Highways Agency - Safe roads, Reliable journeys, Informed travellers

Related pages

• Executive summary
• 1 introduction
• 2 description of the route
• 3 policy objectives
• 4 route functions
• 5 land use and development control statement
• 6 route problems and performance
• 7 route outcomes
• 8 strategy impact statement
• 9 the next steps

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.

(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

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.

(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

6.7.2 Links and General Issues

• 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.