ABP Southampton. Environmental Statement for Port of Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works. Appendix M. Transport Assessment

Transcription

1 ABP Southampton Environmental Statement for Port of Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Appendix M Transport Assessment

2

3 ABP Southampton - Berth 201 / 202 Works Transport Assessment david tucker associates t r a n s p o r t p l a n n i n g c o n s u l t a n t s

4 ABP Southampton - Berth 201 / 202 Works Transport Assessment Prepared by: David Tucker Associates Forester House Doctors Lane Henley-in-Arden B95 5AW Tel: Fax: inmail@dtatransportation.co.uk Prepared for: ABP Southampton Ocean Gate Atlantic Way Southampton SO14 3QN 20 th October 2011 SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docx David Tucker Associates No part of this publication may be reproduced by any means without the prior permission of David Tucker Associates

5 Contents Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION THE WORKS Introduction Employee Movements Assessment Scenarios Terminal Container Demand Construction Traffic POLICY CONTEXT Introduction National Planning and Transport Policies and Guidance Regional Strategy Local Policy and Guidance EXISTING BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Introduction Highway Network Base Line Traffic Flows Accident Data Air Quality Management Areas TRAFFIC GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT Introduction Overall Annual Movements Conversion of Box to HGV movements (Annual) Conversion of Annual Movements to Average Daily Movements Adjustment for Monthly Variation Conversion of Peak Daily Flows to Hourly Flows Forecast Peak Hour Movements from Container Movements Employee Traffic Generation Operational HGV Traffic Generation Traffic Distribution - Strategic Network Traffic Distribution Local Road Network ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS Forecast Year Scenarios Future Forecast Growth and Committed Development Traffic Change in Flows Operational Traffic Impact Conclusions Construction Traffic Impacts SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 52 i

6 Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Site Location Strategic Highway Network Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Geldard Consulting Rail Report 2011 Base Traffic Counts 2011 DPWS Data Personal Injury Accident Data Traffic Generation Forecasts Overall Traffic Generation Strategic Traffic Distribution ii

7 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 DTA has been commissioned by ABP Southampton to assess the transport implications of the proposed berth 201 / 202 works at the Port of Southampton as shown on Figure In 2008 Associated British Ports (ABP) submitted applications for certain works that, if consented, will bring berths 201 and 202 at the Container Terminal at the Port of Southampton back into deep sea container use. These applications are still being considered by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), as the relevant determining body. 1.3 The applications, when submitted, were accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES). It has recently become clear that further information, to supplement the ES, is required before a decision on the applications can be made by the MMO. The traffic implications of the project are one area on which further information is being produced. 1.4 This Transport Assessment (TA) has therefore been prepared to consider the road traffic implications of the project and forms the basis of the relevant assessment chapter provided in the further information. As well as being able to be read as a stand-alone document, this TA also forms Appendix M to the Environmental Statement. 1.5 This TA and the relevant ES chapter consider the road traffic implications of the proposals in detail. The rail traffic implications of the proposals are considered in a separate ES chapter which is based upon work undertaken by Geldard Consulting. A technical note on the broad assumptions is included at Appendix A. Where necessary, this TA makes references to findings of the rail assessment. 1.6 The methodology used for this TA takes account of Guidance on Transport Assessment (GTA) issued by the Department for Transport (DfT) and Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in March SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

8 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment 1.7 The GTA places significant emphasis on requiring a review of accessibility of development sites by all modes to assess acceptability and mitigation measures. In this case, the majority of change in demand will be related to HGV movements rather than staff or general public accessibility. 1.8 The assessment therefore focuses on the strategic implications of the development and the HGV traffic generation which may arise as a result of the project. 1.9 In particular it considers the potential road transport and highways impacts of the proposals including the impact of the development generated traffic on the capacity and safety of the surrounding road network Taking account of the various guidelines, the TA is structured as follows: Chapter 2: The Works setting out base assumptions and description of development. Chapter 3: Policy Background Chapter 4: Existing Background Conditions Chapter 5: Traffic Generation and Distribution Assessment Chapter 6: Assessment of Traffic Impacts Chapter 7: Summary and Conclusions 1.11 The base assumptions and scope of methodology set out in this report have been submitted to and discussed with Southampton City Council (SCC), Hampshire County Council (HCC) and the Highways Agency (HA). As a unitary authority SCC are the relevant highway authority for the public road network to which the Port immediately connects. HCC are the highway authority for the other elements of the local road network close to the Port that are not controlled by SCC. The HA are the highway authority for the strategic road network into which the local network connects. Where appropriate their views have been incorporated within the TA. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

9 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment 2.0 THE WORKS 2.1 Introduction ABP propose to deepen the dredged pocket for berths 201 and 202 within the Port of Southampton, reconstruct the quay walls to both berths and subsequently bring the berths back into deep-sea container use As explained in detail within Chapter 7 of the ES, the assessment considers the Container Terminal operating at the maximum capacity considered to be achievable with the berth 201 / 202 works in place. This capacity is considered to be 2.8m TEU (Twenty Foot Equivalent Units). As explained in Chapter 7 this has been taken as the basis of the assessment even though the increase to 2.8m TEU from current throughput levels will not solely be achieved by the berth 201 / 202 works. Throughout the following road traffic assessment this scenario is subsequently referred to as The Future Position With the Works From a road transport perspective, as dealt with in this report and having regard to the requirements of the GTA, the key issues arising from the project are the impacts relating to any increased road travel demands arising from the change in capacity of the Container Terminal. These are related back to the baseline (i.e. what has occurred) and the fallback position (i.e. what could or would occur without the Works). These matters are explained further in section Employee Movements At present, the Container Terminal employs a total of 820 staff, working on two shift patterns ( and ). In the anticipated year of opening (2014), the berth operation will generate 36 jobs. Thereafter between 2015 and 2027, the berth operation is estimated to generate 12 additional jobs per year. This results in an additional 192 jobs by As with the existing employees, these will be split over two shifts, with neither involving start/finish times related to traffic network peak hours. The absolute change in traffic flows arising from increased staff levels will be negligible during peak hours and modest in terms of daily flows. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

10 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment 2.3 Assessment Scenarios As indicated in section 2.1, it is necessary to determine what the position is against which consideration of the road transport implications of the project is undertaken. Throughout this TA a number of different terminal capacity and throughput positions are referred to This section of the report sets out the details of those positions (subsequently called scenarios). These are based on analysis undertaken by ABP and its consultant team. The details leading to the definition of these scenarios is provided in the ES The Historic Baseline scenario relates to the maximum annual level of throughput of containers that to date has been handled by the Container Terminal. This level was in the order of 1.9m TEU (1.87m TEU) and occurred in The Current Baseline scenario relates to the level of throughput of containers predicted to occur in As a result of the economic downturn, throughput at the Container Terminal since 2007 has reduced. The overall 2011 throughput is predicted to be in the order of 1.6m TEU The Future Position Without the Works scenario relates to the maximum capacity of the Container Terminal that is considered to be achievable without the berth 201 / 202 works. This capacity is considered to be 2.3m TEU The Historic Baseline and Current Baseline scenarios refer to throughput levels at the terminal, whilst the Future Position Without the Works and Future Position With the Works scenarios relate to capacity. 2.4 Terminal Container Demand The above capacity assessments take no account of container traffic demand, which is currently suppressed by the economic climate. They relate wholly to the physical capacity of the terminal. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

11 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment It is expected that overall container traffic demand will rise by, on average 3.5% per year. This increase over time is summarised in Table 1, together with the likely changes in rail share over the same period. This rail share information has been provided by Geldard Consulting. Table 1 Container Traffic Growth Forecasts with 3.5% growth Year TEU per / annum % to rail ,600,000 33% ,656,000 34% ,713,960 34% ,773,949 34% ,836,037 35% ,900,298 35% ,966,809 35% ,035,647 36% ,106,894 36% ,180,636 36% ,256,958 37% ,335,952 38% ,417,710 39% ,502,330 40% ,589,911 40% ,680,558 40% ,774,378 40% This forecast demonstrates that up to 2021, Container Terminal throughput (predicted to be circa 2.257m TEU) will be limited by demand rather than the capacity that could be made available at the terminal. In other words, the 2.3m TEU maximum capacity of the Container Terminal considered to be achievable without the berth 201 / 202 works would be sufficient to accommodate predicted demand up to Beyond 2021, the forecast demonstrates that growth in containers would continue such that the 2.8m TEU maximum capacity of the SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

12 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment Container Terminal that would be possible with the berth 201 / 202 works would be sufficient to accommodate predicted demand up to It therefore follows that, in adopting a future forecast year of 2021, as required by the Guidance on Transport Assessment 1, the terminal could at this point in time be operating at the same level of throughput regardless of whether the berth 201 / 202 works are in place or not. It therefore follows that the berth 201 / 202 works will potentially not have any impact on terminal generated traffic movements up to Beyond 2021, Table 1 shows that the additional capacity that would be created by the berth 201 / 202 works will be taken up. In simple terms the works will result in an additional 0.5m TEU of capacity being available at the terminal, and this is predicted to be used over the subsequent 6 year period to Sections 5 and 6 of this road traffic assessment therefore consider the position in 2021 and in Construction Traffic The construction works are expected to commence in July 2012 and will take approximately 14 months to complete. The construction process will in summary involve the creation of a new quay wall in front of the existing wall formed with driven piles. This will then be tied to an anchor wall and paved on the land side. Following completion of the quay wall, the berth pocket will be dredged to a depth of -16m CD It is anticipated that, where practicable, much of the construction material will be delivered by water. However a number of road-based movements will be required as follows. A lorry movement has been taken as being in or out of the site i.e. 1 lorry making a delivery and then leaving site is 2 lorry movements: Concrete: Estimated quantity 25,000 m 3 = 8,300 movements (at 6m 3 per 1 Guidance on Transport Assessment (2007) Department for Transport and Department for Communities and Local Government SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

13 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment load). The total volume of concrete is considered borderline with regard to justifying a batching plant on site. If a batching plant were to be used the aggregates could be delivered by barge to reduce the lorry movements significantly. Paving: Blocks, sand and stone (lean concrete included above); 14,500 tonnes = 2,000 lorry movements. It has been assumed that most of the existing fill material that is excavated for placing the ties can be reused. Tie bars: 740 tonnes = 75 lorry movements. Fenders: 50 lorry movements. Sundry plant and materials = 500 lorry movements. Tubes and sheet piles: Assumed to be delivered by barge = 0 lorry movements. Scour protection: Delivered and placed from the water = 0 lorry movements. Total lorry movements over the construction period = 10,925. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

14 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment 3.0 POLICY CONTEXT 3.1 Introduction This section of the report sets out the current transport policy context in terms of local, regional and national guidance, to establish the framework against which the assessment takes place On a local level, there are three Highway Authorities, each with their own policy documents, which are relevant. Southampton City Council in relation to the City road network, Hampshire County Council in relation to the County network and the Highways Agency for the Trunk Roads and Motorways. In addition to the relevant Local Transport Plans, these authorities have, collectively with others, formed Transport for South Hampshire (TfSH) and Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH). Relevant documents produced by these organisations are discussed in turn below. 3.2 National Planning and Transport Policies and Guidance National transportation policy on sustainability and integration of land use and transport was first set out in the Government s 1998 Integrated Transport White Paper A New Deal for Transport. The White Paper was followed by a number of associated documents including Sustainable Distribution: A Strategy in March 1999, and an update of PPG13 Transport in March PPG13 was further updated in January Sustainable Distribution a Strategy The Government s report Sustainable Distribution: A Strategy emphasised the need for strategic planning for the sustainable distribution of freight traffic. The report stated that the Government would revise planning policy and procedures to encourage more freight to be carried by rail and water, and would selectively invest in infrastructure so as to support the objective of sustainable distribution In tackling congestion, the Government recognised that there was limited scope for new road construction. The key being to managing demand, and they SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

15 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment proposed to improve the integration of the road network with major transport interchanges so as to promote greater use of rail and water transport for freight Sustainable Distribution recognised that, in planning rail, port and airport hubs, an unduly restrictive planning policy could result in unnecessary traffic generation elsewhere. PPG13: Transport In March 2001, the Government published its revised Planning Policy Guidance Note PPG13. This has been most recently updated in January 2011 and sets out policies to reduce road traffic through the better integration of planning land uses and transportation and between different transport modes. Specifically, PPG13 aims to increase the amount of freight carried by rail or water, rather than by road, wherever viable alternatives can be provided. The Future of Rail and the Future of Transport In July 2004, the Government published White Papers on The Future of Rail and The Future of Transport: A Network for These documents set out the Government s commitment to increasing rail freight, viewing its growth as an important contribution to its sustainable development strategy and set out the Government s strategy to achieve a more sustainable distribution of goods. DFT Circular 02/ In March 2007 the Department for Transport (DfT) published Circular 02/2007, Planning and the Strategic Road Network. In setting out the Policy background, the Circular confirms that: It is Government transport policy, wherever possible, to look for alternatives to building new roads, by reducing the impact of road users on each other and the environment, improving road performance through better network management and making smarter journey choices easier. Any strategic road capacity constraint on sustainable economic development should be identified at the RSS stage. Where appropriate, SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

