A66 & A689 Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Employer: Supplier:

Highways Mouchel Lateral St Johns House 8 City Walk Queen St Manchester LS11 9AT M2 5JB

Document Ref.: HE550313-MOU-GEN-SW-REP-Z-001

Date: July 2015 Revision: P1.1

Registered office Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford GU1 4LZ Company Limited registered in England and Wales number 09346363

A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Document Control

Project A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Document Title Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Document Ref HE550313-MOU-GEN-SW-REP-Z-001 Revision P1.1

Name Company Suitability S2 Gerard Jennings / Joanne Author(s) Mouchel Date 29/07/15 Best Henrietta Achampong / Reviewer Mouchel Date 29/07/15 Dave Morrow Checker Rehan Mian / Greg Taylor Mouchel Date 30/07/15

Authoriser Claire Johnson Mouchel Date 30/07/15

Revision History

Revision Date Description Author P1.0 30/07/2015 Draft for comment Gerard Jennings / Joanne Best P1.1 16/11/2015 Issue for sign off (Amended Gerard Jennings / Henrietta following client comment) Achampong

Reviewer List

Name Role Daniel Gaunt Project Sponsor, Highways England Fran Manancourt Strategic Transport Planning Officer, Tees Valley Unlimited Bill Trewick Infrastructure Projects Manager, Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

Approvals

Name Signature Title Date of Revision Issue

The original format of this document is copyright to Highways England.

July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Contents

1 Executive Summary ...... 1 1.1 Context and Background ...... 1 1.2 The Current Situation ...... 2 1.3 Future Considerations (Challenges and Development Ambitions) ...... 2 1.4 Prioritisation of Challenges ...... 3 1.5 Next Steps and Programme ...... 3 2 Introduction and Purpose ...... 4 2.1 Purpose ...... 4 2.2 Context to the Study ...... 4 2.3 Specific Considerations ...... 6 2.4 Modal Scope ...... 7 2.5 Study Stages ...... 8 3 Background and Historical Work ...... 9 3.1 Approach ...... 9 3.2 Key Strategy and Policy ...... 9 3.3 Stakeholder Engagement ...... 11 3.4 Timeline of Previous Schemes ...... 13 3.5 Summary ...... 15 4 Availability and Robustness of Transport Modelling ...... 16 4.1 Overview ...... 16 4.2 Background ...... 16 4.3 Reasoning for the use of the Strategic Level Model ...... 19 4.4 Model Descriptions ...... 21 4.5 Model Validation ...... 23 4.6 Journey Times ...... 24 4.7 Strategic Option Forecasts/Assessments ...... 31 4.8 Improving the suitability of the model ...... 32 4.9 Appraisal ...... 32 5 Understanding the Existing Network Performance...... 33 5.1 Introduction ...... 33 5.2 Routes Description and Key Constraints ...... 33 5.3 Tees Valley Journeys ...... 43

July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

5.4 Traffic Flow Data ...... 46 5.5 Route Capacity ...... 55 5.6 Congestion and Speed ...... 61 5.7 Journey-Time Reliability ...... 64 5.8 Environment ...... 78 5.9 Society ...... 92 5.10 Safety ...... 98 5.11 Asset Condition ...... 110 5.12 Summary ...... 114 6 Understanding Future Year Performance ...... 117 6.1 Introduction ...... 117 6.2 Inter-regional Connectivity ...... 117 6.3 Strategic Economic Plans & Growth Proposals ...... 121 6.4 Future Land Uses and Policies ...... 128 6.5 Future Changes to the Transport System ...... 131 6.6 Future Travel Demands and Levels of Service ...... 132 6.7 Summary ...... 137 7 Establish the Need for Intervention ...... 138 7.1 Introduction ...... 138 7.2 Connectivity Challenges and Opportunities ...... 138 7.3 Operational and Asset Condition Challenges and Opportunities ...... 140 7.4 Capacity Challenges and Opportunities...... 143 7.5 Environmental Challenges and Opportunities ...... 146 7.6 Safety Challenges and Opportunities ...... 151 7.7 Social Challenges and Opportunities ...... 153 8 Prioritisation of Challenges and Proposed Way Forward ...... 154 8.1 Prioritisation of Challenges ...... 154 8.2 Proposed Way Forward ...... 156 9 Findings and Conclusions ...... 159

July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Tables

Table 3.2-1 Existing Policy Documents ...... 10 Table 3.4-1 Tees Valley Schemes Timeline ...... 13 Table 4.2-1 Existing strategic models – Tees Valley ...... 17 Table 4.2-2 Existing Local Authority Models ...... 18 Table 4.5-1 Comparison of observed & modelled flows across screenlines...... 23 Table 4.6-1 Routes analysed for Journey Times...... 25 Table 4.6-2 Journey time comparison for modelled & observed values ...... 26 Table 4.6-5 Modelled vs Observed journey time comparison against DMRB criteria ...... 29 Table 5.2-1 Solid and Drift Geology - A66(M) and (M) J57 ...... 33 Table 5.2-2 Solid and Drift Geology - A66 Bypass ...... 34 Table 5.2-3 Solid and Drift Geology - Darlington Northern Relief Road ...... 36 Table 5.2-4 Solid and Drift Geology present - A66 South-west Stockton-on-Tees to A19 ...... 37 Table 5.2-5 Location 4 HAGDMS Earthwork Defects ...... 38 Table 5.2-6 Solid and Drift Geology - A66 from A19 to Teesport ...... 40 Table 5.2-7 Solid and Drift - A689 Tees Valley ...... 41 Table 5.2-8 Solid and Drift Geology - A689 ...... 42 Table 5.4-3 Traffic flow data for major in study area ...... 47 Table 5.4-4 Traffic flows for major roads in study area ...... 49 Table 5.5-1 Flow data compared to Congestion Reference Flow...... 56 Table 5.7-1 Journey Time Variations ...... 65 Table 5.7-2 Road Closures by Year...... 68 Table 5.7-3 Number of Road Closures by Type/Year ...... 69 Table 5.7-4 Expected Delay due to Road Closures ...... 69 Table 5.7-6 Road Closures by Year...... 70 Table 5.7-7 Road Closures by Type ...... 71 Table 5.7-8 Expected Delay due to Road Closures ...... 71 Table 5.7-9 Road Closures by Year...... 73 Table 5.7-10 Road Closures by Type ...... 74 Table 5.7-11 Expected Delay due to Road Closures ...... 75 Table 5.7-12 Road Closures by Year ...... 76 Table 5.7-13 Road Closures by Year ...... 77 Table 5.7-14 Road Closures by Year ...... 78 Table 5.10-5 Accident rates for sections of network compared to COBA reference values ..... 102 Table 5.10-6- Accident rates for sections of network compared to DfT reference values ...... 103 Table 5.10-7 Killed and Serious Accident Ratio ...... 105 Table 5.10-8 Accident Weather Factors by Section (Average per Year) ...... 106 Table 5.10-9 Accident Light Factors by Section (Average per Year) ...... 108 Table 6.2-1 Intra-regional commuting ...... 118 Table 6.2-3 Travel to work by mode ...... 120 Table 6.4-1 Key housing and economic growth proposals ...... 128 Table 6.5-1 Road Infrastructure Investment ...... 132 Table 7.5-1 Summary of environmental potential for challenge and opportunity ...... 148

July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Figures

Figure 2.2-1 Study Area ...... 5 Figure 4.4-1 Screenline locations ...... 21 Figure 4.5-1 Comparison of observed & modelled flows across screenlines...... 24 Figure 4.6-1 Defined journey paths for journey time analysis...... 28 Figure 4.6-2 Defined journey paths comparison with public transport journey times...... 28 Figure 5.3-1 Loading Gauge of the Tees Valley rail network (Statement of Transport Ambition, 2011, Tees Valley Unlimited) ...... 45 Figure 5.4-1 Study Area ...... 46 Figure 5.4-2 Location map of sites with data ...... 47 Figure 5.6-1 Speed limits for major roads in the study area ...... 62 Figure 5.8-1 Key Environmental Sensitivities - A66(M) and A1(M) Jn 57 Area ...... 81 Figure 5.8-2 Key Environmental Sensitivities - A66 Darlington Bypass Area ...... 82 Figure 5.8-3 Key Environmental Sensitivities - Darlington Northern Relief Road Area ...... 84 Figure 5.8-4 Key Environmental Sensitivities - A66 South-West Stockton-on-Tees to A19 - Area ...... 86 Figure 5.8-5 Key Environmental Sensitivities - A66 from A19 to Teesport Area ...... 88 Figure 5.8-6 Key Environmental Sensitivities - A689 Tees Valley Area ...... 90 Figure 5.8-7 Key Environmental Sensitivities - A689 County Durham Area ...... 92 Figure 5.9-1 TEMPRO map with change in number of households 2005-14 ...... 93 Figure 5.9-2 TEMPRO analysis with change in number of jobs 2005-2014 ...... 94 Figure 5.9-3 TEMPRO analysis with change in number of workers 2005-2014 ...... 95 Figure 5.9-4 TEMPRO analysis with change in total population 2005-14 ...... 96 Figure 5.9-5 TEMPRO analysis of population change in study area ...... 97 Figure 5.9-6 TEMPRO analysis of demographic change in study area...... 97 Figure 5.9-7 TEMPRO analysis of car ownership trends in study area...... 98 Figure 5.10-1 Highways England SRN Casualty Rankings in the Study Area ...... 99 Figure 5.10-2 All Accidents in Study Area: 2009 – 2013 ...... 100 Figure 5.10-3 KSI Accidents in Study Area: 2009 - 2013 ...... 100 Figure 5.10-4 Sections of network examined in Accident Analysis ...... 101 Figure 6.2-1 Dispersed labour markets within the Tees Valley ...... 119 Figure 6.6-1 Forecast traffic, AM Peak, 2010 ...... 134 Figure 6.6-2 Forecast traffic, PM Peak, 2010 ...... 134 Figure 6.6-3 Forecast traffic, AM Peak, 2020 ...... 135 Figure 6.6-4 Forecast traffic, PM Peak, 2020 ...... 135 Figure 6.6-5 Forecast traffic, AM Peak, 2030 ...... 136 Figure 6.6-6 Forecast traffic, PM Peak, 2030 ...... 136 Figure 8.2-1 Stage 0.2 Model Flowchart ...... 158

Appendices

A Transport Planning Appendix B Environment Appendix C Highways Appendix D Geotechnical Appendix E Stakeholder Appendix

July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

1 Executive Summary

1.1 Context and Background

Mouchel has been appointed by Highways England to undertake a feasibility study to examine the issues and constraints associated with the A66 (from Teesport to the A1(M)) and the A689 (from the A19 to the A1(M)), to identify opportunities for resolving them to improve links between the Tees Valley and the wider road network and increase the economic competitiveness of the region. This study is unique insofar as it has been commissioned separately to the Highways England / Department for Transport (DfT) strategic feasibility studies being undertaken by the Strategy & Planning Directorate, and is instead being commissioned locally by Network Delivery & Development Directorate (NDD).

This report presents the findings of the first of the feasibility stages to unpick and understand work done to date, to understand the current and future transport issues along the routes and to provide a prioritised list of challenges to be taken into the next stage. This report also sets the direction for the remainder of the feasibility study and informs the scope and limitations of future work.

The A66, most of which is part of the strategic road network, connects Teesport to the A1(M) at junction 57, passing through , Stockton-On-Tees and Darlington. East of the A19 the road is part of the local road network, operated and maintained by Middlesbrough Borough Council and Redcar and Borough Council.

The A689 is a good standard local road which connects the A19 north of Stockton-On-Tees to Sedgefield and the A1(M) at junction 60. The road primarily travels through, and is the responsibility of, Durham County Council, with short sections in both and Stockton- On-Tees.

The modal scope of the study is predominantly road-based and considers potential investment proposals on both the strategic and local authority road networks. The geographic area of interest has been defined in the Highways England brief and takes into consideration the following routes and locations:

 A66(M) and A1(M) Junction 57  A66 Darlington Bypass  Darlington Northern Relief Road  A66 South west Stockton-On-Tees to A19  A66 from A19 to Teesport  A689 Tees Valley  A689 County Durham

Interest in the study covers a wide stakeholder group including Tees Valley Unlimited (TVU), strategic transport authorities (Highways England, Department for Transport), local authorities (Stockton-on-Tees, Darlington, Middlesbrough, Redcar & Cleveland, County Durham, Hartlepool, North ), local highway authorities for the A66 and A689, Natural England, the Environment Agency, private developers, highway service providers (AOne+ Integrated Highway Services, Autolink Concessionaires Ltd), other transport providers (Teesport, Durham Tees Valley Airport, bus operators etc.) and other transport network users.

Page 1 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

From a strategic perspective there are several transport issues with the current network that have a local impact, sub-regional impact and national/international impact.

1.2 The Current Situation

The Tees Valley region has dispersed and multiple concentrations of housing and industry. Efficient road, rail, sea and air connectivity are vital to connect these dispersed locations and to make the region prosper now, and in the future. Passenger rail connections are acceptable on north / south routes through the region (although the East Coast mainline is capacity constrained) and east / west routes inter-region. Freight however suffers and the lack of appropriate sea container gauge rail lines restricts the use of rail for freight connections to Teesport, a key centre of economic activity and trade for the region. Equally, Durham Tees Valley Airport is constrained by the lack of rail and suitable road connections. Although linked to the strategic road network, the airport is accessed from a heavily constrained section of the A66 and journeys from the southbound A1(M) have to use local urban routes (A167 and A1150) to access the airport through Darlington. This lack of appropriate southbound road access to the wider Tees Valley region from the A1(M), and to / around Darlington, is a key limiting feature of current regional connectivity (this is mainly due to the limited access slips from the A1(M) to A66 (M) at Jn 57, and the predominantly single carriageway form of all south-east bound routes from the A1(M) at junctions 58, 59 and 60).

Inter-urban road congestion and safety issues are prevalent in many locations in the region but are especially problematic in the southern A66 corridor (Darlington to Teesport). Peak flow tidal traffic volumes indicate hot spots in many locations (including the junctions / roundabouts on the A66 south-east of Darlington and the A1150 and A167) and there are several accident clusters (including the A1(M) Jn 57 links, the junctions / roundabouts on the A66 south-east of Darlington and the junctions and links on the A1150 and A167). Another key consideration is the presence of housing close to or on key routes in the Tees Valley area, but in particular around Darlington, on the A66, A1150 and A167. This raises environmental concerns, creates strategic and local vehicle conflict, creates conflict with non-motorised network users and constrains the scope for road improvements. It also has a major societal impact as roads designed for local traffic are being used as ‘rat-runs’ for strategic traffic.

1.3 Future Considerations (Challenges and Development Ambitions)

Car use in the region is expected to increase over future years as are population numbers and housing. Much of this increase will be fuelled by the strategic growth aspirations of the regions development sponsors (described in detail in part 6 of this report). Increased car use will have an impact on routes which are at or near capacity and these constraints need to be addressed or they will stifle economic development and competitiveness of the region. The ambition for the Tees Valley region is for it to continue to develop its multiple economic centres, rather than focussing growth in one particular large conurbation; future proofing road connectivity through interventions now is key to sustaining this model.

Page 2 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

1.4 Prioritisation of Challenges

Addressing the issues on the A66 corridor are considered higher in priority than those on the A689 corridor. This study outlines the priority of the challenges at each of the seven sites identified for consideration in the brief.

The order of priority is listed below:  Location 2: A66 Darlington Bypass  Location 3: Darlington Northern Relief Road  Location 1: A66(M) and A1(M) Junction 57  Location 4: A66 South-west Stockton-on-Tees to A19  Location 5: A66 from A19 to Teesport  Location 7: A689 County Durham  Location 6: A689 Tees Valley

Locations 1, 2, and 3 form the highest priority for intervention in the study area. It is likely that improvements to all three locations would not be required to address the capacity and safety challenges. Optioneering will be undertaken in Stage 0.2, supported by traffic modelling, to identify the most appropriate intervention. The proposed intervention will have an impact on the wider study area by changing traffic patterns and drawing additional traffic in to the A66 corridor. This will have secondary impacts on the priorities for Location 4 where constraints will be exacerbated, and environmental challenges along the A66 corridor will potentially increase. Conversely, conditions along the A689 could improve as a result of traffic rerouting and this could alleviate environment and safety challenges and also release capacity to accommodate development related growth. Therefore, the challenges for Locations 4, 6 and 7 need to be addressed taking in to account potential interventions at Locations 1, 2 and 3. Because of its status as a , Location 4 is prioritised ahead of Location 5. Location 5 is, itself, another important route for commuters and freight but is relatively independent of potential interventions at the other locations due to its location east of the A19.

1.5 Next Steps and Programme

In agreement with Highways England, stages 0.2 and 0.3 of this study will investigate in detail the priority issues in the identified areas and produce strategic outline business cases to report this assessment. As described in section 8 of this report, a methodology for these phases, including a modelling flow diagram, has been included to define the next steps. The key milestone activities and dates are:  Production of an Options Assessment Report by end January 2016  Production of Strategic Outline Business Cases by end April 2016.

Page 3 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

2 Introduction and Purpose

2.1 Purpose

Mouchel has been appointed by Highways England to undertake a feasibility study to examine the issues and constraints associated with the A66 (from Teesport to the A1(M)) and the A689 (from the A19 to the A1(M)), to identify opportunities for resolving them to improve links between Tees Valley and the wider road network and increase the economic competitiveness of the region. This report presents the findings of the first of the feasibility stages to unpick and understand work done to date, to understand the current and future transport issues along the routes, to establish existing issues, and to provide a prioritised list of challenges to be taken into the next stage. This report also sets the direction for the remainder of the feasibility study.

Wherever possible the study builds upon existing data and previous study outcomes.

2.2 Context to the Study

2.2.1 Strategic Context

Following the 2013 DfT White Paper “Action for Roads”, the Highways Agency undertook a number of feasibility studies to investigate and develop options for routes with known constraints. Following the successful completion of these studies, Highways England propose to follow this approach to the improvement of the strategic road network to realise their long term aim: a mile a minute network with no unplanned disruption and a consistent customer experience.

The Tees Valley contributes over £10Billion to the national economy. The ambition to substantially grow the economy, articulated within the Strategic Economic Plan, (2014) is to build on Tees Valley strengths (advanced process industries, manufacturing, a skilled workforce and good transport links) to create 25,000 jobs (net) and generate an additional £1Billion GVA per annum over the next decade.

Excellent strategic transport links are integral to achieving Tees Valley’s economic growth ambitions. The strategic road network in Tees Valley plays a vital role in moving people and goods within the region, to the rest of the UK and internationally through Hartlepool / Teesport and Durham Tees Valley Airport.

2.2.2 Detail of the Network

There are two main east-west corridors in Tees Valley linking the A19 and A1(M), neither of which currently meet the emerging basic requirements for an expressway or a high speed restricted access (at least 2 lanes in each direction) which is entirely grade separated (or left only movements) and with focused operational control.

The A66, most of which is part of the strategic road network, connects Teesport to the A1(M) at junction 57, passing through Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees and Darlington. East of the A19 the road is part of the local road network, operated and maintained by Middlesbrough Borough Council and Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, and is dual carriageway with both at-grade and grade separated junctions. Between the A19 and Darlington the road is two-lane or three-

Page 4 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

lane dual carriageway with mainly grade separation, but also a number of left-in-left-out accesses between Darlington and Stockton on Tees. To the east and south of Darlington the road is single carriageway with a number of at-grade junctions. The road is connected to the A1(M) by the A66(M) which has only south-facing free-flow slip roads (northbound off-slip and southbound on- slip).

The A689 is a good standard local road which connects the A19 north of Stockton-on-Tees to Sedgefield and the A1(M) at junction 60. The road primarily travels through, and is the responsibility of, Durham County Council with short sections in both Hartlepool and Stockton-on- Tees. The road is dual carriageway, except for a short section between A1(M) junction 60 and the A177 at Sedgefield, and has a number of at-grade junctions. The route is a key tactical diversion for traffic on the A1 and A19.

The two routes provide the primary road connections to the north-south corridors of the A19 and the A1(M) from the Tees Valley sub-region and international gateway of Teesport to the rest of the country.

Contains Ordnance Survey data © copyright and database right 2015

Figure 2.2-1 Study Area

From a strategic perspective there are a number of transport issues with the current network that have a local, sub-regional and national/international impact.

We have teamed together with JMP to develop the traffic and economic assessment. JMP has well established links with stakeholders through its work as Highways England Spatial Planning consultant. This has enabled the team to identify the traffic models available in the study area and establish the proposals for future development that will support the Transport User Benefit Analysis.

Page 5 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

The geographic area of interest for the study has been defined from the specific considerations outlined in the Highways England brief.

2.3 Specific Considerations

For ease of reference, the sites for specific consideration have been numbered.

2.3.1 Location 1: A66(M) and A1(M) Junction 57

Junction 57 on the A1(M) has no north facing slip roads to or from the A66. This means any traffic wanting to access the west of the Tees Valley sub-region from the North must use the Local Road Network and leave the strategic network via junction 58, 59 or 60. This results in strategic traffic either leaving the A1(M) via junctions 58 or 59 causing significant stress on the local road network in Darlington, or leaving via junction 60 and diverting onto the A177 or A689 roads, both of which are local roads.

The configuration of junction 57 is therefore viewed by local authorities and businesses as a key transport problem on the strategic network. It is considered that unlocking these constraints could have significant local and sub-regional benefits both for growth and management of the Strategic Road Network. The lack of slip roads is also seen as a constraint to future growth of Durham Tees Valley Airport.

2.3.2 Location 2: A66 Darlington Bypass

The A66(M) and A66 from the A1(M) at Junction 57 (Blackwell Spur) to A1150 at Little Burdon is comprised of 12.3km of primarily single carriageway road, with a short section of two-lane motorway between the A1(M) and the A66 Blackwell roundabout. From the Blackwell roundabout, the route is single carriageway with five at-grade roundabouts of varying standards, before it becomes dual carriageway to the east of the A1150 Little Burdon roundabout. The western part of the route between the A66(M) Blackwell roundabout and the A167 Blands Corner roundabout has a number of significant constraints. These include residential frontages and Blackwell Bridge, which is Grade II listed.

The improvement of links and junctions on this section has been a long term ambition for Darlington Borough Council. It is anticipated that these improvements would have significant local and sub-regional benefits both for growth and management of the strategic road network.

2.3.3 Location 3: Darlington Northern Relief Road

The idea of a northern relief road for Darlington has been considered at a high level for many years, though there is no record that it has ever been developed beyond a concept. However, when considering the likely costs and benefits of resolving the issues at Junction 57 and along the A66 Darlington by-pass, it is also relevant to consider whether the strategic link to the A1(M) would be a better investment as a new link to the north-east of Darlington.

2.3.4 Location 4: A66 South-West Stockton-on-Tees to A19

The A66 in south-west Stockton-on-Tees is a mix of two-lane and three-lane dual carriageway with six grade separated junctions. This section of road has a number of future issues and acts

Page 6 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

as a general constraint to development across the southern part of Stockton and in Thornaby. Long-term traffic forecasts indicate that additional junction and mainline capacity will be required to meet the development needs and aspirations of the region and Stockton-on-Tees particularly.

At the A66 Park junction, there are significant problems with subsidence on the connecting local roads as well as capacity constraints. The study should also consider options for addressing these issues.

2.3.5 Location 5: A66 from A19 to Teesport

The A66 east of the A19 is currently the responsibility of Middlesbrough Council to operate and maintain. The study should consider justification and options for improving the route and/or trunking the route to make it part of the strategic road network, in order to enable it to meet future development and operational needs.

2.3.6 Location 6: A689 Tees Valley

The A689 in Tees Valley has a number of committed but not yet implemented highway improvement schemes associated with proposed developments. The Highways Agency completed an improvement under the Pinch Point Programme at the A19/A689 , and in the 2014 Road Investment Strategy the government committed to widening the A19 south of the junction. Further funding has been secured by Tees Valley Unlimited through the Local Growth Fund to improve five roundabouts on the A689 including three to the west of the A19.

The study will consider what, if any, further improvements are needed to ensure that the full benefits of the A19 Norton to Wolviston widening can be realised and sustained, taking into account the likely development scenarios around the A689 east and west of the A19 including at Sedgefield in County Durham, Wynyard Park and Wynyard village in Stockton and Hartlepool, and to the western side of Hartlepool.

2.3.7 Location 7: A689 County Durham

The study will consider the case for dualling the remaining section of the A689 between A1(M) junction 60 and the A177, which would provide a continuous dual carriageway link between the A1(M) and A19. The study will also consider what improvements, if any, would be required at A1(M) junction 60 to complement any dualling and to meet the capacity requirements for planned and proposed development in and around Sedgefield.

Additionally, there are two at-grade roundabouts and a number of at grade crossroads and right- turns. The study will consider whether there is case to improve capacity or safety at any of these junctions.

2.4 Modal Scope

The modal scope of the study is predominantly road-based and considers potential investment proposals to address the specific considerations, in section 2.3 above, on both the strategic and

Page 7 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

local authority road networks. The study also aims to understand any potential proposals that may emerge from Teesport and Durham Tees Valley Airport.

2.5 Study Stages

This study is being undertaken in three stages broadly aligned with the WebTAG Transport Analysis Guidance on the Transport Appraisal Process.

Stage 0.1: Review of evidence and identification of problems along the routes (WebTAG Steps 1 to 4b)

The first stage of this study, of which this report is the main output, focusses on reviewing relevant evidence gathered as part of previous studies, establishing the extent of transport modelling activity undertaken to date and future requirements, identifying and reporting known transport issues in the region and providing a prioritised list of issues to be taken into stage 0.2.

Stage 0.2: Work to finalise the range of proposals that could address the problems along the routes (WebTAG Steps 5 to 9)

Once the current and future problems along the routes have been identified, a range of proposals that could address the priority issues will be developed and assessed. Transport modelling is proposed during this stage in order to enable options to be developed.

This second stage of work culminates in the production of an Option Assessment Report.

Stage 0.3: Work to assess the affordability, value for money and deliverability of prioritised proposals (WebTAG Step 10)

Stage 0.3 of the study will develop the investment business cases for the prioritised proposals.

Work will also be completed to produce an indicative delivery programme for staged implementation commencing with priority locations, and to identify key policy decisions required to progress the proposals.

In order for this report to present the findings of the first feasibility stage, the subsequent sections set out the background of historical work for this area of the network in Section 3, with the timelines of key strategies and stakeholder input. Section 4 covers the traffic modelling overview and detail. Section 5 sets out our understanding of the current network condition and performance. Section 6 looks to the future year performance for key markers, whilst Section 7 identifies the challenges and opportunities. The prioritisation of the challenges is set out in order of importance in Section 8 together with the proposed way forward and high level conclusions are summarised in Section 9.

Page 8 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

3 Background and Historical Work

3.1 Approach

This section documents our approach to gathering background and historic data. It details a comprehensive literature review and our stakeholder engagement process.

Stage 0.1 of this feasibility study is focussed on collating and analysing a range of documentation and information related to the current conditions on the strategic and local road networks of the Tees Valley.

Stage 0.1 broadly took two approaches to providing an understanding of connectivity within the Tees Valley and beyond; the first being through the collation and analysis of a range of documentation and data sets, and the second through engagement with a range of stakeholders.

The collation and review of documentation and information has primarily focussed on:  Existing policy documents, previous and ongoing relevant studies and current investment proposals;  Highways traffic data including flows, journey time, speed and link capacity;  Accident data and road closure information;  High level land use development information; and  Environmental constraints.

3.2 Key Strategy and Policy

In March 2015, the Department for Transport published: The Northern Powerhouse: One Agenda, One Economy, One North. A report on the Northern Transport Strategy. Produced by Transport for the North, a partnership between national and local government and national transport agencies, the report outlines aims to:  Enhance the performance of the North’s Strategic Road Network (SRN) through delivery of the committed first phase of the Roads Investment Strategy;  Further enhance the long-term performance of the Northern SRN through a clear vision and strategy that embraces transformational investment and technology;  Set out a clearly prioritised multimodal freight strategy for the North to support trade and freight movement within the North and to national/international markets.

There are five local authorities within the Tees Valley: Darlington Borough Council, Hartlepool Borough Council, Middlesbrough Borough Council, Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council, and Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council. Additionally, parts of the road network examined in this study are located in County Durham, and within Richmondshire in . The 2011 Statement of Transport Ambition, published by the Tees Valley Unlimited local enterprise partnership (LEP) states the main transport aims for the region. These aims include having resilient network connectivity, providing access to employment and reducing carbon emissions.

Key documents reviewed as part of the above process are highlighted in the following table and the documents are further discussed in Section 6.

Page 9 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Table 3.2-1 Existing Policy Documents Category Study

Strategic Business Plan 2015-2020 (Highways England), January 2015. National Policies and Strategies Action for Roads: A Network for the 21st Century (Department for Transport), July 2013.

The Northern Powerhouse: One Agenda, One Economy, One North. (Department for Transport), March 2015.

One North – A Proposition for an Interconnected North, July 2014.

Tees Valley Strategic Transport Priorities (Tees Valley Unlimited), January 2015.

Tees Valley Strategic Infrastructure Plan (Tees Valley Unlimited), November 2014.

Regional Policies Tees Valley Strategic Economic Plan (Tees Valley Unlimited), May 2014. and Strategies , North Yorkshire and East Riding Enterprise Partnership Strategic North Economic Plan, March 2014

North East Strategic Economic Plan, March 2014.

Tees Valley Area Action Plan Progress Report (Tees Valley Unlimited), October 2011.

Statement of Transport Ambition (Tees Valley Unlimited), April 2011.

Tees Valley Area Action Plan Update (Highways Agency), 2011

London to Scotland East Route Strategy Evidence Report (Highways Agency), April 2014.

Third Local Transport Plans

Darlington Local Transport Plan, Transport Strategy, 2011-2026.

Hartlepool Third Local Transport Plan, 2011-2026.

Middlesbrough Third Local Transport Plan, 2011-2026.

Redcar & Cleveland Third Local Transport Plan, 2011-2021.

Stockton-on-Tees Third Local Transport Plan, 2011-2016.

Local Policies and North Yorkshire Third Local Transport Plan, 2011-2016 Strategies Local Development Frameworks

Darlington Local Development Framework, Core Strategy, May 2011.

Middlesbrough Local Development Framework, Core Strategy, February 2008.

Redcar and Cleveland Local Development Framework, Communities DPD Preferred Options, March 2009.

Redcar and Cleveland Local Development Framework, Economy DPD Scoping Report, December 2009.

Page 10 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Stockton-on-Tees Core Strategy Development Plan (Local Development Framework), March 2010.

Other

Hartlepool Future Housing Provision, May 2014.

Hartlepool Local Plan, April 2006.

3.3 Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholder engagement was approached with the intention of building collaborative working relationships. This involved keeping stakeholders up-to-date and informed about project developments. Liaison has been conducted with the aim of facilitating a bi-directional flow of information, to encourage continuous engagement with issues as they arise during the course of this study.

Whilst stakeholder liaison is a continuous process, there are three engagement milestones, taking the form of workshops for each stage of this study. At each workshop, the key stakeholders are invited to attend in order to identify, discuss and explore solutions to issues relevant to the study.

It is important to complement technical data-led analysis with stakeholder feedback. Input from local authorities, the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), network operators, maintainers and emergency services may, for example, raise issues that would otherwise be missed in a tightly constrained set.

This section details the approach to stakeholder engagement, including the parties identified and nature of the liaison undertaken.

3.3.1 Stakeholder Identification

The following key stakeholders were identified at Stage 0.1; relevant stakeholders may change or increase dependent upon future scheme developments.

3.3.1.1 Local Authorities and Local Enterprise Partnership It was important to consult with local authorities in order to canvas their thoughts on where network issues lie, which public concerns have been raised, the type of future opportunities and the form that potential solutions might take. In addition to existing highway network management issues, local authorities are able to provide information about future development plans that need to be taken into consideration when reviewing the strategic highway network. Similarly, the LEP is able to comment on current business needs and opportunities for future economic growth and development.

Engagement was conducted with all local authorities whose borders intersect with stretches of the strategic road network within the scheme extents. The following stakeholders were identified:  Tees Valley Unlimited (LEP)  Darlington Borough Council  Durham County Council

Page 11 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

 Hartlepool Borough Council  Middlesbrough Borough Council  North Yorkshire County Council  Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council  Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

3.3.1.2 Operations, maintenance and delivery partners Highways England (Customer Operations) were consulted to provide insight into day-to-day operations and issues. AOne+ and Autolink, as the Managing Agent Contractors (MAC) for the area, were available to provide comment upon local maintenance and infrastructure. JMP, a consultancy and project delivery partner, were able to provide transport planning expertise.  Highways England (Customer Operations)  AOne+ (MAC Area 14)  Autolink (DBFO Area 26)  JMP (transport planning)

3.3.1.3 Emergency services Although the emergency services were not identified as key stakeholders at Stage 0.1, inclusion of the police was sought to ensure breadth of feedback and to provide specialist comment that might otherwise be missed.  Cleveland Police  Durham Constabulary This list does not include specific environmental stakeholders; the relationship with this important group will be managed in line with the usual best practice when developing projects on behalf of Highways England.

3.3.2 Stage 0.1 Stakeholder Workshop

The first of three planned stakeholder engagements was a workshop held on the 4th June 2015 at Tees Valley Unlimited’s venue in Stockton-On-Tees. The workshop was designed as an open discussion of the strategic network within the scheme extents. Attendance of the following representatives was recorded, along with apologies from Durham County Council and North Yorkshire County Council:  Highways England (Customer Operations)  Tees Valley Unlimited (LEP and venue host)  Mouchel (workshop facilitator and project team)  JMP (Transport Planning Delivery Partner)  AOne+ (MAC)  Stockton Borough Council  Middlesbrough Borough Council  Hartlepool Borough Council  Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council  Darlington Borough Council  Cleveland Police

Page 12 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

3.3.3 Stage 0.1 Stakeholder Workshop Outcomes

During the workshop, each stretch of the strategic road network (A66, A689 and associated feeder roads) was analysed in turn. For each area, discussion focused on known issues and areas of concern. The workshop was held to canvass understanding, from a stakeholder perspective, of the issues, constraints and opportunities within the study area.

The key output of the Stage 0.1 workshop was that the primary issues highlighted by stakeholders centred around the locations identified for consideration in Appendix E1. This provided useful validation, confirming that the key network issues have been captured. During the workshop, additional background information on committed / planned future developments, local to the study areas, was captured, along with a fuller understanding of the day to day operation of the network. This information will be used to inform the development of this study, its potential solutions, and to shape future stakeholder engagement. See Appendix E1 for notes from the Stage 0.1 Workshop.

3.3.4 Stage 0.2 Workshop

Work will be undertaken to consider the range of infrastructure proposals that could address the issues identified in Stage 0.1. A second workshop with the same group of stakeholders will be held to review the emerging results of the study and to gain their input in the prioritisation of the proposals.

3.3.5 Stage 0.3 Workshop

The third and final stage of the study is to assess the affordability, value for money and deliverability of prioritised infrastructure proposals. During this stage of the work, a value management workshop is planned, which will include relevant stakeholders.

3.4 Timeline of Previous Schemes

The Statement of Transport Ambition and the Tees Valley Area Action Plan Progress Report published in April and October 2011, respectively, by the LEP Tees Valley Unlimited includes a list of completed highway projects, as detailed in the table below. The local transport plans for each of the Tees Valley local authorities also included these, and other schemes.

Table 3.4-1 Tees Valley Road Schemes Timeline Completion Date Scheme

July 2015 A19 / A174 Parkway Junction Improvement, Middlesbrough

The £7.92 million pinch-point scheme included:

 Widening the circulatory carriageway on the approach to the exit to the westbound A174;  Upgrading the westbound A174 to two lanes;  Widening the circulatory carriageway to 3 lanes between the A19 South Approach and the A19 North exit;

Page 13 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Completion Date Scheme

 Upgrading the A174 East to two lanes between the A19/A174 interchange exit and the A174/B1380 junction;  Widening the A19 southbound slip to 2 lanes;  Upgrade the existing traffic signal control system.

