Newcastle Northern Access Corridor Phases 2 & 3 (Cowhill to Haddricks

Newcastle Northern Access Corridor Phases 2 & 3 (Cowhill to Haddricks Mill) Gateway 2 Full Business Case Submission

Newcastle Northern Access Corridor Phase 2 & 3

Table of Contents 1 Strategic Case ...... 6 1.1 Business Strategy ...... 6 1.2 Northern Access Corridor ...... 17 1.3 Related Schemes: ...... 21 1.4 Existing Problems and Issues ...... 25 1.5 Predicted Future Issues ...... 43 1.6 Scheme Objectives ...... 50 1.7 Measures for success ...... 51 1.8 Scope ...... 52 1.9 Constraints and Interdependencies ...... 54 1.10 Stakeholders ...... 56 1.11 Options ...... 62 2 Economic Case ...... 71 2.1 Modelling ...... 71 2.2 Value for Money Methodology ...... 71 2.3 Assumptions ...... 73 2.4 Options Appraisal ...... 76 2.5 Sensitivity & Risk Profile ...... 79 2.6 Appraisal Summary Table ...... 81 2.7 Value for Money Statement ...... 89 3 Financial Case ...... 98 3.1 Introduction ...... 98 3.2 Assumptions ...... 98 3.3 Costs ...... 99 3.4 Funding Strategy ...... 105 4 Commercial Case ...... 108 4.1 Introduction ...... 108 4.2 Procurement Strategy ...... 108 4.3 Risk allocation and Transfer ...... 108 4.4 Contract Length ...... 108 4.5 Human Resources Issues ...... 109

4.6 Contract Management ...... 109 5 Management Case ...... 110 5.1 Introduction ...... 110 5.2 Evidence of similar projects ...... 110 5.3 Programme & Project Dependencies ...... 110 5.4 Governance/ Organisational Structure ...... 111 5.5 Benefits Realisation Plan, Monitoring and Evaluation ...... 118

Appendix A Policy Fit B NAC Phase 1 Operational Performance C Cow Hill Sustrans Report D Newcastle HELAA E Details of housing and job creation/retention F S-Paramics LMVR G S-Paramics Network Layout H TEMPro MSOA Plots I Cow Hill Scheme J Dukes Moor Scheme K Blue House Scheme L Osborne Road Scheme M Haddricks Mill Scheme N Killingworth Road Scheme O Risk Register & QRA P Gosforth Consultation Report Q Blue House Options Considered R Osborne Road Options Considered S Bus Priority Feasibility Study T Haddricks Mill Options Considered U Economic Outputs – AMCB, TEE, PA V Generalised Cost Assessment W Appraisal Summary Table X Killingworth Road Land Requirements Y Project Plan Z Project Governance AA Benefits Realisation Plan BB Communications & Stakeholder Mapping CC Value for Money Statement DD Monitoring & Evaluation Plan

Introduction

This document and its series of appendices set out the business case for a programme of transport infrastructure investments for the Newcastle Northern Access Corridor. The full corridor covers the

A167 from Cowgate junction to the Cowhill interchange, then along the A189 to Haddricks Mill roundabouts; it will be split into three phases. Phase 1 has already been completed. Some of the work under Phase 2 can be undertaken immediately, this phase has been further subdivided. The phases are thus as follows:

 Phase 1: Cowgate junction  Phase 2a: Cowhill interchange and Duke's Moor junction  Phase 2b: Blue House roundabout and Osborne Road junction  Phase 3: Haddricks Mill roundabouts

This Full Business Case (FBC) submission is for the Northern Access Corridor Phases 2 and 3 – Cowhill interchange to Haddricks Mill roundabouts – which is hereafter referred to as “the scheme” or “this scheme”.

The Phases 2 & 3 study has been split in to six deliverables:

 Cowhill interchange: A167/A189 grade separated junction;  Duke’s Moor junction: Kenton Road/Grandstand Road junction;  Blue House roundabout: A189/B1318 junction;  The junctions of Ilford Road, Osborne Road (B1600) and Moorfield with Jesmond Dene Road (A189);  The Haddricks Mill roundabouts (A191/A189 junctions); and  Killingworth Road.

The Northern Access Corridor (NAC) programme has had a long gestation period, dating back to 2009. A Programme Entry submission was prepared for the North East Combined Authority (NECA) for the wider corridor works between Cowgate and Haddricks Mill Road/Killingworth Road. Programme Entry approval was obtained in March 2010.

In February 2015 an application was made for £13.4m from the Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund (HMCF) for the Ouseburn bridge, Metro bridge, Killingworth Road reconstruction and retaining wall works. Nexus agreed to contribute £550,000 to the scheme from their Metro Asset Renewal Programme. The Metro Bridge replacement work is programmed for financial year 2017/18, with the actual deck replacement and associated Metro and road closures planned for August 2017. The HMCF funding was confirmed by Department of Transport in July 2015, the money has been received and we are moving forward with the works under a separate scheme.

This document has been prepared in accordance with NECA’s March 2015 Transport Assurance Framework (TAF) and WebTAG guidance issued by the Department for Transport (DfT).In

accordance with the requirements of the TAF, the scheme fulfils the criteria for Gateway 2 consideration (with caveats) in that:

 Modelling work has quantified the likely impact from the intervention(s);  Detailed design has been completed, with single preferred options having been developed for each of the critical locations;  A Full Business Case for the scheme has been prepared, providing evidence to support the strategic, economic, financial, commercial and management cases for delivery; and  A Value for Money Statement has been prepared.

The remainder of this document is structured as follows:

 Chapter 1: The Strategic Case, which presents the rationale for undertaking the scheme by demonstrating the need for change and how the investment furthers the aims and objectives of not only Newcastle City Council but also the NECA;  Chapter 2: The Economic Case, which demonstrates the strengths of the scheme in terms of value-for-money and economic measures;  Chapter 3: The Financial Case, which explains how the scheme costs have been derived;  Chapter 4: The Commercial Case, which describes the procurement strategy underpinning the scheme while also discussing the allocation of risk; and  Chapter 5: The Management Case, which highlights the strong focus on deliverability and how experience and best practice will be used to assess and manage risk.

1 Strategic Case

1.1 Business Strategy 1.1.1 Introduction

This chapter of the submission clearly sets out the need for intervention, the case for change and how the investment will meet the criteria of the NECA Transport Assurance Framework. It will also set out how the scheme aligns with existing policies and statutory duties held by Newcastle City Council (NCC).

The Strategic Case examines the existing characteristics of the corridor and associated influence on network operation, and ultimately identifies the preferred intervention option which is designed to deliver on the objectives of both NCC and NECA. As part of the NECA Local Transport Body Assurance Framework, a new transport fund has been created to devolve transport infrastructure funds to regional government for use on local schemes.

In order to assist in the prioritising of schemes, a Programme Entry document was submitted which sets out how the scheme aligns with the eligibility criteria of the funding body. These criteria are set out in Table 1.1 below:

Table 1.1 – NECA Criteria NECA Criteria Scheme Support of Criteria Will the scheme contribute to The proposed scheme will contribute significantly to the the creation of jobs and retention of existing jobs. The corridor is located in close retention of existing jobs in the proximity to key employment sites including HM Revenue North East LEP? and Customs and the Freeman Hospital. The corridor serves companies within the North East’s Top 200 (such as Virgin Money plc, Home Group Ltd, SAGE and PD Parks Holdings) who provide approximately 40,000 jobs. Will the scheme support the The proposed scheme will contribute significantly to the North East LEP area creation of development opportunities as set out in the Gateways? Local Plans for North Tyneside and Newcastle, such as Regent’s Centre, Balliol Business Park and Gosforth Business Park. Will the scheme encourage the Improvements to the corridor will support the North East development or retention of Local Enterprise Partnership “area gateways” concept, as skilled jobs and support sites it provides a key connection between residential and that deliver the training for employment areas to the North of Newcastle and such skills? Newcastle International Airport, Newcastle City Centre and Tynemouth Port. Will the scheme provide The scheme will include measures to provide sustainable sustainable access solutions access solutions to existing and growing development to existing and growing corridors, and to support housing growth. development corridors, centres and sectors or support housing growth?

NECA Criteria Scheme Support of Criteria Will the scheme ensure Investment in the scheme will ensure that capacity capacity and speed of transport enhancement and speed of transport links can contribute links to and within the North towards increasing the attractiveness of the North East East LEP area are maintained LEP area as a place to live and do business. and enhanced in order to increase the attractiveness of the North East LEP as a place to do business, boosting inward investment and improving competitiveness? Will the scheme deliver The scheme will deliver improved accessibility across all improved accessibility from modes of transport to health, education, leisure, residential areas to areas that employment, retail and transport facilities. have employment, education or other opportunities? Will the scheme contribute to The corridor is within close proximity to Newcastle City an improvement in the overall Centre and will provide accessibility benefits by all modes quality of journeys, particularly connecting to employment, health and education those providing links to opportunities. The new scheme will improve the quality of employment and health or the journeys as it will improve the journey time reliability education opportunities? and significantly enhance the utility of public transport through this key junction. This should help retain modal share and encourage modal shift towards public transport. Modal shift will also be achieved through the provision of bus priority measures such as using Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) to identify late running buses, improvements to the pedestrian infrastructure and removing barriers to integration between travel modes. Will the scheme contribute to The scheme will contribute to an overall improvement in an overall improvement in the the local environment, particularly for air quality and noise, local environment, including by reducing delay along the corridor and managing improving local air quality or speeds. reducing the noise impact of transport corridors? Will the scheme contribute to The scheme will contribute to an overall improvement in an overall reduction in carbon the local environment, particularly for air quality and noise, emissions relative to the by reducing delay along the corridor and managing existing situation? speeds. Will the scheme provide the The current junctions are considered to deter some people opportunity to improve health, from making journeys on foot and by bike. The proposed reduce levels of obesity among scheme is considered to make these options more the population, or improve road attractive and remove severance. The scheme includes safety within the area? the provision of new pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities and improvements to the some of the junction approaches with the Blue House improvements forming a link in a major strategic cycle route to the city centre. The new and improved crossing facilities will provide increased safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

1.1.2 Scheme Context

Newcastle City Council is the local government authority for Newcastle upon Tyne. Section 16 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 places a duty on Local authorities to manage and maintain their road networks with the objectives to secure the expeditious movement of traffic on the authority’s road network, use the road network more efficiently and to avoid, eliminate or reduce road congestion or other disruption to the movement of traffic on their road network.

The proposals in this business plan help to meet that duty.

The Importance of Newcastle as a City and Regional Capital

Newcastle is the regional capital and economic centre of the North East. It hosts several regional functions including two major universities, one of the largest further and higher educational colleges in the UK, a major regional teaching hospital and a significant national function, namely the government’s Department of Work and Pensions; all of these are major employment sites.

The latest population projections from the Office for National Statistics (the 2014-based Subnational population projections) indicate that significant population growth is expected in Newcastle over the medium term. The population of the city was estimated to be 295,400 in 2016; this was forecast to grow to 302,700 by 2021, 310,400 by 2026, and 318,700 by 2031. By 2036, the population of the City of Newcastle is expected to be 323,900, an increase of 9.6% over 2016.

The City of Newcastle is also expected to enjoy noticeable employment growth in the medium to long term. According to a February 2012 report on Long Term Employment and Demographic Projections prepared for Newcastle City Council and Gateshead Council by David Mell of Durham Business School, the number of jobs located in Newcastle was expected to grow from 192,400 to 196,900 between 2010 and 2020, before increasing to 208,700 by 2030 (p7). Particularly strong growth was expected in the business and financial services sector, where employment was expected to grow from 47,300 in 2010 to 56,400 by 2030 (p15).

Its scale and its ability to draw on a very strong north-facing labour market is a major regional asset. Going forward, the city has the potential for further rapid growth, where it can build on the significant levels of inward investment in recent years, especially in life sciences, low carbon technology and professional and business services.

Newcastle as a Transport Hub

As mentioned above, the transport infrastructure around Newcastle has been the subject of several bids for enhancement funding in recent years, and the research done to support these applications has demonstrated the significance of Newcastle as a transport hub.

In January 2015, the city made a bid for Cycle City Ambition Extension funding under the title Newcastle, Fit for Cycling. This document (p6) noted that every working day there are approximately 160,000 trips into the Newcastle Urban Core from the Tyne & Wear area. Approximately 44% of people who work in Newcastle also live here, while the remaining 56% commute into Newcastle for work from other authorities (including 16% from North Tyneside and 11% each from Northumberland and Gateshead). Good transport connections to, within and around Newcastle are therefore vital to the economic health of the city and the region.

Considerable analysis was also undertaken for the March 2015 Planning for the Future document, which was published jointly by Gateshead Council and Newcastle City Council. This plan focussed on a defined area (straddling the River Tyne) known as the Urban Core, and an assessment of transport links and accessibility to this area formed a significant portion of the plan. It was believed that links to, around and through the Urban Core were good, but that investment would be required to ensure that this remained the case. It was noted that every day circa 80,000 people travelled in to the Urban Core, of which 24,000 did so by public transport (p138). The scale of this daily influx is unsurprising, given that 2011 figures from the Office for National Statistics Annual Population Survey had indicated that approximately 57% of people who work in Newcastle live outside of the city. Meanwhile, it was estimated that circa 43% of employees based within Newcastle city centre used public transport to get to work.

A key component of public transport in Tyne & Wear is the local bus network. The last strategic assessment produced for the Integrated Transport Authority, the Nexus Strategic Intelligence Report for 2012-13, showed that bus patronage had been declining in recent years, but that there were still a total of 127.5 million journeys made by bus in Tyne & Wear in 2011/12 (p23). In the same year, the Department for Transport’s statistics indicate that 37.9 million journeys were made on the Tyne & Wear Metro system, though this had risen to 40.3 million by 2015/16 (see Transport Statistics Great Britain Table TSGB0611). The Metro system continues to make a major contribution to public transport in the region. Since 2008 there have been a total of 60 stops on the network, of which 20 are in the City of Newcastle; these include major transport interchanges at Newcastle Central Station, the Regent Centre and Newcastle International Airport. There is also a significant transport interchange at Four Lane Ends; this is located in North Tyneside Council’s area, but lies just outside the area covered by this business case, being approximately 1.5 km east of the Haddricks Mill roundabouts.

Turning to heavy rail, Newcastle Central Station in the city centre is classed by the DfT as a “Category A” National Hub station. ORR statistics indicate that total passenger numbers starting or finishing their journeys at Newcastle Central have increased steadily from 4.9 million in 2000/01, to 7.5 million by 2010/11, and 8.1 million in 2014/15. Although it is not proposed that the High Speed 2 track come this far north, the station will receive “classic compatible” HS2 trains from the eastern (Birmingham to Leeds) leg of the planned network; it will thus be a significant hub for HS2 passengers in the region, with onward connections to Scotland.

Figure 1.1 - Regional Context

Newcastle International Airport, 9.4 km north-west of the city centre, offers a range of services to national and international business centres as well as many holiday destinations. The Department for Transport’s UK Aviation Forecasts from January 2013 indicated that it was expected that total annual passenger numbers would rise from circa 4.1 million in 2010 to between 5 and 8 million by 2040, depending on the economic background factors and any constraints upon its growth (pp77-78, 163). The airport laid out their plans in their July 2013 Masterplan 2013-2030 consultation document; this plan aims to create an additional 2,150 jobs through activity in the Southside Development Area, thereby enabling the airport to contribute £1.3 billion to the regional economy by 2030 (p6).

Much effort has also been expended on developing Newcastle’s cycling infrastructure. Use of bikes is already at a relatively high base in the city; the council’s initial 2012 strategy document Delivering Cycling Improvements in Newcastle noted that 35% of all cycling trips in Tyne & Wear originated in Newcastle (p4), whereas Newcastle only comprises about 26% of the total population of the former Metropolitan County. The joint Gateshead and Newcastle Planning for the Future document noted that over 1,700 people cycle in to the Urban Core on a daily basis, and set the goal of creating a network of cycling routes across this area in order to support future growth (p136).

Newcastle aims to develop a cycling culture, with more people of all ages cycling more often in a city that is easy and safe to get around by bike. As part of the strategy to achieve this aim, the council is creating a network of strategic cycle routes coming in to the city centre from major residential areas in the wider city, and will complete the section within Newcastle of the new national cycle route NCN725 (the Great North Cycleway). The Northern Access Corridor that is assessed in this study crosses the Great North Cycleway at the Blue House roundabout.

Newcastle as a Smart City

The city is investing in smart technology through developments at the science and technology hub of Science Central, and is actively looking at ways new technology can help to make Newcastle a working city and an equitable city, with decent neighbourhoods and a better environment.

One example is the Urban Traffic Management and Control (UTMC) network in which the city and the region are investing; this will help us towards obtaining a smart roads network for the city, similar to that which the government is working towards for the Strategic Road Network.

The provision of UTMC compatible Intelligent Transport Systems equipment such as Traffic Signal Controllers, Variable Message Signs (VMS), Air Quality Monitoring equipment, ANPR and CCTV cameras, connected to the UTMC using MESH radio and ADSL backhaul allows the UTMC to implement automated strategies to:

 Provide reliable journey times;  Contribute to policy aims (such as modal or route prioritisation);  React to changes in air quality;

 Manage the network for planned events (for example the Great North Run);  Manage the network during unplanned incidents and emergencies; and  Inform the travelling public of delays and optimal routes and modes.

In addition the data gathered from these systems is used to provide:

 Real time information to populate the public facing website and social media used by key stakeholders, broadcast media and the public;  Open Data feeds for applications on Smart Phone and in-vehicle devices;  Origin and Destination Matrixes linked in to the whole of the Tyne and Wear road network. This can be used for future planning and assessing or modelling the impact of interventions and incidents on the network. In addition the provision of Infrastructure to Vehicle communications capability will allow for the development of services to individual vehicles such as energy efficient intersections and road hazard warning. Other developments may include enhancements for vulnerable road users, provision for platooning and autonomous vehicles.

Newcastle as a Sustainable City

Newcastle is a Sustainable City and topped the Forum for the Future’s annual Sustainable Cities Index tracks in 2009 and 2010. The Index, which ran from 2007 to 2010, tracked progress on sustainability in Britain’s 20 largest cities, highlighting their environmental performance, quality of life and their readiness for the challenges of the future.

The city is a signatory to the EU ‘Covenant of Mayors’ agreement, and is committed to delivering a reduction in carbon emissions in excess of 20% by 2020 calculated using a 2005 baseline, and has developed a Sustainable Energy Action Plan (SEAP) in line with these targets.

The city has defined two Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) for which Action Plans have been produced. The Action Plans provide measures to be put in place to improve air quality and meet the standards set in the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs’ Air Quality Strategy. Two scoping reports have been produced for Actions Plans relevant to the Northern Access Corridor, namely for Blue House & Osborne Road (16/00394/SCO) and Haddricks Mill (16/00396/SCO). A previous relevant report for the Killingworth Road area can also be found under reference 16/00552/SCR. Chapter 5 of each of these scoping reports includes the baseline data on air quality. There is no update on this information available yet, as the assessments have not been completed. These scoping reports can be found by searching Newcastle City Council’s planning portal at: https://www.newcastle.gov.uk/planning-and-buildings/planning-applications/search-and- comment-on-planning-applications

In 2011 Newcastle adopted a 10 year cycling strategy which commits it to developing cycling culture and increasing the number of people cycling; further details can be found in the document Delivering Cycling Improvements in Newcastle, and the subsequent Newcastle Fit for Cycling: Cycle City Ambition Bid (2013) and Cycle City Ambition Extension Bid (2015).

1.1.3 Policy Alignment

Investing in Britain’s Future

It is important to recognise the source of funding and associated objectives. The Growth Deals evolved from Lord Heseltine’s October 2012 blueprint for the UK’s future economic prosperity, No Stone Unturned in Pursuit of Growth, and the subsequent HM Treasury document, Investing in Britain’s Future (June 2013).

This latter document introduced the concept of regional Strategic Economic Plans, and highlighted that the Local Enterprise Partnerships with the strongest Strategic Economic Plans, demonstrating their ability to deliver growth, will gain the greatest share of the Growth Deal funding available. As such, it is imperative that each investment decision delivers the optimum return by targeting local, regional and nationally aligned objectives.

The Government presents Growths Deals as a revolutionary way in which to promote economic development, as housing, infrastructure and other funding requirements are brought together in a single pot and allocated via differing levels of devolved powers.

Local Growth White Paper: Realising Every Place’s Potential

The planning framework in to which this new funding mechanism was introduced had already been set out in October 2010 by the White Paper Local Growth: Realising Every Place’s Potential. This document sets out the Government’s economic ambition to create a fairer and more balanced economy – one that is not so dependent on a narrow range of economic sectors, is driven by private sector growth, and enables new business opportunities that are more evenly balanced across the country and between industries. Its proposals to do so involve putting businesses and local communities in charge of their own futures, giving greater incentives for local investment and changing the way central government supports and maintains growth. This approach is expected to better connect people to jobs, help them get the skills they require and equip local areas with the tools they need to create and shape dynamic and entrepreneurial local economies.

The White Paper provided the context for Local Growth Deals negotiated between Government and Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), ensuring that business has an environment that enables it to compete and invest, through the provision of economically important infrastructure that supports each area’s comparative advantage.

Since high quality transport links are recognised as essential to underpinning a successful economy, the North East Combined Authority (NECA) is developing its own transport strategy aligned with this objective. NECA inherited the March 2011 LTP3: The Third Local Transport Plan for Tyne and Wear, Strategy 2011-2021 from the Tyne & Wear Integrated Transport Authority, and subsequently produced its own outline strategy in December 2016, under the title Our Journey: A 20 Year Transport Manifesto for the North East Combined Authority. It is intended that the priorities set out in this document will feed in to a revised Local Transport Plan. The guiding principles outlined by the manifesto (p7) include (among others):

 Good access to workplaces, services, shops and leisure  Growth in economic activity  Efficient use of transport assets  Better connectivity across the UK  Expand the public transport network

NECA also described a number of outcomes specifically related to the regional road network (p21). Those which are most relevant to the Northern Access Corridor project are:

 Invest to alleviate congestion and collision hot spots.  Create well-maintained road space that is safe for all, with good access to key employment and development sites.  Improve road safety, particularly for cyclists and pedestrians.  Address congestion issues.

NECA’s emerging strategy will be underpinned by a Transport Assurance Framework, which is still in draft form. However, the March 2015 version (p27) indicates that its key components will include use of the DfT’s WebTAG tools, and the incorporation of the following scheme benefits in to socio-economic appraisals and a Value for Money Statement:

 Journey time savings for individuals  Reduction in costs to businesses, transport operators and passengers  Increasing access to education and jobs  Reducing accidents / improving safety and security

NECA’s objective of securing funding aimed at achieving economic development outcomes is thus aligned with the economic goals laid out in Investing in Britain’s Future and Local Growth: Realising Every Place’s Potential.

National Planning Policy Framework

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in March 2012, its purpose being to simplify the planning system and enable community involvement in the process to stimulate positive growth.

The Framework defines the purpose of the planning system as contributing to the achievement of sustainable development, identifying the following three dimensions:  An economic role;  A social role; and  An environmental role. The NPPF presents the need for the above roles to be considered collectively, being mutually dependent, to secure enhanced standards to improve the lives of people and communities.

The Northern Access Corridor scheme is aligned with the core principles of the NPPF, as it will contribute to positively enhancing connectivity and movement within and between Newcastle and North Tyneside, help stimulate sustainable economic growth to the benefit of the wider North Tyneside region, foster sustainable communities with good access to local services, and promote the use of more sustainable modes to minimise environmental impacts.

The Newcastle Plan

The council has four priorities for how we will focus our efforts and resources to make a positive difference to the city. These are:  A working city - creating good quality jobs and helping local people develop the skills to do them.  Decent neighbourhoods - working with local communities to look after each other and the environment.  Tackling inequalities - tackling discrimination and inequalities which prevent people from fulfilling their true potential.  A fit for purpose council - a council which leads by enabling others to achieve. Transport has a part to play in all of these by creating conditions for growth: reducing unnecessary through traffic and ‘rat running’ in neighbourhoods by ensuring better flow of traffic on the main roads, as well as reducing traffic collisions; enabling sustainable, more active and cheaper travel to places of employment, education, shopping and leisure; and, engaging and leading stakeholders in ambitious and sustainable traffic schemes.

The NAC has a particular part to play in creating and retaining jobs. The Local Development Framework (see below) has identified a number of employment opportunities that would benefit from the proposed scheme. These include developments at Newcastle International Airport, Science Central, the Discovery Quarter and the Stephenson Quarter.

The proposed improvements provide a key connection to development opportunities across the region, and in particular to North Tyneside. The Local Development Framework for North Tyneside Council has identified a number of employment opportunities that would benefit from the proposed scheme. These include developments at Balliol Business Park and Gosforth Business Park, which are located adjacent to each other in the area to the south of the intersection between the A188 and A189. The pre-submission draft of the

North Tyneside Local Plan 2015 noted (p17) that employment growth in the district had been concentrated in these business parks (and the Quorum Business Park slightly to the east), capitalising on the Enterprise Zone status that was granted in 1996. The council argue that they represent a good opportunity to attract investment from multi-national companies, and North Tyneside therefore plan to make over 30 hectares of land available for development at Gosforth and Balliol Business Parks before 2032 (pp38-43). The NAC project will be vital to improving links between these business parks and Newcastle city centre.

The NAC also has a major role to play in enabling sustainable, more active and cheaper travel from new housing sites to places in the city centre, with its opportunities for employment, education, shopping and leisure.

