8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
1/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
Fareham Borough Council
Civic Offices
Civic WayFareham
Hampshire
PO16 7AZ
Fareham SDA
Access Study
February 2009
Stoneham Place
Stoneham Lane
Southampton
Hampshire
SO50 9NW
Environment Department
Hampshire County Council
The Castle
Winchester
SO23 8UD
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
2/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
Fareham SDA
Access Study
Issue and Revision Record
Rev Date Originator Checker Approver Description
A 31.10.2008 A Palmer A Thompson G. Maclean 1st
DRAFT
B 12.12.2008 S Almond A Thompson G. Maclean
Amendments made in
light of Highways Agency
meeting
C 6.1.2009
S Almond A Thompson G Maclean
Final Issue
D 6.2.2009S Almond A Thompson G Maclean
2nd
Final Issue
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
3/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
List of Contents Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 3
2 ACCESS STUDY DATA SOURCES AND ASSUMPTIONS ................................................. 5
2.1 Solent Strategic Transport Model.................................................................................. 52.2 New Transport Model.................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Development Traffic...................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Past Reports ................................................................................................................... 7
2.5 Other Supporting Documents or Studies ..................................................................... 11
3 TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 13
3.1 Assessment Year.......................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Assessment Period....................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Study Area ................................................................................................................... 13
3.4 Assignment of Traffic.................................................................................................. 13
3.5 Design flows for lane requirements............................................................................. 14
4 ASSESSMENT OF ACCESS OPTIONS................................................................................. 15
4.1 General......................................................................................................................... 15
4.2 Description of Options................................................................................................. 15
4.3 Option Cost Review..................................................................................................... 16
4.4 Assessment Criteria ..................................................................................................... 17
4.5 Option Evaluations ...................................................................................................... 184.6 Merge and Diverge analysis ........................................................................................ 30
4.7 Summary of the Initial Option Assessment ................................................................. 34
5 TRAFFIC MODELLING......................................................................................................... 35
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
4/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
Figure 4.4 Option 4 M27 J10 all traffic movements with A32 realigned.............................................. 26Figure 4.5 Option 5 M27 J10 with A32 realigned and BRT ................................................................. 28
Figure 4.1: Taper merge ........................................................................................................................ 30Figure 4.2: Parallel merge ..................................................................................................................... 31Figure 4.3: Merge with lane gain .......................................................................................................... 31Figure 4.4: Lane gain with Ghost Island option 1................................................................................. 31Figure 4.5: Lane gain with Ghost Island merge option 2...................................................................... 32Figure 4.6: 2Two lane gain with Ghost Island ...................................................................................... 32Figure 4.7: Taper diverge ...................................................................................................................... 32Figure 4.8: Lane drop at taper diverge .................................................................................................. 33
Figure 4.9: Ghost Island diverge for lane drop...................................................................................... 33Figure 4.10: 2 lane drop ........................................................................................................................ 33
List of Tables
Table 4-1 Option Matrix....................................................................................................................... 15Table 4-3 Summary of the Interchange Parameters ............................................................................. 30Table 5-1: M27 Junction 11 Signalised Junction Modelling Results .................................................... 35
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
5/57
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
6/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
The Policy criterion in the evaluation process is deemed as the primary operator in terms of whether
the proposed access strategy would be a suitable option. Therefore if an option fails to satisfy current
transport policy then it would not go through for further traffic analysis. For example, where an optionis considered to be a new junction onto the M27 this would contravene Department for Transport
Policy set out in DfT Circular 02/07, which states that no new junctions would be permitted on the
SRN to facilitate new development, except for motorway service areas.
The traffic element of the study bases its traffic assessment on a simple reassignment of a traffic
network model. The model is based on an AM Peak period only and is not all coded is simulation.
That is, not all the junctions and links in the model include the geometric data that would influence the
assignment of the trip within the network. Therefore further work will be required to upgrade the
network in the locality of the proposed SDA and a PM peak period. This will provide confidence that
the preferred option is still a valid with the return trip. Nevertheless, in the absence of a fully
simulated model covering the Fareham area including the county roads, the existing SSTM represents
the best traffic data source available for this project, a view shared by the Highways Agency.
A sort summary of why each option was dismissed or considered suitable is provided for reference
below:
Option 1 The exiting junctions on the M27 do not have sufficient capacity to
accommodate the proposed SDA traffic.
Option 2 New M27 J10 all traffic movements would contravene policy set out DfT
Circular 02/07.
Option 3 The option would be viewed as a new M27 J10 and would therefore contravenepolicy set out DfT Circular 02/07.
Option 4 Provide west facing slip roads which would provide little benefit to the whole
scheme and does not easily prioritise BRT movements to Fareham Town Centre; and
Option 5 is viewed as the most suitable option and is therefore taken forward for more
detailed traffic modelling analysis.
The traffic levels likely to be generated by the proposed SDA will not be accommodated by any of the
options proposed. Therefore the solution for access to the proposed SDA will requiring a significant
proportion of the forecast car demand to be accommodated in an alternative way, eg containment or
mode shift.
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
7/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
1 INTRODUCTION
The South East Plan proposes that a Strategic Development Area (SDA) is built on land to the north of
Fareham. The proposed SDA is to consist of up to 10,000 dwellings and 121,000 square metres of
employment development, delivered between 2016 and 2026. It is recognised that this scale of
development will have a significant impact on the local transport infrastructure. The location of the
proposed SDA site is to the north of the M27 at Fareham, Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1 Proposed Fareham SDA Site Location
J10
J11
A32SDA
M27
N
A32
Fareham
A27
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
8/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
Setting Strategic Direction, Fareham SDA Mott Gifford/MVA February 2008.
The study is to review options for providing access to the proposed SDA from the SRN. We haveapplied a two stage approach to the assessment. The first stage of this assessment considers all options
available and assesses the proposals against criteria such as; conformity with relevant policy or/and
compliance with the standards. The more feasible options are then taken forward to detailed traffic
modelling and junction analysis.
The scope of this assessment does not consider proposals for the internal network of the proposed
SDA.
The remainder of this report is structured as follows:
Chapter 2 states the data sources used for this study
Chapter 3 - describes the methodology for the assessment of the junctions
Chapter 4 provides an initial assessment of the options;
Chapter 5 - presents the results of the traffic modelling of each of the feasible options;
Chapter 6 - highlights the cost implications for each of the feasible options;
Chapter 7 - sets out summary of the report findings; and
Chapter 8 - highlights the conclusions and recommendations.
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
9/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
2 ACCESS STUDY DATA SOURCES AND ASSUMPTIONS
2.1 Solent Strategic Transport Model
Background traffic flow data for the study has been sourced from the Solent Strategic Traffic Model
(SSTM) developed by Atkins for Hampshire County Council to represent travel demand in the Solent
area. The SSTM represents an average hour within the morning peak period (0700-1000) and an
average hour within the inter peak period (1000-1600) in 2004. The evening peak period has not been
modelled within SSTM and has not been considered as part of this study. Assessment of the PM peak
will be important at some stage as a valid option for the AM peak may not be suitable for the PM peak
and additional refinement may potentially be needed.
The highway network has been modelled using the SATURN suite of programs. It was based on an
existing model developed by WSP for the Highways Agency, which was in turn based on based on the
M27 ITS study carried out by MVA.
