Highways Agency - Safe roads, Reliable journeys, Informed travellers

Executive summary

Executive Summary

This report outlines the process undertaken during the Route Management Strategy (RMS) study on the A194(M), the A184 and the A19 trunk road from the south of Gateshead to the North of Newcastle upon Tyne It describes the findings of the study and the outcomes that will improve the co-ordination and planning of future investment to operate and maintain the route.

A draft RMS was published in April 2004 and a formal Public Consultation on the draftRMS took place over a 12-week period between the 8th May and 31st July 2004.

The majority of people who responded to the consultation endorsed the findings.Providing measures to reduce congestion was clearly the most important issue.

This final version of the RMS takes account of the comments and submissionsreceived during that consultation, although the number of changes are relatively fewand not significant to the overall strategy.

The final Strategy also takes account of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act,which came in to force in July 2004, and the Government's White Paper "The Future ofTransport" published in the same month.

The A194(M)/A184/A19 trunk road forms part of a strategic link between the main trunkroads of the region i.e. the A1(M) from Darlington, the A1(T) in Northumberland andareas within Tyne and Wear including the Port of Tyne and regeneration areas onTyneside and SE Northumberland. It also links the south and north of Tyneside via theRiver Tyne tunnel (which is not itself part of the RMS) and acts as an alternative routefor A1(M)/A1(T) traffic. In total the route is 27.7km (17.3 miles) in length. The A194(M)is a 6.1km (3.8 miles) section of motorway, the remainder is all-purpose dualcarriagewaywith both grade-separated and at-grade junctions.

This report outlines the following:

• Policy Objectives - These are objectives used to define the context of the study and guide issues that it will investigate. They are developed from the wider planning, economic and transport objectives obtained from a variety of national, regional and local sources relevant to the study.

• Route Functions - These are the existing roles of the route and also those it intends to serve in the future. They are based upon the nature of the journeys that occur and the relationship with other parts of the national and local transport infrastructure and regional land use development.

  The study confirms the route's strategic nature of serving the motorway and trunk road functions and also identifies its local significance.

• Land Use and Development Control Statement - This is an integral part of the RMS process. Its purpose is to provide the Highways Agency with a source of information that will support the development control strategy for the route. It will allow the HA to contribute effectively to the integration with regional and local planning strategies.

  In developing the statement, the land use development pressures exerted on the route have been investigated and their likely impact along sections of the routeassessed.

• Route Problems and Issues - A number of problems and issues have beenidentified from consultation with the public, relevant authorities and organisationswho have an interest in the route. The issues have also been identified throughan independent assessment of performance based on factual data obtained. Adetailed description of these problems and issues is provided within this report.

  A summary of the main problems and issues identified during the study are asfollows:

  • Congestion is occurring and this is most significant at junctions. This is also impacting upon the local highway authority network.
  • Groups of accidents have been identified at a number of locations.
  • Pedestrian, equestrian, cyclist and disabled facilities could be improved. This would also contribute to reducing community severance.
  • Future land use and development will put added pressures on the already congested junctions.
  • Congestion is resulting from roadworks or incidents occurring on the route e.g. accidents and breakdowns.
  • There are limited facilities for travellers including tourists and freight drivers
  • There are limited information and direction signs for freight, tourism, public transport and diversionary routes.
  • If progressed, the Second Tyne Tunnel would increase traffic growth on the route.
  • The route maybe affecting the environment along its length. This includes effects on nature conservation, biodiversity, noise, air quality, cultural heritage and water quality.

• Route Outcomes - These will set out what the Highways Agency will seek to obtain from the route over the 10-year period of the Route Management Strategy.These have been produced on the basis of an understanding of the problemsand issues that are occurring. The impact of the Route Outcomes on the route isillustrated in a Strategy Impact Statement included at the end of the report.

  The Route Outcomes are as follows:

RO1	To identify short and longer term measures to address congestion and seek to improve journey time reliability
RO2	To improve maintenance procedures and target improvements that will seek to improve the operation of the route during maintenance works
RO3	To improve the strategic operation of the Route
RO4	To facilitate and support sustainable regeneration and employment opportunities
RO5	To reduce the number of accidents along the route and improve overall safety
RO6	To improve the facilities that contribute to traveller care along the route
RO7	To enhance the landscape and biodiversity and minimise the impact of the route on cultural heritage
RO8	To minimise noise, air and water pollution and the risk of flooding associated with the route
RO9	To provide appropriate facilities for all non-motorised users crossing and travelling along the route and reduce the severance effect of the route on communities
RO10	To improve facilities that will contribute to integration with different forms of public transport
RO11	To maintain and develop relationships with relevant stakeholders and other bodies with an interest in the route
RO12	To improve facilities for Heavy Goods Vehicles and contribute to theintegration of different forms of freight transport

1 introduction

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

In line with the Governments White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone ", Route Management Strategies are a technique being developed by the Highways Agency to provide a framework for managing individual trunk routes as part of wider transport networks. Route Management Strategies will interlock with local transport strategies (set out in Local Transport Plans) within the context established by Regional Planning Guidance'.

The Route Management Strategy (RMS) process is intended to improve the coordination of initiatives and the planning of future investment to operate and maintain a specified route. It is primarily about making best use of the existing route but might identify more major schemes for further consideration.

The RMS process will help the Highways Agency (HA) in the following ways to:

• Assist in planning and optimising investment in the trunk road/motorway network and in the delivery of HA strategic plans and ten-year transport strategy. Essentially, spending the available money more effectively.
• Provide consistency, transparency, openness and integration, particularly with other transport related strategies, including local and regional transport plans (also providing input into these strategies and plans).
• Maximise customer focus and ensure that stakeholders, users of the route and local people have a say in the development of the route. Local people and organisations often know more about local problems and what the solutions might be.
• Improve forward planning over a 10-year horizon.

The RMS process includes:

• Gathering information to determine the characteristics of the route and its performance.
• Extensive consultation with stakeholders - regional bodies, local planning and highway authorities, the police, etc.
• Wider consultation with other local and national organisations.
• Full public consultation.
• Review of regional planning, structure plans, and local development plans etc.
• Identifying problems/issues over safety, congestion, accessibility, integration, and the environment.
• Investigating potential changes in future traffic patterns, volumes, congestion, composition, and journey time variability.

1.2 The RMS Route

The route of the RMS study comprises the A194(M)/A184/A19 trunk road between junction 65 of the A1(M) at Washington and the Seaton Burn junction on the A1 trunk road to the north. It does not include the Tyne Tunnel which is the responsibility of the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Authority.

The route lies within the boundaries of Sunderland Metropolitan Council, South Tyneside Metropolitan Council, North Tyneside Metropolitan Council, Gateshead Metropolitan Council and Northumberland County Council (see map below).

1.3 History of the Study

In September 2003, Hyder Consulting were commissioned by the HA to undertake a Route Management Strategy study on the A194(M)/A184/A19 trunk road in accordance with the Highways Agency Route Management Strategy Guidance (Version 2) dated November 2003

In April 2004 a draft Route Management Strategy was produced and a full Public Consultation on the draft held from 8th May to 31st July 2004.

This Report sets out the Final Route Management Strategy taking into account the contributions received during the public consultation.

1.4 Overview of the Route Management Strategy

1.4.1 RMS Elements

The RMS comprises identification of the following five elements:

1. Policy Objectives
2. Route Functions and Performance
3. Land Use and Development Control Strategy
4. Route Problems and Issues
5. Route Outcomes

To see how these elements interact, see Figure 1.1.

1.4.2 Policy Objectives

Policy Objectives are wider planning, economic and transport objectives, which are pertinent to the route. These can be derived from national, regional and local sources including:

National Sources

• Government Objectives and Policies (e.g. Planning Policy Guidance)
• Highways Agency Strategic Plans & Initiatives
• Other National Policies

Regional and Local Sources

• Regional Planning Guidance and Transport Strategies
• Development Plans (Local Plans, Structure Plans and Unitary Development Plans)
• Local Transport Plans
• Multi-Modal Studies/Road Based Studies
• Mineral and Waste Plans

(The implications of the new "Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act July 2004 are setout in detail in section 5.2)

These objectives have been used throughout the RMS process to ensure that the RMS outcome is in keeping with wider policies. They have been used when identifying the function of the route, the problems and issues associated, the land use and development control strategy and the route outcomes.

Figure 1.1 - Interaction of RMS Elements

The Highways Agency has five headline policy objectives for transport (based upon government policy objectives) which underpin the RMS. They are:

• To contribute to an efficient economy and to support sustainable economic growth in appropriate locations
• To improve safety for all travellers
• To protect and enhance the built and natural environment
• To promote accessibility to everyday facilities, especially for those without a car
• To promote the integration of all forms of transport and land use planning

1.4.3 Route Functions and Performance

Functions and performance describe the purposes that the route currently serves and those it intends to serve in the future. Functions are based on the nature of journeys that occur on the route and the relationship between the route and other parts of the national and local transport infrastructure and regional land use development.

Consideration of the functions will direct the study towards the problems which it will beseeking to resolve.

The performance of the route is assessed on the basis of the five key areas of assessment identified by government i.e. Economy, Safety, Environment, Integration and Accessibility.

1.4.4 Land Use and Development Control Statement

The Land Use and Development Control Statement sets out:

• How the route interacts with existing regional and local planning and transport strategies.
• Issues concerning the route that will need to be addressed in revisions to those strategies and development plans and
• How the HA will interpret Planning Policy Guidance PPG13 and Department of Transport Circular 4/2001 (this sets out the overall government development control policy) along the route.

It involves looking at the existing and future planning aspirations associated with the route and assessing their impact. Necessary changes to ensure that the route sits together with its planning and development control context will be identified. This could involve changes to the RMS or to Policy.

1.4.5 Problems and Issues

Route Problems and Issues are matters of concern to the Highways Agency, stakeholders and the public. During the RMS Study, there has been an examination of the extent to which perceived and real problems and issues are preventing the Policy Objectives from being met, or which hinder the performance of Route Functions.

Where problems occur, there is likely to be a reduction in performance, which can be identified at a Network level.

Route Problems can be understood through consideration of the following:

• Network Comparison - Safety and Economic Performance Indicators.
• Route Characteristics - illustration of the make-up of the route and its constraints.
• Recorded Incidents - including accident statistics, air quality management areas, pollution incidents etc.
• Feedback from Consultation.

1.4.6 Route Outcomes

Route Outcomes set out what the HA seek to obtain from the route over the 10-year period of the RMS. They will contribute to Policy Objectives, improve the performance of Route Functions, support the Land Use and Development Control Statement and address Route Problems and Issues.

These are the key outputs expected from the RMS.

1.4.7 The Overall RMS Process

An overview of the processes and the key events of the RMS study are shown in Figure 1.2.

The RMS was developed in three stages. The first was the development of the Initial RMS presented at a Seminar with the Wider Reference Group (WRG) on the 27th January 2004 (refer to section 1.3).

The second stage was the development of the Draft RMS in April 2004. This took account of the views of the WRG and further investigation into problems and issues carried out by the consultants, and was followed by a formal Public Consultation on the Draft.

The third stage was the development of the Final RMS that takes account of views expressed during the Public Consultation.

Figure 1.2 Overview of the RMS Process

1.5 Details of Consultations

Consultation is an important part of the RMS process, it has taken place throughout thestudy. The main parties consulted comprise:

• Stakeholders. These comprise the Government Office for the North East, North East Assembly, the Highways Agency and their agents, the Local Highway Authorities and the police (see list in Appendix A Table A)
• The Wider Reference Group. This comprises a large number of local, regional and national organisations with a potential interest in the route (see list in Appendix A Table B).
• The General Public

In November 2003, a Stakeholder Workshop took place where early Policy Objectives, Route Functions and Problems and Issues identified at that stage were presented and discussed.

The RMS Seminar took place on the 27th January 2004. It was organised to provide an opportunity to consult on the initial RMS with the Wider Reference Group (WRG). A questionnaire was also sent out in January 2004 to the WRG requesting details about problems and issues along the route.

Following the Seminar, a Seminar Report (Report No. A011) and Seminar Questionnaire Survey Report (Report No. A012) were produced incorporating the findings of the Seminar event. Issues from the Seminar event were incorporated within the Draft RMS where appropriate.

In March 2004, a second Stakeholder Workshop took place, which primarily discussed and reviewed the Draft Route Outcomes and identified those that would be taken forward to Public Consultation.

From 8th May to 31st July a formal Public Consultation was held in order to obtain theviews of the general public on the Draft RMS Report.

The Draft RMS Report was placed on deposit at council offices along the route. A consultation leaflet and questionnaire was produced and distributed to households adjacent to the route via free local newspapers (the Herald and Post and the Washington Star). Quantities of the leaflet were also placed at various local sites such as central libraries, Local Authority offices and petrol stations alongside the route, motorway services, shopping centres and at the ferry terminal. For a full list see Appendix A, sections C and D.

The Draft RMS Report was also available for viewing on the Highways Agency website along with a questionnaire to enable comments to be provided electronically.

A separate report has been prepared on the public consultation (Report No. A018) acopy of which is available on the web site or from the Consultants.

During the Public Consultation, many suggestions were made for specific and general measures to be put in place. A summary list of those not otherwise covered in the RMS report are listed in the Public Consultation Report (Report No. A018). The public also commented on other related issues that were off the RMS Route, and these were referred to other organisations. A summary of these comments are included in Appendix H.

1.6 Reports and Data Used to Prepare the RMS

1.6.1 General Sources

Policy documents referred to are set out in general terms in section 1.4.2 and in detailin the Policy Objective Source Tables in Appendix E.

Environmental data was collected mostly from resources available via web sites and the managing agents for the road. Traffic flow data came from automatic traffic counters and available turning movement surveys whilst accident data was collated from the local authorities.

Other data was collected from the Ports Authority, the Strategic Rail Authority and other such organisations.

Several studies and initiatives are underway along the route. Studies pertinent to thisstudy are listed in Appendix D.

During review of the study reports, a number of issues have been identified that relateto this RMS route and may impact on it in the future. The studies have provided a significant amount of information that has contributed to and helped to substantiate issues that the RMS has investigated.

A summary of the key issues to emerge are provided below.

1.6.2 Multi-Modal Studies

There are two Multi-Modal Studies that relate to the area of the RMS study, they are:

(1) Tyneside Area Multi-Modal Study (TAMMS) - November 2002

TAMMS has far reaching implications for strategic transport movements within the area, affecting both major and local routes. The recommended strategy measures relating to the route identified from this study are:

• Widening of the A1 western by-pass and junction rationalisation.
• Key highway network stress points were identified as A1(M)/A194(M) junction, north and south roundabouts to the Tyne Tunnel, A1058 Silverlink interchange, A189 Moor Farm roundabout and A1/A19 Seaton Burn interchange. Improvements to these are suggested.
• Provision of a Second Tyne Crossing.
• Improvement of public transport measures.
• Provision/improvement to traffic management.
• Provision/improvement of electronic communications.
• Promotion of cycling and walking.
• Initiatives to change travel behaviour.
• Improvements to land use planning policy.

The strategy also identified as one of its objectives …'to encourage reduction in car usage through measures such as travel behaviour initiatives and through pricing measures in the major conurbations…'.

The origin/destination surveys included within TAMMS provided information on the journeys that were taking place and hence helped determine Route Functions.

(2) A1 Multi-Modal Study - September 2001

The principal aim of this study was to investigate the transport pressures along the A1 trunk road between Newcastle and the Scottish Borders and identify solutions to identified accident rates. It has little significance on this RMS study, as improvements are generally recommended north of Newcastle.

1.6.3 Further RMS Studies

There are four other RMS's in the area of Newcastle, these are:

• A69 Carlisle to Newcastle RMS - Final RMS published July 2003
• A168/A19 Dishforth to South Tyneside RMS - Final RMS published October 2003
• A1(M) Blyth to Gateshead - Final RMS published March 2004
• A1 Gateshead to Berwick-Published 2000

A number of actions have been identified at this stage, however, none have a direct impact on this RMS. A number of issues have been identified that relate to, for example: the standard of signing, improvements for non-motorised users, assistance with modal shift, improvements to pollution control, improvements to service facilities and lay-bys, improvements to biodiversity action plans and landscape plans. This study has sought to co-ordinate and reinforce the relevant issues and provide consistency across the HA network.

1.6.4 Second Tyne Crossing

The Tyne Tunnel is operated by Nexus, it is not the responsibility of the HA and as such is not part of the RMS study. Similarly the issue as to whether a second crossing should be constructed is outside the scope of this study.

It is recognised however, that the proposed second crossing (a tunnel) is by far the biggest issue that may affect traffic flows on the route. The scheme has been the subject of a Public Inquiry and a decision on whether the scheme will progress is currently expected in 2005.

The New Tyne crossing Environmental Study has provided a significant amount of background information for this RMS study.

1.6.5 The A19 Corridor Study

An A19 Corridor Study (February 2002) has been undertaken to investigate the effect of traffic flows on the A19, both with and without the Second Tyne crossing. It was prepared by Arup Transport on behalf of the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Authority and proposes possible highway improvements that will mitigate the effects of traffic growth, future development and opening of the Second Tyne crossing.

This report has provided a significant amount of information on junction capacity along the route and possible improvements. Both minor and major works are discussed in the report to improve the capacity of junctions. Minor works include:

• Replacement of priority junction with a roundabout at Dudley Lane interchange.
• Replacement of east priority junctions with a roundabout at the Killingworth interchange.
• Remodelling of the south and north portal junctions.
• Provision of traffic signals at the Holystone and Lindisfarne roundabouts.
• Provision of left turn lanes at the Silverlink, Testo's and White Mare Pool roundabouts.

Major improvements discussed are:

• Grade separation schemes at Seaton Burn, Moor Farm, Silverlink and Testos junctions.

1.6.6 Proposed Schemes and Investigations Underway

Two junction improvement schemes have obtained entry into the Governments Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI's). These are:

• The Testo's roundabout
• The Seaton Burn interchange including both the A1 junction and A1068
• roundabout.
• Two further junctions are being considered for entry to the TPI. These are:
• The A1058 Silverlink junction
• The A189 Moor Farm roundabout.

2 description of the route

2 Description of the Route

2.1 General Description

The route comprises the A194(M)/A184/A19 trunk road between Junction 65 on the A1(M) near Washington in the south to the A1/A19 Seaton Burn junction in the north. It begins at the bifurcation of the A1(M)/A194(M) and follows the A194(M) to White Mare Pool interchange, it then follows the A184 eastwards to Testo's roundabout. At Testo's roundabout the route then continues north along the A19 as far as the interchange with the A1 trunk road at Seaton Burn.

The study excludes the Tyne Tunnel crossing, which is operated by the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Authority. Although the Tunnel does not form part of the RMS, the HA has consulted with T&WPTA during the RMS.

In total the route is 27.7km (17.3 miles) in length. 6.1km (3.8 miles) of which is motorway - A194(M) - and the remainder is all-purpose dual-carriageway road with both grade separated and at-grade junctions. Route plans showing the complete route are included in Appendix B.

The A194(M)/A184/A19 trunk road forms part of the main highway link between the south and north of Tyneside (via the River Tyne Tunnel), acts as a link to the Port of Tyne and also forms an alternative route for A1(M)/A1 traffic. The route also provides access to regeneration areas on Tyneside and South East Northumberland.

Routine maintenance and operation is split between two maintaining agents. The A19 south of the Tyne is a Design, Build, Finance and Operate concession to AutoLink Concessionaires. The A194(M), A184 and A19 north of the Tyne are all managed on behalf of the HA by Aone as Managing Agent.