16 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment measures to overcome such constraints should be overcome through the Regional Transport Strategy (RTS), although the presumption should be to give preference, where possible, to solutions other than the provision of new road capacity Circular 02/2007 indicates that guidance on the preparation of Transport Assessments, and specifically details of assessment years, is contained in the associated DfT/DCLG document Guidance on Transport Assessment (GTA) also issued in March In identifying the assessment requirements for the strategic road network (SRN), the TA guidance states that: For the SRN, the future assessment year should normally be ten years after the date of registration of a planning application for the development, in line with the forward horizon of the RTS Clearly, the change in approach to defining the assessment years and impact assessment test has significant implications for the scale of impact that will be identified and any corresponding mitigation measures that may be required In addition to this, Circular 02/2007 and GTA created a step change in the way transport implications are assessed and subsequently the approach in identifying any necessary mitigation measures. In particular, 02/2007 is clear that infrastructure improvements for road traffic capacity should only be provided as a last resort (Para 27) and this is followed through in GTA (para 4.3) which notes that a Transport Assessment should: ensure as much as possible that the proposed mitigation measures avoid unnecessary physical improvements to highways and promote innovative and sustainable transport systems. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

17 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment National Ports Policy - Modern Ports The Government's national ports policy "Modern Ports: A UK Policy" was published in November It followed the policy of sustainability and integration, which was first set out in the Governments White Paper "A New Deal for Transport" (July 1998) Modern Ports set out the Government s commitment to creating successful, safe and sustainable ports, which are fully integrated into the transport system. The Government recognised the importance of port hubs in integrated transport policy. Modern Ports summarises the relevance of current planning policy documents, as they relate to port development The White Paper and associated documents provide guidance on a number of related issues with the principal objective of fundamentally reviewing transport strategies to create more integrated transport policies and deal with the shortcomings of short-term transport planning. These revised policies recognised the need to make more efficient use of the transport system to reduce dependency on the private car and to minimise the need for more highway capacity whilst supporting business and economic growth Modern Ports also recognises the need for good road and rail access to ports, and within the ports themselves. Delays and congestion within a port will significantly affect a customer s business. The Eddington Report The Eddington Transport Study was a joint HM Treasury and Department for Transport project examining the long-term links between transport and the UK s economic productivity, growth and stability, within the context of the Government s broader commitment to sustainable development and the environment. The final report was issued in December The Eddington Report confirms that globalization means that international trade is of growing importance to the UK economy and that efficient use of the SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

18 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment transport network is of vital importance. The Eddington Report particularly identified the importance of international gateways to the UK economy. Delivering a Sustainable Transport System In response to the Eddington Study and the subsequent Stern Review on the economics of climate change, the Department for Transport (DfT) published the document Towards a Sustainable Transport System (TaSTS) in October In this document, the DfT proposed a new approach to strategic transport planning beyond 2014 to support the recommendations of the Eddington Study and to reflect the findings of the Stern Review Since publishing TaSTS, the Government has engaged widely with stakeholders and is now consulting formally on the transport goals, challenges and process involved in taking this work forward. As part of this process, the DfT commenced a formal consultation exercise and published in November 2008 the document, Delivering a Sustainable Transport System: Main Report. This document sets out how the Government are putting the new approach to strategic planning for 2014 and beyond into practice. A key aim of the strategy is to deliver multimodal transport networks to improve the efficiency of freight distribution As with the Eddington Report, the above report recognises the importance of the UK s international gateway s, such as the Port of Southampton, to the economy. The document states that the Government is committed to supporting the improvement of surface access to airports and ports, and has a direct delivery role in part-funding schemes to improve the strategic national network The document acknowledges that container traffic into the country has grown rapidly and is expected to grow in both volume and importance. The Report indicates that the Department s approach to freight has evolved considerably over the past year and indicates that they are now engaging with the industry in a different way to better understand the key issues and to define the main areas of challenge. The report indicated that the Department were about to publish a SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

19 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment freight strategy document and that this, along with supporting analyses in relation to container movements, would help inform their decisions on policy and investment choices In December 2008, the DfT issued Delivering a Sustainable Transport System: The Logistics Perspective. This document looks in more detail at the issues concerning the movement of freight within Great Britain, across modes, including the nature and composition of freight flows on the major corridors, and discusses how Government and industry will need to work together to ensure that freight benefits from and contributes to the Department s goals The document indicates that the DfT have begun to work with industry to address the key issues related to ensuring the efficient movement of freight. For example the document refers to the additional funding announced for the Sustainable Distribution Fund. The report indicates that this money will be targeted to increase the use of rail and water transport to reduce emissions and cut road congestion. The Ports Policy Review The Ports Policy Review was launched in May 2006, following a commitment in The Future of Transport White Paper. It began with a consultation exercise embracing port operators, environmental groups, shippers and other key stakeholders. The Review covers England and Wales; ports policy is largely devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland Alongside this Interim Report, the Government also submitted its formal response to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee whose report on the ports industry in England and Wales was published in January More than 90% of the UK's visible foreign trade passes through sea-ports - a total of almost 600M tonnes each year. There are three main ownership categories for civilian ports: companies, which account for the majority of commercial activity; municipal ports run directly by local authorities; and trust SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

20 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment ports, independent statutory bodies which account for around 30% of tonnage throughput The Interim Report broadly continues the Government's 'light touch' approach to regulation of sea-ports, recognising the commercial success of all three ownership sectors and their vital economic importance. The Government's view is that commercial port operators are best-placed to make decisions about where and when to invest in the port sector: there is not the same need as was identified in the case of airports for Government to indicate where it would expect to see development brought forward. Draft National Ports Policy Statement The requirement for ports industry to have a National Policy Statement was the result of the 2008 Planning Act which required a number of national statements, including Marine Policy, Energy and Transport Networks. The draft Statement (2009), which is earmarked for designation in late 2011, endorses the market led approach to ports policy and also includes, for the first time on a national basis, forecasts for bulk, ro-ro and container traffic up to Regional Strategy The South East Plan is the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East. Whilst Regional Strategies have been revoked by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in July 2010, that revocation has been challenged. As a result, at the time of writing, the Regional Strategies (including the South East Plan) still form part of the statutory development plan. The Government s intention, however, remains to revoke the Regional Strategies through the Localism Bill The South East Plan, in the supporting text to policy T10, confirms the vital role the region s ports play in supporting the UK economy. The Plan states that the ports are, however, dependent upon the quality of the landside infrastructure providing effective connections. The Plan makes it clear that it is for the port SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

21 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment sector to bring forward and justify proposals for future investment in individual port infrastructure Following on from this the Plan states that: In this context, the Port of Southampton is recognised as a major international deep sea port with significantly global and economic importance, and its infrastructure needs, both short and long term, require further consideration. The geographical location and network of port infrastructure in the region provides the opportunity to encourage the development of short sea shipping services as a real alternative to land transport Policy T10: Ports and Short Sea Shipping of the Plan states that: Relevant regional strategies, local development documents and local transport plans will include policies and proposals for infrastructure that maintain and enhance the role of the following ports: The listed ports include Southampton as the first named gateway port. The emphasis on encouraging short-sea shipping is reiterated in the policy. 3.4 Local Policy and Guidance LTP3 for South Hampshire The LTP3 strategy for South Hampshire forms the overarching transport policy of the three constituent local transport authorities of Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council, working together as Transport for South Hampshire (TfSH). This strategy builds on the Joint Solent Strategy developed as part of the previous LTP The South Hampshire region is by far the largest and most complex of Hampshire s four transport strategy areas. The wider sub-region contains the two major cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, as well as the surrounding SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

22 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment towns, villages and countryside falling with Hampshire, which form the hinterland to the cities. It also acts as the gateway to the Isle of Wight The TfSH authorities have identified seven key outcomes and hence fourteen policies that set out the framework through which the TfSH authorities will seek to address the challenges. Policy B establishes the need to work with the strategic transport network providers to ensure reliable access to the County s international gateway for freight and people The sub-region has a number of transport related challenges emanating from an existing transportation infrastructure deficit, relatively high density, peninsula geography, pockets of social deprivation and other specifically local issues. The South East Plan proposes significant growth in the region over the next 20 years and considerable investment will be needed to begin to accommodate this proposed growth The overall strategy for TfSH incorporates the four shared LTP objectives of the three authorities. These are accessibility, congestion, road safety and air quality. The long term transport strategy for the sub-region is being formulated within the context of the South East Plan. This strategy forms an important input to this plan. The South East Plan leads the decision making process into the size and location of new developments and the resulting need for transport interventions In the development of plans to tackle particular transport issues a three-tiered approach is followed. Reducing journey lengths and the need to travel is the first objective pursued. Secondly, existing transportation infrastructure will be made best use of and measures introduced to influence travel choice. Finally, where these two strategies are not sufficient, new infrastructure is planned. Hampshire Local Transport Plan The Hampshire Local Transport Plan was approved in February 2011 and covers the period from 2006 to The LTP sets out the County Council s transport strategy for the next five years. The LTP explains how the strategy has been SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

23 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment designed to achieve wider policy objectives, such as improving quality of life, protecting the environment and securing economic prosperity. Chapter 7 of the LTP sets out the South Hampshire Joint Strategy, which, as discussed above covers the area in which the Port is located The LTP includes details of the Port of Southampton confirming it as the second biggest container port in the UK by through-put and a key route for the import and export of motor vehicles and bulk goods. One of key transport challenges identified as facing the South Hampshire area is ensuring continued reliable transport access to the area s international gateway ports and airport. Southampton Local Transport Plan ( ) Southampton City Council s Third Local Transport Plan (LTP3) was adopted in February 2011 and follows on and builds on the progress of the first two Local Transport Plans. Although the LTP generally relates to the City, the first part of the plan sets out a twenty year transport strategy for whole of South Hampshire, covering the period The second part is a four year implementation plan identifying transport schemes planned for delivery between 2011 and 2015 within Southampton The transport vision for South Hampshire set out within the SCC LTP incorporates the relevant Policy Background for Freight Strategy. This confirms Southampton as being essential to the economy of Southern Hampshire (and) of significant national and European importance. The document highlights the expansion programme including the subject matter of this report/chapter. The Port of Southampton Being close to mainland Europe, South Hampshire has a number of European linkages through the ports of Southampton and Portsmouth and Southampton International Airport, which are all designated in the Regional Transport Strategy as International Gateways. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

24 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment The importance of the Port of Southampton is described in the Solent Transport Strategy as follows: The Port of Southampton is owned by associated British Ports (ABP). ABP are also the Statutory Harbour Authority for much of Southampton Water. The Port directly employs about 12,000 people and contributes 2 billion to the local economy. The Port handles 23% by value of the UK s international non-eu sea-borne trade, more than any other UK port. In 2004, 38.4 million tonnes of cargo passed through the Port, ranking it fifth in the UK by tonnage. The Container Terminal is the second largest in the UK, handling 1.4 million twenty foot equivalent units in Additionally, Southampton is the UK s largest vehicle import/export port handling 750,000 vehicles annually and is also the UK s leading cruise port, being used by 680,000 passengers in The Port has a national hinterland and is a major trip generator. Its interface with rail, road and water routes is of national strategic importance. The majority of trip movements are by road, the principle roads used in Hampshire being the A34, M27 and M3. The local approach roads are the M271/A33 to Dock Gate 20 and the A33 to Dock Gate The Strategy goes on to discuss the wider impacts and implications of dock growth in terms of the strategic road network and rail capacity and gauge constraints. Transport for South Hampshire (TfSH) In order to implement the strategy set out by PUSH, the relevant Authorities have set up Transport for South Hampshire (TfSH). This involves a new, formal partnership between the principal Authorities, i.e. Hampshire County Council and Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils. The new corporate body so formed will be empowered to let contracts, collect and disburse funding, commission SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

25 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment research, influence, advise and lobby Government, and develop and deliver transport schemes in line with its approved Business Plan The key objectives of the TfSH are: Developing and Delivering a seamless and coordinated public transport operation in partnership with the operators across the sub-region and securing infrastructure to support that. Developing and Delivering sub-regional transport schemes and innovations and implementation of sub-regional transport policies (including strategic traffic management). Pursuing and securing funding for sub-regional transport schemes (and supporting each transport authority in doing so for local schemes). Holding and dispersing developer contributions for sub-regional transport schemes. Holding and dispersing other transport funding allocated on a sub-regional basis. Monitoring and reviewing delivery at sub-regional level. Developing and updating transport policies in support of the South Hampshire Spatial Strategy, the Regional Transport Strategy and the Regional Spatial Strategy (The South East Plan) The TfSH joint committee is a formal partnership set up under Section 102(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, and the core terms of reference require the preparation and implementation of Annual Business Plans to promote and deliver proposals to achieve the key objectives set out above. This process includes involvement with key stakeholders, which includes Associated British Ports Since the current year is already well advanced, the first Business Plan covers two years, June 2007 to May For this period, a total of over 400,000 has been secured towards initial study work. A further 1.7m is identified as being required to progress technical studies in relation to Transport Schemes, building of a sub-regional transport model, the development of transport access SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

26 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment arrangements for SDAs and key employment zones, and developing a Freight strategy. This funding is not yet secured and the source of funding unidentified Connected to this initiative, the Government Office for the South East have invited the PUSH to engage in a Multi Area Agreement to enable a wider perspective on the implementation of Local Area Actions plans. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

