath Road South
Redevelopment has been put back to the 2021
period.
4 Bath Road North
The likely site for redevelopment of cinema. The
planning application which is forthcoming will be
used to show this, however the actual development
August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
7
as this use will be dependent on whether other
sites provide cinemas.
5 Westover Road
The development is not expected to include any
major employment.
6 Central
The consented development will retain (and
increase by 75) the existing parking spaces.
9 Cotlands Road
Capacity for development (employment) floor
space reduced to 17,000m
2
10 Asda
Capacity for development (employment) floor
space reduced to 8,000m
2

Table 1: Alterations to the AAP development sites
4.3 Changes to the Parking Strategy
Table 2 describes the changes made by the Town Centre AAP team to the car park
strategy for the town centre since the last stage of the project.
Car Park Site Change to AAP Parking Strategy
B Bath Road North 75 fewer spaces than earlier strategy
G Central Parking remains on site and increase by 75 spaces
7a Hinton Road No new car park
R Town Hall Annexe Parking level remains in 2026
T West Hill Increase to 200 spaces
U Winter Gardens Spaces reduced to 400 in 2026
Table 2: Alterations to the Parking Strategy
4.4 Hotel Developments - Trip Generation Review
4.4.1 Level of Development
The Town Centre AAP identifies 12 development sites as containing an element of
hotel provision either as the main or sub use. Seven of these are scheduled for
development by 2016 and account for 1,091 new hotel rooms. The addition of so
many hotel rooms is clearly linked to the status of Bournemouth as a tourist
destination but also to the necessity to provide accommodation for other temporary
visitors to the town such as those generated by the large increase in employment
space.
4.4.2 Trip Rates
Trip rates for hotel uses were recently agreed with a developer for the Terrace Mount
development. The developer originally supplied trip rates which were based on sites
within the TRICS database and it was considered (by BBC Development Control)
August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
8
that the majority of sites (taken from the TRICS dataset) could not be considered
suitable for use in Bournemouth when comparison was made between the
parameters.
With guidance from BBC, more suitable trip rates were produced through the
collection of surveys conducted at similar sites. Two hotel types were at looked for
Terrace Mount: 2/3 star hotel; and 3 star hotel with conferencing.
As the proposed hotel uses (rating and facilities) at the AAP sites within the town are
not known, an average of the two Terrace Mount examples have been used. The
standard (per room) trip rates for the PM peak are shown in Table 3 below.
Trip Rate Arrival Departure Total
PM Peak 0.149 0.064 0.213
Table 3: Hotel use PM peak trip rates
These trip rates are lower than those used previously but are considered more
robust as they have been based on more suitable sites.
Using the trip rates from Table 3, the 12 AAP sites which contain hotels produce 251
arrivals and 108 departures (363 in total) in the PM peak. In comparison the original
exercise produced 591 arrivals and 193 departures (total of 784) departures in the
PM peak.
4.4.3 Linked Trips
The assumptions made in the DM0 modelling treated all developments in isolation in
order to present a worst-case scenario. However, in order to formulate a more
realistic scenario it is considered that the use of the additional hotels will be
inexorably linked to leisure, retail and employment uses in the town centre.
With Bournemouth being a popular tourist destination it is evident that a certain
amount of trips generated by the proposed leisure will be linked to the new hotels.
Section 4.6.3 describes in detail how the link between the trips generated
by hotels and those generated by leisure developments has been
accounted for in the trip generation exercise

Similarly, hotel trips could be linked to employment, which has been identified to
grow considerably within the town.

by hotels and those generated by employment developments has been
accounted for in the trip generation exercise
August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
9

4.5 Residential Developments - Trip Generation Review
The Town Centre AAP identifies 22 sites as containing a level of residential
development which are universally predicted to be flats rather than houses owing to
the intensively developed nature of the town centre.
The 22 AAP sites will provide a total of 2,595 flats (950 of which will be developed by
2016) and development at 13 these sites will also contain other land uses. Not all
residential developments are to be taken forward and the likely residential
development is likely to fulfil approximately two thirds of the total estimate. Trip
generation for each residential site has therefore been factored to 66%.
4.5.2 Residential Characteristics in Bournemouth Town Centre
The 2001 Census Data provides relevant information about the residential population
of the AAP area/ Central ward:
Car ownership levels of all residential units in the AAP area is 48.4%;
74% of the population of the AAP area are between the ages of 18-64
with a further 19.6% above 64.
Economically active population of AAP area is 4,152 or 50% of the total
population;
42% of the economically active resident population (Central Ward)
drive to work.
It is evident from the census data that the majority of residents within the AAP area
are young city dwellers, most of whom do not have children with retired residents
also making up a large percentage of the towns demographic. From this it can be
deduced that trip generation within peak periods is likely to be almost entirely made
up of journeys to work.
Trip rates used for the previous study are felt to be a robust assessment of the
potential trip generation for new residential (flats) sites in the town centre. These are
shown in Table 4 below:
PM Peak 0.133 0.064 0.197
Table 4: Residential use PM peak trip rates
4.5.3 Linked Trips
It should be considered that trips from the large number of additional residential units
provided by the AAP will be linked to the proposed town centre leisure
developments.
August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
10
by residential developments and those generated by employment
developments has been accounted for in the trip generation exercise

Similarly, a proportion of new residential trips will be linked to the newly created jobs
associated within the employment aspirations of the AAP.
by residential developments and those generated by employment
developments has been accounted for in the trip generation exercise

4.5.4 Transferred Trips
There are no existing residential units being replaced with new developments (of the
same use) within the AAP sites and therefore no consideration can be given to the
transfer of trips.
4.6 Leisure and Cultural Developments - Trip Generation Review
Winter Gardens
The potential usage identified in the AAP assumptions is for a tourist destination
such as a museum/ gallery or bowling alley.
Bath Road North
An extant planning consent at the site is for a mixed use development centred
around a casino. However, a revised application was received in J une 2011 which
will request a change of main use to a 2,000 seat multiplex cinema. The multiplex
cinema development will only be operational once the existing cinemas (on
Westover Road) have closed. The development will include several restaurant units.
Bath Road South
The timescale of development has been moved back to 2021. The expected use of
the site will be for tourism such as a water based theme park. The majority of trips
from these are expected between 10am and early evening.
4.6.2 Trip Rates
Winter Gardens
Due to the large floor area of the Winter Gardens development site, it is assumed
that more than one use is to be developed. Whilst the end use of the site is
unknown, this study has assumed it will be split between a museum/ gallery and a
bowling alley.
Six town centre sites have been found in the TRICS database for museums and
have been used to calculate expected trip generation for that use, however sites for
bowling alleys within TRICS are limited.
The trip rates (per 100m2 of GFA) for the two uses are shown in Table 5 below:
August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
11
Museum 0.007 0.098 0.105
Bowling Alley 1.113 1.298 2.411
Table 5: Winter Gardens leisure use PM peak trip rates derived from TRICS
Bath Road North
The extant planning permission at the Bath Road North site is to be considered void
and a new planning application for a complex to contain a cinema coupled with
restaurant uses.
The cinema is to replace the two existing cinemas on Westover Road. It is therefore
assumed that all trips generated by the cinema use will already exist on the network
and that there is no net gain in trips related to this use. The Westover Road site is to
be redeveloped and trips generated by that development will be looked in Section
4.8.1.
Bath Road South
The exact use at Bath Road South is not known however there is an expectation for
this to be a water-based activity centre. The TRICS database does not contain any
relevant sites and as such it is difficult to predict a viable trip rate for the site.
The most appropriate similar use appears to be swimming pool and TRICS has been
used to find town centre based sites for which a trip rate can be generated. These
trip rates are shown in Table 6 below:
PM Peak 1.757 1.861 3.618
Table 6: Swimming Pool use PM peak trip rates
4.6.3 Linked Trips
The AAP estimates that there will a large increase in the volume of hotel rooms in
Bournemouth Town Centre. It is therefore likely that a proportion of new trips to
these developments may already be on the network (as hotel guests). A
conservative estimate would assume that 5% of trips for all leisure developments in
the town centre would be generated by guests staying at the new hotels.
It must also be expected that the users of the proposed leisure facilities will, in part,
be drawn from the local community which is forecast to grow significantly owing to
the residential element of the AAP. This study has assumed that 5% of the trips
generated by leisure will be removed due to the link to residential growth.
The revised planning proposed application for the Bath Road North development
suggests that 20% of the trips generated by the restaurant uses will already exist on
August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
12
the network in the form of retail or leisure users whilst a further 5% will be linked to
the cinema. These assumptions are carried forward in this assessment.
The identified linked trips between leisure and other uses are assumed to
already be on the network and have therefore been removed from the
vehicle trip generation for the leisure developments.

