Annex 1 - Sunderland Road link location plan Legend Sunderland Road Scheme AQMA Sunderland Road West Housing Urban Core Boundary main roads Our Ref: GNE/GC Riverside Depot nd 22 June 2017 Mandela Way Dunston Stuart Corker Gateshead Transport Planner Tyne and Wear Transport Strategy NE11 9DH Gateshead Council Tel: 0191 420 50 50 Civic Centre Web: gonortheast.co.uk Regent Street Direct Line: 0191 4229297 Gateshead Email: [email protected] NE8 1HH Ref: National Productivity Investment Fund. Dear Stuart, I am writing on behalf of Go North East to express our support for Gateshead’s bid to the National Productivity Investment Fund. The large roundabout at the junction of Sunderland Road, Old Durham Road and Durham Road, is a major pinch point in the Gateshead road network and for much of the day, the ever increasing levels of congestion add unnecessary delays to buses on all of the approach roads. Services 27 and X9/X10 operating mainly between South Tyneside and East Gateshead towards the town centre and Newcastle are now being affected greatly by this congestion and attract high levels of complaint from our customers due to the unreliability and often the loss of service, due primarily to the low level of bus priority measures on this particular corridor. The proposed scheme will provide a priority route for our buses to avoid these delays. I hope your bid is successful and that you are able to deliver these important improvements. Yours sincerely Jeff Hodgson Service Performance Manager Go North East Go North East Limited. Registered in England No. 2057284 Registered Office: 3rd Floor, Grey Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 6EE Andrew Haysey Transport Planning Manager Gateshead Council Civic Centre West Street Gateshead NE8 1HH 26 May 2017 Dear Andrew RE: Sunderland Road Link proposal I am writing to confirm Living Streets’ support for Gateshead Council’s Sunderland Road Link project, for the government’s National Productivity Investment Fund. We are Living Streets, the UK charity for everyday walking. We want to create a walking nation, free from congested roads and pollution, reducing the risk of preventable illnesses and social isolation and making walking the natural choice. We believe that a walking nation means progress for everyone. Our ambition is to get people of all generations to enjoy the benefits that this simple act brings and to ensure all our streets are fit for walking. The proposed project is in an area with many competing demands, including heavy traffic, retail and residential. The proposed removal of the current subway used by pedestrians and its replacement by an at grade facility will help to rebalance the needs of the different users of the area, and encourage more people to make their journeys on foot. Yours sincerely Jennifer Wiles Regional Director (North) Annex 4 Sunderland Road subway – crime statistics The Police.uk website for the area of Sunderland Road subway has been interrogated for the period April 2016 to March 2017 (inclusive). The area is described on the map as ‘crime on or near the pedestrian subway’. There were a total 73 reported crimes during this period as follows. There were as many as 11 reported in one month period. • Antisocial behaviour- 35 • Other theft- 4 • Public order- 10 • Violence and sexual offences- 6 • Theft from person- 3 • Other- 7 • Criminal damage/arson- 2 • Burglary- 2 • Possession of weapons- 1 • Robbery-1 • Vehicle crime- 1 • Drugs- 1 Anecdotal observation suggests a high proportion of people trying to cross at grade rather than use the subway. It is noted the pedestrian guardrail in the central reservation was pushed over at one point and has recently been repaired. Scheme Impact Pro Forma for Small Project Bids - Please fill in the cells highlighted in yellow NPIF Year of assessment 2019 AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Inter-Peak Hr Scenario Input Data / Key Performance Indicators Unit Weekday Weekday Weekday Number of highway trips affected vehicles 397 364 309 Total vehicle travelled time vehicle-hours 2 2 2 Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km 162 153 131 Do-Minimum Highway peak period conversion factor - 2.50 2.50 6.00 Number of PT passenger trips on affected routes passenger trips 1,361 1,612 1,352 Total PT travelled time passenger-hrs 54 58 58 PT peak period conversion factor - 2.50 2.50 6.00 Number of highway trips affected vehicles 397 364 309 Total vehicle travelled time vehicle-hours 5 5 4 Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km 162 153 131 Do-Something Highway peak period conversion factor - 2.50 2.50 6.00 Number of PT passenger trips on affected routes passenger trips 1,361 1,612 1,352 Total PT travelled time passenger-hrs 27 31 25 PT peak period conversion factor - 2.50 2.50 6.00 Gateshead Sund Rd NPIF Annex 5 - project impacts pro forma.xls NPIF Notes: 1) The scheme assessment year should be as close as possible to the scheme opening year (and not final forecast year). 2) A base or forecast year model could be used for the assessment of the scheme. This depends on the age of base year model and the availability of a forecast year model for the scheme opening year. 3) To enable an assessment of travel time savings, at the very least, the vehicle (and/or passenger)-hours and vehicle (and/or passenger)-km rows in the Scheme Impact Pro-forma (for at least some time periods) should be filled in for both the Do-minimum and Do-something. 4) Highway and PT trip demand, travelled time and distance matrices should be obtained from the Area of Influence (which may be a set of selected links or cordoned network). Matrix calculation is required by multiplying OD trip demand matrix and time/distance matrix in order to calculate the highway and PT total travelled time/distance. The PT time matrix should include generalised cost components (in-vehicle time, waiting time etc.) 5) It is expected that the assessment should have been carried out on a fixed trip matrix basis. We therefore expect the number of trips affected in the Do-minimum and Do-something as reported to be the same (or similar e.g. within +/- 5%). If this is not the case a more appropriate reanalysis may be required and/or some supporting explanation. 6) Highway and/or Public Transport period conversion factors need to be derived from local data and be provided in the Scheme Impact Pro-forma. 7) Evidence should be provided of the validation of any model used – focussed on the key area of impact (including information on data used etc). If no model has been used then details of the data used and details/source of any assumptions (e.g. about changes in journey between Do-minimum and Do-something) should be provided. 8) If the scheme has significant impacts on cycling and walking, additional evidence should be provided to support the economic case. Gateshead Sund Rd NPIF Annex 5 - project impacts pro forma.xls Transportation Gateshead Council 26/06/2017 Sunderland Road Bus Gate Scheme Economic Appraisal Prepared by: Checked by: Gemma Paget Gary Macdonald Principal Consultant Regional Director Approved by: Gary Macdonald Regional Director Gateshead NPIF Bid Sunderland Road Bus Gate Economic Benefits Methodology Rev No Comments Checked by Approved Date by 1 GM GM 29 June 2017 First Floor, One Trinity Gardens, Quayside, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 2HF Telephone: 0191 224 6500 Website: http://www.aecom.com Job No 60545500 Reference M001.001 Date Created 26/06/2017 This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited for the sole use of our client (the “Client”) and in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM Limited and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM Limited, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM Limited. document4 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Data Requirements ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Bus Survey ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 2.3 Highway Traffic Counts .......................................................................................................................................... 4 3 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 3.2 Bus Services Travel Time and Distance ................................................................................................................ 5 3.3 Bus Service Demand ............................................................................................................................................. 5 3.4 Car Time ...............................................................................................................................................................