Lindisfarne Corridor Major Scheme Business Case

ansportation South Tyneside Council August1 2015

Lindisfarne Corridor

Major Scheme Business Case

South Tyneside Council March 2016

Prepared by: ...... Prepared by: ...... Anna Goldie Edward Pearson Graduate Consultant Graduate Consultant

Prepared by: ...... Checked by: ...... Tanja Grabowski Gemma Paget Consultant Principal Consultant

Checked by: ...... Approved by: ...... Helen Webster Gary MacDonald Principal Consultant Regional Director

Rev No Comments Checked by Approved by Date 0.1 First Draft MSBC H. Webster G. MacDonald 21 July 15 0.2 Second Draft MSBC - Strategic Case near completion H. Webster G. MacDonald 31 July 15 0.3 Third Draft MSBC – modelling added H. Webster G. MacDonald 18 August 15 0.4 Fourth Draft MSBC – all section update H. Webster G. MacDonald 2 Nov 15 0.5 Fifth Draft MSBC R Kilner G. MacDonald 9 March 16 0.6 Final Draft MSBC (this version) R Kilner G MacDonald 15 March 16

First Floor, One Trinity Gardens, Quayside, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 2HF Telephone: 0191 224 6500

Website:http://www.aecom.com

Job No 60340295 Reference Date Created March 2016

This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited for the sole use of our client (the “Client”) and in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM Limited and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM Limited, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM Limited.

CONTENTS PAGE

1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 2 Project Description ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………9 3 The Strategic Case ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17 4 The Economic Case ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………53 5 The Financial Case ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………91 6 The Commercial Case ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….95 7 The Management Case ………………………………………………………………………………………………………102

Appendix A ...... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………116 Appendix B ...... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………118 Appendix C ...... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………120 Appendix D ...... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………124

INTRODUCTION

1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the Document This document forms the Major Scheme Business Case (MSBC) for the A19 / A194 / A1300 Lindisfarne roundabout and corridor improvements. This builds on the major scheme pro forma submitted to the North East Local Enterprise Partnership in March 2014, as part of the Strategic Economic Plan. This business case has been compiled in line with Department for Transport WebTAG guidance and the North East Local Transport Board Assurance Framework. This MSBC includes the following five cases:  Strategic;  Economic;  Financial;  Commercial;  Management.

1.2 Background On 7th July 2014, the Government announced a series of Local Growth Deals. The North East was included in these deals with Government’s commitment to deliver the objectives of the North East Strategic Economic Plan (SEP), submitted in March 2014. Including additional funds awarded in January 2015, the Government is investing a total of £329.9 million in the North East Growth Deal1. The Plan aims to provide ‘more and better jobs’, with funding allocated to schemes that stimulate economic growth, as set out in the Plan. In order to ensure schemes contribute to the vision and objectives of the SEP, whilst also demonstrating value for money for the use of public funds, partners in the North East Combined Authority promoting schemes, are required to submit business cases to access capital from the fund. The Lindisfarne corridor scheme is one of a number of proposed transport schemes in the SEP, which was earmarked for early delivery in the Plan. An improvement at the A19 / A194 junction has been a long- standing priority for South Tyneside Council, as it will bring significant benefits to the Borough and the North East LEP area in terms of journey time savings, reliability, reduced congestion, and improved air quality. The highway improvement scheme at the Lindisfarne corridor was described in the Plan as providing improved connectivity to the Port of Tyne and South Shields town centre, as well as improving access to the Strategic Highway Network2. It will improve access to key, existing and new, employment and housing sites, thus, supporting much needed economic growth and job creation.

1.3 The Proposal The Lindisfarne A19 / A194 and John Reid Road A194 / A1300 roundabouts are two of the most strategically important roundabouts in South Tyneside. Between them, they provide crucial access between South Tyneside and the Port of Tyne, Sunderland, Newcastle, and Gateshead. The Lindisfarne corridor also enables access between South Tyneside and the strategic road network; to the north via the A19 / New Tyne Crossing; and to the south via the A19, A194(M) and A1(M). Traffic flows through both roundabouts are high, particularly in the morning and afternoon peak periods, which frequently results in congestion and unreliable journey times. In spells of heavy rain, Lindisfarne roundabout is prone to severe flooding which makes the roundabout impassable to all vehicles. This causes major disruption to all road users, including long distance journeys, local commuter flows, and strategic freight. When flooded, access to South Tyneside and the Port of Tyne is severed, with traffic diverted onto inappropriate roads of insufficient capacity. This has negative

1 North east Growth Deal, January 2015. http://nelep.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/North-East-Growth-Deal-January-2015.pdf 2 More and Better Jobs; A Strategic Economic Plan for the North East, NELEP, March 2014

consequences for the local and regional economy. The proposed scheme is therefore expected to alleviate the risk of flooding and loss to the economic output of the area. A number of options have been considered for the corridor to alleviate current and future congestion issues. The South Tyneside VISSIM model has been used to appraise these options to identify a scheme that provides the greatest benefits in terms of journey time savings and also demonstrates a value for money solution. The proposed scheme comprises nine highway capacity enhancements in the Lindisfarne corridor to alleviate pressure on both the local and strategic highway networks, plus drainage enhancements. The principle improvements to be delivered by the scheme are, as follows:  An additional lane to be provided on the A194 Leam Lane westbound approach to Lindisfarne roundabout with 295m of capacity;  Widening of the A19 northbound on-slip exit to two lanes;  An additional left turn lane to the A194 Leam Lane westbound approach to Lindisfarne roundabout.  An additional lane is to be provided on A194 Leam Lane eastbound between Lindisfarne and John Reid Road roundabouts;  An additional right turn lane is to be provided on John Reid Road roundabout circulatory to provide additional stacking capacity for right turn movements into John Reid Road;  Widening of the A19 / A194 Lindisfarne roundabout to 3 lanes to provide 2 through lanes, providing stacking storage for traffic heading to the A19 northbound towards the New Tyne Crossing, removing the blocking impact of A19 traffic;  An additional left turn approach lane is to be provided on the A1300 John Reid on the north bound approach to the A194 / A1300 John Reid Road roundabout. The existing pedestrian refuge is to be removed and replaced with an uncontrolled crossing;  Provision of shared 3.0m cycleway connecting A1300 north of Stirling Avenue to Hadrian Road via A194 Leam Lane with the existing controlled crossing upgraded to a Toucan Crossing  Widening the A19 southbound off-slip entry to Lindisfarne roundabout to accommodate large goods vehicles and increase capacity; and,  Improve surface water drainage at Lindisfarne roundabout, to reduce the risk of flooding and make the strategic and local road network more resilient and reliable. An outline drawing of the main proposals is included in Section 2.2.

1.4 What the Project will Achieve The proposed scheme will deliver a series of improvements to the local highway network and provide wider economic benefits to the North East economy. These include:  Contributing to the facilitation of access to over 100Ha of future employment development land, including the International Advanced Manufacturing Park (IAMP) on land that spans the Sunderland and South Tyneside districts, located to the north of the Nissan automobile manufacturing plant. This is forecast to generate over 5000 jobs by 2024;  Opening up residential development land, allowing the construction of up to 5000 dwellings;  Reducing congestion on the local and strategic highway networks;  Decreasing average journey times and improving journey time reliability for trips through the corridor;  Providing more efficient access between South Tyneside and the strategic highway network - the A19 and A1(M) via the A194(M), as well as the surrounding local road network - notably the A194, A184, and A1300;  Improving safety for non-motorised users with better facilities for pedestrians and cyclists;  Reducing the number and severity of road traffic accidents; and

 Improving local air quality in the Lindisfarne corridor by reducing congestion;  The scheme will also provide more reliable access to various existing and planned strategic development sites including those outlined in  Table 1 below. Table 1: Key Strategic Housing and Employment Development Areas Supported by the Project Existing Planned/In Construction The Sunderland Enterprise NELEP Enterprise Zones on the A1231 corridor and North Bank of the Zone Tyne The Borough’s three town centres: South Shields, Jarrow and Hebburn The Nissan Automobile and riverside regeneration area including the £100m 365 Regeneration Manufacturing Plant project for South Shields The Bede, Simonside, Monkton and Boldon Business Newcastle and Sunderland City Centres Parks International Advanced Manufacturing Park IAMP (100ha – including part The Port of Tyne of Sunderland EZ)

1.5 Structure of the Document Following this introduction, the structure of the document is, as follows:  Section 2: Project Description - the project description provides a summary of the scheme  Section 3: The Strategic Case - the Strategic Case outlines the case for change and the strategic need for undertaking this highway improvement  Section 4: The Economic Case - the Economic Case appraises the costs and value for money of the project  Section 5: The Financial Case - the Financial Case provides a budget breakdown and outlines affordability.  Section 6: The Commercial Case - the Commercial Case provides the procurement arrangements for delivering the scheme; and  Section 7: The Management Case - the Management Case outlines the management arrangements for delivering the scheme.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2 Project Description

2.1 Geographical Area 2.1.1 The Lindisfarne Corridor The Lindisfarne corridor is located 2 kilometres south of the New Tyne Crossing and 2.5 kilometres from the Port of Tyne in South Tyneside, as illustrated in Figure 1. The Lindisfarne corridor is a key part of the strategic highway network and formed by the Lindisfarne roundabout at the A19 / A194 and John Reid Road roundabout A194 / A1300. The A194 forms the arterial link between the residential and coastal areas of South Tyneside and Newcastle / Gateshead to the west. The A19 meets the A194 at the Lindisfarne junction and forms a strategic link northbound to Northumberland and Scotland with the southbound section providing a high capacity link to Sunderland, Teesside and beyond. The corridor is heavily used by commuter traffic flowing eastbound and westbound to key employment sites inside the Borough and to those in neighbouring authorities, and also to gain access onto the A19 for longer commuting journeys. As the economy continues to recover and new development and jobs come forward, there will be increased demand for travel through this corridor by all modes of transport.

2.1.2 Role in the Strategic Road Network The Lindisfarne corridor is situated in South Tyneside and provides the interchange between three major roads, the A194, A19 and A1300. The A19 is one of only two major strategic routes heading north/south in the Tyne and Wear conurbation, providing access to Northumberland and Scotland to the north and Teesside and Yorkshire to the south. The A19 is the only realistic alternative long distance north south route to the A1, which suffers from severe congestion in the peak periods. The New Tyne Crossing is located 2km north of the Lindisfarne corridor. The next crossing of the River Tyne is six miles west spanning the river between Newcastle and Gateshead. Key dependencies on the Lindisfarne roundabout in particular include:  The New Tyne Crossing (TT2) opened in 2011, doubling the capacity for river crossings at this point  Highways England Strategic Route Network

Figure 1 presents the corridor in the wider context of the North East.

Figure 1: Location of Lindisfarne Corridor

2.1.3 The Road Layout of the Lindisfarne Corridor Figure 2 illustrates the existing road layout of the Lindisfarne corridor. There are two junctions separated by a 400 metre stretch of dual carriageway with access points to local residential areas from both sides. The Lindisfarne junction is a 5-arm, signalised, grade separated roundabout. The north/south running A19 is suspended above the east/west running A194 and has on/off slip roads joining the junction from the North and South. The A194 east and west approaches are both dual carriageways and along with the A19 slips, are signal controlled. The remaining arm (Lindisfarne Road) provides access to a small number of residential properties with no thoroughfare. Lindisfarne Road is the only approach to the roundabout not to be signal controlled. To the east of Lindisfarne junction is the John Reid Roundabout, which is a signalised roundabout (4-arm) from which the A1300 John Reid Road heads south east. The A194 runs through the junction east to west. The northern approach is Auckland Terrace, which provides access to the residential area of Low Simonside. The A1300 John Reid Road and A194 Newcastle Road approaches are all dual carriageways whilst Auckland Terrace is single carriageway. All approaches are signal controlled.

Figure 2: The Lindisfarne Corridor - Existing Road Layout

2.2 Components of the Scheme The proposed package has been primarily designed to alleviate congestion and improve journey time reliability within the Lindisfarne Corridor. The corridor will come under greater demand as the economic growth aspirations for South Tyneside Council and the North East Combined Authority develop. The nine key highway capacity enhancements, plus drainage enhancements, forming this scheme proposal are, as follows:  An additional lane to be provided on the A194 Leam Lane westbound approach to Lindisfarne roundabout with 295m of capacity;  Widening of the A19 northbound on-slip exit to two lanes;  An additional left turn lane to the A194 Leam Lane westbound approach to Lindisfarne roundabout.  An additional lane is to be provided on A194 Leam Lane eastbound between Lindisfarne and John Reid Road roundabouts;  An additional right turn lane is to be provided on John Reid Road roundabout circulatory to provide additional stacking capacity for right turn movements into John Reid Road;  Widening of the A19 / A194 Lindisfarne roundabout to 3 lanes to provide 2 through lanes, providing stacking storage for traffic heading to the A19 northbound towards the New Tyne Crossing, removing the blocking impact of A19 traffic;  An additional left turn approach lane is to be provided on the A1300 John Reid on the north bound approach to the A194 / A1300 John Reid Road roundabout. The existing pedestrian refuge is to be removed and replaced with an uncontrolled crossing;  Provision of shared 3.0m cycleway connecting A1300 north of Stirling Avenue to Hadrian Road via A194 Leam Lane with the existing controlled crossing upgraded to a Toucan Crossing  Widening the A19 southbound off-slip entry to Lindisfarne roundabout to accommodate large goods vehicles and increase capacity; and,  Improve surface water drainage at Lindisfarne roundabout, to reduce the risk of flooding and make the strategic and local road network more resilient and reliable. Figure 3 provides a drawing showing the components of the proposed intervention scheme, while Figure 4 provides a drawing of the proposed new road layout.

Figure 3: Drawing of the Linidisfarne Corridor - Proposed Scheme Components 14

LEGEND

CARRIAGEWAY

FOOTWAY / PAVED AREA / SHARED SURFACE

VERGE / SLOPE

TACTILE PAVING / PEDESTRIAN

CROSSING POINT Reproduced from/based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery

Figure 4: Drawing of the Lindisfarne Corri.dor - Proposed New Road Layout 15

King George's Field

THE STRATEGIC CASE

03 17

3 The Strategic Case 3.1 Introduction The Department for Transport’s guidance document, ‘The Transport Business Case: Strategic Case’, and the North East Assurance Framework outline the requirements for the Strategic Case as part of this major scheme documentation. Table 2 below shows where the information covering these areas can be found in this document. Table 2: Strategic Case Requirements Location in this Sub-Section DfT Requirements Document Outline contribution of stakeholders and any potential Stakeholders 3.2 & 7.8 conflicts Context of business case and strategic aims and Business Strategy 3.2 responsibilities of organisations involved Describe the problem and evidence base which justifies Problem Identified 3.3 intervention

Impact of doing nothing What is the impact of doing nothing? 3.3

External Drivers of What is driving the need to change 3.4 Change What is driving the need to change e.g. Improved Internal Drivers of Change 3.5 technology, policy, demand from businesses

Objectives Measureable, achievable, realistic and time bound objectives 3.8

High level internal/external constraints e.g. technology, Constraints 3.7 environmental etc.

Options Set out all options identified including do nothing 3.10

Scope What is to be delivered and what is out of scope 3.11

Measures for Success What constitutes successful delivery 3.12

Internal/external factors upon which the successful delivery Interdependencies 3.6 of the project is dependant

This chapter provides the Strategic Case for the project and outlines the case for change. To ensure the economic recovery continues it is crucial that South Tyneside provide the appropriate infrastructure to enable growth, attract inward investment and create high value jobs. The North East is an attractive place to locate businesses due to growing productivity and the competiveness of local labour costs3. South Tyneside needs to capitalise on its existing skilled and educated labour force, which is currently under-utilised with only 1.15% of the population holding NVQ4+ qualifications in employment. The average gross weekly wage in South Tyneside is nationally competitive, at £405, with a high level of employee retention4. By using our assets, strategic location and improving access to markets, benefits can be realised within the local economy and on a regional and national level. In recent years, the North East has seen major industrial investment and surrounding highway infrastructure has been upgraded to suit, this has included the construction of the New Tyne Crossing. Lindisfarne roundabout forms the strategic gateway to the Port of Tyne, which is responsible for much of the international export of goods from the North East. Nissan Motors and large parts of the automobile manufacturing supply chain are located within a 4 mile radius of the junction and use the local highway

3 More and Better Jobs: The North East Strategic Economic Plan 2014. http://nelep.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2014/11/North-East-Strategic-Economic-Plan-More-and-Better-Jobs.pdf 4 Invest in South Tyneside, 2015. http://www.investinsouthtyneside.co.uk/article/17494/key-facts-and-figures

network to access The Port of Tyne for import and export of goods5. In 2014, the Port of Tyne handled over 600,000 cars for Nissan, Komatsu and other global automotive manufacturers6. The project will support the North East’s Strategic Economic Plan’s drive to create more and better jobs7 and the national agenda for growth by improving access to key strategic locations in the North East. This business case has been developed by South Tyneside Council in partnership with Highways England, the North East Local Enterprise Partnership, the Port of Tyne, The New Tyne Crossing and South Tyneside Business Forum.

3.2 Strategic Context: Organisational Overview of the Key Partners 3.2.1 South Tyneside Council South Tyneside Council is a local authority in the North East of England with a population of 148,500. The Council governs the three towns of South Shields, Jarrow and Hebburn and their surrounding areas. A better future for South Tyneside’s people8 is central to how the Council delivers Projects. The council has a capital budget of over £295m9 (2015-2020), and employs around 2,700 people. Predictions are that the population of South Tyneside is expected to grow to 153,900 by 2021. South Tyneside Council will be responsible for delivering the project.

3.2.2 North East Local Enterprise Partnership The North East Local Enterprise Partnership covers the geographical area of County Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South Tyneside and Sunderland. The Local Enterprise Partnership is made up of both public and private organisations and has set a strategy for economic growth through the Strategic Economic Plan. The Strategic Economic Plan outlines the local priorities that would maximise growth in the North East. An important part of the funding for the Strategic Economic Plan is through the Local Growth Fund. The North East Combined Authority, on behalf of the North East Local Enterprise Partnership, is responsible for the delivery of the Local Growth Fund. The business case will be assessed by the North East Combined Authority on behalf of the Local Enterprise Partnership. A map of the geographic coverage of the NELEP and the location of South Tyneside within it is provided in Figure 5.

3.2.3 The North East Combined Authority (NECA) The North East Combined Authority (NECA) is responsible for strategic transport across the seven authorities of Newcastle, Sunderland, Gateshead, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, County Durham and Northumberland County, superseding the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority in 2010. The NECA is responsible for producing strategic transport policy such as The Local Transport Plan (LTP), which in turn informs authorities emerging Local Plans.

5 North East Combined Authority: Major Transport Scheme Assurance Process (2015) JMP 6 Port of Tyne 2015. http://www.portoftyne.co.uk/business-divisions/car-terminals/ 7 North East Local Enterprise Partnership, 2014 8 South Tyneside (2007) Local Development Framework –Core Strategy 9 South Tyneside Council http://www.southtyneside.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=24964&p=0

Figure 5: South Tyneside in the Context of the North East Local Enterprise Partnership (NELEP)

3.2.4 Other Strategic Partners In addition to South Tyneside Council and the North East Combined Authority, the project will be delivered in partnership with a number of other strategic partners. Table 3 presents the Strategic Partners and their key roles and responsibilities. Table 3: Strategic Partners and their Role on the Project Strategic Partner Role and Responsibilities Highways England Managing Agency of the A19 Port of Tyne Logistics - Key Business and local employer A19 Enterprise Zone Logistics - Key Business and local employer Nissan Logistics –Ley Business and local employer Environment Agency Surface Water Management Discharge Agreements

In addition to the strategic partners listed in Table 3, a number of other stakeholders have also been identified. The approach to stakeholder engagement for the project is reported in Section 7.8 in the Management Case.

