Annex 1 - Road link location plan

Legend

Sunderland Road Scheme AQMA Sunderland Road West Housing Urban Core Boundary main roads

Our Ref: GNE/GC Riverside Depot nd 22 June 2017 Mandela Way Dunston Stuart Corker Gateshead Transport Planner Transport Strategy NE11 9DH Gateshead Council Tel: 0191 420 50 50 Civic Centre Web: gonortheast.co.uk Regent Street Direct Line: 0191 4229297 Gateshead Email: [email protected] NE8 1HH

Ref: National Productivity Investment Fund.

Dear Stuart,

I am writing on behalf of to express our support for Gateshead’s bid to the National Productivity Investment Fund.

The large roundabout at the junction of Sunderland Road, Old Durham Road and Durham Road, is a major pinch point in the Gateshead road network and for much of the day, the ever increasing levels of congestion add unnecessary delays to buses on all of the approach roads.

Services 27 and X9/X10 operating mainly between South and East Gateshead towards the town centre and Newcastle are now being affected greatly by this congestion and attract high levels of complaint from our customers due to the unreliability and often the loss of service, due primarily to the low level of bus priority measures on this particular corridor.

The proposed scheme will provide a priority route for our buses to avoid these delays. I hope your bid is successful and that you are able to deliver these important improvements.

Yours sincerely

Jeff Hodgson Service Performance Manager Go North East

Go North East Limited. Registered in No. 2057284

Registered Office: 3rd Floor, Grey Street, , NE1 6EE

Andrew Haysey Transport Planning Manager Gateshead Council Civic Centre West Street Gateshead NE8 1HH

26 May 2017

Dear Andrew

RE: Sunderland Road Link proposal

I am writing to confirm Living Streets’ support for Gateshead Council’s Sunderland Road Link project, for the government’s National Productivity Investment Fund.

We are Living Streets, the UK charity for everyday walking. We want to create a walking nation, free from congested roads and pollution, reducing the risk of preventable illnesses and social isolation and making walking the natural choice. We believe that a walking nation means progress for everyone.

Our ambition is to get people of all generations to enjoy the benefits that this simple act brings and to ensure all our streets are fit for walking.

The proposed project is in an area with many competing demands, including heavy traffic, retail and residential. The proposed removal of the current subway used by pedestrians and its replacement by an at grade facility will help to rebalance the needs of the different users of the area, and encourage more people to make their journeys on foot.

Yours sincerely

Jennifer Wiles Regional Director (North)

Annex 4

Sunderland Road subway – crime statistics The Police.uk website for the area of Sunderland Road subway has been interrogated for the period April 2016 to March 2017 (inclusive).

The area is described on the map as ‘crime on or near the pedestrian subway’. There were a total 73 reported crimes during this period as follows. There were as many as 11 reported in one month period.

• Antisocial behaviour- 35 • Other theft- 4 • Public order- 10 • Violence and sexual offences- 6 • Theft from person- 3 • Other- 7 • Criminal damage/arson- 2 • Burglary- 2 • Possession of weapons- 1 • Robbery-1 • Vehicle crime- 1 • Drugs- 1

Anecdotal observation suggests a high proportion of people trying to cross at grade rather than use the subway. It is noted the pedestrian guardrail in the central reservation was pushed over at one point and has recently been repaired.

Scheme Impact Pro Forma for Small Project Bids - Please fill in the cells highlighted in yellow NPIF Year of assessment 2019

AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Inter-Peak Hr Scenario Input Data / Key Performance Indicators Unit Weekday Weekday Weekday Number of highway trips affected vehicles 397 364 309 Total vehicle travelled time vehicle-hours 2 2 2 Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km 162 153 131 Do-Minimum Highway peak period conversion factor - 2.50 2.50 6.00 Number of PT passenger trips on affected routes passenger trips 1,361 1,612 1,352 Total PT travelled time passenger-hrs 54 58 58 PT peak period conversion factor - 2.50 2.50 6.00 Number of highway trips affected vehicles 397 364 309 Total vehicle travelled time vehicle-hours 5 5 4 Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km 162 153 131 Do-Something Highway peak period conversion factor - 2.50 2.50 6.00 Number of PT passenger trips on affected routes passenger trips 1,361 1,612 1,352 Total PT travelled time passenger-hrs 27 31 25 PT peak period conversion factor - 2.50 2.50 6.00

Gateshead Sund Rd NPIF Annex 5 - project impacts pro forma.xls NPIF Notes:

1) The scheme assessment year should be as close as possible to the scheme opening year (and not final forecast year).

2) A base or forecast year model could be used for the assessment of the scheme. This depends on the age of base year model and the availability of a forecast year model for the scheme opening year.

3) To enable an assessment of travel time savings, at the very least, the vehicle (and/or passenger)-hours and vehicle (and/or passenger)-km rows in the Scheme Impact Pro-forma (for at least some time periods) should be filled in for both the Do-minimum and Do-something.

4) Highway and PT trip demand, travelled time and distance matrices should be obtained from the Area of Influence (which may be a set of selected links or cordoned network). Matrix calculation is required by multiplying OD trip demand matrix and time/distance matrix in order to calculate the highway and PT total travelled time/distance. The PT time matrix should include generalised cost components (in-vehicle time, waiting time etc.)

5) It is expected that the assessment should have been carried out on a fixed trip matrix basis. We therefore expect the number of trips affected in the Do-minimum and Do-something as reported to be the same (or similar e.g. within +/- 5%). If this is not the case a more appropriate reanalysis may be required and/or some supporting explanation.

6) Highway and/or Public Transport period conversion factors need to be derived from local data and be provided in the Scheme Impact Pro-forma.

7) Evidence should be provided of the validation of any model used – focussed on the key area of impact (including information on data used etc). If no model has been used then details of the data used and details/source of any assumptions (e.g. about changes in journey between Do-minimum and Do-something) should be provided.

8) If the scheme has significant impacts on cycling and walking, additional evidence should be provided to support the economic case.

Gateshead Sund Rd NPIF Annex 5 - project impacts pro forma.xls Transportation Gateshead Council 26/06/2017

Sunderland Road Bus Gate Scheme Economic Appraisal

Prepared by: Checked by: Gemma Paget Gary Macdonald Principal Consultant Regional Director

Approved by: Gary Macdonald Regional Director

Gateshead NPIF Bid Sunderland Road Bus Gate Economic Benefits Methodology

Rev No Comments Checked by Approved Date by

1 GM GM 29 June 2017

First Floor, One Trinity Gardens, , Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 2HF Telephone: 0191 224 6500 Website: http://www.aecom.com

Job No 60545500 Reference M001.001 Date Created 26/06/2017

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. document4

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1 2 Data Requirements ...... 3 2.1 Overview ...... 3 2.2 Bus Survey ...... 3 2.3 Highway Traffic Counts ...... 4 3 Methodology ...... 5 3.1 Overview ...... 5 3.2 Bus Services Travel Time and Distance ...... 5 3.3 Bus Service Demand ...... 5 3.4 Car Time ...... 6 3.5 Car Demand ...... 6 4 Assumptions ...... 7 5. 1 Introduction ...... 8 5 Results ...... 8 5. 2 Economic Appraisal Methodology ...... 8 5. 3 Modelling Results ...... 8 5. 4 Economic Appraisal Results ...... 10 6 Summary ...... 12

Table 1: Bus Services affected by bus gate ...... 3 Table 2: AM Data ...... 3 Table 3: IP Data ...... 3 Table 4: PM Data ...... 4 Table 5: Gateshead Highway Vehicle Survey Results ...... 4 Table 6: Existing (DM) and Scheme (DS) Bus Speeds (km/hr) ...... 5 Table 7: Gateshead TEMPRO Factors ...... 6 Table 8: Inputs and assumptions to the assessment ...... 7 Table 9: 2015 and 2030 Total bus passengers affected by the scheme ...... 8 Table 10: Bus Service travel time for DM and DS (min) ...... 8 Table 11: Bus Service distances for DM and DS (km) ...... 8 Table 12: 2019 and 2034 Bus Passenger Total Time Savings for each time period (min) ...... 8 Table 13: 2019 Bus Passenger Time Benefits for each time period (£) ...... 9 Table 14: 2034 Bus Passenger Time Benefits for each time period (£) ...... 9 Table 15: Highway Vehicles affected by the bus gate (vehicles)...... 9 Table 16: Highway journey times for DM and DS (min) ...... 9 Table 17: Total Car Period Time Impacts (min) ...... 9 Table 18: Total Car Period Journey Time benefits (£) ...... 10 Table 19: Sunderland Road bus gate economic assessment, values in £’s, in 2010 prices discounted to 2010...... 11

Figure 1: Bus Gate Location and Current/Proposed Bus Service Routes…………………………………………………………. 1

AECOM Sunderland Road Bus Gate Scheme Economic Appraisal 1

Capabilities on project: Transportation

1 Introduction

1.1 Introduction

Gateshead Council has ambitious plans to develop the urban core of Gateshead, with significant proposals for housing, leisure and employment development. However, traffic congestion in the centre of Gateshead is a significant issue, which may be an inhibitor to this development. Gateshead Council is therefore looking at measures to reduce congestion and promote more sustainable modes of transport to ensure this development can take place. With this in mind, proposals have been developed to provide direct and quicker access to the urban core for bus services, which currently experience similar levels of delay from traffic congestion that private vehicles experience. The Sunderland Road bus gate involves the construction of a bus gate on the Gateshead Highway, allowing bus services to/from the south east of the region to access Gateshead High Street via Sunderland Road as opposed to travelling via High Street West, which has a busy signalised junction, and Five Bridges roundabout. Figure 1 below shows the location of the bus gate and the existing bus routes and proposed bus routes through the bus gate. Figure 1: Bus gate location and current/proposed bus service routes

The aims of the bus gate scheme are to address the following problems in the centre of Gateshead: 1. Poor sustainable transport access to a site identified for major housing growth within the wider Urban Core area; 2. Delays to bus services between south east Gateshead and the main Newcastle/Gateshead Urban Core; 3. A poor environment for pedestrians and cyclists on one of the main routes between Gateshead town centre and residential areas to the south-east.

