SCOTSWOOD BRIDGEHEAD JUNCTION BUSINESS CASE
FEBRUARY 2016
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Prepared by: ...... Checked by: ...... Rachael Blackett Gemma Paget Senior Consultant Principal Consultant
Approved by: ...... Gary Macdonald Regional Director
Rev Comments Checked by Approved by Date No 0.1 Draft G Paget G. Macdonald 23.11.15 1 To reflect client comments G Paget G. Macdonald 16.12.15 2 To reflect staged approach G Paget G. Macdonald 14.03.16
First Floor, One Trinity Gardens, Quayside, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 2HF Telephone: 0191 224 6500
Website:http://www.aecom.com
Job No 60340295 Reference Date Created 17 March 2016
This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited for the sole use of our client (the “Client”) and in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM Limited and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM Limited, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM Limited. f:\projects\transport planning - nepo framework\lot 1 tpa\m019 scotswood bridgehead\execution\working folder\business case\report\three phase structure\scotswoodbridgehead_businesscase 150216.docx
i AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
CONTENTS
Executive Summary
1. Introduction ...... 2 1.1. Study Overview ...... 2 1.2. Site and Location ...... 2 1.3. Background to Study...... 3 1.4. Document Structure ...... 4 2. SCHEME DESCRIPTION ...... 6 2.1. Introduction ...... 6 2.2. Scheme Description ...... 6 2.3. Economic Appraisal ...... 7 2.4. Scheme Costs ...... 8 3. THE STRATEGIC CASE ...... 10 3.1. Introduction ...... 10 3.2. Key Partners ...... 10 3.3. Strategic Need ...... 12 3.4. Impact of no change ...... 35 3.5. Driver of Change – Local and Regional Policy Context ...... 37 3.6. Scheme Objectives ...... 41 3.7. Scheme Options ...... 41 3.8. Option Sifting ...... 49 3.9. Project Scope ...... 52 3.10. Interdependencies ...... 52 3.11. Constraints ...... 52 3.12. Stakeholders ...... 52 3.13. Measures of Success ...... 53 4. THE ECONOMIC CASE ...... 56 4.1. Introduction ...... 56 4.2. Economic Appraisal ...... 56 4.3. Traffic Modelling ...... 56 4.4. Traffic Model Results ...... 64 4.5. Costs ...... 66 4.6. Annualisation ...... 66 4.7. Economic Appraisal Inputs and Assumptions ...... 67 4.8. Value for Money Statement ...... 68 4.9. Sensitivity and Risk ...... 71 4.10. Assessment of Environmental Impacts ...... 71 4.11. Wider Economic Impacts ...... 71
ii AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
4.12. Social and Distributional Impacts ...... 72 4.13. Appraisal Summary Table ...... 73 5. THE FINANCIAL CASE ...... 79 5.1. Introduction ...... 79 5.2. Costs ...... 79 5.3. Inflation Assumptions ...... 79 5.4. Allowance for Risk ...... 80 5.5. Optimism Bias...... 80 5.6. Quantified Cost Estimate ...... 80 5.7. Ongoing Maintenance Costs ...... 80 5.8. Funding...... 81 5.9. Section 151 Officer Sign-Off ...... 81 6. THE COMMERCIAL CASE ...... 84 6.1. Introduction ...... 84 6.2. Output Based Specification ...... 84 6.3. Procurement Strategy ...... 85 6.4. Payment Mechanism ...... 85 6.5. Risk Allocation and Transfer ...... 85 6.6. Contract Length and Milestones ...... 86 6.7. Human Resources Issues ...... 86 6.8. Contract Management ...... 86 7. THE MANAGEMENT CASE ...... 88 7.1. Introduction ...... 88 7.2. Evidence of Similar Projects ...... 89 7.3. Project Dependencies ...... 90 7.4. Project Governance ...... 90 7.5. Roles and Responsibilities ...... 90 7.6. Project Plan ...... 94 7.7. Commutation and Stakeholder Management ...... 94 7.8. Risk Management ...... 94 7.9. Benefits, Monitoring and Evaluation ...... 96
iii AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Scheme Background Scotswood Bridge is located along one of the main corridors leading towards Newcastle City Centre and provides access to important employment sites to the north and the south of the River Tyne, such as Newcastle Business Park on Scotswood Road, and the Metro Centre in Gateshead. The local area is one where economic development and expansion is focused and the limitations of the transport network must not stifle potential growth. In order to reduce congestion and improve operation through the corridor, the following scheme, comprising three phases, is proposed:
1. UTC upgrades at all signals throughout the corridor (procurement of signals to be undertaken during phase 1a with implementation continuing as part of phase 1b) 2. Improvements at Denton Road Roundabout 3. Improvements at Scotswood Road Bridgehead and Reece junction
Strategic Need The corridor is currently congested, particularly at the bridgehead junction, and users experience long and unreliable journeys times. As the Scotswood Bridge to Scotswood Road East movement, does not travel through the at-grade roundabout, the Scotswood Road West to Scotswood Bridge movement is virtually unopposed apart from a small number of U-turners from the east. Consequently, in periods of heavy traffic flow, there are very few opportunities for vehicles on the Scotswood Road East arm of the junction to find a gap. The issue is further compounded by poor visibility of vehicles on the circulatory carriageway for vehicles waiting at the Scotswood Road East give-way line. As a result, the capacity of the Scotswood Road East arm is reduced and a queue forms along Scotswood Road. This issue is more prevalent in the PM period when the flows making the west to south movement at the junction are higher. A secondary issue arises with vehicles exiting Scotswood Bridge in the direction of Scotswood Road West; the majority of the traffic travels towards the A1 and Denton Road, and therefore needs to be in the outside lane on Scotswood Road West. The traffic diverging from Scotswood Bridge conflicts with traffic exiting the roundabout onto Scotswood Road West at the merge point. There are also similar conflicts observed at the merge on Scotswood Bridge, where the traffic flows from Scotswood Road East and Scotswood Road West merge. The transport problems in the local area are characteristic of ad hoc transport investment and development over the last 30 years. This is something which Newcastle City Council’s transport investment initiative, branded as Re-newcastle, seeks to rectify through a targeted approach to investment at key locations in the city; the Scotswood Road corridor is one such location. The Scotswood Road corridor is characterised by a poor socio-economic profile; encompassing some of the most deprived areas nationally in respect of IMD. The corridor is also a main route into Newcastle for public transport services from the west of the city; as such the scheme looks to promote public transport use.
Scheme Objectives Given the current political agenda, together with the characteristics of the area, the following scheme objectives have been identified:
To assist in the reduction of congestion that occurs at the Scotswood Bridgehead junction during the peak periods; To provide the conditions for more reliable journey times;
iv AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
To remove transport related barriers to development along the corridor; To increase the market share and competitiveness of public transport; To remove barriers to integration between travel modes and services; To improve the attractiveness of public transport, walking and cycling; To provide road safety benefits at the junction; and To address transport-related social exclusion.
Option Development Option development focused on the arrangements at the Scotswood Bridgehead junction, with more minor changes required to signals along the corridor, Denton Road Roundabout and the Reece junction. Option design work initially considered eight possible schemes for the Scotswood Bridgehead junction. The options were split into two strands; Strand 1 representing at-grade solutions and Strand 2 representing grade-separated solutions. Following option development, a defined assessment process to determine options suitable for further consideration was undertaken. This determined that the following schemes should be taken forward for further appraisal:
A ‘low cost’ concept providing improved capacity without significantly altering layout of the junction (Option 2A) An ‘intermediate option’ for drivers by removing the major conflict point between right turning traffic (Option 2C) A ‘maximum capacity’ option providing free flow movements (Option 2D)
Economic Case In order to understand the impacts of the preferred scheme, a TUBA assessment was carried out using time, distance and demand outputs from the Scotswood Road VISSIM model. Accidents were appraised qualitatively. The three phases of the scheme were appraised collectively, with the results of the TUBA assessment for the central scenario shown in the table below.
Benefits
Vehicle Travel Time Benefits 24,035 Vehicle Operating Cost Benefits 1,847 Wider Public Finances -730 Greenhouse gases 153 Total Benefits 25,306 Scheme Costs Investment Costs 5,133 Total Costs 5,133 Scheme Value Net Present Value 20,173 Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 4.9
The results show that the scheme delivers very high value for money.
v AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
The appraisal also considered the wider economic impacts of the scheme, as well as the social and distributional impacts, to enable the completion of the full AST.
Financial Case The scheme costs, in 2015 prices are as follows: ELEMENT PHASE 1 PHASE 2 AND 3 TOTAL COST 2015 Cost £ 544,500.00 £ 1,637,938.01 £ 2,182,438.01
Inflation £ - £ 62,280.58 £ 62,280.58
Risk £ - £ 1,967,676.18 £ 1,967,676.18
Total £ 544,500.00 £ 3,667,894.77 £ 4,212,394.77
The scheme costs show the cost of the scheme, highlighting the total scheme costs and costs of the initial delivery phase, Phase 1. The scheme will ultimately be delivered in three phases, as per the scheme elements. The North East LEP growth deal was awarded a total of £329.9 million funding in July 2014 and January 2015. £3.7 million of this has been allocated toward the Scotswood Bridgehead improvement scheme; 88 % of the total scheme cost. Newcastle City Council will provide a 12% local contribution to the scheme; a value of £0.5 million. This shows a local commitment to the scheme and underlines the belief that improvements to the Scotswood Bridgehead scheme will improve traffic conditions in Newcastle. The scheme is to be carried out within adopted highway and therefore does not require planning permission. Following completion of the scheme, all associated infrastructure would be maintained by Newcastle City Council, with the exception of the traffic signals which would be maintained by Traffic Signals Group. Commercial Case The scale of the construction works sits within the capabilities of the Council’s own Technical Services Division. The Council will be undertaking both the detailed design and construction of phases 2 and 3 of the scheme, with the detailed design of phase 1 already undertaken. Should the need arise, mechanisms are in place for the procurement and use of external contractors. Phase 1 of the scheme, comprising the upgrades at the signalised junctions along the Scotswood Road corridor, will begin at the A6085/B&Q Blaydon junction in April 2016 and finish at Plummer Street in September 2017.
The project plan highlights that Phase 2 and Phase 3 works are expected to begin in December 2016, with full scheme opening scheduled for October 2017.
Management Case The Project Owner is Michael Murphy, Director of Communities, Newcastle City Council. Graham Grant, the City Council’s Transport Development Specialist, whose team leads on transport strategy and scheme development, is Project Manager. Newcastle City Council has a track record of delivering both small and large scale highway schemes. Historically, this includes schemes with Local Transport Plan funding such as highway and bridge maintenance, traffic management, road safety, cycling, public rights of way, public transport and schemes which facilitated the development of employment and housing sites. More recently, the Council are delivering the Cowgate roundabout improvement scheme to the north of the city centre and extensive improvements in the city centre as part of the Cycle City Ambition Grant funded schemes. An unquantified risk register has been developed for the scheme and this will be quantified during the detailed design of phases 2 and 3.
vi
INTRODUCTION
011 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Study Overview
In May 2015, Newcastle City Council commissioned AECOM to assist with the development of a preferred option for the Scotswood Bridgehead Improvements Major Transport Scheme and subsequently, to develop the full five stage business case to be submitted as part of a funding bid to the North East Combined Authority. This document represents the business case associated with the scheme. 1.2. Site and Location
Scotswood Bridge is located along one of the main corridors leading towards Newcastle City Centre and provides access to important employment sites to the north and the south of the River Tyne, such as Newcastle Business Park on Scotswood Road, and the Metro Centre in Gateshead.
The study area extends from the B&Q junction with Scotswood Road to the west of the Denton Road Roundabout, encompassing the A1 southbound off slip, covering junctions to the east along the Scotswood Road to the north of the river, and incorporating the junction of Newcastle College at Rye Hill to the east. The Scotswood Bridge is also captured, including the junction with Chain Bridge Road to the south of the river in Gateshead. Figure 1.1 shows the study area.
Figure 1.1: Scotswood Bridgehead Junction – Existing Layout
The existing arrangements at the bridgehead junction are best shown in Photograph 1.1, highlighting the westbound approach to the junction from Scotswood Road.
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 2 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Photograph 1.1: Scotswood Bridgehead Junction – Existing Layout
1.3. Background to Study
In the summer of 2013, the Government introduced the Strategic Economic Plan as a mechanism to devolve power and funding to the local level through the Local Enterprise Partnerships. The Strategic Economic Plan is a six year plan, which has a sole focus to bring the economy and economic growth to the centre of our thinking. In March 2014, the North East Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) published their Strategic Economic Plan, More and Better Jobs. The Strategic Economic Plan expressed the need to create over 60,000 new private sector jobs in the North East to develop a balanced and sustainable economy. It is recognised within the plan, that the effectiveness of the transport network limits the economic development of the North East. As such, a number of transport schemes were included in the Strategic Economic Plan, including the Scotswood Bridgehead improvement. The North East Strategic Economic Plan focussed on five key areas: Driving innovation and improving business support; Working with schools to improve outcomes in education; Tackling skills and economic inclusion; Building economic assets and infrastructure; and Enhancing transport and digital connectivity. To enable the plans to be delivered effectively across each Local Enterprise Partnership area, the Government introduced the Local Growth Fund. In July 2014, it was confirmed that the North East LEP would receive a £289.3million share of the Local Growth Fund, expanded by an additional £40.6m announced in January 2015 to support economic growth in the region, of which, £47.9million was new funding confirmed for 2015/16 and £69.6million was new funding confirmed for 2016/17 to 2021. It is the aim of the Strategic Economic Plan that new projects should still be able to seek funding throughout the lifetime of the plan. Partners wishing to seek funding from the plan need to ensure that their schemes are sufficiently developed such that they can demonstrate value for money.
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 3 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
The purpose of this report is to demonstrate the need for the scheme in accordance with the required business case structure. The business case has been compiled in line with Department for Transport WebTAG guidance and the North East Local Transport Board Assurance Framework. This document includes the following five cases strategic; economic; financial; commercial; and management, as per the guidance requirements.
1.4. Document Structure
Following this introduction, the remainder of the report is structured as follows:
Section 2 – Scheme Description
Section 3 – The Strategic Case
Section 4 – The Economic Case
Section 5 – The Financial Case
Section 6 – The Commercial Case
Section 7 – The Management Case
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 4
SCHEME DESCRIPTION
02 5 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction 2. SCHEME DESCRIPTION 2.1. Introduction
This chapter sets out the description of the scheme, highlighting the extents of the Scotswood Road corridor, and outlining the preferred scheme option including the relevant scheme drawing, costs and economic performance.
2.2. Scheme Description
The preferred scheme option is a signalised variation of the existing grade separated junction, as described below and shown in Figure 2.1 The scheme is separated into three phases for the purposes of funding and delivery. Phase 1 is split into two phases; phase 1a comprises the procurement of signal equipment to facilitate upgrades to all signalised junctions along the Scotswood Road, with phase 1b being the upgrade of these junctions. Phase 2 will deliver improvements to the Denton Road Roundabout, with Phase 3 junction improvements at the Scotswood Bridgehead and the REECE junction. Signal upgrades will be delivered across the three phases.
Phase 1 - Upgrade of Phase 2 - Denton Road Phase 3 - Scotswood Traffic Signals Roundabout Bridgehead and REECE junction
• Amended lane • Scotswood • Phase 1a - designation allowing Bridgehead Procurement of traffic to utilise both • All movement equipment to upgrade lanes on Scotswood signalisation all signalise junctions Road for movements • Two lane east- along the Scotswood to the A1 bound slip Road corridor to UTC • Amended southern • Two lane right turn • Phase 1b - Upgrade kerb line on the onto the bridgehead of traffic signals along circulatory, with from the west, corridor associated road extending through markings changes, to the centre of the provide a smoother, existing roundabout more navigable • REECE junction alignment for movements from • Signalised junction Scotswood Road with the right turn East to the A1 into the development and exit from the development operating on a demand basis
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 6 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Figure 2.1: Preferred Option 2A Grade Separated Signalised Variant of Existing Layout
2.3. Economic Appraisal
For the purposes of economic appraisal, the collective scheme has been appraised. The TUBA assessment undertaken for the central scenario show that the scheme delivers very high value for money, with a BCR of 4.9. The results of the TUBA assessment for the central scenario are shown in the Table 2.1 below.
Table 2.1: Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits for the Central Growth Scotswood Bridgehead Scheme Benefits
Vehicle Travel Time Benefits 24,035 Vehicle Operating Cost Benefits 1,847 Wider Public Finances -730 Greenhouse gases 153 Total Benefits 25,306 Scheme Costs Investment Costs 5,133 Total Costs 5,133 Scheme Value Net Present Value 20,173 Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 4.9
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 7 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
2.4. Scheme Costs
The scheme costs, outlining overall costs, and cost of Phase 1 and Phase 2/3 elements, in 2015 prices are as follows:
Table 2.2: Scheme Costs
ELEMENT PHASE 1 PHASE 2 AND 3 TOTAL COST 2015 Cost £ 544,500.00 £ 1,637,938.01 £ 2,182,438.01
Inflation £ - £ 62,280.58 £ 62,280.58
Risk £ - £ 1,967,676.18 £ 1,967,676.18
Total £ 544,500.00 £ 3,667,894.77 £ 4,212,394.77
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 8
THE STRATEGIC CASE
03 9 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
3. THE STRATEGIC CASE 3.1. Introduction
The strategic case demonstrates the need for the transport intervention. The Department for Transport’s guidance document, ‘The Transport Business Case: Strategic Case’, and the North East Assurance Framework, outline the requirements for the strategic case. Table 3.1: shows where the information covering these areas can be found in this document.
