Outline Business Case - Tees Valley Mayor

Tees Valley Combined Authority

New Tees Crossing

Outline Business Case

24 October 2019

Version 1.0

Issue


2085-04 ▪ New Tees Crossing ▪ Outline Business Case

24 October 2019 ▪ Version 1.0 ▪ Issue

i

Document Control

Client: Tees Valley Combined Authority

Project Title: New Tees Crossing

Job Number: 2085-04

Report Title: Outline Business Case

Date Version Status Author Checked Approved

18/12/2018 0.1 Draft E Roberts J Spruce J Spruce



24/10/2019 1.0 Issue E Roberts J Spruce J Spruce




ii

Contents

Executive Summary 1

1 Introduction 3

1.1 Overview 3

1.2 Business Case 3

1.3 Document Content and Structure 6

2 The Strategic Case 7

2.1.1 Tees Valley Area Profile 9

2.1.2 Middlesbrough and Stockton-on-Tees Area Profile 17

2.2 Step 2: Identifying Transport Barriers 19

2.2.1 Tees Valley Transport Issues 19

2.2.2 A19 and River Crossing Issues 24

2.3 Step 3: Exploring Options and Strategic Alternatives 38

2.3.1 Objectives 38

2.3.2 Options 39

2.4 Step 4: Exploring Impacts of Interventions 42

2.4.1 Main Impacts 42

2.4.2 Wider Impacts 43

2.4.3 Measures for Success 45

2.5 Step 5: Aligning with Wider Local Plans and Objectives 45

2.5.1 Tees Valley Local Plans 45

2.5.2 River Tees Port Expansion 46

2.5.3 Other Large Scale Developments 47

2.5.4 Middlesbrough Investment Prospectus 49

2.5.5 Stockton-on-Tees Economic Strategy 2017-2032 50

2.5.6 Other Transport Proposals 51

2.6 Step 6: Considering Wider Evidence and Stakeholder Views 53

2.6.1 Stakeholder Views 53

2.6.2 Wider Policy Alignment 55

3 The Economic Case 63

3.1 Options Appraised 63

3.2 Methodology and Assumptions 63

3.3 Present Value of Costs 65




iii

3.3.1 Investment Costs 65

3.3.2 Operational and Maintenance Costs 66

3.4 Present Value of Benefits 67

3.4.1 Scheme Transport User Benefits 67

3.4.2 Construction and Maintenance Delays 67

3.4.3 Safety Benefits 68

3.4.4 Reliability Benefits 70

3.4.5 Wider Benefits 71

3.5 Environmental Impacts 72

3.5.1 Noise 72

3.5.2 Air Quality 74

3.5.3 Greenhouse Gases 74

3.5.4 Landscape 75

3.5.5 Townscape 76

3.5.6 Biodiversity 76

3.5.7 Historic Environment 77

3.5.8 Water Environment 77

3.6 Social Distributional Impacts 78

3.7 Value for Money 80

3.7.1 Benefit : Cost Ratio 80

3.8 Sensitivity Tests 82

3.9 Appraisal Summary Table 82

4 The Financial Case 83

4.1 Costs 83

4.1.1 Scheme Preparation and Construction 83

4.1.2 Maintenance Costs 85

4.2 Risk Allowance 85

4.3 Spend Profile 86

4.4 Budgets/Funding Cover 86

5 The Commercial Case 89

5.1 Commercial Viability 89

5.2 Output-based Specification 89

5.3 Procurement Strategy 90

5.3.1 Preferred Procurement Procedure 91

5.3.2 Portrack Relief Road 92




iv

5.4 Payment and Charging Mechanisms 92

5.5 Risk Allocation and Transfer 92

5.6 Contract Length and Management 94

5.7 Human Resources Issues 94

6 The Management Case 95

6.1 Evidence of Similar Projects 95

6.2 Project Dependencies 96

6.3 Governance, Organisational Structure and Roles 97

6.4 Project Plan 99

6.5 Assurance and Approvals Plan 100

6.6 Communications and Stakeholder Management 102

6.7 Programme/Project Reporting 102

6.8 Risk Management Strategy 103

6.9 Benefits Realisation Plan 107

6.10 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 111

7 Summary 113

Appendices

Appendix A: Options Assessment Report

Appendix B: Public Consultation Report

Appendix C: Appraisal Specification Report

Appendix D: Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report

Appendix E: Environmental Assessment Report

Appendix F: TAG Supporting Workbooks and Worksheets

Appendix G: Appraisal Summary Tables

Appendix H: Options Estimate Report

Appendix I: Procurement Strategy

Appendix J: Project Management Plan

Appendix K: Project Plan

Appendix L: Stakeholder Engagement and Public Consultation Strategy

Appendix M: Risk Management Plan

Appendix N: Risk Register

Appendix O: Benefits Realisation Plan

Appendix P: Monitoring and Evaluation Plan


New Tees Crossing – Outline Business Case


1

Executive Summary

This document and its supporting appendices comprise the Outline Business Case for a new

strategic road crossing of the River Tees, in the approximate location of the existing A19 Tees

Viaduct.

As this submission clearly demonstrates, there is a strong and robust case for investment in a

New Tees Crossing, therefore it is recommended that the scheme is prioritised for funding so

that the many benefits that it will deliver across the Tees Valley City Region can be realised as

soon as possible. In particular, the scheme will:

• Relieve the existing A19/A66 bottleneck, enhancing the reliability of people’s journeys

across the Tees Valley’s road network and reducing the cost to the local and national

economy due to congestion and delays;

• Reduce journey times for local people – most drivers are expected to save more than two

minutes of travel time during peak periods – unlocking development potential in the City

Region through the provision of additional road capacity and making the Tees Valley more

attractive to inward investors and visitors;

• Improve the resilience of the network and therefore reduce the negative impact of events

such as roadworks and road traffic accidents;

• Make journeys safer by improving the standard and capacity of the road network;

• Improve access to the Tees Valley’s Enterprise Zone sites, the South Tees Development

Corporation site, the expanding port facilities along the River Tees and the newly

rebranded Teesside International Airport;

• Deliver connectivity and journey time reliability enhancements for freight and logistics

traffic – a key component of the Tees Valley’s growth plans;

• Support the economic growth objectives of the Northern Powerhouse and the Tees Valley

City Region; and

• Help realise the full benefit of the committed A19 Norton to Wynyard improvement

scheme, which is due for completion by 2022.

The preferred option – the A19 Tees Viaduct Capacity Enhancement Option – has been identified

as the one that will achieve the agreed objectives and provide a holistic solution to the

identified national, regional and local issues identified. The economic analysis of the preferred

option demonstrates that an adjusted benefit : cost ratio of over 1.5 is generated if wider

economic impacts are considered, representing Medium value for money.




2

However, it is important to note that the overall value for money of the scheme encompasses

more than just the benefit : cost ratio value – there are a range of benefits for which the

standard approach does not provide a monetisation methodology, or for which the calculation is

outside of the current scope of assessment. These benefits are more strategic in nature, and

include:

• Unlocking future development growth across the City Region through the provision of

additional road capacity;

• Increased network resilience through the provision of additional lanes across the River Tees

and the removal of existing vehicle conflicts; and

• Reducing the negative impact of the ongoing and significant maintenance requirements

associated with the existing Tees Viaduct and Newport Bridge structures.

The base cost estimate for the preferred option is £205,284,154, whilst the estimated outturn

cost is £298,317,817, with the latter figure also including a calculated allowance for risk. The

costs have been derived in a robust way using information from current and recently completed

projects, and the works required have been quantified based on the current scheme designs.

Several potential funding routes have been considered for the scheme, with the most

appropriate being the Highways England Road Investment Strategy and the Large Local Majors

element of the new National Roads Fund.

Irrespective of the final funding route, given its high level of interaction with the Strategic Road

Network, the scheme should, ideally, be delivered by Highways England through its procurement

processes and procedures allied to the Project Control Framework. On this basis, the

procurement strategy that has been prepared recommends that the Late Early Contractor

Involvement method of procurement be adopted for the scheme, with appointment of the

contractor after publication of the draft Orders and Environmental Statement.

A sound governance structure has been in place throughout the life of the scheme, and Highways

England has been closely involved in its development since inception. Highways England is

supportive of the scheme, and its in-house technical assurance teams have reviewed the traffic,

economic and environmental products prepared in support of this business case.

A project plan has been developed setting out all of the key project tasks and their duration, the

interdependencies between each of the tasks, and key milestones and gateways. This plan

envisages a start of works in 2024 and completion of the scheme by 2027.

Finally, to support the ongoing development and implementation of the scheme, a stakeholder

engagement and public consultation strategy has been created and outline benefits realisation

and monitoring and evaluation plans produced. The most recent public consultation exercise,

carried out earlier this year, demonstrated a high level of support for the scheme from both the

business community and the travelling public.




3

1 Introduction

1.1 Overview

The economic geography and peripheral nature of the North East is one of the

greatest challenges to delivering future growth and prosperity across the region.

This is particularly true for the Tees Valley as it contains a number of centres within

a small geographical area. Much of the recent activity from the Tees Valley

Combined Authority (TVCA) and the Local Authorities has been aimed at addressing

the challenges of job losses in the industrial economy, issues of inequality, high

unemployment and social exclusion and the difficulties within the local housing

market. However, whilst the local economy now has stronger foundations as a result,

further targeted intervention is required in order to achieve the ambitious growth

targets set by the TVCA.

The lack of a single dominant commercial centre has transport implications and

means that good interconnectivity is vital for the Tees Valley to function effectively.

The Tees Valley Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) and Consultation Draft Strategic

Transport Plan (STP) clearly articulate the need for better transport connections

across the City Region, providing businesses and residents with a high quality road

network that is safe, less congested and more reliable.

This will boost competitiveness through improved connectivity across the North, as

identified in Transport for the North’s (TfN’s) Strategic Transport Plan, linking key

sectors and leading industries with other centres of expertise outside of the Tees

Valley. An improved road network across the Tees Valley will also provide more

access to global markets, increasing the capacity for growth and creating more jobs

for the people of the City Region – this is particularly important as 70% of major local

businesses are internationally owned.

1.2 Business Case

This document and its series of appendices comprise the Outline Business Case (OBC)

for a new strategic road crossing of the River Tees, in the approximate location of

the existing Tees Viaduct on the A19, as shown in Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2, as well

as the following photographs.

The A19 is a dual carriageway trunk road that runs from its junction with the A1 at

Seaton Burn, north of Newcastle, through (via the A168) to the A1(M) at Dishforth,

thereby providing the principal north-south strategic road link through the Tees

Valley City Region. The new crossing will address existing congestion and network

reliability issues on this key route that, unaddressed, will constrain the Tees Valley’s

growth ambitions.




4

Figure 1.1: Location of Existing A19 Tees Viaduct (Google Maps)

Figure 1.2: Aerial Photograph of Existing A19 Tees Viaduct (Bing Maps)




5




6

1.3 Document Content and Structure

This document has been prepared in accordance with Transport Business Case

guidance, Strategic Case Supplementary Guidance: Rebalancing Toolkit and WebTAG

Transport Appraisal guidance issued by the Department for Transport (DfT). It also

recognises the requirements of Highways England’s Project Control Framework (PCF),

HM Treasury’s Green Book and associated supplementary guidance on public sector

business cases.

The remainder of the document is structured as follows:

• Chapter 2: The Strategic Case, which presents the rationale for undertaking

the scheme by demonstrating the need for change, and how the intervention

furthers the aims and objectives of not only the TVCA and its constituent

authorities, but also DfT, Highways England and TfN;

• Chapter 3: The Economic Case, which demonstrates the impacts of the

scheme in terms of value for money in relation to economic, social and

environmental impacts;

• Chapter 4: The Financial Case, which explains how the scheme costs have

been derived and illustrates how the scheme is affordable and fundable;

• Chapter 5: The Commercial Case, which demonstrates that the preferred

option will result in a viable procurement and a well-structured contract

between the public sector and its service providers;

• Chapter 6: The Management Case, which demonstrates that robust

arrangements are in place for the delivery, monitoring and evaluation of the

scheme and that the necessary arrangements are in place for change and

contract management, benefits realisation and risk management.




7

2 The Strategic Case

This chapter of the OBC defines the policy and business strategy alignment, examines

the existing characteristics of the local area and the problems identified (both

current and future), identifies a series of scheme objectives and sets out the options

that have been considered. It therefore demonstrates the case for change – that is,

the rationale for making the investment.

It has been prepared with particular reference to the DfT’s Strategic Case

Supplementary Guidance: Rebalancing Toolkit, published in December 2017, which is

designed to help authors of strategic cases assess how a programme or project fits

with the objective of spreading growth across the country, and also introduces a

framework for presenting the rebalancing case more consistently.

Figure 2.1 summarises the justification for the scheme in line with the six steps set

out in the Rebalancing Toolkit, each of which is explored in more detail in the

following sections of this chapter.




8

Figure 2.1: Summary of the Strategic Case

Current Problems

Future Problems

Increasing delays, congestion,

high travel costs, unable to

support growth, making Tees

Valley less attractive for

investment

Objectives of Scheme

Support the economic growth objectives of the Northern Powerhouse and the Tees Valley City

Region, improve network performance, resilience and safety, support sustainable local residential

development, minimise impacts on the natural and built environment

Option 1: A19 Tees Viaduct Option Option 2: A19 Tees Viaduct Capacity

Enhancement Option

Impacts

Measures for Success

Middlesbrough and

Stockton Local Plans and

Economic/Investment

Strategies

River Tees Port Expansion

Other Transport Proposals

– particularly A19 Norton

to Wynyard Improvements

Stakeholder Views:

Public

Businesses

Wider Policy Alignment

Transport Investment Strategy TfN Strategic Transport Plan

Highways England Route Strategy STDC

Tees Valley SEP and STP

Ageing, growing

population with

younger cohort

moving away

STEP 1:

CONTEXT

STEP 2:

TRANSPORT

BARRIERS

STEP 3:

OBJECTIVES

AND

OPTIONS

STEP 4:

IMPACTS

STEP 5:

WIDER

LOCAL

PLANS

STEP 6:

WIDER

EVIDENCE

Some increase

but economic

output remains

below UK

average

High levels of

multiple

deprivation

and significant

disparities

Persistent

and ongoing

labour

demand

issues

Poor

external

perceptions

of the area

Few high capacity

vehicular river crossings

Inter-operation of Tees

Valley Local and

Strategic Road Networks

Focus of demand on a few

routes across City Region

Limited alternative routes

of suitable capacity

Planned and unplanned

incidents have high impact

Safety issues due to

network configuration

Existing crossings will

require increasing

maintenance due to age of

structures

Demand for road use still

high and will increase




9

2.1.1 Tees Valley Area Profile

Covering over 3,300 square miles, the Tees Valley comprises the five local authority

areas of Darlington, Stockton on Tees, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, and Redcar and

Cleveland. The area represents 1.2% of the population of England and 0.6% of the

English land mass. It is highly urbanised, with 90% of the population living in urban

areas. The population is concentrated in the five main town centres (35%) with the

remaining population located in the suburbs, in smaller settlements, or, the

remaining 10%, in rural areas.

Demographic Context

The Office of National Statistics’ mid-2017 population of Tees Valley is estimated to

be 672,500 of whom:

• 130,400 people are aged 0-15 (19% of population);

• 415,600 people are aged 16-64 (62% of population); and

• 126,500 people are aged 65 and over (19% of population).

Although there has been an upward trend in the size of the population since 2000,

population growth has lagged below that in the North of England and England as a

whole. The Tees Valley population is projected to continue its long term growth seen

since the start of the millennium of approximately 1,000 per year until 2020, growth

is then projected to slow both locally and nationally reaching around 680,600 by

2036. By 2037, the population is expected to increase by 1.2% compared to a 10% rise

nationally and a 5% rise across the North of England.

The Tees Valley age profile is also older than in the North of England and England,

demonstrated by a higher median age (41.1 in Tees Valley, compared with 40.6 and

39.8 respectively), and a lower old age dependency ratio (3.1 persons of working age

for every person of state pensionable age in Tees Valley, compared with 3.2 and 3.3

respectively). There is an ageing workforce, exacerbated by the high percentage in

the 18-20 and 24-29 age cohort who currently choose to move away from the Tees

Valley.

Although there is projected growth, it is not expected in all age groups. The working

age population (aged 16-64) is predicted to be almost 23,000 lower in in 2037 at 57%,

down from 62% in 2017. Conversely, there will be an increase in the proportion of

over 65s, with the percentage of the population over the retirement age expected to

grow from 19% in 2017 to a quarter in 2037. Coupled with the fall in working age

population, this will bring skills shortages when experienced and highly skilled staff




10

leave the workforce. There will also be implications for health services as pressures

increase.

Ensuring that the proposed economic growth and additional jobs envisaged in the SEP

are delivered will require more inward migration from other population centres to

counter the decrease in working population. This will mean the transport network

will have to cope with a greater demand for travel to/from and around the City

Region. These additional travel demands will exacerbate existing issues on the

strategic and local road networks described later in this section. A new crossing of

the River Tees is an important step in providing a national, regional and local road

network that is fit for the future.

Social Context

Whilst the population of the Tees Valley is predominantly White British (93%), the

Tees Valley is home to a small Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) community with

Middlesbrough having an ethnic make-up that more closely reflects the national

picture (86% of Middlesbrough’s population is White British compared with 80% of

England’s).

There are still high levels of severe disadvantage across Tees Valley. The Index of

Multiple Deprivation combines different aspects of deprivation, including income,

employment, education and skills, health and disability. Compared with other Local

Enterprise Partnership (LEP) areas, Tees Valley has the second largest proportion of

lower super output areas (LSOAs) within the most deprived 10% in England, at just

over a quarter (27%). Compared with other highly deprived LEP areas, Tees Valley

also has large numbers of LSOAs that are within the 20% least deprived and ranks

third out of the 39 LEPs in this respect.

However, looking at the deprivation at LEP area level hides the diversity of the City

Region. There are multiple pockets of severe deprivation in Tees Valley, with one

area ranking the 55th most deprived in the country, but also areas that have been

ranked within the least deprived in the country. In addition, whilst a much larger

proportion of LSOAs are within the most deprived 10% than the national average, the

numbers within the second and third deciles match the national average. The number

of LSOAs which are within the least deprived in the country has been growing over

time, indicating that the polarity within Tees Valley is increasing. The disparities in

levels of deprivation is illustrated in Figure 2.2.




11

Figure 2.2: Distribution of LSOA Deprivation Scores across Tees Valley

The Tees Valley has higher death rates than the national average – by 11% - for both

Males and Females – this is equivalent to around 625 extra deaths each year. All Tees

Valley Local Authorities have death rates above the national average. Standard

Mortality Rates (SMRs) are a strong indicator of deprivation and all the results, with

few exceptions, follow the pattern of high SMRs in deprived areas and low SMRs in

more affluent areas.

Unemployment is a persistent issue, with youth unemployment, deprivation and

barriers to work being particular problems. Long term unemployed people face

multiple and complex barriers when accessing work.

To reduce unemployment, it is vital to ensure education, training and job

opportunities are easily accessible, particularly in the identified growth and high

demand sectors. Increasing the mobility of residents will help to support the

workforce offer of the Tees Valley – it will increase the accessibility of employment

sites and contribute to releasing capacity on the transport network to accommodate

future development.

The Tees Valley, and particularly Middlesbrough and Stockton, have an opportunity to

increase the number of people in employment by ensuring easy and affordable access

to jobs, education and training. A new crossing of the River Tees will provide

businesses with better connectivity to the Tees Valley and support employment,

particularly within Enterprise Zones and the expanding port facilities on the River

Tees, including the South Tees Development Corporation (STDC) site.




12

Economic Context

Total economic output (as measured by GVA) from the Tees Valley stood at £13.1

billion in 2017, growth of £60 million or a 0.5% increase on 2016. However, this is

significantly below the UK’s growth rate of 1.9% and also the North of England’s 1.5%

increase. Tees Valley GVA accounts for 0.8% of England’s total GVA (0.7% for the UK).

The annual change in GVA for the Tees Valley is shown in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3: Real Terms GVA Index (1998=1) in the Tees Valley and UK

The City Region has a significant productivity challenge, particularly in relation to

GVA per head of population, illustrated in Figure 2.4. At £19,512 per annum, the Tees

Valley’s GVA per capita was some 71.5% of the UK rate in 2017, representing a GVA

gap of £5.2 billion - this gap has increased by 50% in real terms since 2009. This

output gap results from Tees Valley residents having relatively low economic activity

and employment rates, a small pool of working age people and lower productivity.




13

Figure 2.4: Tees Valley Productivity Indices (2017)

Whilst overall GVA is low, GVA per employee in the production sector (£86,000 in

2014) is well above the LEP average of £76,800, and other major LEP geographies

such as Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham. Production industries (such as process or

advanced engineering) contribute over 50% more of Tees Valley’s economic output

than the sector does for England as a whole. Both Construction and Public Services

also account for a higher share of the area’s total GVA than they do nationally.

Professional & Business Services and to a lesser extent Other Private Services,

including Culture & Leisure, Logistics, Wholesale & Retail, IT and Media contribute

relatively less to the Tees Valley’s output than in England as an average.