3.3 The Transport Need: An Overview The A19 is a high capacity strategic route which runs through South Tyneside; to the north it provides access to parts of Newcastle, North Tyneside, Northumberland and Scotland via the New Tyne Crossing; to the south it provides access to Sunderland, Teesside, and Yorkshire. As well as being a key route into and through South Tyneside, the A19 is a key alternative to the congested A1, which runs in parallel to the west, contributing to the resilience of the strategic road network and making the A19 an important diversionary route for long distance journeys. At the Lindisfarne roundabout, strategic movements entering and exiting the A19 compete with significant commuter flows between South Tyneside and Newcastle, Gateshead, and Washington. Furthermore, the Lindisfarne roundabout provides a key access point for commuter, business and other trip purposes using the strategic network between South Tyneside and the south via the A194(M) and A1(M); to Chester-Le-Street, Durham, County Durham and Yorkshire. Highways England, formerly the Highways Agency, conducted a Bluetooth Data Analysis for the Tyne and Wear region in 201210. One cordon of their study was located on the Lindisfarne corridor on the A194 Leam Lane east of Lindisfarne roundabout. Figure 6 shows the top 5 origins and destinations for vehicles passing through the corridor during the AM peak, while Figure 7 shows the top 5 origins and destinations for vehicles passing through during the PM peak. This data analysis demonstrates that there is a significant flow across the A19 at Lindisfarne roundabout, which is competing for priority over movements onto and off the A19.

10 Highways Agency (March 2012) Tyne and Wear Bluetooth Data Analysis

Figure 6: Top 5 Origins and Destinations at Lindisfarne Roundabout (AM), 2012 Bluetooth Data

Figure 7: Top 5 Origins and Destinations at Lindisfarne Roundabout (PM), 2012 Bluetooth Data

The Lindisfarne corridor currently experiences high traffic volumes and congestion, restricting regional development opportunities and economic growth, with a resultant disbenefit to the economy in the North East. Observed traffic flows from 2014 are shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9 overleaf. Located at a critical junction between the A19 and the A194, the corridor forms a strategic link between the wider road network and the Port of Tyne; which supports international trade, manufacturing bases, and employment in Sunderland, Gateshead, and South Tyneside. The Lindisfarne corridor also provides a crucial link between the district of South Tyneside and employment, education, health and leisure opportunities in the wider North East region. In addition to the delays, congestion, and poor journey time reliability routinely experienced along the Lindisfarne corridor, Lindisfarne roundabout regularly suffers from severe flooding, forcing the junction to be closed and cutting off access to the Port of Tyne, homes, and businesses in the area. If left unabated, these problems could restrict development opportunities in the area, including growth at the Nissan automobile manufacturing plant and the associated supply chain / logistical freight surrounding the International Advanced Manufacturing Park (IAMP). The Lindisfarne corridor also forms part of the Great North Run route, a ‘regional institution’ bringing many visitors to the area and providing a much needed annual boost to the local economy. Should the route be blocked due to flooding, it would have significant impacts to the local economy and damage the reputation of the region.

3.4 The Policy Context: National Context and the Rationale 3.4.1 Agenda for Growth At a national level, there is a need to continue to stimulate economic growth by ensuring our highway infrastructure can move our people, goods and services efficiently and effectively. Business markets vary across the nation, with areas in the north requiring intervention to support business growth, enhance business routes to market and reduce the productivity gap. Although the NELEP area economy has witnessed increasing GVA11 in recent years (it is a net exporter), it is recognised that lack of infrastructure capacity could hold back required economic growth. The North East needs to continue to capitalise on its export growth and inward investment. The provision of well-connected highway infrastructure, with accessible additional routes to market, will support this need and ensure that the UK and the region can continue to build on its global connections and enhance its productivity. The Government recognises that good infrastructure is essential to growth, with estimates that over £250bn of investment is needed to upgrade the UK’s key infrastructure. Infrastructure investment is a key economic driver, providing a multiplier effect for the economy and helps to attract and retain business and jobs. Reliable and accessible transport networks are critical factors for the success of UK companies and the economic health of the UK economy. The Confederation of British Industry’s (CBI) Infrastructure Survey “Connect More” (2013) illustrates the business demand and need for effective infrastructure investment. The Local Growth White Paper 2010 and the Heseltine Review of economic growth 2012 ‘No Stone Unturned’ led to a significant shift in regional governance arrangements, establishing Local Enterprise Partnerships, to support local growth, encourage business investment and promote economic development. The 39 Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) developed Strategic Economic Plans in 2014 that outline local priorities to maximise growth. To support this agenda for growth, the UK government announced 39 Growth Deals across England in 2014. The North East Growth Deal detailed an allocation of £289.3m to the North East Local Enterprise Partnership (NELEP) which was subsequently expanded by an additional £40.6m announced by Government in January 2015. The Single Local Growth Fund (LGF) will see £330m invested in the North East economy from 2015 and represents an opportunity to remove barriers to growth. Upgrading the Lindisfarne corridor will alleviate one of these barriers to growth not just within the Borough of South Tyneside, but due to its strategic location, to the wider North East area.

11 NELEP Economy GVA increased by £10bn and reached £29bn by 2008 - North East Economic Review 2013

Figure 8: 2014 Observed Traffic Flows 0800-0900

3 319 0 208 123 41 60 N 0 34 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2

3 16 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 4 0 0 0 1 39 0 0 860 41 6

1848 51 9 926 17 4

7 0 0 1 0 0

427 65 0 Lindisfarne John Reid Road 650 45 4

1161 46 9 10 0 0

99 4 0

189 7 0 1525 51 5 235 7 0 0 146 1 6 5 7 1184 52 9

381 22 0

71 2 97 431 838 39 62 5 0 21 30 6 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0

Key

Lights

Heavies

Buses

Figure 9: 2014 Observed Traffic Flows 1700-1800

4 360 0 290 94 43 49 N 0 13 0 3 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 3

4 12 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 6 0 1 0 0 93 0 0 989 20 4

2107 21 11 1030 0 5

12 0 0 1 0 0

291 17 0 Lindisfarne John Reid Road 882 9 5

1155 19 9 72 1 0

57 1 0

176 0 0 1490 13 7 159 11 0 0 181 0 4 0 6 1091 14 12

395 11 0

53 1 0 550 654 90 67 0 0 0 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

Key

Lights

Heavies

Buses

3.4.2 The Role of Transport Infrastructure Nationally, it is recognised that our transport infrastructure needs to support UK business growth, not only in terms of supporting the movement of people and goods, but expanding to open up new markets and extending the use of more efficient forms of transport and reduced journey times. Our strategic road network carries 90% of passenger journeys and almost 70% of freight12. The Government have committed to invest in transport infrastructure to keep the UK moving. Connectivity between cities and markets is pivotal in realising business potential and to boost growth within the UK’s economy. The Making Sustainable Local Transport Happen (2011) White Paper illustrates how well connected infrastructure is essential to help growth in the UK economy. In December 2014, the Government announced the first Roads Investment Strategy. The Roads Investment Strategy sets out a long term vision for the Strategic Road Network, outlining a 6 year plan for improving the network and creating better roads for the users. Between 2015 and 2021 the Roads Investment Strategy will see £15.2bn invested in over 100 major schemes to enhance and renew the network. The strategy identifies the strategic importance of the A19 and associated connectivity. Furthermore, this is supported by Transport for the North in the context of the role in the Northern Powerhouse.

3.5 The Policy Context: Local Context 3.5.1 North East Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) On the 7th July 2014, the Prime Minister’s Office announced 39 Growth Deals with Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) across England. Each of the 39 LEPs were invited to submit a Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) by 31st March 2014, outlining their local priorities that would maximise growth. The SEP for the North East was informed by the North East Independent Economic Review (NEIER) 2013, which identified key barriers to economic growth in the region. The SEP is central to the North East agenda for growth, setting out a clear vision and investment programme for the area, identifying key priorities and actions. The North East Growth Deal detailed an allocation of £289.3m to the North East Local Enterprise Partnership (NELEP), which was subsequently expanded by an additional £40.6m announced in January 2015. The Single Local Growth Fund (LGF) will therefore see £329.9m invested in the North East economy from 2015 with transport funds being allocated around £95 million of this13. The North East SEP has a vision is to create a globally competitive economy with more and better jobs14. By 2024, the NELEP intends to halve the gap between the North East and the national average (excluding London) on five key indicators:  gross value added (GVA) per full time equivalent (FTE);  private sector employment density;  business density;  employment rate; and,  unemployment rate. In order to achieve sustained and structured economic growth, the region must provide over 1 million jobs by 2024, representing 100,000 new jobs or an 11% increase from 2014 in order to close gap with the rest of country.

12 Department for Transport (2015) Roads Investment Strategy 13 NECA 2014. http://www.northeastca.gov.uk/sites/default/files/minutes_document/15%20July%202014%20- %20North%20East%20Leadership%20Board%20-%20Supplemental%20Agenda.pdf 14 More and Better Jobs: The North East Strategic Economic Plan 2014. http://nelep.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2014/11/North-East-Strategic-Economic-Plan-More-and-Better-Jobs.pdf

The SEP has six key strategic themes:  Innovation;  Business Support and Access to Finance;  Skills;  Inclusion;  Economic Assets and Infrastructure; and,  Transport and Digital Connectivity.

The latter two strategic themes illustrate that the region fully understands the need to develop its place for business to invest and harness the opportunities within the North East. By improving our connectivity, we will facilitate economic growth, enabling people and goods to reach their destination efficiently and effectively. There is compelling evidence that transport investment will have the maximum impact on productivity, job creation and GVA where it improves the area’s strategic connectivity, facilitates visitors, provides reliable access to markets and improves access to all parts of the area and to the priority locations for economic growth. The SEP stresses the importance of strategic transport investments in areas, which provide quick and reliable links in order to assist trading and export to external markets by road, rail, air and sea. It also stresses the issue of investing in infrastructure that ensures urban centres maximise their potential and allow everyone to participate in the benefits of economic gains. The plan makes specific reference to the A19, river crossing points and their approaches as being areas where congestion is accentuated. This project will alleviate concerns around localised congestion hindering regional productivity whilst simultaneously creating efficient and reliable links to market. The Lindisfarne corridor lies on the main approach to the Port of Tyne, used by businesses nationally to import and export goods; the port itself is a major employer in the locality. Providing quicker and more stable journey times along this critical corridor will encourage further industry into the area, whilst also increasing local access to employment and skills, aligning with NECA ambitions. The corridor also provides the access route to the main town centres of South Tyneside, Enterprise Zones on the A19 corridor, the International Advanced Manufacturing Park, Nissan Motors and many other proposed employment and housing sites.

3.5.2 Local Transport Plan The Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3)15 for Tyne and Wear 2011-21 was written by the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority, prior to its abolition. The Plan partners include the five local authorities of Newcastle, Sunderland, Gateshead, North Tyneside and South Tyneside and Nexus (Tyne and Wear PTE). The LTP will be replaced by a Regional Transport Plan; currently in development for the North East Combined Authority which incorporates the local authorities of Tyne and Wear and also County Durham and Northumberland County Councils. Table 4 outlines the Tyne and Wear’s five primary objectives contained in the existing LTP3, along with a description of how this scheme will contribute to delivering each of them.

15 Tyne and Wear Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3) 2011 – 2021. http://www.tyneandwearltp.gov.uk/documents/ltp3/

Table 4: Local Transport Plan Objectives Objective Contribution the scheme makes to LTP objectives Junction improvements along the Lindisfarne corridor will facilitate 1 To support economic the efficient and reliable transfer of goods to and from the Port of development, regeneration and Tyne, supporting local businesses and economies. It also reduces competitiveness of Tyne and journey times and improves reliability between South Tyneside and Wear, improving the efficiency, its neighbouring towns and cities, supporting its regeneration reliability and integration of programme, South Tyneside 365 and complementing its new transport networks transport hub. The corridor is also a key route serving Enterprise Zones on the A19, and proposed employment and housing sites. The Lindisfarne roundabout is a designated Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). There are high exceedances of Nitrous Oxide which is associated with the volume of motorised traffic using the junction. Reducing journey times through the corridor and increasing the 2 To reduce carbon emissions efficiency and reliability of the junction will help to alleviate the produced by local transport current problem. The proposed scheme includes for a new surface movement, and to strengthen our water drainage system, deemed an essential part of the scheme. networks against the effects of The Lindisfarne junction sits at the bottom of a gradient of the on/off climate change and extreme slip roads of the A19 corridor. At times of heavy rainfall, the weather events roundabout is subject to flooding (see section 3.9.4). The effects of climate change, which may result in more extreme weather events and more rainfall for the North East, hence more closures for the roundabout. The scheme will safeguard against such changes and events. There is an existing cycling and pedestrian footbridge across the A194 Leam Lane between Lindisfarne and John Reid Road roundabouts. However, there is concern that pedestrians originating 3 To contribute to healthier and from/travelling to the East Felgate Estate, located to the west of the safer communities in Tyne and roundabout, have to navigate the A19 on-slips by waiting for Wear, with higher levels of appropriate gaps in traffic. Therefore, upgraded crossing facilities physical activity and personal have been provided on most of the signal controlled arms of the security. Lindisfarne roundabout. This will provide safer routes for those wishing to travel on foot or by bike, including school children travelling to Simonside Primary School, located to the south-east of Lindisfarne roundabout. 4 To create a fairer Tyne and Transport is often regarded as one of the principal barriers to Wear, providing everyone with the employment, skills and education. Providing efficient and better opportunity to achieve their full transport greatly enhances social mobility. Reducing journey times in potential and access a wide range the corridor provides greater access to town centres within South of employment training, facilities Tyneside, other employment and education opportunities, as well as and services. leisure facilities and recreational centres. 5. To protect, preserve and enhance our natural and built The junction upgrades will provide a less congested, more efficient environments, improving peoples route along the corridor. Subsequently, air quality will improve giving quality of life and creating high rise to increased public health quality public place.

3.5.3 Local Development Plan and Local Development Framework Until South Tyneside’s Local Plan16 is adopted, the Local Development Framework (LDF, 2007)17, remains the accepted point of planning reference. The South Tyneside LDF states the importance of improving the highway network including the A19 corridor that runs north to south and incorporates the Lindisfarne roundabout. A key aim of the document is to promote growth along the A19 Economic Growth Corridor. This is reflected in Table 5, which summarises the strategic development sites outlined in the LDF and more recent core strategy and Local Plan updates. Table 5: Key Strategic Housing and Employment Development Areas Supported by the Project Existing Planned/In Construction

NELEP Enterprise Zones on the A1231 corridor and North The Sunderland Enterprise Zone Bank of the Tyne The Borough’s three town centres: South Shields, Jarrow and The Nissan Automobile Manufacturing Hebburn and riverside regeneration area including the £100m Plant Regeneration of South Shields (365 Vision) The Bede, Simonside, Monkton and Newcastle and Sunderland City Centres Boldon Business Parks The International Advanced Manufacturing Park IAMP (100ha The Port of Tyne – including part of Sunderland EZ)

The LDF Core Strategy stipulates that 1,650 additional dwellings are to be delivered between 2016-2021. Of this, 70 per annum are anticipated to be built in the Jarrow / Hebburn area and 260 per annum in the South Shields / Urban Fringe area. Supplementing the Local Development Framework are three Area Action Plans (AAPs) for South Tyneside’s principal district centres of Jarrow, Hebburn, and South Shields. The plans seek to accentuate the area’s rich heritage and enhance local townscapes to provide an altogether more attractive place to live and work. Figure 10 shows the location of the Lindisfarne junction in the context of the road network and depicts key features within a one mile buffer of both the A194 and A19. The proximity to development sites and the LEP zones identifies the need for the transport network to support ongoing development to drive economic growth.

16 South Tyneside Local Plan (in development). http://www.southtyneside.gov.uk/article/14842/Local-Plan 17 South Tyneside Council Local Development Framework 2007 http://www.southtyneside.gov.uk/article/9065/Local-Development- Framework

Figure 10: South Tyneside Development Map

3.5.4 South Shields 365 Town Centre Vision (2013) The South Shields 365 Town Centre Vision is a master plan for the largest town and administrative centre of South Tyneside, and is in support of the continued regeneration of South Tyneside. The plan includes a new transport interchange in South Shields Town Centre, a new library, and greater retail and leisure offer; all of which will ensure South Tyneside becomes a more cohesive, efficient and enjoyable place to live18.

18 http://www.southtyneside.gov.uk/article/24079/Introducing-South-Shields-365

Transport and urban realm improvements are at the core of the plans, with better cohesion between the riverside, town centre and foreshore cited as the principal method for regeneration. Plans for a new combined Metro and bus station have recently been subject to public consultation19. 1,300 new homes are planned for the Riverside area, with construction on the Trinity South development having started in 2013 and the first show homes opened in January 201420.

3.5.5 The International Advanced Manufacturing Park Area Action Plan (AAP) The International Advanced Manufacturing Park Areas Action Plan (AAP) will form a statutory plan of South Tyneside’s Local Plan which will form the guidance for planning applications in the coming 15-20 years. The 100ha development is a joint venture between South Tyneside and Sunderland Councils and is planned to be located north of Nissan’s car plant, expanding the North East automotive manufacturing hub to create the International Advanced Manufacturing Park (IAMP) close to the A19. Figure 11 provides a map showing the location of the IAMP in the context of Sunderland, South Tyneside, the Nissan plant, and the most deprived neighbourhoods of the districts. When completed, the IAMP will comprise the new 100 hectare development plus the existing Nissan plant and the existing supplier park. Figure 11: Location of the International Advanced Manufacturing Park (IAMP)

Price Waterhouse Cooper (PwC) conducted a demand study and needs analysis in order to assess the most suitable sites for development. Currently situated in Greenbelt land, the IAMP site was found to be most suitable for investment, due to the combination of size, proximity to existing industry, transport links and availability of the land21. The site will enable the construction of new infrastructure, including predicted private sector investment of £295m, to create an attractive, well connected, high quality employment site with efficient links to the strategic road network and the Port of Tyne. It is anticipated that this development will create over 5,200 new jobs by 2026/27, with more than 500 new jobs being created every year from 2018. PwC noted that automotive growth is predicted to continue to be

19 http://www.southtyneside.gov.uk/article/24267/transport-south-shields-365 20 http://www.southtyneside.gov.uk/article/17394/Riverside-Housing 21PwC and Bisset Adams, Part 2: Site appraisals for South Tyneside Council and Sunderland City Council, September 2013

strong worldwide, investment in the UK is expected to continue, the trend of suppliers locating close to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM’s) is expected to continue; and strong demand is expected from non-automotive advanced manufacturing, distribution and logistics. Sunderland and South Tyneside councils have committed to supporting sustainable transport to the IAMP site, ensuring that every reasonable measure is taken to reduce traffic flows into and from the new development. However, the strategic route from the IAMP site to the Port of Tyne via the Lindisfarne corridor is likely to experience considerable growth in freight and other road traffic. Several junction improvements are already planned for the A19 (at the A184 Testos Junction, A1231, and A183 junctions) in readiness for the new development. Therefore, measures to increase capacity, improve flow, and reduce disruption at the A194 Lindisfarne junction are necessary to complete the upgrades to this strategic section of the A19 and fully support the development of the IAMP. A study is also underway to investigate the possible extension of the Metro system to serve the IAMP site.

3.5.6 Port of Tyne Vision and Values (2015) The Port of Tyne Vision and Values document22 outlines the strategic aims and vision for continued expansion of the port. Having recently won the ‘Port of the Year’ award, the Port of Tyne wishes to consolidate recent successes by sustainably expanding business and simultaneously enriching the local community and environment. There is a clear vision to promote sustainable economic growth in the North East through careful planning and increase river traffic and cargo volumes using the Port to ensure jobs and a good quality of life. The New Tyne Crossing is a clear advantage for this expansion.