27 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment 4.0 EXISTING BACKGROUND CONDITIONS 4.1 Introduction The location of the Port of Southampton in relation to the local and strategic highway networks is shown on Figures 1 and 2 respectively. 4.2 Highway Network The Port of Southampton is made up of the eastern and western docks. These two parts are physically separated and accessed from different Dock Gates. The Southampton Container Terminal is located in the Western Docks The Western Docks have three access points to the local highway network, being Dock Gates 8, 10 and 20. Internally, an access / link road runs from east to west (Western Avenue). This allows access to all parts of the Western Docks from any of the above access points. In practice however (see below) the significant majority of traffic relating to the Container Terminal uses Dock Gate 20 as its access and exit point Dock Gate 8 is located at the far eastern end of the Western Docks and is normally kept locked shut except for specific uses / requirements Dock Gate 10 provides the main access to the eastern end of the Western Docks and links to West Quay Road, which connects to the A3034 Mountbatten Way for Southampton City Centre and the M271 at Redbridge. The junction of West Quay Road and Southern Road is in the form of a large signal controlled crossroads. Around 150m north of this junction, Southern Road connects with Mountbatten Way at another major signalised junction. Similarly, some 250m west of the new junction, West Quay Road connects with Mountbatten Way at a signalised junction Mountbatten Way runs along the former shoreline and is the main radial route into Southampton City Centre from the motorway and trunk road network. Similarly, West Quay Road provides an alternative route to City Centre areas and is the principal road access to the new West Quay retail centre. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

28 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment Dock Gate 20 is located within the Docks, access from First Avenue. It connects the Western Docks directly to the A35 at Millbrook interchange. This is a large grade separated junction, with traffic signal control on the gyratory. The four main approaches are dual carriageway, the remaining approach is single carriageway To the west of the Millbrook Interchange, Redbridge Road is a dual three lane carriageway and connects to the M271 again via a large grade separated junction with signalised gyratory. Around two miles to the north of the Redbridge gyratory, the M271 connects to the M27 at junction 3, which is another large grade separated signalised gyratory junction The M27, in turn, provides road access to the east and south-east of England, South Wales, the Midlands and northwards via the M3 and A34. In addition, the A36(T) provides a trunk road link to Bath and Bristol via Salisbury. The A36(T) is accessible via junction 2 of the M Base Line Traffic Flows In order to inform the assessment, a number of base traffic surveys have been undertaken. These surveys have been supplemented by data from DP World Southampton, the operators of the Container Terminal. Strategic and Local Network Flows Headline traffic flows for the strategic highway network have been extracted from the Highways Agency s online traffic flow database TRADS for the motorways and trunk roads and from SCC for the A35. Overall peak hour and 24 hour flows for the A35 and Mountbatten Way are summarised below in Table 2. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

29 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment Table 2 Baseline Flows Southampton Local Highway Network (5 day average 2010) Am Peak Pm Peak ( ) ( ) 24 Hour Flows E/B W/B E/B W/B E/B W/B Redbridge Road 4,199 2,152 2,927 3,742 43,378 38,654 Millbrook Road 1,109 2,014 1,716 1,500 20,328 21,474 Mountbatten Way 2,406 1,116 1,441 2,251 22,949 22, TRADS data for the M271 and M27 has similarly been obtained and is summarised in Table 3. Table 3 Baseline Flows Strategic Highway Network (5 day average June 2010) Am Peak Pm Peak ( ) ( ) 24 Hour Flows S/B N/B S/B N/B S/B N/B M271 2,746 2,006 2,221 2,624 30,308 29,620 M27 (J3 J4) 4,874 5,522 5,909 5,496 70,087 70,105 M3 4,864 5,506 5,940 4,550 68,779 67,824 A34 1,905 1,759 2,206 1,618 26,535 24,071 Container Terminal Flows In order to establish an existing base line of traffic generation, Container Terminal flows have been determined from information obtained from the Terminal s Vehicle Booking System (VBS) and by surveys undertaken at Dock Gate 20 in 2007 and This section sets out the headline findings HGV surveys are available for Dock Gate 20 dating from May These were manual classified surveys undertaken for DTA on behalf of ABP. To compliment SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

30 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment these surveys, data from the VBS system at this time was also obtained (operated at the time by SCT), which provides details of inbound HGV movements to the Container Terminal The surveys from 2007 recorded flows at both Dock Gates 20 and 10. These showed that the majority of all Container Terminal movements take place via Dock Gate 20 (circa 95%). On this basis, the following assessments have therefore focused on Dock Gate 20. SCC have confirmed that the operation of Dock Gate 10 falls outside the scope of the assessment The surveys undertaken at Dock Gate 20 in 2007 consisted of a 24 hour manual traffic survey (from on 2 2nd May to to 2 3rd May), and the installation of an Automatic Traffic Counter at Dock Gate 20 between Tuesday 22 May and Monday 28 May The weekday average flows measured at Dock Gate 20 between 22 May and 25 May 2007 are shown in Table 4. Data collected on Monday 28 th has been excluded from the following assessments as it was a Bank Holiday. Table 4 - Weekday Average Flow - Dock Gate 20 May 2007 Weekday Average Flows Total Vehicles Weekday Average (HGVs) In Out Total In Out Total Am Peak ( ) Pm Peak ( ) Hour ( ) 3,021 3,101 6,122 1,588 1,629 3, Hour 4,390 4,342 8,732 2,345 2,437 4, Further disaggregation of the data to exclude non container HGV movements shows the following level of container vehicle movements (Table 5). SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

31 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment Table 5 Container HGV Flow- Dock Gate 20 May 2007 In Out Total Am Peak ( ) Pm Peak ( ) Hour ( ) 1,195 1,330 2, Hour AADT 1,883 2,055 3, The accuracy of this survey data has been assessed against data held by the terminal operator (obtained from the VBS) for HGV trips generated by the Container Terminal. This data provides a complete list of HGVs processed through the terminal (inbound only). Table 6 below summarises the key data. Table 6 VBS Data Two way HGV container vehicle flows 2007 Date 24 Hour (0000 Average Max Hour 2400) Hour Min Hour 21/05/07 3, /05/07 3, /05/07 3, /05/07 3, /05/07 3, Average 3, Note: VBS figures have been doubled to provide total movements The above shows daily flows (midnight to midnight). The manual counts were undertaken for a slightly different 24 hour period (0700 on to 0700 on 23.05). The flows for that same period show a total of 4,014 HGV movements through the VBS. The total container HGV movements surveyed through Dock Gate 20 were 3,938. This exercise shows a good correlation between the figures with only slightly more movements at the VBS than through Dock Gate 20. This is to be expected given that an element of movement to and from the Container Terminal, and therefore recorded at the VBS will be retained within the port SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

32 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment estate As part of this assessment, the previous survey work has been updated (in June 2011). The results of the updated container HGV movements at Dock Gate 20 are attached at Appendix B and summarised below in Table 7. Table 7 Container HGV Flow - Dock Gate 20 (23 rd June 2011) In Out Total Am Peak ( ) Pm Peak ( ) Hour ( ) 1,136 1,050 2, Hour 1,526 1,468 2, The relevant accompanying data from the VBS system is attached at Appendix C and summarised below in Table 8: Table 8 VBS Data Two way container HGV flows 2011 Date 24 Hour Average Max Hour ( ) Hour Min Hour 22/06/2011 3, /06/2011 3, /06/2011 2, /06/ /06/ /06/2011 3, /06/2011 3, Weekday Average 3, Note: VBS HGV Figures have been doubled to provide total movements The HGV data from the manual survey was obtained during the period from on 23th June for 24 hours. The corresponding VBS HGV flow for this period was 3,266. Again this is higher than the surveyed flows at Dock Gate 20 SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

33 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment and is explained by the internalisation of some trips within the port area. 4.4 Accident Data Accident data for the local highway network has been obtained and reviewed. The area of search and data collected is attached at Appendix D In total, 82 accidents were recorded in the search area which covers the last five years. Of these 73 resulted in slight injuries and 9 in serious injuries. There were no recorded fatal accidents. These have been split down to review three key accident types, pedestrian, cyclists and HGVs There were a total of 3 accidents involving pedestrians. One, which resulted in serious injuries was recorded as a drunken pedestrian crossing the dual carriageway at night time. The other two accidents occurred at Redbridge and Millbrook Roundabouts and both resulted in slight injuries, being the result of conflicts at crossing points. Given the existing flows on the network, there is no specific accident blackspot relating to pedestrians and no identifiable existing issue to be addressed. The works carried out by SCC at Millbrook in the last three years have been explicitly targeted at improving crossing points A total of 7 accidents involved cyclists, with one being classified as serious and the remainder as slight. All of the accidents were the result of conflicts with cars at the roundabouts or merges / access junctions. This type of accident is fairly typical for a built up urban area. There are no specific accident clusters and therefore no identifiable existing issue to be addressed In terms of HGV movements, a total of 9 slight accidents were recorded. There were no fatal or serious accidents involving HGVs. One of the accidents (on the M271 approach) related to driver distraction in the cab. All of the remaining accidents were of lane usage / conflict at the roundabouts. Again, there is no specific accident clusters and therefore no identifiable existing issue to be addressed. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

34 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment Overall the number of accidents on the local network is consistent with the scale of road links and junctions in place and the level of flows accommodated. Despite the relatively high frequency of HGV movements on the network, the existing highway safety record shows no specific area of concern relating to either HGVs themselves or the impact on safety of vulnerable road users. There are therefore no existing highway safety issues to be specifically to be taken account of in the assessment of the project. 4.5 Air Quality Management Areas There are AQMA s in the vicinity of the site of the berth 201/202 works. The air quality implications on these areas as a result of traffic generated by the project are dealt with in the relevant chapter of the ES. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

35 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment 5.0 TRAFFIC GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT 5.1 Introduction Based on the information set out in Section 2, this section of the TA considers the road traffic generation of the project having regard to existing and future conditions. The GTA notes at paragraph 4.59 that: There is a range of trip rate database tools available that contain national, or in some cases more local, trip rates measured for typical land use sites. However, obtaining an accurate comparison is not always straightforward, especially for atypical developments. In these instances it is recommended that, unless there is a clear valid comparable situation, the assessment trips should be constructed from first principles based on a detailed analysis of the daily operation of the proposed development In this case there are no comparable sites in TRICS, so the following assessment has been constructed from first principles, based on a number of key parameters as derived and explained below. 5.2 Overall Annual Movements Terminal Throughput The key factor relating to inland road and rail movements is linked to the overall throughput of the terminal. Throughput figures are quoted as per annum TEU movements over the quay wall. These include all container lifts over the quay wall excluding restows (boxes moved off the ship to facilitate access and then replaced) As explained in section 2 the following overall annual throughput assumptions have been adopted: m TEU Peak historic throughput of port. (Historic Baseline) predicted 1.6m TEU for year. (Current Baseline) Terminal Capacity without the Works 2.3m TEU. (Future Position Without the Works) SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

36 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment Terminal with the works Capacity 2.8m TEU. (The Future Position With the Works) TEU / Box Ratio Based on data from DPWS, the recorded TEU to box ratio in 2007 was 1.68 and in 2011 (to date) is However, the deep sea container east west trade (which forms the majority of DPWS trade) is migrating towards a much higher usage of 40 containers than 20 containers. Based on current forecasts it is expected that the ratio will peak at around 1.75 by On this basis, 1.75 has been adopted in the forecast assessment scenarios. This is consistent with the approach taken in assessing all recent major container port developments, including Bristol Deep Sea Container Terminal and London Gateway. Transhipment Data on existing transhipment rates have been obtained from DPWS records. These show a rate of 9.3% in 2007 and 8.1% in 2011 to date. Going forward, it is expected that this will increase marginally. A rate of 10% has therefore been adopted for the 2021 forecast year. Rail Share Data on existing rail share has also been provided from DPWS records. This shows a rail share of 26.1% of total throughput in 2007, rising to 33% in 2011 to date Geldard Consulting has considered likely changes in rail share that will occur over time, and these are set out above in Table 1 as being 37% in 2021 and 40% in Overall Based on the above, the overall annual throughput position for each of the various scenarios are summarised below in Table 9. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

37 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment Table 9 Overall Annual Throughput Assumptions Historic Current Baseline Baseline Future Position Without the Works Future Position With the works Year TEU throughput of the Terminal Ratio TEU to boxes Box throughput of the Terminal 1,869,806 1,600,000 2,300,000 2,800, ,111, ,175 1,314,286 1,600,000 Transhipment 9.29% 8.09% 10% 10% Transhipment Boxes Sub total inland Generation Boxes Prop of overall throughput moved by Rail 103,189 77, , ,000 1,007, ,229 1,182,857 1,440, % 33.10% 37% 40% Rail Boxes 289, , , ,000 Total Road Based Boxes 717, , , ,000 Note minor rounding errors (TEU to box ratio for existing conditions to more than 2 decimal places). 5.3 Conversion of Box to HGV movements (Annual) The conversion of the total number of road based boxes to the number of HGVs can be calculated in a number of different ways. The VBS records every HGV movement and box movement. That data shows that for 2007, each HGV moved an average of 1.56 boxes On the basis that each HGV generates a trip in and a trip out, this equates to an SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