The network density is shown in Figure 2.1. The model includes all the Motorways, A roads, B roads
and other roads that are considered to carry high volumes of traffic.
Figure 2.1: Highway Network Density
N
Southampton
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
10/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
The network has a mixture of buffer and simulation coding (simulation coding takes account of delays
due to junctions). The motorway network and associated junctions have been coded in simulation and
the Portsmouth area has also been coded in simulation; the rest of the network has been coded asbuffer using speed-flow curves to take account of delays. This type of coding is only suitable for areas
that are not congested.
Within the study area for this project, both M27 Junction 10 and 11 are simulated in the model,
although junctions on the A32 north and south of the motorway are coded in buffer making the
predicted reassignment of traffic on the wider network in response to any proposed changes at M27
Junctions 10 and 11 (e.g. realigned A32) potentially open to question. However, in the absence of a
fully simulated model covering the Fareham area including the county roads, the existing SSTM
represents the best traffic data source available for this project, a view shared by the Highways
Agency (Appendix A).
2.2 New Transport Model
The limitations of the existing SSTM to provide an accurate representation of the traffic implications
associated with new highway infrastructure are recognised by the two relevant highway authorities,
Hampshire County Council and the Highways Agency. A new more detailed model of the local area is
in preparation, with data collection currently ongoing. The new transport model will capture the
current network issues, such as queuing on the M27 mainline in the peak periods.
Any preliminary conclusions set out in this report will need to be reassessed once the new improved
modelling tool is available.
2.3 Development Traffic
Traffic forecasts for development proposals in the local area as set out in the draft core strategies
including the SDA, are taken from Peter Brett Associates (PBA) Transport Assessment titled
Assessing the Impact of Harbour Authorities LDF Proposals on the Strategic Highway Network and
produced in July 2008.
The PBA work provides a very detailed quantification and distribution analysis of traffic associated
with all development sites included within the draft core strategies for Fareham, Gosport, Havant and
Portsmouth. This study has taken the PBA figures at face value as scrutiny of the PBA report is not
part of this project scope. We understand from PBA that the following approach was applied to the
derivation of traffic forecasts associated with the SDA
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
11/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
PBA provided traffic turning movements for the study area network extracted from SSTM in the
with and without SDA development scenarios set out below. Where Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is
included in Scenario 3, a reduction in traffic demand as a result of mode switch to BRT by car usershas been allowed for in the PBA figures:
Scenario 1 Base (No Development SDA)
Scenario 2 Base + Development SDA existing highway network; and
Scenario 3 Base + Development SDA + BRT +A32 realigned to M27 J11.
Initial observations of the data show a considerable increase in traffic travelling eastwards towards
Fareham and Portsmouth. It is not possible with the data selected for this study from the PBA model to
determine the likely increase in traffic north of the proposed SDA.
2.4 Past Reports
As described above, three studies have been carried out over the past year to consider the transportimplications of the SDA. These previous reports are listed below and a short description of each report
follows:
BRT Alignment and Operation Assessment WSP August 2008;
Assessing the Impact of the Harbour Authorities Local Development Framework Proposals on
the Strategic Highways Network Peter Brett Associates July 2008; and
Setting Strategic Direction, Fareham SDA Mott Gifford/MVA February 2008.
2.4.1 BRT Alignment and Operation Assessment WSP (August 2008)
WSP Development and Transportation was commissioned by PRUPIM, a stakeholder in the
development for the proposed Fareham SDA, to assess the BRT alignment options between Fareham
Town Centre and the SDA.
The alignments investigated by the study were put forward by both PRUPIM and Hampshire County
Council as part of previous related studies.
The principle focus of the assessment was to identify a route that would best serve the SDA in terms
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
12/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
The study provided policy context for the development of a comprehensive BRT network in South
Hampshire. The BRT proposal developed from a light rail transit (LRT) which HCC was forced to
abandon by central government in 2005 on the grounds of cost. The LRT project proposed to linkFareham, Gosport and Portsmouth and was also known as the South Hampshire Rapid Transit
(SHRT).
Despite the abandonment of the LRT scheme, development of a new transit system continued. During
the development of LRT two alternative schemes were considered, with BRT seen as the next best
option to deliver some of the strategic benefits of the LRT for the area. This is supported in both the
Hampshire County Councils Local Transport Plan 2 (2006-2011) and Fareham Borough Council
transport strategies for the proposed SDA.
The WSP report therefore explored four BRT options, three of which had sub-options for routes
through Fareham. The options considered were as follows:
Option 1 Access via disused rail line route;
Option 2 Access Via Kiln Lane;
Option 3 Access via Funtley Hill; and
Option 4 Access via the A32 (M27 Junction 10).
The report tested the options in terms of operational requirements, assessing whether the options
provided an efficient network with high levels of accessibility. The assessment examined the potential
journey times, locations of bus stops and vehicle requirements to operate the route option and provided
an engineering assessment of each route.
The report ranked the options using a scoring matrix against the following Criteria:
Integration with the wider BRT system;
Ensuring Journey Time Reliability;
Provide access to central Fareham;
An efficient and accessible route throughout the SDA sectors;
Cost; and
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
13/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
The report did not select an option but provided data to inform debate on the options available to serve
the proposed SDA with BRT. This assessment cannot, and does not, determine the preferred BRT
routing. However, of the two highest scoring options, Option 4 provides a scheme that requiresconsiderably less traffic management measures to be implemented, as the route for BRT would follow
the A32 for the majority of its journey. Whereas, Option 3 would require considerable investment in
junction improvements to accommodate bus priority systems and permanent changes to the
management of residential traffic flows in the north Fareham area.
For the SDA Access Study it is assumed that Option 4 is used as the basis for BRT provision between
the SDA and Fareham Town Centre. However, it should be stressed that this selection is for the
assessment of SDA Access options to the M27 only and does not conclude the selection process
required for BRT routing. Indeed the final access strategy for the proposed SDA will need to consider
the wider impact of BRT options which is outside the scope of this study.
2.4.2 Assessing the Impact of the Harbour Authorities Local Development FrameworkProposals on the Strategic Highways Network Peter Brett Associates (July 2008)
The Peter Brett Associates (PBA) study focused on updating the Solent Strategic Transport Model and
calculating a detailed forecast of growth and distribution patterns related to the development proposals
set out in the Core Strategies of the Harbour Authorities. The model was for an AM peak period only.
PBA supplied Mott MacDonald with the model results for the M27 Junctions 10 and 11. Three
scenarios were provided which were the with and without the proposed SDA development.
The PBA assessment was not required to investigate mitigation measures for the traffic issues
identified in their model. Mott MacDonald therefore continues on from PBAs initial assessment andinvestigates suitable access options for the proposed SDA.
It was noted that the projected traffic flows at the M27 J10 and J11 showed that demand to and from
the east was considerably higher than those to and from the west.
2.4.3 Setting Strategic Direction, Fareham SDA Mott Gifford/MVA (February 2008)
The report considered the transport implications of the proposed large development area included in
the South East Plan known as North Fareham Strategic Development Area (SDA). The Summary of
the report provides a concise review of the report main findings and is provided in Appendix B for
reference. A distilled version of the summary is provided below, focusing on the main transportation
issues pertinent to this Access Study.