Table 3.1: Strategic Case Requirements
LOCATION IN SUB-SECTION DfT REQUIREMENTS THIS DOCUMENT Outline contribution of stakeholders and any Stakeholders 3.12 potential conflicts Context of business case and strategic aims and Business Strategy 3.2 responsibilities of organisations involved Describe the problem and evidence base which Problem Identified 3.3 justifies intervention Impact of doing What is the impact of doing nothing? 3.4 nothing External Drivers of What is driving the need to change 3.5 Change Internal Drivers of What is driving the need to change e.g. Improved 3.5 Change technology, policy, demand from businesses Measureable, achievable, realistic and time Objectives 3.6 bound objectives High level internal/external constraints e.g. Constraints 3.11 technology, environmental etc. Options Set out all options identified including do nothing 3.7& 3.8 Scope What is to be delivered and what is out of scope 3.9 Measures for What constitutes successful delivery 3.13 Success Internal/external factors upon which the Interdependencies 3.10 successful delivery of the project is dependant
3.2. Key Partners
3.2.1. Newcastle City Council
Newcastle City Council is the local authority promoting the scheme. As a local authority, Newcastle City Council has the following priorities in order to focus its efforts: A working city - creating good quality jobs and helping local people develop the skills to do them; Decent neighbourhoods - working with local communities to look after each other and the environment; Tackling inequalities - tackling discrimination and inequalities which prevent people from fulfilling their true potential; and A fit for purpose council - a council which leads by enabling others to achieve.
Newcastle City Council act as local highway authority with the requirement to manage the road network, with a view to achieving, so far as may be reasonably practicable and having regard to their other obligations, the following objectives:
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 10
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Securing the expeditious movement of traffic on the authority’s network; and Facilitating the expeditious movement of traffic on road networks, such as the motorway network, for which another authority is the traffic authority.
3.2.2. North East Local Enterprise Partnership
The North East Local Enterprise Partnership covers the geographical area of County Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South Tyneside and Sunderland. The Local Enterprise Partnership is made up of both public and private organisations and has set a strategy for economic growth through the Strategic Economic Plan. The Strategic Economic Plan outlines the local priorities that would maximise growth in the North East. An important part of the funding for the Strategic Economic Plan is through the Local Growth Fund. The North East Combined Authority, on behalf of the North East Local Enterprise Partnership, is responsible for the delivery of the Local Growth Fund. The business case will be assessed by the North East Combined Authority on behalf of the Local Enterprise Partnership.
3.2.3. The North East Combined Authority (NECA)
The North East Combined Authority (NECA) is responsible for strategic transport across the seven authorities of County Durham, Newcastle, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South Tyneside and Sunderland, superseding the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority in 2010, alongside the inclusion of Durham and Northumberland. The NECA is responsible for producing strategic transport policy such as The Local Transport Plan (LTP), which in turn informs authorities emerging Local Plans. A map of the geographic coverage of the NELEP and the location of Newcastle within it is provided in Figure 3.1.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 11
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Figure 3.1: NECA and Newcastle Area
3.3. Strategic Need
3.3.1. Transport Network
The full scheme proposed for the Scotswood Road corridor, including the signal upgrades, Denton Road Roundabout improvements, the bridgehead and REECE junctions, is designed as a congestion alleviation scheme.
Transport problems along the Scotswood Road corridor have materialised as a result of ad hoc transport investment in Newcastle over the last 30 years. Newcastle City Council’s transport investment initiative, branded as Re-newcastle, is being promoted as a mechanism for renewal and reinvention to ensure that transport is embedded in the ongoing development of the city. Improvements to the Scotswood Road corridor are included within Re-newcastle to facilitate movement around the city and as a complementary scheme to the A1 improvements.
Evidence of congestion in the locality is demonstrated through observations made during a site visit to support the development of the transport model.
The existing issues observed at the Scotswood Bridgehead junction at the northern extent of Scotswood Bridge were analysed to inform the option development process. The existing layout consists of an at-grade roundabout and three slips so that the south-to-east and south-to-west movements are free-flow and removed from the roundabout. The east-to-south movement also operates via a free-flowing slip. The existing layout of the junction is shown in Figure 3.2.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 12
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Figure 3.2: Scotswood Bridgehead Junction – Existing Layout Å Scotswood Road West
Scotswood Road East
Scotswood Bridge
The main issue observed at the junction involved the westbound approach from Scotswood Road East and concerns vehicles travelling ahead across the at-grade roundabout. As the Scotswood Bridge to Scotswood Road East movement does not travel through the at-grade roundabout, the Scotswood Road West to Scotswood Bridge movement is virtually unopposed apart from a small number of U-turners from the east. Consequently, in periods of heavy traffic flow, there are very few opportunities for vehicles on the Scotswood Road East arm of the junction to find a gap. The issue is further compounded by poor visibility of vehicles on the circulatory carriageway for vehicles waiting at the Scotswood Road East give-way line. As a result, the capacity of the Scotswood Road East arm is reduced and a queue forms along Scotswood Road. This issue is more prevalent in the PM period when the flows making the west to south movement at the junction are higher. This issue is demonstrated in Photograph 3.1 showing the westbound approach to the junction and the unopposed movement from the east onto Scotswood Bridge. Likewise Photograph 3.2 shows flow queueing on the westbound approach to the bridge.
Photograph 3.1: PM congestion on westbound approach to Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 13
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Photograph 3.2: PM queueing on westbound approach to Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
The secondary issue of congestion observed, involved vehicles exiting Scotswood Bridge in the direction of Scotswood Road West. The majority of the traffic travels towards the A1 and Denton Road and therefore needed to be in the outside lane on Scotswood Road West. The traffic diverging from Scotswood Bridge conflicts with traffic exiting the roundabout onto Scotswood Road West at the merge point. There are also similar conflicts observed at the merge on Scotswood Bridge where the traffic flows from Scotswood Road East and Scotswood Road West merge. Having identified the two main issues at the junction, the subsequent option development looked to control or remove these conflicting traffic movements to increase capacity and reduce overall delay. Option development is discussed further in Section 3.7. The following diagrams highlight location specific network observations during the AM and PM peak period at the bridgehead and along the Scotswood Road corridor.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 14
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Figure 3.3: Scotswood Bridgehead (AM Peak)
Few queues were observed in Westbound vehicles were observed to have a the AM peak at the bridgehead. long gap acceptance due to reduced visibility.
Vehicles were observed to travel As level of queueing was quite low, most buses through circulatory at low speed. didn’t make use of the bus lane in the AM peak.
Figure 3.4: Scotswood Bridgehead (PM Peak)
A few observations in which light Lane 1 was mostly free- goods vehicles were abusing the flowing; lane 2 queued bus lane were made. partly beyond visibility.
Vehicles merge as soon as physically Merge tends to block back Buses were using lane 1 as an possible when driving onto Scotswood into circulatory and approach to the roundabout, then Bridge, ignoring road markings. towards Scotswood Rd. merged into bus lane.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 15
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Figure 3.5: Denton Road Roundabout (AM Peak)
This queue was observed to Traffic blocked back into the circulatory block through the next junction carriageway during morning peak. in the morning peak.
Majority of vehicles going towards the A1 queue in lane 1, lane 2 was observed to have no queue most of the time.
Figure 3.6: Denton Road Roundabout (PM Peak)
This queue was observed to Traffic from eastbound approach block through the next junction waiting at signals blocked circulatory in the afternoon peak as well. traffic heading towards the A1.
Majority of vehicles going towards the A1 queue in lane 1, lane 2 was observed to have no queue most of the time.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 16
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Figure 3.7:Scotswood Road East (AM Peak)
This is a 30mph zone, however most vehicles were observed to A number of pedestrians not Queue formed for vehicles going travel at speeds which seemed higher than that. The area was using dedicated crossing points ahead at this roundabout, leading observed to be largely free-flowing during the AM peak. were observed on this corridor. to the next junction but moving.
Figure 3.8:Scotswood Road East (PM Peak)
Corridor was observed to be busier Upstream signals cause vehicles to block back than during the AM peak, however it through roundabout, however this was was still free-flowing. observed to clear as the signals changed.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 17
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Figure 3.9: Scotswood Road / Whitehouse Road and William Armstrong Drive (AM Peak)
This corridor has been observed to be Queues building up on the approach to signals mostly free-flowing. cleared at every cycle.
Figure 3.10: Scotswood Road / Sanderson Street / William Armstrong Drive (PM Peak)
Traffic along Scotswood Rd appeared to be very platooned, giving sufficient gaps for right turners going towards William Armstrong Dr or Sanderson St.
Queue of right turners coming out of William Armstrong Dr was observed to have 6-8 vehicles on average, which is more than during the AM peak.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 18
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Figure 3.11:Scotswood Road / Park Road (PM Peak)
Right turners were observed to take more than one signal cycle to turn.
Vehicles were observed to travel above the 30mph speed limit in this area. Mainly free-flowing conditions along Scotswood Rd.
3.3.2. Journey Times
In addition to network observations in respect of congestion, journey time surveys were also undertaken along the Scotswood Road corridor to demonstrate the issue of reliability. Two routes, A and B, were used as shown as shown in Figure 3.12 and Figure 3.13.
Route A starts at Scotswood Road / Denton Road Roundabout to the west of the bridgehead and runs to the Scotswood Road / Plummer Street / Rye Hill roundabout at the eastern extent of Scotswood Road. Route B starts at the southern bridgehead junction and runs to the Scotswood Road / Plummer Street / Rye Hill Roundabout at the eastern extent of Scotswood Road.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 19
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Figure 3.12: Journey Route A
Figure 3.13: Journey Route B
The network observations demonstrate that the network is most congested in the PM peak, given the tidal nature of movements and the conflict at the bridgehead junction. Route A shows a high variation and high overall journey times on section 3 to 2 (westbound), as shown Figure 3.14, Figure 3.15 and Figure 3.16. The high variation and high levels of overall journey time correspond to observed queuing occurring at this location.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 20
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Figure 3.14: Journey Route A 1600 to 1700
17:00 16:00 15:00 Observed Journey Times 14:00 Mean Journey Time 13:00 12:00 11:00 10:00 09:00 08:00 07:00 06:00 05:00 04:00 03:00 02:00 01:00 00:00
Observed Journey (minutes)Time Journey Observed 1 to 2 2 to 1 2 to 3 3 to 2 3 to 4 4 to 3 4 to 5 5 to 4 5 to 6 6 to 5 (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB)
Figure 3.15: Journey Route A 1700 to 1800
13:00 12:00 Observed Journey Times 11:00 Mean Journey Time 10:00
09:00 08:00 07:00 06:00 (minutes) 05:00 04:00 03:00 Observed Journey Time Journey Observed 02:00 01:00 00:00 1 to 2 2 to 1 2 to 3 3 to 2 3 to 4 4 to 3 4 to 5 5 to 4 5 to 6 6 to 5 (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB)
Figure 3.16: Journey Route A 1800 to 1900
06:00 05:30 Observed Journey Times 05:00 Mean Journey Time
04:30
04:00 03:30 03:00
(minutes) 02:30 02:00
01:30 Observed Journey Time Journey Observed 01:00 00:30 00:00 1 to 2 2 to 1 2 to 3 3 to 2 3 to 4 4 to 3 4 to 5 5 to 4 5 to 6 6 to 5 (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB)
Figure 3.17, Figure 3.18 and Figure 3.19 show the PM journey times for Route B. The highest levels of variation occur between points 3 to 4 (EB), 4 to 3 (WB), 4 to 5 (EB), and 5 to 4 (WB).
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 21
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Figure 3.17: Journey Route B 1600 to 1700
04:00 Observed Journey Times 03:30 Mean Journey Time
03:00
02:30
02:00
01:30
01:00
00:30
Observed Journey (minutes)Time Journey Observed 00:00 1 to 2 2 to 1 2 to 3 3 to 2 3 to 4 4 to 3 4 to 5 5 to 4 5 to 6 6 to 5 (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB)
Figure 3.18: Journey Route B 1700 to 1800
05:30
05:00 Observed Journey Times Mean Journey Time 04:30 04:00 03:30 03:00 02:30 02:00 01:30 01:00 00:30 00:00 Observed Journey (minutes)Time Journey Observed 1 to 2 2 to 1 2 to 3 3 to 2 3 to 4 4 to 3 4 to 5 5 to 4 5 to 6 6 to 5 (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB)
Figure 3.19: Journey Route B 1800 to 1900
03:00 Observed Journey Times
Mean Journey Time 02:30
02:00
01:30
01:00
00:30
00:00
Observed Journey (minutes)Time Journey Observed 1 to 2 2 to 1 2 to 3 3 to 2 3 to 4 4 to 3 4 to 5 5 to 4 5 to 6 6 to 5 (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB) (EB) (WB)
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 22
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
3.3.3. Public Transport
Scotswood Road is a key east to west movement for buses in Newcastle. The Scotswood Bridge is also used for public transport connections to the Metro Centre from the west of Newcastle. The existing bridgehead junction configuration affords bus priority on the approach to the Scotswood Bridge from the east. Table 3.2 shows the range of the services operating through the corridor. The option design does not enable the retention of the existing bus lane on the approach to the Scotswood Bridge. However, the signalised arrangement provides benefits to all vehicles in respect of journey times, therefore buses travelling through the network will have reduced and more reliable journey times with the scheme in place, compared to the existing situation. Bus operators are a key consultee throughout the development, construction and ongoing operation of the scheme.
Table 3.2: Operational Bus Services (May 2015)
PERIOD OF SERVICE OPERATOR DESCRIPTION DIRECTION OPERATION
Metrocentre – Kingston Park – Eastbound AM & PM 6 Stagecoach Freeman Hospital Westbound AM & PM Freeman Hospital - Eastbound AM & PM 7 Stagecoach Metrocentre Westbound AM & PM Eastbound AM & PM 8 Stagecoach Freeman Hospital – Newcastle Westbound AM & PM Eastbound AM & PM 11 Go North East Newcastle – Blackhall Mill Westbound AM & PM Eastbound AM 11A Go North East Newcastle – Prudhoe Westbound PM Wallsend – Newcastle – Eastbound AM & PM 22 Stagecoach Throckley Westbound AM & PM Newcastle – Blaydon – Eastbound AM & PM 32 Go North East Winlaton Westbound AM & PM Metrocentre – Scotswood – Northbound 84 Arriva PM Newcastle Southbound
Blackhall Mill – Rowlands Gill Northbound AM 792 Go North East – DWP Tyneview Park Southbound PM Gateshead Newcastle – Lemington – Eastbound AM 941 Central Taxis Metrocentre – Team Valley Westbound PM
With regards to public realm, it was noted that the existing layout does not offer a pleasant environment for pedestrians. Two bus stops are located in the middle of the at-grade roundabout, which can only be accessed by the use of subways permitting pedestrian users to cross under the carriageway, as shown in Photograph 3.3. The subways are unlit and poorly maintained. Thus options for the Scotswood Bridgehead junction would look to remove the subways and greatly improve the pedestrian environment. The incorporation of bus stops into the design options for the Scotswood Bridgehead junction has not been considered in detail at this stage, albeit the design of the preferred option enables the retention of the bus stops in their current location with the ability to provide at-grade access. Further consultation with bus operators would be required going forward to clarify bus stop requirements.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 23
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Photograph 3.3: Bus stop at Scotswood Bridgehead junction
3.3.4. Economic Need
The Scotswood Road corridor is situated in the west end of Newcastle, and is the main access point into Newcastle city centre from the west of the city. It is a gateway to the city as a crossing point for the River Tyne and also the proximity to the A1. Newcastle city centre, the Metro Centre and Newcastle International Airport all are in close vicinity to the scheme. Scotswood Road corridor handles large volumes of traffic, but configuration of the Scotswood Bridgehead junction disrupts traffic flow in more than one direction, causing increased levels of congestion. The route is significant for people to access employment on the north and south sides of the River Tyne, in addition to connecting business and leisure hubs in the local area.
The improvements to the corridor and bridgehead junction will reduce congestion, and therefore have a noticeable positive impact on vehicle journey times into Newcastle from the west and south, and improve the travel times and reliability of public transport along the corridor. Through reduced journey times Scotswood Road will become a more attractive access route and may also aid in relieving alternative travel routes of congestion, such as the A1 and access to the Metro Centre.
It should be noted that as a congestion reduction scheme, appraised over a 15 year time frame, there are limitations in relation to the longevity of the preferred option. As such, the development of this option should not limit discussion and development in respect of facilitating further cross river movements.
Scotswood Bridge and the Scotswood Road corridor are already located in close proximity to some of the key employment sites in the local area, such as Newburn Haugh, Newcastle Business Park and the Metro Centre. Additionally, major employers in Newcastle City Centre such as Newcastle University and Northumbria University, Newcastle College, Newcastle City Council and the NHS would become easier to access, creating further employment opportunities. A number of employment opportunities that would benefit from the scheme across the region, ranging from developments at Regent’s Centre and Gosforth Business Park, to Newcastle International Airport, Science Central and the Discovery Quarter.
Development opportunities within the local area would also be more likely, with around 1300 new homes planned in the Benwell Scotswood area from 2016, in addition to the creation of around 300 new jobs at the adjacent BAE Vickers site. Other new housing sites, such as the planned creation Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 24
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction of 500 new homes in the Newburn area from 2020, would benefit from the introduction of the scheme. The development and employment opportunities the scheme will bring, demonstrates the importance of a suitable transport network in aiding the economic growth of the local area and the region.
Development locations in the vicinity of the Scotswood Road corridor are shown in Figure 3.20.
Figure 3.20: Scotswood Road Corridor Developments
Tourism also contributes significantly to the local economy, and as the main gateway to Newcastle city centre and the Metro Centre from the west of the region, particularly north of the river, it is vital that Scotswood Road and the bridgehead junction provide straightforward and reliable access to these areas.
