HEREFORDSHIRE COUNCIL

HEREFORDSHIRE COUNCIL SOUTH WYE TRANSPORT PACKAGE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT ON MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION REPORT JANUARY 2016 PROJECT NUMBER DOCUMENT REFERENCE FINAL 3511985BP-HHR TPV-0002 PREPARED BY xxxxxxxxx 15 JANUARY 2016 AGREED BY xxxxxxxx 15 JANUARY 2016 APPROVED FOR ISSUE BY xxxxxxxx / xxxxxxx 15 JANUARY 2016 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. BACKGROUND 1.1.1. WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff (WSP PB) has been commissioned by Balfour Beatty Living Places/Hereford Council (HC) to update the highway assignment model part of the Hereford Multi Modal Transport Model (HMMTM) and create a new Hereford Transport Model (HTM). This was completed in October 2015 and documented in the South Wye Transport Package Model Development and Validation Report (MDVR). Following completion of the HTM, the reporting was submitted to the Department for Transport (DfT) for consideration. 1.1.2. The purpose of this technical note is to respond to the comments received from the DfT on the South Wye Transport Package Model Development and Validation Report (Reference: 3512983BP-5.2.1-TPV-0001, dated October 2015). Comments were addressed from three different sources, identified below, each source has been treated independently and where comments have been repeated they have been cross referenced to the appropriate section of this technical note. From email (main text): xxxxxxx (WSP PB) to xxxxxx (Head of Modelling, Local Economics, DfT), Retained Scheme South Wye Transport Package_LMVR and ASR, 14 October 2015 @ 17:11; From email (main text): xxxxx (Head of Modelling, Local Economics, DfT) to xxxxxxx (WSP PB), South Wye comments on LMVR report, 30 October 2015 @ 12:24; and From email (attachment: comments on model development lmvr-south Wye29102015.docx): xxxxxxx (Head of Modelling, Local Economics, DfT) to xxxxxxxx (WSP PB), South Wye comments on LMVR report, 30 October 2015 @ 12:24. 1.1.3. Rather than reproduce the MDVR, this technical note should be treated as an addendum to the original report.

2. FROM EMAIL (MAIN TEXT): xxxxxxxxxx (WSP PB) TO xxxxxxx (HEAD OF MODELLING, LOCAL ECONOMICS, DFT), RETAINED SCHEME SOUTH WYE TRANSPORT PACKAGE_LMVR AND ASR, 14 OCTOBER 2015 @ 17:11 2.1. POINT #1 FROM EMAIL As per the LMVR, the proposed Southern Link Road (SLR) is currently at the very edge of the proposed modelled area. DfT wanted HC s consultant to review and confirm that the proposed modelled network is able to capture the impacts on the appropriate modelled network given the SLR is on the edge of the modelled area. 2.1.1. The simulation network within the HTM covers all of the used routes to the south of Hereford; a plan of the modelled road network has been included in Appendix A of this technical note. But specifically, the simulation network includes all the main routes which cross the railway line between Tram Inn and the A49 in Redhill. The network beyond the urban edge of Hereford is sparse with little route choice. There are no further roads which will have any level of strategic reassignment on the network which are not included in the model. The MDVR demonstrates the calibration/validation of the model on the main roads (A49 and A465) in the south of the model as shown on Map 2-2 in the following locations: Ruckhall Lane; B4349 to Clehonger; A465 (south of the junction with the B4349); The route (lane) linking Portway to the A465 south of the roundabout in Belmont; Grafton Lane; and Roundabout junction linking the A49 (Ross Road) with the B4399. 2.1.2. As the model flows fit with the calibration/validation criteria in all these locations we can confirm the model is able to capture the impacts of the SLR even though it is on the edge of the simulation network. 2.2. POINT #2 FROM EMAIL LMVR to make a distinction between the data used for validation and calibration, particularly with regards to Map 2-2 Location of Link and Junction counts on Page 4 2.2.1. A map has been prepared and included in Appendix B showing the location of the link and junction counts identifying the counts used for model calibration and validation purposes. 2.3. POINT #3 FROM EMAIL DfT suggested WSP PB to explore the possibility of having a screen line in the vicinity of the proposed SLR. 2 / 12

2.3.1. We have looked into this on the basis of the data available and a screen line can be produced. The results are summarised in the table below and the location of the screen line is identified in Appendix C. The model shows a good level of validation in this area of the model although it should be noted there is a lack of observed traffic data for Grafton Lane. However, it is not considered that this compromises the robustness of the model. AM Interpeak PM Inbound Observed screen line flow 1,025 583 916 Modelled Screen line flow 956 518 882 Absolute difference 69 65 34 Relative difference -7% -11% -4% GEH 2.2 2.8 1.1 Outbound Observed screen line flow 1,019 619 1,002 Modelled Screen line flow 855 505 1,050 Absolute difference 164 114 48 Relative difference -16% -18% 5% GEH 5.4 4.8 1.5 2.3.2. The summary table includes traffic flow data from five sites and shows the modelled flows are a fair representation of the split of trips across these routes in/out of Hereford in the vicinity of the Southern Link Road. Further details of the screen line validation have been included in Appendix D. 2.4. POINT #4 FROM EMAIL With regards to matrix calibration comparisons (Table 6.6, Table 6.7), DfT suggested further analysis, with regards to sectors 1 to 4 within Hereford Centre, needs to be presented in the LMVR 2.4.1. The derived base year trip matrices were then calibrated to the totals of counts on a number of cordons and screen lines in the model area, represented by the sector boundaries shown in Map 3-2 and 3-3 in the MDVR. The trip matrices were assigned to the updated model networks and select link assignments carried out for links corresponding to each of the count sites. The select link trip matrices were then summed to give matrices for each of the cordons and screen lines. 2.4.2. The corresponding origin-destination movements in the full matrices were then factored so that the total trips in the select link matrix portions were the same as the count totals. This was repeated for each cordon and screen line and 10 iterations of the process carried out so that the matrix totals converged to the count totals. 2.4.3. The differences between the initial and calibrated matrices were small, as shown in the tables attached as Appendix E. The small initial calibration changes validated the matrix building method using NTEM trip ends, the calibrated gravity model and the 2001 journey to work distribution. 2.5. POINT #5 FROM EMAIL DfT confirmed with WSP PB about the overall approach to matrix rebuilding. DfT wanted to understand that the approach was primarily using NTEM, NTM and Census data for trip ends and use of gravity model for trip distribution compared to the use of traditional approach using RSI data 2.5.1. Further details of the matrix build process have been addressed in Sections 3 and 4 of this technical note. 3 / 12

