A191 Corridor Full Business Case November 2015

A191 Corridor OBC

November 2015 Contents

Contents 1. Executive Summary 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Scheme Description 1 1.3 Strategic Case 2 1.4 Economic Case 2 1.5 Management Case 2 1.6 Commercial Case 4 1.7 Financial Case 4 2. The Strategic Case 6 2.1 Business Strategy 6 2.2 Responsibility of the Scheme Promoter 6 2.3 Description of the Corridor 7 2.4 The Problem Identified & Justification for the Scheme 8 2.5 Background to scheme development 10 2.6 What is the impact of not changing 13 2.7 Objectives 13 2.8 Scope 14 2.9 Key Constraints 15 2.10 Stakeholders 16 2.11 Stakeholder Considerations 16 2.12 Key Stakeholders 16 2.13 Stakeholder Conflicts 17 2.14 The Option 17 3. The Economic Case 19 3.1 Proportionate Approach to Scheme Appraisal 19 3.2 Options Appraised 43 3.3 Assumptions 45 3.4 Sensitivity and Risk Profile 45 3.5 Value for Money Statement 47 3.6 Appraisal Summary Table 48 4. The Management Case 49 4.1 Introduction 49 4.2 Evidence of similar projects 49 4.3 Outline Programme 50 4.4 Governance, organisation structure & role 51 4.5 Assurances & approvals plan 53 4.6 Stakeholder Engagement Strategy 53 4.7 Risk management strategy 53 4.8 Monitoring & Evaluation 59 4.9 Project management options 59 4.10 Quality management 61 4.11 Roles and responsibilities 64 4.12 Specific Roles for Quality Management 64 4.13 Contingency Planning 65 5. The Commercial Case 66

i A191 Corridor OBC

November 2015 Contents

5.1 Introduction 66 5.2 Scheme Justification 66 5.3 Procurement Strategy & Sourcing Options 66 5.4 Payment mechanisms 67 5.5 Risk identification, allocation and transfer 68 5.6 Contract Length 68 5.7 Contract Management 68 6. The Financial Case 70 6.1 Introduction 70 6.2 The expected whole life costs 70 6.3 Affordability 71 6.4 Breakdown and Profile of Costs 71 6.5 Risk Allowance 72 6.6 Budgets / Funding cover 72

Appendices Appendix A - Drawings Appendix B - Cost Estimates Appendix C - Stakeholder Engagement Strategy Appendix D - Monitoring and Evaluation Report Appendix E - Local Model Validation Report Appendix F - Quantified Risk Assessment Appendix G - Programme

ii A191 Corridor

November 2015 1/ Executive Summary

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Background

1.1.1 The proposed scheme seeks to link the already funded A188/A189 Four Lane Ends Pinch Point Scheme improvements with the A19 Employment Corridor LEP bid submission. The A191 is predicted to experience significant traffic growth over the coming years generated by approximately 2,250 homes already consented.

1.1.2 The scheme will contribute to regional economic growth by enabling the full development of the Quorum Business Park employment site and increased occupancy of the DWP sites at Benton Park View and Tyne View Park. In addition the highway improvements

1.1.3 The corridor is currently subject to a number of issues namely;

 Severe congestion at several key junctions.  Inadequate infrastructure to cater for future traffic demand.  Poor pedestrian / cycling facilities

1.1.4 The scheme has positive cross-boundary implications for supporting economic development, as the A191 corridor is a major link between North Tyneside and Newcastle. Strategically the scheme builds upon the scheme already delivered at Four Lane Ends which was funded from the DfT Pinch Point fund and connects to highway improvements between Benton ASDA and the A19 Holystone Interchange already secured. The A191 corridor scheme will deliver the final necessary highway improvements along this corridor to accommodate all predicted future traffic growth until 2030.

1.2 Scheme Description

1.2.1 The corridor improvement consists of the following key improvements;

Junction / Element Scheme Outputs

 Reconfiguration of existing junction to remove stagger arrangement.  Provision of new pedestrian crossing facilities on all arms A191 Whitley Road /  Widened A191 westbound approach to provide two ahead lanes B1317 Station Road and right turn pocket. Junction  Re-allocation of eastbound lane designations to provide right turn pocket and left / ahead lane.  Construction of new Tyne View Park access road to tie into existing. A191 Whitley Road  Reallocation of existing road space to remove central hatched area

1 A191 Corridor

November 2015 1/ Executive Summary

Widening (Tyne View and two right turn pockets to provide two westbound lanes and a Park to Coach Lane) single eastbound lane.  Minor works to kerb lines and existing crossing points to accommodate additional westbound lane

1.3 Strategic Case

1.3.1 The fundamental objectives of the highway improvement scheme for the A191 Corridor scheme are to address the transportation issues identified in relation to traffic congestion and delay, and enable job growth in the borough. The package of improvements outlined within the business case will achieve the following:

1. Significantly reduce the overall congestion along the A191 Corridor, particularly at the Tyne View Park junction.

2. Reduce key cycling and walking severance issues along the A191 Corridor.

3. Enable future job growth at existing employment site adjacent the corridor

1.3.2 The principles of the scheme have support from Key Stakeholders such as the local Bus Operators, Nexus, and DWP Tyne View Park.

1.4 Economic Case

1.4.1 The provision of an additional westbound lane between Tyne View Park and Coach Lane allows the congestion on approach to the Tyne View Park junction to utilise both lanes whilst going ahead. This combined the simplified signal staging provides a large increase in green time for Westbound traffic resulting in significant journey time savings. The scheme is considered to provide very high value for money as the BCR is greater than 4 (5.85), and there are no significant adverse environmental impacts.

1.5 Management Case

Programme

1.5.1 We have developed a detailed programme for delivering the scheme through the full business case and construction stages. A summary of the key milestones are provided within the table below.

Milestone Delivery Date Forecast Spend Full Business Case Developed November 2015 £239,742 Gateway 2 January 2016 N/A Construction July 2016 £1,460,238 12 Month Post Scheme Monitoring July 2017 £18,000

2 A191 Corridor

November 2015 1/ Executive Summary

5 year post scheme July 2021 £20,500 implementation monitoring

Table 1 headline project programme.

Governance organisation structure and role 1.5.2 The overall governance of the project will be lead by North Tyneside Council’s Technical Engineering team, and will be responsible for programme level financial management and delivery reporting to the NELTB and NELEP.

1.5.3 North Tyneside Council has a Technical Partnership in place with Capita. Capita have a delivery partner, Esh, who alongside Capita’s local construction arm will construct the scheme. In order to identify, minimise and manage risk early and provide robust and consistent scheme costing, the construction team have been providing ECI to the project from the concept design stage.

Risk Management

1.5.4 We have identified the initial risks through undertaking the risk workshop. The participants of the risk workshop were specifically selected for the full life of the scheme from both NTC in-house team and their design and construction partners. The key outputs of the workshop were;

 The identification of risks.  The assessment of risks.  Identification of risk owner.  Risk quantification (for the production of a QRA for scheme costing purposes).  Risk management.  Risk Monitoring.

1.5.5 The risk workshop was the start of a continual risk review process. The process is in place to ensure that the risk register is updated regularly to record any re-rating of risks, changes in actions and relevant comments, risks closed out or expired, and any new risks identified. At each update the risk register will be dated and given a revision number and saved as a new document so that a progressive record is kept of the risk management process. This record will be valuable for future reference and establishing how risks evolve and are closed within the monitoring and evaluation stages.

Project Management & Quality Standards

1.5.6 We have developed a robust approach to project management based upon the OGC Prince 2 Methodology.

3 A191 Corridor

November 2015 1/ Executive Summary

1.5.7 The full business case and construction will be managed using the Quality System for which we are accredited under ISO 9001, ISO 14001, ISO 18001, Capita BMS, and PRINCE2 (Project Management Methodology).

Monitoring & Evaluation

1.5.8 A monitoring and evaluation strategy has been developed adopting the DfT Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for Local Authority Major Schemes. Due to the size and complexity of the scheme we have based our strategy on the “standard” monitoring and evaluation requirements.

1.6 Commercial Case

1.6.1 This funding scheme is appropriate as the scheme is in line with the policy challenges set out in the adopted Assurance Framework, e.g. in supporting jobs and improving connectivity from residential areas to employment opportunities. The level of funding sought to deliver the scheme would not be manageable within the Council’s LTP integrated transport block allocation, both in terms of level of funding required and delivering within the identified construction period. The defined construction period has been determined to dovetail into the wider local strategic network proposals being delivered by the Highways agency such as the A19 / A1058 Silverlink junction improvement scheme.

1.6.2 In November 2012, North Tyneside Council [NTC] and Capita entered into a 15-year partnership to deliver a range of services securing multi-million pound investment in the borough.

1.6.3 Capita have worked alongside NTC to develop the full business case (FBC) and we propose to carry on this arrangement through the detailed design, construction and monitoring and evaluation stages. Capita have appointed a construction partner (ESH) to support the Capita construction arm and ensure that the skills and resources are in place to deliver a scheme of this size and complexity.

1.7 Financial Case

1.7.1 The scheme costs have been identified in terms of expected outturn cost and include scheme preparation, design, construction costs and supervision costs. These are outlined within the table below;

Item Cost Estimate Construction Costs – Main Physical Works and investigative £1,237,586 surveys. Scheme preparation and design fees £239,742

4 A191 Corridor

November 2015 1/ Executive Summary

Supervision Fees £74,952

Risk Allowance £147,700

Total Scheme Cost £1,699,980

5 A191 Corridor

November 2015 2/ The Strategic Case

2. The Strategic Case

2.1 Business Strategy

Strategic Aims 2.1.1 The proposed scheme seeks to link the already funded A188/A189 Four Lane Ends Pinch Point Scheme improvements with the A19 Employment Corridor LEP bid submission. The A191 is predicted to experience significant traffic growth over the coming years generated by approximately 2,250 homes already consented.

2.1.2 The scheme will contribute to regional economic growth by enabling the full development of the Quorum Business Park employment site and increased occupancy of the DWP sites at Benton Park View and Tyne View Park. In addition the highway improvements

2.1.3 The scheme has positive cross-boundary implications for supporting economic development, as the A191 corridor is a major link between North Tyneside and Newcastle. Strategically the scheme builds upon the scheme already delivered at Four Lane Ends which was funded from the DfT Pinch Point fund and connects to highway improvements between Benton ASDA and the A19 Holystone Interchange already secured. The A191 corridor scheme will deliver the final necessary highway improvements along this corridor to accommodate all predicted future traffic growth until 2030.

2.2 Responsibility of the Scheme Promoter

2.2.1 North Tyneside Council have its design and construction partner (Capita) in place to deliver the scheme. Throughout the design and construction process North Tyneside Council will retain the following roles and responsibilities.

Financial Management

2.2.2 North Tyneside Council will continue to maintain financial responsibility of the scheme. This role will be to report the financial spend against profiled spend to internal decision makers and the NE LEP / NELTB. North Tyneside Council will be responsible for requesting the release of funding from the NE LEP and subsequently releasing the funding to our design and construction partner to deliver the scheme. North Tyneside Council will manage / own the overall financial performance of the project and the identification and provision of any shortfall in funding through the scheme stages.

Programme Management

6 A191 Corridor

November 2015 2/ The Strategic Case

2.2.3 North Tyneside Council will maintain a “high level” programme management role, to ensure that key milestones are delivered in a timely fashion to budget and that progress is effectively reported to the LEP.