38 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment average at the VBS of 1.28 HGV trips (in or out) per box. Although the 2011 figure shows a slightly different ratio, DPWS have advised that the 1.28 average is likely to be maintained in the future This reflects the fact that a number of movements of HGVs are not loaded (and also a proportion are loaded with two containers) Given that a number of these movements will be internal to the port estate (although external to DPWS), at Dock Gate 20 it can be seen that the ratio is lower. Based on the 2011 surveys, the flows at Dock Gate 20 (First Avenue) are 9.1% lower than those actually entering the VBS system For the wider network strategic network, the ratio can be expected to reduce further. This is a function of the fact that it is not commercially viable for HGVs to travel longer distances without a paying load The proportion on the wider road network was agreed at the Dibden Terminal inquiry, based on surveys on the M271, the A14 and the approach to Thamesport. This showed a ratio of Whilst the surveys are now a little dated, the overall principles remain the same and this parameter has been accepted by the Highways Agency in relation to both London Gateway and Bristol DSCT. It has therefore been adopted in assessing strategic road movements The implications of the above are therefore summarised below in Table 10. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

39 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment Table 10 Conversion from Boxes to HGV movements Future Future Historic Current Position Position With Baseline Baseline Without the the Works Works Total Road Based Boxes 717, , , ,000 HGV to Box ratio (VBS Gate) Total VBS HGV per year 921, , ,417 1,027,222 HGV to Box Ratio (Strategic) Strategic HGV moves per year 739, , , , Comparison of the DPWS Data and Dock Gate 20 surveys show that HGV flows out through the VBS are higher than those actually out of the Port estate. The ratio of VBS flows to Dock Gate 20 flows is therefore (2,994/3,266) = Conversion of Annual Movements to Average Daily Movements Annual flows have been converted to average weekly flows on the basis of 50 working weeks per year (on the assumption of significant reduction in throughput at Christmas). These are set out below in Table 11. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

40 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment Table 11 Conversion from Annual to Average Week Historic Baseline Current Baseline Future Position Without the Works Future Position With the Works Total VBS HGVs per year 921, , ,417 1,027,222 Strategic HGV moves per year 739, , , ,000 Average VBS HGVs per week 18,439 14,712 17,888 20,544 Average Strategic HGVs per week 14,791 11,668 14,349 16, Although the port is open 24 hours a day, and the VBS is open from Sunday 2pm to Saturday 2pm, the peak daily road movement tends to be on a Wednesday. This is shown by the following information in Table 12 which compares VBS throughput throughout the week surveyed. DPWS have confirmed this is typical across the year. Table 12 Daily proportion of movements Date Day Total VBS Proportion of week 22/06/2011 Wednesday % 23/06/2011 Thursday % 24/06/2011 Friday % 25/06/2011 Saturday % 26/06/2011 Sunday % 27/06/2011 Monday % 28/06/2011 Tuesday % Applying the 21.1% peak day flows gives the following average week peak daily flows. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

41 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment Table 13 Conversion from Average Week to Peak Day (average week) Historic Baseline Current Baseline Future Position Without the Works Future Position With the Works Average VBS Trucks- Peak Day 3,886 3,101 3,770 4,330 Average DG20 Trucks - Peak Day 3,562 2,843 3,456 3,969 Average Strategic Truck - Peak Day 3,117 2,459 3,024 3, Adjustment for Monthly Variation Historically, inland container traffic from the terminal has been subject to peak periods, which broadly coincide with the run up to Christmas for example. This has reduced in recent years but still has a slight effect as is demonstrated by comparison of 2007 flows through the terminal as set out below: Table 14 Peak to average month ratio TEU Total Annual 1,869,806 Peak Month (October) 166,791 Average month 155,817 Average month to peak month To account for this, the daily movements set out in Table 13 have been factored up by The resulting peak daily movements for all scenarios are therefore summarised below: SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

42 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment Table 15 Peak Daily Traffic Flows Historic Baseline Current Baseline Future Position Without the Works Future Position With the Works Peak VBS HGVs 4,160 3,295 4,006 4,601 Peak DG 20 HGVs Peak Strategic HGVs 3,813 3,020 3,672 4,218 3,337 2,613 3,213 3, Table 16 below summarises the changes in flows between the Historic Baseline position and the Future Position With the Works, and between the Future Position Without the Works position and the Future Position With the Works. Table 16 Change in peak daily HGV flows. Change from Historic Baseline to Future Position With the Works Change from Future Position Without the Works to Future Position With the Works Peak VBS HGVs Peak DG 20 HGVs Peak Strategic HGVs The overall spreadsheet summarising the above is provided at Appendix E. 5.6 Conversion of Peak Daily Flows to Hourly Flows The hourly profile of the daily movements can be determined from any of the four survey data sets available. Based on the most recent 2011 surveys, the daily profile of container movements is as follows in Table 17. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

43 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment Table 17 Daily Profile DG20 VBS In Out Total % 0.75% 0.73% 1.40% % 1.36% 1.27% 1.64% % 0.68% 1.00% 1.68% % 2.11% 2.20% 2.49% % 3.88% 3.51% 3.89% % 5.31% 4.88% 4.40% % 4.97% 5.28% 4.37% % 6.95% 6.08% 3.84% % 4.63% 4.74% 3.62% % 4.22% 4.38% 3.70% % 3.41% 4.07% 4.30% % 4.97% 5.71% 6.08% % 5.72% 7.01% 7.40% % 7.77% 8.18% 7.82% % 8.24% 9.32% 8.50% % 8.58% 8.45% 8.34% % 7.36% 7.58% 7.03% % 5.93% 4.41% 4.75% % 3.75% 3.07% 3.41% % 3.34% 2.57% 2.81% % 2.59% 1.74% 2.27% % 1.16% 1.34% 2.21% % 1.16% 1.30% 2.23% % 1.16% 1.17% 1.80% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% The above profile has been applied to the daily flows as identified above in Table 16 to provide a peak hour flow from the terminal for the various scenarios. For robustness, the Dock Gate 20 derived profile has been used as it shows slightly higher peak hour flows. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

44 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment 5.7 Forecast Peak Hour Movements from Container Movements Based on the above assumptions, Appendix F, provides a full breakdown of traffic generation across the peak day, based on both Dock Gate 20 movements and the strategic network. Peak hour flows at Dock Gate 20 and on the strategic network for the various scenarios are set out below in Table 18 and 19. Table 18 - Peak Hour Traffic Generation Dock Gate 20 /First Avenue Am Peak Pm Peak In Out Total In Out Total Historic Baseline (2007) Current Baseline (2011) Future Position Without the Works Future Position With the works Table 19 - Peak Hour Traffic Generation Strategic Network Am Peak Inter Peak Pm Peak In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Historic Baseline (2007) Current Baseline (2011) Future Position without the Works Future Position With the Works SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

45 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment 5.8 Employee Traffic Generation At present, DPWS employs a total of 820 staff, working on two shift patterns ( and ) In the anticipated year of opening (2014), the berth operation will generate 36 jobs. Thereafter between 2015 and 2027, the berth operation is estimated to generate 12 additional jobs per year. This results in an additional 192 jobs by As with the existing employees, these will be split over two shifts, with neither involving start/finish times related to traffic network peak hours. The absolute change in traffic flows arising from increased staff levels will be negligible during peak hours and modest in terms of daily flows In terms of daily movements a car driver percentage of 71% is assumed (based on ONS data for Southampton 019C super output area), giving rise to 137 cars or 274 two-way movements. 5.9 Operational HGV Traffic Generation In addition to the above, the facility also generates different movements per day relating to vehicle servicing / repair, deliveries etc. Overall the project will not change these requirements in any significant way. The implication of these movements has therefore been discounted from further assessment Traffic Distribution - Strategic Network Having established the above peak hour movements, the following assessment considers the distribution and assignment of forecast traffic flows. The following distribution and assignment given in Table 20 has been assumed. This has been derived from the data reported in Figures 51 and 52 of the DfT Publication The Container Freight End-to-End Journey - December This includes the agreed position in terms of distribution for the Bristol Deep Sea Container Terminal. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

46 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment Table 20 Assumed HGV distribution In Out Average Greater London 8.8% 19.1% 13.9% South East 14.9% 16.2% 15.5% East 5.1% 9.0% 7.1% East Midlands 22.4% 5.9% 14.2% West Midlands 16.3% 10.7% 13.5% South West 7.4% 8.6% 8.0% Wales 2.7% 4.4% 3.5% North West 11.1% 10.7% 10.9% Yorkshire & Humber 8.7% 11.7% 10.2% North East 2.6% 3.6% 3.1% Scotland 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Total 100% 100% 100% A breakdown of route choice and assignment is provided in Appendix G Traffic Distribution Local Road Network It is clear from the expected strategic HGV distribution that the majority of movements generated by the terminal are to and from the strategic road network. The impact on the local road network will therefore be limited to those roads within Southampton City Council that link the terminal with the strategic road network Whilst some movements to and from the Port estate do currently use other routes (for reasons of local access etc), any change to such movements as a result of the project are not considered to be material, because the main additional demand will follow the strategic distribution as set out above In terms of the New Forest, there are no additional flows forecast through the area, with any additional growth focusing on the Trunk Road Network. Therefore no further assessment has been undertaken on the local road network SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

47 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment within other adjacent local authority areas, including Test Valley Borough and the New Forest (where Hampshire County Council is the relevant Highway Authority) In terms of additional staff traffic, commuting car journeys will quickly dissipate on the highway network with employees likely to be drawn from across Southampton and further afield. For the purposes of appraisal, it is assumed that 50% of staff driving to the site, will route to the east and north as they reach the A35, quickly spreading across numerous local routes. The remaining 50% are assumed to route to the west via Redbridge Road, in turn splitting evenly between the A35 towards Totton (ie 25% of the extra staff traffic) and the M271 (again 25%). Traffic reaching the M27 will take a number of routes, and for the purposes of assessment, a total of 15% is assumed to route to the east along the motorway. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

48 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS 6.1 Forecast Year Scenarios GTA advises that future year assessments should normally be undertaken 10 years from the date of submission of the proposals for development for the Strategic Road Network and 5 years for the local road network. Although the date of the application submission for the berth 201/202 works is 2008, (which would give a forecast year of 2018 for the SRN and 2013 for the local road network), this assessment, is being submitted for consideration in 2011, therefore an assessment year of 2021 has been used As has already been explained, in 2021, the Container Terminal could be operating at the same level of throughput, linked to demand, regardless of whether the berth 201 / 202 works are in place or not. Table 1 above shows that up to 2021, actual terminal throughput will be limited by demand rather than capacity. It therefore follows that the berth 201 / 202 works will potentially not have any impact on the level of terminal generated traffic movements up to Furthermore, despite the increase in throughput over time, there is likely to be a reduction in external road based movements from the historic baseline 2007 position to the position in 2021 as a result of improved rail share Post 2021, the additional capacity that would be created by the 201/202 works will be taken up. In simple terms the works will result in an additional 0.5m TEU of capacity being provided and this is predicted to be used over the 6 year period to On this basis, the traffic impact has been assessed by comparing the Future Position With the Works scenario with the Future Position Without the Works scenario The assessment of the traffic impact of the Future Position With the Works scenario with the Future Position Without the Works is considered to represent the most meaningful evaluation of impact. This relates to the practical capacity of the site with and without the works, and removes the need for reliance on future demand based assumptions of the current operation. Since the Future Position Without the Works is, however, a capacity driven appraisal, and that future demand is a symptom of market forces, it is acknowledged that it is also SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

49 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment appropriate to evaluate the impact of alternative comparisons. For robustness therefore, the Future Position With the Works is also compared with the Current Baseline and comment made on a comparison with the Historic Baseline position as defined in Section 2.3. The comparison against the Current Baseline generates the largest change in traffic flows between any of the relevant scenarios. It is arguably a somewhat overly cautious analysis because, as explained in detail in later paragraphs, the traffic flows currently occurring are less than what has in reality occurred in the past, and what could be achieved in the future. 6.2 Future Forecast Growth and Committed Development Traffic As part of the assessment process, consideration has been given to the potential in-combination effects of a number of developments. These developments have been agreed with SCC as requiring consideration. These are discussed in turn below in terms of their implications for the Transport Assessment. Helius Biomass Generating Station This scheme is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). An application for consent has not yet been submitted to the IPC. As of 22 nd August 2011 publicly available information from the project s website confirms the following in terms of road based traffic movements: It is intended that the majority of the fuel will be delivered to the site by ship through the Port of Southampton however any local sourced fuel will be delivered by road or rail. In normal operation, if it is assumed that 300,000 tonnes of fuel were to be sourced locally then if it all were delivered by road, this would amount to around 39 lorry loads per working day. In exception circumstances, e.g. the closure of the Port, all the fuel feedstock may be delivered by road for an indeterminate period. Having regard to this possibility, the application for a Development Consent Order will include an assessment of the worst case scenario whereby all fuel would be delivered to the site per road, assuming up to 111 one way lorry movements per day. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

50 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment This generating station, if constructed, will be located within the existing Port estate, on land used for other purposes. The level of traffic predicted to be generated is considered likely to be commensurate with the level of traffic that has been, or could be in the future be, generated by port uses permitted to occur on the land. Traffic likely to be generated by this generating station is therefore included in the general growth assessment of traffic movements. No specific additional assessment is therefore required in terms of in combination road traffic impacts. Planning Permission 09/00106/FUL This planning consent allows for certain changes to be made to internal port access arrangements within the Port Estate in the vicinity of Dock Gate 20. These changes are intended to secure internal safety improvements to the access road network within the port estate and in particular to the existing Vehicle Booking System. Other than providing internal improvements, the consent, when implemented, will have no impact on the overall port related road traffic movements. No specific additional assessment is therefore required in terms of in combination road traffic impacts. Planning Permission 10/00385/R3CFL - Council Depot and HWRC, First Avenue This consented scheme is due to be opened in early The Transport Assessment submitted with the application concluded that the scheme would have minimal impact on existing junction operation. Minor improvements were secured to the Millbrook Roundabout junction. In any event, the facility is a replacement of any existing facility elsewhere within the City. Whilst the new depot will divert trips from the existing site it will not in itself generate new trips. The development will not materially alter base flows either in the peak hours and therefore no specific additional assessment is therefore required in terms of in combination road traffic impacts. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