3.6 Inter-dependencies with Local Schemes The package of improvements at Lindisfarne will be delivered alongside other local highway upgrades which when delivered, will allow planned development proposed by South Tyneside’s Local Development Framework to be fulfilled. These local network improvements align to the creation of a Strategic Western Gateway, connecting to the A19 as part of the Strategic Road Network. Longer term plans are being considered for a major junction improvement scheme, at the A19 / Testo’s Roundabout (Highways England ownership). Highways England is proposing a major upgrade to the Testo’s roundabout, which would see the A19 become grade separated from Downhill Lane. A decision on the scheme is expected in the near future. The scheme at the Lindisfarne roundabout and the corridor to John Reid Road roundabout has inter dependencies with these three junctions outlined above. A VISSIM base model has been developed with all four junctions incorporated. There is current interaction between traffic flows between junctions, and route choice is therefore important. Changes to any of the junctions will have consequential demand on the other junctions. South Tyneside Council have programmed the Lindisfarne scheme to be delivered first, and are in the process of going out to tender on the Arches and Southern Portal for preferred options and detailed designs to be undertaken. These later schemes will pay due attention to the new highway arrangements and capacity of the Lindisfarne scheme.

3.7 Constraints The delivery of this project is dependent on a number of internal and external factors, most notably financial and technical resources and expertise. A full explanation of the internal governance arrangement within the Council is outlined later in this document (Section 7) and the following provides some background to the key design, operational and technical delivery considerations. In Section 7, the key risks for this project and how they will be mitigated and managed are also outlined. The Finance Case (Section 6) sets out the funding for the scheme and the financial commitment the Council is making as a local contribution. Further financial commitment is given as the long term maintenance liability which will rest with South Tyneside Council in perpetuity.

22 Port of Tyne 2015 http://www.portoftyne.co.uk/cache/files/2406-1429014165/VisionandValues.pdf

Within South Tyneside Council, the Transportation and Asset Management Departments provide a range of specialist functions, including the design of roads and bridges, flood risk management, road safety, street lighting, parking, traffic and transportation engineering. With this in-house expertise, the service currently undertakes road infrastructure improvement and maintenance projects. However, in order to meet the ambitious and challenging construction timescales, for this and other major projects to be delivered over the next few years in South Tyneside, it was necessary to increase the size of the teams, and utilise external consultant resources for certain elements of the projects. This has overcome an immediate constraint to programme delivery in terms of staff resources. Taking the above resource structure into account, and assuming timely approvals are given, delivery programmes have been prepared which map out a four year time horizon which will see this and another two major highways projects delivered by 2019. This structure also provides sufficient flexibility to deal with changing / developing priorities should the need arise over the lifetime of the projects. The project has been designed, and will be constructed by independent consultants and contractors. South Tyneside Council will then become responsible for the operation and maintenance of the new road and associated transport infrastructure. The scale of the construction works largely falls out with the capabilities of the Council’s own Contracting Services. The works will therefore be procured through an open tendering process in line with the Councils established procurement frameworks. The programme for this and the other major highway projects includes for a full procurement process from start to finish. Various consultation exercises will be undertaken as part of the preparation of these projects and programmes. The North East LEP and North East Combined Authority fully accept the need for additional highway capacity at this location to facilitate growth in the borough and provide access to the Port of Tyne, the International Advanced Manufacturing Park and the main town centres. Consultation, finance and land ownership boundaries have determined the preferred option presented in this business case. All of the essential land required for the project is within the control of the Council, or within the existing adopted road network. There are also no legal issues (e.g. burdens) that will impact upon the delivery of the project. Notwithstanding the policy context presented in this MSBC, the project has been prepared with due diligence given to environmental assessments, geotechnical investigations and webTAG compliant transport modelling. The detailed design of the scheme has been prepared with due cognisance of these considerations.

3.8 The Case for Change: The SMART Objectives for the Project This project will enhance the highway network of South Tyneside through the objectives outlined below. These will be monitored and evaluated to ensure that the desired benefits are achieved. The project will achieve a number of strategic and project objectives, including the SMART objectives provided in Table 6 overleaf.

Table 6: SMART Objectives for the Project Strategic Objective How the project will achieve this

Decrease and improve the Additional circulatory lanes on the roundabouts and improvements to reliability of journey times the approaches at the A194 Leam Lane and A1300 John Reid Road, through the Lindisfarne gives the corridor greater capacity for an increasing volume of traffic to corridor. use more efficiently. The proposed interventions will reduce congestion and reduce the time Improve air quality within the traffic is spent stationary, the more efficient movement of traffic and AQMA surrounding the reduction in stop-start manoeuvres will lead to an improvement in air Lindisfarne corridor. quality. Stimulate economic growth in Faster and more reliable journey times to between key strategic the North East by enabling economic / employment sites and improved accessibility to development development and improving areas and markets (such as the Port of Tyne, Nissan, and IAMP sites) accessibility to strategic growth will encourage further economic growth. areas. Integral flood risk mitigation measures including a new surface water Reduce the frequency and drainage system (attenuation ponds, improved drainage, and culverts) severity of localised flooding at are included in the highway scheme to remove surface water and Lindisfarne roundabout reduce the likelihood of flooding at Lindisfarne roundabout. Improved traffic management along the Lindisfarne corridor will add Reduce the number and capacity, reducing traffic queues and delays. With the provision of severity of road traffic enhanced crossing points for pedestrians and cyclists, conflicting accidents, casualties and manoeuvres will be reduced. This will improve traffic flows, reduce fatalities on the Lindisfarne driver frustration, and reduce the number of breaking and stop-start corridor manoeuvres, thus reducing the likelihood of accidents and collisions.

3.9 The Rationale for the Scheme: The Local Challenges 3.9.1 Socio-Economic Need South Tyneside lies within the Tyne and Wear conurbation and the wider NELEP area. The area was once home to maritime, mining and chemical industries. The districts economy now focuses on the manufacturing and service sector with some shipping industry still present. The district covers 64 km² and includes the towns of South Shields, Hebburn and Jarrow along with the villages of Boldon, Cleadon and Whitburn. South Tyneside has a population of 148,500; of which 73,400 are economically active23. South Tyneside’s population is predicted to rise to around 153,900 by 202124. The English Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD, 2010) illustrated that South Tyneside was the 52nd most deprived local authority area (out of 326), improving from the 27th most deprived in 2007. However, South Tyneside still has large areas with high relative deprivation. Figure 12, Figure 13, and Figure 14, over the following pages demonstrate the levels of deprivation using the 2010 overall English IMD as well as the employment and education sub-domains.

23 Nomis (2015) https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/1946157067/report.aspx#tabjobs 24 South Tyneside Local Development Framework, 2007 http://www.southtyneside.info/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=14468&p=0

Figure 12 depicts deprivation at LSOA level across the Authority. Figure 12: Relative Deprivation of South Tyneside, 2010 English Indices of Multiple Deprivation

Figure 12 shows that large areas of South Tyneside, including the area close to the Lindisfarne corridor, are in the top 20% most deprived in the country.

Figure 13 shows relative deprivation across South Tyneside in respect of employment. Figure 13: Relative Employment Deprivation of South Tyneside, 2010 English Indices of Multiple Deprivation

Figure 13 shows employment deprivation across South Tyneside. This shows that the centre of Westoe, Cleadon and Boldon all have small levels of deprivation by employment with the rest of the authority falling into the top 40% most deprived.

Figure 14 shows the relative deprivation in respect of education deprivation. Figure 14: Relative Education Deprivation of South Tyneside, 2010 English Indices of Multiple Deprivation

Figure 14 shows education deprivation across South Tyneside. The majority of the authority falls into the top 40% most deprived in the county.

As the above figures show, the area around the corridor itself is falls within the top 20% most deprived in the country. A geographically focused analysis of unemployment, skills and health statistics for wards in the surrounding area is presented in Table 7. Table 7: Unemployment and Skills in Surrounding Wards 26 25 Skills Rank where Deprivation Index Unemployment Health where 1 is Area 1 is ‘most where 1 is ‘most Rate ‘most deprived’27* deprived’* deprived’* Bede (st14a) 11.2% 3000 3116 4019 Fellgate and 6.6% 6863 5449 7215 Hedworth (st17a) Primrose (st17d) 7.3% 4960 2,502 4434 Tyne and Dock and 10.4% 1793 3539 3356 Simonside (st14d) 52nd most deprived South Tyneside 7.6% - -- of 326 authorities North Eastern LEP 5.1% - - - UK 3.7% - - - *Out of 33,000 ranked areas Table 7 shows that of the 33,000 ranked areas, the wards in close proximity to the Lindisfarne roundabout experience higher than average levels of deprivation, not only by comparison with the UK as a whole, but also within the LEP area. This is particularly the case in Bede, the ward in which the scheme lies is amongst the most deprived by many criteria, nationwide. Several of the wards to the west of the town centre, such as the Tyne Dock area, experience similarly high levels of deprivation. Therefore, improving access into the Town Centre through the Lindisfarne corridor will benefit both residents and visitors in terms of improving access to jobs, health, leisure, and training facilities. The alleviation of congestion at the junctions is pivotal to the efficient movement of local, strategic and freight traffic in the area. It will also decrease severance and increase accessibility to community amenities including South Tyneside College.

3.9.2 Economic Need The Lindisfarne corridor is situated in South Tyneside and provides the interchange between three major roads, the A194, A19 and A1300. The A1 suffers from severe congestion in the peak periods, and the A19 provides the only alternative strategic route capable of handling large volumes of north-south traffic across the Tyne, providing access to Northumberland and Scotland to the north and Teesside and Yorkshire to the south. The New Tyne Crossing is located 2km north of the Lindisfarne corridor, and the next crossing of the River Tyne is six miles west spanning the river between Newcastle and Gateshead. The A19 and A184 trunk roads, as well as the A194 are considered principal transport links in South Tyneside, and comprise significant routes for people to access employment, as well as business links such as the movement of goods28. Lindisfarne corridor is located on the junction between the A19 and the A194, both of which are strategic links leading to the New Tyne Crossing and the strategic Port of Tyne to the north of the Lindisfarne corridor. The £260 million New Tyne Crossing was opened in 2011, adding a second tunnel allowing two lanes of traffic to travel in each direction under the river on the A1929. Since opening the New Tyne Crossing, journey times across the River Tyne using the A19 have reduced significantly. The increased capacity of the crossing and reduction in congestion has resulted in a switch from other routes to the New Tyne Crossing30. While

25 2012 JSA Claimant Count November 2012 26 Indices of Deprivation SOA level 27 Rank of Health of Deprivation and Disability, IMD Index 2007 28 South Tyneside Council, A19 – Case for Transport Investment, February 2013 29 Local Growth Fund Proforma 30 Tyne & Wear ITA, The New Tyne Crossing: An Economic Impact Assessment, November 2012

this has reduced the traffic flows and journey times for those using other routes to cross the Tyne, this change has increased flows on the A19 and the approach roads and junctions leading onto the A19 and the New Tyne Crossing. The delays caused by large traffic volumes accessing and egressing the A19 at Lindisfarne roundabout using the current confined layout are slowing economic growth in both South Tyneside and the North East, with long / unreliable journey times. These issues are therefore constraining development sites and opportunities. The problems at Lindisfarne roundabout are compounded by the frequent disruption and inconvenience of flooding occurrences, which may deter inward investment as industries look elsewhere for faster and more reliable access to markets. Additionally, flooding and heavy traffic make this location a safety concern in terms of accidents. There is a strategic and economic need for high quality freight connections in the region. The North East Freight Quality Partnership has stressed the importance of the A19 for the movement of freight into and out of the North East. The proposed intervention will support existing business, such as the Nissan automobile manufacturing plant, the IAMP manufacturing park, and other associated supply chain industry, by improving access to the Port of Tyne, the New Tyne Crossing, and the strategic road network. Additionally, by improving access and opening up development sites, the Project will encourage new enterprise at the IAMP site, existing business parks at Bede, Simonside, Monkton and Boldon, as well as at other key Enterprise Zones in Tyne & Wear (such as North Tyneside and Sunderland). Also, the South Tyneside Local Plan highlights the economic importance of the key town centres within South Tyneside, namely South Shields, Hebburn and Jarrow, along with the villages of Boldon, Cleadon and Whitburn. These locations are key targets for new housing and business growth opportunities. The successful bid for Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) identified a number of strategic employment areas along the A19 corridor (north and south of the River Tyne). In addition to increased highway capacity proposed by this scheme, South Tyneside Council are promoting sustainable modes of transport to bring forward sustainable development in the Borough in an attempt to manage congestion along this strategic corridor. Tourism adds a considerable amount to the local economy in South Tyneside, with one estimate suggesting tourism contributed over £200 million to South Tyneside’s economy in 201231. There are a number of historical and industrial heritage sites within South Tyneside, including the Arbeia Roman Fort, St. Paul’s Cathedral, Souter Lighthouse, as well as educational and cultural attractions such as The Customs House, Bede’s World, South Shields Museum and Art Gallery, and Marsden Grotto. These attractions are complemented by the natural beauty of the South Tyneside coastline and beaches, as well as the many outdoor activities and opportunities offered around the district32. The Lindisfarne corridor forms part of the Great North Run route, which brings over 50,000 runners and many more spectators and visitors to the concerts, shows and other cultural events organised to coincide with the Great North Run. This provides a much needed annual boost to the local economy, estimated at over £15 million33. Television and other media coverage helps to showcase South Shields and Newcastle, providing publicity nationwide to bring in visitors all year round.

3.9.3 Highway Congestion In 2013, South Tyneside Council conducted an infrastructure study using a mesoscopic simulation model (Meso model) of South Tyneside’s strategic road network. The model was calibrated and validated for a base year of 2012 with future year scenarios developed for 2018 and 2028. The study concluded that without significant improvements to the Lindisfarne roundabout, congestion and journey times will continue to rise along key trunk road routes, stifling economic development. In particular:  The A19 / A194 Lindisfarne interchange exceeds capacity in 2011 and 2016;  The A194 link exceeds capacity by 2016;  The A1300/A194 John Reid Road roundabout exceeds capacity by 2016 and 2021 respectively;

31 The Shields Gazette. http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/business/tourism-worth-200m-to-south-tyneside-1-4135942 32 Vist South Tyneside, 2015. http://www.visitsouthtyneside.co.uk/ 33 The Journal http://www.thejournal.co.uk/business/business-news/milestone-great-north-run-bring-7572487

 Lindisfarne roundabout will reach a 94% AM saturation point by 2016 should all of the developments be completed that are identified in the LDF; and  By 2021, this saturation point increases to 103% in the AM peak and 88% in the PM peak. By 2026, this increases to 107% AM peak and 92% PM peak. Lindisfarne roundabout is the immediate junction south of the New Tyne Crossing; with Testo’s roundabout being the next junction southbound on the A19. Testo’s junction has also been identified as coming under increasing strain as local and strategic traffic increases, amounting to around 80,000 vehicles using the junction per day34. Highways England has therefore announced plans to upgrade the junction, involving the construction of two bridges allowing the A19 to ‘flyover’ the signalised roundabout35. The South Tyneside VISSIM model has been used to appraise options to improve the Lindisfarne corridor. This model has a base year of 2014 and was built using a combination of Bluetooth origin destination data, classified turning counts and journey time observations. Figure 15 provides a visual description of baseline traffic issues during the AM Peak, while Figure 16 provides a visual description of baseline traffic issues during the PM Peak

Figure 15: The Lindisfarne Corridor - AM Peak – Traffic Issues

34 Highways Agency (2015) http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/road-projects/a19-testos-junction-improvements/ 35 Highways Agency (2015) http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/road-projects/a19-testos-junction-improvements/

Figure 16: The Lindisfarne Corridor - PM Peak – Traffic Issues

Bus services using the corridor will benefit from the journey time reliability improvements; making the service timetables more robust and reliable, and helping to improve passenger satisfaction. However, the scheme does propose to remove/relocate bus stops, which may inconvenience some existing passengers having longer walking distances to the stops. In particular the service 10/11 into Low Simonside Estate should benefit from improved reliability. However, changes to access arrangements may be detrimental to the operation of both the TB503 and service 88. In terms of bus stops, the preference is to provide a suitable relocation, rather than removing the stop entirely.

3.9.4 High Risk of Flooding Lindisfarne roundabout is susceptible to flooding due to the low lying land and inadequate drainage. Autolink Concessionaires (A19) Limited, who manage part of the A19 on behalf of Highways England, have indicated that there have been a number of flooding incidents at Lindisfarne roundabout in recent years. South Tyneside Council have confirmed two flooding occurrences in the last five year, with many more minor incidents. Photograph 1: Flooding at Lindisfarne Roundabout

Source: www.Southtyneside.gov.uk Photograph 1 demonstrates the extent of the flooding; in such situations, links to the strategic road network (A19/A194) are severed, along with pedestrian walkways. Traffic is re-routed via the A19/A185 and A19/A184 junctions, both of which add on an additional 6km to journeys. Through flood mitigation measures and improved drainage, the preferred option will reduce the frequency and severity of flooding at Lindisfarne roundabout. Surface Water Management Modelling has been used to assess the proposed interventions and assist in the design and implementation of adequate and effective solutions, such as improved drainage, attenuation ponds and culverts.

3.9.5 Air Quality The Lindisfarne corridor is a designated Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) within South Tyneside; AQMAs in this area are located as shown in Figure 17. Figure 17: Lindisfarne Corridor Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)

The South Tyneside Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP, 2010)36 sets out the processes and measures being taken by South Tyneside Council to improve air quality across the Borough, and aims to reduce ambient Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) levels. Pollutant emissions within South Tyneside are largely linked to road transport, with high levels of NO2 indicating exposure to harmful traffic fumes. The AQAP was therefore put in place following the observed exceedances of the annual mean air quality objectives for (NO2) at two locations, Boldon Lane / Stanhope Road and the A19 / Leam Lane. The area surrounding the Lindisfarne corridor was designated as an Air Quality Management Area in 2006 due to the NO2 emissions generated by the heavy traffic on the A19 and the traffic queues which form between Lindisfarne roundabout and the junction with John Reid Road37. An outline of the Lindisfarne roundabout / Leam Lane AQMA is provided in Figure 18. While the exceedances of NO2 concentrations in South Tyneside AQMAs were not significantly over the legislated limits, freight and other traffic along this corridor is expected to grow, which will cause increased congestion if no major scheme or traffic management measures are implemented. This is a particular cause for concern in the Lindisfarne corridor given that goods vehicles produce a greater proportion of NO2 emissions than cars.

36 South Tyneside Council, Air Quality Action Plan, September 2010; http://aqma.defra.gov.uk/action- plans/STC%20AQAP%202010.pdf 37 http://www.southtyneside.gov.uk/article/8244/Air-quality

Figure 18: Lindisfarne Roundabout / Leam Lane AQMA

The Project will reduce the congestion at the junction, providing additional capacity for traffic growth, improving traffic flows and enhancing the air quality in the designated AQMA.

3.9.6 Safety The safety of all road users is a key priority in the scheme. Between 2003 and 2008 there were 120 accidents on the A19 within South Tyneside. Figure 19 shows the location and severity of all accidents in the 10 years from 2005 to 2014 which occurred in the vicinity of the Lindisfarne corridor. As can be seen, the Lindisfarne corridor raises concerns regarding safety, as there are clear accident hotspots at Lindisfarne roundabout, John Reid Road roundabout, and along the A194 Leam Lane.