Planning for the Future

Planning for the Future is the Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne for 2010 to 2030. It is our key planning document setting out the spatial planning framework to deliver economic prosperity and create lifetime neighbourhoods. It is the central document in Newcastle’s Local Plan and will guide decisions on development up to 2030. Planning for the Future was adopted by the council in March 2015 after public examination.

Policy CS13 is the strategic policy for transport and covers three main areas:  promoting alternative travel choices to encourage a modal shift from sole occupancy car use to more sustainable alternatives;  improving the operation of our transport networks and improving our strategic connections; and  reducing the impacts of development, ensuring developers take full consideration of sustainable travel options. The NAC proposals contribute to all three areas.

In Policy UC9, the Plan sets out that traffic in the city core will be managed by focusing the main traffic movements with the Urban Core onto the designated Urban Core Distributor Road (UCDR). The UCDR intersects with the NAC at Cowhill interchange. Control of traffic flow to and through this interchange is vital to the efficient working of the UDCR and to minimising through traffic and improving the environment of the city centre.

Appendix A sets out how the NAC scheme fits with further policies and plans. The objectives of the scheme are mapped against Newcastle, regional and national policies and strategies.

The Road Investment Strategy

Finally, it should be noted that local road investment in the Newcastle and North Tyneside areas complements infrastructure enhancements that are being funded at a national level. The initial June 2013 HM Treasury Document Investing in Britain’s Future listed a number of major improvements to the Strategic Road Network (pp71-75) which were at varying stages of development, but which were all seen as being of national importance; these included a number of schemes in the Tyne & Wear area, such as improvements to the A19/A1058 interchange at West Chirton, enhancements to the A19/A184 Testos roundabout south of Boldon Colliery, and feasibility studies on improvements to the A1 in the region.

In March 2015 the DfT published its Road Investment Strategy for the 2015/16 – 2019/20 Road Period, which included confirmation of the aforementioned A19 schemes plus additional commitments (p31) to upgrade two sections of the A1 to the west of Newcastle (Scotswood to North Brunton and Birtley to Coal House) and a further junction on the A19 (Down Hill Lane). A timetable for progressing these schemes was given in Highways England’s April 2015 Delivery Plan, 2015-2020 (pp15-25). In combination, these projects will significantly improve road access around the periphery of the Tyneside conurbation and to destinations on the edge of the urban area, such as Newburn Riverside Business Park, the Team Valley Trading Estate, or the Gosforth and Balliol Business Parks. The Northern Access Corridor project thus offers a complementary benefit of improving connectivity through the urban area itself, further enhancing the attractiveness of such business locations.

1.2 Northern Access Corridor

The corridor requires a package of works that directly complement and add value to the existing investment from government. Improvements to the Northern Access Corridor (shown in Figure 1.1) will enhance and integrate the major routes into and through Newcastle in the north of the city. The scheme consists of three phases which effectively create and complete an intelligent transport corridor that can handle the varied demands presented by a range of employment opportunities and services in the area.

The corridor facilitates a large number of journeys in all directions during peak hours, as a result of it serving Newcastle City Centre, the North Tyneside Business Parks, the local retail and employment centre of Gosforth, and numerous major employers (such as HM Revenue & Customs, SAGE and the Freeman Hospital).

In February 2015 a successful application was made for £13.423M from the Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund (HMCF) for the Ouseburn bridge, Metro bridge, Killingworth Road reconstruction and retaining wall works. Part of the Haddricks Mill junction is on a bridge over the Ouseburn. The bridge has not benefitted from major maintenance for more than 10 years. Consequently, structural repairs are urgently required to the bridge beams and water proofing. In addition, the load capacity of the footways is substandard for current highway loading and temporary protection was installed to prevent vehicle overrunning.

A narrow Victorian railway bridge, currently used by Metro trains, forms a significant physical pinch point on the A189 Killingworth Road approach to the Haddricks Mill junction, leading to delays to vehicular traffic at peak times, including buses, and safety risks to cyclists and pedestrians. Replacing the existing Metro underbridge and providing a wider bridge deck will allow widening of this road. The road will then have to be reconstructed and a retaining structure on the eastern side stabilised.

Nexus, the North East Combined Authority’s passenger Transport Executive, are contributing £550,000 to the scheme from their Metro Asset Renewal Programme. In a separate programme Nexus is investing between £10 and £12M in track replacement works in the vicinity. There is also a small element of S106 contribution from nearby developments.

Table 1.2 – HMCF Funding Breakdown Funding Source Amount (millions) Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund (Department for Transport) £13.423 Metro Reinvigoration Programme (Nexus) £0.55 Section 106 contributions £0.24 Total £14.213

Undertaking the Metro bridge replacement, road reconstruction and retaining wall works as part of a consolidated programme will result in otherwise unachievable capacity benefits.

A scheme adjacent to the east of the corridor at Four Lane Ends has also received Local Pinch Point Funding, and has been delivered by North Tyneside Council. The Four Lane Ends scheme comprised improvements to traffic flows, public transport movements and pedestrian and cyclist accessibility; it was situated across three junctions within North Tyneside on the A188/A189 corridor.

1.2.1 Northern Access Corridor Phase 1 – Cowgate

Phase 1 of the corridor (Cowgate junction) received Local Pinch Point Funding from the government and was substantively complete in March 2016. Further pedestrian, cycle and traffic signal operation improvements have continued to be implemented following the opening of the new junction and as of July 2017 the scheme has been fully operational.

This scheme consisted of the realignment of the existing roundabout junction and the adjacent mini roundabout junction into one signalised junction. Access to the adjacent Morrisons supermarket was also improved. The scheme included elements of bus prioritisation, substantial upgrades to pedestrian and cycle routes, and the provision of crossing facilities replacing the existing unpopular subways. An element of Newcastle City Council funding for this scheme was identified as the local contribution to the Northern Access Corridor programme.

The scheme was intended to significantly reduce traffic queueing and congestion at the junction, and in order to achieve this objective intelligent traffic signals were installed. These new signals are controlled by the Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation

(MOVA) system, which utilises an adaptive control strategy based on analysis of historical data and real time information. This enables the signals to manage an efficient flow of traffic, and this will improve over time as the data bank of historical information is populated. The new signals are also more energy efficient than conventional traffic signals; they use 80% less energy, which will save five tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions over their lifespan.

Figure 1.2 – Newcastle Northern Access Corridor

Since implementation, and further optimisation of the traffic signals, the scheme has been shown to deliver strong journey time improvements on the three key journey paths through the junction. Graphs comparing journey times before the works, after completion of construction works, and after implementation of traffic signal improvements are provided in Appendix B.

1.2.2 Northern Access Corridor Phase 2 – Cowhill interchange to Osborne Road

This scheme forms the central section of the corridor. As explained in the Strategic Case of the Phase 2 Outline Business Case (OBC), the Cowhill and Duke’s Moor junction improvement schemes were at the front end of the Phase 2 delivery programme to enable the more complex parts of the scheme to be worked up. In addition the Cowhill junction was identified by Stagecoach in a bus priority study (see Appendix S) as a location where their buses experienced issues.

There were 111 accidents here from 2011 to 2015.

For all these considerations it was considered appropriate to progress the Cowhill interchange and Duke’s Moor to completion at financial risk to the council.

The pedestrian and cycling works at Cowhill have been completed based on a report by Sustrans on improving cycle and pedestrian access. The remaining improvements to improve bus priority will be implemented at the end of the North Access Corridor work as the current movements at the junction give the flexibility required to accommodate the increased traffic flow which will result from the work at Blue House and Haddricks Mill junctions.

The works at Duke’s Moor have been completed, except for minor snagging items. As this work included flood mitigation and flood early warning it was considered prudent to complete this as soon as possible to safeguard the wider network.

Although it is too early to judge the effectiveness of the work on these junctions, the traffic is moving freely and no complaints have been received from junction users. The remainder of Phase 2 comprises Phase 2b, which includes the development, design and implementation of improvements to the following locations:

1) The Blue House roundabout, which constitutes the intersection of Grandstand Road and Jesmond Dene Road (which together form part of the A189) with the Great North Road (the B1318); 2) The intersection of Jesmond Dene Road and Ilford Road; 3) The intersection of Jesmond Dene Road and Osborne Road (the B1600); 4) The intersection of Jesmond Dene Road and Moorfield.

1.2.3 Northern Access Corridor Phase 3 – Haddricks Mill including Killingworth Road

Phase 3 of the scheme is intended to deliver the following enhancements:  Improvements to the Haddricks Mill roundabouts junction;  Widening of Killingworth Road (the A189) between Haddricks Mill roundabouts and the boundary with North Tyneside; and  Widening and replacement of the bridge which carries the Tyne & Wear Metro over the A189 at this boundary. It was originally intended that a separate business case for Phase 3 be developed in parallel with that for Phase 2. However, the likely timing of the phases has now permitted the combination of these business cases in to this single FBC for the whole corridor.

The funding of Phase 3 will be assisted by a contribution from the Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund (HMCF). Newcastle City Council applied to the Department for Transport in February 2015 requesting that these works be part-funded by the HMCF, under the scheme name “Haddricks Mill including Killingworth Road (highway and structural) Maintenance Scheme (HMMS)”. The strategic case for the combination of maintenance and enhancement works required included the following observations:

 The section of the city’s road network covered by the scheme was regarded as critical to the future prosperity of Newcastle, as its enhancement would support both housing and employment growth;  The benefits arising from the Northern Access Corridor enhancements (funded through the Growth Deal and Local Pinch Point Funding) would be compromised if the general condition of the affected highways was not maintained to an appropriate standard;  Integrating the maintenance and enhancement elements would allow improvements to pedestrian and cyclist connectivity through the Northern Access Corridor, whilst complying more fully with the requirements of the North East Combined Authority’s Assurance Framework;  If maintenance and renewal works on the corridor were enacted on a reactive and ad hoc basis, disruption to local road traffic would be greater than if these works were combined with the enhancements; and  The condition of the bridge over the river Ouseburn at Haddricks Mill was identified as an area of particular concern, as no major maintenance work had been undertaken for over 10 years. The HMCF HMMS scheme received funding on 3 July 2015. Preparatory work started in Summer 2016 with utility diversions. Substantive works which will involve the closure of Killingworth Road will begin in spring 2017 and are expected to be complete in spring 2018.

1.3 Related Schemes:

1.3.1 Gosforth Transport Improvements

While the Northern Access Corridor generally runs across an east–west alignment, the north–south axis also accommodates a large number of vehicle movements. Newcastle City Council is working with partners to progress a number of schemes in this area, under the umbrella of the Gosforth Transport Improvements (GTI) programme, in order to improve traffic flow and make the road safer for all users (including cyclists).

The Gosforth corridor (B1318) is one of the most complex transport routes that we have a duty to manage. It is a strategically important through route for cyclists, buses and cars, while also serving a local retail centre that attracts many visitors. It connects the A1 at its north end to the city centre (Percy Street and Haymarket Metro station) at the other. Over a number of years, the corridor has increasingly seen issues with congestion, pollution, journey reliability and safety.

The GTI scheme was developed as a result of previous work as part of the Gosforth Transportation Study and the Gosforth Transport Improvements major scheme bid. The GTI scheme aimed to provide improvements that would enhance the reliability and convenience of transport infrastructure for all road users whilst improving accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists.

New developments at Great Park and the Regent Centre meant there was a need to improve bus transit times through the corridor. This is to be achieved through a combination of physical measures and ITS solutions both signal and vehicle based.

For a number of years, three areas (namely Hollywood Avenue, Church Road / the High Street, and Blue House roundabout) featured in the top 10 for clusters of injuries caused by road traffic collisions giving the Gosforth Corridor one of the worst road safety records of any transport route in the city.

Safety for cyclists was of particular concern. There were recorded cycle collisions on:

 Broadway roundabout  Between Broadway and Hollywood Avenue  Hollywood Avenue roundabout

In addition both roundabouts, the stretch of road between them and Gosforth High Street were identified in the Times survey as hazardous to cyclists. The previous major scheme consultation raised issues about conflict between all road users in this area as did the Newcastle Cycling Forum Working Group on a Strategic Cycle Route to Gosforth.

As part of the Bus Corridor Improvements within Tyne and Wear and the Gosforth Study, works to Church Road / Salters Road junction were identified as needed to enable better traffic flow and reduce collisions. Alongside of this improvements to the Regents Centre/ Great North Road Junctions and the High Street were required. The Great Park, Park and Ride site is in operation and as part of developing this facility the Great North Road plays a vital role. The scheme improved access to the City Centre by sustainable modes along a key corridor.

The £3m scheme was funded using S106 contributions from the Newcastle Great Park Accessibility Fund, Park and Ride Developer Contribution Model, Regent Centre Area Developer Contributions, LTP Strategic Corridor Monies £1.3M from the DfT’s Cycle Safety Improvements Fund.

The work consisted of:

 Signalising the roundabout at Broadway East and West/ Great North Road;  Junction with full toucans and a pedestrian/cycle zebra;  Improvement at Regent Centre and Christon Road junctions;  Removal of roundabout and signalisation of Hollywood Avenue junction; and  Realignment of the Church Road/ Salters Road Junction.

The cycle elements included:

 A signed cycle route from Broadway roundabout to the Little Moor;

 Segregated cycle lanes and ‘floating bus stops from the Broadway roundabout to Regent Centre;  Signalising of Church Road / Moor Road North;  Street environment improvements on Moor Road North;  change priorities and a raised table at Moor Road / The Grove; and  Increasing the size of existing raised plateau at Moor Rd South / Moorfield junction.

Phased work on the scheme began late summer of 2013 and substantially finished at the end of 2016. Another phase will take place in summer 2017 to narrow the radii at side roads and give better pedestrian priority and plans for further street enhancements are being developed.

1.3.2 Related Schemes: Cycle City Ambition Fund

It should also be noted that Newcastle City Council has developed a cycling strategy as part of their Cycle City Ambition Bid of April 2013. This strategy does not envisage that any section of the Northern Access Corridor will constitute part of the 8 strategic cycle routes that have been proposed. However, the NAC crosses the proposed Great North Cycleway route at the Blue House roundabout, whilst the section of the NAC formed by Grandstand Road (i.e. the A189 between Cowhill Interchange and the Blue House roundabout) is already furnished with cycling infrastructure. The aim is to encourage people of all ages to cycle who currently do not feel sufficiently confident or safe to cycle to do so as well as to improve journey times and convenience for existing cyclists.

The GTI schemes and the work at Blue House and Haddricks Mill will thus contribute to cycle improvements in the north of the city. The Blue House improvements are essential to complete the Great North Cycleway, which will eventually run from Darlington to Blyth. The council has committed to delivering the Great North Cycleway as part of its Local Plan, which has been examined in public and subsequently adopted.

Sections are already in place (funded through the Cycle City Ambition Fund) to the Tyne Bridge within Gateshead, from the Tyne Bridge through the city centre to the Blue House roundabout, and from Moorfield to Broadway roundabout. Plans are being developed for the section from Broadway roundabout to Sandy Lane, thereby taking the route beyond the Newcastle City boundary. Under investigation for the longer term is a strategic cycle route, running from the city centre through Jesmond and on to the three business parks near the A188/A189 interchange. This is likely to go through Haddricks Mill.

1.3.3 Related Schemes: City Centre enhancements

It should be noted that the NAC enhancements will have implications for the area immediately to the south. The traffic movement control to be put in place under the Northern Access Corridor scheme will enable a major reorganisation of traffic movement in the north of Newcastle city centre. Proposals are being developed to remodel the section of the Great North Road/Percy Street from the junction of Claremont Road through to

Gallowgate, thereby smoothing traffic flow, improving bus transit and re-purposing space in order to give better movement for pedestrians and cyclists. This cannot be achieved without the control of arriving traffic which would result from a signalised junction at Blue House. Without this control, the arriving traffic will also impact on the proposed bus loop around the city centre.

1.3.4 Related Schemes: Four Lane Ends, North Tyneside

Traffic flow along the Northern Access Corridor is also influenced by adjacent highway infrastructure in North Tyneside, particularly by the intersection between the A188 and A191 at Four Lane Ends; the proximity of a Tyne & Wear Metro station and bus station to this road junction creates a significant transport interchange at this point. The former roundabout at this intersection was replaced by a signalised junction in 2015, and traffic flow was further improved by the linking of these signals to enhancements further east along the A191 (at Tyneview Park in Benton) in 2016.

1.3.5 Intelligent Transport Systems

The highway stretch from the A1 to the city centre has more than 14 sets of traffic lights or roundabouts along the corridor that work in isolation from each other. Our GTI programme will integrate the management of the signals to ensure traffic of all forms can be managed effectively and safely. We have already realigned the junction of Salters Road/Church Road with Gosforth High Street, thereby removing a set of traffic signals and improving the junction’s performance.

The results are being monitored, and this may result in further minor remedial works and revisions which will not substantially affect the traffic flow. Meanwhile, air quality monitors have been deployed along the corridor as part of an extension to the intelligent transport corridor programme. The trial will work with bus operator Arriva’s Express buses along the corridor. Funding has been secured and equipment deployed for an additional element incorporating vulnerable road users.

In addition to our GTI investment, a £600,000 grant from DfT to extend the trial of intelligent transport corridor control being undertaken in the east end of the city, has been secured. The trial we are running in the east of the city has received national and international press coverage and enables in-vehicle communication to tell drivers how fast to drive to get a green wave while also providing priority to ambulance transport, on which it is being trialled.

More information can be found on this here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/traffic-light-technology- which-could-reduce-congestion-and-pollution-tested-in-uk-10154010.html

The focus of the extension in this location will be on air quality, road safety (particularly for vulnerable road users) and on express bus services. In addition to ITS systems for the monitoring and control of highway infrastructure, we have also installed telemetry to the SUDS tanks at the Grandstand Road/Kenton Road junction. The intention is that they will record tanks levels and alert the UTMC service to any possible flood events in these locations. While these tanks are designed to cope with a 1 in 100 year flood event, it was decided that these are becoming more frequent is was viewed as prudent to put in a system for flood events of a greater severity. This should allow a reasonable level of diversion to be notified via VMS to reduce the network disruption of any flood events, enhancing the reliability of the network.

The GTI programme has seen the development of a strategic cycle route along the north south corridor which crosses the Northern Access Corridor at Blue House. The aim is to encourage people of all ages to cycle who currently do not feel sufficiently confident or safe to cycle to do so as well as to improve journey times and convenience for existing cyclists. This Strategic Route is also part of the Great North Cycleway (a continuous route from Darlington to Blyth). The council has committed to delivering the Great North Cycleway as part of its Local Plan which has been examined in public and subsequently adopted.

1.4 Existing Problems and Issues

1.4.1 Existing Characteristics

The Northern Access Corridor (shown in Figure 1.3) lies approximately 1km north of Newcastle’s Central Core. The corridor facilitates a similar number of journeys in all directions during peak hours and is prone to increasing journey times, congestion, poor reliability for bus services, inadequate accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists and deteriorating air quality.

The corridor also lacks the benefit of linking junctions together to allow for a district level of co-ordination between junctions. Through Urban Traffic Management and Control (UTMC) the junctions could be used to manage strategic issues for the city’s network and optimise the flow of vehicles to minimise the impact of disruption. This will reduce emissions locally and contribute to city wide improvements to air quality.

1.4.2 Cowhill Interchange

The Cowhill Interchange is a grade separated signalised junction that crosses over the A167 Newcastle Central Motorway (CME) shown in Figure 1.4.

A study was completed of this junction in 2012 as part of a Bus Priority Feasibility Study. There are significant volumes of traffic travelling through this junction during the AM & PM peaks however buses incur delays during the AM peak only on the A167 eastbound off- slip.

Figure 1.3 – Wider Extent of the Northern Access Corridor

Figure 1.4 – Cowhill Interchange

The junction operates a dynamic signal timing system which treats the arrangement as two separate linked signalised junctions. This arrangement allows traffic on the Grandstand Road approaches to travel straight through both parts of the junction without delay.

The CME exit slip roads generally operate during the same stage but the length of green time given varies and can cause the two arms to become offset. The junction layout provides two lanes in either direction through the junction. However the offside lanes operate as demand based right turn filter lanes and so just provides queue storage.

The CME exit slip roads both provide left turn “bypass” lanes which are not signal controlled. There are two lanes at the stop line on both slip roads, an ahead only and right turn lane. The ahead lanes are rarely occupied whilst the right turn lane on the eastbound exit slip experiences significant traffic flows during the AM peak.

The queue lengths observed on the CME eastbound exit slip approach to the junction during the AM peak were on average four vehicles, but peaked at 12 vehicles. During the bus surveys the observed average delay in the AM peak for buses on the CME eastbound exit slip was 60 seconds which equated to approximately one signal cycle. There are 68 buses per hour running through this junction across all movements of which 10 Stagecoach buses run through the junction on CME exit-slip approach. A traffic management scheme was carried out here in 2009 to signalise the junction which included taking out cycle lanes through the junction in order to add pedestrian islands.

1.4.3 Duke’s Moor

This is a signalised T Junction for motorised traffic with toucan crossing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists shown in Figure 1.5 The approaches to the Duke’s Moor junction are two lanes with a straight ahead and a left on Grandstand Road approaching from the west; left and right from Kenton Road; and straight ahead and right on Grandstand Road approaching from the east.

The main turning movements are from Kenton Road westbound onto Grandstand Road. There are capacity problems on this junction resulting in queueing on Kenton Road approaching the junction in the AM peak and on Grandstand Road approaching the junction in the PM peak.

The main cycling desire line is from the Town Moor to Kenton Road. At the moment cyclists have to cross Grandstand Road on toucans and re-enter traffic on Kenton Road. There are ASLs for cyclists on all approaches. The approach from Kenton Road has no lead-in lane due to space restrictions.

There have been historical flooding problems at this junction caused by a watercourse.

Figure 1.5 – Dukes Moor

1.4.4 Blue House Roundabout

Blue House Roundabout is a mini roundabout junction. The approach roads to the junction are not well aligned and realignment of these roads is hampered by the proximity of a residential property on the North West corner of the junction. The approaches are laid out as avenues with protected trees shown in Figure 1.6.

The junction provides a key connection between the residential areas to the north of Newcastle and North Tyneside to the City Centre. A large number of buses pass through the junction at a frequency of approximately 67 buses per hour. These provide key local links across the region and therefore journey time reliability is key to the ongoing performance of the passenger transport network.

Blue House roundabout has a number of problems including congestion and inadequate facilities for public transport, pedestrians and cyclists. It was also highlighted as having particular problems with collisions.

Extensive pedestrian guard rail has been installed to discourage pedestrians crossing the carriageway at the roundabout and to guide them to informal crossing points.

Figure 1.6 - Blue House

At Blue House Roundabout there is a formal crossing point on the Grandstand Road approach. The crossing is broken up with a substandard pedestrian refuge. At this point there are two busy traffic lanes subject to a 40mph speed limit. Crossing at this point is very intimidating for pedestrians, particularly at peak periods. There is no tactile paving for the visually impaired and no crossing facilities for pedestrians on the Great North Road Southbound approach to the roundabout.

On the Jesmond Dene Road arm of the Blue House roundabout there is uncontrolled crossing point. The crossing is broken up with a substandard pedestrian refuge. At this point there are three busy traffic lanes and the road is subject to a 40mph speed limit where pedestrians must cross two busy traffic lanes, if crossing from the south, before they encounter the refuge. Crossing conditions remain intimidating. Lack of adequate pedestrian crossing facilities makes the Blue House a very intimidating environment for pedestrians to cross.

There were a total of 138 road traffic accidents at this location between 2011 and 2015 (inclusive), or just under one per month on average.. This trend continued in the first nine months of 2016, when there were 9 accidents in total. The proportion of conflicts at the roundabout, in relation to the corridor length, is significantly higher than the national average for a similar length of urban road.

During the morning and evening peak periods there is extensive queuing on all approaches to the roundabout. This is exacerbated by eastbound queues at the Jesmond Dene Road/Osborne Road junction which can extend back through the Blue House roundabout, causing the blocking on the roundabout circulatory carriageway. This causes extensive queues on the approaches to Blue House and significantly increases vehicle delay.

A - Great North Road (N) B - Jesmond Dene Road C - Great North Road (S) D - Grandstand Road AM 5min Max Hr Ave Hr Max 5min Max Hr Ave Hr Max 5min Max Hr Ave Hr Max 5min Max Hr Ave Hr Max 07:45 30 13 30 10 10 14 8 8 12 9 9 13 07:50 13 10 12 9 07:55 12 7 8 6 08:00 13 5 10 10 08:05 7 6 7 13 08:10 9 14 10 7 08:15 23 11 9 10 08:20 30 9 6 12 08:25 6 13 7 10 08:30 5 11 5 7 08:35 7 11 6 7 08:40 5 10 5 6

A - Great North Road (N) B - Jesmond Dene Road C - Great North Road (S) D - Grandstand Road PM 5min Max Hr Ave Hr Max 5min Max Hr Ave Hr Max 5min Max Hr Ave Hr Max 5min Max Hr Ave Hr Max 17:00 5 8 11 7 13 33 10 10 17 5 10 19 17:05 6 16 8 9 17:10 10 16 8 7 17:15 5 33 13 10 17:20 9 11 17 15 17:25 11 10 5 19 17:30 9 5 9 10 17:35 10 14 7 14 17:40 5 12 14 10 17:45 6 8 9 7 17:50 10 12 7 7 17:55 7 9 8 6

There are currently no provisions for buses on the immediate approaches to the roundabout and services can therefore be delayed by the general congestion at the junction.