There were 17,230 enterprises in Tees Valley in 2018, down a little (270 lower) on

the year before (17,500). This means that Tees Valley now has the lowest business

density rate of any LEP area, with just 415 enterprises per 10,000 working age

residents in 2018 – 65% of the UK rate (643). This represents an enterprise gap of

around 9,500 businesses compared to the UK. Whilst Tees Valley is closer to the North

of England average rate of 542, this still represents a Tees Valley to North of England

enterprise gap of over 5,000 firms.

The Tees Valley resident employment rate peaked in 2017 at 69%, whilst nationally

and regionally the rate continues to rise. Over the last year the Tees Valley rate has

fallen by 0.7% (4,500 fewer residents in employment) compared to a 0.6% rise

nationally and a 0.8% rise across the North of England. 280,300 Tees Valley residents

aged 16-64 were employed in 2018, 68.4% of the working age population, compared

to 75.2% nationally. Figure 2.5 illustrates the recent trends in the employment rate.




14

Figure 2.5: Employment Rate Trends (2012 – 2018)

In 2018, 4.1% of Tees Valley residents aged 16-64 were claiming either Job Seekers

Allowance or Universal Credit (and required to seek work), almost double the

national average of 2.3%. This rises to 6.6% for those aged 18-24, compared to 3.2%

nationally. Despite this, actual unemployment numbers have halved over the past

five years.

The Tees Valley historically has a low percentage of residents employed in high value

occupations compared to the national average – with 38.6% employed in high value

occupations in 2017 compared to 42.2% nationally, 3.6% below the national average

compared to 4.5% in 2013. Residents are less well qualified than many other parts of

the country – in terms of Level 4+ qualifications the City Region needed an additional

34,300 residents qualified to that level to match the UK rate in 2017.

A summary of these key economic indicators, and the gaps to the national average, is

shown in Figure 2.6.




15

Figure 2.6: Summary Economic Indicators

Despite these issues, the Tees Valley has significant strengths. It has the fourth

highest proportion of businesses undertaking product or service innovation in the UK

and it is part of the only continuous net exporting region of goods in the UK with

additional opportunities to pursue. The Tees Valley has also been ranked in third

place in the UK for business expansion of existing companies, and business start-up

rates continue to outperform the UK average.

The TVCA has ambitious plans to grow the City Region economy over the next ten

years, aiming to create 25,000 new jobs and 22,000 new homes, making the Tees

Valley an even better place for residents and businesses. To deliver on these

ambitions, the TVCA recognises a need to build on existing strengths and world-class

expertise in areas such as advanced manufacturing (particularly oil and gas, metals

and automotive), chemicals and process and logistics, and invest in growing

capability in new industries - biologics, subsea, digital/creative and the low carbon

economy. Businesses within these sectors are spread right across the City Region, as





16

Figure 2.7: Key Tees Valley Business Locations

There are also a wide range of cost-effective sites and premises across the Tees

Valley, with a number of Enterprise Zone sites and a total of 423 hectares available

for new business investment that offer financial incentives, as well as simplified

planning and superfast broadband. The sites include both new and established

business and enterprise parks, plus large cleared industrial sites with access to

utilities, port services and logistics.

11 of the 12 Tees Valley Enterprise Zone sites lie within 20 minutes’ drive of the A19,

as shown in Figure 2.7, and the A19 serves areas of all four prime capabilities from

the Northern Powerhouse Independent Economic Review, including Belasis Business

Park, Tees Advanced Manufacturing Park (TeesAMP), Queen’s Meadow Business Park

and North Shore Innovation Centre.

Despite the clear opportunities for economic growth, the ageing population implies

labour supply constraints will increase meaning that there is the potential for there

to be a lack of sufficient local workers in the future. The jobs base is also dependent

on a small number of large employers, although there is a comparatively high

business start-up rate, particularly amongst lifestyle entrepreneurs. Therefore,

promoting the towns and rural areas of Tees Valley to change external perceptions of

the area will assist in attracting and retaining a larger workforce.

New transport investment will make it easier for visitors, leisure and business to

come to Tees Valley. The New Tees Crossing will support the economic prosperity of

the Tees Valley through enhanced connectivity. The new crossing will improve




17

journey times for commuters, businesses and visitors to the local area as well as for

trips into and out of the Tees Valley City Region from the north and south.

2.1.2 Middlesbrough and Stockton-on-Tees Area Profile

Middlesbrough and Stockton and the river corridor between them lie at the heart of

the Tees Valley City Region. Both Boroughs have the potential to deliver enhanced,

city-scale facilities, services and infrastructure to drive forward the economy.

Middlesbrough Council is a unitary authority serving an area covering approximately

5,400 hectares with a population of 138,412 (2011 Census). From its mid-19th century

origins, the economy of Middlesbrough was built upon iron, steel and heavy

manufacturing along the river and around its port. The traditional economic base of

heavy industry and petrochemicals went into decline in the 1970s and 1980s,

shedding labour and becoming more capital intensive in the face of external

competition. Since this time the economy of Middlesbrough has restructured by

diversification into light and general industry and by enhancing the town centre as

the focal point for retail, leisure, commercial and civic administration for the whole

Tees Valley City Region.

This has been a long term process and a number of indicators show that

Middlesbrough’s economy is still weak compared with other areas, with low skill

levels, high unemployment, low rates of business formation, and a low cost/income

economy. However, the indicators also show that Middlesbrough has been making

strides towards economic recovery in recent years.

Middlesbrough town centre is the principal retail centre for the Tees Valley City

Region and the third largest retail centre in the North East. It is also the single

largest employment destination within the Tees Valley employing over 20,000 people

and as such, is the principal economic driver within the Borough. Much of this

employment, nearly 90%, is within the service sector. The flow of people who travel

to work in Middlesbrough from outside of the town is greater than that of people who

live in the town but travel to work outside in other districts. Whilst this illustrates

the importance of Middlesbrough as an employment centre, there are still many local

people who cannot gain access to the job market because of a lack of skills or

education.

Middlesbrough’s population is also in decline. Since peaking at about 160,000 in the

1960s, the population has been steadily falling. The decline has come about as a

result of outward migration, as opposed to declining birth rates or increasing death

rates. If allowed to continue it could impact upon Middlesbrough’s role within the

Tees Valley City Region, and the ability to deliver quality services to the population.

More recently, there has been an increase in house building activity following the

adoption of the Middlesbrough Housing Local Plan in November 2014 and the setting




18

of ambitious targets for new homes by Middlesbrough Council. Middlesbrough has a

flourishing Asian community and has the highest proportion of minority ethnic

communities in the Tees Valley at 6% of the town’s population.

Despite recent improvements in the local economy and employment, the majority of

Middlesbrough’s inner area terraced housing and social rented housing estates in east

and west Middlesbrough, experience high levels of multiple deprivation (16 wards are

in the worst 10% of IMD national ranking (2000)). There is a complex relationship of

social and economic factors including high long term and male unemployment, low

income, benefit dependency, poor educational achievement, ill health, low car

ownership often linked to other factors such as poor housing and high local crime

rates.

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council is a unitary authority with a population of 191,600

(2011 Census). It consists of Stockton-on-Tees town centre and smaller outlying

settlements including Billingham, Norton, Thornaby, Yarm and Ingleby Barwick.

Durham Tees Valley Airport is also partly within the Borough. The Borough accounts

for the largest number of residents within the Tees Valley City Region.

The working age population has declined in recent years from a peak of 124,474 in

2011 to 122,849 in 2015 – so in 2011 those aged 16-64 made up 64.9% of the

population, and by 2015 this had fallen to 63.1%. The population aged 16-64 is

forecast to decrease further to 61.7% by 2031 (1,710 fewer people). By 2031, the

population aged over 65 is forecast to increase in Stockton-on-Tees by 41.0%, which is

higher growth than both the national (+38.5%) and Tees Valley (+35.7%) projections.

The area of Stockton-on-Tees Borough is 20,393 hectares in size. It owes much of its

early development to the River Tees. By the 17th century, Stockton-on-Tees became

a major river port transporting coal to London. The Borough is also famous for the

first passenger railway as well as for its iron and steel industries. Although little

remains of Stockton-on-Tees’ industrial heritage, the River Tees has an increasing

focus for leisure following the development of the Tidal Barrage in 1995. Extensive

regeneration programmes are also being brought forward for many of the former

industrial sites.

The Borough has had to adapt and respond to change and now represents a modern

industrial and service-based economy. Although the existing manufacturing base is

smaller, it is still significant with a technically and highly skilled workforce

remaining. There were 5,445 registered businesses located in Stockton-on-Tees in

2016, around one third of the businesses in the Tees Valley.

The number of residents in Stockton-on-Tees that are economically active is 95,600

(76.8%), 89,900 of which are in employment, and an estimated 7,200 are

unemployed. The employment rate of 72.1% is lower than nationally (73.8%), but

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_authority

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockton-on-Tees

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billingham

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingleby_Barwick

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_Tees_Valley_Airport




19

higher than regionally (69.4%). Unemployment has followed a similar pattern to that

of the City Region, and remains higher than national averages, peaking at 11.1%

(10,600) in 2012. Since then there has been a fall of 3,400 people to 7.4% which,

unlike the national rate, is still higher than the rate before the 2008 economic

downturn.

Stockton-on-Tees’ commuting patterns from the 2011 Census indicate that over half

(44,347) of employed residents lived and worked in the Borough, with the addition of

7% (6,438) who were classed as homeworkers, 7% (5,836) had no fixed workplace, and

1% worked offshore. Stockton-on-Tees has a net inward commuting pattern, as 768

more people travel into the Borough for work than leave it. 34% (29,650) of residents

travel outside the Borough for work and 35% of Stockton on-Tees’ workers originate

from outside the Borough.

The Borough has a unique social and economic mix with discrete geographical areas

of multiple and isolated types of deprivation, situated alongside areas of relative

affluence. The 2015 IMD show Stockton-on-Tees is ranked 88 out of the 326 Local

Authorities districts in England, making it within the 30% most deprived areas

nationally. Whilst 28% of the population live within the top 20% of least deprived

areas of England, 28% live in the 20% most deprived areas. In addition, 34 out of the

120 LSOAs across Stockton-on-Tees are within the 20% least deprived LSOAs in

England, whereas 33 of the LSOAs are within the 20% most deprived LSOAs in England.

Comparisons with the 2010 IMD indicate that the gap is increasing between the most

deprived and the less deprived areas of the Borough.

2.2 Step 2: Identifying Transport Barriers

2.2.1 Tees Valley Transport Issues

Tees Valley is recognised as an economic functioning geography with several

economic foci, rather than one single dominant commercial centre. This polycentric

character results in complex traffic flows between the various centres which,

combined with the significance of intra-regional commuting indicates the importance

of good, reliable interconnectivity for the economy. The polycentric nature of the

labour markets is shown in Figure 2.8.




20

Figure 2.8: Tees Valley Labour Markets

87% of residents work within Tees Valley, with relatively few commuters crossing the

Tees Valley boundary (around 248,000 people live and work in Tees Valley with

38,000 Tees Valley residents working outside of the area and 35,000 Tees Valley

workers resident in other areas).

Whilst most people work within their district of residence, there are substantial

proportions travelling between districts within Tees Valley, as illustrated in Figure

2.9.

In terms of flows to Tees Valley’s neighbouring areas, there is a small net out-flow of

around 700 commuters to North Yorkshire (comprised of 9,700 out-flow and 8,900 in-

flow) with a similarly small net out-flow to Tyne & Wear of 1,300 (5,800 out-flow and

4,600 in-flow). The largest commuter flows are with County Durham with a net in-

flow of close to 6,900 (comprised of 10,600 out-flow and 17,500 in-flow).




21

Figure 2.9: 2011 Census Travel to Work Data

With approximately a quarter of the population of the North East and a higher

population density, the Tees Valley demonstrates a greater reliance on motor vehicle

transport than the wider region. Despite recent and ongoing improvements to

sustainable modes, for example through the Tees Valley Bus Network Improvements

scheme, motor vehicle traffic has continued to grow in recent years and commuting

by road, by any form of motorised vehicular transport, continues to the dominate

travel patterns within the City Region. Figure 2.10 illustrates the trend in motor

vehicle traffic, which has grown again in recent years since a dip as a result of the

economic downturn in 2008.




22

Figure 2.10: Tees Valley Motor Vehicle Traffic Trends

Car travel accounts for 72.6% of all journey to work trips in the Tees Valley (2011

Census) and road transport will continue to play a significant role in the future

economy of the City Region.

For the River Tees screenline, that includes the A19 Tees Viaduct and Newport Bridge, the same trends in continued growth in car and total traffic levels is evident, as shown in Figure 2.11.

Figure 2.11: River Tees Screenline

4,600

4,700

4,800

4,900

5,000

5,100

5,200

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Mill

ion

Veh

icle

Kilo

met

res

Year

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

120,000

130,000

140,000

2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6

An

nu

al A

vera

ge D

aily

Flo

w

Year

Car All Traffic




23

The main road network in the Tees Valley comprises the A1(M) and A19, with north-

south connections via Darlington and Middlesbrough respectively, and the east-west

A66, A689 and A174, which connect Middlesbrough, Stockton, Hartlepool, Redcar,

Teesport and Durham Tees Valley Airport to the A19, A1(M) and beyond. These key

links provide the main source of strategic trip making for the Tees Valley, delivering

vital connectivity to the North East and the rest of the UK.

As strategic routes, the A1(M), A19, A174, and the A66 west of the A19, and the

A1053 between the A174 and A66 fall under the remit of Highways England. The A66

east of the A19 comes under the authority of Middlesbrough Council and Redcar and

Cleveland Borough Council. The A689 falls under the auspices of the local highway

authorities of Durham County Council, Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council and

Hartlepool Borough Council but is part of the recently designated Major Road

Network.

Whilst the Tees Valley does not suffer from widespread traffic congestion to the same

extent as some other city regions, there is significant congestion on localised sections

of the local and strategic road networks. This congestion could hinder access to some

areas and impact on the distribution of goods, potentially stifling regeneration

proposals.

Traffic flows are focussed along the north-south A1(M) and A19, and along the east-

west A66 and A689. In places the A19 carries up to 51% more traffic than the A1(M) in

the Tees Valley City Region, underlining the demand for north-south connections

through the heart of the Tees Valley.

It is recognised that economic growth in the Tees Valley hinges on the provision of

first-rate transport links. The movement of freight is of particular importance due to

the industrial and manufacturing activities located in the region and the international

gateways of Teesport and Durham Tees Valley Airport.

A range and choice of transport to key labour markets is important in order to

provide opportunity for everyone to access appropriate employment. The car or van

is used for 73% of the journeys to work in the Tees Valley, compared with 62%

nationally. Car ownership is increasing and forecast to rise further, increasing

pressure on the road network in the immediate future.

Economic specialisation within the Tees Valley as part of the vision for regeneration

is likely to reinforce its polycentric form, hence transport solutions that support this

economic vision to provide better quality links between centres will be vital.

Furthermore, freight movements are key to the Tees Valley economy, both through

its manufacturing industries and as movements through its several ports, including

the deep sea Teesport. Therefore, future economic growth requires that the

transport network is able to accommodate increased freight movements. In




24

particular, the A1(M), A19 and A66 strategic routes are highlighted as key for the City

Region. In general, improved connections beyond the region to the rest of the

country, and to London in particular, are also highlighted as being desirable.

2.2.2 A19 and River Crossing Issues

Current River Crossing Capacity

There are currently 10 crossing points of the River Tees between the west of Stockton

and the coast, as illustrated in Figure 2.12. Six of these existing points are for

vehicular traffic, however, only two of these are capable of carrying significant

volumes of traffic – the A66 Surtees Bridge and the A19 Tees Viaduct.

Highway crossing capacity and how it has changed over time is illustrated by the

timeline below. The timeline indicates that there has been little increase in capacity

since 2008 and this was only to upgrade an existing structure.

• A1130 Victoria Bridge – current bridge opened to traffic in 1887;

• Transporter Bridge – opened to traffic in 1911;

• A1032 Newport Bridge – opened to traffic in 1934;

• A19 Tees Viaduct – opened to traffic in 1975;

• A66 Surtees Bridge – Originally opened to traffic in 1981 (with two lanes each

way), the current bridge (with three lanes each way) opened to traffic in 2008;

and

• Princess of Wales Bridge - opened to traffic in 1992.




25

Figure 2.12: River Tees Crossing Points

The A66 Surtees Bridge crosses the River Tees in an east-west direction, and is three

lanes wide in either direction, but only two are available for through traffic – the

third acts as a weaving section between the junctions with the A135 and the A1045. It

also has a pedestrian/cycleway on its southern side. The bridge structure itself is

relatively new, having been opened in 2008 to replace a previous bridge that suffered

from differential settlement.

The A19 Tees Viaduct is the key north-south crossing of the River Tees. It is three

lanes wide in each direction, although again only two lanes are used by through

traffic, with a weaving section over the Viaduct itself, and no hard strip or hard

shoulder, nor any pedestrian facilities. This section of the A19 currently carries

112,000 vehicles per day – the parallel A1(M) carries only 43,000 at the point at which

it crosses the River Tees, emphasising the importance of this route.

The Tees Viaduct and the adjoining Portrack Flyover (the section of the A19 to the

north of the River Tees, passing directly over the Portrack Roundabout), were built

between 1973 and 1975. The Viaduct was designed with sufficient clearance to allow

ships to pass, although since Newport Bridge had its lifting deck functionally removed

in 1990, large shipping can no longer reach this point.

Newport Bridge itself is the designated strategic diversion route for the Tees Viaduct

but carries only 22,000 to 23,000 vehicles per day. Further east, the only remaining

crossing option is the historic Transporter Bridge, which carries less than 1,000

vehicles per day.




26

To the west of the A19, the Tees Barrage is owned by the Canal and River Trust and is

unsuitable for large volumes of traffic (especially being an unadopted road),

currently being designated for through use by pedestrians and cyclists only. The Tees

Barrage also restricts the passage of large vessels, with the maximum size being 25.0

metres long and 6.0 metres wide. Within Stockton centre, there are two pedestrian

bridges, a rail bridge and a further two road bridges (Princess of Wales Bridge and

A1130 Victoria Bridge), neither of which are suitable to carry significant additional

volumes of traffic.

As a result, north-south traffic, whether strategic or local in nature, principally uses

the existing Tees Viaduct.

A19

At a strategic level, the A19 provides links from the Tees Valley City Region to the

North East and Leeds city regions, the former having the second largest inter-city

region flows east of the Pennines. The A19 has been identified as a new high quality

strategic route – an “expressway” – by Highways England, and there has been recent

investment in two “Pinch Point” junction improvement schemes at the A19/A174

Parkway and A19/A689 Wynyard junctions.

However, the A19 also connects the key centres of the commuting population in the

Tees Valley and the North East and therefore accommodates a large number of short

urban trips. 60% of the trips on the existing Tees Viaduct have an origin and a

destination within the Tees Valley City Region, emphasising the inter-operation

between the strategic and local road networks.

The dual role that the A19 expressway is currently performing impacts upon the

ability of the route to function in its strategic capacity, adding to the problems

described below at the Tees Viaduct. The zone of influence of this crossing can be

significant with the extent of congestion arising from any incident dependent upon

the severity. Congestion on the A19 can stretch between the A174 Parkway to the

south and A689 Wynyard to the north if there is an incident on or around the Tees

Viaduct. It is more difficult to define the precise east-west influence of the existing

crossing as congestion spreads on the local road network due to the limited number

of vehicular crossing points in the area.

There is a need to remove or reduce levels of local traffic from the A19 at this pinch

point to increase strategic road capacity so as to provide a more reliable, safer,

north-south route. An improvement to the Tees Viaduct section of the A19 will also

provide a higher quality diversionary route for the A1/A1(M), as well as reduce

increasing pressure on the other crossing points on the local road network.




27

Road Safety and Accessibility

Low speed rear shunt accidents are prevalent on the existing Tees Viaduct, and this

section of the A19 contains two of the top 250 collision locations on the strategic

road network (ranked 52 and 158), as illustrated in Figure 2.13.

Figure 2.13: Road Safety Issues (Highways England, 2014)

All of the current crossing points of the River Tees in the local area are multi-modal

with the exception of the A19 - there is a cycle ban on the A19 between the A174 and

the A689 that was implemented following a cyclist fatality. Hence, there is no

current provision along the A19 for non-motorised users (NMUs) which requires them

to use the crossings in Stockton, Tees Barrage or Newport Bridge.

Pedestrian/cycle severance is present for housing developments along the A19 on the

section between the A66 and A174. In particular, there are currently accessibility and

severance issues for pedestrians and cyclists at the A19/A1130 interchange.




28

Bus operations in the Tees Valley run predominantly on the local road network and

utilise the Victoria or Newport Bridges, although the coach services and the X9

service to Newcastle currently use the A19 at the existing Tees Viaduct. Congestion

and issues on the local roads due to incidents on the strategic road network can have

a significant detrimental impact on bus operations across the City Region.