Figure 19: Accident Severity within the Lindisfarne Corridor – Recorded Accidents 2005 to 2014

Figure 20 shows the accident clusters by location within the Lindisfarne corridor, while Table 8 summarises the total and average annual number of accidents in the 10 years between 2005 and 2014 by location and severity. Figure 20: Accident Clusters in the Lindisfarne Corridor – Recorded Accidents 2005 to 2014

Table 8: Total Accidents by Severity and Location within the Lindisfarne Corridor (2005 to 2014) Location Slight Severe Fatal Total Lindisfarne Roundabout 60 3 0 63 A19 Mainline & Slip roads 17 2 0 19 A194 Leam Lane 27 2 0 29 John Reid Roundabout 32 3 0 35 10 Year Total (2005 to 2014) 136 10 0 146 Source: STATS 19 accident data

The accident statistics in Table 8 show that the approach roads to Lindisfarne (the A19 at Lindisfarne, Lindisfarne roundabout, A194 Leam Lane, and John Reid roundabout) there has been an average of 15 recorded accidents every year over the 10 years from 2005 to 2014. Although there have been no fatal accidents, there is on average 1 serious accident every year. The area with the highest propensity for accidents is Lindisfarne roundabout, although accident numbers on John Reid Road roundabout and on the A194 Leam Lane are also significant. The design of the scheme will enable improvements for non-motorised users (NMUs). This will include footpath improvements to the southern side of the junction, the provision of crossing facilities, together with a DDA complaint ramp. Increased safety for NMUs will be apparent as a result of these improvements.

3.10 Scheme Options – Prioritisation To ensure the scheme delivered on the Lindisfarne corridor provided the best value for money, a number of options have been considered. 11 options have been designed and modelled using VISSIM. Once modelled, the most appropriate scheme option was selected which delivered the greatest user benefit, whilst also providing some additional road safety features and improved facilities for non-motorised users.: Table 9 summarises each option.

Table 9: Lindisfarne Highway Improvement Options Lindisfarne Rbt Leam Lane EB Leam Lane WB John Reid Rbt John Reid Rd Access Closures Additional lane allowing a Widened to three lanes. Widening of the north Widened allowing a left Additional lane to the left hand and ahead Lane one allows left hand section circulatory to three turn only from lanes 1 and southern circulatory. movements with the lanes movements only, with lane lanes. Lane one allowing 2 with all other movements Reduces the western 1 2 and 3 allowing right hand 2 and 3 allowing ahead left hand and ahead to be undertaken from lane N/A circularity to just one lane movements only. The and right hand turns. The movements with lanes two three. The additional lane which facilitates a right additional lane has a additional lane has a and three allowing right has a storage capacity of and an ahead turn. storage capacity of 70m. storage capacity of 185m. hand movements only 22m. Additional lane to western circulatory. Lane 1 allows Widened to three lanes. ahead movements, Lane 2 Lane one allows ahead ahead and right hands and left hand movements movements. Lane 3 allows only, with lane 2 allowing right hand turns only. 2 As Option 1 ahead movements and As Option 1 As Option 1 N/A Southern circularity lane 3 allowing right hand increased to three lanes. turns only. The additional Lane 1 and 2 allow ahead lane has a storage movements, lane 3 allows capacity of 185m. right hand movements only. Widened to three lanes. Lane one allows ahead and left hand movements only, with lane 2 allowing 3 As Option 2 As Option 1 ahead movements and As Option 1 As Option 1 N/A lane 3 allowing right hand turns only. The additional lane has a storage capacity of 165m. Widened to three lanes. Lane one allows ahead and left hand movements only, with lane 2 allowing Closure of the A194 / 4 As Option 2 As Option 1 ahead movements and As Option 1 As Option 1 Edinburgh Road Junction lane 3 allowing right hand turns only. The additional lane has a storage capacity of 295m.

Lindisfarne Rbt Leam Lane EB Leam Lane WB John Reid Rbt John Reid Rd Access Closures Left turn only from lanes 1 and 2 with all other movements to be Closure of the Stirling 5 As Option 2 As Option 1 As Option 3 As Option 1 undertaken from lane Avenue / John Reid Road three. The additional lane Junction has a storage capacity of 110m Closure of the A194 / Edinburgh Road Junction 6 As Option 2 As Option 1 As Option 4 As Option 1 As Option 5 and Stirling Avenue / John Reid Road Junction. A194 / Edinburgh Road and Stirling Avenue / 7 As Option 2 As Option 1 As Option 4 As Option 1 As Option 5 John Reid Road becomes left-in only. A194 / Edinburgh Road becomes left-in only. 8 As Option 2 As Option 1 A s Option 4 As Option 1 As Option 5 Stirling Avenue / John Reid Road remains open (Left exit only) As Option 2, with northern circulatory widened to As Option 1 with third lane A194 / Edinburgh Road three lanes. Lanes 1 and 2 extending for the full length becomes left-in only. 9 allow straight ahead between Lindisfarne and As Option 4 As Option 1 As Option 5 Stirling Avenue / John movements. Lane 3 allows John Reid Reid Road remains open ahead movements and Roundabouts (Left exit only) right hand turns.

Lindisfarne Rbt Leam Lane EB Leam Lane WB John Reid Rbt John Reid Rd Access Closures Edinburgh Road to remain open to buses As Option 5 - Pedestrian and public service As Option 9 – 40MPH As Option 9 – 40MPH As Option 4 – 40MPH refuge removed with 10 As Option 1 vehicles only. All other Speed limit introduced. speed limit introduced. speed limit introduced. uncontrolled crossing traffic will be left-in only. introduced. John Reid Road remains open (Left exit only)

A194 / Edinburgh Road becomes left-in only. 11 As Option 2 As Option 9 As Option 4 As Option 1 As Option 5 John Reid Road remains open (Left exit only)

3.11 The Package Bid The scheme comprises nine highway capacity enhancements in the Lindisfarne corridor to alleviate pressure on both the local and strategic highway networks, plus drainage enhancements. The principle improvements to be delivered by the scheme are, as follows:  An additional lane to be provided on the A194 Leam Lane westbound approach to Lindisfarne roundabout with 295m of capacity;  Widening of the A19 northbound on-slip exit to two lanes;  An additional left turn lane to the A194 Leam Lane westbound approach to Lindisfarne roundabout.  An additional lane is to be provided on A194 Leam Lane eastbound between Lindisfarne and John Reid Road roundabouts;  An additional right turn lane is to be provided on John Reid Road roundabout circulatory to provide additional stacking capacity for right turn movements into John Reid Road;  Widening of the A19 / A194 Lindisfarne roundabout to 3 lanes to provide 2 through lanes, providing stacking storage for traffic heading to the A19 northbound towards the New Tyne Crossing, removing the blocking impact of A19 traffic;  An additional left turn approach lane is to be provided on the A1300 John Reid on the north bound approach to the A194 / A1300 John Reid Road roundabout. The existing pedestrian refuge is to be removed and replaced with an uncontrolled crossing;  Provision of shared 3.0m cycleway connecting A1300 north of Stirling Avenue to Hadrian Road via A194 Leam Lane with the existing controlled crossing upgraded to a Toucan Crossing  Widening the A19 southbound off-slip entry to Lindisfarne roundabout to accommodate large goods vehicles and increase capacity; and,  Improve surface water drainage at Lindisfarne roundabout, to reduce the risk of flooding and make the strategic and local road network more resilient and reliable.

3.12 Measures of Success Following an assessment of the strategic objectives and the potential scope of the project, the desired benefits were determined. A wide framework was considered and both quantifiable and non-quantifiable benefits were included. Table 10 summarises the anticipated benefits aligned to strategic and project objectives.

Table 10: Measure of Success by Objective

Benefit Relative Strategic Objectives Project Objectives Benefits Measurement Timescales Reduce journey Decrease and times through and  A more efficient and improve the reliability around the reliable SRN Upon Journey of journey times Lindisfarne corridor  Improved links to completion, Times through the while increasing the New Tyne long term Lindisfarne corridor journey time Crossing and Port reliability of Tyne  Improved public Improve air quality Ensure that the health NOx and Upon within the AQMA Lindisfarne corridor  Avoid fines PM10 PM2.5 completion, surrounding the meets EU standards  Reduction in emissions long term Lindisfarne corridor. for emissions economic cost of respiratory afflictions Stimulate economic  Increased number Number of Long term – growth in the North of jobs jobs phased East by enabling Open up both

development and residential and Development land with improving industrial  Increased number Long term – planning accessibility to development land of development phased strategic growth opportunities permission areas. p/ha Reduce the Reduce the frequency and  Improve operation instances and Flooding Upon severity of localised of junction severity of flooding incident completion, flooding at  Reduced disruption at Lindisfarne reporting long term Lindisfarne to local and roundabout roundabout strategic network

Reduce the number  Reduced disruption and severity of road Reduce the number  Better quality of life Upon traffic accidents, and severity of STATS 19  Reduce insurance completion, casualties and around the data claims long term fatalities on the Lindisfarne corridor  Reduced cost to Lindisfarne corridor healthcare system

THE ECONOMIC CASE

04 53

4 The Economic Case 4.1 Overview This chapter presents the Economic Case for the A19 / A194 / A1300 Lindisfarne roundabout and corridor improvements scheme. It confirms the value for money of the option, considering both monetised and non- monetised impacts in terms of their economic, environmental, social and distributional impacts. The DfT’s guidance document, ‘The Transport Business Case: Economic Case’, outlines the requirements of the economic case as part of this major scheme documentation. Table 11 below shows where the information covering these areas can be found in this chapter. Table 11: Economic Case Requirements

Location in this Sub‐Section DfT Requirements document Introduction Outline approach to assessing value for money 4.2 Options Appraised A list of options (set out in the Strategic Case) that have been appraised. 4.3 Assumptions, (in addition to those required by WebTAG) supporting the 4.7 Assumptions analysis Set out how changes in different variables affect the Net Present 4.8 Sensitivity and Risk Value/Net Present Cost. The risk profile should show how likely it is that Profile these changes will happen Appraisal 4.8 Produced in accordance with WebTAG Summary Table Value for Money 4.10 Produced in accordance with VfM guidance Statement

4.2 Economic Appraisal Whilst there are many different methodologies available for undertaking economic appraisals of highway schemes, the most common methodology is through the use of TUBA (Transport User Benefit Appraisal). The use of TUBA is WebTAG compliant and acts as the DfT’s appraisal software for calculating benefits to transport users and providers. Through the use of this software, distance, time and flow matrices of the Reference Case and Do Something scenarios are entered, and the economic value of the scheme over a defined period is calculated by comparing the user benefits and costs incurred in the proposed Do Something scenario with that of the Reference Case. The comparison is carried out with regard to link transit times, vehicle operating costs and wider public finances. This benefit is then offset against the cost of the scheme to determine its value for money via a benefit to cost ratio.

For the purpose of the assessment of the Lindisfarne scheme, TUBA version 1.9.5 has been used, which is the current version as of October 2015. The TUBA assessment has been carried out using time, distance and demand outputs from the South Tyneside VISSIM model. Accidents have been appraised qualitatively.

4.3 Traffic Modelling The A19 / A194 / A1300 Lindisfarne roundabout and corridor improvements scheme has been identified to address congestion issues at the Lindisfarne and John Reid Road roundabouts. The South Tyneside VISSIM model has been used to appraise the impacts of the scheme. The South Tyneside VISSIM model has a base year of 2014 and covers the AM and PM peak periods; 0700- 1000 and 1600-1900 respectively. A half hour warm up period was included at the start of each peak period to ensure the network was sufficiently populated before results were extracted. The extents of the network are shown in Figure 21 below.

Figure 21: Extents of VISSIM Network

4.3.1 Base Year Demands The South Tyneside VISSIM model was constructed as a dynamically assigned traffic model. As such, origin destination matrices were constructed for two user classes; lights (Cars and LGVs) and heavies (OGV1 and OGV2). The matrices were constructed using a 2014 Bluetooth origin destination survey furnessed to observed traffic flows. The following methodology was adopted to derive the base year matrices:

 Row and column totals were defined for all known external links using turning count survey information for each one hour time period (0700-0800, 0800-0900, 0900-1000, 1600-1700, 1700-1800 and 1800- 1900). This was carried out separately for lights and heavies;

 The 2014 Bluetooth origin destination survey was used as the prior matrix;

 The matrices were then furnessed in order to provide the first estimate of the network demand. Furnessing is simply an iterative procedure which uplifts the populated matrix to the row and column totals by balancing the origin and destination totals;

 A sense check was carried out on the matrices, using local knowledge and experience, to ensure no unrealistic OD movements were created;

 Matrix estimation was undertaken in excel;

 Observed traffic data was used to split matrices into 15 minute time periods to best replicate the profile of traffic and delay in the South Tyneside area.

The matrix construction process is summarised in Figure 22Error! Reference source not found. below.

Figure 22: Matrix Development Process

2014 turning count surveys used to establish row and column totals

2014 Bluetooth OD survey used as prior matrix

Matrices furnessed to row and column totals

Matrix estimation (utilising excel)

Matrices split into 15 minute time periods

4.3.2 Base Year Model Convergence The VISSIM model was developed utilising dynamic assignment within VISSIM. The purpose of dynamic assignment is to achieve stability of route choice between each simulated run. The measure of stability achieved is specified within VISSIM via a number of user-defined convergence criteria. For each modelled period, the following criteria was used to determine convergence of the model:

 Travel times on all routes do not differ by more than 20% between consecutive simulations.

The VISSIM matrices were assigned to the network for each modelled period. The model was run until equilibrium was achieved between successive simulations and the convergence criteria detailed above attained.

4.3.3 Base Year Model Calibration Obtaining a calibrated VISSIM model is an iterative process requiring modifications to both the construction of the network and the input trip matrices, to ensure that the model agrees with real observed data and therefore provides a tool which is reliable for forecasting. A key aspect of calibration is the comparison of simulated turning count flow output from the VISSIM model, against observed turning count movements. Matrix estimation using Excel was used in the matrix construction process and therefore, the simulated turning counts should show a good level of fit with the observed movements. The VISSIM model was calibrated against 2014 traffic survey data and shows a good level of calibration in both the AM and PM peak hours. The ‘goodness of fit’ between the modelled turning count movements and the observed turning count movements was measured using the GEH statistic; a chi-squared statistic that incorporates both relative and absolute errors. A model which shows that 85% of turning counts have a GEH value of less than 5 is generally considered to show a good level of validation according to Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) guidance.

In order to provide statistical confidence in the VISSIM model, it is necessary to undertake several runs, each with different random seeds. Different seed values assign the same volume of traffic however, the distributions within the model are altered, including the arrival patterns and speeds. This mimics day-to-day fluctuations in traffic in the real world and therefore provides a robust set of results.

The overall calibration results for the AM and PM peak models were averaged across ten random seed runs and are shown in Table 12 and Table 13 below, for lights and heavies respectively.

Table 12: Overall Flow Validation Achievement for the AM Peak Percentage of GEH <5 Percentage of GEH <5 Time Car Heavy 07:00-08:00 93% 98% 08:00-09:00 95% 94% 09:00-10:00 94% 98%

Table 13: Overall Flow Validation Achievement for the PM Peak Percentage of GEH <5 Percentage of GEH <5 Time Car Heavy 16:00-17:00 95% 99% 17:00-18:00 92% 98% 18:00-19:00 92% 99%

4.3.4 Base Year Model Validation Validation of the model is essential to understand whether the modelled traffic is performing in congested or free flow conditions. Based on the speed flow curve in Figure 23 below, it is feasible that traffic flows can be similar with contrasting conditions. .

Figure 23: Speed-Flow Curve

Journey time comparisons between modelled and surveyed data can highlight the model conditions. The journey time validation for the South Tyneside VISSIM model was carried out in accordance to the guidelines set out in the DMRB. The criterion outlined by the DMRB is that modelled journey times are within 15% or 1 minute, whichever is higher, of surveyed journey times. The results of the validation for both the AM and PM peak models are shown in Table 14 to Table 19 below. Table 14: Journey Time Validation Overview for Route 1, AM Peak Route 1 – Southbound Direction Northbound Direction TT2 to

Testo’s Survey (s) Model (s) Difference Survey (s) Model (s) Difference Roundabout 0700-0800 332 343 +3% 865 807 -7% 0800-0900 406 357 -12% 1019 1286 +26% 0900-1000 265 299 +13% 433 469 +8%

Table 15: Journey Time Validation Overview for Route 2, AM Peak Route 2 – Southbound Direction Northbound Direction A185 to The Arches Survey (s) Model (s) Difference Survey (s) Model (s) Difference 0700-0800 149 159 +6% 170 192 +13% 0800-0900 160 169 +6% 315 304 -4% 0900-1000 146 160 +10% 148 168 +14%

Table 16: Journey Time Validation Overview for Route 3, AM Peak Route 3 – Southbound Direction Northbound Direction Lindisfarne

to The Survey (s) Model (s) Difference Survey (s) Model (s) Difference Arches 0700-0800 396 376 -5% 293 326 +11% 0800-0900 506 461 -9% 280 298 +6% 0900-1000 290 238 -18% 222 212 -4%

The AM peak shows that most routes validate when comparing modelled with observed journey times. It should be noted that, the A19 in a northbound direction was treated separately following a discussion between all stakeholder groups; this is due to the high variation in measured journey times and an acceptance that the queue length in the VISSIM model is reasonable, if not shorter than often observed. Table 17: Journey Time Validation Overview for Route 1, PM Peak Route 1 – Southbound Direction Northbound Direction TT2 to

Testo’s Survey (s) Model (s) Difference Survey (s) Model (s) Difference Roundabout 0700-0800 334 356 +7% 418 396 -5% 0800-0900 354 350 -1% 443 395 -11% 0900-1000 269 308 +15% 350 373 +6%

Table 18: Journey Time Validation Overview for Route 2, PM Peak Route 2 – Southbound Direction Northbound Direction A185 to The Arches Survey (s) Model (s) Difference Survey (s) Model (s) Difference 0700-0800 176 183 +4% 151 170 +12% 0800-0900 217 195 -10% 162 180 +11% 0900-1000 150 156 +4% 140 154 +10%

Table 19: Journey Time Validation Overview for Route 3, PM Peak Route 3 – Southbound Direction Northbound Direction Lindisfarne

to The Survey (s) Model (s) Difference Survey (s) Model (s) Difference Arches 0700-0800 214 220 +3% 266 299 +12% 0800-0900 256 311 +21% 294 289 -2% 0900-1000 193 189 -2% 223 219 -2%

The PM model shows a good level of validation against observed journey times.

4.3.5 Reference Case Model Development The future year reference case model acts as the reference case future year scenario from which a direct comparison can be made with the option models. Development of the model required an upgrade of the existing modelled network to reflect committed schemes, and the inclusion of future year demands. Future year demands of 2017 and 2032 were calculated to reflect the proposed opening and design year of the

Lindisfarne corridor scheme. The upgrade of the network included the following provisions:  Extension of the two lane southbound off slip at the Southern Portal of the Tyne Tunnel.

The major scheme proposals for the A19 Testo’s junction should now be considered a committed scheme. However, the improvements were not included in the South Tyneside future year VISSIM models as the detail regarding these proposals is not yet available to model them at a microsimulation level.

4.3.6 Do Something Case Model Development Option 10, as discussed in Section 3 of this report, was identified as the preferred option for the A19 / A194 / A1300 Lindisfarne roundabout and corridor improvements scheme. The key components of the scheme can be summarised as follows:  An additional lane to be provided on the A194 Leam Lane westbound approach to Lindisfarne roundabout with 295m of capacity;  Widening of the A19 northbound on-slip exit to two lanes;  An additional left turn lane to the A194 Leam Lane westbound approach to Lindisfarne roundabout.  An additional lane is to be provided on A194 Leam Lane eastbound between Lindisfarne and John Reid Road roundabouts;  An additional right turn lane is to be provided on John Reid Road roundabout circulatory to provide additional stacking capacity for right turn movements into John Reid Road;  Widening of the A19 / A194 Lindisfarne roundabout to 3 lanes to provide 2 through lanes, providing stacking storage for traffic heading to the A19 northbound towards the New Tyne Crossing, removing the blocking impact of A19 traffic;  An additional left turn approach lane is to be provided on the A1300 John Reid on the north bound approach to the A194 / A1300 John Reid Road roundabout. The existing pedestrian refuge is to be removed and replaced with an uncontrolled crossing;  Provision of shared 3.0m cycleway connecting A1300 north of Stirling Avenue to Hadrian Road via A194 Leam Lane with the existing controlled crossing upgraded to a Toucan Crossing  Widening the A19 southbound off-slip entry to Lindisfarne roundabout to accommodate large goods vehicles and increase capacity; and,  Improve surface water drainage at Lindisfarne roundabout, to reduce the risk of flooding and make the strategic and local road network more resilient and reliable. The above changes were coded into the South Tyneside VISSIM model using CAD plans provided by the detailed design team. The improved surface water drainage, a key component of the scheme, was not reflected in the traffic model and has been appraised separately. Signal timings for the proposed scheme were developed by JCT Consultancy Ltd and these were also coded into the VISSIM model and optimised where necessary.