December 2014 A19/A689 Wolviston Interchange

The £4.8 million pinch point scheme included lane widening, layout changes and the installation of signals.

2011 (February) Tees Valley Network Management Strategy (Phase 1)

Installation of traffic lights on five A19 and A66 entry slip roads.

The first phase of the Network Management Strategy included £3.9 million for ramp metering on these slip roads.

2011 Urban Traffic Management and Control system

Delivered by the five Tees Valley Authorities in partnership with the Highways Agency.

Darlington Eastern Transport Corridor

Linking Haughton Road to the A66, and so improving links from Darlington to the East and opening up development land.

2010 North Middlesbrough Accessibility Scheme

Series of highway works to improve access to the area of Middlesbrough north of the A66, including Riverside Park and the Middlehaven development site.

2010 A19(T)/A174(T) roundabout interchange has been signalised on the three trunk road approaches.

2010 Capacity has been improved on the A174/A1053/B1380/Western Gateway Roundabouts in association with the Northern Gateway Improvement and improvements are to be made to the South Tees Eco Park access.

2007 In December 2007 the £17m Surtees Bridge widening scheme opened allowing the A66/A135 South Stockton Link slip roads to open.

2007 A689 dualling near the A1(M)

Page 14 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Completion Date Scheme

During the LTP2 Junction improvements at Road/Whinbush Way phase, 2006-2011

Sources: Tees Valley Unlimited (2011) Statement of Transport Ambition; Tees Valley Unlimited (2011) Tees Valley Area Action Plan; Darlington Local Transport Plan, Transport Strategy (2011-2026); Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council Third Local Transport Plan (2011-2016)

3.5 Summary

The literature review and the stakeholder engagement have been used to inform our understanding of the existing and future network performance in Section 4-6 and to establish the need for intervention documented in Section 7.

Page 15 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

4 Availability and Robustness of Transport Modelling

4.1 Overview

The outputs from traffic modelling form an important part of the evidence required for option development. In particular there are three key dependencies in the study:

 Understanding the current and future network conditions and demonstrating the need for intervention  Understanding the environmental impacts of the options  Understanding the highway design requirements, e.g. cross-section

The traffic model outputs required for this are generally link based traffic volumes or speeds during the peak periods and across the whole day. Depending on the requirements of the technical teams, these can be required for an opening year or a design year based on absolute values or relative change.

The benefits for the VFM calculation for this study will be based on a TUBA assessment. This will require network costs (i.e. travel times between economic centres of activity) that will also be developed from a traffic model. However, a transport economic assessment and the associated Social and Distributional Impacts (SDI) assessment is not required during this project and therefore the level of assurance required for the model is lower than would be expected for subsequent stages. An economic assessment is usually based on strategic model outputs used in industry standard economic assessment software. As the strategic model outputs will exist there is an option to undertake a standard economic assessment (subject to agreement) using these tools: TUBA, COBA, QUADRO and INCA.

The usual approach to selecting a traffic model is based on the following steps: 1) use an existing traffic model if suitable; 2) adapt an existing traffic model to suit study requirements; or 3) develop a new traffic model. The study timescales have determined that only the first two approaches are viable.

The remainder of this section focusses on the availability of traffic models and the decision behind the selection of a strategic traffic model for use in this study.

4.2 Background

JMP has an extensive inventory of traffic models that have been developed within the study area. These models have been commissioned by different agencies to test a range of scenarios ranging from operational to strategic. We have listed the strategic and microsimulation (operational) models for completeness below. Having reviewed the models, we discuss the recommendation for the use of a strategic model in 4.3 and expand on its suitability for this study in the remainder of this section.

As part of this review, we do not recommend the development of a study-specific traffic model or further data collection for two key reasons in addition to the programme constraints:

Page 16 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

 TVU is scheduled to issue an updated strategic model in the short-medium term. The study programme does not allow for receipt of this model for use in Stages 1 and 2  Mouchel is commissioned to develop Highways England’s North Regional Model which is scheduled for completion in summer 2016.

Both these models could be used to complement the current dataset for the project or to develop or refine options at a later stage of the project (subject to agreement).

Table 4.2-1 Existing strategic models – Tees Valley Tees Valley Strategic Models Name Authorit Held By Date Scope Type Softwar y e Tees Valley Tees Tees 2005 Regional / Macro TRIPS TRIPS Valley Valley Multimoda Model Unlimited Unlimited l Tees Valley Tees Tees 2015 Regional / Macro TRIPS TRIPS Valley Valley Forecast Multimoda Model Unlimited Unlimited Year l Tees Valley Tees Tees 2030 Regional / Macro TRIPS TRIPS Valley Valley Forecast Multimoda Model Unlimited Unlimited Year l Tees Valley Tees Tees Under Regional / Macro VOYAG Voyager Valley Valley development Multimoda ER Model Unlimited Unlimited l TVU Tees Tees To be Regional / Macro / AIMSUN Regional Valley Valley developed. Traffic Mesoscopic Traffic Unlimited Unlimited Model SECURE Tees Newcastl 2010-2015 Regional / Strategic Citilabs North East Valley e Traffic Model Cube- Model Unlimited University Voyager Highways Highways JMP 2010 Regional / Mesoscopic Dyname England’s England Traffic q A19 Tees Valley Highways Highways CH2M Hill 2014 Darlington Mesoscopic AIMSUN England’s England A1 / A1 Traffic Mesoscopi c Model A19/A689 Highways JMP 2013 Junction / Micro- VISSIM5 Wolviston England Traffic simulation / Interchang PCMOV e A A19 IDM Highways JMP 2010 Ramp Micro- VISSIM5 Model England Metering simulation Sites

Page 17 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Tees Valley Strategic Models Name Authorit Held By Date Scope Type Softwar y e A66 Highways JMP 2010 Junction / Micro- VISSIM5 Darlington England Traffic simulation model A174 / Highways JMP 2010 Junction / Micro- VISSIM5 A1053 England Traffic simulation Greystones Model A19 / A174 Highways JMP 2013 Junction / Micro- S- Parkway England Traffic simulation Paramic Interchang s / e PCMOV A

Table 4.2-2 Existing Local Authority Models Darlington Borough Council Name Authority Held Date Scope Type Software By A167 North Darlington Arup Pre-2010 Area / Micro- AIMSUN Road Borough Traffic simulation Microsimulation Council Darlington Darlington Arup 2014 Area / Micro- AIMSUN Western Traffic Borough Traffic simulation Model Council Darlington Darlington Fore 2013 Area / Micro- AIMSUN Town Centre Borough Traffic simulation Traffic Model Council

Redcar and Cleveland Name Authority Held Date Scope Type Software By Redcar Town Redcar and Arup - Junction Micro- AIMSUN Centre Model Cleveland / Traffic simulation

Hartlepool Name Authority Held Date Scope Type Software By Hartlepool Hartlepool DEFRA 2014 Micro- AIMSUN Evacuation Borough simulation Model Council

Page 18 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Stockton-On-Tees YIBAM ( Stockton Arup 2009 Area / Micro- AIMSUN and Ingleby Borough updated Traffic simulation Barwick Council 2013 (peak Assignment hour model Model) only) Mandale Stockton Arup Pre - 2010 Area / Micro- VISSIM Gyratory Model Borough Traffic simulation Council A177-A1027 Stockton Arup 2015 (peak Area / Micro- AIMSUN Borough hours only) Traffic simulation Council Stockton Town Stockton Arup 2004 Area / Micro- AIMSUN Centre Traffic Borough Traffic simulation Model Council Stockton Stockton Arup 2013 Area / Micro- AIMSUN Harrowgate Borough Traffic simulation Lane / Elton Council Interchange Model

Middlesbrough Name Authority Held Date Scope Type Software By Cannon Park Middlesbrough Arup 2010 Junction Micro- AIMSUN Model Borough / Traffic simulation Council South Middlesbrough Arup 2008 Junction Micro- AIMSUN Middlesbrough Borough / Traffic simulation Model Council South Middlesbrough Arup 2015 – Junction Micro- AIMSUN Middlesbrough Borough Under / Traffic simulation Model Council development North Middlesbrough CH2M - Junction Micro- AIMSUN Middlesbrough Borough Hill / Traffic simulation Accessibility Council Study Middlehaven Middlesbrough Arup 2014 Junction Section of TRIPS Dock Bridge Borough / Traffic TVU Council Model Source: JMP/TVU

4.3 Reasoning for the use of the Strategic Level Model

A number of models have been developed for locations within the study area and these vary in scope depending upon the use they were intended for.

Page 19 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Strategic models such as TRIPS and VOYAGER deal with large areas but lack some of the more detailed features which could influence localised vehicle behaviour and are not always the best tool to assess the finer points of changes to highway layout.

Microsimulation models are extremely detailed and include the interactions between individual vehicles. These provide a robust tool for replicating complex junction and highway performance and for assessing the impact of any improvements or proposed changes. However, due the large amount of data and the high level of skill required to build them, they tend not to be applied to wider areas. This is the case for the study area where a large microsimulation model was developed but not completed.

As such, only localised microsimulation models are available across the study area.

The seven sites for consideration identified in the brief are spread across a wide geographic area in the study corridors. However, despite their geographical spread, the options for intervention in these areas are, in the main, interdependent in terms of impact on traffic. It is therefore not appropriate to consider them in isolation and this precludes the use of the local operational models. The most effective way to develop a highway options strategy therefore is to use a strategic model, which in effect, reduces the model options to the 2005 TRIPS model and the 2015 VOYAGER model.

Since the 2015 VOYAGER model is now available, it would make most sense to use this. It is thought that the VOYAGER model would be the more robust tool in the long term to use for this exercise. This is not without its risks as it is a new and untested model. The base year model has been validated but the future year models are still under development at this time. Consequently, the VOYAGER model’s Local Model Validation Report (LMVR) is not yet complete and the amount of information and supporting evidence is much less than for the TRIPS model.

The rest of this section considers how the new VOYAGER model compares to the old TRIPS model.

Page 20 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

4.4 Model Descriptions

TRIPS

The TRIPS model was validated to represent traffic conditions for the year 2005. The LMVR, attached as Appendix A1 to this document, explains the methodology used to build the model and how closely it matches observed data. It is considered good practice to adopt a model that is based on data that is not more than 6 years old. However, this is still appropriate for PCF Stage 1 onwards, and for this study it would be entirely proportionate to use the TRIPS model providing it is updated to give the appropriate level of assurance and that residual risks and uncertainty are understood.

Figure 4.4-1 Screenline locations

2015 and 2030 'future year' models were also built using proposed development information available at the time. In order to understand which of the three TRIPS models most closely represents current traffic conditions, a comparison of observed and modelled flows has been undertaken at a number of screenlines. The screenline locations are identified in the above figure.

VOYAGER

The Tees Valley Multi-Modal Model has been built within the Citilabs CUBE-Voyager software. The multi-modal model has a number of sub-modules, each representing a particular behavioural

Page 21 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

response to cost changes induced by the any transport interventions being modelled. The modelled responses are:

 Route Choice / assignment  Main mode choice – car or public transport  Sub Mode choice – either car or public transport, and Park and Ride  Destination choice – where to travel.

Highway routing responses are represented in the Voyager traffic assignment model, while the choice of public transport route (including choice of public transport sub-modes, e.g. bus or rail) is represented in the Voyager public transport assignment model. In addition to route choice these two assignment models provide measures of travel cost to be fed into the other sub-modules.

Choices which impact on travel such as the decision of where to live, where to work or whether to buy a car are not explicitly modelled. These decisions are assumed to be exogenous input, as these issues are better handled at a larger scale through the National Trip Ends model. They are incorporated implicitly in the reference case future year matrices, through the use of TEMPRO forecasts, and so are assumed fixed within any forecast year.

The assignment models produce travel costs in the form of generalised costs, i.e. a combination of various time and monetary costs associated with travel; it is on these costs (as in the “real world”) the model undertakes its assessment of travel choices. These costs are in turn affected by travel demand choices e.g. if more journeys are made by road, congestion increases as does the generalised cost of travel. To assist model validity, i.e. the model’s refection of real life choices which are not always monetary, demand is averaged between loops.

Demand is segmented into 5 user classes so to reflect the variation in value of time by different journey purpose:

 Car – Commute  Car – Work  Car – Other  LGV  HGV

The demand model operates at 12-hour level for the main travel choices (i.e. all but the assignment and routing choices). This ensures consistency between changes in trip making between time periods. As an example, one would expect an increase in home-to-work trips in the morning peak to be accompanied by an increase in work-to-home trips in the evening peak. The demands for the 12 hour day are then converted to hours as follows, for the purposes of the assignment models:

 Morning peak (08:00 – 09:00)  Inter-peak (average of 10:00 – 16:00)  Evening peak (17:00 – 18:00)

The VOYAGER model has a 2015 base year model, and future year models for 2020 and 2035. The 2020 model includes committed highway infrastructure interventions which include improvements to the A689.

Page 22 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

For Stage 0.2 of this study only the VOYAGER highway assignment model is available. It is expected that for Stage 0.3, the full PT/elasticity model will be used.

Also for Stage 0.2, the future year matrices will be obtained by applying a global TEMPRO derived factor to the validated base year matrix. This means that development traffic is distributed across the modelled network rather than concentrated at the proposed development sites. The full development based matrices for 2020 and 2035 will be used with the PT/elasticity model in Stage 0.3.

4.5 Model Validation

The TRIPS model flows at the screenline locations for 2005, 2015 and 2030 have been compared to observed traffic flows. The screenline locations and the corresponding observed traffic flows were extracted from the latest available version of the ‘Tees Valley Transport Monitoring Report’ document. A screenline can be defined as a boundary which usually covers several roads travelling in the same direction. The general movement of traffic, which may use alternative routes along the same corridor, can be assessed by counting the total flow across the screenline.

The model flows for the AM, IP and PM peak hour were initially converted to 12hr flows with the application of observed factors for expanding the peak hour to the corresponding time period. Once the 12hr flows have been calculated they were converted to 24hr AADT flows using the methodology prescribed in Part 4 of the COBA manual (Chapter 9). The resulting AADT flows were then compared to the traffic flow data for 2005 and 2012.

The table below presents the observed screenline flows for 2005 and 2012 and the modelled flows for 2005, 2015 and 2030 and suggests initial comparison with the 2015 base year Voyager model.

Table 4.5-1 Comparison of observed & modelled flows across screenlines. Voyager Screenline Screenline Observed AADT TRIPS Model AADT Model Number Name AADT 2005 2012 2005 2015 2030 2015 1 199,585 181,818 187,058 225,771 245,258 199,763 2 Teesside to 69,860 70,610 74,952 97,655 112,368 86,318 Hartlepool 3 South East 97,512 96,964 124,893 138,321 157,994 93,623 Durham 4 Darlington to 42,321 41,045 42,692 54,048 65,057 47,111 Teesside 5 South Durham 76,399 73,089 87,453 93,700 108,153 69,587 6 East 100,401 91,288 126,018 144,576 162,462 103,874 Middlesbrough 7 North 72,453 69,590 107,567 125,666 139,991 65,489 Yorkshire 8 East Cleveland 45,095 45,727 38,705 45,035 51,509 36,992 9 Yarm 32,612 27,893 31,173 35,847 40,067 32,377

Page 23 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Voyager Screenline Screenline Observed AADT TRIPS Model AADT Model Number Name AADT 2005 2012 2005 2015 2030 2015 10 South 63,450 57,678 73,220 82,957 97,064 55,647 Darlington 11 West 15,903 15,075 15,861 16,752 17,395 8,305 Darlington 12 South 77,130 73,675 66,708 66,196 72,505 69,617 Middlesbrough

Figure 4.5-1 Comparison of observed & modelled flows across screenlines.

It can be observed that the 2012 screenline flows in the majority of cases are lower than the 2005 flows. It can also be observed that the TRIPS forecast traffic flows for 2015 and 2030 appear to be considerably higher than the observed flows with the highest difference observed for the North Yorkshire screenline.

The screenline analysis shows that the 2012 observed flows are closest to the 2005 TRIPS base year model. Further changes would be needed to improve the existing 2005 base year model, such as known highway improvements implemented since 2005, to better represent the current year conditions. The VOYAGER 2015 model appears to compare well to the 2012 screenline flows. See Appendix A4 for evidence of model convergence.

4.6 Journey Times

TRIPS

The TRIPS 2005 model journey times and observed data have been compared to the latest TrafficMaster dataset for the study area. This was done to assess the suitability of the model in

Page 24 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

replicating journey times within the study area and to establish any significant changes in travel times within the study area over the intervening period.

The March 2015 dataset has been examined and ‘cleaned’ using statistical tests to remove any bias that relates to the number of observations on each of the TrafficMaster links. The modelled distances for the defined journey time routes were then compared to the distance information extracted from the TrafficMaster dataset for the corresponding links.

It was noted that key sections of the strategic network were not covered in routes a-o, such as along the A66 from Darlington to Middlesbrough and along the A1(M); additional routes were therefore added (routes p-t) to cover these gaps. As these additional routes were not included originally within the TRIPS model, there is no modelled distance available for these routes.”

The routes are defined in Table 4.6-1. Table 4.6-2 presents the comparison of the observed and modelled journey time route distances for each route by direction.

Table 4.6-1 Routes analysed for Journey Times Route From To Via a Hartlepool Stockton A689/A19 b Middlesbrough A172 c Hartlepool Middlesbrough A179/A19/Wolviston Rd/A19 d Acklam Yarm A1032/A66/A135 e Redcar Middlesbrough A66/Trunk Road/A1085 f Hartlepool Middlesbrough A179/A178/A1046/Tees Bridge Approach Rd g Marske-by-the-Sea A174/A1045/Ingleby Way h Middlesbrough Carthorne The Avenue/B1272/A66/A19 i Darlington A1044/A67 j A1(M) J59 Croft-on-Tees A167 k Stockton Sedgefield A1046/A1305/A177 A1027/Yarm Rd/Yarm Ln/A1035/A135/QE l Way/Myton Way/Barwick Way/A1044/B1380 m Harrowgate A1(M) J57 A1150/A66/Bridge Rd/A66(M) W Auckland Rd/Haughton Rd/Stockton n A1(M)J58 Rd/A66 Redcar Ln/A174/B1269/Church o Redcar Middlesbrough Ln/A171/Ormesby Bank/Cargo Fleet Ln p Darlington Middlesbrough A66 q Darligton Station Middlesbrough Station A66 r Darlington station Stockton station A66 A1(M) Bishop s A1(M) Barton A1(M) Middleham t A1(M) J60 A689/A19 A689

Page 25 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Table 4.6-2 Journey time comparison for modelled & observed values Model/ TrafficMaster Observed Route Direction Distance % Diff Distance (Km) (Km) SB 18.4 18.5 0.5% a NB 18.8 19.0 1.0% SB 13.2 13.2 0.5% b NB 13.1 13.2 1.2% SB 27.6 27.9 1.2% c NB 29.5 29.9 1.2% WB 15.8 16.5 4.8% d EB 16.1 16.8 4.2% WB 16.0 15.1 -5.1% e EB 15.9 15.3 -3.7% SB 19.2 18.1 -5.6% f NB 19.3 18.2 -5.7% WB 23.3 24.0 3.0% g EB 23.6 23.5 -0.3% SB 15.3 15.0 -1.6% h NB 15.9 14.8 -6.9% WB 19.4 19.3 -0.3% i EB 19.1 19.3 1.2% SB 12.7 12.9 1.6% j NB 12.9 12.9 0.0% NB 15.7 15.2 -3.2% k SB 15.3 15.5 1.2% SB 17.7 17.3 -2.1% l NB 17.9 18.0 0.7% SB 15.6 15.4 -0.8% m NB 15.4 15.9 3.7% EB 9.3 9.2 -1.2% n WB 9.3 9.2 -0.7% WB 23.6 23.4 -0.8% o EB 23.5 23.4 -0.2% EB 22.6 p WB 22.2 EB 24.7 q WB 24.7 EB 19.9 r WB 20.0 s NB 24.9 SB 22.2 t EB 14.4

Page 26 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Model/ TrafficMaster Observed Route Direction Distance % Diff Distance (Km) (Km) WB 14.5

Once the journey time routes had been defined it was possible to extract the corresponding journey time duration for each route. The TrafficMaster data was then compared to the 2005 model journey times dataset which was provided along with the model. The TRIPS 2005 journey time routes are shown in Figure 4.6-1 Defined journey paths for journey time analysis. and Figure 4.6-2 Defined journey paths comparison with public transport journey times.

Page 27 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Figure 4.6-1 Defined journey paths for journey time analysis.

Figure 4.6-2 Defined journey paths comparison with public transport journey times.

Page 28 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Table 4.6-3 presents the comparison of the observed (TrafficMaster) against the 2005 TRIPS model journey times. It can be seen that the overall pass rates are below the required 85% which is specified in DMRB (see also Appendix A2, Figures 1.1 to 1.4). The percentages reported below are slightly different from what has been reported in the Local Model Validation Report. Overall it can be seen that the TrafficMaster data indicates that journey times for routes d, h, I, j and n are faster than the modelled ones. For routes c, k, l and o the situation is reversed with the TrafficMaster dataset showing that the journey times are slower than the modelled ones.

Table 4.6-3 Modelled vs Observed journey time comparison against DMRB criteria Route Direction AM PM Model TM Model TM % Diff % Diff (mm:ss) (mm:ss) (mm:ss) (mm:ss) SB 25:17 25:23 0% 23:16 22:24 4% a NB 25:53 25:57 0% 26:31 26:12 1% SB 19:09 19:44 -3% 24:38 24:58 -1% b NB 23:31 23:35 0% 21:13 20:13 5% SB 25:41 29:41 -13% 30:38 26:32 15% c NB 25:28 27:29 -7% 27:01 26:44 1% WB 25:02 23:10 8% 26:41 20:49 28% d EB 25:14 24:09 4% 28:49 22:43 27% WB 19:12 19:41 -2% 17:47 18:08 -2% e EB 18:56 19:23 -2% 18:38 18:34 0% SB 26:39 23:37 13% 24:24 24:06 1% f NB 24:36 22:21 10% 25:49 22:14 16% WB 22:56 21:41 6% 21:01 19:53 6% g EB 22:15 21:17 5% 22:44 19:29 17% SB 18:45 15:24 22% 21:35 19:04 13% h NB 24:35 17:48 38% 25:50 17:21 49% WB 31:23 28:01 12% 29:13 24:48 18% i EB 28:43 22:57 25% 32:17 24:31: 32% SB 24:26 21:08 16% 28:25 18:26 54% j NB 27:56 18:42 49% 28:05: 20:48 35% NB 18:27 18:24 0% 15:19 20:41 -26% k SB 15:01 19:36 -23% 16:23 16:22 0% SB 20:42 28:52 -28% 20:07 26:12 -23% l NB 19:05 28:33 -33% 19:44 25:56 -24% SB 18:32 17:42 5% 19:25 16:22 19% m NB 18:45 18:01 4% 17:45 16:31 7% EB 25:35 20:24 25% 24:49 20:10 23% n WB 25:13 20:03 26% 27:05 20:58 29% WB 19:28 34:52 -44% 20:39 29:50 -31% o EB 22:29 32:25 -31% 19:53 32:34 -39% EB 20:14 20:08 p WB 21:47 19:44

Page 29 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Route Direction AM PM Model TM Model TM % Diff % Diff (mm:ss) (mm:ss) (mm:ss) (mm:ss) EB 25:46 25:22 q WB 26:23 24:56 EB 22:42 23:11 r WB 25:42 23:43 NB 14:14 13:42 s SB 12:35 11:59 EB 12:13 10:15 t WB 10:48 11:12 Routes A to O passing DMRB criteria 17/30 15/30 Percentage of routes (A to O) passing DMRB criteria (57%) (50%)

Further figures showing a schematic representation of each of the routes can be reviewed in Appendix A1. These clearly show which routes pass and fail the DMRB journey time validation criteria.

VOYAGER

The VOYAGER model was validated using the same journey paths as defined for the TRIPS model. The model validation compared to the criteria as set out in Tag Unit M3.1 Table 3 is:

 AM Peak: 87% of JT routes pass DMRB criteria (26/30)  PM Peak: 90% of JT routes pass DMRB criteria (27/30)

Therefore the VOYAGER model displays a much higher adherence to validation criteria than the TRIPS model.

Full details are shown in the table below:

Model TrafficMaster Route Direction Distance AM Time PM Time AM Time PM Time AM Diff PM Diff (Km) (minutes) (minutes) (minutes) (minutes) a SB 18.68 23.72 22.71 25.38 22.40 6.5 -1.4 NB 18.93 23.46 24.27 25.95 26.20 9.6 7.4 b SB 13.23 21.25 24.37 19.73 24.96 -7.7 2.4 NB 13.24 21.55 20.07 23.58 20.22 8.6 0.8 c SB 28.02 30.51 27.84 29.68 26.54 -2.8 -4.9 NB 29.01 26.92 30.31 30.33 29.51 11.3 -2.7 d WB 15.07 21.60 23.67 24.10 21.72 10.4 -9.0 EB 15.4 23.18 21.94 24.15 22.71 4.0 3.4 e WB 16.29 16.69 16.49 19.68 18.13 15.2 9.0 EB 16.23 16.79 16.09 19.39 18.57 13.4 13.3 f SB 19.31 24.36 26.87 23.62 24.09 -3.1 -11.5

Page 30 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Model TrafficMaster Route Direction Distance AM Time PM Time AM Time PM Time AM Diff PM Diff (Km) (minutes) (minutes) (minutes) (minutes) NB 19.41 22.08 20.45 22.34 22.24 1.2 8.1 g WB 23.39 19.86 22.36 21.68 19.88 8.4 -12.5 EB 23.63 21.02 21.58 21.28 19.48 1.2 -10.8 h SB 15.29 14.36 15.86 15.40 19.06 6.7 16.8 NB 15.47 15.94 16.53 17.79 17.34 10.4 4.7 i WB 19.3 24.81 23.36 28.01 24.80 11.4 5.8 EB 19.3 24.37 25.46 22.96 24.51 -6.1 -3.9 j SB 13.03 17.45 18.50 21.13 18.44 17.4 -0.3 NB 13.21 17.57 18.59 18.71 20.81 6.1 10.6 k NB 15.88 16.54 17.18 18.40 20.69 10.1 17.0 SB 15.46 18.92 17.34 19.59 16.36 3.4 -6.0 l SB 18.11 24.80 30.38 28.87 26.20 14.1 -15.9 NB 18.06 25.91 24.89 28.55 25.93 9.2 4.0 m SB 16.08 15.00 14.72 17.71 16.37 15.3 10.0 NB 16.11 15.12 16.21 18.02 16.51 16.1 1.8 n EB 9.3 20.65 20.37 19.67 19.43 -5.0 -4.8 WB 9.41 18.49 20.28 19.12 20.08 3.3 -1.0 o WB 24.25 32.19 30.42 33.88 28.71 5.0 -5.9 EB 24.2 32.13 34.73 31.45 31.55 -2.1 -10.1

4.7 Strategic Option Forecasts/Assessments

In summary, the 2005 Tees Valley TRIPS model has flows comparable to 2012 observed flows. The 2015 and 2030 year models have flows much higher than those observed in 2012 as they include as yet unfinished developments and associated demands. Journey times observed in 2015 are generally longer than those simulated by the 2005 TRIPS model. This may lead to the model underestimating existing congestion and therefore underreporting the need for intervention.

The 2020 and 2035 VOYAGER models use matrices factored up from the 2015 base using TEMPRO derived factors. This means that any proposed development traffic is spread out across the entire network and so congestion around the development site is likely to be underestimated. This methodology is acceptable for the second stage of this study as the proposed highway improvements are strategic in nature and not development specific. This methodology, which was agreed with TAME, is needed as the full matrices are not available at this stage.

For the final stage (0.3) of this study, the fully considered development matrices will be used. These will assign development trips directly to the development sites and so provide a more robust test for the final set of proposed highway interventions.

Page 31 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

4.8 Improving the suitability of the model

If the TRIPS model were to be used in Stage 0.2 we would need to assess which highway improvements and land use changes, implemented since 2005, should be added to our base year model.

The existing 2030 TRIPS model would form the basis of our horizon year model. We would need to understand which likely developments and committed highway improvements should be included in our horizon year model.

Since the VOYAGER model is brand new and based on the existing 2015 highway network conditions, and the developing 2020 model includes all committed developments and highway infrastructure improvements, it is assumed that this will form a more robust basis for testing any proposed further highway interventions.

However, since the ‘A19 Norton to Wynyard’ Road Investment Strategy scheme is not included in the 2020 model, and this scheme is likely to have a major strategic impact; it is recommended that a parallel set of modelling is undertaken which includes this important improvement.

4.9 Appraisal

Outputs from the option modelling will include changes in traffic flow and travel times, which will indicate the performance of each proposed scheme and may lead to refinement of the scheme designs. The outputs of this will also be fed into the TUBA economic assessment.

TUBA generated Benefit/Cost Ratios (BCRs) will be used as part of the scheme appraisal process. Such forecasts will be relatively coarse during this feasibility stage and this is acknowledged in the assessment process.

For the final Stage 0.3 test, a COBALT accident assessment will also be considered and presented as part of the appraisal process.

Page 32 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

5 Understanding the Existing Network Performance

5.1 Introduction

This section of the report provides a summary of the current situation of the Tees Valley road network. It includes a commentary of current transport and other policies, current travel demand and level of service, as well as current opportunities and constraints.

5.2 Routes Description and Key Constraints

5.2.1 Location 1: A66(M) and A1(M) Junction 57

5.2.1.1 Route Description From the south, the study area commences at the A1(M) Junction 57 with the A66(M). The route continues along the A66(M) for 1.8 miles east until it reaches Stapleton roundabout connecting with the A66 to the east and Stapleton Bank to the South. The A66(M) is 2 lane motorway in each direction for the majority of its length but reduces to single carriageway continuing east onto the A66 beyond Stapleton roundabout.

5.2.1.2 Key Constraints Junction 57 on the A1(M) has no north facing slip roads therefore any traffic wanting to access the Tees Valley from the north leaves at Junctions 58, 59 or 60. This causes stress on the local road network in Darlington and is considered a constraint on development across the Tees Valley and a constraint on growth for Durham Tees Valley Airport.

Although it is outside the extent of this location, the Grade II listed Blackwell Bridge and the A66 through Blackwell Village to the A167 Blands Corner roundabout is a downstream constraint on traffic flow.

The lack of north facing slip roads on the A1(M) is a significant constraint in Location 1.

5.2.1.3 Geology Published geological information on the solid and drift geology for this section of the route is presented on the Geotechnical constraints plans in Appendix D and shown in the table below.

Table 5.2-1 Solid and Drift Geology - A66(M) and A1(M) J57

Geology Type Geological Formation Geological Group / Age Description

Ford Formation Dolostone Solid Geology Zechstein / Permian Roxby Formation Mudstone, Calcareous

Firm to Very Stiff Clay with Drift Geology Till Quaternary Gravel and Cobbles

Page 33 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

A review of the main geotechnical hazards indicates that the site area has a very low risk in relation to geotechnical risks identified as part of this study, no other geotechnical hazards have been identified.

5.2.2 Location 2: A66 Darlington Bypass

5.2.2.1 Route Description The A66 Darlington Bypass is predominately single carriageway along its length. It commences as a continuation of the A66(M) at Stapleton roundabout and runs around the south and eastern outskirts of Darlington for 5.5 miles before reaching the A1150, Little Burdon Roundabout. Along the route there are five at-grade roundabouts of varying size, the first being Blands Corner between the A66 and A167, the second Roundabout with Neasham Road, the third Morton Palms with the A67, the fourth the roundabout with the B6279 and the fifth, Little Burdon Roundabout. The route also crosses three railways, one being the East Coast Mainline.

5.2.2.2 Key Constraints The existing route is constrained by the Grade II listed Blackwell Bridge crossing the River Tees. The bridge is directly east of Stapleton roundabout and is approximately 14 metres in width with a 10.6 metre wide single carriageway and footways either side. The Blackwell Bridge once carried the A1 and was doubled in width with a matching stone facing, covering reinforced concrete in 1960. East of the Blackwell Bridge, the route is also constrained by property frontages along the A66 at Blackwell.

This section of the route also passes over the East Coast Mainline Railway approximately 1 mile east of Blands Corner roundabout. This bridge would need to be widened if the route was to be upgraded to a dual carriageway.

The Blackwell Bridge crossing the River Tees is a significant constraint in Location 2 due to it being too narrow to accommodate a dual carriageway.

5.2.2.3 Geology Published geological information on the solid and drift geology for this section of the route is presented on the Geotechnical constraints plans in Appendix D and shown in the table below.

Table 5.2-2 Solid and Drift Geology - A66 Darlington Bypass

Geology Type Geological Formation Geological Group / Age Description

Seaham Formation Limestone, Dolomitic Edlington Formation Mudstone, calcareous Solid Geology Zechstein/ Permian Ford Formation Dolostone Roxby Formation Mudstone, Calcareous

Soft Clays and Silts, Loose Alluvium Sands and Gravels- Drift Geology Quaternary Typically a Firm to Very Stiff Till Clay with Gravel and Cobbles

Page 34 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Geology Type Geological Formation Geological Group / Age Description

Lacustrine Clay and Silt Glacio-lacustrine Sand Unknown, but likely to be Made Ground mixed granular and cohesive, possibly with contamination.

A review of the geotechnical hazards has identified a number of hazards that may pose an issue to any proposed works. These include areas with significant potential for compressibility problems and have been designated as hazard Class D (high) on HAGDMS. The underlying solid geology is calcareous and carries a Soluble Rocks risk, i.e. a moderate possibility of localised natural subsidence related degradation of bedrock.

A significant area of Alluvium associated with the River Tees is shown at the western end of the route. This has a hazard rating of Class C (medium) on HAGDMS; where there is a ‘possibility of running sands if the water table rises’. Glacial Till is shown to be present. This has a shrink swell hazard rating of Class C (ground conditions predominantly medium plasticity) in the area between Maidendale Railway Bridge and South Burdon Bridleway.

An historical landfill site is present immediately west of the River Tees at Snipe Bridge. There is a risk that gas and groundwater contamination may have migrated to near or below the road in these areas. There is also an area of dismantled railway towards the eastern end of the route which has a high risk of contamination associated with it.

Hazards include running sands, compressible soils, soluble rocks, historical landfill contamination, shrink swell from glacial till, gas and groundwater migration, and dismantled railway.

5.2.3 Location 3: Darlington Northern Relief Road

5.2.3.1 Route Description The existing road network commences at the Junction 59 of the A1(M). This section of the route heads south along the A167 for 2.5 miles through and before reaching the roundabout with the A1150. The route then continues east along the A1150 which is predominantly single carriageway, around the northern outskirts of Darlington for 2 miles and passes over the East Coast Mainline before reaching the Little Burdon Roundabout to the north east of Darlington.

An offline route option may be appropriate to connect the A1(M) to the A66 at Little Burdon Roundabout.

5.2.3.2 Key Constraints The A167 north of the roundabout with the A1150 is a WS2 carriageway however, it has now been sterilized with central pedestrian refuges on safety grounds. Between this roundabout and the A1(M) there are numerous accesses on the eastern side of the carriageway and the vertical

Page 35 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

geometry is below current standards. The existing A1150 is a single carriageway, dense urban environment constrained by property frontages and it passes over the East Coast Mainline.

An offline route option between junction 59 of the A1(M) and Little Burdon Roundabout would need to cross the East Coast Mainline and various watercourses including the .