3. FROM EMAIL (MAIN TEXT): xxxxxx [DfT] TO xxxxxxxxx [WSP], SOUTH WYE COMMENTS ON LMVR REPORT, 30 OCTOBER 2015 @ 12:24 We One of our main concerns is the approach used for matrix development. understand that SATURN model s prior matrix was built from gravity modelling using NTM, NTEM and Ctripend without using any of the survey data. This approach is not in line with WebTAG guidance. In order for us to understand the uncertainty and risks related to approach, it will be useful if you could demonstrate if the model is fit for purpose, especially in the following: 3.1. BULLET POINT #1 < Provide evidence that the matrix can reflect observed trip pattern and local demand such as using survey data such as RSI, ANPR, mobile phone data etc. < The use of census data- how the census data were used for matrix development? Any validity check on the key movements identified for the study area from raw census data. < The representation of vehicle composition, esp. the percentage of HGV on key routes in the study area is reasonable. < The modelling coverage it should present the scope of the impact of the new road and its competitive routes. Provide evidence that the matrix can reflect observed trip pattern and local demand such as using survey data such as RSI, ANPR, mobile phone data etc. 4 / 12

3.1.1. The trip matrix has been validated against TrafficMaster OD data, further details are provided in Section 4.3.8 4.3.12 of this technical note. No other datasets exist, hence the need to adopt a matrix synthesising process. 3.1.2. The use of mobile phone data in the production of trip matrices is not yet proven. The DfT are currently assembling best practice into the use of mobile phone datasets for the purposes of developing trip matrices. Once this is completed this will then be used to inform the development of guidance for the incorporation into WebTAG. Given the programme for the development of the HTM model, it was not considered appropriate to pursue the use of mobile phone data in the development of the trip matrices. 3.1.3. The use of ANPR data for use in a model the size of the HTM is limited due its inability to provide any certainty where trips start and finish. ANPR Data collected from a cordon of cameras around the city would provide information regarding the number of trips passing into / out of the cordon but would not provide information regarding the destination within the cordon. A proportion of the trips would enter the cordon at one point and exit at another but information regarding their ultimate journey start and end points would not be available. For ANPR data to have been useful, a cordon around the whole of Hereford would have been required along with secondary and tertiary cameras to track movements within the city. The cost of collecting such data would have been prohibitive and disproportionate to the amount of useful information on trip patterns it would provide. 3.2. BULLET POINT #2 The use of census data- how the census data were used for matrix development? Any validity check on the key movements identified for the study area from raw census data. 3.2.1. This comment has been addressed in Section 4.5 of this technical note. 3.3. BULLET POINT #3 The representation of vehicle composition, esp. the percentage of HGV on key routes in the study area is reasonable. 3.3.1. The following tables demonstrate the representation of the vehicle composition and how the model reflects the percentage of HGVs across the cordons and screen lines. CORDON OR SCREEN LINE % DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBSERVED AND MODELLED FLOWS NUMBER OF LINKS WHERE GEH < 4 AM IP PM AM IP PM Outer Cordon Inbound -10% -4% -40% 89% 100% 100% Outer Cordon Outbound -10% -9% -29% 89% 100% 100% Inner Cordon Inbound -21% -16% -35% 67% 89% 100% Inner Cordon Outbound +1% -22% -39% 89% 67% 89% East/West Screen line Eastbound -15% -30% -3% 83% 17% 17% East/West Screen line Westbound -22% -34% -40% 67% 67% 67% 5 / 12

3.3.2. Across the cordon and screen lines the representation of the volumes of HGVs is good, although the East/West screen line could be better with a poor distribution across the links but a good total number of HGVs crossing the screen line. The table shows large percentage differences, but this is due to the very low numbers of HGVs crossing the screen lines and cordons, therefore not compromising the robustness of the model. 3.3.3. A detailed report of the performance of individual links across the cordons and screen lines has been included in Appendix F. AM peak hour Interpeak hour PM peak hour CRITERION Flows to have GEH 5.0 or less Flows (<700pcu/h) to be within 100 pcu/h of observed Flows to have GEH 5.0 or less Flows (<700pcu/h) to be within 100 pcu/h of observed Flows to have GEH 5.0 or less Flows (<700pcu/h) to be within 100 pcu/h of observed NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS ACHIEVING CRITERION PERCENTAGE ACHIEVING CRITERION 44 92% 48 100% 42 88% 48 100% 45 94% 48 100% 3.3.4. When considering the performance of individual links within the model, but not on a cordon or screen line, the table above demonstrates that more than 85% of links across all three modelled periods meet the criterion for all flow validation when applied specifically for HGVs. 3.3.5. It is considered that the information in these tables demonstrates that the model has a reasonable representation of HGV patterns across the network, especially within the fully modelled area. 3.4. BULLET POINT #4 The modelling coverage it should present the scope of the impact of the new road and its competitive routes. 6 / 12

3.4.1. Further details of the model coverage are included in Section 2.1 of this technical note. To reiterate, the next alternative route within Hereford is a residential route which is heavily trafficked by local movements and further from Hereford the alternative routes are tortuous country lanes with small settlements. There are no further roads which will have any level of strategic reassignment on the network which are not included in the model. 4. FROM EMAIL (ATTACHMENT: COMMENTS ON MODEL DEVELOPMENT LMVR-SOUTH WYE29102015.DOCX): xxxxxxxxx (HEAD OF MODELLING, LOCAL ECONOMICS, DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT) TO xxxxxxxxxxxxx, SOUTH WYE COMMENTS ON LMVR REPORT, 30 OCTOBER 2015 @ 12:24. 4.1. COMMENT #1: [CH. 3] SATURN MODEL ROAD NETWORK WAS NOT PROVIDED IN THE REPORT. THE SLR (SOUTH LINK ROAD) IS OUTSIDE THE DETAILED MODELLING AREA (MAP 3-1) Please ensure the modelling coverage is able to represent the proposed new road and its alternative routes. 4.1.1. Further details of the model coverage are included in Section 2.1 of this technical note. Any intention to demonstrate if the modelling coverage is robust using methods such as variable demand modelling? 4.1.2. There is no intention to undertake variable demand modelling using the base year model. Consideration of variable demand modelling will be undertaken during the forecasting stage of the scheme assessment. It is unclear how variable demand modelling would inform the model coverage. 4.2. COMMENT #2: [CH. 3] 404 ZONES IN THE NEW ZONING SYSTEM AND 295 ZONES WITHIN HEREFORD. IT IS UNCLEAR ON HOW AGGREGATED DEMAND WERE DISAGGREGATE AT THE ZONAL LEVEL. Please explain on how tripend data were applied and split into the detailed zonal level for the study. 4.2.1. Details of how the new zone system was created are included in Chapter 6 of the MDVR. 4.2.2. Essentially, the land use inputs into the trip generation calculations are identified using Census data and AddressBase property classification data and grouped to the modelled zone system. The CTripEnd programme is used to generate the trips for each model zone. The aggregate total number of people, households and jobs are constrained at the TEMPRO zone level. Multiple model zones form a single TEMPRO zone. 4.2.3. This process is different to calculating the number of trips in a TEMPRO zone and then disaggregating across the modelled zones within the TEMPRO zone and is considered to be more accurate as it includes detailed information on the land uses and demographics within each modelled zone. 4.3. COMMENT #3: [CH. 6] SYNTHETIC MATRICES WERE USED FOR PRIOR MATRIX DEVELOPMENT USING CENSUS DATA 2001/2011, NTM AND CTRIPEND WHICH DOES NOT FOLLOW THE GUIDANCE IN WEBTAG. PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILED EVIDENCE ON NOT USING EXISTING SURVEY 7 / 12