The proposal was previously submitted for pinch point funding but was not successful in the October 2013 round of funding. However, scheme design, through to detailed design, has been ongoing as the scheme is seen as essential for facilitating sustainable economic growth; bus operators are also keen for the scheme to go ahead due to the benefits to the commercial viability of their services. Whilst detailed design of the scheme is now complete, funding for the scheme is not currently available.

AECOM Sunderland Road Bus Gate Scheme Economic Appraisal 2

Capabilities on project: Transportation

Gateshead Council is therefore hoping to obtain the funding from the National Productivity Investment Fund (NPIF) and this report has therefore been prepared to summarise the traffic modelling and economic appraisal undertake to inform the NPIF bid. 1.2 National Productivity Investment Fund

As part of the Autumn Statement 2016, the Government announced the creation of an NPIF, which will make available £1.1 billion of funding for enhancements to local roads. Enhancements should be proposed in areas where there are current barriers to growth, which is impacting on the Government’s aim to rebalance productivity across the country. Schemes applying for the funding must fall into one of two categories:

 Small schemes requiring DfT funding of £2m to £5million;  By exception, larger projects requiring DfT funding above £5 million but no more than £10m. The application for the funding follows the conventional Transport Business Case approach, whereby the following five cases need to be completed:

 Strategic Case: sets out the need for the project;  Economic Case: demonstrates value for money;  Commercial Case: outlines that the scheme is commercially viable;  Financial Case: sets out the financial profile for the scheme and demonstrates that the scheme is affordable;

 Management Case: sets out the delivery plan for the scheme. It is expected that those bidding for funding for a larger project will have undertaken a more detailed appraisal to demonstrate that the scheme delivers value for money and has been appraised in accordance with WebTAG guidance. The cost of the Sunderland Road bus gate is currently estimated at £3.3 million and is therefore categorised as a small project. 1.3 Traffic Modelling and Appraisal

There is currently no suitable multimodal transport mode available for assessing the scheme benefits of the Sunderland Road bus gate. A bespoke spreadsheet model has therefore been developed to compare the change in journey time and distance travelled for buses as a result of the bus gate proposals. The spreadsheet also takes into account the disbenefits to vehicles on Gateshead Highway, who will be stopped at traffic signals when a bus using the bus gate approaches. 1.4 Report Structure Following this introductory section, the report has been prepared with the following structure:

 Chapter 2: Data Requirements – summarises the data which has been collected to inform the appraisal;  Chapter 3: Methodology – details the methodology adopted to undertake the appraisal;  Chapter 4: Assumptions – summarises the assumptions used in the appraisal;  Chapter 5: Results – presents the results of the appraisal;  Chapter 6: Summary – summarises the appraisal process and draws conclusions from the results.

AECOM Sunderland Road Bus Gate Scheme Economic Appraisal 3

Capabilities on project: Transportation

2 Data Requirements

2.1 Overview In order to inform the scheme appraisal, a number of data sources were required so that the benefits of the scheme could be calculated. A series of traffic surveys were undertaken on Thursday 25th May 2017 by AECOM staff. The traffic surveys were supplemented by information provided by bus operators who run services, which would benefit from the proposed scheme. The information collected is summarised in this chapter of the report. 2.2 Bus Survey Bus operators provided information on journey time data and passenger demand for services passing through the study area. The information was provided for neutral weekdays in March 2017. The information was used to calculate total bus travel time in the existing situation for the Sunderland Road services and Old Durham Road services identified in Figure 1. Table 1 details the bus services which were identified as travelling on these routes. Tables 2 to 4 detail the results from the bus operators in terms of average passenger demand and average journey time recorded for the different movements. Due to data confidentiality, some data is not broken down by route.

Table 1: Bus Services affected by bus gate Bus Service AM Hourly Frequency IP Hourly Frequency PM Hourly Frequency Outbound Inbound to Outbound Inbound to Outbound Inbound to from Gateshead from Gateshead from Gateshead Gateshead Gateshead Gateshead 27 5 5 5 5 5 5 X24 2 2 2 2 1 2 Q2 4 4 4 4 4 4 56 5 5 5 5 5 5 57 3 2 3 3 2 3 58 5 5 5 5 5 5

Table 2: AM Data Average Bus Occupancy Average Journey Time (min) Bus Service Route (Passengers) Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Sunderland Road to 3,09 2..79 High Street 47 10 Old Durham Road to 2.05 2.51 High Street

Table 3: IP Data Average Bus Occupancy Average Journey Time (min) Bus Service Route (Passengers) Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Sunderland Road to 2.76 2.97 High Street 34 34 Old Durham Road to 1.58 2.19 High Street

AECOM Sunderland Road Bus Gate Scheme Economic Appraisal 4

Capabilities on project: Transportation

Table 4: PM Data Average Bus Occupancy Average Journey Time (min) Bus Service Route (Passengers) Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Sunderland Road to 2.74 2.82 High Street 10 47 Old Durham Road to 1.88 2.57 High Street

2.3 Highway Traffic Counts As well as data regarding affected bus services, a survey was conducted on Gateshead Highway at the proposed location of the bus gate. This was to detail the number of vehicles which would be adversely affected by the addition of the bus gate to the road. The average journey time between the Five Bridges and Park Lane (junction north of Five Bridges) roundabouts was also recorded in each direction in order to quantify the delays. The results from this survey are detailed below in Table 5 Table 5: Gateshead Highway Vehicle Survey Results Time Northbound Southbound Period Vehicle Count Journey Time (s) Vehicle Count Journey Time (s) AM 321 20.95 70 23.08 IP 214 20.95 144 23.08 PM 154 20.95 151 23.08

As can be seen in the data above, the volume of traffic is relatively low on this stretch of 2 lane highway and the conditions observed on site were free flowing in both directions at the location of the bus gate; this results in the same average journey time has been used for all time periods. There is some minor queuing observed northbound at the traffic lights at Park Lane roundabout, but this is some distance from the location of the scheme.

AECOM Sunderland Road Bus Gate Scheme Economic Appraisal 5

Capabilities on project: Transportation

3 Methodology

3.1 Overview As mentioned in the introductory chapter to this report, there were no existing traffic models available which were fully suited to model the Sunderland Road bus gate scheme. Of the current traffic models in the area, the existing VISUM model is more strategic in nature and does not have detailed public transport modelling, whereas an existing VISSIM model does not fully cover the area required by the scheme (e.g. High West Street, Gateshead High Street). Previous Major Scheme Business Case (MSBC) work on this scheme conducted in 2007 used a bespoke spreadsheet model to appraise the scheme benefits and this spreadsheet has been updated for the recent appraisal to ensure it conforms to recent WebTAG guidance and economic appraisal values contained in the March 2017 WebTAG databook. As the bus gate will involve buses rerouting along quieter roads than they currently travel, there will be little interaction with other vehicles apart from when the bus gate itself is activated. However, as shown in the survey, traffic volumes in this location are low. A transport model is therefore not considered essential for this scheme, as it does not significantly affect congestion or drastically change the nature of a busy highway route. Indeed, this analysis can be considered robust as the benefits are based on bus passengers only, whereas in reality there will be a small time benefit per user to the vehicles that travel the route of the existing bus services stemming from the removal of the services from this part of the network. The remaining sections of this chapter document how the spreadsheet has been populated. 3.2 Bus Services Travel Time and Distance In order to calculate the time benefits for bus passengers with the scheme in place, it has been assumed that the services using the bus gate will be travelling at relatively free flow speeds due to the lack of signals and relative lack of congestion on the new route compared to the existing. The bus gate itself will be designed to turn green as the bus approaches to minimise any delay. Speeds on existing links remain consistent with the existing situation. The speeds used in the appraisal are detailed in Table 6 for the Do Minimum (DM) and Do Something (DS) situations. Table 6: Existing (DM) and Scheme (DS) Bus Speeds (km/hr) AM IP PM Bus Service Direction DM DS DM DS DM DS Sunderland Road to High Street 22 40 25 40 25 40 High Street to Sunderland Road 22 40 21 40 22 40 Old Durham Road to High Street 17 40 22 40 19. 40 High Street to Old Durham Road 18 40 21 40 18 40

The speeds reported in Table 6 combined with the distance of the new bus route along Sunderland Road, have been used to estimate a scheme journey time in each of the peak periods. This has been carried out for both Sunderland Road and Old Durham Road services in an inbound and outbound direction. Due to the lack of a transport model with which to undertake detailed forecasting and congestion analysis, it has been assumed that the same times will apply in all years. This can be considered an overly robust assumption as there is a strong likelihood that the current routes would be subject to more congestion and therefore longer journey times in the future year scenario in the Do Minimum situation. The distances for both the existing and `with scheme’ bus routes have been calculated using online mapping technology. 3.3 Bus Service Demand The demand for the bus services has been taken from information provided by bus operators. Data was only available in an outbound direction and it has been assumed that the inbound demand is a reverse of the outbound data at different times of the day. For example, the outbound data for 1700-1800 has been used to estimate the inbound demand between 0800-0900. Demand has been assumed to be constant in the forecast years, although it is expected that as congestion increases, public transport will become a more attractive option.