Additionally, there is an increasing expectation that cities will become ‘smart’. More sophisticated ITS equipment is now available which will link with a UTMC (Urban Traffic Management Control) network with multiple benefits. Newcastle is currently investing in smart technology through developments at the science and technology hub of Science Central, and examining ways that technology can make the city better overall. The city and region are currently investing in the UTMC network to aid in the move towards the smart roads network. This is inclusive of smart motorways, which use technology to expand capacity and regulate traffic flows, and to develop a network ready for the implementation of intelligent vehicles which can communicate with infrastructure, vehicles likely to be widely used by 2040. By enabling a ‘smart’ ready network in the present day, the city and wider region will be able to fully capitalise on technological advancements in the coming years. In the present, smart technology of the strategic road network can still be used to provide more efficient travel and make the city more attractive to businesses.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 25
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
3.3.5. Socio-Economics
The English Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD, 2010) indicates that there are large areas local to the scheme that have relatively high levels of deprivation. The IMD values have been mapped onto the area surrounding the scheme to give an indication of the level of deprivation in the local area, with this highlighted in Figure 3.21. The boundary of the Scotswood Road corridor is also highlighted within the figures to show scheme location. Labels are also included to demonstrate IMD rank values, in addition to the IMD quintile values by LSOA where a value of one (dark red) represents the most deprived areas and a value of five (dark green) indicates one of the least deprived areas.
Figure 3.21: 2010 IMD Ranking
As Figure 3.21 shows, the Scotswood Road corridor encompasses some of the most deprived areas in the country, with IMD rank values as low as 171 seen along this route, with many other LSOA displaying an IMD rank value below 1,000, compared to the c33,000 LSOA nationally. All LSOAs within the scheme extents to the north of the river are in the top 20% most deprived areas in the country, with similar conditions in the surrounding areas, and only slight improvements seen on the south side of the river. There are many contributing parameters to this overall ranking, therefore further analysis has been undertaken on these individual aspects in the remainder of this section.
Figure 3.22 shows relative deprivation across the area surrounding the scheme extents in terms of health, deprivation and disability.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 26
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Figure 3.22: 2010 IMD Health, Deprivation and Disability Ranking
It is clear from Figure 3.22 that the state of health, deprivation and disability in the local area is extremely poor, and generally falls within the top 20% most deprived. Specifically, all LSOA within the scheme boundary to the north of the river are within the top 20% most deprived areas in the country. When the actual IMD rank values are observed, it is clear that these areas are highly deprived, with an IMD rank as low as 64 in Elswick.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 27
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Figure 3.23 shows relative deprivation in terms of employment across the area.
Figure 3.23: 2010 IMD Employment Ranking
The employment figures appear to fall into a fairly similar pattern to the overall IMD values, whereby the most deprived areas in respect of overall IMD value are also most deprived in terms of employment. There are some examples of surrounding areas with higher levels of employment, however the case along the scheme corridor to the north of the river remains consistently in the top 20% most deprived in the country.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 28
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Figure 3.24 displays the relative deprivation with regards to income.
Figure 3.24: 2010 IMD Income Ranking
While many surrounding areas show higher levels of income, the LSOAs located along the Scotswood Road corridor to the north of the river display high levels of income deprivation, again within the top 20% most deprived areas in the country.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 29
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Figure 3.25 highlights the relative deprivation in terms of education of the Scotswood scheme extents and surrounding area.
Figure 3.25: 2010 IMD Education, Skills and Training Ranking
Similar to previous parameters, some parts of the surrounding area have higher levels of education, skills and training attainment; however the greatest number of LSOAs still show high levels of deprivation, with all LSOAs within the scheme boundary to the north of the river in the top 20% most deprived areas in the country. There are many further educational opportunities local to the area, such as the two city centre universities in Newcastle, and Newcastle College being located at the eastern extent of the Scotswood Road corridor, which can positively influence the ranking of the area.
Overall, all LSOAs within the extent of the scheme being undertaken are within the top 20% most deprived in the country across all the parameters assessed, placing the corridor within the top 20% of most deprived places in the country. Whilst being in the most deprived area, a number of IMD rank values across the criteria are also extremely low and therefore the potential the scheme improvements can bring through congestion reduction providing access to education facilities and employment opportunities is vital.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 30
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
3.3.6. Air Quality
There is a single AQMA area covering Newcastle city centre, Quayside area and extending to Jesmond, designated for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) pollutants. Whilst this does not extend to the Scotswood Road corridor or Scotswood Bridge, it is located in close proximity, as shown in Figure 3.26.
Improved through-put of traffic as a result of the scheme, will reduce the extents of queueing and limit stationary traffic, thus contributing to air quality improvements in the locality of the bridgehead and Scotswood Road corridor.
Figure 3.26: NewcastleGateshead AQMA
3.3.7. Safety
As the safety of road users is a priority in the design of this scheme, accident data has been collated for the Scotswood Road corridor from the STATS 19 database. Between 01/01/2010 and 31/12/2014 there were 99 accidents along the Scotswood Road corridor. The number of incidents occurring per year does not follow a steady average, with the highest number of accidents, 26, occurring in 2012 followed by the lowest number seen over the five years, 15, recorded in 2013. Of the 99 accidents, 90 were considered to be slight incidents, with 9 considered serious. There were no incidents recorded at a fatal level of severity. Therefore on average there are 20 accidents occurring per year, with just under 2 serious incidents occurring each year according to the data. The total accident numbers alongside their respective severity by year are displayed below in Table 3.3.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 31
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Table 3.3: Number of accidents along the Scotswood Road corridor by severity
SEVERITY YEAR SLIGHT SERIOUS TOTAL 2010 13 3 16
2011 22 1 23
2012 24 2 26
2013 14 1 15
2014 17 2 19
TOTAL 90 9 99
When dividing the accidents by time of occurrence it was clear that the majority of accident happened in the afternoon hours, across most years, with the most recent data seeming to suggest this trend was smoothing out generally throughout all time periods. In total, around 50% of accidents over the 5 year period occurred between noon and 1800. Within this time period the split between each individual hour was seen to be fairly uniform. The accident occurrence time summary can be seen in Table 3.4
Table 3.4: Number of accidents along the Scotswood Road corridor by time of occurrence
ACCIDENT OCCURRENCE TIME YEAR 06:00-12:00 12:00-18:00 18:00-06:00 TOTAL 2010 4 10 2 16
2011 6 12 5 23
2012 4 11 11 26
2013 3 6 6 15
2014 7 8 4 19
TOTAL 24 47 28 99
The presence of cyclists, pedestrians, children or the elderly across the range of accidents did not suggest a pattern for accident occurrence relating to those involved.
The majority of incidents occurred during daylight hours with lights present; with 72 of these instances recorded. This is clearly in line with the accident data which suggests most accidents occur in the time period from noon to 1800. 22 incidents were in darkness with working street lighting present, and the remaining 5 in daylight with no street lighting. There were no instances of incident occurrence in which streetlight failure at night would have influenced the accident occurrence. This representation does not appear to indicate the light conditions have an influence on the number of accidents occurring along this corridor.
Similarly, when observing the road conditions, it is seen that 67 accidents occurred in dry conditions, 28 in wet/damp conditions and 4 in frost/ice conditions. It could be assumed that although the frost/ice and wet conditions have had an influence on a minority of the incidents that
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 32
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction have occurred in this time period according to the contributory factors in the STATS 19 reports, they are not an overlying influence on accident occurrence and there is no real pattern in accidents surrounding the road conditions.
Although there are generally more accidents recorded as being along the dual carriageway than anywhere else, when considering the incident locations as mapped in Figure 3.27, it can be seen that there are areas where accident occurrence appears more regular and clustered.
Figure 3.27: 2010-2014 Accident Plan
Many incidents along the Scotswood Road corridor occur at T-junctions joining to the carriageway, such as the entries from Whitehouse Road, William Armstrong Drive, Park Road and Dunn Street onto Scotswood Road, as displayed in Figure 3.28.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 33
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Figure 3.28: Accident occurrence in the East section of the Scotswood corridor
There is also a cluster of accidents visible on the Scotswood Bridge, which is particularly relevant to the scheme improvements on this junction. The majority of serious incidents occur in close proximity to the Scotswood Bridge, however of the 5 accidents in this area, 3 are seen to have occurred on the south of the river, and therefore potentially outside of the influence of the scheme improvements. This is shown in further detail in Figure 3.29.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 34
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Figure 3.29: Accident occurrence in the West area of the Scotswood corridor
3.4. Impact of no change
The section above has demonstrated the case for the scheme; the text below outlines the implications of no change.
3.4.1. Do Minimum modelling
The Do Minimum modelling highlights the need for intervention along the Scotswood Road corridor. The existing issues identified are compounded by the traffic growth to 2017 and 2032 (as the opening and design years respectively), with increasing queuing and delay for drivers approaching the Scotswood Bridgehead junction westbound from Scotswood Road, especially in the PM period. At Denton Road Roundabout, queues on the westbound approach cause slow moving traffic heading northbound over Scotswood Bridge and on the approach to the Scotswood Bridge slip- road on Chainbridge Road. In addition, queues on the approach from the A1 stretch back to the diverge point of the slip-road from the A1. These issues are observed in both the AM and PM periods. The network performance statistics from the Do Minimum models are shown in Table 3.5. They show that average delay per vehicle increases by 81% between 2017 and 2032 during 0800 and 0900 and by 86% between 2017 and 2032 during 1700 and 1800. The total delay in 2032 is greater than 50% of the total travel time during 0800 and 0900 and during 1700 and 1800, indicating significant areas of congestion on the network.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 35
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Table 3.5: Do Minimum Network Performance Statistics
OPENING YEAR (2017) DESIGN YEAR (2032) 07:00-08:00 08:00-09:00 09:00-10:00 07:00-08:00 08:00-09:00 09:00-10:00 Av Delay (s) 38.7 62.5 36.7 57.9 113.1 84.2 Av Speed (kph) 33.4 28.2 33.5 29.3 21.5 25.0 Total Distance (km) 26,273 27,534 22,446 27,772 28,780 25,049 Total Travel Time (s) 1,761,910 2,181,367 1,497,352 2,120,168 2,999,368 2,244,771 Total Delay (s) 472,078 810,106 393,934 753,794 1,561,451 1,004,543 16:00-17:00 17:00-18:00 18:00-19:00 16:00-17:00 17:00-18:00 18:00-19:00
Av Delay (s) 103.6 100.3 45.0 135.6 186.6 131.0 Av Speed (kph) 22.5 23.0 32.1 19.2 16.0 20.1 Total Distance (km) 28,362 27,399 22,587 29,196 28,901 25,234 Total Travel Time (s) 2,824,647 2,669,044 1,573,766 3,396,305 4,043,090 2,818,988 Total Delay (s) 1,416,595 1,309,197 477,482 1,943,439 2,604,937 1,582,948
3.4.2. Additional congestion
Increased congestion and resulting delays will make journey times longer and less reliable for all road users. As a consequence, bus services will become less attractive, impacting upon patronage and possible service viability, along a corridor into the city centre which is not considered to be affluent. Deterioration in bus services in this location could contribute to exclusion as a result of poor levels of accessibility
3.4.3. Potential loss of development / growth / jobs
This scheme will relieve a key pinch point on the network. Without the scheme, it may prevent the economy from realising the benefit of a housing development of up to 1500 new homes in Benwell / Scotswood from 2016 and 500 new homes in Newburn from 2020. Metro Green mixed use development site is approximately one mile south of Scotswood Bridge and is a major development site for Gateshead Council. The congestion at the junction is also causing increased costs to businesses in the area. The scheme is within close proximity to a number of manufacturing companies who rely on the efficiency of the highway network. This is key in retaining these organisations as well as attracting new opportunities to the area.
3.4.4. Incomplete UTC network
If the UTC equipment is not installed at the junctions along the Scotswood Road, there will be major gaps in the network on strategic routes into the city centre. This will affect the ability to monitor and control traffic coming in to the city centre with serious knock-on effects for traffic management and air quality. It will slow future development of new traffic management technology and affect the perception of Newcastle being a connected city.
3.4.5. Poorer resilience
If the proposed improvements to Scotswood Road are not made, the improvements in air quality could be reversed and monitoring and control of air quality will be negatively affected.
The quality of life and the economic performance of the nearby businesses and residents will also suffer, as a result of continued congestion and variability in journey times.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 36
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
3.5. Driver of Change – Local and Regional Policy Context
3.5.1. Agenda for Growth
At a national level, there is a need to continue to stimulate economic growth by ensuring our highway infrastructure can move our people, goods and services efficiently and effectively. Business markets vary across the nation, with areas in the north requiring intervention to support business growth, enhance business routes to market and reduce the productivity gap. Although the NELEP area economy has witnessed increasing GVA1 in recent years (it is a net exporter), it is recognised that lack of infrastructure capacity could hold back required economic growth. The North East needs to continue to capitalise on its export growth and inward investment. The provision of well-connected highway infrastructure, with accessible additional routes to market, will support this need and ensure that the UK and the region can continue to build on its global connections and enhance its productivity. The Government recognises that good infrastructure is essential to growth, with estimates that over £250 billion of investment is needed to upgrade the UK’s key infrastructure. Infrastructure investment is a key economic driver, providing a multiplier effect for the economy and helps to attract and retain business and jobs. Reliable and accessible transport networks are critical factors for the success of UK companies and the economic health of the UK economy. The Confederation of British Industry’s (CBI) Infrastructure Survey “Connect More” (2013) illustrates the business demand and need for effective infrastructure investment. The Local Growth White Paper 2010 and the Heseltine Review of economic growth 2012 ‘No Stone Unturned’ led to a significant shift in regional governance arrangements, establishing Local Enterprise Partnerships, to support local growth, encourage business investment and promote economic development. The 39 Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) developed Strategic Economic Plans in 2014 that outline local priorities to maximise growth. To support this agenda for growth, the UK government announced 39 Growth Deals across England in 2014. The North East Growth Deal detailed an allocation of £289.3 million to the North East Local Enterprise Partnership (NELEP) which was subsequently expanded by an additional £40.6 million announced by Government in January 2015. The Single Local Growth Fund (LGF) will see £329.9 million invested in the North East economy from 2015 and represents an opportunity to remove barriers to growth. Improvements to the Scotswood Road corridor will alleviate one of these barriers to growth not just within the Newcastle, but due to its location direct connections to Gateshead and also to the wider North East area.
3.5.2. The Role of Transport Infrastructure
Nationally, it is recognised that our transport infrastructure needs to support UK business growth, not only in terms of supporting the movement of people and goods, but expanding to open up new markets and extending the use of more efficient forms of transport and reduced journey times. Our strategic road network carries 90% of passenger journeys and almost 70% of freight 2 . The Government have committed to invest in transport infrastructure to keep the UK moving. Connectivity between cities and markets is pivotal in realising business potential and to boost growth within the UK’s economy. The Making Sustainable Local Transport Happen (2011) White Paper illustrates how well connected infrastructure is essential to help growth in the UK economy. In December 2014, the Government announced the first Roads Investment Strategy. The Roads Investment Strategy sets out a long term vision for the Strategic Road Network, outlining a 6 year plan for improving the network and creating better roads for the users. Between 2015 and 2021 the Roads Investment Strategy will see £15.2bn invested in over 100 major schemes to enhance and renew the network. Furthermore, this is supported by Transport for the North in the context of the role in the Northern Powerhouse.
1 NELEP Economy GVA increased by £10bn and reached £29bn by 2008 - North East Economic Review 2013 2 Department for Transport (2015) Roads Investment Strategy Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 37
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
3.5.3. North East Strategic Economic Plan (SEP)
On the 7th July 2014, the Prime Minister’s Office announced 39 Growth Deals with Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) across England. Each of the 39 LEPs were invited to submit a Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) by 31st March 2014, outlining their local priorities that would maximise growth. The SEP for the North East was informed by the North East Independent Economic Review (NEIER) 2013, which identified key barriers to economic growth in the region. The SEP is central to the North East agenda for growth, setting out a clear vision and investment programme for the area, identifying key priorities and actions. The North East Growth Deal detailed an allocation of £289.3 million to the North East Local Enterprise Partnership (NELEP), which was subsequently expanded by an additional £40.6m announced in January 2015. The Single Local Growth Fund (LGF) will therefore see £329.9 million invested in the North East economy from 2015 with transport funds being allocated around £95 million of this3. The North East SEP has a vision to create a globally competitive economy with more and better jobs4. By 2024, the NELEP intends to halve the gap between the North East and the national average (excluding London) on five key indicators: gross value added (GVA) per full time equivalent (FTE); private sector employment density; business density; employment rate; and, unemployment rate. In order to achieve sustained and structured economic growth, the region must provide over 1 million jobs by 2024, representing 100,000 new jobs or an 11% increase from 2014 in order to close the gap with the rest of country. The SEP has six key strategic themes: Innovation; Business Support and Access to Finance; Skills; Inclusion; Economic Assets and Infrastructure; and, Transport and Digital Connectivity.
The latter two strategic themes illustrate that the region fully understands the need to develop its place for business to invest and harness the opportunities within the North East. Improving connectivity, in turn facilitates economic growth, enabling people and goods to reach their destination efficiently and effectively. There is compelling evidence that transport investment will have the maximum impact on productivity, job creation and GVA where it improves the area’s strategic connectivity, facilitates
3 NECA 2014. http://www.northeastca.gov.uk/sites/default/files/minutes_document/15%20July%202014%20- %20North%20East%20Leadership%20Board%20-%20Supplemental%20Agenda.pdf 4 More and Better Jobs: The North East Strategic Economic Plan 2014. http://nelep.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2014/11/North-East-Strategic-Economic-Plan-More-and-Better-Jobs.pdf Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 38
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction visitors, provides reliable access to markets and improves access to all parts of the area and to the priority locations for economic growth. The SEP stresses the importance of strategic transport investments in areas, which provide quick and reliable links in order to assist trading and export to external markets by road, rail, air and sea. It also stresses the issue of investing in infrastructure that ensures urban centres maximise their potential and allow everyone to participate in the benefits of economic gains. The plan makes specific reference to river crossing points and their approaches as being areas where congestion is accentuated. This project will alleviate concerns around localised congestion hindering regional productivity whilst simultaneously creating efficient and reliable links to market. The Scotswood Road corridor provides a key connection into the centre of Newcastle, a direct connection to Gateshead and the also the employment opportunities along Scotswood Road Providing quicker and more stable journey times along this corridor will encourage further development in the area, whilst also increasing local access to employment and skills, aligning with NECA ambitions.