2.2 Description of Route Sections

The route exhibits a range of characteristics throughout its length and for the purpose of defining the Strategy the route was considered under 7 sections. The individual sections are identified below in sections 2.2.1 to 2.2.7. The overall route is shown on Route Plans in Appendix B.

Traffic flows vary along the route; the highest flows are encountered along the A184 and reduce as they move away from the Newcastle upon Tyne centre. Figure 2.1 below shows the variation in traffic flow.

A description of the environmental constraints and issues associated with each section is also included below. An Environmental Constraints Plan for the whole route is included in Appendix C.

(AADT is defined as the average annual daily traffic flow, AAWT is defined as the average annual weekday traffic flow).

Figure 2.1

2.2.1 Section 1: A194(M) (6.1km in length)

This length is dual 2 lane motorway standard. It starts by branching off the A1(M) at a limited access free flow junction and terminates at a roundabout (White Mare Pool) with the A184 which is grade-separated across the roundabout. Between are the interchanges at Albany and Follingsby.

Average daily traffic flows of 17,100 vehicles a day occur (AADT, 2000 to 2002). Investigations have revealed that HGVs make-up 9% of the traffic flow (1999 data).

Pedestrian, equestrian and disabled usage is prohibited on motorways. A number of footpaths/bridleways are located parallel to the route outside the highway boundary. Crossing of the motorway occurs on overbridges at various locations along the route.

The route crosses the River Don (a proposed cyprinid fishery) at Follingsby. It also runsmostly through greenbelt land crossing a wildlife corridor.

The Conservation Area of Springwell Village is located adjacent to Section 1. In addition, 4 Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) are also located in the vicinity of this section of the route. There are also two views of particular importance from Springwell to the coast.

The roundabout at White Mare Pool (A194M/A184) is operating above capacity thresholds, resulting in heavy delays and congestion.

2.2.2 Section 2: A184 (2.6km in length)

This length is comprised of a 2 lane dual-carriageway all-purpose road that is essentially rural in nature. It has a number of direct accesses onto the road and an atgrade right turn junction to the west of Testo's roundabout. A hardstrip is not provided.

Trunk road traffic travelling between the A194(M) and the A19 lose priority at both theWhite Mare Pool and Testo's roundabouts.

Tidal traffic flow at the am and pm peak hours occurs with light traffic flows outside of these periods. Investigations have revealed that HGVs make-up 3.5% of traffic flow (2003 data). Average daily traffic flows of 31,400 vehicles a day occur (AADT, 2000 to 2002). Agricultural traffic is also known to use this section.

The route forms part of a public transport corridor with a number of bus stops located along its length. Footpath facilities are provided along the complete length of the northern side of the road and at-grade pedestrian crossing locations occur across the dual-carriageway at bus stop locations.

Laverick Hall is a Grade II listed building and is located in close proximity to the route.The entire route length runs through greenbelt land and crosses two wildlife corridors which connect Sites of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) with the wider network of wildlife corridors that extend throughout the area.

2.2.3 Section 3: The A19 South of the Tyne (4.1 km in length)

This section is comprised of 2 lane dual-carriageway all-purpose road with an gradeseparated interchange at Boldon Colliery and Lindisfarne. This section is becoming more urban with a number of communities located adjacent to the route. In general no direct access occurs along this section (however, there is a field access near to Testo's roundabout). A hardstrip is not provided.

The roundabout at the A185/Tyne Tunnel south portal is not part of the RMS route.

Average daily traffic flows of 27,800 vehicles a day occur (AADT, 2000 to 2002). Investigations have revealed HGVs make-up 14% of traffic flow (2003 data).

Small sections of footpath are provided along this section and several grade-separated facilities i.e. two underpasses, a footbridge and several bridges are provided for pedestrians, equestrians and disabled people to cross the road.

Within this section, the River Don is crossed by the A19 at Hedworth. There is a narrowriver floodplain associated with this river in the vicinity of the A184/A19 in Boldon andJarrow and at the point where the route crosses the river.

St. Pauls Conservation Area is located adjacent to the northern end of Section 3. It is a significant location for cultural heritage with 9 listed buildings associated with it. There is a second Conservation Area located to the west of the route at West Boldon. Both of these sites have been identified as Sites of Potential Archaeological Importance.

The Lindisfarne and South Portal roundabouts are operating above capacity thresholds resulting in heavy delays and congestion. In addition 3 sensitive receptors are located within 300m of the route (schools at Fellgate, Simonside, and Jarrow) which may experience adverse noise and air quality effects.

The route crosses two wildlife corridors, which link a number of SNCIs with an extensive network of corridors through the South Tyneside area.

2.2.4 Section 4: Tyne Tunnel Portal North Roundabout to Silverlink Junction (2.2 km in length)

This section is comprised of 2 lane dual-carriageway all-purpose road from the at-grade roundabout at Tyne Tunnel portal (north). It includes the A193 Wallsend and A1058 Silverlink grade-separated interchanges. The road is urban in nature. No direct access occurs and a hardstrip is not provided. The roundabout with the A187/north Tyne Tunnel portal is not part of the RMS route.

Average daily traffic flows of 30,400 vehicles a day occur (AADT, 2000 to 2002). Investigations have revealed that HGVs make up 7% of traffic flow (2003 data).

Small sections of footpath are provided along this section and several bridges used by pedestrians, equestrians and disabled to cross the road. At-grade crossing of the road can also take place.

The North Portal roundabout is operating above capacity thresholds resulting in heavy delays and congestion. In addition a sensitive receptor is located within 200m of the route (1 school at Howdon), which may be experiencing adverse noise and air quality affects as a result.

2.2.5 Section 5: Silverlink Junction to A186 Holystone Junction (2.9 km in length)

This section is comprised of 2 lane dual-carriageway all-purpose road with an at-grade roundabout at the A1058 Silverlink junction and a grade-separated interchange at the A186 Holystone junction. The road is elevated on an embankment through this section and is becoming rural in nature. No direct access occurs and no hardstrip is provided.

Average daily traffic flows of 31,450 vehicles a day occur (AADT, 2000 to 2002). Investigations have revealed that traffic flow is 5% HGVs (2003 data).

There is no footpath provision alongside the route (a grass verge is provided) however,there are footpaths/bridleways outside the highway boundary. Two at-grade crossing locations through gaps in the central reserve are provided, also grade-separated crossing facilities are provided.

The route crosses a wildlife corridor which links the Sites of Nature Conservation Interest at Wallsend Country Park to Silverlink Park to the east of the route.

2.2.6 Section 6: A186 Holystone Junction to Moor Farm Roundabout (5.4 km in length)

This length is 2 lane dual-carriageway, rural all-purpose road which is elevated on an embankment along part of this section. There is an at-grade roundabout at Moor Farm and a grade-separated interchange at Killingworth. No direct access occurs and no hardstrip is provided.

Average daily traffic flows of 26,350 vehicles a day occur (AADT, 2000 to 2002). Investigations have revealed that HGVs make up 6% of traffic flow (2003 data).

There is no footpath provision alongside the route (a grass verge is provided) however,there are footpaths/bridleways outside the highway boundary. Pedestrian, equestrian and disabled crossing is carried out via grade-separation.

A river floodplain associated with Seaton Burn is crossed by the A19 at Annitsford andthere is a narrow floodplain associated with Briardene Burn adjacent to the A19 at Backworth.

Backworth Conservation Area is located adjacent to the route to the east, and there are 2 other designated sites of cultural heritage value, Burradon Tower (Grade II Listed Building and SAM) and West Backworth Medieval Settlement (SAM).

The majority of this section of the route runs through greenbelt land. It also crosses a wildlife corridor which links into the wider network of wildlife corridors throughout NorthTyneside.

2.2.7 Section 7: Moor Farm Roundabout to Seaton Burn Junction (4.4 km in length)

This length is 2 lane dual-carriageway, rural all-purpose road. Junctions along this section include the at-grade Fisher Lane roundabout and Dudley grade-separated interchange. The route meets the A1(T) at the grade-separated Seaton Burn interchange. No direct access occurs. A hardstrip is provided on the verge side of the route but not on the central reserve side.

Average daily traffic flows of 24,400 vehicles a day occur (AADT, 2000 to 2002). Investigations have revealed that HGVs make up 3.5% traffic flow (2003 data).

There is no footpath provision alongside the route (grass verge is provided) however, there are footpaths/bridleways outside the highway boundary. Pedestrian, equestrian and disabled crossing is carried out via grade-separation.

There is a river floodplain associated with Sandy's Letch that runs adjacent to the A19 (T) south of Cramlington.

The route crosses two wildlife corridors, that link a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) to the north of the route with an extensive network of corridors throughout the Blyth Valley and North Tyneside areas. This section of the route and the A1 at Big Waters SSSI is reported to be a road kill hot spot by the local Council, with otters and barn owls reported on the road.

There is a Grade II Listed Building, St Nicholas Church, located to the north of the route and two Areas of High Landscape Value in the vicinity of this section.

3 policy objectives

3 Policy Objectives

3.1 Derivation of Policy Objectives

Policy Objectives are developed from the wider planning, economic and transport objectives obtained from a variety of national, regional and local sources relevant to the study. They were used to define the context of the study and guide issues investigated.

The wider economic and transport objectives were reviewed early in the study and have been tabled in the Policy Objective Source Tables (see Appendix E). The Policy Objective Source Tables show the Policy Objectives that were developed and used in the study together with the relevant sources.

The Policy Objectives have been reviewed a number times as the study progressed, reviews were carried out at key times i.e. at Stakeholder Workshops, the RMS Seminar and at the Public Consultation. Revisions have taken place and the Policy Objectives that developed are shown below:

3.2 Policy Objectives

The Policy Objectives are defined under the government's five headings of Economy,Safety, Environment, Accessibility and Integration. They have been developed inconsultation with stakeholders and the Wider Reference Group.

Under each heading the text in bold is the overarching objective defined by the HAbased on government policy objectives. The following objectives are specific to theroute.

3.2.1 Economy

Overall Objective: To Contribute To An Efficient Economy, And To Support Sustainable Economic Growth In Appropriate Locations

• EY1 To reduce congestion at identified locations
• EY2 To improve journey time reliability e.g. by provision of grade-separation of identified junctions
• EY3 Supporting sustainable development and regeneration in accordance with Highways Agency development control policy
• EY4 Achieving best value in construction and maintenance
• EY5 To minimise disruption due to roadworks and incidents
• EY6 Establishment of the route as a major strategic diversion route to the A1 Western Bypass

3.2.2 Safety

Overall Objective: To Improve Safety for All Travellers

• S1 To improve safety for all road users by implementing, for example, the following measures (where appropriate):
  • Limiting direct access
  • Providing lighting at locations where it would improve safety, but balanced with environmental considerations
  • Providing a consistent, high standard of signing
  • Providing adequate lay-bys and working with private operators to provide services facilities
  • Improving sub-standard junction layouts, road alignments and visibility
  • Maintaining all road surfacing to an acceptable standard
  • Providing skid-resistant surfaces, safety barriers and other accident remedial measures
  • Providing adequate safety at rail, road and river crossing locations
  • Providing safer on-road interaction between car and HGV drivers
• S2 To encourage appropriate safer speeds
• S3 To seek to provide appropriate crossing facilities for non-motorised users, i.e. cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians and to discourage crossing at inappropriate places
• S4 To provide adequate facilities to cater for safer methods of maintenance

3.2.3 Environment

Overall Objective: To Protect and Enhance the Built and Natural Environment

• EN1 To identify sites where noise levels are unacceptably high and seek to provide appropriate noise mitigation measures
• EN2 To seek to improve air quality at agreed locations e.g. by reducing congestion
• EN3 To seek to conserve and where possible enhance existing flora and fauna (including minimising severance effects for wildlife) and to prepare and implement landscape and biodiversity plans for the complete route
• EN4 To seek to minimise, and where possible reduce, the impact of the route on surface watercourses and groundwater
• EN5 To seek to minimise the impact of the route on sites of cultural heritage significance and on the character and quality of the built environment
• EN6 To seek to minimise the landscape and visual impact of the route (including light pollution), particularly in designated and rural locations
• EN7 To develop (and implement) techniques to ensure that the trunk road is managed according to sustainability principles
• EN8 To seek to reduce the impact of the route on local communities e.g. by improving the environment and reduce severance for people and communities directly on the route
• EN9 To actively encourage the provision of appropriate roadside facilities for all road users along the route

(Note: EN9 is a new Policy Objective identified during the consultation process.)

3.2.4 Accessibility

Overall Objective: To Promote Accessibility To Everyday Facilities For All, Especially Those Without A Car

• A1 To address the issues of community severance associated with the trunk road
• A2 To address the provision of adequate facilities for people accessing public transport services on or via the route (e.g. bus lay-bys) with safe and convenient access
• A3 To address appropriate and safe crossing/travel facilities at identified locations for non-motorised users including pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians, those with pushchairs and mobility difficulties
• A4 Work in partnership with local authorities and other bodies, in order to play a full role in supporting non-motorised elements of travel

3.2.5 Integration

Overall Objective: To Promote The Integration Of All Forms Of Transport And Land Use Planning, Leading To A Better, More Efficient Transport System

• I1 To provide greater clarity for vehicle transport e.g. clear signing to rail, metro and bus/coach stations, availability of travel information, VMS
• I2 To foster positive relationships with Government departments and other authorities, to facilitate policy integration and co-ordinate activities and responsibilities. For example:
  • Supporting the development of school travel initiatives
  • Contributing to Government policies on health, education and social inclusion
  • Working with key stakeholders to ensure that Government policies are implemented and the trunk road network meets the needs of the Region
  • Supporting the policies and objectives of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East
  • Developing and maintaining agreements to work in partnership with other bodies
• I3 To encourage modal shift to more sustainable means of transport. This may include:
  • Encourage further Park and Ride sites
  • Informative direction signs to sites where motorists may interchange to public transport
  • Ensure passengers and freight operators can switch efficiently and smoothly between different modes of transport, and to broaden the choices available
  • Consideration of designated lanes and the potential for freight interchange facilities and transhipment depots.
• I4 To consider the route as a public transport corridor
• I5 Take account of local demand management strategies

4 route functions

4 Route Functions

4.1 Derivation of Route Functions

Route Functions identify the current roles of the route and those it intends to serve in the future. They are based upon the nature of journeys that occur and the relationship with other parts of the national and local transport infrastructure and regional land use development.

A review of the recent Tyneside Area Multi-Modal Study (TAMMS) indicates that approximately 70 percent of traffic flow is local in nature i.e. within Tyne and Wear.

The Route Functions have been identified in the following ways:

• A review of the nature of journeys that occur
• A review of the routes relationship with other parts of the national and local network
• A review of the nature of surrounding area i.e. residential or business related
• Applicable Policy Objectives
• From the TAMMS origin/destination information
• From consultations

4.2 Route Functions

The following sets out the Route Functions. It is considered that different sections of the route have different functions, therefore the relevance of a function to a particular section is indicated in the table overleaf.

The functions for each section will underpin the strategy and help to define how the policy objectives can be met and the scale/nature of solutions to the problems identified along the route.

4.2.1 Present Route Functions

No.	Function	A194(M)	A184	A19
F1	The route forms part of the national strategic route between the north-east, the midlands, the south of the country and Scotland.
F2	Major route of regional significance, connecting North and South Tyneside, Gateshead, Sunderland, Northumberland, Tees Valley and North Yorkshire.
F3	The route connects the freight port (south of the Tyne) and passenger port (north of the Tyne) to the national motorway and trunk road network.
F4	Connects major industry and employment sites to the rest of the motorway and trunk road network. It is a major transport link for the movement of freight, supporting economic activity and facilitating regional regeneration.
F5	Provides indirect access to the regions ports and airports.
F6	Provides a distributor function around large population centres and into and around urban communities around Newcastle upon Tyne.
F7	Supports access to rural and regional services including shops, education, healthcare facilities, public transport, etc.
F8	Provides access for traffic at the River Tyne.
F9	It is an alternative route in emergencies, in particular to the A1 Western Bypass.
F10	Provides a public transport route corridor.
F11	Used as a means of access to rail interchanges and Park & Ride sites.
F12	Serves as a commuting route, especially the A184 into the centre of Newcastle and Gateshead.
F13	The route provides access for tourism (European as well as domestic).
F14	The route throughout its length connects the local communities to the motorway and trunk road network.
F15	Provides for movements between and linking communities along the route.
F16	Provides pedestrian and cycle routes within local areas along certain sections of the route.
F17	Provides for direct access and agricultural access along the A184.
F18	Bypasses urban communities.

The route also performs a number of general functions that the HA trunk road network would be expected to perform. These are:

No.	Function	A194(M)	A184	A19
F19	Provide safe transportation of people and goods.
F20	Provide reliable journey times.
F21	Inform travellers.
F22	Respect the environment.

4.2.2 Future Functions

The study has not identified any particular foreseeable changes that will significantly alter the function of the route.There is no intention that the future function of the route will change. The proposed Second Tyne Crossing, if built, will support and reinforce many of the functions.

There is however, the issue of the proposed strategic employment site near to the A184. This is still under assessment, but if it does progress then it is possible that some of the functions of the A194(M), A184 and A19 may change.

4.3 Function Performance

An assessment has been undertaken of the performance of the route against its functions and policy objectives. This assessment has been in two parts.

The first assessed the functions using the information obtained on problems and issues identified during consultation e.g. at the Stakeholder Workshops, at the Seminar. The second assessed the performance on the basis of factual data that has been obtained. These issues are discussed in detail in Section 6, however, Route Function Performance Tables identifying the factors that are affecting route function performance issues are shown below in Table 4.1.