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
14/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
A containment factor of 40% was assumed for the purposes of the study, i.e. 40% of the economically
active population will live and work in the SDA. If the containment factor were lower, the movements
to and from the SDA during the peaks could be very significantly higher. The robustness of the 40%figure should be considered in detail before any clear conclusions are drawn regarding transport
measures required to deliver the SDA;
The distribution of trips associated with the SDA during the peak periods is orientated strongly
towards Portsmouth as the main employment and retail centre;
Public transport connectivity to key destinations is critical and Bus Rapid Transit is the centrepiece of
the public transport strategy for the SDA, with a route proposed to penetrate the site through M27 J10.
Consideration of highway access from the Strategic Road Network (SRN) involved the M27 J10 and
M27 J11, as well as a combination of the two. Any solution will need to complement the SDAs public
transport package rather than compete against it and any option which allows movement for all traffic
through M27 J10 will dilute the attractiveness of the BRT by limiting its journey time advantage over
the car for trips between the SDA and Fareham;
With a 40% containment factor applied and a progressive approach to the impact of smarter choices,
the preferred option for highway access from the SRN is to realign the A32 just south of Albany Farm
to tie in the M27 J11. The link will need to be a dual carriageway with two lanes both north and
southbound. M27 J11 would be improved through the introduction of a single lane free-flow
eastbound on-slip.
The existing A32 through M27 J10 and its existing east-facing slip roads would operate as bus/High
Occupancy Vehicle only, thus accommodating the buses on a north/south alignment whilst providingquick access from the SDA to/from the M27 and the proposed bus/HOV lane using the M27 hard
shoulder. Careful consideration would be needed regarding the enforcement of this proposal, as with
any HOV scheme and the time periods in which the restrictions would apply;
Only a small percentage of trips associated with the SDA would be distributed to the north towards
Alton. The A32 north of the SDA would carry significant traffic levels with or without the SDA going
ahead, as background traffic using this route is forecast to increase in 2026; and
Although a transport strategy has been identified which will provide multi-modal access between the
SDA and its key destinations, the strategy has not been considered in the context of demand
management measures such as city centre parking controls. The aspirations for sustainable
development are only likely to be realised in terms of transport if area wide demand management of
t i i l t d t i t th t 20
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
15/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
2.5 Other Supporting Documents or Studies
2.5.1 Circular 2/07: Planning and the Strategic Road Network - Department for Transport
Circular 2/07 provides an explanation of how the Highways Agency (HA) is to participate in all stages
of the planning process. The document sets out a framework for collaborative working coordinating a
number of organisations including Government Offices, regional and local planning authorities, local
highway authorities, public transport providers and developers. The aim of this working alliance is to
ensure national and regional objectives are aligned with a common objective in terms of the strategic
road network and standards.
In summary the circular details how:
The HA will have an active involvement in the development of Regional Spatial Strategies,
Local Development Frameworks;
Working together and in partnership will establish mutual goals and assist in the production of
a sustainable development policy; and
Sets out how the HA will deal with planning applications.
The circular emphasises the importance of consultation in securing delivery of sustainable and
effective outcomes for the road network, which will not burden other road users should a development
go ahead.
With regard to this assessment, an access study, 'The Capacity enhancements and access to the
network' section is the most pertinent in determining the appropriate access strategy for the SDA ontothe SRN.
In section 41 of the DfT document it states that:
There is a general presumption that there will be no additional accesses to motorways and other
routes of strategic national importance, other than the provision of service areas, facilities for the
travelling public, maintenance compounds and, exceptionally, other major transport interchanges.
Access from other types of development to motorways and other routes of strategic national
importance will be limited to existing junctions with all-purpose roads. Modifications to existing
junctions will be carried out only where traffic flows and safety will not be adversely affected.
Connections to slip roads and/or connector roads will not be permitted.
Therefore based on the above statement if an option for access to the SDA requires a new junction on
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
16/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
For the Fareham SDA the Companion Document states:
At Fareham: careful balance between maintaining settlement identity and maximising opportunitiesfor sustainable movement between the SDA and the existing urban area; quality of public transport
connections with Portsmouth, including the development of an attractive bus based service linking
Portsmouth and Fareham via Gosport; sensitive treatment of the relationship with Portsdown Hill to
the east of the SDA location, and of the setting of the neighbouring settlements
This statement therefore confirms regional planning policy support for providing options that improve
transport links eastwards, towards Portsmouth.
2.5.3 A32 Access Study - Mott Gifford (December 2008)
Although not part of this assessment the realignment of the A32, as identified in the Mott Gifford/
MVA report above plays a significant role in the development of any access improvements for the
proposed Fareham SDA. A high level assessment of the route options for the A32 realignment has
been undertaken for the A32 Realignment Study carried out by Mott Gifford. The realignment study
assesses seven potential routes between the existing A32 and M27 Junction 11.
The implication of the A32 realignment has also been considered in the WSP and PBA reports. Indeed
the PBA model provided a projection of likely reassignment of trips between M27 J10 and J11, should
the link be provided. For this assessment the exact line of the route is not important, however the
likely reassignment of trips between M27 J10 and J11 with improved infrastructure in place is a key
issue.
2.5.4 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Fact Sheet 2002 and ICARO 1999 (Leeds City Council)
The use of an High Occupancy Vehicle lanes is considered in this study. To determine the likely
reassignment of traffic movements the High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Fact Sheet 2002 and ICARO
1999 has been referenced. The link to the online document is provided below.
(www.konsult.leeds.ac.uk/private/level2/instruments029/12_029c.htm accessed on 29/10/2008
The study investigated HOV lanes and provides case studies. In essence an HOV lane is designed to
discourage single or low occupancy car use by providing priority to vehicles with more than a
minimum number of people (usually 2 or 3). In turn, possible congestion will be reduced as there will
be fewer vehicles on the road. In order to gain public support for HOV lanes, it is crucial to police the
appropriate use of this lane. Enforcement, according top the case study at the above link, can be either
http://www.konsult.leeds.ac.uk/private/level2/instruments029/12_029c.htm%20accessed%20on%2029/10/2008http://www.konsult.leeds.ac.uk/private/level2/instruments029/12_029c.htm%20accessed%20on%2029/10/2008http://www.konsult.leeds.ac.uk/private/level2/instruments029/12_029c.htm%20accessed%20on%2029/10/20088/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
17/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
3 TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
3.1 Assessment Year
The year of assessment is 2026 when it assumed that the SDA will be completed.
3.2 Assessment Period
In the absence of a PM peak model, and with confirmation that an AM peak assessment using SSTM
is acceptable to the Highways Agency for the purposes of assessing impact of Farehams core strategy
on the Strategic Highway Network, the SSTM 2026 AM peak hour period is the assessment period.
3.3 Study Area
The study area includes M27 Junctions 10 and 11 including motorway slip roads. Non-motorwayjunctions are not considered within this study.