Stakeholder Management

2.2.4 North Tyneside Council will provide a lead role in engagement and consultation of the key scheme stakeholders. We have provided a stakeholder engagement strategy as a part of the Management Case which details how we will approach stakeholder engagement throughout the life of the scheme. North Tyneside Council will lead on the implementation of the stakeholder engagement strategy and be responsible for ensuring that the outcomes of the engagement exercises are fully considered throughout the design and construction period. As the scheme promoter, North Tyneside Council will also ensure that detailed records of the outcomes of the engagement exercises are produced for scheme monitoring and evaluation purposes.

Ensuring risks are effectively managed

2.2.5 North Tyneside Council recognises that one of the main reason a scheme can incur significant delays or increases in budgeted costs is the ineffective identification and management of scheme risk. As scheme promoter, through the proposed bi-monthly programme meetings with our delivery partners we will review and challenge the risk register identified. This will help to ensure early identification of new risks, status of existing risks, ensure that the risk mitigation measures are being delivered before and when any risks become “real issues”.

Scheme Monitoring & Evaluation

2.2.6 North Tyneside Council will take the project lead on the monitoring and evaluation of the scheme. This will include ensuring that all measures are in place to obtain the relevant pre, post and during information and enable affective scheme monitoring and evaluation. North Tyneside Council recognise that without effective monitoring through the design and construction stages there is the risk that initial scheme objectives will be diluted. A key role of North Tyneside Council as the scheme promoter will be to ensure that the scheme objectives continue to be met.

2.3 Description of the Corridor

2.3.1 The A191 is a busy arterial route linking North Tyneside to Newcastle and carries approximately 16,000 vehicles daily. The A191 serves several large residential areas including Benton, Forest Hall, Palmersville, Northumberland Park, and Hadrian Lodge. There are further significant residential and employment developments proposed adjacent the corridor as part of North Tyneside’s Local Plan.

7 A191 Corridor

November 2015 2/ The Strategic Case

2.3.2 The section of corridor subject to this bid runs between the Coach Lane / A191 Front Street junction and the A191 Whitely Road / A186 Station Road roundabout. This section of the A191 is a single carriageway road that currently operates over capacity every AM and PM peak. The traffic demands lead to severe queuing westbound in the AM peak and Eastbound in the PM peak. The major cause of this delay is the staggered arrangement of the Tyne View Park / Whitley Road / Station Road junction.

2.3.3 The Tyne View Park junction operates poorly due to the inefficient staggered arrangement of the junction which introduces prolonged “clearing” periods between each stage of the signal sequence. The junction limits the Westbound traffic movement to a single lane due to the high right turn demand blocking the second ahead lane. This results in traffic travelling ahead westbound queuing approximately 1.2km in the AM on average. The PM peak queue Eastbound is less severe but still regularly queues 500m back from the junction which interferes with the operation of the A191 Coach Lane junction.

2.3.4 The A186 Station Road roundabout is regularly disrupted in the AM peak by queuing traffic blocking back from Tyne View Park. This queue is predicted to reach the ASDA junction a further 900m back if this scheme is not delivered.

2.3.5 The Four Lane Ends scheme has now been completed and westbound traffic has been given additional priority during the AM peak periods to accommodate the high volume of traffic along the A191. Furthermore the A191 westbound traffic flow is predicted to grow significantly due to a substantial number of new housing being constructed along the corridor over the next 5 years. The work at Tyne View Park will tie into the Four Lane scheme and provide the increase in Westbound capacity necessary to accommodate the traffic growth.

2.4 The Problem Identified & Justification for the Scheme

Strategic Overview

2.4.1 The Tyne View Park junction operates poorly due to the inefficient staggered arrangement of the junction which introduces prolonged “clearing” periods between each stage of the signal sequence. The junction limits the Westbound traffic movement to a single lane due to the high right turn demand blocking the second ahead lane. This results in traffic travelling ahead westbound queuing approximately 1.2km in the AM on average. The PM peak queue Eastbound is less severe but still regularly queues 500m back from the junction which interferes with the operation of the A191 Coach Lane junction.

2.4.2 The A186 Station Road roundabout is regularly disrupted in the AM peak by queuing traffic blocking back from Tyne View Park. This queue is predicted to reach the ASDA junction a further 900m back if this scheme is not delivered.

8 A191 Corridor

November 2015 2/ The Strategic Case

2.4.3 The Four Lane Ends scheme that has now been completed provides westbound traffic with additional priority during the AM peak periods to accommodate the high volume of traffic along the A191 toward Gosforth and Quorum Business Park. Furthermore the A191 westbound traffic flow is predicted to grow significantly due to a substantial number of new housing being constructed along the corridor over the next 5 years. The work at Tyne View Park will tie into the Four Lane scheme and provide the increase in Westbound capacity necessary to accommodate the traffic growth.

Problem 1: Barriers to Growth – Enabling Employment Sites and Residential Development to be delivered

2.4.4 The A191 Corridor has become a key strategic link subject to a significant increase in traffic from the potential growth of employment in North Tyneside. The works already completed at Four Lane Ends and along the A188 corridor enables the full build out of the Quorum Business Park. These jobs are likely to be fulfilled by residents within the region but primarily those from North Tyneside, Newcastle, and Northumberland. Those originating from within North Tyneside will need to utilise the A191 corridor and will thus benefit from the proposed improvement scheme.

2.4.5 There are already committed developments sited along the A191 corridor that will cumulatively generate significant volumes of additional traffic. This includes a further 2,250 residential dwellings and approximately 2,000 additional staff employed at the Quorum and Balliol business parks. Furthermore there have been recent developments proposed by Central Government to centralise the regional operations of the DWP at the sites in Benton. The wider corridor links to other large employment areas such as Cobalt Business Park and Gosforth.

2.4.6 The full scheme delivered in conjunction with the Four Lane Ends works and S.278 scheme around Holystone will provide sufficient highway capacity to enable these trips to be accommodated without severe detrimental impacts to existing road users.

Problem 2: Congestion on the Corridor 2.4.7 The A191 has become a major distributor road for the region and provides a key East- West link between Newcastle and North Tyneside. The corridor extents identified for this scheme has a single major location where regular severe congestion occurs, the B1317 Station Road / A191 Whitley Road “Tyne View Park” junction.

2.4.8 The existing AM congestion leads to queues 1,200 metres long from the Tyne View Park junction back toward the A186 Station Road roundabout. During the AM peak the queue disrupts the operation of the junction leading to queues forming on the A186 approach. The additional traffic associated with already consented residential development along the corridor will see these queues extend further.

9 A191 Corridor

November 2015 2/ The Strategic Case

2.4.9 The PM congestion leads to queues approximately 500m long stretching back toward the Coach Lane junction. Again as traffic flows increase this queue will begin to disrupt the operation of the Coach Lane junction which would have a major impact on journey times along the corridor.

Problem 3: Cycle and pedestrian accessibility and severance 2.4.10 The A191 corridor is a busy commuter route and runs parallel to the Tyne & Wear Metro system with the station at Benton close to the Tyne View Park junction. There is currently very limited pedestrian and cyclist provision at the Tyne View Park junction and cycling provision along the corridor is insufficient.

2.4.11 Currently commuters to the DWP Tyne View Park site have a single pedestrian crossing which is sub-standard and does not connect to the pedestrian footway network leading into the employment site. The A191 corridor is the subject of a wider cycling corridor improvement scheme which will see on and off road provision improved between Four Lane Ends and A19 Holystone Interchange with links into Cobalt Business Park.

2.4.12 The lack of pedestrian and cycling facilities was the justification for requesting a S.106 contribution from the Darsley Green residential development located behind the Blue Flames Sports Club. This money will be made available for delivering a scheme that delivers improvements for pedestrian and cyclists.

2.5 Background to scheme development

2.5.1 The A191 corridor scheme has become the crucial “missing link” between the Four Lane Ends scheme already completed and the proposals between ASDA Benton and the A19 Holystone Interchange which will be delivered by way of S.278 agreement.

2.5.2 The scheme has evolved from a mitigation scheme developed by North Tyneside Council and identified during planning applications for several residential developments along the corridor. These schemes individually have a minor impact upon the corridor but cumulatively are significant.

2.5.3 The scheme initially sort to mitigate only the development trips generated by the Darsley Park site. North Tyneside Council have since expanded the remit to cover all transport modes and accommodate all known and proposed developments along the corridor.

Previous Work Undertaken

10 A191 Corridor

November 2015 2/ The Strategic Case

2.5.4 The initial scheme was developed and tested in Linsig as part of the development control process for the planning application. This testing identified that the junction improvements along would not deliver the capacity improvements necessary as westbound traffic would still have to merge back into a single Westbound lane downstream from the junction.

2.5.5 The modelling identified the need for two westbound lanes in the AM peak but also two eastbound lanes in the PM peak however the highway space available cannot deliver both. The decision was then taken to accommodate the Westbound improvements as trips to work/school during the AM peak would benefit more than just commuting trips in the PM peak. The traffic flows and queue surveys confirmed this as the AM problem was more significant than the PM.

Work undertaken to establish options

2.5.6 NTC commissioned Capita to review all possible options to resolve the Tyne View Park junction congestion issues. The options available were very limited as the existing highway arrangement is tightly constrained between existing residential properties and the only open land available was not under Council ownership.

2.5.7 Options were considered that would retain the existing staggered arrangement but these did not alleviate the current congestion issues let alone the future increase in traffic anticipated. The staggered arrangement represented a major constraint as the intergreen time required to allow traffic to clear the internal links was substantial. The length of the stagger was also a constraint as this limited the green time allocated to the B1317 Station Road (Forest Hall) approach each cycle where demand is high.

2.5.8 The conclusion from the above work was that removing the stagger arrangement was essential to deliver the capacity improvements necessary. In addition a more standard cross-roads arrangement would allow B1317 Station Road traffic to run whilst Tyne View Park traffic also exited the site reducing the number of traffic stages. The pedestrian/cycling crossing provision also became more straightforward with crossing provided on all approaches with an all red stage called based on pedestrian demand.

Work undertaken to establish the preferred option 2.5.9 Capita developed a two stage modelling methodology. Stage 1 was to use the NTC strategic model which covers the major highway for the borough to fully assess the potential redistribution impacts the successful scheme could have. Stage 2 was to develop a micro-simulation model to test the scheme proposals in detail using traffic matrices output from the strategic model.

11 A191 Corridor

November 2015 2/ The Strategic Case

2.5.10 The NTC strategic model has been developed to enable detailed assessment of the NTC Local Plan proposals and provide an evidence base to the Planning Inspector when the plan is submitted. The model has evolved from the Highways Agency A19 HAM model used to prepare the business case for the A19 Silverlink major scheme. Capita have undertaken significant work to improve the detail of the model across the borough and ensure it is WebTAG compliant.

2.5.11 The NTC model provides an accurate prediction of the future highway network in the borough with all known/anticipated major highway schemes having been considered as part of the future year scenarios.

2.5.12 Stage 2 of the modelling methodology involved developing a micro-simulation model to accurately assess the operation of the link and junction improvements. Capita have already developed a large micro-simulation model for the A191/A189 corridor. As NTC intend to use the micro-simulation models to test their Local Plan proposals in detail, it was agreed to continue using the same modelling package for all of these models. Therefore VISSIM was selected to develop the A191 corridor micro-simulation model.