3.5.4. Local Transport Plan
The Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3)5 for Tyne and Wear 2011-21 was written by the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority, prior to its abolition. The Plan partners include the five local authorities of Newcastle, Sunderland, Gateshead, North Tyneside and South Tyneside and Nexus (Tyne and Wear PTE). The LTP will be replaced by a Regional Transport Plan; currently in development for the North East Combined Authority which incorporates the local authorities of Tyne and Wear and also County Durham and Northumberland County Councils. Table 3.6 outlines the Tyne and Wear’s five primary objectives contained in the existing LTP3, along with a description of how this scheme will contribute to delivering each of them.
Table 3.6: Local Transport Plan Objectives
OBJECTIVE CONTRIBUTION THE SCHEME MAKES TO LTP OBJECTIVES Improvements at the Bridgehead junction and along the Scotswood Road 1 To support economic development, corridor will reduce the congestion found along the network in this area and regeneration and competitiveness of lead to a more efficient and reliable road corridor through reduced journey Tyne and Wear, improving the times. This will also enable improved access to Newcastle city centre for efficiency, reliability and integration of goods, residents and visitors, and therefore provide a boost to the economic transport networks development of the area. These improvements also support the Benwell Scotswood Area Action Plan for regeneration in the neighbouring areas.
In accordance with various policy documents representing Newcastle and 2 To reduce carbon emissions the surrounding region, carbon emissions are to be reduced on transport produced by local transport networks. Lowering the congestion found along the Scotswood Road movement, and to strengthen our corridor would enable traffic to flow more freely and therefore lower networks against the effects of climate emissions in this area. There is currently potential for the Tyne and Wear change and extreme weather events UTMC to monitor air quality in this area to observe the current emission status.
5 Tyne and Wear Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3) 2011 – 2021. http://www.tyneandwearltp.gov.uk/documents/ltp3/ Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 39
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
OBJECTIVE CONTRIBUTION THE SCHEME MAKES TO LTP OBJECTIVES In its existing state the junction’s pedestrian access is restricted to an underpass. This option is not seen as particularly attractive to pedestrians, 3 To contribute to healthier and safer and therefore the new scheme offers at-grade controlled crossings for both communities in Tyne and Wear, with north-south and east-west movements across the junction, generating a higher levels of physical activity and safer and friendlier environment for pedestrians and potentially cyclists. With personal security. the scheme providing a more attractive environment for active modes, there is potential for an increase in the number of pedestrians and cyclists observed.
Good transport access to employment opportunities and education centres is vital to providing equal opportunities to everyone. Despite the junction changes, the area will retain the current bus stops meaning the familiar 4 To create a fairer Tyne and Wear, public transport route to residents will remain, allowing good access to the providing everyone with the city centre. As alluded to previously, with improved pedestrian navigation opportunity to achieve their full around the junction, these bus stops are now more accessible for a wider potential and access a wide range of range of people, whose access aids in enhancing social mobility and employment training, facilities and economic development. Furthermore, there are a number of development services. opportunities located in proximity to Scotswood Road, which become more attractive with the improved journey times and increased reliability resulting from the scheme.
5. To protect, preserve and enhance Upgrades to the junction will provide a less congested, more efficient route our natural and built environments, along the corridor. Subsequently, air quality will improve giving rise to improving peoples quality of life and increased public health. The associated economic benefits of the scheme creating high quality public place. are also advantageous to both individuals and the area.
3.5.5. Local Development Scheme 2013 – 2017
The Local Development Scheme 2013-2017 highlights the current status of Local Development Documents. This includes the One Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan and the Benwell Scotswood Area Action Plan, both of which are relevant to the scheme improvements. Currently, as outlined in the Local Development Scheme, these two documents are being used alongside each other to inform local policy.
3.5.6. Benwell Scotswood Area Action Plan
The Benwell Scotswood Area Action Plan details more specific policies relevant to the local area to attempt to redevelop the district in the west end of Newcastle. This is inclusive of wider policies such as supporting economic growth and increasing the quality of community areas and housing, but also includes specific transport policies. Policy AC2 for Public Transport includes the protection of public transport routes along Scotswood Road. This has been considered in the development of the scheme, where bus stops have remained unaffected by the junction improvements. Whilst the bus priority lane will be removed as part of the junction signalisation, the introduction of signals will provide journey times benefits to all road users. The improvements in pedestrian crossings at the bridgehead junction also make the current bus stops much more accessible to a wider range of people. A further policy, Policy AC3, describes a high quality network of walking and cycling routes to be retained or established across the Benwell and Scotswood area, which will connect retail, employment and education hubs. Scotswood Road is identified here as a corridor whose cycle route is unaffected by the scheme design. Public realm improvements, such as the removal of the underpasses to access the bus stops and replacement with at-grade crossings, will enhance the pedestrian environment and access to public transport.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 40
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
3.5.7. One Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle 2010-2030
The Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle 2010-2030 was adopted in March 2015. It outlines the ambitions of both Newcastle and Gateshead for growth and prosperity through the implementation of numerous policies. Within this document, Policy CS13 outlines all transport policies and influences. Within this policy are three main objectives:
Promoting sustainable travel choices Improving the operation of the transport network and its wider connections Ensuring development
The key purpose of the scheme is to reduce congestion and improve journey time reliability in an area which provides access to economic opportunities both north and south of the River Tyne, whilst also ensuring the road network in the area does not stifle potential development.
The scheme also promotes increased pedestrian usage by ensuring the crossing points at the bridgehead junction are safer and easier to use in the preferred option design, compared to the underpasses currently in place. Additionally, with the overlying aim of the improvements to reduce congestion along the Scotswood Road corridor, an improvement in the operation of the network in this area would be in line with this policy. Improved transport links in general, particularly across the modes mentioned, would lead to a more developed local area making more informed and sustainable travel decisions.
3.6. Scheme Objectives
The scheme will complement wider works on the A1 and provide an alternative to the A1 bypass pinch point across the river. The key objectives of the scheme are as follows: To assist in the reduction of congestion that occurs at the junction during the peak periods; To provide the conditions for more reliable journey times; To remove transport related barriers to development along the corridor; To increase the market share and competitiveness of public transport; To remove barriers to integration between travel modes and services; To improve the attractiveness of public transport, walking and cycling; To provide road safety benefits at the junction; and To address transport-related social exclusion.
3.7. Scheme Options
Option development focused on the arrangements at the Scotswood Bridgehead junction, with more minor changes required to signals along the corridor, Denton Road Roundabout and the Reece junction. Option design work initially considered eight possible schemes for the Scotswood Road junction. The options were split into two strands; Strand 1 representing at-grade solutions and Strand 2 representing grade-separated solutions. The figures below provide a description for each option, a
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 41
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction scheme drawing where appropriate and the relative merits of each in the context of highlighting advantages and disadvantages of the scheme.
OPTION 1A: AT-GRADE SIGNALISED JUNCTION
Option 1A utilises a simplified at-grade signalised T-junction to simplify the current layout and improve legibility for drivers. Four lane approaches are provided on each arm, with two lane carriageways on all exit arms, which cannot be increased due to widening restrictions away from the junction.
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Compacted layout is less invasive on the Signalised junction is unable to provide surrounding area, potentially opening up sufficient capacity to cater for the traffic land for development or new public space. flows in the current year (2015). Unable to provide additional approach lanes as all exit arms are restricted to two lanes. Impractical to increase cycle time above 120 seconds to provide additional green time due to queue lengths. Provision of good pedestrian facilities is compromised by the width of arms, and subsequent large crossing distances.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 42
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
OPTION 1B – AT-GRADE ROUNDABOUT
Option 1B considers an at-grade signalised roundabout, through removal of the existing grade separated east- bound off-slip structure.
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Simplified arrangement provides good May be difficult to construct due to level driver legibility. differences between the bridge and Allows provision of at-grade cycle and proposed circulatory (no topographical pedestrian connectivity both east-west and survey available). north-south with controlled crossings on all Temporary traffic management will be arms. complicated during construction due to Caters for existing year (2015) traffic removal of existing structure and build of at- flows and provides good queue grade junction. management.
OPTION 1C – AT-GRADE HAMBURGER ARRANGEMENT Following a review of the turning count data, it became apparent that the dominant flows are the turning movements to and from Scotswood Bridge. Providing a hamburger arrangement would increase the conflict points with the dominant flows and adversely impact capacity. The concept was dismissed qualitatively prior to developing design sketches.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 43
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
OPTION 2A – GRADE-SEPARATED SIGNALISED VARIANT OF EXISTING LAYOUT
Option 2A considers a modification of the existing Bridgehead junction by controlling all movements with traffic signals. The east-bound slip is altered to incorporate two lanes to increase capacity. The right turn onto the bridgehead from the west also incorporates two lanes and is extended through the centre of the existing roundabout. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Simple solution utilising signals on all at- Widening of the northbound off-slip from grade approaches to control throughput Scotswood Bridge to two lanes requires and queueing. earthworks to be amended. Design provides sufficient capacity on all Existing visibility and legibility problems for arms in the current year (2015). drivers caused by level changes are not Able to utilise a large proportion of removed in design but are eased by the existing carriageway to provide a cost presence of signals. effective solution. A more direct east to No U-turn facility provided, this would have to west through movement could be be catered for at adjacent junctions. implemented at additional cost; the effect on queue storage will need consideration. Enhanced pedestrian connectivity with at- grade controlled crossings facilitating east-west and north-south movements through the junction.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 44
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
OPTION 2B – GRADE-SEPARATED SIGNALISED VARIANT OF EXISTING LAYOUT WITH ELEVATED WESTERN LINK
Option 2B is a variation on Option 2A. In this option the eastbound ahead traffic from Scotswood Road is directed up an off-slip before joining the existing structure for eastbound traffic from the bridge. This facilitates an increased storage area for traffic travelling from the west to the bridge. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Allows additional storage for eastbound Signalisation of the eastbound elevated right turn movement to Scotswood Bridge, link in conflict with the northbound preventing blocking of ahead traffic. Scotswood Bridge right turn movement Would better facilitate a direct alignment cannot be accommodated due to insufficient for the east to west ahead movement as capacity. One lane for each approach is the additional non-blocking storage therefore proposed with downstream provided for the eastbound right turn by this merging. option could be restricted to straighten the Widening of the northbound off-slip from westbound alignment. Scotswood Bridge to two lanes requires Design provides sufficient capacity on all earthworks to be amended. arms in the current year (2015). Existing visibility and legibility problems for drivers caused by level changes are not removed in design but are eased by the presence of signals. No U-turn facility provided, this would have to be catered for at adjacent junctions.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 45
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
OPTION 2C – GRADE-SEPARATED SIGNALISED JUNCTION IN THE FORM OF A ROUNDABOUT
Options 2C proposes utilising the existing structure to form a grade separated signalised junction in the form of a roundabout above the east to west through movements.
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Grade separation of the Scotswood Road The southern part of the circulatory should west movement to the bridge removes be removed to accommodate queues at the major conflict with westbound through western circulatory stop line due to no traffic on Scotswood Road. conflicting movements to control queues on Design provides sufficient capacity on all extents of the junction. As only occasional u- arms in the current year (2015). turners would utilise the southern section of Sufficient capacity for the right turn to circulatory, minimal detrimental impact is Scotswood Bridge from Scotswood Road incurred by removing the link. The link could west provided using a lane drop. be reinstated if an additional link to the north Arrangement is simple and provides good is constructed in the future. legibility for drivers. Pedestrians and cyclist amenity is decreased due to the grade separated nature of the junction. Buildability is complicated with new structures required.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 46
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
OPTION 2D – COMPACT GRADE SEPARATED JUNCTION RETAINING EASTBOUND AHEAD ALIGNMENT
Option 2D provides a similar solution to the existing layout on the southern side of Scotswood Bridge. The compact grade separated junction provides free flow operation with the exception of the south bound merge point on the bridge head.
Signals have been included at this point to solve the existing weaving problem noted at this location in the existing layout. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Free flow arrangement reduces delay. Sizeable junction requiring significant land Signals on south-west node at merge of take. the westbound left turn onto Scotswood Expensive to construct. Bridge and eastbound right turn resolves Poor amenity for pedestrians due to nature weaving problems incurred in existing of the junction, particularly in crossing north layout. to south. Lane drop on approach from the east better manages ahead and left traffic. Similar to junction on the Gateshead side of Scotswood Bridge, provides consistency.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 47
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
OPTION 2E – COMPACT GRADE SEPARATED JUNCTION REALIGNING EASTBOUND AHEAD
Similar to Option 2D, Option 2E is a compact grade separated layout but wraps the eastbound ahead movement around the eastbound right turn movement from the bridgehead. This allows two full lanes to be provided for both movements prior to the merge point which is signal controlled ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Free flow arrangement reduces delay. Sizeable junction requiring significant land- Signals on south-west node at merge of take. the westbound left turn onto Scotswood Expensive to construct. Bridge and eastbound right turn resolves Poor amenity for pedestrians due to nature weaving problems incurred in existing of the junction, particularly in crossing north layout. to south. Lane drop on approach from the east Increases size of the junction in better manages ahead and left traffic. comparison to the compact grade separated Similar to junction on the Gateshead side junction retaining eastbound ahead of Scotswood Bridge, provides consistency. alignment. Better facilitates additional direct link from the north if required.
3.7.1. REECE Junction and Denton Road Roundabout improvements
The REECE development junction and Denton Road Roundabout are closely associated with the operation of Scotswood Bridgehead. Both junctions have therefore been considered as part of the design process.
Users of the existing REECE junction are required to enter the development from the east by left turning from Scotswood Road, or from the west by right turning across an uncontrolled carriageway. Users exiting the REECE junction must do so by turning left to the west. The existing layout of the Bridgehead facilitates a U-turn manoeuvre allowing traffic to return east after left turning out of the REECE junction, but the proposed layouts for Scotswood Bridgehead would not facilitate this. Optioneering has therefore been undertaken to facilitate a right turn out of the REECE development, this involves converting the exiting junction to a signalised junction with the right turn into the development and exit from the development operating on a demand basis, similar to neighbouring junctions at Benfield Motors and Mill Garages. Figure 3.30 and Figure 3.31 show the proposed scheme for the REECE Junction and Denton Road Roundabout
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 48
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction respectively. The viability of the scheme has been assessed in VISSIM and will be discussed in the Economic Case.
Figure 3.30: Proposed REECE Junction Layout
Figure 3.31: Proposed Denton Road Roundabout Layout
3.8. Option Sifting
The option development has followed a defined assessment process as follows: Existing Newcastle City Council options were considered and reviewed for suitability; Where suitable, existing options were adapted and new options derived to best cater for the current flows and the environment;
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 49
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
A qualitative analysis was also undertaken to consider elements such as suitability for pedestrians and cyclists and constructability; All options, where appropriate, were assessed for capacity using LinSig and iterated based on the results of this process. Table 3.7 identifies those scheme options which were shortlisted for more detailed consideration with an associated justification.
Table 3.7: Identification of Shortlisted Options ACCEPT / OPTIONS REASONING REJECT Strand 1 – At Grade Layouts 1A - Signalised junction Unable to cater for existing year traffic flows. At-grade crossing facilities would require pedestrians and cyclists to cross four lanes in one movement making it an uncomfortable environment for non-motorised users. Difficult to provide acceptable gradient between junction and bridge structure. 1B - Signalised roundabout Concerns over buildability given various levels through the area. Ability to provide acceptable gradient between roundabout and bridge structure is limited by size of the circulatory. Despite concerns the option does perform well in terms of capacity. The option could be reconsidered if a topographical survey indicates levels are workable.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 50
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Stand 2 – Grade Separated Layouts 2A - Signalised variation of Cost effective solution utilising much of the existing layout. the existing layout Caters for existing year traffic flows. Provides good at-grade pedestrian amenity. Potential to further improve legibility for drivers by realigning westbound ahead movement. This would reduce storage capacity for right turning traffic to the bridge. 2B - Signalised variation of Capacity improvement over Option 2A is minimal the existing layout with Additional raised link is expensive compared with the additional benefit elevated western link it would provide with existing year traffic flows. 2C - Signalised roundabout Caters for existing year traffic flows with removal of the southern circulatory link. Southern circulatory link could be added if required in the future should the addition of a direct link to the A1 come forward. Good buildability utilising existing level differences. Improvement in legibility for drivers on Scotswood Road. 2D - Compact grade Free flow option reduces delay and provides a ‘max’ traffic capacity separated junction option. retaining eastbound ahead Likely to provide significant capacity improvements compared to other alignment options. Pedestrian amenity is poor due to free flow nature and size of the junction. Option will be expensive. 2E - Compact grade Option does not provide significant additional benefits compared to separated junction Option 2D and realigning eastbound Requires additional land take compared to Option 2D. ahead Leads to increased unusable land in the centre of the junction.
It can be seen from Table 3.7 that concepts 2A, 2C and 2D were shortlisted for further consideration representing: A ‘low cost’ concept providing improved capacity without significantly altering layout of the junction (Option 2A) An ‘intermediate option’ for drivers by removing the major conflict point between right turning traffic (Option 2C) A ‘maximum capacity’ option providing free flow movements (Option 2D) All options include improvements to Denton Road Roundabout, the REECE junction and the upgrade of traffic signals along Scotswood Road.
Whilst all options demonstrated a benefit to the operation of the highway network when assessed in the VISSIM traffic model, only Option 2A was affordable in the current funding pool. Option 2A has therefore been adopted as the preferred option for the Scotswood Bridgehead improvement scheme.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 51
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
3.9. Project Scope
The following section outlines the scheme details for the corridor improvements, including details of the preferred option (Option 2A) for the bridgehead.