3.4 Assignment of Traffic
The short study programme does not allow for an iterative approach to testing and developing all the
potential access strategy options. Ideally, proposed modifications to the network would be coded into
the SATURN model with assignments run to understand the resultant redistribution of traffic betweenthe two junctions (including background traffic), prior to more detailed analysis. The approach to
reassignment in this study is therefore mainly a first principles manual approach based upon a number
of assumptions. The one exception is the option to realign the A32 to tie in to M27 Junction 11, which
PBA had assumed in their study and the reassignment of traffic from the wider area in response this
scheme has been allowed for in the flows extracted from SSTM. Assumptions applied to the manual
assignment of traffic are : -
If a new all moves junction is provided at J10 then traffic to and from the A27 will be shared
between J11 and J10 70%/30% respectively. The distribution of these trips east and west is in
the same proportion to the base data;
Where BRT priority is proposed at the M27 Junction 10, only BRT vehicles are permitted on
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
18/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
Figure 3.1: Illustration of Trip Reassignment Assumptions
J10
J11
N
M27
SDA35%
SDA
65%
SDA
A32
30%
A32
70%
A27Fareham
3.5 Design flows for lane requirements
The design flows for the traffic lanes requirements are based on the Highways Agency Design Manual
for Roads Bridges standards TD22/06 Layout of Grade Separated Junctions. It is assumed that the
design flow per lane is 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) for all-purpose roads, and 1,800vph per lane for
motorways Although these figures do not represent the maximum throughput per lane greater traffic
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
19/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
4 ASSESSMENT OF ACCESS OPTIONS
4.1 General
This section reviews the highway options proposed for access to the Fareham SDA from the M27. For
reference an indicative highway layout is presented with each option. For this first stage the internal
layout of the proposed SDA and details of lane layouts at the junctions is not considered.
4.2 Description of Options
Five broad options have been proposed which provide access to the proposed SDA from the M27.
Three of the options have previously been considered in the Setting Strategic Direction, Fareham
SDA report produced by Mott Gifford/MVA Consultancy.
The options which are considered in this study are:
Option 1 Do Minimum Only minor changes to the highway network are made in this
scenario.
Option 2 New all traffic movements junction is provided west of the existing M27 J10
with the Bus Rapid Transit route using the existing M27 J10.
Option 3 West facing slip roads are provided to the west of M27 J10 with the A32
realigned to M27 J11. A BRT route is provided through the existing M27 J10;
Option 4 Existing M27 J10 is upgraded to accommodate all traffic movements and the
A32 is realigned to join M27 J11; and
Option 5 M27 J10 remains unchanged with a dedicated BRT route in peak periods and the
A32 is realigned to join M27 J11.
A matrix of which features are included in each option is presented in Table 4.1 below. A description
of the elements is also provided for reference.
Table 4-1 Option Matrix
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
20/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
Additional West facing slip roads at J10 The option proposes to provide west facing slip roads
at M27 Junction 10 but as a separate junction.
New All moves junction at M27 J10 - A new junction is constructed to the west of M27 J10. This
would be an all moves junction allowing traffic from the north and south of the M27 to access the
M27 east and westbound mainlines.
A32 Realigned to tie into M27 J11 - Assumes a link between the existing A32 and the M27 J11.
For this study the alignment of the link is not significant and therefore the reassignment of traffic
between the junctions is the same for each option that includes this element.
The realignment of the A32 at M27 J11 assumes the provision of a segregated left turn lane from A32
to the M27 eastbound slip road. The type of segregated lane is illustrated in the Highways Agency
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges TD51/03 at Figure 2/6. This shows a segregated lane feeding
directly into the offside lane of the slip road. This arrangement takes advantage of the current M27 J11
layout where two lanes are provided on the slip road to M27 eastbound mainline
BRT & HOV Lane Assumes that access at the existing M27 is restricted to Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) and High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV). This restriction is assumed to be applied across the
whole peak assessment, ie the AM peak period. BRT and HOV could be phased in at stages of
development, with the HOV element of the proposal coming in much later. Once the development
matures, an HOV policy could be initiated, furthering the cumulative impact of modal shift to ease
possible congestion. As per the Leeds case study, the restrictions on access through the junctions
would most probably be for peak periods only.
As highlighted in the WSP report, reducing congestion on the Fareham/Gosport peninsula is a priorityfor Hampshire County Council. This will be achieved in part by the provision of a dedicated route for
high speed bus travel between Gosport and Fareham. The proposed BRT link between the proposed
SDA and Fareham Town Centre is seen as a key element of that scheme.
All traffic on M27 J10 Slip roads Some options assume that certain turning moves would be
banned for all motorists as a result of HOV or BRT at M27 J10. Therefore if no restrictions are
implemented then an all moves/ all traffic junction is possible.
4.3 Option Cost Review
An order of magnitude cost for each option has been estimated which allows comparison between
each option. However, the estimates were based upon basic information with a high level of risk.
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
21/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
Statutory undertakings
Major road land drainage
Design
4.4 Assessment Criteria
The options will be assessed against the following criteria:
Policy
o Whether the proposal meets the aspiration of providing a suitable BRT link betweenSDA, Fareham and towards Portsmouth;
o In line with Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East that the option prioritises
improvements to eastern facing transport links between the SDA and the Portsmouth
area; and
o The access strategy conforms to Department for Transport Circular 02/07.
Design Standards - Compliance with HA DMRB;
Traffic Capacity - Suitability in terms of providing appropriate level of traffic capacity;
Cost/ Benefit Whether the scheme is Value for money considering the likely traffic flows
using the proposed facility; and
Deliverability Issues Assesses likely land take and construction issues such as likely impact
on existing structures, road infrastructure (outline design level only) or communities.
As this is a high level assessment the identification of deliverability issues for each option is in broad
terms only. This study does not investigate detailed issues such as; geotechnical constraints, structural
suitability, construction phasing issues, exact land take and associated works. The deliverability
assessment is to determine whether the option has any fundamental risks that would result in the
option being wholly undeliverable. Therefore there may still be some construction challenges/ riskseven if the scheme is viewed in this assessment as a suitable option.
The assessment may not provide commentary on every aspect identified above as analysis may reveal
that a single criterion is sufficiently detrimental for the option to be discounted eg if the scheme
contravenes policy set out in DfT Circular 02/07.
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
22/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
4.5 Option Evaluations
4.5.1 Option 1 Do Minimum
(i) Description of Option
This option assumes that there would be no improvements made to the existing road network. Access
to the proposed development would therefore be achieved via J10 where east facing only slip roads arecurrently provided. Trips arriving from the west on the M27 would be required to u-turn at J11 then
travel west to J10 to access the development. All egress from the proposed development onto the M27
is achieved at J10 through the east facing slip road. Therefore vehicles from the development wishing
to travel west would need to undertake a u-turn at J11.
This option is identified as the Do Minimum scenario and is illustrated in Figure 4.1 below.
Figure 4.1 Option 1 Do Minimum
N
A32
SDA
J10
M27
J11A32
FarehamA27
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
23/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
In addition the alternative BRT alignments through North Fareham west of the A32 are likely to be
challenging to deliver as they could require substantial traffic management measures and bus priority
junction improvements to be made. Such an option would reduce journey time advantages for the BRTand could result in additional land take requirements.
The option does not provide an improved access for east facing slip roads and therefore could be seen
as contravening Regional Spatial Strategy aspirations.
The option does not provide any improvements to accommodate the additional traffic demand. The
Highways Agency, in accordance with DfT Circular 02/07, would not endorse this option as this could
compromise the level of service on the M27 by placing addition traffic pressure on slip roads andjunctions that are currently over capacity.
Conclusion
To dismiss any improvements would exacerbate existing queuing problems, due to the additional
development traffic demand.