4.7 Employment Developments - Trip Generation Review
Eight of the development sites identified in the Town Centre AAP will be completely
or partially employment space. Whilst three sites are expected to provide a like for
like replacement in terms of floor area, the remaining five sites represent an
approximate growth in employment floor space of 42,500m
2
, almost two thirds of
which is scheduled for development by 2016.
Not all of the employment developments are to be taken forward and the latest
estimates from BBC suggest that the likely cumulative development will fulfil
approximately 85% of the floor space.
To account for this the trip generation for each employment site has therefore been
reduced by 15%.
4.7.2 Trip Rates
The previous studies incorrectly used a trip rate for employment based on a 30
minute time period (1700-1730). The correct methodology would be to combine the
two 30 minute periods within the peak hour (1700-1800). Previous work has
therefore underestimated the trips produced by employment uses.
Table 7 shows the corrected employment use trip rates (per 100m
2
GFA) for the PM
peak.
PM Peak 0.206 1.265 1.471
Table 7: Employment use PM peak trip rates
4.7.3 Linked Trips
It is recognised that there is a significant increase in the provision of employment
floor space in the town centre and that the existing population would not be able to
generate the employees to for the scale of created jobs. However, the AAP also
identifies an additional 2,595 residential units in the town centre. The analysis of the
Census Data in section 4.5.2 highlights that the majority of the working residents in
the town are young professionals and clearly this will drive the increase in jobs
created by the AAP sites. It has therefore been assumed that a proportion of the new
jobs will be met by this increase in the local resident population.
August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
13
This study has assumed that 5% of the trips generated by the proposed employment
developments will be removed due to the link to residential growth.
Similarly, the large increase in hotel rooms planned in the town centre will have an
element that is linked to employment. Four of the AAP sites identified for
employment uses also contain hotel developments which are more likely to result in
linked trips.
A conservative estimate of a 2% reduction in trips generated by employment uses
has been made to account for trips linked to hotel development.
The identified linked trips between employment and other uses are
assumed to already be on the network and have therefore been removed
from the vehicle trip generation for the employment developments.

4.7.4 Transferred Trips
Several AAP developments are located on existing employment sites including those
at Christchurch Road, Wellington Road and the Town Hall Annexe. In terms of floor
area these are expected to be like for like replacements and the most logical
methodology would be to transfer the existing trips onto the new sites leading to no
net-gain in vehicle trips.
4.8 Retail Developments - Trip Generation Review
Within the AAP sites retail development falls within three categories:
As an on-site enabling use for other uses such as employment or
leisure (e.g. Bath Road North;
As a like for like replacement with the existing land use (e.g.
Commercial Road);
As a new/ intensified shopping area (e.g. Westover Road)
Enabling Uses
Commercial units which have been appended to development plans are expected to
be small shops, newsagents or cafs. These will serve the other uses in the same
developments as well as those from nearby uses.
Retail Replacement
At certain APP sites, including the large Commercial Road/ Avenue Road, the
proposed retail elements will offer a like for like replacement in terms of floor area.
Although it could be argued that a large improvement in facilities and possibly retail
choices would lead to a larger number of visitors to the town for purely shopping
reasons it is more likely that any additional users of these retail units will already be
shopping within the town, or be generated by the new employment, residential and
hotel uses.
August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
14
New/ Intensified Area
Westover Road is identified as an area where existing uses (cinema/ bowling alley/
hotel) is to be redeveloped primarily as a retail shopping area (an extension of the
high street) but also to house new hotel, residential and employment uses.
The retail element is in close proximity to the other shopping area within in the town
centre and trips associated with it can therefore be expected to already exist on the
network.
It is therefore acceptable to discount the addition of all trips specifically
related to retail uses in the town centre.

4.9 Adjustment for access to Public Transport
Developments close to Bournemouth Rail Station are typically employment led as
this is the primary area for office space within the town. Developments in this
location would be more conducive to the business visitors which in themselves are
more likely to be sustainable transport based trips.
A 5% reduction in generated trips in the area surrounding the station has been made
to account for the increase likelihood of the utilisation of public transport services.
The AAP sites affected by this are:
9 Cotlands Road;
10 Asda;
G St Swithuns Road South;
H Wellington Road; and
I St Pauls Place.
4.10 Revised Trip Generation Figures
A summary of the adjustments made to trip generation based on the assumptions
made in Sections 4.4 to 4.9 is shown in Table 8 below:

August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
15
Land use Reduction factor Reason for Reduction
15%
Accounting for expected level of
development compared to potential
5%
Generated by new residential
developments
Employment
2%
Generated by new hotel
developments
Residential 33%
Accounting for expected level of
development compared to potential
5%
Generated by new hotel
developments
Leisure
5%
Generated by new residential
developments
All 5%
Applied to sites in close proximity to
Bournemouth Rail station
Table 8: Summary of reductions to vehicle trip generation for AAP land uses
The methodology from the preceding text has been applied to each of the AAP sites
and a detailed breakdown by site and use is included in Appendix B.
Table 9 summarises the expected volume of trips produced in the PM peak in each
of the three development periods.
2016 2021 2026 Total
Peak
Arr Dep Total Arr Dep Total Arr Dep Total Arr Dep Total
PM 394 481 875 160 117 277 169 219 388 723 817 1540
Table 9: Summary of AAP site development trip generation in the PM peak
Table 9 shows trip generation from the AAP sites to be approximately 43% of that
used in the DM0 worst-case scenario for the Town Centre study.