4.3.7 Future Year Demand Future year demand for the opening year and design year of the Lindisfarne scheme, 2017 and 2032 respectively, was developed in accordance with WebTAG guidance. Two separate elements were considered, background traffic growth and development traffic growth.

4.3.8 Background Traffic Growth In order to test uncertainty in future year forecasting, it is recommended in TAG Unit M4 that a series of proportional sensitivity tests are conducted in order to account for the possibility of forecasting error in the central scenario. To this end, 3 future year scenarios were developed for the South Tyneside VISSIM model. A description of the 3 scenarios is detailed below:

 Pessimistic: Low growth and only near certain developments

 Central: Background growth and more than likely/near certain developments

 Optimistic: High growth and all developments

The background traffic growth for the central scenario was calculated using TEMPro (6.2) and NTM (2015) for light and heavy vehicles respectively. TEMPro takes account of local demographic change, socioeconomic variation and changes in modes, as well as other factors that affect the growth of traffic with the locality. For the majority of the network, TEMPro factors were extracted for the South Tyneside area. However, as the A19 is considered as part of the strategic road network, a regional growth factor for the North East was also extracted and applied to through traffic on the A19.

The base year heavy goods vehicle matrices were growthed up for each of the future years using factors derived from the 2015 forecast results from the DfT’s National Transport Model. The 2015 report supplies national growth factors from a base year of 2003 to future years of 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040 for heavy traffic. Factors for the 2017 and 2032 model forecast years were obtained by interpolating between 2015 and 2020, and 2030 and 2035 respectively. For both cases, linear growth was assumed in order to calculate the years which were not specifically modelled within the NTM.

The NTM growth forecasts are split into different regions and are universal across the day, hence the same factors have been applied to both time periods within the model and the same value applied to both origin and destination. To adjust the growth factors into optimistic and pessimistic variations, an additional step is required. The guidance in TAG Unit M4 sets out the process for taking such uncertainty into consideration in modelling a highway scheme. ‘To deal with such uncertainty in highway models, it is expected that the analyst will explore scenarios using an appropriate range about the central forecast of ±2.5% for traffic forecasts one year ahead, rising with the square root of the number of years to ±15% for forecasts 36 years ahead.’

Optimistic and pessimistic growth factors were therefore calculated using the following formulas;

Pessimistic factor = -2.5* √

Optimistic factor = +2.5* √

The results from these calculations are detailed in Table 20, Table 21, and Table 22 for the South Tyneside and North East areas:

Table 20: TEMPro Pessimistic and Optimistic Growth Factors for South Tyneside Trip End TEMPRO Time Pessimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Factor Optimistic Factor Forecast Year Period Uncertainty Uncertainty Orig. Dest. Orig. Dest. Orig. Dest AM 1.0305 1.0295 0.96 1.04 0.986 0.985 1.074 1.074 2017 PM 1.0299 1.0302 0.96 1.04 0.985 0.986 1.074 1.074

AM 1.1202 1.1409 0.894 1.106 1.009 1.012 1.249 1.262 2032 PM 1.1422 1.1334 0.894 1.106 1.021 1.013 1.263 1.258

Table 21: TEMPro Pessimistic and Optimistic Growth Factors for the North East Trip End TEMPRO Time Pessimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Factor Optimistic Factor Forecast Year Period Uncertainty Uncertainty Orig. Dest. Orig. Dest. Orig. Dest AM 1.0243 1.0243 0.96 1.04 0.9799 0.9799 1.0687 1.0687 2017 PM 1.0249 1.0249 0.96 1.04 0.9805 0.9805 1.0692 1.0692

AM 1.099 1.099 0.894 1.106 0.982 0.982 1.2156 1.2156 2032 PM 1.1049 1.1049 0.894 1.106 0.9877 0.9877 1.22 1.22

Table 22: NTM Pessimistic and Optimistic Growth Factors

Pessimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Factor Optimistic Factor Forecast Year Time Period NTM Growth Factor Uncertainty Uncertainty NTM Growth NTM Growth

AM 1.010 0.96 1.04 0.966 1.054 2017 PM 1.010 0.96 1.04 0.966 1.054

AM 1.10 0.894 1.106 0.984 1.217 2032 PM 1.10 0.894 1.106 0.984 1.217

4.3.9 Uncertainty in Development As well as calculating central, low and high growth scenarios for the background traffic growth, consideration must also be given to the status of the planned developments within each of the three scenarios. A planning status and uncertainty log for each site was provided by the planning department at South Tyneside Council. This status was then used to assign each site an uncertainty level from the below list (in increasingly levels of certainty) provided by TAG Unit M4:  Hypothetical  Reasonably Foreseeable  More than Likely  Near Certain The planning status of each development and subsequent uncertainty categorisation is listed in Table 23 overleaf. The table also details within which of the scenarios each development is present. This information is presented in plan form in Figure 24 to Figure 29 on subsequent pages.

Table 23: Planned Developments in Modelled Area – Uncertainty Log

Planning Scenario Dwellings (net Proposed Applied Site Size 1=Pessimistic Policy / Site Reference Site Name Location additional, Finished by Use(s) to Zone (Hectars) 2=Central approx.) 3=Optimistic

Designated Riverside Economic Development / SS2-B-i, SS4-C-iii, SS5- Regeneration Area (Harton Tourism and Culture / B, SS6-A-i, SS11-Bii, Staithes, Holborn, Windmill South Shields 7 27.2 1,050 3 2032 Tourist and Visitor SS11-Ci * Hill and High Shields Accommodation / Housing neighbourhoods) Site of former industrial units, SS11-A-i Retail South Shields 7 6500 3 2032 Charlotte Street

IAMP Development to Economic Development 22 260000 3 2032 the South of Testos

Economic Development / J2-A-iii, J4-B-ii, J6-E-ii, Retail / Community / Grange Road / Monkton Road Jarrow 2 500 3 2032 J7-C * Leisure Land at Rohm & Haas, J4-B-vi Economic Development Jarrow 2 10 3 2032 Chaytor Street J9-B-i Housing Land at Friar Way Jarrow 2 0.7 20 1 2017 Land at High Street / Stanley J9-B-ii Housing Jarrow 2 0.2 10 1 2017 Street Land at Salem Street / High J9-B-iii Housing Jarrow 2 0.1 5 1 2017 Street J9-B-iv Housing St. Bede's RC Primary School Jarrow 2 0.7 20 1 2017

Trinity South, Frederick Street SA1-A-ii, SA5-B, SA6-A, Retail / Commercial 155 (phase 1) / 67 Phase 1: 2017 (Riverside Regeneration South Shields 7 8 1 SA9-A-iv, SA9-B-i * Leisure / Housing (phase 2) Phase 2: 2032 Area) (phases 1 and 2)

SA1-A-iii, SA6-C SA9-A- South Shields & Westoe Leisure / Housing South Shields 7 2.7 80 3 2032 vii * Sports Club, Dean Road

Educational Provision / Brinkburn SA1-A-v, SA4-E, SA6- Community / Leisure / Comprehensive E-i, SA6-H-ii, SA7-E-iii, South Shields 15 9 50 3 2032 Green Infrastructure and School site, SA9-A-xi * Recreation / Housing McAnany Avenue

Chuter Ede Community / SA1-A-x, Educational Leisure / South Shields 15 1.8 30 3 2032 SA9-A-xvi * Centre, Housing Galsworthy Road

Planning Scenario Dwellings (net Policy / Site Applied Site Size 1=Pessimistic Proposed Use(s) Site Name Location additional, Finished by Reference to Zone (Hectars) 2=Central approx.) 3=Optimistic Economic Land at Port of Jarrow and SA3-A 7ne 8000 1 2017 Development Tyne, Tyne Dock South Shields Economic SA3-C-i Garwood Street South Shields 7ne 1.6 3 2032 Development Economic Middlefields SA3-C-iii South Shields 7ne 0.9 3 2032 Development Industrial Estate Land at Bedesway / Jarrow Economic SA3-C-iv Road, Bede Industrial Jarrow 7ne 0.2 3 2032 Development Estate Economic Land east of Pilgrims Way, SA3-C-v Jarrow 5ne 0.5 3 2032 Development Bedesway Economic West of Pilgrims Way (East SA3-C-vi Jarrow 5ne 1.2 3 2032 Development of Mitsumi), Bedesway West of Pilgrims Way Economic SA3-C-vii (South of Mitsumi), Jarrow 5ne 0.5 3 2032 Development Bedesway Land at Towers Economic SA3-C-viii Place, Shaftesbury South Shields 12ne 1.3 3 2032 Development Avenue Economic Cotswold Lane / Hutton SA3-C-ix Boldon Colliery 24ne 1.1 1 2017 Development Street Economic Land at Boldon Business SA3-C-x Boldon Colliery 24ne 0.2 3 2032 Development Park, Brooklands Way

Economic Land west of 16 Brooklands SA3-C-xi Boldon Colliery 24ne 0.8 3 2032 Development Way, Boldon Business Park Economic Filtrona Park, Shaftesbury SA3-E-ii Jarrow 12ne 1.8 3 2017 Development Avenue Economic Land at Trench UK, South SA3-F-iii Hebburn 18ne 1.6 3 2032 Development Drive Simonside Park, Ebchester SA8-D Housing South Shields 15ne 45 1 2017 Street / Aldbrough Street Former Brydan Court SA9-A-xvii Housing Nursing Home, Galsworthy South Shields 15ne 41 3 2017

Road

Westfield, Orwell Close, 84 1 2017 SA9-A-xviii Housing South Shields 15ne Biddick Hall 64 3 2032

Hindmarch Drive (residential SA9-A-xxiii Housing West Boldon 24ne 6 3 2017 garages and former shop)

Planning Scenario Dwellings (net Policy / Site Proposed Applied Site Size 1=Pessimistic Site Name Location additional, Finished by Reference Use(s) to Zone (Hectars) 2=Central approx.) 3=Optimistic Hardie Drive (storage yard and SA9-A-xxiv Housing West Boldon 24ne 6 3 2032 residential garages) North Road (former Steve SA9-A-xxv Housing Boldon Colliery 24ne 13 3 2032 Watson Coachworks) Green SA7-F-ii, Infrastructure School Street 5.2 / 0.1 71 (phase 1) / 90 SA9-A-xxxiii, and Hebburn 2ne 1 2017 (phases 1 and 2) allotments (phase 2) SA9-A-xxxiv Recreation / Housing Associated SA9-B-iii Housing Creameries, South Shields 15ne 20 3 2032 Egerton Road Porlock Gardens, SA9-B-vi Housing Jarrow 14ne 10 3 2032 Low Simonside Police Station and SA9-B-vii Housing Magistrates Court, Jarrow 2ne 14 3 2032 Clervaux Terrace Bedewell Industrial SA9-B-viii Housing Estate, Adair Way Hebburn 2ne 139 3 2032 (phase 2) Land at Monkton SA9-B-xii Housing Hebburn 18ne 323 2 2032 Fell (central) Hyperion Avenue SA9-C-iv Housing (rear of Simonside South Shields 11ne 6 3 2032 Arms PH) Green Lane SA9-C-v Housing (former residential South Shields 15ne 6 3 2032 garages) Harton View SA9-C-vii Housing (caravan and West Boldon 24ne 5 3 2032 storage site) Neon Social Club, SA9-C-viii Housing Jarrow 15ne 20 3 2032 Perth Avenue Land to the north SA9-C-ix Housing of day care centre, Hebburn 2ne 50 3 2032 Black Road Monkton Hall, SA9-C-xii Housing Hebburn 18ne 10 3 2032 Monkton Lane * Indicates a mixed use site with multiple policy and site references - the site area will include a mix of uses (assumptions noted where known).

Figure 24: 2017 Central Case Developments

Figure 25: 2017 Pessimistic Case Developments

Figure 26: 2017 Optimistic Case Developments

Figure 27: 2032 Central Case Developments

Figure 28: 2032 Pessimistic Case Developments

Figure 29: 2032 Optimistic Case Developments

Each development was assigned a land use and trip rate and, using the TRICs database, factors for arrival and departure trips were calculated for each development and modelled hour. The trip rates which were used are shown in Table 24 and Table 25 below.

Table 24: Trip rates as taken from TRICS, Arrivals Trip Rate Arrivals Sub Land Land Use AM Peak PM Peak Units Use 0700 ‐ 0800 ‐ 0900 ‐ 1600 ‐ 1700 ‐ 1800 ‐ 0800 0900 1000 1700 1800 1900 Trips per Residential 0.051 0.101 0.128 0.266 0.294 0.267 dwelling Trips per 100 Retail 250 ‐ 15000 m2 6.002 7.271 8.556 8.505 8.709 8.522 m2 Trips per 100 Retail 15000 ‐ 20000 m2 6.189 7.497 8.779 8.709 8.893 8.717 m2 Trips per 100 Retail Food Superstore 1.336 2.593 3.801 4.94 5.099 4.467 m2 Trips per 100 Employment 1500 ‐ 3000 m2 0.8 2.138 1.389 0.347 0.184 0.054 m2 Trips per 100 Employment 3000 ‐ 15000 m2 0.76 1.602 0.973 0.222 0.191 0.057 m2 Trips per 100 Industrial 5000 ‐ 15000 m2 0.316 0.458 0.165 0.088 0.047 0.056 m2 150000‐230000 Trips per 100 Industrial 0.185 0.2255 0.1585 0.1145 0.0565 0.032 m2 m2 Trips per 100 Leisure 1000 ‐ 5000 m2 12.38 13.233 18.642 26.096 34.029 37.207 m2

Table 25: Trip rates as taken from TRICS, Departures Trip Rate Arrivals Sub Land Land Use AM Peak PM Peak Units Use 0700 ‐ 0800 ‐ 0900 ‐ 1600 ‐ 1700 ‐ 1800 ‐ 0800 0900 1000 1700 1800 1900 Trips per Residential 0.26 0.369 0.178 0.139 0.174 0.163 dwelling Trips per 100 Retail 250 ‐ 15000 m2 5.5 6.743 7.764 8.522 9.075 8.735 m2 Trips per 100 Retail 15000 ‐ 20000 m2 5.671 6.953 8.006 8.691 9.27 8.937 m2 Trips per 100 Retail Food Superstore 2.141 4.462 6.705 9.943 10.383 9.411 m2 Trips per 100 Employment 1500 ‐ 3000 m2 0.111 0.297 0.447 1.717 1.805 0.494 m2 Trips per 100 Employment 3000 ‐ 15000 m2 0.114 0.247 0.303 1.018 1.317 0.46 m2 Trips per 100 Industrial 5000 ‐ 15000 m2 0.09 0.084 0.1 0.282 0.388 0.166 m2 150000‐230000 Trips per 100 Industrial 0.062 0.112 0.121 0.2075 0.196 0.0685 m2 m2 Trips per 100 Leisure 1000 ‐ 5000 m2 6.053 10.687 9.706 19.74 28.392 35.05 m2

The developments provided by South Tyneside Council contained information on the size of each proposed development relevant to the study area. However, in most cases this was provided in the form of land available for development. It was assumed that some of this available land will be designated for car parking or landscaping. Therefore it was estimated that the actual footprint of the development buildings would be 40% of the total land area.

Each development was assigned to a particular zone in the network which matched the location of the site. A significant number of developments were located outside the modelled area but were considered close enough to impact the modelled network. However, in these cases it was assumed that not all of the trips relating to

these developments would be travelling through the simulation network. Census data, regarding workplace travel for the South Tyneside area, was therefore used to generate a percentage of vehicles from each zone, with associated developments, that would still need to travel through the network in order to get to their destination. For the majority of zones included in the model no developments were specified. In these cases, forecast year distributions for future growth were based on the existing trip distribution for the zone. For zones where developments were specified, the calculated development traffic was added on to that particular zone and a distribution based on the original trip distribution was assumed.

4.3.10 Future Year Trip Matrix Production It is a requirement as stated in TAG Unit M4, that there is a need to control overall traffic growth to TEMPro. Therefore, adjustment factors were calculated and applied such that the overall growth was constrained to local TEMPro factors. The TEMPRO database takes into account potential for developments within each region but does not consider any specific planned developments. Since the forecasting methodology for this scheme includes several actual developments in the area, the TEMPro forecasts and specific development traffic as explained above will need to be combined, whilst maintaining TEMPro growth to avoid double counting.

In order to constrain the growth of the matrices to the TEMPro factors, a methodology from previous works undertaken by AECOM, and approved by DfT, was applied. The methodology is summarised below:

 Multiply the base year row and column totals by the TEMPRO factors  (a)  Add the development traffic for the relevant zones to (a)  (b)  Constrain (b) back to TEMPRO growth by multiplying it with the quotient of the sum of all (a) divided by the sum of all (b)  Apply a factor to average row and column totals so that the sum of all row totals equals the sum of all column totals, which is a prerequisite for the furnessing process

Matrices were then furnessed to the revised row and column totals using a spreadsheet-based tool. Matrices were generated separately for light and heavy vehicles. The final matrices for 2017 and 2032, AM and PM peak therefore contain both general background and specific development growth constrained back to the approved TEMPro overall growth rates for the region. Three sets of matrices have been produced for each peak and year, representing a central growth scenario, a pessimistic growth scenario and an optimistic growth scenario.

4.4 Traffic Model Results The assigned future year VISSIM models were analysed to understand the changes in network conditions as a result of the proposed scheme. The impact of the scheme is summarised in the screenshots and subsequent text below, for both the opening and design year of the scheme in the central scenario. Figure 30: AM 2017 Comparison of Lindisfarne Roundabout

Figure 31: AM 2032 Comparison of Lindisfarne Roundabout

Figure 32: PM 2017 Comparison of Lindisfarne Roundabout

Figure 33: PM 2032 Comparison of Lindisfarne Roundabout

The Do Minimum models show vehicles blocking the circulatory carriageway. This is predominantly caused by a high flow of traffic coming from A194 Leam Lane East going towards the A19 northbound sliproad. It results in queuing traffic on Leam Lane at the approach to Lindisfarne Roundabout. The scheme proposes to increase capacity in the circulatory carriageway, which enables vehicles travelling from Leam Lane East to Leam Lane West to pass traffic trying to access the A19 northbound sliproad. This is expected to reduce queues on Leam Lane. The increased capacity shows benefits in all modelled scenarios as Figure 30 to Figure 33 demonstrate.

Figure 34: AM 2017 Comparison of Western Approach to John Reid Rd Roundabout

Figure 35: AM 2032 Comparison of Western Approach to John Reid Rd Roundabout

Figure 36: PM 2017 Comparison of Western Approach to John Reid Rd Roundabout

Figure 37: PM 2032 Comparison of Western Approach to John Reid Rd Roundabout

Due to the congestion on Leam Lane westbound towards Lindisfarne roundabout, vehicles coming from John Reid Rd struggle to access Leam Lane in the Do Minimum scenarios. The scheme proposes to increase capacity at Lindisfarne Roundabout, as shown in Figure 34 to Figure 37 above, and to partly widen Leam Lane from 2 to 3 lanes, which has a positive impact on the level of congestion. Subsequently, the scheme has the potential to provide easier access to Leam Lane for vehicles coming from John Reid Road in all modelled scenarios. Figure 38: AM 2017 Comparison of John Reid Road Roundabout

Figure 39: AM 2032 Comparison of John Reid Road Roundabout

Figure 40: PM 2017 Comparison of John Reid Road Roundabout

Figure 41: PM 2032 Comparison of John Reid Road Roundabout

The Do Minimum scenario shows vehicles in John Reid Road roundabout blocking back towards Leam Lane. This is caused by a high traffic flow going from Leam Lane to John Reid Road, which is restricted to the outside lane, The scheme proposes to increase capacity in the north circulatory carriageway, which provides a second lane in the circulatory for vehicles travelling towards John Reid Road. This expected to reduce the queue going back towards Leam Lane and Lindisfarne roundabout.