5.2.3.3 Geology Published geological information on the solid and drift geology for this section of the route is presented on the Geotechnical constraints plans in Appendix D and shown in the table below.

Table 5.2-3 Solid and Drift Geology - Darlington Northern Relief Road

Geology Type Geological Formation Geological Group / Age Description

Seaham Formation Limestone, Dolomitic Edlington Formation Mudstone, calcareous Solid Geology Zechstein Group / Permian Ford Formation Dolostone Roxby Formation Mudstone, Calcareous Soft Clays and Silts, Loose Alluvium Sand and Gravels- Clays, Silts, Sands and Head Gravels Firm to Very Stiff Clay with Till Gravel and Cobbles Drift Geology Tidal Flats Deposits Quaternary Sand, Silt and Clay Glacio-fluvial Sand and Gravel Glacio-lacustrine Sand Unknown, but likely to be Made Ground mixed granular and cohesive, possibly with contamination

A review of the main geotechnical hazards associated with Location 3 has identified a number of geotechnical hazards that may pose an issue to any proposed works. These include Alluvium, Head and Lacustrine deposits, which are likely to be highly compressible. Stability of excavations and the widening of any embankments could also be an issue.

Hazards include compressible deposits, running sands, soluble rocks, stability of excavations, settlement and cratering issues and historical landfill contamination.

Alluvium, Head and River Terrace Deposits have the potential for running sands, with associated settlement and cratering issues. One historical landfill site is present within 10m of the road approximately 300m east of the A167 / A1150 roundabout. There is a risk that gas and groundwater contamination may have migrated to near or below the road in this area. If it was proven that the landfill extended inside the Highways England boundary, then there is a potential for long term settlement.

There is also a high risk of compressible deposits in most of the areas within this location. There is also a potential for soluble rock problems in localised areas and is therefore considered to be a medium risk area.

Page 36 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

5.2.4 Location 4: A66 South-west Stockton-on-Tees to A19

5.2.4.1 Route Description The A66 south west of Stockton-on-Tees heading east towards the A19 is a mix of two and three lane dual carriageway with 6 grade separated junctions. This section of the route commences on the A66 at the Elton interchange and continues for approximately 5 miles where it reaches the junction with the A19. The route consists of a number of lane gain/lane drops between junctions and passes over the Surtees Bridge crossing the River Tees approximately 2.5 miles from the Elton Interchange. The bridge is approximately 40 metres wide carrying 3 lanes of traffic in both directions and a pedestrian and cycle track.

Highways England have installed Ramp Metering on the A66 slip roads at . Ramp metering is a proven method of using traffic signals to regulate the flow of traffic from the slip road onto the main carriageway, at a level that maximises throughput on the highway. Sensors in the road detect congestion and activate the lights, which releases a few vehicles at a time allowing traffic to merge in a more controlled manner, reducing the bottleneck effect.

5.2.4.2 Key Constraints Teesside Park is built on marshland. There have been significant highway interventions to combat subsidence on the access road however, these have been unsuccessful. There are water mains crossing the A66 on piled rafts which are not subsiding, resulting in undulations in the carriageway.

There is currently a National Grid high voltage overhead electricity cable that passes over the A66 just before the Elton Interchange and a rail overbridge just west of the A1027 Yarm Road Interchange.

The subsidence at Teesside Park is a significant constraint in Location 4.

5.2.4.3 Geology Published geological information on the solid and drift geology for this section of the route is presented on the Geotechnical constraints plans in Appendix D and shown in the table below.

Table 5.2-4 Solid and Drift Geology present - A66 South-west Stockton-on-Tees to A19

Geology Type Geological Formation Geological Group / Age Description

Solid Geology Sandstone Sherwood Sandstone Group Sandstone

Soft Clays and Silts, Loose Alluvium Sand and Gravels- Firm to Very Stiff Clay with Till Gravel and Cobbles Drift Geology Quaternary Tidal Flats Deposits Sand, Silt and Clay Glacio-fluvial Sand and Gravel Glacio-lacustrine Sand

Page 37 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Unknown, but likely to be Made Ground - mixed granular and cohesive, possibly with contamination

A review of the main geotechnical hazards associated with Location 4 has identified a number of geotechnical hazards that may pose an issue to the proposed works. These include areas with significant potential for compressibility problems, particularly the area around Teesside Park. The risks arise from extensive Alluvium, Tidal Flat and Glacio-lacustrine Deposits in this area. Areas of slope instability to be around Hart Burn Beck Culvert, Red House Farm Underpass, Moor House Beck Culvert and Preston Railway Underbridge.

Also of particular relevance are some Class 1A (major) slope defects recorded in some of these locations. The presence of these significant defects could pose some very significant constraints and problems for any future works. A summary of these Class 1A earthwork observations recorded on HAGDMS are presented in the table below:

Table 5.2-5 Location 4 HAGDMS Earthwork Defects

Observation HD41 Location HAGDMS Defect Description Features Observation No. Class Grade

‘Embankment separating from wingwall. Soil pulling away from base of lighting column and cracks 1A 5 547261 around base of crash barrier. Possible slip developing downslope’ ‘large scale failure approx. 6.5m wide 2.5 m high 1A 5 547356 South of Long breadth 5.8m caused by washout’’ Newton Bridge ‘Over steepened slope at crest, possible developing 1A 4 537556 backscarp. Hummocky underfoot’ ‘Over steepened slope at crest with minor slip within 30cm of barrier. Possible tension cracks further 1A 4 537554 down slope. Crack in barrier foundation near bridge wingwall’ Bakehouse ‘18.6m long backscar located 2.8m from crash retaining wall barrier and spans light column 582. Base of slope 1A 4 548104 north further cracks through bulge’ Bakehouse ‘Series of discordant stacked tension cracks behind retaining wall and beneath crash barrier; up to 0.2m deep approx. 1A 5 548045 south 60m long. Tension cracks also on slope’

Whessoe ‘Discontinuous tension cracks in upper part of slope 1A 5 548004 Underpass and crest. Undermining lighting column 5E5 VRS. Dislocated trees. East of River ‘Major soil slip with tension cracks at crest. Water 5 55346 Tees ponding at toe and behind toe bulge’

Information from the BGS show nine historical landfill sites are present. If it was proven that landfills extended inside the Highways England boundary there is a high potential for differential settlement and long term consolidation. In the area of Teesside Park, there is likely to be some significant contamination issues of the surrounding land, including that from railway land and sidings. Hazards include significant subsidence at Teesside Park, slope instability, running sands, shrink swell, rock mining, historical landfills, long term consolidation and differential settlement, significant contamination, shrink swell in glacial till

Page 38 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Deposits with significant potential for running sand are mostly present at the area around Teesside Park and the area around Yarm Road Interchange. It is noteworthy that anecdotal evidence suggests that there have been significant problems with subsidence at Teesside Park Junction and the connecting local roads at this locality. Glacial Till in this area has a shrink swell hazard rating of Class C so there is a moderate potential for shrink and swell issues.

An area designated as ‘conclusive rock mining area’ has been recorded on HAGDMS between Long Newton Cattle Creep and Darlington Road Culvert at Long Newton. It is likely that the underlying Sherwood Sandstone has been quarried for building stones.

The geotechnical risks associated with this location that could influence any proposed alignment options are considered to be very high in this area. The presence of compressible ground, historical landfills, mining and quarrying instability and running sands means that there is increased potential for differential settlement and long term settlement of proposed structures and pavements at a number of locations. There have been significant problems with subsidence at Teesside Park Junction and the connecting local roads in areas as mentioned in the brief. Slope instability and landslides of existing earthworks are expected to be an issue as is indicated by the presence of Class 1A defects and HD41 earthwork feature grades 4 and 5 near to the Long Newton Bridge and at Bakehous north and south retaining walls east of Preston Railway Bridge. The presence of soluble rocks in this area would be a problem for any proposed structures necessitating deep foundations below any weaker superficial deposits. Contamination issues arising from nearby and underlying landfills and areas of Made Ground are also a risk.

5.2.5 Location 5: A66 from A19 to Teesport

5.2.5.1 Route Description The A66 east of the A19 to Teesport is operated and maintained by Middlesbrough Borough Council. This section of the A66 passes straight through the centre of Middlesbrough for 3 miles. This is a very dense urban environment and part of the route is elevated on viaduct. There are four grade separated junctions on this section. At Cargo Fleet Roundabout the A171 links the A66 with the A174, the trunk road to Teesport. This junction is at grade. From Cargo Fleet Roundabout this section of the A66 continues east for 2.5 miles towards the roundabout with the A1053, Grangetown. There are three signalised junctions and two at grade roundabouts on this section.

5.2.5.2 Key Constraints The A66 passes straight through the centre of Middlesbrough with closely spaced junctions and substandard weaving lengths. Approximately 1 mile of the A66 is carried on Viaduct with dense development at either side.

There is currently a National Grid high voltage overhead electricity cable that passes over the A66 at Cargo Fleet Roundabout.

The most significant constraint in Location 5 is the length of the A66 carried on viaduct.

Page 39 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

5.2.5.3 Geology Published geological information on the solid and drift geology for this section of the route is presented on the Geotechnical constraints plans in Appendix D and shown in the table below.

Table 5.2-6 Solid and Drift Geology - A66 from A19 to Teesport

Geology Type Geological Formation Geological Group / Age Description

Sherwood Sandstone Group / Sherwood Sandstone Sandstone Triassic Mercia Mudstone Group - Solid Geology Mercia Mudstone Group Mudstone Triassic Redcar Mudstone Formation / Redcar Mudstone Formation Mudstone Jurassic

Soft Clays and Silts, Loose Alluvium Sands and Gravels

Tidal Flats Deposits Quaternary Sand, Silt and Clay Peat Fibrous Organic Material Drift Geology Glacio-lacustrine Sand Unknown, but likely to be Made Ground - mixed granular and cohesive, possibly with contamination

Information from the BGS website confirm that there are at least 21no. separate locations which have evidently contaminated ground associated with them and in close proximity to the route. This includes historical landfill sites that are understood to be present immediately below the route. There is also a disused gas holder station north of Area 5.

The drift deposits present at Location 5 comprise a mixture of Alluvium, Peat, Tidal Flats Deposits and Glacio-lacustrine Deposits, all of which are compressible in nature to varying degrees. The Alluvium and Tidal Flats deposits typically have the potential to act as running sands, which in turn may result in settlement and cratering at the surface.

Hazards include highly compressible deposits, running sands, soluble rocks, settlement and cratering and historical landfill contamination

Geological information from BGS indicate that Peat and Alluvium are present southeast of Newport Junction at Area 2. Alluvium is also shown to be present at other sections of this area including the area between Marton Road Interchange and the area west of Middlesbrough Junction. The eastern section of the site from A66 / B1513 / A171 Junction is shown to be constructed on historical landfills. These areas are considered to be potential risk areas due to compressible ground, which could pose settlement issues at various locations in this area. There is also a risk of soluble rock which could impact on any proposed structures with deep foundation options below any weaker superficial deposits. Contaminated soils and groundwater could also be a significant issue in this area.

Page 40 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

5.2.6 Location 6: A689 Tees Valley

5.2.6.1 Route Description The A689 through Tees Valley commences at the County Durham/Hartlepool Borough boundary and passes north of the village of Wynyard for 3 miles to meet the A19 Wolviston Interchange. It then continues past the A19 east for 3 miles towards . The route west of the A19 is dual carriageway and there are 3 at-grade roundabouts of varying size. The junction with the A19 is grade separated.

5.2.6.2 Key Constraints There are no key highway or structural constraints identified on this section of the network.

5.2.6.3 Geology Published geological information on the solid and drift geology for this section of the route is presented on the Geotechnical constraints plans in Appendix D and shown in the table below.

Table 5.2-7 Solid and Drift - A689 Tees Valley

Geology Type Geological Formation Geological Group / Age Description

Roxby Formation Mudstone, Calcareous Seaham Formation Limestone, Dolomitic Zechstein Group / Permian Edlington Formation Mudstone, Calcareous Solid Geology Ford Formation Dolostone Sherwood Sandstone Group / Sherwood Sandstone Group Sandstone Triassic

Soft Clays and Silts, Loose Alluvium Sands and Gravels Typically a Firm to Very Stiff Till Clay with Gravel and Cobbles Glaciofluvial Quaternary Sands and Gravels Drift Geology Clays and Silts, usually Lacustrine laminated Clays, Silts, Sands and Head Gravels Glacio-lacustrine Sand

A review of the main geotechnical hazards associated with Location 6 has identified drift deposits comprising Alluvium, Lacustrine and Head Deposits with a high risk for compressibility when loaded. Drift deposits are shown to have a ‘significant potential for running sands with a change in surface and subsurface water flow’, with a resultant issue of settlement and cratering at the near surface.

Hazards include soluble rocks with subsidence and dissolution, compressible deposits, running sands, historical landfill contamination, settlement and cratering and mining

Page 41 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Soluble rocks present across Location 6 are calcareous and are thought to have a ‘moderate possibility of localised natural subsidence or dissolution, with associated degradation of bedrock, especially in adverse conditions such as concentrated subsurface water flow’.

Information from the BGS website confirm that two historical landfill sites are present within Location 6. There is a risk that soil, gas and groundwater contamination is below the road in these areas. An area designated as ‘inconclusive evaporite mining area’ has also been recorded around Tees Dock Road between A1053 and Tees Dock Road / A1085 / Greystone Road Roundabout. There is a risk the mined (or quarried) area has subsequently been in filled with material of variable composition, including that with high and/or variable compressibility characteristics.

5.2.7 Location 7: A689 County Durham

5.2.7.1 Route Description The A689 County Durham commences at the roundabout at Junction 60 of the A1(M) and is predominantly single carriageway for approximately 2 miles to the roundabout with the A177, south west of Sedgefield. This section of the route then continues along the A689 to reach the roundabout with the A177 Stockton Road and is dual carriageway along its length. The A689 passes underneath the ECM5/145 railway bridge which carries the East Coast Mainline over the carriageway east of Bradbury and then passes over the railway line from Stockton-on-Tees.

The A689, which runs to the north of the Tees Valley, provides an alternative to the A66 from the north, linking the A1(M) to the A19.

5.2.7.2 Key Constraints The A689 is constrained by the East Coast Mainline railway bridge approximately half a mile from the roundabout between the A1(M) (Junction 60) and the A689. The carriageway cross section is approximately 10 metres in carriageway width below the bridge with a 1.8 metre and 2.3 metre verge to both sides and a reduced headroom of 4.9 metres. It is anticipated that the road section at this location is too narrow to accommodate a dual carriageway without demolition and reconstruction of the bridge.

The East Coast Mainline is a significant constraint in Location 7 as it runs over the carriageway on a bridge which is too narrow to accommodate a dual carriageway.

5.2.7.3 Geology Published geological information on the solid and drift geology for this section of the route is presented on the Geotechnical constraints plans in Appendix D and shown in the table below

Table 5.2-8 Solid and Drift Geology - A689 County Durham

Geology Type Geological Formation Geological Group / Age Description

Roxby Formation Mudstone, Calcareous Solid Geology Zechstein Group / Permian Ford Formation Dolostone

Page 42 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Geology Type Geological Formation Geological Group / Age Description

Soft Clays, Silts, intermixed Alluvium with Loose Sands and Gravels Firm to Very Stiff Clay with Till Quaternary Gravel and Cobbles Glaciofluvial Sands and Gravels Drift Geology Clays and Silts, usually Lacustrine laminated Unknown, but likely to be Made Ground mixed granular and cohesive, possibly with contamination

Information from the BGS website confirms that a historical landfill site is present within

Hazards include compressible deposits, running sands, soluble rocks, subsidence and dissolution, historical landfill and made ground contamination, settlement and cratering, subsidence or dissolution, coal mining

Location 7, less than 15m from the route. At this stage it’s considered that there is a relatively minor risk that gas and groundwater contamination could have migrated under the road. Some contamination risks exist for the known areas of Made Ground, either to the south or below the A689 carriageway. Compressible drift either comprising Alluvium and Lacustrine deposits or the Made Ground noted above is a risk. The A1(M) Junction 60 is within an area potentially affected by past coal mining activities. Despite this, at this stage the probability of coal mine workings affecting the proposed works is currently considered fairly low.

Alluvium and Glaciofluvial deposits have been identified to have the potential for running sands with a change in surface and subsurface water flow. If this materialises there could be a resultant issue of settlement and cratering at the surface with the potential of damage to structures and utilities and problems with excavation stability. Soluble rocks of the Roxby Formation are present below the eastern end of this Location. The formation is calcareous and considered to have a ‘moderate possibility of localised natural subsidence or dissolution.

5.3 Tees Valley Journeys

Connectivity in the Tees Valley varies greatly, with north-south journeys to destinations beyond the region typically faring better in terms of journey time and journey time reliability than east-west journeys within the region. The Statement of Transport Ambition, published by the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Tees Valley Unlimited in April 2011, describes the current situation.

For travel within the Tees Valley public transport does not compare favourably to travel by road in terms of journey time.

In terms of north-south journeys, rail provides an access into the Tees Valley via Darlington. Darlington is located on the (ECML) and is well connected to the north, to Durham, Newcastle and beyond to Edinburgh, and south to York, with links to Leeds and London. In addition to this, Grand Central operates five services a day each way (four on Sundays) from

Page 43 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

London Kings Cross direct to , with stops in the Tees Valley at and Hartlepool. The journey from London to Hartlepool takes between 2 hours 54 minutes and 3 hours 20 minutes1. With respect to north-south journeys therefore, rail performs well. This, in part, accounts for the 360,000 return trips that are taken from Darlington to London each year.

In contrast, east-west public transport journeys within the Tees Valley do not compare favourably to journeys by car in terms of journey time. The Statement of Transport Ambition, describes several scenarios, including that of a journey between Darlington to Stockton or Middlesbrough, which at peak times a rail station to rail station journey takes an average of 24 and 26 minutes by car, respectively (see section 4.6), but double to triple that time, 40-60 minutes, by bus or rail. This public transport disconnect between Darlington, which is well served by trains on the ECML, and onward journeys into the Tees Valley which are less well served, is thought to detract from the perceived viability of the region for doing business and lead to additional journeys being made by road.

The Tees Valley has international links, through Teesport and Durham Tees Valley Airport. As reported in the Statement for Transport Ambition, Teesport is the fourth busiest port in the UK in terms of goods lifted and, as reported in the Strategic Economic Plan, is the largest export port in England. Considering that the Tees Valley is one of the few regions of the UK which is a net exporter by GDP2, it is evident that the port, rail and road connections for freight are of high importance to the economy of the region.

On the rail network, freight and passenger trains compete for space, which results in issues such as capacity constraints around Middlesbrough station. Freight trains are also limited by the loading gauge of the rail network. In parts of the Tees Valley, the loading gauge is less than W8, which precludes the transport of containers, and in turn could affect any future plans for a container terminal along the coast (see Figure 5.3-1). As a result, the strategic road network has to have the capacity and offer sufficient journey time reliability to be able to accommodate future growth at the port, otherwise economic growth centred on the port activities may be at risk.

1 Source: Grand Central North East and Yorkshire timetable - 17 May to 12 December 2 Source: PD Ports: http://www.pdports.co.uk/en/our-locations/teesport/

Page 44 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Figure 5.3-1 Loading Gauge of the Tees Valley rail network (Statement of Transport Ambition, 2011, Tees Valley Unlimited)

The main road network in the Tees Valley comprises the A1(M) and A19, with north-south connections via Darlington and Middlesbrough respectively, and the east-west A66, A689 and A174, which connect Redcar and Middlesbrough to the A19, A1(M) and beyond. As strategic routes, the A1(M), A19, A174, and the A66 west of the A19, and the A1053 between the A174 and A66 fall under the remit of Highways England. The A66 east of the A19 comes under the authority of Middlesbrough Borough Council and Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council. The A689 falls under the auspices of the local highways authorities of Durham County Council, Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council and Hartlepool Borough Council. In the 2013 White Paper Action for Roads, the DfT stresses the importance of non-motorway strategic routes, and in particular underlines the significant role the A19 plays in linking the residents and businesses of the Tees Valley with each other and the rest of the country.

As reported elsewhere in this document, sections of these key routes, in particular the A19 and A66 in the vicinity of Stockton and Middlesbrough, are highly congested which, among other impacts, affects journey time reliability. This represents a significant threat to local, regional and national economic priorities, and serves to reduce economic potential, especially at peak times.

For freight journeys from Teesport and from the industrial parks located in the region, in particular in Middlesbrough and Redcar and Cleveland, reliable road and rail connections are vital.

Page 45 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

5.4 Traffic Flow Data Traffic flows have been analysed across the highway network with the geographical scope of the study.

Figure 5.4-1 Study Area

Page 46 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Traffic flow data at TRADS sites provides the highest level of detail as it is collected constantly and so by analysing average daily flows reduces the traffic level variations which occur on a daily basis. Where TRADS data are unavailable, survey data was used to provide traffic levels at key locations. The survey data was collected in order validate the new VOYAGER model. The key locations for where data was available are shown below.

Figure 5.4-2 Location map of sites with data

The upcoming ‘North of England Regional Model’ being developed by Mouchel on behalf of Highways England, plus the new ‘Tees Valley Area’ VOYAGER model being developed by TVU will allow us to assess the amount of traffic entering and exiting the area during the peak hours.

Table 5.4-1 Traffic flow data for major roads in study area Site Trunk/ Description AADT (vehicles) HGV% No Principal TRADS Survey* TRIPS* Voyager* TRADS Survey TRIPS* Voyager* 1 A66 (M) 15,000 - 23,700 18,300 16.5% - 10.5% 9.0% Trunk

2 A66 Bridge Rd 19,000 19,500 26,900 18,600 16.1% 8.5% 10.1% 8.8% Trunk

A66 Darlington 3 19,000 21,600 33,700 19,300 15.2% 8.5% 4.1% 3.8% Trunk Bypass

Page 47 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Site Trunk/ Description AADT (vehicles) HGV% No Principal TRADS Survey* TRIPS* Voyager* TRADS Survey TRIPS* Voyager* A66 Darlington 4 19,000 - 35,300 32,500 11.0% - 6.4% 1.4% Trunk Bypass

A66 Long 5 30,000 36,600 37,700 37600 10.5% 8.5% 9.2% 6.4% Trunk Newton

6 A66 Stockton 43,000 57,300 59,300 59,300 8.9% - 4.6% 5.4% Trunk

A66 Makro 7 52,000 - 59,200 66,500 8.0% - 3.8% 5.0% Trunk Teeside

8 A1(M) J58_J59 44,000 59,700 44,800 51,100 16.2% 23.4% 9.6% 2.9% Trunk

9 A1(M) J59_J60 43,000 57,400 33,500 55,300 14.8% 23.4% 2.9% 4.8% Trunk

10 A689 W - - 30,200 27,300 - - 3.3% 6.7% Principal

A689 11 - - 43,700 29,200 - - 4.2% 7.9% Principal Sedgefield

A689 Wynyard 12 - - 29,000 19,900 - - 12.9% 3.9% Principal Woods

13 A19 N - 56,700 43,000 57,700 - 15.0% 11.5% 5.8% Trunk

14 A689 E - 30,300 30,200 31,700 - 8.1% 5.5% 5.3% Principal

15 A177 - 14,500 21,600 12,700 - 8.1% 5.7% 12.2% Principal

16 A19 S - 80,200 67,400 78,100 - 15.0% 9.1% 5.6% Trunk

A66 Ormesby 17 - 53,600 53,000 55,000 - 8.5% 9.3% 5.2% Principal Beck

A66 Normanby 18 - 32,100 48,200 34,300 - 8.5% 9.5% 5.7% Principal Beck

A167 19 22,000 35,100 24,400 - 8.1% 12.2% 6.4% Principal Darlington

20 A1150 21,500 21,700 21,700 - 8.1% 7.9% 5.8% Principal

21 A174 Ormesby - 32,800 37,600 31,100 - 8.1% 3.8% 6.8% Principal

*AADT Derived from factoring peak hour data

Page 48 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Table 5.4-2 Traffic flows for major roads in study area

AM Peak Hour Flows AM Peak Hour HGV % PM Peak Hour Flows PM Peak Hour HGV%

Description

Site No.

TRIPS TRIPS TRIPS TRIPS

Direction

Survey Survey Survey Survey

TRADS TRADS TRADS TRADS

Voyager Voyager Voyager Voyager

EB 810 - 951 560 10% - 9% 11% 718 - 811 698 5% - 7% 6% 1 A66 (M) WB 612 - 876 783 11% - 13% 10% 716 - 1,114 576 5% - 4% 7% WB 1,021 774 973 560 9% 9% 12% 10% 838 819 1,227 674 5% 5% 4% 6% 2 A66 Bridge Rd EB 710 765 1,166 783 12% 9% 8% 11% 921 704 956 698 5% 5% 7% 6% A66 Darlington EB 1,080 852 1,293 718 9% 9% 3% 4% 1,015 962 1,247 826 4% 5% 3% 2% 3 Bypass WB 922 735 1,224 608 9% 9% 4% 6% 1,034 1,004 1,581 878 4% 5% 2% 3% A66 Darlington NB 824 - 1,165 1,334 9% - 12% 2% 1,004 - 1,635 1,510 3% - 5% 2% 4 Bypass SB 1,138 - 1,303 1,505 7% - 3% 1% 764 - 1,258 966 4% - 5% 1% EB 1,675 1,711 1,655 1,740 7% 9% 7% 8% 1,407 1,509 1,320 1,477 4% 5% 8% 5% 5 A66 Long Newton WB 1,629 1,698 1,253 1,584 8% 9% 12% 7% 1,682 1,737 1,519 1,773 3% 5% 5% 4% EB 2,953 3,148 2,938 3,011 6% 9% 6% 7% 2,090 2,206 1,931 2,246 3% 5% 3% 4% 6 A66 Stockton WB 2,024 2,148 2,270 2,177 8% 9% 5% 6% 2,822 2,984 3,267 2,976 3% 5% 2% 4% A66 Makro EB 3,464 - 2,926 3,259 5% - 5% 6% 2,396 - 1,782 2,582 3% - 3% 3% 7 Teeside WB 2,136 - 1,639 2,240 8% - 6% 6% 3,203 - 2,826 3,049 3% - 1% 4% NB 1,828 2,291 1,271 1,850 18% 24% 11% 4% 2,031 2,484 1,761 2,255 10% 17% 6% 3% 8 A1(M) J58_J59 SB 1,989 2,429 1,661 1,922 13% 24% 4% 3% 1,887 2,155 2,060 2,028 14% 17% 4% 2% NB 1,804 2,256 876 1,981 19% 23% 1% 5% 2,128 2,067 955 2,129 10% 24% 1% 3% 9 A1(M) J59_J60 SB 2,111 1,795 1,231 1,820 12% 23% 4% 6% 1,860 2,420 1,548 2,287 13% 24% 2% 3% 10 A689 W EB - - 1,335 1,352 - - 0% 7% - - 1,035 1,101 - - 1% 6%

Page 49 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

AM Peak Hour Flows AM Peak Hour HGV % PM Peak Hour Flows PM Peak Hour HGV%

Description

Site No.

TRIPS TRIPS TRIPS TRIPS

Direction

Survey Survey Survey Survey

TRADS TRADS TRADS TRADS

Voyager Voyager Voyager Voyager

WB - - 1,051 777 - - 5% 8% - - 1,360 1,195 - - 2% 4% EB - - 2,360 1,661 - - 2% 8% - - 1,558 1,201 - - 3% 5% 11 A689 Sedgefield WB - - 1,222 946 - - 11% 9% - - 2,812 1,295 - - 2% 5% A689 Wynyard EB - - 1,933 940 - - 7% 5% - - 884 854 - - 4% 3% 12 Woods WB - - 646 686 - - 28% 4% - - 1,950 770 - - 2% 3% NB - 2,086 1,894 2,154 - 15% 8% 7% - 2,790 1,625 2,773 - 9% 10% 4% 13 A19 N SB - 2,578 974 2,455 - 15% 8% 7% - 2,202 1,536 2,168 - 9% 7% 4% EB - 1,541 919 1,222 - 10% 7% 5% - 1,417 1,222 1,296 - 4% 2% 3% 14 A689 E WB - 1,112 1,083 1,547 - 10% 8% 6% - 1,163 1,068 1,479 - 4% 3% 3% NB - 481 862 542 - 10% 15% 10% - 616 996 743 - 4% 4% 6% 15 A177 SB - 1,020 724 744 - 10% 9% 10% - 649 897 452 - 4% 6% 6% NB - 3,206 2,433 3,013 - 15% 10% 7% - 3,821 2,992 3,500 - 9% 6% 4% 16 A19 S SB - 3,529 3,491 3,276 - 15% 7% 7% - 3,076 2,382 3,049 - 9% 5% 4% EB - 2,154 1,336 2,055 - 9% 11% 6% - 2,188 1,941 2,167 - 5% 3% 3% 17 A66 Ormesby Beck WB - 2,504 1,600 2,529 - 9% 10% 7% - 2,102 2,014 2,121 - 5% 5% 4% A66 Normanby EB - 1,090 1,016 1,047 - 9% 18% 6% - 1,548 2,237 1,664 - 5% 2% 4% 18 Beck WB - 1,580 1,956 1,653 - 9% 7% 7% - 1,177 1,892 1,221 - 5% 4% 4% NB - 921 1,287 931 - 10% 4% 7% - 931 1,230 900 - 4% 6% 4% 19 A167 Darlington SB - 795 1,199 854 - 10% 12% 9% - 980 1,413 1,023 - 4% 9% 5% 20 A1150 Darlington EB - 776 695 763 - 10% 6% 7% - 1,009 810 955 - 4% 5% 2%

Page 50 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

AM Peak Hour Flows AM Peak Hour HGV % PM Peak Hour Flows PM Peak Hour HGV%

Description

Site No.

TRIPS TRIPS TRIPS TRIPS

Direction

Survey Survey Survey Survey

TRADS TRADS TRADS TRADS

Voyager Voyager Voyager Voyager

WB - 860 613 824 - 10% 11% 8% - 830 935 838 - 4% 3% 6% EB - 1,658 1,935 1,555 - 10% 1% 7% - 1,449 1,303 1,323 - 10% 5% 5% 21 A174 Ormesby WB - 1,315 1,694 1,197 - 10% 5% 8% - 1,522 2,148 1,441 - 10% 2% 5%

Page 51 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Table 5.4-1 shows all flow data available at each site and the percentage of HGVs. TRADS data was only available for sites 1-9. This is likely to be the most reliable data source as it is collected constantly throughout the year.

The survey data used to validate the VOYAGER model was provided for peak hours only and so was factored up to get Annual Average Daily Traffic. This data was collected over a period of time and normalised to represent a neutral month in 2014. Due to the low growth in the area it has been assumed (by TVU) that this represents a neutral month in 2015 and is the basis of the 2015 VOYAGER model validation.

Flow data from the TRIPS model is also shown in order to compare the observed and modelled flow. These data are available for sites 10-12 which has no observed data.

In general terms all three data sets compare favourably to each other. TRADS and survey data show similar flows at sites 2, 3 and 5 (3 out of 5 = 60%). TRADS and modelled flows compare well at sites 1,2,5,7 and 8 (5 out of 9 = 56%). Modelled and surveyed flows are similar at sites 2, 5, 6, 14 and 15 (5 out of 9 = 56%).

At some sites there are significant discrepancies between the data sets. TRADS and survey data have significant differences at sites 6 and 9. TRADS and modelled flows are significantly different at sites 3, 4, 6 and 9. Surveyed and modelled flows are significantly different at sites 3, 9, 13 and 16.

The proportion of HGV traffic is significantly higher for the TRADS sites than it is for the survey sites. The survey sites in turn have significantly more HGV traffic than the modelled data suggests. The modelled HGV percentage seems to be unrealistically low for such busy A-roads and motorways, and do not compare well to either TRADS or observed values.

The two major East/West corridors in the study area are the A66 and the A689. Sites 1-9 are along the A66. Sites 10-12 are along the A689. Since there are no TRADS sites and the survey sites are inconsistent along the A689 we must compare the modelled flows which are present for all sites.

The A66 carries 23100 vehicles per day at site 1 which is to the East of the A1(M). Moving east the flow increases gradually until it peaks at 57800 vehicles per day at site 6 to the West of Stockton. The proportion of HGVs on the A66 varies between 8% and 16.5%.

The A689 carries 29000 vehicles per day at site 10 which is just to the East of the A1(M). Daily flow increases to 42000 at site 11 which is located between the two junctions where the A177 joins the A66. The flow drops at site 12 to 28,000 vehicles per day, Site 12 is located to the East of the A177 junction.

Both the A66 and A689 are very busy corridors, with the A66 carrying slightly more vehicles per hour.

Page 52 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

When comparing HGV proportions from the modelled flows, the A66 carries between 2.6% and 8.1% HGVs whereas the A689 carries between 2.7% and 9.1%.

The A66 and A689 are both very busy corridors. The A66 carries slightly more traffic per day than the A689. Both have comparable percentage HGV flows

The two main North/South corridors through the study area are the A1(M) and the A19. Sites 8 & 9 are located on the A1(M). Sites 13 and 16 are located on the A19.

TRADS data are only available for the A1(M) sites. Survey data are only available for sites 9, 13 and 16. If we compare survey data for consistency then the A1(M) carries 57,400 vehicles per day, whereas the A19 carries between 56,700 and 80,200 vehicles per day. When comparing Model data for these sites, the A1(M) carries between 32,600 and 43,600 vehicles per day, whereas the A19 carries between 42,000 and 66,000 vehicles per day.

The TRADS date for site 9 shows a lower AADT flow than the observed data. When comparing HGV proportions the A19 has 15% HGVs and the A1(M) 23.4%. These values are significantly higher than values for the East/West corridors

The A1(M) and A19 are the main North/South corridors. The A19 carries more traffic than the A1(M). The North/South corridors carry a higher proportion of HGVs than the East/West corridors.

5.4.1 Location 1: A66(M) and A1(M) Junction 57

Table 5.4-2 has sites 1 and 2 on the A66(M) and A66 to the east of the A1(M). The TRADS data shows that the morning peak is more tidal in nature than the evening peak with the Eastbound flow more than 25% higher than the Westbound. The evening peak shows broadly similar flows in both directions, but with slightly more travelling Westbound. The morning peak also has a much higher HGV percentage of around 10% whereas for the evening peak this number is 5%.

5.4.2 Location 2: A66 Darlington Bypass

Table 5.4-2 has sites 3 and 4 on the A66. Site 3 has a larger Eastbound flow of traffic in the morning peak period, and the flows are evenly split in the evening peak period. HGV makes up 9% of all traffic in the morning and 4% in the evening.

Site 4 has a larger Southbound flow than Northbound in the morning peak, and a larger Northbound than Southbound flow in the evening peak period.

The tidal flows at sites 3 and 4 indicate a significant number of trips accessing south-east Darlington via the A66.

Page 53 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

5.4.3 Location 3: Darlington Northern Relief Road

Table 5.4-2 has sites 19 and 20 near the location of a proposed relief road. Site 19 is on the A167 and the survey data shows a tidal northbound flow in the morning peak period and a more balanced but slightly more southbound flow in the evening peak period. HGV proportions are much higher in the morning peak at 10% whereas in the evening these only constitute 4% of the traffic flow.

Site 20 is on the A1150 and the survey data shows a tidal westbound flow in the morning peak period and eastbound in the evening peak period. HGV proportions are much higher in the morning peak at 10% than the evening peak which has only 4% HGV traffic.

Traffic flows show a move towards the motorway network in the morning peak period and from the motorway in the evening peak period.

5.4.4 Location 4: A66 South-West Stockton-on-Tees to A19

Table 5.4-2 has sites 6 and 7 along the A66 at this location. At both sites flows are very obviously tidal in nature with large eastbound flows in the morning peak period and westbound in the evening peak period.

HGVs make up between 5-8% of AM traffic and 3% of PM traffic flows.