August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
16
5 Modelling results from sensitivity tests
This section details the results of the sensitivity tests detailed in the Sections 2 to 4.
5.1 Sensitivity Test 1 (ST1)
Table 10 compares 2016 PM peak traffic volumes used in the DM0 Origin-
Destination matrix with that in the first sensitivity test, ST1.
2016 DM0 ST1
PM Base Matrix 13,815 13,815
Background Traffic Growth 1,166 0
Development Growth AAP Sites 1,675 2,219
Total Flow 16,656 16,034
Table 10: Comparison of total vehicles flows in 2016 PM peak DMO and ST1 models
The removal of the background traffic from the model is in part offset by the addition
of the NCP Exeter Road and Former Winterbourne Hotel developments which have
now been brought forward to 2016.
Even with all background traffic growth removed, this scenario still forecasts
congestion in the Bath Road/ Gervis Road corridor in the east of the town centre. As
modelled, the network does not have sufficient spare capacity to accommodate the
increased in vehicle trips into the town centre.
5.2 Sensitivity Test 2 (ST2)
Destination matrix with that in the second sensitivity test, ST2.
2016 DM0 ST2
Development Growth AAP Sites 1,675 2,219
Total Flow 16,656 16,339
It is evident from Table 11 that the total traffic volumes in ST2 are higher than in
ST1. This means that the issues of congestion which resulted in network failure in
both DM0 and ST1 would also be forecast in any ST2 tests. For this reason the ST2
models were not run and no further results are presented.
August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
17
5.3 Sensitivity Test 3
Destination matrix with that in the third sensitivity test ST3.
2016 DM0 ST3
Development Growth AAP Sites 1,675 875
Total Flow 16,656 14,690
ST3 represents an increase of 875 vehicles over the existing (base matrix) traffic
flows. The AAP sites assumed to come on-line by 2016 are spread relatively evenly
between the centre and eastern side of the town centre.
Approximately 350 of the additional trips arise in the business sector in the
Landsdowne area. Indeed this is where most congestion occurs in the modelled
network. Towards the end of the peak hour (from 17:45) queues are noted on St
Swithuns Road and St Pauls Road as vehicles exit the developments at Cotlands
Road and St Pauls Place.
Although the additional traffic clearly has an adverse effect on delays in the
Lansdowne area, notably northbound on St. Swithuns Road, they are rarely longer
than a minute. Queuing is also seen to increase on Bath Road and Exeter Road
within the town centre.
The model shows little adverse impact in the remainder of the town centre, as
development traffic utilises spare capacity.
5.4 Summary of findings
The assumptions made in Sensitivity Test 3 and agreed with the Council provide a
reasoned methodology for producing a more realistic (i.e. not worst case) forecast
of the level of additional traffic which can be expected to arise from the sites
identified in the AAP. It does this mainly by considering how developments of
differing land use class would interact with each other and the town centre.
Whereas the previous study assumed that all identified developments would go
ahead, ST3 also takes into account a more rationalised approach on the likely level
of growth in the town centre by establishing that not all developments of the same
type (e.g. three cinema developments) will be taken up.
The trip generation methodology is therefore suitable for use in assessing the impact
of the AAP sites on the highway network in the remaining peak periods and the
further assessment years.
August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
18
6 Further modelling
6.1 Trip Generation
The trip generation methodology described in Section 4 has been applied to the AAP
sites for each of the four peak hours:
Weekday 0800 0900 (AM);
Weekday 1700 1800 (PM);
Saturday 1400 1500 (SA); and
Saturday 1800 1900 (SAE).
and for each of the assessment years:
2016;
2021; and
2026.
Table 13 below, provides a summary of the estimated arrivals and departures for the
combined AAP sites in each peak period by future assessment year. The cumulative
total for each peak hour is also shown.
Table 13: Summary of development trip generation by assessment year and peak hour
The trip generation profile broken down by site, peak and assessment year is
contained in Appendix B.
The trip rates used for the assessment are provided in Appendix C.
The following sections (6.2 to 6.5) describe the performance of the Do Minimum
modelled network in each of the time periods studied, in 2016, 2021 and 2026.
6.2 Background Traffic Growth
Sensitivity Test 1 explored the impact of assuming that there would be no
background traffic growth over and above the high levels of development traffic
growth originally forecast. It suggested that, in 2016, background traffic growth would
be subsumed within the traffic generated by new development.
The robustness of this assumption for all time periods, and for the modified levels of
development traffic generation calculated for ST3, has been tested by comparing the
2016 2021 2026 Total
Peak Arr Dep Total Arr Dep Total Arr Dep Total Arr Dep Total
AM 459 238 698 50 116 166 269 157 425 778 511 1289
PM 394 481 875 160 117 277 169 219 388 723 817 1540
SA 369 457 826 169 159 329 109 139 248 648 755 1403
SAE 317 252 569 123 143 266 114 63 177 554 457 1012
August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
19
AAP trip generation with the calculated TEMPRO growth, using the most recent
TEMPRO 6.2 forecasts. In each peak period, it was found that the predicted traffic
growth for the AAP developments in 2016 was greater than that predicted by
TEMPRO for Bournemouth. In 2021, the AAP trip generation is roughly equivalent to
that predicted by TEMPRO. However in 2026, TEMPRO derived background growth
for Bournemouth exceeds that predicted by the AAP in each of the peak periods.
Therefore, in order to present a robust and defensible assessment of the
Bournemouth Town centre highway network the future year matrices have therefore
been adjusted to allow background traffic growth to ensure that the total growth is
not less than that forecast in TEMPRO 6.2.
The full methodology and findings are contained in Appendix D.
6.3 AM peak
6.3.1 2016 Do Minimum
In the 2016 AM peak hour the highest additional traffic volumes are generated by the
employment developments in the Lansdowne area and it is on the surrounding
network where queues are observed to lengthen at the Lansdowne and Station
roundabouts. Existing queuing noted at the Bournemouth West roundabout is slightly
exacerbated.
There does appear to be significant spare capacity in the network in the 2016 AM
peak.
Owing to the type and scale of development scheduled for 2021, the AM Peak sees
the smallest net growth in trips associated with the AAP sites.
There is therefore minimal change between the 2016 and 2021 scenarios.
In 2026 two further developments with high employment floor space are identified in
the AAP at Wellington Road and Asda. The model is characterised by higher queues
and delays on the network surrounding these two developments in the north-east
sector of the study area; principally on Wessex Way and at the Station Roundabout.
Queuing at the Bournemouth West is also worse than in the previous assessment
years.
However, there is still sufficient capacity on the network, particular in the town
centre.
6.4 PM peak
In the existing situation the weekday PM peak hour contains the highest network
flows and is considered the time period with the highest congestion within the town
centre.
August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
20
Developments included in 2016 include three significant PM peak trip generators:
Winter Gardens, Cotlands Road and St Pauls Place.
The modelling shows how the additional traffic lengthens queuing and delays along
Exeter Road and Bath Road in the town centre and at the Station roundabout.
However, there is still spare highway capacity throughout the network.
Few of the additional developments scheduled for 2021 result in significant additional
traffic on the network. Only the Bath Road south leisure development appears to be
creating additional delays and these are evident in longer queuing along Bath Road.
There are also significant delays on the all arms at the Station roundabout.
For the remainder of the network there is apparent spare capacity.
In 2026 the entire network becomes significantly more congested in the pm peak.
Issues in the town centre arise from the lack of capacity at three junctions:
Signalised BIC junction;
Bath Road car park access
Russell Cotes Road.
Substantial delay is also noted on Wessex Way and Cambridge Road on the
approach to the Bournemouth West roundabout and also on St Swithuns Road and
Lansdowne Road the Station roundabout.
The congestion arising from these issues causes a state of grid-lock in the model.
6.5 Saturday peak
Whilst the level of additional trips generated by the AAP sites in the Saturday peak
hour is comparable to the PM peak in terms of scale, the baseline network vehicle
volumes are considerably lower than those in the AM and PM peaks.
The highest trip generators from the AAP sites in the Saturday peak are Winter
Gardens and Bath Road north. Although the departures from these developments do
not appear to have significant effect on queues or delay; arrival trips at the two sites
from the east create a lengthening of queues on Bath Road. This may in part be due
to the signalisation of the Bath Road car park access junction.
The issues of queuing at the Bath Road car park access junction noted after 2016
development flows were added is exacerbated in 2021 by the leisure development at
Bath Road south. The amalgamation of the two Bath Road car parks, as well as the
August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
21
Pavilion Gardens car park create a substantial number of right-turners from Bath
Road into the car park.
Queues quickly form on Bath Road in both directions approaching the car park
access junction, however it is significantly worse for vehicles travelling into the centre
from the east. By 1430 those queues stretch as far back as the Station Road
roundabout and by 1445 there is stationary traffic from Bath Road to Wessex Way.
A large proportion of the vehicles attempting to leave the car park are not able to do
so within the peak hour owing to a limited amount of green time allocated to the exit
arm.
The causes of the congestion in the 2021 Saturday peak remain in 2026 and indeed
worsen with the addition of the developments at Court Royal, Eden Glen and
Commercial Road. The level of traffic now travelling into the town centre on Exeter
Road gives few opportunities for vehicles wishing to leave Winter Gardens.
The remainder of the modelled network operates with spare capacity.
6.6 Saturday evening peak
Saturday evening has the lowest baseline traffic flows compared to the other three
peak periods, as well as the lowest AAP development trip generation. This results in
the network experiencing little discernable difference in queuing or delays.
Similarly the 2021 assessment shows little additional delay on the network apart
from at the Bath Road car park access junction where queuing is noted on the exit
arm of the car park.
In 2026, these issues are intensified as later AAP developments such as Court Royal
and Eden Glenn create more trips into the Bath Road/ Exeter Road area of the town
centre.
6.7 Summary of Do Minimum modelling
Appendix E contains the network summary statistics broken down by peak hour and
assessment year.