Figure 42: AM 2017 Comparison of A194 Leam Lane

Figure 43: AM 2032 Comparison of A194 Leam Lane

Figure 44: PM 2017 Comparison of A194 Leam Lane

Figure 45: PM 2032 Comparison of A194 Leam Lane

Leam Lane shows high levels of congestion in the Do Minimum scenarios in both directions, with queues in a westbound direction towards Lindisfarne roundabout and in an eastbound direction towards John Reid Road roundabout. The new design proposes improvements in both roundabouts which have the potential to reduce queues on the approaches to both junctions. The design also widens Leam Lane from 2 to 3 lanes and thus provides more capacity for traffic, which is expected to reduce congestion along the A194 corridor.

Additionally, the scheme proposes to prohibit the exit from Edinburgh Road towards Leam Lane to general traffic. Traffic surveys undertaken in October 2015 have shown a significant number of cars using Edinburgh Road as a rat-run to avoid queues on John Reid Road and Leam Lane. This causes additional delays on Leam Lane westbound as they have to merge back onto the mainline and problems are particularly noticeable during the morning peak, as shown in Figure 42 to Figure 45 above. By prohibiting the Edinburgh Road exit to general traffic, the level of weaving, and subsequent delay, on Leam Lane westbound is expected to reduce.

On assignment of the future year demand matrices in VISSIM, it was noted that the optimistic scenario produced unrealistic levels of congestion in the Do Minimum scenario. This is summarised below. Figure 46: Blocked Circulatory Carriageway at Lindisfarne Roundabout, AM 2032 Optimistic Do Minimum Scenario

The model shows queues on the A19 off slips which block traffic on the A19 mainline. This means that the A19 mainline looks relatively clear as traffic is unable to travel over the Lindisfarne junction.

Figure 47: Significant Levels of Congestion at John Reid Road Roundabout, AM 2032 Optimistic Do Minimum Scenario

Traffic queues back from Lindisfarne roundabout through John Reid Road roundabout and prevents traffic from exiting John Reid Road. Traffic also queues back from the A194/A185 Arches junction through John Reid Road Roundabout. Figure 48: Queues on Leam Lane, AM 2032 Optimistic Do Minimum Scenario

Traffic queues back from both Lindisfarne roundabout to John Reid Road roundabout, and John Reid Road roundabout to Lindisfarne roundabout.

In reality, the Do Minimum scenario would not be allowed to reach this level of operation. It makes for an unrealistic comparison of the economic benefits of the scheme, as the Do Minimum model would require extreme priority to prevent it from ‘locking up’. No further appraisal has therefore been undertaken on the optimistic scenario.

4.5 Costs The economic appraisal requires an estimate of the scheme costs for constructing the A194 Lindisfarne Corridor improvements. The tendered cost for the scheme is shown in Table 26 below. Table 26: Scheme Costs Item Cost

Total (including risk) £7,555,705.17 Costs are in 2015 prices.

An optimism bias of 3% has been applied to the costs presented in Table 26 above. This is in accordance with the NECA Assurance Framework for a full business case. The economic appraisal also requires a breakdown of how the costs will be spent over the construction period. The spend profile which has been provided is shown in Table 27Error! Reference source not found. below. Table 27: Spend Profile Element 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Preparation £403,760 £62,830 £0 Supervision £180,250 £72,892 £45,558 Land £0 £0 £0 Construction £362,681 £3,303,878 £3,350,528 Total £946,691 £3,439,600 £3,396,085

Costs have been input into TUBA in 2015 factor prices and a GDP deflator applied to discount the costs to 2010 prices. Further information regarding the derivation of costs can be found in the Financial Case.

4.6 Annualisation The annualisation factors used within the economic assessment are used to expand the modelled periods over the whole year to enable a full assessment of the benefits. An annualisation factor of 253 has been applied to the journey time benefits from the AM and PM peak period models. 253 represents the number of working days in a year, excluding weekends and bank holidays. As the VISSIM models cover the three hour peak period, there has been no need to include factors for shoulder peak hours. It should be noted that the assessment includes no benefits in the inter-peak period as this has not been specifically modelled.

4.7 Economic Appraisal Inputs and Assumptions The economic appraisal using TUBA requires the definition of a number of inputs and a number of assumptions to be made. These inputs and assumptions are summarised below. 4.7.1 Appraisal Period Conventional economic appraisal defines a sixty year appraisal period. However, this assumes that the scheme has an indefinite lifespan and benefits will still be achieved following the design year of the scheme, In reality, if traffic flows in the South Tyneside area continue to grow, the additional capacity created by the scheme will be filled up shortly after the design year of the scheme. The economic appraisal has therefore been undertaken for a 15 year appraisal period.

4.7.2 Time, Distance and Demand Skims To extract time and distance skims from the VISSIM model, journey time markers have been placed between each origin destination pair to calculate the average time and distance between that origin destination pair for each vehicle class. Demand has been input into the TUBA assessment directly from the matrices which have been assigned to the network.

4.7.3 Number of Runs Unlike a strategic transport model, a VISSIM model does not give a single converged solution. Results can vary between each seed run as traffic conditions, such as arrival pattern, are changed to mimic reality. It is essential, as part of any appraisal, to ensure that the differences reflected in the model output are as a result of the scheme itself and not as a result of differences between seed runs. Historically, microsimulation modelling has been undertaken over 10 seed runs with the overall impact of the scheme averaged across these runs. However, under highly congested traffic conditions, journey times in the traffic model, and in reality, can vary significantly between each run. Statistical testing has therefore been undertaken on the average delay outputs from network performance statistics to determine whether 10 runs is sufficient to give statistically significant results. The number of runs has been defined at a 95% confidence level with a desired confidence interval of 20 seconds i.e it is 95% certain that the results are within 20 seconds (+ or – 10 seconds) of the true mean. The number of runs required for each model is shown in Table 28 below. A minimum of 10 runs has always been defined, despite there being little variation between some results. Table 28: Required Number of Model Runs Number of Runs Number of Runs Central Scenario Pessimistic Scenario Required Required

AM 2017 DM 10 AM 2017 DM 10

AM 2017 DS 10 AM 2017 DS 10

PM 2017 DM 10 PM 2017 DM 10

PM 2017 DS 10 PM 2017 DS 10 AM 2032 DM 10 AM 2032 DM 10 AM 2032 DS 10 AM 2032 DS 10

PM 2032 DM 10 PM 2032 DM 10

PM 2032 DS 10 PM 2032 DS 10

4.7.4 Journey Purpose Journey purpose has not been defined within the VISSIM model. For light vehicles, default journey purposes have been assumed with the TUBA assessment. For heavy vehicles, a factor has been defined within the TUBA input file to split the demand matrix between OGV1 and OGV2. This factor has been based on vehicle proportions within the NTM calculations.

4.8 Value for Money Statement The results of the economic appraisal for the Lindisfarne corridor improvements are shown in Table 29 and Table 30 below for the Central and Pessimistic cases respectively. The key assumptions which have informed this appraisal are shown below:  TUBA version 1.9.5 has been used to undertake the appraisal;  The appraisal has been undertaken for a 15 year appraisal period;  Base year costs have been input in 2015 prices and deflated to the cost base year, 2010, using a GDP deflator value of 109.37  A 3% optimism bias has been applied to the costs in accordance with the NECA Assurance Framework for full business case;

 The assumed opening year for the scheme is 2017;  The design year for the scheme is 2032;  Accident and environmental benefits and disbenefits have been appraised qualitatively.

Table 29: Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits for the Central Growth Lindisfarne Scheme Benefits Consumer User Benefits: Commuting Travel Time 15,257 Consumer User Benefits: Commuting Vehicle Operating Costs 1,177 Consumer User Benefits: Other Travel Time 20,154 Consumer User Benefits: Other Vehicle Operating Costs 1,171 Business User Benefits: Travel Time 21,124 Business User Benefits: Vehicle Operating Costs 1,243 Wider Public Finances -1,544 Greenhouse gases 316 Total Benefits 58,898 Scheme Costs Investment Costs 6,815 Total Costs 6,815 Scheme Value Net Present Value 52,083 Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 8.6 All monetary values are discounted to 2010 prices and in £1,000s

Table 30: Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits for the Pessimistic Growth Lindisfarne Scheme Benefits Consumer User Benefits: Commuting Travel Time 9368 Consumer User Benefits: Commuting Vehicle Operating Costs 1063 Consumer User Benefits: Other Travel Time 11674 Consumer User Benefits: Other Vehicle Operating Costs 1067 Business User Benefits: Travel Time 21651 Business User Benefits: Vehicle Operating Costs 7251 Wider Public Finances -3793 Greenhouse gases 839 Total Benefits 49119 Scheme Costs Investment Costs 6815 Total Costs 6815 Scheme Value Net Present Value 42304 Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 7.2 All monetary values are discounted to 2010 prices and in £1,000s As shown in the above tables, there is a clear benefit demonstrated in all of the modelled forecast scenarios with the introduction of the scheme. The results show that the scheme delivers a very high value for money. The benefits can be attributed to the low capital cost of the scheme compared to the significant increases in capacity. Whilst the BCR may seem high, the Do Minimum situation for both the opening and design year of the scheme is particularly bad. This means that there are significant differences in journey times between the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios. In reality, it is unlikely the Do Minimum would be allowed to become so bad, however, the results demonstrate that the scheme can offer real benefits to highway capacity. The monetary time benefits by peak period are shown in Table 31 below for the central scenario. Table 31: User Time Benefits by Time Period (£000s) Year User Time Benefits Percentage of Benefits AM Peak 21464 38% PM Peak 35071 62%

The results show that the majority of benefits are in the PM peak. In the AM peak, there are a number of issues on the local road network in the vicinity of Lindisfarne roundabout, which also impact on journey times. Key issues include queuing on the A19 northbound and queuing on the eastbound approach to the A185/A194 Arches junction. Although the improvements to the Lindisfarne corridor will increase capacity on the highway network, traffic will still be constrained in these other locations. In the PM peak however, although the network is congested, the greatest issues are observed on the A194 Lindisfarne corridor and the scheme therefore offers real benefits in terms of journey time improvements. Journey time benefits by time saving are shown in Table 32 below for the central scenario.

Table 32: Monetised Time Benefits by Time Saving (£000’s) Period <-5 mins -5 to -2 mins -2 to 0 mins 0 to 2 mins 2 to 5 mins  5 mins

Total Years -6582 -12293 -7251 7996 20259 54404

The results in Table 32 above show both reductions and increases in journey times as a result of the scheme. It should be noted that, although the scheme will increase capacity in some areas, it will allow vehicles to get to other places in the network quicker; this can result in increased traffic congestion issues in other areas outside of the scheme. The greatest time benefits are observed by those vehicles travelling through the John Reid Road roundabout which are currently unable to enter onto the roundabout. To ensure confidence in the results, an analysis of the TUBA warning file has been undertaken to identify the cause of each warning and ensure that the warnings are reasonable. The key warnings relate to Do Something journey times being much shorter than Do Minimum journey times and this is as a result of the scheme. As previously mentioned, it is unlikely that the Do Minimum would ever be allowed to get as bad as it does in the design year of the scheme, without prior intervention. All warnings contained in the TUBA output file are considered reasonable.

4.9 Assessment of Environmental Impacts Transport infrastructure contributes to a number of environmental challenges facing the Lindisfarne corridor. This principally relates to emissions affecting air quality and the release of greenhouse gases which are contributors to climate change. Other less obvious environmental impacts are also considered, particularly pertinent to transport provision; such as noise disturbance, landscape, journey ambiance, water environment and the segregation of habitats and communities. An environmental WebTAG appraisal has been undertaken as part of the MSBC for the proposed scheme. Potential and probable environmental impacts are identified, as are potential realistic and viable mitigation measures. The scheme is not expected to result in significant changes to traffic flow volumes or speeds and therefore full noise and air quality assessments have been scoped out at this stage. Full environmental WebTAG appraisal worksheets can be found in a supplementary report, Lindisfarne Corridor, Environmental WebTAG Appraisal, AECOM, October 2015, which has been provided as an annex to this report.

4.10 Wider Economic Impacts An area of increasing interest in the appraisal of transport schemes is the wider economic impacts of the transport scheme. Eddington, in his study regarding the link between transport and the UK’s economic productivity, stated that ‘there is clear evidence that a comprehensive and high performing transport system is an important enabler of sustained economic prosperity’. There is a clear economic need to tackle the significant social deprivation that is apparent in South Tyneside, and indeed the North East, and any highway scheme that can improve the performance of the transport network is likely to assist in achieving this goal. The proposed corridor improvements will be to the benefit of many local businesses located in the South Tyneside area, in particular those located along the A194 Corridor. Without the corridor improvements, traffic congestion, which is currently evident, will be exacerbated even further. The consequences of increased traffic congestion, as shown in the VISSIM traffic model, will have undeniable economic consequences. Modelling of the high growth scenario, without any highway improvement, has already shown that the highway network would be unable to cope with the increase in traffic levels. Table 33 below shows that, even in the central scenario, there are significant improvements in the performance of the highway network with the implementation of the corridor improvements being proposed.

Table 33: Network Performance Statistics for the Central Growth Scenario Average Speed Average Speed Average Delay Average Delay Scenario (mph) (mph) (seconds) (seconds) Do Minimum Do Something Do Minimum Do Something 2017 AM 15.3 16.3 335.1 296.79 2032 AM 12.8 13.2 436.6 415.1 2017 PM 23.66 26.9 143.2 99.25 2032 PM 17.5 21.5 267.3 175.3

Failure to address traffic congestion will eventually manifest itself in the realisation to some companies that South Tyneside is not the area to relocate their business activities. Increasing traffic congestion may also result in some current employers relocating outside of the South Tyneside area. Any decline in employment opportunities for the residents of South Tyneside will increase levels of deprivation in the South Tyneside area.

4.11 Social and Distributional Impacts With any transport scheme, there is likely to be a mixture of positive and negative impacts that will be experienced by different groups of people in different locations and to different magnitudes. It is important therefore, when appraising a transport scheme, that these winners and losers are identified so that they can be fully assessed within the appraisal process. WebTAG 3.17 identifies 8 impacts which should be considered for assessment as follows:  User Benefits;  Noise;  Air Quality;  Accidents;  Security;  Severance;  Accessibility;  Personal Affordability An initial screening of each impact, identified above, has been undertaken to establish whether there is potential for social and distributional impacts to occur. The conclusions from each impact are summarised in Table 34 below.

Table 34: Impact Summary Table Impact Screening The scheme will improve journey times by providing additional capacity at important junctions in South Tyneside. This will reduce congestion in the study area. The impacts are likely to be significant in the local area and less pronounced elsewhere. The local area consists of a significant proportion of lower income groups.

The scheme will disbenefit users of Edinburgh Road who will need to travel User additional distance to access the urban highway network. Residents of this area benefits live in some of the most deprived communities in the UK when considering the index of multiple deprivation. However, improvements to John Reid Road roundabout should ensure that the increase in distance travelled is offset by reductions in congestion and improved travel times.

Given that the South Tyneside area has significant areas of deprivation, the user benefits that the majority of residents will receive results in an overall large beneficial score. The scheme is not likely to impact on low income or vulnerable groups as no significant changes in noise are anticipated as a result of the scheme. This is due Noise to the scheme being unlikely to lead to a reduction or increase in traffic flows in the area. A neutral score is therefore assigned. The scheme is not likely to impact on low income or vulnerable groups as no significant changes in air quality are anticipated as a result of the scheme. This is Air quality due to the scheme being unlikely to lead to a reduction or increase in traffic flows in the area. A neutral score is therefore assigned. The scheme has been designed to mitigate existing congestion at two junctions on the A194. It is not being designed to address a road safety issue and does not Accidents target any particular low income or vulnerable group. A neutral score is therefore assigned. The scheme is likely to have little impact on security as additional services and Security facilities are not being considered in the appraisal process. A neutral score is therefore assigned. The scheme will see the addition of a third lane through the Lindisfarne junction and therefore controlled pedestrian facilities need to be provided where they do not currently exist. A mid-block crossing is therefore proposed as part of the Severance design just east of the Lindisfarne junction. The scheme is therefore expected to have a neutral impact on severance and will not unfairly disadvantage any particular vulnerable group. A neutral score is therefore assigned. As per WebTAG 3.6.3, this element focuses on public transport accessibility. The scheme will lead to a reduction in journey times for public transport but will not impact on routing of public transport.

Due to the removal of some bus stops, the scheme could result in reduced Accessibility accessibility for some of the local population in an area where deprivation levels are high and car ownership is likely to be lower than the national average.

Given the removal of some bus stops in an area which is considered deprived, the scheme has been given a rating for accessibility of slight adverse. Personal The scheme is predominantly a highway scheme and the scheme will not directly affordability impact on public transport fares or parking charges.

4.12 Appraisal Summary Table The Appraisal Summary Table (AST) is designed to provide decision makers with a concise overview of scheme impacts. The results of the assessment of A194 Lindisfarne corridor improvement scheme against the Central Government objectives and sub-objectives for transport are presented in Table 35 overleaf. .

Table 35: Appraisal Summary Table for A194 Lindisfarne Corridor Improvements Assessment Impacts Summary of key impacts Distributional 7‐pt scale / Quantitative Qualitative £,000s (NPV) vulnerable grp Value of Journey Time 21.1 The scheme will lead to travel time savings for road users as it reduces congestion Changes (£s) million Business Users and Transport in the area. It is thus expected to deliver an economic advantage for business users Net Journey Time Changes (£000s) Major Benefit £21,123 Large Beneficial Providers and public transport operators in terms of fuel and non‐fuel vehicle operating cost

and reduced journey times. 0 to 2 min 2 to 5 min >5 min 2 2714 18407 Reliability impact on business The scheme is expected to deliver reliability improvements for business users and N/A Major Benefit N/A Economy users public transport operators as the level of congestion will be reduced. The scheme will reduce congestion in the area and provide easier access to Regeneration development land. This may encourage businesses to relocate to the area. N/A Slight Benefit N/A

The scheme will improve the performance of the highway network. As identified by Wider impacts Eddington, a high performing transport network is an enabler of economic growth. N/A Moderate Benefit N/A

Although changes to the road layout will include additional lanes and road widening, local residential properties are sufficiently far from the altered highways that any increase in noise due to traffic moving closer to properties will be less than N/A Neutral Noise 1 dB(A). It is thus anticipated that the Proposed Development will not cause any N/A Neutral significant change in traffic flow or composition and therefore no change in noise levels at local residential properties.

The Proposed Development does not exceed the assessment criteria for local air Air quality quality effects as defined by the DMRB Volume II, Section 3 Part 1 (HA 207/07) and N/A Neutral N/A Neutral so significant air quality effects are not considered likely to occur.

Greenhouse gases are scoped out of the WebTAG appraisal based on the regional N/A Neutral Greenhouse Gases assessment criteria. N/A Landscape N/A N/A N/A N/A

There is the potential for vegetation loss associated with the construction of the Townscape Proposed Development. Careful consideration to landscape reinstatement should N/A Neutral N/A consider the numbers of, and species of, existing trees and shrubs to be removed.

The construction of the proposed attenuation tank may have an effect on an area of post‐medieval ridge and furrow. No setting effects are anticipated. There is a low

Environmental Historic Environment potential for previously unrecorded sites to be encountered during construction. It N/A Slight Adverse N/A is recommended that geophysical survey is undertaken in the area of King George’s playing fields not indicated to have been used for historic landfill.