Phase 1 - Upgrade of Phase 2 - Denton Road Phase 3 - Scotswood Traffic Signals Roundabout Bridgehead and REECE junction
• Amended lane • Scotswood • Phase 1a - designation allowing Bridgehead Procurement of traffic to utilise both • All movement equipment to upgrade lanes on Scotswood signalisation all signalise junctions Road for movements • Two lane east- along the Scotswood to the A1 bound slip Road corridor to UTC • Amended southern • Two lane right turn • Phase 1b - Upgrade kerb line on the onto the bridgehead of traffic signals along circulatory, with from the west, corridor associated road extending through markings changes, to the centre of the provide a smoother, existing roundabout more navigable • REECE junction alignment for movements from • Signalised junction Scotswood Road with the right turn East to the A1 into the development and exit from the development operating on a demand basis
3.10. Interdependencies
Work will have to be programmed to take account of other work already underway across the city, such as at Cowgate roundabout and on the Northern Access Corridor, as well as significant cycling and pedestrian schemes in the city centre. Careful programming will be undertaken to co-ordinate works so as to minimise the associated disruption. In addition, it may be necessary to scale back or suspend work during the pre-Christmas retail period because of the importance of those weeks to the city centre retail outlets.
3.11. Constraints
The major constraint is funding. As outlined in the option development and appraisal, in terms of design feasibility, there is scope for more comprehensive schemes that could be developed for the bridgehead, providing benefits in excess of the preferred option. However, these would involve significant construction difficulties, therefore the scheme has been design to fit within the budget constraints and deliver maximum benefits within this constraint.
3.12. Stakeholders
All local stakeholders will be engaged with and formal consultation will take place at the appropriate stages in scheme development. Technical consultation is ongoing, with additional consultation due to take place during March/April 2016.
A comprehensive list of stakeholders is shown below and this will continue to be refined and developed as the engagement plan unfolds.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 52
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Table 3.8: Stakeholder Engagement STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT MECHANISM MP’s and elected members Appropriate engagement will be planned through the - Relevant Project Boards and officer working groups project, including frequency of communication with specific - Strategic Partners – NE1, Chamber of Commerce, stakeholders, various mechanisms are in place to deliver Federation of Small Businesses, public service providers. this including; - Individual businesses Project board - The travelling public Milestone meetings - Taxi operators Social media - Bus operators Local press - Pedestrian groups like Living Streets Council communication channels - Cyclists – individuals and organised lobby groups Website - Disability / accessibility groups Public consultation - Communities of Interest and identity – Elders Council etc - Shoppers - Residents of the City Centre - Experts and thinkers - Students - Workers - Large Employers - Leisure users - Freight handlers - Refuse collectors and other building service companies - Utility providers - Emergency services.
During the development of the 2014 NELEP major scheme submission, Newcastle City Council organised and facilitated various discussions with stakeholders. The following, indicative but not exhaustive, list identifies stakeholders consulted throughout the option evaluation process; Newcastle City Council: Technical Services and Planning & Transportation; Nexus; Bus Operators: Stagecoach and Arriva; Gateshead Council; and Elected members within the geographical coverage of the network, including wards bordering the study area to identify all cross boundary issues.
Discussions have taken place with the Reece Group who are a major employer in the area – they are fully supportive of the scheme.
3.13. Measures of Success
Following a process of identifying strategic objectives, in the context of policy, and subsequently identifying suitable project objectives from these, it is possible to align anticipated benefits to each objective. Relevant benefits are derived at this stage through the consideration of a wide framework of both quantifiable and non-quantifiable benefits to ensure the benefits outlined are appropriate to the project. Beyond scheme delivery, the success of the scheme will be measured based on the degree to which the benefits are realised in relation to achieving the scheme objectives.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 53
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Table 3.9: Objective aligned measures of success
BENEFIT RELATIVE PROJECT OBJECTIVES BENEFITS MEASUREMENT TIMESCALES
To assist in the reduction of congestion that occurs at the A more efficient and reliable Upon completion, Journey times Scotswood Bridgehead junction road network longer term during the peak periods
To provide the conditions for A more efficient and reliable Journey times Longer term more reliable journey times road network
Increased number of jobs Number of jobs To remove transport related barriers to development along Longer term Increased number of Development land with the corridor planning permission development opportunities Business expansion To increase the market share Increased bus use Bus patronage Upon completion, and competitiveness of public Reduced bus journey times Journey times longer term transport
To remove barriers to integration Public transport, walking Scheme design, between travel modes and Improved access to transport and cycling provision upon completion services within the scheme To improve the attractiveness of Increased bus use Bus patronage Upon completion, public transport, walking and Increased walking and cycling Cycle counters longer term cycling Improved health and wellbeing Pedestrians counts Reduced disruption Upon completion, To provide road safety benefits Reduce insurance claims STATS 19 data at the junction Reduced cost to healthcare long term system Increased bus use Bus patronage To address transport-related Increased walking and cycling Cycle counters Upon completion, social exclusion Improved health and wellbeing Pedestrians counts longer term Improved affluence IMD data
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case 54
THE ECONOMIC CASE
04 55 4. THE ECONOMIC CASE 4.1. Introduction
The economic case confirms the value for money of the full scheme, considering both monetised and non-monetised impacts in terms of their economic, environmental, social and distributional impacts. The DfT’s guidance document, ‘The Transport Business Case: Economic Case’, outlines the requirements of the economic case. Table 4.1 below shows where the information covering these areas can be found in this document.
Table 4.1: Economic Case Requirements
LOCATION IN SUB-SECTION DfT REQUIREMENTS THIS DOCUMENT Introduction Outline approach to assessing value for money 4.2 A list of options (set out in the Strategic Case) Options Appraised 4.3 that have been appraised. Assumptions, in addition to those required by Assumptions 4.7 WebTAG) supporting the analysis Set out how changes in different variables affect Sensitivity and the Net Present Value/Net Present Cost. The risk 4.9 Risk Profile profile should show how likely it is that these changes will happen Appraisal Produced in accordance with WebTAG 4.13 Summary Table Value for Money Produced in accordance with VfM guidance 4.8 Statement
4.2. Economic Appraisal
Whilst there are many different methodologies available for undertaking economic appraisals of highway schemes, the most common methodology is through the use of TUBA (Transport User Benefit Appraisal). The use of TUBA is WebTAG compliant and acts as the DfT’s appraisal software for calculating benefits to transport users and providers. Through the use of this software, distance, time and flow matrices of the Reference Case and Do Something scenarios are entered, and the economic value of the scheme over a defined period is calculated by comparing the user benefits and costs incurred in the proposed Do Something scenario with that of the Reference Case. The comparison is carried out with regard to link transit times, vehicle operating costs and wider public finances. This benefit is then offset against the cost of the scheme to determine its value for money via a benefit to cost ratio.
For the purpose of the assessment of the Scotswood Bridgehead scheme, TUBA version 1.9.5 has been used, which is the current version as of November 2015. The TUBA assessment has been carried out using time, distance and demand outputs from the Scotswood Road VISSIM model. Accidents have been appraised qualitatively. 4.3. Traffic Modelling
The Scotswood Bridgehead improvements scheme, alongside signal upgrades, and improvements to the Denton Road Roundabout and REECE junction, has been identified to address congestion
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case issues at the northern junction of the bridge. The Scotswood Road VISSIM model has been used to appraise the impacts of the scheme. The Scotswood Road VISSIM model has a base year of 2015 and covers the AM and PM peak periods; 0700-1000 and 1600-1900 respectively. A half hour warm up period was included at the start of each peak period to ensure the network was sufficiently populated before results were extracted. The extents of the network are shown in Figure 4.1 below.
Figure 4.1: Extents of VISSIM Network
4.3.1. Base Year Demands
The Scotswood Road VISSIM model was constructed as a dynamically assigned traffic model. As such, origin destination matrices were constructed for two user classes; lights (Cars and LGVs) and heavies (OGV1 and OGV2). The matrices were constructed using a June 2015 number plate origin destination survey for the bridgehead and A1 junction areas, furnessed to observed traffic flows along the full corridor. The following methodology was adopted to derive the base year matrices:
Row and column totals were defined for all known origins and destinations using manually classified junction turning count data for each time period. The count data was provided in 15-minute intervals and so a matrix was created for each 15-minute period between 0700- 1000, and 1600-1900. This was carried out separately for light vehicles (cars and LGVs) and heavy vehicles (HGVs); Known movements from the count data together with the O-D survey information was used to infill known O-D pairs within the matrices; The matrices were then furnessed in order to provide the first estimate of the network demand. Furnessing is simply an iterative procedure which uplifts the populated matrix to the row and column totals by balancing the origin and destination totals. This formed the prior matrices; The prior matrices were then input into SATURN and ran through SATURN’s matrix estimation process (SATME2) in order to determine the unknown O-D pairs within the matrices;
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case
The assigned flows from the resultant matrices were then checked against the manually classified junction turning count data in a process known as calibration. A sense check was also competed on the matrices, using local knowledge and experience, to ensure no unrealistic O-D movements were created by the matrix estimation process; The matrix construction process is summarised in Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2: Matrix Development Process
Manually classified junction turning count surveys used to establish row and column totals for each origin and desination in the model
Count data and O-D survey data used to infill known O-D pairs within the matrices
Matrices furnessed to row and column totals
Matrix estimation (utilising SATURN)
Calibration and checking
4.3.2. Base Year Model Convergence
The VISSIM model was developed utilising dynamic assignment within VISSIM. The purpose of dynamic assignment is to achieve stability of route choice between each simulated run. The measure of stability achieved is specified within VISSIM via a number of user-defined convergence criteria. For each modelled period, the following criteria was used to determine convergence of the model:
Travel times on all routes do not differ by more than 15% between consecutive simulations. The VISSIM matrices were assigned to the network for each modelled period. The model was run until equilibrium was achieved between successive simulations and the convergence criteria detailed above attained. Given the limited route choice in the model, convergence was achieved quickly. 4.3.3. Base Year Model Calibration
Obtaining a calibrated VISSIM model is an iterative process requiring modifications to both the construction of the network and the input trip matrices, to ensure that the model agrees with real observed data and therefore provides a tool which is reliable for forecasting. A key aspect of calibration is the comparison of simulated turning count flow output from the VISSIM model, against observed turning count movements. Matrix estimation using SATURN was
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case used in the matrix construction process and therefore, the simulated turning counts should show a good level of fit with the observed movements. The VISSIM model was calibrated against 2015 traffic survey data for all junctions in the modelled area and shows a good level of calibration in both the AM and PM peak hours. The ‘goodness of fit’ between the modelled turning count movements and the observed turning count movements was measured using the GEH statistic; a chi-squared statistic that incorporates both relative and absolute errors. A model which shows that 85% of turning counts have a GEH value of less than 5 is generally considered to show a good level of validation according to Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) guidance.
In order to provide statistical confidence in the VISSIM model, it is necessary to undertake several runs, each with different random seeds. Different seed values assign the same volume of traffic however, the distributions within the model are altered, including the arrival patterns and speeds. This mimics day-to-day fluctuations in traffic in the real world and therefore provides a robust set of results.
The overall calibration results for the AM and PM peak models were averaged across ten random seed runs and are shown in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 below, for lights and heavies respectively.
Table 4.2: Overall Flow Validation Achievement for the AM Peak
PERCENTAGE OF GEH <5 PERCENTAGE OF GEH <5 TIME CAR HEAVY 0700-0800 99% 100% 0800-0900 100% 100% 0900-1000 100% 100%
Table 4.3: Overall Flow Validation Achievement for the PM Peak
PERCENTAGE OF GEH <5 PERCENTAGE OF GEH <5 TIME CAR HEAVY 1600-1700 98% 100% 1700-1800 100% 98% 1800-1900 100% 100%
4.3.4. Base Year Model Validation
Validation of the model is essential to understand whether the modelled traffic is performing in congested or free flow conditions. Based on the speed flow curve in Figure 4.3 below, it is feasible that traffic flows can be similar with contrasting conditions.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case
Figure 4.3: Speed-Flow Curve
Free Flow
Unstable Flow
Journey time comparisons between modelled and surveyed data can highlight the model conditions. The journey time validation for the Scotswood Road VISSIM model was carried out in accordance to the guidelines set out in the DMRB. The criterion outlined by the DMRB is that modelled journey times are within 15% or 1 minute, whichever is higher, of surveyed journey times. Journey time results were compared for two routes as shown in Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5 below. The results of the validation for both the AM and PM peak models are shown in Table 4.4 to Table 4.7.
Figure 4.4: Journey Time Route A
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case
Figure 4.5: Journey Time Route B
Table 4.4: Journey Time Validation Overview for Route A – AM Peak
EASTBOUND DIRECTION WESTBOUND DIRECTION ROUTE A SURVEY(S) MODEL(S) DIFFERENCE SURVEY(S) MODEL(S) DIFFERENCE 0700-0800 350 323 -8% 349 343 -2%
0800-0900 369 347 -6% 368 359 -2%
0900-1000 341 324 -5% 346 337 -3%
Table 4.5: Journey Time Validation Overview for Route B – AM Peak
EASTBOUND DIRECTION WESTBOUND DIRECTION ROUTE B SURVEY(S) MODEL(S) DIFFERENCE SURVEY(S) MODEL(S) DIFFERENCE 0700-0800 358 343 -4% 324 326 1%
0800-0900 384 366 -5% 349 339 -3%
0900-1000 344 340 -1% 348 336 -4%
The AM peak shows that all routes validate when comparing modelled with observed journey times.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case
Table 4.6: Journey Time Validation Overview for Route A – PM Peak
EASTBOUND DIRECTION WESTBOUND DIRECTION ROUTE A SURVEY(S) MODEL(S) DIFFERENCE SURVEY(S) MODEL(S) DIFFERENCE 1600-1700 381 390 2% 1031 950 -8%
1700-1800 386 381 -2% 802 783 -2%
1800-1900 308 315 2% 365 350 -4%
Table 4.7: Journey Time Validation Overview for Route B – PM Peak
EASTBOUND DIRECTION WESTBOUND DIRECTION ROUTE B SURVEY(S) MODEL(S) DIFFERENCE SURVEY(S) MODEL(S) DIFFERENCE 1600-1700 381 382 0% 422 394 -7%
1700-1800 382 375 -2% 422 405 -4%
1800-1900 303 328 8% 332 339 2%
All of the journey routes validate in the PM period with a difference of less than 15%. This indicates that the delay at the Scotswood Bridgehead is well represented within the model. The model was also presented to officers at Newcastle City Council to ensure that queuing in the traffic model was in the areas where it would be expected. Further information regarding the development of the VISSIM model can be found in the Scotswood Bridgehead Modelling and Economics Report located in Appendix C.
4.3.5. Reference Case Model Development
The future year reference case model acts as the reference case future year scenario from which a direct comparison can be made with the option models. Development of the model required an upgrade of the existing modelled network to reflect committed schemes, and the inclusion of future year demands. Future year demands of 2017 and 2032 were calculated to reflect the proposed opening and design year of the Scotswood Bridgehead scheme. There were no required network amendments required to model any committed schemes.
4.3.6. Do Something Case Model Development
Three options were identified for further appraisal in the VISSIM model. These were options 2A, 2C and 2D as discussed in Section 3.7 of this report. The results of this assessment are documented in the Scotswood Bridgehead Modelling and Economics report, AECOM, October 2015. Option 2A was identified as the preferred option as it is the only option which is affordable with the current available funding. The proposed scheme was coded into the Scotswood Road VISSIM model using CAD plans provided by the design team. Signal timings for the proposed scheme were developed in LinSig and these were also coded into the VISSIM model and optimised where necessary.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case
4.3.7. Future Year Demand
Future year demand for the opening year and design year of the Scotswood Road scheme, 2017 and 2032 respectively, was developed in accordance with WebTAG guidance. Background Traffic Growth In order to test uncertainty in future year forecasting, it is recommended in TAG Unit M4 that a series of proportional sensitivity tests are conducted in order to account for the possibility of forecasting error in the central scenario. To this end, 3 future year scenarios were developed for the Scotswood Road VISSIM model. A description of the 3 scenarios is detailed below: Pessimistic: Low growth; Central: Background growth; and Optimistic: High growth. The background traffic growth for the central scenario was calculated using TEMPro (6.2) and NTM (2015) for light and heavy vehicles respectively. TEMPro takes account of local demographic change, socioeconomic variation and changes in modes, as well as other factors that affect the growth of traffic with the locality. TEMPro factors were extracted for the Newcastle area.
The base year heavy goods vehicle matrices were growthed up for each of the future years using factors derived from the 2015 forecast results from the DfT’s National Transport Model. The 2015 report supplies national growth factors from a base year of 2003 to future years of 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040 for heavy traffic. Factors for the 2017 and 2032 model forecast years were obtained by interpolating between 2015 and 2020, and 2030 and 2035 respectively. For both cases, linear growth was assumed in order to calculate the years which were not specifically modelled within the NTM.
The NTM growth forecasts are split into different regions and are universal across the day, hence the same factors have been applied to both time periods within the model and the same value applied to both origin and destination. To adjust the growth factors into a pessimistic variation, an additional step is required. The guidance in TAG Unit M4 sets out the process for taking such uncertainty into consideration in modelling a highway scheme. ‘To deal with such uncertainty in highway models, it is expected that the analyst will explore scenarios using an appropriate range about the central forecast of ±2.5% for traffic forecasts one year ahead, rising with the square root of the number of years to ±15% for forecasts 36 years ahead.’
Pessimistic growth factors were therefore calculated using the following formulas:
Pessimistic factor = -2.5* √푀표푑푒푙 푌푒푎푟 − 퐵푎푠푒 푌푒푎푟 Following discussions with Newcastle City Council, it was decided that the optimistic scenario should be consistent with the appraisal undertaken as part of the Newcastle Local Plan. Newcastle City Council therefore provided origin-destination matrices for the area covering the Scotswood Bridgehead and Denton Road Roundabout. The growth factors used to model each of the three scenarios are shown in
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case
Table 4.8 and Table 4.9 below.