TABLE 4.1 - ROUTE FUNCTION PERFORMANCE TABLE

No.	Function	A194(M)	A184	A19	Factors Affecting Route Performance
					Economy	Safety	Environment	Accessibility	Integration
F1	The route forms part of the national strategic route between the north-east, the midlands, the south of the country and Scotland.				Congestion delays and delays resulting from accidents or roadworks can impact on economic function	Accident locations along the route, safety issues at junctions can cause disruption.	Issues arising e.g. animals crossing the route, pollution incidents can impact on this function.	Accidents and delays/congestion resulting from NMU usage can affect function.	Future land use can increase congestion which will affect function.
F2	Major route of regional significance, connecting North and South Tyneside, Gateshead, Sunderland, Northumberland, Tees Valley and North Yorkshire.				Congestion delays and delays resulting from accidents or roadworks can impact on economic function	Accident locations along the route, safety issues at junctions can cause disruption.	Issues arising e.g. animals crossing the route, pollution incidents can impact on this function.	Accidents and delays/congestion resulting from NMU usage can affect function.	Future land use can increase congestion which will affect function.
F3	The route connects the freight port (south of the Tyne) and passenger port (north of the Tyne) to the national motorway and trunk road network.				Congestion delays and delays resulting from accidents or roadworks can impact on economic function	Accident locations along the route, safety issues at junctions can cause disruption.	Inadequate traveller care facilities e.g. lay-by facilities, may affect route effectiveness	Accidents and delays/congestion resulting from NMU usage can affect function.	Future land use can increase congestion which will affect function.
F4	Connects major industry and employment sites to the rest of the motorway and trunk road network. It is a major transport link for the movement of freight, supporting economic activity and facilitating regional regeneration.				Congestion delays and delays resulting from accidents or roadworks can impact on economic function. Future development may add to congestion pressure.	Accident locations along the route, safety issues at junctions can cause disruption.	Issues arising e.g. animals crossing the route, pollution incidents can impact on this function.	Accidents and delays/congestion resulting from NMU usage can affect function.	Few Park & Ride sites, transport interchanges and bus stops could affect this function
F5	Provides indirect access to the region's ports and airports.				Congestion delays and delays resulting from accidents or roadworks can impact on economic function	Accident locations along the route, safety issues at junctions can cause disruption.	Issues arising e.g. animals crossing the route, pollution incidents can impact on this function.	Accidents and delays/congestion resulting from NMU usage can affect function.	Inadequate signs can cause disruption.
F6	Provides a distributor function around large population centres and into and around urban communities around Newcastle upon Tyne.				Congestion delays and delays resulting from accidents or roadworks can impact on economic function	Accident locations along the route, safety issues at junctions can cause disruption	Issues arising e.g. animals crossing the route, pollution incidents can impact on this function	Accidents and delays/congestion resulting from NMU usage can affect function	Future land use can increase congestion which will affect function
F7	Supports access to rural and regional services including shops, education, healthcare facilities, public transport, etc.				Congestion delays and delays resulting from accidents or roadworks can impact on economic function	Accident locations along the route, safety issues at junctions can cause disruption	Issues arising e.g. air quality, noise, vibration, heritage, flora and fauna can impact on this function	Issues with facilities for cyclists and pedestrian affect function	Issues with signs affect the function
F8	Provides access for traffic at the River Tyne.				Congestion delays and delays resulting from accidents or roadworks can impact on economic function	No issue identified	No issue identified	No issue identified	Issues with signs affect the function
F9	It is an alternative route in emergencies, in particular to the A1 Western Bypass.				Congestion delays and delays resulting from accidents or roadworks and signs identifying alternative route can impact on economic function	Accident locations along the route, safety issues at junction can cause disruption	Issues arising e.g. animals crossing the route, pollution incidents can impact on this function	Accidents and delays/congestion resulting from NMU usage can affect function	Inadequate signs can cause disruption
F10	Provides a public transport route corridor.				Congestion delays and delays resulting from accidents or roadworks can impact on economic function	Safety issues occur at bus stops, this can affect function	No issue identified	Crossing facilities near bus stops can reduce function	Issues at bus stops, this can affect function
F11	Used as a means of access to rail interchanges and Park & Ride sites.				No issue identified	Accident locations along the route, safety issues at junctions can cause disruption	No issue identified	No issue identified	Issues with signs affect the function
F12	Serves as a commuting route, especially the A184 into the centre of Newcastle and Gateshead.				Congestion delays and delays resulting from accidents or roadworks can impact on economic function	Accident locations along the route, safety issues at junctions can cause disruption	No issue identified	No issue identified	Issues with signs affect the function
F13	The route provides access for tourism (European as well as domestic).				Congestion delays and delays resulting from accidents or roadworks can impact on economic function	Accident locations along the route, safety issues at junctions can cause disruption	Issues arising e.g. air quality, noise, vibration, heritage, flora and fauna can impact on this function	Accidents and delays/congestion resulting from NMU usage can affect function	Few Park & Ride sites, transport interchanges and bus stops could affect this function. Inadequate signs
F14	The route throughout its length connects the local communities to the motorway and trunk road network.				Congestion delays and delays resulting from accidents or roadworks can impact on economic function	Accident locations along the route, safety issues at junctions can cause disruption	Issues arising e.g. animals crossing the route, pollution incidents can impact on this function	No issue identified	No issue identified
F15	Provides for movements between and linking communities along the route.				Congestion delays and delays resulting from accidents or roadworks can impact on economic function	Accident locations along the route, safety issues at junctions can cause disruption	No issue identified	Issues arise with facilities for crossing and parallel movement. These have an impact on function	No issue identified
F16	Provides pedestrian and cycle routes within local areas along certain sections of the route.				No issue identified	Accidents and issues related to NMU usage on links and at junctions reduce function	Issues arising e.g. air quality, noise, vibration, heritage, flora and fauna can impact on this function	Issues with facilities for cyclists and pedestrian affect function	Issues with signs affect the function
F17	Provides for direct access and agricultural access along the A184.				Possible conflict with strategic traffic can affect function	Accident locations along the route, safety issues at junctions can cause disruption	No issue identified	No issue identified	Future land use and development may affect function
F18	Bypasses urban communities.				Continual traffic growth and congestion	Accident locations along the route, safety issues at junctions can cause disruption	No issue identified	No issue identified	No issue identified
F19	Provide safe transportation of people and goods.				No issue identified	Accident locations along the route, safety issues at junctions can cause disruption	No issue identified	Accidents and delays/congestion resulting from NMU usage can affect function	No issue identified
F20	Provide reliable journey times.				Congestion delays and delays resulting from accidents or roadworks can impact	Accident locations along the route, safety issues at junctions can cause disruption	No issue identified	No issue identified	Future land use can increase congestion which will affect function
F21	Inform travellers.				No issue identified	No issue identified	Inadequate traveller care facilities e.g. lay-by facilities, may affect route effectiveness	Direction signs for NMUs impacts on the performance	Direction signs for public transport impacts on the performance
F22	Respect the environment.				Incidents e.g. pollution spillages, wildlife entering onto carriageway can impact	No issue identified	Issues arising e.g. animals crossing the route, pollution incidents, air quality, noise, vibration, heritage, flora and fauna impact this	Issues affecting the environment of NMUs using or crossing, impact on this function	No issue identified

5 land use and development control statement

5 Land Use and Development Control Statement

5.1 Introduction

The Land Use and Development Control Statement (LUDCS) comprises of the following elements

• The Existing Planning Context
• Land Use Development Pressures
• The Development Control Strategy

Development of a Land Use and Development Control Statement (LUDCS) is an integral part of the RMS process. Its purpose is to provide the HA with a stand alone source of information that provides the development control strategy for the route. This will allow the HA to contribute effectively to the development and formulation of policy documents at all levels of government and allow an open and transparent approach to individual planning applications.

The HA has undertaken extensive consultation with local planning authorities on land use and development control along the RMS route.

It is not envisaged that the land use pressures will have a major influence on the overall RMS. Future functions of the route will not change unless the strategic employment site, identified in RPG1, straddling the A184 is taken forward. If this takes place, then a detailed review will be necessary. There are several problems that exist however, and these are that individual junctions are already operating at or above capacity during peak hours. Future development will only put these under further pressure. These issues are discussed further in this report.

The Planning Context (section 5.2 below) will identify the relevant planning authorities, planning systems and documents that are applicable to the route. An understanding of the Land use Development Pressures (section 5.3) affecting the route will be essential in order to understand the future problems and issues to be addressed along the route. The Development Control Strategy (section 5.4) will consider each of these issues and provide guidance to both the HA and other relevant parties (e.g. developers, LA's, etc.) on how the route will be managed in the future, it will expand on the advice provided in Circular 4/2001 which sets out the HA's overall Development Control Policy.

5.2 The Planning Context

5.2.1 Changes to the Planning System

The Government is committed to a "plan led" system of land use planning and development control. Until July of this year the system of development plans was established under the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act. Under this, County Councils and Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) produce Development Plans. In the North East of England these are set in the strategic context of Regional Planning Guidance 1 (RPG 1).

In May 2004, the Government's Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act received Royal Assent. This Act repeals sections of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, adds to and amends other legislation, and introduces new sections of legislation. The effect is to set out a fundamental reform of the development planning system, with the aim of simplifying the system.

Different parts of the Act will be enacted at different times over 2004 and 2005; for example Regional Planning Guidance is replaced by statutory Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS's), and existing RPG's became the RSS in September 2004.

The Act also abolishes structure plans, local plans and unitary development plans and replaces them with a new single level of plan. This would be known as a Local Development Framework (LDF). LDF's will comprise a series of Local Development Documents (LDD's), some of which would have development plan status and will consist of statements of core policy and some action plans, where there is pressure for change. These will be subject to independent examination. Other LDD's will have the status of what is currently known as supplementary planning guidance.

There is now a transition period and certain parts of the Act still require changes to be laid before parliament before they come into force. During this period it is necessary to continue to rely on existing development plans that have been adopted or approved before commencement. It is proposed that whatever constitutes the development plan in an area will retain development plan status (i.e. be 'saved') for three years from commencement of the new Act. This three year 'saved' period will also apply to draft plans, once adopted. During this three-year period, the Local Authority would bring forward new Local Development Documents to progressively replace the policies in the 'saved' plan. The policies in any 'saved' structure plan will be progressively replaced by revisions to the RSS. (It should be noted that undeveloped land use allocations in existing development plans are not automatically carried forward into Local Development Documents

In addition to these proposed changes national planning policies as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPG's) are currently being revised and will become shorter Planning Policy Statements with the aim of providing greater clarity of advice.

5.2.2 National Planning Policy

Not withstanding the changes to the planning system (as outlined in section 5.2.1) Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (PPG13) set out the existing national planning policy in respect of transport. In accordance with Annex B of PPG13 the Highways Agency (HA) encourages local planning authorities (LPAs) to consider alternatives to the use of the private car in devising access to local developments. The HA will take these alternatives into account, providing they have been agreed and secured, when it assesses the scale of or need for relevant highways works.

5.2.3 Regional Planning Policy

The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), is the renamed RPG1, that set out the existing regional planning policy, which should be read in the context of the Government's Ten-year Plan for Transport (Transport 2010) published in July 2000, although policy direction has recently been updated in the Future of Transport published in July 2004. A Regional Transport Strategy was prepared in 2002 by the Regional Planning Body, the North East Regional Assembly. It provides regional priorities for transport investment and management across all modes. The RTS is an integral part of the RSS.

In some cases strategic studies (for example Multi-Modal Studies) provide a way of identifying planning and transport options within a corridor or area. In the case of the Tyne and Wear area the Government Office undertook a study known as TAMMS (Tyneside Area Multi Modal Study). Options emanating from this strategic study have been considered by the Assembly and its recommendations were subsequently submitted to and considered by the Secretary of State for Transport.

5.2.4 Local Planning Policy

Several Local Planning Authorities (LPA) cover the route; each one is required to prepare a Development Plan. This provided the existing framework for development, development control and conservation. The format of the Development Plan is dependent on the nature of the Local Authority and took the form of either a Structure Plan, a Local Plan, or a Unitary Development Plan. A list of the LPAs that are relevant to this RMS are identified in table 5.1.

In future there will be Local Development Frameworks with a series of Local Development Documents but up to 2004 Structure Plans have set the strategic framework for development within each county. District Councils have produced Local Plans that set out the locations in which particular types of development should take place, an indication of the overall density of that development, together with policies that govern spatial development within their area. County Councils also produced Mineral Plans and separate Waste Plans that indicate the framework for development within each county.

Unitary Authorities have prepared a Unitary Development Plan for their area; this set the existing framework for area wide development. These were a combination of structure and local plans and may also contain details of Minerals Plans and Waste Plans.

In addition, Local Highway Authorities prepare Local Transport Plans (LTP's) that look specifically at transport issues and set out Authorities' proposals in this field over a 5-year period.

TABLE 5.1 - PLANNING AUTHORITIES

Authority		Status
Gateshead	Metropolitan Borough Council	Unitary
City of Sunderland	Metropolitan Borough Council	Unitary
South Tyneside	Metropolitan Borough Council	Unitary
North Tyneside	Metropolitan Borough Council	Unitary
Northumberland	County Council	County
Blyth Valley	Borough Council	District
Castle Morpeth	Borough Council	District
City of Newcastle	Metropolitan Borough Council	Unitary

In summary the local development plans that have been reviewed in this study and their status are indicated in Table 5.2. The key findings and potential impacts of a review of the relevant policies are identified in Table 5.3.

TABLE 5.2 - RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES

Plan		Status	Date
Gateshead	Unitary Development Plan	Draft Replacement	09/2004
	Waste Strategy	Policy in Draft Replacement UDP Chapter 13.	09/2004
	Minerals Strategy	Policies in Draft Replacement UDP Chapter 13	09/2004
City of Sunderland	Unitary Development Plan	Adopted	1998
	Waste Strategy	Consultation Draft	07/2004
	Minerals Strategy	Policies in UDP Chapter 12.	1998
South Tyneside	Unitary Development Plan	Adopted	10/1999
	Waste Strategy	Final	07/2002
	Minerals Strategy	Policies in UDP section 7.5	10/1999
North Tyneside	Unitary Development Plan	Deposit Draft	10/1996
	Waste Strategy	Final Draft	2000
	Minerals Strategy	Policies in UDP	10/1996
Tyne & Wear	Local Transport Plan 2001-2006	As published	2000
Northumberland	Structure Plan	Adopted	1996
	Local Transport Plan 2001-2006	As published	2000
	Waste Strategy	Adopted	2001
	Minerals Strategy	Adopted	03/2003
Blyth Valley	Local Plan	Adopted	05/1999
Castle Morpeth	Local Plan	Adopted	02/2003
City of Newcastle	Unitary Development Plan	Adopted	01/1998
	Waste Strategy	As published	09/2000
	Minerals Strategy	Policies in UDP section 20	01/1998

5.2.5 Application of DfT Circular 04/2001

The DfT (as DTLR) Circular 4/2001 sets out national development control policy for the trunk road and motorway network. In order to maintain safety and free flow of traffic, policy in the past has been to discourage the formation of new accesses to trunk roads.

Paragraph 6 of Circular 4/2001 states 'Of particular importance is that trunk roads should not be regarded as a convenient means of dealing with local problems, for example, by proposing additional junctions on them simply in order to relieve traffic pressures within the local area.

Circular 4/2001 also applies to developments near existing trunk road junctions where the effect of development would be material on the junction.

Where a proposed development will affect the trunk road the DfT Circular 04/2001 "The Control of Development Affecting Trunk Roads" requires developers to provide sufficient information, whether in a Transport Assessment or separately, to allow the impact of the development on the trunk road to be assessed. The Transport Assessment would be examined by the HA Land Use Team to assess whether it adequately describes the impact of the development on the trunk road. This will enable appropriate conditions to be applied to the planning permission or, in exceptional cases, the direction of refusal.

The HA considers that the level of congestion on parts of the route is such that anything except a minimal increase in traffic entering or leaving these areas during peak periods should be regarded as material (i.e. not the indicative national figure of 5% referred to in Section 12 of Circular 04/2001).

DTLR Circular 04/2001 is unaffected by the changes introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Highways Agency's obligations to maintain safety and the free flow of traffic on trunk roads will remain unchanged.

5.2.6 National Procedures and Policy - Control of Advertisements

Planning Policy Guidance Note 19 (PPG19) sets out national planning policy in respect of control of advertisements. Paragraph 15 deals with public safety issues including the potential for advertisements to distract drivers.

Further advice on assessing the public safety implications of the display of an advertisement is given in Appendix B to the Annex to DOE Circular 5/92. Appendix B also requires LPAs to take advice from the Secretary of State for Transport before granting consent of an application for an advertisement, where it appears to the LPA that this may affect the safety of trunk road users. The HA provides this advice on behalf of the Secretary of State.

PPG19 is unaffected by the changes introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Highways Agency's obligations to provide advice as whether advertisements affect the safe and free flow of traffic on trunk roads will remain unchanged (at least until the advice of the PPG is replaced by a planning policy statement).

5.2.7 Land Use Planning Procedure

Under the 'plan led system' local planning authorities produce development plans that set out in what locations particular types of development should take place.

PPG12 advises that LPAs and the Highway Authority consult with each other as part of the preparation of development plans. This opens up a constructive dialogue with local planning and highway authorities in advance of the drawing up of development plans and local transport plans. This ensures that the trunk road network is properly integrated into the planning process and that factors which might affect its operation, are given early audience.

In general, Local Development Frameworks reflect policy statements about the impact of traffic on the highway network, but do not specify improvements to the motorway and trunk road network or the local road network. Developers must agree any necessary improvements to the motorway or trunk road with the HA and the Local Planning Authority when a planning application is submitted.

5.2.8 Planning Application Procedure

The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 requires Local Planning Authorities to consult the HA about planning applications that may affect the operation of the motorway and trunk road network. For example, where a development would create a material increase in the amount of traffic entering or leaving a motorway.

In some cases proposed development will only be acceptable if measures are on the trunk road network to mitigate the impact of the proposed development. Circular 4/2001 gives guidance on the operational life required of these measures, how developers should agree them with the HA, how they will be conditioned into planning permissions and how developers should pay the HA for them.

The HA is likely to direct the LPA not to permit an application where the developer has not supplied an adequate Transport Assessment and the HA believes one is necessary to establish the effect of the development on the trunk road. The HA will withdraw this 'holding direction' when the developer supplies adequate information and the HA has had the opportunity to assess it.

Measures required to accommodate development, including measures on trunk roads, may be delivered more effectively if they are funded on a joint basis by a number of developers in an area. The HA encourages LPAs to draw up development briefs where appropriate to identify these measures. The HA will help LPAs to incorporate any measures on trunk roads into these briefs. The HA will also seek to facilitate mechanisms to collect and distribute payments for the measures needed, however, the HA would not expect to be a 'purse holder' and for legal reasons cannot be a party to agreements under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. A joint fund would have to reimburse the HA using Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 for any measures on the trunk road.

The HA encourages developers to discuss development proposals with the HA at an early stage. This will help both parties to understand the full implications of the proposals and avoid unnecessary cost, delay and disappointment.

Where a development would have significant transport implications, most commonly an increase in vehicular movements, the developer is normally expected to provide an assessment of the effects of the development on transport. The HA encourages local planning authorities to consider public transport alternatives to access new developments rather than by car and, where these alternatives have been agreed and secured, will take these into account in assessing the scale of, or need for, relevant highway works (Planning Policy Guidance Note 13, Annex B). If a development may adversely affect the strategic road network, it is generally helpful for developers to discuss the implications with the HA before submitting a planning application. Developers may be required to pay for any improvements needed to cater for traffic over the following fifteen years.

Developers should also be aware that significant individual developments, or cumulative developments, might have the potential to create 'exit blocking' whereby traffic queues back along slip roads on to the main carriageways of the motorways. This is a significant safety issue and the HA may, when consulted on such an application, make a representation to the LPA recommending that if mitigation to prevent exit blocking is not incorporated into the design, that the application be refused.

The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 is unaffected by the changes introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Order Act 2004. These procedures for the assessment of planning applications and the issue of Directions or recommendations to be used in determining planning applications will remain unchanged until such time as the Order is rescinded.

5.3 Land Use Development Pressures

A review of existing and future land use has been undertaken that has identified areas of land that might increase traffic pressures along the RMS route.

The UDP's, Structure and Local Plans for Unitary Authorities, County Councils and LPAs (these were the planning documents in place at the time of this assessment) through which the A194(M)/A184/A19 passes have been reviewed and 56 sites noted (see Table 5.3). In addition, details of planning applications have been identified along the route.

The 56 sites identified all involve land use allocations/development that is of sufficient scale or would have an accumulative effect, generating significant additional traffic on the A194(M)/A184/A19 and its junctions. The majority of these sites are concentrated on the A19. There is, however, a study recently commissioned by the City of Sunderland Council that will investigate the feasibility of accommodating a Strategic Employment Site on land either side of the A184. The employment site could range between 40 and 200 hectares in size. A final report is expected during 2005.

The land use development pressures have been tabulated for each section of the RMS route and are shown overleaf in Table 5.3. They show both land use allocations and status and current planning applications. A set of Plans showing the locations of these Land Use and Development pressures is included in Appendix F.