Asset Condition

Given the age of the Tees Viaduct structure, it is likely to require increasing

maintenance intervention in the longer term. A series of works is due to commence

on the A19 to replace the bridge piers on the Tees Viaduct and Portrack Flyover

sections of the A19. This will be a like for like replacement to extend the life of the

structure and no changes to carriageway alignment are proposed. The life of the

existing Tees Viaduct structure is estimated (by Highways England) at 120 years from

the date of construction (1975) without the pier replacement and should be extended

with the planned works.

Incidents and Network Resilience

Traffic flows on the A19 can also be disrupted when incidents occur resulting in the

need to close/partially close the route, or when high winds (between 45 and 50 mph,

depending on their direction) require the closure of the Tees Viaduct. Any issue on

the A19 or A66 causes significant congestion on the local road crossings, and the

wider local road network. This can result in traffic delays over a wide area both north

and south of the River Tees. Diversion of traffic also creates problems for the other

vehicular crossings, with a lack of overall resilience in the network due to few

convenient, alternative ways to cross the river which are suitable for high volumes of

traffic and heavy vehicles.

One recent incident on the Tees Viaduct involved the closure of two lanes of the

northbound carriageway due to a HGV fuel spillage. This occurred on 18th October

2017 at 8.50am. The lanes were not fully opened until 10.30am, causing heavy

tailbacks for morning commuters and business travel. This is a typical example of the

type of disruption that occurs on a regular basis.

The official diversionary route for this part of the A19 is the adjacent Newport Bridge

and crosses the river to the east of the Tees Viaduct. Newport Bridge is a Grade II

listed structure that typically carries around 23,000 vehicles per day. The bridge was

closed to traffic in 2014 to undertake essential maintenance works, causing

significant additional congestion which at one point extended northwards beyond the

A19/A179 Sheraton Interchange, a distance of 11 miles. Examples of this level of

congestion are shown in Figures 2.14 and 2.15 taken from images from

Roadworks.org.




29

Figure 2.14: Monday 13 October 2014 (1757 hours)

Figure 2.15: Tuesday 14 October 2014 (1808 hours)




30

Due to the age of the structure (it opened in 1934), the requirement for future

maintenance will intensify, with a major refurbishment due in the next 5 to 10 years

that will require severe traffic restrictions and, potentially, full closures for

prolonged periods. The ability of Newport Bridge to accommodate traffic diverted

from the A19 will therefore be compromised on an increasing basis.

The principal impacts of congestion and incidents are as follows:

• Unreliable journey times on key route for local and strategic traffic;

• Congestion affecting local residents and businesses as well as strategic

journeys;

• Lack of road network resilience over a wide area;

• Cost to the economy from drivers caught in congestion and additional time for

goods to be delivered; and

• Problems exacerbated by limited alternative routes (especially for heavy goods

vehicles).

Network Performance Issues

According to Advice Notice TA46/97 Annex D, a typical congestion reference flow

(CRF) for a dual 2 lane all-purpose road such as the A19 in this location is 68,000.

CRFs are an estimate of the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flow at which the

carriageway is likely to be ‘congested’ in the peak periods on an average day and

relate to links between junctions. For the purposes of calculating the CRF,

‘congestion’ is defined as the situation when the hourly traffic demand exceeds the

maximum sustainable hourly throughput of the link. At this point the effect on traffic

is likely to be one or more of the following: flow breaks down with speeds varying

considerably, average speeds drop significantly, the sustainable throughput is

reduced and queues are likely to form.

The most recently published DfT traffic statistics indicate that the AADT flow on the

Tees Viaduct is 111,866 vehicles. This flow is over 50% more than the typical CRF for

a link of this type. It should also be noted that on this section of the A19, the CRF is

actually likely to be a lot lower than 68,000 due to the number of merges, diverges

and weaving sections that will reduce the link capacity below the theoretical level.

The section of the A19 over the Tees Viaduct, and the approaches to it, regularly

suffer from stationary traffic - only 55% of journeys are classed as being “on time” by

Highways England.




31

Analysis has been undertaken of traffic growth at the existing crossing between 2010

and 2017 in each hour of the day. Figures 2.16 and 2.17 present the results and

clearly show that peak period delays have constrained growth at the crossing over

this period and resulted in peak spreading. For example:

• Growth has been less than 5% southbound between 7-9 am on the A19 between

2010 and 2017;

• Growth has only been around 2.5% southbound between 4-5pm between 2010

and 2017 and growth has been prevented (declines) between 5-6pm on the A19;

and

• Growth has been prevented (declines) at 8-9am and 4-6pm northbound on the

A19.

Figure 2.16: A19 Southbound Change in Flows between 2010 and 2017




32

Figure 2.17: A19 Northbound Change in Flows between 2010 and 2017

Figures 2.18 and 2.19 present the observed journey times along the A19 between the

A139 and A66 south-facing slips from June 2017. Each of the plotted lines is from a

specific weekday with the average shown in red. The graphs show that during peak

periods there is a wide variation in travel times, which can more than double at such

times of the day.

Figure 2.18: A19 Northbound Journey Times




33

Figure 2.19: A19 Southbound Journey Times

Further analysis of the data has been carried out and Figures 2.20 to 2.23 illustrate

the percentage of days that experience delays of different magnitudes on the A19

northbound (between A1130 and A139 junctions) and southbound (between A1046 and

A66 junctions) as well as the A66 eastbound (between A1130 junction and A19

northbound on slip) and westbound (between A19 northbound off-slip and A19

northbound on-slip). The data indicates:

• Over 70% of all A19 journeys northbound are delayed between 1 and 5+ minutes

between 4 and 5pm;

• Around 70% of all A19 journeys southbound are delayed between 1 and 5+

minutes between 4 and 6pm;

• Around 65% of all A19 journeys southbound are delayed between 1 and 5

minutes between 8 and 9am; and

• Around 65% of all A66 EB to A19 NB journeys are delayed between 1 and 5+

minutes between 4 and 6pm.

The observed journey time data for the route between the A66 and A139 junctions (a

distance of around 2.5 miles) indicates that northbound on the A19 there is around an

average of 1.5 minutes delay at peak times compared with overnight free flow

conditions, however there is a lot of variability around that average with the worst

observed being 8.3 minutes delay. In the southbound direction there is on average 2

minutes of delay at peak times compared with free flow travel times with again a




34

large variation and the worst observed delay was nearly 5.5 minutes over this period.

This is supported by Google travel times (see Figures 2.24 and 2.25) which suggest

that there is between 1-4 minutes delay southbound at peak times and 1-5 minutes

delay northbound at peak times. The lack of growth in peak periods indicates these

delays and unreliable journey times are suppressing demand for the crossing with

drivers travelling at other times to avoid it.

Figure 2.20: A19 Northbound Delays

Figure 2.21: A19 Southbound Delays




35

Figure 2.22: A66 Eastbound Delays

Figure 2.23: A66 Westbound Delays

An analysis of published information also indicates that the Tees Viaduct section is

the only link on the A19 trunk road that does not meet Highways England’s “mile per

minute” objective for strategic highways at this time.

Trafficmaster data has been used to establish existing observed travel times on the

A19 to validate this. This analysis indicates the difference between actual travel

times and target times (to meet the “mile per minute” objective) at different times

of day, and is summarised in the Table 2.1, for the sections between the A179




36

(Sheraton) and the A67 (Crathorne) within the Tees Valley, and that immediately

adjacent to the Tees Viaduct, between the A689 and the A174.

Table 2.1: Existing Travel Times and Targets

The difference in the target time between time periods and directions is a further

illustration of the variance in speeds and journey times experienced on the route at

present. Overall, these results show that a 60mph average on the Tees Viaduct

section of the A19 is not currently achievable at any time of the working day, due to

existing network constraints.

The southbound journey time in the AM peak is significantly below the “mile per

minute” level, and this is where the positive benefits of the committed A19 RIS1

Norton to Wynyard improvement scheme (see below) would be negated without a

complementary intervention on the Tees Viaduct section. Indeed, there is a

significant chance that the improvement could actually exacerbate the pinch point at

the Tees Viaduct, as a result of future increases in through traffic demand.

The levels of congestion experienced on the SRN and LRN in the vicinity of the

existing Tees Viaduct can be illustrated by Google “typical traffic” maps. Figures 2.24

and 2.25 illustrate traffic congestion experienced on a typical Tuesday during the AM

(0830) and PM (1730) peak periods.

Section AM Peak (minutes) Inter-Peak (minutes) PM Peak (minutes)

Current Target Current Target Current Target

Sheraton - Crathorne (S/B)

19.85 16.90 17.39 16.90 17.91 16.90

A689 - A174 (S/B)

9.82 7.80 8.16 7.80 8.73 7.80

Crathorne -Shearton (N/B)

17.10 16.90 16.82 16.90 17.05 16.90

A174 - A689 (N/B)

7.96 7.80 7.70 7.80 7.85 7.80




37

Figure 2.24: AM Typical Traffic Congestion (Tuesday, 0830)

Figure 2.25: PM Typical Traffic Congestion (Tuesday, 1730)

This congestion will act as a constraint on future growth aspirations, particularly

those sectors more reliant on reliable road transport connections, as well as creating

additional issues on the local road network.

The poor road safety record and accessibility issues relating to the existing situation

were described previously. The relatively high level of low speed rear “shunt”

accidents recorded on the existing Tees Viaduct is likely to be a reflection of the

current operational and performance issues.

A more detailed summary of the current problems and challenges was presented in

the Client Scheme Requirements Report and the Additional Capacity Issues Workshop

Report provided as part of the Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) documentation.




38

2.3 Step 3: Exploring Options and Strategic Alternatives

2.3.1 Objectives

Based on the foregoing analysis of context and current/future problems, the

following objectives have been identified for this improvement scheme:

Economic Growth:

• Support the economic growth objectives of the Northern Powerhouse and the

Tees Valley City Region;

• Improve access to the City Region Strategic Centres, STDC site, Enterprise Zone

sites and expanding port facilities along the River Tees, including Teesport;

• Support sustainable local residential development in the medium to long term.

Connectivity:

• Improve access to jobs and services for all road users;

• Support the SRN in delivering enhanced national and pan-Northern connectivity;

• Deliver connectivity enhancements for freight movements.

Network Performance:

• Reduce congestion and provide reliable north-south journey times on the A19;

• Improve resilience of the river crossing itself and the wider strategic road

network to the impact of events such as roadworks and adverse weather;

• Reduce the number and severity of incidents for all road users.

Quality of Life:

• Minimise adverse impacts on health and environment;

• Reduce the impacts of the route on severance for local communities;

• Provide value for money.




39

2.3.2 Options

The assessment of options for improvement was started in 2015 with the

establishment of a “Task and Finish” Group, comprising representatives from

Highways England, the TVCA, together with Middlesbrough and Stockton Councils.

Planned transport infrastructure at the time was taken into consideration in drawing

up a long list of potential alignments for a new crossing. The aim of the option

generation process was to develop a range of potential solutions to address the need

for intervention as identified above.

A description of each of the long list of options can be found below:

• Option A: An eastern alignment over the River Tees between the A66 at

Southbank and Teesport;

• Option B: From Riverside Park Road to Cowpen Bewley Road in Billingham;

• Option C: From Haverton Hill Road to Riverside Park Road;

• Option D: From Riverside Park Road to Portrack Interchange;

• Option E: Crossing close to Newport Bridge;

• Option F: Removing non-strategic network traffic from the flyover (i.e.

Middlesbrough and Portrack bound traffic) using an alternative lower alignment

river crossing;

• Option G: A new crossing to the west of the existing Viaduct between the

A66/A19 interchange and Portrack Lane;

• Option H: A strategic bypass of the A19 Tees Viaduct on a lower alignment;

• Option J: Enhanced access to the existing crossing point at Tees Barrage Way;

• Options K + L/K + M: Diversion of A19 to the west of Stockton;

• Option N: Combination of works at Portrack Interchange to remove the

bottleneck;

• Option N + E: The combination of works at Portrack, to remove the existing

pinch point, with a crossing close to Newport Bridge (Corridor between D and E)

to provide additional capacity; and

• Option C + B.




40

The long list of options generated and taken through the sifting process is illustrated

in Figure 2.26.

Figure 2.26: Location of Long List of Scheme Options

An initial sift of the options was undertaken to eliminate those which did not deliver

or had minimal alignment with the scheme objectives identified previously. The

options were also tested using the Tees Valley Multi-Modal Model to assess how much

relief each option would provide to the existing A19 Tees Viaduct. From this process,

four options were identified as meriting further detailed modelling and assessment.

These four options were as follows:

• Option H;

• Option A;

• Option F; and

• Option N + E.

The DfT’s Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST) was utilised to better understand

how these four options perform and compare. The EAST assessment aims to identify,

at a high level, the nature and extent of all the economic, environmental and social

impacts of the options. The use of EAST allows unpromising options to be discarded




41

and identified shortlisted options for further development and assessment. To

document the process, an Options Assessment Report was prepared, included at

Appendix A, providing more detail on the process by which the partners generated

and sifted options in order to identify those that are more likely to achieve the

scheme objectives.

The EAST process led to two options being subsequently refined and assessed in more

detail – known as the Newport Bridge Option and the A19 Tees Viaduct Option, as


Figure 2.27: Shortlisted Options

In December 2017 it was decided the Newport Bridge Option should not be progressed

as detailed traffic modelling identified that the option caused Newport Interchange

to operate beyond its theoretical capacity in the opening year of 2027 and there was

no practical or cost effective improvement that could be undertaken to address this.

To ensure that the performance of the A19 Tees Viaduct Option was challenged, it

was felt important that a new option be selected for it to be compared against.

The resulting review of previously discarded solutions and discussions around

potential new routes resulted in an alternative, the A19 Tees Viaduct Capacity

Enhancement Option, being identified. The A19 Tees Viaduct Capacity Enhancement

Option includes localised widening of the existing Tees Viaduct structure to provide

three southbound lanes throughout the length of the Viaduct, in addition to the

provision of a new bridge crossing to carry local northbound traffic. This option is

illustrated in Figure 2.28.




42

Figure 2.28: A19 Tees Viaduct Capacity Enhancement Option

Further information is presented in the Options Assessment Report.

2.4 Step 4: Exploring Impacts of Interventions

2.4.1 Main Impacts

Growth in traffic from the base year to the two modelled forecast years is shown to

increase journey times and delays in the network, including along the New Tees

Crossing scheme extents where increases in journey time are forecast without

intervention. The exception to this is along the Norton to Wynyard section of the A19,

where delays and journey times reduce due to the A19 Norton to Wynyard

Improvements scheme.

Both of the scheme options are forecast to result in a reassignment of traffic onto the

A19 from more local routes, as well as a small degree of strategic reassignment from

long distance routes such as the A1. The AM and PM peak periods experience the

largest degree of reassignment with a smaller impact observed in the inter-peak

reflecting the lower degrees of delay in the inter-peak period.

The A19 Tees Viaduct Option significantly reduces traffic flows on the existing

crossing in both directions due to forced reassignment of traffic onto the new

structure for certain movements. The A19 Tees Viaduct Capacity Enhancement

Option has a similar impact on the northbound A19 as traffic switches to the new

crossing. The existing A19 southbound crossing is able to accommodate additional




43

traffic growth due to the extra capacity provided by the A19 Tees Viaduct Capacity

Enhancement Option.

With both options, journey times are forecast to reduce on the A19 over the scheme

area compared with the Do Minimum. With the A19 Tees Viaduct Capacity

Enhancement Option in place, journey times in the opening year decrease by around

2.50 minutes in the AM peak and over 2.30 minutes in the PM peak. These reductions

become greater in 2042 with 3 minutes and 2.50 minutes saved respectively in the AM

and PM peaks. In the northbound direction, nearly 1.5 minutes are saved in both the

AM and PM peaks by 2042. The A19 Tees Viaduct Option generally results in similar

savings in both AM and PM peaks by 2042.

Of particular note for both options is that, even in 2042, the travel time on the A19

through the scheme area in both directions is forecast to be lower than in 2015 with

the scheme in place.

The main conclusions from the Economic Case are as follows:

• Overall the scheme is shown to reduce travel times across the whole network in

every scenario with some slight increases in travel distance occurring due to

reassignment effects;

• The A19 Tees Viaduct Option delivers higher levels of user benefits than the A19

Tees Viaduct Capacity Enhancement Option as it includes more additional road

capacity, however, the cost associated with this additional capacity is such that

the overall return on investment is lower than for the A19 Tees Viaduct

Capacity Enhancement Option; and

• The A19 Tees Viaduct Option generates a safety disbenefit and has a slightly

larger environmental disbenefit due to the extra traffic attracted to the scheme

area in this option leading to more accidents and greater air and noise

emissions in the scheme area.

2.4.2 Wider Impacts

The Economic Case has also established journey reliability and wider benefits exist.

As both options provide additional capacity on the A19 over the River Tees this

increases journey time reliability, with differences between the options resulting

from the differences in traffic flows on the routes experiencing the benefits. Both

options therefore support the SRN by providing additional capacity to accommodate

the mix of long distance and local trips on the A19 and will offer the opportunity to

better manage the interface between the A19, the A66 and the local road network.




44

The current congestion problems where the roads on the SRN and the local roads

meet at this capacity pinch point will be addressed by either option so that incidents

on the local or strategic road networks can be managed without rapid flow

breakdown and area-wide congestion.

Furthermore, as both options reduce the generalised cost of travel across the River

Tees through a reduction in congestion and journey times this will therefore

effectively bring companies and individuals closer together with resultant

productivity benefits associated with agglomeration.

These benefits are of particular importance for addressing the economic challenges

of the Tees Valley. As noted previously, while some Tees Valley sectors are more

productive than their national counterparts, most sectors are less productive than

the national average. There is therefore a need to seek to improve business

productivity and this applies to every sector and occupation. Higher productivity is

also central to reinvestment and the sustainability of employment. This productivity

imperative is an underlying theme within the Tees Valley SEP.

Ensuring the Tees Valley has the competitive infrastructure to support a growing

economy is a major priority for TVCA and the business community and is one way to

address the productivity challenge. The reliable and efficient operation of the A19 is

essential for the provision of services and goods in the Tees Valley, enabling local

businesses to operate effectively and for local residents to access jobs. Yet there has

been no significant increase in crossing capacity for 27 years and the section of the

A19 on the existing Tees Viaduct is the currently the busiest in the Tees Valley in

terms of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), being used by approximately 7500 HGVs per

day (equivalent to 7% of vehicles on the existing Tees Viaduct).

The journey time improvements and enhanced journey time reliability offered by the

scheme will maintain and enhance the competitiveness of the Tees Valley economy.

The journey time reductions will facilitate a more free-moving and reliable transport

network, unlocking the potential for further economic prosperity by improving the

viability of planned development and the sustainable investment by employers

throughout the area. It will also offer the potential for productivity enhancements

through proximity/agglomeration and offer improved labour supply opportunities.

It will have a particular impact on the freight and logistics sector that supports the

functioning of many of the large employment sites as well as the ports on the River

Tees. The freight and logistics sector is a key enabler in terms of investment, jobs

and economic wellbeing. The efficient movement of goods is vitally important for

economic success, as it allows the raw materials and finished goods manufactured in

the Tees Valley to reach their destinations. Any improvement in efficiency will offer

a significant opportunity for economic growth through increases in productivity,




45

especially as freight is vulnerable to resilience issues due to operational needs for

timeliness of deliveries and the cost of delays.

There are significant freight and logistics traffic flows across Tees Valley serving both

local and pan-Northern needs, and this sector is key to realising the economic

ambitions of the Tees Valley SEP. There is a need to drive growth of freight traffic

through Tees Valley by improving connectivity and enabling operators to offer more

cost-effective services.

The Tees Valley is also an important link in the UK’s supply chain, providing an

international gateway for the movement of goods in and out of the country and a key

hub for the transport of domestic freight. Local port facilities on the River Tees

export more than any other port in England and Tees Valley exporters have the

highest value per exporter of goods in the country. The Port provides a critical

gateway to world markets for the Tees Valley industrial platform, which is one of the

most important manufacturing regions in the UK with world leading Chemical and

Process industries, Steel Processing and Energy facilities.

Over the last ten years, Teesport has become a major container port serving the

wider northern UK hinterland with particularly strong connections to Northern

Europe, Baltics and Russia, along with a comprehensive network of connections to the

major container ports of Europe. The scheme will therefore support the SRN and the

connectivity this provides for local businesses and the freight and logistic sector

including the ports on the River Tees.

2.4.3 Measures for Success

Measures for success are the attributes essential for successful delivery of the

scheme. They include not only measurable impacts on travel conditions but also

consider the strategic fit, value for money and affordability, achievability and

commercial aspects of the project. The success factors have been determined

through a logic mapping exercise and are closely aligned to the benefits realisation

and monitoring and evaluation plans, both included in the Management Case.

2.5 Step 5: Aligning with Wider Local Plans and Objectives

2.5.1 Tees Valley Local Plans

The Local Authorities within the Tees Valley are at various stages of Local Plan

preparation. Local Plans have recently been adopted for Redcar and Cleveland

(2018), Hartlepool (2018) and Stockton-on-Tees (2019) Borough Councils. Updated

Local Plans for Darlington Borough and Middlesbrough Councils are at draft stage. The

Local Plans establish a framework for the sustainable economic growth and

development over their respective plan periods in part through the identification of




46

sites for housing and employment growth to meet identified needs. In terms of

housing delivery, the Tees Valley Local Plans aim to provide beyond the 22,000 homes

in the period from 2016 to 2026 as set out in the Tees Valley SEP.

