TYNE AND WEAR CITY REGION CASE STUDY

Transcription

1 SUSTAINABILITY OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORT IN OUTER NEIGHBOURHOODS TYNE AND WEAR CITY REGION CASE STUDY DRAFT REPORT FOR COMMENT A. J. Hargreaves, G. Mitchell, K. Nakamura, A. Namdeo, S. D. Wright June 2009

2 This page is intentionally left blank 2

3 CONTENTS Executive Summary (To be added)... 5 Acknowledgements Introduction The options tested and results Trend option Alternative spatial strategies Compaction option Dispersal option Planned Expansion option Comparison of the outputs Sustainability appraisal of the alternatives Economic sustainability indicators Resources indicators Environmental Indicators Social Indicators Summary Conclusions References Appendix A: Option Design with TAMMS Model for the SOLUTIONS Research Project Appendix B: TAMMS Model Tests for the SOLUTIONS Research Project

4 This page intentionally left blank 4

5 Executive Summary (To be added) Acknowledgements This research was supported by a grant from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. We are grateful to the Highways Agency for granting the project permission to use the TAMMS land use transport model. We also thank Newcastle City Council and the North East Assembly for providing background information. The research method and findings are those of the authors and completely independent of the Highways Agency and planning authorities. Census output is Crown copyright and is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. 5

6 This page intentionally left blank 6

7 1. Introduction 1.1 This case study area generally corresponds with the area of the Tyne and Wear City Region, as defined in the report, Moving Forward the Northern Way, Tyne and Wear City Region Development Programme at The area consists of Tyne and Wear which is 55,000 hectares surrounded by parts of Northumberland and Durham to give an overall study area of 238,000 hectares. The population of Tyne and Wear in 2001 was over 1 million of which over 438 thousand are in employment from 485 thousand households. The total population of the study area was about 1.6 million of which over 670 thousand are in employment from 710 thousand households. Tyne and Wear includes the five council districts of Newcastle upon Tyne, Sunderland, Gateshead, North Tyneside and South Tyneside. Only around 40% of the Tyne and Wear is green space, (CLG 2007). However, the commuter belt of Tyne and Wear extends into the surrounding rural counties of Northumberland and Durham. Figure 1.1 shows the study area in relation to administrative boundaries. Boundary of the Study Area Tyne and Wear Boundary Figure 1.1 showing the county and district boundaries in the study area 1.2 Newcastle and the river Tyne were synonymous with coal mining and ship building and Sunderland was also a centre of heavy industry. However, since the late 1970 s Tyne and Wear has been through a period of steep industrial decline and hardly any of the former heavy industry survives. Nissan built a car manufacturing plant in the 1980 s, (the largest in the UK), but this has not compensated for rate of industrial decline. The population was in decline since the 1960 s until around year 2000 when it stabilised and is now forecast to grow by around 6% over the next 25 years, (Office for National Statistics, (2006). During recent years the economy has stabilised and grown back to the same level of employment in the 1970 s largely due to the growth in the public sector and consumer services, higher education, and retail. Hope for the future lies in building on the success of computer companies and University related organisations such as Sage and the Institute of Human Genetics Life centre, (Tyne and Wear City Region Development Programme, 7

8 1.3 Whilst the decline of population in the urban areas has stabilised, the pressure for development is now very much on the outer areas. The amount of car ownership and car travel has grown rapidly from a low level and is forecast to continue increasing. 1.4 Tyne and Wear has a polycentric pattern of development. The main urban centre is the city of Newcastle Upon Tyne north of the river and the town of Gateshead south of the river. The former docks and industrial areas extend from Newcastle and Gateshead north and south along the river Tyne to the coast, merging with the towns of North and South Shields. The city of Sunderland is to the south on the coast and there are also number of small free standing towns within Tyne and Wear. Some are former mining villages and others include Washington developed as a new town in the 1960 s. In the past, Tyne and Wear had a large proportion of public sector housing but this is gradually transferring to the private sector through the right to buy scheme and is now down to under 30% of the housing stock. Almost all of the land separating this polycentric pattern of towns and cities is protected by either green belt or community forest planning constraints. Counties Registered Parks & Gardens County parks Green belt Community forests North Tyneside 2001 Settlements Newcastle-upon-Tyne South Tyneside Gateshead Sunderland Figure 1.2: Protected areas in Tyne and Wear and surrounding area 1.5 The green belt policy in Tyne and Wear has been used to retain the spatial separation of the settlements in this polycentric city region and to provide nearby green spaces in close proximity to the urban centres, (Figure 1.2). This policy would also have helped to contain the population within areas that can be served by public transport and this would be important in an area with low car ownership. However, the current trend of increasing car ownership and demand for more spacious housing means that there is decline in many of the urban centres with increasing pressure for housing in the suburban areas. Generally, house prices tend to be higher in these outer areas than in the urban centres. This is in contrast to London and Cambridge where housing in central areas generally has higher rental values. 8

9 1.6 There have been instances in recent years of allowing new settlements to be developed in more rural areas to provide executive style housing. The aim is to provide an attractive lifestyle to help attract and retain professional and managerial workers to the area. An example of this type of development is Ponteland and Darras Hall near the airport and more recently Great Park on the northern edge of Newcastle. The Sage computer company headquarters is also out of town near the airport in keeping with this policy of relaxing planning constraints to help counter the past trend of economic decline and loss of population. The area Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 has a policy to provide new housing that better meets people s aspirations by replacing some of the old terraced housing in the urban restructuring areas with a mix of dwelling types, (GONE 2008), to counter the trend of urban decline. 1.7 The policy has been successful in that the proportion of dwellings built on brownfield has been increasing over the past few years and the current target is for 80% of new dwellings in Tyne and Wear to be built on previously used land. The housing densities have also gone up in the same period to over 50 dwellings per hectare from around 30 dwellings per hectare in the 1990 s, (CLG, 2008). The outcome of this policy of concentrating new housing on brownfield sites and at higher densities is a reduction in the choice of dwelling types and location. 1.8 There are a number of areas being considered for restructuring as part of the Pathfinder scheme, Leather et al (2007) and Figure 1.3 shows the location of the Pathfinder area which encompasses those inner city areas where there are proposals to restructure the old terraced housing, with the aim of regenerating the inner urban areas. This will include refurbishing properties and replacing some of the small terraced housing of the industrial era with a wider mix of housing at lower densities. This will meet the needs of a wider range of households and make these urban areas more attractive places to live. Boundary of Newcastle Gateshead Pathfinder area Figure 1.3: Newcastle Gateshead Pathfinder area 9

10 1.9 The study area is already well served with highways and both the A1 and A19 trunk roads run north-south through the area. At most times of the day, the road network is relatively uncongested and there is relatively little traffic congestion compared to cities in the south east of England, such as Cambridge and London. However, at certain times of day, there are congestion problems on the bridges crossing the Tyne and their approach roads, around the MetroCentre and the Western Bypass, and affecting the present Tyne Tunnel. The Metro light rail system forms the backbone of Tyne and Wear s public transport network. Metro patronage has grown significantly since 2006 and passenger numbers have risen above 40 million for the first time in 16 years. Close co-operation between local authorities, Nexus and bus operators has resulted in recent significant improvements to bus provision in the region. Rail services to and from the region have been progressively improved in recent years. National Express carry almost 17 million passengers a year along the East Coast Main Line while new trains have been introduced on Cross-Country and Trans-Pennine services providing better service for commuter rail travel. The topography of Tyne and Wear provides various challenges and opportunities for the promotion of walking and cycling. Whilst steep hills in some areas discourage such modes, the region benefits from several attractive traffic-free riverside routes which have become popular links in the National Cycle Network The transport policies are balanced between the road and public transport networks, with the aim to improve public transport provision through increased investment in the Metro system and major scheme funding to improve key bus corridors (some complementary to Metro), as well as improving highway capacity with a new Tyne river crossing due to open in A number of other major highway schemes have been recently implemented to reduce congestion and assist economic regeneration, including the southern Radial Route in Sunderland and the widening of the Felling Bypass in Gateshead to facilitate a new bus lane that has enhanced public transport reliability without reducing road capacity. Regional bodies work closely with train operators and Network Rail to explore the potential for further development of the local rail network and to ensure that key stations provide an attractive gateway to Tyne and Wear. A study commissioned by Nexus in 2008 highlighted the potential of the disused Leamside line to carry local passenger trains between Durham, Washington and Newcastle, as well as rail freight. Tyne and Wear LTP Partners work closely with stakeholders such as Sustrans and Living Streets to better maintain and upgrade walking and cycling routes and to improve links into town and city centres, and to cultural and leisure attractions. Sunderland, Newcastle and Gateshead are all participating as pilot areas in the Living Streets Fitter for Walking project to make local streets safer and more attractive for pedestrians There have been arguments advanced (Eddington, 2006) for the introduction of road user charges (RUC) to reduce the use of private vehicles in congested areas. The Tyne & Wear Partners have commissioned a range of studies to examine the potential for a range of options, including road user charging, to form a solution for current and future transport and related economic, social and environmental issues in Tyne & Wear. These studies have been conducted in association with the Department for Transport s Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) programme. The findings from this work (Tyne and Wear Partners, 2008) concluded that there is strong merit in pursuing further a road user charging based package for Tyne & Wear that can meet the transport, social and environmental objectives of Tyne & Wear, meet the requirements of DfT and attract significant additional transport funding to the sub-region. However, they cautioned that in wider economic terms as well as in transport analysis terms, the balance has not yet 10