This stretch of the A66 appears to handle large numbers of commuters for Middlesbrough and Stockton.

5.4.5 Location 5: A66 from A19 to Teesport

Table 5.4-2 has sites 17 and 18 along the A66 to the east of the A19. Site 17 is located near Middlesbrough city centre and has tidal flows westbound in the morning peak and balanced flows in the evening peak. 9% of traffic in the morning peak is made up of HGV’s but only 5% in the evening peak period.

Site 18 is located to the east of the A172 and is close to Teesport. The traffic flows are tidal with a large westbound flow in the morning peak and eastbound in the evening peak period.

HGV proportions are 9% in the morning and 5% in the evening.

The A66 appears to facilitate a significant number of commuters heading towards Middlesbrough City Centre.

The A174 carries a similar number of vehicles and percentage of HGVs as the A66 east of the A171. To the west of the A171 the A66 carries over 50% more traffic than the A174.

The A174 carries a similar number of vehicles and percentage of HGVs as the A66 east of the A171. To the west of the A171 the A66 carries over 50% more traffic than the A174.

Page 54 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Location 6: A689 Tees Valley

Table 5.4-2 has sites 12 and 14 located along the A689. TRIPS flows at site 12 show tidal flow eastbound in the morning peak and westbound in the evening peak. HGV proportions from the TRIPS model appear to show very variable HGV proportions and should be taken with caution.

Survey data for site 14 indicates that the eastbound carriageway is busier in both the morning and evening peak period. HGV percentage in the AM peak is 10% and in the PM this is 4%.

The complex interactions between commuters between the major urban conurbations may contribute to the unusual traffic flow patterns shown in this area.

5.4.6 Location 7: A689 County Durham

Table 5.4-2 has sites 10 and 11 within this location. Modelled data for both sites shows tidal flows eastbound in the morning peak and westbound in the evening peak period. Flows head from the motorway network in the morning and towards it in the evening. This contrasts with sites 19 and 20 near Darlington where the flow is reversed.

5.5 Route Capacity

Every road has a theoretical maximum capacity, which is calculated according to Department for Transport (DfT) guidelines. Although every road is different, this provides a good reference of how many vehicles each road can accommodate, and so we can compare this theoretical maximum with the observed and predicted maximum flows in order to understand when a road is reaching its maximum capacity.

As a road reaches its maximum capacity, congestion and journey times increase and journey time reliability begins to decrease. Unplanned events such as accidents and road closures have an increasingly negative impact on delay and user satisfaction decreases.

Therefore it is important to spot potential capacity issues before they occur.

Page 55 July 2015 A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.1 Summary Report

Table 5.5-1 Flow data compared to Congestion Reference Flow. Site AADT HGV% Trunk/ RFC TA TRADS SURVEY TRIPS Voyager Description No TRADS Survey* TRIPS* Voyager* TRADS Survey TRIPS* Voyager* Principal 46/97** Flow/RFC Flow/RFC Flow/RFC Flow/RFC 1 A66 (M) 15,000 - 23,700 18,300 16.5% - 10.5% 9.0% Trunk 68,000 22% 35% 27% 2 A66 Bridge Rd 19,000 19,500 26,900 18,600 16.1% 8.5% 10.1% 8.8% Trunk 22,000 86% 89% 122% 85% 3 A66 Darlington Bypass 19,000 21,600 33,700 19,300 15.2% 8.5% 4.1% 3.8% Trunk 32,000 59% 68% 105% 60% 4 A66 Darlington Bypass 19,000 - 35,300 32,500 11.0% - 6.4% 1.4% Trunk 32,000 59% 110% 102% 5 A66 Long Newton 30,000 36,600 37,700 37,600 10.5% 8.5% 9.2% 6.4% Trunk 68,000 44% 54% 55% 55% 6 A66 Stockton 43,000 57,300 59,300 59,300 8.9% - 4.6% 5.4% Trunk 68,000 63% 84% 87% 87% 7 A66 Makro Teesside 52,000 - 59,200 66,500 8.0% - 3.8% 5.0% Trunk 68,000 76% 87% 98% 8 A1(M) J58_J59 44,000 59,700 44,800 51,100 16.2% 23.4% 9.6% 2.9% Trunk 65,000 68% 92% 69% 79% 9 A1(M) J59_J60 43,000 57,400 33,500 55,300 14.8% 23.4% 2.9% 4.8% Trunk 65,000 66% 88% 52% 85% 10 A689 W - - 30,200 27,300 - - 3.3% 6.7% Principal 32,000 94% 85% 11 A689 Sedgefield - - 43,700 29,200 - - 4.2% 7.9% Principal 70,000 62% 42% 12 A689 Wynyard Woods - - 29,000 19,900 - - 12.9% 3.9% Principal 70,000 41% 28% 13 A19 N - 56,700 43,000 57,700 - 15.0% 11.5% 5.8% Trunk 68,000 83% 63% 85% 14 A689 E - 30,300 30,200 31,700 - 8.1% 5.5% 5.3% Principal 70,000 43% 43% 45% 15 A177 - 14,500 21,600 12,700 - 8.1% 5.7% 12.2% Principal 23,000 63% 94% 55% 16 A19 S - 80,200 67,400 78,100 - 15.0% 9.1% 5.6% Trunk 68,000 118% 99% 115% 17 A66 Ormesby Beck - 53,600 53,000 55,000 - 8.5% 9.3% 5.2% Principal 70,000 77% 76% 79% 18 A66 Normanby Beck - 32,100 48,200 34,300 - 8.5% 9.5% 5.7% Principal 70,000 46% 69% 49% 19 A167 Darlington - 22,000 35,100 24,400 - 8.1% 12.2% 6.4% Principal 32,000 69% 110% 76% 20 A1150 Darlington - 21,500 21,700 21,700 - 8.1% 7.9% 5.8% Principal 32,000 67% 68% 68% 21 A174 Ormesby - 32,800 37,600 31,100 - 8.1% 3.8% 8.8% Principal 70,000 47% 54% 44% *AADT Derived from factoring peak hour data

Page 56 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Table 5.5-1 shows flow data, Congestion Reference Flow (CRF) and the calculated congestion levels for all sites shown in Table 5.4-1. The columns to the right show how close each site is to its maximum calculated CRF value. Those below 50% are marked green, between 50% and 85% are yellow and those above 85% are red.

A detailed explanation of what CRF is and how it is calculated is included in Appendix A3.

Volume divided by Capacity (V/C) is an effective way of understanding how close each link is to its maximum calculated capacity. If a link has a flow of less than 50% of its capacity, then it is safe to say that it has a fair amount of residual capacity. Between 50% and 85% a link can be considered busy and with limited residual capacity. Over 85% the link can be considered to be congested with little or no residual capacity and a higher chance of leading to delays, rerouting and problems elsewhere.

The V/C results are shown in Appendix A2, figures 2.1 to 2.24 and are described below. Green bars show links with less than 50% v/c, yellow are for v/c values between 50% and 85%, and red bars are for values over 85%.

Appendix A2, figures 2.1 and 2.2 show the V/C results for the modelled study area in the morning and evening peak base year model. In general most links are coloured green or yellow with a few red bars in the more congested and urban areas.

Appendix A2, figures 2.3 and 2.4 show the V/C results for the modelled study area in the morning and evening peak horizon year TRIPS model. We can see straight away that the majority of links are yellow with equal numbers of green and red. This shows us that the flow and likely the congestion has increased significantly when compared to the base year model.

5.5.1 Locations 1: A66(M) and A1(M) Junction 57

Appendix A2, figures 2.5 and 2.6 show the V/C values for Darlington and the surrounding area for the morning and evening base year peak periods.

Appendix A2, figures 2.7 and 2.8 show the V/C plots for Darlington and the surrounding area for the morning and evening Horizon year peak period TRIPS model.

These figures appear to highlight and confirm the known issues in the area. The A66(M) to the south appears to have plenty of capacity, even in the horizon year demand scenario. However, this is likely because traffic from the north cannot access the A66(M) at junction 57. Instead, it uses the A167 and the A68, and to some extent the A67 – all of which are shown to be at or close to capacity in the base and horizon year AM and PM peak period. Heading east along the A1150 and A66 we see pressure on these key routes to be high and increasing in the future.

In Table 5.5-1 sites 1 and 2 are close to the proposed development. Site 1 has plenty of spare capacity which may cope with the additional traffic likely to traverse the A66(M) at this point if

Page 57 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

north facing slips at J57 are added to the network. Site 2 is at or over capacity and so would need to be improved if the J57 proposal is to be implemented.

The A66(M) has spare capacity and would likely cope with the additional traffic associated with adding north facing slips at the A1(M)J57.

The A66 to the South-East of Darlington is currently at or close to its maximum capacity. Future year tests show that this will exceed its capacity with additional development traffic. In order to service any additional demand improvements must be made to this stretch of network.

5.5.2 Location 2: A66 Darlington Bypass

For the location of the Darlington bypass, we can see that the existing road infrastructure is strained under base year conditions and reaches saturation in the horizon year demand scenario. This is without other improvements such as those proposed for M1 J57 which would only add to the flow along this stretch of the A66.

The A66 at Bridge Road between the Stapleton Roundabout and the A167 Blands Corner is currently at or over capacity and in its current configuration would not be able to carry additional trips associated with the A1(M) J57 improvements or any other additional development traffic.

In Table 5.5-1 sites 3 and 4 are located near the site of the proposed bypass. Both sites are close to or above their CRF levels and so would likely struggle to service additional development traffic.

5.5.3 Location 3: Darlington North Relief Road

For all peaks in both the base and future year demand scenarios, the A167, A1150 and A68 are at or close to capacity. Any further proposed increase in demands in the area would first need to address the issue of lack of residual capacity.

In Table 5.5-1 sites 19 and 20 are located on the A167 and A1150 North of Darlington. Both sites for both surveyed and modelled flows are approaching capacity. Any additional traffic due to developments would edge these roads closer to their calculated maximum capacity.

The A167, A1150 and A68 are currently at or close to capacity. The Darlington Northern Relief road could ease the pressure on these three roads as well as providing an alternative to the A66 Darlington Bypass.

Page 58 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

5.5.4 Location 4: A66 South-west Stockton-on-Tees to A19

Appendix A2, figures 2.9 and 2.10 show V/C values for Stockton-on Tees and the surrounding area for the morning and evening base year peak periods.

Appendix A2, figures 2.11 and 2.12 show V/C values for Stockton-on Tees and the surrounding area for the morning and evening horizon year peak periods in the TRIPS model.

Along the A66 we can see that the south west approach to Stockton is busy and close to capacity in the morning peak period base year demand scenario. Although it is still quite busy in the evening peak period, all V/C values are below 0.85. This is likely due to the tidal nature of commuting traffic.

For the horizon year TRIPS model, we can see that the A66 is close to or at capacity in both the morning and evening peak period. This shows that this stretch of highway would be unlikely to cope with any further additional demand associated with proposed developments and growth aspirations.

In Table 5.5-1 sites 5 and 6 are located along the A66 at the proposed scheme site. Both sites are shown to be approaching their CRF values. Any additional traffic due to proposed developments or improvements to traffic flow upstream and downstream would likely push the flow to above the CRF values.

The A66 to the south of Stockton-On-Tees is approaching its maximum capacity. Any additional traffic due to proposed developments or highway improvements could cause this to exceed its maximum capacity.

5.5.5 Location 5: A66 from A19 to Teesport

Appendix A2, figures 2.13 and 2.14 show V/C plots for Teesport and the surrounding area for the morning and evening base year peak periods.

Appendix A2, figures 2.15 and 2.16 show V/C plots for Teesport and the surrounding area for the morning and evening horizon year TRIPS model peak periods.

The A66 east of the A19 is at or close to its maximum capacity in both the morning and evening peaks for the base and horizon year demand scenarios. This is particularly prevalent close to Middleborough City Centre, however in the future year scenario this congestion creeps eastwards toward Teesport.

Other notable capacity issues shown are the A171, A172 and A174. Pressure on these routes increases in the horizon year as demand rises.

Page 59 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Table 5.5-1 has site 17 and 18 on the A66 at Ormseby Beck and Normanby Beck respectively.

Congestion on the A66, A171, A172 and A174 are high and there is little spare capacity to handle additional demand.

Site 17 is shown to be at or close to capacity with flows show to be between 74% and 77% of Reference Flow Capacity. Site 18 has lower flows and is shown to have a much lower Flow/RFC ratio for the observed flows. The modelled flows are higher and this brings the link much closer to its Reference Flow Capacity with flow over RFC at 67%.

5.5.6 Location 6: A689 Tees Valley

Appendix A2, figures 2.17 and 2.18 show V/C plots for the Tees Valley and surrounding area for the morning and evening base year peak periods.

Appendix A2, figures 2.19 and 2.20 show V/C plots for the Tees Valley and surrounding area for the morning and evening horizon year TRIPS model peak periods.

In all peak periods for both the base and horizon year scenario models, the A19 is shown to be at or close to capacity. This is most prevalent between Wynyard and Stockton, but this lack of capacity creeps northwards towards the A179 in the future year model.

Table 5.5-1 has sites 12 and 14 on the A689 at the proposed improvement sites. Both sites are well below their CRF values and so at current demand levels there does not appear to be a problem. However, if we look at sites 13 and 16 on the A19 we can see that these are either close to or over their CRF values. Recently completed improvements at the A19 and A689 as well as committed widening of the A19 have not been included in this model. When they are added it is likely that this will remove the ‘gating effect’ of congestion on the A19 and release additional traffic onto the A689. This plus the additional demand created by proposed developments mean that the future flows along the A689 are likely to be noticeably higher than in this base year scenario.

The A689 is relatively free flowing under current demand conditions. However, proposed improvements to the A19 mean that the A689 is likely to endure additional demand in the future.

5.5.7 Location 7: A689 County Durham

Appendix A2, figures 2.21 and 2.22 show V/C plots for County Durham and surrounding area for the morning and evening base year peak periods.

Appendix A2, figures 2.23 and 2.24 show V/C plots for the Tees Valley and surrounding area for the morning and evening horizon year peak periods from the TRIPS model.

For the base year model, the network appears to be under capacity in both the morning and evening peak periods, with all links below the 85% capacity threshold. However, in the horizon

Page 60 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

year model, the A689 between the A1(M) and A177 is shown to be at or close to its maximum capacity in both peak period. This is also the case for the A177 which is shown to be at or close to its maximum capacity.

Table 5.5-1 has sites 10 and 11 which are in the proposed improvement location. For these locations we only have modelled flows to inform us of local flows and these tend to underestimate the number of HGVs traversing the route. Even with low HGVs, both sites are shown to be at or near capacity. With the addition of development traffic, the pressure on the A689 at these locations would be increased.

The A689 approaches its maximum calculated CRF value with base year modelled traffic. With surveyed flows which have a higher proportion of HGVs and any additional flow due to development demands or from upstream highway improvements the A689 will likely exceed its calculated CRF values at this location

5.6 Congestion and Speed

Data has been extracted from the ‘TrafficMaster’ database in order to calculate the average speeds of all vehicles traversing the major roads in the study area. This database uses Global Positioning Systems to track its users and the data are subsequently supplied to the DfT.

For the purposes of this study, average vehicle speeds have been calculated for each peak period as well as for the off-peak period. It is assumed that during the off-peak period, vehicles suffer minimal delays and so are able to achieve their desired speed. This is referred to as the ‘free-flow speed’.

By dividing the average speed on each link for each of the peak periods by the ‘free-flow’ speed, it is possible to see where congestion occurs on the network. Lower speeds are indicative of congestion and so by creating plots of this information, it is possible to produce ‘congestion maps’.

The advantage of this method is that it can be clearly seen where vehicles are suffering from delays. However, this method assumes that there is minimal delay in the off-peak period. If congestion occurs in the off-peak period then this method will result in an underestimation of the delay suffered during the peak periods.

The ratio graphs are shown in Appendix A2, Figures 2.25 to 2.54. The links where speeds are greater than 90% of free-flow speeds are highlighted as green. Links where speeds of between 75% and 90% of free-flow speeds are achieved are shown as amber, and the links where speeds of less than 75% of free-flow speeds are achieved are shown as red.

Figure 5.6-1 shows the speed limits for the study area and can be used as a reference for the subsequent speed maps.

Page 61 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Figure 5.6-1 Speed limits for major roads in the study area

In Appendix A2, figures 2.25 to 2.27 show the observed average speeds in the AM peak, PM peak and interpeak periods. Appendix A2 figures 2.28 and 2.29 show the average speeds in each peak period divided by free-flow speeds for the entire study area.

Both peak periods show a similar pattern, whereby lower speeds and therefore congestion is experienced in urban areas and known hotspots.

5.6.1 Locations 1, 2 & 3: A66(M) & A1(M) J57, A66 Darlington Bypass Northern Relief Rd

Appendix A2, figures 2.30 to 2.32 show the observed average speeds in the AM peak, PM peak and interpeak periods for Darlington and the surrounding area. Appendix A2, figures 2.33 and 2.34 show the speed ratios for each of the peak periods for Darlington and the surrounding area.

It is evident that low speeds and therefore congestion is suffered at known traffic hotspots. Vehicle speeds are particularly low at the A66/A67/A167 junction (Blands Corner roundabout) which indicates oversaturation at this location. The areas to the north and east of Darlington, plus the A68 to the north-west, experience significant speed reductions in both the AM and PM peak periods, which suggests that road users experience considerable congestion.

5.6.2 Location 4: A66 South-West Stockton-On-Tees to A19

Appendix A2, figures 2.35 to 2.37 show the observed average speeds in the AM peak, PM peak and inter-peak periods for Stockton-On-Tees and the surrounding area. Appendix A2, figures 2.38 and 2.39 show the speed ratios for each peak period for Stockton-On-Tees and the surrounding area.

Page 62 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

While the areas to the north and south of the A66 are shown to be slow moving in the peak periods when compared to free-flow conditions, the A66 itself seems to be relatively free-flowing. Notable exceptions appear to be the eastbound off-slip at the junction with the A135, and the approaches to the intersection with the A19.

5.6.3 Location 5: A66 from A19 to Teesport

Appendix A2, figures 2.40 to 2.42 show the observed average speeds in the AM peak, PM peak and inter-peak periods for Teesport and the surrounding area. Appendix A2, figures 2.43 and 2.44 show the speed ratios for each peak for Teesport and the surrounding area.

The A66 to the east of Middlesbrough is shown to have low speeds in the peak periods, which is therefore likely to result in congestion. This is also the case for the A171 and A172, where average speeds are regularly below 25kph, or 15mph. The A174 east of the A19 experiences high average speeds and appears to perform well in each of the peak periods.

5.6.4 Location 6: A689 Tees Valley

Appendix A2, figures 2.45 to 2.47 show the observed average speeds in the AM peak, PM peak and inter-peak periods for the Tees Valley and surrounding area. Appendix A2, figures 2.48 and 2.49 show the speed ratios for each of the peak periods for the Tees Valley and the surrounding area.

In the AM peak period, the A19 experiences a significant reduction in speeds and therefore an increase in congestion. In the PM peak period, it is less congested but vehicle speeds remain below their potential level. The A689 is generally free-flowing in both of the peak periods with the exception of the eastbound and westbound approaches to the junction with the A19 and the north- west section on the approach to Hartlepool, which appear to experience significant congestion.

As discussed earlier, the model does not include the new junction layout at the A19/A689 or the committed widening of the A19 between Wynyard and Stockton, and the inclusion of these schemes is likely to have a significant impact on the performance of the A689 due to the likely increase in traffic flow along it.

5.6.5 Location 7: A689 County Durham

Appendix A2, figures 2.50 to 2.52 show the observed average speeds in the AM peak, PM peak and inter-peak periods for County Durham and the surrounding area. Appendix A2, figures 2.53 and 2.54 show the speed ratios for each of the peak periods for County Durham and the surrounding area.

In both the AM and PM peak periods, the A689 between the A167 and the A177 experiences a reduction in average speeds and therefore an increase in congestion in both the eastbound and westbound directions. The junction of the A689 and the A617 also experiences reductions in speeds for both peak periods when compared to free-flow conditions.

Page 63 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Vehicle speeds are:

 Particularly low at the A66/A67/A167 junction, south of Darlington, which indicates oversaturation at this location;  Significantly reduced around Darlington during peak periods;  Generally closer to free-flow conditions on the A66 near Stockton-on-Tees, with the exception of the junction with the A135 and the A19;  Low on the A66 east of Middlesbrough during peak periods;  Particularly low at the A19/A689 junction and on the A689 approaching Hartlepool, but free-flowing elsewhere on the A689.

5.7 Journey-Time Reliability

The A66 forms part of Highways England’s strategic route from London to Scotland East. Whilst it doesn’t specifically identify the A66 as being a problem location for journey time reliability, Chapter 2 of Highways England’s London to Scotland East Route-based Strategy Evidence Report does identify two general common causes of performance issues on the entire strategic route.

The first cause of performance issues is where sections of the trunk road network travel through towns and cities, resulting in poor reliability, delays and low average peak hour speeds. The second cause of performance issues is found on major sections of the route where there is tension between long distance and local traffic.

Tees Valley Unlimited’s Strategic Economic Plan highlights the region’s polycentric spatial pattern with numerous centres of economic activity, resulting in complex travel demands across the area and leading to challenges such as maintaining the reliability of the transport network. The Tees Valley Unlimited Statement of Transport Ambition also makes reference to this and states that a degree of certainty and stability relating to journey time and network condition is vital in the day to day transport decision making for both individuals and businesses, with the provision of resilient and reliable transport networks being crucial to the Tees Valley’s future economic competitiveness.

Table 5.7-1 shows journey time variations for routes defined in Table 4.6-1.

TrafficMaster data was analysed in order to calculate journey times for the routes shown in Table 5.7-1. The data was collected in March 2015 which is a neutral month containing no school holidays or bank holidays. Data was analysed for the morning and evening peak periods.

The paths analysed were taken from the TRIPS model validation report. Journey times vary between peak and non-peak times due to the variable nature of the demand placed upon the highway network. However, if each of the four one-week periods in March 2015 are compared, then natural variation should be neutralised and the average journey times along each path should be comparable. Any variations between these averages indicates unreliable journey times which

Page 64 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

is indicative of a congested network with little spare capacity to deal with unplanned events such as road traffic accidents.

In order to calculate journey times for each route, at least one TrafficMaster monitored vehicle must have traversed each link along the entire route, otherwise there are not enough data available to calculate journey times for that route. It was not possible to analyse daily data patterns due to the limited amount of data available. However, it was possible to analyse data on a weekly basis. In order to robustly assess the variability of journey times along each path, each of the weeks of March 2015 were compared and the difference reported between the maximum and minimum average journey times across all four weeks. This helped minimise any statistical ‘noise’ due to limited data.

Table 5.7-1 Journey Time Variations Variation Variation Route between between From To Route taken name weeks: AM weeks: PM /direction Peak Peak

Hartlepool Stockton A689/A19 a_SB 6% 2%

Stockton Hartlepool A19/A689 a_NB 4% 16%

Middlesbrough Stokesley A172 b_SB 4% 14%

Stokesley Middlesbrough A172 b_NB 4% 9%

Hartlepool Middlesbrough A179/A19/Wolviston Rd/A19 c_SB 10% 7%

Middlesbrough Hartlepool A19/Wolviston Rd/A19/A179 c_NB 12% 2%

Acklam Yarm A1032/A66/A135 d_WB 4% 4%

Yarm Acklam A135/A66/A1032 d_EB 3% 7%

Redcar Middlesbrough A66/Trunk Road/A1085 e_WB 7% 5%

Middlesbrough Redcar A1085/Trunk Road/A66 e_EB 11% 5%

A179/A178/A1046/Tees Hartlepool Middlesbrough f_SB 8% 15% Bridge Approach Rd

Tees Bridge Approach Middlesbrough Hartlepool f_NB 2% 5% Rd/A1046/A178/A179

Marske-by- Ingleby A174/A1045/Ingleby Way g_WB 8% 8% the-Sea Barwick

Ingleby Marske-by- Ingleby Way/A1045/A174 g_EB 2% 5% Barwick the-Sea

Middlesbrough Carthorne The Avenue/B1272/A66/A19 h_SB 6% 23%

Carthorne Middlesbrough A19/A66/B1272/The Avenue h_NB 12% 7%

High Leven Darlington A1044/A67 i_WB 13% 9%

Page 65 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Variation Variation Route between between From To Route taken name weeks: AM weeks: PM /direction Peak Peak

Darlington High Leven A67/A1044 i_EB 7% 10%

A1(M) J59 Croft-on-Tees A167 j_SB 8% 9%

Croft-on-Tees A1(M) J59 A167 j_NB 7% 3%

Stockton Sedgefield A1046/A1305/A177 k_NB 5% 6%

Sedgefield Stockton A177/A1305/A1046 k_SB 11% 1%

A1027/Yarm Rd/Yarm Ln/A1035/A135/QE Billingham Hemlington l_SB 3% 5% Way/Myton Way/Barwick Way/A1044/B1380

B1380/A1044/Barwick Way/Myton Way/QE Hemlington Billingham l_NB 4% 6% Way/A135/A1035/Yarm Ln/Yarm Rd/A1027

Harrowgate A1(M) J57 A1150/A66/Bridge Rd/A66(M) m_SB 10% 3%

A1(M) J57 Harrowgate A66(M)/Bridge Rd/A66/A1150 m_NB 10% 6%

W Auckland Rd/Haughton A1(M)J58 Sadberge n_EB 6% 3% Rd/Stockton Rd/A66

A66/Stockton Rd/Haugton Sadberge A1(M)J58 n_WB 4% 14% Rd/W Auckland Rd

Redcar Ln/A174/B1269/Church Redcar Middlesbrough o_WB 5% 3% Ln/A171/Ormesby Bank/Cargo Fleet Ln

Cargo Fleet Ln/Ormesby Middlesbrough Redcar Bank/A171/Church o_EB 8% 8% Ln/B1269/A174/Redcar Ln

Darlington Middlesbrough Haughton Rd/A66 p_EB 5% 4%

Middlesbrough Darlington A66/Haughton Rd p_WB 5% 8%

Darlington Middlesbrough A66 q_EB 5% 2% Station Station

Middlesbrough Darlington A66 q_WB 3% 10% Station Station

Darlington Stockton A66 r_EB 2% 2% Station Station

Page 66 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Variation Variation Route between between From To Route taken name weeks: AM weeks: PM /direction Peak Peak

Stockton Darlington A66 r_WB 2% 8% Station Station

A1(M) Bishop s_NB 2% 2% A1(M) Barton Middleham A1(M)

A1(M) Bishop s_SB 1% 3% Middleham A1(M) Barton A1(M)

A1(M) J60 A689/A19 A689 t_EB 9% 3%

A689/A19 A1(M) J60 A689 t_WB 6% 8%

Journey times are broadly similar across the four weeks of March 2015. The routes with the most variation, and therefore the most unreliable, are from Middlesbrough to Carthorne, and from Stockton to Hartlepool. The A689 is relatively free flowing under current demand conditions. However, proposed improvements to the A19 mean that the A689 is likely to endure additional demand in the future.

Road Closures

Road closure data for the latest five full years has been requested for the study network from the relevant authorities, summarised below:

 A-One+, Managing Agent Contractor for the A66 trunk road from A1(M) junction 57 to Teesside Park;  Autolink Concessionaires (A19) Ltd, Managing Agent Contactor for the A66 trunk road from Teesside Park to the A19;  Middlesbrough Council, for the A66 non-trunk section from the A19 to South Bank;  Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, for the A66 non-trunk section from South Bank to A1053;  Darlington Borough Council, for the A1150 and A167 Darlington Northern Relief Road from the A1(M) to the A66;  Durham County Council, for the A689 from the A1(M) to Wynyard;  Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council, for the A689 from Wynyard to the A1185; and  Hartlepool Borough Council, for the A689 from the A1185 to the A179.

Data was received from all of the above parties, with the exception of Middlesbrough Council, who responded to confirm that no data was available. It can be noted that there is significant variability in the detail of the data received, with no common approach to collating this data evident across the parties listed above.

Page 67 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

5.7.1 Location 1: A66(M) and A1(M) Junction 57

For Location 1, data was received from A-One+, Managing Agent Contactor for the A66 trunk road from A1(M) to Teesside Park. Data was provided for the five year period 01/04/10 to 31/03/15. A summary of the number of road closures per year is provided in the following table:

Table 5.7-2 Road Closures by Year Year No. Road Closures

2010 (from 01/04/10) 6

2011 8

2012 9

2013 6

2014 11

2015 (to 31/03/15) 0

Total 40

As shown in the table above, the greatest number of closures occurred in 2014. There has been a slight increase in the number of closures per year, with the exception of 2013 and 2015, to date.

In the latest five year period, a total of 40 road closures have occurred in Location 1. This equates to an average of 8 closures per year or one closure every 46 days.

The road closures which have occurred in the study area are classified by type and these are summarised in Table 5.7-3.

In addition to this, anecdotal evidence suggests that the following further road closures occurred:

 A689 closed twice due to flooding incidents (2010-12);  Northern Gas Networks incident (gas leak) closed the A689 in 2008;

Page 68 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Table 5.7-3 Number of Road Closures by Type/Year Abnormal Emergency Planned Total Load Works Event Incident Works

2010 (From 01/04/10) 0 1 0 0 5 6

2011 0 3 0 3 2 8

2012 1 1 0 1 6 9

2013 0 1 0 0 5 6

2014 0 3 0 2 6 11

2015 (To 31/03/15) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 1 9 0 6 24 40

% 3% 23% 0% 15% 60% 100%

As shown in the table above, the greatest number of road closures were as a result of planned maintenance works, with a total of 24 closures in the latest five year period. This equates to 60% of all closures that have occurred.

The second highest cause of road closures was emergency maintenance works, with 9 closures in the latest five year period, equating to 23% of all closures. The remaining closures were a result of incidents such as vehicle collisions, and one abnormal load movement.

The data provided by A-One+ includes details of the expected delay to vehicles as a result of the road closure. This is summarised in the table below:

Table 5.7-4 Expected Delay due to Road Closures Year Expected Delay due to Road Closure No Slight Moderate Severe

Delay (less than 10 mins) (10 - 30 mins) (more than 30 mins) Total 2010 (From 01/04/10) 2 4 0 0 6 2011 4 4 0 0 8 2012 3 5 1 0 9 2013 0 6 0 0 6 2014 1 8 2 0 11 2015 (To 31/03/15) 0 0 0 0 0 Total 10 27 3 0 40 % 25% 68% 8% 0% 100%

As shown in the table above, the expected delay for motorists as a result of the road closures varies, from a total of 10 closures where no delay was expected, 27 closures where less than 10 minutes of delay was expected, and 3 closures where 10 – 30 minutes of delay was expected. None of the road closures which occurred were expected to result in delays over 30 minutes.

Page 69 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

In terms of the TrafficMaster data analysis, as shown in Table 5.7-4, Location 1 has journey path ‘m’ traversing the A66 between the A1(M) and the A1150. The morning peak period has higher journey time variability at 10% for both directions. The evening peak have variability between 3%- 6%. These figures show some variation in journey times but are not overly unstable.

5.7.2 Location 2: A66 Darlington Bypass

For Location 2, data was received from A-One+, Managing Agent Contactor for the A66 trunk road from A1(M) to Teesside Park. Data was provided for the five year period 01/04/10 to 31/03/15.

A summary of the number of road closures per year is provided in the following table:

Table 5.7-5 Road Closures by Year Year No. Road Closures

2010 (From 01/04/10) 24

2011 33

2012 24

2013 15

2014 20

2015 (To 31/03/15) 5

Total 121

As shown in the table above, the greatest number of closures occurred in 2011. The number of closures per year has remained broadly constant. It fell to 15 in 2013 before rising again to 20 in 2014.

In the latest five year period, a total of 121 road closures have occurred in Location 2. This equates to an average of 24 closures per year or one closure every 15 days.

The road closures which have occurred in the study area are classified by type and these are summarised in the table below:

Page 70 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Table 5.7-6 Road Closures by Type Number of Road Closures by Type Year Emergency Planned Event Incident Total Works Works

2010 (From 4 1 7 12 24 01/04/10) 4 4 6 19 33 2011

1 2 3 18 24 2012

3 0 1 11 15 2013

6 0 1 13 20 2014

1 0 0 4 5 2015 (To 31/03/15)

19 7 18 77 121 Total

16% 6% 15% 64% 100% %

As shown in the table above, the greatest number of road closures were as a result of planned maintenance works, with a total of 77 closures in the latest five year period. This equates to 64% of all closures that have occurred.

The second highest cause of road closures was emergency maintenance works, with 19 closures in the latest five year period, equating to 16% of all closures. The remaining closures were a result of incidents such as vehicle collisions, and local events.

The data provided by A-One+ includes details of the expected delay to vehicles as a result of the road closure. This is summarised in the table below:

Table 5.7-7 Expected Delay due to Road Closures Expected Delay due to Road Closure

Year No Slight Moderate Severe Total Delay (less than 10 mins) (10 - 30 mins) (more than 30 mins) 2010 (From 3 19 0 2 24 01/04/10) 2011 7 24 1 1 33 2012 3 18 2 1 24 2013 1 13 1 0 15 2014 3 17 0 0 20 2015 (To 1 4 0 0 5 31/03/15)

Page 71 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Total 18 95 4 4 121 % 15% 79% 3% 3% 100%

As shown in the table above, the expected delay for motorists as a result of the road closures varies, from a total of 18 closures where no delay was expected, 95 closures where less than 10 minutes of delay was expected, 4 closures where 10 – 30 minutes of delay was expected and 4 closures where more than 30 minutes of delay was expected.

In terms of the TrafficMaster data analysis, as shown in Table 5.7-6, Location 2 has journey path ‘m’ traversing the A66 between the A1(M) and the A1150. The morning peak period has higher journey time variability at 10% for both directions. The evening peak have variability between 3%- 6%. These figures show some variation in journey times but are not overly unstable.

5.7.3 Location 3: Darlington Northern Relief Road

For Location 3, data was requested from Darlington Borough Council regarding road closures on the A1150, from the A66 roundabout to the A167 roundabout, and the A167 from the A1150 roundabout to the A1(M) Junction 59, for the latest available five year period.

The response received states that the only available data relates to planned closures for highway maintenance purposes, with no records kept for any other types of closure.

The response states that from 01/01/10 to present, the only closures on the selected roads were as follows:  04/08/2013: Full closure of the A1150 from Stockton Road to Whinbush Way, for one day, for the purposes of road maintenance; and  28/07/2014: Full closure of the A1150 from Glebe Road to the A167, for one day, for the purposes of road maintenance.

The response states that the A167 has not been subject to any closures during this period and the A1150 is only closed on few occasions, due to the volume of traffic which uses these roads.

It can be seen from the above, that when considering planned road closures only, the Location 3 route is reliable, with only two closures having occurred in the last five years.

In terms of the TrafficMaster data analysis, as shown in Table 5.7-1, Location 3 has journey paths ‘j’ and ‘n’ in the area around the potential relief road. The south east-bound path ‘j’ has variability of between 8%-9% for the AM-PM peak. This is greater than the north west-bound path which has variability between 7%-3% for the AM-PM peaks. These figures show some variation in journey times but are not overly unstable.

5.7.4 Location 4: A66 South-west Stockton-on-Tees to A19

For Location 4, data was received from A-One+ for the western section from the A66 / A1150 roundabout to Teesside Park. For the 1.05km eastern section from Teesside Park to the A66 / A19 interchange, data was received from Autolink Concessionaires (A19) Ltd, the DBFO

Page 72 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Company responsible for Area 26. Data was provided for the five year period 01/04/10 to 31/03/15.