The A19 is vitally important for connecting the key centres of the commuting

population within the Tees Valley and supporting the wider economic growth

ambitions. Housing and employment allocations within adopted and emerging Local

Plans will increase the number of trips within the City Region and re-emphasise the

importance of the highway network in supporting economic growth within the Tees

Valley. Specific developments which will have an impact on the A19 are detailed

below.

North of the Tees Viaduct, there are already development related pressures along the

A19 due to committed developments and proposed developments at West Stockton,

West Hartlepool alongside the creation of a sustainable settlement at Wynyard will

increase this pressure. The Local Plans of both Stockton-on-Tees and Hartlepool

Borough Councils contain significant housing and employment allocations which will

require improvements to the highway network in order to support and enable their

development over respective Local Plan periods.

There are large developments and housing allocations coming forward in south and

west Middlesbrough which will create a demand for travel on the A174 and A19, and

place additional demand on the existing junctions in this area. The continued

regeneration of the Greater Middlehaven and Riverside Park areas is also relevant,

and significant regeneration will increase demand for crossing capacity on the River

Tees.

The Tees Marshalling Yards, immediately west of the Tees Viaduct, are now out of

operation and the adopted Stockton-on-Tees Local Plan supports the residential-led

regeneration of this site, which would have a further impact on the A19, A66 and

other parts of the local road network in the vicinity. New housing developments in

Redcar and Cleveland will also generate additional trips on the A174 and the A19,

adding to existing issues on these routes.

2.5.2 River Tees Port Expansion

Supporting the ongoing development of the ports of Tees and Hartlepool as a truly

international freight gateway for the north of England is vital for the Tees Valley and

the Northern economy. Recent investment will take the capacity of Teesport up to

650,000 TEU and the implementation of the Northern Gateway Terminal proposal will

further increase the capacity to around 1.1 million TEU. This will be a multi-million

pound investment by PD Ports and could create up to 4,000 direct and indirect jobs

across the Tees Valley.




47

The new £300 million deep-sea container terminal will be located on the site of the

existing riverside Teesport Container Terminal (TCT1), the riverside ro-ro berth (Ro-

Ro No.3) and the gasification jetty. The channel will be dredged to 14.5m at LAT and

the alongside depth to 16m and the terminal will include:

• 1km quay comprising three berths, each capable of taking 12,000 TEU vessels;

• a paved area of 55 ha;

• a new intermodal rail terminal; and

• 365/24/7 operation.

The Northern Gateway Terminal proposal will require improvements to the strategic

road and rail network including the parts of the A19, A66 and Northallerton to

Teesport rail line.

In the meantime, there is also potential for an intermediate upscaling of container

handling capacity at No.1 Quay which was recently refurbished for SSI slab exports.

P&O Ferries has increased capacity on its Zeebrugge service to handle an additional

25% units and further shipping lines are expected to expand their Tees service after

winning a contract to handle UK imports for a major retailer (80% of which will come

through Tees).

2.5.3 Other Large Scale Developments

A range of key developments will be supported by the proposals for a New Tees

Crossing as follows:

• Peak Resources – an Australian-based company is establishing a £70 million

mineral processing plant at the Wilton International Site. The plant will process

‘rare earth’ minerals neodymium and praseodymium shipped over from the

company’s mine in Tanzania for use in the automotive sector and other

products including mobile phones and wind turbines. Planning permission was

secured in May 2018, with operations expected to commence in mid to late

2020. The construction phase requires up to 420 contractors at the peak of

construction and then 140 staff on a permanent basis.

• The Navigator North Tees Terminal is an integrated supply system for petrol

and diesel in the North East and a hub for Greenergy’s rail distribution network.

The former Petroplus refinery, located at Seal Sands near Middlesbrough,

includes a deep-water jetty, and was acquired by Greenergy from Petroplus’

administrators in July 2012 and re-opened as Greenergy North Tees in

November 2012. The import terminal has been upgraded to include petrol




48

storage as well as diesel. New pipeline links have been created to other storage

facilities in the Teesside area and improvements have been made to tanks, road

loading and import facilities. A new petrol rail loading facility was installed in

2014 so that petrol can be transported by train to other UK locations for the

first time. The result is an integrated and flexible supply terminal for both

petrol and diesel that is responsive to changing fuel supply and demand trends

and capable of meeting the future road fuel requirements of the North East

region as well as the wider UK economy.

• Hitachi opened its new £82 million train manufacturing assembly facility in

Newton Aycliffe in September 2015 and K Line begun a direct service the same

month using 7,500-unit ro-ro vessels to move rail equipment between Japan and

Teesport. The next generation intercity trains are being manufactured by

Hitachi in Japan and, of the 790 rail cars expected to be shipped over the next

few years, the majority will be on K Line’s ro-ro vessels with 5 to 18 rail cars

per shipment on almost monthly basis. This new connection could potentially

also allow exporters of project cargoes to access K Line’s global network

directly from Teesport. Hitachi has first refusal on adjoining land and it is

hoped that its site will expand in the future.

• MGT is currently building a 299MW biomass power station on the Teesport

Estate, upriver of Tees Dock. The £650 million Teesport Renewable Energy Plant

aims to generate electricity for the equivalent of 600,000 homes using imported

wood pellets and chips from sustainable forests, primarily in Europe and the

United States shipped in directly to an on-site deep-water berth. The plant was

expected to be in operation by 2020 and although MGT Teesside reported in the

summer to be fully committed to finishing the project as soon as possible it has

faced major delays and made significant redundancies during the construction

phase, with the completion date unknown..

• Port Clarence Renewable Energy Plant is a £160 million biomass power station

proposed on the north bank of the River Tees on the old Clarence Works.

Although construction work started in December 2015 and was due to start

operating in 2020, with Stobart Energy proposed to supply around 250,000

tonnes of waste wood fuel per year the owners of Port Clarence Energy exited

the contract for the project in May 2019. They remain hopeful of a successful

conclusion as an operational power plant and continue construction as soon as

possible.

• Dogger Bank Wind Farm off the coast of Tees Valley will commence in January

2020 and will comprise two wind farms, each with a maximum installed

capacity of 1.2GW which will connect to the national grid via the existing

Lackenby Substation. The development could have the potential to generate

around 8 Terawatt hours (TWh) of green power every year, equivalent to the




49

electricity used annually by approximately two million British homes. Dogger

Bank Teesside A will be 196km from the Tees Valley coast and will cover an

area of 560 sq km. Dogger Bank Teesside B is 165km from shore and covers an

area of 593 sq km. The developer is Forewind, a consortium comprising four

leading international energy companies. Key components that could result in

supply chain opportunities for fabrication, operation and maintenance include

wind turbines, offshore collector and converter substation platforms, offshore

accommodation/helicopter platforms, offshore meteorological stations and

cabling.

2.5.4 Middlesbrough Investment Prospectus

The Middlesbrough Investment Prospectus was launched in 2017. It reflects on a

number of recent successes, more than £74 million of direct Council investment, and

lays out the ambitions and priorities that will take Middlesbrough on to the next

phase in its journey. It sets out the Council’s vision to create sustained economic

growth, high quality jobs and thriving communities by inspiring, upskilling and

connecting Middlesbrough’s people to the new opportunities created.

The prospectus has four main investment priorities as follows:

• Attract city-scale investment that will grow Middlesbrough’s economy and that

of the wider Tees Valley City Region;

• Diversify Middlesbrough’s town centre economy by increasing the proportion of

commercial, leisure, cultural and food and beverage floor space;

• Generate significant income through a targeted programme of housebuilding and

business creation; and

• Inspire, upskill and connect Middlesbrough’s people to the new opportunities that

arise.

Key sites identified for continued and future investment include Middlehaven

(including Boho 10, a £250 million mixed use development launched in October 2019),

Centre Square, the railway station and historic core, University Quarter, Teesside

Media and Innovation Village as well as other business enterprise space. The

Investment Prospectus also identifies the importance of building modern, high quality

housing to retain and grow its population as a key driver in wealth generation and the

delivery of good quality public services.

The provision of a new crossing of the River Tees will support the projects outlined

within the Investment Prospectus, enhancing local and strategic connectivity in




50

support of sustained economic growth and prosperity. The Investment Prospectus is

due to be refreshed later in 2019.

2.5.5 Stockton-on-Tees Economic Strategy 2017-2032

This Economic Strategy sets out Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council’s growth ambitions

over the next fifteen years. The Vision is set out below and seeks to position the

strategy as a framework for rebalancing the local and regional economy in support of

national objectives.

The businesses and people of Stockton-on-Tees are part of a thriving and productive

Tees Valley economy; a City Region that is driving economic growth across northern

and national economies

The vision is supported by three main objectives as follows:

• Objective 1: Have a successful business base where existing companies have

experienced sustainable growth and new businesses have been created and

attracted;

• Objective 2: Provide sufficient sites and premises in vibrant, connected and

distinctive places that businesses are attracted to and people choose to live,

work and play; and

• Objective 3: Ensure that people have the opportunity to learn/ train and gain

the appropriate level of skills to maximise the employment opportunities

available in the economy.

Objective 2 is of most relevance, underlining the importance of good connectivity for

attracting businesses and people to live and work in the Borough. In particular, the

strategy identifies the following transport and infrastructure elements that are of key

importance to deliver the vision:

• All modes of strategic connectivity within and outside Stockton-on-Tees

stimulate and support economic growth;

• Resilience has been built and investment secured into the transport and

infrastructure networks to respond to economic growth requirements;

• Northern and national transport plans take account of local transport priorities;

• Transport improvements provide access to attractive investment opportunities

at strategic employment locations; and




51

• Communications infrastructure supports economic and housing growth.

A new crossing of the River Tees is one element that support all of these

requirements in support of economic growth and prosperity for the Borough of

Stockton-on-Tees and the wider Tees Valley.

2.5.6 Other Transport Proposals

There are a number of other transport proposals that are of relevance to this scheme

– these are summarised in the following paragraphs.

A19 Norton to Wynyard

The scheme will benefit local residents and businesses by relieving congestion,

improving journey time reliability and network resilience. Replacement of the road

surface will also reduce road traffic noise. The scheme will promote growth in the

local economy and local area by bringing forward developments in the Tees Valley.

The scheme is currently programmed to commence construction in 2020 and be

completed by 2022.

The issues of network unreliability and congestion previously described will only

increase with the opening of the Norton-Wynyard improvement scheme, planned for

implementation as part of Highways England’s first Road Investment Strategy (RIS1),

meaning that the full benefits of this significant expenditure on the route may not be

realised.

The Norton to Wynyard scheme will improve the flow of traffic on this section of the

A19 by increasing the section between the A1027 and the A689 to three lanes wide in

each direction, with the existing speed limit of 70mph retained. The existing section

of concrete carriageway will be replaced with low noise surfacing and any current

Public Rights of Way including footbridges and underpasses will either be maintained

or replaced.

Implementation of this scheme may exacerbate issues on the Tees Viaduct section as

an increase in southbound traffic demand encounters the existing constraints.

It is worth noting that, in developing the A19 Norton to Wynyard scheme, Highways

England has undertaken sensitivity tests with and without a possible new Tees

Crossing and this has illustrated the value for money of the A19 Norton to Wynyard

scheme increases with the new strategic crossing capacity in place.




52

Portrack Relief Road

It is recognised that to open up development opportunities within Stockton and

Middlesbrough within the vicinity of the existing Tees Viaduct, a package of proposals

needs to be developed and delivered which will embrace a combination of

improvements and management of the primary road infrastructure, additional

secondary road infrastructure, improvements to public transport and complementary

traffic management measures.

This scheme would include the creation of a new 1.3km highway link by utilising the

former Billingham Beck branch railway between Marston Road and the A1032 Newport

Bridge Approach Road. It is seen as a fundamental part of any option taken forward

for a new strategic road crossing of the River Tees and should be incorporated within

one overall scheme package for ongoing design and delivery. It has therefore been

included in the assessment of the two options within the economic and financial case

of this business case report.

A1 and A19 Technology Enhancements

This scheme includes the implementation of new technology, bringing the equipment

on the A19 to the standard of motorways, including detection loops, CCTV cameras

and variable message signs to provide better information for drivers and active traffic

management. It was announced in October 2017 that the scheme has been paused for

further review and consideration as part of future RIS planning process – this is to

ensure the scheme achieves an acceptable return on investment.

A66 East-West Connections

The TVCA is also considering the means of providing improved connections between

the A1(M) and the A66 to the north west of Darlington. Development funding for the

scheme was granted by DfT in November 2016, and an Enhanced SOBC is currently in

preparation.

As a pre-cursor, the A66 & A689 Tees Valley Strategic Study Stage 0.2 Summary

Report – Option Assessment was prepared on behalf of Highways England and TVCA in

2016. The options the report has identified for further consideration along the A66

east-west corridor are as follows:

• Improvements to the existing A66 to the south and east of Darlington;

• A new link around the north of Darlington, from Junction 59 of the A1(M) to the

A66/A1150 roundabout;




53

• Improvements to the existing A66 around the south and west of Stockton,

particularly between the Elton Interchange and the junction with the A135

(1835 Way); and

• Improvements to key junctions on the A66 local road along the route into

Teesport, particularly the A66/A171 roundabout at Cargo Fleet and the

A66/A1053 Tees Dock Road roundabout. Middlesbrough Council has secured

£2.95 million of National Productivity Investment Fund (NPIF) funding for the

introduction of a 'throughabout' at the A66/A171 junction, which is currently

under construction and due to open to traffic in Spring 2020.

The A66 proposals do not conflict with those for the A19 as the former are designed

to improve east-west movements primarily, but also to build in resilience to both the

A1 and A19 regional strategic north-south corridors, by providing an alternative to the

A19 for northbound traffic from eastern part of the Tees Valley City Region.

Given the interaction between the A19 and the A66 immediately south of the existing

Tees Viaduct, it will be important to ensure that these improvements dovetail with

the improvement scheme promoted for the A19. Furthermore, improvements

proposed for both corridors (A19 and A66) will assist in addressing air quality

concerns on the A66 through Middlesbrough by improving the flow of traffic through

the A19/A66 interchange.

This section of the A66, that has been identified by the DfT as part of its Major Road

Network (December 2018), carries up to 90,000 vehicles per average weekday, and

westbound traffic is regularly delayed due to congestion associated with the existing

A19 Tees Viaduct.

2.6 Step 6: Considering Wider Evidence and Stakeholder Views

2.6.1 Stakeholder Views

Consultation in relation to the scheme has been considered since an early stage in its

development. As part of the A66 & A689 Strategic Study, stakeholder workshops were

undertaken so as to capture information, develop a fuller understanding of the day to

day operation of the network and consider the range of infrastructure proposals that

could address the issues identified.

In preparing the refresh of the Tees Valley SEP, consultation was undertaken with

local stakeholders (via business engagement events) to ascertain their views in

relation improving east-west transport connectivity within the Tees Valley between

the A1(M) and the port facilities along the River Tees, including Teesport. These

sessions illustrated support for improvements along the A66, as shown by its specific

inclusion within the Transport and Infrastructure section of the refreshed Plan.




54

In addition, the provision of a new crossing of the River Tees is included in the

priorities identified in the Consultation Draft Tees Valley STP, which was published in

August 2019, with public consultation events undertaken during September 2019.

An initial public information exercise in accordance with Highways England’s

established approach within their PCF took place across the Tees Valley in July 2017,

with a launch event supplemented by a series of exhibitions in all five local authority

areas. These events attracted approximately 120 visitors and a further series of local

meetings were organised to enable more detail to be provided to local residents and

seek information and issues. Over two thirds (68.5%) of respondents were in favour of

the scheme, and there was the perception that the scheme would alleviate the

congestion issues currently experienced in the local area.

A further public consultation exercise on the two shortlisted options took place in

March 2019, with a further launch events and four local consultation events in

Stockton, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool and Redcar, to ensure that the views of the local

population and businesses were considered and incorporated into the options. A

virtual consultation space was also developed to explain the proposals, allowing

people to access scheme details and provide comment without having to psychically

attend a particular event. Copies of the documents were also made available in

municipal buildings across Darlington, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and

Cleveland and Stockton-on-Tees throughout the consultation period, which ran from

26 March until 17 May 2019.

1,247 people visited the four public consultation events, over 5,500 people visited

the virtual consultation space and 301 completed questionnaires were received. A full

report on the most recent public consultation exercise can be found in Appendix B.

Overall the response to the consultation was extremely positive, with 84% of the

consultees agreeing with the need for additional road capacity over the River Tees

both to ease congestion and improve safety. Over 70% of the respondents to the

questionnaire favoured the likely preferred route option and as 76% of respondents

were satisfied that they had been provided with sufficient information on which to

base their response.

Of those that did not support the provision of additional road capacity across the

River Tees, the main reasons given were in relation to potential environmental

impacts and also a preference for alternative routes that were ruled out earlier in

the option assessment process.

Feedback from the business community in the Tees Valley, including from businesses

with close ties to the port and those within the South Tees Development Corporation

site. As part of the 2019 consultation exercise, responses were received from 29 key

business and education providers from across the Tees Valley – these were all in




55

support of the project, with many highlighting the vital role a proposed new crossing

would play in improving the future economic success of the City Region.

2.6.2 Wider Policy Alignment

The major national, regional and local policy priorities are summarised below with a

brief commentary on how this improvement scheme is aligned with these priorities.

The policy alignment is summarised by Table 2.2.

Table 2.2: Summary of Policy Alignment

Scheme Objectives

Policy Alignment

DfT

Transport

Investment

Strategy

Highways

England’s

Route

Strategy

TfN’s

Strategic

Transport

Plan

Tees

Valley SEP,

STP and

Investment

Plan

Economy

Support the economic growth

objectives of the Northern Powerhouse

and the Tees Valley City Region

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Improve access to the City Region

Strategic Centres, STDC site, Enterprise

Zone sites and port facilities along the

River Tees

✓ ✓ ✓

Support sustainable local residential

development ✓ ✓ ✓

Economy

Improve access to jobs and services for

all road users ✓ ✓ ✓

Support the SRN in delivering enhanced

national and pan-Northern connectivity ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Deliver connectivity enhancements for

freight movements ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Network Performance

Reduce congestion and provide reliable

north-south journey times on the A19 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Improve resilience of the river crossing

itself and the wider strategic road

network to the impact of events

✓ ✓




56

Scheme Objectives

Policy Alignment

DfT

Transport

Investment

Strategy

Highways

England’s

Route

Strategy

TfN’s

Strategic

Transport

Plan

Tees

Valley SEP,

STP and

Investment

Plan

Reduce the number and severity of

incidents/accidents for all road users ✓

Quality of Life

Minimise adverse impacts on health and

environment ✓

Reduce the severance impacts of the

route on local communities ✓

Provide value for money ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

National

Government’s Transport Investment Strategy

The Transport Investment Strategy (DfT, July 2017) sets out how the Government will

build on the progress made to date and through future investment decisions will

respond realistically and pragmatically to today’s challenges, driving progress

towards fulfilling the aims of the Industrial Strategy whilst putting the travelling

public at the heart of the decisions that are made.

The Strategy outlines four main goals and guiding principles that will be considered.

Through the Strategy, investment will be made in the transport network in different

ways, most fundamentally by addressing the network’s core capability – its condition,

capacity and connectivity – but also improving the user experience and adapting the

network to safeguard the environment and health.

Alignment: This improvement scheme has an excellent fit with the Transport

Investment Strategy objectives for strategic roads and economic growth. It

supports and aligns with the four main goals and will deliver:

1) A more reliable, less congested, and better connected transport network;

2) Support productivity and respond to local growth priorities;

3) Enhance global competitiveness;




57

4) Support the creation of new housing.

The Strategy also recognises the crucial role that ports and airports play in the UK

economy, both of which are also key elements of the Tees Valley economy, and both

of which will be supported by this improvement scheme.

Highways England Route Strategy

The London to Scotland East Route Strategy (Highways England, March 2017) provides

a high level view of the current performance of the strategic road network, as well as

issues perceived by stakeholders that affect the network. The series of route

strategies are one of the key components of research required for developing the RIS

for Highways England.

The Route Strategy identifies the capacity constraints at the A19 Tees Crossing as a

factor in causing delays and safety issues and acknowledges that it is difficult to

manage incidents arising, partly due to a lack of technology on the route, as shown in

Figure 2.29.

Figure 2.29: London to Scotland East Route Strategy Identified Issues




58

Alignment: This improvement scheme will help address a number of existing

challenges and will contribute to achieving the objectives for the RIS, including:

• A safe and serviceable network;

• More free-flowing network;

• Supporting economic growth;

• An improved environment;

• A more accessible and integrated network.

The Route Strategy acknowledges that a business case for this improvement scheme

is being prepared, in consultation with Highways England.

Regional

TfN’s Strategic Transport Plan

TfN’s Strategic Transport Plan and accompanying initial Investment Programme

(February 2019) set out the priorities for transport infrastructure investment for the

next 30 years (2020-2050). The Strategic Transport Plan is a statutory document,

allowing TfN and its Partners to take a leading role in developing the case for

investment in the North.

