1 / 52

Community Scrutiny Committee 27 th February 2012

Hinkley Point C Nuclear New Build Project Strategic Options Appraisal of Transport Proposals in Bridgwater. Community Scrutiny Committee 27 th February 2012. Working in collaboration with. Chairman’s Introduction – Cllr Julian Taylor. Welcome Health & Safety

shanal
Download Presentation

Community Scrutiny Committee 27 th February 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Hinkley Point C Nuclear New Build ProjectStrategic Options Appraisal of Transport Proposals in Bridgwater Community Scrutiny Committee 27th February 2012 Working in collaboration with

  2. Chairman’s Introduction – Cllr Julian Taylor • Welcome • Health & Safety • Overview of Community Scrutiny Process • Why We Are Here?... Working in collaboration with

  3. Why Are We Here? • Meeting on 10th August 2011 debated the latest transport impacts and transport mitigation proposals. • CSC resolved that further work was required and if not forthcoming by EDF Energy, should be funded and carried out by Councils. • Executive Committee meeting on 24th August 2011 set out the requirements for a Study and approved funding. • A detailed brief was prepared and agreed on 14th September 2011. • Councils instructed Arup and JMP to undertake technical work. • On the 31 October 2011, subsequent to the commissioning of the Study, EDF Energy submitted their Hinkley Point C Development Consent Order Application (HPC DCO Application) to the IPC. Working in collaboration with

  4. Overview • a) Background and Re-cap of the Project Brief – Doug Bamsey • b) Introduction to the Study and Study Team– Peter Hulson • Options Considered & Details – Gary Davies • Traffic Modelling – Alyn Jones • Traffic Capacity Assessment – Steve Hall • Economic Implications for Bridgwater – Christopher Tunnell • Transport Options Appraisal – Steve Hall • c) Next Steps & Way Forward – SDC / SCC • d) Question and Answer Session – Plenary • e) Summary and Committee Resolution – Chairman Working in collaboration with

  5. Background • Part of attempt to shape the Development Consent Order for HPC. • Exasperation at lack of willingness to provide full and comprehensive transport options assessment. • Dissatisfaction with rigour of EDF Energy’s previous ‘Bypass Study’. • Lack of understanding for how proposals fit with existing plans and strategies. • Pro-growth area but seeking to deliver transformational change. • Utilise growth and investment to realise tangible local benefits. • Not just about highways infrastructure. • Sustainable, integrated approach required. • Generate evidence to inform Local Impact Report. Working in collaboration with

  6. Project Brief • Strategic Options Appraisal and comparative analysis. • Comparison of options for Bridgwater Northern Bypass and EDF Energy’s proposals for highway/junction improvements. • Assessment in accordance with NATA / WebTAG guidance. • Has socio-economic assessment at the core, and also focus on: • Deliverability; • Safety; • Transport economics and wider socio-economic impacts; • Impacts on key towns and meeting wider objectives e.g. Bridgwater Vision (place shaping); • Impacts on economic performance – incl. Businesses (congestion / delay); and • Environmental and quality of life factors. Working in collaboration with

  7. Introduction to the Study • Complex study requiring multiple inputs and assessment • High level comparative analysis of the benefits / disbenefits associated with a Bridgwater Northern Bypass as against the on-line improvements proposed by EDF • Overview of team involved • HPC Inquiry (1989) • EDF’s proposals through from Stage 1 to Stage 2b • Councils’ Consultation Responses • Community Consultation Responses • JMP Interim Assessment – June 2011 • Existing national, county and local policy Working in collaboration with

  8. Introduction to the Study • Assumptions underpinning study: • relates to EDF’s ‘pre-DCO’ highways mitigation proposals; • utilises traffic model from August 2011; • desk-based analysis, utilising existing data; • informed by traffic assessments carried out by SCC; • outlines assessment of impacts at 2016, and 2021; • provides high level design for a bypass; • provides high level cost estimates for bypass and online schemes; and • does not include flood risk assessment. Working in collaboration with

  9. Options Considered & Details Gary Davies Working in collaboration with

  10. Options Considered • EDF’s Online Mitigation Proposals • Bridgwater Northern Bypass Working in collaboration with

  11. EDF’s Online Mitigation Proposals Working in collaboration with

  12. EDF’s Online Mitigation Proposals • Pre-DCO submission proposals • 9 separate measures, including: • New Cannington Bypass • Capacity enhancements at 8 individual junctions Working in collaboration with

  13. EDF’s HGV Routes HGV Route 1 HGV Route 2 Working in collaboration with

  14. EDF’s Online Mitigation Proposals Working in collaboration with

  15. EDF’s Online Mitigation Proposals – Construction Issues • Package of distinct measures • Small-scale, minimal time to authorise and construct • Measures could be ‘phased’ to suit the HPC varying traffic demands. • Likely to cause some disruption to Bridgwater during the works: • Increased congestion • Potential impact upon businesses Working in collaboration with