11 been struck between the impacts of the road user charging scheme and the package of supporting measures. 2. The options tested and results 2.1 The Trend and the policy options are tested using a land use transport interaction (LUTI) model originally developed for the Tyneside Area Multi-Modal Study (TAMMS) study, ARUP (2002). TAMMS is a strategic level model commissioned by Government Office for the North East (GO-NE). It has a detailed land use model but the transport model has a lack of junction modelling and a very limited parking model. The SOLUTIONS project had originally expected that the case study would be carried out using a new and up-to-date LUTI model developed by the local authorities. The local authorities would have then funded the operation of the model for policy testing so that the case study findings could inform their policy making. However, it eventually became clear that due to slippages in the programme of work by the consultants developing the model, it would not be available during the timescales of the project. The only alternative was to use the TAMMS model to create a LUTI model for testing the options and operate this model in-house. The resulting delays to starting the case study and extra work involved in resurrecting and piecing together this old model meant that there wasn t the time and resources remaining to update the model. The land use inputs for households and employment in year 2000 and year 2031 are unchanged from the original TAMMS model but the numbers of dwellings has been increased to be more consistent with current policies. The TAMMS year 2000 transport networks were used as a starting point for the case study to develop the LUTI model used for this case study. Other limitations of the transport model used by TAMMS include a lack of junction modelling and a very limited parking model. 2.1 Trend option For the purposes of comparison, most of the inputs and findings for the Trend are reported below at the aggregate level of the Tyne and Wear Metropolitan County and the level of rest of the modelled area that covers the Tyne and Wear City Region Table 1.1 and Table 1.2 summarise the total number of dwellings and employment for Tyne and Wear and the rest of the City Region for the base year model and the 2031 trend forecast 1. While the total number of dwellings and employment for each forecast year remains constant for each policy tested, their spatial distribution is produced by the model in response to the policies. Table 1.1: Numbers of dwellings Area Dwellings 2000 base 2031 Trend Change % Tyne and Wear 499, ,743 72,380 14% Outer Areas 240, ,957 38,686 16% City Region 739, , ,065 15% 1 As a comparison, this is only around 60% of the growth rate expected in the Wider South East of England. 11

12 Table 1.2: Numbers of employees Area Employees 2000 base 2031 Trend Change % Tyne and 468, ,996 48,670 10% Wear Outer Areas 179, ,686 29,202 16% City Region 647, ,682 77,871 12% Figure 1.4 and Figure 1.5 show that the dwellings are forecast to increase in all districts but the main increase in employment is in Newcastle. Sunderland has a similar number of dwellings to Newcastle but much lower employment and the model forecasts a slight decline over the 2000 to 2031 period. Figure 1.4: Change in the dwellings input per district from 2000 to 2031 Figure 1.5: Change in the employment per district from 2000 to

13 Employees The number of households input to the LUTI model for the City Region increases from 709 to 808 thousand from year 2000 to 2031, (14%). However, population is only forecast to increase by only around 6% over this period for the City Region, (TEMPROv5.4) 2. Household growth is higher than population growth because average household size is decreasing over time. Figure 1.6 shows that the projected trend is for the proportions of employment in the business and retail sectors to increase from 2000 and the ,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10, ,000-20,000 Employment Growth by Sector Business Education Industry Primary Retail Services Figure 1.6: Changes in Employment for the City Region in the Trend from 2000 to As employment is changing from primary and secondary (agriculture and manufacturing etc), towards tertiary activities, (business services, retail and knowledge based industries), there is a resulting shift from manual to non-manual workers. Figure 1.7 shows that the proportions of SEG1 (professional & managerial) and inactive households are increasing. 3 There are corresponding decreases in the proportions of other types of households particularly SEG4 (semi and unskilled manual workers). This reflects the projected trend shows that all of the employment growth will be in the business and retail sectors and that sectors that employ higher proportions of SEG4 workers such as primary (agriculture, mining etc) and manufacturing will continue to decline. This shift has important implications for dwelling space and mobility because the households of white collar workers generally demand more dwelling space and higher car ownership than blue collar households. (It has been assumed that the efficiency and wages of the workers remains unchanged within each socio-economic group.) The model internally forecasts the spatial distribution of the exogenous employment to the zones within the City Region for The exogenous employment includes those firms from the business, higher education, industry, and primary sectors that export their services outside the modelled area. The exogenous employment accounts for around 43% of all employment in the model. The remaining endogenous employment is generated internally by the model in each zone to represent the services 2 The growth in population is much lower than in the south of the UK. For example in the Wider South East, the growth in population is 19% and 33% in households. Population growth has increased in Tyne and Wear during the past few years partly due to immigration from Eastern Europe but it is uncertain whether this will continue long term. 3 There are six household socio-economic groups in the model:- SEG1 workers are professional & managerial; SEG2 white collar worker other than professional & managerial; SEG3 skilled manual workers; SEG4 semi and unskilled manual workers; Unemployed; and Inactive households that are the retired and other households not seeking work. 13

14 to the local population in the business, education, retail and services sectors, (Lowry 1964). The floorspace per zone for business and retail are input to the model because these are the sectors that are increasing. The industry floorspace per option is also input as part of this case study so that a wider range of employment can be redistributed for testing the options. The model internally allocates the business and retail employment to zones to reach equilibrium between supply and demand based on prices. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Employment Sector (%) Tyne and Wear Trend 00 Trend 31 Business Education Industry Primary Retail Services 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Household SocioEconomic Group (%) Tyne and Wear Trend 00 Trend 31 Figure 1.7: Changes in Composition of Employment and Household in Trend from 2000 to 2031 in Tyne and Wear The trend assumptions are that most of the new dwellings will be built within the county of Tyne and Wear but the highest rates of growth of employment floorspace will be in the outer areas, (Figure 1.8). This represents the trend for gradual dispersal from the former industrial urban areas to more suburban and rural locations. SEG1 SEG2 SEG3 SEG4 Unemployed Inactive Figure 1.8: Percentage Changes in Dwellings and Employment Floorspace for Business and Retail in Trend from 2000 to

15 2.1.8 The Trend follows the plans for investment in major transport schemes identified from a variety of sources including TAMMS documentation Arup (2002), the LTP major scheme descriptions, (see and TIF proposals (Tyne and Wear Partners, 2008) 4. A representation of the Trend for transport investment has been built from these sources Figure 1.9 illustrates the locations of the major highway schemes, Figure 1.10 the major rail schemes and Figure 1.11 for non-rail major public transport schemes. This represents an even split of the 1200m investment over the period year 2000 to 2031 between Highways schemes ( 600m) and Public Transport schemes ( 606m). (figure adapted from ARUP (2002) Tyneside Area Multi Modal Study Study Report) Figure 1.9 Highway network stress points and location of major schemes for Trend option 4 Tyne & Wear Transport Innovation Fund, Further Comparison of Integrated Congestion Management Packages, Tyne & Wear Partners, May

16 (figure adapted from ARUP (2002) Tyneside Area Multi Modal Study Study Report) Figure 1.10: Rail infrastructure improvements for the Trend option (figure adapted from ARUP (2002) Tyneside Area Multi Modal Study Study Report) Figure 1.11: New MCR routes to be included in the Trend option 16

17 The LUTI model forecasts the use of land and transport for 2031 which include the location of households by SEG and employment (basic plus services) by economic sector, the transport use by mode and the equilibrium prices: Newcastle has well above average growth in employment (25%) over the 30 year period and Gateshead around the average at 12%, but most of the other urban areas in Tyne and Wear have very little projected employment growth. Many of the areas with the strongest employment growth are in the outer areas, such as Chester le Street, Durham and Morpeth, (Figure 1.12) Tyne and Wear and the outer areas have a similar average growth rate in the total number of households across the modelled area, (Table 1.3), because although the outer area has a higher growth in employed households, the Tyne and Wear area has higher growth of unemployed and inactive households. Larger higher income households tend to be more attracted the outer areas than urban parts of Tyne and Wear. Table 1.3: Numbers of households Area Households 2000 base 2031 Trend Change % Tyne and Wear 478, ,552 66,846 14% Outer Areas 230, ,265 32,717 14% City Region 709, ,818 99,565 14% Figure 1.12: Changes in Dwellings, Households, Employed Residents and Employment in Trend from 2000 to 2031 by District 17