A traffic queue survey was undertaken by Sky High Technology on Wednesday 15th July 2015. The results showed the morning peak longest queue was of 30 vehicles southbound on the B1318. In the evening peak the longest queue was 33 vehicles on the A189 Jesmond Dene Road. This indicates that an imbalance in the junction and issues with turning traffic blocking egress from other arms. Typical queue lengths are between 10 and 20 in any direction.

On the A189 off-road cycle provision is provided to the south side in the form of bituminous surfaced, shared pavement/cycleway. The width varies but is generally around 1.5 metres west of the roundabout. A similar 2.0 metre wide, concrete surfaced facility exists to the east of the roundabout.

The width of existing shared use facilities are generally below the recommended minimum, as stated in ‘Designing for Cyclists’ for this type of use. Physical obstructions exist in the form of guard railing to one side near the roundabout and mature trees to both sides of the shared use facility along the A189. These could act as potential barriers to widening. In particular on the route through the south east corner of the roundabout, the width is very restricted by mature trees and an existing stone memorial.

Shared use signing is provided along the routes but there is very little direction signing for pedestrians and cyclists, particularly at crossing points, which could deter potential users who are unfamiliar with the routes.

On-road cycling road through the Blue House Roundabout can be very intimidating due to the volume of traffic and the number of lanes to negotiate, both on the approaches and across the circulatory section.

1.4.5 Ilford Road/Osborne Road/Moorfield

Jesmond Dene Road/Osborne Road junction, shown in Figure 1.8, is an existing signalised junction located 350m to the east of Blue House roundabout. It is constrained on the northern side by a bridge which crosses the Metro line.

There is another signalised junction at Jesmond Dene Road/Moorfield Road located 150m away to the east of the junction. This junction has not been highlighted as a cause for concern but it has been included and modelled as part of a small Jesmond Dene Road network that also includes the pedestrian crossing located 60m to the east.

During both the morning and evening peak periods it was observed that the eastbound traffic can queue back into Blue House roundabout causing significant delays along this section of corridor. During the evening peak, queues were also experienced on the Osborne Road approach.

There is no traffic signal coordination with the toucan crossing to the west approach which is called randomly and has a significant impact on the throughput of traffic at the junction as available green time here can be under used when vehicles are held at the crossing.

The two lane approach from Blue House roundabout is not marked with the offside lane being for right turning traffic until reaching the junction. Here queuing traffic in the offside lane wishing to proceed straight ahead merges back into the nearside lane, thus reducing the saturation flow of this approach to the junction.

Traffic turning left from Ilford Road into the right turn lane for Osborne Rd can conflict with ahead traffic until the right turn filter operates.

There is no congestion directly associated with the Moorfield Road junction although westbound queues can queue block back from the Jesmond Dene/Osborne Road junction. Better coordination would solve this and increase the overall capacity of this localised network.

Figure 1.7 – Ilford Road/Osborne Road/Moorfield

A formal toucan crossing exists on the A189 approximately 60 metres to the west of the signalised junction with Osborne Road. This provides a good cycle/pedestrian link from the sign posted, on-road route along Highbury to the diagonal link through the Little Moor, leading to Gosforth High Street. This linking path is being improved through the Cycle City Ambition Fund to connect with an improved cycle route being installed as part of a Cycle Safety Improvement Scheme in Gosforth. This crossing also links the major residential areas either side of the A189.

Provision for cyclists from the junction with Ilford Road to Matthew Bank is generally low, with the only option for cyclists being on road. No dedicated cycle lanes are provided and, due to the heavy traffic volumes, on road cycling may not be a viable option for the majority of users.

1.4.6 Haddricks Mill Roundabouts

A critical intersection on the Northern Access Corridor is located around the Haddricks Mill roundabouts; these are situated where the A191 (running on a roughly west to east alignment from Kenton to Whitley Bay) meets the A189 (running roughly south to north from Gateshead to the area inland from Lynemouth, Northumberland). The site also includes the Haddricks Mill bridge, which carries both roads over the River Ouseburn.

The four principal arms of the intersection are thus Haddricks Mill Road (A189 to the south), Killingworth Road (A189 to the north), Station Road (A191 to the west) and Benton Park Road (A191 to the east). However, the road layout is complicated by two unclassified roads which also join the intersection, namely Hunter’s Road (between Station Road and Killingworth Road) and Freeman Road (between Haddricks Mill Road and Benton Park Road). This is further exacerbated by road alignment, level differences and land constraints across the whole junction.

Due to the number of conflicting major movements across the Haddricks Mill roundabouts, there are considerable problems with congestion. There is no one single priority movement through the junction, all movements are well balanced, excluding Hunters Road. Single lane exits to Haddricks Mill Road, Station Road and Freeman Road all impact on the junction operation.

A - Hunters Road B - Killingworth Road C - A191 AM 5min Max Hr Ave Hr Max 5min Max Hr Ave Hr Max 5min Max Hr Ave Hr Max 07:45 1 1 1 10 12 14 6 6 9 07:50 1 13 4 07:55 1 12 9 08:00 1 9 8 08:05 1 13 6 08:10 0 11 7 08:15 1 14 5 08:20 1 13 6 08:25 1 13 8 08:30 0 9 6 08:35 1 14 6 08:40 1 12 4 D - Freeman Road E - A189 Haddricks Mill Road F - A191 Station Road AM 5min Max Hr Ave Hr Max 5min Max Hr Ave Hr Max 5min Max Hr Ave Hr Max 07:45 6 14 17 11 15 18 18 18 20 07:50 14 11 19 07:55 15 16 18 08:00 14 18 16 08:05 15 16 15 08:10 16 18 17 08:15 13 17 16 08:20 14 17 18 08:25 17 13 20 08:30 17 13 20 08:35 16 14 17 08:40 15 14 17

A - Hunters Road B - Killingworth Road C - A191 PM 5min Max Hr Ave Hr Max 5min Max Hr Ave Hr Max 5min Max Hr Ave Hr Max 17:00 1 1 3 15 13 15 15 15 20 17:05 1 11 15 17:10 1 15 20 17:15 3 15 16 17:20 1 15 12 17:25 1 15 18 17:30 1 13 19 17:35 1 11 19 17:40 1 13 18 17:45 1 10 12 17:50 1 13 7 17:55 1 13 11 D - Freeman Road E - A189 Haddricks Mill Road F - A191 Station Road PM 5min Max Hr Ave Hr Max 5min Max Hr Ave Hr Max 5min Max Hr Ave Hr Max 17:00 16 15 17 16 16 17 15 15 16 17:05 15 13 15 17:10 13 15 16 17:15 17 16 14 17:20 16 17 16 17:25 13 17 16 17:30 16 16 13 17:35 15 16 13 17:40 15 16 14 17:45 17 16 14 17:50 15 16 14 17:55 11 15 15

As can be seen Haddricks Mill is a complex junction and with the exception of Hunters Road is remarkable for being congested on all arms with comparable queue lengths across all arms at both peaks.

There were 114 accidents on the Haddricks Mill roundabouts from 2011 to 2015.

1.4.7 Killingworth Road

The final element of the Northern Access Corridor is the section of Killingworth Road (the A189) between the Haddricks Mill Roundabouts and the junction with Hollywood Avenue. This dual carriageway road runs along the east bank of the River Ouseburn, and passes under the Newcastle to Whitley Bay Metro line just south of Hollywood Avenue. The Metro bridge marks the limit of the City of Newcastle, and north of this point the A189 is in the territory of North Tyneside Council.

Killingworth Road provides and important link between the major employment site at Gosforth Business Park and central and western areas of Newcastle. It is also possible to access Balliol and Quorum Business Parks using this route, or to leave Tyne & Wear in the direction of Cramlington and south-east Northumberland. The relief of congestion at

the Haddricks Mill roundabouts and along Killingworth Road thus has the potential to improve connectivity to employment, leisure and shopping locations.

1.4.8 Safety

The Haddricks Mill and Blue House junctions have featured in the top 10 of collision sites in the city for a number of years and have come up frequently in discussions with Gosforth residents about improvements to transport safety. In April 2016 Blue House was No. 2 and Haddricks Mill No. 7 for all mode casualties. For cyclist casualties Haddricks Mill was No. 1 and Blue House No. 2 in April 2016.

Table 1.3 – Accidents by severity (2006 to 2015) Junction Serious Slight Total Cowhill interchange 15 247 262 Kenton Road 2 67 69 Blue House roundabout 16 270 286 Jesmond Dene Road 2 61 63 Matthew Bank 2 41 43 Haddricks Mill roundabouts 20 250 270 Total 57 936 993

Table 1.4 - Accidents by severity (2011 to 2015) Junction Serious Slight Total Cowhill interchange 11 100 111 Kenton Road 2 31 33 Blue House roundabout 10 128 138 Jesmond Dene Road 0 32 32 Matthew Bank 1 31 32 Haddricks Mill roundabouts 12 102 114 Total 36 424 460

Table 1.5 - Collisions on the Great North Road by severity and month Year Month Slight Total 2014 May 5 5 June 2 2 August 1 1 September 2 2 October 2 2 November 2 2 December 2 2 2015 February 1 1 March 2 2 June 1 1 July 1 1

October 1 1 Total 22 22

Perception of danger for pedestrians and cyclists is as much a deterrent as actual collision figures and the Haddricks Mill roundabouts were labelled as amongst the worst in the UK for cyclists by a survey in The Times in 2012. On the Ouseburn Bridge temporary protection was installed to prevent vehicle overrunning increasing the perception that this is hazardous location for pedestrians.

The present environment of Blue House roundabout where a pedestrian refuge is the only aid to pedestrian and cycle crossing discourages active travel here. Collision reduction and improvements to the perceived as well as actual safety are therefore a major consideration in this scheme.

1.4.9 Air Quality

The corridor from the Blue House roundabout to Haddricks Mill is subject to an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) Action Plan due to levels of pollution along this route exceeding National Air Quality Objective limits. The main source of the air pollution is traffic and measures to address this were included in LTP3. These included:  Investigating road tolls and congestion charging;  Increasing capacity on roads; and  Giving higher priority to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport.

The need for safe and efficient movement of buses, pedestrians and cyclists in and around the Gosforth area was highlighted in South Gosforth, Air Quality Action Plan (May 2011).

The report refers to options that would lead to better control of the traffic flow to surrounding roads and make road safety improvements for all users including drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. The report also identified the need to develop a comprehensive cycle network.

Effective urban public transport systems, and non-motorised means, such as walking and cycling are key to clean cities, providing a cost-effective way to tackle climate change and reduce premature deaths from air pollution. Emissions from vehicles play a significant part in reducing life expectancy. In a report in April 2016, Public Health England identified that there are 124 deaths a year in over 25s associated with particulate air pollution in Newcastle. Although there are caveats to this data, the numbers illustrate the importance of acting on pollutants.

Monitoring results show that the nitrogen limit value of 40µg/m3 is exceeded at three out of eight sites in Gosforth, (one less than in 2012) from eleven in total. The general trend in the area is that levels of nitrogen dioxide have fallen since the AQMA was declared in 2008. It is expected that improvements to the traffic flow along the route will bring further improvement. The levels at South Gosforth Killingworth Road Junction are higher which is reflected in traffic volumes and congestion that is caused on this junction.

Figure 1.8 – Gosforth Air Quality Management Area

A key part of NCC’s Air Quality Action Plan is to encourage people to use alternative cleaner, healthier forms of transport for local journeys. Improving cycle facilities is part of our commitment to improving the health of our residents and protecting the environment. It is expected that improvements to the traffic flow in the Gosforth AQMA will help continue the trend of improving air quality in this area.

If the improvements continue the Gosforth AQMA could fall below the limit value within the next 24 months. However, the city council are committed to improving air quality and will continue to do so even in areas that have seen pollution levels fall below the limit value.

Measuring the improvement in air quality resulting from the implementation of schemes such as this might be difficult to quantify but there is no doubt that improving the flow of traffic along this corridor will help improve air quality and cyclists exposure to pollutants emitted by vehicles.

1.4.10 Flooding Issues

Although it was hoped some of the issues in the north west corner of the Dukes Moor junction would be alleviated through work on a new development in the west corner of Grandstand Road and Kenton Road, recent weather events have shown that there are still issues along this stretch which affect the flow of traffic. Flooding during the series of storms at the end of 2015 and most recently on 5 January 2016 when the junction had to be closed and two cars pulled from the water, have highlighted the need for flood reparation work.

Dukes Moor and Nuns Moor north of the Central Motorway drain into an ordinary watercourse that runs from Kenton, under Gosforth High Street, and into the Ouseburn via the Craghall Dene culvert. Fluvial flooding from this watercourse has occurred within a number of properties, mainly due to bad management and a lack of awareness of riparian responsibilities. Flooding along the line of the watercourse has also occurred at Grandstand Road / Kenton Road junction and at Gosforth High Street, although this is more likely to be the result of poorly maintained or inadequate drainage at both junctions.

Figure 1.9 Environment Agency Flood Map for Planning

to make the junction resilient for a 1 in 100 year storm event with 30% allowance for climate change. The Environment Agency surface water flooding map below indicates areas at risk of flooding: mainly along the watercourse and in localised areas of the Moor adjacent to Grandstand Road and Great North Road.

A combined sewer runs along Grandstand Road from the junction with Kenton Road to Blue House, taking foul flows from Kenton and highway runoff. Works to Blue House Roundabout will need to take account of any increase in impermeable area at the junction and make provision for storage of additional surface water runoff, preferably above ground but possibly in tanks also, prior to discharge back into the sewer network.

Potentially, there are major benefits that could be accrued from taking surface water out of the combined sewer system. This would create capacity for future development in the combined network and reduce volumes flowing to Howden Sewage Treatment Works. Plans to re-direct surface water from Blue House to the Ouseburn via a surface water sewer located in Highbury are under discussion with Northumbrian Water. It may also be feasible to achieve similar benefits at Jesmond Dene Road / Osborne Road junction. Routes to this sewer are being investigated: from Blue House over the playing fields to the south of the allotments; beneath the track that bisects the allotments; from Jesmond Dene Road / Osborne Road south along the eastern boundary of the allotments. There may also be opportunities to improve the drainage of the allotments themselves, which have been subject to periodic flooding.

At Haddricks Mill Roundabout highway runoff is discharged directly into the Ouseburn. Improvement works to the roundabout would not seek to change this as a drainage strategy as there is no significant flood risk from fluvial flooding downstream. Water quality improvements would bring environmental benefits for the Jesmond Dene and Ouseburn Valley areas and could be achieved through using SuDS or proprietary debris separator systems. Flooding from surface water runoff has occurred periodically to the Brandling Villas car park, and improvement works to the roundabout should incorporate raising the levels at the car park junction with Haddricks Mill Road. The stretch of Haddricks Mill Road between Brandling Villas and The Millstone has also been prone to flooding. A surface water sewer takes the highway runoff here and discharges into the Ouseburn at the roundabout. The Flood Management team will discuss possible improvements to the drainage in this area with Northumbrian Water.

A drainage scheme has been designed for Killingworth Road that will increase capacity and improve resilience in the network. The road underneath the Metro Bridge has been impassable due to flooding, so additional highway drainage and a new surface water pipe will take highway runoff to a new outfall into the Ouseburn.

The area is not shown to be at risk from reservoir flooding, but it is at risk from surface water flooding. This is illustrated in Figure 1.10 below.

Figure 1.10 Environment Agency Flood Risk from Surface Water

1.4.11 Wider Benefits for Walking and Cycling

Although the NAC is not primarily a walking or cycling scheme we will take opportunities to make improvements for walking and cycling in line with the council’s aim of increasing active travel.

There are no cycle counters directly at the junctions but we can build a partial picture from nearby counters.

Figure 1.11 Location of cycle counters

Table 1.6 Data from cycle counters Location of counter Weekday cycle Annual cycle movements movement (in both (in both directions) directions) Grandstand Road south 116 42,376 west of Cowhill junction Town Moor path leading to 372 127,969 Dukes Moor junction Great North Road south of 244 89,278 Blue House roundabout Coxlodge Waggonway 82 29,711 leading to Haddricks Mill

The section of the route covered by Phase 2a is not a major east west walking or cycle route (Grandstand Road counter) but is used by children from the Gosforth area going to or from Dame Allan’s school and improvements were made to Fenham Hall Drive at the request of parents to make this section of the route to school safer. A traffic management scheme was carried out at Cowhill in 2009 to signalise the junction which included taking out cycle lanes through the junction in order to add pedestrian islands.

There are cycle lanes and footpaths approaching/leaving the junction on both sides from the south and cycle lanes leaving the junction at the north end. Although there are with- flow cycle lanes on the north east side of the junction the footpath is only on one side, the north east. There is no record of pedestrian and cycling accidents at the junction but following a report by Sustrans (see Appendix C) minor changes are being made to the shared footpath alignment which along with improved signing will improve walking and cycling through the junction.

At Dukes Moor the main walking and cycling desire line is north-south across the junction from the Town Moor to Kenton Road. The Town Moor is already heavily used by cyclists and the numbers will increase as the cycle improvements in the city centre and wider cycle promotion take effect. Strategic cycle route SR3 to Great Park will come straight across from the Town Moor and up Kenton Road. The proposed strategic cycle route SR9 to the airport exits the Town Moor and will eventually follow the course of the Devil’s Burn north west from the junction across the open land.

The Blue House roundabout is a missing link in the Great North Cycleway which will eventually run from Darlington to Blyth. One of the aims of the GTI improvements was to encourage more cycling and cyclists commuting in to the city centre will come down the Great North Road. At the moment they are diverted across the Little Moor to the toucan at the top of Ilford Road, then along the shared use footpath to avoid the Blue House roundabout.

The Haddricks Mill roundabouts pose particular challenges for both cyclists and pedestrians. The roads leading up to the roundabouts from all directions have no designated cycle lanes, suggesting that cyclists are interspersed with motorists and must make conflicting movements in a restricted space. The road markings on both roundabouts are worn, potentially causing confusion to both motorists and cyclists. There are five

signalised crossing points in this area, but no pedestrian islands are in place anywhere else on the junctions. These crossing points are set far back on each arm, meaning pedestrians increase their journey time by only being able to cross at those points.

The Newcastle City Council website cycle map indicates that there are no designated cycle routes passing through Haddricks Mill; cyclists are advised to walk with their bike on the footways rather than cycle, and this advice aligns with the poor cycling safety record of the location. The latest road safety statistics (from September 2016) indicate that the following sites have been the main locations along the Northern Access Corridor for accidents to cyclists:

Table 1.7 – Cycle and Pedestrian Collision Statistic Location 2015 2016 (to September) 2010 to 2016 total Serious Slight Serious Slight All Cowhill interchange 0 0 0 0 1 Kenton Road 0 1 0 0 2 Blue House 0 4 0 1 17 roundabout Jesmond Dene Road 0 0 1 0 3 Matthew Bank 0 1 0 0 5 Haddricks Mill 0 4 0 2 27 roundabouts Pedestrian casualties Cowhill interchange 0 0 0 0 0 Kenton Road 0 0 0 1 1 Blue House 1 1 1 0 4 roundabout Jesmond Dene Road 0 0 0 1 1 Matthew Bank 0 0 0 0 0 Haddricks Mill 0 1 1 0 6 roundabouts

No pedestrian counts have been carried out but observation and the collision statistics show that pedestrians do use these junctions. Provision of crossing points where there are none at the moment will make the junctions safer.

1.5 Predicted Future Issues

1.5.1 Demand Growth

The primary issues along the route are:  Insufficient highway capacity to keep pace with the increasing population and economic growth set out in the Local Plan;  Daily problems of delay on the highway network stifling economic growth potential;  Delays and unreliable journey times risk loss of businesses and deter wider investment;  Delays for commercial vehicles travelling to/from North Tyneside and Newcastle;  Delay associated with shift patterns at nearby employment sites;  Slow end-to-end bus journey times contributing to declining patronage;  Deteriorating air quality (Blue House lies within an AQMA);  Impacts on ambulance vehicle journey times particularly for ambulances travelling to the Freeman Hospital;  No provision for UTMC on this corridor leading to issues for strategic supervision and control of traffic arriving in the city centre;  Flooding at Duke’s Moor affecting traffic flow; and  Accessibility and safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

The above all contribute to an increasingly inefficient highway network; resulting in unreliable travel opportunities, presenting a barrier to economic growth and quality of life.

Newcastle City Council is legally obliged to prepare a Housing Land Availability Assessment, formerly referred to as a SHLAA and now referred to as a HELAA. The purpose of this document is to identify sites that are suitable, available and achievable for housing development. The HELAA includes land that that will be delivered in next five years. These are sites that either have planning permission, allocated in the Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan or will be delivered by the Fairer Housing Unit. Other sites are also included as they have been assessed as suitable but there is less certainty they will be delivered in the short term. The Council is currently updating it HELAA and is a pilot authority for the preparation of a brownfield register. It is expected that this document will be published later this year. (See further background to Newcastle’s HELAA in Appendix D)

The Local Plan requires 19,000 new homes across the city by 2030 and identified a number of sites within the vicinity of the NAC junctions as potential housing development land with potential for 406 dwellings. A large number of sites located to the north west of Newcastle City Centre are allocated as potential housing development land in the Local Plan and the 5352 dwellings are considered to directly benefit from improved access to the City Centre and to the Urban Core Distributor Road through the NAC (see Appendices E).

North Tyneside is developing 366 houses and 465 square feet of ancillary commercial space at Whitehouse Farm, and 200 houses at Five Mile Park, Wideopen, off the A189. There are longer term plans for more housing at Annitsford. These developments will result in extra traffic coming through the Haddricks Mill roundabouts.

1.5.2 S-Paramics Microsimulation Model Forecasting

In order to inform the development of this business case submission to the NECA, NCC has developed an S-Paramics microsimulation model making use of recently collected (2015) traffic survey data, with future forecast years developed based on an assessment of forecast housing development growth under the Local Plan and comparison to Tempro derived growth factors. A Local Model Valuation Report covering the background to the modelling used in this document is included at Appendix F. A figure showing network coverage and zone structure is provided at Appendix G.

The forecast matrix has been derived by growthing the origin-destination trips from the 2015 base matrix in accordance with the growth factors for the TEMPRO MSOAs that are feeding trips into the respective Paramics Zone. The future matrices for 2019 and 2033 have been derived by those TEMPRO factors per Paramics zone using the Furness method, an iterative trip distribution process.

The forecast matrices for the scheme opening and scheme design year models have been derived through the application of TEMPro v7 and NTEM v7 and NTM RTF 15 growth factors.

The S-Paramics zones were mapped against the MSOA’s considered representative of the likely demand for each zone. A separate study area was created for each S-Paramics zone in TEMPro. A suite of plots identifying the pairing of S-Paramics zones to MSOA’s is provided in Appendix H.

The origin and destination growth factors were applied to the 2015 base year demand matrix to create scheme opening and scheme design year matrix totals. This process created factored zone totals for the origin and destination of each zone in the S-Paramics model. A matrix furness process was then undertaken to growth the base matrices based on the factored zone totals and output demand matrices for each scheme assessment year.

Figure 1.12 – MSOA Plot

1.5.3 Forecast Network Operation

The changes in journey time in the future year for the Do-Nothing scenario have been derived from the S-Paramics micro-simulation model based on 10 model runs recorded for the AM and PM peak period in each future assessment year.

The journey time routes assessed and reported in the tables below cover the A189 from the Cow Hill Interchange to the junction of the A189 with Hollywood Avenue, north of Killingworth Road, in the northbound direction. The southbound direction is from the junction of A189 Killingworth Road and West Farm Avenue, to the junction of A189 Grandstand Road and Kenton Road.

By the proposed NAC scheme opening year, 2019, the northbound journey times are predicted to increase by 50% in the AM peak hour and 7% in the PM peak hour. Southbound journey times are predicted to experience a similar pattern of journey time increases. The AM peak hour is expected to increase by 101% and the PM peak hour by 6%.

In real terms, this equates to a predicted journey time increase of 4.5 minutes northbound in the AM peak hour and 7.5 minutes southbound. In the PM peak hour it equates to 30 seconds in both directions.

Table 1.8 – Northern Access Corridor, AM Peak Hour Journey Time Comparison, Do- Nothing AM 2015 2019 2033 Route NB SB NB SB NB SB Journey Time 525 439 787 882 942 1323 (secs) Difference 262 443 417 884 (secs) % Difference 50% 101% 95% 201%

Table 1.9 – Northern Access Corridor, PM Peak Hour Journey Time Comparison, Do- Nothing PM 2015 2019 2033 Route NB SB NB SB NB SB Journey Time 521 447 557 475 790 716 (secs) Difference 36 28 270 270 (secs) % Difference 7% 6% 60% 60%

By the proposed scheme design year, 2033, the northbound journey times are predicted to increase by 95% in the AM peak hour and 60% in the PM peak hour. Southbound journey times are predicted to increase by 201% in the AM peak hour and by 60% in the PM peak hour.

This equates to predicted journey time increases of 7 minutes northbound in the AM peak hour and 15 minutes southbound. In the PM peak hour it equates to 4.5 minutes in the northbound direction and 4.5 minutes in the southbound direction.

Northbound journeys suffer as a result of the inefficient traffic signal operation at the Dukes Moor junction. This is exacerbated by queuing propagating back from the Jesmond Dene Road / Osborne Road / Moorfield junction impacting on the operation of Blue House Roundabout. Without signal control, Blue House Roundabout continues to allow traffic on to the corridor in an unmanaged situation, which adds to the congestions issues. Congestion on the A189 approach to Haddricks Mill Roundabout further increases the predicted journey time.