2.5.13 Figure 2.1 below shows the extents of the A191/A189/A1056 corridor model. The model was calibrated using traffic survey data including queue surveys and journey time surveys collected over multiple days in a neutral week. The model uses the dynamic assignment option to apply route choices along the corridor with the Saturn model providing future year only zone to zone trip matrices. The VISSIM model therefore allows traffic to react to localised congestion at key junctions without redistributing away from the corridor. The LMVR report included in Appendix E details the full validation and calibration undertaken to conform to WebTAG guidance.

Figure 2.1 – Corridor Microsimulation Model Extents

12 A191 Corridor

November 2015 2/ The Strategic Case

2.5.14 The preferred scheme option was tested in the VISSIM model using the fixed signal timings and lane designations taken from LINSIG as a starting point. The timings were subsequently refined to cope with the worst case time periods in both the AM and PM peaks.

2.5.15 The model has not been run with full MOVA configuration which would deliver further operational efficiencies. These would include only calling the pedestrian stage when demand is detected, which the model currently assumes is alternating cycles. It is also able to react to spike in traffic demand such as those in the PM peak associated with the Tyne View Park access which would result in extended periods of green time to alleviate queues. The outputs from the VISSIM modelling therefore underestimate the likely performance of the junction.

2.6 What is the impact of not changing

2.6.1 As discussed in the previous section, the justification for the scheme is strongly linked to enabling future proposed and committed developments in North Tyneside. The job growth associated with these developments will significantly contribute to the GVA for the region.

2.6.2 The A191 corridor already experiences significant congestion and queuing delays which the predicted traffic growth would exacerbate. The works upstream and downstream that have been partly delivered will put additional pressure on the central section of the A191 corridor subject to this scheme.

2.6.3 Should these improvements not be delivered then the existing queue lengths and journey time delays would increase significantly. AM Westbound queue lengths are predicted to stretch back as far as the A191 / B1505 Great Lime Road roundabout which would be an increase of a further 1,300 metres. This queue would then begin to disrupt side roads and residential areas adjacent the corridor at Hadrian Lodge and Palmersville.

2.6.4 Pedestrian and cycling crossing provision at the Tyne View Park junction would remain poor and likely lead to an increase in car trips from residential developments adjacent the corridor as well as to the DWP site. The lack of pedestrian facilities at this junction was a key theme raised during the public consultation events with many residents stating that this directly affected their travel mode choices.

2.7 Objectives

Objective 1: Contribute to the creation and retention of new jobs within the NE LEP area.

13 A191 Corridor

November 2015 2/ The Strategic Case

2.7.1 It is anticipated that the scheme will contribute towards attracting additional inward investment to major existing employment sites in the local area, including Quorum and Balliol Business Parks and enable the DWP site at Tyne View Park to increase its capacity.

2.7.2 Targeted recruitment and training is embedded into North Tyneside Council’s procurement policies and hence construction work on the scheme would maximise recruitment, skills and apprenticeship opportunities.

2.7.3 The scheme must therefore enable all proposed employment and residential development along the corridor without causing any severe detrimental impacts to existing residential amenity.

Objective 2: Reduce the average delay along the A191 Corridor within 6 months of scheme introduction.

2.7.4 Currently vehicles travelling along the A191 corridor experience severe delays in the AM and PM peaks due to queuing traffic at the Tyne View Park junction. The scheme must deliver significant journey time benefits as well as increasing junction capacity to enable future growth. Future AM westbound journey times should reduce compared to current base journey times.

2.7.5 The corridor improvements should contribute to wider strategic A191 corridor journey time benefits and improved journey time reliability.

Objective 3: Increase walking and cycling trips along the corridor and reduce car modal split at DWP Tyne View Park within 12 months of scheme introduction.

2.7.6 The corridor scheme should encourage walking and cycling trips currently suppressed due to poor crossing facilities. The DWP Tyne View Park site should see a reduction in car trips and an increase in linked walking trips to Benton Metro. Cycling numbers along the A191 corridor should also increase as a result of the proposed scheme.

2.8 Scope

2.8.1 The A191 corridor scheme aims to deliver significant congestion relief between the A186 Station Road junction and Coach Lane junction. The highway improvements stretch along a 1.8km section of carriageway linking the already delivered highway scheme at Four Lane Ends and the proposed S.278 t the western most part of the A1058 corridor. 2.8.2 The extents of the A1056 subject to possible improvements are:-

 A191 Front Street / Coach Lane signalised junction  A191 Whitley Road / B1317 Station Road signalised junction

14 A191 Corridor

November 2015 2/ The Strategic Case

 A191 Whitley Road / A186 Station Road roundabout junction

2.9 Key Constraints

Managing access to existing employment sites during construction

2.9.1 During the construction process, the existing employment land at Tyne View Park must be kept operational at all times. The initial works at the junction will be off-line in the vacant land adjacent the highway. However there will be a period where the existing highway needs to be linked to the new section and re-worked approach to the junction.

Co-ordination of Major Schemes within North Tyneside and adjoining authorities

2.9.2 The Highways Agency is promoting a major scheme at A1058-A19 Coast Road (Silverlink) interchange, subject to government approval, which is expected to commence in autumn 2016.

2.9.3 North Tyneside Council have additional major schemes, which they are promoting through the Growth Deal for the North East LEP area. Construction on schemes along the A191 corridor will commence prior to the major scheme at the A19 Holystone junction and with limited overlap with the A19 Silverlink scheme. In addition there are section 278 works planned (Scaffold Hill/West Shiremoor) which will be constructed in close proximity to the A191 scheme, these elements will be programmed to fit around the LEP schemes so that concurrent working on the same corridor is limited/avoided.

2.9.4 There are no major schemes in adjoining authorities (Newcastle CC and Northumberland CC) which will have a material impact on the A191 Corridor improvement scheme during the construction period.

2.9.5 The additional network disruption and subsequent “knock on” issues such as diminishing stakeholder acceptance as an impact of poor programme co-ordination provides a major delivery constraint. The “window of opportunity” to deliver the project is constrained by the delivery of the overall programme on both the local and strategic road network. This issue was a strong theme in the risk workshop and is therefore prominent within our risk management strategy. Our risk register and our approach to managing the risks are provided within the Management Case.

15 A191 Corridor

November 2015 2/ The Strategic Case

2.10 Stakeholders

2.10.1 We have developed a Stakeholder Engagement Strategy for the A191 Weetslade Corridor Scheme. This strategy sets out the purpose of stakeholder engagement, establishing aims and objectives for stakeholder involvement. In order to be effective, it is important to understand who the stakeholders are and what their issues and motivations are. The strategy sets out the purpose and scope of stakeholder involvement required, establishes a list of stakeholders and sets out a strategy for effective engagement throughout the life of the project.

2.10.2 The Stakeholder Engagement Strategy is provided within Appendix C; however the Key Stakeholders, Considerations and Stakeholder Conflicts are summarised in the sections below.

2.11 Stakeholder Considerations

2.11.1 There are a number of key scheme specific issues which have been identified and will need to be considered in detail throughout the engagement stages.

2.11.2 In order to implement the scheme the Council will need to undertake works on a parcel of DEFRA and NEP owned land. All parties are in agreement that this will be done under a licence arrangement followed by dedication of the land and road adoption . The legal negotiations are well advanced and it is expected that the agreements will be in place by the 6th January 2016.

2.12 Key Stakeholders

2.12.1 Stakeholders have been identified through discussions between the design team and the client. The key stakeholder groups include:

 Local councillors who will be consulted throughout the life of the project from design to post completion;  Key internal departments within North Tyneside Council, including Network Management, Network operations, Cycling, Planning and Legal Services.  Tyne & Wear UTMC, to ensure technologies introduced are UTMC compliant.  Local bus operators, whose interest is to maintain accessibility by bus in the area. Nexus, who as the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive who have a vested interest in the operation of the public transport network.  Local businesses, whose interests are likely to be minimising delays and maintaining and improving accessibility by all modes of transport for journeys to and from their sites, these would include those within the Sandy Lane industrial estate.  Utilities and statutory consultees including emergency services who will be consulted through the Councils’ consultation procedure but will also provide information;  Local residents and residents groups and institutions such as schools  Local focus groups such as cycle forums and disability forums that will have a specialist interest in the proposals.

16 A191 Corridor

November 2015 2/ The Strategic Case

2.13 Stakeholder Conflicts

2.13.1 There are no major conflicts between stakeholder groups as a part of this scheme however, through the design process there has been the need to “trade off” in the scale of benefits each user type will claim.

2.14 The Option

2.14.1 The A191 Corridor scheme elements are detailed in the table below. Drawings of all the proposed scheme elements are included in Appendix A.

Description of the Option

Junction / Element Scheme Outputs

 Reconfiguration of existing junction to remove stagger arrangement.  Provision of new pedestrian crossing facilities on all arms A191 Whitley Road / B1317  Widened A191 westbound approach to provide two ahead lanes and right turn pocket. Station Road Junction  Re-allocation of eastbound lane designations to provide right turn pocket and left / ahead lane.  Construction of new Tyne View Park access road to tie into existing.  Reallocation of existing road space to remove central hatched A191 Whitley Road Widening area and two right turn pockets to provide two westbound lanes (Tyne View Park to Coach and a single eastbound lane. Lane)  Minor works to kerb lines and existing crossing points to accommodate additional westbound lane

2.14.2 The provision of two westbound lanes in conjunction with the reconfiguration of the Tyne View Park junction to remove the stagger will deliver large journey time benefits during the AM peak. The A191 corridor will now accommodate two westbound lanes from the A191 westbound approach all the way to Four Lane Ends.

2.14.3 The Tyne View Park junction will provide new pedestrian crossing facilities on all arms which will run on demand and link to existing footway network.

2.14.4 The scheme will also provide an on-road westbound cycle lane between Tyne View Park and Coach Lane which will link into the wider A191 corridor cycle scheme to follow.

Evaluation of the Options against Scheme Objectives

17 A191 Corridor

November 2015 2/ The Strategic Case

Objective 1: Contribute to the creation and retention of new jobs within the NE LEP area.

2.14.5 The reduced congestion and journey time delays will increase the appeal to employers locating their business in this part of North Tyneside, specifically traffic to the DWP Tyne View Park site and Quorum Business Park. Improved journey time reliability along the A191 corridor will contribute to better time management of staff at key employment sites adjacent the corridor.

Objective 2: Reduce the average delay along the A191 Corridor within 6 months of scheme introduction.

2.14.6 The modelling of the scheme has identified significant journey time savings both upon opening as well as in the future year once all major developments have built-out. The journey time savings range between 2 minutes and 4 minutes per vehicle for AM westbound traffic.

Objective 3: Increase walking and cycling trips along the corridor and reduce car modal split at DWP Tyne View Park within 12 months of scheme introduction.

2.14.7 The proposed scheme will remove barriers to pedestrian and cyclist wishing to use the A191 corridor to commute by sustainable modes. The current severance due to a lack of pedestrian crossing facilities is deterring/suppressing sustainable trips to the DWP Tyne View Park site and residential areas adjacent the junction. This severance is removed through the provision of pedestrian crossing facilities on all arms and on-road cycling infrastructure on the A191.

