Road-users workshop

Date:        Friday 13th July 2001

Location: Wallsend Library 

1. Attendees

2. introduction

In August 2001 a major public consultation event took place regarding the proposals for a New Tyne Crossing. This event took the form of a major two-venue exhibition, a series of smaller exhibitions, plus workshops.  The objective of the consultation was to present the chosen immersed tube scheme in an accessible way to the local and wider communities and as many interested parties as possible. 

As well as ensuring that all parties understood the proposals, the consultation exercise provided the public with an opportunity to comment on the proposals and express concerns.  These concerns will be taken into account  (wherever possible and practicable) when finalising the design of the scheme and mitigation measures.  Thus, one of the main purposes of this feedback exercise is to inform the project team and TWPTA about the concerns raised.

This note provides feedback details from Road Users workshop. Five workshop groups were arranged, as follows (with dates) separate notes on these groups are available:

It should be emphasised that the views expressed at the Workshop are not necessarily representative of either those who will be affected by a new tunnel, or those who are proposing it.  Moreover, there may be factual inaccuracies in what people have said (this is part of the nature of Workshops), which may be evident in the following factual accounts (we have neither corrected nor drawn attention to these factual inaccuracies).

During the workshop the attendees were split into two groups for discussions.  The results of these discussionsare noted separately below.

3. Group Discussion

3.1 Road users discussion - group one

3.1.1          Congestion

• The new tunnel will have an impact on each side of the river in terms of improving congestion and reliability
• There is concern that any new tunnel will just clog up again in 10-15 years time – “we don’t want the ‘M25 solution’”
• Everyday in the morning and afternoon there is two to three hours of queuing outside the tunnel
• The new tunnel may also move congestion from elsewhere
• During construction, it will be critical to keep traffic moving
• Could flows be changed during the course of a day, to accommodate the increase and decrease in traffic, providing a ‘tidal option’?

3.1.2          Impact on A19

• Improvements on the A19 are possible to deal with the impact of a new tunnel, and careful thought would need to be given to what these might entail
• Only 8% of traffic south of the Tyne appears north of the Tyne – on the A19 this goes down to 5%

3.1.3          Impact on other roads

• Measures should be taken to encourage local traffic on the A185 to get off the road further back from the tunnel entrance
• On the A1 outside the Metro Centre, traffic accessing from slip roads creates congestion, due to motorists continually changing lanes; there is a need to designate lanes to separate A1 traffic from local traffic
• There is a clear need to separate local and other traffic on the A19
• Police can resource shifts for construction impact and changes to roads etc
• The Riverside Route is a reserved route, and increased traffic on Victoria Road will increase demand which may pose a risk to the Riverside Park as an amenity

3.1.4          Impact on road junctions

• The option 1 junction on the south side at Simonside may not have enough road distance to separate out the traffic
• The option 2 junction on the south side at Jarrow allows for better separation of traffic
• Arup is currently undertaking a study of junction capacity on the A19 to look at the impact of a new tunnel, and to make recommendations, if necessary

3.1.5          Regeneration

• The tunnel will aid the development and regeneration of the area; access to A19 sites is critical, particularly for the north side and all development plans need to be considered by the public and private sectors (the local authorities and developers in particular) alongside the development of the new tunnel
• There is a need for an integrated approach on development both north and south of the river; there is a danger of making people cross the river when they would rather not by locating all new development on the north side – it would be preferable if more localised solutions could be found to employment and leisure needs on the south side
• There is a need to open up opportunities for crossing the river to schools, services, retail, leisure, more disadvantaged communities and neighbourhoods

3.1.6          Wider impact

• The wider social, environmental and economic impact of a new tunnel needs assessing – there is little publicly available evidence that this has been done
• There is also a need to look at the social, environmental and economic  impact on local neighbourhoods by modelling the effect of a new tunnel; this could also lead to recommendations for action
• What is the long term view – say in 20 years time?
• There is also a need to consider access to the west side of Newcastle as there are development sites at the airport
• The Tyne and Wear ‘multi-modal study’ should take an integrated approach

3.1.7          Employment

• The long-term employment situation is now reversed, major employment used to be on the south side, now its on the north
• Dealing with the shortage of employment on the south side appears to be dependent on economic growth in the north side

3.1.8          Public transport

• Buses are too slow and passenger numbers have declined; tolls have risen and there are more cars causing problems and congestion in the neighbourhoods and localities, the jams spread from the tunnel and traffic takes avoidance measures by finding other routes
• There is a need for better/quicker bus access routes
• There should be bus access priority at the Tyne Tunnel roundabouts and through the tunnels
• It costs the bus companies around £39,000 per annum to get through the tunnel – lowering/removing toll charges should be considered

3.1.9          Priority lanes

• High occupancy vehicles such as buses and coaches, need priority lanes
• Vehicles with more than one person should also be prioritised – there is a need to separate vehicles at the toll booths with one person vehicles paying more to travel through the tunnel

