Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals
June 2009
QM
Issue/revision
Issue 1
Revision 1
Revision 2
Remarks
Draft
Draft
Final Issue
Date
20 November 2008
13 January 2009
18 June 2009
Prepared by
Matt Grantham
Matt Grantham
Matt Grantham
Signature
Matt Grantham
Matt Grantham
Matt Grantham
Checked by
Rhod MacLeod
Rhod MacLeod
Rhod MacLeod
Signature
Rhod MacLeod
Rhod MacLeod
Rhod MacLeod
Authorised by
Rhod MacLeod
Rhod MacLeod
Rhod MacLeod
Signature
Rhod Macleod
Rhod Macleod
Rhod Macleod
Project number
24540305
24540305
24540305
File reference
J:\Brighton
J:\Brighton
J:\Brighton
3Ts\TEXT\REPOR
3Ts\TEXT\REPOR
3Ts\TEXT\REPO
TS\Access
TS\Access
RTS\Access
Assessment\2009-
Assessment\2009-
Assessment\200
06-18 Access
06-18 Access
9-06-18 Access
Assessment.doc
Assessment.doc
Assessment.doc
WSP Development and Transportation
Regus House
Southampton International Business Park
George Curl Way
Southampton
SO18 2RZ
Tel: +44 (0)23 8030 2000
Fax: +44 (0)23 8030 2001
http://www.wspgroup.com
Reg. No: 1383511
Revision 3
Contents
!
"
"
1
#
Introduction
$%
&'(
1.1.1
WSP Development and Transportation have been appointed by Brighton and
Sussex University Hospitals to prepare transport advice in regard to the proposals to
redevelop part of the existing Royal Sussex County Hospital at Eastern Road Brighton.
The Trust intends to create a ‘Regional Centre for Teaching, Trauma & Tertiary Care’,
known as the 3T’s project.
Photo 1: View of the site from the south
1.1.2
This report considers transportation issues in relation to the access points
required by vehicles of all types wishing to access the site, in particular the sustainable
modes of bus, pedestrian and cycle.
1.1.3
In addition, it outlines the effects that this may have on influencing the design
decisions in regard to the proposed multi-storey (indicative capacity 280 vehicles) which
under the development proposals is to be located beneath what is currently know as the
Jubilee Block and the Latilla Building.
1.1.4
Outlined in the report will be the potential requirements for access, along with
potential options in regard to the designing in of these access points into the proposed
building structure itself.
24540305
1
2
#
Access Requirements
)&)
'
*+
+))
+,&
+- +' )
2.1.1
One of the main transport requirements for the development is the need for
access to the site via sustainable modes. These modes, which should be served by the
primary access point to the front of the proposed new-build include:
Buses;
Cycles; and
Pedestrians.
2.1.2
Due to the nature of a hospital, the primary access points should be easily
accessed for short stay (10 minutes max?) patient pick-up / drop-off options including:
Hospital car service;
Taxi’s; and
Family members.
2.1.3
In addition, with this area expected to have a high level of pedestrian activity,
all other vehicle movements should be restricted as far as possible from this frontal area.
2.1.4
Similarly, it would be proposed that pedestrian routes around the internal site
should be kept separate from vehicle routes where possible. This can be achieved via
raised covered walkways being built into the new building design whereby pedestrian
travel can be achieved without the need to cross internal roads.
2.1.5
There are examples of this already on site, such as the existing walkway
between the Royal Alexandra Children’s Hospital and the Sussex Kidney Unit.
#
)+ .
+ /(+* .+ 0 .+1
*+)
2.2.1
Again largely due to pedestrian activity, it is proposed that the existing service
road through the centre of the site is retained, although it should be upgraded as
outlined in Section 4 of this report.
2.2.2
This service road provides an ideal access to the hospital buildings, out of sight
of the general public and conversely away from their cross-site movements (assuming
covered walkways are provided).
2.2.3
In addition, they also act as an easy and centralised route for emergency
vehicles such as fire tenders, which if required, will enable direct access to the rear
areas of the building.
#
- &* 2)
+0
3
$ '%
2.3.1
It is proposed within the development plans that an additional 280 vehicle
parking spaces (approximately) should be provided on site for staff, patients and visitors.
2.3.2
Due to the additional traffic flow movements that would be expected to
accompany such a facility, it would be recommended that the access and egress points
for this element of the development proposals be kept away from the frontal point of the
new building. The reasons for this are:
Additional flows would cause conflict with the large numbers of pedestrians utilising /
crossing Eastern Road; and
24540305
2
It is anticipated that some queuing would arise at the entry points of the multi-storey,
as is the case with the existing on site multi-storey car parking facility. These queues
could block free flowing traffic in the locality and so be an unacceptable option to the
local highway authority if they were not held within the site.
Example of on-site queuing for
Example of existing pedestrian
existing multi-storey car parking.
walkway facilities on site.
2.3.3
Options for access to the multi-storey car parking facility are discussed in
Section 4 of this report.
24540305
3
3
#
Other Considerations
3(
')3
)0) +- 4
)5
3.1.1
Outlined in the Brighton and Hove City Council Local Transport Plan (Chapter
11), are aspirations to develop an RTS linking different areas of Brighton with a fast and
efficient transportation system.