Key Risks

2.14.8 In order to implement the scheme the Council will need to undertake works on a parcel of DEFRA and NEP owned land. All parties are in agreement that this will be done under a licence arrangement followed by dedication of the land and road adoption . The legal negotiations are well advanced and it is expected that the agreements will be in place by the 6th January 2016

18 A191 Corridor

November 2015 3/ The Economic Case

3. The Economic Case

3.1 Proportionate Approach to Scheme Appraisal

3.1.1 WebTAG provides guidance (Transport Appraisal Process) on identifying the need for intervention and developing options through an objective-led and evidence-based approach. Undertaking appraisal in a proportionate manner, thereby enabling a lighter touch approach, is a key part of this approach. The objective is to ensure that interventions have been developed in a robust manner, supported by fit for purpose and proportionate analysis, providing a sound basis for identifying problems and developing solutions.

Modelling Approach: 3.1.2 A traffic model is required for three separate, but related, purposes:

 To determine future traffic flows – in particular any reassignment effects due to both traffic growth and the proposed scheme;  To determine impacts on journey times and therefore carry out an economic appraisal of the proposed scheme; and  To accurately model the scheme in order to be confident that it will address congestion issues and operate successfully.

3.1.3 Generally, traffic network models are either macro-simulation (such as SATURN) or micro-simulation (such as VISSIM). The advantage of micro-simulation models is that they are very detailed, accurately represent driver behaviour and produce realistic forecasts of queuing and delays. Their main disadvantage however is that they do not accurately model traffic reassignment effects. Macro-simulation models are much more reliable in modelling reassignment effects but are less reliable in forecasting queues and delays at individual junctions.

3.1.4 Given the above considerations, it was decided to use NTC’s borough wide SATURN model which covered the area over which traffic reassignment on both with, and without, scheme scenarios was considered likely. The traffic flows from the SATURN model were then used to develop a VISSIM model, covering the A191 corridor extents. The VISSIM model was then used to carry out an economic appraisal of the scheme.

SATURN Model: 3.1.5 The NTC strategic network SATURN model used to assess the scheme has been developed from a model prepared on behalf of the Highways Agency for the assessment of the A1058 Coast Road/A19/Silverlink Improvement Scheme.

19 A191 Corridor

November 2015 3/ The Economic Case

3.1.6 The A19 HAM is a SATURN highway assignment model, calibrated and validated against 2012 base year data – traffic flows and journey times. The model was developed specifically to allow a robust assessment of the likely impacts, and economic justification, of the proposed A19(T)/A1058 Coast Road/Silverlink Improvement Scheme.

3.1.7 The matrices have been developed using a combination of observed OD data from 2013 Road Side Interview (RSI) surveys and matrices from the Tyne and Wear Transport Policy Model (TPM), with matrix estimation implemented to achieve acceptable calibration and validation against flow and journey time data. The RSI surveys carried out in 2013 targeted key movements at the A19 junctions with the A191, the A1058, the A193 and the Tyne Tunnel, together with a survey on Middle Engine Lane, south west of The Silverlink.

3.1.8 Although the A19 HAM calibrates and validates well against WebTAG guidelines, there are a number of reasons why its use to model the impacts of development across North Tyneside is likely to be problematic. A significant proportion of the North Tyneside network has been coded using speed-flow curves with no detailed junction coding. Therefore the base model has been extensively amended to replace all of the speed-flow curves with detailed coding of all significant junctions within North Tyneside.

3.1.9 In order to improve the accuracy of the base model matrix estimation was applied using all available traffic count data for the North Tyneside network collected between 2012 and 2014 (factored to 2013 levels). The accuracy of the model was then assessed against traffic flow and journey time observed data. In both cases the model met the acceptability criteria set out in WebTAG.

3.1.10 Having developed calibrated base am and pm peak hour models, models were then developed for forecast years of 2015 (opening year) and 2030 (design year). For 2015, the base year matrices were increased by applying NTEM/Tempro estimated growth for Tyne & Wear.

3.1.11 For 2030, growth was determined based on development proposals identified in the Draft North Tyneside Local Plan. Initially, these assumptions were adjusted to be compatible with the planning assumptions within TEMPRO; this ensured that the growth assumptions were consistent with Tempro central growth estimates. The development trip totals were then estimated based on a combination of agreed Transport Assessment trip rates and new trip rates derived from TRICS. The development trips were then distributed around the strategic network. This was done using a combination of Transport Assessment output, census journey to work data and gravity models.

20 A191 Corridor

November 2015 3/ The Economic Case

3.1.12 A matrix comprising of development trips only was then assigned onto the network – essentially giving an all-or-nothing assignment due to the absence of other trips. The development trips from this were then added to the base matrices to derive 2030 am and pm peak hour matrices. The 2030 matrices were therefore representative of NTEM/Tempro level growth across North Tyneside as a whole, rather than NTEM/Tempro growth applied to the local network.

3.1.13 Four scenarios were then modelled in SATURN:  Without scheme – 2015 and 2030  With scheme – 2015 and 2030

3.1.14 The “with scheme” networks were coded using the current scheme designs. Signal timings in all models were optimised so as to minimise congestion and delays. Traffic flows were then output from the SATURN model to be used in the VISSIM models.

VISSIM Model: 3.1.15 VISSIM models of the am and pm peak hour periods were derived, covering the same network as the SATURN models described above. The models were run with all flows fixed, so that the turning flows from the SATURN model were reproduced in the VISSIM model. Signal timings were optimised within the models so as to minimise queues and delays to traffic as a whole.

3.1.16 Running the VISSIM models with 2030 forecast flows resulted in significant congestion in the without scheme scenario. This was particularly the case on the A191 Westbound and Station Road approaches in the AM peak and the A191 Eastbound approach in the PM peak. The Tyne View Park junction is forecast to experience significant flow increases due to the large number of residential developments (approximately 2,250 homes) proposed and approved in the Holystone area of which many will be employed at the Quorum, DWP Ministry and Tyne View Park sites.

3.1.17 The VISSIM models provided flow and journey time data that was then used to carry out the economic appraisal of the A191 Corridor scheme. The calibration was carried out against turning counts, although WebTAG only requires calibration against link flows. The calibration was carried out against turning flows as the VISSIM model would require accurate turning count data to model the operation of the various junctions in the network. The proportion of turning counts that had a GEH value of less than 5 for the am and pm peak hour models was:

GEH <5 AM Peak 85.7% PM Peak 85.7%

Scheme Appraisal: 3.1.18 A proportionate approach to scheme appraisal has been adopted and the following table sets out which criteria have been appraised.

21 A191 Corridor

November 2015 3/ The Economic Case

Appraisal of WebTAG Criteria Impact Appraised Comments Businesses users & transport providers Partially Journey time impacts have been assessed using output from traffic models. Changes in vehicle operating costs are likely to be relatively small as there are no changes in total trips and vehicle-kilometres. Reliability impact on business users No As the scheme reduces congestion, there will be a positive impact. This has not been quantified as the benefits are likely to be relatively minor. Regeneration No The scheme does not directly affect a regeneration area Wider impacts No The scheme supports development proposals but, adopting a proportionate approach, the economic benefits have not been quantified Noise No As traffic flows will not change the scheme will have a minimal impact on noise. Air quality No Although air quality will be improved through reduced congestion, the impact is likely to be minimal Greenhouse gases No There will be no significant impact as overall trips and vehicle-kilometres will not change Landscape No No impact Townscape No No impact Historic environment No No impact Biodiversity No No impact Water environment No No impact Commuting and other users Partially Journey time impacts have been assessed using output from traffic models. Changes in vehicle operating costs are likely to be relatively small as there are no changes in total trips and vehicle-kilometres. Reliability impact on community & other users No As the scheme reduces congestion, there will be a positive impact. This has not been quantified as the benefits are likely to be relatively minor. Physical activity No The scheme will not result in significant changes to cycle/walk trips Journey quality No Reduced queuing will bring minor benefits Accidents Yes The proposed scheme does not change junction types from the Do-Minimum and as a result no changes to accidents are forecast Security No No impact Access to services No No impact Affordability No No impact Severance No Removal of existing pedestrian crossing refuge west of Carlton Road will increase severance Option and non use values No No impact on the availability of alternative modes Cost to broad transport budget Yes Scheme costs have been determined and quantified Indirect tax revenues No Not assessed as changes in total trips and vehicle-kilometres travelled are low

22 A191 Corridor November 2015

Economic Appraisal;

3.1.19 The economic appraisal has been carried out for changes in journey times and accidents only, as these are by far the most significant for this scheme. In the case of accidents, the scheme does not alter junction types compared to the Do-Minimum scenario and as a result there are no changes to accident totals forecast.

3.1.20 Scheme costs are based on current estimates, and converted to Present Values, taking into account risk and optimism bias. A summary of the approach taken for the economic appraisal is given below:

Journey Times  Determine 2015 with and without scheme flows from SATURN models;  Input flows into VISSIM model, and optimise signals;  Determine flows and journey times for routes where journey times change significantly between the with and without scheme scenarios;  Determine changes to total vehicle-hours as a result of the scheme in 2015 and 2030;  Determine vehicle-hour savings for each appraisal year; o Assume linear growth between first modelled year and design year (2030); o Assume no growth from 2030 to final appraisal year;  Apply appropriate WebTAG values/factors to determine discounted PVB

3.1.21 The appraisal of journey time benefits has been carried using the output from the Vissim model of the affected network. The model was calibrated against observed 2013 traffic flows and journey times. A future year model was developed that included all committed development together with proposed development that is likely to have a significant impact on flows through the proposed scheme.

3.1.22 The model, including all the future developments, is assumed to represent traffic flows in 2030 (i.e. this is the earliest year when the above sites are likely to be fully developed). In the absence of detailed information on build out rates for the sites a linear build out has been assumed from 2016 onwards. Journey time information has therefore been linearly extrapolated between 2016 and 2030.

3.2 Options Appraised

3.2.1 The options appraised were a Do Minimum opening year (2015) and future year (2030) and also a Do Something for the same opening and future years. The Do Minimum option closely represents the existing road network with some minor alterations to junctions where congestion in the future year causes significant delays.

43 A191 Corridor November 2015

3.2.2 The background growth applied in the modelling represented North Tyneside’s Local Plan aspirations. Therefore any major development sites that would likely require off site highway improvements to mitigate the impacts have been implemented in the option testing.

3.2.3 The alterations made to the future year Do Minimum option were replicated in the Do Something future year scenario also. This ensures that the network performance away from the scheme junctions remains neutral and any benefits accrued are wholly as a result of the scheme and its associated traffic redistribution.

3.2.4 The journey time data has been extracted from the model for the main movements affected by the scheme summarised in the table below:-

Table 3.1 Forecast Journey Time Savings – 2030* Journey Time Benefits (seconds) Movement 2015 Forecasts 2030 Forecasts AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Front St, E/B -4 -8 23 -46 Tyneview Park, N/B 0 22 -2 -10 Whitley Rd, WB 222 15 115 60 Station Rd, S/B -15 -10 39 -63 *Journey times taken from optimised fixed time signal modelling without MOVA operation

3.2.5 The proposed scheme will operate on a MOVA system that is reactive to changes in traffic demand during peak periods. The DWP Tyne View Park will benefit from this significantly in the PM peak and B1317 Station Road in the AM. The modelling undertaken has used optimised fixed times which underestimate the benefits to these arms.