Southbound journeys suffer as a result of congestion on the A189 approach to Haddricks Mill Roundabout. This is further exacerbated by exit blocking southbound on the corridor as a result of congestion at the Jesmond Dene Road / Osborne Road / Moorfield junction.

Figure 1.13 – Northern Access Corridor AM Peak Journey Time Comparison, Do-Nothing

Figure 1.14 – Northern Access Corridor PM Peak Journey Time Comparison, Do-Nothing

1.5.4 Sustainable Travel

The government aim is to have every new car and van in the UK being ultra-low emission by 2040 and council and regional policies support this. The increase in EVs on the roads would not impact on the proposed scheme and no charging infrastructure is planned in the vicinity of any of the junctions.

NCC is committed to increasing active travel and will continue to monitor results through reports such as Bike Life and other active travel projects as well as building walking and cycling infrastructure into major schemes.

As already set out the proposals in this business case will support investment already made to improve walking and cycling through the Gosforth Transport Improvements and Cycle Safety Improvements programme.

The programme also supports investment made through the Cycle City Ambition Fund. The Blue House junction is a link on the Great North Cycleway, a major north south cross- regional cycle route that will eventually run from Darlington to Blyth. Sections of this are already in place including a route diversion using Little Moor to avoid the Blue House junction.

The Haddricks Mill junction is likely to be part of a north-south Newcastle strategic cycle route which may use Matthew Bank and Haddricks Mill Road. Cycle access and crossings are being included in the scheme. New provision will be included in any new iterations of Newcastle’s cycle maps.

The new crossing provisions at the junctions will improve and encourage pedestrian access and follow up work with the nearby school and major employers will highlight the new facilities.

1.5.5 ITS

The corridor currently lacks the provision of linking between signal controlled junctions to facilitate co-ordination of movements on the wider highway network. Urban Traffic Management and Control (UTMC) will be used to manage strategic issues for the city’s network and optimise vehicle flow to minimise the impact of disruption, which will contribute to the reduction of local emissions and wider air quality improvements in the city. This will include the provision of bus priority within the traffic signal operation.

Cowhill and Duke’s Moor are the first two junctions on the A189 corridor which will form part of the UTMC network. A connection already exists at Cowhill. To allow connection in to the SCOOT/UTMC network the Duke’s Moor junction has recently been upgraded with new MOVA traffic signal equipment to allow operational control and flexibility as part of the corridor management strategy. This will allow the management of traffic flow towards Blue House Roundabout and the more congested section of the corridor onwards towards Haddricks Mill Roundabouts. Subsequently the Blue House roundabout itself and the junction of Jesmond Dene Road and Osborne Road will be incorporated in to the UTMC system, with the necessary equipment being installed as part of the NAC delivery.

Part of the Intelligent Transport System (ITS) improvements on the NAC will be the installation of the Variable Message Sign (VMS) equipment necessary to provide control of the corridor. This equipment will be sited in advance of the junctions to allow drivers to make choices about their route. As the physical works of the VMS installation is not tied to the junction work it can be started in advance of it. A list of locations is provided below, with the locations shown on Figure 1.14.

 A189 Ponteland Road - Southbound - Brighton Grove  A189 Grandstand Road - Southbound - A167  B1318 Great North Road - Southbound - A189 Grandstand Road  A189 Matthew Bank - Southbound - Jesmond Dene Road  A191 Benton Park Road - Westbound - The Cloisters

Figure 1.15 – Northern Access Corridor VMS Locations

In addition, funding has also been awarded to develop a Co-operative Intelligent Transport System (C-ITS) Corridor along the Great North Road, equipping junctions between Blue House Roundabout and Brunton Lane with trial technology. This pilot technology with ensure traffic light infrastructure on this corridor can communicate with a number of test vehicles, in this case Arriva Express vehicles, through a number of road-side and on-board units.

The C-ITS trial will provide green light priority to test vehicles with an on-board unit where safe to do so, enabling a smoother journey through the corridor with a reduced need for stop-start driving. Speed advice is also provided to the driver, giving guidance as to the optimum speed to travel in order to maximise the likelihood of reaching a green light. This will have positive impacts on the journey times for passengers, as well saving fuel and reducing vehicle emissions. If a red light is required, idling support is provided in the form of a countdown to the red light, to allow drivers to make more informed decisions while stopped at a red light. The corridor has also been equipped with air quality monitors to measure the impact of the technology on pollutant levels.

The C-ITS technology can be deployed completely independently of the NAC delivery. However, works have been co-ordinated so as to install the equipment in line with the connection to SCOOT and programme the road-side units accordingly, where possible.

1.6 Scheme Objectives

As part of the development of the scheme, the objectives have been taken from the Programme Entry Gateway 1 submission and have been supplemented by Newcastle’s own objectives for the scheme which complement those of the funding body. This ensures not only policy alignment but that the objectives are specific to the scheme and will provide the evidence for both the benefits realisation process and to demonstrate a track record of success to maximise the potential of securing future funding at a local and regional level. The expanded set of objectives are defined in the table below.

Table 1.10 – Scheme Objectives NAC Scheme objectives How these are met NAC1: To reduce the congestion that Control of traffic flow through networked lights happens at the busiest times of the day to ease congestion; better management of traffic movement through constraining turns NAC2: To get more people using public Bus priority; tracking of buses through MOVA transport by helping buses be more reliable and/or SCOOT and punctual NAC3: To make it easier and safer for New pedestrian and cycle crossings and people to walk and cycle to get where they improvements on immediate accesses to the need to go junctions

NAC4: To make the junctions safer for all Better control of traffic flow and delineation of users traffic routes NAC5: To make it easier to travel into the Removal of pinch point at Killingworth Road city from the north and to travel east-west railways bridge and better flow on major traffic across the north of the city flow line though Haddricks Mill; networking of signals on Gosforth Corridor allows better control of traffic arriving at Blue House junction to smooth flow. NAC6: To install Urban Traffic Control Installation at all junctions and networking with systems at all junctions enabling strategic Gosforth Corridor signals and UTMC. control of traffic and enhanced on trip and pre trip information

NAC Scheme objectives How these are met NAC7: To link with and enable major Improvements to the corridor will support the housing developments and support further North East Local Enterprise Partnership “area business growth at business sites in gateways” concept, as it provides a key Newcastle and neighbouring LAs connection between residential and employment areas to the North of Newcastle and Newcastle International Airport, Newcastle City Centre and Tynemouth Port NAC8: To increase resilience to climate Flooding warning and control systems will give change by improving surface water control better control during flooding events. Smoother and air quality traffic flow with less stop-start will improve air quality

1.7 Measures for success

Any intervention will be successful if it contributes to the impacts of the overall strategic vision for the Northern Access Corridor. The benefits of scheme will build on those already delivered from Phase 1, however will not be fully realised until the corridor is complete in its entirety.

Outcomes:  Contribute to the creation of jobs and retention of existing jobs;  Support the North East LEP area Gateways;  Encourage the development or retention of skilled jobs and support sites that deliver the training for such skills;  Provide sustainable access solutions to existing and growing development corridors, centres and sectors or support housing growth;  Ensure the capacity and speed of transport links to and within the North East LEP area are maintained and enhanced in order to increase the attractiveness of the North East LEP as a place to do business, boosting inward investment and improving competitiveness;  Deliver improved accessibility from residential areas to areas that have employment, education or other opportunities;  Contribute to an improvement in the overall quality of journeys, particularly those providing links to employment and health or education opportunities;  Contribute to an overall improvement in the local environment including improving local air quality or reducing noise impact of transport corridors;  Contribute to an overall reduction in carbon emissions relative to the existing situation;  Provide the opportunity to improve health, reduce levels of obesity among the population and improve road safety within the area;  Accessibility/severance between surrounding business and residential areas is improved;

 Reduced levels of delay and queueing on the Northern Access Corridor junction for all modes;  Increased vehicle throughput;  Decrease public transport journey time variability;  Decrease end to end corridor journey times; and  Improve air quality. Impacts:  Increase in jobs and retention of jobs;  Increase in housing and employment development; and  Positive Public Health impacts.

1.8 Scope

1.8.1 Outline of Scheme Proposals

The Northern Access Corridor Phase 2 will deliver improvements on the A189 corridor, targeting the existing congestion pinch points of Blue House Roundabout and Osborne Road / Moorfield, creating operational flexibility and installing flood attenuation at the Dukes Moor junction and the introduction of bus priority facilities at the Cow Hill Interchange.

The Phase 3 proposals support the HMCF scheme which is delivering maintenance improvements to the Haddricks Mill and Killingworth Road are of the network, introducing bus priority and cycle provision on the Killingworth Road approach to the junction.

An outline of the scheme proposals is provided below.

1.8.2 Cow Hill Interchange (see design in Appendix I)  Reallocation of existing eastbound right turn lane on the A167 eastbound off- slip to a Bus Lane;  Advanced Bus Lane stop line and bus priority signal control on the A167 eastbound off-slip; and  Improvements for pedestrians and cyclists arising from Sustrans review.

1.8.3 Dukes Moor (see design in Appendix J)  Upgrade of existing traffic signal equipment;  SCOOT / UTMC link to traffic signals to give operational control and flexibility as part of the corridor management strategy;  Improved pedestrian facilities;  Connections into wider strategic cycle route through cycle path provision across the A189 Grandstand Road on the east and west approaches to Kenton Road;

 Flood alleviation works to the North West corner of the junction to give better reliability and resilience to the junction; and  Flood early warning telemetry installed.

1.8.4 Blue House Roundabout (See design in Appendix K)  Conversion of the existing priority roundabout to a four arm traffic signal controlled junction;  SCOOT / UTMC link to traffic signals to give operational control and flexibility as part of the corridor management strategy;  Limited widening on both the B1318 Great North Road approaches to the junction to facilitate the required stacking space at the stop lines:  Three lanes on the northern approach to the junction;  Four lanes on the southern approach to the junction;  Three lanes on the eastern approach to the junction; and  Two lanes on the western approach to the junction.  Pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities across the southern and eastern arms of the junction to connect in to wider strategic cycle routes;  The proposed junction bans the existing movements for the southbound left turn from the B1318 Great North Road and westbound right turn from the A189 Jesmond Dene Road. These movements are expected to be routed across the adjoining highway network making use of Kenton Road, Forsyth Road, Ilford Road, Moor Road South, Dene Crescent and Station Road.

1.8.5 Ilford Road / Osborne Road / Moorfield (See design in Appendix L)  Scheme proposals designed to link to the parallel CCAF scheme providing improved cycle connectivity across the Town Moor and Jesmond Dene Road;  Provision of a pedestrian crossing across the top of Osborne Road as part of the junction operation;  SCOOT / UTC link to traffic signals to give operational control and flexibility as part of the corridor management strategy;  Provision of two lanes on Jesmond Dene Road in both the northbound and southbound directions between Ilford Road and Moorfield;  The proposed junction bans the existing northbound right turn movement in to Osborne Road from Jesmond Dene Road. This movement is expected to be completed via Ilford Road and Moorfield;  The southbound right turn from Ilford Road is also proposed to be banned with the movement to be completed via Moorfield;  Widening on the north side of Jesmond Dene Road to facilitate the provision of four lanes. This requires limited land take from the allotments bounding the north of the road;

 Widening on the south side of Moorfield to facilitate the realigned junction with Jesmond Dene Road to take account of the provision of four lanes. This requires limited land take from the allotments bounding the south of the road; and  Removal and relocation of existing substation on the corner of Moorfield and Jesmond Dene Road to facilitate the localised widening.

1.8.6 Haddricks Mill Roundabouts (See design in Appendix M)  Repairs to bridge beams and water proofing of structure;  Improvements to load capacity of footway (footway carries all major utilities);  New formal pedestrian crossing facilities across all major arms of the junction;  Intelligent traffic signal and detection strategy to gate traffic;  Uncontrolled crossing provision across Hunters Road;  Widening of the eastern roundabout, within existing highway land, to facilitate better vehicle movement around the junction;  Reallocation of road space over the bridge to create two lanes in both directions;  Reallocation of road space on Freeman Road approach to junction to create dedicated right turn lane, separate from lane 1 (ahead and left);  Dedicated left turn from Benton Park Road to Freeman Road;  New pedestrian and cycle bridge to the north of the existing bridge.

1.8.7 Killingworth Road Improvements (See design in Appendix N)  New toucan crossing at Hollywood Avenue;  Replacement of failing bridge;  Widening road and installation of bus and cycle lanes;  Widening of footpath;  Replacement of failing retaining wall; and  Acoustic improvements.

1.9 Constraints and Interdependencies

Constraints

There are few constraints to the delivery of Phase 2 of the scheme, as it falls largely within highway and/or NCC controlled land. There has been ample time throughout the gestation of the project to identify and mitigate for risks (further set out in Risk Register in Appendix O). There is however the issue of a planning application to NCC to complete verge works on NCC owned land. Pre-application discussions are in train and there are unlikely to be any issues regarding the granting of this application.

The requirement for removal of existing trees and planting has been discussed internally within NCC as part of the planning process along with any additional planning requirements for the scheme: acoustics, air quality, arboriculture, historic environment, etc. None of the trees around Blue House have a TPO. To the south of Jesmond Dene Road and east of Osbourne Road is a Conservation Area so any works to trees in this area will require approval.

Small strips of land just outside the highway boundary which are leased by the Freemen of the City will be required to facilitate the junction design at Blue House. Negotiations are at an advanced stage for this land and alternative options exist (such as the removal of pedestrian facilities on the western side of the junction) should negotiations not be successful. In addition, the programming of the work is such that progression has been made on other junctions (Cow Hill and Duke’s Moor) at the outset of the programme, enabling the land transaction to be completed well in advance of commencing work at Blue House.

Phase 3 of the project poses greater difficulties. Road enhancements around the Haddricks Mill are constrained by the close proximity of numerous business and residential properties. The Ouseburn passes under the roundabouts and to the rear of properties on Killingworth Road, and is designated as a Wildlife Corridor.

An associated retaining wall generates a further physical constraint. A high voltage electric cable also passes through the site as well as other statutory undertakers’ infrastructure. Meanwhile, the widening of Killingworth Road will definitely require land take from private land owners. The land to the east of Killingworth Road is covered by a Woodland TPO and is designated locally as a priority habitat.

NCC are proposing to submit separate planning applications relating to Killingworth Road, Haddricks Mill and the Blue House roundabout. There is no current property or legal issues that would stop substantial completion of the structural works and corridor. The planning applications will be submitted before the end of March 2017.

Interdependencies

Successful delivery of the NAC depends on a range of factors most notably financial and technical resources and expertise. Critical to this, is having strong programme and project governance arrangements in place, see Section 5.4.

Table 1.10 sets out the interaction of all phases of the Northern Access Corridor and other projects on scheme delivery.

Table 1.11 – Interdependencies Scheme Timescale Effect on NAC Phase 2a Cowhill and Dukes Complete Moor Autumn 2016 Phase 2b Blue House and Complete by Will extend traffic control corridor. Osborne Road junction Summer 2018 Resulting changes to traffic flow included in wider NAC modelling. May create rat run traffic at Duke’s Moor and Cowhill during works phase Phase 3 Haddricks Mill Complete Will extend traffic control corridor. Autumn 2018 Resulting changes to traffic flow included in wider NAC modelling. Killingworth Road widening Complete Resulting changes to traffic flow included and rail bridge replacement Summer 2018 in wider NAC modelling. Gosforth Transport Complete 2017 Will extend traffic control corridor. Improvements Phase 2 Resulting changes to traffic flow included in wider NAC modelling. May create rat run traffic at Duke’s Moor and Cowhill during works phase Urban Core Distributor Road Complete 2020 Will increase traffic interchanging at Cowhill.

1.10 Stakeholders

The Communications Plan and Stakeholder Mapping (see Appendices BB) has been put together to identify the communication channels that should be utilised to ensure all relevant parties are kept informed as the project develops. Communications have been tailored to meet the needs of each stakeholder and will take into consideration the objectives for the scheme.

In addition to those set out in the Stakeholder Mapping the following list of further stakeholders has been identified, who need to be consulted formally in due course as the scheme progresses through the Gateway process:  Affected landowners  Ward Councillors / Cabinet / Council Leadership;  Local residents / community;  Bus Operators;  NEXUS;  North Tyneside;  Utilities companies;  Environment Agency;  Historic England;  Freeman Hospital;  Emergency Services; and

 Natural England.

1.10.1 Engagement Process

Newcastle City Council has clarified its process for the development, design and delivery of highways and public space schemes to ensure that all development plans are communicated clearly to the general public and stakeholders. We believe it is important that the reasons behind why we are proposing changes, and the benefits as a result of these changes are explained. The process we follow is:

Stage 1 - Identify the problems - do early design

Stage 1 involves us identifying the problems associated with the area and setting objectives for projects in order to address them. There are several reasons that could result in us proposing changes or improvements to highways or public spaces. Although it is usually a combination of factors, these could include:

 Concerns over safety or evidence that collisions/injuries are a regular occurrence  High levels of congestion  Reliability concerns for public transport  Environmental factors such as poor air quality levels  Unsuitable or dated infrastructure that needs updating  Or it may be that a location is the most suitable for a required piece of infrastructure such as cycle lanes or provisions for low carbon.

We also work with key stakeholders across the city to understand what their issues are and whether highways improvements would help to address them. As we identify these problems, we set out how we want to improve them and start to consider what can be done. This stage is undertaken within the Council, we work with colleagues from across various departments as part of this.

Stage 2 - Establish the preferred option

During Stage 2 we work through a range of possible solutions and establish our preferred option. This can include several iterations of designs, often with support from independent parties. It can also include engagement with high interest stakeholders such as bus operators and technical advisory groups and we may also take the opportunity to talk to land owners or businesses in the area. The options will be discussed and tweaked until a preferred option for engagement is identified. It is important to note that not all stakeholders may agree with our preferred option, and that this preferred option could change during the public engagement process and consultation that follows.

Stage 3 - Refine the scheme through engagement

Stage 3 involves engaging more widely on the proposed scheme and we attempt to explain to the general public, residents and businesses the reasons for our proposals and then listen to their feedback. It focuses on gathering comments and feedback on the proposals.

Even though we have considered various options we usually only release one proposal for comment.

This stage is accompanied by a communications plan and an engagement plan which we use to involve people who might be interested. Generally we have information online, letters are posted to residents and businesses and public events are held for face to face discussions. For larger schemes there are often press releases in local media and a dedicated email address, as well as messages on social media such as Twitter.

Once comments have been received, they are collated and analysed. Where possible, feedback is incorporated into the proposals and our proposals may be revised based on the opinions received. After having decided whether or not to make any changes, we start our consultation process.

Stage 4 - Consult on an option - decide what to do

When introducing a large highways scheme we will undertake two stages of consultation. The first is our technical consultation which is an advisory consultation with emergency services, local ward councillors, other road users such as bus operators and cycling groups. At this time we also consult with any directly affected residents and businesses.

Our second stage of consultation is Statutory Consultation where we formally advertise any Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs or ‘legal orders’) associated with a scheme. Most schemes will contain one or more features which require a legal order and these mostly involve proposed changes to traffic movements. This will include advertising things like speed limits, waiting restrictions, restrictions on movement eg No Entry restrictions, and also advertising any proposed pedestrian crossing facilities or traffic calming like speed humps or speed cushions. The legal orders are advertised in the press and at the location of the proposed changes , and we are also legally required to write to specific stakeholders such as the emergency services and utility companies.

Consultation is another opportunity to provide feedback on the proposals, however at this stage the feedback is more formal. Feedback during consultation should be focussed on the technical elements of the scheme, rather than the principles behind the proposals. Comments received at this stage will be reviewed and where appropriate, changes could be made to elements of the proposals.

At both technical and statutory consultation stages, positive and negative formal responses are welcome from everyone. However, we will only accept representations in writing to the following address; Newcastle City Council, Civic Centre, Barras Bridge, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8QH and to the schemes’ dedicated email addresses. Formal responses must be received within the deadline specified (usually 21 days).

Responses at statutory consultation stage can have a serious impact on the progress of a scheme; if an objection is made at this stage, it will be brought to the Regulatory Appeals Sub Committee (RASC) for further consideration. It is important to note that the person submitting the objection at this stage should be prepared to attend the RASC meeting to explain their concerns, or their concerns can be considered by the Panel in their absence if

they choose not to attend. Objections to certain types of legal orders may need to be referred to a Public Inquiry held by a representative of the Secretary of State, rather than being dealt with through the RASC process.

The RASC process is a transparent process where a committee of elected members consider the objections and arguments for the legal orders. The RASC then make a recommendation to the delegated officer for the Authority – namely the Traffic Manager – who then makes a decision as to whether or not to proceed with the scheme.

Even after a decision from the RASC, those that have objected to the TROs can seek to proceed to a judicial review.

Stage 5 - Inform, promote, plan for delivery

Stage 5 involves us taking the final, agreed proposal and designing it in detail. At this point it is generally handed over to the city's Engineers, who will analyse specifics of the design such as the change in levels of the highway, drainage solutions, utility equipment the best materials to use. Occasionally, the designs can alter slightly from the final proposal due to unforeseen circumstances or physical restrictions that we encounter on site during detailed excavations.

While we are undertaking the detailed design, disruption planning also takes place. We aim to work with partners to proactively manage expectations and minimise the impact of work during construction. We endeavour to inform those affected of the disruption the scheme will cause in advance of the work starting and help them plan alternative routes.

Stage 6 - Deliver the scheme and manage disruption

This is the actual construction work required to implement the changes. In most cases, there is preparatory work required before construction work takes place - for example the relocating of traffic light ducts or the digging of trial holes to check depths.

When the work does start on site, we aim to minimise disruption as much as possible and continue to inform people of progress, providing advice about alternative routes, delays and timescales.

Stage 7 - Evaluate the impact

After the scheme is complete, we monitor its impact and report on its effectiveness. Depending on the size of the scheme or the source of funding, we may undertake a range of reporting to different agencies or funders such as the North East Combined Authority (NECA) or Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), Department for Transport (DfT), other Government departments or European organisations. Reports should also be provided to relevant councillors and if appropriate the Council Cabinet.

For further information on the stages see the council webpages at: http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-transport/re-newcastle-transport- improvements/transport-development-process

1.10.2 Northern Access Corridor

There has been long public engagement including formal consultation on aspects of the NAC scheme staring with consultation before the submission of a major scheme bid, under a later withdrawn funding source, in 2009. (See Appendix P for a detailed report on this consultation.) Further general comments about the need for improvements were made during engagement on the more recent Gosforth Transport Improvements process. We are now in a position to take forward the expressed wishes of city residents for improvements at these junctions.

As we will be taking a phased approach to the NAC scheme, consultation is taking place on more major proposals for Phases 2b and 3 while work has been carried out on Phase 2a. This is felt to be an efficient use of time and resources.

The work on Phase 1, Cowgate, and Phase 2a, Cowhill and Duke’s Moor, is largely complete and engagement is at Stage 7 where we are evaluating the impact using journey time data.

1.10.3 Engagement Process – Phase 2b & Phase 3

The proposals for these junctions are built on many years of residents’ comments and internal discussion. All comments will be considered as we proceed and may influence details of the scheme. Early informal discussions were held with the Freemen over the design and land requirements at the Blue House and Osborne Road junction.

In July and August 2016 we undertook stage 3 engagement on the preferred designs for the improvement of the junctions at Blue House, Jesmond Dene Road and Haddricks Mill. We held a Stakeholder Identification workshop with project work stream leads to ensure that all our stakeholders were identified and allocated to appropriate engagement methods – the stakeholder map is attached for information.

An awareness raising letter was delivered to 26,500 addresses in the wards of Dene, East and West Gosforth, Parklands and North Jesmond and in the neighbourhood of Long Benton in North Tyneside. The letter provided links to online engagement tools to participate in surveys about the proposed redesigns for the 3 locations and invited recipients to attend face to face drop in sessions at community venues close to the junctions being discussed.

We held a series of pop up sessions at major employment sites in the area including the HMRC, the Freeman Hospital, the Quorum Business Park and the Civic Centre. Printed and social media materials were designed to raise awareness of the on and off line engagement opportunities and were put out at regular intervals during the engagement period.

All in all, 66 hours of face to face engagement were provided and over to 3,500 pieces of feedback generated in our consultation forum. Thousands of people also signed petitions and took part in opposition demonstrations on the Town Moor at Blue House.

1.10.4 Engagement Results – Phase 2b

The engagement and the proposals generated considerable opposition through survey replies, letters, social media comments and meetings. The main outcome from the summer 2016 consultation was the withdrawal of our published proposals for Blue House and Jesmond Dene Road Junctions. A working group was formed to suggest redesigns that would deliver a more publicly acceptable solution. The detailed recommendations of the working group are expected late in March but early indications are that if followed in full the designs are unlikely to equal to BCR of the proposed signal controlled roundabout in this business case.

The proposals being put forward in this business plan therefore balance the public’s desire for a smaller footprint design with the need to find a solution that meets the objectives of the scheme. The outcome is not expected to please everyone but it will meet the needs of the junction.

1.10.5 Engagement Results – Phase 3

The proposals put forward in Summer 2016 for Haddricks Mill have also been revised after consultation to better reflect public aspiration and to balance the corridor.

