Environmental interests Workshop

Date:        Monday 16th July 2001

Location: Jarrow Community Centre

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 the environmental work shop.  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 discussions are noted separately below.

3. Group discussions

3.1 Environmental interests discussion - group one

3.1.1Environment

• It was noted that ‘environment’ means different things to different people. At a community level, most environmental concerns relate to the immediate surroundings of people’s homes.
• During the Health Impact Assessment currently being carried out by the University of Northumbria to assess the impact of the proposed new tunnel on health, both positively and negatively, during construction and operation) the main concerns were noise, dust and disruption during the construction phase
• It was generally questioned whether there will be any real benefits of a new road tunnel beyond freer traffic flow; if there are, these need to be made explicit and quantified by the agencies responsible for the scheme
• There is a belief that the movement and disposal of material during construction could have a major environmental impact; this issue should be specified and not left up to the contractor to decide
• Mitigation ideas are difficult to specify at this stage because of uncertainty over which land will actually be affected and what additional land will be required for industry in future
• It was noted, however, that any open spaces ought to be developed/managed more creatively than in the past – not just grassed with ‘lollipop’ trees, but taking into account wildlife needs, along with residents views.  There should also be clear aim to meet the specific aims of the current local Biodiversity Action Plan and Local Agenda 21
• It was noted that the two large areas of open space near to the northern entrance could be better managed and a lot more biologically diverse

3.1.2          Employment

• Issues were raised in respect of the impact of the new tunnel on jobs – both during and after construction.  It is thought that this is one of the main concerns of school children, especially older ones. More information is needed on job creation elements from the agencies responsible for the scheme
• Issues were raised in respect of the need to concentrate on job creation in areas south of the Tyne, though a lack of potential land for development was referred to
• It was suggested that there is available development land to the south side of Sunderland and around Easington and Peterlee
• It was noted that a new tunnel will also help the movement of products and not just people, the main markets for which are in Newcastle

3.1.3          Transport

• Noted that the existing pedestrian/cycle tunnel is not easy to find, poorly sign-posted and has poor public transport links
• Access to all the tunnels, signposting and security needs to be radically improved as part of the overall development/Concessionnaire package

3.1.4          Toll booths

• The current situation with the toll-booths leads to bottle-necking, mainly due to manual toll collection
• This is also the case for the arrangements in relationship to truck inspection – both of these situations need improved management arrangements, including use of modern technology, such as electronic toll collection

3.1.5          Road junctions

• It was noted that there are now two options for a new junction on the south side, one at Jarrow and one at Simonside
• It was questioned whether there will be a genuine choice for local people – there is a belief that the cheaper option will in practice be selected
• What is needed is a real cost benefit analysis of the two options with genuine regard given to social and environmental issues as well as costs
• One key issue in relation to the construction of the junction is that of run-off of surface water- flows need to be buffered by settling ponds and reed-bed systems, especially given local ponds, streams and water voles

3.1.6          River environment

• Major concern was expressed about potential silt movements occurring from the dredging required during construction, on the river ecology and wildlife in general – there would be knock-on effects up the food chain
• It was noted that otters are returning in good numbers to the Tyne and could be affected, especially if bottom feeders, such as eels, are affected by silt. This issue needs more research by the agencies responsible for the new tunnel in partnership with bodies which have an expertise in the field
• A question was raised about the likely impacts of dredging and all aspects of the construction of the new tunnel on near-by bathing areas?  Will there be an adverse effect in terms of cleanliness, and the settling of silt and possibly contaminated material?

3.1.7          Archaeological sites

• A question was raised in terms of the impact on potential archaeological sites, as yet not identified – will these be affected?  It was thought that likely areas might be on the north side around Ballast Hill and that there may be an on going survey during excavation; there is the opportunity to build this into the agreement with the Concessionnaire

3.1.8          Safety issues

• A question was raised about safety in the event of an accident in the tunnel during operation, such as an anchor drop – will the ‘armour’ (the external fabric of the tunnel units) of one metre really be sufficient?

3.1.9          Local communities

• A belief was expressed that disruption to local communities will be greater than anticipated and that this needs to be taken very seriously indeed by all the agencies responsible for the new tunnel; there needs to be a joined-up approach to the range of issues that need tackling – multi-agency working will be vital to alleviate the many potential negative effects 

3.2 Environmental interests discussion - group two

3.2.1          Cost and type of tunnel

• The new tunnel as proposed will cost around £120 million – the cost of a bored tunnel is expected to be about 20-25% more
• The main driver for the PTA’s decision on which type of tunnel to go forward with was the estimated toll charges and the need to keep these as low as possible
• The costs of any mitigation measures should be relative to the overall costs of the scheme, for example 10% or 15%
• There is a danger that payment for any problems created by the new tunnel will fall on those not directly associated with the project, such as the local authorities, agencies and communities outside the immediate area; they may not benefit from the new tunnel but may suffer adverse impacts, such as traffic taking measures to avoid delays in and around the current and new tunnels finding other routes through areas some way from the tunnels  
• It should be noted that there is a potential public cost in addition to the toll cost, such as the impacts elsewhere discussed 
• It is important to take a ‘joined up’ approach – administrative boundaries with respect to transport and other issues are not ‘coterminous’ (do not match) and this could lead to a disparate, unco-ordinated approach; it will be important that agencies directly responsible for the new tunnel and those with a wider strategic responsibility work together to enhance benefits and mitigate potential problems
• There was a view that a bored tunnel would be a better option – an immersed tube tunnel generates greater concerns, particularly in construction in terms of the need for dredging