3.2.6 The monetary value of the above journey time savings has been determined using standard values of time and an annualisation factor of 253. No assessment of benefits accruing during off peak, or weekends has been carried out and the results can therefore be considered to under estimate the true benefits.

3.2.7 The journey time benefits for the scheme, in 2010 prices, discounted to 2010 values are £9.410M

3.2.8 Scheme costs have been taken from estimates provided by Esh, with a 2015 price base. These include the risk pot identified in the QRA and optimism bias of 3%, and adjusted for real cost increases to a 2010 price base. This results in a Present Value of Cost of £1.609M

44 A191 Corridor November 2015

3.3 Assumptions

3.3.1 Assumptions made in the scheme appraisal, additional to those set out in WebTAG are presented below:

 There will be no reassignment to the A191 Corridor as a result of the additional capacity provided by the proposed scheme;  Traffic growth between the two modelled years – 2015 and 2030 – will be linear;  There will be no traffic growth beyond 2030;  All traffic growth up to 2030 can be accounted for by the traffic generated by the Local Plan development proposals;  Construction delay impacts, although negative, will be minimal due to the availability of diversion routes;  Changes in maintenance user costs, although positive, will be minimal die to the availability of diversion routes;  The annualisation factor to convert peak period benefits to annual benefits is 253;  Benefits have been assessed for two hour am and pm peak periods;  Benefits outside of weekday peak periods will be insignificant;  The only significant impact on accidents will be due to the replacement of the roundabout at the Asda access with traffic signals.

3.4 Sensitivity and Risk Profile

3.4.1 The economic appraisal results for the central case – i.e. the best estimate of traffic growth and operational performance of the proposed scheme – are presented below.

Table 3.4 Economic Appraisal Output – Central Case Output £’000s Present Value Costs (PVC) 1,609 Present Value Benefits (PVB) 9,410 Net Present Value (NPV) 7,801 Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 5.85

3.4.2 In order to test the robustness of the economic appraisal a number of sensitivity tests have been carried as described below.

Low Traffic Growth

45 A191 Corridor November 2015

3.4.3 The impact of low traffic growth on the economic appraisal has been estimated, applying the assumptions set out in TAG Unit M4 – Forecasting and Uncertainty. A single factor was applied to traffic growth with no adjustments made to assumptions regarding the developments that would impact on the scheme. The impact on the economic appraisal is summarised in the table below.

Table 3.5 Economic Appraisal Output – Low Growth Output £’000s Present Value Costs (PVC) 1,609 Present Value Benefits (PVB) 8,675 Net Present Value (NPV) 7,066 Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 5.39

High Traffic Growth

3.4.4 The impact of high traffic growth on the economic appraisal has been estimated, applying the assumptions set out in TAG Unit M4 – Forecasting and Uncertainty. A single factor was applied to traffic growth with no adjustments made to assumptions regarding the developments that would impact on the scheme. The impact on the economic appraisal is summarised in the table below.

Table 3.6 Economic Appraisal Output – High Growth Output £’000s Present Value Costs (PVC) 1,609 Present Value Benefits (PVB) 10,339 Net Present Value (NPV) 8,731 Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 6.43

3.4.5 A further appraisal has been carried out taking into account uncertainty regarding the scheme costs. The impact of a significant increase in costs has been assessed, applying a 25% increase. This has been combined with the low growth appraisal to give the lowest potential appraisal results. The impact on the economic appraisal is summarised in the table below.

Table 3.7 Economic Appraisal Output – Low Growth and Increased Scheme Costs Output £’000s Present Value Costs (PVC) 2,011 Present Value Benefits (PVB) 5,645 Net Present Value (NPV) 6,664 Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 4.31

46 A191 Corridor November 2015

3.4.6 An increase in costs of 25% is considered to be relatively unlikely as the core cost estimate includes appropriate uplifts for optimism bias and identified risk. There is significantly more uncertainty regarding the forecast traffic flows as the core scenario includes a significant amount of development traffic – although this has effectively been reduced in the design year to take account of unrealistic congestion in the Vissim model. A reduction of the type assumed in the low growth assessment (approximately 11% in the design year) is considered to be feasible. Given the outputs summarised above it is considered that economic justification of the scheme is robust, taking into account potential risks.

3.5 Value for Money Statement

3.5.1 The proposed scheme provides high value for money with significant economic benefits combined with no significant environmental and social dis-benefits.

3.5.2 The output from the economic appraisal is summarised below in £000’s:

Present Value of Costs £1,609 Present Value of Benefits £9,410 Benefit to Cost Ratio 5.85

3.5.3 The economic appraisal has included journey time savings, accident savings and the capital cost of the proposed scheme – including an allowance for risk and optimism bias.

3.5.4 Non-monetised impacts have been qualitatively assessed only, as it is unlikely that the scheme will have a significant impact on these criteria.

3.5.5 The key risks, sensitivities and uncertainties are summarised below:

 Statutory undertakers costs have not been determined;  Consultation with local residents could delay the programme and/or result in design changes;  Outline scheme costs only have been derived at this stage; detailed design may identify additional costs;  Removal of existing pedestrian refuge on Whitley Road may result in objections to the proposed scheme;  The traffic forecast include for all currently identified Local Plan proposals likely to affect the A191 corridor. The Local Plan proposals are currently being amended and as a result the forecast traffic flows may change;  The modelling work carried out does not include the impacts of the provision of MOVA operation at the Whitley Road/Tyneview Park junction. The actual journey time benefits are therefore likely to be greater than those forecast using the VISSIM model.

47 A191 Corridor November 2015

3.5.6 The scheme is considered to provide very high value for money as the BCR is greater than 4 (5.85), and there are no significant adverse environmental impacts.

3.5.7 Although no formal assessment of distributional impacts has been carried out it is considered that these will be negligible. An increase in accidents is forecast due to the replacement of the existing roundabout at the Asda access with a signalised junction.

3.6 Appraisal Summary Table

48 Appraisal Summary Table Date produced: 10 Feb 2015 Contact:

Name of scheme: A191 Corridor Improvements Name S Clarke Description of scheme: Capacity improvements on A191 corridor comprising improved signals layout at Tyneview Park junction, provision of additional westbound lane on A191 from Organisation Capita Tyneview Park to Coach Lane, improvements to A186 Station Road roundabout and provision of signals junction at Asda access Role Promoter Impacts Summary of key impacts Assessment Quantitative Qualitative Monetary Distributional £(NPV) 7-pt scale/ vulnerable grp Business users & transport The scheme generates significant benefits through journey time savings particularly at the Value of journey time changes(£) £1,988 Not assessed providers A191/Tyneview Park junction. Although there are likely to be vehicle operating cost benefits due Net journey time changes (£) to increased average speeds, these are considered to be relatively minor and have not been Beneficial £1,988 0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min assessed.

Economy £1,531 £457 £0 Reliability impact on Business The scheme will reduce congestion, particularly at the Tyneview Park junction, which will result in users reliability benefits. This will be assessed in greater detail at the mext stage of the appraisal. Not assessed Beneficial Not assessed

Regeneration The scheme does not pass through, or directly affect a regenerwtion area. Not assessed N/A Not assessed Wider Impacts The scheme will support the creation/retention of jobs by increasing transport efficiency on a route used to access a number of employment sites - e.g. Quorum and Balliol. Not assessed Beneficial Not assessed

Noise The scheme does not directly affect traffic flows and is unlikely to impact on noise. Not assessed Neutral Not assessed Not assessed Air Quality By reducing congstion the scheme will improve air quality by reducing the volume of standing Not assessed Not assessed Slight Beneficial Not assessed vehicles. Greenhouse gases The scheme will not impact on the volume of traffic or vehicle-kilometres travelled and will Change in non-traded carbon over 60y (CO2e) N/A therefore have no signficant imapct on greenhouse gases Neutral Not assessed Change in traded carbon over 60y (CO2e) N/A Landscape The scheme comprises change within the highway boundary and will not impact on landscape Environmental Not assessed Neutral Not assessed

Townscape The scheme comprises change within the highway boundary and will not impact on townscape Not assessed Neutral Not assessed

Historic Environment The scheme comprises change within the highway boundary and will not impact on historic Not assessed Neutral Not assessed environment. Biodiversity There would be no impact on habitats. Not assessed Neutral Not assessed Water Environment There would be no impact on water environment. Not assessed Neutral Not assessed Commuting and Other users The scheme generates significant benefits through journey time savings particularly at the Value of journey time changes(£) £7,422 Not assessed A191/Tyneview Park junction. Although there are likely to be vehicle operating cost benefits due Net journey time changes (£) to increased average speeds, these are considered to be relatively minor and have not been Beneficial £7,422 Social 0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min assessed. £5,715 £1,707 £0 Reliability impact on The scheme will reduce congestion, particularly at the Tyneview Park junction during peak traffic Not assessed Beneficial Commuting and Other users periods. This will improve journey time reliability, particularly for commuting trips. Not assessed Physical activity The scheme will have no impact on walking or cycling trips. Not assessed Neutral Not assessed Journey quality There will be some benefits to journey quality through reduced congestion. Not assessed Slight Beneficial Not assessed

Accidents The scheme does not change any of the junction type or link types, relative to the Do-Minimum Not assessed scheme. As a result, no changes to accident totals are anticipated. The scheme is forecast to have no impact on accident totals Neutral £0

Security The scheme will have no signfiicant impact on security. Not assessed Neutral Not assessed Not assessed Access to services The scheme will reduce congestion for both car drivers and public transport. As a result there will Not assessed be an imparovement in acccessibility for privates and public transport users. Not assessed Slight Beneficial Not assessed

Affordability There will be minor reductions in vehicle operating costs but these are unlikely to be significant. Not assessed Not assessed Neutral Not assessed

Severance There will be a minor increase in severance due to the removal of the existing pedestrian Not assessed Not assessed Slight Adverse Not assessed crossing point immediately west of the Carlton Road junction. Option and non-use values There is no impact on the travel options available. Not assessed Neutral Not assessed Cost to Broad Transport Scheme costs have been estimated at 2013 prices with otimism bias applied. The total scheme Budget cost is estimated at £2.123m - including preparation and supervision. £1,609

Public Indirect Tax Revenues There will be a reduction in indirect tax revenues due to more efficient fuel consumption resulting

Account Not assessed Slight Adverse Not assessed from reduced congestion. A191 Corridor November 2015

4. The Management Case

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 The Management case will seek to demonstrate that the project is deliverable within the funding timeframe and how we will seek to ensure the required quality is achieved. Key to this is demonstrating effective project management and project planning throughout the life of the project.

4.1.2 More specifically the Management case will provide appropriate and proportionate evidence of;

 Examples of the delivery of similar project by North Tyneside council and its delivery partners, to demonstrate we can deliver.  The outline programme taking the scheme through the full business case and construction to demonstrate effective forward planning.  Details of the governance structure for delivering the scheme, including the project team structure. Details of the key roles and their responsibilities are also provided. This will demonstrate that we have the structure in place with the right people to successfully deliver the scheme.  An outline of the Assurances & approvals plan in place.  Our approach to Stakeholder Engagement. To demonstrate that all stakeholders are being fully considered through the design and construction stages.  Our proposed project reporting process.  Our risk management strategy.  Our strategy for scheme monitoring and evaluation.  Our approach to project management.