Neutral effects are predicted for designated sites, deciduous woodland, scattered scrub, watercourses, badger, kingfisher, reptiles, otter, water vole. Slight adverse effects are predicted on broadleaved plantation woodland and foraging/commuting Biodiversity N/A Neutral to Slight Adverse bats due to habitat loss and increased temporary disturbance during construction N/A works. Neutral effects predicted for breeding birds, roosting bats and invasive flora species subject to implementation of best practice mitigation and timing of works.

Neutral effect predicted for Surface Water Quality with best practice construction methods in place to mitigate risk of construction related runoff and spillages. Surface Water Quality: Spillage Risk Assessment of During operation, infrastructure improvements will improve the flow and reduce Water Environment scheme ‐ 1 in 389 years (less than the acceptable Surface Water Quality: Neutral congestion, which in turn will lower the likelihood of accidents and spillages. The N/A spillage risk 1 in 100 years) proposed modifications will not result in a higher loading of highway derived pollutants in highway runoff Value of Journey Time £35.4 Drivers and bus passengers will experience shorter journey times through the Changes (£s) million scheme and thus benefits in travel time savings can be achieved. Disbenefits are Commuting and Other users expected for residents of the 'Scotch Estate' who would have used Edinburgh Rd to Net Journey Time Changes (£000s) Major Benefit £35,410 Large Beneficial Social access the A194 Leam Ln, as the scheme proposes to close this link for all traffic 0 to 2 min 2 to 5 min 0 to 2 min except public transport. 743 5252 29415

Assessment Impacts Summary of key impacts Distributional 7‐pt scale / Quantitative Qualitative £,000s (NPV) vulnerable grp Reliability impact on Journey time reliability is expected to improve as an increase in capacity will better N/A Major Benefit N/A Commuting and Other users accommodate a growing number of vehicles using the network.

The Proposed Development is not considered to have a significant effect on active modes as it is not specifically walking or cycling infrastructure being proposed. However, there may be a slight negative effect on pedestrians and cyclists as additional approach and exit lanes will make crossing for these non‐motorised users Physical activity N/A Neutral N/A more difficult. The relocation of the pedestrian crossing at Lindisfarne roundabout and the pedestrian refuge at John Reid Road will also have a slight negative effect. Any negative effect would however be temporary and would reduce over time resulting in an overall Neutral effect.

Overall, the scheme would result in an improvement to journey ambience due to reduced traffic congestion resulting in an enhanced driving experience. Driver’s Journey quality N/A Slight Beneficial N/A frustration, driver stress and fear of potential accidents is likely to reduce. There would be no change in traveller’s views from the road.

The effect on accidents is expected to be neutral. Whilst the scheme proposes to widen links and thus increases capacity for traffic, measures have been put in place Accidents to improve safety for pedestrians. These include a new controlled crossing point for N/A Neutral N/A Neutral the A194 Leam Ln which covers both directions of traffic and improved facilities for cyclists and pedestrians.

The preferred scheme is likely to have little impact on the security sub‐objective as Security additional services and facilities are not being considered in the appraisal process. N/A Neutral N/A Neutral

Whilst the proposed scheme is unlikely to result in significant effects, car journey time savings are likely to be made. However, it is anticipated that the proposed scheme will lead to a slight negative effect for accessibility with the relocation of Access to services N/A Neutral N/A the three bus stops. The relocation of the pedestrian crossing at Lindisfarne Slight Adverse roundabout and the pedestrian refuge at John Reid Road will also have a slight negative effect.

The proposed scheme is predominantly a highway scheme and will not impact on Affordability public transport fares and parking charges. N/A Neutral N/A Neutral

The proposed scheme includes widening works and the inclusion of additional lanes. This will result in improved traffic flow through the junctions and reduce overall traffic queue lengths at the roundabouts and reduce severance. However, Severance relocation and removal of the bus stops is considered to be a slight negative effect. N/A Moderate Benefit N/A Neutral Additionally, the relocation of the pedestrian crossing at Lindisfarne roundabout and the removal of the existing pedestrian refuge at John Reid Road will also have a slight negative effect.

Option and non‐use values The scheme does not include additional mode choice options. N/A Neutral N/A Cost to Broad Transport Cost to broad transport budget: £6,815

£6,815

Budget million in 2010 prices

Public Indirect Tax Revenues ‐£1.5 million ‐£1,544 Accounts

THE FINANCIAL CASE

05 91

5 The Financial Case 5.1 Overview This chapter of the business case sets out the ‘financial case’ for the A194 Lindisfarne corridor improvements. The purpose of the financial case is to demonstrate the affordability of the proposal, its funding arrangements and technical accounting issues (value for money is scrutinised in the economic case). The estimated costs and likely expenditure profile are also presented in this section. The DfT’s guidance document, ‘The Transport Business Case: Financial Case’, outlines the requirements of the financial case as part of this major scheme documentation. Table 36 below shows where the information covering these areas can be found in this document.

Table 36: Financial Case Requirements Sub‐Section DfT Requirements Location in this document

Introduction Outline the approach taken to assess affordability 5.2

Provide details of:  Expected whole life costs  When they will occur Costs  Breakdown and profile of costs by those 5.2, 5.3 parties on whom they fall  Any risk allowance that may be needed (in the event of things going wrong) Provide analysis of the budget/funding cover for the project. Set out, if relevant, details of other Budget/Funding Cover 5.5 funding sources (e.g. third party contributions, fees) Describe expected impact on organisation’s Accounting implications 5.5 balance sheet

5.2 Costs The tendered costs for construction are now included in this full business case for the A194 Lindisfarne corridor. A full evaluation of tendered costs was undertaken by South Tyneside Council and approval given by Committee to appoint a contractor in accordance with our internal governance structure, as outlined in the Management Case. The costs presented here are in 2015 prices. The total cost for the construction of the scheme is £7.04 million, excluding risk as show in Table 37. These costs are broken down in more detail as shown in Appendix A.

Table 37: Scheme Costs Cost Item Budget Cost Estimate Construction £5,511,349.98 Utilities £602,117.19 Project Management £290,000.00 Design and Surveys £453,000.00 Other £183,000.00 COST TOTAL £7,039,467.17

A more detailed breakdown of costs is given in Appendix A.

5.3 Allowance for Risk An initial risk workshop for the A194 Lindisfarne corridor improvement scheme was held at AECOM offices on 3rd March 2015. This workshop was attended by South Tyneside officers and the detailed design team. As part of the risk workshop, a comprehensive risk register was completed. This identified all likely risks and assessed the impact of each risk in terms of cost, time and the probability of the risk occurring. A quantified estimate of the minimum, most likely and maximum cost was made, with the quantified risk assessment cost being derived from the average of all three costs. As the scheme has progressed and detailed design advanced, a greater degree of certainty was developed on the scheme and the level of risk reduced, and a final review of risk was undertaken on 8 February 2016. The full quantified risk register is shown in Appendix C, with the minimum, most likely and maximum costs being shown in Table 38. Table 38: Quantified Risk Costs Estimate Cost

Minimum £62,913

Most Likely £497,425

Maximum £988,375

Average £516,238

5.4 Ongoing Maintenance Costs The scheme is to be carried out within adopted highway and therefore does not require planning permission. Following completion of the scheme, all associated infrastructure would be maintained by South Tyneside Council.

5.5 Funding The North East LEP growth deal was awarded a total of £329.9m funding in July 2014 and January 2015. £6.1 million of this has been allocated toward the A194 Lindisfarne corridor improvement scheme; 81 % of the total scheme cost. South Tyneside Council will provide a 19% local contribution to the scheme; a value of £1.45 million. This shows a local commitment to the scheme and underlines the belief that improvements to the A194 Lindisfarne corridor will provide a strategic gateway into South Tyneside. 93

The funding profile for the scheme is set out in Table 39 below. Table 39: Spending Profile Year NECA Spend South Tyneside Total Year Spend Spend 2015/16 £919,117.19 £0.00 £919,117.19 (12%) 2016/17 £2,389,417.61 £950,000.00 £3,339,417.61 (44%) 2017/18 £2,797,170.37 £500,000.00 £3,297,170.37 (44%) Totals £6,105,705.17 £1,450,000.00 £7,555,705.17 (100%)

5.6 Section 151 Officer Sign-Off In accordance with DfT guidance, the cost estimate for the scheme requires sign-off from the relevant Section 151 Officer. The Section 151 Officer sign off letter is included in Appendix A. 94

THE COMMERCIAL CASE

06 95

6 The Commercial Case 6.1 Introduction This chapter presents the Commercial Case for the Business case. Following the requirements of the Department for Transport Business Case Requirements and the North East Assurance Framework, the Commercial Case will demonstrate how the scheme will result in a viable procurement and well-structured deal. Table 40 summarises the location of the sub-sections by the DfT requirements. Table 40: Commercial Case Requirements Sub-Section DfT Requirements Location in this document

Outline the approach taken to assess Introduction 6.1 commercial viability Summarise the requirement in terms of Output-based specification outcomes and outputs, supplemented by full 6.2 specification as annex. Procurement strategy Detail procurement / purchasing options 6.3 Explain the options for sources of provision of services to meet the business need e.g. Sourcing options partnerships, framework, existing supplier 6.3 arrangements, with rationale for selecting preferred sourcing option Set out the proposed payment mechanisms that will be negotiated with the providers e.g. linked Payment mechanisms 6.5 to performance and availability, providing incentives for alternative revenue streams

Pricing framework and To include incentives, deductions and 6.5, 6.9 charging mechanisms performance targets

Present an assessment of how the types of risk might be apportioned or shared, with risks Risk allocation and transfer 6.6 allocated to the part best placed to manage them subject to achieving value for money Set out scenarios for contract length (with Contract length 6.7 rationale) and proposed key contractual clauses Personnel/people management/TU implications Human resource issues 6.8 including TUPE Provide a high level view of implementation timescales. Detail additional support for in- Contract Management service management during roll-out/closure. Set 6.9 out arrangements for management contract through project /service delivery

6.2 Output Based Specification The highway works will be completed through a contract tender; the works are defined as followed:  An additional lane to be provided on the A194 Leam Lane westbound approach to Lindisfarne roundabout with 295m of capacity;  Widening of the A19 northbound on-slip exit to two lanes;  An additional left turn lane to the A194 Leam Lane westbound approach to Lindisfarne roundabout.  An additional lane is to be provided on A194 Leam Lane eastbound between Lindisfarne and John Reid Road roundabouts;

 An additional right turn lane is to be provided on John Reid Road roundabout circulatory to provide additional stacking capacity for right turn movements into John Reid Road;  Widening of the A19 / A194 Lindisfarne roundabout to 3 lanes to provide 2 through lanes, providing stacking storage for traffic heading to the A19 northbound towards the New Tyne Crossing, removing the blocking impact of A19 traffic;  An additional left turn approach lane is to be provided on the A1300 John Reid on the north bound approach to the A194 / A1300 John Reid Road roundabout. The pedestrian refuge is to be removed a replaced with an uncontrolled crossing;  Provision of shared 3.0m cycleway connecting A1300 north of Stirling Avenue to Hadrian Road via A194 Leam Lane with controlled crossing upgraded to a Toucan Crossing  Widening the A19 southbound off-slip entry to Lindisfarne roundabout to accommodate large goods vehicles and increase capacity; and,  Improve surface water drainage at Lindisfarne roundabout, to reduce the risk of flooding and make the strategic and local road network more resilient and reliable.

South Tyneside Council will tender the construction works for the scheme. The following has been prepared and will be issued to the marketplace in November 2015:  Instructions for tendering  Contract data Part 1 and Part2  Draft site waste management plan  Works information  Site information and  Bill of Quantities

6.3 Procurement Strategy The delivery of the project will follow South Tyneside Council’s best practice procurement strategy. This is based on a number of strategic outcomes: 6.3.1 Deliver the scheme within the available funding 6.3.2 Deliver the scheme to programme 6.3.3 Ensure stakeholders’ acceptance and support 6.3.4 Ensure best value is delivered 6.3.5 Ensure that appropriate quality is delivered To ensure the delivery of the outcomes, some preliminary discussions have taken place with potential works contractors in the planning stage. This was to seek their expertise in delivering such highway works on congested road networks, in effect the buildability of the scheme. It is intended to use the results of the tender for Lindisfarne as the means of establishing the framework that will deliver a series of highway upgrades across South Tyneside. The 2/3 highest scoring tender submissions will be awarded onto the framework on a ranked basis, and the Lindisfarne scheme will be awarded directly to the first ranked contractor. Subject to satisfactory performance on the first scheme and the agreement by the first ranked contractor to both carry out future projects within the stipulated timescales and within cost parameters(established during the original competitive tender), subsequent schemes will also be awarded to the first ranked contractor. In the event that these preconditions cannot be met, there will be the facility to run a mini- competition with the other contractor/s on the framework.

It is not envisaged that any future schemes will be fully contractor designed, although there may be elements of contractor design required. South Tyneside Council may seek early contractor involvement in subsequent major scheme design work. Establishing such a framework with the ability to award works directly to the first ranked contractor will ensure that they can be engaged very early in the process for subsequent projects. This will minimise delays in the programming and delivery of South Tyneside Council’s major schemes. A PIN has been issued to engage with the market. Once the reference project (Lindisfarne corridor) tender documentation has been completed, this will be dovetailed with a wider overarching document to establish a framework and an OJEU notice will then be issued, with the tender documentation being released at the same time. It is intended to use the NEC form of contract , Option B with Bill of Quantities (lump sum) or Option D with Bill of Quantities (target cost) for the initial Lindisfarne corridor project. It is likely that a target cost pricing option will be used for future schemes either Option C, activity schedule or option D BoQs. South Tyneside will aim to honour its commitment to deliver this scheme largely in line with the programme agreed in the Local Growth Fund allocation. To achieve this, an `Open’ rather than a `Restricted’ process will followed as there would be insufficient time to run a PQQ and shortlisting process separately, and still achieve delivery in line with overall programme..

6.4 Payment Mechanisms Payment will be administered in accordance with the stipulated process within the NEC form of contract, amended as necessary to comply with the Council’s Supplier Incentive Programme.

6.5 Risk Allocation and Transfer Chapter 7 sets out clear roles and responsibilities for the project, including for risk management activities The internal governance arrangements, in place before construction begins, will provide a clear distinction between those who: 6.5.1 Have direct responsibility for the management of risk, e.g. management and staff working within the project;

6.5.2 Have responsibility for development, implementation, maintenance and oversight of the effectiveness of the risk management strategy together with sponsorship and support for the project’s risk management activities e.g. Project Board; and

6.5.3 Have responsibility for providing independent assurance, e.g. Project assurance.

6.6 Contract Length and Milestones A summary of example key procurement milestones (to be refined on confirmation of the preferred contractor) are outlined in Table 42. It is expected that the construction contract will be 12 months in length running from May 2016 to April 2017.

Table 41: Key Milestones Key Milestone (examples only below) Start Date Completion Date

Issue PIN July 15 July 15

Analyse Supplier Questionnaire Responses Aug 15 Aug 15

Produce Tender Documentation Mar 15 Nov 15

Publish OJEU Notice and Tender process Nov 15 Jan 16

Tender evaluation & Recommendation Jan 16 Feb 16

Cabinet Process Feb 16 Mar 15

Framework award date Mar 16 Mar 16

Direct Award of Lindisfarne Scheme incl Mobilisation Mar 16 Apr 16

Contract Start May 16 Apr 17

6.7 Human Resource Issues The Lindisfarne highway improvements scheme will be delivered as a part of South Tyneside Council’s Capital Programme. The internal governance arrangement is set out in the Management Case, Chapter 7. There are no TUPE implications associated with this project.

6.8 Contract Management Contract management will be undertaken using a number of key performance indicators to ensure effective delivery on time and in budget. Table 42 summarises the Contract Performance Measures intended as part of the assessment. Table 42: Planned Contract Performance Measures Description Communication method Comment Delivery compliance Face to face agreement KPI’s stipulated within contract documentation Health and safety performance Regular inspections and reports Budget stability/control Face to face and monthly Monitored by Client valuations/stage payments and Engineer/QS report Risk management Face to face (mitigation report)

Table 43 summarises the contract resource management requirements. Table 43: Contract Resource Management

Name/Service Project Role Area of Expertise Area/Organisation

Service Area/Project Lead Highways (Asset Management) Lynn Mathieson

Service Area/Project Sponsor (Snr Corporate Lead - Highways Derek Smith Mgr) Procurement Lead Procurement Kevin Graham

Design and Measured works Specification Owner AECOM production of documentation

Health & Safety John Bird

Other (e.g. Insurance, Legal, P2P, Environment Joanne Chastney Corporate IT) Legal David Hayward NEC contract advice Mott McDonald

Table 44 summarises the contract evaluation panel. Table 44: Evaluation Panel

Name/Service Role Support Required Area/Organisation

Evaluation Lead Highways (Asset Management) Lynn Mathieson Evaluation Sponsor Procurement Lead Facilitator Kevin Graham

Other (e.g. Insurance, Legal, P2P, Health & Safety John Bird Corporate IT) Environment Joanne Chastney

100

In addition to the risk register included in Appendix C, a number of procurement risks have also been identified, as shown in Table 45. Table 45: Procurement Risks

Inherent Impact (1 Likelihood Actions required to Risk Risk - 5) (1 - 5) manage and mitigate risk ( I x L )

Checking of accounts at

CEQ stage will mitigate risk

of financial failure; proposed Financial stability of provider 4 1 4 strategy of having a ranked framework will allow for a replacement in the event of financial difficulty

Work closely with consultants

to ensure tender

documentation is issued on

time; pre-warn internal Delay in delivery of procuring 4 3 12 resources to ensure they are framework geared to assess tender returns; smooth the Cabinet approval process to facilitate award

Early contractor involvement;

regular information flow to Delay in delivery of call-off 5 2 10 Council decision makers to schemes ensure projects kept on programme

Early contractor involvement;

regular information flow to Reputational risk to council 5 2 10 Council decision makers to ensure projects kept on programme

Methodology to be put in

place to tie future rates/prices Price volatility 3 1 3 to tendered rates for initial project establishing framework

Appropriately skilled and

experienced engineering Skills not in place to support 3 1 3 staff recruited to administer contracts

Market engagement exercise

indicated interest; regional Failure to achieve sufficient 2 1 2 framework may provide a interest in opportunity back up position in the event of failure of the framework

Robust funding application Funding may not be forthcoming 2 3 6 process

101

ent Case

THE MANAGEMENT CASE

07 102

7 The Management Case

7.1 Introduction This chapter presents the Management Case for the scheme. Following the requirements of the Department for Transport Business Case Requirements and the North East Assurance Framework, this chapter sets out; the project development to date, project plan, key milestones to develop and implement the project; the methodology to deliver to plan; the management of risk; and South Tyneside Council’s existing track record in project delivery. Table 46 summarises the location of the sub-sections in line with the DfT webTAG requirements. The management of the project will be conducted using the NECA Project Vision software package, a tool which will facilitate the day-to-day management of the project and assist in the production of progress reporting, risk management, monitoring and other key project management elements. This will enable the scheme to be monitored in line with other major schemes in the NECA programme. Table 46: Management Case Requirements Location in this Sub-Section DfT Requirements document Outline the approach taken to assess if the 7.1 Introduction proposal is deliverable Provide evidence of similar projects that have 7.2 Evidence of Similar Projects been successful to support the recommended approach. Set out deliverables and decisions that are Strategic Case - 3.6 Programme/project dependencies provided/received from other projects Governance, Organisational Key roles, lines of accountability and how they 7.3 Structure and Roles are resourced Plan with key milestones and progress, including Appendix B Programme/Project Plan critical path Plan with key assurance and approvals 7.3 Assurance and Approvals Plan milestones Communications and Stakeholder 7.7 Develop communications strategy for the project Management Programme/Project reporting Describe reporting arrangements 7.3, 7.4, 7.5 Summary of key work streams for executing the 7.4 Implementation of work streams work Issues likely to affect delivery and Appendix B Key issues for implementation implementation Summarise outline arrangements. Confirm 6.8 arrangements for continuity between those Contract Management involved in developing the contract and those who will subsequently manage it. Arrangements for risk management and 7.6 Risk Management Strategy effectiveness so far Set out approach to managing realisation of 7.8 Benefits realisation plan benefits Summarise outline arrangements for monitoring 7.8 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and evaluating the intervention Summarise outline arrangements for contingency Appendix B Contingency Plan management such as fall-back plans of service implementation is delayed Summarise overall approach for project 7.1 Options management at this stage of the project

103

7.2 Evidence of Similar Projects South Tyneside Council has a history of delivering a programme of highway works, most of which routinely funded from the annual LTP capital grant allocation. As part of this programme of works, design, road safety, site supervision and construction experience were a prerequisite for the authority. In addition, South Tyneside have benn involved with some significant infrastructure projects which further demonstrate adequate capability to ensure the Lindisfarne corridor is delivered in a timely, safe and efficient manner. The New Tyne Crossing (opened in 2011) spanning the River Tyne between North Tyneside and South Tyneside is the biggest single infrastructure project the North East has had for some time. The planning, consultation and contribution to the scheme and contributing local road network is evidence alone that the Council is capable of delivering the Lindisfarne corridor scheme. The improvement of the junction of the A1290 Downhill Lane with the A19 Trunk Road is another scheme which demonstrates the capabilities of the Council. This project involved the conversion of an existing dumbbell roundabout junction arrangement to traffic signal controlled junctions, the realignment of kerb lines, construction of a gabion retaining wall, overlaying the existing carriageway pavement and installation of a MOVA traffic signal control system. The works involved: site clearance; road restraint systems; drainage and service ducts; earthworks; road pavement works; kerbs and footways; traffic signs and road markings; new traffic signals; and street lighting. Most of these works are similar to those required to deliver the Lindisfarne corridor. The total cost was £3.5M.