In January 2017, two more drop in sessions were held in the Haddricks Mill area to update stakeholders on the work programme for Killingworth Road and the report on the progress of finalising the design work for Haddricks Mill. We asked respondents to rank their relative concern for four issues about the consultation design and other feedback:

 Access to Hunters Road  Expansion of the roundabout at the bottom of Freeman Road  Lack of cycling provision  Disruption during construction

The findings were:

 94 sheets were completed  62 at the Trinity Centre Drop in – 32 at St Nicholas’s Drop in  Of the 62, the size of the roundabout was the option most frequently ranked the number 1 concern  Of the 32, access to the Hunters Road Estate was the option most frequently ranked the number 1 concern.  Overall, scoring all the selections made in the 94 sheets, the size of the roundabout is the greatest concern, access to Hunters Road a narrow second, disruption third, and cycling facilities forth.

 People used the sheets to raise related issues as well – most popular were access to the Gosforth Terraces from Station Road and suggestions that a one way system should be looked at, and, facilities for pedestrians as well as cycles.

The final designs take these concerns into account.

1.11 Options

1.11.1 Intervention Identification

Previous studies and full consultation on the A189 and parallel schemes for Gosforth High Street have considered interventions at Blue House Roundabout, Haddricks Mill Roundabouts and the Osborne Road junction with Jesmond Dene Road. These previous studies formed the basis of the intervention identification and option assessment for Phase 2 of the Northern Access Corridor at the two junctions. Cow Hill Interchange and Dukes Moor are only being considered for minor level intervention as part of the Phase 2 corridor improvement, and therefore limited optioneering has been undertaken for these online improvements.

Liaising with internal discipline departments within NCC a constraints and opportunities exercise identified the existing and predicted future operational issues associated with NAC scheme area. This process identified key targets for any proposed junction improvement schemes to address, to not only achieve the overall scheme objectives, but to specifically address the issues identified. The sections below detail the optioneering process completed at each of the junctions on the NAC.

1.11.2 Blue House Roundabout

A series of options and option iterations have been tested in LinSig as part of the scheme optioneering process. The bullets below identify in broad terms the scheme options tested, detailed the form of junction, movements permitted and the provision for pedestrian and cycle facilities. Indicative scheme plans are provided (Appendix Q).

 1. All Movements Crossroads: As part of previous studies in the Gosforth area, an all movements signal controlled crossroads had been identified as a preferred solution. The crossroads is sited at the existing roundabout location with a small requirement for land take to facilitate widened approaches to the junction. Pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities are proposed across all arms of the junction.  2. Banned Movement Crossroads: To maximise the operational capacity of traffic signalled controlled crossroads the application of banned movements to introduce operational efficiency was used. This considered the removal of all turning movements through the junction excluding movements between the south and east arms. Pedestrian and cycle crossing provision was considered in conjunction with banned movements to aid operational efficiency.

 3. All Movements Gyratory: To facilitate all movements and to provide highway capacity for growth, an all movements gyratory was proposed. All movements are either served directly at the existing junction location, or via the wider gyratory. This requires significant widening of the carriageway to the south east corner of the existing junction. Pedestrian and cycle provision is included across the west, north and east approaches to the main junction, with movements across the south side of the junction catered for at the south side of the main gyratory.  4. Relocated Roundabout (Increased Size): To facilitate all movements and provide a U-turn opportunity on the Great North Road corridor, an increased diameter, signal controlled roundabout, was tested. To facilitate the signalisation of each roundabout node, the roundabout diameter was increased to accommodate vehicle queuing on the roundabout internals at the scheme design year. To avoid impacts on the Blue House and allow construction to be undertaken offline, the roundabout was assumed to be located to the north of the Blue House, with new road links between Grandstand Road and Jesmond Dene Road.  5. Turbo Roundabout: A number of Turbo Roundabout proposals were tested based on a concept detailed in the paper Turbo Roundabouts: Design Principles and Safety Performance produced by Delft University of Technology. The turbo roundabout concept provided a theoretical safety benefits compared to the existing situation and is intended to result in minimal delay during the off- peak.

Proposed Crossroads

Testing of a proposed crossroads solution investigated an all movements junctions and then testing the banning each of the turning movements at the junction other than the critical south-east movements.

In isolation, the banning of movements doesn’t demonstrate sufficient operational benefit to the junction. The banning of each movement in isolation only has a slight impact on Practical Reserve Capacity (PRC) and Delay for the junction.

The combination of banned movements, including pedestrian movements, which complement each other and allow for operational efficiencies in staging and cycle time, was shown to be more beneficial than banning any single movement in isolation.

The ability to remove a stage from the cycle, allowing the east and west approach to the junction to run in the same stage, has a significant impact on PRC and Delay. The combination of banning both the eastbound and westbound right turns proved to deliver the most positive impact however this was considered too restrictive in terms of impact on the wider network routing.

It was demonstrated that the provision of either the eastbound or westbound right turn can be accommodated at a crossroads junction. Maintaining the provision of the eastbound right turn towards the City Centre was considered more suitable than the westbound right turn towards Gosforth.

Proposed Gyratory

As an all movements crossroad junction has been demonstrated not to deliver sufficient operational capacity a gyratory scheme concept was developed which facilitates all movements over a larger scheme area. The scheme requires significant land take to the south and east of the junction.

The traffic signal operation of the gyratory was tested and developed alongside the requirement for multiple lanes to facilitate movements with a view to minimise the land take impact of the scheme. The northern section of the gyratory is required to run as two signal streams to manage and balance the conflicting movements. The southern section has one signal controlled node and a remote pedestrian crossing.

The gyratory concept was shown to deliver spare capacity and operational flexibility whilst facilitating all vehicle movements.

Proposed Large Roundabout

Testing of the large roundabout iterated through a number of layout options, considering the number of lanes on each approach to the roundabout, number of lanes provided on the exit to the north and east arms, and internal storage space on the roundabout.

It was demonstrated through modelling that three lanes were required on the immediate approach to the junction on all arms. Two lanes are required on all exits from the roundabout to facilitate efficient traffic progression through the junction.

The roundabout operated with four signal controlled nodes operating a two stage cycle with optimised offsets, with a view to minimising cycle times. The allocation of green time between the approach and internal at each node was determined by internal queue lengths and traffic progression through the junction.

Although large in size, the roundabout was shown to deliver spare capacity and operation flexibility at scheme opening and scheme design year.

Proposed Turbo Roundabout

Conventional techniques for modelling give-way roundabouts such as ARCADY do not account for turbo roundabout layouts and therefore an isolated micro-simulation model was produced in PTV-Vissim to model vehicle behaviour more appropriately.

A number of layout options were tested to identify the scale of junction required to accommodate the predicted future year traffic flows. A three lane roundabout would be required, with three lanes on all approaches. This layout requires considerable land take around the area of the existing junction impacting on the existing tree line, with further land take required to provide pedestrian and cycle infrastructure.

Preferred Option

The preferred scheme option taken forward for appraisal as part of the full corridor scheme is Option 2 – Banned Movement Crossroads. This option was shown to deliver capacity benefits over the existing junction layout at the scheme design year. This scheme can be delivered significantly within the existing highway layout and therefore limits the impact on the surrounding Moor land.

1.11.3 Ilford Road / Osborne Road / Moorfield

Four potential scheme concepts have been considered at the Ilford Road / Osborne Road / Moorfield junction with Jesmond Dene Road. Given the physically constrained nature of the junction area all concepts seek to maximise the use of existing highway infrastructure as much as possible. Indicative scheme plans are provided (Appendix R)

 1. Existing Layout Optimised: Undertake a review of the existing junction arrangements and traffic signal operation. Carry out traffic signal optimisation by way of a review of junction phasing, staging, cycle time.

 2. Existing Layout & Banned Movements: Introduction of a pedestrian crossing across the top of Osborne Road. Banned right turn in to Ilford Road from Jesmond Dene Road. Southbound right turn from Ilford Road to Jesmond Dene Road banned. Revised junction staging. Moorfield Metro bridge restricted to one-way westbound to support the banned right turn in to Ilford Road.

 3. Localised Widening & Banned Movements: Widening required to the A189 to the east of the Metro Bridge to facilitate two lanes in both directions. Northbound right turn in to Osborne Road to be banned with traffic rerouted via Ilford Road and Moorfield to complete their desired movement. Southbound right turn from Ilford Road also banned with the movement completed via Moorfield. Pedestrian crossing provided across the top of Osborne Road as part of the junction operation.

 4. Gyratory: Utilising Ilford Road and Moorfield for northbound movements and Jesmond Dene Road for southbound movement, create a gyratory for movements through the area to separate out the key conflicts. Ilford Road and Moorfield converted to one way in a northbound and eastbound direction. Strengthening required to Moorfield Metro Bridge to accommodate all vehicle types. Two lanes for northbound movements via Ilford Road and Moorfield, three lanes for southbound movements on Jesmond Dene Road. Pedestrian crossing provided across the top of Osborne Road as part of the junction operation.

Preferred Option

Although beneficial from a capacity and delay point of view, the gyratory option is considered to be too intrusive in terms of the impact on the residents of Moorfield and the cost and construction implications of widening and strengthening of the Moorfield Metro Bridge.

The Existing Layout with Banned Movements is the preferred scheme option taken forward for appraisal as part of the full corridor scheme. This delivers facility improvements for pedestrians crossing Osborne Road, as well as capacity enhancements through improved traffic signal operation.

1.11.4 Cow Hill Interchange

The issue of bus transit at Cowhill was identified by the bus operators and investigated in 2012 through a Bus Priority Feasibility Study (see Appendix S).

Two options were assessed for Cowhill intersection. Option 1 assesses the implementation of an advance stop line for buses to provide bus priority on A167 eastbound off slip. Option 2 considered the implementation of an additional right turn lane for all traffic on the A167 eastbound off slip. Modelling of the two options for Cowhill Intersection shows minimal improvement to journey times with all buses likely to pass within one signal cycle. The proposed advance stop line for buses (Option 1) would improve journey time consistency with a maximum delay of 67 seconds.

The net effect of other changes on the corridor is sufficient to warrant these improvements and the upgrading of the signals equipment is necessary to provide whole corridor traffic control. However the work will be scheduled for the end of the programme as the capacity at the junction is needed to cope with the traffic displaced by the necessary disruption caused by the work at the other junctions.

The Sustrans report (see Appendix C) suggested an extra low –level signal at Cowhill in one location but it was felt this would have to be replicated at all the crossings and the benefits to the relatively small numbers of pedestrians and cyclists did not justify the costs at this time. The suggested foot/cycle path improvements are being taken forward.

1.11.5 Dukes Moor

The Dukes Moor junction work replicates the existing highway layout with improvements to the pedestrian and cycle provision as part of the junction. The operational impacts of the improved facilities have been tested as part of the detailed design process in the S- Paramics model.

The connection to MOVA / UTC is already providing better operational control and flexibility and will be an integral part of the wider corridor management strategy when work is carried out at the other junctions.

The cycle route on Kenton Road further north of Duke’s Moor and the proposed off road route across the open land north west of the Duke’s Moor junction will be improved at a later date as the north-south strategic cycle route through this junction is developed.

There are on road cycle lanes between Cowhill and Dukes Moor. These will be re- examined outside the scope of the NAC scheme to bring them into line with the standards now being applied for cycle infrastructure in Newcastle.

Works to improve the highway drainage through the use of combined kerb and drainage units and the installation of two storage tanks in the Moor on either side of Grandstand Road / Kenton Road junction have recently been completed. We have also installed telemetry to the SUDS tanks at the Grandstand Road/Kenton Road junction. The intention is that they will record tanks levels and alert the UTMC service to any possible flood events in these locations. While these tanks are designed to cope with a 1 in 100 year flood event, it was decided that these are becoming more frequent is was viewed as prudent to put in a system for flood events of a greater severity. This should allow a reasonable level of diversion to be notified via VMS to reduce the network disruption of any flood events, enhancing the reliability of the network.

1.11.6 Haddricks Mill Roundabout

Option development and testing for Haddricks Mill Roundabout has considered a number of design concepts and subsequent scheme design iterations. The bullets below identify in broad terms the scheme options tested at the various stages of development. A series of concepts were initially developed and then translated in to three viable options for testing in isolated junction models. Indicative scheme plans are provided (Appendix T)

 Concept 1: This option was confined to the existing highway boundary limits. In particular, this option only made use of the existing bridge structure. Widening and land take was required to the east of the bridge structure to facilitate the required alignment for the roundabout circulatory carriageway and the junction approach from Killingworth Road. Pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities are provided across all approaches to the junction.

 Concept 2: This option delivered a gyratory junction utilising the existing bridge structure for the south side of the gyratory and a new bridge structure to accommodate the north side of the gyratory. This option required the complete closure of Station Road on its existing alignment, with the highway diverted to the north to create a new link in to the gyratory, separating out the conflicting Haddricks Mill Road and Station Road approaches. Freeman Road is an uncontrolled approach to the gyratory. The operation of this option is constrained by the short link lengths on the east and west circulatory links. Pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities are provided across all approaches to the junction.  Concept 3: Based on Concept 2, this option has been developed without the constraint of land take and works to the existing bridge structure. New bridge structures are required for both the north and south circulatory links, with Station Road remaining open as a two lane link, but only for vehicles exiting the gyratory. The Station Road approach to the junction is diverted to the north to create a new link in to the gyratory, separating out the conflicting Haddricks Mill Road and Station Road approaches. Freeman Road is an uncontrolled approach to the gyratory. This Do-Maximum option seeks to minimise the impact of short link lengths and constrained capacity on the gyratory links. Pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities are provided across all approaches to the junction.

The initial concepts identified potential scheme solutions for Haddricks Mill, however, the more successful schemes, Concept 2 and 3, required land take to deliver the associated infrastructure and potential significant costs for disproportionate benefits. A further series of concepts were considered with a view to maximising value for money on any investment.

 Two Crossroads: This scheme involved two signalised crossroad junctions with a short internal link connecting them both all within existing highway. This option did not allow Hunters Road to enter the junction, rather via Station Road. The option was modelled in LinSig and went through an iteration process in order to come up with the best staging for each junction with the key focus to reduce the internal link queue length. Even with the best staging arrangement implemented the queue between the junction could not the reduced to a point which it did not exit block other movements. The only way to stop this from happening would be to hold the traffic back on the external arms creating extensive queues.  Priority Roundabout: An increased diameter priority roundabout to replace the eastern junction. A model was developed to assess the traffic interactions to determine whether it would deliver the capacity intended. Isolated modelling of the roundabout suggested it would be sufficient to cope with the traffic demand however this did not take into account the western signalised junction. In order to assess both the junctions together in a network a model was developed in LinSig to look at the interaction. Like the two crossroad option the key problem was the internal link between the junctions. The link has around 5 PCUs of storage capacity and in the future years this was exceeded.

 Priority Roundabout with Dual Exit: It was noted during the modelling work that in every option one of the main problems is the single lane exiting to Station Road. Given it large demand in the future year scenario, stopping this traffic even briefly, would create a large queue relatively quickly. In order to mitigate the issue two lanes would be required to distribute the storage of that link exiting the junction. To facilitate two lanes exiting the junction, physical changes would be required around the junction to allow a merging area on Station Road and diverting the entry point to the north where hunters would normally enter.  Cut-through Arrangement: A cut-through arrangement was looked into to prioritise the Haddricks Mill Road and Killingworth Road cross movement. Through initial sketches it was clear that this would not be achievable without major land take and resolving levelling problems between the approaches. This option was rules out during this stage and wasn’t taken to design or modelling given the initial problems faced.

The testing of further options identified a number of potential large scale technically viable interventions in the Haddricks Mill area. However, a decision was made by the council that the community disruption and significant costs associated with such interventions, as well as the environmental impacts and land purchase, mean they are not considered sufficiently desirable to progress to implementation.

With this in mind, a scheme proposal which will be confined to better delineation of lanes, better and safer separation of pedestrians and cyclists, linked to the necessary road replacement and road widening on Killingworth Road, has been adopted as the preferred option.

1.11.7 Killingworth Road

Only two options have been identified for Killingworth Road; they are to do nothing or to implement the proposed highways maintenance scheme.

A successful bid to the Department for Transport Highways Challenge Maintenance Fund will allow the works to go ahead. The funding received has enable a scheme by Nexus and NCC to replace the existing Metro bridge and to stabilise the retaining structure on the eastern side of Killingworth Road. Together the works will enable the widening of the carriageway to provide on street parking, a southbound bus lane and a two way segregated cycle way that will result in otherwise unachievable capacity benefits. The attached bid document sets out the effect of the ‘do nothing’ option.

If the bid had not been successful then routine asset improvements would have continued piecemeal over a number of years followed by an eventual requirement to undertake the required major maintenance work in the future subject to a future funding opportunity/agreement with the DfT. Existing maintenance funding available to NCC is insufficient to provide the level of maintenance required to deliver optimum benefits from the network at this location. Without the HMCF funding any maintenance would have been limited to minor treatments required to effectively reduce the rate of deterioration in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of total failure.

In looking at the new retaining structure along Killingworth Road a number of options have been investigated including:

 A soil nail wall: This option was investigated and discounted as it would result in the removal of a greater area of the existing landscaping than other options. It would also result in three different treatments of the retaining structure along the stretch of the road.  A stone clad retaining wall varying in height: This option would see a greater amount of the existing landscaping retained. The height of the wall would depend on the earth to be retained behind it.  A three metre high stone clad retaining wall: This is the preferred option and again this would see a greater amount of the existing landscaping retained. A wall that is one continuous height would result in a consistent treatment over the extent of the entire scheme and is considered to more aesthetically pleasing.

1.11.8 ITS

ITS is to be applied on a whole corridor basis as they are a package of works that support the corridor as a whole rather than any particular junction.

The ITS support infrastructure comprises of a comprehensive UTMC enabled VMS network for the Northern Access Corridor, substantial communications and controller upgrades on the North South approaches to Blue House Junction and along to neighbouring junctions.

Finally to secure reliable public transport priority at junctions in peak time we intend to equip public transport vehicles with the Compass 4D system which controls vehicle arrival rates at stop lines.

1.11.9 Summary

The proposed schemes to be taken forward at each location represent principally the lowest cost options available, limiting the impact on land take, delivering junction improvements within Council owned land. They are the smallest options, in terms of spatial impact, out of the various options tested through isolated junction modelling at each location. This is supported by the fact that these low cost options are considered to represent the best value for money, when compared to the large and more expensive schemes considered.

2 Economic Case

2.1 Modelling

A transport model has been developed using the software package ‘S-Paramics’ for part of Gosforth, located to the north of Newcastle City Centre. The S-Paramics model covers the A189 corridor north of Newcastle City Centre, between Killingworth Road/Salters Lane in the north, Haddricks Mill Roundabout (A191), Blue House Roundabout (B1318), Kenton Road and Cow Hill (A167/Grandstand Road).

The purpose of the S-Paramics Model is to provide an accurate representation of traffic conditions in the vicinity of the study area in order to provide information on how future traffic conditions may be affected by the prospective improvement schemes.

A set of observed traffic data has been collected in order to construct trip matrices and to provide information on how the road network currently operates; turning counts, origin- destination data, queue counts and journey time data has been collected for the AM and PM peak periods for the junctions in the model. The model has then been built using the observed traffic data in conjunction with geometric data from Ordnance Survey mapping and bus route and timetable information.

The observed 2015 data has been used for model calibration and validation to ensure that the model replicates the current observed network operation. In this case, the technical requirements for the model are set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) which is produced by the Department for Transport. The model passes the relevant calibration and validation tests against the observed data, providing confidence that the model replicates the observed situation and can be considered suitable for scheme testing. A Local Model Validation Report has been written covering the modelling used for this submission and is included at Appendix F.

2.2 Value for Money Methodology

In line with the requirements of the fund, an economic appraisal of the scheme has been completed through a Value for Money statement based on Present Value Benefits (PVB) and Costs (PVC) to derive a scheme Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR).

Throughout the development of the preferred option, various modelling packages have been used to aid scheme optioneering and to test the impact of the scheme on the Northern Access Corridor. For the purpose of quantifying scheme impact, and economic assessment, the S-Paramics model has been used as this provides a validated base scenario and future year forecast scenarios based on anticipated growth assumptions aligned to Tempro.

Value for Money assessment starts with the calculation of those impacts that can be expressed in monetary terms. These monetised impacts are summed to construct a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) – that is the amount of benefit being bought for every £1.00 of cost.

The summary of the monetised information along with the BCR is presented in the standard Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB), Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) and Public Accounts table. The AMCB, TEE and PA tables are included in Appendix U.

Outputs from S-Paramics model have been used along with the DfT approved software package, TUBA, to monetise benefits. The software version used is listed below:

 TUBA version 1.9.7.

The following benefits (and dis-benefits) have been monetised in the economic assessment:

 Travel time benefits (calculated using TUBA);  Vehicle operating cost benefits (TUBA);  Greenhouse gases emission (TUBA); and  Changes in Indirect Taxes (TUBA).

The summation of the monetised values listed above give the Present Value of Benefits (PVB) for the scheme.

The total scheme cost used in the economic appraisal is the actual cost of the scheme during its construction along with the costs associated with maintenance and operation for the duration of the assessment period. The maintenance and operation costs used represent the difference in costs between the existing infrastructure and the scheme. The assessment period is 60 years from scheme opening year.

Base costs for construction, land / property, preparation / administration, design and supervision, have been developed by NCC based on the latest scheme design. The operating and maintenance cost estimate has been produced by NCC based on approved cost profiles. This is directly compared to the likely existing operation and maintenance costs, i.e. the Do Minimum scenario, for input into economic assessment.

A Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) has been produced following a risk workshop held with NCC officers. A monetised value to account for risk has been added to the base costs.

In line with WebTAG, an additional 3% Optimism Bias adjustment has been made for the purposes of economics modelling to take into account the stage of development the scheme is at and the tendency for scheme appraisers to be overly optimistic about scheme costs.

The summation of base costs and the maintenance and operating costs of the scheme give the Present Value of Costs (PVC). Dividing the PVB by the PVC gives the BCR of the scheme.

The costs and benefits occur in different years throughout the assessment period, e.g. the construction costs occur before the scheme opens, while the benefits occur over the

appraisal period of 60 years. Therefore, the costs used in scheme appraisal differ from the outturn costs used for funding decisions. The appraisal costs are discounted and converted to the DfT's standard present value year for appraisal (2010) to allow direct comparison with the monetised benefits. All monetised values stated in the Economic Case are in 2010 prices, discounted to 2010 (unless explicitly stated).

2.3 Assumptions

2.3.1 Transport Model

The assumptions used to develop the NAC business cases are based on the assumptions examined and found to be robust in the following documents; Planning for the Future, Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan. Assumptions based on growth, mode share and levels of mode shift to sustainable travel options were made as part of our LDF modelling. These were tested against TEMPro and were found to be compatible therefore we are confident that our growth scenario has been tested and found to be sound.

Forecast models were constructed for ‘Do-Nothing’ and ‘Do-Scheme’ scenarios in both opening and design year. The following time periods were modelled:

 AM peak period from 0700-1000;  PM peak period from 1600-1900;  AM peak hour from 0730-0830;  PM peak hour from 1645-1745.

Weekday night-times, Weekends (day-times and night-times) and Bank Holidays (day- times and night-times) were not modelled as the benefits generated in these time periods are unlikely to be significant due to lower levels of traffic. These time periods were not part of the annualisation factors applied in the TUBA assessment.

2.3.2 Model Scope & Variable Demand Consideration

Although the scheme is demonstrating strong journey time benefits for the shorter journeys (trips less than 5km) on the corridor, the scope of journey time improvement over the length of the corridor under consideration is not considered to be significant when taken as part of a “complete” journey on the wider NCC highway network. Given the potential increases in journey time and distance to reroute, the interventions are not considered likely to have an impact on wider area rerouting, negating the need for a route choice model.

An assessment of the impact on generalised cost is provided in Appendix V. This demonstrates that the change in journey time due to the improvements on the Northern Access Corridor will not cause a significant journey time reduction, which would decrease the generalised costs proportionally enough to lead to a change in route choice and cause re-routing from the Northern Access Corridor.

Alternative routes in the wider scheme area are already operating at or close to capacity and subject to similar targeted improvement schemes, resulting in an expected status-quo

in terms of trip distribution. Furthermore, proposed improvements on the A1 are forecast to deliver broadly similar levels of journey time saving, neutralising impacts of the NAC scheme from a rerouting point of view.

Additionally, Highways England chose a corridor model to carry out the scheme modelling of the proposed A1 improvements as they did not assume the change in journey time would be proportionate enough to lead to a change in route choice within the wider network.

Therefore, the fact that an S-Paramics corridor model has been used to model and analyse the impact of the scheme improvements of the Northern Access Corridor is adequate for this scenario and does capture the traffic flows that realistically can be expected to use the network.

The need for Variable Demand Modelling has been considered taking account of WebTAG Unit M2 guidance. The application of a variable demand model has not been taken forward for this scheme primarily due to the use of a fixed input demand S-Paramics microsimulation model.

Furthermore, the scheme is very modest in terms of spatial impact. The proposed scheme is essentially all on line, with highway widening only proposed on Killingworth Road to facilitate the bus lane and two-way cycle lane. The remaining elements of the scheme are delivered within highway land and are considered to be junction upgrade schemes.

The model allows for the suppression of demand associated with congestion on the modelled network. Table 2.1 below demonstrates the comparison of matrix demand against modelled demand in the Do-Minimum scenario for the morning and evening peak periods.

Table 2.1 – Comparison of Matrix vs Modelled Demand 2015 2019 2033

AM PM AM PM AM PM

Matrix Demand 21,126 24,031 22,811 24,566 24,790 26,990 Modelled Demand 20,854 23,722 22,049 24,221 21,878 26,211 Difference 272 309 762 345 2,912 779 Percentage Difference 1% 1% 3% 1% 12% 3%

It can be seen that based on the existing highway layout and forecast demand, the model suppresses demand based on network capacity in the Do Minimum model. The 2033 AM peak period model sees 12% difference between the matrix demand and the modelled demand. The introduction of the proposed scheme has a small impact (less than 5%) on the peak hour completed trips in the AM and PM peak hours, demonstrating that the model continues to suppress demand based on congestion.