4.2 Evidence of similar projects

4.2.1 If possible, provide evidence of similar projects that have been successful, to support the recommended project approach. If no similar projects are available for comparison, outline the basis of assumptions for delivery of this project e.g. comparison with industry averages for this kind of work.

4.2.2 North Tyneside Council has recent experience of delivering projects in excess of £3m completed to time and budget.

4.2.3 A £4.6m project was carried out to demolish and replace Burn Closes Bridge in Wallsend with a new three-span single carriageway bridge: this opened in March 2009, ahead of schedule and within budget.

49 A191 Corridor November 2015

4.2.4 The Council in 2008 completed a £3.5m scheme to replace Blue House Bridges on the dual carriageway A1058 Coast Road. The design of the scheme, incorporating an extension of the carriageway onto the edge beams on the south side of the road combined with a 30mph speed limit during the works, allowed for four traffic lanes to be kept open throughout the period of the bridge works without compromising safety.

4.2.5 A £1.5m joint scheme with the Highways Agency at A19-A191 Holystone interchange was carried out to remodel and signalise the existing roundabout at this busy interchange, increasing capacity and providing pedestrian and cycle accessibility.

4.2.6 Our delivery partners have extensive experience in the successful design and construction of similar projects. These include;

 Durham Gate  A556 Improvements  Pennine Reach

4.3 Outline Programme

4.3.1 A draft design and construction programme is provided within Appendix G. North Tyneside Council have established design and construction partners, which will help to reduce the project duration through removing the need to go through a full tendering process. In addition having a construction partner on board has enabled ECI activities from the conceptual design stages. This will reduce the risk / level of uncertainty in the scheme costing, programming and ensuring deliverability.

4.3.2 Having the design and construction partner, NTC have also been able not only to identify the level of resourcing required but also securing the right personnel to deliver the scheme.

4.3.3 The key primary milestones for the delivery of the scheme through the design and construction stages are listed within Table 4.1.1. This information has been taken from the programme provided within Appendix G.

Milestone Delivery Date Forecast Spend Full Business Case Developed November 2015 £239,742 Gateway 2 January 2016 N/A Construction July 2016 £1,460,238 12 Month Post Scheme Monitoring July 2017 £18,000 5 year post scheme July 2021 £20,500 implementation monitoring Table 4.1.1 scheme delivery timeframe

50 A191 Corridor November 2015

4.4 Governance, organisation structure & role

4.4.1 The Council has a Technical Partnership in place with Capita. The full business case will be prepared by the Technical Partner and signed off on behalf of the Council.

4.4.2 The organogram provided within figure 4.4.1 below sets out our team structure for delivering the scheme.

Figure 4.4.1 Proposed Scheme Organogram (Stage 2 Business case)

Key Roles

North Tyneside Council

4.4.3 North Tyneside as the scheme promoter will fulfil a number of key roles as listed below;

 Reporting to the NELTB and NELEP.  Ensuring strategic risks are effectively managed.  Overall financial management of the scheme.  Overall programme management of the scheme.  Overall ownership for managing stakeholders.

51 A191 Corridor November 2015

4.4.4 A more detailed breakdown of the responsibilities of the scheme promoter is provided within the Strategic Case.

Capita Design and Construction Partners

Project Director

4.4.5 The project director for the project will be Kevin Ridpath. Kevin is the acting Network Manager, working for North Tyneside and will be the key link between the North Tyneside Council, Key Stakeholders and the Capita Design and Construction partners. As Network Manager, Kevin will bring his experience of Network activity co-ordination to the team. This is particularly important as the works will need to be accurately programmed with other schemes.

Project Manager

4.4.6 Warren Rocca will be our Project Manager for the detailed design stage. Warren is a PRINCE 2 practitioner and has over 25 years’ experience of managing major highway projects for local authorities and the Highways Agency.

4.4.7 Warren will use MS Project software to plan the detailed design delivery and monitor, control and report our progress against plan. This programme information will then be incorporated into our monthly ‘Highlight’ progress reports.

4.4.8 Warren will proactively address risks to this project from the outset through developing the initial project Risk Register and appropriate management plan. He will review the risks with the risk owners and update the risk register at a frequency that is dependent upon the probability and impact assessment. His reviews will check the status of the risks to ensure risk management action remains effective.

Contractor Manager

4.4.9 Graeme Cochrane will be our contractor manager for the project; he will provide ECI through the design stages and manage all contractors and sub-contractors throughout the construction stages.

Business Case Development

4.4.10 Stuart Clarke will be responsible for updating the OBC to the Full Business Case, and was the project manager for the OBC stage. In addition, Stuart will provide traffic modelling and stakeholder management support to Warren. He will also play a key role in ensuring that the key scheme objectives are maintained and delivered through the design and construction stages. Stuart will also be responsible for the scheme Monitoring and Evaluation.

52 A191 Corridor November 2015

4.5 Assurances & approvals plan

4.5.1 The programme of local transport major schemes, which includes this scheme, forms part of the Council’s approved Investment Plan.

4.5.2 As part of the internal approvals process, details of the scheme were presented to North Tyneside Council’s Senior Leadership Team (senior officer group) in November 2014 and at the Council’s Lead Member Briefing in January 2015. Further updates have been provided to the lead cabinet member for Transport, Cllr John Harrison as part of NTC’s monthly briefing sessions.

4.6 Stakeholder Engagement Strategy

4.6.1 The Stakeholder Engagement Strategy is summarised within the Strategic Case section of the business case, where the key stakeholder considerations, key stakeholders and Stakeholder Conflicts are discussed. The full Stakeholder Engagement Strategy is provided within Appendix C.

4.7 Risk management strategy

4.7.1 This section of the Management Case covers the risk management process for the project. For the purposes of the risk management strategy, a risk is defined as an event that poses a significant threat or opportunity to the delivery the project, in terms of cost and / or to a lesser extent time.

4.7.2 We have adopted a systematic approach to risk management to understand, evaluate their scale and likelihood and put a strategy in place to manage the risks through the design, construction and post implementation stages. Adopting this process will help us to achieve the overall scheme objectives.

4.7.3 We will use a ROAD ("Risk and Opportunity at Design") process to undertake a design review of all risks and opportunities. This process runs in conjunction with the Design Excellence Evaluation Process (DEEP) and captures risks identified by this process. Risk management is a continuous process and begins with risk identification. The ROAD assessment in the concept phase of a project typically highlights the global, big picture or macro risk and opportunities of a project. Risk and Opportunity assessments must be carried out throughout the life of the project, as each area of the project is defined.

53 A191 Corridor November 2015

4.7.4 The Risk Manager, in conjunction within the Project Manager, will develop the risk register, and it should identify those areas of design needing immediate focus. The risk register should also allocate risks which must be dealt with when the tender is being prepared and reviewed. The residual risk can then be correctly allocated to either the client or the project contractors.

4.7.5 The risk workshop was the start of a continual risk review process. The process is in place to ensure that the risk register is updated regularly to record any re-rating of risks, changes in actions and relevant comments, risks closed out or expired, and any new risks identified. At each update the risk register will be dated and given a revision number and saved as a new document so that a progressive record is kept of the risk management process. This record will be valuable for future reference and establishing how risks evolve and are closed within the monitoring and evaluation stages.

4.7.6 The updating of the risk register is a cyclical process and the following steps are to be undertaken:

4.7.7 Identify the risks and opportunities and enter onto the register. The first activity is to identify all the risks relating to the project.

4.7.8 Enter probability and impact to allow Severity Rating to be evaluated. The probability and impact of each risk are given a rating. A severity rating is then calculated for each risk, which is a product of the likelihood of it occurring and the impact that it will have. The severity rating should take account of the mitigation actions already in place and to be undertaken.

4.7.9 Identify risk owner. Each of the risks identified should be owned by a specific individual who is to be nominated by the Project Manager. The risk owner is to ensure the implementation of the mitigation strategy and associated mitigation action(s) and strive to control or reduce the risk. The overall date by which the mitigation action is to be completed is also to be entered on the risk register.

54 A191 Corridor November 2015

4.7.10 Develop Risk Mitigation Plan. This is to determine what mitigation actions (management controls) are in place or need to be implemented to manage the identified risks. Major risks will certainly need further controls and medium risks will normally need further management action in order to minimise the impact should they arise. In a normally well managed environment the necessary actions will often be obvious. Where the severity rating is considered to be high, a mitigation strategy and associated actions are identified, along with the people responsible for carrying out specific actions. The key objective is to reduce the risk to a Medium or Low rating, or eliminate it completely. A standard Risk Mitigation Plan template will be used to record and track mitigation actions of key risks and their associated costs. Where the Severity Rating is considered to be medium, further controls are identified, along with the person responsible, if it is economical or practical to do so. Low level risk may have specific associated mitigation actions, although it is possible that they will be controlled by good day to day management of the project.

4.7.11 Cost of agreed mitigation action to be reflected in cost plan. Once the mitigation actions have been identified it is necessary for the costs (if any) of these measures to be calculated

4.7.12 Review and adjust probability and impact to allow Severity Rating to be re-calculated. Once the mitigating actions have been determined; it may well be that the severity rating will have to be reduced.

4.7.13 Address any new major risks that have arisen in the review. It is possible that as a result of reviewing the risks and identifying mitigation actions new risks have come to light. These new risks are fed into the process, and to have their own mitigation strategies if appropriate.

4.7.14 The next stage is to assess the residual cost impact of each risk after the mitigation actions have been undertaken. Likely, optimistic and pessimistic costs are assessed and entered onto the risk and opportunities schedule for each risk. All risks are to be priced in this manner and detailed back up must be prepared for all major risks. Each risk should be priced on the basis that the agreed mitigation actions are carried out, and it is the residual risk that is priced. When calculating costs, the individual risks are to be treated as independent of each other. Each risk should be priced on the basis that it will happen, and not be reduced to reflect a low probability of the risk occurring.

4.7.15 Assess and review required contingency. Monte Carlo simulations may be used however simulation results are to be carefully considered to determine that they reflect the risks to the project.

4.7.16 In our experience we have found that this risk review process complements the DEEP process as it is an excellent way of capturing and managing change during the design development phase of a project.

55 A191 Corridor November 2015

4.7.17 Our process driven approach to risk identification and management is outlined below;

 Risk Identification

 Risk Assessment

 Risk Ownership

 Risk Quantification

 Risk Management

 Risk Monitoring

Risk Workshop

4.7.18 In advance of undertaking the risk workshop a pre-session was undertaken with NTC project officers and consultants to prepare an attendance list for the workshop. Capita currently perform the function of design and construction partner to North Tyneside Council as well as provide core highways functions such as Development Control and Network Management.

4.7.19 In order to ensure that the full range of project risks was indentified, the following list of attendees were invited to participate in the risk workshop.

4.7.20 On the 10th of September 2014 a risk workshop was undertaken. The aim of the risk workshop was to prepare a risk register and risk assessment for the project. The risk workshop attendees and their role are provided within table 4.7.1 below.