DATA (PARA 6.1.2). ANY CONSIDERATION OF USING THE SURVEY DATA TO VALIDATE TRIP PATTERNS. The rationale and evidence for not following the guidance on matrix development, i.e. developing a fully synthesised prior matrix using NTEM, NTM and CTripEnd instead of using observed survey data such as RSI as recommended in WebTAG. 4.3.1. The collection of origin and destination data for the HMMTM focussed on using a combination of household, workplace, car park interview and automatic number plate recognition data. Roadside interview surveys were not undertaken. 4.3.2. Having reviewed the data collected for the development of the HMMTM, it was determined that much of the data had been processed and that the raw data was unavailable and/or details of the processing that had been undertaken were either inadequate or missing. 4.3.3. Therefore, the decision was made to synthesise the trip matrices using land use and demographic information to develop the prior matrices, then to use the traffic count data and journey times to calibrate and validate the model. The methodology adopted is common to that used by NTM as it combines demographic and employment data with trip rates. Early discussions took place with DfT colleague xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in autumn 2014 and this approach was verbally agreed in principle. According to WebTAG, TEMPRO tripend data should be used as the basis of trip growth rather than as absolute trips. Any evidence that the prior matrix can reasonably represent the local demand. 4.3.4. Sections 6.4 and 6.5 of the MDVR detail how the prior matrix produces a reasonable estimate of local demand based on the performance of the matrix in terms of sector to sector movements and movements crossing a series of screen lines. Please clarify which survey data (such as household survey, ANPR and employment survey) were used. Contradictory information was given in the scheme meeting on 13/10/2015 at DfT. 4.3.5. Details of the traffic count and journey time data used in model development can be found in Chapter 4 of the MDVR. The data includes Automatic Traffic Counts (ATCs), Manual Classified Counts (MCCs), journey time surveys, and Trafficmaster origin/destination data. 4.3.6. ATC data was used to inform the cordon / screenline calibration. The MCC turning count data was used to inform the matrix estimation procedure. The MCC link counts were used in the model validation. patterns were validated against Trafficmaster Origin/Destination data. 4.3.7. No origin and destination survey data was used in the production of the trip matrices for the HTM. Origin and destination data was collected for the HMMTM and used in the development of the highway assignment part of that model. A review of that data found it not fit for use in this modelling exercise as it had already been subject to post-collection processing and manipulation. 8 / 12

4.3.8. Roadside interviews would have provided a partial representation of travel demand and we would have had to synthesise the remainder of the trip matrix. If we had created a cordon around Hereford and conducted roadside interviews on the cordon, we would still have needed to synthesise all trip making within Hereford and 90% of the trips (assuming a 10% sample rate) passing each roadside interview location. Historic data has suggested that 40% of trips remain within Hereford, 40% are to/from Hereford and 20% of trips are through the City. This would mean we would need to synthesis 94% (40%+36%+18%) of trips in the model; the roadside interview data would directly provide 6% of trips. 4.3.9. The ability of ANPR to supplement the roadside interview data is very limited due to its inability to tell you where trips start and finish. See paragraph 3.1.3 of this technical note for further details. Please suggest way in which demonstrate matrix is fit for purpose using evidence to confirm that the model can accurately reflect the underlying real trip pattern (such as using RSI, ANPR, mobile data, etc) particularly on the key strategic routes and those trips might be attracted to the new route. 4.3.10. External validation of the trip matrices produced has been undertaken using TrafficMaster OD data. Whilst the comparison can only be done at a bespoke sector level, it does provide confidence as to the representativeness of the highway assignment model. 4.3.11. Details of the sector to sector comparison are in Appendix F of the MDVR. The appendix shows that the majority of modelled sector to sector movements across the different modelled time periods and user classes are within 10% of the equivalent sector to sector movements observed with the TrafficMaster data. 4.4. COMMENT #4: [CH. 6] THE CALIBRATION OF GRAVITY MODEL For the calibration/validation of gravity model s parameters, the observed average costs/ trip length distribution are seemed to be from the previous developed SATURN model instead of observed data- please clarify. Please provide the rationale for this. 4.4.1. The local data was used in producing the matrices for the HMMTM and calibrating the gravity model to these has resulted in locally derived distribution parameters. 4.4.2. Deriving the distribution parameters for the gravity model from the trip matrices from the previous version of the model is similar to using the original origin and destination data. It could be regarded as more accurate as the matrices have been calibrated and validated. 4.5. COMMENT #5: [CH. 6] THE USE OF CENSUS DATA It is unclear how the Census 2001 and 2011 data were used. Concerns of using very old census data, esp. 2001 Census data for the matrix development. 4.5.1. 2001 data was only used to estimate the proportion of intra-zonal trips for each zone and not for any part of estimating the land use inputs for the trip generation. It was not possible to derive the equivalent estimates from the Census 2011 datasets as the required level of disaggregation is no longer available. 9 / 12

4.5.2. The Census 2011 datasets were used to establish the relative proportions of the number of people (in 88 person types), number of households, number of jobs in 11 employment classifications and modal split indicators for the work and home ends of the trips all at the output area level (this is detailed in 6.3.3-6.3.12 of the MDVR). Where the zone system is more detailed than output areas, classified address data was used to disaggregate people/households and jobs to this level. Please provide details on how the Census data were used in the model development and any validity check on the key movements identified from the census data. Please provide key movements identified from the Census data. 4.5.3. The example zones in Appendix G show how the input Census and AddressBase Data compare and how this corresponds to the trips generated in each zone. It can be seen that for the residential data, the total number of addresses in each output area closely corresponds with the Census 2011 data. In general the census figures are slightly lower which is likely due to a combination of non-responses and not all addresses being occupied. The HBW trip ends produced by the model generally correspond well with the 2011 Census travel to work data for each OA with 30-40% of the total car driver origins departing in the AM peak. 4.5.4. The examples also demonstrate how using the AddressBase data to subdivide land use inputs beyond Census level works to ensure sensible trip ends are generated for each zone. For example in zone 11055 where there are no residential zones there are also no home based trips generated. 4.5.5. The example zones also show how the employment data is used and the generated trip ends generally correspond well with the travel to work data, with approximately one third of the car driver trips arriving in the morning peak. As with the residential data, where the zone structure is finer than the workplace zone structure, the address data ensures that very few work trip ends are generated in purely residential areas like Zone 11111 4.6. COMMENT #6: [CH. 4] ME PROCESS AND MODEL VALIDATION LMVR to make a distinction between the data used for validation and calibration, particularly with regards to Map 2-2 Location of Link and Junction counts on Page 4. 4.6.1. Details of the link and junction counts used for the model calibration and validation are provided in Appendix B of this technical note. Matrix estimation seems to use both ATC and MCC. It is unclear if the MCC single day counts were adjusted to average day counts. Please confirm. 4.6.2. The MCCs were single day counts and not adjusted to average day counts. The counts were factored for model development purposes from vehicles to Passenger Car Units (PCUs). It would be useful to provide validation details in the area of most interest (i.e. routes adjacent parallel to the scheme) and demonstrate model s fit in the area (with the use of screen lines if possible). 10 / 12