August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
22
7 Possible mitigation measures to be considered:
developing the Do Something network
7.1 The need for mitigation measures
The future year Do Minimum model tests described in Chapter 6 above show that
the town centre road network will become more congested as new development
takes place. The extent to which this requires, or is even susceptible to, mitigation to
achieve nil detriment across large areas of the network is a matter for the Council to
consider and is beyond the scope of this report. We have, however, considered
possible ways in which the most serious impacts of possible development those
which could cause gridlock or very long queues and delays might be mitigated
through changes at specific locations on the network. This enabled us to create a
future year Do Something network
To identify such measures and test their effectiveness in general terms, we looked at
the modelled periods where the biggest problems were forecast the 2021 and 2026
PM peak and the 2021 and 2026 Saturday peak
7.2 Mitigation measures identified by examining the 2021 PM peak
An examination of the 2021 PM peak DM model helped us identify a number of
possible network changes which might be required to remove the key congestion
points. These were incorporated into a Do Something (DS) model. The main
changes to create the DS model are discussed and detailed below:
BIC junction
In the DM model, within the scope of the consented highway schemes the BIC
junction was converted from a roundabout to a signalised junction to provide straight-
across pedestrian crossings on all four arms. These would run in a separate
pedestrian only stage resulting in a loss to traffic of around 30 seconds of green time
in every signal cycle (100 cycle time). The results in substantial queues on three of
the four arms; most noticeably on Exeter Road where queues are shown to block
back as far as the Cambridge Road roundabout by 1730 and to the Bournemouth
West roundabout by 1745. This hinders the operation of the other signalised
junctions on Exeter Road and makes it difficult for vehicles to leave the side roads
(particularly Winter Gardens).
The feasibility of providing signalised pedestrian crossings on two of the arms
appears in doubt (at least without substantial cost) owing to the steep gradient on
Priory Road and the narrow footway width on the car park access road.
The junction modelling software LINSIG was used to investigate a possible
rationalisation of the proposed pedestrian facilities at the junctions and a revised
signal operation has been tested for this junction in the 2026 Do Something model.
By providing staggered pedestrian crossings (on the two arms where there is
sufficient width for this to be feasible) on Exeter Road and Bath Road the revised
signal timings allow for traffic flow on at least one arm at any time. This results in
significantly less queuing.
August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
23
Bath Road car park access
In the DM model, at the proposed access junction for the Pavilion Gardens
redevelopment the consented scheme design provides signalised crossings on all
four arms at each of the junctions. Combined with the high volume of vehicles
turning right into the Bath Road north (Pavilion Gardens) development this creates
substantial queues and delays along Bath Road.
The signal timings assumed in the DM also impede the opportunity for the full exit
demand form the car park to leave within the allocated green time. The 2026 DM
model results indicate that approximately a third of the scheduled demand will be
unable to leave the car park in the PM peak. This is exacerbated by junction blocking
from downstream at the Bath Road/ Hinton Road/ Russell Cotes Road junction.
By removing the signalised crossings from these two schemes in the 2026 Do
Something model and by reintroducing the existing Bath Road pelican crossing
(close to the junction with Westover Road), green time can be reassigned to allow a
far higher traffic flow through each junction. The revised signals also allow the full
release of vehicles from the bath Road car park.
Bournemouth West Roundabout
In all the assessment year DM models there are increases in westbound queues on
Wessex Way and northbound queues on Cambridge Road approaching the
Bournemouth West roundabout. In the 2026 PM peak, this queuing is at times,
anticipated to reach as far back as the Richmond Hill roundabout on Wessex Way
and the Cambridge Road junction with Poole Road to the south.
The congestion appears to be caused by demand from straight ahead vehicles on
Wessex Way westbound arm being higher than the available capacity since Wessex
Way westbound has only two lanes, one of which is for left-turns only.
The possible mitigation identified and tested in the Do Something model is to allow
straight ahead movements in both lanes on the Wessex Way westbound arm.
Examination of the performance of the Do Something network shows that, whilst
these proposed changes do not resolve all congestion in the town centre, the main
causes of the grid-locked state predicted in the DM networks are removed. However,
because of the increase in vehicles leaving the town centre, congestion still remains
at the Lansdowne and Station roundabouts in the 2026 PM peak.
7.3 Mitigation measures identified by examining the Saturday peak periods
The cause of the congestion forecast in the 2021 Saturday peak model is evidently
the consented Bath Road car park access junction. To resolve this issue in the DS
network, the signalised junction has been modified as described above for the 2026
PM peak by removing the pedestrian stage and allocating more green time to traffic.
The Bath Road pelican has been retained from the base situation to allow a
continuation of crossing facilities on Bath Road.
August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
24
Appendix E contains a summary of network performance statistics comparing the Do
Something modelling to the Do Minimum modelling for the PM and Saturday peaks.
7.4 Limitations of work to identify mitigation measures
The possible traffic effects of the mitigation measures described above have been
identified and tested using the available traffic model and at the level of detail
possible in the model, but they have not been subject to any form of design process
to determine feasibility. In particular, no safety audits have been undertaken and the
safety case for amending the design of schemes currently proposed (e.g. deleting
pedestrian phases) has not been considered, nor is any opinion offered on this.
August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
25
8 Summary and conclusions
8.1 Sensitivity tests 1 and 2
These tests demonstrated that, with the original worst case assumptions about
traffic generated by new development, removal of some or all of the background
growth forecast in TEMPRO (though a reasonable thing to do in the circumstances)
was insufficient to demonstrate that the network would perform acceptably in the
2016 PM peak.
8.2 Sensitivity test 3
The methodology for ST3 was more complex than the first two tests and involved a
comprehensive review of the trip generation assumptions made to date in the study
of the Town Centre AAP development sites.
The result of the trip generation review was that the ST3 test contains significantly
fewer trips than the DM0 scenario. Not only was the total volume of development
growth trips considerably lower than previous assumptions, the additional trips are
spread more evenly across the town centre. This scenario no longer represents a
worst case situation, but it is considered realistic, having been developed in close
consultation with Council officers.
Throughout most of the network in ST3 the development trips have little impact on
queues and delay in the 2016 PM peak and this suggests that there would be spare
capacity for more development traffic.
However, in the Lansdowne area two of the largest development sites, Cotlands
Road and St Pauls Place, are located close to the Station Road roundabout. As
these sites are both primarily set aside for new office floor area, they have the
greatest impact in the 2016 PM peak and result in a combined volume of almost 200
departures. This traffic causes additional queuing and delays on the corridor
between Wessex Way and the Lansdowne Road roundabout in the 2016 PM peak.
The methodology for ST3 was then developed to test the other peak periods and
assessment years.
8.3 AM peak
There appears to be sufficient capacity on the network within the AM peak to
accommodate the AAP developments in each stage to 2026.
However, the Bournemouth West, Wessex Way and Station roundabouts all
experience some additional congestion and delay due to the development traffic.
8.4 PM peak
The modelling for the PM peak shows that it will be the most congested time period
for the network once the AAP developments are introduced.
Employment based trips in the Lansdowne area will have a significant effect on all
arms capacity at the Station roundabout. Developments in the town centre at Bath
August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
26
Road north, Bath Road south, Winter Gardens etc will have a significant effect on
flow through the town centre. The cumulative effect of development traffic will also
lead to extreme congestion on Wessex Way at the Bournemouth West roundabout.
By 2026 the effect of the AAP sites will be such that there will be a requirement for
mitigation measures in order to prevent a state of grid-lock.
8.5 Saturday peak
A lack of capacity at the Bath Road car park access junction is the primary cause of
congestion during the Saturday peak hour and by 2021 (and the introduction of the
Bath Road south development) it causes significant queuing in both directions on
Bath Road.
8.6 Saturday evening peak
Compared to the other peak hours, traffic flows on the network are lowest in the
Saturday evening peak. The only point of congestion in the network is the Bath Road
car park access junction.
8.7 Summary of mitigation and further recommendations
Throughout the modelling of the peak periods and assessment years, several
junctions in the town centre network were repeatedly identified as having limited
spare capacity to cope with the additional traffic generated by the AAP sites.
Committed schemes on Exeter Road and Bath Road, which intended to give greater
priority to pedestrians and traffic flow from side roads were, introduced into the Do
Minimum modelling to represent the network in 2016. However these schemes
linked to the planning consents for Licet, Pavilion Gardens and Terrace Mount were
actually found to restrict traffic flow on the main links.
The following possible changes have been identified to address this problem:
Changes to the signal design and method of control at the Bath Road car park
access junction, the BIC junction and the junction of Bath Road and Westover
Road. All round pedestrian stages proposed at these three junctions could be
removed to decrease the amount of lost green time for traffic.
To reduce queuing at Bournemouth West roundabout, reinstate the straight
ahead movement on both lanes of the Wessex Way westbound arm.
As noted in Section 7, these potential changes have not been subject to any design,
costing or safety audit as this is beyond the scope of this report.
The changes were tested in a 2026 PM peak Do Something model and a 2021
Saturday peak model, and it was found that they are likely to resolve the issue of
grid-lock in the town centre. However even with these changes, there are still
additional delays to vehicles along Bath Road and Exeter Road and the feasibility of
other measures, notably at the Lansdowne and Station roundabouts and on
Holdenhurst Road on the approach to the Station roundabout, should be studied to
August 2011