AECOM Sunderland Road Bus Gate Scheme Economic Appraisal 6

Capabilities on project: Transportation

3.4 Car Time In terms of the benefits for car drivers, the lack of a transport model makes it difficult to calculate the journey time benefits to vehicles due to the removal of buses at High West Street junction/Five Bridges roundabout. Therefore, these benefits have not been assessed in this appraisal and it should be kept in mind that there will be some additional minor journey time savings to general traffic in the area as a result of the scheme. The focus of this part of the appraisal is the vehicles travelling along the Gateshead Highway, where the bus gate will be located. Journey times have been recorded for this stretch of road during the survey. This traffic will be subjected to some delay when the bus gate is activated as the traffic signals for general traffic will turn to red. In order to calculate this delay, the all red period for Gateshead highway has been calculated for each cycle of the traffic signals, which shows that private vehicles will be stopped for a period of 30 seconds. The delay per hour to highway users has therefore been calculated by multiplying the bus gate highway red time by the average number of bus gate uses per hour in each direction (e.g. the number of services using it) and then dividing this by 60 minutes. The distance for this part of the analysis has been calculated between Five Bridges and Park Lane roundabouts using online mapping technology with no change assumed with the scheme is in place. 3.5 Car Demand The number of vehicles on Gateshead Highway has been taken from the surveys which counted the traffic in the AM, inter-peak and PM. It has been assumed that the flow on this road will not change when the scheme is in place. For the opening and design years of the scheme, TEMPro 7 factors for Gateshead have been used to uplift the demand as detailed below in Table 7: Table 7: Gateshead TEMPRO Factors Gateshead TEMPRO 2017 - 2019 Growth 2017 - 2034 Growth AM 1.0149 1.13445 IP 1.0168 1.1394 PM 1.0141 1.12935

AECOM Sunderland Road Bus Gate Scheme Economic Appraisal 7

Capabilities on project: Transportation

4 Assumptions

The table below summarises the inputs into the benefits calculation and the assumptions that have been used to formulate them in the absence of a dedicated transport model. A comment has been included to demonstrate how robust these assumptions are and the likely impact that this would have on the scheme benefits calculation; Table 8: Inputs and assumptions to the assessment Input Assumption Affect on benefits Do Minimum: The Do Minimum public transport times It is likely that Do Minimum journey have been obtained from bus operators for 2017. times will be significantly higher in the They remain consistent in the future year scenarios. future year situation as traffic Public Transport Do Something: The Do Something times have been congestion on existing routes Time calculated using free flow speeds for the new route. increases. The appraisal therefore As the new route is on less congested roads than likely underestimates the benefits of existing, it is assumed that the bus will be travelling at the scheme. an optimal speed. Do Minimum & Do Something: The distance of the bus routes have been calculated using online Public Transport The methodology is appropriate for mapping software and assuming a straight journey Distance the input being calculated. across Gateshead highway via the bus gate for the scheme. Buses will become more attractive with the scheme in place and this may therefore induce demand. Buses Do Minimum & Do Something: The public transport are also likely to become more Public Transport demand has been obtained from bus operators for attractive in the future if bus priority is Demand 2017. It is assumed to remain constant in the future in place and traffic congestion on and with the scheme in place. existing routes worsens. The appraisal therefore likely underestimates the benefits of the scheme. There will be some small benefits per Sunderland Do Minimum & Do Something: No time benefits have user for highway traffic due to buses Road/High West been assumed for other vehicles that are travelling being removed from congested parts Street Highway the current route of the bus services due to lack of of the network. The appraisal Time and suitable model available for assessing this. therefore likely underestimates the Demand benefits of the scheme. Do Minimum: The Do Minimum highway time is taken Due to the relatively quiet nature of directly from the survey. the Gateshead Highway between Do Something: The Do Something highway time has Sunderland Road and Park Lane, it is been calculated by adding the average delay caused Gateshead unlikely that there will be large by the bus gate to the Do Minimum time. The average Highway Time queues caused by the bus gate, hourly delay has been calculated by multiplying the which will clear each cycle. The bus gate delay (30 seconds) by the average number methodology can therefore be of bus gate uses per hour (e.g. the number of considered robust. services using it) and then dividing this by 60 minutes. Do Minimum & Do Something: The distance between Gateshead The methodology is appropriate for Five Bridges and Park Lane roundabouts has been Highway Distance the input being calculated. calculated using online mapping software. Do Minimum & Do Something: The highway demand It is unlikely that a minor delay on a has been taken from the survey. No difference has largely uncongested road will greatly Gateshead been assumed between DM and DS and TEMPro deter current users of the Gateshead Highway Demand factors have been used to growth up the demand to Highway and so this assumption can the forecast years. be considered robust.

AECOM Sunderland Road Bus Gate Scheme Economic Appraisal 8

Capabilities on project: Transportation

5 Results

5. 1 Introduction This chapter details the results of the benefit calculation for the bus services and highway vehicles affected by the building of a bus gate between Sunderland Road and Gateshead Highway.

5. 2 Economic Appraisal Methodology TUBA is the DfT’s preferred economic appraisal software and carries out trip-based assessments of changes in travel time costs and vehicle operating costs using standard economic appraisal parameters. This software would be directly linked to a transport model and therefore a bespoke spreadsheet appraisal tool has been developed using the principles of TUBA and based on the economic parameters in the March 2017 WebTAG databook. The spreadsheet appraises the difference in travel time and distance travelled for all users as a result of the scheme. It does not appraise the impact of the project on accidents. 5. 3 Modelling Results The total bus passengers affected for both 2019 and 2034 are detailed below in Table 9. It has been assumed that the passenger numbers are unchanged in the forecast years. Table 9: 2015 and 2030 Total bus passengers affected by the scheme Bus Service Direction AM IP PM Sunderland Road to High Street 331 235 59 High Street to Sunderland Road 69 235 331 Old Durham Road to High Street 803 571 158 High Street to Old Durham Road 158 571 803

The average bus times and distances of the affected services are detailed below in Tables 10 and 11. Note that this has been assumed to remain constant in both 2019 and 2033. The hourly results have been converted to period results using the conversion factors for the AM, inter-peak and PM of 2.5, 6 and 2.5 respectively. Table 10: Bus Service travel time for DM and DS (min) AM IP PM Bus Service Direction DM DS DM DS DM DS Sunderland Road to High Street 3.09 0.98 2.76 0.98 2.74 0.98 High Street to Sunderland Road 2.79 0.93 1.58 0.93 2.82 0.93 Old Durham Road to High Street 2.05 1.29 2.97 1.29 1.88 1.29 High Street to Old Durham Road 2.51 1.14 1.59 1.14 1.57 1.14

Table 11: Bus Service distances for DM and DS (km) AM IP PM Bus Service Direction DM DS DM DS DM DS Sunderland Road to High Street 1.13 0.65 1.13 0.65 1.13 0.65 High Street to Sunderland Road 1.04 0.62 1.04 0.62 1.04 0.62 Old Durham Road to High Street 0.59 0.86 0.59 0.86 0.59 0.86 High Street to Old Durham Road 0.77 0.76 0.77 0.76 0.77 0.76

The results of the total time savings for both 2019 and 2034 are detailed in Table 12. Note that the time saving is the same for both years due to the forecasting assumptions, detailed in the previous sections. Table 12: 2019 and 2034 Bus Passenger Total Time Savings for each time period (min) Bus Service Direction AM IP PM Sunderland Road to High Street 1749 2518 262 High Street to Sunderland Road 322 2878 1563

AECOM Sunderland Road Bus Gate Scheme Economic Appraisal 9

Capabilities on project: Transportation

Old Durham Road to High Street 1526 994 234 High Street to Old Durham Road 542 3597 2871 The time savings (Table 12) page result in monetary time benefits for bus passengers in £ (2010 prices) as reported in Tables 13 and 14. Table 13: 2019 Bus Passenger Time Benefits for each time period (£) Bus Service Direction AM IP PM Sunderland Road to High Street 198 237 32 High Street to Sunderland Road 37 271 190 Old Durham Road to High Street 173 94 28 High Street to Old Durham Road 61 339 350 Table 14: 2034 Bus Passenger Time Benefits for each time period (£) Bus Service Direction AM IP PM Sunderland Road to High Street 263 315 49 High Street to Sunderland Road 48 360 253 Old Durham Road to High Street 230 124 40 High Street to Old Durham Road 82 424 437

The total number of vehicles on Gateshead Highway affected by the bus gate in both the opening and forecast years are reported in Table 15: Table 15: Highway Vehicles affected by the bus gate (vehicles) Highway Direction AM IP PM 2019 Northbound 326 218 156 2019 Southbound 71 146 153 2034 Northbound 364 244 174 2034 Southbound 79 164 171

The journey times for the highway users with and without the scheme in place are reported in Table 16; there has been no change assumed between 2019 and 2034. The distances travelled are 0.4 km northbound and 0.45 km in the southbound direction and these remain the same in all years and scenarios. As can be seen, this part of the assessment will detail a disbenefit to existing road users on Gateshead Highway with the introduction of the bus gate. Table 16: Highway journey times for DM and DS (min) AM IP PM Highway Direction DM DS DM DS DM DS Gateshead Highway Northbound 0.34 0.73 0.34 0.74 0.34 0.73 Gateshead Highway Southbound 0.38 0.78 0.38 0.78 0.38 0.77

The calculated total highway time impacts are reported in Table 17 for both 2019 and 2034. Table 17: Total Car Period Time Impacts (min) Highway Direction AM IP PM 2019 Northbound -381 -624 -179 2019 Southbound -83 -420 -175 2034 Northbound -426 -699 -199 2034 Southbound -93 -470 -195