4.6.3. Full details of all the calibration and validation points in the vicinity of the scheme are provided in Appendices D and I in the MDVR. A further validation screen line parallel to the scheme has been reported in Section 2.3 of this technical note. There are no roads that can be considered parallel to the scheme. Matrix calibration comparisons (Table 6.6, Table 6.7) considerate changes at sector level post ME, esp. sectors 1 to 4 within Hereford Centre. Please examine and any adjustments are required. What are the possible impact on the underlying trip pattern and appraisals? 4.6.4. Further information on the initial matrix calibration of sectors 1 to 4 within Hereford is included in Section 2.4 of this technical report Any evidence on model s representation of vehicle composition, esp. on HGV % as the new road and existing route are intended to be used for HGV in addition to other vehicles. 4.6.5. Further information on the representation of HGVs in the model is provided in Section 3.3 of this technical note. 4.7. COMMENT #7: [CH. 4 PAGE 19] LACK OF INFORMATION ON JOURNEY TIME SURVEYS Please provide information on sample size, standard deviation, etc as well as date of collection 4.7.1. The journey time survey data was collected for the HMMTM in 2012, summary details including information on average free flow and delayed travel times, standard deviations and sample sizes has been included as Appendix H. 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1. SUMMARY 5.1.1. This technical note should be considered as an addendum to the original South Wye Transport Package Model Development and Validation Report produced in October 2015. 5.1.2. From the various comments received, there are a couple of common themes that this technical note has sought to address, namely: Further information on the development of the trip matrices as the approach does not conform to current WebTAG guidance; further information on the performance on the model in the vicinity of the scheme, as the scheme is on the edge of the fully modelled area; and further information on the model s representation of HGV traffic 5.1.3. Additional information has been provided: that explains the trip matrix development in more detail and demonstrates that the matrices produced are a reasonable representation of the demand for travel on the highway network within the fully modelled area; that demonstrates that the model is suitable for assessing the impact of the South Wye Transport Package, albeit that the highway scheme is on the edge of the Hereford urban area. The other measures which make up the transport package are aimed at travel from the south west of Hereford to/from the city centre and are within the fully modelled area; and 11 / 12

that demonstrates that the transport model has a reasonable representation of HGV trips. 5.2. CONCLUSION 5.2.1. This technical note should be treated as an addendum to the original South Wye Transport Package Model Development and Validation Report. 5.2.2. The content of this technical note has addressed all the comments received from the Department for Transport and adds to the South Wye Transport Package Model Development and Validation Report in demonstrating that the Hereford Transport Model is a robust and suitable tool for assessing this stage of the South Wye Transport Package business case. 12 / 12

Appendix A PLAN OF MODELLED HIGHWAY NETWORK

A4110 A49 A4112 A4111 A4110 A49 A465 B4352 A465 B4349 SLR A466 A4172 A465 A49 A449 A49 A466 A4137 A40

Appendix B PLAN OF TRAFFIC COUNTS USED FOR MODEL CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION

Junction Calibration Link Validation 0 1 2 3 4 km

Appendix C REVISED PLAN OF CORDONS AND SCREENLINES

Appendix D FULL DETAILED TABLE FOR NEW VALIDATION SCREEN LINE SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERN LINK ROAD

Peak Link Direction Count Modelled Dif (%) Dif (Abs) GEH Haywood Lane Inbound 61 17-72% 44 7.0 A465 (south west of B4349) Inbound 217 206-5% 11 0.8 B4349 Clehonger Road Inbound 22 43 98% 21 3.8 B4399 to A49 (N) Inbound 44 27-38% 17 2.8 A49 (S) to A49 (N) Inbound 681 662-3% 19 0.7 Inbound 1,025 956-7% 69 2.2 Haywood Lane Outbound 238 15-94% 223 19.8 A465 (south west of B4349) Outbound 223 260 17% 37 2.4 B4349 Clehonger Road Outbound 41 69 67% 28 3.7 A49 (N) to B4399 Outbound 394 413 5% 19 0.9 B4399 to A49 (S) Outbound 123 99-20% 24 2.3 Outbound 1,019 855-16% 164 5.4 Two-Way 2,044 1,811-11% 233 5.3 Haywood Lane Inbound 48 3-93% 45 8.9 A465 (south west of B4349) Inbound 234 183-22% 51 3.5 B4349 Clehonger Road Inbound 29 18-38% 11 2.2 B4399 to A49 (N) Inbound 13 15 19% 2 0.6 A49 (S) to A49 (N) Inbound 259 298 15% 39 2.3 Inbound 583 518-11% 65 2.8 Haywood Lane Outbound 46 2-96% 44 9.1 A465 (south west of B4349) Outbound 279 188-33% 91 6.0 B4349 Clehonger Road Outbound 25 14-42% 11 2.4 A49 (N) to B4399 Outbound 232 263 14% 31 2.0 B4399 to A49 (S) Outbound 37 38 3% 1 0.2 Outbound 619 505-18% 114 4.8 Two-Way 1,202 1,023-15% 179 5.4 Haywood Lane Inbound 104 85-18% 19 1.9 A465 (south west of B4349) Inbound 218 211-3% 7 0.5 B4349 Clehonger Road Inbound 17 49 189% 32 5.6 B4399 to A49 (N) Inbound 85 44-48% 41 5.1 A49 (S) to A49 (N) Inbound 492 492 0% 0 0.0 Inbound 916 882-4% 34 1.1 Haywood Lane Outbound 101 58-42% 43 4.8 A465 (south west of B4349) Outbound 231 368 59% 137 7.9 B4349 Clehonger Road Outbound 29 25-13% 4 0.7 A49 (N) to B4399 Outbound 489 440-10% 49 2.3 B4399 to A49 (S) Outbound 152 159 4% 7 0.5 Outbound 1,002 1,050 5% 48 1.5 Two-Way 1,918 1,932 1% 14 0.3 AM peak hour Interpeak hour PM peak hour