This scheme has been discounted as a viable access option as it does not satisfy current transportpolicy.
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
24/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
4.5.2 Option 2 New M27 J10 all traffic movements
(i) Description of Option
Option 2 proposes to provide a new all moves junction, located to the west of the existing J10. For
Option 2 a BRT route is provided through the existing M27 J10 and therefore southbound access for
traffic travelling to Fareham is restricted. Access north bound for local traffic is still permitted. A
sketch of Option 2 is shown at Figure 4.2 (schematic layout only).
Figure 4.2 Option 2 new M27 J10 with BRT
A32
N SDA
J10
M27
J11
A32Fareham
A27
(ii) Option Appraisal
Policy
This option would allow a high speed bus link to be provided between the SDA and Fareham through
the existing M27 J10. Therefore this option is considered a suitable option in policy terms. Priorities
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
25/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
Design Standards
Notwithstanding the above policy failure of such an access proposal, a major risk for the suitability ofproviding a new all moves M27 J10 is achieving the weaving length specified in the Highways
Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). The minimum distance specified for the
weaving length is 2km between junctions (DMRB Vol. 6 TD22/06).
An alternative solution would be to reduce the weaving distance required by lowering the existing
speed limit on this section of the M27. It is questionable whether the Highways Agency (HA) would
find such a strategy an acceptable solution.
Traffic Capacity
The PBA traffic model for the AM peak scenario indicates that the A32 would need to be upgraded to
a dual carriageway with three lanes southbound and two lanes northbound. To reduce the A32
southbound carriageway to a two lane carriageway the development traffic would need to be reduced
by between 10% and 20% in the AM Peak. Beyond the SDA development the number of lanes
required is likely to be less.
Having such a major road travelling through the site on a north-south axis would result in a major
severance issue within the proposed SDA development compromising the east/ west permeability of
the site.
Cost/ Benefit
The order of magnitude cost for Option 2 has been estimated to be in the region of 11,535,000
The PBA model flows indicate that westbound demand is considerably lower than eastbound demand.
Such low levels of demand could make it difficult to justify a large expenditure on infrastructure and
land purchase when investment in the A32 link and associated M27 J11 improvements could provide
similar benefits to this westbound traffic, as well as improve eastbound access capacity.
Deliverability Issues
The provision of a new major grade separated junction on the M27 will require considerable land take.
As well as land take for the junction itself, consideration will need to be made on how such a junction
could be linked to the existing highway network. It is likely that any connector roads could result in
moderate severance issues for both the proposed SDA and considerable traffic impact on the
residential area north of Fareham Town Centre.
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
26/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
To satisfy DMRB standards the new junction would be located and aligned in such a manner
that the connector roads would result in considerable traffic impact on the residential area
north of Fareham Town Centre. The connector roads would also impact on the aspirations ofthe SDA master plan layouts by splitting the site into two parts.
This option will therefore not be considered for further assessment.
F h SDA
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
27/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
4.5.3 Option 3 Split M27 J10 all traffic movements
(i) Description of Option
Option 3 proposes to upgrade M27 J10 to an all moves junction for access to the SDA only. The
junction improvement would essentially be a mirror of the existing junction providing the missing
west facing slip roads. Option 3 would therefore have the following improvements or features:
New west facing slip roads for all traffic moves at M27 J10.
Realigned A32 to M27 J11;
Southbound access to Fareham through J10 would be restricted to BRT only;
Slip roads at J10 would be restricted to HOV and BRT access only.
A sketch of Option 3 is presented in Figure 4.3 below (schematic layout only see Mott Giffordreport A32 Realignment, Options Identification)
Figure 4.3 Option 3 split M27 J10 with A32 realigned
J10
J11
M27
A32
A32
SDAN
F h SDA
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
28/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
In terms of the Regional Spatial Strategy this proposal does provide improvements for east facing
transport links via the realigned A32 to the M27 J11. However, the Highways Agency, in accordance
with DfT Circular 02/07, would not endorse this option as the new slip roads would be viewed as anew junction onto the M27.
Design Standards
For the west facing slip roads it is assumed that any new junction designed at this site will be designed
in accordance with HA DMRB standards.
To satisfy DMRB standards the new slip road could be located and aligned in such a manner that theconnector roads could result in considerable traffic impact on the aspirations of the SDA master plan
layouts by splitting the site into two parts.
This study does not consider issues associated with the potential alignment of the new A32 link road.
A separate Mott Gifford study provides an assessment of potential link alignments called Fareham
Strategic Development Area, A32 Realignment Options Identification.
It is assumed that the M27 J11 segregated left turn lane from the new A32 link to the eastbound M27mainline will be designed in accordance to TD51/03.
Traffic Capacity
With these probable changes in flows it is envisaged that no alterations would be required for the
existing A32. However, the new A32 realignment would need to be a dual carriageway with three
lanes eastbound to M27 J11 and two lanes westbound from the junction. To reduce the realigned A32
to a dual carriageway with two lanes in both directions the eastbound development traffic would need
to be reduced by up to 10%.
Based on the reassignment of PBA flows the new connector roads at the split J10 could be single
carriageway.
It should be noted that the proposed junction improvements at J11 might not have sufficient capacity
to accommodate the eastbound flows derived from the PBA model. Therefore it is assumed that any
demand over and above the capacity of the segregated left turn lane will be dealt with by reducing
trips from the SDA. The likely reduction of trips required from the site may be in the order of between
50-60% of east bound trips after the BRT and HOV reassignment.
Cost/ Benefit
Fareham SDA
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
29/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
As discussed above in the option descriptions the A32 will connect to M27 J11. For eastbound traffic
from the SDA a segregated left turn lane will be provided. There is a risk that the additional traffic on
this slip road could require the merging section of the slip road to be extended beyond the bridge forDownend Road. This could result in the span of the bridge needing to be increased.
Conclusion
The Option is considered unsuitable for the following reasons:
The option does not conform to policy set out in DfT Circular 02/07 as this is considered to be
a new junction onto the SRN.
The likely cost to benefit ratio may be disproportionate for a new west facing slip roads as the
flows to and from the west that the junction would facilitate are low.
To satisfy DMRB standards the new junction may be located and aligned in such a manner
that the connector roads compromise the aspirations of the SDA master plan layouts by
severing the site into two parts.
This option is therefore not considered further due to the cost and severance issues identified above.
Fareham SDA
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
30/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
4.5.4 Option 4 Existing M27 J10 all traffic movements
(i) Description of Option
Option 4 proposes to provide a dumbbell type junction. Option 4 would therefore have the following
improvements or features:
Two new roundabout junctions located on the existing A32 either side of the M27
New west facing slip roads for all traffic moves at M27 J10.
Realigned A32 to M27 J11;
A sketch of the layout is presented in Figure 4.4 below (schematic layout only see Mott Gifford
report A32 Realignment, Options Identification). The assessment of this proposal assumes that the
new A32 link would be provided to M27 J11.
Figure 4.4 Option 4 M27 J10 all traffic movements with A32 realigned
J10
N
M27
A32
SDA
J11A32
FarehamA27
Fareham SDA
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
31/57
Access Study
(ii) Option Appraisal
Policy
This option requires access to the southern section of the junction to be open to all traffic for the west
facing slip roads. This option would therefore not be able to provide a priority route for BRT through
M27 J10. The proposed A32 Link Road prioritises eastbound movement by providing a second link
to/from the SDA site.