3.2.2          Planning

• There is a view that Regional Planning Guidance is at variance with proposals for the new tunnel, that the RPG highlights issues such as sustainability, public transport, environmental enhancement, which the proposals for a new tunnel would seem to contradict

3.2.3          Dredging during construction

• It is anticipated that the dredging will be carried out over the winter months – it will take around three months, three to four weeks of which will be for dredging the silts, which studies show contain some toxic/contaminated material, although the levels are not as high as was expected
• A specialised dredger will be used with a closed grab mechanism, like a ‘clam shell’, to minimise the dispersal of silts
• There is a Dutch dredger which uses suction and is very powerful, creating very little disturbance – could this be used?  It may be very expensive, and it brings up water which needs to be separated and could reduce the oxygenation in the river
• There is around 300,000 cubic metres of silt, aggregates and fragmented rock to dredge – the total amount being less than the annual amount of silt dredged by the Port of Tyne
• There are no controls on when the Port of Tyne carries out dredging; a ‘grab’ dredger is used – some dredging is done under contract
• Will there be any insurance against any claim for effects on fish and river life? Will general contractors insurance cover held by the Concessionnaire be enough?
• The Concessionnaire for the new tunnel may have to apply for a licence or planning permission for temporary spoil storage

3.2.4          River pollution during construction

• The release of contaminants is the main concern and the impact of these on the environment
• It is felt that the levels of contamination in the riverbed around the route of the proposed tunnel are not too bad compared with the rest of the river
• It is felt that suspended solids in the water may affect fish gills
• The past release of organic material from the sewage treatment works at East Howdon de-oxygenates the river
• It is anticipated that secondary treatment works completed last year at East Howdon sewage works will improve river water conditions and oxygen level conditions up stream
• Arup have been looking at a range of options for improving oxygen levels in the water during dredging, if required - direct oxygen injection is a possibility
• The Environment Agency has been involved in detailed discussions, particularly with fishing interests
• Dissolved oxygen levels in the river are higher in winter, at a time when there is less fish movement through this section of river

3.2.5          Impact on local roads

• There is a concern that increased traffic on Victoria Road in South Tyneside as a result of the operation of a new tunnel may necessitate greater use of the Riverside Route, currently being looked at by South Tyneside and Gateshead Councils in terms of likely levels of future traffic demand 
• South Tyneside and Gateshead Councils are considering traffic flows - the alignment for the Riverside Route is in both UDP’s and it is being safeguarded as a potential route
• It was felt that the downturn in industrial activity on the south side of the river has reduced current usage of the Route; the new tunnel may increase demand for it
• There is a need to integrate the Riverside Route study with issues more directly connected to the new tunnel
• The PTA and the Highways Agency are looking at the wider impact of the new tunnel on junctions along the A19 corridor and local trunk roads under their control
• The A19 comes under the control of the Highways Agency – the current and proposed new tunnel, as ‘local roads’, do and will not
• There is a concern that traffic will increase generally, given that experience seems to suggest that an increase in road capacity invariably leads to an increase in traffic, and that the new tunnel will merely generate more traffic, and therefore, more problems, rather than solve traffic problems
• Changing working patterns, such as shift working, part-time jobs, and working from home, means changes to travel patterns – have these been anticipated in the planning of the new tunnel?
• The existing road tunnel favours long-distance traffic rather than local traffic as traffic already on the A19 has easier access to the current tunnel than local traffic – is there a likelihood that the new tunnel will do the same?

3.2.6          Employment

• Employment is important in the construction of a new tunnel and improved accessibility to jobs in the region when it is completed, but there is a need to balance this with social and environmental issues
• There is a concern that any new jobs north of the river will not go to people on the south side in the first instance

3.2.7          Public transport

• There are plans for a guided bus link from Backworth in North Tyneside to the proposed new ferry landing at Royal Quays – this could be operational by 2004
• This new link is a complementary route to other public transport; a tram is being considered
• Local people need access to better, more reliable, more integrated and cheaper public transport
• There needs to be a priority access to the new tunnel for buses, and to the existing tunnel, such as at the south interchange link through the centre of the roundabout from Jarrow – there is a need for public transport to ‘short-circuit’ main access and egress
• Thought must be given to the management of HGV’s – should they also have priority access to the new tunnel?

3.2.8          Toll booths

• Higher tolls can deter traffic and this might be desirable in terms of environmental issues and building support for public transport – this would support the case for a bored tunnel
• There is a view that tolls should be put on all the Tyne crossings so there is a cohesive, strategic approach to traffic management
• A problem may be that there are no identifiable budgets to carry out work/changes/improvements that may be necessary for local upgrading at relevant places as a result of usage of the new tunnel – there will be a pressure on public expenditure as a result of the tunnel.  Is this an argument for increasing the toll charges to raise money for such works?
• Ticketing technology needs improving, such as through ‘smart cards’ – stopping for tickets is a major cause of delays
• Buses need priority on both sides, including roads leading to the toll plazas as well as at the tolls themselves
• There is a view that buses should not be subject to toll charges given the need to encourage the use of public transport – isn’t there an argument for a positive subsidy, possibly around a zero toll charge?
• It is not the existing tunnel that is congested – it’s the access and egress that is the problem, the interchanges and approaches
• It was noted that in Switzerland it is illegal to sit in a car with the engine running – should this be applied here?
• On the two options for the south side interchange, the Simonside option involves more land take, thus reducing open space for local residents, and creates a greater visual intrusion – does this make the argument for the Jarrow junction option stronger?
• The Jarrow junction option is more compact
• In choosing the tunnel options, should the rule of thumb be to minimise the impact on local people for whom the new tunnel will provide the least benefit in terms of travel and access 

Back to main document