Appendix E INITIAL MATRIX CALIBRATION TABLES

Appendix F FULL DETAILED HGV CALIBRATION ACROSS CORDONS AND SCREEN LINES

AM PEAK SCREEN LINE CALIBRATION Diff Diff Count Modelled Hereford Outer Cordon (Inbound) (%) (Abs) GEH 1 A49 Ross Road 87 119 37% 32 3.2 2 A49 Holmer Road 100 97-3% -3 0.3 3 A465 Belmont Road 36 15-61% -22 4.4 4 A438 Kings Acre Road 33 22-33% -11 2.1 5 A4110 Three Elms Road 23 16-29% -7 1.5 6 A465 Aylestone Hill 30 14-52% -16 3.3 7 A438 Ledbury Road 26 19-29% -8 1.6 8 B4224 Hampton Park Road 18 11-41% -7 1.9 9 Holme Lacy Road 33 36 8% 3 0.4 386 348-10% -38 2.0 Hereford Outer Cordon (Outbound) 1 A49 Ross Road 90 100 11% 10 1.0 2 A49 Holmer Road 96 78-19% -18 1.9 3 A465 Belmont Road 56 49-12% -7 0.9 4 A438 Kings Acre Road 33 31-7% -2 0.4 5 A4110 Three Elms Road 25 32 27% 7 1.3 6 A465 Aylestone Hill 29 24-16% -5 0.9 7 A438 Ledbury Road 22 17-24% -5 1.2 8 B4224 Hampton Park Road 19 24 28% 5 1.1 9 Holme Lacy Road 34 8-76% -26 5.6 404 363-10% -41 2.1 Two-way 790 711-10% -79 2.9 Hereford Inner Cordon (Inbound) 1 Barton Road 6 2-74% -4 2.3 2 A438 Eign Street 47 35-26% -12 1.9 3 A49 Newtown Road 82 81-1% -1 0.1 4 College Road 8 0-100% -8 4.0 5 A465 Aylestone Hill 27 13-53% -14 3.2 6 A438 Ledbury Road 25 1-96% -24 6.6 7 B4224 Eign Road 13 0-99% -13 5.0 8 St Martins Street 2 0-100% -2 2.0 9 A49 Greyfriars Bridge 113 122 8% 9 0.9 323 254-21% -69 4.1 Hereford Inner Cordon (Outbound) 1 Barton Road 2 3 40% 1 0.5 2 A438 Eign Street 52 62 19% 10 1.3 3 A49 Newtown Road 65 67 3% 2 0.2 4 College Road 2 0-100% -2 2.0 5 A465 Aylestone Hill 28 17-39% -11 2.3 6 A438 Ledbury Road 11 1-95% -10 4.4 7 B4224 Eign Road 15 30 98% 15 3.1 8 St Martins Street 0 0 0% 0 1.0 9 A49 Greyfriars Bridge 132 130-1% -2 0.1 307 309 1% 2 0.1 Two-way 630 563-11% -67 2.7 Hereford East/ West Screenline (Eastbound) 1 B4399 Rotherwas Access Road 76 38-49% -38 5.0 2 Holme Lacy Road 8 13 60% 5 1.5 3 A438 Newmarket Street Eastbound 31 21-31% -10 1.9 4 A49 Newtown Rd Eastbound 14 16 14% 2 0.5 5 A4103 Roman Rd 30 44 46% 14 2.3 6 Hinton Road/Ross Road 2 5 147% 3 1.6 161 137-15% -24 1.9 Hereford East/ West Screenline (Westbound) 1 B4399 Rotherwas Access Road 96 45-53% -51 6.1 2 Holme Lacy Road 14 40 183% 26 4.9 3 A438 Newmarket Street Eastbound 42 23-45% -19 3.3 4 A49 Newtown Rd Eastbound 1 6 503% 5 2.7 5 A4103 Roman Rd 46 39-15% -7 1.0 6 Hinton Road/Ross Road 0 3 300% 3 2.5 199 156-22% -43 3.2 Two-way 360 293-19% -67 3.7

PM PEAK SCREEN LINE CALIBRATION Diff Diff Count Modelled Hereford Outer Cordon (Inbound) (%) (Abs) GEH 1 A49 Ross Road 54 31-42% -23 3.5 2 A49 Holmer Road 64 53-18% -11 1.5 3 A465 Belmont Road 37 18-50% -19 3.5 4 A438 Kings Acre Road 18 2-88% -16 5.0 5 A4110 Three Elms Road 14 7-48% -7 2.1 6 A465 Aylestone Hill 16 12-26% -4 1.1 7 A438 Ledbury Road 12 11-12% -1 0.4 8 B4224 Hampton Park Road 11 5-58% -6 2.3 9 Holme Lacy Road 10 4-61% -6 2.3 236 143-40% -93 6.8 Hereford Outer Cordon (Outbound) 1 A49 Ross Road 60 38-37% -22 3.2 2 A49 Holmer Road 57 33-41% -24 3.5 3 A465 Belmont Road 35 39 10% 4 0.6 4 A438 Kings Acre Road 16 4-74% -12 3.7 5 A4110 Three Elms Road 15 10-35% -5 1.5 6 A465 Aylestone Hill 19 18-6% -1 0.2 7 A438 Ledbury Road 13 6-57% -7 2.4 8 B4224 Hampton Park Road 19 19-1% 0 0.1 9 Holme Lacy Road 16 12-26% -4 1.1 250 178-29% -72 4.9 Two-way 486 320-34% -166 8.3 Hereford Inner Cordon (Inbound) 1 Barton Road 0 2 200% 2 2.0 2 A438 Eign Street 24 12-52% -12 3.0 3 A49 Newtown Road 47 35-25% -12 1.8 4 College Road 0 0 0% 0 0 5 A465 Aylestone Hill 11 12 11% 1 0.3 6 A438 Ledbury Road 7 0-95% -7 3.5 7 B4224 Eign Road 2 0-90% -2 1.7 8 St Martins Street 0 0 0% 0 0.1 9 A49 Greyfriars Bridge 56 34-38% -22 3.2 147 96-35% -51 4.6 Hereford Inner Cordon (Outbound) 1 Barton Road 2 1-37% -1 0.6 2 A438 Eign Street 19 14-25% -5 1.1 3 A49 Newtown Road 38 11-71% -27 5.4 4 College Road 0 0 0% 0 0 7 A465 Aylestone Hill 12 20 69% 8 2.0 6 A438 Ledbury Road 5 0-100% -5 3.2 7 B4224 Eign Road 2 6 181% 4 1.9 8 St Martins Street 0 0 0% 0 0.6 9 A49 Greyfriars Bridge 77 43-45% -35 4.5 155 95-39% -60 5.3 Two-way 302 191-37% -111 7.1 Hereford East/ West Screenline (Eastbound) 1 B4399 Rotherwas Access Road 61 14-77% -47 7.7 2 Holme Lacy Road 3 19 533% 16 4.8 3 A438 Newmarket Street Eastbound 21 21 0% 0 0.0 4 A49 Newtown Rd Eastbound 0 12 1200% 12 5.0 5 A4103 Roman Rd 24 38 60% 14 2.6 6 Hinton Road/Ross Road 0 1 100% 1 1.4 109 106-3% -3 0.3 Hereford East/ West Screenline (Westbound) 0 1 B4399 Rotherwas Access Road 45 15-67% -30 5.6 2 Holme Lacy Road 2 10 410% 8 3.3 3 A438 Newmarket Street Eastbound 33 11-67% -22 4.8 4 A49 Newtown Rd Eastbound 0 3 300% 3 2.2 5 A4103 Roman Rd 21 21-2% 0 0.1 6 Hinton Road/Ross Road 0 2 200% 2 1.8 101 60-40% -41 4.5 Two-way 210 166-21% -44 3.2