Although an alternative BRT route could be provided, as discussed above in Section 2, BRT
alignments through North Fareham west of the A32 are likely to be challenging to deliver as theycould require substantial traffic management measures and bus priority junction improvements to be
constructed. Such measures could result in additional land take requirements.
Providing west facing slips at M27 J10 may have considerable impact on the residential area in North
Fareham as additional trips could reassign from M27 J9 and J11 to this junction.
With regard to DfT Circular 02/07, this option is viewed as a junction improvement, so is acceptable.
Cost/ Benefit
The order of magnitude cost for Option 4 has been estimated to be in the region of 79,096,000.
The PBA model flows indicate that westbound demand is considerably lower than eastbound demand.
Such low levels of demand might make it difficult to justify a large expenditure on infrastructure and
land purchase when investment in M27 J11 improvements could provide similar benefits to this
westbound traffic, as well as improve the junctions performance for eastbound access.
Conclusion
This scheme has been discounted as the access option does not provide a priority route for BRT from
the proposed site to Fareham. An alternative BRT route could be used instead, however such a scheme
could be complex to deliver compared to a direct route along the A32 through J10 which would have
better journey time savings.
There is a considerable risk of trips currently using M27 J9 and J11 reassigning to use this junction to
travel west. This could greatly increase congestion in this area of north Fareham.
In cost benefit terms the infrastructure investment for the west bound slip roads may be
Fareham SDA
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
32/57
Access Study
4.5.5 Option 5 Existing M27 J10 BRT/HOV only with A32 link to J11
(i) Description of Option
Option 5 would have the following improvements or features:
No major infrastructure changes to M27 J10;
Realigned A32 to M27 J11;
Segregated left turn lane at J11 to allow direct access to M27 eastbound mainline;
Southbound access to Fareham through J10 would be restricted to BRT only; and
Slip roads at J10 would be restricted to BRT access only.
Option 5 is illustrated in Figure 4.5 below (schematic layout only see Mott Gifford report A32
Realignment, Options Identification).
Figure 4.5 Option 5 M27 J10 with A32 realigned and BRT
J10
N
M27
SDAA32
J11A32
Fareham SDA
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
33/57
Access Study
In terms of the Regional Spatial Strategy this proposal does provide improvements for east facing
transport links via the realigned A32 to the M27 J11.
With regard to DfT Circular 02/07, this option is viewed as a junction improvement.
Traffic Capacity
It is assumed that there would be no need for any improvements to the existing A32 southbound. The
new A32 realignment to M27 J11 would need to be a dual carriageway with two lanes to and from the
M27 J11. It is recognised that the proposed segregated left turn lane at J11 would not have sufficient
capacity for the eastbound demand. Therefore the eastbound trips generated by the development in theAM peak would need to reduce by between 50% and 60%.
Cost/ Benefit
The order of magnitude cost for Option 5 has been estimated to be in the region of 46,035,000.
This option is focused on providing improvements to the M27 J11 and the realignment of the A32.
The changes proposed at J10 could be minimal such as additional road markings and road signsbacked up by suitable enforcement measures.
Deliverability Issues
The connector road to J10 may still have substantial traffic flows as it is assumed that 35% of the trips
generated by the site may be HOV. This could still result in moderate severance issues for the
proposed SDA if the site was spilt east and west of the current A32.
Conclusion
The Option will be taken forward for further analysis for the following reasons:
It facilitates BRT access from the SDA to Fareham;
Provides improved east facing transport links;
Conforms with DfT Circular 02/07; and
The option provides additional junction capacity.
This option is therefore taken forward for further analysis in the next section
Fareham SDA
A S d
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
34/57
Access Study
4.6 Merge and Diverge analysis
All options have been assessed to determine the number of lanes required to meet merge and diverge
standards as set out in HA DMRB guidance. The required merging and diverging parameters have
been extracted from the DMRB standards TD22/06 Layout of Grade Separated Junctions. The
assessment is presented in Table 4.2 below. Option 2 has not been analysed as it is assumed that the
junction will be designed to HA DMRB standards, whereas the other options are improvements to
existing junction layouts and therefore require analysis.
Table 4-2 Summary of the Interchange Parameters
Existing Option 1 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
M27 EB J10 Diverge (New) n/a n/a A A n/a
J10 Merge A F A B E
J11 Merge (New) n/a n/a F F F
M27 WB J10 Diverge A A A A A
J10 Merge (New) n/a n/a A G n/a
A32 SB J10 Diverge C D A C A
J10 Merge E E E E E
Merge Diverge
A - Taper merge A - Taper diverge
B - Parallel merge C - Lane drop at Taper diverge
E - Lane gain D - Ghost Island diverge for lane drop
F - Lane gain with Ghost Island E - 2 Lane drop
G - 2 Lane gain with Ghost Island
For reference some broad descriptions and the illustration from DMRB for the merge and diverge
layouts are provided below:
o Taper Merge Is where a slip road from a junction joins the mainline carriageway through anarea forming a funnel to the mainline carriageway (Figure 4.1).
Fareham SDA
Access St d
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
35/57
Access Study
Figure 4.2: Parallel merge
o Lane Gain The slip road from the junction does not taper but forms a new lane on the
mainline carriageway (Figure 4.3).
Figure 4.3: Merge with lane gain
o Lane gain with ghost island This is where a two lane slip road is provided from the junction .
The off side lane of the slip road merges with the mainline carriageway and the inside lanecontinues on to form a new lane on the mainline. The two slip road lanes are separated by a
ghost island (Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5).
Figure 4.4: Lane gain with Ghost Island option 1
Fareham SDA
Access Study
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
36/57
Access Study
Figure 4.5: Lane gain with Ghost Island merge option 2
o 2 Lane gain with ghost island A two lane slip road from a junction form two new lanes on
the mainline carriageway. The slip road lanes are separated by a ghost island (Figure 4.6).
Figure 4.6: 2Two lane gain with Ghost Island
o Taper Diverge - Where the slip road from the junction leaves the mainline carriageway
through an area forming a funnel from the mainline carriageway (Figure 4.7).
Fareham SDA
Access Study
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
37/57
Access Study
Figure 4.8: Lane drop at taper diverge
o Ghost island diverge for lane drop Where a two lane off slip road is provided by diverting
the nearside lane to form the first lane of the slip road and an additional taper diverge type slip
for lane two of the mainline carriageway. The diverging lanes are separated with a ghost
island (Figure 4.9).
Figure 4.9: Ghost Island diverge for lane drop
o 2 lane drop Two lanes on the mainline carriageway divert to form the off slip roads ( Figure4.10).
Fareham SDA
Access Study
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
38/57
y
The results indicate that for the M27 eastbound merge at J10 only Option 3 satisfies the standards for a
taper merge. All the other options could require the merging to be upgraded. Option 5, the preferred
access option, will require a review of mainline flows to determine the actual design of the merge.
Based on the PBA data indicates that the diverge movement for all the options satisfy the standards
and therefore no changes would be required for options that include westbound diverge movements at
M27 J10.
4.7 Summary of the Initial Option Assessment
The initial review of options reveals that OPTION 5 is the best option to satisfy the brief to provide
access for the proposed SDA from the Strategic Road Network.