The Investment Programme is built up from a series of TfN’s work programmes,

including the Rail North Long Term Rail Strategy, the work done to date on Northern

Powerhouse Rail and Integrated and Smart Travel, and a series of Strategic

Development Corridors (SDCs) that have been identified by the most recent evidence.

It comprises TfN’s advice to the Government on the long term, multimodal priorities

for enhanced pan-Northern connectivity. The Plan will enable TfN and its Partners to

work with Government and delivery partners to secure funding and delivery of the

right schemes at the right time, also providing certainty for local transport

authorities to plan complementary investment.

The seven prioritised SDCs identified in the Strategic Transport Plan each represent

strategic geographical and economic areas where evidence indicates delivery of

transformational growth is dependent on bringing forward major road and rail

investment. The SDCs have been developed to represent where most of the largest

gaps between demand and performance currently exist, and where there is likely to

be the greatest economic potential to improve connectivity and the economic

interaction between the existing key economic clusters and assets of the North and

facilitate potential future clusters in other locations. Investment considered within




59

the context of these corridors is focused on interventions that will benefit the whole

of the North. The Strategic Development Corridors are shown in Figure 2.30.

Figure 2.30: TfN’s Strategic Development Corridors

Alignment: It is noted within the Strategic Transport Plan that the major north-

south routes of the A1 and A19 must provide a consistent level of service and

resilience to meet the needs of important economic centres they link and the

strategic journeys they facilitate. The scheme is recognised as a pan-Northern

objective falling within the Yorkshire to Scotland and Connecting the Energy




60

Coasts Strategic Development Corridors. It is identified in the Investment

Programme for delivery by 2027 and has been included within the reference case

within the Strategic Programme Outline Case (February 2019) for the Connecting

the Energy Coasts Strategic Development Corridor.

Local

Tees Valley SEP and Investment Plan (2019-2029)

The Tees Valley SEP was refreshed to coincide with the establishment of the TVCA.

The new Plan sets out the growth ambitions and priorities for the Tees Valley over

the next ten years to 2026 and provides a framework for economic development

activities. The priorities in the refreshed SEP are grouped into six building blocks

which reflect the main challenges, areas of market failure and opportunities for the

Tees Valley.

To date, the Tees Valley has identified four strategic transport priorities within the

City Region that will deliver pan-Northern benefits, all of which can be delivered over

the lifetime of the SEP.

The Investment Plan sets out the Tees Valley’s investment strategy for the period

2019 – 2029 and is focused around prioritised across six growth generating themes.

The ten year planning figure used in this Investment Plan is £588.2 million, which is

estimated to have a total impact of supporting 16,875 direct jobs and an additional

£1,480 million of additional GVA.

Alignment: An additional crossing of the River Tees is one of the four identified

strategic transport priorities. It is identified as being required in order to

enhance access to Enterprise Zone locations and ensuring that the last section of

the A19 expressway will meet the “mile per minute” objective for expressways.

It is included within the Investment Plan, noting that whilst national funding to

deliver the scheme, TVCA funding will be used to prepare the development works

required to access national funding, and/or represent a local contribution

alongside national funds.

Tees Valley Consultation Draft STP

The consultation draft STP was published in Summer 2019 alongside a series of

supporting implementation plans. The plan includes a framework for setting out the

main interventions needed based on six themes, which are closely linked together.

The ‘Major Roads’ theme identifies that the A19 has been identified as a new high

quality strategic route – an “expressway” – by Highways England, yet there remains a

pinch point at the Tees Viaduct, where delays regularly occur because there are too

few alternative ways to cross the River Tees.




61

It highlights that the A19 is the main north-south artery through the Tees Valley and

needs to be improved to support the growth that is anticipated. It goes on to identify

that a new major road crossing of the River Tees will ensure that the A19 expressway

will meet the “mile per minute” objective for the SRN, address current issues with

journey times and delays, as well as realising the full benefit of the committed A19

Norton to Wynyard widening scheme.

Alignment: A new Tees Crossing is identified within the Consultation Draft STP

as an key intervention to support the economic growth identified in the SEP by

delivering enhanced connectivity within the Tees Valley and to/from the rest of

the country to facilitate access to global markets and support inward

investment.

South Tees Development Corporation

The STDC site is the first Mayoral Development Corporation outside London. It has

been set up to promote the economic growth and commercial development of Tees

Valley by converting assets in the South Tees area into opportunities for business

investment and economic growth.

The STDC area covers approximately 4,500 acres of land to the south of the River

Tees, in the Borough of Redcar and Cleveland, and includes former SSI steelworks site

as well as other industrial assets. The area benefits from river access and includes

the deep-water port of Teesport, England’s largest exporting port.

The purpose of the STDC is to further the economic development of the area through

physical regeneration, social regeneration and environmental regeneration so that it

becomes a major contributor to the Tees Valley economy, bringing the SSI site, and

other underutilised land in the area, back in to economic use. By attracting private

sector investment the STDC will secure additional, high quality jobs for the people of

Tees Valley and provide a safe environment for the workforce.

A draft masterplan has been developed that aims to provide a flexible framework for

achieving the socio-economic ambitions for the regeneration of the South Tees area,

realising that a long timeframe is necessary for the successful implementation of the

plan for economic growth in South Tees and the wider Tees Valley area. The details

and scale of the regeneration proposals can be viewed at:

https://www.southteesdc.com.

A £1 million roundabout scheme has recently been completed to open up a vital

access to part of the South Tees Development Corporation site and was funded by the

Local Growth Fund through the TVCA.

https://www.southteesdc.com/




62

Alignment: The scheme will support improved connections to the STDC site,

which will enable industrial investment that will create approximately 20,000

new jobs and contribute £1 billion per annum into the UK economy overall.

Supporting this vision, and the impact it will have on rebalancing the UK

economy, through strategic transport improvements will be a key element in its

success.




63

3 The Economic Case

This chapter of the OBC assesses options to identify all their impacts, and the

resulting value for money. The economic, environmental, social and distributional

impacts are all examined, using qualitative, quantitative and monetised information

to determine the extent to which the scheme’s benefits outweigh its costs.

3.1 Options Appraised

A comprehensive and robust process was adopted for the generation and shortlisting

of options for the scheme, as set out in the Options Assessment Report and

summarised in the Strategic Case.

From the initial long list of options, four were identified for further consideration and

this led to two options being subsequently refined and assessed in more detail – the

Newport Bridge Option and the A19 Tees Viaduct Option.

Further appraisal of these options was undertaken and this identified that the

Newport Bridge option is not viable as it would cause the Newport Interchange to

operate beyond its theoretical capacity in the opening year of 2027, causing delays

during peak periods within the interchange and also on the A66 mainline. No practical

or cost effective solution to improve the interchange was identified.

The resulting review of previously discarded solutions and discussions around

potential new routes resulted in an alternative, called the A19 Tees Viaduct Capacity

Enhancement Option being identified.

The economic and environmental appraisal of the following two options is therefore

presented within this section of the OBC and also included within the Financial Case:

• A19 Tees Viaduct Option; and

• A19 Tees Viaduct Capacity Enhancement Option.

It should be noted that both options include the Portrack Relief Road and

improvements on the A66 between the A19 and Teesside Park junctions as the

previous PCF Stage 1 work confirmed that inclusion of these elements (and associated

costs) improves the performance and the value for money of the overall scheme.

3.2 Methodology and Assumptions

The economic assessment of the scheme has been undertaken in accordance with

current Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG), including:




64

• TAG Unit A1 cost-benefit analysis;

• TAG Unit A2 economic impacts;

• TAG Unit A3 environmental impacts; and

• TAG Unit A4 social and distributional impacts.

The methodology is based on the DfT Value for Money Framework (July 2017) and

follows the process described in the Appraisal Specification Report, included at

Appendix C.

The economic appraisal has included the following:

• Transport Economic Efficiency – for assessing travel time and vehicle operating

cost benefits (evaluated using TUBA version 1.9.9);

• Impact on Road Users during construction (evaluated using SATURN and TUBA);

• Traffic Safety – for assessing the benefits of reduction in accidents (evaluated

using COBALT with DfT parameter set 2018-1); and

• Journey Time Reliability (evaluated using the WebTAG standard deviation-based

approach).

An initial benefit : cost ratio (BCR) is calculated that includes the monetised noise,

air quality and greenhouse gas impacts of the scheme. Other monetarised benefits –

reliability and resilience impacts – are then taken into consideration, producing an

adjusted present value of benefits (PVB), which is used to calculate an adjusted BCR.

The A19 Norton to Wynyard Improvements model was used as the basis of the

assessment of the New Tees Crossing scheme in the PCF Stage 1 work. The actual

Norton to Wynyard scheme has been included in the Do Minimum for the PCF Stage 2

work to ensure the benefits for the committed improvements are not included in the

assessment of the New Tees Crossing scheme. However, the two schemes are

complementary and additional benefits, particularly for southbound traffic, accrue to

the Norton to Wynyard scheme if a new crossing is delivered, as identified in the

Strategic Case.

As part of the PCF Stage 2 work, the base model has been recalibrated and

revalidated using the original dataset but with a focus of further improving the

representation of base year traffic conditions through the scheme area. The original

base model was focussed on the area of the Norton to Wynyard scheme and whilst it

achieved TAG calibration and validation criteria in the area for the New Tees Crossing




65

scheme, further calibration of the base model in the scheme area has now be

undertaken. This recalibration exercise was carried out in Autumn 2018 with

ppk/ppm values from May 2018 and SATURN version 11.3. A further calibration and

validation check has been carried out using the November 2018 ppk/ppm values and

SATURN version 11.4.

The development of the model is described in the New Tees Crossing PCF Stage 2

Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report (and its associated appendices), included at

Appendix D.

The modelled assessment periods are:

• Morning Peak Hour (0800-0900);

• Inter-Peak Hour (average hour between 1000 and 1600); and

• Evening Peak Hour (1700-1800).

The following vehicle types and user classes are modelled:

• UC1: Car - Commuting, Business and Other;

• UC2: LGV - Business;

• UC3: HGV - Business.

3.3 Present Value of Costs

3.3.1 Investment Costs

The cost of the proposed scheme has been estimated at 2016 (Q1) factor prices, as

set out in detail in the Financial Case. These estimates include all costs associated

with scheme preparation and construction. The costs presented in the Financial Case

include real cost adjustments and an allowance for risk, in the form of a Quantified

Risk Assessment (QRA).

For the purposes of the economic assessment, and in line with the guidance in TAG

Unit A1.2, an optimism bias of 15% has been applied to these costs (with a 25%

allowance for the Portrack Relief Road element given the lack of a formal QRA for

this element). This is the recommended uplift for a fixed road link at OBC stage. The

purpose of optimism bias is to ensure that the benefit : cost analysis is robust.

However, it is important to note that optimism bias is only applied to costs in the

economic assessment and is not included in the forecast outturn costs in the Financial

Case.




66

The 2016 costs were converted to outturn costs and then converted to market prices

using the TAG market price adjustment factor of 1.19 and then to a 2010 price base

using the GDP deflator series available in the TAG databook. Finally, the costs were

converted to a present value of costs (PVC) by discounting to 2010 using the TAG

discount rates.

The resulting PVC for the different options is shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Present Value of Costs

Option Present Value of Costs (PVC) (£)

Scheme Elements

A19 Tees Viaduct Option (excluding Portrack

Relief Road)

231,145,806

A19 Tees Viaduct Capacity Enhancement Option (excluding Portrack Relief Road)

181,373,701

Portrack Relief Road 8,188,509

Total Scheme Costs

A19 Tees Viaduct Option (including Portrack Relief Road)

239,334,314

A19 Tees Viaduct Capacity Enhancement Option (including Portrack Relief Road)

189,562,210

3.3.2 Operational and Maintenance Costs

At this stage, operation and maintenance cost impacts have not been assessed.

However, there is evidence to suggest that the existing Tees Viaduct and Newport

Bridge structures will require significant maintenance in the short to medium term.

The delivery of the New Tees Crossing scheme will reduce traffic on the latter

structure in particular and therefore potentially defer or reduce the maintenance

cost requirements. However, there will be costs associated with maintaining any new

infrastructure provided.




67

3.4 Present Value of Benefits

3.4.1 Scheme Transport User Benefits

User benefits have been assessed using the DfT’s Transport Users Benefit Appraisal

(TUBA) software, an industry-standard method of assessing economic benefits from

transport schemes, in accordance with guidelines set out in TAG Unit A1. TUBA

calculates the benefits related to journey time savings, vehicle operating cost savings

and fuel tax revenue.

The TUBA assessment was carried out for the two scheme options for the Core

Scenario along with three traffic growth sensitivity tests - Low Growth, High Growth

and With STDC Site scenarios.

Annualisation factors for the three modelled time periods have been calculated as

detailed in Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report. Scheme appraisal was

undertaken for a 60 year horizon period from opening, in accordance with HM

Treasury’s Green Book.

The scheme related transport user benefits for the options are presented in Table

3.2.

Table 3.2: Transport User Benefits (Travel Time and Vehicle Operating Costs)

Option Transport User Benefits (£)

A19 Tees Viaduct Option 229,610,375

A19 Tees Viaduct Capacity Enhancement Option

204,579,375

The composition of the Transport User Benefits and additional information on the

assumptions used are set out in Appendix O of the Combined Modelling and Appraisal

Report.

3.4.2 Construction and Maintenance Delays

An assessment of the likely traffic management measures required during

construction of the scheme was undertaken as part of the Tier 1 contractor’s

buildability review. The main elements of traffic management involve lane closures,

narrow lanes, reduced speed limits and slip road closures. These elements have been

allocated to the different phases of the construction programme to produce a

programme of traffic management measures for the construction period from April

2025 to December 2027.




68

For the purpose of modelling the construction delays, the detailed programme has

been simplified into five distinct phases each of which has different traffic

management measures.

The traffic management elements have been coded into the Do Minimum 2027

SATURN model by changing the characteristics of the links in the model to reflect the

traffic management. Five separate versions of the model have been produced to the

reflect the five phases. By running these models in comparison with the Do Minimum

model without any traffic management measures, the delays associated with each

phase of the works can be quantified. Note that no variable demand modelling (VDM)

is undertaken as the durations of the phases are not considered long enough to result

in a significant VDM response.

These models are then used to run a one year TUBA to quantify the PVB disbenefit of

each of the five phases of construction. These one year PVB results are then adjusted

to reflect the number of months covered by the relevant phase and then all

combined to give the total disbenefit due to construction. Note that the impact of

construction of both options is assumed to be the same.

Details of the maintenance schedule with and without the two options has not been

produced and so the traffic delay impact has not been quantified. However, the

increased capacity, and therefore network resilience, provided by the additional

crossing capacity will reduce delays during maintenance compared to the ‘Without

Scheme’ scenario.

Table 3.3: Construction Delay Impacts

Option Construction Delay Impacts (£)

Both Options -17,283,000

3.4.3 Safety Benefits

The safety assessment of the proposed scheme options was completed using the DfTs

COBALT software, developed by DfT to undertake the assessment of a schemes

impact on collisions to support economic appraisal. Version 2013.2 of COBALT was

used with the 2018-1 parameters file, both downloaded in May 2019 from the DfT

website.

COBALT assesses the safety impacts of road schemes using detailed inputs of road

links and road junctions that would be affected by the scheme. Additional model

inputs include collision rates and costs and forecast traffic volumes by link and

junction.




69

The safety assessment is based on a comparison of collisions by severity and

associated costs across an identified network in ‘Without Scheme’ and ‘With Scheme’

scenarios.

The COBALT network was formed from the simulation sections of a SATURN traffic

model which covered a wider geographical area than would likely be meaningful by

the proposed New Tees Crossing scheme. The forecast change in traffic flows

associated with the assessed scenarios and years were used to rationalise the links

used in the COBALT network. All SATURN links that form part of the buffer network

were also excluded.

Criteria for determining the links to include in the COBALT model were identified as

those having an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) change of 10% and a Do Minimum

flow of over 2,000. These criteria were informed by the change in collisions resulting

from a (0.10 x 2000) 200 vehicle change in AADT being approximately two collisions

over the 60 year appraisal period. This was chosen based on the need to develop a

practicable network size and to also ensure that links where there was a meaningful

change were incorporated.

Links that were not important local distributors, did not link core elements of the

network, or were located a significant distance away from the core of the network

were omitted from further assessment. This was again to develop a practicable

network size and to omit any potential model ‘noise’ on local links that in practice

would be unlikely to experience a meaningful change in traffic flow.

Observed collision data between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2017 were

obtained from Stats19. Collisions for each link and were captured for each Do

Minimum link using GIS allowing for collision rates to be calculated based on link type

and traffic volume. The average collision rate by link type across the modelled

network was somewhat higher than COBALT defaults. Since much of the scheme is

entirely new, it was not considered appropriate to use existing collision rates that are

based on a road network constructed a relatively long time ago and on a congested

network that the scheme is seeking to alleviate. Consequently, the default COBALT

parameters were adopted.

Table 3.4 summarises the results of the COBALT analysis.

The safety assessment indicates that the A19 Tees Viaduct Capacity Enhancement

Option is forecast to generate a benefit while the A19 Tees Viaduct Option is forecast

to generate a disbenefit over the 60 year appraisal period. In the A19 Tees Viaduct

Capacity Enhancement Option there is a reduction of 87 collisions (approximately 1.5

collisions per year) and with the A19 Tees Viaduct Option, an increase of 128

collisions (approximately 2.1 collisions per year).




70

Table 3.4: Forecast Collision Savings and Safety Benefits

Option Collisions Saved PVB (£m) *

A19 Tees Viaduct Option -128 -5,929.5


87 2,745.1

* Negative values denote a disbenefit

3.4.4 Reliability Benefits

Highways England has a spreadsheet-based tool called MyRIAD which is designed to

assess changes in incident delays and travel time variability changes on inter urban

motorways and dual carriageways. However, on advice from the developers of the

MyRIAD software it is not applicable to situations where a new link is being provided

(as is the case with the New Tees Crossing scheme).

The TAG Unit A1.3 (section 6.3) urban road approach has therefore been applied but

with the additional level of detail of using observed data to derive journey time

standard deviations rather than the proxy approach described in TAG.

Journey time data for the following four routes has been obtained from Highways

England’s online journey time database for weekdays from neutral months between

June 2017 and May 2018:

• A19 northbound from Mandale (A1130) and A139 junctions;

• A19 southbound from Norton (A1027) south facing slips to south of the A19/A66

Interchange;

• A66 eastbound from A1130 to A19 northbound on-slip; and

• A66 westbound to A19 northbound slip road.

This data has been used to calculate the standard deviation in journey time for each

hour of the day on each of these routes. By introducing additional capacity the

schemes are assumed to reduce the journey time variability (and therefore standard

deviation) to current inter-peak levels for those time periods where the variability is

greater than the inter-peak (typically the AM and PM peaks).

Combining the saving in standard deviation of travel time with the forecast traffic

flows from the SATURN model gives an overall reliability saving due to the scheme.

This in turn is monetised using TAG values of time and the TAG recommended value

of journey time reliability (0.4).




71

In accordance with TAG, these benefits are not included in the Analysis of Monetised

Costs and Benefits table but are included in the Appraisal Summary Table (AST) and

in the adjusted BCR.

The results of the assessment are presented in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5: Forecast Hours Saved and Reliability Benefits

Option Hours Saved PVB (£m)

A19 Tees Viaduct Option 14,383,507 31.75


14,066,906 31.06

It is assumed that both options will have the same impact on journey time reliability

as both provide additional capacity on the A19 over the River Tees. The difference in

the results is driven by the differences in traffic flows on the routes experiencing the

benefits. It should be noted that this approach results in a conservative

approximation of the reliability benefits as no account is taken of the worsening of

reliability over time with increased traffic volumes.

3.4.5 Wider Benefits

Transport schemes have impacts and benefits beyond their direct effects on users. In

determining the case for investment in transport, such impacts need to be considered

alongside other assessments. Collectively these are known as wider impacts. The

methodology adopted to assess these wider impacts is in line with guidance in TAG

Unit A2-1. The wider impacts assessment is focused on the following three areas:

• Agglomeration – by reducing journey times, the relative agglomeration of

business in this area will increase – this will have a direct impact on the

productivity arising from static clustering and GDP of the UK and is a central

element to the estimation of wider impacts;

• Output change in imperfectly competitive markets – a reduction in the costs of

transport allows businesses to operate more efficiently, improves their output

and intensity of business practices, and hence generates benefits; and

• Labour supply impacts – this captures tax revenues arising from the welfare

effects to the UK economy of having a wider human resource pool; as travel

costs are reduced, more workers will be attracted to the workplace from either

new areas accessible by the scheme or areas that are already connected

receiving an improved service.




72

DfT’s WITA (Wider Impacts in Transport Appraisal) software v2.0 has been used to

undertake the wider impact analysis of the NTC schemes.

The results are presented in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6: Wider Impacts Benefits

Option PVB (£m)

A19 Tees Viaduct Option 94.80

A19 Tees Viaduct Capacity

Enhancement Option

80.80

3.5 Environmental Impacts

This section summarises the forecast environmental impacts of the proposed scheme.

The impacts are discussed in more detail in the Environmental Assessment Report

included at Appendix E.