18 Floorspace (m2) Employees Dwellings Households Table 1.5 shows that the number of employed residents is growing at twice the rate in the outer areas than in Tyne and Wear with two thirds of the increase in employed households being in the outer areas. However, almost all of the increase in unemployed and inactive households will be in Tyne and Wear, (Table 1.6). This is generally because housing is less expensive in the urban areas of Tyne and Wear than in the more suburban and rural areas. The trend is for the continuation of the gradual dispersal of working households from the former industrial areas of Tyne and Wear out into the surrounding suburbs, towns and rural areas with non working households locating in the declining inner city areas. However, Newcastle will continue to be the main centre of employment and so as working households disperse their journey lengths increase with more trips by car. This relatively concentrated pattern of employment but with a more dispersed pattern of households generates increasing amounts of car travel. Dwellings Households 600, , , , , , ,000 Tyne and Wear 300,000 Tyne and Wear 200,000 Outer Areas 200,000 Outer Areas 100, , Figure 1.13: Changes in numbers of dwellings and households for the Trend Figure 1.14: Changes in numbers of working and non-working households for the Trend Employment Floorspace Employment 12,000,000 10,000, , ,000 8,000, ,000 6,000,000 Tyne and Wear 300,000 Tyne and Wear 4,000,000 Outer Areas 200,000 Outer Areas 2,000, , Figure 1.15: Changes in employment and business and retail floorspace for the Trend 18

19 Table 1.4: Employment floorspace for business and retail Area Employment floorspace for business and retail (sq.m) 2000 base 2031 Trend Change % Tyne and Wear 10,424,837 11,314, ,672 +9% Outer Areas 3,668,076 4,319, , % City Region 14,092,912 15,633,878 1,540, % Table 1.5: Numbers of employed residents Area Employed residents 2000 base 2031 Trend Change % Tyne and Wear 439, ,703 37,499 9% Outer Areas 230, ,837 46,269 20% City Region 669, ,540 83,768 13% Table 1.6: Numbers of unemployed and inactive households Area Unemployed and inactive households Tyne and Wear Outer Areas 2000 base 2031 Trend Change % 196, ,825 50,986 26% 86,662 87,919 1,256 City Region 283, ,744 52,242 18% Figure 1.16 shows that the land use model forecasts an average increase of 20% in dwelling rents, 25% in household living costs, and 23% in wage costs for the period 2000 to 2031, (in real terms without including inflation). 1% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% Tyne & Wear Outer Areas City Region 5% 0% rents cost of living wage cost Figure 1.16: Rents, cost of living and wages for 2031 Trend compared with year

20 The increase in rents is a measure of the cost of housing. Housing costs increase largely due to increasing demand for more housing space resulting from the shift towards white collar households as the economy continues to transform from its industrial past to office and retail based employment. White collar households on average demand larger houses, and generally prefer to live in the more suburban and rural parts of Tyne and Wear rather than the former industrial areas. This tends to result in a mismatch between supply and demand for housing with demand being higher in outer more rural areas, whereas most of the supply is in urban areas. Figure 1.17 shows that the percentage increase in rents is much greater in the outer areas than in Tyne and Wear The increase in household living costs is partly due to these increases in the cost of housing and also the increase in transport costs due to increasing car ownership and worsening traffic congestion in urban areas. This increasing demand for improved living space, car ownership and goods and services as the lifestyle expectations of the average household increases over time will drive up living costs if there is not enough increase in supply to meet this implicit perceived entitlement to a higher standard of living Worsening traffic congestion will also affect business trips and tends to increase wage costs. However, the increases in wage costs are mainly due to the increasing living costs being passed on to employers as higher wage demands. The trend is catering for the numerical increases in jobs and households but it is not including enough extra housing and transport capacity in the right locations to cater for these increases in living standards. The overall wage costs to employers will increase over time in real terms making the Tyne and Wear city region less economically competitive. Figure 1.16 shows that the percentage increases in wage costs are similar in both Tyne and Wear and the outer areas because many of the people employed in Tyne and Wear live in the outer areas and are passing on their higher living costs through higher wage demands from city centre employers. Figure 1.17: Distribution of Changes in Rent, Living Costs and Wage costs in Trend from 2000 to The overall forecast daily travel demand based on the number of person trips is forecast to increase by 6.1% over the period year 2000 to However, the number of car trips is forecast to increase by over 20% resulting in an increase in the modal share of car trips from 50% to 58% as shown in Figure

21 Trip distance (km) % 2031 Trend 4% 25% 1% 50% 1.2% 19.5% 57.6% Car Bus Rail walking & cycling Metro (inc MCR) 18% 21% Figure 1.18: Trend in mode split by number of trips Car ownership is expected to increase substantially from 57% to 73% of households by year Car trips are forecast to increase over the forecast period due to the trend of increasing car ownership. People from non-car owning households tend to be more likely to use public transport, walking and cycling. As the proportion of households in the study area without a car falls from 43% in 2000 to 27% by 2031 there is a corresponding reduction in the proportion of trips by public transport and slow modes The average trip lengths on all trips within the Tyne and Wear city region increase by 11.6km in the morning peak (a 5% increase in the average length of car trips and 24% increase in the total distance travelled by car). Rail trips show a substantial decrease in average trip length as a result of investment in more local rail services for commuters, however, overall public transport trip lengths increase by 5.9%. This is consistent with a continuation of the past trend of increasing distance travelled per trip and this is facilitated by the trend of increasing car ownership and relatively high average traffic speeds walking & cycling Bus Metro (inc MCR) Car Rail All modes Figure 1.19: Average trip distance by mode for the forecast years 5 Average speeds in the morning peak period are around 70% higher than in Tyne and Wear than in the Wider South East of the UK (47 km/hr in Tyne and Wear and 28 km/hr in the WSE) 21

22 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% walking & cycling Bus Car Rail Metro (inc MCR) All modes 0% -20% % Figure 1.20: Percentage change in total passenger-km by mode for the forecast years Table 1.7: Transport outputs for the 2000 base year and 2031 Trend for Tyne and Wear Ave trip dist Ave trip cost Ave. time Ave speed (km) (pence 2000) (mins) (km/hr) Mode 1 Car Bus Rail Metro (inc MCR) Walking & cycling All modes Table 1.8: Percentage change for 2031 Trend compared to 2000 base year for Tyne and Wear Mode Ave. dist Ave. cost Ave. time Ave. Number of Passenger per trip per trip per trip speed trips km (km) (pence (mins) (km/hr) (million) (million) 2000) Car 5% 6% 6% -1% 18% 24% Bus -4% 0% -2% -1% -4% -7% Rail -23% -18% -17% -7% 50% 16% Metro (inc. MCR) 26% 0% 17% 2% 66% 107% Walking & cycling -2% 0% -1% 0% -16% -17% All modes 12% 11% 1% 11% 6% 18% 22

23 Comparing the distribution of congestion across the network between the 2000 Base year (Figure 1.21) and for the 2031 Trend (Figure 1.22) it is evident that by 2031 there will be more congestion in the central areas while the planned improvements to the A1 has the effect of keeping congestion at year 2000 levels on this key corridor. The new Tyne crossing has the desired effect of reducing the congestion experienced at the A19 crossing of the Tyne. Figure 1.21: Volume/Capacity ratios indicating congestion for 2000 Base year Figure 1.22: Volume/Capacity ratios indicating congestion for the Trend by For the public transport indicators, there is an overall increase in public transport pass-km of 12% in the morning peak and 16% in the interpeak period as a result of less short journeys by bus but more longer trips by train and metro/metro complimentary 23

24 routes (MCR) this is due to investment in new capacity on train and metro systems between 2000 and Base Year 2031 Trend Rail Metro Bus MCR All PT Figure 1.23: Average hour passenger-km travel (am peak) Therefore, as well as there being 6% more trips overall there is also a tendency for a greater proportion of trips to be made by car and for trips to be longer in distance with average car trip lengths forecast to increase by approximately 5% while average public transport trips are estimated to increase by around 6%. The following two sensitivity tests have been performed: A change in the number of dwellings to assess the effect of the supply of dwellings on housing costs. As mentioned earlier in this report, the number of dwellings in the Trend was increased above those in the original TAMMS model. This test compares the Trend with these extra dwellings against the original TAMMS model. This demonstrates the benefits of having sufficient supply of dwellings to meet demand as recommended by the Barker Review of Housing (2004). Figure 1.27 shows that a 4% net increase in the stock of dwelling, (see Table 1.9), produces a 16% reduction in average rents 6. This would increase the average cost of living and wage costs in the City Region. Table 1.9: Dwellings for the 2031Trend compared with the original TAMMS model Regions Trend Original TAMMS model Difference % Tyne and Wear 571, ,639 25,104 5% Outer area 278, ,845 6,112 2% City Region 850, ,485 31,215 4% Introduction of road user charges 7 for the urban links in the network (see Figure 1.24) produced a 52% increase in monetary cost of travelling by car, but the overall 6 The extra dwellings have been allocated based on the forecast number of households, so the increase in dwellings is higher than the average 3.6% in areas where demand is greatest and correspondingly lower increases in areas of less demand in order to achieve a minimum vacancy rate per zone of 3% and an overall vacancy rate of 5%. The inputs of exogenous employment are the same as the Trend. 7 The purpose of the road user charging (RUC) sensitivity test is to understand the effect of the charge on the outputs of the model using the same land use inputs of dwellings and exogenous employment as the trend. 24