The merge and diverge analysis revealed that Option 5 might require additional slip road capacity at
J11 for eastbound trips. This can be achieved by increasing the slip road length and alignment.
However, any such improvements could require the span of Downend Road bridge to be lengthened toaccommodate any additional lanes on the M27. In this study such infrastructure improvements are not
considered.
The assessment of the option is therefore not a predict and provide based assessment but uses a
reverse engineering approach where analysis is made only on improvements that can be constructed
within the limitations of the existing highway infrastructure. The traffic that cannot be accommodated
within the improvements is then highlighted as the amount of demand that needs to be dealt with in
some other manner, eg containment or mode switch. In the case of Option 5, based on thereassignment of PBA traffic forecasts, the eastbound SDA traffic could need to be reduced by between
50% and 60% in the AM peak.
Fareham SDA
Access Study
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
39/57
y
5 TRAFFIC MODELLING
This chapter presents the results of the traffic modelling (Stage 2) for Option 5, which is the only
option to be assessed.
Option 5 requires the M27 Junction 11 to be modelled. The junction is fully signalised in Option 5 and
therefore the TRANSYT computer program has been used for the capacity assessment. TRANSYT is
the industry standard program, developed by Transport Research Laboratories to analyse fully-
signalised or partially-signalised roundabouts. The junctions can be modelled, and their delay
minimised, by calculating timings which reduce blocking-back by keeping the circulating carriagewayfree flowing.
The base traffic model has been provided by WSP. The year of assessment for the proposed SDA is
2026 when it is assumed that the site will be fully developed. The assessment was carried out for the
morning peak period (AM) as per the PBA traffic data.
It is assumed that improvements to M27 J11 will be required to accommodate the SDA development
Flows and proposed A32 realignment. The model therefore includes the following alterations to the
existing layout:
Eastbound traffic from the A32 does not enter the roundabout but uses the segregated left turnlane; and
A third lane on the M27 Mainline West Off Slip at the stop line.
This is for an AM peak period only and additional changes or improvements may be required for a PM
peak period to accommodate the return trip.
A summary table of the results is provided below:
Table 5-1: M27 Junction 11 Signalised Junction Modelling Results
2026 Base Case No Development 2026 With Development andimprovements
ArmMax Degree Of
Saturation(%)
Max QMax Degree Of
Saturation(%)
Max Q
Proposed A32Link
37 0 70 9
M27 MainlineEast Off slip
83 26 83 26
Fareham SDA
Access Study
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
40/57
It should be noted that this assessment assumes that the majority of demand for M27 Junction 11
channelled into a segregated left turn lane between the realigned A32 and the M27 east mainline.
Further assessment of the mainline flows and the merge arranges is required to confirm that this option
is suitable.
It should also be noted that the provision of the segregated left turn lane requires a significant
reduction in vehicle trips generated by the proposed SDA development.
Further refinement of the strategic model and the junction layouts should be undertaken to confirm
that M27 J11 is suitable for the propose Fareham SDA.
Fareham SDA
Access Study
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
41/57
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusions
This study approached the selection of the options for access to the SDA from the M27 in two parts.
The first part assessed each proposal against broad evaluation criteria to narrow down the number of
access options to be taken forward to detailed traffic assessment. The second section of the report
provided a more detailed traffic assessment of the preferred option.
This study reviewed five access options for the proposed Fareham SDA from/to the M27. The option
appraisal section provided outline designs to illustrate the proposed access options. The five options
were:
Option 1 Do Minimum Only minor changes to the highway network are made in this
scenario.
Option 2 New all traffic movements junction is provided west of the existing M27 J10with the Bus Rapid Transit route using the existing M27 J10.
Option 3 West facing slip roads are provided to the west of M27 J10 with the A32
realigned to M27 J11. A BRT route is provided through the existing M27 J10;
Option 4 Existing M27 J10 is upgraded to accommodate all traffic movements and the
A32 is realigned to join M27 J11; and
Option 5 M27 J10 remains unchanged with a dedicated BRT route in peak periods and the
A32 is realigned to join M27 J11.
The option evaluation section assessed each access proposal against five criteria which were:
Policy;
Design Standards;
Traffic Capacity;
Cost/ Benefit; and
Fareham SDA
Access Study
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
42/57
The traffic review element of the study based its traffic assessment on the reassignment of PBA
SATURN traffic model data. The model used was for an AM peak period only and therefore there is
an element of risk when considering the traffic implications of each option. The return trip in the PM
peak could reveal that a valid option for the AM peak is not suitable for the PM peak and therefore
require additional refinement or an alternative option, previously dismissed on other grounds, be
considered.
It is important to note that all the options which were considered beneficial in traffic terms included
the A32 realignment.
After the first stage of the assessment only Option 5 was taken forward for further analysis. The trafficdata was input into a TRANSYT Model, a programme used to model linked traffic signals. This
revealed that Option 5 in the AM peak period worked satisfactorily.
It was concluded that OPTION 5 is the most suitable access option for the proposed Fareham SDA,
based on an AM peak period traffic assessment.
6.2 Recommendations
The traffic assessment of each option was based on the manual reassignment of an AM peak period
model only. It would be advisable that the preferred option, Option 5, is coded into the new traffic
model currently being developed. As well as providing more robust reassignment, this will reveal
whether Option 5 is suitable, in traffic terms, for a PM peak period.