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
27
provide further mitigation. Overall, however, spare capacity would remain in the
network.
The Do Something networks were created to examine how amendments to the
signal designs could improve traffic flow along Bath Road, Exeter Road and
Commercial Road. However, whilst VISSIM is effective in modelling a road network,
it is recommended that a TRANSYT model is created in order to optimise the signal
timings between these junctions. The VISSIM model can then be recalibrated with
the signal timings to test their effect on the wider network. Although the modelling
shows that the changes to the proposed signal schemes will only be necessary by
2021, it is recommended that the options are redesigned for implementation
immediately.
The large increase in employment space allocated within the AAP developments is
centred on the Lansdowne area located close to Bournemouth Station. The
cumulative impact of the developments at St Pauls Place, Cotlands Road and Asda
result in congestion at the Station, Lansdowne and Wessex Way/ St Pauls Road
roundabouts, primarily in the AM and PM peak. Opportunities for significant redesign
of these roundabouts are limited by the lack of available highway land. A
recommendation for further analysis would be to test a signalisation of the Station
roundabout using TRANSYT.
It may be the case that some of the DM changes are no longer required. It is unlikely
the NCP Licet development will now go ahead, and initial plans for a bus hub are
being considered. This may it unnecessary to signalise the junction of Exeter Road/
Exeter Crescent. The signalisation of Bath Road/ Hinton Road/ Russell Cotes Road
seems to provide little benefit other than providing signal controlled pedestrian
crossing facilities. The benefit to pedestrians should be reassessed in light of the
AAP development impact.
It should be noted that the mitigation measures identified above may not be the only
solutions to resolving the issue of additional congestion caused by the development
of the AAP sites. Nor has any detailed assessment been undertaken they have
only been tested in the VISSIM model. Furthermore, the use of the Development
Control process will be paramount in ensuring the level of additional demand created
by the large AAP developments as will mitigation through encouraging the use of
sustainable transport modes.
The results of the modelling exercise and the recommendations made thereafter are
valid for the assumptions made within the current Area Action Plan. It is possible that
the type, scale and implementation date of developments within Bournemouth Town
Centre may change and that planning applications for future schemes may propose
alternative solutions for highway mitigation. Any such changes to the highway
network or the AAP development strategy would need to incorporated into the
VISSIM model for future assessment.

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
Appendices

Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
Appendix A
AAP Sites and Trip Rate Methodology

August 2011
S:\Projects\1035372 Bournemouth VISSIM 2011\09 Documents\09 Final Report\Aug 05 11 - AAP VISSIM Assessment.doc
Mouchel 2011
Site Phasing Development Notes
1
NCP Exeter
Road
2016
Bus Hub
Residential 200 units
The extant planning permission is to be ignored as the site is deemed unrealistic.
BBC has identified the site as the location of a new bus hub which in itself will only
generate trips from the buses. No information has been provided as to which buses to
reroute through the hub.
Owing to the size of the site, a large residential element has been assumed.
2
Winter Gardens
+Priory Rd
2016 Leisure/ Cultural use 14,150m
2

The site was previously expected to see planning application for a mix used site based
around a cinema complex. Bath Road North is now the site identified for that which leaves
Winter Gardens available for another leisure use. Trip rates have been calculated for large
museums/galleries in similarly sized towns.
4
Bath Road
North
2016
Cinema 2,000 seats
Restaurant use 3,500m
2

The extant planning permission for a casino is considered unworkable and a new
application for a cinema multiplex will be submitted mid-2011.
The cinema will replace those in Westover Road and therefore the associated trips will
already be on the network.
Restaurant trips will be linked in part to the cinema resulting in a trip generation reduction
of 25%; but also to all other new developments in the AAP sites which has assumed a
further 15% reduction in the trip generation.
8 Leyton Mount 2016
Retail 700m2
The retail element will be small shops or a caf and will trips are expected to be linked to
trips already existing on the network.
9 Cotlands Rd 2016
Employment 17,000m
2

Revised hotel trip rates used
5% reduction in trip generation owing to proximity to rail
5% reduction in employment trips to be generated by new residential developments
1% reduction in employment trips to be generated by new hotel developments
B Punshon 2016
Hotel 100 rooms
I St Pauls Place 2016
Employment 8,500m
2

Hotel 200 rooms
5% reduction on trip generation owing to proximity to rail
August 2011
Mouchel 2011
J Maderia Road 2016 Residential 60 units
K
Richmond
Gardens
2016
Employment 1,200m
2

Hotel 170 rooms
R Terrace Mount 2016
Hotel 281 rooms
Trip rates taken from TA
T
Former
Winterbourne
Hotel
2016 Hotel 200 rooms
U
Happylands,
Seafront
2016 Hotel 40 units
3
Bath Road
South
2021 Leisure use 4,500m
2

Swimming pool trip rates used.
5% reduction in leisure trips to be generated by new hotel developments

5 Westover Road 2021
Retail 15,000m
2

Hotels 50 rooms
Trips associated with retail are considered to be existing on the network.
Revised hotel trip rates used.

6 Central 2021 Residential 200 units
7 Glen Fern 2021
Employment 5,000m
2

Employment within the development is treated as a re-use of the existing site and means
no net gain in trips.
D Berry Court 2021 Residential 125 units
F
Christchurch
Road
2021 Employment 20,000m
2

The development is treated as a re-use of the existing site and means no net gain in trips.
G
St Swithuns
Road South
2021 Residential 100 units
M
St Stephens
Road
S Durley Road 2021 Residential 70 units
August 2011
Mouchel 2011
10 Asda 2026
Employment 8,000m
2

Hotels 250 rooms
The retail element is treated as a re-use of the existing site and means no net gain in trips.
A Court Royal 2026 Hotels 150 rooms Revised hotel trip rates used
C Eden Glen 2026 Hotels 80 rooms Revised hotel trip rates used
E
Telephone
exchange
H Wellington Road 2026
Employment 7,800m
2

Residential 120 unit
L Richmond Hill 2026 Residential 170 unit
N
Town Hall
Annexe
2026 Employment 5,920m
2
The development is treated as a re-use of the existing site and means no net gain in trips.
O
Cambridge
Road
2026 Residential 80unit
P
Commercial
Road
2026
Retail 8,000m2
Residential 100 unit
The retail development is treated as a re-use of the existing site and means no net gain in
trips.

August 2011
Mouchel 2011
Appendix B
AAP Trip Generation

August 2011
Mouchel 2011

AM Peak Trip Generation
Retail/ Culture/ Leisure Employment Flats Hotels Restaurant Totals
2016 GFA Arrivals Departures GFA Arrivals Departures Units Arrivals Departures Rooms Arrivals Departures GFA Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures
1 NCP Exeter Road 200 4 21 4 21
2 Winter Gardens +priory rd 14150 5 0 150 3 16 100 7 8 15 24
4 Bath Road North 13300 existing existing 0 0 0 0
8 Leyton Mount 80 2 8 2 8
9 Cotlands Rd 17000 229 31 250 5 25 235 56
B Punshon 10 0 1 100 7 8 7 9
I St Pauls Place 8500 115 16 200 13 16 127 31
J Maderia Road 60 1 6 1 6
K Richmond Gardens 1200 17 2 140 3 15 170 11 14 32 31
R Terrace Mount 60 1 6 281 19 23 20 30
T Former Winterbourne Hotel 200 13 17 13 17
U Happylands, Seafront 40 3 3 3 3
2021
3 Bath Road South 4500 23 22 80 5 7 28 29
5 Westover Road 11000 existing existing 100 2 11 50 3 4 6 15
6 Central 200 4 21 4 21
7 Glen Fern 5000 existing existing 155 3 16 3 16
D Berry Court 125 3 13 3 13
F Christchurch Road 20000 existing existing 0 0
G St Swithuns Road South 100 2 10 2 10
M St Stephens Road 45 1 5 1 5
Q West Hill 0 0
S Durley Road 70 2 7 2 7
2026
10 Asda 10000 existing existing 8000 108 15 250 6 25 250 16 20 129 60
A Court Royal 150 10 12 10 12
C Eden Glen 80 5 7 5 7
E Telephone exchange 130 3 14 3 14
H Wellington Road 7800 111 15 120 3 12 113 27
L Richmond Hill 170 4 18 4 18
N Town Hall Annexe 5920 existing existing 0 0
O Cambridge Road 80 2 8 2 8
P Commerical Road 8000 existing existing 100 2 11 2 11

August 2011
Mouchel 2011

PM Peak Trip Generation
9 Cotlands Rd 17000 26 161 250 21 10 47 172
B Punshon 10 1 0 100 15 6 16 7
I St Pauls Place 8500 13 81 200 28 12 42 93
K Richmond Gardens 1200 2 12 140 12 6 170 25 11 40 29
R Terrace Mount 60 5 3 281 42 18 47 21
2021
3 Bath Road South 4500 71 75 80 12 5 83 80
6 Central 200 18 8 18 8
Q West Hill 0 0
2026
10 Asda 10000 existing existing 8000 12 76 250 22 10 250 35 15 70 101
A Court Royal 150 22 10 22 10
C Eden Glen 80 12 5 12 5
H Wellington Road 7800 13 78 120 10 5 23 83
P Commercial Road 8000 existing existing 100 9 4 9 4