5.3.1 Pressures Identified in Minerals Local Plans and Strategies

5.3.1.1 Northumberland

A review of the Minerals Local Plan indicates that there are no sites identified that are planned for development.

5.3.1.2 Tyne and Wear

There is limited existing and proposed minerals activity in the Tyne and Wear metropolitan councils areas. They are not heavily involved with existing or proposed minerals activity and maintain their strategies from policies outlined in their Unitary Development Plans.

Whilst transport of minerals takes place on the highway network there are thought to be no significant development proposals in the short term.

5.3.2 Pressures Identified in Waste Plans and Strategies

Waste polices are under development in most local authorities due to various changes in targets for recycling and changes which reduce the attractiveness and availability of landfill sites.

General policies on waste are covered in the Unitary Development Plans in the Tyne and Wear metropolitan boroughs and Northumberland in their Joint Structure Plan. Northumberland has issued a separate Waste Local Plan whilst South Tyneside and North Tyneside have issued separate strategy documents. The others are preparing new strategies, which are currently unavailable for reference.

A review of the current Northumberland Waste Local Plan has indicated that an existing landfill site at Seghill is identified as a site for expansion. This appears from a review of available information to be the only development that effects the route.

There may, however, be pressures to revise strategies in light of the EU Landfill Directive where there is a progressive requirement in the reduction of the amount of biodegradable municipal waste disposed to landfill.

TABLE 5.3 - LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES

No	RMSSection	UDP	UDP Status and Period	Plan Ref	Issue	Details
1	1	City of Sunderland	Adopted Plan 1998	WA1.14Page 349	Economic DevelopmentB1, B2, B8	45.9 HECTARES of Industrial/Business Area that will be retained and improved
2	1	City of Sunderland	Adopted Plan 1998	WA1.15 P.349	Economic DevelopmentB1,C1	9.80 HECTARES of offices/R&D, Light Industry, Hotels
3	1	City of Sunderland	Adopted Plan 1998	WA4.1P351	Residential	10.40 HECTARES (120 Dwellings) Allocation for new housing.
4	1	City of Sunderland	Adopted Plan 1998	WA4.3 P.351	Residential	2.06 HECTARES (20 Dwelling) Allocation for new housing.
5	1	City of Sunderland	Adopted Plan 1998	WS4.2 P.351	Residential	5.27 HECTARES (160 Dwellings) Allocation for new housing.
6	1	City of Sunderland	Adopted Plan 1998	WA1.2 P.349	Economic Development B1, B2, B8	33.5 HECTARES of Industrial/Business Area that will be retained and improved.
7	1	City of Sunderland	Adopted Plan 1998	WA1.1 P.349	Economic Development B1, B2, B8	9.97 HECTARES of Industrial/Business Area that will be retained and improved
8	1	City of Sunderland	Adopted Plan 1998	WA8 P354	Shopping	An area of 3.3 HECTARES between the A194(M) and the A182 is allocated as an extension to the Armstrong North Retail Park
9	1	City of Sunderland	Adopted Plan 1998	WA1.6 P.349	Economic Development	13.5 HECTARES of Industrial/Business area that will be retained and improved.
10	1	City of Sunderland	Adopted Plan 1998	WA33P.369	Shopping	Washington Town Centre Improvement
11	1	City of Sunderland	Adopted Plan 1998	WA7,WA25P353/P364	Shopping/Economic Development	Shopping centre will be retained and improved together with improved bus priority development
12	1	City of Sunderland	Adopted Plan 1998	WA1.11 P.349	Economic Development	13.28A of industrial/business area that will be retained and improved
13	1	City of Sunderland	Adopted Plan 1998	H3/5/11	Residential	10 HECTARES of committed housing that may have lapsed.
14	1	City of Sunderland	Adopted Plan 1998	WA1.10 P.349	Economic Development	17.78 HECTARES of industrial/business area that will be retained and improved.
15	1	City of Sunderland	Adopted Plan 1998	WA1.14 P.349	Economic Development B1, B2, B8	15.54 HECTARES of industrial/business area to be retained and improved
16	1	City of Sunderland	Adopted Plan 1998	WA1.3 P.349	Economic Development B1, B2, B8	41.13 HECTARES of industrial/business area to be retained and improved
17	1	City of Sunderland	Adopted Plan 1998	WA1.5 P.349	Economic Development B1, B2, B8	Existing Nissan Plant: 354 HECTARES of industrial/business area to be retained and improved.
18	1	City of Sunderland	Adopted Plan 1998	WA1.7 P/349	Economic Development B1, B2, B8	71.40 HECTARES of industrial/business area to be retained and improved
19	1	City of Sunderland	Adopted Plan 1998	WA1.8 P.349	Economic Development B1, B2, B8	35.15 HECTARES of industrial/business area to be retained and improved
20	3	South Tyneside		ED3 /ED5P.153	Economic Development	The retention of industrial, business storage and distribution and river related uses will be encouraged.
21	3	South Tyneside		ED5 P.159	Economic Development	175 HECTARES or land will be allocated for EC purposes.
22	4	NorthTyneside	(Modifications to deposit draft plan)	LE1/5 P.27	Economic Development	10 HECTARES (East Howden) for small to medium size class B1 use.
23	4	NorthTyneside	(Modifications to deposit draft plan)	LE1/1 P.26	Economic Development	18 HECTARES for high quality industrial and business development. (Former Esso site)
24	4	NorthTyneside	(Modifications to deposit draft plan)	H4 P.70	Housing	13.7 HECTARES (240 dwellings) land allocated for new housing.
25	4	NorthTyneside	(Modifications to deposit draft plan)	LE 1/5 P.28	Economic Development	5 HECTARES for small to medium size class B1 use.
26		NorthTyneside	(Modifications to deposit draft plan)	H4P.70	Housing	6.5 HECTARES (160 dwellings) land allocated for new housing
27	4	NorthTyneside	(Modifications to deposit draft plan)	LE1/1	Economic Development	12 HECTARES for high quality industrial and business development(Tyne Tunnel Estate South) Currently has full planning application on this land (02/00566/FULL)
28	4	NorthTyneside	(Modifications to deposit draft plan)	LE1/1P.26	Economic Development	27 HECTARES of land for quality industrial and business development. (TYNE TUNNEL ESTATE)This land has been subjected to a pre-planning consultation to extend an existing Safeway store, and a full planning application to extend the Existing trading estate.
29	4	NorthTyneside	(Modifications to deposit draft plan)	HP.76	Housing	9.5 HECTARES (285 dwellings) land allocated for new housing.
30	5	NorthTyneside	(Modifications to deposit draft plan)		Economic Development	Land has been subject to 1 Full Planning application and 2 outline planning applications FOR a B&Q WAREHOUSE, and retail opportunities respectively.
31	5	NorthTyneside	(Modifications to deposit draft plan)	LE1/1P.26	Economic Development	35 HECTARES of land for high quality Industrial and business development. ( Hadrians Business Park)This is an Enterprise Zone where no planning permission is required. The land is subject to the development of Cobalt Business Park.
32	5/6	North Tyneside	(Modifications to deposit draft plan)	H4P.70	Housing	50 HECTARES (1500 dwellings) of land allocated for new housing.This land is subject to 5 planning applications.
33	6	North Tyneside	(Modifications to deposit draft plan)	LE1/1P.26	Economic Development	15 HECTARES of high quality industrial and business development.This land is subject to a full Planning application for a Fitness Centre.
34	5	North Tyneside	(Modifications to deposit draft plan)	LE1/5	Economic Development	4 HECTARES for small to medium size Class B1 business development
35	5	North Tyneside	(Modifications to deposit draft plan)	H4P.70	Housing	18 HECTARES (350 dwellings) of land allocated for new housingThis land is subject to planning and Reserve matters (1997)
36	6	North Tyneside	(Modifications to deposit draft plan)		Economic Development	The policy relating to this land and its use has been deleted from the Plan in July 2001
37	6	North Tyneside	(Modifications to deposit draft plan)	54P.86	Shopping	Redevelopment of an area for shopping and other mixed use appropriate to a town centre.
38	6	North Tyneside	(Modifications to deposit draft plan)	H4P.70	Housing	8.0 HECTARES (60 dwellings) of land allocated for new housing
39	6	Northumberl'd Waste Local Plan	2001	Policy DP1	Waste	Seghill Landfill Site - development is likely to be extended beyond its current life in 2008, where any extension to the site is expected to be vertical requiring restoration contouring subject to a Planning Application.
40		North Tyneside	(Modifications to deposit draft plan)	LE1.1P.26	Economic Development	48 HECTARES allocated for high quality industrial and business development) Balliot East, Long Benton).
41		North Tyneside	(Modifications to deposit draft plan)	LE1.1P26	Economic Development	13 HECTARES allocated for high quality industrial and business development.
42		North Tyneside	(Modifications to deposit draft plan)	LE1.1P.26	Economic Development	20 HECTARES allocated for high quality industrial and business development.This land is subject to two planning applications for an office development (2002) and a business park including a call centre and a fitness club.
43		North Tyneside	(Modifications to deposit draft plan)	LE1.1P.26	Economic Development	35 HECTARES allocated for high quality industrial and business development.
44		North Tyneside	(Modifications to deposit draft plan)	H4P.70	Housing	20 HECTARES (400 dwellings) of land allocated for new housing.This land is subject to a pre-application consultation (2002) for Housing development.
45		North Tyneside	(Modifications to deposit draft plan)	H4P.70	Housing	2.7 HECTARES (72 dwellings) of land allocated for new housing.
46		Newcastle upon Tyne	Adopted to Jan 1998	ED3.1 P.22	Economic Development	Areas allocated for Industrial and Business use (B1, B2, B8)
47		Newcastle upon Tyne	Adopted to Jan 1998	ED1, P16	Economic Development	Area allocated for offices, High Technology Industries and Research and Development. (Northern Development Area)This land is subject to an outlined planning application for Office/Business Development
48		Newcastle upon Tyne	Adopted to Jan 1998	H1/1P/27	Housing	83.3 HECTARES (2,500 dwellings) allocated for new housing (4 Sites comprising the Northern Development Areas)This land is subject to an outline planning application for a large housing development
49	7	Blyth Valley District Local Plan	Adopted May 1999	H7/H21	Housing	Land allocated for housing - Pilot area for Energy Efficient HousingThis area has outline planning consent for Business Development
50	7	Blyth Valley District Local Plan	Adopted May 1999	W2/W7	Economic Development	Land allocated for Office/Business useThis area is subject to a full planning application for Housing/Business Development
51	1	Gateshead	Adopted 1998	R13.47 P.82	Economic Development	43.0 HECTARES allocated for employment uses.
52	1				Retail	This land is subject to a Full Planning Application (2002) for a Car Retail Centre.
53	1				Economic Development	This land is subject to a Full Planning Application (2000) for a Warehouse Extension.
54					Housing	This land is subject to a Full Planning Application (2000) for the construction of 117 dwellings
55					Economic Development	This land is subject to a Full Planning Application (2002) for the construction of a Business Park alongside the A1 but with no access onto the A1.
56	2	RPG1	Nov 2002	EL4	Economic Development	40.0 to 200 HECTARES allocated as a Strategic Employment Site in the broad location of North of Sunderland.Site restricted to major inward investors/ prestige business cluster development of national or regional importance. Planning will only proceed with high levels of public transport accessibility and infrastructure.

5.3.3 Impact Assessment

The impact assessment provides an initial assessment of the likely impact future land use and development could have upon the route. In general, a simplified approach has been used, the assessment evaluates the development pressures along each section of the RMS route and assesses the likely impact these pressures will have upon the capacity of the highway infrastructure.

5.3.3.1 Link Capacity

Daily congestion along the route has been assessed using the Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC), this is the ratio of daily traffic flow to a congestion reference traffic flow (calculated in accordance with the HA guidance contained within TA 46/97). The following table summarises these results

Link	Link Congestion RFC
	2004	2014 without NTC	2014 with NTC
1 A194 (M)	0.19	0.22	0.26
2 A184	0.53	0.61	0.72
3 A19 south of the Tyne Tunnel	0.43	0.49	0.58
4 A19 north of the Tyne Tunnel	0.46	0.53	0.62
5 A19 between A1058 & A191	0.49	0.56	0.66
6 A19 between A191 & B1505	0.50	0.57	0.67
7 A19 Between B1505 & A1	0.39	0.45	0.52

(Note: NTC - New Tyne Crossing)

As the RFC approaches unity, delays due to congestion will increase as the demand approaches the available capacity.

The results indicate that each of the links will be able to accommodate the growth in traffic over the period of the RMS and that there is sufficient spare capacity to accommodate the land use aspirations contained within the various UDP's.

5.3.3.2 Junction Capacity

Section 1 - A194(M)

Directly adjacent to the A194(M) there lies a number of areas designated predominately for economic development. Should these areas be developed, it is likely that the additional traffic generated would filter onto the A194(M) increasing operational pressures upon the following junctions:

• B1288/A182 Albany
• A195 Follingsby
• A194(M)/A184 White Mare Pool

Available data indicates that the White Mare Pool junction is currently operating beyond capacity during peak periods, resulting in congestion and driver delays.

Improvements to this junction are currently being implemented and will address the existing problems.

Section 2 - A184

There are studies underway investigating the feasibility of providing a strategic employment site in the vicinity of the A184. This may be between 40 and 200 hectares in size. This would have an effect on the route, specifically to the operational performance of the A184/A19 Testo's junction.

Testo's junction currently operates at capacity during peak periods with minimal spare capacity to accommodate any additional traffic. Should the strategic employment site go forward, it is likely that additional traffic would reduce performance.

There is a Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI) Scheme for this junction.

Section 3 - A19 (south of the Tyne Tunnel)

The main development pressures associated with this section are located in the vicinity of the south portal of the Tyne Tunnel and along the southern bank of the River Tyne. This area has been designated for continued and increased industrial development.

Should development of this nature occur during the RMS time frame, the additional traffic generated would impact upon the following junctions:

• A194 Lindisfarne
• South portal to the Tyne Tunnel

Both these junctions currently experience operational problems during peak periods with drivers facing congestion and lengthy delays. It is likely that further development would increase delays.

The junction at the south portal to the Tyne Tunnel would be improved if a second crossing is constructed.

Section 4 and 5 - A19 (north of the Tyne Tunnel to Holystone Junction)

There are a significant number of UDP Land Use Allocations and Proposed Development Plans identified along these sections. The majority of the land use has been designated for economic and residential use, along with areas of retail.Newly created development in this area has already added to traffic pressures at the following junctions:

• North portal to the Tyne Tunnel
• A1058 Silverlink

Current analytical data suggests that the A193 Wallsend Road junction performs satisfactorily now and will do so for the foreseeable future. The A186/A191 Holystone junction currently operates satisfactorily. Improvements are planned at the junction to accommodate committed development. Comments received during the RMS indicate that congestion problems are being experienced at Holystone junction.

The A1058 Silverlink junction is not currently operating satisfactorily as it suffers from peak hour queuing.

Should development continue in this area, then it is likely that the amount of additional traffic that would be generated will have a detrimental effect on the operational performance of all four junctions along these two sections.

The A1058 Silverlink junction is under consideration for entry to the TPI.

Section 6 - A19 (between Holystone and Moor Farm Junctions)

A significant length of this section runs through greenbelt and immediate development pressures are restricted as a result. However, there are developments and highway improvements away from the route that will increase pressure on the A189 Moor Farm and A1056 Killingworth junctions, for example Cramlington developments along the A189 and the A1056 highway improvements (Sandy Lane).

Both junctions presently experience congestion and delays during peak periods and further proposals would intensify the congestion and delays.

The Moor Farm roundabout is under consideration for entry to the TPI

Section 7 - A19 (between Moor Farm and Seaton Burn Junctions)

As with Section 6, a significant length of this section runs through greenbelt and as a result immediate development pressures are restricted.

The junction with the A1 at Seaton Burn and the A1068 Fisher Lane roundabout both currently experiences congestion and delays during peak periods and it is likely that further pressure from additional traffic would be experienced.

The Seaton Burn A1 junction and A1068 Fisher Lane Roundabout have obtained entry to the TPI.

5.4 The Development Control Strategy

5.4.1 General

The RMS route is made up of three differing standards, these are:

• The A194(M) - This is of a 2 lane motorway standard with grade separated junctions at 1.5, 2.7 and 2.0 km spacing. It is rural in nature.
• The A184 - This is a dual 2 lane carriageway with direct access to farms
• and residential properties along its section. At either end of the 2.7 km section there is presently an interchange and roundabout. It is rural in nature.
• The A19 - This is a dual 2 lane carriageway with alternating grade- separated and at-grade junctions/interchanges along its length. Spacing of junctions/interchanges vary between 0.8 km and 2.8 km along this section. There is no direct access along its length and it is both rural and urban in nature.

Junctions and accesses are sources of possible conflict and a balance needs to be struck between providing access and maintaining safety. It appears that junctions and accesses are already sufficiently numerous and closely spaced to serve developments. The HA is likely to oppose any new accesses to or junctions on the A194(M)/A184/A19 both in terms of their effect on safety and the tendency for closely spaced junctions to attract local traffic on to strategic roads.

It is not envisaged that the land use pressures will have a major influence on the overall RMS. Future functions of the route are unlikely to change unless a strategic employment site near to the A184 is taken forward. If this takes place then a detailed review will be necessary.

An estimated traffic growth of 14% on the A194(M)/A184/A19 over the period 2004 to 2014 is envisaged. Over this period, the link capacity of the route is unlikely to be adversely affected by traffic growth, however, future development will only add pressure to junctions. Section 5.4.2 outlines an approach that will seek to minimise the impact of future land use and development on the RMS route. Detailed study and consultation will however, still be necessary to determine in detail any possible future impact.

Some long-term improvements have been identified. At present two schemes are included in the Governments Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPIs), these are improvements to Testo's roundabout and Seaton Burn interchange (including Fisher Land Roundabout). Ministers have also asked the HA to develop schemes for the Moor Farm, and Silverlink junctions for TPI entry.

5.4.2 Approach to Development Plan Representations and Individual Planning Applications

Table 5.4 sets out specific guidance on the approach the HA will adopt in response to Development Plan Representations and individual Planning Applications along specific sections and at specific locations along the route.

In general the Highways Agency supports the aim of sustainable development but emphasises the need to minimise traffic generation onto the trunk road network. To this end the HA recognises the importance of preparing effective travel plans, including enforceable targets for reducing levels of traffic generation, especially at peak times. These should be included in the proposals put forward by developers. This is in accordance with Government policy and reiterated in the latest White Paper, "The Future of Transport" published in July 2004.

5.5 Route Outcomes

The following Route Outcomes are of particular relevance to the LUDCS:

• RO1: To identify short and long term measures to address congestion and seek to improve journey time reliability.
• RO4: To facilitate and support sustainable regeneration and employment opportunities.
• RO10: To improve facilities that will contribute to integration of different forms of public transport.
• RO11: To maintain and develop relationships with relevant stakeholders and other bodies with an interest in the route.
• RO12: To improve facilities for Heavy Goods Vehicles and contribute to the integration of different forms of freight transport.

Further to RO1, the degree to which junction capacity will be affected by further development has not been assessed in detail. Further investigation should be undertaken:

• to confirm the existing and future capacity of the junctions and the route,
• the pressures likely to be exerted by the development,
• identify committed or approved development taking place,
• identify measures needed to cope with pressures, (expanding on the findings of the A19 Corridor Study) and
• liaise with LPA's over a future strategy.