3.1.2
Similar to a Tram, the RTS would use multi-carriage vehicles, along a route
which includes Eastern Road with a stop(s) adjacent to the hospital site. The
infrastructure requirements will almost certainly mean that whilst bus and cycle access
along eastern Road remains, general vehicle access will be restricted and in particular,
access points to a car parking facility direct from Eastern Road will be in conflict with this
scenario.
3.1.3
As such, in regard to the Brighton 3T’s proposals, any access points should be
designed with this in mind.
#
&)
'*0
3.2.1
As outlined above, it would be expected that bus routes would be unaffected by
the RTS plans, and as such should be considered within the proposals.
3.2.2
Accordingly, in order to both enhance passenger trips and keep the highway
clear in the vicinity of the hospital, for inter alia the RTS, it is suggested that a facility is
provided which enables buses to ‘pull-in’ to the hospital site where passengers can
depart/embark the bus under cover and in close proximity to the facility.
3.2.3
#
Options in Section 4 discuss these facilities further.
0 *+ * '+)
3.3.1
As with the bus, cycles are unlikely to be prohibited from utilising Eastern Road
in a future ‘with RTS’ scenario. As such, an area within the new build frontage, adjacent
to the covered bus stop area would provide an ideal area for the provision of a secure
and undercover cycle parking area.
24540305
4
4
Options
#
))&+) "
') (+
'
4.1.1
As outlined in previous sections of the report, the primary objectives to consider
when designing the access routes into the site are:
Main access point (frontage) should facilitate:
-
Buses;
-
Taxi’s;
-
Family Drop-off / pick-up;
-
Hospital car service;
-
Cycles; and
-
Pedestrians.
The main access point will not facilitate:
-
Access to the multi-storey car park for patients or staff;
-
Facilities for delivery / service vehicles; and
-
Access into site for Emergency vehicles (remains off Bristol Gate).
Furthermore, consideration should be given to:
-
The BHCC aspirations of a Rapid Transport System; and
-
Pedestrian access throughout the site.
4.1.2
With these considerations in mind, the following options have evolved. Whilst
both facilitate access for sustainable modes (as outlined below) the desire to remove
additional vehicle traffic from the new buildings frontal area is a key issue. The need to
accommodate them may influence the decision to retain or remove the Sussex Cancer
Centre and the Barry Building, one of which should be removed to provide the optimum
access for parking away from the frontal area of Eastern Road.
#
3
'
3 +"+
+(
3
'
4.2.1
Option 1 is the optimum option providing the best access for the site, which
involves removal and replacement of the Sussex Cancer Centre. If this were to take
place, then, as shown in Figure 1, it would facilitate the:
Retention and widening of the existing central service road to facilitate its ‘double
role’ as both service route for the existing hospital buildings to the north and the new
build to the south of this route along with and access to the car parking facility; and
the
Creation of a car park egress point to the east of the facility, exiting onto Bristol Gate.
4.2.2
By widening the service road in order to facilitate the dual role of service
vehicle access and car park access, it will ensure that any resultant queues, as
experienced at the existing car park facility, will be kept clear of the highway.
24540305
5
4.2.3
By progressing with this option, it will enable the removal of additional vehicle
traffic at the front of the new hospital, so making it more desirable for the sustainable
travel modes of walking and cycling in particular.
4.2.4
In addition to these measures, whilst not dependant on the removal of the
existing Sussex Cancer Centre, Option 1 outlines the following additional requirements:
Formalisation of a delivery bay to the rear of the new building, to be of sufficient
length to accommodate expected delivery vehicle numbers without obstructing the
service road itself;
Provision of an off-road and undercover drop-off / pick-up zone to accommodate
buses, along with short stay parking (10 minutes max?) at the frontage of the building
with elevator provision to the main reception of level 3; and
An above ground enclosed walkway(s) connecting the new building with the existing
buildings on site, at level 3, eradicating vehicle/pedestrian conflict within the site. It
should be noted that consideration is required to ensure the walkway is at sufficient
height to allow high level vehicles to pass under it.
#
3
'
)+
'(
0
3
'
4.3.1
Option 2 again takes into consideration the need to remove additional traffic
flow from the front of the new building on Eastern Road.
4.3.2
Whilst it considers the same elements as Option 1 in considering the best
access options for the site, it involves the removal and replacement of the Barry
Building.
4.3.3
This is seen as the secondary option, as it would only be viable if the car
parking facility under the proposed multi-storey building site extended under the existing
footprint of the Barry Building. If it were not, then a relatively long tunnel under the site
24540305
6
would be required to reach the egress point on Upper Abbey Road. This could be
considered an unnecessary expense.
4.3.4
However, if this were to take place, then, as shown in Figure 2, it would
facilitate the:
Retention and widening of the existing central service road to facilitate its ‘double
role’ as both service route and access to the car parking facility; and the
Creation of a car park egress point to the west of the facility, exiting onto Upper
Abbey Road.
