Army and Navy Sustainable Transport Package

During the various stages of the option assessment process, we have ruled out lower performing junction options to focus our efforts on those that would make a real difference. It would not have been appropriate to include any of the other options in the consultation because they do not perform well enough to be considered as a preferred option and taken forward.

The remaining junction options (Hamburger Roundabout and Separate T-Junctions), together with the other measures proposed as part of the Army and Navy

Sustainable Transport Package, offer the best opportunity to provide a long-term and sustainable solution which would improve journeys for everyone.

Our option assessment is based on the current situation at the junction and, therefore, after the former flyover was closed (and subsequently removed). This is standard practice as there is a need to ensure the current situation is reflected in line with the Department for Transport’s transport appraisal process, which must be followed in order to stand the best chance of a successful business case and securing funding. The assessment statistics contained within our consultation materials are therefore based on comparisons with the current situation.

No U-turns would be possible at the junction with the Separate T-Junctions option and drivers wanting to travel in that direction would therefore have to use alternative routes, for example via Van Diemans Road or Chelmer Road.

No direct turns could be made from Baddow Road to Essex Yeomanry Way or Chelmer Road and from Van Diemans Road to Baddow Road. These movements could not be safely catered for within the design of the option. The movements would instead be made by using alternative routes, such as performing a U-turn at the Odeon roundabout.

No, based on the latest designs for both the Hamburger Roundabout and Separate T-Junctions options, we do not need to acquire any residential properties.

The existing left-turn slip road was constructed as a planning condition ahead of the opening of the Aldi store. It was not possible to retain the slip road within the Hamburger Roundabout option design while also providing segregated pedestrian and cyclist crossings that comply with the latest Department for Transport guidance.

The slip road could not be retained as part of the Separate T-Junctions design because the option involves a total redesign of the area to create two completely new junctions, with the new junction between Parkway and Chelmer Road a significant distance from where the two roads currently join.

New bus lanes and bus priority measures would be added in both directions on Parkway and existing measures would be maintained on Essex Yeomanry Way and into the junction as part of both junction options, giving buses priority over general traffic. Two lanes are maintained for general traffic on Parkway as part of both options.

The eastbound bus lane in the Hamburger Roundabout option ends with a bus gate just prior to the Aldi/B&M turning, while the bus lane in the Separate T-Junctions option continues close to the first of the two new T-Junctions.

We have not yet determined which additional vehicles would be able to use the proposed bus lanes.

There are no perfect solutions and no scheme would remove all queuing and delays at the junction, but we now have two options which offer the best balance for all transport users, including improved average journey times for private vehicles.

Rather than give a false impression of what the options could achieve, we wanted the visualisations to give people a realistic idea of the journeys they would experience at the junction. We used estimated future traffic levels at morning and evening peak times in the visualisations, so they represent traffic at its highest levels.

We have tried our best to create high quality visualisations that provide a realistic impression of the two junction options. In order to achieve this, we used traffic modelling data and software to replicate predicted vehicle numbers, flows and movements, and then combined this with animation software to bring the options to life. The traffic modelling software deliberately attempts to replicate poor driver behaviour, such as late or incorrect lane changes. Unfortunately, due to software constraints and compatibility, this is not something we could always rectify.

As outlined above, we used a combination of traffic modelling and animation software to create the visualisations in order to provide a realistic impression of the two options. Although lorries and other heavy goods vehicles are included within our traffic modelling, due to some limitations and compatibility issues with the software, it was not possible to include these vehicles within the visualisations.

The decision was taken to rule out the Enlarged Roundabout ahead of public consultation because it would not meet the project objectives as well as the other two options. When accompanied by enhanced walking and cycling facilities at the junction, it would not sufficiently improve the junction for motorised vehicles and would be unlikely to secure funding. On the basis it would not be taken forward as a preferred option, it would have been misleading and inappropriate to include the option in the consultation.

Design standards have changed significantly since the previous Army and Navy flyover was first built in 1978. A modern standard two-way flyover would therefore be much bigger than the previous flyover and would take up considerably more space. It would be the worst option for increasing city centre traffic and congestion and would not supporting the Park and Ride or walking and cycling aspirations of our adopted Chelmsford Future Transport Network Strategy as well when compared with the other options. The flyover would also have the largest noise impact and the longest and most disruptive construction programme, which would have the biggest impact on the local economy.

A new one-way flyover was considered earlier in the project but was discounted because it would take up almost as much road space as a two-way flyover and have a similar cost but would provide fewer benefits. Notably, traffic travelling out of the city during the morning peak would need to merge lanes which would cause delays and a potential safety issue. This would also cause additional delays on other approaches to the junction such as Chelmer Road.

Ultimately we want the Army and Navy Sustainable Transport Package to improve journeys for all transport users, including pedestrians, cyclists, bus passengers and drivers. While that does include reducing congestion and delays for vehicles, the project is a very difficult balancing act and we must be mindful about the impacts of the options on walking, cycling and Park and Ride usage, as well as the potential for causing increased congestion and delays elsewhere in the city centre, notably at the Odeon roundabout, by letting too much traffic through the junction. The Chelmsford Future Transport Network Strategy sets out a clear vision to transform transport in Chelmsford through a zonal approach, with a strong focus on walking, cycling and bus travel, particularly towards the city centre, and it is crucial that the Army and Navy project aligns with that vision and strategy.

An underpass or tunnel for vehicles was discounted very early in the project. Given the location of the flood plain and the underground utilities at the junction, the option would be very complex and expensive to construct and would offer no additional benefits than the two-way flyover. Like the flyover, it would also encourage more vehicle trips into the city centre, rather than supporting the Park and Ride, walking and cycling, which goes against our adopted Chelmsford Future Transport Network Strategy.