51 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment Planning Application 10/01449/FUL Redevelopment of BAT Co Ltd This development relates to the replacement of an existing industrial building with a Costco warehouse store. The Transport Assessment submitted with the application suggests minimal changes in weekday flows from the existing position. Increases in weekend flows are more marked, but these occur at a time when port traffic is generally low (see Table 12). Furthermore, retail development is likely to result in linked trips rather than wholly new ones on the network On the basis of the above, no specific additional assessment is therefore required in terms of in combination road traffic impacts. General Growth in Network In accordance with current WebTAG guidance (TAG unit , section 5.5), where traffic growth factors are required, in the absence of a traffic model, the Department's published forecasts from the National Traffic Model should be used. The Department s published forecasts are based on assumed population and workforce projections and therefore include general growth in traffic arising from future housing, employment and retail development. They will therefore generally include an allowance for future traffic growth arising from the type of developments considered above, in any event Accordingly, to establish the future year reference case, growth factors have been derived from the most recent release of NTM which is The NTM forecasts give traffic growth by region, road type and whether the area is built up or not. TEMPRO factors are then used to tailor this published traffic forecast to local circumstances. The most recent release of TEMPRO is v6.2 and has been used here to adjust the NTM forecasts, which are based on the Southampton area. The growth factors are provided in Table 21. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

52 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment Table 21 Background Growth Rates Urban Principal Urban Trunk Rural Motorway Change in Flows Based on the preceding assessments, Table 22 shows the change in HGV flows on the network between the Future Position Without the Works scenario and Future Position With the Works scenario for Table 22 Additional HGV Flows comparison of Future Position With the Works with the Future Position Without the Works scenario Redbridge M3 M271 A34 Road (south of A34) Am Peak ( ) Inter Peak ( ) Pm Peak ( ) E/B W/B S/B N/B W/B E/B S/B N/B Hours It can be seen from the above that the changes in HGV flows as a result of the project are modest during the peak hours. The inter-peak is slightly higher, but at a time when base flows on the network are significantly lower. The worse case for assessment purposes is therefore the highway peak periods and the 24 Hour period. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

53 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment 6.4 Operational Traffic Impact Conclusions It is clear from the above that the additional traffic arising from the Works is modest, when compared against the existing and future likely traffic flows Based on the above assessments, Table 23 and 24 compares the changes in flows on the key links on the network. Table 23 Comparison of Total Traffic Flows between the Future Position With the Works and the Future Position Without the Works scenario in Without Works 2027 With Works % Change Redbridge E/B Redbridge W/B AM PM 24 Hr AM PM 24 Hr AM PM 24 Hr 5,068 3,533 52,254 5,080 3,540 52, % 0.2% 0.6% 2,598 4,517 46,674 2,609 4,531 46, % 0.3% 0.6% M271 S/B 3,350 2,710 36,983 3,362 2,717 37, % 0.3% 0.7% M271 N/B 2,447 3,202 36,144 2,458 3,216 36, % 0.4% 0.7% M27 W/B 6,100 7,396 87,710 6,110 7,402 87, % 0.1% 0.3% M27 E/B 6,911 6,878 87,732 6,921 6,891 87, % 0.2% 0.3% M3 S/B 6,088 7,435 86,073 6,097 7,441 86, % 0.1% 0.2% M3 N/B 6,891 5,694 84,878 6,901 5,706 85, % 0.2% 0.2% A34 S/B 2,384 2,761 33,207 2,388 2,763 33, % 0.1% 0.2% A34 N/B 2,201 2,025 30,123 2,205 2,029 30, % 0.2% 0.3% SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

54 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment Table 24 Comparison of HGV Flows - between the Future Position With the Works and the Future Position Without the Works scenario in Without Works 2027 With Works % Change Redbridge E/B Redbridge W/B AM PM 24 Hr AM PM 24 Hr AM PM 24 Hr , , % 2.9% 6.7% , , % 4.6% 7.5% M271 S/B , , % 2.6% 4.4% M271 N/B , , % 6.5% 4.4% M27 W/B , , % 1.6% 2.3% M27 E/B , , % 3.5% 2.3% M3 S/B , , % 1.5% 2.1% M3 N/B , , % 3.0% 2.1% A34 S/B , , % 0.9% 1.4% A34 N/B , , % 1.9% 1.4% Assessing the impact of these additional flows on the wider network clearly demonstrates very modest changes that are not significant. It can therefore be concluded that the works do not warrant the need for any detailed analytical assessment of off-site impact. It also follows from this that there are no material adverse impacts arising in terms of highway safety or operation For robustness however, a similar appraisal has been undertaken comparing the Current Baseline with the Future Position With the Works (see explanation given in paragraph 6.1.4). Table 25 shows the resulting change in HGV flows on the network. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

55 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment Table 25 Comparison between the Current Baseline and the Future Position With the Works scenario in 2027 Am Peak ( ) Inter Peak ( ) Pm Peak ( ) Redbridge M3 M271 Road (south of A34) A34 E/B W/B S/B N/B W/B E/B S/B N/B Hours Tables 26 and 27 show the consequential increases in terms of total traffic and HGV traffic. Table 26 Comparison of Total Traffic Flows between the Current Baseline and the Future Position With the Works scenario in with Current 2027 With Works % Change Baseline flows from Port AM PM 24 Hr AM PM 24 Hr AM PM 24 Hr Redbridge E/B Redbridge W/B M271 S/B M271 N/B M27 W/B M27 E/B M3 S/B M3 N/B A34 S/B A34 N/B 5,054 3,524 51,954 5,080 3,540 52, % 0.5% 1.2% 2,584 4,499 46,374 2,609 4,531 46, % 0.7% 1.3% 3,336 2,701 36,683 3,362 2,717 37, % 0.6% 1.6% 2,433 3,184 35,843 2,458 3,216 36, % 1.0% 1.6% 6,087 7,388 87,448 6,110 7,402 87, % 0.2% 0.6% 6,899 6,863 87,471 6,921 6,891 87, % 0.4% 0.6% 6,075 7,428 85,821 6,097 7,441 86, % 0.2% 0.5% 6,880 5,679 84,626 6,901 5,706 85, % 0.5% 0.5% 2,379 2,758 33,109 2,388 2,763 33, % 0.2% 0.5% 2,197 2,019 30,025 2,205 2,029 30, % 0.5% 0.6% SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

56 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment Table 27 Comparison of HGV Flows - between the Current Baseline and the Future Position With the Works scenario in With Current 2027 With Works % Change Baseline flows from Port AM PM 24 Hr AM PM 24 Hr AM PM 24 Hr Redbridge E/B Redbridge W/B M271 S/B M271 N/B M27 W/B M27 E/B M3 S/B M3 N/B A34 S/B A34 N/B , , % 6.8% 16.4% , , % 11.0% 18.6% , , % 5.9% 10.4% , , % 15.9% 10.3% , , % 3.7% 5.3% , , % 8.1% 5.3% , , % 3.4% 4.8% , , % 7.0% 4.7% , , % 2.1% 3.1% , , % 4.3% 3.2% Whilst the differences when considering the Current Baseline are higher than the comparison with the Future Position Without the Works, the additional flows on the wider network remain modest. Clearly, the absolute 2027 Future Position With Works are the same in each comparison. The percentage impacts increase and are discussed in the relevant ES chapter, concluding that no significant impact results The comparison between the Historic Baseline and the Future Position With the Works has also been reviewed. The numbers are not tabulated since they are extremely similar to those that result from the comparative differences between the Future Position Without the Works and With the Works. This can be interpreted from Table 19 whereby the peak hour traffic generation for Historic Baseline and Future Position Without the Works are extremely similar. Equivalent conclusions regarding the lack of material impact are therefore drawn. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

57 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment In either event and regardless of the comparisons drawn between the various scenarios, the operator controls inbound HGV movements through the VBS system. It is therefore wholly within their control, if deemed appropriate, to restrict peak hour movements. 6.5 Construction Traffic Impacts As set out in Section 2, the worst case scenario for construction traffic will require the importation of concrete by road. On this basis the construction process would generate a total of around 11,000 delivery / service vehicle movements (two way). Over a 14 month construction program this equates to an average of 40 per day (20 in and 20 out). In order to provide a robust assessment, the average number of construction HGVs are trebled in quantum to 120 per day. Occasional access by abnormal loads may be required for larger items and cranes, but mostly these will be brought to site by barge Around 100 construction staff are expected on site at peak times. Based on a car driver mode share of around 60% this would equate to a further 120 movements per day It is clear from the above that construction related movements are low, particularly in relation to existing movements into and out of the port as a whole. Furthermore, construction activity will occur in areas which are currently used for port purposes and therefore generating vehicle movements. These movements will not occur whilst construction activity is taking place. It can thus be concluded that the construction related traffic will have no material impact on the safety or operation of the adjacent highway network. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

58 ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works Transport Assessment 7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 7.1 This Transport Assessment has been prepared by DTA on behalf of ABP to assess the transport implications of the proposed berth 201 / 202 works. This assessment forms the basis of the ES chapter to which this Transport Assessment is appended. 7.2 The Transport Assessment reviews the transport policy basis against which the scheme should be considered. This policy review confirms that the status of the Port is of regional and national importance. The policy analysis concludes that growth at the Port is encouraged at a Local, Regional and National level and that the necessary strategic policies are in place to allow this growth to occur. 7.3 The Transport Assessment provides a detailed breakdown of likely road based traffic generation of the terminal, both at present and in future years, the latter with and without the works. 7.4 This assessment concludes that the overall peak hour traffic generation from the works is modest, both in terms of existing generated flows and background flows on the network. 7.5 Against this background, the TA concludes that, although there is no longer any formal threshold for assessing materiality based on percentage change, it is clear that the additional traffic generated by the works will have no material impact on highway operation or safety. The provision of any off-site mitigation to be provided as a result of this increase in capacity is therefore unnecessary and would be unjustified. 7.6 In conclusion, the Future Position With the Works will have no material impact on the safety or operation of the adjacent local and strategic highway networks. SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docx 20 th October 2011 SJT/SKP/ _Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20 th October

59 Figures

60 M27 J2 M27 J3 REDBRIDGE ROUNDABOUT David Tucker Associates Transport Planning Consultancy Forester House, Doctors Lane, Henley-in-Arden Warwickshire, B95 5AW Tel: +44(0) Fax: +44(0) M27 J4 M271 J1 DOCK GATE 20 MILLBROOK ROUNDABOUT Western Docks DPW Southampton Container Terminal DOCK GATE 10 Notes: M27 J4 M27 J5 M27 J7 NORTH Figure 1 Drawing Title Job Title Client Drawing No : Site Location Plan Southampton Container Terminal Expansion ABP Southampton Crown Copyright and Database Right AL Scale : NTS

61 David Tucker Associates Transport Planning Consultancy Forester House, Doctors Lane, Henley-in-Arden Warwickshire, B95 5AW Tel: +44(0) Fax: +44(0) Figure 2 Drawing Title Job Title Client Drawing No : Strategic Location Plan Southampton Container Terminal Expansion ABP Southampton Crown Copyright and Database Right AL Scale : NTS NORTH

62 Appendix A

63 1.0 Introduction 1.1 This assessment, which has been prepared by Geldard Consulting, considers the implications of the project on rail transportation conditions. 1.2 The Port of Southampton is already an established generator of rail freight movements, with the Container Terminal being the main generator of rail freight traffic. The existing rail related infrastructure (both routes and terminals) which are currently used to handle the rail freight traffic generated by the terminal have therefore effectively defined the geographical extent of the assessment. 2.0 Determining Rail Capacity 2.1 National Rail Network Access to the national rail network is controlled by Network Rail. There are a number of key factors that determine the capacity of any rail route. These are: Physical Factors Destination terminal. The number and limitations of tracks on the route. The design of signalling on the route which determines the minimum possible headway (the distance between the tail of one train and the front of a following train) between services. The formation of junctions on the route, as the extent to which services make conflicting moves will impact on capacity. Operational Factors The number and mix of service types on the route, as capacity can be more difficult to manage when there is a mix of fast and slow services. Time of day when paths are required. The match of network paths and terminal access. Network Rail s maintenance and enhancement plans. Type of equipment, (including locomotives) to be used and related train speed and acceleration In practice the ability to identify additional train paths over a route is influenced by a mix of these various factors As well as a routine half-yearly timetable review, Network Rail has a number of