For the purposes of this analysis, the whole section of the A66 from the A1150 roundabout north- east of Darlington to the A19 interchange has been assessed. Closures which occurred on slip roads at the A19 interchange were excluded from the analysis. A summary of the number of road closures per year is provided in the following table:

Table 5.7-8 Road Closures by Year Year No. Road Closures 95 2010 (From 01/04/10)

90 2011

65 2012

81 2013

73 2014

32 2015 (To 31/03/15)

436 Total

As shown in the table above, the greatest number of closures occurred in 2010. The number of closures per year has fluctuated slightly, falling to 65 in 2012 before rising again in 2013.

In the latest five year period, a total of 436 road closures have occurred in Location 4. This equates to an average of 87 closures per year or one closure every 4 days.

The road closures which have occurred in the study area are classified by type and these are summarised in the table below. For the eastern end of the section which is maintained by Autolink, no data was available for events or abnormal load movements. The data provided by A-One+ for the remainder of this Location did include these, though it can be noted that no abnormal load movements were recorded in the study period:

Page 73 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Table 5.7-9 Road Closures by Type Number of Road Closures by Type Incident / Year Planned Emergency Event Total Works Works

2010 (From 39 6 50 95 01/04/10) 41 3 46 90 2011

30 7 28 65 2012

22 1 58 81 2013

15 0 58 73 2014

5 0 27 32 2015 (To 31/03/15)

152 17 267 436 Total

35% 4% 61% 100% %

As shown in the table above, the greatest number of road closures were as a result of planned maintenance works, with a total of 267 closures in the latest five year period. This equates to 61% of all closures that have occurred.

The second highest cause of road closures was incidents or emergency maintenance works, with 152 closures in the latest five year period, equating to 35% of all closures. The remaining closures were a result of local events.

The data provided by A-One+ includes details of the expected delay to vehicles as a result of the road closure. This is summarised in the table below. This data was unavailable for the eastern section maintained by Autolink and so the table does not include this data:

Page 74 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Table 5.7-10 Expected Delay due to Road Closures Expected Delay due to Road Closure

Year No Slight Moderate Severe Total Delay (less than 10 mins) (10 - 30 mins) (more than 30 mins)

2010 (From 13 46 4 3 66 01/04/10) 8 49 6 1 64 2011

10 45 6 1 62 2012

5 51 0 1 57 2013

8 36 1 0 45 2014

2015 (To 0 18 0 0 18 31/03/15) 44 245 17 6 312 Total 14% 79% 5% 2% 100% %

As shown in the table above, the expected delay for motorists as a result of the road closures varies, from a total of 44 closures where no delay was expected, 245 closures where less than 10 minutes of delay was expected, 17 closures where 10 – 30 minutes of delay was expected and 6 closures where more than 30 minutes of delay was expected.

It can be noted that for the eastern section which is maintained by Autolink, all but two of the recorded closures are planned works which took place overnight, with a typical duration of between 6 and 10 hours. None of these recorded planned closures commenced before 19:30. The majority of these works involve a single lane closure, with the other lanes remaining open.

The two closures which were not the result of a planned closure were due to a Police closure as a result of an incident or emergency, and these involved a full closure of the A66 westbound with a duration of closure of 25 minutes and 30 minutes respectively.

5.7.5 Location 5: A66 from A19 to Teesport

For Location 5, data was requested from Middlesbrough Borough Council and Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council regarding road closures on the A66 non-trunk section, from the A19 interchange to the A1053 roundabout, for the latest available five year period.

A response was received from Middlesbrough Borough Council to confirm that no data was available. However, data was received from Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council for the eastern section of this Location. The data included planned and emergency works, though data for other

Page 75 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

incidents, events or abnormal loads was not available. The data received from Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council includes planned closures only, for the last five years.

A summary of the number of road closures per year for the eastern section of the A66 non-trunk road through Redcar & Cleveland is provided in the following table:

Table 5.7-11 Road Closures by Year Year No. Road Closures 5 2010 (From 01/01/10)

2 2011

3 2012

4 2013

4 2014

0 2015 (To 31/03/15)

18 Total

As shown in the table above, the greatest number of closures occurred in 2010. The number of closures per year has remained broadly consistent throughout the study period.

In the latest five year period, a total of 18 road closures have occurred on the eastern section of the A66 non-trunk in Location 5. This equates to an average of 4 closures per year or one closure every 101 days.

Analysis of the duration of the closures is not possible due to the fact that a start and end time is not provided in the data received.

In terms of the TrafficMaster data analysis, as shown in Table 5.7-1, Path ‘e’ traverses the A66 to the East of the A19. The Eastbound path has relatively high journey time variability in the morning peak period at 11%. This compares to 7% for the Westbound path in the AM peak and 5% for both paths in the PM Peak.

5.7.6 Location 6: A689 Tees Valley

For Location 6, data for the A689 for the latest available five year period was requested from Durham County Council, for the section of the A689 from Butterwick to Wynyard, Stockton-on- Tees Borough Council, for the section from Wynyard to the A1185 and Hartlepool Borough Council, for the section from the A1185 to the A179.

The data received from Durham County Council includes planned closures and incidents, with confirmation provided that there were no emergency closures or closures due to events during

Page 76 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

the period requested. Data for abnormal load movements was unavailable. The data received from Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council includes planned closures only, for the last five years.

The data received from Hartlepool Borough Council includes planned closures only and covers the period 2012 to 2015, with no other data available. Further information received from Hartlepool Borough Council states that the A689 is kept open whenever possible, due to a lack of suitable diversion routes in the area.

A summary of the number of road closures per year for Location 6 is provided in the following table:

Table 5.7-12 Road Closures by Year Year No. Road Closures

2010 1

2011 1 1 2012

7 2013

5 2014

0 2015

15 Total

As shown in the table above, the greatest number of closures occurred in 2013. The number of closures per year has fluctuated slightly, but remained low throughout the study period. One of the closures was the result of a fatal collision, which resulted in a closure lasting several hours. The remaining 14 closures were a result of planned works, and it can be noted that each set of planned works has been counted once, though the duration of works typically ranged from overnight closures, up to a 3 month closure for junction modifications. However, more detailed analysis of the duration of the closures is not possible due to the fact that a start and end time is not provided in the data received.

Despite this, the overall number of planned closures is considered to be low when compared to other routes in the study area, such as the A66.

As shown in Table 5.7.0.1, Path A traverses the A689 between the A19 and Hartlepool. For the southbound path the variability is between 6%-2% for the AM-PM peaks. For the northbound path the morning peak period has quite stable journey times at 4% variation. However the evening peak suffers significant variability in journey times with the difference between the highest and lowest weekly averaged weekday peak journeytime at 16%

Page 77 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

5.7.7 Location 7: A689 County Durham

For Location 7, data for the A689 for the latest available five year period was requested from Durham County Council, for the section of the A689 from the A1(M) Junction 60 to the A689 / A177 Stockton Road junction.

The data received from Durham County Council includes planned closures and incidents, with confirmation provided that there were no emergency closures or closures due to events during the period requested. Data for abnormal load movements was unavailable. None of the recorded closures or incidents occurred in 2010.

A summary of the number of road closures per year for Location 7 is provided in the following table:

Table 5.7-13 Road Closures by Year Year No. Road Closures 1 2011

1 2012

2 2013

2 2014

0 2015

6 Total

As shown in the table above, the number of closures per year has remained very low throughout the study period. From the available data, it can be seen that a total of 6 road closures have occurred on the A689 in Location 7.

Four of the closures were a result of planned works, with the duration of these being between one day and three weeks, though detailed analysis of the duration of the closures is not possible due to the fact that a start and end time is not provided in the data received. The remaining two closures were a result of fatal collisions, with the duration of the closures being four and five and a half hours respectively.

As with Location 6, there have been very few closures on this section of the A689, when compared to other routes in the study area such as the A66.

5.8 Environment

A review has been undertaken to understand the existing environment within the proposed intervention areas. The environmental baseline establishment process has served to establish

Page 78 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

the extent and availability of existing environmental information and key environmental sensitivities within and around the seven potential intervention extent areas. The location of the seven potential intervention extents are described in Section 2.3 and shown on Figure 5.4-1

A 1km study area around the potential intervention extents has been used to identify receptors that could potentially be affected by intervention options, although this may vary according to individual environmental topic areas and in line with guidance.

The environmental review has comprised:  a desk based study to establish the environmental baseline  mapping and production of an environmental sensitivities plan.

Desk based sources have comprised: literature relating to the study area; databases; environmental assessment reports of previous studies undertaken in the study area; records and schedules relating to environmental designations, local policy documents; historic and current mapping and recent aerial photography. Information on the baseline environment has also been collected from the London to Scotland East Route Strategy, its Evidence Report and Technical Annex published in April 2015.

In addition to the aforementioned data sources, data from Highways England’s Environmental Information System (EnvIS) has been incorporated, where appropriate.

Maps of environmental sensitivities identified in the intervention extent corridors have been produced. These are available in Appendix B. A schedule of environmental sensitivities within the intervention areas has also been prepared and is provided in Appendix B. This contains information on the type of environmental feature, information on their sensitivity and distance from the existing route.

Environmental Health Officers within Local Planning Authorities, Statutory Environmental Bodies and Non-Statutory Environmental Bodies have not been consulted at this stage of the study (Environmental Baseline Establishment). These organisations will be consulted on local opportunities for environmental protection and enhancement along the intervention extent as well as the scope of future environmental assessments.

A summary of the key environmental sensitivities found in the vicinity of the intervention extents is presented below. These sensitivities are considered key principally as a result of their value/importance, distance from distance from the intervention extent and potential for impact upon them. In doing this, it has been assumed that all potential interventions would be within the existing road corridor apart from Intervention Extent 3 – Darlington Northern Relief Road which could be offline. Information on the following environmental sensitivities are presented below (if present within the intervention areas):

Page 79 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

 Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) – are declared where the European Union (EU) limit and UK Government standards adopted for nitrogen dioxide

(NO2) and dust particles: particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less

than 10µm (PM10) are not being achieved or are in danger of being exceeded.  Defra Noise Important Areas – are locations where the 1% of the population are affected by the highest noise levels from major roads according to the results of Defra's strategic noise maps.  Internationally designated nature conservation sites – Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Ramsar sites within 1km of the Potential Intervention Extent.  Nationally and locally designated nature conservation sites – Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and Local Nature Reserves (LNRs).  Ancient woodland – especially those adjacent to the potential intervention extents.  General Landscape.  Internationally designated World Heritage Sites, Registered Parks and Gardens, nationally designated Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings and locally designated Conservation Areas.  Main Rivers, Flood Zones, Aquifers and Groundwater Protection Zones  Contaminated land – historic and active landfills within 100m or the potential intervention extent.  Public Rights of Way including footpaths, cycle routes and bridleways.  Sensitive receptors such as dwellings within urban areas, schools, community facilities, health facilities and care/nursing homes.

5.8.1 Location 1: A66(M) and A1(M) Junction 57

This intervention area is located with the low lying Tees valley and surrounded by mixed farmland and scattered properties, blocks of woodland and local roads crossing numerous small tributaries that lead to the River Tees. Darlington lies to the immediate north east while the small village of Croft on Tees lies further east.

The area falls within Richmondshire District Council. This council has not declared AQMAs for

NO2 or PM10 in the vicinity of this intervention area. There are also no Defra Noise Important Areas within this potential intervention area.

There are no internationally, nationally or local designated nature conservation site within this intervention area.

Page 80 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

There are seven nationally important Grade II Listed Buildings of medium value within the study area, all located within the village of Cleasby. The closest Listed Building from the Potential Intervention Extent is approximately 800m away.

Figure 5.8-1 Key Environmental Sensitivities - A66(M) and A1(M) Jn 57 Area

The area south of the study area is drained by Clow Beck, which flows predominantly eastwards before discharging into the River Tees approximately 6km downstream. The north of the study area contains the headwaters of several small drains, these flow predominantly north to discharge into the main channel of the River Tees. Both the River Tees and Clow Beck are designated watercourses by the Environment Agency (EA) under the Water Framework Directive (WFD); Clow Beck (Clow Beck from Aldborough Beck to Tees) is considered at ‘poor ecological status’ and is overall ‘at risk’; the River Tees in this location is considered of ‘moderate ecological status’ and overall ‘at risk’.

The potential intervention area is underlain by principle aquifers of the Stainmore and Ford Formations, both considered highly productive aquifers. It also falls within the Wear Magnesian Limestone groundwater body which is considered overall ‘at risk’ by the EA.

A network of footpaths, bridleway, cycle routes (on road) and a national cycleway make up the non-motorised users network in this area.

Page 81 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

5.8.2 Location 2: A66 Darlington Bypass

This potential intervention area falls within Richmondshire District Council and Darlington

Borough Council. These councils have not declared AQMAs for NO2 or PM10 in the vicinity of this intervention area.

There are two Defra Important Areas for noise along the Potential Intervention Extent.

There are six Defra Noise Important Areas within the study area. Two of these are located along the Potential Intervention Extent. Highways England is designated the Noise Making Authority for these two Noise Important Areas as well as two others located along the A66, east of its junction with the A1150.

Figure 5.8-2 Key Environmental Sensitivities - A66 Darlington Bypass Area

There are three Local Nature Reserves (LNR) within the study area; Geneva Wood is located adjacent to the northern boundary of the extent, east of ; Brankin Moor is situated 300m north of the A66/ Neasham Road roundabout; and Maidendale LNR is located 150m north of the extent.

Page 82 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

The potential intervention area extent crosses the Tees Valley Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV). The AHLV extends to the south of Darlington, running approximately west to east from the village of Stapleton to Stressholme Golf Course. According to the Darlington Borough Council Local Plan (1997) this is an area where the overall quality of the landscape is high and could be harmed by inappropriate development.

A World War II bombing decoy shelter (Scheduled Monument of high value) is located 150m west of the Potential Intervention Extent, south of the A66(M) junction with the A1150 at Little Burdon. A Grade II Registered Park and Garden and Conservation Area (medium value), South Park, is situated 700m north of the extent within the urban area of south Darlington. There is another Conservation Area of medium value within 1km of the intervention extent, Haughton-le-Skerne, on the north-east fringe of Darlington. There are 35 Listed Buildings within the 1km study area; five of these are Grade II* (high value) whilst the remaining 30 are Grade II (medium value). One of the Listed Buildings is the Grade II Blackwell Bridge, carrying the existing A66 over the River Tees. Along the Proposed Intervention Extent, the existing A66 crosses the River Tees, River Skerne, Cree Beck and small network of field drain tributaries of the Maidendale Gill. The potential intervention extent crosses a large section of the River Tees floodplain (Flood Zone 2 and 3) around the urban areas of Blackwell and Stapleton. Another section of floodplain (Flood Zone 2 and 3) is found where the A66 crosses the River Skerne.There are two historic landfill sites adjacent or in close proximity to the potential intervention extent.

The Proposed Intervention Extent crosses the nationally protected Listed Building, the Grade II Blackwell Bridge.

To the south of Darlington there are numerous footpaths and areas of public green space on the edges of housing estates whilst to the east of the town and upon crossing the railway the route passes through more open farmland. Ten Public Rights of Way cross, are adjacent to, or use the existing network along the Proposed Intervention Extent, one of which is a section of the Teesdale Way long distance walk from Cumbria to the North Yorkshire Coast. There are also six cycle routes including National Cycle Network routes 165 and 14.

5.8.3 Location 3: Darlington Northern Relief Road

This potential intervention area is to the north of Darlington. The existing A1150 goes through an urban fringe landscape with residential areas on the northern extent of Darlington, a sports ground, a nature reserve, business premises and pockets of pastoral farmland. To the north of the intervention area, the land is under arable use.

This potential intervention area falls within Darlington Borough Council. No AQMA for NO2 or PM10 have been defined in this area.

There are eight Defra Noise Important Areas within the study area. Two of these are found along the A66; east of the Little Burdon junction; two are found along the A1150 and the remaining four encompass the area along the A167. Highways England has been identified as the Noise Making

There are eight Defra Important Areas for noise within the Intervention Area.

Page 83 July 2015

Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Authority for two of these whilst Darling Borough Council is the Noise Making Authority for the remaining six Noise Important Areas.

Figure 5.8-3 Key Environmental Sensitivities - Darlington Northern Relief Road Area

A nationally designated nature conservation site (SSSI), Redcar Field, is located 100m east of the A167. This site contains a range of fen vegetation types not found at any other site in County Durham. Drinkfield Marsh LNR is located 400m west of the existing A1150/ A167 roundabout. Rockwell LNR is situated 600m south of the A1150, south of Haughton le Skerne.

Rural parts of the study area fall within Natural England’s ‘The Tees Forest’ Community Forest. The Community Forest programme includes objectives ‘To protect areas of high quality landscape or historical or archaeological interest.’

There are two Scheduled Monuments with the study area, a World War II bombing decoy control shelter and the medieval settlement at Coatham Mundeville near M1 junction 59, both of high value. There are also two Conservation Areas of medium value; Haughton-le-Skerne, on the north-east fringe of Darlington, and Coatham Mundeville. Other cultural heritage features in the

The historic environment contains a cluster of Listed Buildings in , located around the A1150. There is the potential for undiscovered buried archaeology throughout the intervention area.

Page 84 July 2015

Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

potential intervention area include 62 nationally important Listed Buildings, two Grade I (high value) and 60 Grade II (medium value). These are mostly grouped around the Conservation Areas and Great Burdon. There is also the potential for undiscovered buried archaeological assets within the intervention area.

The River Skerne flows in a southerly direction through the length of the Intervention Area before eventually joining with the River Tees south of Darlington. In this area the River Skerne is classified as ‘poor potential’ ecological status and is overall ‘at risk’ under the WFD.

Barmpton Quarry, an authorised landfill can be found to the north of Great Burdon.

A network of footpaths, bridleways and other routes with non-motorised user features make up the rights of way network in this area.

The Intervention Area contains an extensive non-motorised user network, including footpaths, bridleways and other routes.

5.8.4 Location 4: A66 South-west Stockton-on-Tees to A19

This potential intervention area falls within the Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council and Middlesbrough Council area. No AQMAs have been declared within either local authority boundary.

There are 16 Defra Noise Important Areas within the study area. Of these, four are located along the Potential Intervention Extent. The majority of the Important Areas cover urban areas close to the A66 to the east of the extent, there are however two Important Areas along the A66 to the west, around the village of Elton. Highways England has been identified as the Noise Making authority for four of these, the relevant local authority for ten and both organisations for two Noise Important Areas.

There are four Defra Important Areas for noise located along the Potential Intervention Extent.

There are two LNRs within the study area; Black Bobbies Field Thornaby is adjacent to the River Tees, approximately 1km south of the extent; and Cemetery located 600m east of the study area.

Page 85 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

This section of the A66 corridor passes to the south of Stockton-on-Tees and through a generally urban environment, however the corridor begins to the immediate south-west through arable farmland to the north of Elton. It intersects a number of A roads, crosses the River Tees and leads to the major junction with the A19 to the west of Middlesbrough, all in close proximity to large residential areas.

Figure 5.8-4 Key Environmental Sensitivities - A66 South-West Stockton-on-Tees to A19 - Area

There is one Grade II* Registered Park and Garden, Roper Park (high value), 650m north of the Proposed Intervention Extent, south of Oxbridge. There are two Conservation Areas of medium value in the 1km study area; Stockton Town Centre located 680m north and Thornaby Green located 850m south of the extent. Other cultural heritage assets in the study area include 40 Listed Buildings; six of these are Grade II* listed (high value) and the remaining 34 are Grade II listed (medium value). These Listed Buildings are largely grouped around the Stockton Town Centre Conservation Area and the historic villages of Hartburn and Elton.

Along the Potential Intervention Extent, the existing A66 crosses the WFD classified water courses; the Old River Tees, the River Tees and Hartburn Beck. A large floodplain (Flood Zone 3) lies to the south of the A66 and west of the Old River Tees. Other areas of potential flooding (Flood Zone 2 and 3) exists where the A66 crosses Hartburn Beck and the River Tees.

Page 86 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

There are three historic and one active landfill sites adjacent, or in close proximity, to the A66 around the Surtees and Tees Bridge.

There is potentially contaminated land at landfill sites close to the Surtees and Tees Bridges.

Public Rights of Way that cross, are adjacent to, or use the existing network along the Proposed Intervention Extent include three footpaths, one of which is a section of the Teesdale Way long distance walk from Cumbria to the North Yorkshire Coast and four cycle routes, one of which is the National Cycle Network Route 14.

5.8.5 Location 5: A66 from A19 to Teesport

This potential intervention area falls within the Middlesbrough Council and Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council area. No AQMAs have been declared within either local authority boundary.

There are a total of 16 Defra Noise Important Areas within the study area. Six of these are located along the Potential Intervention Extent. Important Areas are spread throughout the study area. Highways England is the Noise Making Authority for two of these and joint Noise Making Authority ith the local authority for one. The local authorities have been identified as the Noise Making Authority for the remaining Noise Important Areas.

There are six Defra Important Areas for noise located along the Potential Intervention Extent.

Page 87 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Figure 5.8-5 Key Environmental Sensitivities - A66 from A19 to Teesport Area

An internationally designated nature conservation site, Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar site is located 700m north of the extent by . This site also shares a national nature conservation designation (SSSI) called the Tees and Hartlepool Foreshore and Wetland. The site comprises several coastal areas which are an integral part of the complex of wetlands, estuarine and maritime sites supporting the internationally important population of wildfowl and waders on the Tees Estuary. There are also two locally designated nature conservation sites in the site area - LNR, located approximately 200m south-east of the A19/A66 interchange and LNR located approximately 800m south of the extent and south of .

The proposed scheme corridor passes through an urban landscape to the south of the River Tees and through the northern extents of Middlesbrough, with industrial estates, dense housing estates, small open space recreation areas such as Stunt Drive Experience and occasional grazed fields. Broken belts of trees line the road and provide some level of screening for the adjacent housing areas although the road is often open and exposed to views, including a section where the road is elevated. Middlesbrough Dock and the Riverside football stadium are just to the north by the river.

Page 88 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Cultural heritage features within the study area include a Grade II Registered Park and Garden and Conservation Area (medium value), Albert Park, situated 850m south of the extent by Grovehill. The extent passes through the Middlesbrough Historic Quarter Conservation Area which is of medium value and is centred on the A178 and Middlesbrough Railway Station. Other cultural heritage features in the study area include 64 Listed Buildings within the study area; nine Grade II* (high value) and 56 Grade II (medium value). These are largely grouped around the Albert Road area, the Historic Quarter Conservation Area and South Bank.

The Middlesbrough Historic Quarter Conservation Area and a large number of nationally protected Listed Buildings are located near to the Potential Intervention Extent.

Along the Potential Intervention Extent the existing A66 crosses the WFD classified water courses; Marton Beck, Ormesby Beck and Spencer Beck with associated Flood Zones (2 and 3).

There is potentially contaminated land at four active and 13 historic landfill sites adjacent to, or in close proximity to the extent, largely located in the eastern area of the extent.

There is potentially contaminated land at a large number of landfill sites largely in the eastern area of the extent.

Public Rights of Way that cross, are adjacent to, or use the existing network along the Proposed Intervention Extent include one footpath, the Teesdale Way long distance walk from Cumbria to the North Yorkshire Coast and one bridleway. There are also 10 cycle routes including National Cycle Network routes 65 and 1, which forms the majority of the British section of the North Sea Cycle Route.

5.8.6 Location 6: A689 Tees Valley

This potential intervention area falls within the Hartlepool Borough Council, Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council and Durham County Council area. No AQMAs have been declared within either local authority boundary.

There are four Defra Noise Important Areas within the study area. Three of these are located along the Potential Intervention Extent. These Important Areas are centred on properties in , and to the north of Wynyard. The Noise Making Authorities for these Noise Important Areas have been identified as the relevant councils.

There are three Defra Important Areas for noise located along the Potential Intervention Extent.

Page 89 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

The Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar (an internationally designated nature conservation site) is located 1.8km south-east of the extent. The SPA is designated for supporting bird populations of European importance. The extent bisects the Walkway LNR north-west of Wynyard. Another LNR, the Greatham Beck is located approximately 300m north of the extent, on the south-eastern boundary of Owton Manor. An area of ancient woodland around a linear water feature called North Burn extends to and then runs adjacent to the A689 for approximately 215m; east of Castle Eden Walkway LNR. Wolviston Wildlife Area, a small area of meadow, woodland and wetland is located to the east of Wynyard Service Station. Though not a statutory designated site, this area is likely to be of nature conservation value in the local context.

The Potential Intervention Extent crosses the Castle Eden Walkway Local Nature Reserve and is adjacent to an area of Ancient Woodland.

Figure 5.8-6 Key Environmental Sensitivities - A689 Tees Valley Area

The intervention extent crosses the Wynyard Park Special Landscape Area (SLA) to the north- west of the village of Wolviston. According to the Stockton-on-Tees Local Plan (2006), this is an area where the overall landscape quality is high and will be protected from development likely to damage landscape quality through inappropriate development.

Cultural heritage features in the study area include a Grade II* Registered Park and Garden, Wynyard Park of high value, is located 600m south of the extent, south of Wynyard Village and a medieval moated site at Claxton (Scheduled Monument of high value) is located 150m north of

Page 90 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

the extent. There are Conservation Areas at Greatham and Wolviston (medium value), located approximately 170m and 100m south of the extent respectively. A total of 43 Listed Buildings largely grouped within the aforementioned Conservation Areas can be found within the study area. Two of these are Grade II* listed (high value) whilst the remaining 41 are Grade II listed (medium value).

This section of the A689 corridor runs from the densely populated southern extents of Hartlepool, alongside residential estates and into the low plains of the River Tees to the north of Billingham, surrounded by arable farmland and scattered detached farms. On the western extents are is heavily wooded and designated area of Wynyard Park and Wynyard Village.

Along the Potential Intervention Extent the existing A66 crosses the WFD classified water courses; Greatham Beck and North Burn with associated Flood Zones (2 and 3).

There is potentially contaminated land at one historic and authorised landfill site and one historic site adjacent to the extent.

Public Rights of Way that cross, are adjacent to, or use the existing network along the Proposed Intervention Extent include 12 footpaths and one bridleway. There are also four cycle routes including National Cycle Network routes 14 and one, which forms the majority of the British section of the North Sea Cycle Route.

5.8.7 Location 7: A689 County Durham

This potential intervention area falls within Durham County Council. This council has not declared

AQMAs for NO2 or PM10 in the vicinity of this intervention area.

There is one Noise Important area within the study area and this is situated along the Potential Intervention Extent to the west of Sedgefield. Durham County Council has been identified as the Noise Making Authority for this area.

There is one Defra Important Area for noise located along the Potential Intervention Extent.

There are no statutorily designated nature conservation sites within 1km of this intervention extent.

Cultural heritage features include a Grade II Registered Park and Garden and Conservation Area, Hardwick Park of medium value, located adjacent to the northern boundary of the extent and covering an area to the west of Sedgefield. Another Grade II Registered Park and Garden, Ceddesfeld Hall Gardens, of medium value, is located approximately 450m north of the extent in Sedgefield. A second Conservation Area, Sedgefield (medium value), covers the town’s historic core. This Conservation Area is located approximately 400m north of the extent between Hardwick Park Registered Park and Garden/ Conservation Area and Ceddesfeld Hall Conservation Area. Other cultural heritage features include 32 Listed Buildings; one of which is Grade I listed (high value), two are Grade II* (high value) listed whilst the remaining 29 are Grade

Page 91 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

II listed (medium value). These Listed Buildings are largely grouped within the Conservation Areas to the east of the extent.

Figure 5.8-7 Key Environmental Sensitivities - A689 County Durham Area

Water features within the study area include Shotton Beck and the River Skerne with areas of Flood Zones 2 and 3 designated around its course. There is potentially contaminated land at the Bradbury Quarry historic landfill site adjacent to the extent close to the Junction 60 of the A1(M).

The potential extent crosses a large flood zone associated with the River Skerne.

Public Rights of Way that cross, are adjacent to, or use the existing network along the Proposed Intervention Extent include three footpaths and one bridleway.

5.9 Society

Highways England’s London to Scotland East Route-based Strategy Evidence Report presents a schedule of challenges and opportunities on the strategic route. In terms of societal challenges and opportunities, the table references severance on the A66, for cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians due to factors such as conflict with HGVs at junctions and unsuitable crossing facilities. The table also includes reference to whether the A66 is suitable for cyclists.

Page 92 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Data from the National Trip End Model Presentation Program (TEMPRO) was used to analyse changes in population, households and employment in the study area for the period of 2005 to 2014. The results are shown in the figures below.

Figure 5.9-1 TEMPRO map with change in number of households 2005-14

Figure 5.9-1 TEMPRO map with change in number of households 2005-14 indicates a significant increase in the number of households, particularly in urban areas, since 2005. However, this does not necessarily indicate a move from rural to urban areas and is more likely to be proportional to the number of households in each area. Furthermore, an increase in the number of households does not necessarily indicate an increase in population. Other causes such as a lower number of people per dwelling may contribute to the increase in the number of households.

Page 93 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Figure 5.9-2 TEMPRO analysis with change in number of jobs 2005-2014

Figure 5.9-2 TEMPRO analysis with change in number of jobs 2005-2014 indicates a reduction in the number of jobs in the majority of areas within the study area. The figures shown do not indicate the number of part-time and full-time jobs and so it is possible that the shift from full-time to part-time working is masked and the local population’s utilisation is not considered fully.

Page 94 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Figure 5.9-3 TEMPRO analysis with change in number of workers 2005-2014

Page 95 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Figure 5.9-3 indicates a substantial reduction in the number of workers in urban areas and also in rural parts of County Durham. There is also a notable increase in the number of workers in rural areas to the north and west of the Tees Valley area.

Figure 5.9-4 TEMPRO analysis with change in total population 2005-14

Figure 5.9-4 demonstrates an increase in population across the study area, with the exception of Redcar, Eston and South Bank, and Thornaby. As expected, the urban areas show the greatest increases in population, but the rural areas to the north and west of Middlesbrough also show large increases in population.

Page 96 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Figure 5.9-5 TEMPRO analysis of population change in study area

Figure 5.9-5 shows the population change for young, working age and retired people from 2005 to 2014. It indicates a reduction in the number of young people, a slight increase in the number of working age people and a large increase in the number of people of retirement age. There is also an increase in the total population for the period shown.

Figure 5.9-6 TEMPRO analysis of demographic change in study area.

Page 97 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Figure 5.9-6 summarises the data summarised above and compares it to the national average for Great Britain (GB). It demonstrates that the increases in population and households are slightly below the national average. For the period of 2005 to 2014, Great Britain as a whole experienced a growth of approximately 3% in the number of workers and the number of jobs. For the same period, the study area experienced a reduction of jobs and workers of approximately -2%. For Redcar and Cleveland, these losses were -5% jobs and -6% workers.

Figure 5.9-7 TEMPRO analysis of car ownership trends in study area.

Figure 5.9-7 show the increase in car ownership from 2005 to 2014. This is in contrast to Table 4.5-1 Comparison of observed & modelled flows across screenlines., which appears to show a reduction in trips across the study area between 2005 and 2012 which would indicate that more people own cars, but are using them less frequently overall.

The National Trip End Model Presentation Program (TEMPRO) shows that the population across much of the Tees Valley has increased between 2005 and 2014.

5.10 Safety

Figure 2.3 of Highways England’s London to Scotland East Route-based Strategy Evidence Report presents illustrative plans which depict the total casualties per billion vehicle miles (2009 – 2011) along the strategic road network from London to East Scotland. A casualty is defined as the victim of a collision whereby slight, serious or fatal injuries were sustained. Damage only incidents are not included. The sections of the route are colour coded from red to dark green as follows: Red = top 10% in terms of the total number of casualties when compared to the entire national strategic road network, orange = the next 15%, yellow = the next 15%, light green = the next 15%, dark green = the bottom 30%.

Page 98 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

The figure below depicts the A66 section of the network, between the A1(M) and the A19.

Figure 5.10-1 Highways England SRN Casualty Rankings in the Study Area

The A66 / A19 junction is shown as red and is therefore in the top 10% of areas on the route, in terms of the total number of casualties. This location is also shown as one of the top 250 collision locations on the national strategic road network (2009 – 2011), with a ranking of 158. The A66 to the south of Darlington is shown as orange, suggesting that there may also be an accident problem in this area. The sections east of Darlington and west of the A66 / A19 junction are shown as yellow and the middle section of the A66 is shown as light green, suggesting that the accident rates are lower in these locations.

Detailed accident data has been obtained for the study area and a number of trends have been identified. The following sections set out the analysis which has been undertaken for each of the sections of the study area.

5.10.1 Accident Data

Accident data have been obtained from the STATS19 database, for the latest available period, 2009-2013.

The figure below presents the locations of all of the accidents which have occurred across the study area during the five-year study period. Accidents are colour coded depending on their severity.

Page 99 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Figure 5.10-2 All Accidents in Study Area: 2009 – 2013

For clarity, the figure below presents the locations of fatal and serious (KSI) accidents only.

Figure 5.10-3 KSI Accidents in Study Area: 2009 - 2013

Page 100 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

5.10.2 Accident Rate

For the purposes of undertaking analysis of the accident rates across the study area network, the routes have been divided into several sections, as shown in the figure below. The sections have been identified based on the extent of the proposed schemes, the availability of traffic flows and the existing highway standard.

Figure 5.10-4 Sections of network examined in Accident Analysis

The table below presents the results of the accident rate analysis for each of the sections shown above. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for each of the sections has been calculated using TRADS data, where available. For sections 3, 5a, 5b, 5c and 6, the ADT has been calculated using survey data provided by TVU. For sections 7a and 7b, data were obtained from the strategic model, due to the unavailability of TRADS or survey data. This approach is considered to be appropriate, as the strategic model data have been shown to compare favourably with data from TRADS, as described in Section 5.4. It can be noted that sections 5a and 5b are the eastbound and westbound sections of the A66 through Middlesbrough and for the purposes of the

Page 101 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

subsequent accident analysis, the total accidents which have occurred and the ADT flow have been added together to provide figures for the two-way operation of this section.

Table 5.10-1 Accident rates for sections of network compared to COBA reference values Total Assumed Number Road Of PIAs Total Rse COBA % Diff of Rse Section Type 2009 - Length (PIA/m referen compared to Number (COBA) 2013 (km) ADT Veh km vkm) ce COBA

D2 1 Motorway 18 7.80 15,000 42,705,000 0.0843 0.0982 -14.2%

Modern 2 S2 Roads 32 8.98 19,000 62,298,706 0.1027 0.2737 -62.5%

Modern 3 S2 Roads 53 5.49 22,000 44,067,908 0.2405 0.2737 +12.1%

Modern 4a D2 Roads 27 9.29 30,000 101,771,333 0.0531 0.1626 -67.4%

Modern 4b D2 Roads 8 2.21 43,000 34,744,661 0.0461 0.1626 -71.7%

Modern 4c D2 Roads 25 4.89 52,000 92,812,200 0.0539 0.1626 -66.9%

Modern 5a + 5b D2 Roads 31 3.66 88,900 119,085,995 0.0521 0.1626 -68.0%

Modern 5c D2 Roads 56 5.50 32,100 64,443,790 0.1738 0.1626 +6.9%

Modern 6 D2 Roads 76 12.762 30,300 141,092,825 0.1077 0.1626 -33.7%

Modern 7a S2 Roads 12 3.01 29,400* 32,313,019 0.0743 0.2737 -72.9%

Modern 7b D2 Roads 5 1.58 42,600* 24,607,908 0.0406 0.1626 -75.0%

0.0935 Average

Table 5.10-1 Accident rates for sections of network compared to COBA reference values shows a wide range of accident rates along the route, with a maximum of 0.2405 personal injury

Page 102 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

accidents (PIAs) occurring for every million vehicle kilometres travelled in Section 3. Section 7b has the lowest accident rate at 0.0406 PIAs occurring for every million vehicle kilometres travelled. Overall the route average is shown to be 0.0935 PIAs occurring for every million vehicle kilometres travelled.