25 impact is less pronounced as it is compensated by average reductions in travel time of 5.6% due to an increase in speeds and decrease in average journey length. As time has a bigger impact than the monetary costs in the generalised travel cost, the reduction in car-km is only 7% overall. There is a 4% increase in bus use, a 3% increase in rail use and a 1% increase in walking and cycling trips resulting in a 4% increase in walking and cycling kilometres travelled. While the overall impact is modest, local impacts are more pronounced, especially in corridors well served by public transport. The impacts in cost of living are illustrated in Figure All the options have been tested with and without Road User Charging (RUC). The purpose of the road user charging (RUC) sensitivity test is to understand the effect of the charge on the outputs of the model. It is not intended to reach conclusions about RUC. This would have required a separate study considering a wider range of alternatives and a different method. 6% 4% 2% 0% -2% Car Bus Rail Metro (inc MCR) walking & cycling All modes Person trips Passenger km -4% -6% -8% Figure 1.24 Effect of Road User Charging on the Trend (%) Some indicative charges of common commuter routes are as follows: Metro Centre to Central Station - 70p (7.4km) Cramlington to Haymarket (14.4km) Tynemouth to Monument (14.7km) South Shields to Sunderland (12.3km) This shows that the charges applied for the individual traveller are modest. However, based on predicted traffic flows for the Trend option the revenue if the charges are applied from 7a.m. to 7p.m. weekdays would be approximately 140 million per annum. On average this is equivalent to about double the total money invested in major transport schemes each year (note that this does not take into account the cost of implementing and operating the RUC scheme) The average highway speed on non motorway links increases from 44.3 to 46.2 km/h (+4.3%) and on urban roads increases from 19.5 to 21.2 km/h (+8.4%). Average trip distances reduce by 5.3% for car trips while average travel times decrease by about 5% for car trips. The modal share for car decreases from 58% to 56% while public transport and slow modes both increase by about 1% each. 25

26 \\Cmiserver\solutions\Tyne and Wear\SOLUTIONS_TRIPS_MODEL\Scenario_tree\Sc2031 Trend\HWY_0003.NET MVGRAF V TRIPS - Citilabs Figure 1.25: Location of charges by link type in the network The RUC option has very relatively little impact on overall household living costs and employers wage costs (Figure 1.26 and Figure 1.27). The average amount paid in charges in the City Region is only about 1% of average household living costs. There will be some dispersal of employment and households to the outer areas where there is not road user charge. This tends to increase rents and other costs in these outer areas due to the greater demand for space. 26

27 Trend 2031 (+RUC) Trend 2031 (+RUC) Figure 1.26: Distribution of Changes in Household Living Cost and Employment Wage Cost in the Trend with RUC 2031 from Trend without RUC % 0% -2% -4% -6% -8% -10% -12% -14% -16% -18% Trend with RUC and extra dwellings Trend with RUC Extra dwellings Rents Cost of living Wage costs Figure 1.27: Socio-economic Indicators for the Sensitivity Tests compared against the Trend without RUC 2.2 Alternative spatial strategies The alternative designs are compared against the 2031 trend option with and without road user charges (RUC). It was decided for the purpose of comparative analysis, that the options should have the same City Region overall totals of employment floorspace, number of dwellings and transport investment. The options also 27

28 have the same overall total employment by sector and households by type 8. For the purpose of designing the options, the City Region is divided into urban conurbations, (Figure 1.28), peri-conurbation areas, (Figure 1.29), and buffer (Figure 1.30). The two conurbations can broadly be defined as Sunderland and the urban parts of Newcastle/Gateshead/rest of Tyneside. The boundaries of these two conurbations have been selected according to the boundaries of the zones in the LUTI model. Those zones that are mainly urban are included in the conurbation and those where less than half of the area is urban are in the suburban area. Consequently, these areas do not necessarily coincide with the actual boundaries of the conurbations. However, a method of distinguishing between the areas was necessary in order to design the inputs for the options. The peri-conurbation is the area around the conurbations that includes smaller settlements and green space. The buffer area includes the large rural zones around the edge of the modelled area. The dwelling and floorspace inputs for the buffer were kept the same as the Trend for all of the options to keep the land use around the edge of the model constant. Tyne and Wear Boundary Conurbations Figure 1.28: LUTI zones within the two Conurbation areas 8 There are, however, some minor variations in the overall totals because the commuting in and out of the study area will vary depending on the location of exogenous employment. 28

29 Peri-conurbation Area Tyne and Wear Boundary Figure 1.29: LUTI model zones within the Peri-conurbation area Buffer Zones Tyne and Wear Boundary Figure 1.30: LUTI model zones within the Buffer area 29

30 2.2.2 The three options studied are: 1. Compaction - high density development within the existing urban footprint, public transport oriented. 2. Dispersal market led lower density development, private transport oriented. 3. Expansion planned new settlements with mixed density in good transport corridors and a mix of private and public transport The following tables compare the options with the Trend. The options have around a 10% difference in dwellings from the trend within the conurbation areas versus the peri-conurbation area. However, there is less of a mirror image in employment floorspace between the options because the LUTI model allocates less floorspace per employee in the conurbations than in outer areas As expected there is no significant difference between the total forecast trips over the City Region by trip purpose between the Trend and the options because they have the same total population, households, and employment Appendix A gives more details about land use inputs and transport capacity improvements. Appendix B gives the operation of the LUTI model, details of the outputs of the LUTI model for the options and some variations of the options. Table 1.10: Dwelling inputs for the Options (no RUC) Alternative Spatial Strategies (The Options ) Region Base Trend Compaction Dispersal Expansion Conurbation 329, , , , ,921 Periconurbation 294, , , , ,387 Buffer 115, , , , ,373 Totals 739, , , , ,680 Table 1.11: Business and retail floorspace for the Options (no RUC) Alternative Spatial Strategies (The Options ) Region Base Trend Compaction Dispersal Expansion Conurbation 3,154,418 3,956,330 4,436,070 3,302,010 3,492,631 Periconurbation 1,086,516 1,996,393 1,529,099 2,653,258 2,452,925 Buffer 542, , , , ,160 Totals 4,783,696 6,918,101 6,934,781 6,922,302 6,909,717 Table 1.12: Differences in dwellings between the Options and the 2031 Trend Option minus Trend % difference Region Compaction Dispersal Expansion Compaction Dispersal Expansion Conurbation 34,647-34,710-29,491 9% -9% -8% Periconurbation -34,380 34,725 29,496-10% 10% 9% Buffer % 0% 0% Totals % 0% 0% 30

31 Table 1.13: Differences in floorspace between the Options and the 2031 Trend Option minus Trend % difference Region Compaction Dispersal Expansion Compaction Dispersal Expansion Conurbation 479, , ,699 12% -17% -12% Peri-conurbation -467, , ,532-23% 33% 23% Buffer 4,233 1,655-1,218 0% 0% 0% Totals 16,680 4,201-8,385 0% 0% 0% Compaction option The policy design levers for this option include: (see Figure 1.31) New dwelling units are concentrated in the urban areas with strong economic growth, mainly around Newcastle city centre and parts of Gateshead. These areas would absorb around 24 thousand extra dwellings from year 2000 to 2031 compared to the Trend. The dwellings are targeted to areas with good public transport, close to local services and employment, regardless of whether the land is green belt or brownfield. Target densities would be up to around 80 dwellings per hectare. This will result in more than half of the new dwellings being flats most of the remaining new dwellings terraced housing. There is a risk that the market for these housing types will become saturated as they are less attractive especially to families. The resulting reduction of rents may reduce their profitability for developers making it less likely that they will deliver the desired number of units. The new floorspace to cater for the increase in business and retail employment is directed into these selected urban areas The transport investment is focussed on public transport improvements. The total equivalent investment is kept the same as the Trend, but concentrated entirely on public transport so that investment for increasing highway capacity is shifted to increasing rail, metro and busway capacity. The rail schemes included in the Compaction option do not differ from the Trend. The locations of the non-rail major public transport schemes are illustrated in Figure The inclusion of RUC mitigates a further worsening of congestion from clustering more people within the urban areas that would have increased delays and exhaust emissions The outputs of the model indicate the following: There is a reduction of rents in the urban areas, but it is counterbalanced by an increase in rents in other areas due to a lack of supply in these attractive outer areas, which produces an overall increase in average rents of 0.8% and a small increase in average cost of living 0f 0.4% and wage costs of 0.5% across the modelled area. There is hardly any change in overall distance travelled with a 2.3% reduction in car travel and an increase in public transport, pedestrian and cycling travel of 6.4%. Average time of travel is increased with no discernable improvement in cost of travel. 31

32 Compaction Option (no RUC) Compaction Option (no RUC) Figure 1.31: Compaction option - percentage changes in the location of new dwellings and employment floorspace compared to the 2031Trend. Figure 1.32: New MCR and segregated busway routes to be included in the Compaction option (adapted from ARUP (2002) Tyneside Area Multi Modal Study Study Report) 32