  16. Bridgwater Northern Bypass Working in collaboration with

  17. Bridgwater Northern Bypass • Review of previous studies undertaken Working in collaboration with

  18. Constraints & obstacles - water Working in collaboration with

  19. Constraints & obstacles – environmental Working in collaboration with

  20. Bridgwater Northern Bypass • Routes Considered • Dunball Rdbt connection rejected: • Dunball Wharf • Major cost penalty • North of Cannington connection rejected: • Severn Estuary SPA, SAC, SSSI and Ramsar site. • More environmentally damaging. Working in collaboration with

  21. Bridgwater Northern Bypass 5.3 km long 4 - 6m high 35-40m wide Working in collaboration with

  22. Northern Bridgwater Bypass – Construction Issues • 900,000 m3 of imported fill • 47 weeks of HGV traffic to deliver fill material (if HGV movements restricted to 290 per day – consistent with Site Prep works). Working in collaboration with

  23. Northern Bridgwater Bypass – Construction Issues • 4½ - 5 year scheme delivery phase. • Earliest opening date of 2017 – this is beyond the HPC construction traffic peak (2016). • No HPC construction traffic mitigation. • Construction would be in parallel with HPC – further adding to the construction traffic problems • Massive increases on traffic congestion • Potential significant impact upon businesses, tourism, etc Working in collaboration with

  24. Traffic Modelling Alyn Jones Working in collaboration with

  25. Traffic Modelling • August 2011 Paramics model taken as the basis for modelling. • Model year 2016 (pre bypass construction year) and 2021 (first operational year used in the assessment) • Model scenarios: The traffic models used for this appraisal include: • 2016 baseline (no HPC development) • 2016 baseline + HPC + 2016 Travel Plan (P & R, Buses, freight management) + online mitigation (EDF proposals)+ Cannington Bypass • 2016 baseline + HPC + Travel Plan + Bridgwater Bypass + Cannington Bypass • 2021 baseline (no HPC development) • 2021 baseline + HPC + 2021 Travel Plan + online mitigation (EDF proposals) + Cannington Bypass • 2021 baseline + HPC + 2021 Travel Plan + Bridgwater Bypass + Cannington Bypass. • The baseline models include the committed developments. The models are for 11hours each day (four hours morning and seven hours afternoon). Working in collaboration with

  26. Traffic Capacity Assessment Steve Hall Working in collaboration with

  27. Traffic Capacity Assessment Link 5: A39 Cannington Link 1: A38 Bristol Road Link 2: A39 Bath Road Link 3: The Clink Link 4: A39 Quantock Road Working in collaboration with

  28. Traffic Capacity Assessment Working in collaboration with

  29. Traffic Capacity Assessment Working in collaboration with

  30. Economic Implications for Bridgwater Christopher Tunnell Working in collaboration with

  31. Implications of Congestion • Most arterial routes will be heavily congested • Longer ‘rush hours’ • Existing journeys into the town will be suppressed, (particularly those where it is possible to go elsewhere, e.g. for shopping) • Existing firms reliant on logistics and distribution will face delays • New job creating inward investment and other developments will be deterred • Loss of revenue to the Council (or revenue foregone) Working in collaboration with

  32. Town Centre Impacts • Bridgwater’s Town Centre and Shops serve a wide catchment • Viability depends on the wider catchment • Potential diversion of catchment elsewhere could be on scale to threaten the existing provision • Loss of revenue to the Council if shops close Working in collaboration with

  33. Mitigation Options • Local partner options (reduced parking charges) but cost penalty • Improved online scheme • Multi modal approach, public transport, walking and cycling provision • Investment in the town centre environment • Investment in leisure and community facilities • Community safety and outreach Working in collaboration with

  34. Transport Options Appraisal Steve Hall Working in collaboration with

  35. Appraisal Summary - Methodology • Department for Transport’s WebTAG methodology • Appraisal uses the Government’s five key objectives for transport: • Environment • Safety • Economy • Integration • Accessibility Working in collaboration with

  36. Appraisal Summary - Environment Working in collaboration with

  37. Appraisal Summary - Environment Working in collaboration with

  38. Appraisal Summary - Safety Working in collaboration with

  39. Appraisal Summary - Safety Working in collaboration with

  40. Options Appraisal Summary Working in collaboration with

  41. Options Appraisal Summary Working in collaboration with

  42. Options Appraisal Summary Working in collaboration with

  43. Options Appraisal Summary Working in collaboration with

  44. Options Appraisal Summary Working in collaboration with

  45. Options Appraisal Summary Working in collaboration with

  46. Options Appraisal Summary Working in collaboration with

  47. Options Appraisal Summary Working in collaboration with

  48. Conclusions of the Study Steve Hall Working in collaboration with

  49. Conclusions of the Study Working in collaboration with

  50. Conclusions of the Study • Two mitigation options considered. • Bridgwater Northern Bypass and EDF’s ‘Pre-DCO’ highway and junction improvements. • Significant environmental, construction, programme and cost issues associated with delivery of bypass • But, ‘Pre-DCO’ online measures are not sufficient to mitigate for increased traffic resulting from HPC. • Clear that neither proposal represents an optimal solution to mitigate the impacts of the HPC project. • Data and analysis to feed into Local Impact Report and Detailed Representations. • Recommended that an alternative model of mitigation setting out comprehensive, integrated transport package for Bridgwater is put forward. Working in collaboration with

More Related