Table 2.2 – DM vs. DS Peak Hour Trip Comparison 2015 2019 2033

AM PM AM PM AM PM

DM Trips 8,054 8,774 8,671 9,018 9,052 9,875 DS Trips 8,065 8,783 8,281 8,946 9,202 9,745 Difference 11 9 390 72 150 130 Percentage Difference 0% 0% 4% 1% 2% 1%

Although the total scheme cost cannot be considered modest (less than £5 million), almost half of the total scheme cost (c45%) is attributed to public transport and cycling improvements on Killingworth Road. Based on the assessment undertaken, these elements of the scheme contribute only a small proportion to the overall scheme benefits. The cycle benefits have not been monetised as part of this assessment and public transport user benefits make up only c1% of the overall benefits.

The Haddricks Mill Roundabout element of the scheme, which contributes significantly to the overall benefits of the scheme, as demonstrated in Section 2.7, does fall under £5 million and can be considered modest both spatially and financially. The table below shows how each element of the scheme contributes to the total cost make up. Full details on scheme costs are presented in the Financial Case.

Table 2.3 – Scheme Element Cost Contribution Scheme Element Cost Percentage

Cowhill £23,286 0.1% Duke's Moor £738,471 3.2% Blue House Roundabout £5,630,117 24.6% Jesmond Dene Road / Osborne Road £876,393 3.8% Haddricks Mill Roundabout £4,531,485 19.8% VMS £885,800 3.9% Killingworth Road £5,237,087 22.8% Killingworth Road Metro Bridge £5,000,000 21.8% Total £22,922,639 100.0%

2.3.3 Appraisal Period

In line with WebTAG guidance, the impacts of the scheme have been assessed over the 60 year period after the scheme opens, capturing the planned period of scheme development and implementation. The 60 year appraisal period for scheme is 2019-2078.

The transport model provides estimates for two forecast years: the opening year (2019) and the design year (2033). The results of the model have been interpolated and extrapolated to cover the whole appraisal period of 60 years. To ensure a conservative approach to the calculation of scheme benefits, it has been assumed there will be no growth in traffic flows after the design year 2033. This is a standard approach.

2.3.4 Annualisation

The TUBA software programme calculates benefits for each year of the 60 year assessment period. As such, annualisation factors are required to project one hour peak model information to a whole year. The annualisation factors are:

 AM Peak Hour, 0730-0830 – factor of 1; and  PM Peak Hour, 1645-1745 – factor of 1.

The availability of an AM and PM peak hour model gives the ability to assess benefits based on an extracted peak hour, as set out above, as well as assessment of a two hour peak period. The analysis presented in this section is based on the peak hour to ensure the appraisal is not considered to be over predicting scheme benefits, acknowledging that there is not an Interpeak model available.

A final factor of 253 is applied to all matrices to ensure the assessment takes account of the number of working days in a year.

2.4 Options Appraisal

The proposed interventions are targeted, where possible, at addressing existing congestion issues on the NAC and mitigating further increases in journey time as a result of forecast traffic growth. The schemes are considered to be most viable and low cost options identified through the scheme optioneering process set out in the Strategic Case. The following section identifies the impact of the proposed scheme on journey time.

The impact of the proposed scheme has been calculated based on 10 S-Paramics model runs recorded for the AM and PM peak period in each future assessment year, comparing the Do-Scheme model with the Do-Nothing model.

Table 2.4 – Northern Access Corridor End to End Journey Time Comparison (in seconds) Time A189 Northbound A189 Southbound Perio Do- Do- Do- Do- Difference Difference d Nothing Scheme Nothing Scheme AM 525 439 2015 PM 521 447 AM 787 458 -329 882 364 -518 2019 PM 557 397 -160 475 695 -80 AM 942 704 -238 1323 397 -926 2033 PM 790 475 -315 716 474 -242

Figure 2.1 - Northern Access Corridor, Northbound End to End Journey Time Comparison (in seconds)

Figure 2.2 - Northern Access Corridor, Southbound End to End Journey Time Comparison (in seconds)

Comparing the same assessment year for Do-Nothing and Do-Scheme scenarios demonstrates significant journey time savings on the A189 corridor through the implementation of the scheme. At scheme opening year (2019), the northbound journey times see a strong journey time improvement in both the AM and PM peak hours. Savings in excess of 5 minutes are forecast in the AM and 2.5 minutes in the PM. In the southbound direction, further savings are forecast for the AM peak hour in the region of 8.5 minutes and 1.5 minutes in the PM peak hour.

At scheme design year (2033), the predicted journey time savings over the Do-Nothing scheme increase, as demand levels increase. Savings in the region of 4 minutes are forecast in the AM and 5 minutes in the PM. In the southbound direction, further savings are forecast for the AM peak hour in the region of 15 minutes and 4 minutes in the PM peak hour.

To provide a gauge against existing journey times on the corridor, the tables below present a comparison of the scheme opening (2019) and scheme design (2033) year model performance compared to the (2015) base model. The 2019 and 2033 model performance is based on increased vehicular demand compared to the base model, in line with the growth assumptions set out earlier in this document.

Table 2.5 – Northern Access Corridor, Northbound Future Year Comparison to Base (in seconds) 2015 Base 2019 Scheme Difference 2033 Scheme Difference

AM 525 458 -68 704 179 PM 521 397 -124 475 -45

Table 2.6 – Northern Access Corridor, Southbound Future Year Comparison to Base (in seconds) 2015 Base 2019 Scheme Difference 2033 Scheme Difference

AM 439 364 -75 397 -42 PM 447 395 -52 474 28

Northbound journey times are forecast to be better than existing at the time of scheme opening in the AM and PM peak hours. This is in the region of 1 minute improvement in AM and 2 minutes in the PM. By scheme design year, journey times in the AM are expected to exceed those currently experienced by 3 minutes. In the PM, journey times are expected to improvement over those currently experienced by less than 60 seconds.

Southbound journey times in the AM peak hour, at both scheme opening and scheme design year, are expected to exceed those currently experienced. At scheme opening journey times are expected to decrease by in excess of 1 minute. At scheme design year, journey times are expected to decrease by less than 1 minute. In the PM peak hour at scheme opening, the southbound journey time is expected to show an improvement in the region of 60 seconds. At scheme design year, the journey time is expected to be similar to existing, with a 30 second increase forecast.

The scheme has been shown to deliver very positive impacts for the corridor in both the northbound and southbound directions, with smaller impacts on cross corridor movements. However, the modelling for the scheme implemented at Haddricks Mill does create increases in delay for travelling from Station Road and Hunters Road.

These approaches are predicted to experience substantial increases in journey time due to difficulties accessing the junction. The scheme reduces the number of traffic lanes across the bridge between the two roundabouts, removing the dedicated left turn lane to Killingworth Road. This results in less capacity for vehicles entering from Haddricks Mill Road, Station Road and Hunters Road.

As, out of these three approaches, Haddricks Mill Road is the dominant flow, the following two approaches suffer due to lack of available gaps in traffic. This constraint on flow over the bridge, combined with the revised roundabout layout, has benefits for vehicles entering the junction from Killingworth Road, reducing the impact of the existing conflict point on entry to the junction. This improvement on Killingworth Road delivers improvements for Hollywood Avenue as well, due to more freely moving traffic creating gaps for vehicles to move from the side road on to the main road.

As part of the ITS package of works included within this submission, the traffic signals surrounding the junction, providing pedestrian and cycle facilities, will also be used to gate traffic entering the junction at peak demand times across the different approaches. The modelling has demonstrated that the design of this detailed traffic signal strategy will be important to balance the impacts of the Haddricks Mill scheme around the junction, managing benefits and impacts across all arms. The detailed signal strategy is not yet developed and therefore has not been included in the modelling. It is therefore considered that the modelling presented presents an underestimation of the overall impact of the scheme.

2.5 Sensitivity & Risk Profile

The estimated scheme costs have been derived from a robust costing exercise outlined in the Financial Case, which includes allowance for risk and optimism bias in accordance with DfT guidance, over and above the detailed costs developed.

A number of sensitivity tests have been carried out on the economic appraisal of the NAC scheme. These tests are threefold:

 Demand Growth Sensitivity – core, low and high growth assumptions derived as part of the development of the forecast models for scheme assessment;  Cost Sensitivity – assumptions based on the application of differing levels of optimism bias; and  Proxy Sensitivity – Fuel & Income adjustments, ‘GA Look Next’ flag, Route Choice, and Three Hour assessment period.

2.5.1 Demand Growth Sensitivity

As defined in WebTAG Unit M4, the core scenario is based on the most unbiased and realistic set of assumptions that will form the central case for appraising a scheme. The core scenario has been defined by the application of growth by NTEM and NTM forecasts.

In the immediate modelled area, there are no new developments proposed as part of Newcastle’s allocations. For wider sites, neither North Tyneside nor Northumberland have sufficient clarity to provide realistic input on the scale of development and traffic distributional impacts. Therefore, there has been no Uncertainty Log developed. The approach followed applied growth by NTEM and NTM forecasts. Previous work undertaken by the Council has identified strong correlation between planning assumptions for growth in population, households and jobs contained within TEMPro and the Newcastle Local Plan.

The low growth scenario is to reflect the potential over-prediction of growth by NTEM and NTM forecast used in the core scenario. The low growth scenario has been constructed by removing a proportion of the base demand from the core scenario in line with WebTAG M4 (i.e. square root of the number of years after base year multiplied by 2.5%).

The high growth scenario is defined in the same way as the low growth scenario but with addition of a proportion of the base demand to the core scenario.

For this scheme, the application of WebTAG guidance results in the 2019 low growth demand levels being lower than the 2015 base demand. Based on the application of the guidance, this is not an unusual occurrence.

2.5.2 Cost Sensitivity

Cost sensitivity tests have been carried out applying variations to the costs based upon the level of optimism bias applied.

Optimism bias refers to the tendency for scheme promoters to be overly optimistic about scheme costs. WebTAG A1.2 sets out the recommended contingency which should be added to the scheme costs. This is given for road schemes in Table 2.7 below.

Table 2.7 – Recommended Optimism Bias Uplifts (WebTAG A1.2, Nov 2014)

CATEGORY TYPES OF PROJECTS STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 Motorway, trunk roads, local roads, bicycle Roads facilitates, pedestrian facilities, park and ride, bus 44% 15% 3% lane schemes, guided buses on wheels

Stage 2 is defined for a Local Authority promoted scheme as Conditional Approval. Stage 3 is associated with Full Approval. With the exception of some advanced works currently underway that NCC is funding at risk, the bulk of the NAC scheme is due to commence construction in Summer 2017 once Gateway 3 approvals have been secured.

The scheme is currently at Gateway 2 as not all statutory approvals will be in place at the time of submission. However, there is sufficient cost certainty, as a result of works already completed and stage of scheme design, such that a 3% Optimism Bias could be applied to the appraisal. A sensitivity test with 15% has also been undertaken.

2.5.3 Sensitivity Tests

In addition to the core assessment, a total of three sensitivity tests were carried out based on full model runs. The sensitivity tests carried out are summarised in Table 2.8 below. Table 2.8 – Sensitivity Test Summary

SENSITIVITY TEST 0 1 2 3 Demand Core Low High Core Optimism Bias 3% 3% 3% 15% Maintenance & Operation Costs Yes Yes Yes Yes

2.6 Appraisal Summary Table

The Appraisal Summary Table (AST) presents evidence from the analysis that is undertaken to inform the Economic Case of a proposed scheme/intervention. Applying the principles of HM Treasury Green Book, the AST has been designed to record all impacts on the following categories:

 Economic;  Environmental;  Social; and  Public Accounts.

The Scheme AST is included in Appendix W. All monetary values quoted are 2010 prices discounted to 2010 base year.

2.6.1 Economic Impacts

The impact to business users and transport providers is measured by application of TUBA.

TUBA (Transport User Benefits Appraisal) is the DfT approved industry-standard software used to derive the travel time and vehicle operating cost (VOC) elements of the TEE benefits of a scheme. TUBA requires input from the transport model in the form of trip, time and distance matrices by year, time period and user class as well as scheme specific information such as years of appraisal, time slices, costs etc.

TUBA assesses travel time savings over the modelled area and then applies monetary values (known as values of time (VOT)) to derive the monetary benefits of those time savings.

TUBA also calculates VOC changes which occur due to changes in costs associated with such items as fuel, maintenance, and vehicle depreciation. These occur due to changes in speed and distance when the scheme is implemented and can include both positive and negative values depending upon the scheme’s impact upon traffic flows and routing.

The monetised journey time benefits for business users from TUBA are given in Table 2.9 below.

Table 2.9 – Journey Time Changes (£000s)

TRIP TYPE 0 TO 2 MINS 2 TO 5 MINS > 5 MINS TOTAL Business 3,032 7,127 58,236 44,607

The total monetised journey benefits for business users is £44,607. The vast majority of the time savings are greater than 5 mins. This reflects on both the forecast congestion on the existing network, and the relief the scheme brings to movements on the corridor through junctions like Dukes Moor, Blue House, Osborne Road and Haddricks Mill.

2.6.2 Environmental Impacts

Air quality

The Blue House Roundabout and Osborne Road is situated within Gosforth Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) which has been designated due to exceedances of Air Quality Objective levels of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). Cowhill Junction and Kenton Road Junction are not situated within an AQMA.

The A189 has been modelled by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) as part of their Pollution Climate Model (PCM). The annual mean µg m-3

NO2 roadside concentration for the A189 between Matthew Bank and Blue House Roundabout is 30 µgm-3 - 40 µgm-3; from Blue House roundabout to Cowhill junction is 20 µgm-3 - 30 µgm-3.

The A168 has also been modelled in the vicinity of Cowhill junction and the NO2 annual mean roadside concentration is predicted to be 40 µgm-3 - 50 µgm-3. At this stage, there is potential for a beneficial impact from free flowing traffic but potential for a negative impact from increased capacity. Further modelling is recommended to determine the impacts on existing receptors due to the scheme.

Noise

No Noise Important Areas are declared in the vicinity of Cowhill Junction, Kenton Road Junction, Blue House Roundabout. There is a declared Noise Important Area along the Metro line from the A189 to Haldane Terrace. Background noise is likely to be dominated by fairly constant traffic noise from the traffic on the main trunk roads (i.e. the A189, Osborne Road, Kenton Road and the A167). Local traffic using the remainder of the road network will contribute to more localised traffic noise. Increased flow of traffic could lead

to an increase in noise levels, although it is not considered likely that there would be a significant change in traffic flows due to the proposals.

The T-junction between Osborne Road and Jesmond Dene Road coincides with an NIA associated with the metro line. However there are no proposed changes to the road alignments including moving the road closer to residential properties. During construction there is potential for noise and vibration generated by the operation of construction plant to have an effect on sensitive receptors.

At Haddricks Mill and Killingworth Road the majority of the proposed scheme lies within a Noise Important Area (NIA). The proposed scheme would result in the realignment of the existing road network. Although this would not result in the road being moved any closer to existing receptors. However construction noise and vibration has the potential to impact neighbouring receptors, normally those at closest proximity to any proposed works.

Greenhouse Gases

The latest data released by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) states that the total greenhouse gas emissions for the administrative area of NCC in 2013 was 1,680 for all sectors. Transport as a whole is predicted to emit 396ktCO2 per annum. Greenhouse gases emissions occurring on A-roads were reported as 182ktCO2 in 2013, representing 48% of all road transport emissions, 46% of all transport emissions and 11% of all emissions in NCC. It is anticipated that the scheme will have a beneficial effect on greenhouse gas emission by facilitating traffic flows through the local area. However, the effect of this is considered to be small when compared to emissions in the local authority baseline.

A monetary value for greenhouse gases is calculated in TUBA and presented as a monetised value for the 60 year appraisal period. The greenhouse gas assessment shows a benefit of £0.7m over the 60 year appraisal period. This value is added to the AMCB and used to calculate the final PVB and BCR of the scheme.

Townscape

The townscape is generally considered to be of moderate to high quality, although there are features of high quality present including Jesmond Dene, Gosforth High Street and the open space provided by Little Moor/Dukes Moor/Town Moor. The Town Moor is designated as an Area of Exceptional Landscape Value. Overall there is likely to be an adverse impact on townscape quality through the loss of vegetation/green space and increase in the width of existing roads. Given the existing setting of nearby Conservation Areas and locally listed buildings and the views, it is considered that the scheme will cause minimal adverse impacts. However, these impacts will be ameliorated to a degree by the incorporation of environmental design measures for mitigation to blend the proposals in with surrounding townscape characteristics.

Historic Environment

The known historic environment assets within the vicinity of the scheme comprise Jesmond Dene Conservation Area, Gosforth Conservation Area, Boundary Mark in Wall at Junction with Moorfield Grade II Listed Building, Town Moor Boundary Stone Opposite Number 73 Grade II Listed Building and several Locally Listed Buildings. Buried archaeological remains of unknown nature may also be present and could comprise resources dated to the Prehistoric, Medieval, Post-Medieval and Modern periods. At this stage, it is anticipated that there is some potential for archaeological deposits and these would be affected by the scheme. There is also a potential for indirect impacts on the built heritage from traffic (including noise, pollution and vibration). However, given the level of disturbance already experienced at these receptors due to the traffic, there are unlikely to be any significant effects on these receptors.

Biodiversity

Given there are no statutory/non-statutory sites adjacent to the schemes and there is limited connectivity to ecological sites within the surrounding area, there are unlikely to be any impacts on designated ecological sites. There are locally designated sites within the area and without mitigation there would be adverse impacts on the habitat presents as the scheme will affect the habitats directly and indirectly through increased disturbance and noise. Adverse impacts can be minimised through integrating appropriate mitigation measures into the scheme design (such as minimising loss of woodland etc).

Water Environment

There are no main rivers within 250m of the Blue House and Dukes Moor schemes, however, there are two unnamed watercourses, one approximately 220m northeast of the Kenton Road/Grandstand Road Junction scheme boundary and one unnamed watercourse approximately 220m northeast of the Great North Road/Grandstand Road Junction. Given the distance between the scheme and local watercourses, the risk of leaching of pollutants from ground works into surface water run-off into local watercourse is considered to be insignificant.

The scheme lies wholly within Flood Risk Zone 1, indicating a less than a 0.1 per cent (1 in 1000) chance of flooding occurring each year within each study area. Therefore, the scheme is unlikely to change the capacity and function of the floodplain and the impact is considered to be insignificant. There are no water abstraction licenses from groundwater sources and no groundwater source protection zones within close proximity to the scheme. However, the scheme lies within a zone classified as a Minor Aquifer with High Groundwater Vulnerability. The aquifer has a good quantitative quality and poor chemical quality. As such, ground works could lead to the leaching of pollutants into the groundwater and have a significant effect on groundwater resources in the absence of mitigation.

The Environment Agency has identified a high risk of surface water flooding at the Duke’s Moor junction and the proposed works include flood attenuation. With regards to Haddricks Mill and Killingworth Road the key issues and receptors within the study area include:

 Ouseburn, which is classified as a main river currently flows through the Haddricks Mill junction;  the proposed scheme (current and proposed infrastructure) is located within Flood Zone 1 with Flood Zones 2 and 3 covering Killingworth Road. Flood Zones 2 and 3 are also located within 1 km of the proposed scheme associated with Ouseburn only, which passes under the proposed scheme at Haddricks Mill Bridge; and  the study area lies within an area underlain by Secondary Aquifer A with high groundwater vulnerability.

2.6.3 Social Impacts

Commuting and Other Users

The impact to commuting and other users is measured by application of TUBA and, in the same way as impact to business users and transport providers was calculated. The monetised journey time benefits for commuting and other users from TUBA are given in Table 2.10 below.

Table 2.10 – Journey Time Changes (£000s)

TRIP TYPE 0 TO 2 MINS 2 TO 5 MINS > 5 MINS TOTAL Commuting 1,961 4,267 31,461 1,961 Other 2,843 5,504 34,134 2,843 TOTAL 4,804 9,771 65,595 4,804

The total monetised journey benefits for commuting and other users is £48,899. As with the business user breakdown the vast majority of the time savings are greater than 5 mins. This reflects the level of relief the scheme is bringing to corridor movements through congested junctions.

Physical Activity

The scheme will increase the number of people cycling and walking. Cycling facilities at Blue House will form a link in the NCN725 Great North Cycleway and will encourage walking from Gosforth and Jesmond to the city centre. The proposals at Haddricks Mill will link with the improvements on Killingworth Road and encourage walking and cycling to the nearby major employment centres and the school. The longer term plan for a strategic link to Quorum Business Park from the city centre will see a further increase in cycling.

Safety Benefits

In line with WebTAG the DfT’s COBA-LT software was used to derive an indication of the accident benefits of the scheme. COBA-LT compares the predicted numbers of accidents with and without the scheme, and converts them into monetary values by multiplying the numbers of accidents by their monetised costs. The benefits for each year are discounted to 2010 and summed over the 60-year appraisal period.

COBA-LT uses a broad assumption that the number of accidents is a function of traffic flow. If the model shows that traffic flow increases on a certain link as a result of the scheme then the number of accidents modelled and monetised will grow proportionally. Default accident rates for links and junctions and casualty proportions were used. These are contained within COBA-LT and based on the national average for each type of road and junction.

The results of the COBA-LT analysis show an increase in accidents. The total number has increased by 15 over the 60 year assessment period. This change in the modelled number of accidents results in -£0.8m of disbenefit for the scheme. This has been added to total the PVB and included in calculation of the BCR.

Almost all of the monetised disbenefit occurs at Blue House roundabout. While the traffic flow through the junction is relatively similar between Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios, the junction control type has changed from a small roundabout to a signalised crossroads. The default accident rates in COBA-LT are higher for this type of junction, thus leading to a predicted increase in accidents.

The COBA-LT assessment presented is purely based on accident impacts associated with the proposed changes to the highway. This results in a predicted increase in highway based accidents over the appraisal period.

COBA-LT does not allow for the assessment of accident impacts associated with the improved provision of pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities. Blue House roundabout in particular is a junction improvement scheme which has significant improvements in provision proposed. There are currently no formal crossing facilities on any of the approaches to the existing junction. Dropped kerbs with narrow central islands represent the only facilities available.

The proposed scheme will introduce formal crossing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists across at least two of the arms of the junction, connecting in to the wider signed routes through the area. The introduction of these facilities will significantly improve the accident rates associated with pedestrians and cyclists compared to the existing layout.

Additionally, pedestrian and cycle facility improvements are proposed at Dukes Moor, Osborne Road and Haddricks Mill, which will deliver further improve accident rates associated with these junctions.

 Dukes Moor: New segregated pedestrian and cycle crossings at the junction with improved traffic signal equipment.

 Osborne Road: Provision of a signal controlled crossing across Osborne Road.

 Haddricks Mill: Provision of a new bridge to the north of the junction for pedestrians and cyclists.

Access to Services

The scheme will improve access to services for pedestrians, cyclists, and bus users and contribute significantly to the retention of existing jobs. The corridor is located in close proximity to key employment sites including HM Revenue and Customs and the Freeman Hospital. The corridor serves companies within the North East’s Top 200 such as Virgin Money plc, Home Group Ltd, SAGE and PD Parks Holdings, accounting for approximately 40,000 jobs.

The proposed scheme will contribute significantly to the creation of and access to development opportunities as set out in the Local Plans for North Tyneside and Newcastle such as Regent’s Centre, Balliol Business Park and Gosforth Business Park. Meanwhile, improved bus transit and walking and cycling links to the Metro stations will give better links for onward travel.

Severance

The scheme will reduce severance, particularly at Haddricks Mill, by improving access for pedestrians and cyclists to the local shops and services on Station Road and Haddricks Mill Road.

2.6.4 Public Accounts

Cost to the Broad Transport Budget

Full details of the scheme costs are given in the Financial Case. The scheme costs (in 2016 prices) and spending profile form an input to TUBA. Within TUBA these costs are converted to 2010 prices and discounted to 2010 values.

The scheme cost values and profile are given in Table 2.11 below. All costs are inclusive of inflation (on construction and supervision costs), risk and optimism bias.

The total cost of Operation and Maintenance is £265,650. This is the difference in operation and maintenance between the scheme and the existing infrastructure. This is charged annually over 60 years (2019 – 2078) in equal amounts, i.e. £4,428 per year

Table 2.11 – TUBA Scheme Cost Inputs (£000s, 2016 prices)

YEAR CONSTRUCTION LAND PREPARATION SUPERVISION 2016 813 0 2,115 21 2017 10,404 287 1,979 153 2018 8,834 0 0 290 2019 2,056 0 0 57

YEAR CONSTRUCTION LAND PREPARATION SUPERVISION TOTAL 22,108 287 4,094 520

The cost to the broad transport budget is the sum of the impact on local and central government funding under the following categories:

 Revenue;  Operating costs;  Investment costs;  Developer and other contributions; and  Grant / subsidy payments.

Development and delivery of the NAC scheme is to be funded from a variety of sources, as indicated in Table 3.8. Ongoing operating costs are to be met from local government revenue budgets. There is no revenue generated, and no developer contributions or grants / subsidies. As such the cost to the broad transport budget is summarised in Table 2.12 below.