33 2.2.2 Dispersal option The inputs to model this alternative include the following (see Figure 1.33): New dwelling units are dispersed into zones where the absolute rents are higher and there is land availability without encroaching on areas with extra levels of protection such as parks and nature conservation areas. It assumes that the removal of the green belt would result in dispersal of employment and households from urban areas and would be a reduction in rents as a result of this freeing up of development constraints. There is already a natural tendency towards dispersal in Tyne and Wear with property prices generally being higher outside the conurbations. The areas with relatively little new development would be in the Pathfinder areas along the river Tyne. This may provide an opportunity to redevelop these areas at lower densities with green space and riverside parks The changes in the location of business and retail floorspace follows a similar dispersal pattern observed in many cities with less stringent planning constraints, such as Milan and Brussels on the Continent and Bristol in the UK The total equivalent transport investment from 2016 to 2031 for the Trend is focussed entirely on highway capacity improvements, but retaining the RUC. Dispersal Option (no RUC) Dispersal Option (no RUC) Figure 1.33: Dispersal option - percentage changes in the location of new dwellings and employment floorspace compared to the 2031Trend The output of the model indicates the following: There is an overall slight decrease of -0.6% in rents which it is reflected in a slight increase of -0.8% in living costs. This will result in lower wage demands which combined with less congestion and lower employment floorspace rents will reduce wage costs by -1.6%. 33

34 There is an increase of 1.6% in car km and a 4% reduction in public transport passenger-km. Average car cost of travel increases by about 1.8% whilst there is a 2.3% increase in speeds Planned Expansion option The inputs to model for this alternative includes the following (see Figure 1.34): The new dwelling units are concentrated in 5 areas of urban expansion at the following locations: Backworth (northeast edge of the Newcastle/North Tyneside conurbation), Woolsington (northeast edge of the Newcastle conurbation, adjacent to the Airport), Blaydon (western edge of the Gateshead conurbation); urban expansion of Chester-le-Street; and urban expansion around Bolden between the Sunderland and South Tyneside conurbations. The settlements that range from 3,300 to 15,300 dwellings are located where there is economic growth and good road and public transport connections The employment floorspace for business, retail, and some industry is concentrated in and around these new settlements by assuming that the trend increases in employment in the sub region around the new settlements would coalesce within the new settlements. The model then allocates employment to this floorspace depending on the supply and demand. There is a risk that the firms will not locate there to provide sufficient floorspace and it may require financial incentives to attract them as well as public infrastructure investment in advance of the development. In general the regional totals are comparable to the Dispersed option but are more specifically allocated to particular zones The transport is a similar mix of public transport and highways investment to the trend with RUC retained. The new towns and urban corridor extensions are designed to have good access to public transport. Planned Expansion Option (no RUC) Planned Expansion Option (no RUC) 34

35 Figure 1.34: Planned Expansion option - percentage changes in the location of new dwellings and employment floorspace compared to the 2031Trend The output of the model indicates the following: The reductions in rents, living costs and wage costs follow a similar pattern to the Dispersal option but of only around half the magnitude. The average space standard is less than the Dispersal option but more than the Compaction option and the Trend. The overall km travelled by car is almost the same as the Trend. There is, however, a greater increase in public transport travel (3%) generated by the new settlements. The overall average travel cost is 0.7% increased because of higher car costs but the average travel time only increases by 0.4% despite 1.5% longer journeys due to slightly faster average speeds Comparison of the outputs Figures 1.35 and 1.36 illustrate the comparison of the three alternative policies against the trend in the year 2031 for percentage change in the cost of living and in wage cost, respectively. It can be observed that the Compaction option reduces the cost of living and wage cost in Newcastle and Gateshead because of the increased supply of dwellings and employment floorspace within the urban centres of these districts, but living costs increase in other areas resulting in an overall increase of costs. In contrast the Dispersed option reduces cost overall and in particular in the areas outside the conurbations where the absolute cost of property and labour is higher. The market-led approach assumes that a greater proportion of dwellings and employment would disperse to these more prosperous areas to reduce the disparity between supply and demand so that overall price rises in the City Region are lower than the Trend. The Expansion option also tends to reduce costs in these outer areas but to a lesser extent than the Dispersal option because there is less matching of supply and demand. The overall impacts are summarised in Table 1.14 and Figure Compaction Option (no RUC) Dispersal Option (no RUC) Planned Expansion Option (no RUC) Figure 1.35: Percentage difference in Cost of Living for the options compared against the 2031 trend 35

36 Compaction Option (no RUC) Dispersal Option (no RUC) Planned Expansion Option (no RUC) Figure 1.36: Percentage difference in wage costs for the options compared against the 2031 trend Table 1.14: Percentage change in Rents, cost of living and wages for each option against the Trend with RUC in 2031 Options Compaction Dispersal Expansion Rents +0.8% -0.6% -0.2% Cost of living +0.4% -0.8% -0.3% Wage costs +0.5% -1.6% -0.8% Figure 1.37 Percentage changes in Rents, Cost of living and Wages for the options with RUC compared against the Trend with RUC in

37 Table 1.15: Households for the Options with RUC Alternative Spatial Strategies (The Options ) Region Base Trend Compaction Dispersal Expansion Conurbation 313, , , , ,554 Periconurbation 285, , , , ,736 Buffer 110, , , , ,615 Totals 709, , , , ,905 Table 1.16: Differences in Households between the Options and the 2031 Trend with RUC Option minus Trend % difference Region Compaction Dispersal Expansion Compaction Dispersal Expansion Conurbation 33,556-33,346-28,315 9% -9% -8% Periconurbation -33,422 34,284 28,023-10% 11% 9% Buffer % -1% 0% Totals % 0% 0% Table 1.17: Employment for the Options with RUC Alternative Spatial Strategies (The Options ) Region Base Trend Compaction Dispersal Expansion Conurbation 355, , , , ,075 Periconurbation 184, , , , ,907 Buffer 107, , , , ,701 Totals 647, , , , ,682 Table 1.18: Differences in Employment between the Options and 2031 Trend with RUC Region Conurbation Option minus Trend % difference Compaction Dispersal Expansion Compaction Dispersal Expansion 19,381-14,503-13,347 5% -4% -3% Periconurbation -16,211 16,998 14,192-8% 9% 7% Buffer -3,160-2, % -2% 0% Totals % 0% 0% The options have a very similar mode split to the Trend. The Compaction option has a higher percentage of trips by MCR and BRT and slightly higher percentage of trips by bus with a lower proportion of trips by car and rail than the Trend. The proportion of walking and cycling trips is also slightly higher. The Dispersal option has conversely slightly higher proportion of trips by car and less by MCR and BRT. Proportion of trips by walking and cycling are slightly reduced but interestingly there is a higher proportion of trips by bus than the trend this increase in bus use is due in large part to less rail and no MCR/BRT services in place, but also because road speeds for buses are slightly improved. The Planned Expansion option has slightly lower proportion 37

38 of trips by car, similar proportions of trips by rail, slightly less bus, walking and cycling trips and higher proportion of trips by metro and MCR/BRT than the Trend (see Figure 1.38). These differences reflect the amounts of transport investment per mode. The land use also affects the mode splits because high capacity public transport (rail, metro, MCR/BRT) is less viable with a dispersed pattern of development. The Trend and Planned Expansion options have a similar mixture of highways and public transport investment, whereas investment is entirely in public transport for the Compaction option and in highways for the Dispersal option. However, there are some differences between the options on distance travelled and average trip distances per mode. 0.7% 2031 Trend with RUC 1.6% Compaction 3.0% 2.9% 20.4% 20.4% 1.2% 55.8% Car Bus Rail walking & cycling Metro MCR & BRT 1.2% 54.7% Car Bus Rail walking & cycling Metro MCR & BRT 19.0% 19.1% Dispersal 2.8% 0.0% 3.5% 1.2% Expansion 20.1% 20.1% 0.8% 56.2% Car Bus Rail walking & cycling Metro MCR & BRT 1.3% 55.5% Car Bus Rail walking & cycling Metro MCR & BRT 20.0% 18.4% Figure 1.38: Mode split of person trips for Trend &Options (all with RUC) for Tyne & Wear The following tables present the results of the option tests compared to the trend for the following main transport indicators. Separate tables are provided displaying the results of the tests both with RUC included and without RUC. This shows that the direction of change for the main transport indicators is generally the same with and without RUC although the size of the change differs. Table 1.19: Number of trips: Comparison of options with RUC for Tyne & Wear (thousands) Trend with RUC Options (all have RUC) Mode Compaction Dispersal Expansion Car % 0.9% -0.7% Bus % 4% -4.4% Metro % -7.3% 13.5% MCR & BRT % -95% 60% Rail % -34.1% 5.6% Walking & cycling % -1.54% -1.4% All modes % -0.5% -0.5% 38