64 other mechanisms to model and plan capacity. These attempt to incorporate such details as the route characteristics, passenger timetable, and allocated freight paths. Network Rail s annual Network Statement provides guidance on path allocation whilst their Strategic Access Planning (SAP) team looks at current and future capacity requirements. In addition, work undertaken through the Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) process provides the opportunity for wide industry consultation and is aimed to plan and maximise capacity Rail capacity is never a straightforward issue. For example access may be possible in one part of the network at one time of day and at a different time of day elsewhere. Whilst any analysis highlights issues that exist in identifying additional freight paths, it is always likely that additional paths can be identified through a trade-off between end to end journey times and the time of day the services will run. As a general rule daytime access is more difficult than evening or overnight. This is particularly the case on main passenger routes that try to combine freight with high speed and local passenger services especially on a 2- track railway line or in large conurbations. These issues would certainly occur on routes leading to the North West, the Midlands and the Scottish Central Belt It is important to recognise the significance of gauge in the context of the capacity of the national rail network. In simple terms, gauge is the height between the rails and any overhead structure such as bridges, tunnels, signals and platform canopies. Most of the main routes in the past have operated at W8 gauge which will allow an 8ft 6in high container to pass on a standard height wagon With an ever growing use of 9ft 6in containers by the major deep sea container lines, improving the available gauge has become increasingly important because these containers are too high to be carried on a W8 route without the use of special low height wagons. Network Rail is now progressing with a major programme of gauge enhancement to develop routes at W10 gauge which allow high cube containers to be carried on standard height wagons. As over 30% of the maritime box fleet is now high cube, gauge enhancement significantly increases the potential traffic that can be carried by each train thereby increasing network capacity by means other than building extra tracks and

65 signals. 2.2 Rail Terminals Intermodal rail terminals throughout the UK vary considerably in terms of size, and the available rail infrastructure and craneage. All of these factors, as well as operating methods and service details will have a bearing on terminal capacity. Facilities which are closely located to one another will also provide alternate, as well as additional capacity to customers within the same area Currently around 30 locations are listed as providing intermodal terminals in the UK. Of these 15 are inland terminals and the remaining are at 15 port locations, several with more than one operating rail terminal There are five key features that will determine the capacity of any rail container terminal: Rail Access this relates to access to and from the main national network. Access can be a restricting factor when terminals are located close to a busy main line such as the West Coast Main Line (WCML). Terminal Rail Infrastructure the number and length of sidings will impact on capacity. Working sidings should be long enough to avoid splitting trains whilst reception sidings are required to stable trains before or after loading. Craneage the number and type of cranes will impact on the speed of loading and the use of available land for container pre-positioning and storage. Overhead cranes such as rail mounted gantries (RMGs) or rubber tyred gantries (RTGs) provide good cycle speeds (moves per hour) and efficient land use whilst reachstackers are more versatile and flexible. Terminal size clearly large unrestricted sites provide the best option to maximise efficiencies through the provision of working sidings, equipment and vehicle access and container storage capacity. Operations as with the national rail network it is possible to increase terminal capacity through the efficiency of operations. Planned train arrival and departure times throughout a full 24hour period is essential whilst maximising terminal layout and the use of IT based control systems can significantly influence terminal capacity Whilst a combination of all the above factors will impact on terminal capacity many of these factors are within the direct control of the terminal operator. Investment in infrastructure and craneage as well as IT systems can markedly increase terminal capacity.

66 2.3 Rail Operations Equipment The main locomotive being used on most intermodal services is the Class 66. This vehicle has proved to be reliable and capable of handling most services on most routes. It should be noted that intermodal traffic is by nature much lighter than traditional bulk freight traffic. Normally, weight is not therefore a major issue Nevertheless plans for longer trains may have implications on the weight of trains and consequently on the future use of the Class 66 locomotive. Two options are available to address this. The first option is to use the new Class 70 locomotive which has recently been introduced into the UK. This locomotive provides lower emissions and greater power to accommodate heavier loads. The second option is to use two Class 66 locomotives (double-heading) A wide variety of wagon types are used for intermodal traffic. Three key issues determine the capacity that can be achieved with differing wagon types. Maximising the number of container platforms available for a set train length this is a function of wagon design and is best illustrated through two examples: Many of the newer standard 60ft wagons which are capable of carrying 1 x 20ft and 1 x 40ft container are twinned. This is achieved through joining two twinned wagons with a rigid bar coupling rather than buffers and normal couplings. The effect is to reduce the length of the twin as compared with two normally coupled wagons with drawgear at both ends. On some services it has been necessary to use European style intermodal wagons. These wagons are generally designed to carry 45ft as well as 40ft and 2 x 20ft containers. Clearly, with a 45ft platform being used for deep sea traffic dominated by 40ft and 20ft containers; these wagons are inefficient with 5ft of wasted space per wagon. Wagon suitability for container mix this relates to the ability to provide a balance of 20ft and 40ft containers when using 60ft platform wagons. Generally the growth in the market is in 40ft containers whilst 20ft containers are not growing at the same pace. The result is that it is currently becoming increasingly difficult to fill all the 20ft slots on 60 ft wagons. Wagon availability both of the two points above are compounded by the current inability to source and operate with the most efficient wagon types. As has been stated, 45ft wagons have to be used on some services whilst much needed 40ft wagons are not yet available.

67 2.3.4 The issue of gauge as explained above has significant implications on wagon type and capacity on the W8 routes. Where gauge clearance to W10 has not been achieved the only way of transporting high cube containers by rail is on special low height wagons. The well-wagon provides a low height platform situated between standard-height bogies. This is particularly inefficient as a significant part of the wagon length is unproductive A second alternative is a wagon with a low height platform mounted on small wheel bogies. In some cases these are 40ft platforms and have been twinned as described above. Unfortunately, these wagons have proved to be disproportionately expensive to purchase and to maintain although a new design has recently been type approved and is soon to enter service.

68 Figure 1 Intermodal Equipment Class 66 locomotive Class 70 locomotive Standard twin 60ft wagon well wagon Source: Freightliner and GB Railfreight 2.4 Rail Operations - Utilisation Utilisation is key in achieving maximum capacity on any rail service. The aim of any Freight Operating Company (FOC) is always to achieve total train fill on a consistent basis. In reality, for a variety of reasons, as explained below, this is difficult to accomplish. However given W10 gauge cleared routes, efficient terminal operations and good wagon availability, high levels of utilisation can be achieved Ideally, volumes per service would be consistent on a day-by-day and seasonby-season basis. This, however, is not the case. When large deep-sea container services make, for example, their weekly port call a significant volume of containers to be moved by rail is immediately available. The availability of containers for rail movement will diminish as the week progresses and this may well reduce utilisation. In addition, deep sea container traffic from the Far East is also prone to seasonality. Peak periods are predictably in line with main British holidays although the slack periods at other times of year can impact on levels of utilisation.

69 2.5 Rail Operations - Train length Train length is one of the most important issues in determining service capacity. Recognising any limitations in path or terminal slot availability is essential to maximise train length to make best use of available path and slot capacity. The following are key factors in determining train length: Network passing loops - Network Rail makes use of passing loops to allow freight trains to pull off the main line to allow faster passenger services to pass. Passing loops must be long enough to accommodate longer freight trains. A dynamic loop is sufficiently long to allow this manoeuvre to take place without the need for the freight train to stop and is the most efficient option. Terminal siding length - this should ideally match the length of trains thereby avoiding the need to split trains. Where splitting is necessary some reduction in operational efficiency is inevitable due to increased siding occupancy and extended terminal turn-round times. However, terminals are generally able to plan and organise their operations to accommodate longer services. Equipment - as described in paragraph F2.35 train length can impact on locomotive choice. This is a manageable situation as is the case with increased wagon numbers for longer services.

70 3.0 The Current Situation 3.1 Introduction The preceding paragraphs have provided general background information relating to rail freight operations. The following paragraphs provide detailed information on rail freight information specific to container operations at Southampton. 3.2 Volumes and Services The total volume of containers handled by the container terminal at Southampton in 2010 was 1,539,000 TEU. The total volume of these containers moved by rail was 415,530 TEU which represented a 27% share to rail Two FOCs operate rail services for container traffic from the Port of Southampton. In 2010 the split in volume was as follows: DB Schenker (UK) Ltd Freightliner Ltd 59,000 containers 230,000 containers The intermodal services currently operated by DB Schenker from the port are summarised in Table 1. Table 1 - Services currently operated by DB Schenker. Destination Trafford Park, Manchester Departure Time Departure Day Days per week Number of wagons Tues - Sat 5 32 BIFT, Birmingham Mon - Fri 5 30 Wakefield Mon - Fri 5 30 incl lpw Hams Hall, Birmingham Mon - Thu & Sat DB Schenker therefore timetable a total of 4 daily round trip services all operating 5 days per week. Many of the European type 45ft wagons currently used by DB Schenker are being replaced by standard 60ft wagons to maximise capacity. Low-platform wagons (lpw) must be used for hi-cube containers on the

71 Wakefield service. All DB Schenker services are operated with Class 66 locomotives The intermodal services currently operated by Freightliner from the port are summarised in Table 2. Table 2 - Services currently operated by Freightliner. Destination Departure Departure Days per Number of Time Day week wagons Leeds Mon - Fri Tues - Sun Mon - Fri 5 26 lpw Trafford Park, Manchester Lawley Street, Birmingham Mon - Fri Mon - Fri Mon - Fri 5 24 F2.34 Mon - Fri & Sun Mon - Fri Mon - Fri 5 24 BIFT, Birmingham Mon - Sat 6 30 Daventry, East Midlands Tues - Sat 5 26 Garston, Liverpool Mon - Fri 5 26 Ditton, Widnes Mon - Fri 5 14 Coatbridge, Glasgow Mon - Fri 5 14 Cardiff Mon -Sat 6 26 lpw Freightliner therefore timetable a total of 15 daily round trip services with 11 of them operating 5 days per week and 4 operating 6 days per week. All services operate with standard 60ft wagons other than the use of lpw to Leeds and Cardiff. Between two and three, depending on circumstances, Class 70 locomotives are deployed on the Southampton services whilst the remaining services are hauled by Class 66 locomotives In addition to the preceding intermodal services, several other rail services (as shown in Table 3) currently arrive into the Port of Southampton. Table 3 - Other services currently arriving into the Port of Southampton. Traffic Cars From Halewood or Castle Arrival Time Arrival Day Days per week Mon - Sat 5 FOC STVA/DB Schenker

72 Bromwich Halewood or Castle Bromwich Mon - Sat Gypsu m Mountfield Cruise Victoria, London Glasgow Edinburgh dep Only run as required Mon - Fri Currently 1 STVA/DB Schenker GB Railfreight Varied 8 per year DB Schenker arr dep arr dep Varied 27 per year DRS Varied 27 per year DRS Car trains operate on one or on occasions two per day as dictated by production and demand - 10 paths per week are allocated. Imported gypsum demand is low and consequently this service only operates on one day per week. 5 paths per week are allocated. The Victoria cruise service operates mainly during the summer months. The Scottish cruise services have built up during the course of the year. They arrive with passengers to start the cruise and depart days later after the cruise has been completed. 3.3 Network Capacity All services shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3 are already accommodated on the national network to the destinations and at the times as shown. This equates to 19 daily intermodal services operating a round-trip and up to 5 services per day for the non-intermodal traffic The route currently used as first choice for all intermodal services is via Eastleigh, Basingstoke, Reading and Didcot and is shown on Figure 2. The most congested parts of this route are around Basingstoke and Reading and here the capacity constraints are most significant Network Rail has provided details of paths currently allocated to the FOCs for services operating, planned to be operated or recently discontinued from the Port. This identifies that currently 24 intermodal services from Southampton are planned to pass through Basingstoke in any 24hour period. These are split

73 between the various FOCs according to their current needs. With agreement from Network Rail, timings and details of services are often changed to suit specific requirements. In addition and where necessary, reallocation between FOCs can, and has occurred The current position is therefore that 19 daily intermodal services operate from Southampton with a further five paths currently available and unused In addition, it is important to note the work that has been undertaken to achieve gauge enhancement to W10 on the main route from Southampton. This is clearly illustrated on Figure 2. In April 2011 the main route from Southampton to the West Midlands was opened to W10 at a cost of approximately 62m ABP along with other funding partners made a significant contribution to the cost of this project. Today 16 of the 19 services from the port can accommodate hicube containers on standard height wagons. It should be noted that W10 gauge is currently not available to the following destinations which are serviced daily from Southampton: Wakefield Leeds Cardiff 3.4 Southampton Terminal Capacity The movement of containers by rail at the Port of Southampton is undertaken at three terminals within, or close to, the port estate. These are the Maritime Terminal, the Millbrook Terminal and the Herbert Walker Avenue Terminal. These are all discussed in turn in the following paragraphs. Maritime Terminal The Maritime Terminal is situated on the Southampton port estate adjacent to the Container Terminal and is operated by Freightliner. It occupies a site of approximately 13.5 hectare (33 acre) and is accessed directly from the main line from Southampton to Bournemouth between Redbridge and Millbrook Stations.

74 3.4.3 The rail infrastructure comprises an arrival and departure line with access in both easterly and westerly directions. The adjoining maintenance depot offers reception sidings and the main terminal operating area provides 4 working sidings under the cranes, each of 480 metres. Two further working sidings of 280 metres are also available outside the crane reach. Wagon repair and stabling sidings are also available Train loading is undertaken by two rail mounted gantry cranes operating across the longer working sidings. These are supplemented by one reachstacker to provide additional capacity on the shorter sidings. The delivery of containers to and from the Container Terminal is provided by the terminal operator using sprinter straddle carriers which have dedicated access across the main dock road The terminal currently handles 11 services per day with a further 4 services operating at weekends. In terms of daily services the operator advises that this is close to the current terminal capacity. The handling of increased volumes on these services, partly resulting from the recent W10 gauge enhancement, is being achieved through better utilisation and train lengthening on certain routes. Terminal throughput in 2010 was 158,000 lifts.