Table 2.12 – Cost to broad transport budget (£000s, 2010 prices) LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING BENEFITS AMOUNT Revenue Operating Costs 94 Investment Costs 22,917 Developer and Other Contributions Grant/Subsidy Payments TOTAL 23,011

The operating cost is a disbenefit to the scheme. For economic analysis the costs of operating and maintaining the Do Minimum and Do Something schemes are compared. In this case the cost of operating and maintaining the scheme infrastructure is greater than the operating and maintaining the existing infrastructure.

Indirect Tax Revenue

TUBA calculates indirect tax revenues based upon the difference in distance travelled and thus fuel consumed between the Do-minimum and Do-something scenarios.

The indirect tax revenue was £1.5m. This is a cost to central government caused by quicker journey times due to the scheme resulting in less fuel being consumed.

2.7 Value for Money Statement

2.7.1 Overview

A Value for Money (VfM) assessment has been undertaken for the Northern Access Corridor. At this stage only monetised values for scheme costs, travel time, vehicle operating costs, tax changes and accidents have been included in the assessment. This is due to the scheme being considered to demonstrate strong Value for Money on this basis.

Other monetised impacts such as environmental (air quality and noise) will be available as supplementary information once complete.

Department for Transport guidance recommends that the initial VfM category is identified based upon the BCR of the scheme, using monetised impacts as detailed above. These categories are:

 Poor VfM if BCR is below 1.0  Low VfM if the BCR is between 1.0 and 1.5  Medium VfM if the BCR is between 1.5 and 2  High VfM if the BCR is between 2.0 and 4.0  Very High VfM if the BCR is greater than 4.0

The BCR represents the amount of benefits of the scheme being bought for every £1.00 of cost and is calculated by dividing the PVB by the PVC.

2.7.2 Scheme Costs

A full breakdown of the scheme costs is given in the Financial Case. The cost of the scheme and the spending profile is input into TUBA and the costs are then deflated and discounted to form the Present Value of Costs (PVC) of the scheme. The costs are summarised in Table 2.13 below.

Table 2.13 – Scheme Costs (£000s) COSTS VALUE Scheme Costs (2016 prices) 22,923 Inflation (2016 to 2017, 2018 and 2018 on C & S costs) 824 Risk (2016 prices) 2,475 Optimism Bias @ 3% (2016 prices) 787 Maintenance and Operation DS-DM (2016 prices) 266 TOTAL (2016 prices) 27,275 Present Value of Costs (2010 prices) 23,011

For the purposes of the core BCR assessment, the scheme costs have been calculated based on 2016 prices with allowance for risk, optimism bias, and maintenance and operation costs. The inclusion of optimism bias and maintenance and operation costs in

the core assessment ensures a robust assessment at this stage of whole life costs of the scheme.

The only remaining monetised item (cost) not presented above is the change in indirect taxation. This value is £1.5m over the 60 year appraisal period. This represents a reduction in tax, and thus is removed from the PVB calculation.

2.7.3 Benefit to Cost Ratio

The final value of PVB and BCR is shown in Table 2.14 below.

Table 2.14 – Scheme Benefit (£000s) BENEFIT VALUE Travel Time and VOC 97,518 Safety -834 Greenhouse Gases 650 Indirect Taxes -1457 Present Value of Benefits 95,876 Present Value of Costs 23,011 Net Present Value 72,865 Benefit to Cost Ratio 4.2

The BCR of the scheme is 4.2 which indicates that the scheme offers very high value for money. The Net Present Value (NPV) of the scheme is £73m. The breakdown of these benefits between travel time and VOC, and trip purpose is given in Table 2.15 below.

Table 2.15 – TUBA Benefits Summary (£000s)

USER BENEFIT COMMUTING OTHER BUSINESS TOTAL Travel Time 24,119 24,776 44,608 93,504 VOC 1,180 1,017 1,817 4,014 TOTAL 25,299 25,794 46,425 97,518

Commuting and other trips account for 52% of the combined benefits, with Business making up the remaining 48%. Business benefits are subdivided between light, heavy vehicles and buses, with light vehicles accounting for 84% of the benefits. Travel time accounts for 96% of the benefits total. A positive value (i.e. a benefit) occurs for VOC as the implementation of the scheme results in higher speeds and less fuel consumption.

The TEE, PA and AMCB tables are provided in Appendix U.

2.7.4 Sensitivity Tests

DEMAND SENSITIVITY

TUBA only runs have been carried out for low and high demand scenarios. The TUBA results and comparison to the Core scenario are given in Table 2.16 below. The value of benefits from the COBA-LT has been removed from the Core benefits for sensitivity comparison purposes.

Table 2.16 – TUBA outputs for demand sensitivity tests COST INDICATOR CORE LOW HIGH Present Value of Benefits 96,710 -3,627 84,484 Present Value of Costs 23,011 23,011 23,011 Net Present Value 73,699 -26,638 61,473 Benefit to Cost Ratio 4.2 -0.2 3.7

The high growth scenario produces a BCR of 3.7, which is categorised as High value for money. The low growth scenario produces a BCR of -0.2, which categorised as Poor value for money.

The High scenario is lower than that of the core due to the increased demand in the AM peak resulting in fewer benefits than in the core scenario due to the network reaching capacity at key locations in the modelled network. This is predominately driven by increases in delay in the Killingworth Road area due to link capacity constraints and Haddricks Mill Roundabout operating at capacity. Furthermore, the Benton Park Road and Freeman Road approaches to Haddricks Mill Roundabout reach capacity within the high growth scenario resulting in additional delay.

Some of the disbenefits due to over capacity at Haddricks Mill are offset by benefits at Blue House Roundabout as a result of the introduction of traffic signals and the ability to better manage traffic conflicts of the existing roundabout.

The low growth scenario result falls in to the poor value for money category as a result of insufficient demand levels to derive benefits from the scheme. The proposals at Dukes Moor, Blue House Roundabout and Osborne Road are designed to facilitate greater throughput and control on the network as demand from committed and predicted development materialises.

Furthermore, the benefits derived in the Core and High scenarios include benefits in the Haddricks Mill area of the scheme associated with journey time enhancement on most approaches to the junction. The proposed Haddricks Mill scheme sees disbenefits for Station Road which are realised across all growth scenarios. In the low scenario, the demand levels through the junction do not reach a sufficient level that journey time enhancement can be realised.

The assessment of the low growth scenario is not considered to be a representative reflection of the low end benefits of the scheme. Firstly, based on WebTAG M4 Section 4 guidance for derivation of growth sensitivity scenarios, the 2019 demand levels are lower than the 2015 base demand levels. The 2033 demand levels are only marginally higher than the 2015 base demand (c3%).

Secondly, Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland councils all have significant development committed and planned in the wider area feeding traffic demand for the Northern Access Corridor, which would result in demand levels more in line with the Core and High forecasts.

FUEL & INCOME ADJUSTMENT SENSITIVITY

WebTAG Unit M4 Forecasting and Uncertainty states in Section 7 ‘Where there is no demand model, the trip matrix should be multiplied by two factors, one for growth in income, the other for growth in fuel. The factors are given in the TAG Data Book Table M4.2.1’.

For this business case, Fuel and Income adjustments have not been applied to the scheme opening and scheme design year matrices. However, the appropriate factors have been derived, as set out in the table below.

Table 2.17 – TUBA outputs for cost sensitivity test YEAR INCOME FACTOR FUEL FACTOR FINAL ADJUSTMENT Base Year 2015 Scheme Opening 2019 1.0189 1.0887 1.0324 Scheme Design 2033 1.0566 1.1016 1.0833

The Fuel and Income adjustment factors for Scheme Opening, 2019, and Scheme Design Year, 2033, are approximately 3% and 8% respectively. Table 2.16 in the section above, setting out the impact of demand sensitivity testing for High and Low growth scenarios, shows that increases in demand over the Core scenario deliver fewer benefits.

The table below shows the difference between the level of growth which would be applied to the Core scenario demand matrices through the application of Fuel and Income adjustment, and also the growth in demand between the Core and High demand scenarios.

Table 2.18 – TUBA outputs for cost sensitivity test CORE DEMAND HIGH DEMAND CORE TO HIGH YEAR FUEL & INCOME AM PM AM PM AM PM 2019 21,549 24,492 22,581 25,700 5% 5% 3% 2033 23,917 27,152 26,139 29,686 9% 9% 8%

As can be seen in Table 2.18, the High growth scenario is based on a higher level of growth in demand than would be realised through the application of Fuel and Income adjustment factors to the Core scenario.

The High growth scenario delivers a BCR of 3.7, High Value for Money. Therefore, it is considered that the High growth scenario presents a sensible proxy assessment of the impact of the application of Fuel and Income adjustments.

‘GA LOOK NEXT’ SENSITIVITY

An assessment of the proposed scheme without the ‘GA look next’ flag has not been undertaking as part of the Full Business Case. The validated S-Paramics base model was developed with the ‘GA look next’ flag applied. This model formed the basis of all assessments undertaken for the Full Business Case.

The previous presentations of the business case, based on different demand scenarios and proposed schemes, indicated strong journey time savings associated with southbound movements (from Zone 5 & 6) through Blue House Roundabout, which contributed significantly to the overall performance of the scheme in Value for Money terms. This was due to some larger slow accelerating vehicles taking extended amounts of time to enter the roundabout as a result of poor gap acceptance. It was considered to be an unrealistic representation of the true scheme benefits, therefore a sensitivity test based on the removal of the ‘GA look next’ flag was undertaken to present a low range estimate of the scheme impacts for robustness.

The final models used as part of the Full Business Case did not show the same levels of benefits on these movements as in the earlier business case presentation, therefore it was not considered a suitable use of project time and resource to present a formal ‘GA look next’ sensitivity analysis.

The table below presents a summary of the contribution made by Zone 5 and 6 to the total time benefits in the TUBA assessments. The business case presented in February 2016, where the ‘GA Look Next’ sensitivity test was applied, demonstrated that 67% of the total time benefits were coming from Zone 5 & 6. Removing the ‘GA Look Next’ flag dropped this percentage to 4%, which was considered to be an underestimation of the impact, but more in line with the impact expected.

Table 2.19 – TUBA Time Benefits (£000s) MODEL TEST ZONE 5 & 6 TOTAL % OF TOTAL Feb 2016 (Phase 2) – with ‘GA Look Next’ Flag 44,454,576 66,168,008 67% Feb 2016 (Phase 2) – without ‘GA Look Next’ Flag 726,024 19,205,611 4% Mar 2017 (Phase 2 & 3) – with ‘GA Look Next’ Flag 7,492,684 93,503,675 8%

This, March 2017, business case for the combined Phase 2 and Phase 3 Northern Access Corridor shows that Zone 5 and Zone 6 contribute 8% to the total time benefits. This is considered to be a representative level of benefits given the nature of the scheme proposed. There is no evidence to suggest that the current models are over predicting the benefits of impact on the northern arm of Blue House roundabout.

As a sensitivity test, the table below presents an analysis of the scheme benefits and associated impact on the scheme BCR if the benefits claimed from Zone 5 & Zone 6 are removed from the BCR calculation. The BCR drops from 4.2 in the Core scenario to 3.8, representing High Value for Money.

Table 2.20 – TUBA outputs for ‘GA Look Next’ sensitivity test COST INDICATOR CORE ZONE 5&6 REMOVED Present Value of Benefits 95,876 88,144 Present Value of Costs 23,011 23,011 Net Present Value 73,699 65,133 Benefit to Cost Ratio 4.2 3.8

ROUTE CHOICE SENSITIVITY

The proposed scheme has been shown to deliver journey time savings for southbound trips on Killingworth Road. The journey time benefit derived for Killingworth Road contributes to over 50% of the overall southbound corridor journey time saving presented in the Table 2.4, with the remaining sections of the corridor making up the remaining benefits.

The benefits derived for these movements are somewhat offset by the dis-benefits associated with the scheme for vehicles on Station Road and Hunters Road. These approaches are predicted to experience increases in journey time due to difficulties accessing the junction. The scheme reduces the number of traffic lanes across the bridge between the two Haddricks Mill roundabouts, removing the dedicated left turn lane to Killingworth Road. This results in less capacity for vehicles entering from Haddricks Mill Road, Station Road and Hunters Road.

This constraint on flow over the bridge, combined with the revised roundabout layout, has benefits for vehicles entering the junction from Killingworth Road, reducing the impact of the existing conflict point on entry to the junction. This improvement on Killingworth Road delivers improvements for Hollywood Avenue as well, due to more freely moving traffic creating gaps for vehicles to move from the side road on to the main road at the Hollywood Avenue / Salters Lane junction.

The proposed ITS package of works will seek to balance the impacts of the Haddricks Mill scheme around the junction, managing benefits and impacts across all arms, suppressing some of the benefits on Killingworth Road and limiting the impact on the also critical A191 Station Road approach. Furthermore, changes in delay experienced at Haddricks Mill will have limited impact on route choice due to wider network constraints in Newcastle and North Tyneside area limiting the attractiveness of route choice, for example between the A1, Great North Road and NAC.

The junction improvement scheme, coupled with the ITS package, and wider network constraints limit the anticipated route choice impact of the proposed scheme. Given the modelling tool applied in the assessment is a corridor model and does not allow for route choice, a sensitivity test on the scheme BCR has been undertaken by removing some of the benefits claimed for the scheme.

Trip demand from Zone 12 and Zone 13 represents the southbound trips on Killingworth Road from Salters Lane and Hollywood Avenue, which form a large proportion of the overall benefits of the scheme. The table below presents an analysis of the scheme benefits, and associated impact on the scheme BCR, if the benefits claimed from Zone 12 & Zone 13 are removed from the BCR calculation.

Table 2.21 – TUBA outputs for ‘GA Look Next’ sensitivity test COST INDICATOR CORE ZONE 12&13 REMOVED Present Value of Benefits 95,876 47,102 Present Value of Costs 23,011 23,011 Net Present Value 73,699 24,091 Benefit to Cost Ratio 4.2 2.0

The BCR drops from 4.2 in the Core scenario to 2.0. This demonstrates that the scheme is still delivering sufficient benefits to fall in the High Value for Money category, without any benefits from Killingworth Road being claimed, and with all disbenefits associated with Station Road and Hunters Road still included. This is an exaggerated assessment, as clearly, the scheme would still generate some benefits from Zone 12 and Zone 13, even if the benefits currently presented were offset around the other arms of the junction reducing the dis-benefits on some of these arms.

VARIABLE DEMAND SENSITIVITY

The application of a variable demand model has not been taken forward for this scheme primarily due to the use of a S-Paramics microsimulation model, that already constrains/ releases latent demand based on available network capacity. Furthermore, the scheme is very modest in terms of spatial impact, with the proposed scheme essentially being all on line, with highway widening only proposed on Killingworth Road to facilitate the bus lane and two-way cycle lane.

Further evidence on the typical magnitudes of the impact of VDM is provided in Empirical application of car demand elasticity using SATURN by J. Wang (SDG), H. Nguyen (TfL) & Q. Feng (Mouchel), which concludes that fixed demand assessment can overestimate scheme benefits by 9% compared to elastic demand approaches. Building on this, our experience across a range of projects nationally has shown that a reduction in forecast scheme benefits in this range, and up to 20% is a reasonable expectation due to the application of VDM.

It is therefore considered that although VDM has not been undertaken for this assessment, the benefits generated by the scheme and claimed within this Value for Money Statement, can withstand a reduction in line with expected impacts of VDM and still deliver a High Value for Money. E.g. Table 2.21 shows a reduction in benefits by up to 50% delivers a BCR over 2.0.

Further to this, and to specifically provide further evidence for the NAC scheme, generating elastic demand matrices based on time cost skim changes, results in potential increases to the input demand matrices at scheme opening (2019), up to 19% and scheme design year (2033) up to 17%. However, application of these matrices in Paramics demonstrates an increase in demand of only up to 11% in 2019 and 7% in 2033, supporting that the first point that S-Paramics is already acting in a variable manner.

These results also provide evidence, across a range of sources, that any further impact of VDM beyond that already incorporated in the S-Paramics outputs is comparatively small, and well within the 50% impact that would be required to alter the value for money category of the scheme.

COST SENSITIVITY

A TUBA run has also been carried out for cost sensitivity, altering the level of optimism bias applied. The TUBA results and comparison to the Core scenario are given in Table 2.22 below.

Table 2.22 – TUBA outputs for cost sensitivity test COST INDICATOR CORE (3% OB) CORE (15% OB) Present Value of Benefits 95,876 95,876 Present Value of Costs 23,011 25,680 Net Present Value 73,699 70,196 Benefit to Cost Ratio 4.2 3.7

TUBA only runs for cost sensitivity test show that when optimism bias is increased to 15% (to reflect more uncertainty of scheme costs) the value for money of the scheme as measured by BCR falls to 3.7. This changes the value for money category from Very High to High.

PEAK PERIOD ASSESSMENT SENSITIVITY

A TUBA run based on S-Paramics outputs for the AM and PM peak period has been completed to compare to the assessment of only the peak hours. The one hour assessment made no adjustment within TUBA to expand the single hour to a three hour period through annualisation. This was to ensure that the benefits being claimed were not considered an over estimate.

The table below shows that the BCR increases from 4.2 to 8.6 when the full three hour peak periods for the AM and PM are assessed. The scheme benefits have increased by just over a factor of two.

Table 2.23 – TUBA outputs for Peak Hour vs. Peak Period COST INDICATOR CORE (1 HR) CORE (3 HR) Present Value of Benefits 95,876 198,019 Present Value of Costs 23,011 23,011 Net Present Value 73,699 175,009 Benefit to Cost Ratio 4.2 8.6

Through consideration of the peak period flow profile at key locations on the network - Dukes Moor, Blue House Roundabout and Haddricks Mill Roundabout - it was found that the peak hour represents between 35% and 38% of the peak period demand (a factor of approximately 2.7).

The benefits of the scheme have increased in line with expectations due to the increase from a one hour to a three hour assessment period. The relationship between demand and benefits is not linear, therefore the increase in BCR was expected to be lower that the increase in demand.

2.7.5 Conclusion

The BCR of the scheme is 4.2. This indicates that the scheme offers Very High Value for Money based on the DfT guidance criteria. The present value of benefits is £95.9m. The scheme is also expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions due to reduction in queueing and delay and thus fuel consumption. This reduction in greenhouse gases will benefit the economy by £0.7m. A safety analysis has been undertaken using COBA-LT software. This predicts an increase of 15 accidents over the 60 year appraisal period. This is valued at £0.8m. This is due to a change in junction control type at Blue House and is based on national average accident and casualty rates. Other non-monetised benefits predict that the scheme will have minimal impact for noise, air quality, historic environment, biodiversity and water. The scheme will have a positive impact on access to services, physical activity and improve issues of severance along the scheme itself as well as at Haddricks Mill junction. Sensitivity testing of the scheme has shown that the Value for Money of the scheme is robust, applying proxy tests for; Fuel & Income adjustments, ‘GA Look Next’ flag, Route Choice, Variable Demand and Peak Period Assessment. With all of these tests, the scheme still demonstrates at least High Value for Money.

3 Financial Case

3.1 Introduction

The Financial Case concentrates on the affordability of the proposal, its funding arrangements and technical accounting issues (value for money is scrutinised in the Economic Case). It presents the financial affordability of the preferred option and the impact of the proposed scheme on the transport budgets and accounts. It presents the expected whole life costs of the scheme from construction to a 60 year appraisal period from scheme opening.

3.2 Assumptions

The scheme costs presented in this Financial Case are based upon significant scheme development, optioneering and the identification and costing of the preferred option.

The works at Cowhill and Dukes Moor commenced early, Summer 2016, (ahead of the gateway approval process) because of the opportunity that was presented to deliver an element of the scheme whilst other more complex scheme design elements (Blue House and Haddricks Mill) were progressing. This early start would reduce the extent of disruption due to construction on the corridor.

The scheme costs have been derived based on a number of assumptions and evidence sources for this submission. Works are to be delivered through the Councils Highway & Local Services Division through existing framework agreements. Costs have been built up based on agreed framework rates. As such there is a firm degree of certainty regarding the cost and profile presented.

 The cost estimate has been prepared based upon the detailed design of the scheme;  Construction rates have been taken from the councils existing delivery framework and are therefore representative of those already used to deliver the districts schemes;  Land not owned by the Council is in the process of being acquired to accommodate proposed widening associated with the scheme. Costs for acquisition and/or off-highway compensatory works have been reflected in the cost build-up based on confirmed purchase price agreed with landowners;  Any other widening will either be in land owned by the Council;  Supervision is estimated to be £346,943, calculated at 3% of the total construction costs (excluding statutory undertakings, VMS and Metro bridge contribution) of the corridor elements;

 Inflation has been applied to the construction and supervision costs for the corridor works to uplift from 2016 for the duration of the construction period to scheme opening at 2019. Inflation has been calculated using tender price inflation for the construction industry taken from BCIS All In Tender Price Indices as published by the RICS;  A Quantified Risk Assessment was carried out following a risk workshop held in November 2016, further updated in February 2017, this identified £2,475,439 of risk to be added to the scheme costs; and  All costs stated are 2016 prices and values.

The Base Cost Estimate has been derived by establishing quantities of materials and preparing a bill of quantities. Rates for items have been built up from first principles using planned resources, on-costs and overheads for similar schemes in the borough.

Since the scheme is being promoted by a Local Authority, no allowance for VAT is made.

3.3 Costs

3.3.1 Scheme Costs

The scheme costs are summarised in Table 3 1 below.

Table 3.1 – Northern Access Corridor Scheme Costs CATEGORY COST IN 2016 PRICES

Construction £20,155,421 Land £130,000 Preparation £2,290,275 Supervision £346,943 £22,922,639

Inflation (applied to Construction and Supervision costs) £824,486 (detailed in 3.3.6) £23,747,125

Quantified Risk Assessment £2,475,439 £26,222,564

Total Scheme Cost £26,222,564

The total cost for the scheme after application of inflation (on construction and supervision costs only) and risk is £26,222,564

3.3.2 Construction Costs

The pre-inflation construction costs total £20,155,421. This is divided in to eight parts:

 Part 1 – Cowhill Interchange;  Part 2 – Dukes Moor;  Part 3 – Blue House Junction;  Part 4 – Jesmond Dene Road / Osborne Road Junction;  Part 5 – Haddricks Mill Junction;  Part 6 – Killingworth Road Widening;  Part 7 – Killingworth Road Metro Bridge; and  Part 8 – Intelligent Transport System.

Part 1 – Cowhill Interchange

Table 3.2 – Cowhill Interchange Construction Costs CATEGORY COST IN 2016 PRICES Civils (Highways) £12,244 Surfacing £241 Structures £0 Traffic Signals £0 Street Lighting £0 Landscape £0 Misc £0 Statutory Undertakers £0

TOTAL £12,485

Part 2 – Dukes Moor

Table 3.3 – Dukes Moor Construction Costs CATEGORY COST IN 2016 PRICES Civils (Highways) £367,026 Surfacing £51,021 Structures £0 Traffic Signals £90,750 Street Lighting £8,437 Landscape £11,000 Misc £84,520 Statutory Undertakers £180

TOTAL £612,933

100

Part 3 – Blue House Junction

Table 3.4 – Blue House Construction Costs CATEGORY COST IN 2016 PRICES Civils (Highways) £2,681,545 Surfacing £873,170 Structures £0 Traffic Signals £165,000 Street Lighting £267,300 Landscape £247,500 Misc £0 Statutory Undertakers £557,744

TOTAL £4,792,259

Part 4 – Jesmond Dene Road / Osborne Road Junction

Table 3.5 – Jesmond Dene Road / Osborne Road Construction Costs CATEGORY COST IN 2016 PRICES Civils (Highways) £351,301 Surfacing £76,733 Structures £0 Traffic Signals £181,500 Street Lighting £51,649 Landscape £0 Misc £0 Statutory Undertakers £60,500

TOTAL £721,683

Part 5 – Haddricks Mill Junction

Table 3.6 – Haddricks Mill Construction Costs CATEGORY COST IN 2016 PRICES Civils (Highways) £1,137,165 Surfacing £133,231 Structures £1,650,000 Traffic Signals £228,580 Street Lighting £55,382 Landscape £110,000 Misc £0 Statutory Undertakers £336,600

TOTAL £3,650,957

101

Part 6 – Killingworth Road Widening

Table 3.7 – Killingworth Road Construction Costs CATEGORY COST IN 2016 PRICES Civils (Highways) £1,362,681 Surfacing £316,203 Structures £818,891 Traffic Signals £66,550 Street Lighting £60,310 Landscape £104,830 Misc £0 Statutory Undertakers £1,775,639

TOTAL £4,505,103

Part 7 – Killingworth Road Metro Bridge

The construction cost of Killingworth Road Metro Bridge is estimated to be £5,000,000. This cost will be borne by Nexus. A breakdown of this cost into its construction elements is not currently available.

Part 8 – Intelligent Transport System

Table 3.8 – ITS Construction Costs CATEGORY COST IN 2016 PRICES Civils, Structures and Capital Equipment (VMS) £470,000 Traffic Signals £200,000 Communications Upgrades £90,000 Statutory Undertakers (Power Supplies) £50,000 Compass 4D £50,000

TOTAL £860,000

3.3.3 Land Costs

Land acquisition is required to complete the widening on Killingworth Road, as well as a land transfer with The Freemen for works at Blue House Roundabout.

Land compensation agreements for the area around Killingworth Road are nearly complete and the final cost is expected to be £130,000. Details of the land being acquired are set out in Appendix X.

3.3.4 Preparation Costs

This is currently £2,290,275. This is summarised in Table 3.9 below.