4.3.5
Similarly to Option 1, by widening the service road in order to facilitate the dual
role of service vehicle access and car park access, it will ensure that any resultant
queues, as experienced at the existing car park facility, will be kept clear of the highway.
4.3.6
Furthermore, again as in Option 1, in addition to these measures, whilst not
dependant on the removal of the existing Barry Building, Option 2 outlines the following
additional requirements and essential elements to be considered:
Formalisation of a delivery bay to the rear of the new building, to be of sufficient
length to accommodate expected delivery vehicle numbers without obstructing the
service road itself;
Provision of an off-road and undercover drop-off / pick-up zone to accommodate
buses, along with short stay parking (10 minutes max?) at the frontage of the building
with elevator provision to the main reception of level 3; and
An above ground enclosed walkway(s) connecting the new building with the existing
buildings on site, at level 3, eradicating vehicle/pedestrian conflict within the site. It
should be noted that consideration is required to ensure the walkway is at sufficient
height to allow high level vehicles to pass under it.
24540305
7
4.3.7
In addition, this option will also require the reversal of the existing cross-site
one-way system, though this is not seen as an issue.
24540305
8
5
#
Recommendations and Conclusion
+
- - +'(
')
5.1.1
Whilst this report has outlined two options, with preferred and secondary
scenarios, these are largely dependent on decisions to be made in regard to the
retention of the Sussex Cancer Centre and the Barry Building; though the access
arrangements may influence this decision.
5.1.2
However, in regard to recommendations to be made regardless of this, the
following primary requirements would be outlined:
Access to the multi-storey car park should not be from Eastern Road;
The internal service road should be retained;
A formalised service vehicle / delivery bay should be provided;
An undercover off-road bus / taxi / hospital car service / family pick-up and drop-off
facility should be provided at the frontage off Eastern Road should be provided with
elevators taking users up to the main reception at level 3;
Above ground undercover walkways between buildings (level 3) should be
incorporated into the design to remove on-site vehicle / pedestrian conflict.
#
' *&)
'
5.2.1
The primary considerations in regard to access to the new hospital building are
that of safety, convenience, attractiveness and sustainability. To this end, as outlined
above, it is considered necessary to provide facilities at the front of the hospital that
enable in particular easy pedestrian, cycle and public transport access.
5.2.2
In order to achieve this, vehicle traffic needs to be kept to a minimum, and
certainly not increased as would be the case if access and egress points to the proposed
280 space multi-storey car park were to be provided from Eastern Road.
5.2.3
As such, Options 1 and 2 have outlined the need for the following access
elements which it is believed should be included within the site design:
Formalisation of a delivery bay to the rear of the new building, to be of sufficient
length to accommodate expected delivery vehicle numbers without obstructing the
service road itself;
Provision of an off-road and undercover drop-off / pick-up zone to accommodate
buses, along with short stay parking (10 minutes max?) at the frontage of the building
with elevator provision to the main reception of level 3; and
An above ground enclosed walkway(s) connecting the new building with the existing
buildings on site, at level 3, eradicating vehicle/pedestrian conflict within the site. It
should be noted that consideration is required to ensure the walkway is at sufficient
height to allow high level vehicles to pass under it.
5.2.4
In addition, both options have promoted the need to provide access into the
multi-story car parking area away from Eastern Road accordingly. This is due to the
desire to remove pedestrian vehicle conflict and also take into account the BHCC desire
for the provision of a Rapid Transport System which would utilise Eastern Road and so
likely restrict vehicle movement.
5.2.5
Whilst both options require the removal of buildings, either the Sussex Cancer
Centre to the east or the Barry Building to the west, the eastern access option is
24540305
9
preferred due to its shorter egress movement requirement from the new building to the
highway.
5.2.6
This however has been considered on the assumption that the multi-storey car
parking facility will remain under the Jubilee Block / Latilla Block footprint only. If it were
to extend further west, under what is currently the Barry Building, then the appraisal of
preferred options could subsequently be altered.
24540305
10
Appendices, Figures & Tables
Figure 1 – Option 1
24540305
Key
Block 1A & 1B
bb
ey
Ro
ad
Block 2
Up
pe
rA
Block 3
Block 4
Block 5
Above Ground
Walkway Connection
Car Park Access
Widen Service Road
To Allow Car Park Access
Bus/ Taxis/ Vehicle
Drop-off/ Pick-up
Zone
Bri
Service Vehicle
Delivery Bay
sto
lG
ate
Service Access Route
Car Park Out
Eastern Road
Undercover Drop-off/ Pick-up
Within Building Footing
TITLE:
Brighton 3T’s
Option 1
FIGURE No:
1
Figure 2 – Option 2
24540305
Key
Block 1A & 1B
Block 2
Block 3
Block 4
Block 5
Above Ground
Walkway Connection
Egress For Car Park If It
Extends Under Barry
Building
Service Access Route
Access To Car Park
If It Extends Under
Barry Building
Service Vehicle
Delivery Bay
Bus/ Taxis/ Vehicle
Drop-off/ Pick-up
Zone
Undercover Drop-off/ Pick-up
Within Building Footing
TITLE:
Brighton 3T’s
Option 2
FIGURE No:
2
24540305