3.1.10      Toll charges

• Peak hour tolling should be considered - imaginative ideas are needed to manage the traffic flows  
• Toll collection needs imaginative solutions to prevent queuing – tickets in bulk, electronic tolling, season tickets and so on
• Toll costs will be fixed to increase in line with the retail price index over the next 30 years
• The PTA must be given the power of agreement with the Concessionnaire to ensure this
• Are market forces the right mechanism to dictate prices?
• A commercial operator (such as the Concessionaire) will want to maximise traffic to maximise income, but the government wants to reduce the amount of traffic – this is inconsistent

3.1.11      Pedestrian tunnel

• In the pedestrian tunnel, the escalator is intermittent and only operates during peak times – this doesn’t allow for shift workers
• There is only a small lift which is difficult for cyclists to use; this should be replaced by a bigger lift if possible
• What about a sensor to trigger use of the escalator?
• The low usage of the pedestrian tunnel represents a culture shift towards cars
• The CCTV in the pedestrian tunnel is well maintained and monitored but is not felt to offer the same sense of security as a physical presence in the tunnel
• The Concessionaire for the new tunnel will have to take responsibility for the pedestrian tunnel also 
• Conditions of concession will be imposed, such as no charge as at present, along with maintenance responsibilities
• Police patrol the pedestrian tunnel around three to four times per night

3.1.12      Development

• Retail and leisure complexes at Royal Quays and Boldon on the north and south sides have had the effect of ‘retrospective legitimisation’ (or ‘post-hoc’ justification) for a new tunnel – the developers should have been made to contribute to the bill for the impact of the effect of the complexes as they created additional demand but didn’t contribute to the solutions; demand figures are then used to justify the need for a new tunnel

3.2                         Road users discussion - group two

3.2.1          Impacts on the A19

• Autolink, who manage the A19 on behalf of the Highways Agency, see the scheme as beneficial to individuals but are concerned about impacts on the A19; it may attract additional traffic and there are already problems on the Testos roundabout.
• At present, the road is not in good condition and needs investment (especially at the roundabouts) but the Highways Agency is unwilling to do this in the current climate of uncertainty.

3.2.2          Toll charges

• Why have a toll? A new crossing here needs to be seen in the wider context of all the Tyne crossings
• There are concerns that if tolls are set too high, this will have a knock on effect on other roads
• New ways to collect tolls need to be explored to reduce waiting times at the toll booths

3.2.3          Traffic safety in tunnel

• If safety is an issue, why not allow flows in one direction only at certain times to reduce accident possibilities
• There is general disagreement about whether the new tunnel will improve safety

3.2.4          Traffic flows

• There are questions regarding traffic flows:
• What will predicted traffic flows be if the tunnel is not built?
• If it is built, what new trips will be generated and what percentage of these will relate to employment opportunities and what percentage to other reasons, including efficiency savings by reduced journey time?

3.2.5          Environmental impact

• Reference was made to the Secretary of State’s Hastings by-pass decision and the need to balance environmental, social and economic costs and benefits
• It was suggested that this is in a different category with minor environmental damage and major economic benefits
• It was also suggested that pollution will be reduced as traffic becomes more free flowing, also reducing frustration and therefore the likelihood of accidents

3.2.6          Construction impact

• It was noted that every effort should be made to reduce noise, dust and other pollution, especially around schools – two years is a long time in a child’s life
• It was noted that severance and compensation for local people will be a key issue

3.2.7          Employment

• Employment needs more creative thinking; if a new crossing is needed because jobs are mostly on one side of the river, and the people who need the jobs are mostly on the other, why not move the jobs rather than the people?
• It was suggested that this can’t be done because of land shortages for new development south of the river

3.2.8          Impact on road junctions

• It was noted that the two alternative southern junctions both have advantages and disadvantages
• While most people felt that more time was needed to look at these in much more detail, it was noted that issues to be considered would include cost, environmental impact (including wildlife), people (how many are affected by each option), possible amelioration (tree planting), litter generation, and safety/capacity/speeds

3.2.9          Local cycling

• Cyclist representatives noted that they would like to see retention of all cycle routes, with access retained during construction and improvements to the existing tunnel made
• Escalators need to be more reliable and the lift should be bigger. There is also a need to consider how the two alternative junction proposals in the south will affect cyclists

3.2.10      Multi-modal study

• It was noted that via the Tyne and Wear Multi-Modal Study the PTA are duty bound to consider all possible ways to deal with traffic issues, including traffic reduction measures
• It should not be pre-supposed that traffic will rise, indeed any increase is less than previously predicted and falling. In terms of limited resources locally and globally are we sure this is the best use of those resources?  The whole issue needs to be seen more strategically and in a broader context rather than a simple issue of congestion

3.2.11      Wider impact

• The need to look at the broader picture was reiterated; only considering congestion inevitably leads to a new tunnel option but a more strategic look in terms of traffic reduction may lead to a different conclusion – who should be doing this?  It needs imagination! It needs to be seen in the context of the Multi-Modal Study
• The Freight Transport Association view the scheme as positive and beneficial
• During the final session it was noted that it should be called the ‘new’ tunnel rather than the ‘second’ as there are already three tunnels (the existing road tunnel, the pedestrian/cycle tunnel and a gas tunnel)

 Back to main document