IP PEAK SCREEN LINE CALIBRATION Diff Diff Count Modelled Hereford Outer Cordon (Inbound) (%) (Abs) GEH 1 A49 Ross Road 89 113 27% 24 2.4 2 A49 Holmer Road 102 80-22% -22 2.3 3 A465 Belmont Road 48 43-11% -5 0.8 4 A438 Kings Acre Road 36 31-15% -5 1.0 5 A4110 Three Elms Road 21 18-13% -3 0.6 6 A465 Aylestone Hill 30 26-12% -4 0.7 7 A438 Ledbury Road 22 23 6% 1 0.3 8 B4224 Hampton Park Road 14 14 0% 0 0.0 9 Holme Lacy Road 33 30-10% -3 0.6 395 378-4% -17 0.9 Hereford Outer Cordon (Outbound) 1 A49 Ross Road 96 99 3% 3 0.3 2 A49 Holmer Road 104 77-26% -27 2.9 3 A465 Belmont Road 57 49-15% -8 1.1 4 A438 Kings Acre Road 31 22-31% -9 1.8 5 A4110 Three Elms Road 19 21 12% 2 0.5 6 A465 Aylestone Hill 31 25-19% -6 1.1 7 A438 Ledbury Road 17 19 12% 2 0.5 8 B4224 Hampton Park Road 17 22 30% 5 1.1 9 Holme Lacy Road 28 29 4% 1 0.2 400 362-9% -38 1.9 Two-way 795 740-7% -55 2.0 Hereford Inner Cordon (Inbound) 1 Barton Road 8 2-80% -6 2.9 2 A438 Eign Street 80 67-16% -13 1.5 3 A49 Newtown Road 96 72-25% -24 2.6 4 College Road 8 0-100% -8 4.0 5 A465 Aylestone Hill 44 61 40% 17 2.4 6 A438 Ledbury Road 13 0-98% -13 5.0 7 B4224 Eign Road 10 24 139% 14 3.4 8 St Martins Street 5 0-100% -5 3.2 9 A49 Greyfriars Bridge 134 108-20% -26 2.4 398 334-16% -64 3.3 Hereford Inner Cordon (Outbound) 1 Barton Road 0 6 600% 6 3.5 2 A438 Eign Street 76 65-15% -11 1.3 3 A49 Newtown Road 78 71-9% -7 0.8 4 College Road 0 0 0% 0 5 A465 Aylestone Hill 40 29-26% -11 1.8 6 A438 Ledbury Road 15 0-99% -15 5.4 7 B4224 Eign Road 5 3-34% -2 0.8 8 St Martins Street 0 10 1000% 10 4.6 9 A49 Greyfriars Bridge 174 119-32% -55 4.5 388 304-22% -84 4.5 Two-way 786 639-19% -147 5.5 Hereford East/ West Screenline (Eastbound) 1 B4399 Rotherwas Access Road 82 41-50% -41 5.3 2 Holme Lacy Road 86 46-47% -40 5.0 3 A438 Newmarket Street Eastbound 50 15-70% -35 6.1 4 A49 Newtown Rd Eastbound 42 19-55% -23 4.2 5 A4103 Roman Rd 17 66 291% 49 7.7 6 Hinton Road/Ross Road 0 7 700% 7 3.7 277 194-30% -83 5.4 Hereford East/ West Screenline (Westbound) 1 B4399 Rotherwas Access Road 82 38-54% -44 5.7 2 Holme Lacy Road 21 34 62% 13 2.5 3 A438 Newmarket Street Westbound 57 19-66% -38 6.1 4 A49 Newtown Rd Eastbound 13 18 38% 5 1.2 5 A4103 Roman Rd 58 41-30% -17 2.5 6 Hinton Road/Ross Road 0 2 200% 2 1.9 231 152-34% -79 5.7 Two-way 508 345-32% -163 7.9

Appendix G CENSUS 2011 DATA VALIDATION TABLES

Residential/output area data Zone Households in output area (Census 2011) Car Driver Origins (24hr) in output area (Census 2011) Residential addresses in Zone (AddressBase) AM HBW Origin trip ends (Car Driver) AM HB Origin trip ends (Car Driver) 11010 (all of 11111 (part of E00071166) 11055 (part of E00070725) 25050 (all of E00071138) E00070720) 124 148 240 123 25 80 76 88 159 45 (of 153 in output area) 0 (of 268 in OA) 130 13.4 5.8 (of 20.1 in all model zones in OA) 30.6 8.3 (of 28.8 in all model zones in OA) 0.6 (of 54.7 in all model zones in OA) 0.6 (of 150.0 in all model zones in OA) 37.8 51.6 Workplace Zone/commercial data Zone 11010 (all of 11111 (part of E33021424) 11055 (part of E33018751) 25050 (all of E33018789) E33018739) Jobs in WPZ (Census 2011) 467 258 1624 2208 Car Driver Destinations (24hr) 251 126 888 1231 in WPZ (Census 2011) Commercial Addresses in Zone 52 0 (of 16 in WPZ) 3 (of 25 in WPZ) 62 (AddressBase) AM HBW Destinations in Zone 54.6 0.4 (of 34.1 in all model zones 9.1 (of 200.6 in all model zones 320.9 (Car Driver) in WPZ) in WPZ) AM Destinations Zone (Car Driver) 109.3 1.4 (of 66.3 in all model zones in WPZ) 10.3 (of 312.1 in all model zones in WPZ) 394.1

Appendix H FURTHER INFORMATION ON JOURNEY TIME DATA

Journey Analysis 2 1a 1a g 1a AM Wednesday 30/05/2012 08:19 Sunny 775 1741 2516 1a AM Thursday 17/05/2012 08:26 Cloudy, Dry 899 1720 2619 1a AM Tuesday 29/05/2012 07:40 Sunny 923 1279 2202 1a AM Friday 25/05/2012 07:50 Sunny 954 625 1579 1a AM Friday 15/06/2012 08:10 Sunny 783 1314 2097 1a AM Wednesday 20/06/2012 08:46 Sunny 900 769 1669 Mean n = 6 872 1241 2114 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 75 467 426 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 932 1615 2455 1a g 1a IP Thursday 03/05/2012 15:06 Rain 882 1103 1985 1a IP Thursday 17/05/2012 14:27 Cloudy 966 432 1398 1a IP Wednesday 16/05/2012 14:35 Cloudy 985 378 1363 1a IP Wednesday 16/05/2012 13:45 oudy, Sunn 971 229 1200 1a IP Tuesday 22/05/2012 14:15 Sunny 1050 180 1230 1a IP Monday 11/06/2012 14:10 Rain 862 330 1192 1a IP Thursday 24/05/2012 13:50 Sunny 903 279 1182 Mean n = 7 946 419 1364 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 66 314 287 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 995 651 1577 95% confidence interval, (lower limit) 896 186 1152 1a g 1a PM Thursday 26/04/2012 16:49 Sunny 977 584 1561 1a PM Thursday 26/04/2012 16:00 Sunny 1070 316 1386 1a PM Thursday 26/04/2012 17:56 Cloudy 948 197 1145 1a PM Thursday 17/05/2012 16:55 Cloudy 952 712 1664 1a PM Thursday 31/05/2012 16:26 Cloudy 809 1093 1902 1a PM Thursday 21/06/2012 16:30 Rain 925 447 1372 1a PM Thursday 28/06/2012 16:50 Sunny 1012 516 1528 1a PM Thursday 31/05/2012 17:34 Cloudy 845 1090 1935 Mean n = 8 942 619 1562 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 85 331 269 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 1001 849 1748 95% confidence interval, (lower limit) 884 390 1375