Table 4.7.1 Risk Workshop Attendees and their role Service Area Name Role Planning / Feasibility Andrew Flynn NTC Officer responsible for the delivery of scheme feasibility & preparation of the FBC. Ian Roberts Capita Project Director for the scheme feasibility & preparation of the FBC. Stuart Clarke Capita Project Manager for the scheme feasibility & preparation of the FBC. Nicholas Bryan Capita technical lead for

56 A191 Corridor November 2015

the scheme feasibility & preparation of the FBC. Design David Wall Capita Design Manager and Project Director for the Detailed Design stage Yanyan Liang Capita Highway Structural Design Lead Kevin Ridpath NTC Network Manager Mark Newlands NTC Officer responsible for the detailed design and construction stages. Marc Dobson Capita QS and contract manager. Construction Anthony Hewitt Capita Senior PM for the Construction Stage. John Saunders Design Manager for ESH group (Capita construction partners). Vince Courtney Senior QA for ESH group

Risk Workshop – Output 1 Risk Register

4.7.21 At the beginning of the risk workshop the group were given a presentation on the scheme objectives, the scheme concept designs and the general background on the approach taken for the identification, ownership, quantification and management of risks.

4.7.22 The group were then split up into 2 groups. One group would be identifying risks at the design stage whilst the other group undertook the same task for the construction stage. The groups were also asked to consider who would own each of the risks identified and the likelihood of occurring and impact if occurred to give each of the risks a scoring. The scoring was based upon the simple “Heat Map” as provided in figure 4.7.1 below. Each group presented their findings and were then challenged by the workshop co-ordinator and the other group members. Following the challenge and review process, the risk register was populated with the risks, the risk owners and risk scores.

57 A191 Corridor November 2015

4.7.23 The groups were then asked to consider actions which could be put in place to manage and the risks and reduce the impacts. After developing a strategy to manage each risk, each group were asked to rescore the risk likelihood and severity to establish residual risk. A similar challenge and review session to identify initial risks was undertaken between the groups, with the final agreed session outputs populated into the risk register.

The risk register is provided within Appendix F.

Figure 4.7.1 Heat Map used for the risk scoring exercise.

HEAT MAP Almost 5 8 15 22 24 25 Certain

Probable 4 7 14 19 20 23

Possible 3 5 9 16 18 21

Unlikely 2 3 4 10 13 17

Remote 1 1 2 6 11 12

1 2 3 4 5

Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic

Low

Medium

High

Quantified Risk Assessment – Output 2

4.7.24 Following the population of the risks, owners and risk scores onto the risk register, the residual risks were quantified into monetary values wherever possible. Using professional engineering judgement from the project team, through a challenge and review process quantified the monetary impact of the residual risk being realised. A probability percentage was then placed upon the risk, based on the risk score. The probability percentage was then multiplied against the impact cost to provide a risk allowance against each risk. The outputs of the QRA are included in Appendix F and the risk pot total is £147,700.

58 A191 Corridor November 2015

4.8 Monitoring & Evaluation

4.8.1 We have developed a robust monitoring and evaluation strategy which is aligned to and in accordance with The DfT Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for Local Authority Major Schemes. Due to the size and complexity of the scheme we have based our strategy on the “standard” monitoring and evaluation requirements. The Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy developed is provided within Appendix D.

4.9 Project management options

4.9.1 Capita has developed a Project Management solution based on the OGC PRINCE2 Methodology that is widely seen as representing best practice. This combines PRINCE2 with Capita's experience gained over many years of managing programmes and projects within central and local government, and the private sector. For each contract, the fine details of project management can be tuned to match the requirements and methods in place for the customer, but the following is representative of the approach we would expect to adopt for any large contract.

4.9.2 These methods will be used to manage the Programme and Project level products.

Programme Management

4.9.3 Capita will implement Milestone planning arrangements as specified in the established plans. Costs will be tracked against budget and full accounting procedures will be used to report on spend, budget and forecast.

4.9.4 For each stage Capita will confirm the mandatory products to be delivered during the Project Initiation Phase using Product Based Planning techniques. Products will be managed at the Programme, Delivery and Work package levels.

4.9.5 The Programme management method provides a framework consisting of the following principles and methods: • Planning/control and benefits management • Standards including quality, risk/issues and business case/change management • Programme management support.

4.9.6 Towards ensuring a controlled and coordinated approach to service delivery and achievement of key dates we will apply the project management principles promoted by PRINCE2. These principles are embedded in our ISO accredited Business Management System.

Programme Reporting

59 A191 Corridor November 2015

4.9.7 The main progress reporting mechanism will be the Highlight Report. The frequency of the reporting is subject to agreement with North Tyneside but as a minimum would be provided in advance of each relevant Project or Programme Board. The report will typically contain: • Red/ Amber/ Green status by work stream • Progress against key Milestones and quality gates • Key achievements and progress since last report • Exceptions from the plan • Key risks and issues with current and/or proposed mitigating actions • Key events due next period • Dependency analysis and review

4.9.8 Capita will collate and merge project reports into a programme highlight report. This will be produced monthly and agreed by the Programme Manager. Major deviations from plans, new issues and change requests will be the subject of a separate exception report accompanying the Highlight report created by the project manager.

Progress Reporting

4.9.9 As part of the overall programme reporting, a comprehensive monthly progress report will be prepared by Capita and submitted to North Tyneside in an agreed format. The report will contain: • A summary statement on the programme and deliveries, highlighting problem areas and remedial actions required; achievements made during the month will be itemised and compared to plan • A statement on the status of procurement and sub contract awards, together with the planned award dates and any deviations to these dates • A Health and Safety report • Milestone Progress • Change Control analysis • Resource Histograms as required • Key Risks and Issues.

Monthly Cost Reporting

4.9.10 A comprehensive monthly cost report will be prepared and submitted to the Capita Programme Director and, as required, the CLIENT Programme Lead in an agreed format. This report will contain: • Initial control forecast • Current control forecast • Commitments this period • Commitments to date • Expenditure to date compared to planned • Forecast at Completion and variance from Current Budget.

60 A191 Corridor November 2015

Exception Reporting and Escalation

4.9.11 Exception reporting and issue escalation facilitated by the project manager and PMO will be conducted through the Programme Governance process to allow effective communication of the programme risks and issues. The information for an exception report is derived from: • Current Stage Plan • Issues Log • Risks Log • Checkpoints, milestones and Quality Gates • Advice on external events that affect the Programme.

An exception report will contain: • A description of the deviation, together with the cause of the deviation from the Stage Plan • Consequences of the deviation • The available resolution options • The effect of each option on The PID, Risks, Programme and Stage tolerances , The Programme Manager's recommendations

4.10 Quality management

Quality Standards

4.10.1 The full business case and construction will be managed using the Quality System for which we are accredited under ISO 9001, ISO 14001, ISO 18001, Capita BMS, and PRINCE2 (Project Management Methodology).

Quality Control

4.10.2 Quality control focuses on fulfilling requirements by identifying and eliminating causes of unsatisfactory levels of quality within project products. The two main types of quality control are: in-process methods (such as workshops, self checks and consultations) and appraisal methods where the finished product is checked against its purpose.

4.10.3 Dates of workshops planned for this project are detailed within the design Programme and include Design meetings and buildability meetings.

4.10.4 Throughout the project/ design stage a quality register will be regularly maintained detailing methods taken to review and inspect the quality of products in line with the acceptance criteria. It will reflect the results of the quality methods which will provide information for audit and assurance.

61 A191 Corridor November 2015

4.10.5 A Design Journal shall be kept to record the progress of each element of the design as it is developed. This record shall include sufficient detail to produce an audit trail of the decisions and actions taken throughout the design process and include as a minimum the following: • Date • Details of instruction or request • Name of person/organisation • Action to be taken • Who took the action • Effect on design

4.10.6 The Discipline Lead is responsible for ensuring that the Design Journal is produced.

4.10.7 A quality inspection (design review) will be carried out within a suitable timeframe prior to a submission deadline. The inspection will have a chairperson who is responsible for the overall conduct of the review. The person who has produced the product will present to the chair and reviewer who will submit questions and comments on corrective actions to improve the product. The process will be recorded and resulting actions will be coordinated.

4.10.8 The table below details the level of quality control for different types of documents and drawings produced in the design process.

QUALITY CONTROL The following controls will apply: Products Requirement Reviewers Approvers Deliverables All Deliverables will be checked and Author’s peer, discipline Project Director (or approved before issue. lead, or suitable a senior manager in professional of same their absence) discipline, technical and quality peer reviewer Reports and All drawings and reports issued to Author’s peer, discipline Project Manager (or Drawings external parties (except those clearly lead, design manager or Project Director in marked DRAFT) will include a dated suitable professional of their absence) ’check box’ identifying the author, the same discipline checker and the approver. Work of Sub- Sub-consultant to be responsible for ‘Overview check’ by Project Project Manager (or consultants correctness of their own work, but their Manager or Design Project Director in deliverables to be reviewed general fit manager and, where their absence) and compliance with brief. necessary, suitable professional of same discipline Design Comply with relevant published design Simple Designs: Self-check Experienced Calculations checking guidance or standards where by designer, or another designer of relevant appropriate. designer of relevant discipline To be checked and approved before discipline

62 A191 Corridor November 2015

issue or incorporation into deliverables. Complex Designs: Experienced Computer designs: Input data / software experienced professional of chartered parameters to be checked before use. relevant discipline professional of Outputs to be checked for relevant discipline reasonableness and fit with other elements. Formal Technical Certification: In accordance with relevant design standards Minutes and Issued for Information as record of Self-check by producer or another of relevant Notes meetings/conversations. Both parties of discipline the meeting to confirm accuracy of minutes. Sketches Intended for information only in the Self-check by producer or another of relevant development of the design, not to be discipline used for any other purposes

Quality Reviews

4.10.9 Monthly Project Health Check Reviews are required on a monthly basis. The Project Manager identifies the level of risk associated with various elements of the project such as fee arrangements, resources and change control. An overall risk rating is then calculated for the project. Any highlighted risks can then be controlled using preventative actions.

4.10.10 Project Reviews– a sample of high risk projects are reviewed each month by technically competent members of staff (usually other Project Managers/ Cost Centre Managers). Records are kept and Profit Centre Managers report on key issues identified.

4.10.11 Design Reviews (quality inspection) will be required at planned stages throughout the lifecycle of the project to: review design and development; whether the design meets requirements of the Client Brief and to identify any problems/ propose necessary actions. Dates for the design reviews are contained within the Design Programme.

4.10.12 Project Audits are undertaken on a sample of projects using the BMS Project Audit Checklist or an alternative checklist approved by the BMS Team. The Quality Assurance Manager is responsible for ensuring that audits of the Designer’s Quality System are carried out and corrective actions are implemented. They will then report to the Design Project Manager. A schematic showing the audit and review process is shown below:

63 A191 Corridor November 2015

Internal Inputs Quality Contract Lists Management Company Systems System Business Processes for audit Quality Procedures Service Outputs External Inputs Requests to Determine conduct external Audit audit Management Schedule Review Plan Audits

Report Audit Undertake Results Audits

Raise Corrective Action Requests

4.11 Roles and responsibilities

General Roles

4.11.1 Producer(s): The person or group responsible for developing a product. The producer will check their work prior to submission for review. The majority of the detailed design work will be carried out by Capita’s multi disciplinary offices in North Tyneside with specialism’s being provided from Carlisle.

4.11.2 Reviewer(s): A person or group independent of the producer who assess whether a product meets its requirements as defined in its Design Basis Statement.

4.11.3 Approver(s): The person or group who is identified as qualified and authorised to approve a product as being complete and issued for use.