Table 4.8: Forecast Growth Factors 2015-2017
VEHICLE TYPE TIME PERIOD PESSIMISTIC CENTRAL OPTIMISTIC AM 0.983 1.018 1.161 Light Vehicles PM 0.983 1.018 1.137
AM 0.978 1.013 1.049 Heavy Vehicles PM 0.978 1.013 1.049
Table 4.9: Forecast Growth Factors 2015-2032
VEHICLE TYPE TIME PERIOD PESSIMISTIC CENTRAL OPTIMISTIC AM 1.003 1.117 1.336 Light Vehicles PM 1.005 1.115 1.247
AM 1.000 1.103 1.206 Heavy Vehicles PM 1.000 1.103 1.206
4.3.8. Accounting for Variable Demand
A fixed demand matrix has been used in the appraisal of the Scotswood Bridgehead scheme. WebTAG advises that the modelling effort of a transport scheme needs to be proportionate to the scale of a potential intervention. With regard to variable demand modelling, guidance states the following: ‘it may be acceptable to limit the assessment of a scheme to a fixed demand assessment if the following criteria are satisfied: The scheme is quite modest either spatially or financially and is also quite modest in terms of its effect on travel costs. Schemes with a capital cost of less than £5 million can generally be considered as modest; or the following two points: - There is no congestion or crowding on the network in the forecast year (10 to 15 years after opening), in the absence of the scheme; and - The scheme will have no appreciable effect on travel choices (e.g. mode choice or distribution) in the corridor(s) containing the scheme.’
The cost of the Scotswood Bridgehead scheme, including the upgrade of signals along the Scotswood Road, is £4.2 million in 2015 prices. It is therefore considered acceptable to limit the scheme to a fixed demand assessment.
4.4. Traffic Model Results
The assigned future year VISSIM models were analysed to understand the changes in network conditions as a result of the proposed scheme. The option 2A modelling shows that the scheme provides an improvement to the issues identified at the existing junction. The signalisation to control the conflicting west-to-south and east-to-west movements eliminates the queuing in the PM peak. By the nature of their operation, the signals cause queues on red, but these dissipate on green.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case
The realignment of the junction to incorporate two lanes on the Scotswood Road East arm for the east-to-south movement, and two lanes on the Scotswood Road West arm for the west-to-south movement provides a benefit by reducing the weaving conflict on Scotswood Bridge itself. The scheme allows vehicles to get in the correct lane in advance of the signals where there is more time and space for lane changing to occur. The modelling also incorporated the existing bus stop locations in the centre of the junction and the modelling indicated that with this option, the bus stops could remain in a similar position. At-grade pedestrian crossings, also included in the modelling, would provide sufficient access to the stops at a level offered by the existing layout. The network performance results from the option 2A modelling are shown in Table 4.10 to Table 4.13 below for the central scenario. They show that, in the design year of the scheme, average delay per vehicle decreases by 27% between 0800 and 0900, and by 45% between 1700 and 1800 when compared to the Do Minimum. The total delay in 2032 is around 44% of the total travel time during 0800 and 0900 and around 49% of the total travel time during 1700 and 1800, indicating the scheme offers an improvement over the existing junction. The modelling shows that this option reduces the levels of queuing on westbound approach from Scotswood Road East and aid traffic flow over Scotswood Bridge.
Table 4.10: Network Performance Statistics for AM Peak 2017
ELEMENT DO MINIMUM DO SOMETHING 0700-0800 0800-0900 0900-1000 0700-0800 0800-0900 0900-1000 Av Delay (s) 38.7 62.5 36.7 41.3 53.7 36.3
Av Speed (kph) 33.4 28.2 33.5 33 30 33.9
Total Distance (km) 26,273 27,534 22,446 26,242 27,633 22,269
Total Travel Time (s) 1,761,910 2,181,367 1,497,352 1,781,130 2,061,939 1,471,330
Total Delay (s) 472,078 810,106 393,934 505,006 697,351 387,307
Table 4.11: Network Performance Statistics for AM Peak 2032
ELEMENT DO MINIMUM DO SOMETHING 0700-0800 0800-0900 0700-0800 0800-0900 0700-0800 0800-0900 Av Delay (s) 57.9 113.1 84.2 49.9 82.7 54.4
Av Speed (kph) 29.3 21.5 25 31.1 25.2 29.8
Total Distance (km) 27,772 28.780 25,049 28,075 29,142 24,328
Total Travel Time (s) 2,120,168 2,999,368 2,244,771 2,021,768 2,588,475 1,826,808
Total Delay (s) 753,794 1,561,451 1,004,543 653,726 1,145,618 634,181
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case
Table 4.12: Network Performance Statistics for PM Peak 2017
ELEMENT DO MINIMUM DO SOMETHING 1600-1700 1700-1800 1800-1900 1600-1700 1700-1800 1800-1900 Av Delay (s) 103.6 100.3 45 78.4 68.9 35.1
Av Speed (kph) 22.5 23 32.1 25.8 27.4 34.7
Total Distance (km) 28,362 27,399 22,587 29,024 27,019 22,141
Total Travel Time (s) 2,824,647 2,669,044 1,573,76 2,512,929 2,203,265 1,426,058
Total Delay (s) 1,416,595 1,309,197 477,482 1,086,884 882,401 366,208
Table 4.13: Network Performance Statistics for PM Peak 2032
ELEMENT DO MINIMUM DO SOMETHING 1600-1700 1700-1800 1800-1900 1600-1700 1700-1800 1800-1900 Av Delay (s) 135.6 186.6 131 94.5 102 53.1
Av Speed (kph) 19.2 16 20.1 23.6 22.9 30.6
Total Distance (km) 29,196 28,901 25,234 30,584 29,119 23,995
Total Travel Time (s) 3,396,305 4,043,090 2,818,988 2,893,331 2,847,550 1,755,692
Total Delay (s) 1,943,439 2,604,937 1,582,948 1,387,554 1,416,659 600,199
4.5. Costs
The economic appraisal requires an estimate of the scheme costs for constructing the Scotswood Bridgehead scheme. The current estimated cost for the full scheme including the upgrade to signals on Scotswood Road, is shown in Table 4.14 below.
Table 4.14: Scheme Costs
ITEM COST
Total (including risk) £ 4,212,394.77 Costs are in 2015 prices. Phase 1 of the scheme, the £544,500 traffic signals upgrade on Scotswood Road, is currently at detailed design stage and therefore an optimism bias of 3% has been applied to this cost. This is in accordance with the NECA Assurance Framework for a highway scheme. An optimism bias of 44% has been applied to all other costs as the detailed design for phases 2 and 3 of the scheme is still to be undertaken. Costs have been input into TUBA in 2015 factor prices and a GDP deflator applied to discount the costs to 2010 prices. Further information regarding the derivation of costs can be found in the Financial Case.
4.6. Annualisation
The annualisation factors used within the economic assessment are used to expand the modelled periods over the whole year to enable a full assessment of the benefits. An annualisation factor of 253 has been applied to the journey time benefits from the AM and PM peak period models. 253
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case represents the number of working days in a year, excluding weekends and bank holidays. As the VISSIM models cover the three hour peak period, there has been no need to include factors for shoulder peak hours. It should be noted that the assessment includes no benefits in the inter-peak period as this has not been specifically modelled.
4.7. Economic Appraisal Inputs and Assumptions
The economic appraisal using TUBA requires the definition of a number of inputs and a number of assumptions to be made. These inputs and assumptions are summarised below.
4.7.1. Appraisal Period
Conventional economic appraisal defines a sixty year appraisal period. However, this assumes that the scheme has an indefinite lifespan and benefits will still be achieved following the design year of the scheme. In reality, if traffic flows in the Scotswood Road area continue to grow, the additional capacity created by the scheme will be filled up shortly after the design year of the scheme. The economic appraisal has therefore been undertaken for a 15 year appraisal period to reflect that Option 2A is an interim scheme.
4.7.2. Time, Distance and Demand Skims
To extract time and distance skims from the VISSIM model, journey time markers have been placed between each origin destination pair to calculate the average time and distance between that origin destination pair for each vehicle class. Demand has been input into the TUBA assessment directly from the matrices which have been assigned to the network.
4.7.3. Number of Runs
Unlike a strategic transport model, a VISSIM model does not give a single converged solution. Results can vary between each seed run as traffic conditions, such as arrival pattern, are changed to mimic reality. It is essential, as part of any appraisal, to ensure that the differences reflected in the model output are as a result of the scheme itself and not as a result of differences between seed runs. Historically, microsimulation modelling has been undertaken over 10 seed runs with the overall impact of the scheme averaged across these runs. However, under highly congested traffic conditions, journey times in the traffic model, and in reality, can vary significantly between each run. Statistical testing has therefore been undertaken on the average delay outputs from network performance statistics to determine whether 10 runs is sufficient to give statistically significant results. The number of runs has been defined at a 95% confidence level with a desired confidence interval of 5 seconds i.e it is 95% certain that the results are within 5 seconds (+ or – 2.5 seconds) of the true mean. The number of runs required for the central scenario models are shown in Table 4.15 below. As the highest number of runs required is 20 runs, outputs for all models were run over 20 seeds.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case
Table 4.15: Required Number of Model Runs
CENTRAL SCENARIO NUMBER OF RUNS REQUIRED
AM 2017 DM 2 AM 2017 DS 2
PM 2017 DM 20 PM 2017 DS 4 AM 2032 DM 14 AM 2032 DS 1
PM 2032 DM 16 PM 2032 DS 5
4.7.4. Journey Purpose
Journey purpose has not been defined within the VISSIM model. For light vehicles, default journey purposes have been assumed with the TUBA assessment. For heavy vehicles, a factor has been defined within the TUBA input file to split the demand matrix between OGV1 and OGV2. This factor has been based on vehicle proportions within the NTM calculations.
4.8. Value for Money Statement
The results of the economic appraisal for the Scotswood Bridgehead improvements are shown in Table 4.16 and Table 4.18 below for the Central, Pessimistic and Optimistic cases respectively. The key assumptions which have informed this appraisal are shown below: TUBA version 1.9.5 has been used to undertake the appraisal; The appraisal has been undertaken for a 15 year appraisal period; Base year costs have been input in 2015 prices and deflated to the cost base year, 2010, using a GDP deflator; A 3% optimism bias has been applied to the phase 1 costs in accordance with the NECA Assurance Framework for scheme elements at the detailed design stage; A 44% optimism bias has been applied to the costs for phases 2 and 3 of the scheme in accordance with the NECA Assurance Framework for Gateway 1; The assumed opening year for the scheme is 2017; The design year for the scheme is 2032; Accident and environmental benefits and disbenefits have been appraised qualitatively.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case
Table 4.16: Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits for the Central Growth Scotswood Bridgehead Scheme Benefits
Vehicle Travel Time Benefits 24,035 Vehicle Operating Cost Benefits 1,847 Wider Public Finances -730 Greenhouse gases 153 Total Benefits 25,306 Scheme Costs Investment Costs 5,133 Total Costs 5,133 Scheme Value Net Present Value 20,173 Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 4.9 All monetary values are discounted to 2010 prices and in £1,000s
Table 4.17: Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits for the Pessimistic Growth Scotswood Bridgehead Scheme Benefits
Vehicle Travel Time Benefits 7375 Vehicle Operating Cost Benefits 603 Wider Public Finances -239 Greenhouse gases 49 Total Benefits 7788 Scheme Costs Investment Costs 5,133 Total Costs 5,133 Scheme Value Net Present Value 2,655 Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 1.5 All monetary values are discounted to 2010 prices and in £1,000s
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case
Table 4.18: Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits for the Optimistic Growth Scotswood Bridgehead Scheme Benefits
Vehicle Travel Time Benefits 88275 Vehicle Operating Cost Benefits 6603 Wider Public Finances -2663 Greenhouse gases 551 Total Benefits 92766 Scheme Costs Investment Costs 5,133 Total Costs 5,133 Scheme Value Net Present Value 87633 Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 18.072 All monetary values are discounted to 2010 prices and in £1,000s As shown in the above tables, there is a clear benefit demonstrated in all of the modelled forecast scenarios with the introduction of the full scheme. The results show that the scheme delivers a very high value for money in both the central and optimistic scenarios. The benefits can be attributed to the low capital cost of the scheme compared to the significant increases in capacity. Whilst the BCR may seem high, the Do Minimum situation for both the opening and design year of the scheme is particularly bad. This means that there are significant differences in journey times between the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios. Although the results show that the BCR for the low growth scenario is below 2, the appraisal still shows that the scheme delivers significant benefits. The appraisal has only been undertaken over a 15 year appraisal period as it is recognised as an interim scheme. The BCR for the low growth scenario therefore shows a robust appraisal. The monetary time benefits by peak period are shown in Table 4.19 below for the central scenario.
Table 4.19: User Time Benefits by Time Period (£000s)
YEAR USER TIME BENEFITS PERCENTAGE OF BENEFITS
AM Peak 5,692 24%
PM Peak 18,343 76%
The results show that the majority of benefits are in the PM peak. This supports on site observations which show the key congestion issues, which the scheme has been developed to address, to be prevalent in the PM peak Journey time benefits by time saving are shown in Table 4.21 below for the central scenario.
Table 4.20: Monetised Time Benefits by Time Saving (£000’s)
PERIOD <-5 mins -5 to -2 mins -2 to 0 mins 0 to 2 mins 2 to 5 mins 5 mins
Total Years -101 0 -1,395 8,462 7,585 9,486
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case
The results in the table above show that there is a fairly even spread of benefits from time savings of less than 2 minutes, between 2 minutes and 5 minutes, and greater than 5 minutes. It also highlights that the journey time savings far outweigh any journey time increases. It was expected with a signalisation scheme of this type that some users would experience journey time increases where movements that were free-flowing in the Do Minimum would be signal controlled in the Do Something. The results show that the dis-benefits as a results of the scheme are small. The majority of disbenefits are in the AM peak which does not suffer the congestion issues evident in the PM peak. To ensure confidence in the results, an analysis of the TUBA warning file has been undertaken to identify the cause of each warning and ensure that the warnings are reasonable. The key warnings relate to Do Something journey times being much shorter than Do Minimum journey times and this is as a result of the scheme. All warnings contained in the TUBA output file are considered reasonable. 4.9. Sensitivity and Risk
A quantified risk register has not yet been developed. To ensure value for money will be delivered should costs increase or decrease as a result of the scheme, sensitivity testing has been undertaken on the core scenario to understand the impact on value for money if costs should increase or decrease by 10%. It should be noted that the current cost estimate already includes a significant element for risk.
Table 4.21: Sensitivity and Risk
10% Reduction in Benefits and Costs Cost Estimate 10% Increase in Costs Costs
Total Benefits £25,306 £25,306 £25,306
Total Costs £5,133 £4,620 £5,647
NPV £20,173 £20,686 £19,659
BCR 4.9 5.5 4.5
All monetary values are discounted to 2010 prices and in £1,000s
4.10. Assessment of Environmental Impacts
Transport infrastructure contributes to a number of environmental challenges facing the Scotswood Road corridor. This principally relates to emissions affecting air quality and the release of greenhouse gases which are contributors to climate change. Other less obvious environmental impacts are also considered, particularly pertinent to transport provision; such as noise disturbance, landscape, journey ambiance, water environment and the segregation of habitats and communities. The scheme is not expected to result in significant changes to traffic flow volumes or speeds and therefore full noise and air quality assessments have been scoped out at this stage. All environmental impacts have been assessed qualitatively as part of the Appraisal Summary Table.
4.11. Wider Economic Impacts
An area of increasing interest in the appraisal of transport schemes is the wider economic impacts of the transport scheme. Eddington, in his study regarding the link between transport and the UK’s economic productivity, stated that ‘there is clear evidence that a comprehensive and high
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case performing transport system is an important enabler of sustained economic prosperity’. There is a clear economic need to tackle the significant social deprivation that is apparent in Scotswood, and indeed Newcastle and the North East, and any highway scheme that can improve the performance of the transport network is likely to assist in achieving this goal.
The proposed corridor improvements will be to the benefit of many local businesses located along the Scotswood Road. Without the corridor improvements, traffic congestion, which is currently evident, will be exacerbated even further. The consequences of increased traffic congestion, as shown in the VISSIM traffic model, will have undeniable economic consequences. The network performance statistics presented earlier show that there are significant improvements in the performance of the highway network with the implementation of the improvements being proposed. Failure to address traffic congestion will eventually manifest itself in the realisation to some companies that Scotswood Road, and indeed Newcastle, is not the area to relocate their business activities. Increasing traffic congestion may also result in some current employers relocating outside of the area.
Any decline in employment opportunities for the residents of Newcastle will increase levels of deprivation in the Newcastle and the Scotswood area.
4.12. Social and Distributional Impacts
With any transport scheme, there is likely to be a mixture of positive and negative impacts that will be experienced by different groups of people in different locations and to different magnitudes. It is important therefore, when appraising a transport scheme, that these winners and losers are identified so that they can be fully assessed within the appraisal process. WebTAG 3.17 identifies 8 impacts which should be considered for assessment as follows: User Benefits; Noise; Air Quality; Accidents; Security; Severance; Accessibility; Personal Affordability An initial screening of each impact, identified above, has been undertaken to establish whether there is potential for social and distributional impacts to occur. The conclusions from each impact are summarised in Table 4.22 below.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case
Table 4.22: Impact Summary Table
IMPACT SCREENING The scheme will improve journey times by providing additional capacity at the Scotswood Bridgehead junction. This will reduce congestion in the study area. The impacts are likely to be significant in the local area and less pronounced elsewhere. The local area User benefits consists of a significant proportion of lower income groups.