Further to RO10, it is recognised that there is a need to encourage drivers to change their mode of transport. There is potential to encourage this change alongside the measures and strategies being made by local authorities, transport operators and Nexus. Park and Ride is one of the measures that can contribute to mode change and the HA supports in principle the provision of Park and Ride Sites where appropriate, that reduce congestion on the trunk road network.Further to RO11, discussions should be pursued with Planning Authorities regarding the review of the Structure Plans, Unitary Development Plans and Local Plans. In revisions to Local Plans and LTPs, the HA encourages local planning and highway authorities, to include policies and/or measures that:

• Ensure traffic leaving the A194(M)/A184/A19 can exit without dangerous tailbacks on to the main carriageway;
• Prevent the peak capacity of the A194(M)/A184/A19 being exceeded as a result of joining traffic.

TABLE 5.4 - APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT PLAN REPRESENTATIONS AND INDIVIDUAL PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Route Section	RMS Elements	HA Response to Planning Applications	HA Response to Reviews of Development Plans and Local Transport Plans
Whole Route	To improve safety for all users To reduce congestion at identified locations Support the policies and objectives of Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East. Support sustainable development and regeneration where possible in accordance with HA development control policy.	The HA is likely to recommend refusal of applications that would reduce safety. In particular a number of junctions already suffer from "exit blocking" whereby traffic queues back along slip roads on to the main carriageway. This creates a danger of accidents. The HA is likely to recommend refusal of planning applications that would cause or increase danger due to exit blocking. The HA regards the A184/A19 as a route where restrictions on further access should be almost as stringent as those applying to motorways. (Paragraph 10 of Circular 4/2001) The HA may oppose proposals that increase peak demand above the capacity of the route and its junctions over the period extending fifteen years after opening of a development. The HA will oppose applications for the display of advertisements that would constitute hazardous distraction to drivers. The HA will also support local authorities in removing illegal advertisements that constitute hazardous distraction.	The HA will expect policies and proposals in revised Plans to keep peak demand on the A194(M)/A184/A19 at or below current capacity during the life of the Plan.When local planning and highway authorities revise their Local Plans and Local Transport Plans, the HA will encourage them to introduce policies and/or measures that prevent traffic joining the route from creating congestion on that route. The HA strongly encourages local authorities to consult it during the drawing up of Development Plans and LTPs with the object of ensuring that the Trunk Road network is properly integrated into the planning process. The HA will discuss with local planning and highway authorities what level of joining traffic can be safely accommodated at each junction.
	Developer Contributions will be obtained where appropriate for measures to maintain network integrity.	Where a proposed development requires measures to protect the trunk road interest, the HA is likely to recommend appropriate conditions that will result in these measures being delivered by the appropriate time and funded by the developer.	The HA will encourage LPAs to draw up development briefs where appropriate.The HA will ask that Plans record that for legal reasons it can not be a party to agreements under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
	Access to alternative modes to the private car will be encouraged and facilitated.	The HA will encourage developers and LPAs to promote access to alternative modes.	The HA will encourage policies and proposals that encourage the use of alternatives to the private car.
	Transport Assessments will be required where appropriate.	The HA is likely to issue a 'holding' direction where the developer has not supplied an adequate Transport Assessment and the HA believes one is necessary to establish the effect of the development on the trunk road.	The HA will expect policies that require Transport Assessments where appropriate.
A194(M)	To improve safety for all users To reduce congestion at identified locations	Direct access to the motorway sections of the route will be limited to grade separated junctions from other trunk routes or major local roads, motorway service areas, maintenance compounds and, exceptionally, other major transport interchanges. This reflects the need, in the interests of safety and the free flow of traffic, for severe restrictions on the number of motorway accesses. The HA will therefore direct local planning authorities not to grant planning permission for applications incorporating access proposals, which would breach this policy.
A184 and A19	To improve safety for all users To reduce congestion at identified locations	The non-motorway dual-carriageway sections of the route will be subject to restrictions on access almost as stringent as those applying to motorway sections. However applications for developments requiring the formation of new accesses or the intensified use of existing ones may be considered. It will therefore be important for intending developers to discuss their proposals with the HA at an early stage. In addition, local planning authorities are advised to consult the HA over any development, which may affect the users of a trunk road even though it may not lead to an increase in traffic. Examples are golf courses, earth mounds and wind farms in the vicinity of a trunk road.
A184	To improve safety for all users	The A184 has a lower standard highway with direct access and an at-grade central reserve opening. At either end of this section there are at-grade roundabouts that experience heavy congestion at peak hours. Traffic flow on the A184 is tidal in nature mostly occurring at peak hours At other times in the day traffic flows are light. The HA will discuss with the LPA at what level an increase in traffic joining and leaving the A184 as the result of a proposed development should be considered as material. This is likely to be anything other than a minimal increase (less than the 5% indicative level referred to in Circular 4/2001). In some cases peak entry flows to the A184 may need to be maintained at current levels. The HA will encourage developers to bring forward proposals that reduce peak demand on the A184.	Flows entering the A184 may need to be reduced below their current levels in order to keep demand below the current peak capacity of the A19.
A184 White Mare Pool and Testo's roundabouts	To improve safety for all users To reduce congestion at identified locations	The HA will expect development to be packaged in such a way that no more than a minimal increase in peak flows occurs at Testo's roundabout before the completion of the current improvement in the Targeted Programme of Improvements. After completion of this improvement the HA will discuss with the LPA at what level an increase in traffic joining and leaving the A184 as the result of a proposed development should be considered as material. This is likely to be less than the 5% indicative level referred to in Circular 4/2001.	Flows entering the A184 may need to be reduced below their current levels in order to keep demand below the current peak capacity of the A19.
A184 and A19 (south)Strategic Employment site in vicinity of the A184.	Support the policies and objectives of Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East. Support sustainable development and regeneration where possible in accordance with HA development control policy.	The A184 has a lower standard highway with direct access and an at-grade central reserve opening. At either end of this section there are at-grade roundabouts that experience heavy congestion at Peak hour. Traffic flow on the A184 is tidal in nature mostly occurring at peak hour. At other times in the day traffic flows are light. The HA will discuss with the LPA at what level an increase in traffic joining and leaving the A184 as the result of a proposed development should be considered as material. This is likely to be anything other than a minimal increase (less than the 5% indicative level referred to in Circular 4/2001). In some cases peak entry flows to the A184 may need to be maintained at current levels. The HA will encourage developers to bring forward proposals that reduce peak demand on the A184.	Should local planning and highway authorities revise their Development Plans and the Local Transport Plans in light of the plans for any Strategic Employment Site - The HA will encourage them to introduce policies and/or measures that prevent traffic joining the route from creating congestion on that route. The HA strongly encourages local authorities to consult it during the drawing up of any Development Plans and LTPs with the object of ensuring that the Trunk Road network is properly integrated into the planning process.
A184 at -grade central reserve opening	To improve safety for all users	The only gap in the route occurs along the A184 central reserve to the west of Testo's roundabout. For safety reasons the HA is likely to direct refusal of proposals that result in any general increase in movements, or in movements of long, slow or heavy vehicles at the gap.
A19 around the Tyne	Congestion will be reduced. The HA will assist development proposals on the A19 by facilitating appropriate measures to minimise traffic impact.	The HA will discuss with the LPA at what level an increase in traffic joining and leaving the A19 as the result of a proposed development should be considered as material. This is likely to be anything other than a minimal increase (less than the 5% indicative level referred to in Circular 4/2001).	Flows entering the A19 may need to be reduced below their current levels in order to keep demand below the current peak capacity of the A19.
Lindisfarne interchange	To improve safety for all users To reduce congestion at identified locations	There have been reports of exit blocking at this interchange. The HA will ensure that any developments will not contribute further to tailbacks onto the main carriageway. The HA will encourage developers to bring forward proposals that reduce peak demand on this A19 section.	Flows entering the A19 may need to be reduced below their current levels in order to keep demand below the current peak capacity of the A19.
South and north roundabouts leading to the Tyne Tunnel.	To improve safety for all users To reduce congestion at identified locations	The HA will expect development to be packaged in such a way that no more than a minimal increase in peak flows occurs at these roundabouts before the decision on the proposed second Tyne crossing is reached and improvements made. If the second Tyne crossing is not taken forward the HA will discuss with the LPA at what level an increase in traffic joining and leaving the A19 as the result of a proposed development should be considered as material. This is likely to be anything other than a minimal increase (less than the 5% indicative level referred to in Circular 4/2001). In some cases peak entry flows to the A184 may need to be maintained at current levels. The HA will encourage developers to bring forward proposals that reduce peak demand on the A19. If the second crossing is completed, after completion of this improvement the HA will discuss with the LPA at what level an increase in traffic joining and leaving the A19 as the result of a proposed development should be considered as material. This is likely to be less than the 5% indicative level referred to in Circular 4/2001.	Should local planning and highway authorities revise their Local Plans and Local Transport Plans in light of provision of the second Tyne Tunnel -The HA will encourage them to introduce policies and/or measures that prevent traffic joining the route from creating congestion on that route. The HA strongly encourages local authorities to consult it during the drawing up of any Development Plans and LTPs with the object of ensuring that the Trunk Road network is properly integrated into the planning process.
Silverlink, Holystone, Killingworth, Moor Farm Rbt, Dudley interchange and Fisher lane rbt.	To improve safety for all users To reduce congestion at identified locations	The HA will discuss with the LPA at what level an increase in traffic joining and leaving the A19 as the result of a proposed development should be considered as material. This is likely to be anything other than a minimal increase (less than the 5% indicative level referred to in Circular 4/2001). In some cases peak entry flows to the A184 may need to be maintained at current levels. The HA will encourage developers to bring forward proposals that reduce peak demand on the A19.	Flows entering the A19 will need to be reduced below their current levels in order to bring demand within the current peak capacity of the junctions. This will be a particular issue for the area of land immediately north and south of the Tyne where business development within a recognised regeneration area is continuing.
Seaton Burn interchange	To improve safety for all users To reduce congestion at identified locations	The HA will expect development to be packaged in such a way that no more than a minimal increase in peak flows occurs at Seaton Burn roundabout before the completion of the current improvement in the Targeted Programme of Improvements. After completion of this improvement the HA will discuss with the LPA at what level an increase in traffic joining and leaving the A19 as the result of a proposed development should be considered as material. This is likely to be less than the 5% indicative level referred to in Circular 4/2001.	Flows entering the A19 will need to be reduced below their current levels in order to bring demand within the current peak capacity of the junctions.

6 route problems and performance

6 Route Problems and Performance

Throughout this section the italic numbers in brackets e.g. (4) refer to numbered locations on the Problems and Issues Plans in Appendix G.

6.1 Route Performance and Problem Identification

Problems and issues have been identified from the consultations that have taken place and from an independent review of route performance.

In order to provide objective evidence of problems, the performance of the route has been assessed in each of the governments five objective areas of; economy, safety, environment, accessibility and integration.

To assess performance, an extensive data collection exercise and analysis has been undertaken, together with a review of the existing conditions and facilities along the route. The review has involved identification of issues within existing studies and reports affecting or relevant to the route, it has also included.

Economy:

• An analysis of traffic flow data from automatic traffic counters (ATCs) located along the route.
• An assessment of historical traffic growth.

Safety

• Analysis of accident statistics over the 1998 to 2003 period. Patterns and accident groupings have been investigated and compared against national averages.

Environment

• Identification of the environmental issues affecting the route e.g. pollution prevention measures, effects on nature conservation and biodiversity, heritage sites affected and designated sites affected.
• An assessment of facilities along the route that contribute to traveller care e.g. lay-by standard, service facilities and tourist facilities.

Accessibility

• An assessment of issues related to accessibility e.g. non-motorised crossing facilities, existing signs, road markings, bus stop standard and road lighting.
• Review of the HA's non-motorised user crossing surveys

Integration:

• An assessment of issues related to integration e.g. locations of public transport interchanges, public transport facilities.

An assessment of the performance of the route and the problems and issues identified are set out under these five headings in the sections 6.2 to 6.6 below.

6.2 Economy

6.2.1 Current and Projected Traffic Flows

The last 7 years of traffic flow information along different sections of the route has been obtained and analysed. The graph below shows the average daily weekday traffic over each of the last 7 years (information in 2002 and 2003 along the A194(M) is unavailable) and provides a picture of the historical traffic growth over that period.

Historic Annual Average Weekday Traffic Growth

Following an assessment of likely traffic growth over the 2004 to 2014 period, a typical growth of traffic of 14% is likely to be encountered. Within the 10-year vision of this RMS it is therefore unlikely that traffic flows will exceed the current capacity of the route links. There will however, be an impact on the junctions along the route (these issues will be discussed later in section 6.2).

Growth factors for the RMS study with the New Tyne Crossing

The recent A19 Corridor Study investigated the anticipated effect a New Tyne Crossing (NTC) would have on the existing highway infrastructure within the A19 corridor. It concluded that the A19 corridor would experience a greater level of traffic growth as a result of the NTC.

Should the NTC take place, then the traffic growth over the RMS period is likely to be between 25% and 35% (see graph below). Again it is unlikely that traffic flows will exceed the capacity of the links, however there will be an impact on the junctions along the route.

(Note: The continuous lines in the graph above is actual traffic data recorded, indicative future traffic growth is shown dashed. Opening of the NTC in 2006 is shown.)

6.2.2 HGV Percentages

The ATC data obtained from the HA website provided limited data on HGV content on the route. Percentage HGV content was only provided on Section 3 where a split of 13 % HGV use identified.

Further HGV data has been taken from the A19 Corridor Study prepared by Arup Transport on behalf of the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Authority. In 1999 classified traffic surveys were undertaken at various junctions along the A19 route. The following table on the next page indicates the HGV content within each section. This should give a good approximation as to the level of HGV's that currently use the RMS route, however, this information is five years old and only provides a guideline to today's values.

2-way HGV Content (%)	RMS Section
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
AM	9.3	4.5	14.1	8.4	7.0	3.5	5.9
PM	3.9	2.3	14.1	3.5	2.5	2.2	3.2

(Figures are based on 1999 data except section 3, which is based on 2003 data)

6.2.3 Link Capacity

Daily congestion along the route has been assessed using the Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC). This is the ratio of average daily traffic flows (AADT) to a congestion reference flow (calculated in accordance with the guidance contained within TA 46/97). The following table summarises these results

RMS Section No.	Link Congestion RFC
	2004	2014 without NTC	2014 with NTC
1 - A194 (M)	0.19	0.22	0.26
2 - A184	0.53	0.61	0.72
3 - A19 south of the Tyne Tunnel	0.43	0.49	0.58
4 - A19 between Tyne Tunnel and A1058	0.46	0.53	0.62
5 - A19 between A1058 & A191	0.49	0.56	0.66
6 - A19 between A191 & A189	0.50	0.57	0.67
7 - A19 Between A189 & A1	0.39	0.45	0.52

NTC - New Tyne Crossing

As the RFC approaches unity, delays due to congestion will be more common as the demand approaches the available capacity.

The results indicate that each of the links are performing well and will be able to accommodate the growth in traffic over the period of the RMS. The main parameter that dictates how well these links will operate is therefore junction capacity. If the junctions along the route are unable to accommodate the growth in traffic, delays will occur as traffic queuing increases.

6.2.4 Junction Capacity

Congestion at junctions is a significant issue along the route. The A19 Corridor Study (see section 1.6.5) has assessed how each junction performs during the peak hours in 2006 and 2021 with and without the New Tyne Crossing (NTC).

Operational assessments of each junction along the route have been undertaken using the latest available traffic count data. These assessments have been carried out for the am and pm peak periods in 2004 and 2014. In addition, where individual junctions are forecast to reach capacity before 2014, an assessment of the life of the junction has been carried out.

Table 6.1 below describes how each junction along the RMS route would perform during peak hours between 2004 and 2014.

As can be seen in Table 6.1, there are a number of junctions that are operating at or beyond capacity. They will continue to experience greater levels of congestion as traffic growth and development continues. Conditions in 2014 are shown and indicate how junctions will be affected over the period of the RMS. The effect of provision of the NTC is also shown; this has been developed from an understanding of the results contained within the A19 Corridor Study.

TABLE 6.1 JUNCTION OPERATING PERFORMANCE

Junction	2004	2014 without NTC (1)	2014 with NTC
Seaton Burn/ *Fisher Lane (4)			(2)
Dudley Lane
*Moor Farm (5)			(2)
Killingworth			(2)
Holystone (6)
*Silverlink (5) (7)			(2)
Wallsend Road
*North Portal (3)
*South Portal (3)
Lindisfarne
Boldon Colliery
*Testo's (4) (8)			(2)
*White Mare Pool (6)
Follingsby
Albany

Key

Colour	Description	Delay
	Operating below capacity thresholds	Mimimum Delays
	Operating at capacity	Increasing Delays
	Operating beyond capacity thresholds	Heavy Delays

Notes:

• * Junctions where the trunk road loses priority
• (1) NTC - New Tyne Crossing.
• (2) With the NTC these junctions are likely to be operating at capacity at an earlier date than without the NTC.
• (3) Assessment based on results of A19 Corridor Study. Significant upgrades of these junctions will take place if construction of the NTC takes place thus eliminating congestion.
• (4) These junctions are in the government's Targeted Programme of Improvements
• (5) These junctions are being considered for entry to the TPI.
• (6) Assessments include committed junction improvements.
• (7) Estimated year operating beyond capacity thresholds- 2008
• (8) Estimated year operating beyond capacity thresholds - 2006

Consultation comments received also suggest that congestion is being experienced at Holystone roundabout. Although the A19 at this location is grade separated, congestion on the slip roads may affect the main traffic flows on the A19.

6.2.5 Loss of Trunk Road Priority

From the perspective of the trunk road traffic a significant cause of congestion is due to the trunk road losing priority at junctions.

This occurs at the following junctions (numbers in brackets refer to the problems and issues plan in Appendix G):

• White Mare Pool roundabout (4),
• Testo's roundabout (8),
• Tyne Crossing south portal (12)
• Tyne Crossing north portal (13),
• Silverlink roundabout (17),
• Moor farm roundabout (23),
• Fisher Lane roundabout (25) and
• Seaton Burn interchange (26).

The two TPI schemes at Testo's and Seaton Burn plus and those being considered for TPI entry i.e. at Silverlink and Moor Farm, would include flyovers and improve the priority of the trunk road.