7.3 Project Plan and Milestones A Project Plan is included at Appendix B – Project Plan The construction and contract period will be specified in tender returns. However, South Tyneside Council’s expectation is for a construction period to start in May 2016 with completion in April 2017

7.4 South Tyneside Council – Major Transport Scheme Delivery - Project Governance Structure The committee structure of South Tyneside Council is provided below. The Cabinet is the committee where all key decisions (involving expenditure over £500k) are made. The appointment of the Principal Contractor for the major schemes, including Lindisfarne, will need to progress through the governance structure and gain approval by Cabinet. The scheme (design and construction) contracts will also be reported to the contracts performance panel. Public and Member consultation will be undertaken at the Jarrow and Boldon Community Area Forum. The decision making structure is shown in Figure 49 overleaf.

104

Figure 49: South Tyneside Council Decision Making Structure

105

7.5 Project Governance Structure – Major Transport Scheme Delivery The Project Design and Delivery Team has been established to ensure that technical advice and guidance can be given by the relevant council officers and where required, external expertise is procured. The team is responsible for the technical and detailed development of the scheme and also managing the delivery (construction phase) There are a number of specialist work streams that the team focus on. Dedicated members of the team lead on the following workstreams during the life cycle of major scheme projects:  Consultation  Strategic development  Design  Procurement and  Delivery (construction and site operations) The project design and delivery team reports via the programme manager to the Strategic Transport Delivery Team. The Strategic Transport Delivery Team has been established with key officers from Development Services and Asset Management. The team meets monthly and ensures the strategic aims of the project are delivered. The team also ensures that appropriate resources, guidance and support are provided to the project team. The team has a wide remit and is well placed to ensure that wider development and transportation activities are recognised and incorporated into the project as required. The meetings are chaired by the Corporate Lead for Asset Management. The strategic transport team report to and seeks guidance from the Group Management Team (GMT). The Economic Development GMT is chaired by the Corporate Director for Economic Development and consists of senior officers including Heads of Service and Corporate Leads. The GMT operates as the Project Board to oversee this investment on behalf of South Tyneside Council. The project board also provide the key link for consulting on the scheme with key internal stakeholders including the Leader and Lead Members. The Corporate Director reports directly to the Chief Executive and is also a member of the Senior Leaders Group (SLG) which reports to Cabinet. The Project governance is summarised in Figure 50 below.

106

Cabinet Figure 50: Project Governance Chart (The Council’s investment decision making body. Refer to governance Structure)

Senior Leaders Group (Comprising Chief Executive, Corporate Directors, Leader of Council, Deputy Leader & Leader Members) Key Stakeholders

(Routine Briefing)

Cllr Iain Malcolm - Leader of Council

Cllr Alan Kerr - Deputy Leader of the Council &

Lead Member Housing & Transport Project Board/Group Management Team Cllr Tracy Dixon - Lead Member David Cramond - SENIOR RESPONSIBLE OFFICER Cllr John Anglin - Lead Member Executive Director for Economic ...... Regeneration All Council Members Stuart Reid - SECTION151 OFFICER George Mansbridge – Head of Development Services Paul Scrafton - Head of Asset Management Mike Harding - Legal Services Manager Tania Robinson - Head of Communications Other Stakeholder Groups John Sparkes - Head of Regeneration (To be formed depending on the scheme) Jon Scott - Corporate Lead Business, Skills  Emergency Services and Employment  Environment Agency  Nexus  Highways England  Residents  Business Partners (PoT, Nissan, TT2) Strategic transport Delivery Team  Etc. Derek Smith - Chair George Mansbridge - Head of Development Services Peter Mennel - Planning for Housing & Growth Manager Lynn Mathieson - Project manager Communications Design Trevor Male - Principal Strategic Transport

Statutory Approvals

Workstreams Programme Manager Trevor Male/Lynn Mathieson

Finance/Cost Mgt. Site Mgt.

Contract Mgt. Risk Mgt. Project Design/Delivery Team Lynn Mathieson – Project Manager (pre contruction) Trevor Male – Principle Stategic Transport Statutory Utilities Procurement David Pringle – Project Manager (Construction)

David Hayward - Legal Kevin Graham - Procurement Natalie Johnson - Communications Paul Fleming - Road Safety Manager Dave Carr - STC Design and Maintenance Dave Pentland - Streetworks/ETON Gary MacDonald - AECOM Transport Modelling & Design David Oliver - Newcastle Traffic Signals Group

107

7.6 Roles and Responsibilities In accordance with Project Management best practice, key project roles have been assigned as outlined in Table 47 below. A project Governance Structure is provided in section 7.4.

Table 47: Project Governance – Key Roles Name / Role Responsibilities Position Senior David  Ultimately responsible for the delivery of the project, including ensuring Responsible Cramond, that the programme objectives are met and benefits are realised and Officer Executive communicated to the NELEP. (SRO) Director for  Chair the Project Board. Economic  Defining and promoting the major business aims, priorities and Development intended benefits of the project  Owning the overall business change that is being supported by the project  Agreeing time, cost, quality and environmental sustainability criteria and tolerances in conjunction with the Project Board  Maintain alignment of the programme with strategic direction (e.g. with relevant strategy documents).  Monitor strategic risks and ensure appropriate governance is in place Project See Section  To monitor the overall progress of the project, approve major plans and Board/GMT 7.4 take key decisions.  To champion the project as appropriate and balance the demands of the business, user and supplier.  To highlight changes to corporate strategy or the external environment which might impact on the project’s scope or viability.  To ensure that adequate ownership and sponsorship are provided to the project at a senior management level.  To take ownership of project risks and resolve areas of conflict.  Be accountable for the achievement of the project objectives and the delivery of scheme benefits.  Report to the NECA as appropriate on the progress of the project.  Assist the SRO in decision-making and on-going progress of the project, including authorising commencement of phases in the project, changes and completion of each phase.  Approve all budgets and tolerances for time, quality and cost along with reporting and monitoring requirements. Strategic Derek Smith  Accountable to the SRO and charged with governance Transport  To ensure that the project takes account of and interfaces with existing Corporate Delivery good practice elements of project management. Lead, Asset Team Management  To identify resource needs and support the Senior Responsible Officer (Chair) (SRO) in ensuring that appropriate resources are made available.

Programme Lynn  Key driving force behind the project. Manager Mathieson  Chair of the Project Team (PM)  Responsible for the day-to-day running of the project on behalf of the Project Sponsor.  Responsible for leading and directing the Project Team and delivering the project. Project See Section  Responsible for executing tasks and producing deliverables. Team 7.4  Responsible for the delivery of the project on a day-to-day basis.  Manage the spend profile for the project.  Responsibility for compliance with financial controls and other regulations.

108

Name / Role Responsibilities Position Delivery Consultants/  Ensuring that the supplier scope of services are clearly specified, Teams contractors to agreed and recorded. (suppliers) be appointed  Ensuring that the project plan is realistic and achievable from a by South supplier perspective. Tyneside  Briefing and advising supplier management at senior level on all Council matters concerning the project, decisions made at Project Board and any queries raised which need to be resolved by supplier management.  Ensuring that supplier resources with necessary skills are made available to the project.  Advising on impact of change requests from a supplier perspective.  Ensuring that supplier risks identified in the Risk Register are considered and understood by the Project Board.

7.7 Risk Management The strategic risk management approach shown in Figure 51 below, will be used to allow senior management to be fully involved in the identification of strategic objectives which will set a high level precedent to encourage responsible risk taking at all levels to achieve Value for Money in all highway projects. The tool endorsed for the day-to-day project management of the Lindisfarne corridor project (including risk management) will be the Project Vision software package. The methodology follows a recurring process to be implemented across the project lifecycle. It aligns with OGC ‘Management of Risk’ (MoR) best practice guidance to benefit reliable and resilient cost estimation that delivers real Value for Money savings. Figure 51: Risk Management Methodology

109

The risk management methodology will identify and manage project risks for the project. This will be achieved, as follows: 1) Identification - as part of preparing this submission, delivery risks associated with the work have been identified. These risks are summarised in our Risk Register (Appendix C ). This register contains both scheme specific risks and general risks to delivery as outlined in Table 48 below. Table 48: Risk Categories and Examples Risk Category Example of Risk

Construction Unforeseen technical issues arise during the construction period that impact on cost/delivery.

Financial Changes to building/design regulations.

Land 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 which impact on cost and timescales for delivery.

Resources Identified funding is withdrawn.

Third parties/stakeholders Failure or delay in satisfying objections from stakeholders in relation to the scheme specification/design.

2) Analysis - the Risk Register will enable the effective management and communication of potential conflicts, ensuring appropriate mitigation is incorporated into the subsequent design process. The Risk Register identifies the potential causes and consequences of each risk identified for the South Tyneside Council scheme. A risk workshop has been held which quantified the estimated minimum and maximum cost of mitigating each risk (in the event that it occurs), along with the probability of the risk occurring. The register will be a ‘live’ document, maintained and owned by the Project Manager. The QRA is shown in Appendix C – Risk Register. 3) Costing – The cost estimation for the scheme considers additional design costs and predicted costs for construction and operation. A cost estimate has been provided as part of the submission. Cost estimation is refined through the design process to include:  Re-assessment of resources (skill/time) and costs  3rd party costs and/or supply chain to provide specialist advice and undertake additional surveys and investigation (e.g. trial holes, structural assessments)  Assessment of optimum cost of maintenance to inform OPEX/whole life costs based on risk, frequency and cost of repair/mitigation  Assessment of cost of delivery risk through QRA using Monte-Carlo simulation. As the scheme progresses, it is proposed to offset the refinement of a QRA with a reduction in the optimism bias. 4) Management - Actions to mitigate risk will be managed and monitored by the Project Manager at interim reviews. Team members best placed to manage the identified risks will be assigned ownership of specific actions, with progress reported on a regular basis to the Project Manager. Project Vision management software will be used to manage this project and risks on a day-to-day basis. Risk workshops (including South Tyneside Council, the Design Team, contractor, Highways England and other key stakeholders) would be held to support the development of mitigation measures designed to lower the overall scheme risk. Workshops would be structured to focus on detailed design and would typically include a review of funding, planning, data sources, third party involvement and utilities, design, and construction. 5) Review – The risk register will be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. Where the severity of a particular risk impact changes, the cost and programme implications will be revisited and future actions agreed in accordance with appropriate change management procedures. Mitigation

110

performance and residual risk would be also subject to review at the end of commissions and inform the lessons learned process. Risk Management is a pro-active exercise designed to enable the identification, analysis and effective ongoing management response to risks. The main objectives of the Risk Management process are:  To establish a framework for the identification, assessment and control of risks (using appropriate management responses) associated with the Project; and

 To provide better management information about project risks (captured in a detailed risk register) enabling better informed decisions and support the achievement of the stated project objectives. Risk management information (including the risk register) will be held within the project shared server facility and requests for access to this information can be directed through the Project Team. This facility will act as the main repository for all project information. The project’s risk management process comprises of the following steps:

 Setting the context;

 Risk identification;

 Risk assessment;

 Risk response; and

 Risk reporting and review.

Figure 52: Risk Management Process

Setting the Context

Risk Risk Identification Reportin g Risk (Commu Review nicate (Monitor and ) Consult) Risk Assessment

Risk Response

111

7.8 Stakeholder and Communication Management Strategy Effective communication and stakeholder engagement is essential to achieve the strategic objectives of the project. A targeted approach to engagement with stakeholders is underway and will continue, to ensure audiences have regular planned information and stakeholders are aware of the wider impacts of the project. A clear understanding of which stakeholders have what level of interest and influence will also be developed. A mixed approach to communications through a variety of channels will be taken to deliver the communication plan. During the development of the project, engagement will be focused on targeted channels with key stakeholders. We will continue to take a proactive approach to advertising, media and public relations. Support from South Tyneside Corporate Communications will be requested as needed. Two public consultation events are planned to take place at Simonside Primary School on 24th November 2015 (14:00 – 20:00) and 28th November 2015 (10:00 – 14:00). Table 49 provides a list of key stakeholders and the communication channels being used to engage with each group.

112

Table 49: Stakeholder and Communication Management Strategy

Purpose of Frequency of Stakeholder Communication Channel Communication Communications South Tyneside Council Involvement in key aspects Project development Development phases as of the project - Planning meetings - Emails - needed Briefings South Tyneside Council – Key Informants/Supporters Briefings Weekly in development Leader, Chief Executive phases then monthly and Director of Regeneration and Economic Development North East Combined Key Consultee Transport North East Authority Committee Nexus (Tyne & Wear PTE) Key Consultee NELEP – Leadership Board Awareness and appraisal Emails - Verbal - Briefings Key milestones, then and Secretariat quarterly

Highways England Key Consultee – Transport Emails Development phases as Infrastructure and Site needed Access English Nature Statutory Consultees Stakeholder meetings During Planning Application development The Environment Agency English Heritage Department for Business Development and appraisal Stakeholder meetings Regularly in development Innovation & Skills Emails verbal phases

South Tyneside Business Supporter Emails - Stakeholder For key project milestones Forum Meetings - Briefings

Port of Tyne Supporter Emails - Stakeholder Development phases Meetings - Briefings

STC Local Member Awareness/Supporters Meetings For key project milestones STC Local Member Awareness/Supporters Briefings

UKTI Key Consultee – Site Targeted stakeholder Development phases as meetings needed Environment Agency Key Consultee – Site Northumbrian Water Key Consultee – Site North Tyneside Council Key Consultee – Traffic Impacts and Construction Sunderland City Council Programme and Economic Gateshead Council Development Surrounding Landowners Key Consultee – Site Briefings Development phases as needed - Planning

General Public Awareness Press and PR For key project milestones

7.9 Monitoring, Evaluation and Benefit Realisation The monitoring will be undertaken in three stages over the lifetime of the scheme and project. The first will be during the delivery of the scheme. The evaluation of the scheme construction process will be led by the Project Manager over the first 6 months of the project. This will include quarterly monitoring provided to the NELEP as agreed within LGF offer of grant. This will detail progress of project delivery against a forecast profile. The second phase of monitoring will be post scheme completion. A report will be complied post scheme completion led by the Project Manager. This will include: 7.9.1 A measure of whether key milestones were met on time and on budget 7.9.2 An explanation of any variability compared to forecasts presented in the business case

113

 Lessons learnt (which will feed into other subsequent major schemes delivered in South Tyneside)  A report on the effectiveness of managing risks Outturn costs will be published in the report. A comparison will be made with the costs presented in the business case with cost savings and overruns to be identified and explained. An Independent Stage 4 Road Safety Audit will also be completed using 12 month and 36 month accident data from the time the scheme became operational. Remedial work will be arranged quickly if any serious problems are identified. The assessment will also take into account observations during any site visits undertaken The third stage of monitoring will take place through a project evaluation. Table 50 provides the indicators of benefits and how these will be measured (with required before and after data). These are aligned to the Project Objectives and Benefits table (see section 3.8 and Table 6) included in the Strategic Case.

114

Table 50: Evaluation of Project Objectives Measures of Data Strategic Objectives Project Objectives Owner Success Sources Decrease and Reduce journey times  A reduction in the Journey time STC improve the reliability through and around the journey time data of journey times Lindisfarne corridor through and around through the while increasing journey the Lindisfarne Lindisfarne corridor time reliability Corridor  More reliable journey times across all peaks Improve air quality Ensure that the  Bring NOx Air Quality STC within the AQMA Lindisfarne corridor emissions from the Data surrounding the meets EU standards for Lindisfarne corridor NOx levels Lindisfarne corridor. emissions under 40µg/m3. PM10 emissions PM2.5 emissions Stimulate economic Open up both residential  Increased number Employment STC growth in the North and industrial of jobs Data and East by enabling development land  Reduction in Number of development and unemployment jobs improving accessibility  Increased number Development STC to strategic growth of development land with areas. opportunities planning permission p/ha Reduce the frequency Reduce the instances  Improve operation Flooding STC and severity of and severity of flooding of junction incident localised flooding at at Lindisfarne  Reduced disruption reporting Lindisfarne roundabout to local and roundabout strategic network  Reduce number of road closures Reduce the number Reduce the number and  Reduced disruption TADU STC and severity of road severity of around the  Better quality of life STATS 19 traffic accidents, Lindisfarne corridor  Reduce insurance data casualties and claims fatalities on the  Reduced cost to Lindisfarne corridor healthcare system

115

APPENDIX A

116

Appendix A – Cost Estimate

Lindisfarne Roundabout Detailed Design: Refer to Drg: Budget Cost 60338450_AEC_GEN_DR_0000_101-T01, Scheme Layout and Key Plan Estimate Construction Costs Preliminaries £1,392,061.27 Site Clearance £72,796.97 Fencing £0.00 Safety Barrier and Pedestrian Guardrail £85,521.61 Drainage - Highways Works & Surface Water Management £830,620.40 Earthworks £282,596.28 Pavement £1,002,998.80 Kerbs, Footways & Paved Areas £237,245.44 Signs and Roadmarkings £118,060.80 Traffic Signals £468,884.32 Lighting £142,961.86 Structures £99,832.91 Landscaping £360,721.32 Prime Cost Items £67,048.00 Contingency £350,000.00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS £5,511,349.98 Other Costs Statutory Undertakers £602,117.19 Project Management/Supervision £290,000.00 Design & Surveys £453,000.00 Land £0.00 Other Costs £183,000.00 TOTAL COST £7,039,467.17

Notes 1. Costs exclusive of vat.

117

APPENDIX B

118

Appendix B – Project Plan

119

APPENDIX C

120

Appendix C – Risk Register

121

122

123

APPENDIX D

124

AECOM 125

125

In a complex and unpredictable world, where growing demands have to be met with finite resources, AECOM brings experience gained from improving quality of life in hundreds of places. We bring together economists, planners, engineers, designers and project managers to work on projects at every scale. We engineer energy efficient buildings and we build new links between cities. We design new communities and regenerate existing ones. We are the first whole environments business, going beyond buildings and infrastructure. Our Europe teams form an important part of our worldwide network of nearly 100,000 staff in 150 countries. Through 360 ingenuity, we develop pioneering solutions that help our clients to see further and go further. www.aecom.com Follow us on Twitter: @aecom