Given that the Scotswood area has significant areas of deprivation, the user benefits that the majority of residents will receive results in an overall large beneficial score. The scheme is not likely to impact on low income or vulnerable groups as no significant changes in noise are anticipated as a result of the scheme. This is due to the scheme Noise being unlikely to lead to a reduction or increase in traffic flows in the area. A neutral score is therefore assigned. The scheme is not likely to impact on low income or vulnerable groups as no significant changes in air quality are anticipated as a result of the scheme. This is due to the scheme Air quality being unlikely to lead to a reduction or increase in traffic flows in the area. A neutral score is therefore assigned. The scheme has been designed to mitigate existing congestion at the northern Scotswood Bridgehead junction. It is not being designed to address a road safety issue Accidents and does not target any particular low income or vulnerable group. Improved pedestrian provision has however been implemented as part of the scheme. A neutral score is therefore assigned. The scheme is likely to have little impact on security as additional services and facilities Security are not being considered in the appraisal process. A neutral score is therefore assigned. Improved pedestrian infrastructure is being provided as part of the scheme. The scheme will also provide improved access from the Reece junction. The scheme is therefore Severance expected to have a neutral impact on severance and will not unfairly disadvantage any particular vulnerable group. A neutral score is therefore assigned. As per WebTAG 3.6.3, this element focuses on public transport accessibility. The scheme Accessibility will lead to a reduction in journey times for public transport but will not impact on routing of public transport. A neutral score is therefore assigned. Personal The scheme is predominantly a highway scheme and the scheme will not directly impact affordability on public transport fares or parking charges.
4.13. Appraisal Summary Table
The Appraisal Summary Table (AST) is designed to provide decision makers with a concise overview of scheme impacts. The results of the assessment of the full improvement scheme against the Central Government objectives and sub-objectives for transport are presented in Table 4.23 overleaf.
Scheme The The The The The Introduction Description Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Case Case Case Case Case
AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Table 4.23: Appraisal Summary Table Scotswood Road Corridor Improvements ASSESSMENT DISTRIBUTIONAL 7- IMPACTS SUMMARY OF KEY IMPACTS PT SCALE / QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE £,000s (NPV) VULNERABLE GROUP Business users will benefit from shorter Value of 9 journey times due to the reduction in Journey Time million delay with the scheme in place. This will Changes (£s) lead to an over reduction in the cost of Net Journey Time Business Users travel. Changes (£000s) and Transport 0 to 2 2 to 5 Major Benefit £9,000 Large Beneficial >5 min Providers Public transport operators will min min particularly benefit from a reduction in delay on the westbound approach to 2.8 m 3 m 3.2m Scotswood Bridgehead junction in the PM peak The scheme helps to improve journey Reliability impact time reliability as well as reduce delay at N/A Moderate Benefit N/A
Economy on business users the junction The improvements at the junction will help to facilitate Newcastle City Regeneration N/A Moderate Benefit N/A Council’s planned regeneration of the Scotswood area. The scheme will improve the performance of the highway network. As Wider impacts identified by Eddington, a high N/A Moderate Benefit N/A performing transport network is an enabler of economic growth. Although changes to the road layout will
include road widening, local residential properties are sufficiently far from the altered highways that any increase in Noise noise due to traffic moving closer to N/A Neutral N/A Neutral properties will be less than 1 dB(A). It is thus anticipated that the Proposed
Environmental Development will not cause any significant change in traffic flow or
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 74 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
ASSESSMENT DISTRIBUTIONAL 7- IMPACTS SUMMARY OF KEY IMPACTS PT SCALE / QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE £,000s (NPV) VULNERABLE GROUP composition and therefore no change in noise levels at local residential properties.
The Proposed Development does not exceed the assessment criteria for local air quality effects as defined by the Air quality DMRB Volume II, Section 3 Part 1 (HA N/A Neutral N/A Neutral 207/07) and so significant air quality effects are not considered likely to occur. Greenhouse gases are scoped out of Greenhouse the WebTAG appraisal based on the N/A Neutral N/A Gases regional assessment criteria. The scheme is not likely to have an Landscape N/A N/A N/A impact on landscape. The scheme is likely to provide a slight Townscape benefit to Townscape as it improves the N/A Minor Benefit N/A environment for pedestrians. Historic The scheme is not likely to have an N/A Neutral N/A Environment impact on the historic environment. The scheme is not likely to have an Biodiversity N/A Neutral N/A impact on biodiversity. The scheme is not likely to impact on Water Environment N/A Neutral N/A the water environment.
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 75 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
ASSESSMENT DISTRIBUTIONAL 7- IMPACTS SUMMARY OF KEY IMPACTS PT SCALE / QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE £,000s (NPV) VULNERABLE GROUP Value of Journey £15.1 Time Changes million Commuting and other users will benefit from (£s) Commuting and reductions in delay as a result of the Net Journey Time Changes Major Benefit £15,100 Large Beneficial Other users scheme. This will lead to an overall (£000s) reduction in the cost of travel. 0 to 2 2 to 5 0 to 2 min min min 4.3 4.6 6.2 Reliability impact on The scheme will help to improve journey Commuting and N/A Moderate Benefit N/A time reliability along the Scotswood Road. Other users The scheme is not likely to have an impact Physical activity N/A Neutral N/A on physical activity. It is expected that the scheme will provide an improvement in journey ambience. Journey time savings are likely to reduce the Journey quality stress of travelling for both drivers and those N/A Major Benefit N/A
utilising public transport services. Reduction in congestion at the junction will contribute to an improvement in journey ambience. Social The control of conflicting vehicular movements with traffic signals is likely to have a positive accident benefit. Whilst a quantitative appraisal has not been Accidents undertaken, as traffic flows and speeds are N/A Minor Benefit N/A Neutral not predicted to change as part of the scheme, a signalised roundabout junction type has a lower accident rate in COBALT compared to an unsignalised roundabout. The preferred scheme is likely to have little impact on the security sub-objective as Security N/A Neutral N/A Neutral additional services and facilities are not being considered in the appraisal process. Access to services may be improved by Access to services N/A Minor Benefit N/A Neutral shorter journey times. The proposed scheme is predominantly a Affordability highway scheme and will not impact on N/A Neutral N/A Neutral public transport fares and parking charges.
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 76 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
The scheme may offer a slight reduction in severance as pedestrian crossing facilities Severance N/A Minor Benefit N/A Neutral are improved by the removal of the subways and installation of at-grade crossings. Option and non-use The scheme does not include additional N/A N/A N/A values mode choice options.
Cost to Broad £4.2m (2015 prices Funding to be sourced from LEP N/A £5,133 Transport Budget excluding optimism bias)
unts Indirect Tax
Public A cost of £0.73m N/A -£0.73
Acco Revenues
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 77
THE FINANCIAL CASE
05 78 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction 5. THE FINANCIAL CASE 5.1. Introduction
The purpose of the financial case is to demonstrate the affordability of the proposal, its funding arrangements and technical accounting issues (value for money is scrutinised in the economic case). The estimated costs and likely expenditure profile are presented in this chapter of the business case. The DfT’s guidance document, ‘The Transport Business Case: Financial Case’, outlines the requirements of the financial case. Table 5.1 below shows where the information covering these areas can be found in this document.
Table 5.1: Financial Case Requirements
LOCATION IN SUB-SECTION DfT REQUIREMENTS THIS DOCUMENT Introduction Outline the approach taken to assess affordability 5.1 Provide details of: Expected whole life costs When they will occur Costs Breakdown and profile of costs by those 5.2 - 5.7 parties on whom they fall Any risk allowance that may be needed (in the event of things going wrong) Provide analysis of the budget/funding cover for Budget/Funding the project. Set out, if relevant, details of other 5.8 Cover funding sources (e.g. third party contributions, fees) Accounting Describe expected impact on organisation’s 5.7, 5.8 implications balance sheet
5.2. Costs
To assess the affordability of the scheme, costs have been developed for the construction of the Scotswood improvements by AECOM highway engineers and signal engineers at Newcastle City Council. The costs have been developed as part of the design of the scheme and are given in 2015 prices. The total cost for the construction of the scheme is £2.7 million. This cost can be broken down as shown in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2: Scheme Costs
PHASE 1 BUDGET COST PHASE 2 and 3 BUDGET TOTAL BUDGET COST COST ITEM ESTIMATE COST ESTIMATE ESTIMATE 2015 Cost £544,500 £1,637,938.01 £ 2,182,438.01
5.3. Inflation Assumptions
A key assumption to determining scheme outturn costs is the level of forecast annual inflation anticipated to occur to construction prices. Inflation is applied to real scheme costs, to determine scheme outturn costs. Outturn scheme costs, which are used to determine the Quantified Cost Estimate, provide the actual costs of the scheme in cash terms.
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 79 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
A factor of 1.038 has been applied to the 2015 base year costs to account for inflation assuming a construction year of 2016. This is based on the Tender Price Index which has been provided by AECOM’s Program, Cost and Consultancy division. Inflation is exempt from Phase 1 costs given that signal purchase is scheduled prior to the end of the 2015/16 financial year. This MSBC does not specify how any increase in scheme cost from inflation is funded, however a significant risk allowance has been included in the scheme costs.
5.4. Allowance for Risk
An unquantified risk register has been developed as part of the design of the scheme. It is intended that this is a live document which will be updated as the scheme progresses. A risk cost has been included for Phase 2 and 3 as part of the current cost estimate. No risk has been calculated for Phase 1 given completion of detailed design.
5.5. Optimism Bias
There exists a systematic tendency for project appraisers to be overly optimistic (HMT Green Book, 2003, page 29). To account for this in scheme appraisal, risk adjusted scheme costs should be adjusted to take account of ‘optimism bias’. Table 7 in TAG Unit A1-2 states that there are three stages of scheme development with the following optimism bias uplifts: Stage 1: Programme Entry 44% Stage 2: Conditional Approval 15% Stage 3: Full Approval. These stages align with the three gateway stages defined in the NECA quality assurance framework. The Scotswood Bridgehead improvements scheme is currently at stage 1, programme entry. An optimism bias of 44% has therefore been applied to the scheme costs of Phase 2 and 3 to be used in the economic appraisal. Given, the progression of Phase 1, optimism bias of 3% has been applied to this cost element.
5.6. Quantified Cost Estimate
Table 5.3 below sets out the quantified cost estimate (outturn cost), which includes risk and inflation.
Table 5.3: Quantified Cost Estimate
ELEMENT COST 2015 Cost £ 2,182,438.01
Inflation £ 62,280.58
Risk £ 1,967,676.18
Total £ 4,212,394.77
5.7. Ongoing Maintenance Costs
The scheme is to be carried out within adopted highway and therefore does not require planning permission. Following completion of the scheme, all associated infrastructure would be maintained
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 80 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction by Newcastle City Council, with the exception of the traffic signals which would be maintain by the NECA UTMC.
5.8. Funding
The North East LEP growth deal was awarded a total of £329.9 million funding in July 2014 and January 2015. £3.7 million of this has been allocated toward the Scotswood Bridgehead improvement scheme; 88% of the total scheme cost. Newcastle City Council will provide a 12% local contribution to the scheme; a value of £0.5 million. This shows a local commitment to the scheme and underlines the belief that improvements to the Scotswood Bridgehead scheme will improve traffic conditions in Newcastle. The funding profile for the scheme is set out in Table 5.4 below. Figure 5.1 is also included to show the cumulative spend profile through the project.
Table 5.4: Spending Profile
YEAR NCC SPEND NECA SPEND TOTAL CUMULATIVE SPEND 2015/16 £44,500 £500,000 £544,500 £544,500
2016/17 £227,499 £2,159,375.75 £2,386,874.75 £2,931,374.75
2017/18 £222,000 £1,053,019 £1,275,019 £4,206,393.75
2018/19 £6,001.02 - £6,001.02 £4,212,394.77
5.9. Section 151 Officer Sign-Off
In accordance with DfT guidance, the cost estimate for the scheme requires sign-off from the relevant Section 151 Officer. The Section 151 Officer is content that the scheme costs are reasonable for Gateway 1 stage.
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 81 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Figure 5.1: Cumulative Spending Profile
£4,500,000
£4,000,000
£3,500,000
£3,000,000
£2,500,000
£2,000,000
£1,500,000
£1,000,000
£500,000
£0
Jul-16 Jul-17 Jul-18
Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
Jun-16 Jun-17 Jun-18
Oct-16 Oct-17 Oct-18
Apr-16 Apr-17 Apr-18 Apr-19
Feb-16 Sep-16 Feb-17 Sep-17 Feb-18 Sep-18 Feb-19
Dec-15 Dec-16 Dec-17 Dec-18
Aug-16 Aug-17 Aug-18
Nov-16 Nov-17 Nov-18
Mar-16 Mar-17 Mar-18 Mar-19
May-17 May-18 May-19 May-16
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 82
THE COMMERCIAL CASE
06 83 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction 6. THE COMMERCIAL CASE 6.1. Introduction
The commercial case demonstrates how the scheme will result in a viable procurement and well- structured deal. The DfT’s guidance document, ‘The Transport Business Case: Commercial Case’, outlines the requirements of the commercial case. Table 6.1 below shows where the information covering these areas can be found in this document.
Table 6.1: Commercial Case Requirements
LOCATION IN SUB-SECTION DfT REQUIREMENTS THIS DOCUMENT Outline the approach taken to assess commercial Introduction 6.1 viability Summarise the requirement in terms of outcomes Output-based and outputs, supplemented by full specification as 6.2 specification annex. Procurement Detail procurement / purchasing options 6.3 strategy Explain the options for sources of provision of services to meet the business need e.g. Sourcing options partnerships, framework, existing supplier 6.3 arrangements, with rationale for selecting preferred sourcing option Set out the proposed payment mechanisms that Payment will be negotiated with the providers e.g. linked to 6.5 mechanisms performance and availability, providing incentives for alternative revenue streams Pricing framework To include incentives, deductions and and charging 6.5, 6.9 performance targets mechanisms Present an assessment of how the types of risk Risk allocation and might be apportioned or shared, with risks 6.6 transfer allocated to the part best placed to manage them subject to achieving value for money Set out scenarios for contract length (with Contract length 6.7 rationale) and proposed key contractual clauses Human resource Personnel/people management/TU implications 6.8 issues including TUPE Provide a high level view of implementation timescales. Detail additional support for in-service Contract management during roll-out/closure. Set out 6.9 Management arrangements for management contract through project /service delivery
6.2. Output Based Specification
The works are defined as follows:
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 84 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Phase 1 - Upgrade of Phase 2 - Denton Road Phase 3 - Scotswood Traffic Signals Roundabout Bridgehead and REECE junction
• Amended lane • Scotswood • Phase 1a - designation allowing Bridgehead Procurement of traffic to utilise both • All movement equipment to upgrade lanes on Scotswood signalisation all signalise junctions Road for movements • Two lane east- along the Scotswood to the A1 bound slip Road corridor to UTC • Amended southern • Two lane right turn • Phase 1b - Upgrade kerb line on the onto the bridgehead of traffic signals along circulatory, with from the west, corridor associated road extending through markings changes, to the centre of the provide a smoother, existing roundabout more navigable • REECE junction alignment for movements from • Signalised junction Scotswood Road with the right turn East to the A1 into the development and exit from the development operating on a demand basis
6.3. Procurement Strategy
The scale of the construction works sits within the capabilities of the Council’s own Technical Services Division. The Council will be undertaking both the detailed design and construction of this scheme. Should the need arise, mechanisms are in place for the use of external contractors. In respect of progressing Phase 1, there is a longstanding Service Level Agreement between the Council and the NECA UTMC which will enable the purchase of the Phase 1 signal equipment and subsequent signals maintenance.
6.4. Payment Mechanism
At this stage, project delivery will be in house; this will be subject to review at Gateway 2 stage as the project progresses. Should it be required, it is recommended that the Contractor be appointed under the New Engineering Contract (NEC) 3, Engineering and Construction Contract (ECC) Option C with activity schedule. This contract offers an incentive to the contractor to deliver the project to a target cost with any saving or cost overrun shared between the promoters and the Contractor. The percentage split of this “Pain/Gain” relationship would be determined during the procurement process. Using this tried and tested standard form of contract will benefit the promoter by avoiding the cost and time of forming and negotiating a bespoke contract. Also, tender comparisons are simplified since the risk allocation is the same for each party.
6.5. Risk Allocation and Transfer
Section 7 clearly sets out the roles and responsibilities for the project. All risks are currently held with Newcastle City Council. There is scope to transfer risk as necessary or appropriate through the project.
The complete risk register, unquantified at this stage, is available in Appendix A.
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 85 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
6.6. Contract Length and Milestones
The project plan highlights works are expected to begin in April 2016, with scheme opening scheduled for October 2017. The upgrades at the signalised junctions along the Scotswood Road corridor are expected to be undertaken alongside the bridgehead improvements, beginning at the A6085/B&Q Blaydon junction in April 2016 and finishing September 2017 at Plummer Street.
Whilst the scale of work enables in house delivery, the project plan provides sufficient time in respect of tender and contractor appointment should the need arise. The complete project plan is included in Appendix B.
6.7. Human Resources Issues
Newcastle City Council will be responsible for the progress of the scheme and the management of resources in order to achieve this. As the Project Manager, Graham Grant will be responsible for any resourcing issues that may arise; mechanisms within the Council are available in order to recruit or use external consultants should the need arise.
The scheme is programmed to minimise conflict with other scheme being delivered in Newcastle. A clear project plan is set out and further details in respect of resourcing are outlined in the management case.
6.8. Contract Management
Contract management will be undertaken using a number of key performance indicators to ensure effective delivery on time and in budget. Table 6.2 summarises the Contract Performance Measures intended as part of the assessment.
Table 6.2: Planned Contract Performance Measures
DESCRIPTION COMMUNICATION METHOD COMMENT Delivery compliance Face to face agreement KPI’s stipulated within contract documentation Health and safety Regular inspections and performance reports Budget stability/control Face to face and monthly Monitored by Client valuations/stage payments Engineer/QS and report Risk management Face to face (mitigation report)
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 86
THE MANAGEMENT CASE
07 87 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction 7. THE MANAGEMENT CASE 7.1. Introduction
The management case outlines the project development to date, project plan, key milestones to develop and implement the project; the methodology to deliver to plan; the management of risk; and Newcastle City Council’s existing track record in project delivery. The DfT’s guidance document, ‘The Transport Business Case: Management Case’, outlines the requirements of the management case. Table 7.1 below shows where the information covering these areas can be found in this document.