6.2.6 Congestion Problems Identified by Consultees

The following locations have been identified by consultees as being locations where congestion is an issue. These show good correlation with the capacity assessment of junctions in section 6.2.4, and locations where the trunk road looses priority described in section 6.2.5

• At White Mare Pool junction (4) extensive traffic queuing occurs on the A194(M) approach to the roundabout during the am peak hour. In the pm peak hour queues occur on the westbound A184 approach to the roundabout. It appears that the problems stem from a dominant am peak hour flow coming from the A194 northern leg and heading to the A184 west exit. This flow has to cross both trunk road entries to the roundabout.
• At Testo's roundabout (8) queuing occurs on the approaches to the roundabout during peak hour. The roundabout has traffic signals.
• Queuing on the approach to Lindisfarne Roundabout (10) stretches up the northbound exit slip road and onto the A19. It has been stated in the consultation that this only occurs when roadworks are carried out. The A19 corridor study identified that this junction is operating beyond capacity. The report also mentions that improvements would be difficult as it is constrained by the urban environment around it.
• Queuing occurs on the approach to the Tyne Tunnel portal (12) south roundabout. This can extend back to the Lindisfarne Junction at peak periods.
• Queuing at peak hour at the approach to the north roundabout at the Tyne Tunnel portal (13) is significant. Traffic travelling to and from the Royal Quay area is increasing.
• At Silverlink Junction (17) queuing generally at peak hour occurs on the A19 northbound and southbound approaches to the roundabout. Queuing also extends up to the A1058 exit slip roads onto the A1058. The McDonalds access also causes tail blocking on the A19.
• There are a number of consultation comments that suggest that congestion is being experienced at Holystone roundabout (19). Although the A19 at this location is grade-separated congestion on the slip roads may affect the main traffic flows on the A19.
• Recent studies indicate that the Killingworth interchange (20) is presently operating 'at capacity'. Developments along Sandy Lane have put pressure onto the junction. Traffic movements are also restricted by the existing road layout. Vehicles have to negotiate a T-junction immediately after the interchange if travelling to Backworth. Queuing here can interfere with the roundabout circulatory flow.
• Queuing at Moor Farm Roundabout (23). This occurs generally at peak hour on the A19 northbound and southbound approaches to the roundabout. It is recognised that the principle traffic flow is from/to the A189 in the north and the A19 to/from Southeast.
• Queuing at Fisher Lane roundabout (25). This occurs generally at peak hour on the A19 northbound and southbound approaches to the roundabout.
• At the A1/A19 junction at Seaton Burn (26), queuing occurs on both the northbound and southbound exit slips onto the A19, mainly during peak hours.

Congestion is affecting journey time reliability and the efficiency of the route is of particular concern to public transport and emergency services. During the consultation, it was stated that congestion on the local network is also occurring as a result of issues on the route. Specific locations where this has been identified are at Jarrow, Wallsend and East Howdon. However, it is probable that this is occurring at several other locations adjacent to the route.

Gateshead MBC has emphasised the inter-relationship between the strategic and local road network in terms of traffic and congestion. This is particularly so in relation to the A184 which is the responsibility of the Local Highway Authority east and west of the RMS route where it feeds into the Felling By-Pass. In dealing with problems on the trunk road, it is important that account is taken of the effect on the local roads, through close liaison with the Local Highway Authority.

Whilst Testo's and Seaton Burn locations are on the TPI schemes list, short term studies could look at interim congestion issues.

6.2.7 Regeneration/Business Issues

1. 1) A number of issues were identified in the consultation that suggests there is a close link between regeneration and transport. There is a general feeling that the route as it stands, could be improved in this area. Issues include:
   • Congestion at Moor Farm Roundabout (23) and Seaton Burn (26) may be limiting factors against the development of southeast Northumberland. There may be potential increase in traffic and road use as SE Northumberland develops.
   • The route gives the impression of being a 'weary road' or 'low standard' in places along the A184 and A19. This is unattractive to investors.
   • New employment sites to the north east of the A19 (e.g. Cramlington) should be considered when looking at the capacity of junctions (27).

6.2.8 Traffic Diverting from the Route

Traffic when using the trunk road route sometimes take an alternative route along sections of the Local Authority road. This may be taking place due to congestion at peak hours on the RMS route and is applying pressure on the local road network and impacting upon local communities. Locations identified are:

• At White Mare Pool Junction (4) local traffic use the A194, however, the signed strategic route is the A184.
• There has been mention of 'rat running' at the at-grade central reserve crossing on the A184 (7). This may be related to the level of congestion being experienced at Testo's roundabout to the east.
• Rat running has been identified on local authority roads to get to the north Tyne Tunnel roundabout (13). Access/egress at the East Howdon is difficult due to tunnel traffic on the East Howdon Bypass.
• Rat running is occurring to get to the south Tyne Tunnel roundabouts (12). Congestion at East side of Jarrow town centre and queues on Strecker Street.
• At Dudley interchange (24) vehicles travelling from the north onto the A19 need to travel to the Moor Farm roundabout. There is no on-slip road at Dudley interchange for safety reasons because of the interaction with adjacent junctions.

6.2.9 The Route as an Alternative to the A1 Western Bypass

The RMS route during consultation was identified as an alternative route for the A1(T). Its use during emergencies is identified as one of the existing Route Functions (F9). The efficient operation as an alternative route is restricted. This is related to the degree of congestion experienced and traveller information that is provided.

6.2.10 Maintenance

A number of issues have been identified during consultation that are associated with maintenance operations. Issues include:

• The A19 south of Tyne has low residual life left in the pavement. Significant pavement upgrade is being delayed until decisions are reached on proposed improvements at Testo's Roundabout and the Second Tyne Crossing.
• Resurfacing at Fisher Lane roundabout (25) is thought necessary.
• The lack of hardstrips causes maintenance difficulties as maintenance works are unable to be carried out on or up to the carriageway centre-line without contra-flow or traffic diversions. There are few central reserve cross-overs and they tend to be substandard.
• Litter is a significant problem along the route. Collection is made difficult by thorn bushes.
• Vandalism takes place along the route. This includes damage caused by burnt out cars, graffiti and abuse to maintenance contractor employees.

6.3 Safety

6.3.1 Accident Analysis

A review of five years of personal injury accident (PIA) data from 1998 to 2003 has been undertaken to establish accident rates and severity and the location of groups of accidents. A detailed accident investigation has not been carried out and the current work has been limited to assessing the performance of the route and identifying where accident rates or groupings indicate the need for detailed accident studies.

As would be expected, the majority of accidents along the route are to be found at junctions with a number of scattered incidents occurring along the links.

6.3.2 Link Accident Analysis

The link analysis has been undertaken using HA guidance outlined in Annex 3 of the Operational Folder to the HA Safety Strategic Plan. This identifies a series of intervention levels which are based upon typical or average accident rates for the trunk road network.

Accident rates for the links have been calculated (excluding junctions) in terms of numbers of Accidents (Personal Injury Accidents) per 100 million vehicle kilometres (100 million vehkms). This enables traffic flow to be considered alongside the number of accidents occurring. The accidents per 100 million veh-kms were then compared with the national average rate for the type of road (see Table 6.2).

Accident Severity Ratios, i.e. the degree of severity of all of the accidents occurring (no. of fatal and serious accidents divided by a total of injury accidents) has also been calculated on the links and the results are also indicated in Table 6.2 on the next page.

From Table 6.2 it can be seen that on links 1 and 4, all the indicators have rates greater than the intervention levels although closer examination indicates that the issues on these links are in fact mainly due to rear end shunts at queuing backing up from junctions. Along section 4 there are a number of accidents that are related to pedestrian and motorcycle incidents.

TABLE 6.2 ACCIDENT SEVERITY RATIOS

Section		1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Type of road		Motorway	Non Built Up Dual Carriageway
Length (Km)		6.01	2.63	4.07	2.16	2.89	5.4	4.39
Flow (AADT)		17057	31361	27800	30416	31468	26374	24398
Total No. of PIA's per year		5.8	5.3	3.8	5.1	8.0	8.2	1.8
No. of Fatal Accidents per year		0.18	0	0	0.18	0	0.36	0
All Accidents per 100 million veh-km	This route	16	18	9.2	21	24	16	4.7
	National Average	10	18
Fatal Accidents per 100 million veh-km	This route	0.49	0	0	0.76	0	0.70	0
	National Average	0.18	0.6
Severity Ratio	This route	0.16	0.03	0.10	0.18	0.14	0.13	0
	National Average	0.13	0.16

(Values in bold are above the national average)

From Table 6.2 it can be seen that on links 1 and 4 all the indicators have rates greater than the intervention levels although closer examination indicates that the issues on these links are in fact mainly due to rear end shunts at queuing backing up from junctions. Along section 4 there are a number of accidents that are related to pedestrian and motorcycle incidents.

6.3.3 Accident Grouping Analysis

The main purpose of this exercise was to identify where groups of accidents are occurring and identify locations for further detailed investigation within the period of the RMS.

The first stage of the analysis involved a review of the personal injury accidents covering the period from 1998 to 2003 and identification of groups of accidents along the route. 23 groups of accidents were identified (see figures 6.1 and 6.2 for locations).

The next stage involved investigating the groups of accidents to see if they should be put forward for detailed investigation following the RMS. This stage looked at issues such as the number of accidents occurring, their severity and whether a pattern of accidents was occurring. Locations where studies are already proposed or completed were then eliminated (these are referred to below for completeness)

Finally, the remaining locations were given a High, Medium or Low priority depending on the number and severity of accidents as follows:

High Priority:

• A193 Wallsend Interchange and link on Section 4 (Accident Groups 10 and 11)
• A1056 Killingworth Interchange on Section 6 (Accident Groups 18 and 19)
• A189 Moor Farm Roundabout on section 6 (Accident Group 21)

Medium Priority:

• A19/A184 Testos Roundabout on Section 3 (Accident Group 5)
• Leading to South Tyne Tunnel Roundabout, A19 (Accident Group 8)
• North of Tyne Tunnel north portal (Accident Group 9)

Regarding Testos junction, a safety improvement scheme was completed in 2001 and rates have decreased since then, but the continuing number of accidents since completion of the scheme met the selection criteria.

Low Priority:

• Section 1 including Albany and Follingsby interchanges (Accident Group 1 & 2)
• Section 5 between Silverlink and Holystone junctions (Accident Group 13 & 14)
• North of Holystone on Section 6 (Accident Group 16)

There are four locations where studies are being carried out. These are:

• A194(M)/A184 White Mare Pool Roundabout (Accident Group 3)
• A19/A1058 Silverlink Interchange (Accident Group 12)
• A186/A191 holystone Interchange (Accident Group 15)
• A19/A1068 Seaton Burn/Fisher Lane Roundabout (Accident Groups 22 and 23)

6.3.4 Types of Accidents

The main types of accidents are associated with rear end shunts at junctions, however, accidents are occurring for a variety of other reasons, including:

• Animals entering onto the carriageway
• At lay-by locations, possibly due to their sub standard nature
• Pedestrians crossing the road
• Traffic weaving movements at slip road merge and diverge tapers
• Ponding of water
• High winds and gusting
• Breakdowns occurring on the road
• Turning movements at direct accesses
• Incidents at night time, possibly due to lack of highway illumination.
• Incidents relating to roadworks

6.3.5 General Safety Issues

A number of issues have been identified that are related to safety along the route. This includes:

• Additional signs could be provided at the Lindisfarne Interchange (10) to improve information of queues ahead.
• Lindisfarne junction footbridge has limited headroom over slip roads (10a).
• The consultation referred to items being dropped off Wallsend Road Bridge (14).
• Road illumination is not provided at a number of locations along the route. The provision and standard of lighting on slip roads was commented on.
• Significant cross-winds are encountered by vehicles in places, especially along section 6 (21).
• Safety barrier protection is required in places, near to roadside structures and trees.
• There is an inconsistency in route standard north of the Tyne. A hardstrip is provided in some places but not in others. The close proximity of the safety barrier to the roadway means that broken down vehicles align themselves in lane one.
• Consultation has referred to SITA waste lorries scattering debris near Killingworth Interchange (20).
• The consultation referred to a degree of confusion being experienced by vehicles where part time signal controlled roundabouts are employed e.g. Silverlink (17).
• Lane markings absent or confusing causes problems before and on junctions, which would also improve driver behaviour.

In places the road layout has been identified as causing problems to travellers. Some of the accident data supports this. Locations include:

• The A194(M) and A1(M) bifurcation where there are problems associated with traffic weaving at the last minute from the A194(M) marked lane (3rd lane) into the A1(M) lanes (1).
• Safety concerns also arise from late vehicle movements at the entrance to the Tyne south portal roundabout. Crossing of lanes/queue jumping takes place (12).
• The Killingworth (20) junction arrangement provides limited queuing capacity.
• At the Dudley interchange (24) a square roundabout causes difficulties, there is also lack of a southbound entry slip road.

Figure 6.1 - Location where groups of accidents have occurred

Figure 6.2 - Location where groups of accidents have occurred

6.4 Environment

6.4.1 General

A desk study was undertaken looking at the effects of the route on the surrounding environment and included investigating the impact on biodiversity and nature conservation, landscape and visual impact, water quality and drainage, air quality, noise and vibration, cultural heritage and issues affecting vehicular travellers i.e. Traveller Care.

In March 2004 a walkover survey along the route was undertaken. This was undertaken to enable a better understanding of the issues associated with the route and its operation. Particular aspects investigated as part of this survey include:

• Visual assessment of the existing road drainage
• Visual assessment of the condition of waterbodies in the vicinity of the route
• Initial assessment of the impact of the route on the existing biodiversity resource in and around the HA's soft estate

An Environmental Constraints plan was developed using data obtained during the study. It shows the constraints relevant to the route and is provided in Appendix C.

The existing route is an established corridor and in places lacks measures of current environmental standards. There are a number of issues that are affecting its performance and a number of mitigation measures that could be undertaken to minimise the impact on the route. In particular the routes impact on water quality and drainage and on wildlife corridors.

6.4.2 Biodiversity and Nature Conservation

The impacts to biodiversity and nature conservation include:

• Disturbance to habitats and species present on the highway estate and in areas immediately adjacent to the road corridor (e.g. noise and visual impacts, spray and airborne pollutants);
• Barrier effect to traditional foraging or commuting routes in particular where wildlife corridors are severed by the route and at roadkill locations previously described.

An initial assessment of the impact of the route on biodiversity and nature conservation in and around the HA's soft estate was undertaken by desk study and site walkover survey. The key impacts and affects identified as a result of this study and survey are listed below:

• Marsh and spotted orchids are present on the highway verge in Section 1. The lack of competition, particularly in recently disturbed ground that is sometimes found on road verges, provides opportunity for them to establish. However, as the sward closes and vegetation develops further, if unmanaged, other vegetation can shade-out the orchids.
• Most of the rivers and streams that pass beneath the RMS route are enclosed in a concrete culvert beneath the road. Such culverts are unsuitable for use by otters, or any other mammal species, particularly at times of high water flow. At times of high water flow instead of using such culverts otters will cross the live carriageway to reach the watercourse on the other side of the road (PTES, 2004). Since otter populations in this area are expanding (Durham Wildlife Trust, pers comm), this may result in further otter road casualties.
• Road traffic accidents are thought to be responsible for the deaths of 20% of all badgers in the UK each year. During the survey a dead badger was noted in Section 3 on the northbound carriageway, just south of the railway overbridge that crosses the A19(T).
• Collision with road vehicles is an important cause of mortality for kestrels and barn owls. However, other aspects of highways, such as the long grass present on the highway soft estate, also provides good hunting areas for these species.
• The impact of over-ground highway run-off (that may occur from inadequate existing highway drainage) on reed beds and wetland habitats (such as the Hadrian Park Pond SNCI Site of Nature Conservation Interest in Section 5) may lead to deterioration of the habitat. This may have an adverse effect on species associated with these habitats, such as reed bunting.
• Section 7 of the route between Annitsford and the junction with the A1(T), as well as other roads within this area, are understood to be 'hot-spots' for animal road kill; barn owls, otters and badgers have been reported killed on the roads in this area (anecdotal evidence from North Tyneside Council and Northumberland Wildlife Trust).
• Planting on the HA soft estate is beneficial for other bird species, the dense scrub present adjacent to the northbound carriageway between Mill Lane and Seaton Burn (Section 7) provides good cover for yellowhammers.

6.4.3 Water Quality, Pollution and Land Drainage

An assessment of the existing drainage regime and the impact of the route on water quality and drainage of the surrounding environment was undertaken by desk study and site walkover survey.

In general, little information on the existing drainage regime was available, however, initial inspection of the above-ground drainage infrastructure indicates that further maintenance is required e.g. overgrown french drains and full and/or ineffective litter grilles. In addition, no above ground facilities for drainage attenuation treatment of discharge e.g. ponds or containment of spillage directly associated with the route were observed.

The water quality of the watercourses downstream of the highway discharges was characterised by higher concentrations of particulate than upstream. In addition, an oily film was observed on the surface of the water downstream of the discharge points. A number of watercourses that receive highway drainage are designated cyprinid waters (e.g. River Don tributary Monkton Burn (2) in section 2, and Seaton Burn near Annitsford (22) in section 6) under the EC Freshwater Fish Directive. The likelihood of these watercourses achieving the Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) associated with this classification may be compromised by the apparent discharges from the route.

Other waterbodies within the vicinity of the route have been identified as SNCIs due to their nature conservation value e.g. Mount Pleasant Marsh (8), Boldon Lake (8) and Hadrian's Park Pond (18). Whilst these do not appear to receive highway drainage discharge directly, the condition of the drainage system in the vicinity of these sites is such that highway drainage may be affecting these waterbodies. These waterbodies may therefore be acting as unintentional attenuation/treatment ponds, with a consequently detrimental impact to their nature conservation value.

Highway drainage may also be affecting the inundation of surrounding land along section 7, which may affect water quality along Sandy's Letch (23-25). The road drainage along both the east and westbound carriageways along this stretch of the route was observed to require further maintenance.

6.4.4 Cultural Heritage

The route passes near to and hence may be affecting the setting of a number of Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs), Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas. These include:

• Four SAMs are located near to the route in Section 1. The Conservation Area of Springwell Village is located adjacent to Section 1 and there are also two views of particular importance from Springwell to the coast.
• Laverick Hall, a Grade II Listed Building is located in very close proximity to the route in Section 2.
• The Jarrow Conservation Area is located adjacent to the northern end of Section 3. This area is a significant location for cultural heritage as it has 9 listed buildings associated with it. West Bolden Conservation Area is located adjacent to the route at the southern end of Section 3.
• Backworth Conservation Area is located to the east of the route in Section 6. Burradon Tower (Grade II Listed Building and SAM) and West Backworth Medieval settlement (SAM) are also located adjacent to the route in Section 6.
• There is a Grade II Listed Building, St Nicholas Church, located to the north of the route and two Areas of High Landscape Value in the vicinity of Section 7. The lighting at the A1/A19 and A189 junctions may be visible from these locations.

6.4.5 Noise and Air Quality

Certain sections of the route pass through densely populated areas such as Hedworth. In addition, there are a number of sensitive sites (e.g. schools) within 300m e.g. at Fellgate, Simonside, Howdon and Jarrow.

Receptors within 200m of the route would experience air quality impacts and those within 300m would experience noise impacts from the route. There are a number of locations at which air quality and noise impacts would be expected to be most pronounced, in particular at a number of roundabouts which are currently operating above capacity thresholds at peak times. This results in heavy delays and congestion, with consequent air quality and noise effects. In particular these include:

• White Mare Pool roundabout (4)
• Lindisfarne roundabout (10)
• South Portal roundabout (12)
• A187 and North Portal roundabout (13)

Stakeholder consultation has also indicated that lorry noise is an issue at a lay-by on Route Section 5 (16). HGVs, on exiting the ferry, stop at the first lay-by on the A19 travelling north. The noise of the refrigeration units is understood to cause a nuisance to nearby residents.

(During the public consultation, noise and air pollution on the non-trunk road A194 between White Mare Pool and Lindisfarne junctions was mentioned as a particular concern but this is not part of the RMS route).

6.4.6 Traveller Care

A desk study was undertaken reviewing the provision of traveller care along the route. It included reviewing the locations where travellers can stop, reviewing the standard or quality of facilities provided and the provision of clear information advising them of facilities. Facilities investigated include lay-bys, motorway and non-motorway service areas, filling stations and directional or informational signing.