Fareham SDA
Access Study
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
43/57
Appendix A HA Letter
Fareham SDA
Access Study
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
44/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
45/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
46/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
47/57
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
48/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
49/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
50/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
51/57
Appendix C TRANSYT Results
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
52/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
M M U if R d M M A
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
53/57
C-2227552/01/C - 6 February 2009/C-2 of 6P:\Southampton\HCC\Projects\227552\JD Fareham SDA Access\02 Documents\Out\MG-Fareham SDA Access Study Report-01D.doc/AP
Link NodeActualFlow
(PCU/H)
Sat.Flow
(PCU/H)
Degree OfSaturation
(%)
MeanCruise Time
Per PCU(sec)
MeanDelay TimePer PCU
(sec)
UniformDelay(PCU-H/H)
Rand +OverSatDelay
(PCU-H/H)
Cost OfDelay(/H)
MeanStops Per
PCU(%)
Cost OfStops(/H)
MeanMax
Queue(PCU)
AverageExcessQueue(PCU)
P.I.(/H)
Green1Start
Green1End
Green2Start
Green2End
101 1 1702 3856 83 11 17 5.5 2.4 112.2 82 79.6 26 0.0 191.8 39 10
102 1 763 1978 72 11 17 2.3 1.3 50.4 77 33.6 11 0.0 84.0 39 10
103 1 218 2015 70 8 28 1.1 0.6 24.1 99 12.3 8 0.0 85.7 17 34
104 1 207 2015 70 8 24 0.8 0.6 19.4 111 13.2 8 0.0 32.5 17 34
105 1 278 1978 61 8 25 1.4 0.6 27.9 92 14.6 6 0.0 100.9 17 34
106 1 84 1978 61 8 21 0.3 0.2 6.9 106 5.1 6 0.0 11.9 17 34
107 1 2127 6000 35 11 1 0.0 0.3 3.9 1 0.9 0 0.0 4.8
201 2 873 1908 83 18 21 2.7 2.4 72.8 89 17.3 14 0.0 90.1 5 37
202 2 1000 1965 93 18 32 3.4 5.5 126.3 111 24.7 20 0.0 150.9 5 37
203 2 978 2105 84 18 21 3.1 2.6 81.3 89 19.5 16 0.0 100.8 5 37
204 2 284 1965 51 5 27 1.6 0.5 29.8 110 17.9 5 0.0 47.7 44 0
206 2 363 2061 76 5 24 1.2 1.2 34.5 69 14.4 7 0.1 110.1 44 0
207 2 78 2061 76 5 32 0.4 0.3 9.9 119 5.3 7 0.1 18.8 44 0
208 2 400 1917 74 5 24 1.3 1.4 37.4 62 14.2 5 0.0 108.2 44 0
210 2 1235 4000 31 11 1 0.0 0.2 3.2 1 0.8 0 0.0 3.9
301 3 527 1864 85 11 37 2.7 2.6 76.2 113 34.1 11 0.0 110.3 44 3
302 3 541 1915 85 11 36 2.8 2.6 77.1 113 34.8 11 0.0 111.9 44 3
303 3 450 1980 82 8 16 0.8 1.2 28.7 68 17.4 13 0.0 115.5 10 39
304 3 363 1980 82 8 28 1.8 1.0 39.4 115 23.9 13 0.0 63.3 10 39
305 3 394 1908 83 8 18 0.8 1.2 27.6 73 16.6 14 0.0 110.5 10 39
Fareham SDA
Access Study
306 3 761 1908 80 8 12 0 6 1 9 36 4 26 11 4 4 0 0 47 8 10 39
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
54/57
C-3227552/01/C - 6 February 2009/C-3 of 6P:\Southampton\HCC\Projects\227552\JD Fareham SDA Access\02 Documents\Out\MG-Fareham SDA Access Study Report-01D.doc/AP
306 3 761 1908 80 8 12 0.6 1.9 36.4 26 11.4 4 0.0 47.8 10 39
307 3 1607 4000 60 11 1 0.0 0.5 7.1 2 1.7 1 0.0 8.7
308 3 400 1908 83 8 30 2.1 1.2 46.5 117 26.7 14 0.0 73.2 10 39
309 3 777 4000 60 11 1 0.0 0.2 3.4 2 0.8 1 0.0 4.2
401 4 496 1852 37 18 2 0.0 0.3 4.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 4.2
402 4 291 4000 26 9 1 0.0 0.0 0.7 1 0.2 0 0.0 0.9
403 4 761 4000 26 9 1 0.0 0.1 1.8 1 0.4 0 0.0 2.3
404 4 761 2400 32 11 1 0.0 0.2 3.3 2 0.8 0 0.0 4.1
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
55/57
Fareham SDA
Access Study
2026 AM
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
56/57
C-5227552/01/C - 6 February 2009/C-5 of 6P:\Southampton\HCC\Projects\227552\JD Fareham SDA Access\02 Documents\Out\MG-Fareham SDA Access Study Report-01D.doc/AP
2026 AM
Link NodeActualFlow
(PCU/H)
Sat.Flow
(PCU/H)
Degree OfSaturation
(%)
MeanCruise Time
Per PCU(sec)
MeanDelay Time
Per PCU(sec)
UniformDelay
(PCU-H/H)
Rand +OverSat
Delay(PCU-H/H)
Cost OfDelay
(/H)
MeanStops Per
PCU(%)
Cost OfStops
(/H)
MeanMax
Queue(PCU)
AverageExcess
Queue(PCU)
P.I.
(/H)
Green1
Start
Green1
End
Green2
Start
Green2
End
101 1 1702 3856 83 11 17 5.5 2.4 112.2 82 79.6 26 0.0 191.8 40 11
102 1 763 1978 72 11 17 2.3 1.3 50.4 77 33.6 11 0.0 84.0 40 11
103 1 218 2015 70 8 12 0.1 0.6 10.0 22 2.8 5 0.0 23.8 18 35
104 1 207 2015 70 8 22 0.7 0.6 17.9 106 12.5 5 0.0 30.4 18 35
105 1 278 1978 61 8 9 0.1 0.6 10.2 17 2.6 2 0.0 23.3 18 35
106 1 84 1978 61 8 18 0.2 0.2 5.9 94 4.5 2 0.0 10.5 18 35
107 1 2127 6000 35 11 1 0.0 0.3 3.9 1 0.9 0 0.0 4.8
201 2 873 1908 83 18 21 2.7 2.4 72.8 89 17.3 14 0.0 90.1 7 39
202 2 1000 1965 93 18 32 3.4 5.5 126.3 111 24.7 20 0.0 150.9 7 39
203 2 978 2105 84 18 21 3.1 2.6 81.3 89 19.5 16 0.0 100.8 7 39
204 2 284 1965 51 5 26 1.5 0.5 28.8 110 17.9 5 0.0 46.7 46 2
206 2 363 2061 76 5 23 1.1 1.2 33.4 71 14.7 7 0.1 110.6 46 2
207 2 78 2061 76 5 28 0.3 0.3 8.7 118 5.2 7 0.1 17.9 46 2
208 2 400 1917 74 5 23 1.2 1.4 36.0 63 14.4 5 0.0 107.8 46 2
210 2 1235 4000 31 11 1 0.0 0.2 3.2 1 0.8 0 0.0 3.9
301 3 527 1864 85 11 37 2.7 2.6 76.2 113 34.1 11 0.0 110.3 46 5
302 3 541 1915 85 11 36 2.8 2.6 77.1 113 34.8 11 0.0 111.9 46 5
303 3 450 1980 82 8 16 0.8 1.2 28.7 68 17.4 13 0.0 115.5 12 41
304 3 363 1980 82 8 28 1.8 1.0 39.4 115 23.9 13 0.0 63.3 12 41
Fareham SDA
Access Study
305 3 394 1908 83 8 18 0 8 1 2 27 6 74 16 6 14 0 0 110 5 12 41
8/2/2019 090925 Tfsh Fareham Study
57/57
C-6227552/01/C - 6 February 2009/C-6 of 6P:\Southampton\HCC\Projects\227552\JD Fareham SDA Access\02 Documents\Out\MG-Fareham SDA Access Study Report-01D.doc/AP
305 3 394 1908 83 8 18 0.8 1.2 27.6 74 16.6 14 0.0 110.5 12 41
306 3 761 1908 80 8 12 0.6 1.9 36.4 26 11.4 4 0.0 47.8 12 41
307 3 1607 4000 60 11 1 0.0 0.5 7.1 2 1.7 1 0.0 8.7
308 3 400 1908 83 8 30 2.1 1.2 46.7 117 26.7 14 0.0 73.4 12 41
309 3 777 4000 60 11 1 0.0 0.2 3.4 2 0.8 1 0.0 4.2
401 4 496 3856 70 18 31 3.2 1.2 61.5 101 11.2 9 0.0 72.7 17 27
402 4 291 5632 29 9 2 0.1 0.1 2.2 8 1.3 9 0.0 3.5 34 12
403 4 761 5632 29 9 6 1.1 0.1 17.6 56 24.1 9 0.0 41.7 34 12404 4 761 2400 32 11 3 0.4 0.2 8.9 45 19.7 11 0.0 28.6