75 Figure 2 W10 Network as at April 2011 Source: Network Rail Millbrook Terminal

76 3.4.6 The Millbrook Terminal is situated to the north of Southampton port estate alongside Millbrook Road and is operated by Freightliner. It occupies a site of approximately 3.5 hectare (8 acre) and is accessed directly from the main line from Southampton to Bournemouth to the east of Millbrook Station The rail infrastructure comprises access in both easterly and westerly directions. There are limited reception sidings and the main terminal operating area provides 3 working sidings each of 440 metres of which only 320 metres is accessible under the crane Train loading is affected by two rail mounted gantry cranes operating across the working sidings. The delivery of containers to and from the Container Terminal is provided by shunting tractors and trailers which access the site via Dock Gate 20 and the public highway The terminal is currently handling 4 services per day. Similar to the Maritime Terminal the operator advises that this is close to the current terminal capacity in terms of daily services. However, the handling of increased volumes on these services, partly resulting from the recent W10 gauge enhancement, is proving possible through better utilisation and train lengthening on certain routes. Terminal throughput in 2010 was 72,000 lifts. Herbert Walker Avenue Terminal This terminal is situated on the port estate to the east of the Container Terminal and is operated by Pentalver on behalf of DB Schenker. It occupies a long narrow site of only 3.6 hectares (9 acres) but is adjacent to an approximate 6.4 hectare (16 acre) area within the Port estate used for container storage. It is accessed directly from the main line from Southampton to Bournemouth close to Millbrook Station The rail infrastructure comprises an arrival and a departure line with access to the national network only in a westerly direction. There are no direct reception sidings although the arrival and departure lines can provide stabling capacity for limited periods. The main terminal operating area provides 2 working sidings of

77 almost 700 metres and a third runround line. Further lines on the adjacent site can be used for limited stabling Train loading is undertaken by three sideloaders operating from the narrow terminal pad constructed within and alongside the working sidings. The delivery of containers to and from this terminal is undertaken by a fleet of internal movement vehicles (IMVs) and trailers operating between the terminal and the adjacent container storage area. This area also provides a buffering facility as containers are collected from the Container Terminal and held in this area in readiness for timed delivery for train loading The terminal is currently handling 4 services per day including some Saturday working. It has the capacity to handle an increased number of daily services, although currently efforts are focused on increasing capacity through the use of more efficient wagons and also through a programme of train lengthening. In the past, up to 8 services per day have been operated from this facility with shorter trains and much lower levels of utilisation. The current view is that the terminal is capable of servicing up to a maximum of 7 longer, well utilised trains per day. Terminal throughput in 2010 was 59,000 lifts. 3.5 Inland terminals 3.6 The following terminals, shown on Figure 2, are currently handling Southampton intermodal services: Freightliner Leeds (Leeds) Freightliner Trafford Park (Trafford Park, Manchester) Freightliner Birmingham (Lawley Street, Birmingham) Freightliner Garston (Garston, Liverpool) Freightliner Coatbridge (Coatbridge, Glasgow) Freightliner Cardiff (terminal not shown on Figure F2.2 but to the east of Cardiff) DB Schenker Wakefield (Wakefield) DB Schenker Trafford Park (Trafford Park, Manchester) ABP Hams Hall (Hams Hall, east of Birmingham) WH Malcolm Daventry (Daventry, south of Rugby) Roadways BIFT (Birch Coppice, east of Birmingham) The map at Figure 2 shows all the major intermodal terminals in England and Scotland. It provides a clear illustration of how terminals are grouped and how

78 alternate facilities are readily available. There are currently no known issues with inland terminal capacity and further capacity is also being planned. 4.0 Assessment of the Project 4.1 Volumes and assumptions The maximum capacity of the Container Terminal at Southampton that is considered possible with the berth 201/202 works is 2.8m TEU (referred to as the Future Position with the Works scenario). Table 4 provides calculations of the projected rail volumes associated with throughput at the Container Terminal up to 2.8m TEU, which is predicted to occur in 2027/8.

79 Year Table 4 Projected Rail Volumes TEU per annum TEU to container ratio Container s % to rail Containers to rail Av container s per train round trip Trains per annu m Av train s per wee k Av workin g days per week ,600, ,855 33% 318, , ,656, ,617 34% 332, , ,713, ,020,214 34% 344, , ,773, ,049,674 34% 356, , ,836, ,080,022 35% 372, , ,900, ,104,824 35% 386, , ,966, ,136,884 35% 400, , ,035, ,169,912 36% 415, , ,106, ,203,940 36% 430, , ,180, ,246,078 36% 448, , ,256, ,289,690 37% 473, , ,335, ,334,829 38% 500, , ,417, ,381,548 39% 531, , ,502, ,429,903 40% 564, , ,589, ,479,949 40% 591, , ,680, ,531,748 40% 612, , ,774, ,585,359 40% 634, , ,800, ,600,000 40% 640, , Train s per day

80 4.1.2 A number of key assumptions have been made in compiling this table: Container growth is based on the current growth forecasts of 3.5% per annum provided by the operator of the Container Terminal TEU to container conversion for 2011 is 1.66:1. This increases on a gradual basis until 2019 when at 1.75:1 the conversion remains constant. The increase reflects the increased use of 40ft, especially high cube containers and the reduced proportion of 20ft containers. % to rail is a variable figure beginning at 33% a reflection of current predicted 2011 levels and increasing year on year to 40% as a projected maximum. This is explained further in paragraphs F2.82 to F2.83. Average containers per train, round trip is a key function of rail economics which is being pursued by all FOCs and Network Rail. The number initially reflects current levels and increases gradually until 2015 when network enhancements will increase the opportunity for train lengthening, see paragraph F2.77. In addition, through operational improvements it is expected that all FOCs will achieve higher levels of utilisation, see paragraph F2.73. Average trains per week is based on the railfreight industry norm of 50 working weeks per annum. Average working days per week commences at 5 with a gradual increase to 6 by The justification for this assumption is explained in paragraph F2.78 below. The resultant number of trains-per-day in 2028 is only a modest increase from 2011 as TEU growth and percentage to rail increases are balanced by the increase in containers per train and 6 day working Significantly and based on the assumptions above, it is clear that the current 19 trains will be capable of accommodating rail demand until 2021, and the available 5 paths will accommodate demand up to Services Changes to existing services There are three main developments that are expected to impact on existing services. The first relates to utilisation. The principles of train utilisation have earlier been explained. Both FOCs operating from Southampton are already engaged in programmes to optimise wagon type to conform to the mix of traffic. Twinned and tripled 40ft wagons are being introduced to compensate for a proportional reduction in 20ft containers and resultant empty 20ft slots on 60ft wagons. The first batch of 200 x 40ft wagons is due for delivery to Freightliner in April In addition, the less efficient well-wagons and eurotwins are also being phased out.

81 4.2.2 A good example of mixing wagon types to maximise utilisation is shown in Table 5. Train option Table 5 Wagon type, train length and utilisation 60ft wagon (number) Twin length (m) 40ft wagon (number) Twin length (m) Train length incl loco (m) Utilisation % Containe rs per train, round trip % % % The table shows with train option 1, how current services with 24 x 60ft wagons can, with a 73% utilisation achieve 70 containers per train round trip. With train option 2, by increasing train length to 30 x 60ft wagons this increases to 88 containers. In option 3 by mixing wagon types, slightly reducing train length but increasing utilisation to 90%, containers per round trip increase to FOCs are also working to reduce poor utilisation resulting from daily and seasonal volume fluctuations. Poor utilisation is currently partly a result of overall reduced container volumes. However, it expected that growth in container volumes will, over time, increase from the current position and that utilisation of available space will increase The second development that will impact on existing services is train lengthening. As described in paragraph above this is mainly a function of suitable infrastructure on the route and at terminals. Generally, terminals are able to operate with longer trains through a mix of splitting and shunting manoeuvres. On the main rail network the solution is less simple. This issue has been recognised by Network Rail and a significant programme of enhancements is already planned. The impact of this programme of work is reflected in the step change in containers per train between 2015 and 2016 shown in Table The third factor that will improve existing service levels will be the extension into regular 6 day working. As can be seen from Table 2, Freightliner is already running some services 6 days per week. This maximises equipment utilisation as well as network capacity and is a clear objective of all FOCs. The industry has

82 now formed a Joint Network Availability Plan (JNAP) which charts a plan to migrate towards greater network opening hours for freight over the medium to long term. This will be achieved through; Improved engineering processes which will shorten line closures. Better planning processes to ensure that diversionary routes are made available. Enhancement of diversionary routes in particular their gauge to match the capability of the primary route Network Rail has recognised that freight has a growing need for 6 (and 7) day access and has committed to deliver improvements that achieve this through its leadership of the industry JNAP process. It is therefore considered realistic to assume that over time the average number of working days per week will increase to The significance of these three points is reflected in Table F2.4. The average number of containers per round trip is a function of longer and better filled trains. Similarly, by operating for 6 rather than 5 days per week, growth and demand can be regulated and path requirements controlled. The net effect is that despite a growth in container throughput of 3.5% per annum and an increase in the percentage of traffic to rail, the increase in the number of daily services required will be relatively low. New services Despite the efficiency changes detailed above it is inevitable that, over time, there will be the need to increase the number of rail services operating from the port, see Table 4. Indications from the FOCs reveal that the introduction of new routes looks unlikely and new services will augment some of the routes that are currently operated To reach the level of 24 daily services only a further 5 services are required. As previously explained paths to accommodate these extra services are available. The following are considered the most likely routes from which additional services could be chosen by each of the FOCs:

83 Freightliner Leeds, Trafford Park, Midlands, North West. DB Schenker Wakefield, Trafford Park, Scotland. 4.3 Percentage to rail A further factor to be recognised is the overall percentage of containers handled by the container terminal being carried by rail. Table 4 predicts the percentage to rail will gradually increase from current levels of 33% to a maximum of 40% by This growth is an established trend and reflects the increase in service quality now being provided by the railfreight industry through infrastructure and operational improvements and the policy support encouraging modal shift from road to rail It could be argued that this percentage may increase beyond 40%, however when taking into account some of the key geographical features that influence the rail share from Southampton it is not expected that this percentage will be exceeded within the period being considered. Such factors include: Economically viable rail distance for rail services from Southampton is unlikely to be reduced below 100 miles. The competitiveness of road transport will in general be maintained. Road will continue to offer greater levels of flexibility than can normally be offered by rail. Most of the large volumes of traffic to the London area are unlikely to switch to rail It should be noted that an increase in percentage to rail does not necessarily reflect an increase in overall container volumes through the ports, in fact the opposite is often true. When rail services are contracted on a term basis to a container line, the line takes the risk to fill the train. Therefore if the line s overall volumes were to decrease, they still have the incentive to fill the train in order to utilise the fixed cost of their contracted rail service. The result is that the line is likely to consequently reduce its use of road transport, and correspondingly the percentage to rail will increase. 4.4 Network Capacity

84 4.4.1 Through their Strategic Freight Network programme Network Rail are seeking to significantly develop intermodal freight capacity and capability throughout the country. Despite the general reduction in public expenditure, the planned enhancements identified for the period 2009 to 2014 (known by Network Rail as their Control Period 4 ( )) received Government support in the recent Comprehensive Spending Review. Beyond 2014 and into the next Control Period (CP5 ( )) the situation is still to be determined, but Network Rail is engaged with industry partners to prioritise their wishes for further freight enhancements during the next control period The current Strategic Freight Network programme focuses on three main areas of enhancement. The first area is in respect of operating longer trains on all the main routes. This involves the lengthening of passing loops to accept trains of up to 665 metres by 2014 and 775 metres by The second area relates to specific major infrastructure enhancements and the third area is to continue gauge enhancement to W10 on the remaining routes to the main destinations In respect of the first area of enhancement (operating longer trains), works to accommodate train lengthening to 665 metres by March 2014 will include extension loops with an anticipated final cost (AFC) of 45m, have been approved in the following locations of relevance to Southampton: Southampton Maritime Southampton Western Dock Eastleigh up loop Waller s Ash up loop Oxford to Wolvercot down loop Dorridge down loop Washwood Heath down goods In addition, train lengthening to 775m is planned for 2015 after completion of the Reading area remodelling work and the Oxford resignalling work, which is further discussed in paragraphs F2.90 and F2.91. This additional train lengthening is subject to approval in CP 5 for Strategic Freight Network funding and includes loops at: Fenny Compton Hatton

85 Waller s Ash down loop In respect of the second area of enhancements (specific infrastructure enhancements), there are certain major improvements to the network which are approved and progressing. Most significant is the complete Reading area remodelling scheme with a cost of 850m. This involves upgrading the station, building a viaduct, constructing new bridges and embankments, making some significant alterations to track layout, renewing signalling and building a train depot. The completion of grade separation at Reading West will significantly improve freight capacity. Completion is planned for In addition, the Oxford area resignalling scheme, planned to complete in 2015, will close headways between Oxford and Heyford. Furthermore, the Banbury area resignalling scheme, planned to complete a year later, will close the headways between Heyford and Banbury Gauge enhancement is the third area in which significant enhancements are planned. As already described, the core route from Southampton to the West Midlands completed its W10 gauge enhancement in April It was always recognised that further robustness to the network was required from Southampton and plans are already progressing to provide a W10 diversionary route via Laverstock (near Salisbury) to Basingstoke The gauge enhancement on the Laverstock diversionary route is scheduled to be completed in April 2013 at a cost of 34m. This route avoids Southampton station and tunnel, providing capacity at weekends when maintenance is being undertaken and accommodating an extra 6 high cube trains per night Further from Southampton, although relevant to some of Southampton s daily services, is gauge enhancement to W10 to terminals at Leeds, Wakefield, Doncaster, Burton-on-Trent and Castle Donnington, via Water Orton. This work is also under way with a cost of 31m and is programmed to be completed by April Full details of all the committed gauge enhancement schemes are shown on the map at Figure 3.