Journey Analysis 2 1b 1b g 1b AM Wednesday 30/05/2012 09:02 Cloudy 897 602 1499 1b AM Wednesday 30/05/2012 07:30 Sunny 1018 302 1320 1b AM Thursday 17/05/2012 07:56 Rain 958 339 1297 1b AM Tuesday 29/05/2012 08:30 Sunny 1078 355 1433 1b AM Tuesday 22/05/2012 08:20 Sunny 1103 211 1314 1b AM Tuesday 12/06/2012 08:34 Overcast 982 512 1494 1b AM Monday 18/06/2012 08:45 Sunny, Rain 972 262 1234 1b AM Tuesday 12/06/2012 07:55 Overcast 894 1083 1977 Mean n = 8 988 458 1446 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 76 284 235 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 1040 655 1609 1b g 1b IP Thursday 03/05/2012 14:38 Rain 1058 484 1542 1b IP Thursday 17/05/2012 14:51 Cloudy 1011 609 1620 1b IP Wednesday 16/05/2012 15:00 Cloudy 1015 384 1399 1b IP Wednesday 16/05/2012 14:15 oudy, Sunn 1026 213 1239 1b IP Thursday 26/04/2012 15:14 Cloudy 1013 662 1675 1b IP Tuesday 22/05/2012 14:38 Sunny 1032 442 1474 Mean n = 6 1026 466 1492 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 18 162 158 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 1040 595 1618 95% confidence interval, (lower limit) 1012 336 1365 1b g 1b PM Thursday 26/04/2012 16:20 Sunny 998 615 1613 1b PM Thursday 17/05/2012 16:10 Rain, Wet 912 530 1442 1b PM Thursday 26/04/2012 17:17 Cloudy 969 1170 2139 1b PM Thursday 31/05/2012 16:59 Cloudy 1052 750 1802 1b PM Tuesday 19/06/2012 17:10 Overcast 925 793 1718 1b PM Thursday 21/06/2012 16:50 Rain 890 666 1556 1b PM Thursday 28/06/2012 16:20 Sunny 986 719 1705 Mean n = 7 962 749 1711 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 56 205 223 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 1003 901 1876 95% confidence interval, (lower limit) 920 597 1546

Journey Analysis 2 2a 2a g 2a AM Wednesday 02/05/2012 09:15 Overcast 1064 442 1506 2a AM Wednesday 02/05/2012 08:12 Overcast 1138 497 1635 2a AM Thursday 31/05/2012 08:22 Cloudy 969 923 1892 2a AM Tuesday 12/06/2012 09:10 Overcast 960 373 1333 2a AM Wednesday 20/06/2012 07:45 Sunny 907 373 1280 2a AM Friday 22/06/2012 07:45 Rain 892 341 1233 Mean n = 6 988 492 1480 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 95 219 252 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 1064 667 1681 2a g 2a IP Tuesday 01/05/2012 14:49 Cloudy, We 1152 388 1540 2a IP Thursday 26/04/2012 12:37 Cloudy 1110 346 1456 2a IP Thursday 26/04/2012 11:33 Cloudy 1244 224 1468 2a IP Tuesday 15/05/2012 14:10 udy, Light R 1021 640 1661 2a IP Tuesday 15/05/2012 15:10 Rain 1099 558 1657 2a IP Friday 25/05/2012 10:45 Sunny 997 355 1352 Mean n = 6 1104 419 1522 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 90 153 122 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 1176 541 1620 95% confidence interval, (lower limit) 1032 296 1425 2a g 2a PM Tuesday 01/05/2012 16:01 Rain 963 646 1609 2a PM Tuesday 01/05/2012 18:01 Rain 1119 262 1381 2a PM Tuesday 01/05/2012 17:06 Rain 1100 560 1660 2a PM Wednesday 30/05/2012 16:29 Cloudy 1032 661 1693 2a PM Wednesday 30/05/2012 17:36 Cloudy 1003 609 1612 2a PM Tuesday 19/06/2012 16:10 Overcast 1025 394 1419 Mean n = 6 1040 522 1562 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 59 160 130 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 1088 650 1666 95% confidence interval, (lower limit) 993 394 1458

Journey Analysis 2 2b 2b g 2b AM Wednesday 02/05/2012 08:39 Overcast 1095 1101 2196 2b AM Wednesday 02/05/2012 07:41 Cloudy 1056 254 1310 2b AM Thursday 31/05/2012 08:54 Cloudy 948 685 1633 2b AM Thursday 31/05/2012 00:00 Cloudy 1074 309 1383 2b AM Wednesday 20/06/2012 08:10 Sunny 964 649 1613 2b AM Friday 22/06/2012 08:10 Rain 974 593 1567 Mean n = 6 1019 599 1617 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 64 305 312 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 1069 843 1867 2b g 2b IP Tuesday 01/05/2012 15:16 Cloudy, We 1101 383 1484 2b IP Tuesday 15/05/2012 15:30 Cloudy 985 947 1932 2b IP Thursday 26/04/2012 12:10 Cloudy 1109 327 1436 2b IP Tuesday 15/05/2012 14:40 1104 338 1442 2b IP Friday 25/05/2012 11:05 Sunny 1038 733 1771 2b IP Wednesday 13/06/2012 13:45 Overcast 940 375 1315 2b IP Thursday 31/05/2012 15:05 Rain 899 1277 2176 2b IP Thursday 24/05/2012 13:30 Sunny 1005 450 1455 Mean n = 8 1023 604 1626 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 80 350 301 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 1078 847 1835 95% confidence interval, (lower limit) 967 361 1418 2b g 2b PM Tuesday 01/05/2012 16:38 Rain 999 668 1667 2b PM Tuesday 01/05/2012 17:33 Cloudy, We 1001 631 1632 2b PM Wednesday 30/05/2012 16:03 Sunny 962 594 1556 2b PM Wednesday 30/05/2012 17:00 Cloudy 938 1179 2117 2b PM Tuesday 19/06/2012 16:30 Overcast 993 537 1530 2b PM Tuesday 19/06/2012 17:40 Overcast 919 1083 2002 Mean n = 6 969 782 1751 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 35 275 247 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 996 1002 1948 95% confidence interval, (lower limit) 941 562 1553