August 2011
Mouchel 2011

Saturday Afternoon Peak Trip
Generation
9 Cotlands Rd 17000 250 11 9 11 9
B Punshon 10 0 0 100 15 23 16 23
I St Pauls Place 8500 200 29 44 29 44
K Richmond Gardens 1200 140 6 5 170 26 39 32 44
R Terrace Mount 60 3 2 281 43 65 46 67
2021
3 Bath Road South 4500 114 100 80 12 18 127 118
6 Central 200 9 7 9 7
Q West Hill 0 0
2026
10 Asda 10000 existing existing 8000 250 11 9 250 37 55 48 64
A Court Royal 150 23 35 23 35
C Eden Glen 80 12 18 12 18
H Wellington Road 7800 120 5 4 5 4
P Commercial Road 8000 existing existing 100 4 4 4 4

August 2011
Mouchel 2011

Saturday Evening Peak Trip
Generation
1 NCP Exeter Road 200 18 11 18 11
9 Cotlands Rd 17000 250 22 13 22 13
B Punshon 10 1 1 100 8 4 9 4
I St Pauls Place 8500 200 15 7 15 7
K Richmond Gardens 1200 140 13 8 170 13 6 26 14
R Terrace Mount 60 6 3 281 22 11 27 14
2021
3 Bath Road South 4500 40 95 80 6 3 46 98
6 Central 200 18 11 18 11
Q West Hill 0 0
2026
10 Asda 10000 existing existing 8000 250 23 13 250 18 9 41 22
A Court Royal 150 12 6 12 6
C Eden Glen 80 6 3 6 3
H Wellington Road 7800 120 11 6 11 6
P Commerical Road 8000 existing existing 100 9 5 9 5
August 2011
Mouchel 2011
Appendix C
AAP Land Use Class Trip Rates

August 2011
Mouchel 2011
TripratesusedfortheAAPsitetripgeneration.

AM PM SA SAE
Landuseclass Arr Dep Total Arr Dep Total Arr Dep Total Arr Dep Total
Employment
(per100m2)
1.796 0.246 2.042 0.206 1.265 1.471 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residential
(perunit)
0.034 0.16 0.194 0.133 0.064 0.197 0.067 0.056 0.123 0.14 0.082 0.222
Hotel
(perroom)
0.067 0.083 0.15 0.149 0.064 0.213 0.154 0.231 0.385 0.077 0.038 0.115
Museum
(per100m2)
0.077 0.005 0.082 0.007 0.098 0.105 0.239 0.335 0.574 0 0 0
Bowling
(per100m2)
0 0 0 1.113 1.298 2.411 0.766 0.989 1.755 0.791 0.989 1.78
SwimmingPool
(per100m2)
0.569 0.547 1.116 1.757 1.861 3.618 2.821 2.469 5.29 0.98 2.351 3.331
August 2011
Mouchel 2011
Appendix D
Background Traffic Growth

August 2011
Mouchel 2011
Methodology for calculation of background growth in the future year assessments
TEMPRO 6.2 was used to find the estimated background traffic growth for the modelled area
between the base year of 2008 and the three assessment years, 2016, 2021 and 2026. Table 1
shows the TEMRPO derived growth rates for the Bournemouth and Dorset zones.
AM PM SA
Bournemouth Dorset Bournemouth Dorset Bournemouth Dorset
2008-2016 1.0223 1.0322 1.0231 1.0382 1.022 1.0429
2008-2021 1.0796 1.0962 1.083 1.1078 1.0824 1.1164
2008-2026 1.1417 1.1599 1.1497 1.1785 1.1508 1.1921
Table 1: TEMPRO derived background traffic growth factors
The TEMPRO growth factors have been applied to the base matrix to determine the future traffic
volumes expected in the assessment years.
The matrix consists of: through traffic, that which enters and leaves the network via the zones on
the edge of the model; and town centre traffic, that which has an origin or a destination within the
internal zones of the matrix. It can be reasonably assumed that the only vehicles which can be
though to form part of the growth associated with the Dorset TEMPRO zone would be the through
traffic that enters and leaves the network travelling from east to west, or west to east on Wessex
Way. Therefore the vehicles from those VISSIM zones in the base matrix (401 and 412) have been
growthed using the Dorset TEMPRO calculation. These flows can be considered true external to
external trips. For all other VISSIM zones, the Bournemouth TEMRPO zone growth factor has
been applied.
Tables 2 to 5 compares the AAP trip generation for the future years against the project TEMPRO
growth for each time period.
TEMPRO predicted growth
AM peak External to External Internal related trips Total
Predicted
AAP growth
2008 - 2016 60 256 316 698
2008 - 2021 180 914 1094 864
2008 - 2026 299 1627 1926 1289
Table 2: Comparison of TEMRPO derived growth and AAP growth for the AM peak
PM peak External to External Internal related trips Total
Predicted
AAP growth
2008 - 2016 77 273 350 875
2008 - 2021 219 978 1197 1152
2008 - 2026 363 1763 2126 1540
Table 3: Comparison of TEMRPO derived growth and AAP growth for the PM peak
SA peak External to External Internal related trips Total
Predicted
AAP growth
2008 - 2016 55 242 297 826
2008 - 2021 150 906 1056 1155
2008 - 2026 248 1658 1906 1403
August 2011
Mouchel 2011
Table 4: Comparison of TEMRPO derived growth and AAP growth for the Saturday peak
SAE peak External to External Internal related trips Total
Predicted
AAP growth
2008 - 2016 42 181 223 569
2008 - 2021 112 680 792 835
2008 - 2026 137 1292 1429 1012
Table 5: Comparison of TEMRPO derived growth and AAP growth for the Saturday evening peak
In each peak period, the predicted traffic growth for the AAP developments in 2016 is greater than
that predicted by TEMPRO for Bournemouth. In 2021, the AAP trip generation is roughly
equivalent to that predicted by TEMPRO. However in 2026, TEMPRO derived background growth
for Bournemouth exceeds that predicted by the AAP in each of the peak periods.
In order to present a robust assessment of the Bournemouth Town centre highway network in the
future year periods the base matrices have been adjusted to include predicted background traffic
growth which is over and above that of the AAP trip generation.
The external to external trips which enter and leave the network via Wessex Way have been
uplifted to account for what is considered true external growth.
In instances where the internal predicted TEMRPO traffic growth is greater than that predicted by
the AAP site trip generation exercise, the difference between the AAP growth plus external to
external trips and the total TEMPRO growth has been established. This difference can be
considered growth which is occurring in the remainder of the Bournemouth TEMPRO zone (outside
of the town centre) and has therefore been applied to the remaining external VISSIM zones within
the matrix.
Using the above methodology, Table 6 compares the traffic volumes within the base matrices
against the growth factored future year matrices.
2008 2016 2021 2026
Peak Base
Base +
TEMPRO
Base+
TEMRPO
+AAP
Base +
TEMPRO
Base+
TEMRPO
+AAP
Base +
TEMPRO
Base+
TEMRPO
+AAP
AM
13359 13419 14117 13539 14402 13996 15290
PM
13815 13892 14768 14034 15187 14391 15936
SA
12288 12344 13170 12439 13593 12645 14064
SAE
9215 9257 9826 9328 10163 9682 10696
Table 6: Summary of vehicle flows by assessment year and peak period.

August 2011
Mouchel 2011
Appendix E
VISSIM Modelling Network Statistics

.

Sensitivity Tests
Mouchel 2011
Do Minimum model network statistics
To quantify the impact of the AAP developments on the Bournemouth town centre highway network, key statistics have been taken from
the VISSIM outputs.
Table 1 below compares the key statistics for each peak period and each assessment year.
AMPeak PMPeak SAPeak SAEPeak
NetworkStatistics
2016 2021 2026 2016 2021 2026 2016 2021 2026 2016 2021 2026
AverageSpeed(km/h) 34.1 33.4 27.1 31.8 28.4 20.6 35.0 27.6 13.6 37.9 37.2 36.6
Averagedelaypervehicle(s) 81.2 86.1 136.3 90.3 115.5 204.8 65.8 120.6 325.1 48.3 51.9 56.6
Totaldelaytime(h) 348.6 376.1 608.1 401.8 521.2 933.5 260.8 482.1 1,124.6 146.8 161.7 183.8
Totaltraveltime(h) 981.8 1,016.9 1,252.1 1,034.2 1,149.5 1,541.5 824.6 1,037.5 1,524.1 573.6 600.4 642.4

Table 1: Key network statistics for the Do Minimum modelling
As described in Section 6 of the main report, the addition of the AAP development traffic results in additional delay throughout the network
in each period in the 2021 assessment year. In the AM and Saturday evening peak hours the effect is limited and this is shown in Table 1
where the average speed and average delay per vehicle are broadly comparable to those recorded in the 2016 assessment year. However,
in the PM and Saturday peak hours the effect of the additional vehicle trips is significantly more prominent.
By 2026 the effect of the estimated development traffic causes a grid-lock scenario in the PM and Saturday peaks owing to a lack of
capacity on the network. The results in table 1 highlight this with average delay per vehicle more than doubling.
Figures 1 (PM peak) and 2 (Saturday peak) provide a diagrammatical representation of the effect of the development trip growth on the
network by showing the increase in journey times (between 2016 and 2026) on key sections of highway.
Large increases in journey time are noted on Wessex Way and Cambridge Road at the Bournemouth West roundabout and throughout the
Lansdowne and Station roundabouts area. Results on other links are distorted when the network becomes grid-locked; as vehicles are
trapped in the eastern section of the model there is less conflict in other areas and journey times are shortened.