AECOM Sunderland Road Bus Gate Scheme Economic Appraisal 10

Capabilities on project: Transportation

This results in the following journey time disbenefits to car users on the Gateshead Highway, in £’s (2010 prices). Note that relevant occupancy rates as detailed in the WebTAG databook have been applied to the number of vehicles to calculate the total monetary disbenefits per user; values of time have been based on WebTAG databook journey purpose splits for each time period. The results are detailed below in Table 18. Table 18: Total Car Period Journey Time benefits (£) Highway Direction AM IP PM 2019 Northbound -72 -104 -32 2019 Southbound -16 -70 -32 2034 Northbound -107 -155 -48 2034 Southbound -23 -105 -47

5. 4 Economic Appraisal Results A full TUBA economic appraisal of all aspects of the scheme is not possible due to the lack of a transport model and the relevant outputs. However, time and vehicle operating cost benefits have been calculated in line with WebTAG databook March 2017 and have been annualised and extended over a 60 year period and presented in 2010 prices discounted to 2010 prices. An annualisation factor of 253 has been applied to the peak period result in the following section representing the number of working days in a year. No weekend benefits have been assumed. The benefits have been compared to the scheme costs to produce a NPV (Net Present Value) and a Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) in market prices. Although the various caveats noted throughout this report should be kept in mind when viewing this, in all likelihood there are more scheme benefits which have not been assessed due to lack of a detailed traffic model. Indirect tax benefits have also not been calculated as part of this assessment. The inputs to the economic analysis are detailed below:  Bus passenger time benefits over 60 years in 2010 prices discounted to 2010.  Bus operator (driver) time benefits over 60 years in 2010 prices discounted to 2010.  Bus operator vehicle operating costs over 60 years in 2010 prices discounted to 2010.  Car time benefits over 60 years in 2010 prices discounted to 2010 (Gateshead highway only)  Car vehicle operating costs over 60 years in 2010 prices discounted to 2010 (Gateshead highway only)  Scheme costs: £2,610,947 in 2010 prices and discounted to 2010 applying a tax correction factor of 1.19 to convert to market prices.

AECOM Sunderland Road Bus Gate Scheme Economic Appraisal 11

Capabilities on project: Transportation

The abridged economic assessment is detailed below in Table 19: Table 19: Sunderland Road bus gate economic assessment, values in £’s, in 2010 prices discounted to 2010

Benefits Car Travel Time -£ 2,756,679.65 Vehicle Operating Costs -£ 145,168.79 Bus Passenger Travel Time £ 15,208,528.14 Vehicle Operating Costs N/A Bus Operator Travel Time £ 1,253,141.29 Vehicle Operating Costs £ 698,315.59 Present Value of Benefits (PVB) £ 14,258,136.58 Public Accounts Investment Costs £ 2,610,946.90 Indirect Tax as a cost Present Value of Costs (PVC) £ 2,610,946.90 AMCB Net Present Value (NPV) £11,647,189.67 Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 5.46

This above table shows that the journey time benefits to the bus passengers who are using the bus gate far outweigh the time and vehicle operating cost disbenefits to the highway cars due to increased delay on Gateshead Highway when the bus gate has been activated. The BCR of 5.46 in this assessment represents high value for money, and there is a strong likelihood of further benefits to vehicles due to the removal of buses from the more congested parts of the network, which have not been quantified due to the lack of a detailed transport model.

AECOM Sunderland Road Bus Gate Scheme Economic Appraisal 12

Capabilities on project: Transportation

6 Summary

The Sunderland Road bus gate scheme is designed to allow faster access to the centre of Gateshead for bus services from the south east of Gateshead by use of a bus gate at Gateshead Highway. No suitable traffic models were available and the benefits of the scheme have been analysed using a bespoke spreadsheet method, which has included an economic assessment using scheme costs.

A series of surveys were conducted May 2017 in order to provide information for input into the scheme appraisal. The survey data was supplemented by information provided by bus operators. Journey time benefits and fuel and non-fuel vehicle operating costs for the bus passengers, bus operators and car drivers have been calculated in accordance with WebTAG guidance and values contained in the WebTAG databook March 2017. The scheme benefits have been calculated over 60 years in 2010 prices discounted to 2010. The benefits have been compared to the scheme costs, also discounted to 2010, in order to produce a NPV (Net Present Value) of £11,647,190 and a BCR (Benefit Cost Ratio) of 5.46. This is considered to be high value for money under DfT guidance.

Appraisal Summary Table Date produced: 28 6 2017 Contact:

Name of scheme: Sunderland Road Bus Gate Name Andrew Haysey Description of scheme: Bus gate on Gateshead Highway to allow quicker access to and from the town centre for bus services from the south east and to provide a more attractive Organisation Gateshead Council on street pedestrian crossing for non motorised users. Role Promoter/Official Impacts Summary of key impacts Assessment Quantitative Qualitative Monetary Distributional £(NPV) 7-pt scale/ vulnerable grp Business users & transport The bus gate will lead to travel time savings for bus drivers and operators. A reduced journey length £1.25 Value of journey time changes(£) providers will also deliver economic advantages for transport providers in terms of fuel and non-fuel vehicle million operating costs. Net journey time changes (£) Strong Positive £1.951,456 (2010) N/A

Economy 0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min £1.25 million Reliability impact on Business Reliability improvements for bus operators as buses can avoid congestion by using the bus gate. users Moderate Positive

Regeneration Pedestrian and cycling facilities will enable people to travel to the town centre of Gateshead easier and will thus contribute to the wider regeneration ambitions of the central Gateshead area. There are significant plans for new homes on the Sunderland Road West site near the bus gate and the Moderate scheme will enable a bus service to stop there and for better pedestrian access into the town centre Positive for these homes.

Wider Impacts Integration of the Sunderland Road West site is expected to drive demand for new homes and Moderate strengthen the effects of already planned urban regenerational activities. Positive Noise No significant impacts are anticipated. In noise terms, the minor redirection of bus traffic in the same vicinity of the current route is unlikely to make much difference. Neutral N/A Air Quality The scheme will lead to buses travelling in less congested conditions and so will benefit from fewer tailpipe vehicle emissions. Slight Positive N/A Greenhouse gases A decrease in greenhouse gases is expected as the journey length for buses will be decreased andChange in non-traded carbon over 60y (CO2e) additionally they will avoid congested areas. Slight Positive Environmental Change in traded carbon over 60y (CO2e) Landscape Due to urban nature of the area, changes are expected to be very small. Neutral

Townscape No significant impact. Neutral Heritage of Historic resources No historic resources are present in the area of the scheme Neutral

Biodiversity No impacts upon statutory or non-statutory designated sites are considered likely. No impacts upon protected species are considered likely Neutral

Water Environment No effects on watercourse during and after the construction are expected. Neutral Commuting and Other users Bus passengers will experience shorter journey times and thus benefits in travel time savings. The £12.5 Value of journey time changes(£) changes will positively impact various different bus routes which connect the town centre of million Gateshead (and ) with surrounding southeast area, and thus serve an Social important transport corridor for commuters and other users. Other vehicles using same roads as Net journey time changes (£) buses currently do will experience slight travel time benefits do to their removal from congested parts of the network, but this hasn't been been quantified as part of the study. Disbenefits are 0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min expected for car users travelling on Gateshead Highway when the bus gate is activated. As Strong Positive £12,306,679 (2010) N/A observed flows on these roads are low, those negative impacts will be significantly lower than the positive impacts on bus passengers.

£12.5 million

Reliability impact on The new route travelled by public transport when using the bus gate is along quiter roads than the Commuting and Other users existing route around Sunderland Road Roundabout and High Street West. Therefore, there is likely to be less chance of bus services being slowed by congestion or accidents. Strong Positive

Physical activity The inclusion of a pedestrian and cycle crossing as part of the bus gate scheme will provide a more attractive manner of crossing the Gateshead Highway than the existing and is likely to attract more Moderate people to sustainable travel modes. Positive

Journey quality A decrease in delay and provision of pedestrian facilities will positively impact the journey quality. As Moderate bus drivers will be able to avoid congested areas, a reduction of stress is anticipated. Positive

Gateshead Sund Rd NPIF Annex 7 - AST.xls Impacts Summary of key impacts Assessment Quantitative Qualitative Monetary Distributional £(NPV) 7-pt scale/ vulnerable grp Accidents Slight benefits to accident rates are expected, as buses will be taken off a congested roundabout and will be provided with a separate gate. Appropriate crossing facilities for pedestrians across Moderate N/A Gateshead Highway will prevent people from crossing the road in an unsafe manner, as observed Positive during a site visit. Security The existing method of crossing the Gateshead Highway in the Sunderland Road area involves an underpass, these are often considered unsafe and undesirable by the general public. The addition an on street signalised pedestrian crossing across the main road, combined with a constant flow of bus services will increase security in this area. Strong Positive N/A

Access to services Improved accessibility to Gateshead town centre and local businesses. Alternative to underpass will Moderate make crossing easier for wheelchair users and parents with young children. N/A Positive

Affordability The scheme will have a neutral impact on affordability as it will not impact on user charges. Neutral N/A

Severance The scheme would provide a safer and more visually appealing crossing on the Gateshead Highw Moderate Observations from site visits show tendency to cross the road at-level without appropriate facilities. N/A Positive

Option values No significant impact on option values Neutral c Cost to Broad Transport Scheme costs have been initially calculated in 2016 prices.

bli Budget N/A £2,610,947 u P

Accounts Indirect Tax Revenues This has not been calculated as part of the assessment N/A

Gateshead Sund Rd NPIF Annex 7 - AST.xls

Annex 8

Supply chain skills development Gateshead Council has a long established and successful history of utilising its procurement, regeneration, and planning activities to promote social, economic and environmental well- being. By using a variety of types of social clauses we maximise the value of our spending and regeneration investment to capture a number of community benefits, including particularly employment and skills/training opportunities for the benefit of disadvantaged people.