39 Table 1.20: Number of trips: Comparison of the options without RUC for Tyne and Wear (thousands) Trend without Options (all without RUC) Mode RUC Compaction Dispersal Expansion Car % 0.9% -0.7% Bus % 5.6% -5.4% Metro % -3.6% 10.3% MCR & BRT % -95% 70% Rail % -30.6% 3.8% Walking & 1.5% -1.05% -0.7% cycling 58.0 All modes % -0.2% -0.4% Table 1.21: Passenger-km: Comparison with the Trend of the options with RUC for Tyne and Wear Mode Trend with RUC (thousand pass-km) Options with RUC Compaction Dispersal Expansion Car % 1.6% 0.1% Bus % 10.4% -3.1% Metro % -5.9% 13.9% MCR & BRT % -98.0% 51.0% Rail % -13.2% 3.5% Walking & cycling % 1.54% -0.8% All modes % 0.3% 0.9% Table 1.22: Passenger-km: Comparison with the Trend of the options without RUC for Tyne and Wear Mode Trend without RUC (thousand pass-km) Options without RUC Compaction Dispersal Expansion Car % 0.4% -0.4% Bus % 13.6% -4.4% Metro % -1.4% 10.5% MCR & BRT % -98.0% 64.6% Rail % -9.3% 0.6% walking & cycling % 0.7% -1.0% All modes % 0.2% 0.2% 39

40 Table 1.20 shows the Compaction option with RUC generates 2.7% less car trips than the Trend with RUC but these are on average slightly longer in distance (Table 1.21) resulting in a 2.3% reduction in overall vehicle-km (Table 1.22). The impact of increased investment in public transport along with compact land use development creates a 9% increase in public transport trips compared to the Trend with RUC. This results in the same share of trips by public transport (25%) as the 2000 base year despite a backdrop of the proportion of households without a car falling from 43% in 2000 to 27% by The average speed on urban roads increases by almost 4% (from 19.5 to 20.3 km/h). This points towards less congestion in the central areas due to the shift to public transport and greater walking and cycling in these areas due to the more compact city design. Overall average trip distances have reduced by 0.9% Conversely, the dispersal option with RUC has 0.9% more car trips than the Trend with RUC and these are on average 0.6% longer in distance resulting in an overall increase in veh-km of 1.6%. Although this is a relatively small increase in distance driven on the highway network there is a significant increase in highway flows on main roads. Average highway speed on urban roads remains the same at 19.4 km/h while on non motorway links the increase is 3% from 44.3 to 45.6 km/h due to the extra investment in highway capacity across these links. The total number of public transport passenger-km decreases by 1% with 39,347 less pass-km by rail, metro or metro complementary routes. However, there are 35,614 more pass-km by bus. This increase in bus use is due in large part to less rail and no MCR/BRT services in place, but also because road speeds for buses are slightly improved. Trips to / from and within the city centre reveal a 6% reduction compared with the Trend due to the majority of new developments and more activity being focussed away from central areas. There is a relatively small increase in average trip length compared with the Trend with RUC (0.9%), suggesting that although the more widely dispersed new dwellings may lengthen journeys for some households still requiring to travel to the city centre for certain purposes, this is balanced by the dispersal from the city centre of employment and activities to areas closer to the dispersed population The Expansion option with RUC generates a slight decrease (-0.7%) in numbers of car trips compared to the Trend with RUC but these are on average 0.8% longer in distance resulting in no overall change in veh-km.. There is also a noticeable increase in trips by longer distance public transport modes (5.6% increase in Rail, 13.5% increase in metro, 60% increase in MCR and BRT). The number of walk and cycle trips are 1.4% lower for the Planned Expansion option than the Trend. The concentration of new dwellings in designated zones or corridors with better access to public transport services is generating a small shift from car to public transport use. 40

41 Av. trip length (km) % change from Trend with RUC 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% Compact City Dispersal Expansion walking & cycling Bus Car Rail Metro, MCR & BRT All modes -20% -30% Figure 1.39: Percentage change in passenger-km per mode for all options with RUC against the Trend with RUC in Trend RUC Compact City Dispersal Expansion 0.0 slow bus car rail metro MCR & BRT all modes Figure 1.40: shows the average trip distance per mode for each option compared to the trend (for the trend and options with RUC). 41

42 Table 1.23: Average trip distance: Comparison of the options with RUC for Tyne and Wear Trend Options (all have RUC) Mode with RUC (km) Compaction Dispersal Expansion Car % 0.6% 0.8% Bus % 6.7% 2.2% Metro % 1.2% 0.0% MCR & BRT % % Rail % 32.1% -1.9% Walking & cycling % 3.1% 0.6% All modes % 2.4% 1.5% Table 1.24 Average trip cost: Comparison of the options with RUC for Tyne and Wear Trend Options (all have RUC) Mode with RUC (pence) Compaction Dispersal Expansion Car % 1.8% 0.7% Bus % 0.0% 0.0% Metro % 0.0% 0.0% MCR & BRT % % Rail % 32.2% -10.7% Walking & cycling 0 0% 0% 0% All modes % -0.4% 0.7% Table 1.25:Average speed: Comparison of the options with RUC for Tyne and Wear (km/h) Trend Options (all have RUC) Mode with RUC (km/h) Compaction Dispersal Expansion Car % 2.3% 0.8% Bus % 0.7% 0.4% Metro % 0.0% 0.5% MCR & BRT % % Rail % 10.5% -0.4% Walking & cycling % 0.0% 0.0% All modes % 0.5% 1.1% 42

43 Table 1.26: Average trip distance: Comparison of options without RUC for Tyne & Wear Mode Trend Options (without RUC) (km) Compaction Dispersal Expansion Car % 0.0% 0.5% Bus % 7.6% 1.0% Metro % 2.2% 0.1% MCR & BRT % % Rail % 30.9% -3.1% Walking & cycling % 1.8% -0.3% All modes % 0.4% 0.9% Table 1.27: Average trip cost: Comparison of the options without RUC for Tyne & Wear Mode Trend Options (without RUC) (pence) Compaction Dispersal Expansion Car % 0.2% 0.2% Bus % 0.0% 0.0% Metro % 0.0% 0.0% MCR & BRT % % Rail % 32.2% -10.7% Walking & cycling 0 0% 0% 0% All modes % -1.3% 0.2% Table 1.28: Average speed: Comparison of options without RUC for Tyne & Wear (km/h) Mode Trend Options (without RUC) (km/h) Compaction Dispersal Expansion Car % 1.6% -0.3% Bus % 1.5% 0.8% Metro % 0.3% 0.3% MCR & BRT % % Rail % 10.7% -1.0% Walking & cycling % 0.0% 0.0% All modes % 0.4% 0.4% 43

44 3. Sustainability appraisal of the alternatives 3.1 The transport indicators in the assessment are based on all travel in the study area including through trips, whereas the comparisons in the previous sections were only for travel with an origin and destination within the Tyne and Wear City Region. 3.1 Economic sustainability indicators Net Economic Benefit and economic efficiency are calculated using the methods described in Chapter 4 Section for purposes of comparison between case studies. Table 1.1 illustrates the calculation. The trend adds 1,272m per annum to the total cost by The trend with road user charges adds 49m cost to the region, which could be compensated by the net revenue of the charges to the operator of 71m, (Table 4.32). The trend with extra dwellings reduces the regional cost by a substantial 620m which are partly the losses of landlords rents as the greater supply makes dwellings more affordable. The three alternative designs produces a net cost to the region of 24m for Compaction due to extra transport costs, while the Dispersal and Expansion options reduce regional costs by 55m and 64m per annum respectively. Table 1.29: Compensation Variation assessment, (2000) millions per year Sectors that need to be compensated Trend 2031 compared with 2000 Sensitivity tests compared to the 2031 Trend (without RUC) Trend with RUC Extra dwellings Options with RUC compared to the Trend with RUC Compact Dispersal Expansion Basic Employment Inactive Households Total (m) needed to compensate 1, Note:- Table shows the amounts in millions per year required to compensate for the variation in costs to basic employers and inactive households as a result of implementing an option as compared with a base option. Positive values are additional costs while negative values are reduction in costs Table 1.30 shows that the road user charge would have a disbenefit with a negative consumer surplus on both money and time. The time disbenefit is due to the mode shift from car to public transport. In Tyne and Wear the public transport trips are much slower than by car.9 All of the options have an overall net benefit compared to the Trend, probably due to a more coherent relationship between the land use patterns and transport provision. 9 In the Wider South East case study the car and public transport speeds are more similar and so the extra travel time by public transport was outweighed by the time savings to drivers as RUC reduces congestion. 44

45 Table 1.30: Economic efficiency Alternative Trend + RUC vs vs. Base Trend no RUC Spatial design options with RUC compared to Trend with RUC Compact Dispersed Expansion User money benefit User time benefit Total user benefit Net operator benefit Overall Net Benefit Note: - Table shows the transport benefits in (2000) million per annum using consumer surplus calculation for users of transport and operators. Negative values are costs while positive values are benefits. The net operator benefit is calculated assuming that the operating cost of the scheme is half of the revenue. 3.2 Resources indicators Land requirement is summarised in Table 1.31 and Figure It can be seen that the Dispersal options consumes 25% more land than the additional land required in the trend, but this increase is only 0.43% of the total land in the TWCR. In contrast the Compact city option reduces by 35 % the land take with respect to the Trend, but only saves less than 0.6% of the total land of the TWCR. The planned Expansion option lies between the other two options but is very close to the Dispersal option. Table 1.31 Total land requirements (km 2 ) under each spatial option Trend 2031 Trend 2031 Compaction 2031 Dispersal 2031 Expansion (no RUC) Residential Commercial Transport Total growth (Km 2 ) Total growth (%) Total km % TWCR developed