Several environmental impacts are assessed through the use of TAG workbooks. These

assessed environmental impacts are:

• Noise;

• Air quality;

• Greenhouse gases;

• Landscape/Townscape;

• Historic environment;

• Biodiversity; and

• Water environment.

3.5.1 Noise

As noted in TAG Unit A3, there is growing evidence on the links between

environmental noise and health outcomes. Defra has produced guidance on assessing

the impacts of transport-related noise from different sources including road schemes

and has used research to establish monetary valuation techniques to enable decision-




73

makers to assess the relative importance of the noise impacts of a transport option in

relation to other impacts currently measured in monetary terms.

The TAG Noise Workbook has been utilised alongside the guidance identified in TAG

Unit A3 to assess the noise related monetary impact of the scheme. The Workbook

can be found at Appendix F, supported by the information contained in the

Environmental Assessment Report.

The net present value (NPV) of the change in noise for both options is presented in

Table 3.7 alongside a short commentary of the specific impacts.

Table 3.7: Monetary Valuation of Noise Impacts

Option Monetary Valuation of Noise Impacts (£m

NPV) Comments

A19 Tees Viaduct

Option -3.02

This option is predicted to increase road traffic noise levels directly and indirectly at a number of residential receptors. However, most of these noise increases are relatively small (the largest increase is 2.6dB).

The receptors that are expected to experience the largest change in noise directly from the proposed scheme are located near the existing A19; to the south of the A139, to the eastern side of the A19/A66 interchange (north of the A66) and to the south east around Whinney Banks. Some of these receptors are located within Noise Important Areas. There are also direct increases in road traffic noise at receptors close to the proposed Portrack Relief Road.


-2.94

This option is predicted to increase road traffic noise levels directly and indirectly at a number of residential receptors. However, most of these noise increases are relatively small (the largest increase is 2.1dB).

The receptors that are expected to experience the largest change in noise directly from the proposed scheme are located near the existing A19; to the south of the A139, to the eastern side of the A19/A66 interchange (north of the A66) and to the south east around Whinney Banks. Some of these receptors are located within Noise Important Areas. There are also direct increases in road traffic noise at receptors close to the proposed Portrack Relief Road.




74

3.5.2 Air Quality

A detailed assessment has been undertaken to establish the potential effects of the

three options on local air quality. The main pollutants of concern that have been

assessed are oxides of nitrogen (NOx), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and fine particulate

matter (PM10 and PM2.5).

The TAG Local Air Quality Workbook, Air Quality Sensitivity Workbook, and Air Quality

Valuation Workbook has been utilised alongside the guidance identified in TAG Unit

A3 to assess the air quality impacts and their monetary valuation. The Workbooks can

be found at Appendix F.

The NPV of the change in air quality for both options is presented in Table 3.8

alongside a short commentary of the specific impacts.

Table 3.8: Monetary Valuation of Air Quality Impacts

Option Monetary Valuation of Air Quality

Impacts (£m NPV) Comments

A19 Tees Viaduct

Option -0.30

Overall, there is a beneficial impact on local NO2 and PM2.5 concentrations and an adverse impact on regional NOx emissions as a result of this option. This is due to an increase in capacity on the road network and increased traffic volumes as a result of the proposed scheme.


-0.19

Overall, there is a beneficial impact on local NO2 and PM2.5 concentrations and an adverse impact on regional NOx emissions as a result of this option. This is due to an increase in capacity on the road network and increased traffic volumes as a result of the proposed scheme.

3.5.3 Greenhouse Gases

The Climate Change Act 2008 includes a legally binding target to reduce the UK’s

greenhouse gas emissions to at least 80 per cent below base year levels by 2050. It is

therefore important that the impacts of proposed transport schemes on greenhouse

gas emissions - whether they are increased or decreased – are incorporated within the

appraisal in a consistent and transparent way.

Although TUBA provides the net present value of the change in carbon dioxide

equivalent (CO2e) emissions from road-based fuel consumption that is in the

nontraded sector as an automatic output of the program, the output from TUBA were

not used to quantify CO2e at this stage. Instead, the TAG Greenhouse Gases Workbook




75

has been utilised alongside the guidance identified in TAG Unit A3 to assess the

greenhouse gas impacts and their monetary valuation.

The Workbook can be found at Appendix F.

The NPV of the change in greenhouse gas emissions for both options is presented in

Table 3.9 alongside a short commentary of the specific impacts.

Table 3.9: Monetary Valuation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Option Monetary Valuation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (£m NPV)

Comments

A19 Tees Viaduct

Option -17.83

CO2 emissions are assessed on a regional scale, where the predicted effect was adverse. This is due to an increase in capacity and increased traffic volumes as a result of the proposed scheme.


-14.15

CO2 emissions are assessed on a regional scale and an adverse effect on CO2 emissions was predicted. This is due to an increase in capacity and increased traffic volumes as a result of the proposed scheme.

3.5.4 Landscape

The TAG Landscape Appraisal Worksheet has been utilised alongside the guidance

identified in TAG Unit A3 to assess the impact of scheme on the physical and cultural

characteristics of the land itself (that is, its use and management) and how these are

perceived. The Worksheets can be found at Appendix F.

For both options it has been assessed there could be potentially Moderate Adverse

impacts.

The A19 Tees Viaduct Option would generally be in keeping with the area. However,

it would introduce an adjacent crossing at a lower height to the existing Tees

Viaduct, which would affect visual amenity along the river corridor, in particular as

experienced from the Teesdale Way long distance path and National Cycle Network

Route 1 as well as from accessible open spaces. The Portrack Relief Road would form

a visual and aural intrusion along the northern edge of the Portrack Marshes.

Furthermore, the proposed scheme would result in land take and loss of vegetation

associated with the new road sections, in particular along the Portrack Relief Road,

at Portrack Interchange, around the A19/A66 Interchange and around the new

crossing.




76

The A19 Tees Viaduct Capacity Enhancement Option would generally be in keeping

with the surrounding area. However, it would increase the width of the existing Tees

Viaduct and introduce an adjacent crossing at a lower height to the existing Tees

Viaduct, which would affect visual amenity along the river corridor, in particular as

experienced from the Teesdale Way long distance path and National Cycle Network

Route 1 as well as from accessible open spaces. The Portrack Relief Road would form

a visual and aural intrusion along the northern edge of the Portrack Marshes.

Furthermore, the proposed scheme would result in land take and loss of vegetation

associated with the new road sections, in particular along the Portrack Relief Road,

at Portrack Interchange and around the new crossing.

3.5.5 Townscape

The TAG Townscape Appraisal Worksheet has been utilised alongside the guidance

identified in TAG Unit A3 to assess the impact of scheme on the physical and social

characteristics of the built and non-built urban environment and how these are

perceived. The Worksheet can be found at Appendix F.

The A19 Tees Viaduct Option has been assessed as having potentially Moderate

Adverse impacts. The proposed scheme would require land take from within the

commercial/ industrial area, football pitches and open space. The scheme would be

visible from many locations within the urban area. However, the change would

largely be seen in context of the existing road network. Residents along Stockton

Road, between the two interchanges, at the A19/A66 Interchange and at Whinney

Banks, as well as employment receptors at Lustrum Industrial Estate, North Tees

Industrial Estate, Portrack Industrial Estate and the Industrial Estate located to the

east of the A19 and at the A19/A66 Interchange are predicted to experience adverse

visual impacts.

The A19 Tees Viaduct Capacity Enhancement Option has been assessed as having

potentially Slight Adverse impacts. Although the urban area through which the

scheme passes is already dominated by the existing road corridors, the option would

result in adverse visual impacts, the loss of small areas of commercial/industrial

areas and buffer planting, which can only be partially mitigated.

3.5.6 Biodiversity

The TAG Biodiversity Appraisal Worksheet has been utilised alongside the guidance

identified in TAG Unit A3 to assess the impact of scheme on the biodiversity and

earth heritage (geological) interests. The Worksheet can be found at Appendix F.

For both options, it has been assessed there could be potentially Large Adverse

impacts.




77

Both options impact two internationally designated sites (Teesmouth and Cleveland

Coast proposed Special Protection Area (pSPA) and proposed Ramsar sites); one

nationally designated site (Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Site of Special Scientific

Interest (SSSI)); three locally designated sites (Local Wildlife Sites (LWS)); a number

of Habitats of Principal Importance (HoPI); and potentially a number of protected

species and Species of Principal Importance (SoPI). The actual presence of protected

species in the scheme area is currently unknown and will be determined at later

stages.

3.5.7 Historic Environment

The TAG Historic Environment Appraisal Worksheet has been utilised alongside the

guidance identified in TAG Unit A3 to assess the impact of scheme on the historic

environment. The Worksheet can be found at Appendix F.

For both options, it has been assessed there could be potentially Neutral impacts on

known heritage assets and Slight Adverse impacts on archaeology.

In relation to both options, the scheme maintains existing historic character and does

not result in severance, loss of integrity, context or understanding within the Tees

Valley landscape, and has an overall Neutral effect on all known heritage assets.

However, there is potential to encounter previously unknown below-ground

archaeological deposits during construction, which may have a slight adverse effect.

3.5.8 Water Environment

The TAG Water Environment Appraisal Worksheet has been utilised alongside the

guidance identified in TAG Unit A3 to assess the impact of scheme on the water

environment. The Worksheet can be found at Appendix F.

It has been assessed there could be potentially Highly or Potentially Significant

impacts, although these are likely to be Neutral once mitigation is in place.

For both options, there is the potential to adversely affect the fluvial floodplain (for

Flood Zone 3) of the Lustrum Beck due to both the Portrack Relief Road and the

proposed crossing over the River Tees, and will potentially affect the flow of water in

the tidal floodplain (for Flood Zones 2 and 3) of the River Tees and tidal sections of

Billingham Beck and the Old River Tees. These aspects have been recommended to be

assessed through a Flood Risk Assessment at PCF Stage 3.

Road drainage has the potential to impact the chemical quality of the Lustrum Beck

(which currently has 'good' status under WFD) and Billingham Beck, River Tees and

Old River Tees (which currently has 'failing' status under WFD) - however, this is not

anticipated to be significant following a HAWRAT assessment for Lustrum Beck and




78

the tidal nature of the River Tees, Billingham Beck and Old River Tees. Best practice

dictates appropriate water treatment measures where required, so it is assumed that

any impact will be negligible. Crossing points on the watercourses have the potential

to impact fish passage, which is predominantly associated with shading impacts from

the crossing.

The Environment Agency has been, and continue to be consulted, on the scheme and

it has been highlighted that there is the potential to combine programmes and

funding to deliver the required flood protection and highway improvements in the

Portrack area. The Tees Tidal Flood Risk Management Strategy was published in June

2009, to provide a sustainable, cost effective plan for managing flood risk within the

Tees Estuary over a 100 year period. It assessed potential interventions to manage

flood risk in eight independent flood cells and identified a required investment of

£93.9 million to support implementation of the Strategy's recommendations. The

Portrack area was one of the cells considered, with a potential economic damage at

£19.4 million over the life span of the Strategy and a high level indicative cost of £2.1

million.

The Environment Agency considers that intervention is required within the next six

years to manage the current and the anticipated future level of flood risk in this

area. Initial hydraulic modelling has been undertaken to assess the level of risk in

more detail. This has identified a number of potential flooding routes, which could

affect the A19 Portrack Interchange, resulting in severe disruption and potential

damage to the highway network at this location.

In order to manage this flood risk a number of interventions are likely to be required.

One option may be to construct a new defence between the River Tees and North

Tees Industrial Estate – this could be along the line of the proposed Portrack Lane

Relief Road. There is therefore potential to combine programmes and funding to

deliver the required flood protection and highway improvements. This would need to

be considered in detail but there are potential efficiencies and cost savings, together

with an opportunity to make the network far more resilient to the impacts of flooding

and climate change.

3.6 Social Distributional Impacts

A detailed summary of the assessment of the impacts of the scheme on different

social groups has been undertaken in order to determine the differences between the

options and to ensure a fair distribution of impacts. The analysis has been carried out

in accordance with TAG Unit A4.2. A summary of the findings is contained in Table

3.10. The full TAG Distributional Impact Appraisal Matrix is contained in Appendix F.




79

Table 3.10: Social Distributional Impacts Summary

Impact Route Option Key Impacts

User Benefits

A19 Tees Viaduct Option

All of the 5 income quintiles experience a beneficial effect, with quintile 1 experiencing a benefit greater than its proportion of the population whilst quintile 4 experiences benefit slightly below its proportion of the population. Quintiles 2,3 and 5 experience benefit in line with their population.


All of the 5 income quintiles experience a beneficial effect but to a lesser extent. Quintile 1 experiences a benefit greater than its proportion of the population. Quintiles 2 and 5 receive a proportion of benefits equivalent its share of population in the impact area. Quintile 4 shows the lowest proportion of benefits compared to the proportion of population within the group.

Noise


All affected quintiles (1-3) experience a net disbenefit in terms of noise. Quintile three experiences a proportion of disbenefit above which would be expected from the quintile's population. Quintile 1 experiences an adverse effect broadly in line with its population while the net disbenefit to quintile two is smaller than the proportion of the group's population.


All affected quintiles experience a net disbenefit in terms of noise. Quintiles 2 and 3 experience a proportion of the net disbenefit above which would be expected from the quintile's population while the adverse effect to quintile one is smaller than the proportion of the group's population.

Air Quality


Air quality impacts from PM2.5 is neutral across all income quintiles. Air quality impacts from NO2 are not distributed evenly. Quintile 1 experiences a proportion of the benefit above which would be expected from the quintile's population. Quintiles 2 and 3 experience an adverse effect which is smaller than the proportion of the group in the total population. Quintiles 4 and 5 do not experience any significant benefit or disbenefit.


Air quality impacts from PM2.5 is neutral across all income quintiles. Air quality impacts from NO2 are not distributed evenly. Quintile 1 experiences a proportion of the benefit broadly in line with the proportion of the group in the total population, while quintiles 2 and 3 experience a proportion of the benefit smaller than the proportion of the group in the total population. Quintiles 4 and 5 do not experience any significant benefit or disbenefit.

Accidents A19 Tees Viaduct Option

This option will have a higher proportion of accidents involving cars than the national average but will have a slight beneficial impact (reduction) in serious and fatal accidents. A moderate beneficial impact will also be felt by vulnerable users and social groups.




80

Impact Route Option Key Impacts


This option will have a higher proportion of accidents involving cars than the national average but to a lesser extent. The option will have a slight beneficial impact (reduction) in serious and fatal accidents. A moderate beneficial impact will also be felt by vulnerable users and social groups.

Severance


This option is anticipated to have a neutral impact on vulnerable groups including children, the elderly and households with disabled persons. However, there will be a slight negative impact on households with car ownership owing to disruption to two PRoWs during the construction and operation of the scheme.


This option is anticipated to have a neutral impact on vulnerable groups including children, the elderly and households with disabled persons. However, there will be a slight negative impact on households with car ownership owing to disruption to two PRoWs during the construction and operation of the scheme.

3.7 Value for Money

The Value for Money assessment of the scheme has been undertaken in line with TAG

and is based on assessment of the economic, environmental, social, distributional and

financial impacts as described above. The Transport and Economic Efficiency (TEE),

Public Accounts (PA) and Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) tables for

each option are included within the Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report.

3.7.1 Benefit : Cost Ratio

The BCR is defined by dividing the total PVB by the calculated PVC and the

calculation of an initial BCR is set out in Table 3.10 for both options. The initial value

of BCR includes monetised benefits of users benefits in terms of travel times and

operating costs, construction delay impacts, accident savings, noise, air quality and

greenhouse gas impacts and indirect taxation impacts.

The adjusted BCRs, that includes consideration of reliability and resilience benefits,

are also set out in Table 3.11.

The A19 Tees Viaduct Option delivers higher levels of user benefits than the A19 Tees

Viaduct Capacity Enhancement Option as it includes more additional road capacity.

However, as the BCR results demonstrate, the cost associated with this additional

capacity is such that the overall return on investment is lower than in the A19 Tees

Viaduct Capacity Enhancement Option.




81

Table 3.11: Initial and Adjusted BCR Calculations



PVB (£m) 218.6 207.1

PVC (£m) 239.3 189.6

NPV (£m) -20.8 17.6

Initial BCR 0.91 1.09

Reliability Benefits (£m) 31.8 31.1

Wider Benefits (£m) 94.8 80.8

Adjusted PVB (£m) 345.1 319.0

Adjusted BCR 1.44 1.68

According to the DfT Value for Money Framework categories are defined as follows:

• Poor VfM if BCR is below 1.0;

• Low VfM if the BCR is between 1.0 and 1.5;

• Medium VfM if the BCR is between 1.5 and 2;

• High VfM if the BCR is between 2.0 and 4.0; and

• Very High VfM if the BCR is greater than 4.0.

Therefore, it is clear that the A19 Tees Viaduct Option provides Low value for money,

whilst the A19 Tees Viaduct Capacity Enhancement Option offers Medium value for

money.

However, it is important to note that the overall value for money of the scheme

encompasses more than just the benefit : cost ratio value – there are a range of

benefits for which the standard approach does not provide a monetisation

methodology, or for which the calculation is outside of the current scope of

assessment. These benefits are more strategic in nature, and include:

• Unlocking future development growth across the City Region through the

provision of additional road capacity;




82

• Increased network resilience through the provision of additional lanes across

the River Tees and the removal of existing vehicle conflicts; and

• Reducing the negative impact of the ongoing and significant maintenance

requirements associated with the existing Tees Viaduct and Newport Bridge

structures.

3.8 Sensitivity Tests

In order to understand how the sensitivity of the benefits described above against

some alternative parameters, three sensitivity tests have been carried out as follows:

• High Growth;

• Low Growth; and

• With STDC site built out.

The High Growth scenario generates slightly more benefits than the Core scenario for

both options between 2027 and 2042. However, by 2051 there are fewer benefits in

the High Growth scenario than in the Core scenario, as the A19 corridor becomes

much more constrained due to higher traffic volumes. The Low Growth scenario

generates fewer benefits than the Core scenario in all years as there is less

congestion in the Do Minimum and therefore fewer traffic benefits from the scheme.

Overall these two sensitivity tests indicate that if traffic growth turned out higher or

lower than forecast, the BCR for both options would decrease slightly from the Core

scenario value.

The STDC Site scenario sensitivity test indicates the additional STDC trips would

increase the benefits from the scheme, with the biggest difference between impact

occurring in 2042 when the STDC site is fully built out but the network is not at

capacity (which occurs by 2051).

The impact of the sensitivity tests is reported in more detail in Appendix O of the

Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report.

3.9 Appraisal Summary Table

The Appraisal Summary Table (AST) presents all the evidence from the economic

assessment in a single table. It records all the impacts which have been assessed and

described above using monetised, quantitative or qualitative information as

appropriate. The ASTs for both options are included at Appendix G.




83

4 The Financial Case

This chapter of the OBC provides information on the affordability of the scheme and

its funding arrangements. It sets out the most recent cost estimates and their

financial profile.

4.1 Costs

4.1.1 Scheme Preparation and Construction

Assumptions

A separate PCF Stage 2 Options Estimate Report has been produced detailing the

costs and how they have been identified for the different options. This report is

included at Appendix H.

A number of approaches to producing an assessment of capital expenditure have been

adopted including:

• Costing exercise with rates valid to 1Q 2016;

• UK sourced estimating rates;

• UK sourced benchmarking rates;

• Allowances, where definition of the requirement is very low; and

• Percentage additions, for items such as preliminaries, logistics, professional fees

and contingencies.

The following items have been excluded from this cost estimate:

• Removal/treatment of contaminated material;

• VAT, including non-recoverable VAT;

• Public inquiry costs;

• Planning application fees;

• Planning contributions;

• Marketing/PR costs;




84

• Legal fees;

• All client costs and management;

• Inflation beyond 1Q 2016;

• Building demolitions and compensation costs; and

• Compulsory purchase/blight/compensation.

Rates have been sourced from SPONS Civil Engineering and Highways Works Price Book

2016, or from similar historic projects where appropriate. The average of the ranges

given in SPONS for each item was used and overheads and preliminaries deducted to

attain the rate used for estimating.

Land costs are based on an averaged unit rate for brownfield and

industrial/commercial land in the Stockton area and were provided by Stockton-on-

Tees Borough Council (SBC). An allowance has been included for compensation. The

land and compensation cost used are indicative and will be refined at the appropriate

PCF design stage. A draft book of reference has been prepared that details the land

requirements and current ownership.

Enquiries have been undertaken on both scheme options to identify public utilities in

the location of the proposed scheme. Estimates have been received for the following

statutory undertakers and are included in the cost estimates:

• British Telecom;

• Northumbrian Water;

• Virgin Media;

• Northern Powergrid; and

• Northern Gas Networks.

Cost Estimate

A summary of scheme base costs by option, excluding risk allowances which are

defined in Section 4.3, is presented in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 also illustrates the

conversion of the base costs to outturn costs, that is including the impact of

construction price inflation. The detailed inflation assumptions are provided within

the Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report.