It should be noted that, due to the relatively short lengths of several of the sections along the route, the accident rate is very sensitive to changes. For example if there was one less accident in Section 7b then the accident rate would fall from 0.0406 to 0.0325 PIAs occurring for every million vehicle kilometres travelled.

The table below includes the assumed road type for each of the sections and the corresponding accident rate for each type, as extrapolated for the year 2015 from the accident rate data contained in the COBA manual. It can be seen from this analysis that, with the exception of Section 5c, the accident rates calculated for all of the sections are less than those derived from the COBA manual. The accident rate on Section 7b has the greatest percentage difference from COBA, at -75.0%. The accident rate on Section 3 is the highest when compared to the COBA rate, at +6.9%.

In addition to expressing the accident rate in terms of the number of PIAs per million vehicle kilometres, it can also be expressed as the number of PIAs per billion vehicle kilometres. The DfT’s ‘Road Safety Statistics’ table RAS10002 includes accident rate data for various road types expressed in this way, allowing for a further comparison with the calculated accident rates for each section of the study area. This analysis is shown in the table below. The sections have been identified as either motorway, rural A-road or urban A-road. Where the road passes through both urban and rural areas, the rate for ‘All A-roads’ has been used.

Table 5.10-2- Accident rates for sections of network compared to DfT reference values Total % Diff of Assumed Number Of Total Rse DfT rate Rse Section Road Type PIAs 2009 - Length (PIA/bv 2009 – 2013 compared Number (DfT) 2013 (km) ADT Veh km km) (PIA/bvkm) to DfT

1 Motorway 18 7.80 15,000 42,705,000 84.30 60 +40.3%

2 Rural A-road 32 8.98 19,000 62,298,706 102.73 184 -44.2%

3 All A-roads 53 5.49 22,000 44,067,908 240.54 313 -23.2%

4a Rural A-road 27 9.29 30,000 101,771,333 53.06 184 -71.2%

4b Rural A-road 8 2.21 43,000 34,744,661 46.05 184 -75.0%

4c Rural A-road 25 4.89 52,000 92,812,200 53.87 184 -70.8%

Urban A- 5a + 5b road 31 3.66 88,900 119,085,995 52.06 541 -90.4%

Page 103 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Total % Diff of Assumed Number Of Total Rse DfT rate Rse Section Road Type PIAs 2009 - Length (PIA/bv 2009 – 2013 compared Number (DfT) 2013 (km) ADT Veh km km) (PIA/bvkm) to DfT

5c All A-roads 56 5.50 32,100 64,443,790 173.79 313 -44.5%

6 Rural A-road 76 12.762 30,300 141,092,825 107.73 184 -41.5%

7a Rural A-road 12 3.01 29,400* 32,313,019 74.27 184 -59.7%

7b Rural A-road 5 1.58 42,600* 24,607,908 40.64 184 -77.9%

93.55 Average

*ADT Data are from strategic model output due to unavailability of TRADS data

It can be seen from the results shown in Table 5.10-2 that the accident rate calculated for Section 1 is higher than those provided by DfT for the same time period. All of the remaining sections have accident rates which are lower than those provided by DfT, particularly Sections 4a, 4b, 4c, 5a, 5b and 7b. Section 5a + 5b shows the greatest variance from the DfT rate, at - 89.4%.

It can therefore be concluded that the route as a whole has a noticeably lower accident rate compared to the national average.

5.10.3 Accident Severity

The table below shows the ratio of recorded killed and serious injury accidents compared to the total number of accidents.

Page 104 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Table 5.10-3 Killed and Serious Accident Ratio Total Ratio of KSI Accidents Total Section to All (2009 – Fatal/Serious Accidents 2013)

1 18 7 39%

2 32 5 16%

3 53 6 11%

4a 27 3 11%

4b 8 1 13%

4c 25 3 12%

5a 9 1 11%

5b 22 5 23%

5c 56 10 18%

6 76 21 28%

7a 12 3 25%

7b 5 1 20%

Total 343 66 19%

The table above shows an average KSI accident ratio of 19% for the study area. A review of Table RAS10003 of the DfT’s ‘Road Safety Statistics’ shows that the national average severity rates for KSI accidents over the same five year review period of 2009 – 2013 was recorded to be 14.96% for all road types and speeds. It can therefore be determined that the study area experiences a proportion of KSI accidents which is higher than the national average.

Section 1, Section 5b, Section 6, Section 7a and Section 7b are recorded as having higher than average rates. Section 1 is the A66(M) and A1(M) Junction 57. The highest proportion of KSI accidents, 44%, occurred at this location, suggesting that there may be existing issues with highway safety. Section 5b is the westbound section of the A66 through Middlesbrough. The higher than average proportion of KSI accidents here may be attributable to the busier urban environment with a higher number of potential vehicle conflicts. Sections 6, 7a and 7b are the A689 through Tees Valley and County Durham respectively. The fact that all of these sections experience higher than average proportions of KSI accidents suggests that the highway safety on the full A689 route through the study area may need to be examined further.

With the exception of two relatively short sections of the A689 in Sections 6 and 7a which have an existing speed limit of 60mph, the remaining sections described above which experience a higher than average proportion of KSI accidents have either a 50mph or 70mph speed limit.

Page 105 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

A further review of Table RAS10003 of the DfT’s ‘Road Safety Statistics’ shows the average severity rates by different road speeds, as are listed below:  50mph A-road = 16.8%  60mph A-road = 22.9%  70mph A-road = 16.6%  Motorway = 11.8%

Based on the national average accident severity rate for each speed limit listed above, it can be determined that the KSI rates of those sections in the study area which have been identified as having a higher than average rates are notably higher than the national average rates listed above, especially considering that the majority of these sections are subject to either a 50mph or 70mph speed limit, where the national average is under 17% KSI accidents but the calculated rates are between 20% for Section 7b up to 44% for Section 1.

5.10.4 Accident Factors – Weather

The table below provides a summary of the weather conditions at which the recorded accidents occurred. The percentage of recorded accidents occurring during adverse weather conditions has also been provided to determine the frequency of these accidents.

Table 5.10-4 Accident Weather Factors by Section (Average per Year) Average % Average Average Accidents in Accidents Section Accidents Accidents in Adverse in Adverse per Year Fine Weather Weather Weather

1 3.6 3.4 0.2 6%

2 6.4 5 1.4 28%

3 10.6 9.4 1.2 13%

4a 5.4 3.6 1.8 50%

4b 1.6 1.4 0.2 14%

4c 5 4.2 0.8 19%

5a 1.8 1.8 0 0%

5b 4.4 4 0.4 10%

5c 11.2 8.8 2.4 27%

6 15.2 12 3.2 27%

7a 2.4 1.8 0.6 33%

7b 1 0.8 0.2 25%

Total 68.6 56.2 12.4 21%

Page 106 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

The table above shows that approximately 21% of the recorded accidents occurred when there were adverse weather conditions, with a significant increase in Section 4a, with 50% of accidents.

Table RAS10006 of the DfT’s ‘Road Safety Statistics’ has been used to calculate the national average for the proportion of accidents occurring during adverse weather, for different types of road. It has been calculated that for the latest available year of 2013, the national average for motorways, as per section 1, is that 19% of accidents occurred during adverse weather. On built- up roads, similar to Sections 5a and 5b, 13.5% of accidents occurred during adverse weather conditions. On non built-up roads, similar to the other sections, 17.9% of accidents occurred during adverse weather.

Based on the national average for accidents occurring during adverse weather conditions, it can be determined that Sections 2, 4a, 4c, 5c, 6, 7a and 7b experience a higher than average proportion of accidents occurring during adverse weather conditions. There is no obvious common factor on these sections to which this trend can be attributed. Furthermore, it should be noted that due to the relatively short lengths of some of these sections, the proportion of accidents which occurred in adverse weather is very sensitive to changes.

5.10.5 Accident Factors – Day/Night

The table below provides a summary of the light conditions at which the recorded accidents occurred. The percentage of accidents recorded as occurring when dark, including lit and unlit conditions, has also been calculated.

Page 107 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Table 5.10-5 Accident Light Factors by Section (Average per Year) Average Average Average Accidents % Accidents Section Accidents Accidents in in Darkness in Darkness per Year Daylight

1 3.6 2.8 0.8 33%

2 6.4 4.8 1.6 33%

3 10.6 8.6 2 23%

4a 5.4 3.4 2 59%

4b 1.6 1.2 0.4 33%

4c 5 3.6 1.4 39%

5a 1.8 1.4 0.4 29%

5b 4.4 3.2 1.2 38%

5c 11.2 7.6 3.6 47%

6 15.2 11.8 3.4 29%

7a 2.4 1.8 0.6 33%

7b 1 0.8 0.2 25%

Total 68.6 51 17.6 35%

The table above shows that on average 35% of the recorded accidents occurred during darkness, when the traffic flows would be expected to be significantly lower. The proportion of accidents which occurred during darkness is significantly higher in Sections 4a and 5c, with 59% and 47% of accidents respectively. Both of these sections are lit dual carriageways.

Table RAS10006 of the DfT’s ‘Road Safety Statistics’ has been used to calculate the national average for the proportion of accidents occurring during darkness, for different types of road. It has been calculated that for the latest available year of 2013, the national average for motorways, as per Section 1, is that 31% of accidents occurred during darkness. On all other types of road, 26% of accidents occurred during darkness.

Based on the national average for accidents occurring during darkness, it can be determined that Sections 1 is broadly in line with the national average for motorways. Of the remaining sections, only Sections 3 and 7b are below the national average of 26% of accidents occurring during darkness. The remaining sections all experience a higher than average proportion of accidents occurring during darkness. There is no obvious common factor on these sections to which this trend can be attributed. Furthermore, it should again be noted that due to the relatively short lengths of these sections, the proportion of accidents which occurred in darkness is very sensitive to changes.

Page 108 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

5.10.6 Accident Clusters

This section provides a detailed review of any accident clusters along the route and provides a conclusion of any specific hazardous sections of road. Detailed accident plots for the study area are provided in Appendix A2, figures 2.55 to 2.65 for reference.

5.10.6.1 Location 1: A66(M) and A1(M) Junction 57 There is evidence of a small accident cluster on the A1(M) around the southbound on-slip from the A66(M). The curvature in horizontal alignment of the on-slip in this location may be a contributory factor.

5.10.6.2 Location 2: A66 Darlington Bypass The clustering in this section is focussed on the main junctions, as can be expected due to the increased number of potential vehicle conflicts in these locations. There is evidence of clustering at the A66 / A167 / A67 junction, the A66 / Neasham Road junction, the A66 / A67 / B6280 junction, the A66 / B6279 junction and the A66 / A1150 junction. All of the junctions are at-grade roundabouts, of varying standards.

5.10.6.3 Location 3: Darlington Northern Relief Road In addition to the aforementioned A66 / A1150 roundabout, there is evidence of clustering at the A1150 / A167 roundabout and the A167 / A1(M) junction. As discussed above, the clustering of accidents at the main junctions can be expected due to the increased number of potential vehicle conflicts in these locations. However, in addition to the main junctions in Location 3, there is also evidence of clustering on the links between the junctions. This is most evident along the A1150 Whinfield Road through North Darlington, with this partly attributable to the urban environment in this area and the greater number of pedestrian and vehicle conflicts associated with this. In addition, clustering is evident along the A167 through Beaumont Hill and Coatham Mundeville, with this partly attributable to variations in the horizontal and vertical highway alignment, with several significant bends and undulations in the area.

Location 4: A66 South-west Stockton-on-Tees to A19 The majority of the accident clusters in Location 4 are evident around the main junctions: the A66 / Darlington Road / Mill Lane junction at Long Newton, the A66 / Yarm Back Lane / Darlington Road / Durham Lane junction, the A66 / A1027 / A135 junction south of Stockton-on-Tees, the A66 / A135 junction and the A66 / A19 junction. In addition, there is evidence of clustering on the A66 from the point where it crosses the River Tees, through Thornaby and past Teesside Retail Park up to the A19 junction to the east. It can be noted, however, that all except one serious and one fatal accident in this area were slight in terms of severity. Nevertheless, the high number of accidents along this section of the A66 and at the A66 / A19 junction is in line with the findings of Highways England’s London to Scotland East Route-based Strategy Evidence Report, which identified this area as an area with a high number of casualties and as one of the top 250 collision locations on the national strategic road network (2009 – 2011).

5.10.6.4 Location 5: A66 from A19 to Teesport The accident clusters in Location 5 are again focussed on the main junctions: the A66 / Newport Road / A1032 / Tees Bridge Approach Road junction, the A66 / B1272 / A178 junction, the A66 /

Page 109 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Marton Road junction, the A66 / A172 merge, the A66 / Cargo Fleet Lane junction, the A66 / B1513 / Middlesbrough Road junction, the A66 / Eston Road / Church Lane junction and the A66 / Tees Dock Road junction. In terms of the severity of accidents in these clusters, the A66 / Eston Road / Church Lane junction, which is traffic signal-controlled, is notable in that all of the accidents which occurred here were classed as serious.

5.10.6.5 Location 6: A689 Tees Valley The accident clusters in Location 6 are typically focussed on the main junctions: the A689 / The Wynd / Hanzard Drive junction, the A689 / A19 junction, the A689 / A1185 junction, the A689 / Dalton Back Lane junction, the A689 / Owton Manor Lane / Seaton Lane junction, the A689 / Lane junction and the A689 / Brenda Road junction. In addition, the section of the A689 from the A19 to Dalton Back Lane further east is notable for the high proportion of serious accidents which occurred here.

5.10.6.6 Location 7: A689 County Durham In line with the trend evident across the other sections of the study area, the main accident clusters in Location 7 can be found at the three main junctions in this section: the A689 / A1(M) junction, the A689 / A177 / Station Road junction (Sands Hall Roundabout) and the A689 / A177 Stockton Road junction.

Accident rates are particularly high along the A66 east of Middlesbrough, and along the A167 and A1150 north of Darlington. Most accidents take place during daylight, but the A66 east of Darlington sees a lot of accidents in darkness and inclement weather.

5.11 Asset Condition

The Highways England’s Route Strategy Evidence Report states that the road surface on the strategic road network is primarily surfaced with two types of flexible bituminous materials, namely Hot Rolled Asphalt (HRA) which has an approximate design life of 25 years and Thin Surface Course System (TSCS) with a lower construction cost and shorter design life of 10-15 years. Large tranches of HRA were laid in the 1990s and TSCS tranches laid in the 2000s resulting in a significant proportion of the network reaching the end of its design life by 2020.

Across the network, there are a number of common issues affecting structures which require substantial ongoing expenditure on remedial maintenance. A large proportion of the network was opened in the 1960s and 1970s, which means that the Tees Valley Infrastructure has an older average age than the strategic network as a whole. Older structures on the route have therefore deteriorated more than average due to both a longer operational life, and having been constructed to older design standards. Typically, ‘families’ of bridges built to similar specifications share common defects, and many therefore require more frequent monitoring and maintenance.

In terms of undertaking maintenance operations, Highways England has stated that it currently undertakes a series of overnight closures of the network to allow maintenance works to be undertaken by the Maintenance Service Provider. Any pavement schemes are grouped together and delivered under such closures which tend to be a week’s duration of night time closures. The

Page 110 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Local Authorities are invited to share the closures to undertake their sweeping and litter clearance duties.

A CHARM intelligent transport model has been built for the Highway England Traffic Officer Service and is planned to be installed in the North East towards the end of 2017 in order to unify traffic control systems across the North East.

5.11.1 Location 1: A66(M) and A1(M) Junction 57

The route at this location is operated and maintained by A-One+ the Managing Agent Contractor for Area 14 of the Highways England strategic road network. As per paragraph 5.12 above Highways England has stated that it currently undertakes a series of overnight closures of the route to allow maintenance works to be undertaken. The A66(M) eastbound between junction 57 of the A1(M) to Blackwell roundabout was last resurfaced in October 2014.

Highways England’s Strategy Report has confirmed that the A66(M) has both complete coverage of ERTs and MS1 variable message signs.

The A1(M) Junction 57 is constructed on embankment and at grade while the A66 (M) slip road runs in cutting. A review of the existing route based on information on HAGDMS indicate that minor earthwork defects of Class 1D and HD41 Earthwork ‘Features grade of less than 3 (medium risk) have been observed, however, these are not expected to pose a significant geotechnical constraint for the construction of new road pavements and structures for this location.

There were no identified geotechnical hazards in this area that could impact on any proposed alignment options. This area is therefore considered to be low risk.

5.11.2 Location 2: A66 Darlington Bypass

This section of the route is operated and maintained by A-One+ the Managing Agent Contractor for Area 14 of the Highways England strategic road network. Maintenance operations on the A66 Darlington Bypass will affect journey-time reliability as the majority of the route is single carriageway. As per paragraph 5.12 above a significant proportion of the network road surface is anticipated to reach the end of its design life by 2020. The A66 between Neasham Road and Morton Palms was resurfaced in August 2014.

The Blackwell Bridge carries the A66 Darlington bypass over the River Tees east of the roundabout between the A66 and Stapleton Bank. The Blackwell Bridge once carried the A1 and was doubled in width with a matching stone facing covering reinforced concrete in the 1960s. The bridge is reported to be in good condition. This section of the route also passes over the East Coast Mainline approximately 1 mile east of Blands Corner roundabout. This bridge is also in good condition.

There is currently no technology provision on the A66 Darlington Bypass.

Information on HAGDMS confirms that the existing alignment within this location runs on embankment, in cutting and at grade across the route. Minor earth defects of Class 1D (minor defects) and HD41 features Grade of less than 3 (medium risk) are recorded and whilst some

Page 111 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

areas may require special geotechnical attention, they are not considered to pose a significant geotechnical constraint for the construction of new road pavements and structures for this location.

The geotechnical hazards that could impact on any proposed alignment options within this location include soluble rocks and locally, compressible ground and material susceptible to shrink swell issues. This location is considered to be a medium risk.

5.11.3 Location 3: Darlington Northern Relief Road

Darlington Borough Council operate and maintain the existing road network in this area. Maintenance operations on the A66 Darlington Bypass will affect journey-time reliability as the majority of the route is single carriageway. Consultations with Darlington Council have confirmed that the carriageway surface is in generally good condition, however it is a mixture of surfacing types and may need upgrading in the future. The A1150 and the A167 are surveyed once a year by independent specialists using a Surface Condition Assessment for the National Network of Roads (SCANNER) machine to measure a range of road condition parameters. The A1150 between Whinfield Road and Stockton Road was last resurfaced in 2013/14 and the carriageway is due to be resurfaced between Whinbush Way and Stockton Road in 2015/16.

The A1150 also passes over the East Coast Mainline approximately a quarter of a mile east of the A167/A1150 roundabout. Darlington Borough Council have confirmed the bridge is currently in good condition. There is currently no technology provision on the existing network in this location.

At the time of this study, information on the earthworks for this section of the study area, including an assessment of asset condition in accordance with HD41/03 is not available on HAGDMS. However, a virtual walkover has been undertaken for this location using Google Maps, which shows the existing local roads to run on embankment, in cutting and at grade, the remaining area within the offline option is considered to be open Greenfield land. There were no obvious signs of defects observed for this location. It is recommended that a competent geotechnical engineer undertake a full walkover of the route at detailed desk study stage, should the proposed options be taken forward beyond the PCF Stage 0.

5.11.4 Location 4: A66 South-west Stockton-on-Tees to A19

The western section of the A66 is operated and maintained by A-One+ the Managing Agent Contractor for Area 14 of the Highways England strategic road network. The A66 east of the junction with Teesside Park to the junction with the A19 is operated and maintained by Autolink Concessionaires Ltd DBFO Company. As per paragraph 5.12 above Highways England has stated that maintenance works are undertaken during a series of overnight closures and a significant proportion of the network road surface is anticipated to reach the end of its design life by 2020. A phased programme of resurfacing work is planned on the A66 either side of Surtees Bridge – eastbound in 2015 and westbound in 2016. The A66 westbound between Preston Farm and Elton was resurfaced in November 2014.

This section of the route passes over the Surtees Bridge which crosses the River Tees 2.5 miles east of the Elton Interchange. The bridge was recently rebuilt in 2008 due to settlement of the

Page 112 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

eastern abutment and embankment, lateral displacement of the piled foundation and the need to widen the bridge to six lanes to accommodate access roads, therefore is in good condition.

Highways England have installed Ramp Metering on the A66 slip roads at Teesside Park. The Highways England’s Route Based Strategy Report has confirmed that the remainder of the route lacks significant technology provision and such provision is currently limited to CCTV that is installed but is not currently operational on the A19 Tees Viaduct. There is also high wind information signing installed on the A19, Tees Viaduct.

Stockton Borough Council has revealed that there are significant problems with subsidence on the connecting local roads at Teesside Park. Essential structural repairs are due to commence on Teesside Park Drive at the junctions with the westbound slip roads to and from the A66. As well as the essential repairs, new traffic signals, upgraded vehicle restraint systems and improved pedestrian facilities will also be provided.

A number of earthwork risk areas (Class 1A and HD41 features grade 5 and 4) are shown on HAGDMS for sections of this location. Details of the earthwork defects including HAGDMS observation number, description and location of the defects are shown in Table 5.2-5.

5.11.5 Location 5: A66 from A19 to Teesport

Maintenance on this section of the route is the responsibility of Middlesbrough Council for the A66 from the A19 to Southbank, and Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council from Southbank to Teesport. Consultations with Middlesbrough Council have revealed the existing A66 carriageway surface is generally in good condition with very minor defects. The A66 Middlesbrough bypass Hartington Interchange and Marton Road entry and exit slip roads are due to be resurfaced in 2015-16.

Approximately 1 mile of the A66 is carried on Viaduct through Middlesbrough town centre with dense development at either side. There is currently no technology provision on this section of the A66.

At the time of this report, earthwork information for this section of the intervention extent is not available on HAGDMS. It is recommended that a competent geotechnical engineer undertake a full walkover of the route at detailed desk study stage, should the proposed options be taken forward beyond the PCF Stage 0.

5.11.6 Location 6: A689 Tees Valley

Operation and maintenance on this section of the route is the responsibility of Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council for the A689 from Wynyard to the A1185 and Hartlepool Borough Council for the A689 from the A1185 to the A179. Stockton Borough Council carries out routine maintenance of local roads and regular checks of the route. Stockton Borough Council’s Local Transport Plan states that the carriageway surface is in good condition and only 2% falls below the deficiency threshold. Consultations with Hartlepool Borough Council have revealed the existing A689 carriageway surface is generally in good condition with very minor defects. There is currently no technology provision on the A689.

Page 113 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

At the time of this report, information on the earthworks for this section of the study area including an assessment of asset condition in accordance with HD41/03 is not available on HAGDMS. However, a virtual walkover undertaken for this location of the intervention extent using Google Maps, shows the existing alignment to run on embankment, in cutting and at grade. Particular attention was paid to areas which are known to be underlain by geological formations with higher geotechnical risks, such as weak soluble rocks and drift deposits which could be a trigger for slope instability. Whilst there were no immediately obvious signs of defects observed for this location, there presence can by no means be precluded. It is recommended that a competent geotechnical engineer undertake a full walkover of the route at detailed desk study stage, should the proposed options be taken forward beyond the PCF Stage 0.

5.11.7 Location 7: A689 County Durham

Maintenance on this section of the route is the responsibility of Durham County Council. Durham County Council have produced a Highway Maintenance Plan (HMP) which sets out the Council’s inspection, condition survey, reactive maintenance and routine maintenance service levels. Any road or pavement which at the time of inspection is assessed as possibly becoming an imminent danger to road users or pedestrians, is noted and repairs arranged. To ensure that the highway network is free from hazards to the travelling public, regular safety inspections are undertaken by Durham County Council inspectors, this is carried out monthly on the A689.

Consultations with Durham County Council have revealed the existing A689 carriageway surface is generally in good condition and meets the national average for A-roads.

There is currently no technology provision on the A689.

At the time of this report, information on the earthworks for this section of the study area including an assessment of asset condition in accordance with HD41/03 is not available on HAGDMS. However, a virtual walkover undertaken for this location of the intervention extent using Google Maps, show the existing alignment to run on embankment, in cutting and at grade. Particular attention was paid to areas which are known to be underlain by geological formations with higher geotechnical risks, such as weak soluble rocks and drift deposits which could be a trigger for slope instability and an area of possible coal mining at junction 60 of the A1(M). Whilst there were no immediately obvious signs of defects observed for this location, there presence can by no means be precluded. It is recommended that a competent geotechnical engineer undertake a full walkover of the route at detailed desk study stage, should the proposed options be taken forward beyond the PCF Stage 0.

5.12 Summary

This section has presented information from a range of policy, strategy and primary data sources to provide an evidence base for the current situation within the Tees Valley. The routes are described and key datasets have been analysed. The Route Strategy Report has provided a number of inputs, and this information has been supplemented by other data sources including previous study work and consultations with stakeholders. Broadly north-south journeys have been identified as performing better than west-east journeys. Routes into Teesport and Durham Tees Valley Airport are vital for the economy; spare capacity

Page 114 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

is therefore needed for such routes to accommodate future growth at these locations as well as at planned new employment and housing sites.

Both the A66 and A689 are busy west-east corridors, and the A1(M) and A19 are busy north- south corridors. The A66 south of Darlington and Stockton is operating at or close to capacity, and future growth would cause traffic to exceed the capacity of the roads. The A66(M) however has spare capacity. Whilst the A689 is not at capacity, proposed improvements to the A19 could lead to increased demand on the A689 in the future.

Congestion has been identified at several locations around the Tees Valley area, particularly the A66 south-east of Darlington and along the A689 on the approach to Hartlepool, where vehicle speeds are slow in peak periods. The A66 east of Middlesbrough also sees slow speeds in the peaks periods. Journey time reliability varies by site, but typically times vary by less than 10% using data from four separate weeks in March 2015. There is therefore potential to improve the operation of the road network to better accommodate current and future demand.

The population is increasing in most parts of the Tees Valley, which could lead to increased demand on transport routes in the area. The number of jobs is decreasing in some areas, further emphasising the need for transport routes to support and facilitate the economic growth of the region.

The A66 / A19 junction has been identified as a location with a lot of accidents. Accident rates are particularly high along the A66 east of Middlesbrough, and on the A167 and A1150 north of Darlington. The A66 east of Darlington sees a lot of accidents in inclement weather in comparison to the rest of the Tees Valley area. A high proportion of accidents along the A1(M) and A66(M) result in serious or fatal injuries.

A number of environmental sensitivities have been identified within the intervention areas, including conservation, landscape and water designations. These are at varying distances from the intervention extents. Across the study areas, no AQMAs have been declared suggesting that air quality is not a concern in the baseline environment. A number of Defra Noise Important Areas have been identified across the study area, highlighting that road traffic has an impact on the current noise climate around the potential intervention extents. As part of the subsequent environmental assessments, the potential of the preferred options to result in air quality or noise impacts will be subject to further assessment along with potential for impacts on other identified environmental sensitivities.

The main geotechnical hazards identified during the desk study searches include, compressible ground, landfill/ made ground, soluble rocks, running sands, landslide / slope instability, collapsible deposits, mining/ quarrying, and shrink and swell soils.

It is considered that the areas which may pose the highest risk for the above geotechnical hazards are intervention Locations 4, 5 and 6, and are classified as being high and very high. The geotechnical hazards at the remaining locations are considered to be relatively minor and are low to medium risk.

The main geotechnical hazards within locations 4, 5 and 6 are compressible ground, historical landfills, mining and quarrying instability and running sands, giving the potential for differential

Page 115 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

settlement and long term settlement across these areas. The presence of soluble rocks would also be a problem for any proposed structures necessitating deep foundations below any weaker superficial deposits. Contamination issues arising from nearby and underlying landfills and areas of made ground are also considered a high risk.

It is recommended that a competent geotechnical engineer undertake a full walkover of the route at detailed desk study stage, in order to quantify the risks at these locations.

Page 116 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

6 Understanding Future Year Performance

6.1 Introduction

This section provides a commentary on the potential for growth within the Tees Valley, its route network and the travel market it serves. This assessment has been derived from the analysis of regional strategies and local plans.

6.2 Inter-regional Connectivity

The Northern Powerhouse: One Agenda, One Economy, One North

The Department for Transport published The Northern Powerhouse: One Agenda, One Economy, One North. A report on the Northern Transport Strategy, in March 2015. The report puts the spotlight on improving North East connectivity and details plans which include:  completing the upgrade of the A1 to provide continuous motorway standard between London and Newcastle;  creating 34 miles of continuous Expressway on the A1 North of Newcastle, better connecting Northumberland to the rest of the country.  capacity improvements on the A19 that will benefit journeys to and from the North East and Tees Valley;  exploration of the upgrade of the A66 from west to Penrith, linking the A1 and the M6;  completion of a series of upgrades to the A1(M) to improve journey reliability to distribution centres around and Sheffield, improving access to Tees Port;  continue to improve the A19 from North Yorkshire to Newcastle, to support access to the Ports of Tyne and Tees.

One North – A Proposition for an Interconnected North

Collaboratively produced by the Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield city region bodies, One North – A Proposition for an Interconnected North report was published in July 2014.

In relation to the Tees Valley, the report identifies that the logistics sector, which is dependent on the road network and strong intermodal links, is important to the region, as illustrated by the presence of and Tesco distribution centres at Teesport. This importance emphasises the need for a robust transport network to support these activities that occur in and are associated with Teesport.

Statement of Transport Ambition

The Statement of Transport Ambition published by the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Tees Valley Unlimited in April 2011, identifies three transport goals for the region:  Improve the journey experience of transport users of urban, regional and local networks, including interfaces with national and international networks;  Improve the connectivity and access to labour markets of key business centres; and

Page 117 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

 Deliver quantified reductions in greenhouse gas emissions within cities and regional networks, taking account of cross-network policy measures.

The transport goals for the Tees Valley can be summarised as:

 Resilient Network Connectivity;  Access to Employment; and  Reducing Carbon Emissions. Source: Tees Valley Unlimited. 2011. Statement of Transport Ambition.

 It is recognised that economic growth in the Tees Valley hinges on the provision of first-rate transport links. Good connectivity along the strategic road network encompassing the A1(M), A19 and A66, would bring people and goods closer together. The movement of freight is of particular importance due to the industrial and manufacturing activities located in the region and the international gateways of Teesport and Durham Tees Valley Airport.

With respect to network resilience there are two areas of focus: local accessibility for passengers, and national and international freight and passenger movements to and from the Tees Valley. The report highlights the challenge posed by the geography of the Tees Valley, where there are several economic foci, rather than one single dominant commercial centre (see Figure 6.2-1). This polycentric character results in complex traffic flows between the various Tees Valley centres which, combined with the significance of intra-regional commuting with 86% of Tees Valley workers also residing in the region (Table 6.2-1), indicates the importance of good, reliable interconnectivity for the economy.

The polycentric character of the Tees Valley generates complex traffic flows between the district centres.

Table 6.2-1 Intra-regional commuting Workplace

Darlington Hartlepool Middlesbrough Redcar and Stockton-On- Residence Cleveland Tees

Darlington 59% 1% 2% 1% 4%

Hartlepool 1% 71% 3% 1% 5%

Middlesbrough 2% 3% 46% 13% 12%

Redcar and 2% 2% 19% 66% 7% Cleveland

Page 118 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Stockton-On- 7% 9% 19% 10% 60% Tees

Tees Valley 71% 86% 90% 92% 88% Residents

Total 86%

Source: Census Data 2011 - table WF01BEW - Location of usual residence and place of work

Figure 6.2-1 Dispersed labour markets within the Tees Valley

With specific reference to employment, the Statement of Transport Ambition states the aim to offer different facilities and services in each of the Tees Valley centres so as to strengthen the region as a whole, rather than having competition within it. This would therefore further promote travel between the various Tees Valley areas, placing additional demand on the transport network.

Page 119 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Perhaps as a result of the decline in bus patronage from 44.2 million passenger journeys in 2002/2003 to 36.9 million in 2009/10, as reported in the Statement of Transport Ambition (2011), as well as the fragmented nature of the rail transport offering within the Tees Valley (Section 5.3), car use for the journey to work is higher than the national average, 73% in comparison with 62%, (Table 6.2-1), despite the Tees Valley having lower than average car ownership at 70% compared to 74% in England (Census 2011 Table QS416EW). Car ownership is also forecast to increase in future, putting increased pressure on the road network.

The car or van is used for 73% of the journeys to work in the Tees Valley, compared with 62% nationally. Car ownership is forecast to rise, increasing pressure on the road network.

Table 6.2-2 Travel to work by mode Mode of Travel to Work

Bus, Minibus Bicycle Work From Residence Car or Van Train or Coach or Foot Home Other

Darlington 72% 1% 7% 14% 3% 6%

Hartlepool 68% 1% 9% 16% 2% 6%

Middlesbrough 74% 2% 6% 12% 3% 6%

Redcar and Cleveland 76% 1% 6% 11% 3% 6%

Stockton-on- Tees 69% 2% 7% 16% 4% 6%

Tees Valley 73% 2% 7% 13% 3% 6%

England 62% 5% 7% 14% 5% 11%

Source: Census Data 2011, Method of Travel to Work (QS701EW)

With these considerations in mind, the report sets out a series of transport issues that need to be overcome so that the key issue of access to employment can be addressed:  A range and choice of transport to key labour markets is important in order to provide opportunity for everyone to access appropriate employment;  Car use is higher than the national average for commuting, options that provide alternatives or manage demand need to be developed before rising levels of car ownership reinforce these patterns;

Page 120 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

 Economic specialisation within the Tees Valley as part of the vision for regeneration is likely to reinforce the Tees Valley’s polycentric form, hence sustainable transport solutions that support this economic vision to provide better quality links between centres will be vital; and  The availability of public transport in remote locations is particularly limiting job opportunities for those who do not have access to a car.

Freight movements are key to the Tees Valley economy, both through its manufacturing industries and as movements through its several ports, including the deep sea Teesport. Therefore future economic growth requires that the transport network is able to accommodate increased freight movements. In particular, the A1(M) and A66(T) strategic routes are highlighted as key for the region. In general, improved connections beyond the region to the rest of the country, and to London in particular, are also highlighted as being desirable.

Tees Valley Strategic Transport Priorities

The Tees Valley Strategic Transport Priorities document was published in January 2015 by the LEP Tees Valley Unlimited. In it they identify that the current level of transport infrastructure is a barrier to economic growth in the region. “Our key transport assets are focused upon the A19, A1(M) and A66, the East Coast Mainline and Transpennine rail routes – all of which link the advanced manufacturing clusters across Yorkshire and Humber, the North West, Tees Valley and the North East – and the international gateways at Teesport, particularly vital for logistics, and Durham Tees Valley Airport.”

“Tees Valley’s ambition is to contribute to Northern economic growth by creating 25,000 new jobs and over £1bn of investment over the next decade. Our Strategic Economic Plan identifies infrastructure constraints as barriers to growth in our key sectors. Sustainable growth hinges on Northern cities and city regions unlocking the potential of economic assets by forging better links between economies across the North – by road, rail and freight – and thus boosting business competitiveness, attracting foreign direct investment and opening up labour markets to access more and better job opportunities.”

The document discusses a series of schemes, with further details given in section 7. Connectivity to the areas that border the Tees Valley is also important. The North Yorkshire Third Local Transport Plan, 2011-2016, highlights that the northern districts of North Yorkshire, including Richmondshire, have geographical and transport links with the Tees Valley, and therefore the economic fortunes of these areas are intertwined. This relationship is strengthened with the North Yorkshire County council holding a non-voting seat on the Transport for Tees Valley Board, so that issues relating to the border regions can be effectively addressed.