86 All of these various enhancements listed above will increase capacity on routes from Southampton. Major infrastructure improvements on the network, particularly at Reading will improve pathing options for freight, improve journey times and thereby increase overall capacity. Significantly, wherever W10 gauge becomes available, the removal of low-platform wagons could increase train capacity on some services by up to 20%. 4.5 Southampton Terminal Capacity Maritime Terminal The operator of this terminal recognises that there are current capacity constraints at this facility, which stem from the craneage and layout of the site area, and has identified a series of improvements which are to take place Investment in new craneage is proposed, and this will have the greatest impact on the capacity of the terminal. The operator is proposing to replace the current cranes with three new rail mounted gantry cranes capable of operating at 29 lifts per hour (lph) as compared with the current 16 lph (an 81% increase in productivity). In addition to new cranes the operator is also seeking to undertake improvements to the site layout and introduce additional track and working sidings In total, a budget of 9m has been approved for the recraneage and infrastructure improvements at the terminal. Overall capacity is expected to increase to 470,000 lifts per annum with 3 cranes. Millbrook Terminal There are no plans to further develop the Millbrook Terminal due to the restrictions of the site. The long term requirement may involve the replacement of the existing 2 cranes at some stage in the future Overall the plan for the Millbrook Terminal is to continue the current operation, as required and with an annual throughput of around 72,000 lifts per annum. Possible longer term crane replacement would not significantly increase capacity.

87 Figure 3: W10 Network as at April 2014 Source: Network Rail Herbert Walker Avenue Terminal Developments The Herbert Walker Avenue Terminal, will maintain its current mode of operation

88 with the benefit of longer and better utilised trains. It is considered that the terminal will be able to service a maximum of 7 trains per day, that would result in the movement of around 100,000 containers per annum. Inland terminals As has already been demonstrated a number of inland rail freight terminals are currently available. As summarised below several of these terminals are currently undergoing capacity improvements and several are seeking consent for development through the planning process or are soon to commence construction. Castle Donnington (planning approved) DIRFT 3 (planning application) Rossington (planning approved) Port Salford (planning approved) Trafford Park x 2 (DB Schenker re-opened and Freightliner improvements being undertaken) Lawley Street (improvements being undertaken) Widnes (improvements being undertaken) All of the above except DIRFT 3 (which has recently been subject to an application for planning permission) have either received development consent or can develop within existing permitted powers. 4.6 Impact Identification and Assessment The capacity of the Container Terminal at Southampton as a result of the project is considered to be 2.8m TEU. Based on forecast growth of 3.5% per annum, this capacity is expected to be reached around In considering the impact of this growth on rail resources for inland movement of containers by rail the key issues revolve around container volume and required train paths In assessing the impacts on rail resources the rail growth considered likely to occur in the future takes account of the predicted growth in container trade at the Container Terminal of 3.5% per annum and a gradual increase in the percentage of movements being undertaken by rail mode increasing from a current level of 33% to 40% in This results in the number of containers to

89 rail growing progressively from 318,000 containers in 2011 to 640,000 by In considering the potential impacts of this increase in respect of the number of trains required, the assessment has demonstrated that the FOCs are, and will continue to, put in place measures to improve the use that is made of each train in transporting containers Table 4 demonstrates that a growth in containers to rail from 318,000 to 640,000 would result in an increase from 19 train paths per day (2011) to 24 paths per day (2028). Table F2.4 and the text which follows the table explains that this is achieved through the following three main realistic operational efficiencies which the industry is currently progressing with: Train lengthening, by increasing from an average of 24 wagons per train to 30 wagons per train. Improved utilisation, through the use of more space efficient wagons and a better match of wagon lengths to suit the mix of 20ft and 40ft containers. Increasing all services to operate 6 days per week rather than the current 5 days per week These efficiency measures are fully supported by Network Rail and the FOCs as such efficiencies reflect current railfreight policy of maximising existing resources and minimising the need for major capital expenditure Having identified the number of trains that would be required to serve the rail freight requirements of the project the assessment has gone on to consider whether this would generate any significant impacts on rail resources, which have been broken down into consideration of network capacity, local rail freight terminal capacity and wider inland rail freight terminal capacity. 4.7 Network Capacity The position in respect of network capacity can be summarised as; Currently, network capacity accommodates 19 intermodal services operating from the Port of Southampton. A further 5 paths are also available but currently unused. Committed investment in passing loops improvements to allow the deployment of longer trains, which will be completed by 2015.

90 The improvement of the Laverstock diversionary route to W10 gauge will be completed by The major remodelling scheme at Reading will be completed by Further gauge enhancements to W10 are expected to be completed by 2014 such that high cube containers will be able to be carried to all inland destinations served by the Port on standard wagons, with the exception of Cardiff As previously indicated, these improvements referred to above are already at different stages of being delivered. The assessment concludes that as a result of the gradual increase in path requirements to the known inland destinations that is predicted to occur from Southampton over time and the above infrastructure commitments that are already programmed and in the process of being delivered, the necessary network capacity can reasonably be expected to be available to accommodate the pathing requirements that would be generated. 4.8 Southampton Rail Terminal Capacity The position in respect of rail terminal capacity at Southampton can be summarised as follows. The Maritime Terminal currently operates up to 11 services per day. Increased train length and better utilisation (measures which are being taken forward by the FOCs) and the investment in new cranes and improved infrastructure will provide additional capacity such that 470,000 containers will be able to be handled per annum. The Millbrook Terminal currently operates up to 4 services per day. As with the Maritime Terminal, measures being taken to lengthen trains and improve utilisation will provide some additional capacity such that 72,000 containers will be able to be handled per annum. At the Herbert Walker Avenue Terminal an increase from 4 to 7 trains per day is forecast as well as increasing train length and better utilisation, such that 100,000 containers will be able to be handled per annum Overall the current capacity at the rail terminals at Southampton is sufficient to accommodate a volume of 340,000 containers per year handled by rail. With the various future changes described above, the overall capacity provided by the three existing rail terminals at Southampton will be capable of handling the projected levels of 640,000 containers on 24 services by 2027/ The assessment has demonstrated that the number of containers to rail predicted to be generated as a result of the berth 201/202 works can be

91 accommodated by the capacity that will be available at the existing rail terminals at Southampton. 4.9 Inland Terminal Capacity In considering the impacts of the project on inland terminal capacity it is clear that projected growth over a 16 year period, on the specified routes, will be able to be accommodated at existing, extended and new terminals that will be available. In total 20 terminals are available in the areas of the 11 destinations served from Southampton Overall and recognising the numerous developments that are taking place to develop efficient and cost effective solutions for the carriage of railfreight from the Port of Southampton it is concluded that the timely growth in demand for rail services generated by container operations at the Port can be met by the inland intermodal rail terminal capacity that will be available Essentially, adequate inland terminal capacity, with a growing portfolio of options is available throughout the UK for services from Southampton.

92 5.0 Conclusion 5.1 Although port container volumes are forecast to increase year on year and the percentage of traffic being carried by rail is also forecast to increase, the capacity of rail resources at the Southampton rail terminals, on the national rail network and at the inland terminals have been demonstrated to be sufficient to accommodate the rail requirements generated as a result of the berth 201/202 works SJT/Rail Traffic Assessment.doc 20 th October 2011

93 Appendix B

94 MANUAL CLASSIFIED COUNTS JOB REF: JOB NAME: SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS SITE: 1 DATE: 23/06/2011 TO 24/06/2011 LOCATION: SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS DAY: THURSDAY TO FRIDAY TIME PED PCL LV PSV CONTAINER LOADED 1 BOX CONTAINER LOADED 2 BOXES MOVEMENT 1 SOUTHBOUND CONTAINER UNLOADED HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES FLATBED LOADED FLATBED UNLOADED VEHICLE TRANSPORTER ALL OTHER HGV'S 05: : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT TOT

95 MANUAL CLASSIFIED COUNTS JOB REF: JOB NAME: SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS SITE: 1 DATE: 23/06/2011 TO 24/06/2011 LOCATION: SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS DAY: THURSDAY TO FRIDAY TIME PED PCL LV PSV CONTAINER LOADED 1 BOX CONTAINER LOADED 2 BOXES MOVEMENT 1 SOUTHBOUND CONTAINER UNLOADED HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES FLATBED LOADED FLATBED UNLOADED VEHICLE TRANSPORTER ALL OTHER HGV'S 10: : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT TOT

96 MANUAL CLASSIFIED COUNTS JOB REF: JOB NAME: SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS SITE: 1 DATE: 23/06/2011 TO 24/06/2011 LOCATION: SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS DAY: THURSDAY TO FRIDAY TIME PED PCL LV PSV CONTAINER LOADED 1 BOX CONTAINER LOADED 2 BOXES MOVEMENT 1 SOUTHBOUND CONTAINER UNLOADED HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES FLATBED LOADED FLATBED UNLOADED VEHICLE TRANSPORTER ALL OTHER HGV'S 15: : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT TOT

97 MANUAL CLASSIFIED COUNTS JOB REF: JOB NAME: SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS SITE: 1 DATE: 23/06/2011 TO 24/06/2011 LOCATION: SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS DAY: THURSDAY TO FRIDAY TIME PED PCL LV PSV CONTAINER LOADED 1 BOX CONTAINER LOADED 2 BOXES MOVEMENT 1 SOUTHBOUND CONTAINER UNLOADED HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES FLATBED LOADED FLATBED UNLOADED VEHICLE TRANSPORTER ALL OTHER HGV'S 20: : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT TOT

98 MANUAL CLASSIFIED COUNTS JOB REF: JOB NAME: SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS SITE: 1 DATE: 23/06/2011 TO 24/06/2011 LOCATION: SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS DAY: THURSDAY TO FRIDAY TIME PED PCL LV PSV CONTAINER LOADED 1 BOX CONTAINER LOADED 2 BOXES MOVEMENT 1 SOUTHBOUND CONTAINER UNLOADED HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES FLATBED LOADED FLATBED UNLOADED VEHICLE TRANSPORTER ALL OTHER HGV'S 01: : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT P/TOT TOT

99 MANUAL CLASSIFIED COUNTS JOB REF: JOB NAME: SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS SITE: 1 DATE: 23/06/2011 TO 24/06/2011 LOCATION: SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS DAY: THURSDAY TO FRIDAY TIME PED PCL LV PSV CONTAINER LOADED 1 BOX CONTAINER LOADED 2 BOXES MOVEMENT 2 NORTHBOUND CONTAINER UNLOADED HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES FLATBED LOADED FLATBED UNLOADED VEHICLE TRANSPORTER ALL OTHER HGV'S 05: : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT TOT

100 MANUAL CLASSIFIED COUNTS JOB REF: JOB NAME: SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS SITE: 1 DATE: 23/06/2011 TO 24/06/2011 LOCATION: SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS DAY: THURSDAY TO FRIDAY TIME PED PCL LV PSV CONTAINER LOADED 1 BOX CONTAINER LOADED 2 BOXES MOVEMENT 2 NORTHBOUND CONTAINER UNLOADED HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES FLATBED LOADED FLATBED UNLOADED VEHICLE TRANSPORTER ALL OTHER HGV'S 10: : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT TOT

101 MANUAL CLASSIFIED COUNTS JOB REF: JOB NAME: SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS SITE: 1 DATE: 23/06/2011 TO 24/06/2011 LOCATION: SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS DAY: THURSDAY TO FRIDAY TIME PED PCL LV PSV CONTAINER LOADED 1 BOX CONTAINER LOADED 2 BOXES MOVEMENT 2 NORTHBOUND CONTAINER UNLOADED HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES FLATBED LOADED FLATBED UNLOADED VEHICLE TRANSPORTER ALL OTHER HGV'S 15: : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT TOT

102 MANUAL CLASSIFIED COUNTS JOB REF: JOB NAME: SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS SITE: 1 DATE: 23/06/2011 TO 24/06/2011 LOCATION: SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS DAY: THURSDAY TO FRIDAY TIME PED PCL LV PSV CONTAINER LOADED 1 BOX CONTAINER LOADED 2 BOXES MOVEMENT 2 NORTHBOUND CONTAINER UNLOADED HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES FLATBED LOADED FLATBED UNLOADED VEHICLE TRANSPORTER ALL OTHER HGV'S 20: : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT TOT

103 MANUAL CLASSIFIED COUNTS JOB REF: JOB NAME: SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS SITE: 1 DATE: 23/06/2011 TO 24/06/2011 LOCATION: SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS DAY: THURSDAY TO FRIDAY TIME PED PCL LV PSV CONTAINER LOADED 1 BOX CONTAINER LOADED 2 BOXES MOVEMENT 2 NORTHBOUND CONTAINER UNLOADED HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES FLATBED LOADED FLATBED UNLOADED VEHICLE TRANSPORTER ALL OTHER HGV'S 01: : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT : : : : H/TOT P/TOT TOT