85

Table 4.1. Summary of Base and Outturn Scheme Costs

Option Base Cost Estimate (£ Q1 2016)

Outturn Cost Estimate (£)

A19 Tees Viaduct Option 254,280,343 348,998,200


Enhancement Option

196,539,554 269,761,316

Portrack Relief Road * 8,744,600 8,744,600

* No inflation costs included for this element of the scheme

These scheme costs are considered proportionate and affordable in relation to the

issues identified in the Strategic Case and the predicted benefits of the scheme

assessed in the Economic Case. The scheme cost has been derived in a robust way

using information from current and recently completed projects, and the works

required have been quantified based on the current scheme designs.

4.1.2 Maintenance Costs

At this stage no maintenance costs have been considered, although Highways England

has identified an allowance for whole lift costs in their review of these estimates.

Highways England has also identified a commuted sum that would be required should

the additional infrastructure become part of the SRN.

4.2 Risk Allowance

A QRA has been carried out by the project team. The identification and

quantification of risk through this process has led to the inclusion of a risk allowance

in the scheme costs as shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Outturn Costs including Risk Allowance

Option Risk Allowance (£) Outturn Cost with Risk Allowance (£)

A19 Tees Viaduct Option 17,665,750 366,663,951


Enhancement Option

17,625,750 287,387,067

Portrack Relief Road * 2,186,150 10,930,750

* Risk allowance = 25% of scheme costs as no formal QRA has been carried out for this element of the scheme




86

4.3 Spend Profile

The total cost of each option has been split over time between the current year and

the opening year. PCF Stages 1-5 will occur over the years 2017 to 2024 - these are

design stages – and PCF Stages 6-7 will occur over the years 2024 to 2027 - these are

construction and handover phases. The costs associated with each year reflect the

current PCF stage of the scheme. The risk costs are split into design risks and

construction risks and are included across the relevant stages (see below for further

information).

The breakdown of the scheme costs by year can be found in Table 4.3 and includes

real cost inflation and risk allowances.

Table 4.3: Breakdown of Scheme Costs

Year A19 Tees Viaduct Option (£m)


(£m)

2017 0.56 0.37

2018 2.26 1.54

2019 2.89 1.98

2020 14.73 10.13

2021 17.86 12.31

2022 12.57 8.67

2023 38.70 30.06

2024 62.96 50.24

2025 75.69 60.82

2026 76.50 61.50

2027 61.87 49.76

TOTAL 366.60 287.40

4.4 Budgets/Funding Cover

Several potential funding routes have been considered for the scheme and the most

appropriate are set out below.




87

• Highways England Road Investment Strategy (RIS)

The second RIS (RIS2) is a long term programme of stable funding for motorways

and major roads running from 2020-2025. The RIS2 comprises a long term vision

for England’s motorways and major roads, a multi-year investment plan that

will be used to improve the network and create better roads for users and build

on the high level objectives from the RIS period (2015-2020). Given that the

scheme is aimed at addressing existing capacity issues on the SRN and that the

majority of the work required on the scheme sits on the SRN, the RIS is an

appropriate funding route.

However, if the scheme is delivered through the RIS, it should be noted that

Highways England has developed its own cost estimate for the two options using

their own approach to cost estimation which differs from the cost estimate set

out previously in terms of the application of a different value for inflation, a

figure for portfolio risk and also accounts for non-recoverable VAT.

In this case, the RIS-based cost estimate for the A19 Tees Viaduct Option is

£618.4 million and for the A19 Capacity Enhancement Option is £473.9 million –

these are considered by Highways England to be most likely costs based on a

PCF Stage 2 range estimate. Whilst these are significantly higher than the

figures set out previously, it should be noted that the difference in the base

cost estimate is less than 5%.

As shown previously, the delivery of the scheme will straddle the RIS2 and RIS3

periods, although confirmation that the scheme will go ahead will be towards

the end of the RIS2 period. Details regarding the RIS2 programme are expected

to be confirmed and announced in Autumn 2019.

• Large Local Majors (LLM) Element of the new National Roads Fund

The LLM programme was set up in 2016 to cater for the small number of

exceptionally large local highway authority transport schemes that could not be

funded through the normal routes, such as Local Growth Fund or other devolved

allocations. LLM development funding has been provided for the work on this

scheme up to this point, and hence this is an appropriate funding route. The

scheme was included in TfN’s advice to Government in Summer 2019 as to the

priority LLM schemes for the North.

However, there may be a conflict between the contractual arrangements

normally required for LLM schemes (where a local transport authority takes the

lead and is the accountable body for the DfT) and the fact that the majority of

work on this scheme will be on the SRN, and hence would ordinarily be led by




88

Highways England. This could call into question the ability of this scheme to be

funded through the usual LLM route.

In any event, LLM schemes should aim for the local or third party contributions

to be at least 15% of the total scheme costs. The local contribution of each

scheme will be for discussion as the scheme develops.

• Major Road Network (MRN) Element of the new National Roads Fund

The MRN forms a middle tier of the country’s busiest and most economically

important local authority ‘A’ roads, sitting between the national SRN and the

rest of the local road network. A specific new funding stream has been

dedicated to improvements on MRN roads with the aim of reducing congestion,

supporting economic growth and road users. As part of the scheme involves

providing benefits to the defined MRN, this is considered to be an appropriate

funding route.

However, the current MRN element of the National Roads Fund usually

considers funding between £20 and 50 million (albeit up to a maximum ceiling

of £100 million in exceptional circumstances), and there is not necessarily a

discrete element of the scheme that would fit this range.

The Tees Valley Investment Plan was agreed in January 2019 and has been developed

following a Devolution Deal signed by the Tees Valley Local Authorities with central

government that is worth £450 million over 30 years. The Investment Plan has been

created to deliver a programme of investment in the City Region over the 30 year

period, and detailed allocations for the first ten year period have been drawn up.

Delivery of this scheme would require approximately seven years’ worth of the total

Investment Plan funding, and therefore the use of this funding source is effectively

unaffordable and would prevent investment in other important transport and

economic development priorities across the Tees Valley.

Private sector/other local contributions will play a part in the overall funding

package, but a scheme of this size on the SRN could not be fully funded by third

parties unless there was a bespoke repayment mechanism set up.

On this basis, it is concluded that New Tees Crossing scheme is most appropriate for

inclusion in either RIS or LLM element of the National Roads Fund, or a combination

of the two, given that the scheme involves some work on the SRN and some on the

local highway network.

The scheme is therefore currently following a “dual track” route to funding, with

assurance sought from both Highways England and DfT on the business case and its

components, allowing funding to be sought through either route, or both, once this

OBC has been approved.




89

5 The Commercial Case

This chapter of the OBC outlines the commercial viability of the scheme, and the

procurement strategy which will be used to engage the market. It provides the

intended approach to risk allocation and transfer, contract and implementation

timescales, as well as how the capability and technical expertise of the team

delivering the scheme will be secured.

5.1 Commercial Viability

The New Tees Crossing scheme is considered to be commercially viable as Highways

England has considered whole life costs during their review of the scheme costs set

out in the Financial Case.

The scheme predominantly comprises new or upgraded transport infrastructure that

will be maintained by Highways England (with regard to the SRN elements) and the

relevant local highway authority (for the non-SRN elements) once constructed. There

are no other anticipated ongoing costs that will affect the commercial viability of the

improvement.

No specific market engagement has yet taken place on the scheme proposals other

than the involvement of a Tier 1 contractor as part of the review of the buildability

and the cost estimates. Given the nature of the works involved, however, there is

expected that there will be a high demand and strong competition amongst

engineering contractors to secure the contract for this scheme, given previous

experience of such schemes included in the RIS programme and also delivered

previously in the Tees Valley.

5.2 Output-based Specification

The anticipated output is a new strategic road crossing of the River Tees, in the

approximate location of the existing Tees Viaduct, together with the widening of the

existing structure, allied to an improvement to the local highway network (known as

the Portrack Relief Road). These two elements can be delivered together or

separately but are both necessary to realise the full benefits set out in the Economic

Case.

The overall scheme needs to be delivered the within available funding envelope,

ensuring best value, within the required construction design standards, integrating

well with the surrounding highway network, maximising the economic objectives of

the scheme, but with risk reduced to a level that is as low as reasonably practicable.




90

To help achieve these objectives, the following actions are required:

• Achieve cost certainty;

• Minimise preparation costs in regard to scheme design;

• Minimise construction delivery costs;

• Achieve an efficient delivery programme;

• Achieve an appropriate quality of design;

• Incentivise innovation;

• Maintain project knowledge;

• Obtain contractor input to risk management and assessment;

• Obtain planning permission (likely via the 2008 Development Consent Order

route); and

• Engage with contractors and stakeholders throughout planning to scheme

delivery.

It is expected that the scheme will align with Highways England’s PCF – the accepted

approach to the planning, delivery and management of major projects on the SRN.

The PCF comprises a standard project lifecycle, standard project deliverables,

project control processes and governance arrangements.

5.3 Procurement Strategy

The identified procurement strategy should identify the best way of achieving the

objectives of the scheme and value for money, taking account of the risks and

constraints. Consideration of the strategy for this scheme has included taking account

of a developed market for any proposed procurement approach and a mechanism to

incentivise performance, efficiency and innovation.

The Project Board has determined that, irrespective of the eventual funding route for

the scheme, given the high level of interaction with the SRN, the scheme would

ideally be delivered by Highways England through their procurement processes and

procedures allied to the PCF.




91

In light of this, a Project Level Procurement Strategy has been prepared as part of

the PCF Stage 2 work and is included at Appendix I. It describes the most appropriate

and effective method of procurement for the construction of the scheme.

This is intended to be a ‘live’ document, which is reviewed and updated at each

appropriate stage of scheme development to ensure that any new procurement

routes available are highlighted and assessed. As such, the procurement strategy will

be reviewed in PCF Stage 3.

5.3.1 Preferred Procurement Procedure

In developing the procurement strategy, four contracting models were considered as

options to deliver the scheme. All four options involve common industry practice and

have been proven successful on other highways schemes:

• Option 1 - Early Contractor Involvement (ECI);

• Option 2 - Late ECI;

• Option 3 - Construct Only;

• Option 4 - Design and Build (D&B).

The conclusions of the review of these models and reported in the strategy are as

follows:

• Each of the four procurement models is an acceptable form of procurement for

a major highway scheme such as the New Tees Crossing;

• The Late ECI option offers the shortest Development Phase duration and

thereby the earliest project delivery;

• The Late ECI option, having the shortest Development Phase programme, should

result in the lowest development phase cost;

• The Construct Only option offers the greatest degree of flexibility to switch

procurement strategy and timeframe at a later date – this is followed by the

D&B option, and of the two ECI models, the Late ECI option is the more

flexible;

• All options, with the exception of the Construct Only option, offer or provide

the opportunity for contractor involvement during the Development Phase; and




92

• By virtue of achieving the earliest agreed target cost, the Late ECI option offers

the greatest cost certainty.

The strategy therefore recommends that the Late ECI method of procurement be

adopted for the New Tees Crossing scheme, with appointment of the ECI Contractor

after publication of the draft Orders and Environmental Statement – effectively the

end of PCF Stage 3.

5.3.2 Portrack Relief Road

The Portrack Relief Road scheme, previously developed and promoted by SBC, has

been incorporated within the New Tees Crossing scheme promoted through this OBC

due to the complementary benefits to the SRN element of the scheme arising from

improved local highway network operation.

Whilst the Portrack Relief Road element forms part of the overall scheme for this

OBC, the element could be funded and delivered separately, if desirable in the

future. Nevertheless, the recommendations of the procurement strategy are

considered also relevant for this element of the scheme, irrespective of whether it is

delivered as part of the overall New Tees Crossing scheme or not.

5.4 Payment and Charging Mechanisms

At this time, it is envisaged that Highways England will tender the construction

contract and the successful contactor will be paid by monthly valuation, as with

other similar schemes within the RIS.

As part of the PCF Stage 3 work, there will be further scheme level consideration of

payment and charging mechanisms in accord with Highways England’s procedures.

5.5 Risk Allocation and Transfer

A more detailed account of the approach to risk management for the scheme is

included in the Management Case. However, at this stage of scheme development

and prior to the letting of the construction contract, the scheme cost estimate

contains a greater proportion of risk borne by TVCA and Highways England than will

remain after the appointment of the successful contractor.

Some of the risk is captured and quantified within the QRA process as outlined in the

Management Case. Once the tendering process for the construction contract is

complete, some of the risk (such as scheme cost increases associated with the design

and construction) can be transferred to the successful contractor. However, the risk

of costs being higher than currently predicted, remains until the tendering process is

complete.




93

Where the residual risk of cost increases lies will be an important factor in

determining the preferred funding route of the two identified in the Financial Case.

With RIS, this will lie with Highways England and will be managed as part of the

overall RIS programme.

With the LLM route, this residual risk would normally lie with the promoting local

highway authority, but with this scheme, it is recommended that the procurement

and construction supervision of the scheme will be managed by Highways England,

meaning the local highway authority would be responsible for a risk over which it has

little, or no, control. This is likely to lead to a significant increase in management

costs to account for this (albeit avoidable) risk, or, more importantly, the situation

where the Section 151 Officer cannot reasonably be expected to agree to the

conditions of the LLM funding on that basis.

Based on the Highways England estimate of portfolio risk, the likely value of the

additional cost to either option for adopting this delivery route is around £50 million.

Other risks that will be transferred to the successful contractor at the appropriate

time include those that encompass discharging planning conditions, estimations of

the quantities, mitigation measures and resources.

TVCA and Highways England will continue to take responsibility for risks that

encompass land, residual planning and environmental permission in the next stage of

design work as well as the following specific risks:

• The need for changes to the scheme;

• Inaccuracies or incompleteness of any of the data or information related to the

scheme;

• Pre-contract advance works which might result in delivery and programme

delays to the contractor;

• Pre-contract arrangements with others/third parties; and

• Change in the law.

Other risks, such as the identification of statutory undertakers’ equipment, and

mitigation costs associated with these, can be removed from the QRA element of the

scheme costs completely if they do not materialise, or transferred to “actual”

scheme costs if they do materialise, rather than remaining within the risk allocation.




94

5.6 Contract Length and Management

At this time, the construction contract will most likely be a NEC4 contract. The

recent update to the NEC4 suite of contracts from NEC3 reflects procurement and

project management developments and emerging best practice, with improvements

in flexibility, clarity and the ease of administration.

It is anticipated that the construction contract itself will run for a period of between

36 and 48 months from award, from 2024 through to 2027. The buildability review

undertaken by a Tier 1 contractor confirms that this timetable is realistic.

It is envisaged that design, procurement and construction supervision of the scheme

will be managed by Highways England, unless the Portrack Relief Road element is

taken forward separately, in which case this will be led by SBC.

Regular contract management meetings will be scheduled post-award of the

construction contract(s) throughout the delivery programme to monitor progress, risk

and finance.

5.7 Human Resources Issues

No significant human resources issues have been identified that could affect the

deliverability of the scheme, although it is recognised that it will have a considerable

human resources requirement, across TVCA, Highways England, the design teams and

the contractor teams.

At this time, sufficient resources have been identified to deliver the scheme and

further details of the required capabilities and assigned resources are set out in the

Management Case. The resource requirement will be kept under review by the

Project Board and, if necessary, additional resources brought in.




95

6 The Management Case

This chapter of the OBC describes how the scheme will be managed and delivered.

6.1 Evidence of Similar Projects

The Government’s highest priority for strategic roads is delivering RIS1. Highways

England has been moving forward work on 112 major schemes originally planned to

start work in the RIS1 period, with 85 now having started or planned to start by the

end of the RIS1 period in March 2020. One of the RIS1 schemes (the A19 Norton to

Wynyard Improvements) is within the Tees Valley, whereas another seven RIS1

schemes are in the North East, two on the A19 further north from the Tees Valley.

In its most recent annual report on the performance of Highways England, the Office

of Rail and Road (ORR) identified that forecast total costs for its RIS1 major schemes

are currently £2.9 billion higher than originally assumed. This increase was due to the

increased scope for some schemes and immature scheme estimates when RIS1

funding was set.

The Government’s objectives for RIS2 include that the programme will do more to

incentivise the integration of the strategic and local road networks, and that

Highways England demonstrates that it is efficient and also deliver schemes on time

and to budget. The performance specification for the RIS sets out to ensure that the

SRN relates well to the surrounding transport network, the wider environment and

the communities it affects.

There is therefore clear evidence of the delivery of similar projects to the New Tees

Crossing scheme by Highways England and that this scheme sits well within the RIS

programme performance specification.

There has also been a good level of consideration already given as to how the scheme

can be constructed efficiently and safely. The buildability review undertaken by a

suitably experienced Tier 1 contractor suggests that construction of the New Tees

Crossing scheme will predominantly be carried out offline but there will need to be

temporary closure of some of the existing slip roads while the new structure is joined

onto the existing road network. Reduced speed limits through the area of works on

the existing carriageway are also likely to be required for worker safety. Two lanes of

traffic in both directions on the A19 and A66 will be maintained at peak times during

construction.

If the Portrack Relief Road element of the scheme is taken forward separately, the

Tees Valley Local Authorities also have a strong track record in the procurement and

delivery of major transport schemes, with five examples of recent projects in

Middlesbrough and Stockton including:




96

• South Stockton Link Road – the South Stockton Link Road was completed in 2005

and involved the construction of a new dual carriageway route heading south

from the A1046 in Stockton-on-Tees across the A66 towards Ingleby Barwick.

• Ingleby Way/Myton Way Dualling - SBC worked in partnership with Lumsden and

Carroll to undertake a major highway improvement scheme in order to alleviate

traffic congestion at Ingleby Barwick - the scheme involved new carriageway

construction, re-surfacing, drainage, earthworks, traffic signals, street lighting,

traffic signs and road markings.

• North Middlesbrough Accessibility Improvements - the scheme comprised a

number of improvements within the area, including a new link road with

pedestrian and cycle facilities between Newport roundabout and Riverside Park

Road, widening of the existing A66 westbound and eastbound carriageways

between Newport roundabout and the A19 interchange and the widening of the

circulatory carriageway at Newport roundabout with increased traffic signal

control.

• Tees Valley Bus Network Improvements scheme – this was a £57 million major

public transport scheme for the five Tees Valley local authorities and the LEP

that provided bus priority and passenger facilities improvements across over 20

main corridors over a five year period, allied to a voluntary partnership

agreement with the principal bus operators – the scheme was delivered on time

and on budget.

• A19/A689 Wolviston Interchange Pinch Point Scheme - this scheme improved

the layout at the merge of the A689 southbound entry slip and the A19,

widened the A689 west approach to the roundabout to four lanes and

introduced traffic signal control on all approach arms of the junction.

6.2 Project Dependencies

The Strategic Case identified a number of other transport and non-transport

interventions with a relationship to the New Tees Crossing scheme, but the one with

the greatest level of dependency is the A19 Norton to Wynyard Improvements RIS1

scheme.

The latter scheme will improve the flow of traffic on the A19 by increasing the

section between the A1027 and the A689 to three lanes wide in each direction, allied

to the replacement of the existing concrete carriageway with low noise surfacing.

The scheme is currently programmed to commence construction in 2020 and be

completed by 2022.




97

The issues of network unreliability and congestion that the New Tees Crossing scheme

are trying to address will only increase with the opening of the Norton to Wynyard

scheme. The planned construction phase of the New Tees Crossing scheme is

intended to follow the delivery of the A19 Norton to Wynyard scheme so as to

minimise the time whereby the full benefits of the committed improvement may not

otherwise be realised.

6.3 Governance, Organisational Structure and Roles

To date, TVCA has led the development of the scheme in partnership with Highways

England and this will continue until such time as this OBC is agreed. The current

governance structure and key roles are illustrated in Figure 6.1.

Figure 6.1: Current Governance Structure and Roles

Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) – the SRO has overall accountability for the delivery

of the scheme ensuring the scheme remains focused on achieving its objectives. They

have the authority to make decisions concerning the delivery of the scheme within a

certain delegation.

DfT

Government

TVCA

SRO

Highways EnglandTechnical Approver

SBC

Local Authority

Arup

Project Manager

Arup

Technical Lead

Fore

Business Case

JacobsTraffic & Economics

MC

Local Authority

DBC, HBC, RCBC

Local Authorities




98

The SRO is the TVCA Investment Director, Alison Fellows, who reports directly to the

Tees Valley Management Group within the TVCA governance structure, and then on to

the Tees Valley Combined Authority Transport Committee and Cabinet.

Project Manager – the Project Manager leads and manages the project team with the

authority and responsibility to run the project on a day-to-day basis. A Project

Manager was recruited in 2017 through the SBC Economic Growth and Development

Services Consultancy Partnership 2016-2020 framework agreement.

Andy Johnson of Arup is the current Project Manager for the scheme – a Chartered

Civil Engineer with over 20 years’ experience specialising in highway and

infrastructure engineering and has significant experience in leading the design,

project management and supervision of large multi-disciplinary teams delivering

highway and environmental improvement schemes varying in value up to £400

million. He has particular knowledge of Highways England major projects and has

first-hand experience of successfully delivering PCF Stages 0-7 across a number of UK

projects.