4.12 Specific Roles for Quality Management

4.12.1 Project Manager: The Design Project Manager reports to the Project Director and is responsible for: • Management and approval of products prior to submission to the Client. • Reviewing the Technical, Environmental and Health and Safety requirements of the project team to ensure that adequate skills exist within the Project Team and determining whether any additional training or external advice is required

64 A191 Corridor November 2015

• Taking action whenever there is evidence that quality standards are not being met or the Quality Management Plan needs revision to meet the requirements of the project. In such case, the Project Manager shall immediately report to the Project Director to agree corrective actions. • Quality management of the Designer’s project activities, including auditing, reviewing the results of audits and ensuring implementation of effective corrective actions to address non-conformities • Establishing, maintaining and reporting on the Quality Management System • Preparing (or delegating preparation to others) and reviewing project-specific quality documentation • Ensuring compliance with the Designers QA procedures and those of other parties involved in the project. Ensuring that effective correction actions are taken on identified problems

4.12.2 Design Manager and Discipline Leads will report to the Design Project Manager and be responsible for: • Management and reviewing of technical work undertaken by their design team • Management of design, constructability and review/checking processes • Preparing (or delegating preparation to others) and reviewing project-specific quality documentation • Monitor and report progress of the design for their discipline

4.12.3 Document Controller/Project Support: The Document Controller reports to the Design Project Manager and is responsible for: • Ensuring all relevant documents are properly registered and stored. For this scheme a BMS approved document numbering system will be used and all documentation will be filed and stored on Project wise using this numbering system • Ensuring that all contract correspondence is properly managed to provide an accurate record • Monitor and report on the above

4.12.4 Technical and Quality Peer Reviewer: The Technical and Quality Peer Reviewer will be independent of the Project Manager and will be responsible for: • Ensuring the project follows/is compliant with the Designers QA procedures documented within this Plan.

4.13 Contingency Planning

4.13.1 The form of contract will be NEC Option A (Priced Contract with Activity Schedule). Our risk allowance will be used as a contingency fund during the works to manage Compensation Events and to deal with any cost increases which could not be foreseen prior to construction. Weekly risk reduction meetings will be undertaken throughout the construction period to continuously manage the level of risk and to ensure the contingency value is not exceeded.

65 A191 Corridor November 2015

5. The Commercial Case

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 This commercial case will seek to provide appropriate and proportionate evidence on the commercial viability of the project, including evidence that North Tyneside Council are seeking funding through the best and most appropriate route. This section of the overall business case will also provide the strategy we have in place to procure the services required to both design and construct the project. The commercial case will establish and introduce the key personnel responsible for the design and construction stages of the project.

5.1.2 The commercial case will also provide evidence that North Tyneside Council has undertaken due diligence in the identification, allocation, ownership of all relevant project risks. How these risks will be managed throughout the life of the project is also outlined within the commercial case.

5.1.3 Our Commercial Case will therefore be structured as follows;

 Section 5.2 will provide evidence that North Tyneside Council are seeking funding through the most appropriate routes and what the key scheme outcomes and outputs are.  Section 5.3 will provide our procurement strategy and sourcing options.  Section 5.4 will outline how we have identified risk and who owns the risk.  Section 5.5 sets out the type of contract, length and key clauses and how the contracts will be managed.

5.2 Scheme Justification

5.2.1 This funding scheme is appropriate as the scheme is line with the policy challenges set out in the adopted Assurance Framework, e.g. in supporting jobs and improving connectivity from residential areas to employment opportunities. The level of funding sought to deliver the scheme would not be manageable within the Council’s LTP integrated transport block allocation, both in terms of level of funding required and delivering within the identified construction period.

5.3 Procurement Strategy & Sourcing Options

5.3.1 In November 2012, North Tyneside Council [NTC] and Capita entered into a 15-year partnership to deliver a range of services securing multi-million pound investment in the borough.

66 A191 Corridor November 2015

5.3.2 The Partnership is committed to not only improving council services, but also investing in the borough, creating further jobs and apprenticeships by developing North Tyneside as a centre of excellence for the business in the region and nationally.

5.3.3 The services included within the partnership include;  Property.  Engineering (Design & Build).  Planning and Building Control.  Public Protection.

5.3.4 Capita have worked alongside NTC to develop the outline business case (OBC) and full business case (FBC) we propose to carry on this arrangement through the, construction and monitoring and evaluation stages.

5.3.5 For the procurement of the Weetslade Scheme a selective tendering process was deemed to offer the best opportunity to demonstrate value and provide a higher degree of cost certainty for the client.

5.3.6 A pre-selected list of possible suppliers was prepared. These suppliers were selected on the grounds of their track record and judged to be suitable for a contract of the size, nature and complexity of the Weetslade Scheme.

5.3.7 Selective tendering tends to be more efficient than other forms of procurement and offers better value and pre construction savings. As there is no pre-qualification process as part of the tender procedure itself, only suppliers that are known to be appropriate for the proposed contract have been invited to prepare tenders satisfied. A short listing exercise has been previously undertaken by NTC’s partner Capita as part of the construction partnership tendering opportunity. This identified a shortlist of X appropriate supply chain contractors.

5.4 Payment mechanisms

5.4.1 This will be through the framework contract with an individual NEC Option A (Priced Contract with Activity Schedule).

67 A191 Corridor November 2015

5.5 Risk identification, allocation and transfer

5.5.1 For the purpose of the commercial case we have defined risks as outlined within WebTag unit A1.2 as “identifiable factors that may impact on a scheme cost, leading to over or under-spends. In order to identify and devise a strategy to manage, transfer or avoid the risk and understand the cost of the residual risk remaining we have developed a Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA). This has enabled us to produce a risk adjusted cost estimate.

5.5.2 We have adopted the recommended four stage process in the development of the QRA of;  Risk Identification  Assessing the Impact of Risk  Estimating the Likelihood of the Impacts of Risk; and  Deriving the overall distribution and expected value of the Risk for the scheme.  Managing the risks

5.5.3 The development of the risk register and QRA is presented in detail within the management case. 5.6 Contract Length

5.6.1 The Contract will be a NEC Option A (Priced Contract with Activity Schedule) and will be administered on site by a NEC Project Manager working on behalf of North Tyneside Council. The contract documents are based on Method of Measurement for Highways works and include detailed drawings, specifications and schedules.

5.6.2 The construction period of the works being delivered by North Tyneside Council will commence in February 2016 subject to approval and be completed by July 2016 as indicated in the updated Project Programme included in Appendix G.

5.7 Contract Management

5.7.1 The supply chain has engaged early on with designers to provide early contractor involvement to improve buildability, reduce programme and procurement lead-in improving value for money. Our supply chain has provided detailed costs which have been reviewed and negotiated down to provide a cost and will be procured on a basis of a NEC Option A contract.

68 A191 Corridor November 2015

5.7.2 Through the Partnership Capita and North Tyneside Council share office accommodation improving communication through regular formal and informal meetings with the client to discuss early warnings, update on progress and provide insight to risks which exist thereby benefitting from their knowledge of local constraints and the benefit of the contractors experience providing a joined up project approach to major schemes.

69 A191 Corridor November 2015

6. The Financial Case

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 The financial case will concentrate on the affordability of the proposal, the funding arrangements and the spending profile. The financial case therefore sets out the outturn costs of the proposals with an explanation of how a thorough consideration of risk has been included in the development of the scheme costs.

6.1.2 DfT guidance states that it is essential that promoting authorities develop a sound financial plan for proceeding with a major scheme bid. This should consider all sources of funding; the conditions associated with each of them and the financial risks and contingent liabilities that may result should any funding stream fail to materialise.

6.1.3 A general flaw by appraisers has tended to be to underestimate scheme costs and overestimate scheme benefits – this is known as optimism bias. To overcome this, the DfT require an optimism bias adjustment factor to be applied to the scheme costs. In general, the scheme cost optimism bias adjustment factor is greater at the start of the appraisal process and reduces as the scheme develops through the appraisal process.

6.1.4 The optimism bias was set at 44% for the OBC stage to cover cost uncertainty. As the scheme developed through the design and appraisal process and full costs were identified, this has been reduced to zero and replaced with an appropriate risk allowance. For the economic case an optimism bias of 3% has still been applied.

6.2 The expected whole life costs

6.2.1 The scheme costs have been identified in terms of expected outturn cost and include scheme preparation, design, construction costs and supervision costs. Whilst we have provided an indication of scheme monitoring and evaluation costs within the Management Case, these have not been included within the base scheme cost. The detailed breakdown of costs is provided within Appendix B.

6.2.2 The scheme costs have been provided by Capita’s construction partner Esh. The spend profiles have also been provided to Esh and as such they have built in inflation into the costs. Risk allowance and optimism bias has been identified by the design team based on the risk register developed in the risk workshop. There are no land costs associated with the scheme

6.2.3 The cost estimates are therefore built up from the following 4 key components;

70 A191 Corridor November 2015

 Scheme preparation and design fees  Construction cost  Risk allowance  Optimism bias

6.2.4 Table 6.1 below provides the summery of the cost estimates for the scheme including optimism bias but excluding monitoring and evaluation cost estimates. The full scheme cost breakdown is provided within Appendix B.

Table 6.1 cost estimate summary. Item Cost Estimate Construction Costs – Main Physical Works and £1,237,586 investigative surveys. Scheme preparation and design fees £239,742 Supervision Fees £74,952 Risk Allowance £147,700 Total Scheme Cost £1,699,980

6.3 Affordability

6.3.1 North Tyneside Council will not be providing a local contribution to the scheme. Instead the LEP funding will be supplemented by a £200,000 S.106 contribution associated with a residential development adjacent the Tyne View Park junction (Darsley Green – Taylor Wimpey). Combined with the LEP allocation of £1,500,000 this equates to the scheme cost of £1,700,000.

6.3.2 As the improvement works are being carried out to council owned assets they will be recorded as enhancements and included on the council’s balance sheet. 6.4 Breakdown and Profile of Costs

Table 6.2 Spend Profile Summary Financial Year Spend ( £ 000’s) Spend Type 15/16 620 Design, Preparation & Utility diversion works 16/17 1,079 Tyne View Park junction and A191 widening

Table 6.2 Local Contribution Cost Breakdown Financial LEP S.106 Total Year Contribution Contribution 15/16 620 0 620 16/17 879 200 1,079

71 A191 Corridor November 2015

6.5 Risk Allowance

6.5.1 A risk allowance of £147,700 has been applied to the base cost. This figure was a direct output from the risk workshop undertaken. The details of this are provided within the management case.

6.6 Budgets / Funding cover

6.6.1 Should the scheme costs exceed the £1,700,000 it is anticipated that North Tyneside Council would fund the shortfall through internal budgets.

72 A191 Corridor November 2015

Appendix A - Drawings

73 A191 Corridor November 2015

Appendix B - Cost Estimates

74 A191 Corridor November 2015

Appendix C - Stakeholder Engagement Strategy

75 A191 Corridor November 2015

Appendix D - Monitoring and Evaluation Report

76 A191 Corridor November 2015

Appendix E - Local Model Validation Report

77 A191 Corridor November 2015

Appendix F - Quantified Risk Assessment

78 A191 Corridor November 2015

Appendix G - Programme

79

Capita Property and Infrastructure Ltd North Tyneside Council The Quadrant The Silverlink North Cobalt Business Park North Tyneside NE27 0BY

www.capita.co.uk