Our approach demonstrates effective use of our well-being powers, and also how strategies designed to tackle worklessness and unemployment can address demand-side issues by working in partnership with private and other public sector agencies and investors.

We may seek opportunities for employment, apprenticeships, traineeships, work placements, work trials. We can utilise either our own contracts with the Employment and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA); Skills Support for the Workforce (SSW) or Skills Support for the Unemployed (SSU); to facilitate these or work in collaboration with other partners to incentivise supply chain partners to consider and participate in these activities.

We have strong links with local, high quality FE and HE establishments and established mechanisms for referring partners to these, should they require their services.

Recent major examples of this type of work being enacted are:

• Regeneration of Gateshead Town Centre & 3 other recently re-generated town centres. Over 1,200 construction roles involved and 1,100 plus end user opportunities created.

• Joint Venture – Major partnership with 2 private sector partners to develop over 2,400 houses on 19 different sites across the borough over the next 15 years.

• Intu Metrocentre Recruitment Partnership – Innovative partnership, the first of its kind in the UK for this major chain of shopping/leisure centre owners. Over 1,200 opportunities per year led to establishment of intu Retail Gold Academy to train new staff for their 300 plus employers.

2018 2019 2020 2021 ID Task Name Duration Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Fe 1 Consultation (Informal) 30 days

2 Consultation (Legal) 30 days

3 Tender Documentation 15 days

4 Utility Diversions 260 days

5 Site Clearance 30 days

6 Utilities 30 days

7 Duct Crossings 30 days

8 Carriageway Construction 120 days

9 Traffic Signals 60 days

10 Traffic Signs 10 days

11 Street Lighting 20 days

12 Surfacing 10 days

13 Scheme Opening 1 day

14 Stage 3 Audit 20 days

15 Stage 4 Audit 10 days

Task Project Summary Manual Task Start-only Deadline Project: Sunderland Road Link Draft fo Split Inactive Task Duration-only Finish-only Progress Date: Wed 21/06/17 Milestone Inactive Milestone Manual Summary Rollup External Tasks Manual Progress Summary Inactive Summary Manual Summary External Milestone

Page 1 SUNDERLAND ROAD BUS GATE RISK REGISTER

Revision Final P01 Assessment following completion of detailed design.

Risk Assessment / Occurrence Financial Assessment (£) Risk Quantification Notes on Budget Risk No RISK DESCRIPTION Risk Quantification Notes Estimate Probability Impact Probability Probability % Min Cost (ML) Risk Cost Max Cost PXMin Cost PXML Cost PXMax Cost Comments / Risk Mitigation Measures Score Score Score A Preparation & Supervision

Assumed robust consultation process has been Scheme is subject to ongoing consultation with multiple Assumed that all stakeholder issues have been A.1 0 1 0 0.0% £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 undertaken to inform the detailed design, hence risk no stakeholders, leading to design change. addressed during detailed design process. longer applies.

Assumed robust consultation process has been Assumed that all issues have been addressed during A.2 Ward councillors force design change during consultation period. 0 1 0 0.0% £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 undertaken to inform the detailed design, hence risk no consultation and detailed design process. longer applies.

Project has inadequate consultation / all consultees not identified, Assumed robust consultation process has been Assumed impact of between 2 weeks and 2 months for A.3 leading to design change / alterations post detailed design 1 4 4 12.5% £150,000 £300,000 £600,000 £18,750 £37,500 £75,000 undertaken to inform the detailed design, hence risk additional site works and associated design costs. completion / construction. probability is very low.

Failure to manage stakeholder expectations / impacts during Gateshead Council to prepare detailed Traffic A.4 construction period, leading to negative reputational impact or lack 1 0 0 0.0% £0 £0 £0 No cost or programme impact to the scheme. £0 £0 £0 Management Plan with a view to minimising disruption. of take up / growth of new public transport infrastructure.

B Land

Assumed robust consultation process has been Third party compensation claims due to negative impact of scheme B.1 1 1 1 2.5% £0 £20,000 £50,000 £0 £500 £1,250 undertaken with neighbouring landowners, hence risk on surrounding properties. probability is very low.

C Strategic Oil price escalation beyond anticipated levels, increasing cost of C.1 3 4 12 65.0% £100,000 £200,000 £250,000 £65,000 £130,000 £162,500 project delivery.

Material price inflation beyond expectations, increasing cost of C.2 3 2 6 35.0% £25,000 £50,000 £150,000 £8,750 £17,500 £52,500 project delivery.

Project fails to co-ordinate effectively with neighbouring / Assumed impact of between 2 weeks and 2 months for Gateshead Council to prepare detailed programme plan C.3 1 4 4 12.5% £50,000 £100,000 £200,000 £6,250 £12,500 £25,000 concurrent schemes, leading to resource unavailability. extension to site works. to co-ordinate delivery of schemes.

Contribution assumption proves incorrect and alternative funding Assumed that funding sources have been confirmed, C.4 sources have to be sought / design modifed to reduce scope and 0 2 0 0.0% £0 £0 £0 Assumed that funding sources have been confirmed. £0 £0 £0 hence risk no longer applies. cost.

Assumed robust consultation process has been Emergency servies requirements force design change and Assumed impact of between 2 weeks and 2 months for C.5 1 4 4 12.5% £50,000 £100,000 £200,000 £6,250 £12,500 £25,000 undertaken to inform the detailed design, hence risk construction delay. additional site works and associated design costs. probability is very low.

C.6 Project fails to realise public transport growth potential / objectives. 2 0 0 0.0% £0 £0 £0 No cost or programme impact to the scheme. £0 £0 £0

D Engineering: Highways

Assumed drainage investigation conducted such that Existing drainage infrastructure found to be inadequate, requiring Assumed impact of between 1 week and 3 weeks for D.1 1 2 2 2.5% £25,000 £50,000 £75,000 £625 £1,250 £1,875 location and suitability of existing drainage informed the further design and additional works. additional site works and associated design costs. detailed design, hence risk probability is very low.

Assumed pavement investigation conducted such that Additional pavement works required due to unknown pavement Assumed impact of between 1 week and 3 weeks for D.2 1 2 2 2.5% £25,000 £50,000 £75,000 £625 £1,250 £1,875 existing provision informed the detailed design, hence construction and design life. additional site works and associated design costs. risk probability is very low.

E Engineering: Structures E.1 0 0.0% £0 £0 £0 Risk Assessment / Occurrence Financial Assessment (£) Risk Quantification Notes on Budget Risk No RISK DESCRIPTION Risk Quantification Notes Estimate Probability Impact Probability Probability % Min Cost (ML) Risk Cost Max Cost PXMin Cost PXML Cost PXMax Cost Comments / Risk Mitigation Measures Score Score Score

F Engineering: Other

Assumed robust services search / consultation has Scope and cost estimates for utility diversions underestimate Impact based on additional costs. Time impact of F.1 1 2 2 2.5% £10,000 £50,000 £75,000 £250 £1,250 £1,875 been undertaken to inform the detailed design, hence required works. additonal works assumed to be covered by risk M.2. risk probability is very low.

G Environmental Mitigation G.1 0 0.0% £0 £0 £0 H Ground Conditions

Assumed full ground investigation has been undertaken Ground conditions not as anticipated, leading to additional design Assumed impact of between 2 weeks and 2 months for H.1 1 4 4 12.5% £50,000 £100,000 £200,000 £6,250 £12,500 £25,000 to inform the detailed design, hence risk probability is and increased works programme. additional site works and associated design costs. very low.

Assumed full ground investigation has been undertaken Assumed impact of between 2 weeks and 2 months for H.2 Contaminated material found. 1 4 4 12.5% £50,000 £100,000 £200,000 £6,250 £12,500 £25,000 and any potential contamination issues are understood, additional site works and associated treatment. hence risk probability is very low.

J Construction / Contractual

Traffic management imposes unanticipated / unacceptable traffic Assumed impact of between 2 weeks and 2 months for Gateshead Council to prepare detailed Traffic J.1 restrictions resulting in reputational damage and / or restricted 1 4 4 12.5% £50,000 £100,000 £200,000 £6,250 £12,500 £25,000 extension to site works. Management Plan with a view to minimising disruption. working hours (therefore longer site programme).

Assumed impact of between 2 weeks and 2 months for J.2 Inadequate resources assigned to project, leading to delay. 1 4 4 12.5% £50,000 £100,000 £200,000 £6,250 £12,500 £25,000 Gateshead Council to secure appropriate resource. extension to site works.

Lack of availability of specialist contractor for traffic signals Assumed impact of between 2 weeks and 2 months for Gateshead Council to secure appropriate resource to J.3 1 4 4 12.5% £50,000 £100,000 £200,000 £6,250 £12,500 £25,000 infrastructure, leading to delay. extension to site works. meet construction programme. K Other Works K.1 0 0.0% £0 £0 £0 L Delays in Commencing Construction Extraordinary weather conditions prevent works commencing on Works commencing in summer so weather conditions L.1 1 1 1 2.5% £5,000 £10,000 £25,000 Assumed delay impact of between 1 day and 1 week. £125 £250 £625 programme. should allow works to proceed.