Project Board – a Project Board has been set up and supports the SRO and Project

Manager. The purpose of the Project Board is to manage the completion of PCF

Stages 1 and 2 and the production of this OBC. The Project Board is chaired by the

SRO or the Project Manager, and comprises senior level representation from the

following:

• TVCA – Head of Transport;

• SBC – Highways, Transport and Design Manager;

• Middlesbrough Council – Head of Transport and Infrastructure;

• Highways England; and

• Technical support teams,

with representatives of the other Tees Valley Local Authorities invited to participate

in Board meetings for completeness.

The Project Board, via the SRO and/or the Project Manager, reports progress, as

required, to:

• DfT;

• Tees Valley Combined Authority Transport Committee and Cabinet;




99

• Tees Valley Transport Advisory Group; and

• Local Authority Cabinets/Executive Groups.

The Project Board receives progress and project exception reports from, and gives

direction to, the Project Manager. The Board ensures the timely set up and key

deliverables from the technical support teams involved with the scheme,

commissioning the technical work necessary.

The Project Board also provides overview of the risk register, ensures effective

communications are implemented and will carry out stage gate reviews at key

project milestones, or as required by the Government’s Gateway or Highways England

processes.

It should be noted that Highways England have been involved in the scheme since its

inception and has steered the project from a governance perspective through its role

on the Project Board. The organisation is supportive of the scheme and their in-house

technical assurance teams have reviewed the PCF Stage 1 and 2 traffic, economic and

environmental products.

Given the high level of interaction with the SRN, it is expected that the scheme will

follow the governance processes prescribed in the PCF from the point at which this

OBC is accepted, but with the continued involvement of TVCA and at least SBC and

Middlesbrough Council in the governance structure through an updated Project Board

membership.

The Project Management Plan (PMP) included at Appendix J provides the basis for the

execution of the New Tees Crossing scheme throughout the project lifecycle and at

each PCF stage. The PMP is a tool used for planning and managing projects,

maintained by the Project Manager and is available to all project team members. The

plan is a ‘live’ document that is updated as the scheme progresses so that it

represents the project's current status (for example, changes in scope, programme).

The PMP provides concise and accurate information about the background to the

scheme, the agreed objectives and deliverables. Moreover, it sets out clearly the

anticipated governance process for the delivery of the scheme.

6.4 Project Plan

A Project Plan has been developed for this OBC setting out all the key project tasks

and their duration, the interdependencies between each of the tasks, and key

milestones and gateways. Certain elements of the programme have a built-in

tolerance/contingency to account for risks identified within the risk register which

could have an impact upon the programme.




100

Collaborative planning has been adopted on the scheme to ensure key milestones are

met and additional efficiencies identified and realised to assist with the RIS

objectives and targets being met.

The current version of the project plan, included at Appendix K, has been produced

and managed by the Project Manager, and includes all significant work activities,

significant outputs and key decision points regardless of which organisation is leading

the work, for example, traffic modelling work, commercial outputs and Highways

England governance milestones.

The project plan is a ‘live’ document and will be reviewed and updated regularly to

provide an accurate and integrated picture of progress and dependencies for the

project. The Project Manager is responsible for ensuring the plan is reviewed and

updated on a monthly basis. Any changes or risks to achieving key milestone dates are

brought to the Project Board’s attention and discussed as part of the monthly

meeting cycle. All proposed revisions to the project plan are issued to the Project

Board for approval.

A greater level of detail will be introduced into the project plan during next stage(s)

of the PCF process, as detailed design of the scheme progresses and as risk

quantification and impacts change. However, at this stage the key milestones from

the project plan are set out below:

• Preferred Route Announcement - Spring 2020;

• Draft Order Publication - 2020/21;

• Planning Inspectorate Examination - 2022;

• Planning Inspectorate Recommendations to Secretary of State - 2023;

• Secretary of State Decision - 2023;

• Land acquisition details placed on deposit and published - 2023;

• Start of Works - 2024; and

• Completion - 2027.

6.5 Assurance and Approvals Plan

Project assurance provides the basic framework of controls that ensure:

• The project is managed and controlled as directed by the SRO;




101

• Basic standards are being followed; and

• The project is well-managed.

To date, the development of the scheme has followed the WebTAG transport

appraisal process advocated by the DfT and Highways England’s PCF process in

parallel, noting that the requirements of the PCF Stage 2 work go beyond what would

normally be expected of an OBC.

The project assurance controls that have been utilised thus far include:

• Regular reporting (see below);

• Exception reporting and re-authorisation;

• Sign-off of PCF products as they are produced; and

• Stage gate assessment reviews - evidence-based review that draws on

documentation and activities that the project team have already produced.

Whilst it is the PCF project assurance controls that have been utilised in the main on

the scheme, it is recognised that responsibility for the assurance and approval of this

OBC and thereafter the FBC, rests initially with the DfT, who will assess the technical

content of the business cases against appropriate business case and transport

appraisal guidance in order to confirm that the scheme represents value for money

and is deliverable.

Again given the high level of interaction with the SRN, it is expected that the PCF

assurance process will be followed, as shown in Figure 6.2.

Figure 6.2: PCF Assurance Process Summary




102

6.6 Communications and Stakeholder Management

A Stakeholder Engagement and Public Consultation Strategy has been created as part

of PCF Stage 2 work and includes an associated Communications Plan for 2019/20.

Both of these are included at Appendix L.

The aims of the Stakeholder Engagement and Public Consultation Strategy are as

follows:

• Making available to interested parties, information on the need and impact of

the scheme;

• Giving the public and stakeholders an opportunity to express their views on the

option(s) under consideration and provide a feedback loop;

• Outlining the sustainable option(s) for consideration and the likely

consequences of the scheme; and

• Providing a programme for future stakeholder engagement and public

consultation.

The aim of the Communications Plan is to ensure the consistent and structured

delivery of messages to all key stakeholders throughout the lifecycle of the scheme.

The messages cover both the local and national benefits of the scheme.

Both documents are to be updated at each PCF stage and at other key points during

the project lifecycle, being treated as ‘live’ documents with additional information

added when applicable.

They set out the timings and considerations for external communications for some

consideration of future PCF stages. The Project Board will be responsible for ensuring

the Stakeholder Engagement and Public Consultation Strategy and agreed

Communications Plan are implemented.

6.7 Programme/Project Reporting

The scheme will follow the PCF project lifecycle and will seek opportunities to

expedite the process where possible to meet the RIS objectives set by DfT. A

proportionate and efficient approach to the production of PCF products will be taken

at all stages.

To date, the progress of the scheme and in particular the progress of the current

deliverables has been reported by the consultant(s) to the Project Manager and

thereafter the Project Board, in a monthly progress report.




103

A summary of other reporting formats and frequencies adopted to date is shown in

Table 6.1.

Table 6.1: Regular Reporting Formats and Frequency

Control Area Report Description Frequency Co-ordinated By

Progress (product delivery) against Stage plan/programme

Progress Report Monthly Project Manager

Risks and issues Risk Register and Issues Log

Monthly Project Manager

Change control Change Log Monthly Project Manager

Costs and budgets against the Stage cost plan

Monthly finance returns and Monthly Management Reports


Look ahead Progress Report and Progress Meeting Minutes


These procedures are based on good practice, and it is anticipated that they, or a

variation of them, will be adopted as the scheme moves forward within the PCF

lifecycle.

6.8 Risk Management Strategy

A Risk Management Plan (RMP) is in place for the scheme and is included at Appendix

M. This specifically addresses issues associated with risk and sets out the

management framework that will be put into place to assist in the identification,

assessment and control of risk throughout the project lifecycle. It is based on the PCF

RMP template and the PCF Risk Management Manual has been used as a basis for the

risk management process adopted, which is illustrated in Figure 6.3.

To supplement the RMP and to facilitate effective risk management on the scheme, a

Risk Register has been produced, as included at Appendix N. This is the primary

means of recording risk information and monitoring risk exposure throughout the life

of the scheme. It not only records all identified risks and their associated

assessments, but also includes necessary risk control plans and responsibilities, as

well as the status of all risks. It has been developed through a collaborative process

at suitable times during the development of the scheme.




104

Figure 6.3: Risk Management Process

The first risk workshop was conducted at the end of the design and cost process

within PCF Stage 1 in order to ensure the major risks were properly understood by all

parties. The risk workshop was held in November 2017 and attended by members of

the Project Board and delivery teams. The original Newport and Tees Viaduct Options

described in the Strategic Case were assessed in this workshop.

The workshop discussed the qualitative and quantitative scoring of the risks, pre- and

post-scoring, and the risk mitigation plans. A quantitative range was associated with

each qualitative score for likelihood, cost and time, this can be seen in the RMP. To

calculate the most likely risk costs an average of the cost range was used and

multiplied by the average of the likelihood range, based on the qualitative scores

given to each risk, these most likely risk costs were summed to give the overall risk

cost. The strategic and programme risks were excluded from the quantitative

assessment as the risks will be managed by the DfT and Highways England

respectively.




105

During PCF Stage 2, two further risk workshops were conducted. The first was held in

April 2018 and focussed on reviewing the risks for the Capacity Enhancement Option,

as this option had the highest BCR of the three options being considered at that time.

A second risk workshop was then held in June 2019 that focussed on reviewing the

risks for both the A19 Tees Viaduct Option and the A19 Tees Viaduct Capacity

Enhancement Option as part of the preparation of this OBC. In both cases, the highest

threat risks and the highest cost risks were reviewed and any risks that were no

longer applicable were closed out. This workshop provided the basis for the risk

values set out in the Financial Case.

Further risk reviews are to be undertaken in each PCF stage. Reporting of key risks

is undertaken at Project Board meetings as necessary – the most recent review of the

overall risk register was undertaken by the Project Board in September 2019. Updates

will be given on key outstanding risks where the risk type/size/response has changed.

Table 6.2 identifies the top 10 risks identified at this current stage of scheme

preparation.

Table 6.2: Top 10 Current Risks

Risk Cause Risk Event Risk Impact Risk Mitigation Post Mitigation Risk Rating

Proximity of new structures to existing

Loading from new structures could detrimentally affect existing structures

Differential settlement affecting existing structure.

Cost to remediate

Scheme specific ground investigation to be undertaken to investigate ground conditions. Foundations to be designed taking into account surrounding structures and considering construction sequence.

High Threat

Working at height

Potential for workers to fall from a height

Could cause critical injuries/death

Prefabricate components away from site to reduce working time spent at height. Provide safe access to works at height. Use innovative methods/plant to reduce time /number of operatives working at height to complete a task.

Medium Threat

Ground investigation work in urban environment

Possible collision with moving vehicles during on-site ground

Injury/death, halting of works on site

GI works to be fully segregated from live highway. Lanes to be closed where

Medium Threat




106


close to busy roads

investigation activities

Delay to programme

appropriate. Safe access routes to be planned and implemented. Consideration to be given during development of

Construction plan/programme. High visibility PPE to be worn by all staff.

Loss of or disruption to commercial facilities or buildings (e.g. within the industrial estates and at Goals Teesside)

High compensation claims or requirement to purchase land

Effect on reputation, delays during consultation, additional costs and delays during construction

Early consultation with business owners to allow for modifications to options where possible. NMU surveys to be carried out to understand current levels of use. Engagement with NMU stakeholders to understand requirements/constraints etc.

Medium Threat

Potential RAMSAR and pSPA sites at Portrack Marshes

New protection areas affect the potential route corridors

The proposed scheme is no longer feasible and requires redesign or realignment

Ensure early liaison with consultation process to ensure key clashes are highlighted

High Threat

Reuse of existing structures within new alignment

If structures are not capable of meeting current design standards due to altered alignment or deterioration of existing structure additional works will be required

Cost and duration of design and construction increase

Existing structural surveys to be undertaken before construction in order to determine what remedial works may be required

Medium Threat

Ground conditions

Poor ground conditions. Construction costs could increase significantly above that

Design is no longer adequate. This could increase cost/programme due to remedial preparatory

Comprehensive Ground Investigation to be undertaken before commencement of works. Foundations suitably designed. Look at as-built information

Medium Threat




107


allowed for if ground is poor and foundations have to change in size, type or quantity

work prior to construction. Larger foundations could be required

where this exists for adjacent structures.

Contaminated land

Contaminated land causes pollution event off site

Undertake detailed Ground Investigation to classify levels of contamination. Adopt robust construction control measures on site.

Medium Threat

Scope increase due to results of traffic modelling

Further modelling indicates additional design requirements e.g. capacity increases etc

Increase cost of design and preparation. Scheme costs increase. Delay risk

Timely communication with traffic modellers should allow for early warnings to be given if the scope of work is proposed to change. The client can then advise on whether to change the scope.

Medium Threat

Asbestos Moving earth disturbs buried asbestos and causes fibres to be exposed / transferred around the site. Modification/ demolition of existing structure cause asbestos fibres to be exposed.

Long term ill health/death. Cost of remediation.

Investigations to determine level of contamination. Asbestos register and management plan to be provided to review and take precautions as necessary.

Critical Threat

6.9 Benefits Realisation Plan

An outline Benefits Realisation Plan (BRP) has been produced as part of this OBC to

begin the process of identifying, tracking and comparing the various benefits

expected to be delivered. The scheme objectives and a logic mapping process have

been used to develop the “desired outputs, outcomes and impacts” of the scheme.

These desired outputs, outcomes and impacts are the actual benefits that are

expected to be derived from the scheme and are directly linked to the original set of

objectives:




108

• Desired outputs – tangible effects that are funded and result from the scheme;

• Desired outcomes – what happens as a result of the outputs; and

• Desired impacts – the final impacts brought about by the scheme in the short,

medium and long term as a result of the outputs and outcomes.

The scheme objectives and desired outputs/outcomes/impacts are summarised in

Table 6.3 and provided the starting point for the development of the BRP.

Given the scheme objectives identified, the outline BRP focuses upon stimulus to

jobs/economic activity and the impact on journey times. To determine whether the

scheme benefits are being realised, the desired outputs, outcomes and impacts have

been converted into measurable indicators of scheme benefits, and are reported in

the BRP, that is closely aligned to the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan.

The outline BRP is included at Appendix O. Responsibility for the BRP and the

associated monitoring and evaluation sits with the Project Board.




109

Table 6.3: Scheme Objectives, Desired Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts

Scheme Objective Desired Outputs Desired Outcomes Desired Impacts

Support the economic growth objectives of the Northern

Powerhouse and the Tees Valley City Region

Improve access to the City Region Strategic Centres and

Enterprise Zone sites

Support sustainable local development in the medium to long

term

Improve access to jobs and services for all road users

Support the SRN in delivering enhanced connectivity

Deliver connectivity enhancements for freight movements

Reduce congestion and provide reliable north-south journey

times on the A19

Improve resilience of the river crossing itself and the wider

strategic road network

A new crossing of the

River Tees to cost and

timescales that provides

additional capacity and

integrates well with the

surrounding highway

network

Quicker and more

reliable journey times

Improved resilience for

the surrounding highway

network

Reduction in the

number and severity of

incidents for all road

users

Improved environmental and community wellbeing outcomes across the network

Increase in jobs

Increase in GVA

Increase in labour market

catchments areas

Reduced carbon

emissions

Improved air quality

Improved satisfaction

with network

performance




110

Scheme Objective Desired Outputs Desired Outcomes Desired Impacts

Reduce the number and severity of incidents for all road users

Minimise adverse impacts on health and environment

Reduce the impacts of the route on severance for local

communities

Provide value for money




111

6.10 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

The scheme will be subject to a programme of before and after monitoring and evaluation.

Monitoring and evaluation are distinct activities - monitoring asks whether delivery is

proceeding as planned and evaluation asks whether the intervention has achieved its

desired objectives.

The outline Monitoring and Evaluation Plan included at Appendix P sets out the activities

that will be undertaken to demonstrate the extent to which scheme objectives were met,

monitor performance of the scheme and ensure that any potential issues post

implementation are identified and addressed.

The types of measures that may be monitored (covering inputs, outputs, outcomes and

impacts) include:

• Scheme build;

• Delivered scheme;

• Costs;

• Travel demand;

• Absolute journey times and reliability of journey times;

• Economic impacts;

• Accidents;

• Carbon impacts;

• Air quality; and

• Customer satisfaction.

The outline plan will be updated as part of the FBC in light of the continued development

of the scheme.

Through an evaluation of the scheme, TVCA and Highways England will seek to:

• Understand whether and how the scheme’s main objectives have been achieved,

exceeded or not reached;




112

• Provide transferable evidence that may be used to inform future decision making on

similar transport schemes; and

• Improve the efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of future schemes based on

the lessons learnt from this scheme.

The SRO will take overall responsibility for the monitoring and evaluation of the scheme,

with the Project Manager taking responsibility for the delivery and programming of the

evaluation programme. This may include the procurement of specialist consultancy support

and survey contractors to evaluate, report, collect and collate the necessary information,

respectively.

The proposed monitoring and evaluation of the scheme builds on the outline BRP. It has

also been prepared in light of the requirements of Post Opening Project Evaluation (POPE)

undertaken for all of Highways England’s major schemes. The key objective of POPE is to

identify the extent to which the expected impacts of highway schemes have materialised

and to inform thinking on current and future national scheme appraisal methods. POPE also

forms the mechanism whereby Highways England can determine:

• The extent to which major schemes offer value for money; and

• The level of accuracy associated with estimates of costs and predictions of benefits

emerging from major schemes and the main factors affecting the accuracy.

Given that POPE studies are undertaken for each major scheme one and five years after

opening, this also seems appropriate an appropriate timing for the evaluation of the New

Tees Crossing scheme.




113

7 Summary

This document and its series of appendices comprise the OBC for a new strategic road

crossing of the River Tees.

The scheme has a strong strategic fit and the economic analysis of the preferred option –

the A19 Tees Viaduct Capacity Enhancement Option - demonstrates that an adjusted BCR

of over 1.5 is generated if wider economic impacts are considered, representing Medium

value for money.

Beyond the economic analysis, the New Tees Crossing scheme will also:

• Relieve the existing A19/A66 bottleneck, enhancing the reliability of people’s

journeys across the Tees Valley’s road network and reducing the cost to the local and

national economy due to congestion and delays;

• Reduce journey times for local people – most drivers are expected to save more than

two minutes of travel time during peak periods – unlocking development potential in

the City Region through the provision of additional road capacity and making the

Tees Valley more attractive to inward investors and visitors;

• Improve the resilience of the network and therefore reduce the negative impact of

events such as roadworks and road traffic accidents;

• Make journeys safer by improving the standard and capacity of the road network;

• Improve access to the Tees Valley’s Enterprise Zone sites, the South Tees

Development Corporation site, the expanding port facilities along the River Tees and

the newly rebranded Teesside International Airport;

• Deliver connectivity and journey time reliability enhancements for freight and

logistics traffic – a key component of the Tees Valley’s growth plans;

• Support the economic growth objectives of the Northern Powerhouse and the Tees

Valley City Region; and

• Help realise the full benefit of the committed A19 Norton to Wynyard improvement

scheme, which is due for completion by 2022.

The base cost estimate for the preferred option is £205,284,154, whilst the estimated

outturn cost is £298,317,817, with the latter figure also including a calculated allowance

for risk. The costs have been derived in a robust way using information from current and




114

recently completed projects, and the works required have been quantified based on the

current scheme designs.

Several potential funding routes have been considered for the scheme, with the most

appropriate being the Highways England Road Investment Strategy and the Large Local

Majors element of the new National Roads Fund.

Irrespective of the final funding route, given its high level of interaction with the Strategic

Road Network, the scheme should, ideally, be delivered by Highways England through its

procurement processes and procedures allied to the Project Control Framework. On this

basis, the procurement strategy that has been prepared recommends that the Late Early

Contractor Involvement method of procurement be adopted for the scheme, with

appointment of the contractor after publication of the draft Orders and Environmental

Statement.

A sound governance structure has been in place throughout the life of the scheme, and

Highways England has been closely involved in its development since inception. Highways

England is supportive of the scheme, and its in-house technical assurance teams have

reviewed the traffic, economic and environmental products prepared in support of this

business case.

As this submission clearly demonstrates, there is a strong and robust case for investment in

a New Tees Crossing. It is therefore recommended that the scheme is prioritised for

funding so that the many benefits that it will deliver across the Tees Valley City Region can

be realised as soon as possible.

Appendix A

Options Assessment Report

Appendix B

Public Consultation Report

Appendix C

Appraisal Specification Report

Appendix D

Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report

Appendix E

Environmental Assessment Report

Appendix F

TAG Supporting Workbooks and Worksheets

Appendix G

Appraisal Summary Tables

Appendix H

Options Estimate Report

Appendix I

Procurement Strategy

Appendix J

Project Management Plan

Appendix K

Project Plan

Appendix L

Stakeholder Engagement and Public Consultation Strategy

Appendix M

Risk Management Plan

Appendix N

Risk Register

Appendix O

Benefits Realisation Plan

Appendix P

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Fore Consulting Limited 2nd Floor, Queens House

Wellington Street Leeds

LS1 2DE

0113 2460204 [email protected]

www.foreconsulting.co.uk

Fore Consulting Limited. Registered in England and Wales No. 7291952. Registered Address: Gresham House, 5 - 7 St Pauls Street, Leeds LS1 2JG, United Kingdom

VAT Registration No. 105 0341 75

Documents

Outline Business Case - Tees Valley Mayor