Table 7.1: Management Case Requirements
LOCATION IN SUB-SECTION DfT REQUIREMENTS THIS DOCUMENT Outline the approach taken to assess if the 7.1 Introduction proposal is deliverable Provide evidence of similar projects that have 7.2 Evidence of Similar been successful to support the recommended Projects approach. Programme/project Set out deliverables and decisions that are 7.3 dependencies provided/received from other projects Governance, 7.4 & 7.5 Organisational Key roles, lines of accountability and how they Structure and are resourced Roles Programme/Project Plan with key milestones and progress, including 7.6 Plan critical path Assurance and Plan with key assurance and approvals 7.6 Approvals Plan milestones Communications 7.7 and Stakeholder Develop communications strategy for the project Management Programme/Project 7.4 & 7.5 Describe reporting arrangements reporting Implementation of Summary of key work streams for executing the 7.4 & 7.5 work streams work Key issues for 7.8 Issues likely to affect delivery and implementation implementation Summarise outline arrangements. Confirm 7.4 & 6.8 Contract arrangements for continuity between those Management involved in developing the contract and those who will subsequently manage it.
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 88 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
LOCATION IN SUB-SECTION DfT REQUIREMENTS THIS DOCUMENT Risk Management Arrangements for risk management and 7.8 Strategy effectiveness so far Benefits realisation Set out approach to managing realisation of 7.9 plan benefits Monitoring and Summarise outline arrangements for monitoring 7.9 Evaluation Plan and evaluating the intervention Summarise outline arrangements for contingency 7.6 & 7.8 Contingency Plan management such as fall-back plans of service implementation is delayed Summarise overall approach for project 7.5 Options management at this stage of the project
7.2. Evidence of Similar Projects
Newcastle City Council has a track record of delivering both small and large scale highways schemes. The Technical Services Division provides a range of specialist functions, including: roads and bridge design; flood risk management; road safety; and structural, traffic and transport engineering. In the peak of Local Transport Plan funding, the Council delivered in excess of £6m per annum in transport schemes. These included highway and bridge maintenance, traffic management, road safety, cycling, public rights of way, public transport and schemes which facilitated the development of employment and housing sites.
The City Council was also responsible for bidding for and delivering major schemes in excess of £5m. Notable schemes included Scotswood Road dualling (over four phases) and Eldon Square Bus Station. The Engineer to the Tyne Tunnels (based in Newcastle) was also responsible for the delivery of the largest infrastructure project in the North East for some time. This role was supported by ITA officers for legal, financial and procurement advice, all of whom were employed by Newcastle City Council.
More recently, the Council is currently delivering the Cowgate roundabout improvement scheme, to the north of the city centre. This is a multi million pound scheme which will support improvements for all modes of transport, including non motorised users by increasing capacity at the roundabout, removing the existing subway system and replacing with at grade crossing points for pedestrians and cyclists.
The Council is also delivering extensive improvements in the city centre as part of the Cycle City Ambition Grant funded schemes. This is seeing highway being reallocated to cyclists and restricting traffic, with a short to medium term aspiration to carry out further works of this nature to improve the public realm in the city centre, making it more cycle and pedestrian friendly. The schemes will better link the main retail offer in the city centre with some of the city’s biggest employers at the Civic Centre, RVI, and the two university campuses.
In addition, Newcastle City Council has also supported major developer led infrastructure schemes such as Newcastle Great Park. This was a mixed use development site incorporating highway works, power supplies, mixed use employment, housing, leisure and retail. Newcastle City Council was responsible for the delivery of highway infrastructure to facilitate the delivery of the overall programme.
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 89 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
7.3. Project Dependencies
Successful delivery of this project is dependent on a range of internal and external factors, most notably financial and technical resources and expertise. Critical to this, is having strong programme and project governance arrangements in place, see Section 7.4. Within Newcastle City Council, the Technical Services Division delivers the full range of services relative to the successful delivery of this project. These are listed in Section 7.2 above. They will be supported by the Regional Traffic Signals Group who will undertake the detailed design of the traffic signal installation for the scheme. An independent audit will be commissioned to ensure that the signals, when implemented, provide the best solution for all modes of traffic at this location. The teams have a strong workload which is expected to continue throughout the project, therefore mechanisms are in place to enable the use of external consultants should the need arise in order to ensure that the Council’s history of successful project delivery continues. Setting out of a project plan provides a clear understanding of milestones and resource intensive periods, designed such that these can be foreseen and planned for. The scale of the construction works sits within the capabilities of the Council’s own Technical Services Division. The Council will be undertaking both the detailed design and construction of this scheme.
7.4. Project Governance
The development and delivery of the Scotswood Road corridor scheme is encompassed within Newcastle City Council’s governance structure for major projects, as shown in Figure 7.1 overleaf.
7.5. Roles and Responsibilities
The following roles and responsibilities are set out:
7.5.1. Project Board
The Project Board is chaired by the Project Owner Mick Murphy (Director of Communities, Newcastle City Council). The Project Board is the decision making forum on behalf of officers.
The Project Board will meet monthly and/or at significant milestones. The role of the Project Board is to: Make recommendations through the reporting structure to Investment and Delivery Group and onward to Cabinet where their approval is required to proceed; Make other approvals at key stages; Provide strategic direction and senior officer level leadership to the project; Ensure that the project objectives are achieved and benefits realised; Scrutinise and constructively challenge; Delegate authority to the Project Manager to make decisions within specified parameters; Review and manage major risks to the Council; and Ensure that the project team is adequately resourced.
The stages of project management in respect of Project Board, throughout the project, are shown in Figure 7.2.
7.5.2. Project Owner
The Project Owner role is to: Chair the Project Board and provide senior officer level leadership to the project; Ensure the project provides Best Value and is affordable; and
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 90 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Support the Project Manager on key negotiating issues.
The Project Owner is Michael Murphy, Director of Communities, Newcastle City Council.
7.5.3. Project Manager
Currently, due to the stage of development, the Project Manager is Graham Grant, the City Council’s Transport Development Specialist whose team leads on transport strategy and scheme development. Graham works within the Investment and Development Directorate. Graham has proven project management experience in delivering multi-disciplinary projects of this type. He has been part of the bid preparation team and is very familiar with the issues in the local area.
The Project Manager will be ‘empowered’ to plan and allocate responsibilities for the project’s tasks and development as part of the project methodology and take day-to-day responsibility for managing the development, procurement, execution and delivery of the project. The Project Manager will have a central role interacting with all the main parties.
The Project Manager will be responsible for leading and directing a multi-disciplinary team.
The Project Manager is required to: Make key decisions within the parameters delegated by the Project Board; Communicate effectively with all members of the Project Team, Project Board, stakeholders, users and the wider community; In conjunction with the Project Owner, identify and secure sufficient resources to deliver the project effectively; Manage the budget and additional resources if necessary; Manage the vital success factors for project delivery; Report regularly and at key stages to the Project Board and the North East Combined Authority; Liaise with and provide necessary updates and information as required; Manage competing interests; Provide quality assurance and sign-off to all project documentation; Establish and manage systems for clarification; Develop evaluation methodology and manage evaluation process; Implement the project management methodology; Review and update the risk register; and Network with other local authorities, DfT, Local Partnerships and the wider market to understand and share best practice.
7.5.4. Project Team
The Project Team is multi-disciplinary and is led by the Project Manager. It provides the resource to develop and procure the project and deliver in accordance with the Project Objectives. Each work stream is led by an appropriately skilled and experienced internal lead officer who reports to the Project Manager.
Project administrative support will be provided to facilitate effective communication and control throughout the project development. Additional procurement support is available from the services procurement team to provide specialist support should it be required.
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 91 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Figure 7.1: Major Project Governance
Newcastle City Council
Cabinet
Level 1 Informal Cabinet IDG + (Members) Members DECISION
Delegated Asset Advisory Decision Group
Cabinet / Directors Team
Portfolio Holder Consultation / Involvement Investment and Delivery Group (IDG) Level 2 Directorate Programme Boards ASSURANCE + OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT
Investment and Communities Wellbeing Care and Development Directorate Directorate (Decent Learning Directorate Assistant Chief Executive Resources Directorate (Working City) Neighbourhoods) (Tackling Inequalities) (Fit for Purpose Council) (Fit for Purpose Council)
Individual Projects and Programmes delivered by experienced project managers using the corporate project management system Note: Some external / partnership projects have their own governance arrangements Level 3 Programmes and Projects DELIVERY
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 92 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Figure 7.2: Project Management System – Project Lifecycle and Gates
GATE 1 – MANDATE The appropriate Programme Board must take ‘ownership’ of a project idea, confirming that it is in line with their objectives and current priorities, and commissioning the next stage of project development work.
GATE 2 – PROPOSAL The board must confirm they are satisfied with:- strategic fit; other options (is the proposed project the best way to meet objectives); the level of risk likely to be associated with the project; and satisfaction that all possible implications for the Council are being investigated.
GATE 3 – BUSINESS CASE The Board must consider and sign off the Business Case – ensuring that the project has been properly thought through and planned. The Business Case includes the following key elements:- Options Appraisal Clear, measurable objectives Weighted evaluation criteria Options for intervention Robust cost estimates (including whole life costs) Value for money analysis Delivery Planning Confirm scope and exclusions Product / output definition Timescales and stages Resource requirements (capital and revenue) Funding plan Project team / structure Risk log Consultation and engagement Stakeholder analysis Member involvement Partnership agreements Governance, reporting and approvals.
GATE 4 – START-UP It is not until this point that the project can be formally accepted (if at all) onto the relevant programme. The Project Manager must be able to confirm and demonstrate that all necessary preparation for project delivery has been completed. This includes securing resources, establishing and briefing the project team and (where necessary) project board, setting up reporting templates, and agreeing tolerances and change controls.
GATE 5 – DELIVERY AND MONITORING Formal review and checkpoints will have been built into the project’s timeline at Gate 4. Alongside these the Project Manager is required to regularly report delivery.
GATE 6 - CLOSE Projects are reviewed at close to check whether the benefits have been delivered, address any post project needs and capture lessons learned.
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 93 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
7.6. Project Plan
The project plan is shown in Appendix B. Site works associated with the bridgehead will begin in December 2016, with scheme opening scheduled for October 2017. Signal upgrades along the Scotswood Road corridor will run from April 2016 to September 2017.
7.7. Communication and Stakeholder Management
The management of the project will be conducted using the NECA Project Vision software package, a tool which will facilitate the day-to-day management of the project and assist in the production of progress reporting, risk management, monitoring and other key project management elements. This will enable the scheme to be monitored in line with other major schemes in the NECA programme. A full communications and stakeholder log will be developed as the scheme progresses, involving those mentioned in Section 3.12. Stakeholder reviews and consultation are scheduled for March/April 2016.
7.8. Risk Management
The strategic risk management approach shown in Figure 7.3 below will be used to allow senior management to be fully involved in the identification of strategic objectives which will set a high level precedent to encourage responsible risk taking at all levels to achieve Value for Money in all highway projects. The tool endorsed for the day-to-day project management of project (including risk management) will be the Project Vision software package. The methodology follows a recurring process to be implemented across the project lifecycle. It aligns with OGC ‘Management of Risk’ (MoR) best practice guidance to benefit reliable and resilient cost estimation that delivers real Value for Money savings.
Figure 7.3: Risk Management Methodology
The risk management methodology will identify and manage project risks for the project. This will be achieved, as follows:
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 94 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
1) Identification - as part of preparing this submission, delivery risks associated with the work have been identified. These risks are summarised in the Risk Register (Appendix A). This register contains both scheme specific risks and general risks to delivery as outlined in Table 7.2 below.
Table 7.2: Risk Categories and Examples
RISK CATEGORY EXAMPLE OF RISK
Construction Unforeseen technical issues arise during the construction period that impact on cost/delivery.
Financial Changes to building/design regulations.
Operational Scheme design fails to meet revised capacity requirements.
Planning/design Unexpected changes being required to the design which impact on cost and timescales for delivery.
Resources Identified funding is withdrawn.
Third parties/stakeholders Failure or delay in satisfying objections from stakeholders in relation to the scheme specification/design.
2) Analysis - the Risk Register will enable the effective management and communication of potential conflicts, ensuring appropriate mitigation is incorporated into the subsequent design process. The Risk Register identifies the potential causes and consequences of each risk identified for the scheme. The register will be a ‘live’ document, maintained and owned by the Project Manager. The Risk Register is shown in Appendix A. 3) Costing – The cost estimation for the scheme considers additional design costs and predicted costs for construction and operation. A cost estimate has been provided as part of the submission. Cost estimation is refined through the design process to include: Re-assessment of resources (skill/time) and costs 3rd party costs and/or supply chain to provide specialist advice and undertake additional surveys and investigation (e.g. trial holes, structural assessments) Assessment of optimum cost of maintenance to inform OPEX/whole life costs based on risk, frequency and cost of repair/mitigation Assessment of cost of delivery risk through a QRA using Monte-Carlo simulation. As the scheme progresses, it is proposed to offset the refinement of a QRA with a reduction in the optimism bias. 4) Management - Actions to mitigate risk will be managed and monitored by the Project Manager at interim reviews. Team members best placed to manage the identified risks will be assigned ownership of specific actions, with progress reported on a regular basis to the Project Manager. Project Vision management software will be used to manage this project and risks on a day-to-day basis. Risk workshops would be held to support the development of mitigation measures designed to lower the overall scheme risk. Workshops would be structured to focus on detailed design and would typically include a review of funding, planning, data sources, third party involvement and utilities, design, and construction. 5) Review – The risk register will be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. Where the severity of a particular risk impact changes, the cost and programme implications will be revisited and future actions agreed in accordance with appropriate change management procedures. Mitigation performance and residual risk would be also subject to review at the end of commissions and inform the lessons learned process. Risk Management is a pro-active exercise designed to enable the identification, analysis and
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 95 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
effective ongoing management response to risks.
The main objectives of the Risk Management process are: To establish a framework for the identification, assessment and control of risks (using appropriate management responses) associated with the Project; and
To provide better management information about project risks (captured in a detailed risk register) enabling better informed decisions and support the achievement of the stated project objectives. Risk management information (including the risk register) will be held within the project shared server facility and requests for access to this information can be directed through the project team. This facility will act as the main repository for all project information. The project’s risk management process comprises of the following steps:
Setting the context;
Risk identification;
Risk assessment;
Risk response; and
Risk reporting and review.
7.9. Benefits, Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring will be undertaken in three stages over the lifetime of the full scheme and project. The first will be during the delivery of the scheme. The evaluation of the scheme construction process will be led by the Project Manager over the first 6 months of the project. This will include quarterly monitoring provided to the NELEP as agreed within LGF offer of grant. This will detail progress of project delivery against a forecast profile. The second phase of monitoring will be post scheme completion. A report will be complied post scheme completion, led by the Project Manager. This will include: A measure of whether key milestones were met on time and on budget An explanation of any variability compared to forecasts presented in the business case Lessons learnt (which will feed into other subsequent major schemes delivered in Newcastle) A report on the effectiveness of managing risks Outturn costs will be published in the report. A comparison will be made with the costs presented in the business case with cost savings and overruns to be identified and explained. A Stage 3 Road Safety Audit will be undertaken immediately prior to scheme opening, with a Stage 4 Road Safety Audit scheduled for April 2018, post scheme completion. The third stage of monitoring will take place through a project evaluation. This is scheduled for October 2018, one year post scheme completion (including the completion of signal upgrades). Table 7.3 provides the benefit indicators and identifies how these will be measured (with required before and after data). These are aligned to the project objectives, as discussed in Section 3.13 and shown in Table 3.9 in the Strategic Case.
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 96 AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction
Table 7.3: Benefit Evaluation
PROJECT OBJECTIVES MEASURES OF SUCCESS DATA SOURCE OWNER
To assist in the reduction of congestion that occurs at the A more efficient and reliable Newcastle City Journey time data Scotswood Bridgehead junction road network Council during the peak periods
To provide the conditions for A more efficient and reliable Newcastle City Journey time data more reliable journey times road network Council Employment data, Increased number of jobs including job creation To remove transport related figures Newcastle City barriers to development along Council the corridor Increased number of Development land with planning permission per development opportunities hectare To increase the market share Increased bus use Bus patronage Newcastle City and competitiveness of public Reduced journey times Bus journey times Council transport To remove barriers to integration Newcastle City between travel modes and Improved access to transport Scheme design Council services To improve the attractiveness of Increased bus use Bus patronage Newcastle City public transport, walking and Increased walking and cycling Cycle counters Council cycling Improved health and wellbeing Pedestrian counts Reduced disruption To provide road safety benefits Reduce insurance claims STATS 19 data Newcastle City at the junction Reduced cost to healthcare TADU Council system Increased bus use Bus patronage To address transport-related Increased walking and cycling Cycle counters Newcastle City social exclusion Improved health and wellbeing Pedestrians counts Council Improved affluence IMD data
The The The The The Scheme Introduction Strategic Economic Financial Commerical Management Description Case Case Case Case Case 97
APPENDIX A – RISK REGISTER
98
APPENDIX B – PROJECT PLAN
99
APPENDIX C – MODELLING AND ECONOMICS REPORT
100 ABOUTAECOM AECOM Scotswood Bridgehead Junction In a complex and unpredictable world, where growing demands have to be met with finite resources, AECOM brings experience gained from improving quality of life in hundreds of places. We bring together economists, planners, engineers, designers and project managers to work on projects at every scale. We engineer energy efficient buildings and we build new links between cities. We design new communities and regenerate existing ones. We are the first whole environments business, going beyond buildings and infrastructure. Our Europe teams form an important part of our worldwide network of nearly 100,000 staff in 150 countries. Through 360 ingenuity, we develop pioneering solutions that help our clients to see further and go further. www.aecom.com Follow us on Twitter: @aecom
ee 101