Unplanned (emergency) works prevent works commencing on L.2 1 2 2 2.5% £25,000 £50,000 £75,000 Assumed delay impact of between 1 week and 3 weeks. £625 £1,250 £1,875 programme. L.3 0 0.0% £0 £0 £0 L.4 0 0.0% £0 £0 £0 M Delays During Construction Assumed impact of between 2 weeks and 2 months for M.1 Utilities companies fail to meet programme timescales. 2 4 8 35.0% £50,000 £100,000 £200,000 £17,500 £35,000 £70,000 extension to site works. Assumed impact of between 2 weeks and 2 months for Assumed robust services search / consultation has Unforeseen utiltiy services / works encountered, leading to design additional site works and associated design costs. M.2 1 4 4 12.5% £50,000 £100,000 £200,000 £6,250 £12,500 £25,000 been undertaken to inform the detailed design, hence modification and / or additional utilities works. Assumed utility company already involved so new lead risk probability is very low. in times could be avoided.

M.3 Extraordinary weather conditions delay works. 1 1 1 2.5% £5,000 £10,000 £25,000 Assumed delay impact of between 1 day and 1 week. £125 £250 £625

M.4 0 0.0% £0 £0 £0 M.5 0 0.0% £0 £0 £0 £162,375 £326,000 £570,000

Mean risk Allowance for Costing Purposes = £352,792 Annex 11

Risk Management Strategy – Sunderland Road link

The strategy for managing risks within the scheme is based on two main principles: - clear identification of the main risks associated with the scheme; - monitoring and management of risk through an appropriate governance framework.

Identification of risks Risk register A comprehensive risk register compiled for the scheme is attached (Annex 8). In terms of potential risks associated with the project this provides the basis for: - risk identification - The register contains both scheme specific risks and general risks to delivery as summarised below: 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. Economic Economic changes leading escalation of costs or reduced scheme benefits Land acquisition Unexpected acquisition; failure or delay in reaching funding deal with third party. Operational Scheme design fails to meet revised capacity requirements. Planning/design Unexpected changes being required to the design, impacting on cost and timescales for delivery. Resources Identified funding is withdrawn. Third Failure or delay in satisfying objections from stakeholders in parties/stakeholders relation to the scheme specification/design.

- risk 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. The assessment quantifies the minimum and maximum cost of mitigating the risk (should it arise), along with the probability of the risk occurring. The register is a ‘live’ document which will be maintained and owned by the Project Manager.

Quantified risk assessment The range of possible cost impacts associated with specific risks is identified in the risk register. A separate financial allowance of some £350,000 has been made for this risk in the funding bid.

Management of risk Project management The basis for managing identified risk will be through formal project management arrangements. The focus of these is on clear lines of responsibility and regular liaison between the relevant parties. The arrangements are explained further in the response to section B9 of the bid.

National Productivity Investment Fund for the Local Road Network Application Form

The level of information provided should be proportionate to the size and complexity of the project proposed. As a guide, for a small project we would suggest around 10 -15 pages including annexes would be appropriate.

One application form should be completed per project and will constitute a bid. Applicant Information

Local authority name(s)*: Gateshead Council *If the bid is for a joint project, please enter the names of all participating local authorities and specify the lead authority.

Bid Manager Name and position: Andrew Haysey, Transport Planning Manager

Name and position of officer with day to day responsibility for delivering the proposed project.

Contact telephone number: 0191 433 3124 Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: Development, Transport and Public Protection Civic Centre Regent Street Gateshead NE8 1HH

Combined Authorities If the bid is from an authority within a Combined Authority, please specify the contact, ensure that the Combined Authority has provided a note ranking multiple applications, and append a copy to this bid.

Name and position of Combined Authority Bid Co-ordinator: Helen Mathews

Contact telephone number: 0191 211 5679 Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: Regional Transport Team, Room 144 Newcastle Civic Centre Barras Bridge Newcastle upon Tyne Tyne and Wear NE1 8QH

When authorities submit a bid for funding to the Department, as part of the Government’s commitment to greater openness in the public sector under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, they must also publish a version excluding any commercially sensitive information on their own website within two working days of submitting the final bid to the Department. The Department reserves the right to deem the business case as non-compliant if this is not adhered to.

1

Please specify the weblink where this bid will be published: http://www.gateshead.gov.uk/DocumentLibrary/Transport/Strategy/NPIF-Sunderland-Road- 2017.pdf

2 SECTION A - Project description and funding profile

A1. Project name: Sunderland Road link

A2 : Please enter a brief description of the proposed project (no more than 50 words)

A new bus link and upgraded pedestrian/cycle facilities connecting a site for some 470 new homes with Gateshead town centre. It will provide better connections from the site and residential areas of south-east Gateshead to the major facilities and employment opportunities (80,000 jobs) found in the regional centre of Newcastle/Gateshead.

A3 : Please provide a short description of area covered by the bid (no more than 50 words)

The area is on the southern fringe of the Newcastle/Gateshead Urban Core, the regional centre for jobs and a wide range of other activities. Although an area identified for major jobs and housing growth it is characterised by a poor urban environment, limited activity, severance and areas of derelict land.

OS Grid Reference: 425810 562818 Postcode: NE8 3HU

Please append a map showing the location (and route) of the project, existing transport infrastructure and other points of particular relevance to the bid, e.g. housing and other development sites, employment areas, air quality management areas, constraints etc . Please see plans at Annex 1 (location) and Annex 2 (outline scheme drawing).

A4. How much funding are you bidding for? (please tick the relevant box):

Small project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £2m and £5m)

Large project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £5m and £10m)

A5. Has any Equality Analysis been undertaken in line with the Equality Duty? Yes No

A6. If you are planning to work with partnership bodies on this project (such as Development Corporations, National Parks Authorities, private sector bodies and transport operators) please include a short description below of how they will be involved.

The proposal is a standalone highway scheme which will be implemented by the Council without the need for third party involvement. It is supported by a number of interests, including the local bus company (Go Ahead), Passenger Transport Executive (Nexus) and the developer of the housing site (Galliford Try, the Council’s partner in its innovative joint venture arrangement to promote housing growth). The scheme is also supported by Living Streets. Letters of support are supplied in Annex 3.

A7. Combined Authority (CA) Involvement 3

Have you appended a letter from the Combined Authority supporting this bid? Yes No

A8. Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Involvement and support for housing delivery

Have you appended a letter from the LEP supporting this bid? Yes No

For proposed projects which encourage the delivery of housing, have you appended supporting evidence from the housebuilder/developer? Yes No

See Annex 3

4 SECTION B – The Business Case

B1: Project Summary

Please select what the project is trying to achieve (select all categories that apply)

Essential Ease urban congestion Unlock economic growth and job creation opportunities Enable the delivery of housing development

Desirable Improve Air Quality and /or Reduce CO2 emissions Incentivising skills and apprentices

Other(s), Please specify – Problems of personal security are associated with the existing subway, with some 73 reported crimes over the period April 2016 to March 2017 (see Annex 4). The subway is an important pedestrian/cycle link used by over 1600 people per day.

B2 : Please provide evidence on the following questions (max 100 words for each question): a) What is the problem that is being addressed?

The problems to be addressed are those of: - Poor sustainable transport access to a site identified for major housing growth; - Delays to bus services between south-east Gateshead and the main Newcastle/Gateshead Urban Core; - Poor environment/personal security and severance for pedestrians and cyclists on one of the main routes to the Urban Core.

The scheme will promote sustainable access to the Urban Core and the major growth opportunities existing therein. Severe congestion on the main routes into the area, and particularly the main Tyne crossings, currently acts as a constraint on growth in the area.

b) What options have been considered and why have alternatives been rejected?

A do nothing option is not realistic given the importance of improving sustainable access to this key housing site. Improvements have been made previously to pedestrian and cycle access to the northernmost part of the site, but this remains the only feasible scheme to improve access to the southern section.

The improvement forms part of a larger proposal for removal of the existing Gateshead flyover and its replacement with at grade provision. However this is a significantly more expensive scheme (>£50 million). The standalone benefits and discrete nature of this smaller proposal mean that its separate early implementation is justified.

c) What are the expected benefits/outcomes? For example, could include easing urban congestion, job creation, enabling a number of new dwellings, facilitating increased GVA.

5 The scheme is expected to have benefits at a strategic and local level. At a strategic level it will improve the attractiveness of alternatives to the private car for access to central areas. This will have benefits for congestion, air quality and in supporting the continued growth of this regionally important area for employment, health, education and services.

More locally it will enable the development of the Sunderland Road West housing site, with its estimated capacity of 470 homes and support the wider regeneration of the ‘Exemplar Neighbourhood’ area, with an ultimate capacity of 1000 homes. d) Are there are any related activities that the success of this project relies upon? For example, land acquisition, other transport interventions requiring separate funding or consents?

The benefits of the scheme are not dependent upon other transport interventions. However the scheme supplements and complements wider programmes of bus priority and cycle network development to improve the main routes into the Gateshead/ Newcastle Urban Core.

A small amount of non-highway land is needed for the project, but this is already in Council ownership. e) What will happen if funding for this project is not secured - would an alternative (lower cost) solution be implemented (if yes, please describe this alternative and how it differs from the proposed project)?

If funding is not secured, the scheme will not be progressed at the current time. There is no smaller scale alternative available. f) What is the impact of the project – and any associated mitigation works – on any statutory environmental constraints? For example, Local Air Quality Management Zones.

Positive impact on Town Centre Air Quality Management Area through reduced congestion and improved access by non-polluting modes. Roads in Gateshead town centre have been identified as a potential Clear Air Zone in the recent consultation on the reducing nitrogen dioxide levels. There will also be a reduction of 47 buses per hour using the Five Bridges roundabout, which is covered by the AQMA.