In general traveller care is provided along the route and there are a number of locations where users can stop if necessary. It is an area however, where improvements could take place. The route provides for a variety of users including business, commuting, recreation, schools, tourism, etc. It is also close to port facilities for both freight and passengers. The types of issues affecting users of the route (HGV drivers and tourists in particular) include:

• Lay-bys are small and have sub-standard entry and exit tapers.
• Picnic sites or services are limited and poorly signposted.
• There are limited facilities for lorries/HGVs to stop in, prior to, or after using the ferry. They pull into sub-standard lay-bys, which are located close to residential areas and cause disturbance.
• Information or direction signs for of nearby facilities for HGV's are limited. A lorry park has been identified at Birtley, however, this is mainly for A1(M)/A1(T) traffic.
• When vehicles breakdown or incidents occur travellers are apparently unsure of their exact location. Naming of junctions and provision of marker posts along the route would help identification when incidents occur.
• Emergency telephones are provided on the A19 south of the Tyne, elsewhere these are not provided.
• Tourist information signs are limited.
• Direction signs could be improved, and in particular signs for traffic using the ports is considered to be inadequate, especially for overseas visitors. It has been suggested European destinations should be included on existing ferry signs. Also, the A69 is on the Trans European Route Network (TERN), however, there are no signs to ports leading off this. Signs on the A19 are suggested.
• Information signs generally for travellers are limited along the route. Electronic signs/VMS could be provided to warn of traffic congestion or incidents occurring on the route, so that alternative routes could be taken e.g. advanced matrix signs.
• There are issues associated with the matrix signs on the A194(M) which do not function properly and can provide confusing message information at times.

6.5 Accessibility

6.5.1 General

Accessibility looks at issues primarily to do with non-motorised users, pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians. The effect of the route on communities is a particular aspect of this, and the way in which roads cause severance.

Nationally the HA has carried out a series of non-motorised user crossing studies looking at facilities for cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians and identified crossing points. The reports covering the RMS route have been obtained and reviewed, reference is made in this section where appropriate.

In addition an independent qualitative review of the provision along the route was undertaken and together, a description of the issues associated with accessibility are provided in Section 6.5.2 below.

There are a number of issues that are affecting the route functions. In general, hindrance to non-motorised users crossing or travelling along the road is significant. This is pronounced on more urbanised sections of the road and at roundabouts.

6.5.2 Non-Motorised User Issues

There are a number of problems/issues occurring along the route that impact upon pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians wishing to cross or travel along the route. Many of the issues have safety implications.

These problems and issues include:

General Issues

• At-grade crossing of the route is generally difficult due to high traffic speeds.
• Non-Motorised User crossing (NMU) facilities at junctions and roundabouts are limited e.g. at Silverlink (17), Holystone (19), Moor Farm (23) and Fisher Lane (25).
• Further pedestrian barriers are needed to prevent crossing at inappropriate locations.
• Awareness of drivers to non-motorised user (NMU) could be restricted by lack of adequate warning signs.

General Cycling Issues

• There are limited facilities for cyclists along the route. There is a lack of hardstrip
• in places, which some cyclists find a helpful facility.
• Cyclists find it difficult to navigate safely around roundabouts due to the volume and speed of traffic,
• Cyclists would prefer traffic light signals at roundabouts.
• Improvements should link with existing cycle-route links.
• Specific problems and issues include:
• Signs for NMUs using the Great North Trail are limited.

Section 1

• Pedestrian links between Follingsby Industrial Estate (3) and nearby residential areas in east Gateshead are limited.
• Inadequate parapets for equestrians on the A1231 overbridge at the A1(M) bifurcation.

Section 2

• Footway provision along the A184 and in places along the A19 is limited.
• There are 4 sets of bus stops along the A184 on the RMS route. There are 2 at-grade crossing points (6) both near sets of bus stops. An accident has occurred at one of these.
• Facilities at bus stops are limited with a lack of shelters, lighting and high "kessel" type kerbs for low floor buses
• Sustrans, the cycling charity, have asked for consideration of a cycle link along the north side of the A184 between White Mare Pool roundabout and the overbridge across the A19 just north of Testo's roundabout (28)
• There are three sites identified in the Area 18 NMU study but none was a priority site. Under "problems" in the priority list spreadsheet the report states "difficult to cross, particularly for equestrians" which may refer to bridleway B2.

Section 3

• A central reserve barrier (9) has been installed on the A19 south of the Tyne to prevent pedestrians crossing the dual-carriageway. This is still climbed over.
• The underpass near Lindisfarne interchange (11) has user security issues that encourage at-grade crossings of the A19.
• On A19 south of the Tyne accessibility along and across the road is an issue.

Section 4

• There are safety issues associated with pedestrian crossing movements (15). There has been a recent fatality.

Section 5

• There are difficulties at the Bridleway crossing at Silverlink, a bridleway joins the slip-road here. A leisure facility occurs at the Rising Sun Nature Park (18) and crossing facilities to this are limited.
• The Area 20 NMU report states that the at-grade crossings for NMU's at the Silverlink junction represent a danger and recommends consideration be given to providing a footbridge
• North Tyneside MBC have asked for improved pedestrian and cycle route access to the Cobalt (27a) and Silverlink Business Areas across the A19 (27b).
  
  This corresponds to a recommendation in the Area 20 NMU report for consideration to be given to footbridges at sites NTYNE 008 and 009 in the same vicinity. NTYNE 09 is on footpath LB9 and links the West Allotment to Benton Square. NTYNE 08 is on footpath LB10 and links Battle Hill to the retail and amenity areas east of the A19.
• There is a bridleway terminating on Holystone slip road south (19). Riders are forced to travel alongside the A19 when using this.
• Pedestrians/equestrians/cyclists encounter difficulties when crossing at Holystone roundabout (19).
• There are a number of at-grade crossings (18) along section 5. Accidents have occurred.

Section 6

• A bridleway terminates by the northbound A19 slip road (BR 20) and riders progressing towards Backworth (20) have to use the A1056 (Section 6) underpass under the A19. Difficulty is experienced.
• The B1317 bridge parapet (19a) is not high enough and horses are frightened by the A19 traffic underneath.
• Development of NMU link under A19 from Backworth to Holystone (Section 6) should be considered (19a).

Section 7

• There is a lack of pedestrian crossing/cycle facilities around Moor Farm Roundabout (23). There is a possible pedestrian and cycle desire line from Annitsford to Cramlington (Section 7).
• The Area 20 NMU report recommends consideration is given to a footbridge at Moor Farm roundabout.

6.5.3 Community Severance

Alongside section 3, 4 and 5 there are a number of communities that are experiencing a degree of community severance. This includes:

• The route creates a barrier to people wanting to cross from one side to the other to reach shops, post offices, libraries, etc. Crossing facilities at these locations do not make crossing the route easy and cause hindrance to pedestrians and road users.
• The route also creates a severance effect between locations of employment and communities e.g. between Follingsby industrial estate (3) and residential areas to the east.

6.6 Integration

6.6.1 General

A qualitative review has been carried out on the provision along the route for integration of all forms of transport and land use planning. This includes the routes contribution to promote interchange with public transport, how it integrates with HGV traffic and the adequacy of its public transport facilities.

In general the route is performing adequately as it caters for all traffic, however, there is opportunity for improving its integration with public transport and HGVs. Integration with future development will be affected by the capacity of the existing junctions, congestion is already significant at a number of locations. A description of the issues affecting the route is provided in detail below.

6.6.2 Public Transport

1. Throughout the route there is opportunity to improve facilities to identify where other transport interchanges near the route occur. This could encourage drivers to change mode. This includes:
   • Signs to Metro stations and rail stations
   • Signs to Park and Ride sites
   • Signs for ferry terminals
2. The A184 is the only location where buses stop along the route. At four locations only flags are provided and lay-bys are small. There is opportunity to improve bus facilities along the A184 (use however is small).
3. It is recognised that there is a need to encourage drivers to change their mode of transport to public transport. There is potential to encourage this change, however, this can only be carried out alongside local authorities, public transport operators and Nexus. The HA should seek to establish communication with relevant organisations. Issues that are associated with the route include:
   • There is a 70 space Park & Ride site proposed at the Metro station (20) near Backworth.
   • Efficiency of the route is of concern to bus operators especially on service reliability where routes cross the RMS route. Measures to improve facilities at congestion locations could be investigated e.g. advanced lanes/bus priority at junctions.
   • Provision of Park & Ride sites are being investigated by Gateshead MBC.
   • There is potential for a possible future new railway line on the course of an old alignment identified at White Mare Pool (4) i.e. Leamside Line, although now rebuilding is a much longer term aspiration, A Park & Ride site near to this location may well be beneficial in encouraging mode switch.
   • Designated stopping places could be considered for bus services along the A19 if public transport operators wished to start services along this corridor.
   • Congestion on the local network, resulting from congestion on the route impact on reliability of bus services. Locations where this is occurring include Tyne Tunnel roundabouts (12 & 13), Silverlink roundabout (17), Moor Farm roundabout (23) and Fisher Lane Roundabout (25).

6.6.3 Freight

Efficiency of the route is of concern to freight users. HGV use along the route is estimated at between 3.5% and 13%. There is now an opportunity to improve information signs for freight and freight ferry facilities. Measures to improve facilities at junctions with congestion could be investigated where this impacts particularly on freight movements e.g. freight priority lanes.

6.6.4 Land Use and Development

Land use and development have been discussed in detail in Section 5. It is clear from this that land use allocations and development will put added pressure on already congested junctions. Further investigation should be undertaken to understand in greater detail the possible impact.

Consultation with relevant planning authorities has taken place. Further consultation and building up of relationships will be required to ensure the RMS interlocks with land use planning and development of local transport plans. This is all the more important with the proposed introduction of new planning procedures and a possible strategic employment site near the A184.

6.7 Summary of Main Problems and Issues

A general summary of the main economy, safety and accessibility issues that are occurring at junctions and links are provided in the Tables below.

The Tables also set out of what studies and improvements are in hand or proposed in order to help identify those junctions where consideration needs to be given to carrying out more detailed studies embracing these issues.

6.7.1 Junctions

Junction	Congestion			Safety		NMU Issues
	Congestion Problem within 10 years?	Trunk Rd Loses Priority?	Improvement Scheme Proposed?	Safety Study Done?	Priority for Safety Study
A1(M)/A194(M)	No, but operational problems	No	No	No	-	No
A194(M) Albany	No	No	No	No	Low	No
A194(M) Follingsby	No	No	No	No	Low	No
A194(M)/A184 White Mare Pool roundabout	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	-	Yes
A184/A19 Testo's roundabout	Yes	Yes	TPI	Improve-ments Completed	Medium	Yes
A19/A194 Lindisfarne interchange	Yes	No	No	No	-	No
South roundabout to the Tyne Tunnel	Yes	Yes	Yes as part of NTC	No	N/a	N/a
North roundabout to the Tyne Tunnel	Yes	Yes	Yes as part of NTC	No	N/a	N/a
A19/A193 Wallsend	No	No	No	No	High	No
A19/A1058 Silverlink interchange	Yes	Yes	Proposed TPI	Yes	-	Yes
A19/A191 Holystone interchange	No	No	No	Yes	-	Yes
A19/A1056 Killingworth interchange	Yes	No	No	No	High	Yes
A19/A189 Moor Farm roundabout	Yes	Yes	Proposed TPI	No	High	Yes
A19/A1171 Dudley Lane	No	No	No	No	-	No
A19/A1068 Fisher Lane roundabout	Yes	Yes	TPI	Yes	-	No
A19/A1 Seaton Burn interchange	Yes	No	TPI	Yes	-	No

6.7.2 Links and General Issues

Section No.	RFC in 2014	Safety priority	NMU Issues
1	0.26	Low	Yes
2	0.72	-	Yes
3	0.58	Approach to south Tyne Tunnel Portal roundabout: Medium	Yes
4	0.62	Approach to North Tyne Tunnel Portal roundabout: Medium	Yes
5	0.66	Silverlink to Holystone: Low	Yes
6	0.67	North of Holystone: Low	Yes
7	0.52	-	No

• There are issues associated with provision for maintenance operations along the route exacerbated by the lack of hardstrips on some sections. This increases the need for night working and full carriageway closures with diversion routes and/or single-lane working.
• There are also some issues associated with the need for providing resurfacing. Improvements have been held off until decisions on the Tyne Tunnel and Testo's Roundabout have been finalised. This could be generating short-term problems.
• Although congestion on the route has been identified, congestion on the local network is also occurring as a result of issues on the route. Specific locations where this has been identified is in Jarrow, Wallsend and East Howdon, however, it is probable that this is occurring at several other locations adjacent to the route.
• At a number of locations along the route vehicles leave the intended trunk road seeking alternatives that will improve their journeys. Often alternative alignments are of a reduced standard or impact on communities or safety.
• The route is identified as an alternative route for the A1(T). Its efficient operation is related to the degree of congestion experienced and traveller information provided.
• Congestion and the standard of the trunk road may impact on regeneration of the surrounding area.
• The TAMMS study also recognised that issues will occur on the route that are related to the extent of traffic growth. The study identifies as one of its objectives to encourage reduction in car usage including measures such as road pricing. This RMS has not investigated demand management issues further however, it will seek to take account of any future initiatives.

7 route outcomes

7 Route Outcomes

7.1 Derivation of Route Outcomes

The Route Outcomes will set out what the HA will seek to obtain from the route over the 10-year period of the RMS.These have been produced on the basis of an understanding of the problems and issues that are occurring. This assessment included:

• Assessing the impact of the problems and issues on the function of the route i.e. Route Functions.
• Identifying problems and issues that prevent the Policy Objectives from being achieved.
• Routes Outcomes are indicated in the Route Outcome Summary Sheets.

7.2 Route Outcomes Summary Sheets

Route Outcomes are indicated in the Route Outcome Summary Sheets included in Table 7.1.

They show the outcomes that are needed to improve the performance of the route over a ten-year period. They identify the following:

• Related Route Functions and improvements required
• The related issues
• Locations where issues are occurring
• Policy Objectives identified
• A target that the outcome is trying to achieve
• A possible timescale
• Possible actions that will allow the outcome to be achieved

TABLE 7.1 ROUTE OUTCOME SUMMARY SHEETS (RO 1)

Route Outcome	To identify short and longer term measures to address congestion and seek to improve journey time reliability
Short Name	Congestion
Related Route Functions	F1 - F10, F20
Improvements to Related Route Functions	Improve journey time reliability Contribute to regeneration
Related Issues	Congestion at junctions is occurring. Testo's and Seaton Burn junctions are part of the Governments Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPIs), Moor Farm and Silverlink are likely to be TPI's. Congestion occurs when incidents or roadworks take place. Restricted road width (no hardstrip) and limited safety barrier crossovers reduce efficiency of the network. Although congestion on the route has been identified, congestion on the local network results from issues on the route. Congestion is also felt to be having an affect upon journey time reliability. Efficiency of the route is of concern in particular to public transport and emergency services.
Locations	Route wide including, White Mare Pool Rbt, Testo's, Lindisfarne, North and South Tyne Tunnel Portal Rbts, Silverlink junction, Holystone interchange, Killingworth, Moor Farm Rbt, Fisher Lane, Seaton Burn Interchange.
Policy Objectives	EY1 To reduce congestion at identified locations EY2 To improve journey time reliability e.g. by provision of grade-separation of identified junctions EY3 Supporting sustainable Development and Regeneration where possible in accordance with Highways Agency development control policy EY5 To minimise disruption due to roadworks and incidents EY6 Establishment of the route as a major strategic diversion route to the A1 Western Bypass EN2 To seek to improve air quality at agreed locations e.g. by reducing congestion I5 Take account of local demand management strategies
Target	To contribute to national targets for congestion reduction.
Timescale	Initial Studies to be completed within 2 years.
Possible Actions	Actions to consider may include: Investigate improvements at junctions to reduce congestion. Look at short term and long term solutions. Investigate issues such as traffic signal operation, lane markings and signs (queuing traffic hides lane markings), road geometry, etc. Develop a prioritised strategy for improvement. Liaise with local authorities to link with issues occurring on local roads. (co-ordinate with safety and accessibility studies and improvements - see RO5 & RO9) Investigate improvements that can be made to upgrade facilities to improve operation of the route when incidents occur and during maintenance works (see RO2). Investigate measures to improve facilities for public transport, emergency services at congestion locations could be investigated (see RO1O). Monitor outcomes from Multi-modal studies (e.g. key stress points on network, local demand management measures).
Other issues	-

TABLE 7.1 ROUTE OUTCOME SUMMARY SHEETS (RO 2)

Route Outcome	To improve maintenance procedures and target improvements that will seek to improve the operation of the route during maintenance works
Short Name	Maintenance
Related Route Functions	F1-F10
Improvements to Related Route Functions	Improve journey time reliability Contribute to regeneration Improve safety
Related Issues	Major improvements held off until decision on tunnel and Testo's on A19, this could be generating short term problems. Congestion occurs when incidents or roadworks take place. Restricted road width with limited hardstrip provision and limited safety barrier crossovers reduce efficiency of the network
Locations	All of route, in particular the A184 and A19
Policy Objectives	EY1 To reduce congestion at identified locations EY2 To improve journey time reliability e.g. by provision of grade-separation of identified junctions EY3 Supporting sustainable Development and Regeneration where possible in accordance with Highways Agency development control policy EY4 Achieving Best Value in Construction and Maintenance EY5 To minimise disruption due to roadworks and incidents EY6 Establishment of the route as a major strategic diversion route to the A1 Western Bypass S4 To provide adequate facilities to cater for safer methods of maintenance
Target	To contribute towards network availability targets.
Timescale	Ongoing
Possible Actions	Actions to consider may include: Establish whether there are problems arising from maintenance. Review maintenance programs. Investigate and improve facilities that improve maintenance operations. Investigate whether the economic viability of providing hardstrips would be particularly beneficial.Investigate if an action plan for (major) incidents has been developed. Whether strategic diversion routes have been identified during roadwork operations. Cross refer to issues associated with safety (RO5) and environment (RO7and RO8).
Other issues	-

TABLE 7.1 ROUTE OUTCOME SUMMARY SHEETS (RO 3)

Route Outcome	To improve the strategic operation of the Route
Short Name	Operation of Route
Related Route Functions	F1 to F22
Improvements to Related Route Functions
Related Issues	Improve journey time reliability Contribute to regeneration Improve safety and inform travellers
Locations	All of Route.
Policy Objectives	EY1 To reduce congestion at identified locations EY2 To improve journey time reliability e.g. by provision of grade-separation of identified junctions EY3 Supporting sustainable Development and Regeneration where possible in accordance with Highways Agency development control policy EY5 To minimise disruption due to roadworks and incidents EY6 Establishment of the route as a major strategic diversion route to the A1 Western Bypass.
Target	To meet Governments 10-year plan targets.
Timescale	Ongoing
Possible Actions	Actions to consider may include: Investigate the diversionary nature of the route. Investigate improvements that that will encourage vehicles to use this route rather than leave at inappropriate locations. Investigate improvements that will benefit through traffic where the route losses priority. Monitor outcomes from Multi-modal studies.
Other issues

TABLE 7.1 ROUTE OUTCOME SUMMARY SHEETS (RO 4)