46 Land take (km2) Trend no RUC Trend Compact Dispersal Expansion Transport Commercial and Industrial Residential Total Figure 1.41 Land requirement under SOLUTIONS spatial options Energy use would increase by 9.6% from 2001 to 2031, as a result of an 11.8% increase in energy use in buildings and a 9.6% increase in fuel used by transport. The increase in fuel used by vehicles over this period is largely due to a 16% increase in distance travelled (veh-km) but congestion does not reduce trip speeds sufficiently to contribute significantly to additional fuel use. The vehicle fleet does become more energy efficient in the future, but only marginally so, and not enough to offset the growth in vehicle km s travelled. Table 1.32a and Figure 1.42 summarises the results. It can be observed that, relative to the trend, the compact option reduces energy used by 1.2% while the dispersed and expansion options are within 0.1% of the trend. A RUC charge alone, acts to reduce energy use by 2.5%. Table 1.32b illustrates the effect of applying a RUC to the 2031 options. It is evident that a charge acts to reduce fuel use (and hence CO2 and other emissions), via a travel suppression effect. Whilst this effect is quite marked for the compaction and dispersal options, it is much less evident for the planned expansion option. This is thought to be because much of the new development under this option is on the urban periphery, co-incident with the charge zone boundary, hence the trip suppression action is less effective. Table 1.32a Total energy demand (Pj/yr) under each spatial option Trend RUC no RUC 2031 Compaction Dispersal Expansion Transport Commercial Residential Total Change from (%) 46

47 Growth in energy use (%) from Trend Trend RUC Compact Dispersal Extensions Transport Residential Commercial TOTAL Figure 1.42: Growth in energy demand under spatial options (without RUC) Table 1.32b: Total energy demand (Pj/yr) under each spatial option with RUC applied Trend RUC no 2031 Compaction Dispersal Expansion RUC Transport Commercial Residential Total Change from (%) Table 1.33 presents the growth in new floorspace, as both total from 2001 to option year, and as the annual compound growth rate. Figure 1.43 illustrates the demand for new floorspace under each spatial option. Given that the location of development under the different options varies significantly, it is obvious that there will be a differentiation between floorspace growth across the region, however, as floorspace added is being used here as an indicator of construction material demand, it is more meaningful to report this indicator for the region as a whole. Table 1.33: Growth (%) in new floorspace, Tyne and Wear City Region Trend Trend Compaction Dispersal Expansion (no RUC) Growth in total from 2001 base year (%) Annual growth from 2001 base year (%)

48 Commercial floorspace growth (million m2) Trend noruc Trend RUC Compact Dispersal Expansion Figure 1.43: Development of new residential and commercial floorspace 3.3 Environmental Indicators These results indicate an 11% increase in total CO 2 emission over the Trend period, for the TWCR. Emission from dwellings (from heating and lighting) increases c. 8.7% a relatively modest increase given the number of new dwellings, but a reflection of the smaller size and greater energy efficiency of new building. Emissions from commercial and industrial buildings (and excluding primary industry) increase to a greater extent (16.8%) but from a lower absolute base (and note that we have not introduced any assumptions re the changing efficiency of commercial buildings, due to a lack of available data). The transport sector increases by 10.1%, which in absolute terms is the biggest increase. As vehicle speeds decline only very marginally over the Trend period (emissions are higher at lower speeds), this increase is largely a product of a 15.8% increase in vehicle km s travelled; the minor decrease in the carbon intensity of vehicle km s in the vehicle fleet is not sufficient to offset this factor. The differences amongst the options are an order of magnitude less than those observed over the Trend. Table 1.34 reveals compaction reduces emission by 1.1%, Expansion by 0.1% and that Dispersal here makes no difference. The application of a road user charge is able to deliver greater CO 2 reductions than any of the spatial options alone. spatial plan itself. In terms of CO 2 reduction, compaction is the best performing spatial option, but a RUC is able to deliver twice the CO 2 savings observed under compaction. This is highly consistent with the finding from the larger London and SE study. 48

49 Thousand tonnes CO2 / yr Table 1.34: Total CO 2 under each spatial option Trend RUC Compaction Dispersal Expansion Transport 3, , , , , ,341.8 Commercial 1, , , , , ,021.2 Residential 3, , , , , ,300.7 Total 7, , , ,579 8,670 8,664 Change (%) from 2001 Change from no RUC Trend (%) Notes: Mt/yr is mega tonnes per year. No options except 2031+RUC have a road user charge 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1, Trend Trend+RUC Compaction Dispersion Expansion Residential Commercial Transport Total Figure 1.44: CO 2 emissions from WSE under spatial options Changes in total noxious emissions from transport (CO, NO x, VOC, and PM 10 ) are presented in Table 1.35 and illustrated in Figure 1.45 over time, and between the options for Note that a log scale is used here, and that the reductions observed over the Trend are substantial. These reductions, which occur for all four gases, are driven by the introduction and spread through the vehicle fleet, of emission control technology, such as catalytic converters and particle traps. Table 1.35 expresses the differences in emission with reference to the 2001 base year, and also the 2031 with RUC year. These data show that emissions fall by 52-76% over the Trend to 2031 (highly consistent with the London case study). The London study also showed emissions began to rise from 2016 as the growth in vehicle km s offset the emission reduction gains achieved through emission control technology, but we have no intermediate trend year to test this observation for the TWCR. The tests show that there 49

50 Emission (t/yr) (log scale) are differences between spatial options, with the Compaction option performing most favourably with respect to the most problematic NO X and PM 10 pollutants. However, the differences between options are small (generally <2%), and are substantively exceeded by the impact of a RUC, which delivers emission reduction benefits of several times that achieved by any of the spatial options (without RUC). Table 1.35: Variation in noxious emissions over time and in response to options Trend RUC RUC Compaction Dispersal Expansion Change from 2001 base (%) CO NOx PM VOC Change (%) from 2031 no RUC Trend base CO NOx PM VOC Note: In 2001, CO emissions in TWCR were 30,448 t/yr, NOx emissions were 21,678 t/yr, PM10 emissions were 701 t/yr and VOC emissions were 1960 Kt/yr. 100,000 10,000 1, Trend Trend+RUC Compaction Dispersal Expansion CO NOx PM 10 Total VOCs Figure 1.45: Emission of noxious gases from transport (NB. Log scale) Impermeability: The results indicate that problems associated with surface sealing are most likely to occur in the TWCR under the compaction policy. Fewer problems are likely to occur with the equivalent level of development under a dispersal option, as lower density development (with lower impermeability) is developed, and where increases occur they do so in areas where initial levels of impermeability are low (Table 50

51 1.36). With all the options, sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) can be implemented to mitigate the effects of rising impermeability. However, the proportion of developments where SUDS is not needed will be highest under a dispersal option (i.e. developments where local impacts are not expected); whilst the proportion of developments where SUDS options are constrained will be highest under the compaction option (e.g. there may be insufficient space to implement certain SUDS techniques, or not at all). Thus mitigation efforts will be comparatively more difficult and costly under a compaction option. Table 1.36 Impermeability (% surface sealing) in the TWCR Trend 2031 Zonal impermeability and Compaction Dispersal Expansion geographical region +RUC All TWCR - 50th percentile (mean) of zonal impermeability (%) All TWCR - 90th percentile of zonal impermeability* Tyne and Wear - 50th percentile (mean) of zonal impermeability (%) Outer city region - 50th percentile (mean) of zonal impermeability (%) Note: * Indicates that 10% of the 105 zones have an impermeability >figure indicated Biodiversity Results: the results are presented in Table The results show that, as might be expected, the greatest impacts on both aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity in 2031 are found for the more urbanised Tyne and Wear region (Newcastle, Tyneside, Gateshead and Sunderland). Under Compaction, additional development occurs in areas with pre-existing development and which already experience some degradation (loss of sensitive fish and macro-invertebrate species) of aquatic biodiversity (Table 1.37a) hence compaction impacts are lowest under this option. Examination of the other biodiversity metrics shows that the more severe impacts are likely to be associated with compaction, with impacts most evident for the Tyne and Wear districts. These data illustrate that, under a dispersal policy, severe degradation (likely absence of fish and poor benthic diversity scores) reduces because development, and its impact, is less concentrated; conversely, the dispersal of development means that there are more areas likely to experience some degradation. In other words, dispersal acts to limit the extent to which impacts are concentrated such that they become severe, whilst compaction works to conserve the extent of pristine areas where there are no impacts from urbanisation. The expansion option falls between the compaction and dispersal option with respect to terrestrial biodiversity, and reduces the degree of biodiversity loss when compared to the Trend (but less so than the dispersal option). With respect to aquatic biodiversity, this option performs least well of the spatial options (including the Trend) under the more stringent severe degradation metric aquatic biodiversity metric. This is attributed to the development of concentrated new development in areas where there was previously little or none, and which are therefore likely to cause aquatic impacts, where previously these were modest or absent. 51