Sensitivity Tests
Mouchel 2011

Figure 1 Percentage change in link journey times between 2016 and 2026 for the Do Minimum PM peak

Bournemouth West
BIC
Wessex Way
Station
Lansdowne
Bath Road
St Swithuns
Cambridge Road
Westcliff Road
-2%
+61%
+105%
+217%
+15%
+70%
-6%
+8%
+8%
-21%
+15%
+313%
+3%
+30%
+63%
-2%
-7%
-17%
+57%
+8%
-8%
Sensitivity Tests
Mouchel 2011

Figure 2 Percentage change in link journey times between 2016 and 2026 for the Do Minimum Saturday peak

Bournemouth West
BIC
Station
Lansdowne
Bath Road
St Swithuns
Cambridge Road
Westcliff Road
26%
-17%
+1%
+2%
+0%
-15%
-2%
+23%
-1%
-18%
+419%
+39%
+391%
+28%
+1457%
+60%
+20%
-13%
+932%
-4%
-25%
Sensitivity Tests
Mouchel 2011
Do Something model network statistics
With the recommendations for mitigation entered into the Do Something models, the network
statistics for the 2021 and 2026 PM and Saturday peaks were again recorded for comparison to
the 2016 Do Minimum.
Table 2 below compares the key statistics for the PM peak Do Minimum and Do Something
models.
PMPeakDoMinimum PMPeakDoSomething
NetworkStatistics
2016 2021 2026 2016 2021 2026
AverageSpeed(km/h) 31.8 28.4 20.6 33.3 28.8
Totaldelaytime(h) 401.8 521.2 933.5 361.4 530.6
Totaldistancetravelled(km) 32,840.9 32,696.6 31,828.8 33,623.2 34,248.6
Totaltraveltime(h) 1,034.2 1,149.5 1,541.5 1,190.6 1,190.6
Averagedelaypervehicle(s) 90.3 115.5 204.8 79.5 113.3
Table 2: Key network statistics for the PM peak Do Something modelling compared to the Do Minimum
The Do Something mitigation measures are shown to have a positive effect on the network by
reducing overall and average delay in 2021 and 2026 however congestion is still noted in the
Lansdowne and Station area due to the large increase in trips generated by the AAP
developments.
Table 3 compares the key statistics for the Saturday peak Do Minimum and Do Something models.
SAPeakDoMinimum SAPeakSomething
NetworkStatistics
2016 2021 2026 2016 2021 2026
AverageSpeed(km/h) 35.0 27.6 13.6 33.6 31.9
Totaldelaytime(h) 260.8 482.1 1,124.6 299.8 358.5
Totaldistancetravelled(km) 28,834.1 28,656.4 20,760.7 29,472.3 30,441.2
Totaltraveltime(h) 824.6 1,037.5 1,524.1 876.4 953.4
Averagedelaypervehicle(s) 65.8 120.6 325.1 74.1 85.4
Table 2: Key network statistics for the Saturday peak Do Something modelling compared to the Do Minimum
In the Saturday peak, the mitigation measures in the Do Something model result in a significant
reduction in delays on the network when compared to the Do Minimum and the grid-lock situation
is prevented. However, congestion above that expected in 2016 remains in the town centre owing
to the increased traffic volumes from the AAP.

August 2011

S:\Projects\1035372 Bournemouth VISSIM 2011\09 Documents\08 Mitigation Schemes\Aug 08 11
Bournemouth Town Centre mitigation schemes.doc
Mouchel 2011
1
Bournemouth Town Centre mitigation schemes

The Bournemouth Town Centre VISSIM model was used to assess the impact of
predicted traffic growth generated by the developments specified in the Area Action
Plan.
The assessments were conducted using a Do Minimum model network for the three
development phases: 2016; 2021; and 2026. The model incorporated committed
schemes which have been incorporated into recent planning applications and the
Exeter Road Traffic Study produced by Waterman Civils for Bournemouth Borough
Council in 2007.
Throughout the modelling of the peak periods and assessment years, several
junctions in the town centre network were repeatedly identified as having limited
spare capacity to cope with the additional traffic generated by the AAP sites.
A set of potential mitigation schemes were then identified and incorporated into a Do
Something model and the assessments were re-run. Whilst these measures
resolved most of the issues, possible further potential mitigation measures have
been identified which may resolve the remaining issues.

Both sets of potential mitigation measures are described below. These are purely
intended to represent opportunities for increasing capacity at key bottlenecks in the
highway network. No design has been undertaken for these schemes and there may
be potential constraints to the schemes which have not been identified. Alternative
schemes may be more suitable and cost-effective and any mitigation measure
should only be implemented after full preliminary and detailed design procedures
including safety auditing and the allocation of a CDM coordinator.
Indicative cost estimates are based on infrastructure costs for previous examples of
similar works and have factored up, using the appropriate indices, any previously
approved schemes that have been incorporated into the VISSIM model. Costs also
include estimates for design and staffing. However, they do not include the cost of
land take or the relocation of utility company plants or equipment.
The results of the modelling exercise and the recommendations made thereafter are
valid for the assumptions made within the current Area Action Plan as outlined in the
Bournemouth Town Centre AAP Appraisal - VISSIM Assessment Final Report. It is
possible that the type, scale and implementation date of developments within
Bournemouth Town Centre may change and that planning applications for future
schemes may propose alternative solutions for highway mitigation. Any such
changes to the highway network or the AAP development strategy would need to be
incorporated into the VISSIM model for future assessment.
The indicative scheme designs (where applicable) and location photos are included
in the drawings appendix.
August 2011

Mouchel 2011
2

1. Bournemouth West roundabout
Potential for improvement
Re-assign lane movements on westbound arm of Wessex Way to allow straight-
ahead movements on both lanes. The additional development traffic generated by
the AAP will intensify the queuing already noted at the junction.
The scheme will increase capacity on Wessex Way and therefore reduce delay along
the A35 corridor.
Scheme extent
It is assumed that the scheme would be provided within the existing highway land.
Issues
The suggested scheme would be a reversal of an earlier lane reassignment which
was intended to limit issues with merging vehicles on the western side of the
roundabout. Any future design of the scheme will require a full safety audit.
Indicative cost
6,800 - 11,000.
Phasing
The scheme will help to resolve existing low level issues of queuing on the
westbound arm of Wessex Way which will be intensified with the additional
development traffic and background growth. The scheme should be implemented in
2016.
2. Exeter Road/ Cranborne Road/ Exeter Crescent
The scheme to signalise the priority junction on Exeter Road and was submitted
within the mitigation measures for the Licet development. The signals would be
linked to those at the junction of Exeter Road/ Terrace Road/ Gervis Place.
The scheme is intended to mitigate for the large volume of additional trips turning
entering and exiting from Exeter Crescent.
Scheme extent
The scheme is provided within the existing highway boundary and no land take is
required.
Issues
Potential issues are unknown at this stage.
Indicative cost
Outline costs provided for the scheme are identified by Bournemouth Borough
Council as being 525,125.