6.3 Strategic Economic Plans & Growth Proposals

The Northern Powerhouse: One Agenda, One Economy, One North The Department for Transport’s March 2015 publication The Northern Powerhouse: One Agenda, One Economy, One North. A report on the Northern Transport Strategy, states that the north east as a whole, with a population 2.6 million generates £17,400 of Gross Value Added (GVA) per capita, which is less than the North West’s £19,900, and ’s £19,100.

Page 121 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Overall, there is room for the northern economies to grow, and the crux of the report is that this growth is best achieved through regional collaboration rather than with each of the city regions in isolation. In line with this the authors of the report aspire to have a regional centre akin to the Randstad in the Netherlands and the Rhine-Ruhr in Germany. These well-recognised economic regions make significant contributions to their national economies, with 2011 figures indicating that £210 billion, around half of the Dutch GDP, came from the Randstad from cities including the Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht, and $540 billion of the German GDP being generated in the Rhine-Rhur, including Köln (Cologne), Düsseldorf, Duisburg, Dortmund and Essen. The Randstad and the Rhine-Ruhr owe a portion of their success to the good road and frequent rail services between their constituent cities. It is to this sort of success, on a pan- Northern scale, that The Northern Powerhouse authors aspire.

With respect to transport in particular, The Northern Powerhouse outlines the need for stronger transport links between the city regions to enable better communication and therefore interaction and collaboration between businesses across the north, as well as facilitating additional commuting opportunities, which in turn supports individual’s development throughout the lifespan of their career whilst allowing them to reside in the region. Beyond infrastructure investment, the report also draws on the need for improved ticketing and information systems, so that people are aware of and can therefore capitalise on new travel opportunities and improved infrastructure.

The report lists committed transport schemes aimed at improving east-west transport connections in the north. This includes this A66/A689 strategic study.

Furthermore, the report discusses the industry in the north. It highlights that floor space-intensive industries, for example chemical, machinery and technology production, automotive and aerospace industries, life sciences, and pharmaceuticals, are attracted to the North and are also heavily reliant on road transport. Finally, the growing logistics sector demands journey time reliability and strong connections to ports, rail and international gateways both maritime and aviation.

Tees Valley Strategic Economic Plan The Tees Valley Strategic Economic Plan, published in May 2014, was produced by the LEP Tees Valley Unlimited.

Economically, the Tees Valley has suffered from a decline in manufacturing, with 93,000 sector jobs lost between 1971 and 2004. This is reflected in the 6.6% unemployment rate which is above the national average.

With only 281,000 jobs available for a working age population of 421,000, improving the employment rate in the Tees Valley is a key economic goal. It is estimated that 28,000 new jobs are required for employment rates to be in line with national figures.

There are aspirations to create 25,000 new jobs in the Tees Valley, bringing an additional £1 billion to the local economy over the next decade. These jobs are earmarked for the following sectors, recognising a decline in traditional manufacturing and a refocussing on other industries and the service sector:

Page 122 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Table 6-3 Tees Valley job creation and GVA 2015-2025 Jobs GVA Low Carbon +2,500 +£147m Advanced Manufacturing +2,500 +£147m Other Manufacturing -5,000 -£250m Construction +4,000 +£231 Professional and Business Services +8,000 +£307 Logistics +2,000 +£118 Digital +2,000 +£87 Higher Education +1,000 +£31 Health and Social Care +4,000 +£116 Services +4,000 +£119 Total +25,000 +£1,052 million

25,000 new jobs are planned for the next ten years, contributing an additional £1 billion to the economy.

The Strategic Economic Plan outlines six priorities, of which priorities 4 and 5 directly relate to transport: 1. Develop and nurture an innovation culture and positive environment for business growth. 2. Secure the transformation of Tees Valley into a Low Carbon High Value economy. 3. Secure improved skills levels to address future demand in growth sectors and in existing industries. 4. Secure additional capacity on the East Coast Main Line rail route and improve rail services to major northern cities and within the Tees Valley. 5. Improve our air, road, port, land and property infrastructure to enable economic growth. 6. Create and retain wealth by establishing the Tees Valley as a preferred location to live in, work and visit.

The Strategic Economic Plan outlines the national significance of several highways in the Tees Valley, including A1(M), A66 and A19, A174 and A1053. There are concerns that rising congestion on the Tees Valley road network will further impact access to and from current employment and retail locations and impair access to leisure and health facilities. Furthermore, growing congestion could also stifle plans for the future development of new housing and employment sites. The report draws attention to seven particular sections:  Middlesbrough and Stockton town centres, and areas of employment located on the south side of the River Tees;  In and around Ingleby Barwick, which is earmarked for future housing growth;  Around the A19/A689 interchange at Wynyard;  Sections of the A19, from its junction with the A689, south to its junction with the A174. There is also congestion reported on the western part of the A174;  The A1053 and the eastern part of the A174, which are the routes used to access Teesport;  Routes into and around Darlington, including the A66; and  The A66 west of Middlesbrough to Stockton and beyond.

Page 123 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

The A1(M), A19, A66, A174 and A1053, are key Tees Valley routes. Increasing congestion on currently affected routes could impede future housing and employment development.

Public transport is also important in the Tees Valley, with the Tees Valley Strategic Economic Plan (2014) stating that 34.7 million passengers carried by bus every year. The Plan recognises however, that inadequate public transport links within the Tees Valley fail to provide people with access to employment, and poor links to other northern cities, compounded by the low quality of rail rolling stock, has a detrimental effect on attracting inward investment and job creation.

The Strategic Economic Plan references the Local Growth Fund. The Local Growth Fund, supported by the government, has a confirmed £22.9 million for 2015 with an additional £67.4 million for 2016 onwards. The application of this funding has the following aims for the economy:  Create 5,082 jobs  Safeguard 2,748 jobs  Enable 26,393 jobs  Lever in £311.3m of public and private sector investment

Part of this is to be achieved through the funding of priority projects, including the following which are designed to address the challenges of network resilience and congestion, and will together provide 3,170 houses, 1,700 jobs and £51 million contribution to GVA. (See also section 7. Future changes to the transport system):  Bank Top Station Study (Darlington)  Middlehaven Dock Bridge  A689 Wynyard Improvements  Durham Tees Valley Airport - Southside Access Road  Sustainable Access to Employment Programme  Ingleby Way/Myton Way  A66 Teesside Park Interchange maintenance

York, North Yorkshire and East Riding Enterprise Partnership

The North Yorkshire 2009-2012 council plan, referenced in the Third Local Transport Plan, identifies six objectives for the county, including the aim to “promote a flourishing economy.” As part of this the York, North Yorkshire and East Riding Enterprise Partnership was formally recognised in July 2011. The Strategic Economic Plan of 2014 states that in order to address Priority 4, “successful and distinctive places,” there is a goal for growth in specific areas. There are four actions that are designed to meet this goal, including the following:  Action 18) "Strategic Investments in the A1/A19 corridor," to "unlock housing and employment sites."  Action 20) "Strengthen economic links with neighbouring cities."

With regards to action 18, the Strategic Economic Plan underlines the importance of the A1 and network which, alongside the East Coast Main Line rail route, allows eight of the ten largest cities in the UK to be reached in less than two hours. This aligns with the regional

Page 124 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

connectivity goals of the Tees Valley. Action 20 further emphasises the importance of regional connectivity. For the North Yorkshire region, links with the engineering activities of the Tees Valley are seen as crucial.

North East Strategic Economic Plan

The North East LEP serves the areas of Northumberland, and Tyne & Wear. County Durham in Tyne & Wear borders the Tees Valley area. Of specific relevance to this project is the section of the A689 that serves the Sedgefield area, in the southeast of County Durham.

The North East Strategic Economic Plan recognises that as well as Newcastle International Airport and the Port of Tyne, Durham Tees Valley Airport and Teesport also serve the region. The international interconnectivity of the neighbouring Tees Valley is therefore seen as important to the fortunes of Tyne & Wear and the north east as a whole. In particular, Teesport and Durham Tees Valley Airport are recognised as critical in serving the export market upon which the economy of the region is partially built.

With specific reference to transport, the report identifies that good transport investment will improve strategic connectivity, and improve intra-regional connectivity which also, for example, facilitates access to jobs. On the road network, congestion on the A19 are identified as areas of concern, in common with congestion issues further south on the Tees Valley section of the A19.

Businesses located at recently established business parks have helped to boost employment figures. These business parks are accessed via the strategic road network, and as such strategic connections both within the region and onwards, for example into the Tees Valley and beyond, are important for the future economic prosperity of the region,

The objectives of several of the Third Local Transport Plans reflect local, regional and national goals for transport. They also build on the work for the previous LTPs and are as follows:  To support and encourage the growth of local economies  To reduce the impact that transport has on the environment and to tackle climate change  To improve transport related safety and security as well as promoting healthier travel  To improve equality of opportunity for all by improving access to socially necessary goods and services  To ensure that transport services improve quality of life for all. Source: Hartlepool Local Transport Plan

Each of the local authority local transport plans, and related policies and strategies are examined below.

6.3.1 Darlington

Darlington Local Development Framework, May 2011

The Darlington Local Development Framework considers how the conditions on the wider road network can adversely affect local development. In particular, problems on the A66(T) bypass are mentioned, a route which provides a crucial link between the Tees Valley and the A1(M) and A66 for connections to points north, south and west.

Page 125 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Over the last decade, Darlington has experienced economic and housing growth and there are areas that experience peak time congestion. Therefore as car ownership increases and new trips are generated with the arrival of new employment sites, there is an increased potential for congestion on both local roads and the strategic highway network.

Darlington Local Transport Plan, Transport Strategy, 2011-2026

This document identified a number of ways to relieve congestion in Darlington and a three- pronged approach was developed:  To tackle congestion hot spots with physical improvements at junctions on the highway network, adding greater capacity for traffic;  To manage the highway network so that it operates effectively and efficiently, for the benefit of all road users; and  To provide and promote sustainable travel choices to support travel behaviour change.

6.3.2 Hartlepool

Hartlepool Third Local Transport Plan 2011-2026

The A19 trunk road runs north-south to the west of Hartlepool. From the A19, Hartlepool can be access from the north via the A179 and from the south via the A689. As the A179 and A689 are both key routes for local traffic in Hartlepool and the surrounding area, disruption on these routes can greatly impact the flow of traffic in the centre of town, and so this effect needs to be minimised.

6.3.3 Middlesbrough

Middlesbrough Third Local Transport Plan 2011-2026

The Middlesbrough Third Local Transport Plan aims to support the development proposals outlined in the Local Development Framework. This document makes reference to the A19, A66 and A174 transport corridors:  The A19 is key for linking development areas within the Tees Valley, as well as being the primary route for north-south traffic from North Yorkshire, through Teeside, north to County Durham, and .  The A66 also links a number of areas earmarked for future development. This east-west route is crucial for traffic within the Tees Valley and beyond as it links South Tees, Teesport, Middlesbrough and Stockton, which includes the development areas at Greater Middlehaven and Riverside Park.  The A174 Parkway corridor connects the A19 with the industrial areas of Wilton International and Teesport, and as such is of particular importance for freight movements. Future development to the south, for example in Greater Hemlington which includes Hemlington Grange, and Middlehaven which includes Cannon Park, would likely impact this section of the road network, highlighting the need for the roads to be able to accommodate increased future traffic. An additional consideration is that the proposed housing and employment site developments to the south of Middlesbrough would also increase commuting into the town centre.

Middlesbrough Local Development Framework

Page 126 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

The Middlesbrough Local Development Framework, published in February 2008, aims to foster economic growth and inward investment, and includes Policy CS17 on Transport Strategy. The policy aims to improve connectivity with the following locations:  between Middlesbrough and Stockton town centres and the wider Tees Valley;  Tyne and Wear city region;  Leeds city region;  Durham Tees Valley Airport; and  Teesport. These goals are hoped to be achieved through a series of measures designed to reduce congestion, remove bottlenecks and improve reliability on the A19, A66, A179 and on other routes.

6.3.4 Redcar & Cleveland

Redcar & Cleveland Third Local Transport Plan 2011-2021

Traditional employment in Redcar & Cleveland has been manufacturing based on the steel, chemicals and heavy engineering industries. For example there are the chemical plants at Wilton, which can greatly contribute to vehicular movements on the road network. The Redcar & Cleveland Third Local Transport Plan includes plans for new industrial and commercial developments, which will increase pressure on the strategic road network, in particular at roundabouts on and between the A66, A1053 (T), A174(T) and A19(T).

Redcar & Cleveland Local Development Framework

The Redcar & Cleveland local development framework includes Policy CS27 – Improving Accessibility. This policy covers various aspects of accessibility, including the following aims for the Tees Valley transport infrastructure. The stated goals include improving:  The A66 and A174 road links to the A19 and beyond to the A1/A1(M);  Access routes to Middlesbrough and identifying measures to reduce congestion; and  The efficiency of freight access and existing freight interchanges within Teesport.

6.3.5 Stockton-on-Tees

Stockton-on-Tees Third Local Transport Plan 2011-2016

The Stockton-on-Tees Third Local Transport Plan recognises several key employment and development sites that currently have access problems or have the potential to experience access issues should they be developed further, and these are as follows:   Teesside Retail Park  Wynyard Business Park

Stockton-on-Tees Core Strategy Development Plan

Stockton-on-Tees Core Strategy Development Plan, published in March 2010, identifies a series of improvements to the road network and these include road improvements:

Page 127 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

 In the vicinity of Stockton, Billingham and Thornaby town centres, to support the regeneration of these areas;  To the east of Billingham (the East Billingham Transport Corridor) to remove heavy goods vehicles from residential areas;  Across the Borough, to support regeneration proposals, including the Stockton Middlesbrough Initiative and to improve access within and beyond the City Region; and  To support sustainable development in Ingleby Barwick.

6.3.6 North Yorkshire

North Yorkshire Third Local Transport Plan 2011-2016

The A1(M) junction 57, which is part of this study, is located within Richmonshire in North Yorkshire. The North Yorkshire Third Local Transport Plan recognises outlines the following five objectives:  supporting flourishing local economies by delivering reliable and efficient transport networks and services;  reducing the impact of transport on the natural and built environment and tackling climate change;  improving transport safety and security and promoting healthier travel;  promoting greater equality of opportunity for all by improving people’s access to all necessary services; and  ensuring transport helps improve quality of life for all.

6.3.7 County Durham

As of mid-July 2015, the Third Local Transport Plan for County Durham was currently under review and unavailable for referencing in this report.

6.4 Future Land Uses and Policies

This section provides details of the future housing and employment provision for each of five Tees Valley boroughs that could have an impact on proposed transport investment decisions. This information is derived from local authority planning documents and development frameworks. The current targets for housing provision across the Tees Valley are outlined in Table 6.4-1 Key housing and economic growth proposals below.

Table 6.4-1 Key housing and economic growth proposals Council Development Type 2011- 2016- 2021- Total 2016 2021 2024 Darlington Residential 1,963 1,875 1,975 5,813 dwellings dwellings dwellings dwellings Employment No data No data No data 360 ha Hartlepool Residential 1,825 1,820 3,245 dwellings dwellings Dwellings

Page 128 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Employment No data No data 380ha from 2004 to 2021 Residential 2,325 1,960 7,365 Middlesbrough dwellings dwellings dwellings Employment 65ha 45ha 110ha Redcar and Residential 1,825 1,650 1,700 7,450 Cleveland dwellings dwellings dwellings dwellings Employment No data No data N/A 390ha Stockton-On- Residential 2,650 2,625 1,665 11,140 Tees dwellings dwellings dwellings dwellings Employment 60ha 60ha 40ha 160ha

Over 24,000 homes are planned over the next ten years in the Tees Valley.

Darlington Local Development Framework, Core Strategy, May 2011 According to the Darlington Local Development Framework, an additional 8,675 net dwellings will be required between 2004 and 2026. About 3,353 dwellings are from schemes that already have planning permission and as such are due to become available during the plan period (2011 to 2026). Therefore, land for the remaining 2,535 dwellings needs to be identified.

The main sites for new housing are the Town Centre Fringe area, North Western Urban Fringe, Eastern Urban Fringe and Rest of Urban Area which represents all the land except Central Park and the other aforementioned areas.

As detailed in Policy CS5, provision of up to 235 hectares (ha) of general and mixed use employment land will be made. This includes the following sites:  Darlington town centre (office use) and Town Centre Fringe (mixed use) - 17ha  Central Park (mixed use) - 10ha  (Business, Industrial and Logistics) - 50ha  Lingfield Area (mixed use) - 15ha  Morton Palms Business Park Area (prestige office development) - 11ha  Durham Tees Valley Airport (airport related) - 20ha, general employment - 5ha  The focus of other general and mixed use sites (up to 107ha) will be on suitable previously developed sites in sustainable locations within the Rest of Urban Area

Moreover, 125ha of land will be made available at the key employment locations of Faverdale and Heighington Lane. This land is intended to accommodate strategic employment growth and is in addition to the 235ha allocated for general employment land supply.

Hartlepool Future Housing Provision, May 2014, and Hartlepool Local Plan, April 2006

Hartlepool’s housing requirement set by the RSS requires the provision of 6,375 new dwellings over the period 2004 to 2021 (see Table 6.4-1 above).

According to Policy EMP5 of the Tees Valley Structure Plan, the provision for about 380 hectares of land should be made for employment purposes in Hartlepool. About 210 hectares of the land

Page 129 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

is reserved for business parks or other prestige employment developments at Wynyard, and Queens Meadow and about 70 hectares of land in South Hartlepool should be provided for potentially polluting or hazardous industrial development. It should be noted that Policy EMP8 requires that priority must be given to port-related industrial development.

Middlesbrough Local Development Framework, Core Strategy, February 2008 The local development framework outlines the housing provision and land for employment for 2004 to 2023 as detailed in Table 6.4-1.

The employment land has been allocated as follows:  Greater Middlehaven - 100ha (plus mixed use scheme with up to 2,780 dwellings)  Riverside Park - 35ha  Greater Hemlington - 15ha (plus sustainable community with 810 dwellings)  East Middlesbrough Business Action Zone (EMBAZ) - 15ha  Town Centre - 10ha

Redcar and Cleveland Local Development Framework, Communities DPD Preferred Options, March 2009, and Redcar and Cleveland Local Development Framework, Economy DPD Scoping Report, December 2009

Policy CS14 detailed in the local development framework outlines the housing requirements of the borough. The policy indicates that 5,215 houses, 70% of the total, will be required within the conurbation area, with 2,235, 30% of the total, needed in rural locations (see Table 6.4-1).

LDF Policy CS8 outlines the aim for 160 hectares of general employment land to be available for development in the period to 2021. In addition to this there is land safeguarded for steelmaking, chemical processing and port activities which, as detailed in policy CS10, amounts to 230 hectares of land for steel production (South Tees and Skinningrove), chemicals (Wilton) and the port.

Stockton-on-Tees Core Strategy Development Plan (Local Development Framework) March 2010 The local development framework outlines the provision of 11,140 new dwellings between 2004 to 2024, as outlined in Table 6.4-1.

Between 2004 and 2008, 2,400 dwellings were delivered, with an additional 6,800 dwellings committed in March 2008. This delivery is dispersed across the Borough as follows:  Core Area – 2,600 dwellings  Ingleby Barwick – 1600 dwellings  Stockton – 1000 dwellings  Thornaby – 700 dwellings  Rural – 500 dwellings  Billingham – 250 dwellings  Yarm, Eaglescliffe and Preston – 150 dwellings

It should be noted, however, that the 2010 SBC Core Strategy was based on brown field development and the recent spate of green field planning permissions may have compromised the validity of the Strategy’s allocations .

Page 130 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Land allocation for employment is as follows:  General Employment Land including, but not limited to, the following: o Durham Lane Industrial Estate (40ha) o Belasis Technology Park (20ha) o Teesside Industrial Estate (30ha) o (20ha) o Core Area (10ha) Plus  Key Employment Location – Wynyard - 70ha  Durham Tees Valley Airport - 50ha  Land for Chemical and Steel Industries - up to 445ha (including North Tees Pools and Seal Sands lands)

North Yorkshire Local Transport Plan 2011-2016 outlines plans for new housing developments, as given in Table 6.4-1. Of relevance to the Tees Valley are forecast changes in Richmondshire. Between 2008 and 2026 3,800 new homes are expected to be built, the majority in Catterick Garrison and Colburn, areas to which the closest large town is Darlington. Furthermore, as a result of this planned housing expansion in Richmondshire, the document estimates an additional 23,000 car trips will be made each day, which has implications for the provision of capacity on the road network.

6.5 Future Changes to the Transport System

This section examines the proposed and potential changes to the transport system that could influence connectivity within the Tees Valley and beyond.

6.5.1 Projects currently underway

Highways England’s Strategic Business Plan for 2015-2020 describes the highway improvements that are currently being undertaken, including:  The £380 million Highways England Scheme to improve the A1 between Leeming (junction 51) and Barton (junction 56), which commenced construction in early 2014 and is due for completion in mid-2017. This scheme involves the upgrading of the current dual carriageway to three lane motorway standard, allowing the M1/A1(M) to become a continuous motorway between London and Newcastle.  A19 Norton to Wolviston. This scheme involves construction of a third lane on the Billingham Bypass, and replacing the concrete surface with low-noise surfacing.

6.5.2 Proposed projects

The Tees Valley Strategic Infrastructure Plan, published by Tees Valley Unlimited in November 2014, lists a number of short term projects for the period 2016-17 to 2020-21. This includes Relief Road (A1046), which would provide a new relief road which would ease pressure on the A19 and A66 in the vicinity of Stockton and Middlesbrough.

Tees Valley Strategic Economic Plan

Page 131 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

The Strategic Economic Plan includes a series of infrastructure projects, including the road projects listed in Table 6.5-1. Of these, there are five proposed schemes for the period of 2015- 2016 that have been deemed a priority, and have been highlighted in bold typeface. The LEP aim to have these funded through the Local Growth Fund.

Table 6.5-1 Road Infrastructure Investment Project 2015-16 2016-17 2017-21 2021-25 2025+ Local Majors: Middlehaven Dock Bridge A689 Wynyard Improvement DTVA (Durham Tees Valley Airport) – Road To Open Up Southside Central Park - Enabling Infrastructure Sustainable Transport; Access To Employment Ingleby Way / Myton Way Dualling Strategic Maintenance: A66 / Teesside Park Interchange Local Majors: A66 Yarm Rd / Morton Palms Local Majors: West Stockton Improvements Local Majors: A1046 Portrack Interchange A19 Sheraton Bridge Junction Improvements Stainton Way Western Extension A19 Second Access To Wynyard Greystones Eastbound Corridor A66 Darlington Bypass East Middlesbrough To Prissick Link A19 Norton To Wolviston Widening A174 Swans Corner / Ormesby Bank A66/A1 Improvements (Access To Durham Tees Valley Airport) A19 Active Traffic Management Other Strategic Maintenance Schemes Other Road Schemes Source: Tees Valley Unlimited. Tees Valley Strategic Economic Plan. May 2014.

6.6 Future Travel Demands and Levels of Service

The Statement of Transport Ambition published by the LEP Tees Valley Unlimited in April 2011 states that: “Aggregated traffic flow data indicate that traffic levels rose steadily from 2000 to about 2004 across the Tees Valley. This trend follows the economic growth experienced in this

Page 132 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

period, with more trips accessing the Tees Valley in general, and specifically in key employment growth areas (such as Darlington and Hartlepool).

“Traffic flow data show that there has been variability across the Tees Valley, with a wide range of growth rates dependent upon location. Counts to the north of the Tees Valley, across the South East Durham and Teesside to Hartlepool “screen lines” show the highest growth rates.”

The Highways Agency Area Action Plan (2011) reports on the forecast traffic flows at the junctions and links along the A66, A19, A174, and A1053. Figure 6.6-1 to Figure 6.6-6 show how congestion is forecast to change with time from 2010 to 2020 and on to 2030) in the AM and PM peak periods, in terms of link speed and junction delays.

The document explores forecast changes in congestion on the strategic road network. The model indicates that several links are already operating close to (orange links) and in excess of (red links) capacity. This includes sections of the A19 and A66 around Stockton and Middlesbrough, radiating outwards from the A19/A66 interchange, as well as the A66 and A167 north of Darlington that link the A66 to the northern junction 59 of the A1(M). The number of affected junctions and the severity of congestion is forecast to increase in future.

Page 133 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Figure 6.6-1 Forecast traffic, AM Peak, 2010

Figure 6.6-2 Forecast traffic, PM Peak, 2010

Page 134 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Figure 6.6-3 Forecast traffic, AM Peak, 2020

Figure 6.6-4 Forecast traffic, PM Peak, 2020

Page 135 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Figure 6.6-5 Forecast traffic, AM Peak, 2030

Figure 6.6-6 Forecast traffic, PM Peak, 2030

Page 136 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

6.7 Summary

This section has described the current proposals for development within the Tees Valley on the strategic and key local routes. The section has also outlined a number of committed and proposed transport proposals that may influence travel patterns across the Tees Valley. A high level assessment of the potential impact of predicted population and employment growth on the Tees Valley network has been provided. Overall conclusions can be summarised as:

 The region has goals to improve network resilience and connectivity, for local journeys as well as regional and international travel via Teesport and Durham Tees Valley Airport, in order to better accommodate passenger and freight movements;

 Intra-regional connectivity is highlighted as inadequate, which is of particular importance due to the polycentric geography of the region, with high flows of traffic in all directions;

 Teesport plays a vital role in the economy of the Tees Valley, and requires road and rail infrastructure upgrades in order for it to be better served;

 The planned increase in jobs and housing provision in local authority areas requires an improved transport network in order to accommodate increased traffic levels;

 Furthermore, improved transport infrastructure and connectivity is viewed as being a key enabler of this growth; and

 There are highway schemes that are currently underway, namely the A1 upgrade to motorway standard between junctions 51 and 56 (Leeming to Barton) and the A19 widening between Norton and Wynyard. In addition, there are a series of planned and proposed schemes across the Tees Valley transport network.

Page 137 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

7 Establish the Need for Intervention

7.1 Introduction

This section of the report summarises the need for intervention on the A66 and A689 corridors within the Tees Valley, based on the information reviewed in the previous sections. The key issues facing routes in the Tees Valley and potential opportunities are summarised as listed under the following headings:  Connectivity – in terms of the level of connectivity within the Tees Valley as well as connections to the rest of the country;  Network Operations and Asset Conditions – with regard to the management of the road network, particularly focussed on network resilience and challenges presented by the condition of the infrastructure;  Capacity – the constraints on the network or where current or future demand is forecast to reduce the efficiency of network operation;  Environmental – in terms of environmental impact and constraints placed on the network by environmental designations;  Safety – with regard to the safety of people using the A66 and A689; and  Societal – in terms of the impact that the key routes have on local communities and vulnerable users.

These challenges, and where appropriate opportunities, have been identified though a review of pertinent policy and study documents, analysis of technical information and consultation with stakeholders.

7.2 Connectivity Challenges and Opportunities

Improving connectivity is one of the primary goals of this study. The policy and strategy documents reviewed in section 6 of this report identify that improved transport connectivity in the Tees Valley region would benefit both intra-regional and longer-distance journeys. Current and forecast traffic speeds and road capacity (see section 5.5 and 5.6, and Appendix A2 parts 2.1 and 2.2 ), indicate that congestion currently affected connectivity on several parts of the Tees Valley network, with levels of congestion forecast to worsen in future. Furthermore, the polycentric geography of the Tees Valley leads to complex, interwoven, traffic flow patterns. In combination with a car usage rate higher than the national average, this results in congestion along key routes and junctions.

Facilitating economic growth is one of the principal goals for Tees Valley Unlimited and for the Local Authorities. Economic growth may be achieved through attracting inward investment, improving access to jobs, or facilitating population growth through the unlocking of development land, all of which are hindered by congestion. Improving intra-regional connectivity is therefore of particular pertinence.

Teesport and Durham Tees Valley Airport provide international links with the Tees Valley, and therefore have a key role to play in facilitation of economic growth. Access to these gateways is provided by the Tees Valley road network. Therefore, the network must be able to accommodate

Page 138 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

both current and future forecast demand in order allow industry and the economy of the Tees Valley to thrive.

On the road network, traffic flows are focussed along the north-south A1(M) and A19, and along the east-west A66 and A689. The A19 carries 29% to 51% more traffic than the A1(M) in the Tees Valley area, underlining the demand for north-south connections through the heart of the Tees Valley. The A66 and A689 are both busy transport corridors with congestion problems that need to be addressed for east-west connectivity to improve, as described in the specific considerations below. It is these east-west routes, such as the A66 and A689, and the way in which they interconnect with the north-south routes, that are the focus of this Stage 0.1 study aimed at investigating ways in which to improve connectivity across the Tees Valley. In the AM peak around 10% of traffic on both routes comprises HGVs, highlighting that freight as well as passenger trips are highly dependent on the Tees Valley road network and again underpinning the relation between industry and the economy and the effective operation of the road network.

7.2.1 Location 1: A66(M) and A1(M) Junction 57 The Tees Valley Strategic Transport Priorities document, published in January 2015 by Tees Valley Unlimited identifies pinchpoints along the A66 between Teeside and Darlington. With respect to location 1, the A66 serves south Darlington and is crucially the main access route for northbound journeys exiting the A1(M) and entering the Tees Valley. Therefore, improvements at this location would improve access to the Tees Valley region as a whole, but would be dependent on further downstream improvements to the A66 Darlington bypass (Location 2).

7.2.2 Location 2: A66 Darlington Bypass As stated above, The Tees Valley Strategic Transport Priorities document, published in January 2015 by Tees Valley Unlimited identifies pinchpoints along the A66 between Teeside and Darlington. With respect to location 2, the A66 serves south Darlington and, crucially, is also the main access route for northbound journeys exiting the A1 for the Tees Valley. Therefore, improvements at this location would allow easier access to the Tees Valley region as a whole.

7.2.3 Location 3: Darlington Northern Relief Road The lack of north facing slip roads at junction 57 of the A1(M) means that traffic travelling between the Tees valley and the north is forced to use less suitable roads to travel between the A66 and the A1(M). Pinch points on the A66 Darlington bypass east of junction 57 also constrain traffic flow The construction of an alternative northern relief road to connect the A1(M) and the A66 would alleviate pressure on the A68 and A167 and free up capacity for the local journeys that these roads are better suited to serve. Importantly, the provision of a southbound exit from the A1(M) makes the entire Tees Valley, including Durham Tees Valley Airport and Teesport, more accessible for trips originating in the north, which includes trips from Tyne & Wear, Northumberland and Scotland.

7.2.4 Location 4: A66 South-west Stockton-on-Tees to A19 The Tees Valley Strategic Transport Priorities document, published in January 2015 by Tees Valley Unlimited highlights the importance of east-west connectivity both within the Tees Valley and linking to the A1(M) and A19 for journeys beyond the region. Improvements at location 4 would tie into this priority by improving east-west connectivity along the A66. Specifically, the Strategic Transport Priorities document identifies pinchpoints along the A66 between Teesside

Page 139 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Park and Darlington. Furthermore, as outlined in section 6.7, this is a route where congestion is forecast to significantly increase.

7.2.5 Location 5: A66 from A19 to Teesport As stated above, the Tees Valley Strategic Transport Priorities document highlights the importance of east-west connectivity both within the Tees Valley and linking to the A1(M) and A19 for journeys beyond the region. Improvements at this location would tie into this priority by improving east-west connectivity along the A66. As discussed in section 6.3 Teesport is a key export route for the country, and so improvements at location 5 will help improve access to Teesport by providing better links with the strategic road network.

7.2.6 Location 6: A689 Tees Valley The Tees Valley Strategic Transport Priorities document also identified the A689/A19 Wolviston interchange as a pinch point. In addition, a scheme to upgrade five roundabouts on the A689 is planned. Works at Wolviston Interchange were completed in 2014, and the widening of the A19 from Norton to Wolviston is proposed. Investment at location 6 could therefore be designed to further capitalise on these recently completed improvements by linking the A19 works with the A689 east-west enhancements. Any identified, applicable schemes could then provide a stronger tie between Hartlepool, the vital A19 route to Sunderland in the north and Stockton and Middlesbrough in the south, and to County Durham and the A1(M) and in doing so provide for any future development along the route.

7.2.7 Location 7:A689 County Durham Junction 60 of the A1(M) is the exit for Hartlepool and the northern Tees Valley, via south County Durham. The dualling of the remaining section of the A689 between this junction and the A177 would strengthen this route into the Tees Valley. This in turn could open up land for development along this northern Tees Valley corridor.

7.3 Operational and Asset Condition Challenges and Opportunities

7.3.1 Location 1: A66(M) and A1(M) Junction 57

In terms of the number of road closures recorded in Location 1 in the latest five year period, a total of 40 road closures have occurred on the A66 and A66(M), which equates to an average of 8 closures per year or one closure every 46 days. The majority of these closures, 60%, were planned roadworks, though emergency works and other incidents account for 23% and 15% of the closures respectively. It can be noted that for 93% of closures the expected delay for motorists is typically below 10 minutes. This factor, when considered alongside the relative infrequency of closures in this location, suggests that road closures do not present a significant operational challenge in Location 1.

Highways England currently programme significant maintenance activities to occur on overnight closures to reduce the impact on operations.

Page 140 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

7.3.2 Location 2: A66 Darlington Bypass

In terms of the number of road closures recorded in Location 2 in the latest five year period, a total of 121 road closures have occurred on the A66. This equates to an average of 24 closures per year or one closure every 15 days. The majority of these closures, 64%, were planned roadworks, though emergency works and other incidents account for 16% and 15% of the closures respectively. It can be noted that for 94% of closures the expected delay for motorists is typically below 10 minutes. Although the frequency of road closures is higher than Location 1, this low level of expected delay suggests that road closures do not present a significant operational challenge in Location 2.

This section of the route is single carriageway. Maintenance operations on single carriageways are more challenging and can reduce the capacity of the route. Highways England currently programme significant maintenance activities to occur on overnight closures to reduce the impact on operations.

The route currently lacks significant technology systems. This reduces the ability to manage incidents on the route and provide information to travellers.

7.3.3 Location 3: Darlington Northern Relief Road

In terms of the number of road closures recorded on the existing routes in Location 3, data provided by Durham County Council was for planned roadworks only. This data shows that since the start of 2010, only two planned road closures have occurred, with both of these located on the A1150 and none on the A167. Due to the volume of traffic which uses these roads, road closures are minimised where possible. When considering the impact of road closures on journey time reliability, the data received therefore suggests that there are no significant operational challenges relating to this in Location 3.

The existing routes are single carriageway. Maintenance operations on single carriageways can reduce the capacity of the route and cause delays.

7.3.4 Location 4: A66 South-west Stockton-on-Tees to A19

In terms of the number of road closures recorded in Location 4 in the latest five year period, a total of 436 road closures have occurred on the A66 from the A1150 roundabout north-east of Darlington to the A19 interchange. This equates to an average of 87 closures per year or one closure every 4 days. This frequency of closures is therefore noticeably higher than Locations 1 and 2. The majority of these closures, 61%, were planned roadworks, though emergency works and other incidents account for a combined 35% of the closures. With the exception of the eastern 1.05km section of Location 4, which is maintained by Autolink, it can be noted that the expected delay for motorists as a result of these closures is typically below 10 minutes, with 93% of closures falling into this category, which is therefore in line with Locations 1 and 2. For the eastern section, all but two of the recorded closures are planned works which took place overnight, with a typical duration of between 6 and 10 hours. None of these recorded planned closures commenced before 19:30. The majority of these works involved a single lane closure, with the other lanes remaining open.

Page 141 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Although the proportions for the number of planned closures and the duration of expected delay are broadly in line with Locations 1 and 2, the high frequency of closures which have occurred suggests that road closures may present an operational challenge in Location 4.

This section of the route is dual carriageway. In terms of maintenance operations on this section of the route Highways England currently programme significant maintenance activities to occur on overnight closures to reduce the impact on operations.