Route Outcome	To facilitate and support sustainable regeneration and employment opportunities
Short Name	Regeneration /Land Use Planning
Related Route Functions	All
Improvements to Related Route Functions	Contribute to regeneration Contribute to land use planning and development along the route Improve relationships with interested bodies associated with the route.
Related Issues	A number of issues have been identified that identify the close link between regeneration and transport. There is a general feeling that the route as it stands could be improved in this area. Land Use and Development: Over the next 10 years traffic growth will be able to be catered for by the existing link layout. Congestion problems will increase at junctions
Locations	A184, A19
Policy Objectives	EY3 Supporting sustainable Development and Regeneration where possible in accordance with Highways Agency development control policy I2 To foster positive relationships with Government departments and other authorities, to facilitate policy integration and co-ordinate activities and responsibilities.
Target	-
Timescale	Ongoing
Possible Actions	Actions to consider may include: Dialogue with business related organisations should occur e.g. chambers of commerce Monitor and review Regional Spatial Strategies, and Local Development Frameworks, to monitor regeneration/development along the route to determine effect on traffic growth. (Older documents being the UDP's , Structure Plans and Local Plans.) This includes a possible significant strategic employment site near to the A184. The degree to which junction capacity will be affected by further development has not been assessed in detail. Further investigation should be undertaken to confirm the existing and future capacity of the junctions/route, the pressures likely to be exerted by development, identify committed or approved development taking place anyway, identify measures needed to cope with pressures and liaise with LPAs over a future strategy. Pursue discussions with local planning authorities regarding both the review of the Structure Plans Unitary Development plans and of a number of Local Plans. Keep abreast of new proposals and the impact of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act.
Other issues

TABLE 7.1 ROUTE OUTCOME SUMMARY SHEETS (RO 5)

Route Outcome	To reduce the number of accidents along the route and improve overall safety
Short Name	Safety
Related Route Functions	All
Improvements to Related Route Functions	Improved safety for all vehicular traffic. Improve journey time reliability. Safer accessibility for all road users.
Related Issues	There are a number of accidents and safety issues occurring at junctions. Safety Issues occurring on links e.g. ponding of water, road not illuminated north of the Tyne, items thrown off bridges, high cross winds, excessive speed, inadequate signs, protection is needed to roadside structures and trees. There is a degree of confusion being caused to vehicles at roundabouts where part time signals are employed. In places the road geometry has been identified as causing problems to travellers. There is an inconsistency in route standard north of the Tyne. A hardstrip is provided in some places but not in others. The close proximity of the safety barrier to the roadway means that broken down vehicles align themselves in lane one.
Locations	See prioritised list in section 6.3.3.
Policy Objectives	EY2 To improve journey time reliability e.g. by provision of grade-separation of identified junctions EY5 To minimise disruption due to roadworks and incidents S1 To improve safety for all road users S2 To encourage appropriate safe speeds S4 To provide adequate facilities to cater for safer methods of maintenance A2 To address the provision of adequate facilities for people accessing public transport services on or via the route (e.g. bus lay-bys) with safe and convenient access A3 To address appropriate and safe crossing/travel facilities at identified locations for non-motorised users including pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians, those with pushchairs and mobility difficulties
Target	To contribute to national casualty reduction targets.
Timescale	Complete studies within 2 years.
Possible Actions	Actions to consider may include: Undertake safety studies at the prioritised locations. At the four junctions where TPI schemes are proposed, consider the need for short term safety improvements due to the possible length of time till TPI schemes can be delivered Investigate all issues that have been identified that are related to improving safety along the route e.g. investigate lighting provision, facilities for NMUs, safety barrier provision, road geometry, hardstrip, etc. Co-ordinate any safety improvements with addressing other issues at the same location, eg congestion and accessibility issues - see RO1 and RO9.
Other issues

TABLE 7.1 ROUTE OUTCOME SUMMARY SHEETS (RO 6)

Route Outcome	To improve the facilities that contribute to traveller care along the route
Short Name	Traveller Care
Related Route Functions	F1- F15, F21
Improvements to Related Route Functions	Improve traveller information and facilities for vehicles including commuters, tourists, freight. Making journeys more efficient, informative and less stressful. Improved safety for all vehicular traffic.
Related Issues	There are significant numbers of Domestic and European tourists during the tourist season. A number of issues have been identified that impact upon travellers along the route e.g. lay-bys are small and have sub-standard entry and exit tapers, tourist signs are limited in places, picnic sites or services are limited and poorly sign posted. Facilities are limited for lorries/HGVs to stop in prior to or after using the ferry. Information or direction signs informing of nearby facilities are also limited. When vehicles breakdown or incidents occur travellers are apparently unsure of their exact location. Emergency telephones are provided on the A19 south of the Tyne. Elsewhere these are not provided. Information signs for travellers are limited along the route.
Locations	Various locations along the route.
Policy Objectives	EY6 Establishment of the route as a major strategic diversion route to the A1 Western Bypass. S1 To improve safety for all road users I1 To provide greater clarity for vehicle transport e.g. clear signing to rail, metro and bus/coach stations, availability of travel information, VMS EN9 To actively encourage the provision of appropriate roadside facilities for all road users along the route
Target	-
Timescale	To complete initial studies within 2 years.
Possible Actions	Actions to consider may include: Review and seek to improve facilities i.e. lay-bys, services, etc. along the route. Investigate improvement of emergency facilities e.g. hardstrip, phones, marker posts. Investigate tourist and HGV facilities and identify possible improvements i.e. lay-bys, junction names, services, etc along the route. Develop strategy with One North East (the RDA). Market research may provide useful information. Investigate information signs for travellers. Consider provision of electronic signs/VMS, Review the operation of matrix signs and real time traffic information systems that can monitor traffic.
Other issues

TABLE 7.1 ROUTE OUTCOME SUMMARY SHEETS (RO 7)

Route Outcome	To enhance the landscape and biodiversity and minimise the impact of the route on cultural heritage
Short Name	Environment: Landscape, Biodiversity and Cultural Heritage
Related Route Functions	All
Improvements to Related Route Functions	The environmental performance of each of the route functions would be improved by this outcome.
Related Issues	Biodiversity and Nature Conservation: Wildlife Corridors are identified crossing the route and in cases coincide with wildlife roadkill 'hot spots'. Desk studies and surveys of the route have identified species/habitats of conservation concern (e.g. otters, reed bunting) and a number of measures for managing the HA biodiversity resource have been proposed. Landscape: The route passes adjacent to areas of High Landscape Value and may have an impact on the character and quality of the landscape. Cultural Heritage: There are a number of SAMs and Listed Buildings in the vicinity of the route, in addition to a number of conservation areas, the setting of which may be affected by the route.
Locations	Various locations along the route, in particular where the route coincides with designated areas of landscape value, identified wildlife corridors and river corridors.
Policy Objectives	EN2 To seek to improve air quality at agreed locations e.g. by reducing congestion EN3 To seek to conserve and where possible enhance existing flora and fauna (including minimising severance effects for wildlife) and to prepare and implement landscape and biodiversity plans for the complete route EN4 To seek to minimise, and where possible reduce, the impact of the route on surface watercourses and groundwater EN5 To seek to minimise the impact of the route on sites of cultural heritage significance and on the character and quality of the built environment EN6 To seek to minimise the landscape and visual impact of the route (including light pollution), particularly in designated and rural locations EN7 To develop (and implement) techniques to ensure that the trunk road is managed according to sustainability principles
Target	-
Timescale	To complete the Landscape Management Plan and Biodiversity Action Plan within 1 year.
Possible Actions	Actions to consider may include: Develop and implement the existing Biodiversity Action Plan and Landscape Management Plan and review on an annual basis. Investigate feasibility of installation of mammal ledges in appropriate culverts. Investigate the feasibility of installation of mammal proof fencing in areas of high road kill and combined design with modified existing road crossing points e.g. culverts, overbridge. Investigate the feasibility of management and enhancement of landscape plots to maximise biodiversity and landscape benefit. Investigate where the impact of the route to identified areas of landscape value can to be minimised or where measures can be taken to enhance landscape. Investigate where the impact of the route to identified sites of cultural heritage and the built environment can be minimised. Investigate locations where, by amended land management regimes, sites of cultural heritage importance and townscape can be enhanced.
Other issues

TABLE 7.1 ROUTE OUTCOME SUMMARY SHEETS (RO 8)

Route Outcome	To minimise noise, air and water pollution and the risk of flooding associated with the route
Short Name	Environment: Pollution and Flooding
Related Route Functions	All
Improvements to Related Route Functions	The environmental performance of each of the route functions would be improved by this outcome.
Related Issues	Noise: There are a number of sensitive receptors within 300m of route e.g. schools. In addition, stakeholder consultation has identified issues with lorry noise in lay-bys. Water quality: Polluted runoff from highways discharging into receiving waters may have detrimental impact on water quality. Receiving watercourses may be subject to risk of pollution due to accidental spillage. Large amount of highway litter has been observed in adjacent watercourses. Biodiversity and Nature Conservation: Polluted run-off from highways discharging into receiving waters may have a detrimental impact on their biodiversity. Air quality: There are a number of sensitive receptors within 200m of route (e.g. schools), The route also passes through high density urban areas e.g. Hedworth. There are a number of junctions along route that are operating beyond capacity at peak times and may contribute to a decrease in air quality. Flooding: The road infrastructure and run-off from the route may contribute to raise the risk of flooding in the vicinity of the route.
Locations	Various locations along the route.
Policy Objectives	EN1 To identify sites where noise levels are unacceptably high and seek to provide appropriate noise mitigation measures EN2 To seek to improve air quality at agreed locations e.g. by reducing congestion EN3 To seek to conserve and where possible enhance existing flora and fauna (including minimising severance effects for wildlife) and to prepare and implement landscape and biodiversity plans for the complete route EN4 To seek to minimise, and where possible reduce, the impact of the route on surface watercourses and groundwater EN7 To develop (and implement) techniques to ensure that the trunk road is managed according to sustainability principles
Target	-
Timescale	Complete initial studies within 3 years.
Possible Actions	Actions to consider may include: Investigate noise levels at sensitive receptors within the route corridor and in the vicinity of junctions in accordance with national policy and prevailing guidance. Investigate HA current policy. Investigate air quality at sensitive receptors within the route corridor and in the vicinity of junctions in accordance with national policy and prevailing guidance. Ensure that the risk to sensitive waterbodies from a pollution incident due to accidental spillage is within acceptable levels. Undertake clearance of litter from HA land and prevent litter reaching watercourses receiving highway runoff. Investigate where responsibility lies with litter i.e. HA or Local Authority. Repair and maintain trash grilles to watercourses. Ensure that the impact to sensitive waterbodies of operational highway drainage from the route does not cause a breach of designated environmental quality standards. Investigate the HA and local authority responsibility in terms of maintaining water quality. Investigate whether the route constitutes a flood risk to property and infrastructure and identify possible mitigation measures where appropriate.
Other issues

TABLE 7.1 ROUTE OUTCOME SUMMARY SHEETS (RO 9)

Route Outcome	To provide appropriate facilities for all non-motorised users crossing and travelling along the route and reduce the severance effect of the route on communities
Short Name	Non-Motorised User Facilities/ Community Severance
Related Route Functions	F16, F19
Improvements to Related Route Functions	Improving safety for Non-motorised users. Reducing the severance affects experienced by communities adjacent to the route.
Related Issues	There are a number of issues associated with crossing and parallel travel along the route for pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists. Facilities for cyclists along the route are limited. There is a lack of hardstrip in places which improves facilities for cyclists. Shared paths make it difficult for cyclists to navigate safely around roundabouts, cyclists would prefer traffic light signals at roundabouts. A number of communities adjacent to the route are affected by severance.
Locations	NMUs: At roundabouts, near to business park locations, at various locations along the route where crossings occur along A19/A184. Lindisfarne underpass. Severance: Wardley/Follingsby, South Tyneside - Hedworth/Simonside/Hebburn/Jarrow, North Tyneside - Howdon/Chirton/Backworth/Killingworth, Dudley/Cramlington
Policy Objectives	S1 To improve safety for all road users S3 To seek to provide appropriate crossing facilities for non-motorised users, e.g. cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians and to discourage crossing at inappropriate places EN8 To seek to reduce the impact of the route on local communities e.g. by improving the environment and reduce severance for people and communities directly on the route A1 To address the issues of community severance associated with the trunk road A2 To address the provision of adequate facilities for people accessing public transport services on or via the route (e.g. bus lay-bys) with safe and convenient access A3 To address appropriate and safe crossing/travel facilities at identified locations for non-motorised users including pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians, those with pushchairs and mobility difficulties A4 Work in partnership with local authorities and other bodies, in order to play a full role in supporting non-motorised elements of travel
Target	-
Timescale	Implement within 5 years.
Possible Actions	Actions to consider may include: Based on the NMU studies and this RMS, compile a comprehensive list of all locations where NMU's cross or travel along the route and complete the process of prioritisation to include all those locations Ensure appropriate NMU and other bodies are consulted at the design stages. Investigate the circumstances of the fatality on section 4. Keep the issue under review in the light of changing and new developments Proactively liaise with local authorities in their strategies to encourage non-car methods of travel and the development of Green Travel Plans To consider proposals by Sustrans for cycleway facilities, in liaison with local authorities (eg a parallel route along the A184, etc).
Other issues

TABLE 7.1 ROUTE OUTCOME SUMMARY SHEETS (RO 10)

Route Outcome	To improve facilities that will contribute to the integration with different forms of public transport
Short Name	Integration with Public Transport
Related Route Functions	F6, F7, F10, F11, F12, F14, F15, F19, F20
Improvements to Related Route Functions	Improved public transport operations through improved facilities for users.
Related Issues	There appears to be opportunities for identifying Park & Ride sites along the route. Problems have been identified with signs to public transport interchanges, in places it is not clear and opportunity exists for improvement. Opportunity exists to improve facilities and standards at bus stops.
Locations	Various locations along the route.
Policy Objectives	EY1 To reduce congestion S1 To improve safety for all road users EN8 To seek to reduce the impact of the route on local communities e.g. by improving the environment and reduce severance for people and communities directly on the route A2 To address the provision of adequate facilities for people accessing public transport services on or via the route (e.g. bus lay-bys) with safe and convenient access I1 To provide greater clarity for vehicle transport e.g. clear signing to rail, Metro and bus/coach stations, availability of travel information, VMS I2 To foster positive relationships with Government departments and other authorities, to facilitate policy integration and co-ordinate activities and responsibilities. I3 To encourage modal shift to more sustainable means of transport. I4 To consider the route as a public transport corridor
Target	-
Timescale	Ongoing
Possible Actions	Actions to consider may include: Investigate opportunities for improving signs to nearby Park & Ride sites. Liaise with local councils to promote further sites. Identify additional signs that will improve identification of rail stations, Metro, Park & Ride sites. Establish if there is a problem with bus services and facilities along the route. Investigate to identify improvements. Seek to improve appropriate sections of the route as a bus corridor. Liaise with Nexus and local authorities to improve bus stop facilities. Seek to encourage increased public transport use, liaise with transport operators, local authorities, etc. Seek to encourage car share.
Other issues

TABLE 7.1 ROUTE OUTCOME SUMMARY SHEETS (RO 11)

Route Outcome	To maintain and develop relationships with relevant stakeholders and other bodies with an interest in the route
Short Name	Improve Relationships
Related Route Functions	All
Improvements to Related Route Functions	Improve relationships with authorities and organisations with an interest in the route.
Related Issues	Integration: Discuss and encourage further public transport and Park and Ride initiatives. Dialogue with local authorities and Nexus. Accessibility: Improve links between severed areas produced by further development. Liaise with planners. Regeneration: A number of issues have been identified that identify the close link between regeneration and transport. There is a general feeling that the route as it stands could be improved in this area. Dialogue with business related organisations should occur e.g. Chambers of Commerce Land Use/Development : Dialogue with area and regional planning bodies should occur at an early stage. Liaise with police to establish whether excessive speed is an issue along the route. Expenditure on cycleway or lanes needed to be targeted so that any provision is linked to useful cycle-route links and maintained. Partnerships with transport operators could be implemented.Liaise with local authorities over locations where 'rat running' is occurring.
Locations	The complete route
Policy Objectives	EY2 To improve journey time reliability e.g. by provision of grade-separation of identified junctions EY3 Supporting sustainable Development and Regeneration where possible in accordance with Highways Agency development control policy S1 To improve safety for all road users EN8 To seek to reduce the impact of the route on local communities e.g. by improving the environment and reduce severance for people and communities directly on the route EN9 To actively encourage the provision of appropriate roadside facilities for all road users along the route A4 Work in partnership with local authorities and other bodies, in order to play a full role in supporting non-motorised elements of travel I3 To encourage modal shift to more sustainable means of transport. I2 To foster positive relationships with Government departments and other authorities, to facilitate policy integration and co-ordinate activities and responsibilities.
Target	-
Timescale	Ongoing
Possible Actions	Actions to consider may include: Continue to maintain and improve relations. Pass on to the relevant bodies comments received during the RMS study that are not within the HA remit Ensure close liaison with local highway authorities on any measures that may have an impact on the local road network. Develop a partnership with the Tyne & Wear PTA to address common road management issues.
Other issues

TABLE 7.1 ROUTE OUTCOME SUMMARY SHEETS (RO 12)

Route Outcome	To improve facilities for Heavy Goods Vehicles and contribute to the integration of different forms of freight transport
Short Name	HGV Facilities and Integration of Freight Transport Modes
Related Route Functions	F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F9, F14, F19, F20, F21
Improvements to Related Route Functions	Improved signing and roadside facilities will contribute towards functions.
Related Issues	Poor strategic signing from the ports Lack of roadside facilities for HGV drivers
Locations	At various locations along the route.
Policy Objectives	S1 To improve safety for all road users EN9 To actively encourage the provision of appropriate roadside facilities for all road users along the route. I1 To provide greater clarity for vehicle transport e.g. clear signing to rail, metro and bus/coach stations, availability of travel information, VMS I2 To foster positive relationships with Government departments and other authorities, to facilitate policy integration and co-ordinate activities and responsibilities.
Target	-
Timescale	Ongoing
Possible Actions	Actions to consider may include: To work closely with Freight Quality Partnerships To co-operate with studies into freight roadside facilities and the provision of new facilities at appropriate locations To identify additional signs that will assist long distance lorry drivers, especially to and from the port for overseas drivers. To co-operate with any future proposals to improve freight interchange facilities
Other issues

8 strategy impact statement

8 Strategy Impact Statement

The Strategy Impact Statement (SIS) sets out the likely impact that the Route Outcomes will have on the RMS route over the 10-year period.

It is made up of 4 tables that look at how the Route Outcomes have a combined affect upon the problems and issues, the route functions, land use and development control issues and policy objectives.

The HA will use the SIS to develop a Route Management Plan which will form the implementation plan for actions that will improve the co-ordination of initiatives and planning of future investment to maintain and operate the route.

The SIS is provided in Tables 8.1 to 8.4.

• Table 8.1 - strategy impact statement - key route outcomes in relation to route problems and issues
• Table 8.2 - strategy impact statement - key route outcomes in relation to route functions
• Table 8.3 - strategy impact statement - key route outcomes in relation to land use and devlopment control
• Table 8.4 - strategy impact statement - key route outcomes in relation to policy objectives

9 the next steps

9 The Next Steps

This Final Strategy sets out the basis for managing and operating the A194(M)/A184/A19 route over a 10 year period.

The Highways Agency will go on to prepare a management plan, which sets out a more detailed programme of actions, which it will seek to achieve over the 10-year period, subject to the availability of funds.

The management plan and corresponding actions will help to achieve the various Route Outcomes. In the early years, many of the actions will comprise more detailed studies to determine specific measures that need to be put in hand.

It is envisaged that the Strategy is unlikely to change drastically over a short period. It is expected that the Strategy will need to be reviewed every 5 years to check on progress and ensure that Route Outcomes are still appropriate.