August 2011

Mouchel 2011
3
Phasing
The phasing of the scheme is dependent on the redevelopment of the NCP car park
in line with the consented planning application. At present, that is scheduled for
implementation by 2016.
3. BIC Roundabout
The scheme will convert the existing junction of Bath Road/ Exeter Road/ Priory road
from a priority roundabout to a signalised crossroads. Bath Road is widened to
provide two lane carriageway in each direction between the junction and South Cliff
Road. The scheme was identified in the Exeter Road Traffic Study.
The recent modelling has attempted to improve capacity within the junction through
the rationalisation of signalised pedestrian crossings. Revised designs should seek to
incorporate staggered crossings at the junction.
Scheme extent
The scheme will require land take on Bath Road between the junction and South Cliff
Road. This is only likely to be feasible along the southern kerb line.
Issues
Indicative cost
Outline costs provided for the scheme are identified by Bournemouth Borough
Council as being 233,400.
Phasing
The implementation of the scheme was considered within the Exeter Road Traffic
Study to be necessary for mitigating the cumulative effect of the potential
development schemes at Licet, Bath Road and Winter Gardens. These schemes are
currently scheduled to be implemented by 2016.
4. Bath Road
The redevelopment of Pavilion Gardens will result in the closure of the existing car
parks on Bath Road. A new, larger public car park will be provided within the
development with access and egress on the northern kerb of Bath Road.
The redevelopment on the site plus the amalgamated car park will result in a higher
level of turning movements into and out of the access than that seen in the existing
situation. The planning application for the development produced a design for the
addition of a fully signalised four-arm junction in mitigation for the developments
effect on the volume of traffic. The Exeter Road Traffic Study amended this design to
incorporate an additional lane on the westbound arm of Bath Road which required
carriageway widening and land take on both sides of Bath Road. The design
removed the existing pelican crossing to the north of the proposed junction. The
August 2011

Mouchel 2011
4
assessment of the Do Minimum scenario saw extensive queuing in both directions on
Bath Road as a result of the proposed junction.
In order to increase the junction capacity, the Do Something modelling included a
recommendation that the existing Bath Road pelican crossing is reinstated and that
the pedestrian facilities at the junction are removed. The assessment using the Do
Something model showed that this recommendation would significantly increase
capacity on Bath Road and prevent the queuing from blocking back to upstream
junctions.
Scheme extent
The extent of the scheme is dependent on the proposed redevelopment of Pavilion
Gardens. To provide the scheme identified within the Exeter Road Traffic Study
would require some land take on either side of Bath Road.
Issues
The proposed site access is located in the vicinity of the existing Council owned car
parks. However, any scheme design should seek to negate any requirement to widen
the carriageway on the Bath Road flyover located to the east of the development site.
Indicative cost
Outline costs provided for this scheme (and inclusive of the mitigation Schemes 5
and 6) are identified by Bournemouth Borough Council as being 291,750.
Phasing
It will be necessary to implement the scheme to mitigate the effect of the Pavilion
Garden development which is scheduled by 2016.
5. Bath Road/ Westover Road/ Hinton Road
The scheme, proposed within the Exeter Road Traffic study, removes the Bath Road
roundabout and realigns Hinton Road to create a priority junction with Bath Road.
This is the scheme retained in both the Do Minimum and Do Something model
assessments.
Scheme extent
The scheme would require some land take for the re-alignment of Hinton Road.
Issues
Indicative cost
Costs are included in that identified for Scheme 4 above.

August 2011

Mouchel 2011
5
Phasing
The scheme is identified in the Exeter Road Traffic Study as being necessary for the
mitigation of impacts associated with the committed developments schemes
scheduled for 2016.

6. Bath Road/ Upper Hinton Road/ Russell Cotes Road
The scheme, proposed within the Exeter Road Traffic study, provides full
signalisation to the junction of Bath Road/ Upper Hinton Road and Russell Cotes
Road including controlled pedestrian crossings.
The Do Minimum modelling suggests that the scheme will reduce capacity on Bath
Road through restricting continual traffic flow by allowing an all round pedestrian
stage. Queuing back in both directions on Bath Road affected upstream junctions in
the 2021 Saturday peak.
The pedestrian stages were removed from the Do Something modelling assessments
to reduce the delays and queuing.
Scheme extent
The scheme is provided within the existing highway boundary and no land take is
required.
Issues
Indicative cost
Costs are included in that identified for Scheme 4 above.
Phasing
The scheme is identified in the Exeter Road Traffic Study as being necessary for the
mitigation of impacts associated with the committed developments schemes
scheduled for 2016.
7. Lansdowne Roundabout
The modelling predicts that the additional traffic generated by the AAP developments
and background growth in 2026 will result in queuing on the northbound Bath Road
approach to the Lansdowne roundabout. Bath Road currently has a one lane entry
onto the roundabout which limits the stop line capacity. Therefore left-turning vehicles
to Lansdowne Road and Old Christchurch Road queue in the same lane as the
ahead movement.
The capacity is further hampered by the downstream bottlenecks on Holdenhurst
Road (Scheme 8) and at Station roundabout (Scheme 9).
August 2011

Mouchel 2011
6
There may also be a requirement to increase carriageway width on the Holdenhurst
Road exit to allow for vehicles from the two lanes to merge.
Circulatory carriageway markings would need to be considered.
Scheme extent
Land take will be required on Bath Road to allow for the carriageway widening.
Building lines on both sides are sufficiently far from the highway.
Issues
The scheme may result in the narrowing of footway on both Bath Road. The gradient
of Old Christchurch Road would have to be considered when designing a widened
entry on Bath Road.
Indicative cost
22,000 - 33,000
Phasing
The scheme should be considered alongside works at Station roundabout and
Holdenhurst Road for implementation in 2026 when the modelling indicated the
additional demand generated by the AAP developments will result in significant
congestion along the corridor.
8. Holdenhurst Road
The modelling predicts by 2026 the cumulative traffic growth generated by the AAP
developments and background growth will create substantial queuing at Station
roundabout. Much of the traffic generated in the PM peak will be attempting to leave
the town centre via Station roundabout and will be routed though Holdenhurst Road.
Holdenhurst Road provides three lanes for approximately 60m on the approach to
Station roundabout. However, for the preceding 200m it is limited to one lane due to
on-street parking and taxi ranks.
It is suggested that to increase the link capacity on the eastbound arm of Holdenhurst
Road, parking and loading restrictions are introduced to prevent use in peak times.
Any scheme would also require the widening of the existing pelican crossing to the
north of the Coltlands Road junction.
Scheme extent
Any future design should seek to restrict the scheme within the highway boundary.
Footway widths appear to be sufficiently wide for the potential to include half-inset
taxi bays.
Issues
August 2011

Mouchel 2011
7
Indicative cost
20,000 - 31,000
Phasing
The scheme should be identified for implementation in 2026 along with the
improvements at the Lansdowne and Station roundabout.
9. Station Roundabout
The modelling predicts that the additional traffic generated by the AAP developments
and background growth in 2026 will result in substantial delays at Station
roundabout.
The size of the roundabout would lend itself to signalisation which can regulate the
traffic flows on all arms rather than the existing situation where certain movements
are dominant.
Scheme extent
The scheme should be designed to fit within the confines of the highway land and
land take should not be necessary.
Issues
The roundabout is constructed on a structure which provided underpass pedestrian
crossing facilities. This constraint means that carriageway widening is not feasible.
Indicative cost
200,000 - 300,000
Phasing
The modelling shows that the network will experience significant congestion at
Station roundabout in 2026 once the full cumulative impact of the AAP sites is
observed. The congestion will result in substantial additional delays throughout the
eastern section of the town centre.
It is therefore considered necessary that the scheme is phased for implementation by
2026.

August 2011

Mouchel 2011
8
Mitigation Measure Location Drawings

August 2011

S:\Projects\1035372 Bournemouth VISSIM 2011\09 Documents\08 Mitigation Schemes\Aug 08 11 Bournemouth Town Centre mitigation schemes.doc
Mouchel 2011
9
Mitigation Measure overview

August 2011

Mouchel 2011
10
1. Bournemouth West roundabout

August 2011

Mouchel 2011
11
2. Exeter Road/ Cranborne Road/ Exeter Crescent

August 2011

Mouchel 2011
12
3. BIC Roundabout

August 2011

Mouchel 2011
13
4. Bath Road

August 2011

Mouchel 2011
14
5. Bath Road/ Westover Road/ Hinton Road and 6. Bath Road/ Upper Hinton Road/ Russell Cotes Road

August 2011

Mouchel 2011
15
7. Lansdowne Roundabout

August 2011

Mouchel 2011
16
8. Holdenhurst Road

August 2011

Mouchel 2011
17
9. Station Roundabout

As the South East Dorset Multi-Modal Transport
Study (SEDMMTS) Final Report has yet to be
formally agreed by all the parties the document is
not available to the public.

It is anticipated that the document will be made
available to the public in early October.

Appendix e Strategic and Town Centre Transport Modelling

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix e Strategic and Town Centre Transport Modelling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix E

Strategic and Town Centre

You might also like