There is a potential opportunity to consider options to address problems with subsidence on connecting roads at the A66 junction with Teesside Park as part of this study, and thus reduce any disruption due to maintenance interventions in this area.

The route currently lacks significant technology systems. This reduces the ability to manage incidents on the route and provide information to travellers.

7.3.5 Location 5: A66 from A19 to Teesport

In terms of the number of road closures recorded in Location 5, data was requested from Middlesbrough Borough Council and Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council for the A66 non-trunk section, from the A19 interchange to the A1053 roundabout. No data was available from Middlesbrough Borough Council. However, data was received from Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council for the eastern section of this route. The data included planned and emergency works, though data for other incidents, events or abnormal loads was not available. This data shows that, since the start of 2010, a total of 18 road closures have occurred on the eastern section of the A66 non-trunk road in Location 5. This equates to an average of 4 closures per year or one closure every 101 days. Analysis of the duration of the closures is not possible due to the fact that a start and end time is not provided in the data received.

Based on the data received, the infrequency of road closures in the study period suggests that there are no significant operational challenges relating to road closures in Location 5. However these data are incomplete.

This section of the route is dual carriageway, part of which is elevated through Middlesbrough town centre. Based on the data received, there are no significant operational challenges relating to maintenance in Location 5. However, further investigation to understand maintenance operations on the elevated section would be beneficial.

The route currently lacks significant technology systems. This reduces the ability to manage incidents on the route and provide information to travellers.

7.3.6 Location 6: A689 Tees Valley

In terms of the number of road closures recorded in Location 6, data was requested from Durham County Council, Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council and Hartlepool Borough Council. The data received from Durham County Council includes planned closures and incidents, with confirmation provided that there were no emergency closures or closures due to events during the period requested. Data for abnormal load movements was unavailable. The data received from Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council includes planned closures only, for the last five years. The

Page 142 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

data received from Hartlepool Borough Council includes planned closures only and covers the period 2012 to 2015, with no other data available. Further information received from Hartlepool Borough Council states that the A689 is kept open whenever possible, due to a lack of suitable diversion routes in the area. The data received shows that a total of 15 road closures have occurred on the A689 in Location 6, though the duration of works was variable. Whilst the dataset is incomplete, there appears to be a general trend of fewer closures on the A689, when compared to other routes in the study area such as the A66. The low number of closures which have occurred in the study period suggests that there are no significant operational challenges relating to road closures in Location 6.

This section of the network is dual carriageway. Based on the data received, there are no significant operational challenges relating to maintenance in Location 6.

The route currently lacks significant technology systems. This reduces the ability of the local authority to manage incidents on the route and provide information to travellers.

7.3.7 Location 7: A689 County Durham

In terms of the number of road closures recorded in Location 6, data was requested from Durham County Council. The data received includes planned closures and incidents, with confirmation provided that there were no emergency closures or planned closures during the period requested. Data for abnormal load movements was unavailable.

The data received shows that a total of 6 road closures have occurred on the A689 in Location 7. As with Location 6, there have been very few closures on this section of the A689, when compared to other routes in the study area such as the A66. The low number of closures which have occurred in the study period suggests that there are no significant operational challenges relating to road closures in Location 7.

This section of the route is single carriageway. Maintenance operations on single carriageways are more challenging and can reduce the capacity of the route.

The route currently lacks significant technology systems. This reduces the ability to manage incidents on the route and provide information to travellers.

7.4 Capacity Challenges and Opportunities

Under existing demand conditions, many of the observed link flows are shown to be approaching or at their theoretical maximum capacities. When the performance of individual junctions along the strategic highway network are assessed, it is likely that these are also at or approaching their maximum capacities.

Link speeds during the peak periods are generally significantly lower than in the off peak ‘free- flow’ period. This indicates high levels of congestion which interfere with traffic flows and so adds additional delay to road users with the associated cost to the local economy.

The analysis of the TrafficMaster journey time data does not indicate any obvious issues with journey time reliability, in that weekly average journey times do not vary on a week by week basis.

Page 143 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

7.4.1 Location 1: A66(M) and A1(M) Junction 57

Traffic flows along the A66(M) are tidal in nature in the morning peak period with Eastbound flows from the motorway network to the urban areas higher than Westbound flows. This suggests that this route caters for a number of commuting and business related traffic. In the evening peak period, flows are comparable for both the Eastbound and Westbound flows.

Congestion and capacity constraints along the A66(M) are low. This is likely due to low demand because of the lack of North facing slips on the A1(M). There are also downstream restrictions along the A66 Bridge Road which is currently operating at or above its Reference Flow Capacity. Any improvements to the A1(M) junction would also need to resolve this lack of capacity.

Traffic speeds during the peak periods show a good comparison to freeflow speeds on the A1(M) and the A66(M). East of the Stapleton Bank roundabout along the A66 Bridge Street and in particularly on the approaches to the junction of A66/A167 traffic speeds drop to below 75% of their freeflow speeds in both the morning and evening peak period. This indicates congestion in this location.

7.4.2 Location 2: A66 Darlington Bypass

Traffic flows along the A66 to the West of the A167 are tidal in nature with Eastbound flows from the motorway network to the urban areas higher in the morning peak period and Westbound flows higher in the evening peak period. This suggests that this route caters for a number of commuting and business related traffic.

Along the A66 to the East of the A167, Eastbound traffic flows are again higher than Westbound in the morning peak period, however for the A66 to the south of the A1150, traffic flows are heavier Southbound. This suggests that this stretch of the A66 allows access to the South East of Darlington for a large proportion of commuting traffic. These flow are reversed in the evening peak but are less pronounced than in the morning. This further supports the theory that the A66 provides access to South East Darlington for a number of vehicles.

The A66 to the South East of Darlington is at or approaching its maximum Reference Flow Capacity. Due to its importance as both a through route and for allowing access to the South East of Darlington this capacity must be increased before potential developments can be unlocked in this area and for any developments which requires access via the A66.

Traffic speeds along the A66 are reduced in both peak periods when compared to freeflow conditions. This is most prevalent at its junctions with Neasham Road, the A57 and the A1150. Reductions in average speeds in these locations indicate increased congestion and higher journey times for vehicles traversing the A66 and accessing/egressing it during the peak periods.

7.4.3 Location 3: Darlington Northern Relief Road

Traffic flows show more vehicles heading towards the motorway network in the morning, and more arriving from the motorway network in the evening. This indicates that this area provides local workers with access to regional jobs and so any improvements should cater for this.

Page 144 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

All of the major roads in the area, including the A167, A1150 and A68 are at or close to capacity. Due to the urban nature of the area, it is possible that the methods used to assess link capacity underestimate the true level of congestion as junction capacities or lack of them are likely to dominate the traffic flows in this area.

Link speeds during the peak hours are much reduced when compared to freeflow conditions. This is particularly prevalent along the A167, A1150 and the A68 where speeds are less than 75% of freeflow speeds in both the morning and evening peak periods.

7.4.4 Location 4: A66 South-west Stockton-on-Tees to A19

This stretch of the A66 is very tidal in nature with larger Eastbound flows in the AM and Westbound in the PM. This suggests that this is an important commuter route for jobs in Stockton and Middlesbrough.

Analyses of capacities show that this important corridor is nearing its theoretical maximum capacity. As this value is approached, more congestion, longer journey times and a lower ability to cope with unplanned events such as accidents, is more likely. In order to ensure the future robustness of access between the wider Middlesbrough urban area and the strategic network, capacity increases should be considered at this location.

Traffic speeds along the A66 compare well to freeflow conditions in the morning and evening peak periods, with the exceptions of the off-slip approaches to the junction with the A19.

7.4.5 Location 5: A66 from A19 to Teesport

The A66 to the East of the A19 has a dominant Westbound flow in the morning peak period and Eastbound in the evening peak period. This indicates that this is an important commuter corridor for access to employment in Middlesbrough and potentially the strategic road network. The A174 carries a similar number of vehicles and percentage of HGVs as the A66 East of the A171. To the west of the A171 the A66 carries over 50% more traffic than the A174.

The A66 and the A171, A172 and A174 are approaching their maximum capacities and are highly likely to exceed them in the future. Any further developments in the area would rely on additional capacity along the A66 and the other important roads feeding it.

The A66 to the East of Middlesbrough is shown to have low speeds in the peak periods, which is therefore likely as a result of congestion. This is also the case for the A171 and A172, where average speeds are regularly below 25kph, or 15mph. The A174 east of the A19 experiences high average speeds and appears to perform well in each of the peak periods.

7.4.6 Location 6: A689 Tees Valley

Traffic flows along the A689 tend towards the A19 in the morning and away from the A19 in the evening. The A689 is an important feeder road to the A19 and appears to cater for a large number of commuters.

Page 145 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

The TRIPS model used to calculate V/C does not include the recent improvements to the A689/A19 junction or the proposed widening of the A19 to the south of the A689. As such, it may overestimate congestion on the A19 and at its junction with the A689.

Observed flows compared to Congestion Reference Flows show the A19 approaching or exceeding the maximum values whereas the A689 is comfortably within its maximum calculated flow. However, when the proposed widening of the A19 is implemented this is likely to release more traffic onto the A689 and therefore increase the flow to a value closer to its calculated maximum.

In the AM peak period, the A19 experiences a significant reduction in speeds and therefore an increase in congestion. In the PM peak period, it is less congested but vehicle speeds remain below their potential level. The A689 is generally free-flowing in both of the peak periods with the exception of the eastbound and westbound approaches to the junction with the A19 and the north-west section on the approach to Hartlepool, which appear to experience significant congestion.

7.4.7 Location 7: A689 County Durham

Traffic flows are tidal with the Eastbound flow away from the Motorway network dominant in the morning peak period, and Westbound toward the motorway heavier in the evening peak period. This suggests a large proportion of commuters from outside the Tees Valley Study Area access jobs within it via the A689.

The A689 at this location is shown to be approaching or at its maximum calculated capacity. Given the importance of this corridor to commuters, it is likely that this will become a bottleneck in the future restricting access by development traffic and potentially delaying existing employment trips.

In both the AM and PM peak periods, the A689 between the A167 and the A177 experiences a reduction in average speeds and therefore an increase in congestion in both the eastbound and westbound directions. The junction of the A689 and the A167 also experiences reductions in speeds for both peak periods when compared to free-flow conditions.

7.5 Environmental Challenges and Opportunities

In meeting the aims of this strategic study, attention has been paid to challenges within the intervention study areas which if not addressed could result in significant adverse environmental effects and opportunities to avoid potentially significant environmental effects / improve the baseline environment around the intervention extents.

Attention has also been paid to challenges and opportunities to progress the aspirations of the Road Investment Strategy: for the 2015/16 – 2019/20 Road Period published in March 2015. The strategy sets out a sustainable aspiration for the network that will be:

Page 146 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

 A better neighbour to communities, with over 90% fewer people impacted by noise from the SRN  Zero breaches of air quality regulations and major reductions in carbon emissions across the network  Improved environmental outcome, including a net gain in biodiversity from Highways England’s activities.

To ensure that more is done for the environment, the RIS announced that an Environment Fund has been set aside to deliver improved environmental performance across carbon, noise, water, biodiversity, landscape and cultural heritage. In addition to the Environment Fund, it announced establishment of an Air Quality Fund to ensure specific focus and real improvements in this area.

A Cycling, Safety, and Integration Fund was set aside to improve safety, increase provision for cyclists on and near the SRN and enhance access for a variety of users, including pedestrians, horse riders and the disabled.

From an environmental perspective, where significant adverse environmental effects are predicted as a result of a proposed road scheme, a statutory Environmental Impact Assessment leading to the production of an Environmental Statement will be required. In the event of this, the proposed scheme will be subject to the National Infrastructure Planning regime as it would meet the definition of a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) under Section 22 of the Planning Act, 2008. It is not currently known if the preferred intervention option/s would result in significant adverse environmental effects or meet the definition of an NSIP from other perspectives, attention has therefore been paid to the requirements of the National Networks National Policy Statement (NN NPS) published in December 2014. This document sets out the need and government policies for Nationally Significant Infrastructure rail and road projects for England under the Planning Act, 2008.

Challenges and opportunities to deliver the environmental commitments within the key overarching policies / aspirations mentioned above have therefore been identified. It is worth noting that challenges in this context also represent potential environmental conflicts or challenge points where environmental improvement aspirations of key policies / strategies are not progressed by the current proposal/s or where opportunities to avoid significant environmental effects have not currently been utilised.

In view of this, for the decision-making process during the development of options, Red, Amber, Green (RAG) categories have been defined for identified sensitivities outlined in Section 5.8and shown on the Environmental Sensitivities Plan provided in Appendix B. This information is presented in the Schedule of Environmental Sensitivities provided in Appendix B. The RAG categories should be taken account of as follows:

Page 147 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

 RED – avoidance or minimisation of impact is a key consideration in developing potential scheme options;  AMBER – avoidance or minimisation of impact is an important consideration in developing potential scheme options and all options should be designed to facilitate mitigation where avoidance cannot be achieved; and,  GREEN – avoidance or minimisation of impact is desirable but is a lesser consideration in developing the potential scheme options.

The table below outlines key challenges and opportunities in relation to identified environmental sensitivities within the potential intervention extents.

Table 7.5-1 Summary of environmental potential for challenge and opportunity Intervention Environmental Potential Challenges and Opportunities Extent Aspect

1 - A66(M) and None currently None currently identified A1(M) Junction identified 57

2 - A66 Noise Potential Opportunity: Two Defra Noise Important Areas Darlington along the extent – opportunity to incorporate low noise Bypass surfacing and/or additional noise mitigation measures such as acoustic barriers to alleviate noise within the aforementioned Noise Important Areas and to receptors along the route.

Cultural Heritage Potential Challenge: Blackwell Bridge - Potential for impact to the setting of this nationally important Grade II Listed structure.

Water Potential Challenge: Flood Risk Zones to the west of the intervention extent. If the preferred option results in an increase in hard standing area and invariably an increase in surface run-off, some measures to ensure resilience of the road to future climate change / flooding may be required with potential need for attenuation and associated land take.

3 - Darlington Air Quality Potential Opportunity: If a bypass option is progressed, Northern Relief transfer of traffic to the north would present an Road opportunity to reduce receptor exposure to road traffic emissions in the vicinity of the existing extent. This would also serve to address potential future air quality impacts of increased traffic due to normal population growth and increased economic activity in the area.

Page 148 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Intervention Environmental Potential Challenges and Opportunities Extent Aspect

Noise Potential Opportunity: Eight Defra Noise Important Areas within the intervention area, with six along the existing road from Little Burdon junction to the A1(M) junction 59. Removal of traffic from this route by means of a bypass would reduce noise within these Important Areas and for receptors along the route. This would serve to meet the key performance indicator (number of Noise Important Areas mitigated) identified in the RIS.

Landscape Potential Opportunity: Utilise the landform to better incorporate an offline option – opportunity for intelligent design and landscaping as identified in the Road Investment Strategy.

Potential Challenge: Impact to Tees Forest from associated land take.

Cultural Heritage Potential Challenge: Potential impact to setting of the cluster of Listed Buildings in Great Burdon, around the A1150.

Potential Challenge: Potential damage to non- designated assets / potential for archaeological finds of national importance within the footprint of any offline option although, the degree of harm is unknown.

Pedestrians, Potential Challenge: A bypass to the north of Darlington cyclists and will cut across the non-motorised user networks in this Equestrians area. This will require reinstatement. Consideration should be given to providing footbridges / underpasses reconnecting the communities in the north of Darlington to the south.

Effects on All Potential Opportunity: To build a road which would Travellers adequately address the future capacity requirement for the area thereby reducing driver stress and reducing congestion.

4 - A66 South- Noise Potential Opportunity: Four Defra Noise Important Areas West along the existing road. An opportunity to incorporate low Stockton-on- noise surfacing and additional noise mitigation measures Tees to A19 such as acoustic barriers to alleviate noise within the aforementioned Noise Important Areas and to receptors along the route.

Page 149 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Intervention Environmental Potential Challenges and Opportunities Extent Aspect

Geology and Potential Challenge: A number of historic landfills have Soils been identified around Tees Bridge and Surtees Bridge. Potential exists for a contamination source-pathway- linkage to nearby receptors during construction of preferred intervention.

5 - A66 from Noise Potential Opportunity: Five Defra Noise Important Areas A19 to along the existing road. – opportunity to incorporate low Teesport noise surfacing and additional noise mitigation measures such as acoustic barriers to alleviate noise within the aforementioned Noise Important Areas and to receptors along the route.

Cultural Heritage Potential Challenge: Potential for impact to the setting of the Middlesbrough Historic Quarter Conservation Area and associated Listed Buildings.

Geology and Potential Challenge: A number of historic and active Soils landfills have been identified, largely in the eastern section of the potential intervention. Potential exists for a contamination source-pathway-linkage to nearby receptors during construction of preferred intervention.

6 - A689 Tees Noise Potential Opportunity: Three Defra Noise Important Valley Areas along the existing road. Noise – opportunity to incorporate low noise surfacing and additional noise mitigation measures such as acoustic barriers to alleviate noise within the aforementioned Noise Important Areas and to receptors along the route.

Ecology and Potential Challenge: Impact to Castle Eden Walkway Nature LNR and Wolviston Wildlife Area depending on the Conservation design of the preferred route at this location.

Potential Challenge: Potential for impact to Ancient Woodland located adjacent to this extent, depending on the design of the preferred route at this location. This would be against the aspirations of the NPS NN, which says on page 54 that the Secretary of State should not grant development consent for any development that would result in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats including ancient woodland…unless the national need for any benefits of the development, in that location, clearly outweigh the loss.

Page 150 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Intervention Environmental Potential Challenges and Opportunities Extent Aspect

7 - A689 Noise Potential Opportunity: One Defra Noise Important Area County along the existing road. Noise - wholesale application of Durham quiet surfacing along this stretch of the road could serve to reduce noise impact on nearby receptors and those within the identified Noise Important Area. Opportunity also exists for installation of noise barriers to address existing noise issues within the Noise Important Area.

Water Potential Challenge: Any plans to dual this the section of the A689 could result in an increase in surface run off. West of this extent, by junction 60 is within a Flood Zone area associated with River Skerne. Design of the intervention might require some measures to ensure resilience of the road to future climate change / flooding. Potential needs for attenuation with associated land take.

7.6 Safety Challenges and Opportunities

Detailed analysis has been undertaken of the routes within the study area and this has revealed a wide range of accident rates along the route, with a maximum of 0.2405 personal injury accidents (PIAs) occurring for every million vehicle kilometres travelled in Section 3. Section 7b has the lowest accident rate at 0.0406 PIAs occurring for every million vehicle kilometres travelled. Overall the route average is shown to be 0.0935 PIAs occurring for every million vehicle kilometres travelled.

When compared to the national accident rates derived from the COBA manual, the accident rates calculated for all of the sections, except sections 3 and 5c, are lower. The accident rate on Section 7b has the greatest percentage difference from COBA, at -75.0%. The accident rate on Section 3 is the highest when compared to the COBA rate, at +6.9%. When compared to the DfT’s ‘Road Safety Statistics’, all of the sections except Section 1 have accident rates which are lower, particularly Sections 4a, 4b, 4c, 5a, 5b and 7b. Section 5a + 5b shows the greatest variance from the DfT rate, at -90.4%.

It can therefore be concluded that the study area as a whole has a noticeably lower accident rate when compared to national averages, although some safety challenges may be evident in Sections 1, 3 and 5c.

When considering the proportion of KSI accidents, the analysis has demonstrated that there is an average ratio of 19% KSIs for the study area. A review of the DfT’s ‘Road Safety Statistics’ shows that the national average KSI accident severity rates over the same five year period of 2009 to 2013 was 14.96% for all road types and speeds. It can therefore be determined that the study area experiences a proportion of KSI accidents which is higher than the national average.

Page 151 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Section 1, Section 5b, Section 6, Section 7a and Section 7b are recorded as having higher than average rates for KSI accidents. Section 1 is the A66(M) and A1(M) Junction 57. The highest proportion of KSI accidents, 44%, occurred at this location, suggesting that there are challenges in terms of highway safety here. Section 5b is the westbound section of the A66 through Middlesbrough. The higher than average proportion of KSI accidents here may be attributable to the busier urban environment with a higher number of potential vehicle conflicts. Sections 6, 7a and 7b are the A689 through Tees Valley and County Durham respectively. The fact that all of these sections experience higher than average proportions of KSI accidents suggests that there may be highway safety challenges along the full A689 route through the study area.

In terms of weather conditions, based on the national average for accidents occurring during adverse weather, it has been determined that Sections 2, 4a, 4c, 5c, 6, 7a and 7b experience a higher than average proportion of accidents occurring during adverse weather conditions, however, there is no obvious common factor between these sections to which this trend can be attributed. In terms of the proportion of accidents occurring during darkness, it can be determined that Sections 1 is broadly in line with the national average for motorways. Of the remaining sections, only Sections 3 and 7b are below the national average of 26% of accidents occurring during darkness. The remaining sections all experience a higher than average proportion of accidents occurring during darkness, though there is no obvious common factor on these sections to which this trend can be attributed.

Accidents are primarily focussed at junctions, though several other cluster locations have been identified, as summarised below.

7.6.1 Location 1: A66(M) and A1(M) Junction 57

There is evidence of a small accident cluster on the A1(M) around the southbound on-slip from the A66(M). The curvature in the horizontal alignment of the on-slip in this location may be a contributory factor.

7.6.2 Location 2: A66 Darlington Bypass

The clustering in this location is focussed on the main junctions. All of the junctions are at-grade roundabouts, of varying standards.

7.6.3 Location 3: Darlington Northern Relief Road

In addition to clustering at the main junctions, there is also evidence of clustering on the links between the junctions on the existing local road network. This is most evident along the A1150 Whinfield Road through North Darlington, with this partly attributable to the urban environment in this area and the greater number of pedestrian and vehicle conflicts associated with this. In addition, clustering is evident along the A167 through Beaumont Hill and Coatham Mundeville, with this partly attributable to variations in the horizontal and vertical highway alignment, with several significant bends and hills present in the area.

Page 152 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

7.6.4 Location 4: A66 South-west Stockton-on-Tees to A19

The majority of the accident clusters in Location 4 are evident around the main junctions. In addition, there is evidence of clustering on the A66 from the point where it crosses the River Tees, through Thornaby and past Teesside Retail Park up to the A19 junction to the east. It can be noted, however, that all except one serious and one fatal accident in this area were slight in terms of severity. Although the accident rate and KSI rate are lower than the national average along Section 4 as a whole, the high number of accidents at this eastern end and at the A66 / A19 junction appears to support the findings of Highways England’s London to Scotland East Route- based Strategy Evidence Report, which identified this area as an area with a high number of casualties and as one of the top 250 collision locations on the national strategic road network (2009 – 2011).

7.6.5 Location 5: A66 from A19 to Teesport

The accident clusters in Location 5 are again focussed on the main junctions. In terms of the severity of accidents in these clusters, the A66 / Eston Road / Church Lane junction, which is traffic signal-controlled, is notable in that all of the accidents which occurred here were classed as serious.

7.6.6 Location 6: A689 Tees Valley

The accident clusters in Location 6 are typically focussed on the main junctions. In addition, the section of the A689 from the A19 to Dalton Back Lane further east is notable for the high proportion of serious accidents which occurred here.

7.6.7 Location 7: A689 County Durham

In line with the trend evident across the other sections of the study area, the main accident clusters in Location 7 can be found at the three main junctions in this section: the A689 / A1(M) junction, the A689 / A177 / Station Road junction (Sands Hall Roundabout) and the A689 / A177 Stockton Road junction.

7.7 Social Challenges and Opportunities

Interventions at the seven locations identified as specific considerations in the Highways England study brief are primarily designed to address issues surrounding vehicular movements on the A66 and A689 with a view to improving connectivity across the Tees Valley. From a societal perspective this is expected to ease access to employment, therefore helping to address the issues around unemployment, which in the Tees Valley is higher than the national average. Improved connectivity would also support the creation of new jobs by making it feasible for business to expand or locate within the Tees Valley by providing transport infrastructure capable of delivering reliable journey times.

Page 153 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

8 Prioritisation of Challenges and Proposed Way Forward

8.1 Prioritisation of Challenges

The challenges identified above have been prioritised to ensure that the next stages of the study systematically address the need for intervention along the key A66 and A689 routes in the Tees Valley area. An assessment has been made on the basis of whether the challenges have a direct impact on improving links between the Tees Valley and the wider road network and increasing the economic competitiveness of the Tees Valley. This prioritisation of the challenges is primarily based on congestion and capacity metrics, with further consideration for operations, safety and environment across the seven locations. The following is a summary of the high priority challenges at each of the locations.

Location 2: A66 Darlington Bypass – Improvements here will support any proposed developments in the South East Darlington area. In addition to this, through trips accessing the study area from the A1(M) south will benefit from any improvements here, regardless of whether northbound slips are provided at the A1(M) junction 57 (Location 1). The accident analysis shows that the clustering of accidents in this location is focussed on the main junctions, which are at-grade roundabouts, of varying standards.

Location 3: Darlington Northern Relief Road – The traffic flows show access by commuters from the study area to the motorway network. If these are heading to the North, then even if northbound slips were provided at the A1(M) junction 57 (location 1) a high Northbound flow at A1(M) J58 and J59 would still be likely. The accident analysis shows that, in addition to clustering at the main junctions on the existing network, there is also evidence of clustering on the links between the junctions. This is most evident along the A1150 Whinfield Road through North Darlington, with this partly attributable to the urban environment in this area and the greater number of pedestrian and vehicle conflicts associated with this. In addition, clustering is evident along the A167 through Beaumont Hill and Coatham Mundeville, with this partly attributable to variations in the horizontal and vertical highway alignment, with several significant bends and hills present in the area.

Location 1: A66(M) and A1(M) Junction 57 – The success of providing north facing slips to this junction is likely to be severely limited if capacity on the A66 Darlington bypass is not increased. This would potentially include widening of the Grade II listed Blackwell Bridge, or a new crossing entirely. The accident analysis shows that the highest proportion of KSI accidents, 44%, occurred at this location, suggesting that there are challenges in terms of highway safety here. There is evidence of a small accident cluster on the A1(M) around the southbound on-slip from the A66(M). The curvature in horizontal alignment of the on-slip in this location may be a contributory factor.

These three locations effectively form the highest priority for intervention in the study area. It is likely that not all three would be required to address the challenges and they need to be assessed in more detail to identify an intervention that is required through more detailed optioneering. The proposed intervention at this location will have an impact on the wider study area by changing traffic patterns and drawing additional traffic in to the A66 corridor. This will have secondary impacts on the priorities for Location 4 where constraints will be exacerbated and environmental challenges along the A66 corridor will potentially increase. Conversely, conditions along the A689 could improve as a result of traffic rerouting and this could alleviate environment and safety challenges and also free up capacity to accommodate development related growth. Therefore,

Page 154 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

the challenges for Locations 4, 6 and 7 prioritised below need to be addressed taking in to account potential interventions at Locations 1, 2 and 3.

Location 4: A66 South-west Stockton-on-Tees to A19 – This is the backbone for traffic heading between the Motorway network and the Middlesbrough metropolitan area. This section of the network would likely be put under significant pressure if new developments in the Stockton/Middlesbrough/Teesport area were constructed. The A66 carries high numbers of commuters and so maintaining existing employment could be put at risk without ensuring a good level of service along this corridor. The road closure analysis shows that there is a higher frequency of closures in this location compared with the other locations in the study area, with this placing further pressure on the existing route, resulting in an increased risk of delay and less reliable journeys for motorists. The accident analysis shows evidence of clustering on the A66 from the point where it crosses the River Tees, through Thornaby and past Teesside Retail Park up to the A19 junction to the east. Although the accident rate and KSI rate are lower than the national average along Location 4 as a whole, the high number of accidents at this eastern end and at the A66 / A19 junction appears to support the findings of Highways England’s London to Scotland East Route-based Strategy Evidence Report, which identified this area as an area with a high number of casualties and as one of the top 250 collision locations on the national strategic road network (2009 – 2011).

Location 5: A66 from A19 to Teesport – This is another important corridor for commuters and freight and is relatively independent of potential interventions at the other locations due to its location east of the A19. In general the A66 and the other feeder road performance demonstrates a requirement for enhanced capacity now and in the future. The future strategic role of this section of the A66 needs to be considered in the context of the emerging Freight Strategy currently being developed by Transport for North (TFN), expected to be published in the first quarter of 2016. Additionally, the accident analysis shows that the proportion of KSI accidents here is higher than the national average and this could prioritise the need for intervention.

Location 7: A689 County Durham – This area is under increasing pressure and has little scope for handling additional growth. It is recommended that further analysis is undertaken to test if an intervention along the A66 would relieve the pressure on this area and so reduce the need for any intervention. The accident analysis shows that the proportion of KSI accidents is higher than the national average in this location, and along the whole of the A689 route through the study area, suggesting that there may be highway safety challenges along this route and there could be a case for developing an intervention without capacity enhancements.

Location 6: A689 Tees Valley – Under existing traffic conditions there does not appear to be any major issues on this stretch of the A689. However, it is reaching its RCF value and so any additional developments, in particular large developments in Hartlepool and Wynyard, could push it over its capacity limits. The accident analysis shows that the section of the A689 from the A19 to Dalton Back Lane is notable for the high proportion of serious accidents which occurred here. If an intervention is proposed west of the A19, we will be cognisant of any impact of increased traffic on this section of the route.

Page 155 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

This prioritisation is based on a comprehensive dataset of current conditions, together with forecast conditions for a future horizon year. The understanding of the current conditions is robust and has been cross-referenced across multiple sources. The understanding of the future development aspirations is also robust and therefore there is a strategic understanding where additional traffic will access the network in the future. However, the horizon year modelling is less certain because plans have evolved since the model was developed: there are a number of network improvements that are complete of planned; and the proposals for population and employment have changed. Both these will result in a different distribution of demand and therefore need to be modelled. This modelling will be undertaken in Stage 0.2 with a systematic approach to developing a package of intervention measures as set out below. The enhanced model will provide an increased level of assurance and this will enable the prioritisation to be revisited and verified.

8.2 Proposed Way Forward

8.2.1 Recommended Approach to Traffic Modelling in Stages 0.2 and 0.3

8.2.2 The option assessment to develop a strategy for the study area will be based on the new 2015 VOYAGER model. Discussions will be held with TAME to agree the approach to this update and subsequent model application to test strategies.

In Stage 0.2 of the study, the future year VOYAGER models will use demand matrices created by factoring up the base year matrix to the opening year (2020) and design year (2035) demand scenarios. The factors used will be derived from TEMPRO growth values for the area.

This baseline will be referred to as Test 0/DS1.

The seven intervention area locations, outlined as specific considerations in the study brief, will be tested using an incremental test regime shown on the Model Flow diagram below. The Model Flow diagram has been designed so that the interventions connecting with the A1(M) are modelled in two independent tests (Tests 1/DS3, and Test 2/DS2) to then enable the assessment of all seven intervention areas.

DS1 will also be used to assess one option that is considered to be largely independent of the other interventions:  Location 5: A66 from A19 to Teesport

Test 1 and Test 2 will determine which of the options to pursue at the western gateway to the A66 corridor:  Location 1: A66(M) and A1(M) Junction 57  Location 2: A66 Darlington Bypass  Location 3: Darlington Northern Relief Road

Page 156 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Once the outcome of these tests is known, the appropriate Test network will be used as the basis to develop the interventions in the east in and around Stockton, Middlesbrough and Tees Valley:  Location 4: A66 South-west Stockton-On-Tees to A19

Test 3 / DS4 will be used to assess the A689 corridor in a similar way, i.e. by testing the western end of the scheme first:  Location 7: A689 County Durham  Location 6: A689 Tees Valley (potentially based on Test 1 or 2 if Test 3 determines that there is not a need for an intervention at Location 7)

The outputs from these tests will be presented to stakeholders at a collaborative planning workshop and recommendations will become the subject of the Option Assessment Report to be submitted at the close of Stage 0.2.

The Voyager model’s full development based matrices for 2020 and 2035 will be used with the PT/elasticity model in Stage 0.3.

During this stage, the project team will refine the options based on feedback from the stakeholders and develop a package of infrastructure proposals to model in Test 4. The responses from this test will be used to inform the TUBA assessment. The outcome of Stage 0.3 will be an emerging recommended package of infrastructure proposals and production of Strategic Outline Business Case(s).

Page 157 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

Figure 8.2-1 Stage 0.2 Model Flowchart (reproduced in Appendix A)

Page 158 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

9 Findings and Conclusions

This Stage 0.1 Summary Report presents the findings of the first stage of the A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study to examine the issues and constraints associated with the A66 (from Teesport to the A1(M)) and the A689 (from the A19 to the A1(M)), and to identify opportunities for resolving them to improve links between the Tees Valley and the wider road network and increase the economic competitiveness of the region.

The A66 and A689 provide the primary road connections to the north-south corridors of the A19 and the A1(M) from the Tees Valley sub-region and international gateway of Teesport to the rest of the country. From a strategic perspective there are a number of transport issues with the current network that have a local, sub-regional and national/international impact.

Stage 0.1 of the study has focused on understanding the current and future transport issues along the routes, and work done to date, to establish issues and provide a prioritised list of challenges to be taken into Stage 0.2. Prioritisation has been undertaken to ensure that the next stages of the study systematically address the need for intervention along the key A66 and A689 route corridors. An assessment has been made on the basis of whether the challenges have a direct impact on improving links between the Tees Valley and the wider road network and increasing the economic competitiveness of the region.

Addressing the issues on the A66 corridor are considered higher in priority than those on the A689 corridor. Section 8.1 outlines the priority of the challenges at each of the seven intervention area locations identified as specific considerations in the study brief. The order of priority is listed below:  Location 2: A66 Darlington Bypass  Location 3: Darlington Northern Relief Road  Location 1: A66(M) and A1(M) Junction 57  Location 4: A66 South-west Stockton-on-Tees to A19  Location 5: A66 from A19 to Teesport  Location 7: A689 County Durham  Location 6: A689 Tees Valley

Locations 1, 2, and 3 form the highest priority for intervention in the study area. It is likely that improvements to all three locations would not be required to address the capacity and safety challenges. Optioneering will be undertaken in Stage 0.2, supported by traffic modelling, to identify the most appropriate intervention. The proposed intervention will have an impact on the wider study area by changing traffic patterns and drawing additional traffic in to the A66 corridor. This will have secondary impacts on the priorities for Location 4 where constraints will be exacerbated, and environmental challenges along the A66 corridor will potentially increase. Conversely, conditions along the A689 could improve as a result of traffic rerouting and this could alleviate environment and safety challenges and also release capacity to accommodate development related growth. Therefore, the challenges for Locations 4, 6 and 7 need to be addressed taking in to account potential interventions at Locations 1, 2 and 3. . Because of its status as a trunk road, Location 4 is prioritised ahead of Location 5. Location 5, itself, is another

Page 159 July 2015 Stage 0.1 Summary Report - A66/A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study

important route for commuters and freight. It is relatively independent of potential interventions at the other locations due to its location east of the A19.

The recommended approach to traffic modelling and development of intervention options is set out in Section 8.2. The emerging options will be presented to stakeholders at a collaborative planning workshop and recommendations will become the subject of the Options Assessment Report to be submitted at the close of Stage 0.2.

During Stage 0.3, the project team will refine the options based on the Stage 0.2 assessment and feedback from the stakeholders and develop a package of infrastructure proposals to model. The responses from this test will be used to inform the TUBA assessment. The outcome of Stage 0.3 will be an emerging recommended package of infrastructure proposals and production of Strategic Outline Business Case(s) to be delivered by the end of March 2016. Work will also be completed to produce an indicative delivery programme for staged implementation commencing with priority locations, and to identify key policy decisions required to progress the proposals.

Page 160 July 2015