6 B3 : Please complete the following table. Figures should be entered in £000s (i.e. £10,000 = 10).

Table A: Funding profile (Nominal terms) £000s 2018-19 2019-20 DfT funding sought 780 1561 Local Authority contribution 234 669 Third Party contribution 100 0 TOTAL 1114 2230 Notes: 1) Department for Transport funding must not go beyond 2019-20 financial year. 2) Bidders are asked to consider making a local contribution to the total cost. It is indicated that this might be around 30%, although this is not mandatory.

B4 : Local Contribution & Third Party Funding : Please provide information on the following questions (max 100 words on items a and b): a) Provide an outline of all non-DfT funding contributions to the project costs, the level of commitment, and when the contributions will become available.

Developer contribution - £100,000 (already secured) Council funding - £903,000 (to be made available upon confirmation of bid success) b) List any other funding applications you have made for this project or variants thereof and the outcome of these applications, including any reasons for rejection.

Local Pinch Point funding bid 2013. Rejected due to insufficiently high ranking among submitted schemes.

B5 Economic Case This section should set out the range of impacts – both beneficial and adverse – of the project. The scope of information requested (and in the supporting annexes) will vary, including according to whether the application is for a small or large project.

A) Requirements for small project bids (i.e. DfT contribution of less than £5m) a) Please provide a description of your assessment of the impact of the project to include:

- Significant positive and negative impacts (quantified where possible) including in relation to air quality and CO₂ emissions. - A description of the key risks and uncertainties; - If any modelling has been used to forecast the impact of the project please set out the methods used to determine that it is fit for purpose Our response to the economic case is structure in three parts: - Benefits of the scheme; - Benefit to cost ratio; - Key risks and uncertainties.

A traffic modelling and appraisal report is included in Annex 6

7 Benefits of the Scheme

A bus gate is being proposed between Sunderland Road and Gateshead Highway to provide more direct and quicker access into Gateshead town centre. Improvements to pedestrian and cycling facilities in the area are also being proposed. The scheme will improve the attractiveness of sustainable modes as a means of travel, which it is hoped will result in a modal shift and a reduction in traffic congestion in the town centre.

Traffic congestion in the urban core of Gateshead is currently an inhibitor to development, with an acceptance that any further development needs to be carried out in a sustainable manner with better access to sustainable modes of transport. There are currently proposals for significant housing and economic development as part of the core strategy for Newcastle and Gateshead, which is at risk of not being delivered if investment is not made now in sustainable transport. Delivery of the Newcastle and Gateshead Core Strategy is seen as essential for delivering ambitious targets for economic growth outlined in the North East Strategic Economic Plan, given the role that the urban core plays as the economic centre of the North East region.

The benefits of the bus gate scheme will occur fully in the opening year of the scheme due to immediate re-routing of bus services and improved pedestrian crossing provision. The main sources of benefits stemming from the scheme are as follows:

- Journey time benefits for public transport users travelling between the town centre and the south east part of Gateshead. - Pedestrians, cyclists and any other non-motorised users due to introduction of secure on street pedestrian crossing facilities which will be built at the bus gate. - The new bus route will provide access to potential new developments on Sunderland Road and also improve walking routes to and from the centre of Gateshead via the pedestrian crossing mentioned above. - Cars travelling along routes used by the existing bus services will see some small time benefits due to the removal of buses from congested areas of the network.

Although it has not been quantified, it is expected that re-routing buses from congested areas of the network to uncongested roads will result in reduced number of accidents and severity of accidents. Likewise, the reduction in congestion will lead to air quality benefits in a designated Air Quality Management Area.

The negative impacts of the scheme are for the existing users of the Gateshead Highway, where the bus gate is to be built. This will introduce approximately 30 seconds of red time delay on this route whenever the bus gate is activated; it is noted that this is currently free flowing and the vehicle usage of this road has been observed to be relatively small.

Benefit to Cost Ratio Due to the lack of a suitable up-to-date transport model which covers the full study area, only the bus journey time benefits and Gateshead Highway vehicle disbenefits have been calculated as they occur in relative isolation. The benefits have been assessed using a bespoke spreadsheet model. A series of surveys were conducted in May 2017 to provide input into the model and these surveys were supplemented by data provided by bus operators. Full details of the appraisal methodology can be found in Annex 6.

The results of the economic appraisal are shown in the table below in 2010 prices.

8 Benefits Car -£ Travel Time 2,756,679.65 -£ Vehicle Operating Costs 145,168.79 Bus Passenger £ Travel Time 15,208,528.14 Vehicle Operating Costs N/A Bus Operator £ Travel Time 1,253,141.29 £ Vehicle Operating Costs 698,315.59 £ Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 14,258,136.58 Public Accounts £ Investment Costs 2,610,946.90 Indirect Tax as a cost £ Present Value of Costs (PVC) 2,610,946.90 AMCB Net Present Value (NPV) £11,647,189.67 Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 5.46

The results of the appraisal show that the scheme delivers a high value for money. The greatest benefit is felt by bus passengers who will see a reduction in their travel time; it is noted that the information provided by bus operators showed that the services benefitting from the scheme are heavily used services.

Although the benefits identified above are significant, the results underestimate the true benefit of the scheme. The appraisal has not accounted for any benefit as a result of the economic and employment development which will be facilitated in Gateshead town centre, which is essential from the development of the North East region.

Key Risks and Uncertainty The appraisal methodology adopted is simplistic in its assessment of the benefits of the scheme due to the lack of a suitable transport model of the area. However, the assumptions applied in the appraisal would underestimate the benefits that the scheme has to deliver. The assumptions and impacts are summarised in the table below.

Input Assumption Impact on benefits Do Minimum: The Do Minimum public It is likely that Do Minimum Public transport times have been obtained from journey times will be Transport bus operators for 2017. They remain significantly higher in the Time consistent in the future year scenarios. future year situation as

9 Do Something: The Do Something times traffic congestion on existing have been calculated using free flow routes increases. The speeds for the new route. As the new appraisal therefore likely route is on less congested roads than underestimates the benefits existing, it is assumed that the bus will of the scheme. be travelling at an optimal speed. Do Minimum & Do Something: The distance of the bus routes have been Public The methodology is calculated using online mapping Transport appropriate for the input software and assuming a straight Distance being calculated. journey across Gateshead highway via the bus gate for the scheme. Buses will become more attractive with the scheme in place and this may therefore induce demand. Buses are Do Minimum & Do Something: The also likely to become more Public public transport demand has been attractive in the future if bus Transport obtained from bus operators for 2017. It priority is in place and traffic Demand is assumed to remain constant in the congestion on existing future and with the scheme in place. routes worsens. The appraisal therefore likely underestimates the benefits of the scheme. There will be some small benefits per user for Sunderland Do Minimum & Do Something: No time highway traffic due to buses Road/High benefits have been assumed for other being removed from West Street vehicles that are travelling the current congested parts of the Highway route of the bus services due to lack of network. The appraisal Time and suitable model available for assessing therefore likely Demand this. underestimates the benefits of the scheme. Do Minimum: The Do Minimum highway time is taken directly from the survey. Due to the relatively quiet Do Something: The Do Something nature of the Gateshead highway time has been calculated by Highway between adding the average delay caused by the Sunderland Road and Park Gateshead bus gate to the Do Minimum time. The Lane, it is unlikely that there Highway average hourly delay has been will be large queues caused Time calculated by multiplying the bus gate by the bus gate, which will delay (30 seconds) by the average clear each cycle. The number of bus gate uses per hour (e.g. methodology can therefore the number of services using it) and be considered robust. then dividing this by 60 minutes. Do Minimum & Do Something: The Gateshead The methodology is distance between Five Bridges and Park Highway appropriate for the input Lane roundabouts has been calculated Distance being calculated. using online mapping software. Do Minimum & Do Something: The It is unlikely that a minor Gateshead highway demand has been taken from delay on a largely Highway the survey. No difference has been uncongested road will Demand assumed between DM and DS and greatly deter current users TEMPro factors have been used to of the Gateshead Highway 10 growth up the demand to the forecast and so this assumption can years. be considered robust.

* Small projects bids are not required to produce a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) but may want to include this here if available. b) Small project bidders should provide the following in annexes as supporting material:

Has a Project Impacts Pro Forma been appended? Yes No N/A

Has a description of data sources / forecasts been appended? Yes No N/A Has an Appraisal Summary Table been appended? Yes No N/A

Other material supporting your assessment of the project described in this section should be appended to the bid.

* This list is not necessarily exhaustive and it is the responsibility of bidders to provide sufficient information to demonstrate the analysis supporting the economic case is fit-for-purpose.

B) Additional requirements for large project bids (i.e. DfT contribution of more than £5m) c) Please provide a short description (max 500 words) of your assessment of the value for money of the project including your estimate of the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) to include:

- Significant monetised and non-monetised costs and benefits - Description of the key risks and uncertainties and the impact these have on the BCR; - Key assumptions including: appraisal period, forecast years, optimism bias applied; and - Description of the modelling approach used to forecast the impact of the project and the checks that have been undertaken to determine that it is fit-for-purpose.

d) Additionally detailed evidence supporting your assessment, including the completed Appraisal Summary Table, should be attached as annexes to this bid. A checklist of material to be submitted in support of large project bids has been provided.

Has an Appraisal Summary Table been appended? Yes No N/A

- Please append any additional supporting information (as set out in the Checklist). *It is the responsibility of bidders to provide sufficient information for DfT to undertake a full review of the analysis.

11 B6 Economic Case: For all bids the following questions relating to desirable criteria should be answered.

Please describe the air quality situation in the area where the project will be implemented by answering the three questions below. i) Has Defra’s national air quality assessment, as reported to the EU Commission, identified and/or projected an exceedance in the area where the project will be implemented?