Journey Analysis 2 3a 3a g 3a AM Wednesday 16/05/2012 08:25 Sunny 837 713 1550 3a AM Wednesday 25/04/2012 08:54 Rain 675 1244 1919 3a AM Wednesday 16/05/2012 09:08 Sunny 702 566 1268 3a AM Wednesday 16/05/2012 07:35 Sunny 734 250 984 3a AM Friday 18/05/2012 07:35 Overcast 716 252 968 3a AM Thursday 17/05/2012 08:10 Overcast 759 758 1517 Mean n = 6 737 631 1368 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 57 372 368 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 782 928 1662 3a g 3a IP Thursday 03/05/2012 12:17 Overcast 751 349 1100 3a IP Tuesday 15/05/2012 14:47 Cloudy 735 421 1156 3a IP Thursday 03/05/2012 11:35 Overcast 780 192 972 3a IP Tuesday 15/05/2012 15:32 Sunny 789 471 1260 3a IP Tuesday 15/05/2012 14:10 Wet 748 263 1011 3a IP Tuesday 24/04/2012 14:28 Cloudy 794 227 1021 Mean n = 6 766 321 1087 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 25 111 108 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 786 410 1173 95% confidence interval, (lower limit) 747 231 1000 3a g 3a PM Thursday 03/05/2012 17:28 vercast, W 696 578 1274 3a PM Thursday 03/05/2012 16:33 Rain 671 585 1256 3a PM Tuesday 24/04/2012 16:53 Rain 773 322 1095 3a PM Tuesday 29/05/2012 16:28 oudy, Sunn 654 518 1172 3a PM Tuesday 29/05/2012 17:23 oudy, Sunn 691 443 1134 3a PM Tuesday 29/05/2012 18:02 Sunny 674 255 929 Mean n = 6 693 450 1143 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 42 137 126 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 727 560 1244 95% confidence interval, (lower limit) 660 341 1043

Journey Analysis 2 3b 3b g 3b AM Wednesday 16/05/2012 08:45 Sunny 845 535 1380 3b AM Wednesday 25/04/2012 08:20 Rain 760 1305 2065 3b AM Wednesday 16/05/2012 09:30 Sunny 765 330 1095 3b AM Wednesday 16/05/2012 09:00 Sunny 899 523 1422 3b AM Thursday 17/05/2012 07:51 Overcast 772 263 1035 3b AM Thursday 17/05/2012 08:35 Overcast 930 765 1695 Mean n = 6 829 620 1449 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 74 379 385 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 888 923 1757 3b g 3b IP Thursday 03/05/2012 11:52 Overcast 837 580 1417 3b IP Tuesday 15/05/2012 15:06 Cloudy, We 795 673 1468 3b IP Thursday 03/05/2012 12:35 Overcast 858 697 1555 3b IP Tuesday 15/05/2012 15:52 Cloudy 677 882 1559 3b IP Tuesday 15/05/2012 14:26 Sunny 715 480 1195 3b IP Tuesday 24/04/2012 14:05 Cloudy 782 546 1328 Mean n = 6 777 643 1420 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 70 142 141 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 833 757 1533 95% confidence interval, (lower limit) 721 529 1308 3b g 3b PM Thursday 03/05/2012 16:54 Rain 612 1403 2015 3b PM Thursday 03/05/2012 16:10 Rain 744 504 1248 3b PM Tuesday 24/04/2012 16:25 Cloudy 824 722 1546 3b PM Tuesday 29/05/2012 16:08 oudy, Sunn 667 681 1348 3b PM Tuesday 29/05/2012 16:49 oudy, Sunn 665 1224 1889 3b PM Tuesday 29/05/2012 17:43 oudy, Sunn 719 454 1173 Mean n = 6 705 831 1537 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 74 391 348 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 765 1144 1815 95% confidence interval, (lower limit) 646 518 1258

Journey Analysis 2 4a 4a g 4a AM Thursday 17/05/2012 08:41 Overcast 998 612 1610 4a AM Thursday 31/05/2012 09:08 Overcast 956 428 1384 4a AM Thursday 31/05/2012 08:05 Rain 1014 679 1693 4a AM Friday 01/06/2012 09:00 Light Rain 1007 507 1514 4a AM Thursday 17/05/2012 07:50 Rain 916 523 1439 4a AM Thursday 14/06/2012 08:00 Overcast 962 610 1572 Mean n = 6 976 560 1535 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 38 91 114 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 1006 632 1626 4a g 4a IP Thursday 17/05/2012 10:55 Sunny 973 347 1320 4a IP Tuesday 24/04/2012 15:30 Cloudy 962 228 1190 4a IP Wednesday 16/05/2012 Sunny 999 440 1439 4a IP Tuesday 24/04/2012 11:31 Cloudy 991 311 1302 4a IP Thursday 17/05/2012 11:16 Overcast 974 354 1328 4a IP Thursday 17/05/2012 12:00 Overcast 891 324 1215 Mean n = 6 965 334 1299 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 39 69 89 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 996 389 1370 95% confidence interval, (lower limit) 934 279 1228 4a g 4a PM Tuesday 24/04/2012 17:01 Cloudy, We 900 1505 2405 4a PM Tuesday 29/05/2012 16:25 unny, Cloud 992 447 1439 4a PM Tuesday 29/05/2012 17:20 oudy, Sunn 937 639 1576 4a PM Unknown Unknown 00:00 Unknown 792 643 1435 4a PM Monday 21/05/2012 16:30 Sunny 931 269 1200 4a PM Monday 11/06/2012 16:15 Rain 977 874 1851 Mean n = 6 922 730 1651 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 72 431 426 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 979 1075 1992 95% confidence interval, (lower limit) 864 384 1310

Journey Analysis 2 4b 4b g 4b AM Wednesday 25/04/2012 08:00 Rain 1010 307 1317 4b AM Thursday 31/05/2012 08:20 Overcast 904 1180 2084 4b AM Thursday 17/05/2012 08:20 Light Rain 1030 477 1507 4b AM Thursday 14/06/2012 08:30 Overcast 896 919 1815 4b AM Friday 22/06/2012 09:05 Rain 849 133 982 4b AM Friday 29/06/2012 07:50 Overcast 890 288 1178 Mean n = 6 930 551 1481 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 73 410 411 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 988 879 1809 4b g 4b IP Friday 18/05/2012 14:00 unny, Clou 900 276 1176 4b IP Wednesday 16/05/2012 14:23 Sunny 972 187 1159 4b IP Friday 25/05/2012 14:20 Sunny 930 690 1620 4b IP Tuesday 24/04/2012 15:11 Cloudy, Rai 976 196 1172 4b IP Thursday 17/05/2012 11:40 Overcast 893 367 1260 4b IP Thursday 17/05/2012 11:16 unny, Cloud 852 278 1130 4b IP Friday 18/05/2012 14:35 Cloudy 944 523 1467 Mean n = 7 924 360 1283 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 45 185 187 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 957 497 1422 95% confidence interval, (lower limit) 891 222 1145 4b g 4b PM Thursday 24/05/2012 16:00 Rain 1039 563 1602 4b PM Tuesday 29/05/2012 16:45 oudy, Sunn 872 542 1414 4b PM Monday 21/05/2012 16:50 Sunny 980 326 1306 4b PM Thursday 28/06/2012 17:20 Sunny 922 503 1425 4b PM Wednesday 04/07/2012 16:25 ain, Overca 944 469 1413 4b PM Wednesday 04/07/2012 17:30 Overcast 918 667 1585 Mean n = 6 946 512 1458 Standard Deviation (sn-1) 58 113 114 95% confidence interval, (upper limit) 992 602 1549 95% confidence interval, (lower limit) 900 421 1366