102

Table 3.9 – Scheme Preparation Costs CATEGORY COST IN 2016 PRICES Technical Consultancy £1,514,275 Other NCC Fees & Charges £250,000 External Organisation Fees & Charges £526,000

TOTAL £2,290,275

3.3.5 Supervision Costs

Supervision costs have been estimated to be 3% of construction costs (excluding statutory undertaker costs) for the works at Cowhill, Duke’s Moor, Blue House, Jesmond Rd – Osborne Rd, Haddricks Mill and Killingworth Road (widening). This is £346,943 before adjusting for inflation.

3.3.6 Inflation

The construction and supervision costs for the scheme are subject to inflation to allow for construction prices increasing at a rate greater than inflation. The costs for the works are in 2016 prices but will be paid for across 2017 – 2019. Thus, inflation has been applied to the scheme costs based on the anticipated scheme spend profile as set out in Table 3.10 below.

Table 3.10 – BCIS Inflation Rates (published by the RICS) INFLATION PERIOD INFLATION RATE 2016 – 2017 4.35% 2016 – 2018 3.62% 2016 – 2019 5.80%

Inflation has been calculated using tender price inflation for the construction industry taken from BCIS All In Tender Price Indices as published by the RICS. All inflation rates are from 2016 Q1 to future year Q1. The inflation cost is £824,486 and brings the scheme cost to £23,747,125.

Starting later in 2017 and throughout 2018, inflation is currently forecast to be very low and occasionally negative linked to uncertainty over Brexit. This impacts on the 2016 to 2018 inflation period.

The tables below set out the application of inflation to scheme costs.

Table 3.11 –Scheme Costs (2016 prices)

2016 2017 2018 2019 TOTAL Construction £788,836 £9,527,151 £7,986,729 £1,852,705 £20,155,421 Land £0 £130,000 £0 £0 £130,000 Preparation £1,295,973 £994,302 £0 £0 £2,290,275 Supervision £19,802 £98,548 £186,548 £42,046 £346,943 Total £2,104,611 £10,750,000 £8,173,277 £1,894,751 £22,922,639

103

Table 3.12 Eligible expenditure including inflation and risk TOTAL ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURE BY BUDGET HEADING (£000's) inc Inflation and Risk 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Total £ £ £ £ £ Land acquisition 0 0 130 0 130 Site investigation 50 20 20 90 Studies / Design/Scheme Preparation 50 1750 490 2290 Site preparation 25 594 891 1510 Building / Construction costs 13 739 4332 5402 10486 Plant & Machinery 10 100 150 260 Fees 300 126 426 Contingencies Risk and Inflation 1649 1650 3299 Killingworth Road Metro Bridge 495 4505 5000 Statutory Undertakers 750 1000 981 2731 Grand Total 13 2419 14206 9584 26222

3.3.7 Quantified Risk Assessment

A Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) has been undertaken for scheme and is attached in Appendix O. The QRA was undertaken in February 2017 and reflects the current risks to the scheme in line with the stage of scheme development.

A total of £2,475,439 has been identified as the expected QRA. This brings the scheme costs to £26,222,564.

3.3.8 Spend Profile

The spend profile of the scheme (including allowance for risk) is shown in Table 3.15 below.

The construction of the Cowhill and Dukes Moor junctions occurred in 2016 and the remaining works on the corridor profiled out between 2017 and 2019. Land and preparation costs occurred in 2016 and continue in 2017 as the front end of scheme delivery.

3.3.9 Operation and Maintenance Costs

The main construction contracts for each phase of the scheme will each include a period for defects rectification and aftercare. The ongoing operation and maintenance liabilities will fall to NCC for the highway, footway and public realm works.

Operation and maintenance of the new signals and VMS equipment will fall to Urban Traffic Management Centre.. The estimated annual operation and maintenance costs are £7,315 (2016 costs). This is based upon calculation of a number of units of distinct signal equipment. The costs before and after installation of the new signals are given in Table 3.14.

104

Table 3.13– Operation and Maintenance Costs

SCHEME UNITS COST PER UNIT ANNUAL COST 60 YEAR COST Pre NAC 7.5 £385 £2,888 £173,250 NAC Phases 2 & 3 19 £385 £7,315 £438,900

The appraisal period operation and maintenance costs for the scheme is £438,900.

The difference in operation and maintenance costs is £265,650. This figure is applied in the Economic Case.

Whole Life Costs (Phase 2 and 3)

The scheme whole life cost is set out in Table 3.15 below.

Table 3.14 – Northern Access Corridor Whole Life Costs CATEGORY COST IN 2016 PRICES

Construction £20,155,421 Land £130,000 Preparation £2,290,275 Supervision £346,943 £22,922,639

Inflation (applied to Construction and Supervision costs) £824,486 £23,747,125

Quantified Risk Assessment £2,475,439 £26,222,564

Operation and Maintenance £438,900

TOTAL £26,661,464

3.4 Funding Strategy

3.4.1 Phase 2 and 3 Anticipated Spend Profile

The table below provides a summary of the anticipated overall spend profile.

Table 3.15 Spend profile TOTAL ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURE BY BUDGET HEADING (£000's) inc Inflation and Risk 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Total £ £ £ £ £ Land acquisition 0 0 130 0 130 Site investigation 50 20 20 90 Studies / Design/Scheme Preparation 50 1750 490 2290

105

Site preparation 25 594 891 1510 Building / Construction costs 13 739 4332 5402 10486 Plant & Machinery 10 100 150 260 Fees 300 126 426 Contingencies Risk and Inflation 1649 1650 3299 Killingworth Road Metro Bridge 495 4505 5000 Statutory Undertakers 750 1000 981 2731 Grand Total 13 2419 14206 9584 26222

Table 3.16 below identifies existing local contributions defrayal on Northern Access Corridor Phase 1 and Gosforth Transport Improvements.

Table 3.16 Expenditure by funding source TOTAL ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURE BY FUNDING SOURCE (£000s): Northern Access Corridor (Phase 2/3) 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Total £ £ £ £ £ LGF (two Stage1 3,901* 414 0 0 4,315 funding approvals) LGF (joint Full 0 2,154 1,025 1,025 4,204 funding approval) Total LGF 3,901 2,568 1,025 1,025 8,519 Recipients Funds 0 0 1982 2062 4,044 Highways Maintenance 1588 7754 4081 13,423 Challenge Fund Total Other inc S106 0 0 237 0 237 Grand Total 3,901 4,156 10,998 7,168 26,223 Local Contribution Rate % against 45.79% 48.79% 129.10% 84.14% 307.82% Funding Grant Rate 100.00% 161.84% 1072.98% 699.32% 307.82%

3.4.2 Ongoing Scheme Costs

Operation and maintenance of the VMS equipment will lie with the Tyne and Wear. Urban Traffic Management and Control service.

106

3.4.3 Funding Strategy

It is envisaged that the Northern Access Corridor scheme will be funded through the Growth Deal with associated local contributions being provided through Corporate Capital Investment and Section 106 contributions. Current costs are £22,922,639 against non LGF funding of £14,402,639. This leaves £8,520,000 as the Northern Access Corridor funding request.

Table 3.17 – Funding Request from NECA FUNDING REQUEST TOTAL

Northern Access Corridor £8,520,000

107

4 Commercial Case

4.1 Introduction

The Commercial case demonstrates how the scheme will result in a viable procurement and well-structured deal.

4.2 Procurement Strategy

4.2.1 Procurement

The scale of the construction works sits within the capabilities of the Council’s own Technical Services Division. The Council will be undertaking both the design and construction of the scheme. Should the need arise mechanisms are in place for the use of external contractors.

4.2.2 Payment Mechanism

At this stage it is assumed that project delivery will be in house. All required works, as discreet packages, are deliverable within the Councils existing frameworks through the Highways & Local Services Division.

Should it be required a contractor can be appointed under the New Engineering Contract (NEC) 3, Engineering and Construction Contract (ECC) Option C with activity schedule. This contract offers an incentive to the contractor to deliver the project to a target cost with any saving or cost overrun shared between the scheme promoters (NCC) and the Contractor. The percentage split of this “Pain/Gain” relationship would be determined during the procurement process. Using this tried and tested standard form of contract will benefit the promoter by avoiding the costs and time of forming and negotiating a bespoke contract. Also tender comparisons are simplified since the risk allocation is the same for each party.

4.3 Risk allocation and Transfer

Section 5.4 of this report clearly states the roles and responsibilities for the project. All risks are currently held with NCC as scheme promoter. There is scope for transfer of risk as necessary or appropriate through the project management process. The complete risk register and QRA for the NAC is provided in Appendix O.

4.4 Contract Length

A phased approach is being taken to the NAC works to allow the most efficient use of resources. The scale of the work allows for in-house delivery and it is not anticipated that sub-contractors will be required outside of existing frameworks – though mini competitions may be used. Any procurement will be carried out within existing Newcastle City Council procedures and will not impact on stated timescales.

108

The Dukes Moor work began in April 2016 and is now complete. The Killingworth Road widening is programmed to start in May/June 2017. All works are anticipated to be complete by Spring 2019.

The complete project plan is provided in Appendix Y.

4.5 Human Resources Issues

NCC will be responsible for the progress of the scheme and the management of resources in order to achieve this. Mechanisms within the Council are available to recruit or use external consultants should the need arise. The scheme is programmed to minimise conflict with other schemes being delivered in Newcastle.

Workstreams and workstream leads with reporting procedures are already established).

A Project Plan is set out and further details in respect of resourcing are outlined in the Management Case.

4.6 Contract Management

Contract Management will be undertaken using a number of key performance indicators to ensure effective delivery on time and in budget. These are shown in Table 4.1

Table 4.1 – Key Performance Indicators

Description Communication Method Comment

Delivery Compliance Face to Face Agreement KPI’s stipulated within Contract Documentation Health and Safety Regular Inspections and Performance Reports Budget Control/Stability Face to Face and Monthly Monitored by Client Valuation/Stage Payments Engineer/QS and Reports Risk Management Risk Mitigation Report

109

5 Management Case

5.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the Management Case for the scheme and describes how the scheme will be managed and delivered. The methodology used to define the process and procedures necessary to manage this project are based on the methodology as required under the NECA Appraisal Framework and NCC’s own Project Management Processes.

5.2 Evidence of similar projects

NCC has a track record of delivering both small and large scale highways schemes. The Place Directorate provides a range of specialist functions including: roads and bridge design; flood risk management; road safety; structural, traffic and transport engineering; community consultation; planning advice; communications; and project management. In the peak of Local Transport Plan funding, the Council delivered in excess of £6m per annum in transport schemes. These included highway and bridge maintenance, traffic management, road safety, cycling, Public Rights of Way, public transport and schemes which facilitated the development of employment and housing sites.

The City Council was also responsible for bidding for and delivering major scheme in excess of £5m. Notable schemes include Scotswood Road dualling and Eldon Square Bus Station. The Engineer to the Tyne Tunnels (based in Newcastle) was also responsible for the delivery of the largest infrastructure project in the North East for some time. This role was supported by the ITA officers for legal, financial and procurement advice, all of whom were employed by NCC.

More recently, the Council has delivered Phase 1 of the Northern Access Corridor, the Cowgate Roundabout improvement scheme, to the north of the City Centre. This is a multi- million pound scheme which supports improvements for all modes of transport, including non-motorised users by increasing capacity at the junction, removing the existing subway system and replacing with at grade crossing points for pedestrians and cyclists.

The Council is also delivering extensive improvements in the City Centre as part of the Cycle City Ambition Grant funded schemes. This is seeing highways being reallocated to cyclists and restricting traffic, with a short to medium term aspiration to carry out further works of this nature, to improve the public realm in the City Centre, making it more cycle and pedestrian friendly. The schemes will better link the main retail offer in the City Centre with some of the city’s biggest employers at the Civic Centre, RVI and the two university campuses.

In addition, NCC has also supported major developer led infrastructure schemes such as Newcastle Great Park. This was a mixed use development site incorporating highway works, power supplies, mixed use employment, housing, leisure and retail. NCC was responsible for the delivery of highway infrastructure to facilitate the delivery of the overall programme. 5.3 Programme & Project Dependencies

110

Successful delivery of this project depends on a range of factors most notably financial and technical resources and expertise. Critical to this, is having strong programme and project governance arrangements in place, see section 5.4.

Within NCC, the Place Directorate delivers the full range of services relative to the successful delivery of this project. They will be supported by the Regional Traffic Signals Group who will undertake the detailed design of the traffic signal installation for the scheme. An independent audit will be commissioned to ensure that the signals, when implemented, provide the best solution for all modes of traffic at this location. The teams have a strong workload which is expected to continue throughout the project, therefore mechanisms are in place to enable the use of external consultants should the need arise.. Setting out of a project plan provides a clear understanding of milestones and resource intensive periods, designed such that these can be foreseen and planned for.

The scale of the construction works sits within the capabilities of the Council’s own Technical Services Division. The Council will be undertaking both the detailed design and construction of this scheme.

Phase 1 of the Northern Access Corridor which comprises of the Cowgate Junction Improvements is complete and involved the removal of two roundabouts and their replacement with a signalised t-junction.

Phase 3 of the Northern Access Corridor will comprise of the realignment of the two mini roundabouts at Haddricks Mill to ease congestion and increase capacity. Works that are being carried out as part of the Gosforth Transport Improvements are almost complete.

5.4 Governance/ Organisational Structure

5.4.1 Governance

NCC has the project management systems, skills and track record to be able to deliver this project successfully, and has robust financial monitoring systems and procurement credentials as demonstrated by years of delivering externally funded projects, including highway schemes.

The following roles and responsibilities are set out below and shown in a diagram in Appendix Z:

111

Major Projects Programme Board

The Major Projects Programme Board (MPPB) will be chaired by the Assistant Director Transport. The Board will be the decision making forum for major transport projects on behalf of officers. It will report to other established Boards including the Highways, Transport and Traffic Management Board (HTTM) chaired by Director of Place Tom Warburton, and the Investment and Delivery Group, chaired by Pat Ritchie (Chief Executive).

MPPB will meet monthly and/or at the significant milestones. The role of MPPB will be to:  Monitor progress – usually via Traffic Lights Report;  Agree key products and communications;  Manage programme level risks; Manage programme level issues;

 Manage dependencies between projects/workstreams; andCommit resources to enable the programme’s activities to be successfully achieved. The stages of project management in respect of MPPB, throughout the project, are shown in Appendix Z.

Project Owner

The Project Owner is the Assistant Director of Transport and their role is to:  Provide senior officer level leadership to the project;  Report on the project and its interdependencies to MPPB;  Ensure the project provides Best Value and is affordable; and  Support the Project Manager on key negotiating issues. Project Manager

The Project Manager is Jonathan Higgins. Jonathan works within the Investment and Development Directorate and has proven project management experience in delivering multi-disciplinary projects of this type. He has been part of the bid preparation team and is very familiar with the issues in the local area.

The Project Manager will be ‘empowered’ to plan and allocate responsibilities for the project’s tasks and development as part of the project methodology and take day to day responsibility for managing the development, procurement, execution and delivery of the project. The Project Manager will have a central role interacting with all main parties.

The Project Manager will be responsible for leading and directing a multi-disciplinary team. The Project Manager is required to:  Make key decisions within the parameters delegated by MPPB;  Communicate effectively with all members of the Project Team, MPPB, stakeholders, users and the wider community;

112

 In conjunction with the Project Owner, identify and secure sufficient resources to deliver the project effectively;  Manage the budget and additional resources if necessary;  Manage the vital success factors for project delivery;  Report regularly and at key stages to MPPB and the NECA;

 Liaise with and provide necessary updates and information as required;  Manage competing interests;  Provide quality assurance and sign off to all project documentation;  Establish and manage systems for clarification;  Develop evaluation methodology and manage evaluation process;  Implement the project management methodology; and  Review and update the risk register.

Project Team

The Project Team is multi-disciplinary and is led by the Project Manager. It provides the resource to develop and procure the project and deliver in accordance with the Project Objectives. Each work stream is led by an appropriately skilled and experienced internal lead officer who reports to the Project Manager.

Project administrative support will be provided to facilitate communication and control throughout the project development. Additional procurement support is available from the procurement services team to provide specialist support should it be required. The lead engineer for the project will be Philip Heslop CEng who is a Principal Engineer for NCC Technical Consultancy and leads on Major Projects.

Assurance

The following section maps the process which has been developed to:  satisfy auditors that the Project lead has sight on all aspects of the project;  that only eligible expenditure is included in claims and that the relevant officers are included in the sign-off process;  that claims are submitted on time; and  that grant claims/ monitoring includes only eligible expenditure.

The steps are:

113

i. Establishment of attendees within a finance meeting that is calendared monthly and at a time which fits with the grant cycle. This includes the Project Lead (PL), Technical Lead (TL), Finance Officer (FO) dealing with transactional aspects of the financial claim (transaction list) and the Finance Partner (FP) who is the Finance Lead. ii. In advance of each meeting, the FO will produce a transaction list showing all transactions from the E5 general ledger system on the capital cost code used uniquely for Phase 2 of the Northern Access Corridor. iii. This will be circulated to the other attendees of the regular Finance meeting (see point 2). iv. This will then be reviewed electronically by the Technical Lead, who has delegated responsibility from the Project Lead. Transactions will either be:  given approval for inclusion within the financial claim/ monitoring returns (if definitely relating to the scheme and the conditions of the grant;  approved as relevant to the scheme but outside of the scope of the grant conditions and therefore correct to be charged to the scheme but will require an alternative funding source to fund this;  because internal transfers can be automatically processed, there is potential these can be miscoded or have insufficient backup information attached, the third category is a questioned transaction which the FO will then seek greater detail; and  finally, a transaction may be deemed to be a miscode and need to be a) excluded from the transaction list; b) transferred from the capital cost centre to the correct cost centre once established. v. This is discussed at the monthly meeting and minutes of the meeting are taken. Other issues such as funding are discussed where relevant at that point e.g. NGI funding, RGF issues and the non-financial aspects of the monitoring report vi. The TO will then categorise into the discrete elements of the scheme the transactions and revise the “A2” profile re-casting the profiles forward for any slippage or accelerated spend in the current quarter; vii. The documentation is then completed and then submitted within the required timeline. If any certification is needed from Assistant Director Financial Services (acting on behalf of the S151 officer), there should be enough time built into the process to facilitate this.

Approvals Process The Transport Programme Governance and the NCC Project Management Gateway process set out the approvals needed for the work to proceed. Planning permission is not needed for the works at Cowhill, Dukes Moor or Osborne Road although it will bei sought for the proposed works at Haddricks Mill and Killingworth Road as the proposed improvements extend beyond the adopted highway and the final proposal at Blue House may also require planning permission.

114

5.4.2 Communications and Stakeholder Management

The management of the project will be conducted using the NECA Project Vision software package, a tool which will facilitate the day to day management of the project and assist in the production of progress reporting, risk management, monitoring and other key project management elements. This will enable the scheme to be monitored in line with other major schemes in the NECA programme.

The Communications and Stakeholder Management is overseen by the Communications and Engagement workstream. The workstream lead is Ali Lamb, who specialises in stakeholder engagement and management. This lead communications officer is Adele Bradley MCIPR, who supports the work stream through all communications activity including media relations.

A communications and engagement plan will be signed off by the Project Owner; it will typically include the following elements with milestones and deadlines:

Stakeholder Engagement  Updating and maintaining the stakeholder engagement map to ensure all stakeholders are fully informed; and  Stakeholder engagement events – public meetings, briefings, drop in sessions, information giving events, stakeholder liaison, contact point for stakeholders

Communications  Develop a strong narrative to fully communicate the need for the improvements and the benefits they will bring as well as how this relates to the city’s established narrative for changes to the city  Creation of all public facing content – webpages, leaflets, visuals  Media relations – proactive and reactive  Social media strategy and monitoring  Cascading of information to other local authorities, key partners and stakeholders and contact point for all issues related to the Northern Access Corridor  Managing the online information to ensure its up to date and informative  Ensure all content is signed off by the Project Manager

Stakeholders and engagement has been covered above in the Strategic case. A full communications plan and stakeholder log has been developed and is shown in Appendix BB.

5.4.3 Risk Management Strategy

115

The strategic risk management approach shown in Figure 5.1 will be used to allow senior management to be fully involved in the identification of strategic objectives which will set a high level precedent to encourage responsible risk taking at all levels to achieve Value for Money in all highway projects. The tool endorsed for the day to day project management of projects (including risk management) will be the Project Vision software package. The methodology follows a recurring process to be implemented across the project lifecycle. It aligns with OGC ‘Management of Risk’ (MoR) best practice guidance to benefit reliable and resilient cost estimation that delivers real Value for Money savings.

Figure 5.1 – Risk Management

The risk management methodology will identify and manage project risks for the project. This will be achieved as follows:  Identification – as part of preparing this submission, delivery risks associated with the work have been identified. These risks are summarised in the Risk Register;  Analysis – the Risk Register will enable the effective management and communication of potential conflicts, ensuring appropriate mitigation is incorporated into the subsequent design process. The Risk Register identifies the potential causes and consequences of each risk identified for the scheme. The register will be a live document, maintained and owned by the Project Manager;  Costings – the cost estimation for the scheme considers additional design costs and predicted costs for construction and operation. A cost estimate has been provided as part of the submission. Cost estimation is refined through the design process to include:  Re-assessment of resources (skill/time) and costs;

116

 3rd party costs and/or supply chain to provide specialist advice and undertake additional surveys and investigation (e.g. trial holes, structural assessments);  Assessment of optimum costs of maintenance to inform OPEX/whole life costs based on risk, frequency and cost of repair/mitigation; and  Assessment of cost delivery risk through a QRA using Monte-Carlo simulation.  Management – actions to mitigate risk will be managed and monitored by the Project Manager at interim reviews. Team members best placed to manage the identified risks will be assigned ownership of specific actions, with progress reported on a regular basis to the Project Manager. Project Vision management software will be used to manage this project and risks on a day to day basis. Risk workshops would be held to support the development of mitigation measures designed to lower the overall scheme risk. Workshops will be structured to focus on detailed design and will typically include a review of funding, planning, data sources, third party involvement and utilities, design and construction.  Review – the risk register will be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. Where the severity of a particular risk impact changes, the costs and programme implications will be revisited and future actions agreed in accordance with appropriate change management procedures. Mitigation performance and residual risk would be also subject to review at the end of the commissions and inform the lessons learned process. Risk Management is a pro-active exercise designed to enable the identification, analysis and effective ongoing management response to risks.

The main objectives of the Risk Management process are:  To establish a framework for the identification, assessment and control of risks (using appropriate management responses) associated with the Project; and  To provide better management information about project risks (captured in a detailed risk register) enabling better informed decisions and supporting the achievement of the stated project objectives.

Risk management information (including the risk register) will be held within the project shared server facility and requests for access to this information can be decided through the project team. This facility will act as the main repository for all project information.

The project’s risk management process comprises of the following steps:  Setting the context;  Risk identification;  Risk assessment;  Risk response; and  Risk reporting and review.

117

5.5 Benefits Realisation Plan, Monitoring and Evaluation

5.5.1 Monitoring and Evaluation

5.5.1. Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation has been integral to the assessment of public sector policy and project interventions in the UK. Evaluating the substantial government investment for Local Authority Major Schemes can deliver the following objectives:

 Provide accountability for the investment;  Evidence future spending decisions;  Learn about which schemes deliver cost-effective transport solutions;  Enhance the operational effectiveness of existing schemes or future schemes; and  Improve future initiatives based on learning.

The DfT Monitoring and Evaluation Framework Guidance sets out three tiers of Monitoring and Evaluation:  Standard Monitoring  Enhanced Monitoring – for schemes that cost more than £50m or anticipated to have major impacts  Fuller Evaluation – required because of the scale of investment, nature of scheme or expected benefits.

For this scheme a standard monitoring approach has been used. A full Monitoring & Evaluation Plan, including a Logic Map for the scheme, is included at Appendix DD.

5.5.2 Benefits Realisation Plan

An initial Benefit Realisation Plan (BRP) will be produced to identify, track and compare the various benefits expected to be delivered. This details key activities that are required to manage successful realisation.

The scheme objectives have been used to develop the “desired outputs and impacts” for the scheme. These desired outputs and impacts are the actual benefits that are expected to be derived from the scheme and are directly linked to the original set of objectives:

 Desired outputs – tangible effects that are funded and result from the scheme;  Desired impacts – the final impacts brought about by the scheme in the short, medium and long term as a result of the outputs and outcomes.

The scheme objectives and desired outputs are summarised in the Strategic Case and provide the starting point for the development of the BRP. The impacts will require fuller evaluation using a variety of metrics and causation factors. A Benefits Realisation Plan is in Appendix AA.

118

To determine whether the scheme benefits are being realised, the desired outputs and impacts will be converted into measurable indicators of scheme benefits. An initial view of the data required to measure the extent to which benefits are being realised will also be included.

In terms of tracking the benefits of the scheme, it is recommended that all elements of the scheme are fully implemented prior to tracking the associated benefits. This is due to the likely traffic re-assignment/potential network delays that will occur during the construction of the later phases of scheme. It is recommended that the benefits are initially tracked one year after full scheme opening (with the exception of the accident and economic activity levels) and again five years post-opening.

The overall BRP is owned by the Project Manager, with responsibility for overseeing particular benefits delegated as necessary. The owners will be responsible for tracking the benefits being realised and for reporting any exceptions to the Project Manager. This will allow early identification of any particular areas where benefits are not being realised as expected. The Project Manager will then oversee remedial actions to try to bring benefits back in line with expectations.

119