Yes No ii) Is there one or more Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) in the area where the project will be implemented? AQMAs must have been declared on or before the 31 March 2017

Yes No iii) What is the project’s impact on local air quality?

Positive Neutral Negative

- Please supply further details: The project will support increased use of alternatives to the private car, reducing congestion and consequent emissions in the designated Air Quality Management Area. iv) Does the project promoter incentivise skills development through its supply chain?

Yes No N/A

- Please supply further details:

Gateshead Council has a long established and successful history of promoting skills development through its procurement, regeneration and planning activities. A variety of types of social clauses are used to maximise benefits in this area. Further information is provided in Annex 8.

B7. Management Case - Delivery (Essential)

Deliverability is one of the essential criteria for this Fund and as such any bid should set out, with a limit of 100 words for each of a) to b), any necessary statutory procedures that are needed before it can be constructed. a) A project plan (typically summarised in Gantt chart form) with milestones should be included, covering the period from submission of the bid to project completion.

Has a project plan been appended to your bid? Yes No b) If delivery of the project is dependent on land acquisition, please include a letter from the respective land owner(s) to demonstrate that arrangements are in place to secure the land to enable the authority to meet its construction milestones.

Has a letter relating to land acquisition been appended? Yes No N/A c) Please provide in Table C summary details of your construction milestones (at least one but no more than 6) between start and completion of works: 12

Table C: Construction milestones

Estimated Date Utility diversions Jan – Dec 2018 Start of construction works Feb – July 2019 Opening date August 2019 Completion of works (if different) n/a d) Please list any major transport projects costing over £5m in the last 5 years which the authority has delivered, including details of whether these were completed to time and budget (and if not, whether there were any mitigating circumstances)

No single project on this scale, but in in 2016/17 a transport capital programme, comprising a number of schemes, totalling just under £9 million, was delivered.

The largest single scheme delivered in the last 5 years was the North Local Pinch Point scheme, at a total outturn cost of some £4.2 million. This was delivered to time, but above original cost. The main lesson learned was that utility information is not 100% reliable, some of the cost increase resulting from problems when a previously unidentified gas pipe was located.

B8. Management Case – Statutory Powers and Consents (Essential) a) Please list if applicable, each power / consent etc. already obtained, details of date acquired, challenge period (if applicable), date of expiry of powers and conditions attached to them. Any key dates should be referenced in your project plan.

No additional powers/consents required. b) Please list if applicable any outstanding statutory powers / consents etc. including the timetable for obtaining them.

No additional powers/consents required.

B9. Management Case – Governance (Essential)

Please name those who will be responsible for delivering the project, their roles (Project Manager, SRO etc.) and responsibilities, and how key decisions are/will be made. An organogram may be useful here.

The team responsible for delivery of the project will comprise the Service Director, Development, Transport and Public Protection (Anneliese Hutchinson) as Senior Responsible Owner (SRO), and the Engineering Design Manager (Trevor Waggett) as Project Manager (PM).

The SRO will provide overall direction and will report to senior management and members on progress with the project. Progress with senior management will be

13 monitored through the Communities and Environment Project Board, which meets weekly to discuss all major projects.

Meeting are held fortnightly with the Cabinet Member for Transport.

The PM will deploy directly staff from the Engineering and Landscape Design Team to ensure the effective detailed design, procurement and delivery of the project. Where necessary external support will be provide through the consultancy framework arrangements provided by the North East Procurement Organisation (NEPO).

Internal project liaison will be through regular meetings with the Traffic Planning Manager and Transport Planning Manager (held weekly), and with Finance (monthly).

Liaison and additional input will be undertaken with other Council teams as required.

Organogram provided below.

Member/ Cabinet Member for Ward councillors Cabinet Transport (as required) (fortnightly)

Senior Service Director DTPP Departmental Project Responsible Board (weekly) Owner

DTPP Management Team (weekly)

Project Engineeering Design Manager Manager

Project Engineering and Other staff input Staff Landscape Design (as required) Team

14 B10. Management Case - Risk Management (Essential)

All projects will be expected to undertake a Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) and a risk register should be included. Both should be proportionate to the nature and complexity of the project. A Risk Management Strategy should be developed that outlines how risks will be managed.

Please ensure that in the risk / QRA cost that you have not included any risks associated with ongoing operational costs and have used the P50 value.

Has a QRA been appended to your bid? Yes No

Has a Risk Management Strategy been appended to your bid? Yes No

Please provide evidence on the following points (where applicable) with a limit of 50 words for each: a) What risk allowance has been applied to the project cost? £352,792 b) How will cost overruns be dealt with?

The Council will assume responsibility for funding any cost overruns (see declaration in section D2). c) What are the main risks to project timescales and what impact this will have on cost?

Risks to timescales are small given the carrying out of detailed design and generous allowance for utility diversions (in practice likely to be shorter than the time allowed). Cost allowances for identified risks are included in the QRA (Annex 10).

B11. Management Case - Stakeholder Management (Essential)

The bid should demonstrate that the key stakeholders and their interests have been identified and considered as appropriate. These could include other local authorities, the Highways England, statutory consultees, landowners, transport operators, local residents, utilities companies etc. This is particularly important in respect of any bids related to structures that may require support of Network Rail and, possibly, train operating company(ies). a) Please provide a summary in no more than 100 words of your strategy for managing stakeholders, with details of the key stakeholders together with a brief analysis of their influences and interests.

The project is an approved scheme within the Urban Core Area Action Plan with few existing residents or businesses nearby. The likelihood of major objection is therefore considered to be very small.

Consultation will be undertaken using the Council’s standard procedures for transport schemes. Discussions with local ward members have already been held. Further steps include notification of businesses and residents nearby. Proposals will also be made available on the consultation section of the Council website.

15 Responses to consultation will be discussed, where necessary, with local members and the Cabinet Member for Transport to determine possible amendments to the scheme.

b) Can the project be considered as controversial in any way? Yes No If yes, please provide a brief summary in no more than 100 words c) Have there been any external campaigns either supporting or opposing the project?

Yes No

If yes, please provide a brief summary (in no more than 100 words)

d) For large projects only please also provide a Stakeholder Analysis and append this to your application.

Has a Stakeholder Analysis been appended? Yes No N/A e) For large projects only please provide a Communications Plan with details of the level of engagement required (depending on their interests and influence), and a description of how and by what means they will be engaged with.

Has a Communications Plan been appended? Yes No N/A

B12. Management Case – Local MP support (Desirable) d) Does this proposal have the support of the local MP(s);

Name of MP(s) and Constituency 1 Ian Mearns, Gateshead Yes No

2 Yes No

3 Yes No etc.

B13. Management Case - Assurance (Essential)

We will require Section 151 Officer confirmation (Section D) that adequate assurance systems are in place.

Additionally, for large projects please provide evidence of an integrated assurance and approval plan. This should include details of planned health checks or gateway reviews.

16 SECTION C – Monitoring, Evaluation and Benefits Realisation

C2. Please set out, in no more than 100 words, how you plan to measure and report on the benefits of this project, alongside any other outcomes and impacts of the project.

Benefits of the project will be measured through the following outcomes: - granting of planning permission and delivery of numbers of units of housing; - change to bus journey times; - pedestrian/cycle usage.

The first of the above can be assessed either through readily available information. Pedestrian and cycle usage will be assessed through bespoke surveys. Bus journey time information will be obtained from Nexus/Go Ahead.

A fuller evaluation for large projects may also be required depending on their size and type.

17 SECTION D: Declarations

D1. Senior Responsible Owner Declaration As Senior Responsible Owner for [project name] I hereby submit this request for approval to DfT on behalf of [name of authority] and confirm that I have the necessary authority to do so.

I confirm that [name of authority] will have all the necessary statutory powers in place to ensure the planned timescales in the application can be realised. Name: Signed:

Position:

D2. Section 151 Officer Declaration As Section 151 Officer for [name of authority] I declare that the project cost estimates quoted in this bid are accurate to the best of my knowledge and that [name of authority]

- has allocated sufficient budget to deliver this project on the basis of its proposed funding contribution - accepts responsibility for meeting any costs over and above the DfT contribution requested, including potential cost overruns and the underwriting of any funding contributions expected from third parties - accepts responsibility for meeting any ongoing revenue requirements in relation to the project - accepts that no further increase in DfT funding will be considered beyond the maximum contribution requested and that no DfT funding will be provided for this bid in 2020/21. - confirms that the authority has the necessary governance / assurance arrangements in place and, for smaller project bids, the authority can provide, if required, evidence of a stakeholder analysis and communications plan in place - confirms that if required a procurement strategy for the project is in place, is legally compliant and is likely to achieve the best value for money outcome Name: Signed:

HAVE YOU INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING WITH YOUR BID?

Combined Authority multiple bid ranking note (if applicable) Yes No N/A Map showing location of the project and its wider context Yes No N/A Combined Authority support letter (if applicable) Yes No N/A LEP support letter (if applicable) Yes No N/A Housebuilder / developer evidence letter (if applicable) Yes No N/A Land acquisition letter (if applicable) Yes No N/A Projects impact pro forma (must be a separate MS Excel) Yes No N/A Appraisal summary table Yes No N/A Project plan/Gantt chart Yes No N/A

A full list of material appended to the bid is provided below.

18 Bid Annexes Annex 1 Location/context plan Annex 2 Scheme layout Annex 3 Letters of support Annex 4 Summary of crime statistics Annex 5 Project impacts pro-forma Annex 6 Economic appraisal (description of data sources) Annex 7 Appraisal Summary Table Annex 8 Supply chain skills development Annex 9 Project plan/gant chart Annex 10 QRA Annex 11 Risk management strategy

19