52 Table 1.37 Regional biodiversity impacts (a) Area (% total) with receiving waters likely to experience some degradation due to urban development Trend Compaction Dispersal Expansion RUC Tyne & Wear Outer region All Tyne & Wear City region Note: Degradation is loss of sensitive fish and macro-invertebrate species (b) Area (% total) with receiving waters likely to experience severe degradation due to urban development Trend Compaction Dispersal Expansion RUC Tyne & Wear Outer region All Tyne & Wear City region Note: Degradation is a likely absence of fish and poor benthic diversity scores (c) Terrestrial biodiversity (native species richness as % of non-agricultural rural areas) Trend Compaction Dispersal Expansion RUC Tyne & Wear Outer region All Tyne & Wear City region Social Indicators Crowding: In Figure 1.46 and Table 1.38 a dwelling space per capita threshold has been selected which returns as close as possible to a decile (actually 8.87%, given lumped nature of zonal data) of the population in the TWCR for the base year, to provide a basis against which to compare options (as the MENTOR data precludes us from applying other more widely recognised crowding standards). That is, approx 9% of the TWCR population in 2001 were resident in areas with an average floorspace per capita of <31m 2. By way of comparison, census data indicates that 5.1% of households in the NE GOR were overcrowded (judged by the bedroom standard) in 2001, well below the average of 7.1% for England as a whole (NEPHO, 2005). Under the Trend, the population likely to experience crowding increases by around 40%, whilst under a 52

53 Population resient in zones with <31m2 per capita of residential floorspace (%) compaction policy it increases greatly (by more than 150%) as much of the development is in the form of flats in the Tyne and Wear districts. The dispersal and expansion option see a reduction in crowding relative to the trend, as here, more of the dwellings provided are the large semi- and detached houses. Thus we conclude that relative to the Trend, Compaction is likely to increase overcrowding and that expansion and dispersal will reduce it, an observation consistent with the London case study. Table 1.38 Population (%) resident in zones where dwelling space per capita (m2) falls below floorspace threshold*. Trend RUC 2001 No RUC Compaction Dispersal Expansion RUC Tyne & Wear Outer region All Tyne & Wear City region * Note: A floorspace threshold of 31m2 per capita is applied this returns close to a decile of population in the base year, providing a basis for comparative analysis Trend (no RUC) Trend Compaction Dispersal Expansion Figure 1.46 Population in TWCR with <31m2 dwelling space per capita The Vitality calculation is performed for each zone in the study area, and each option value expressed relative to the trend base. Values are averaged across regions, so as to give Vitality index values for the Tyne and Wear districts, and the outer districts of the TWCR study area. An index value of >1 indicates a relative gain in attractiveness (inhabitants and/or retail services). Results are shown in Table 1.39 and Figure 1.47 below. These indicate that under the Trend, all regions experience an increase in Vitality, as might be expected under high growth (although loss of vitality does occur at the more localised zonal level). Comparing the spatial options for 2031 shows that, relative to the Trend, Compaction increases Vitality substantially for Tyne and Wear 53

54 Vitality Index (no units) districts, at the expense of the outer districts. Conversely, dispersal and expansion sees increases in the outer districts, at the expense of the urban core. Table 1.39: Vitality / area attractiveness Trend RUC No RUC RUC Compaction Dispersal Expansion TWCR zonal min TWCR zonal max TWCR mean Tyne & Wear mean Outer region mean Note: Index reflects changes in inhabitants and/or retail provision. An index value of >1 indicates an increase in attractiveness (inhabitants and/or retail services) and vice versa. TWCR is Tyne and Wear City Region (i.e. all study area) Trend (noruc) Trend Compaction Dispersal Expansion Tyne and Wear districts Outer districts All TWCR Figure 1.47: Vitality Index for spatial options (referenced to 2001 base year) Social segregation: The results (Table 1.40) indicate a generally high degree of social mixing for the TWCR. Developments to 2031 reduce segregation (i.e. spatial distribution of SEG4 households becomes more equal) an effect that is enhanced slightly by the introduction of a road user charge. All of the spatial options have less social segregation than observed for the base year, however, if the effect of the RUC is accounted for, then it is evident that the spatial form options alone act to increase segregation. This effect is very modest under a compaction policy but is more evident under the dispersal and expansion options (possibly because developments under these options attract relatively more of the higher socio-economic groups, thus leading to a relatively greater concentration of SEG4 households elsewhere. Overall however, these results indicate that impacts of the options on social segregation are quite minor, with only modest absolute shift in Gini values. 54

55 Table 1.40: Social segregation (Gini index) Trend RUC Gini index RUC Compaction Dispersal Expansion TWCR % change from 2001 Note: Gini index ranges from -1 to +1. A value of zero indicates complete equality (or social mixing) and unity indicates complete inequality (social polarisation) Equity in living costs: Changes in household living cost were calculated by socioeconomic group for each of the options. These costs include those for housing, travel (excluding overseas travel 10 ), and expenditure on other goods and services (which are held constant between spatial options). Results (Figure 1.48) reveal a rise in living costs over the Trend with a slightly greater increase under a road user charge. Living costs increase for all income groups, but the rate of increase is greater for the low income group. For the 2031 spatial options, we observe that a Compaction policy results in the greatest increases in living cost, because increases in housing costs under compaction are not offset by anticipated reductions in travel cost. Both Expansion and Dispersal option reduces household living costs for all income groups with respect to the Trend, but the effect is greatest for the Dispersal option. Note however, that whilst reductions in living cost occur for both income groups, it is the high income group the enjoy the greatest reductions in cost relative to the Trend (costs increase for high income group is 54% of the increase they might expect under the Trend, whilst the corresponding figure for the low income group is 90%) Caution must, however, be exercised in interpreting these figures as (i) rates of car ownership increase over time leading to more of the household budget being spent on travel particularly for low SEGs where increases in car ownership are greatest; and (ii) there is trend away from manual to service occupations such that people move to higher SEGs, where expenditure on housing and travel is higher. Thus a significant share of living cost increases result from households gaining a higher standard of living. The extent to which households consider such increased expenditures to be desirable (benefits of a larger dwelling, access to a car), or alternatively a hardship is uncertain. If additional costs are taken on willingly to gain the associated benefits, or if the costs can be readily passed on to employers (as higher wages) or government (as higher social security payments), then arguably there is no additional hardship. However, if these conditions are not met, then it is appropriate to conclude that the additional expenditure required implies an additional burden on the household. 10 Household living costs elements that are sensitive to the spatial options are housing and transport (including car ownership) costs. Scio-economic groups are SEG 1 (Managerial professional), SEG2 (Intermediate non manual), SEG 3 (Skilled manual), SEG4 (employed people in Semi- and un-skilled manual occupations), and the economically inactive. Costs are weighted by the number of households per MENTOR zone, to give mean change in living cost (household expenditure) by SEG. 55

56 Change (%) in household cost of living from 2001 base 30 SEG1 SEG2 SEG3 SEG4 Unemployed Inactive Trend (no RUC) Trend Compaction Dispersal Expansion Figure 1.48 Change in living costs by socio-economic group Environmental equity: This analysis examine the social distribution of environmental quality; specifically the relationship between the proportion of low income (SEG4) households, and environmental quality measure of road traffic noise, particulate and NO X emissions. The results (Figure 1.49) indicate that inequality in atmospheric emissions reduces over the Trend. In 2001 Gini values for NO x and PM 10 are around 0.24 (a little higher than that observed for London, at c. 0.18) and both fall substantially to 2031 (and close to zero under a RUC). With respect to the spatial options, the results indicate that low income households no longer have an inequitable share of emissions (Gini values close to zero). Indeed, the reversal of sign under the Trend and compaction options indicates that the SEG4 group now bears slightly less than an equal share of emissions. The largest differences with regard to emissions occurs between the compaction and dispersal/expansion options, with compaction having a social distribution of emissions closer to equity than any other. Whilst road traffic noise becomes more equitable over the Trend the extent of improvement is much less than that observed for emissions. Differences between the 2031 spatial options are apparent, with all have more inequitable distributions of noise than observed for the Trend, particularly the dispersal and expansion options. These results indicate that the levels of environmental equity are likely to improve significantly under all the development options. They are also instructive as they reveal that environmental equity improves most for emissions (which fall significantly over the trend) but relatively little for noise (which shows relatively poor environmental gain over the trend), indicating that environmental quality improvement is a key means of delivering environmental equity. 56

57 Gini Index NOx emission PM10 emission Noise emission Trend (no RUC) Trend Compaction Dispersal Expansion Note: Gini index ranges from -1 to +1. A value of zero indicates complete equality (SEG4 bears an equal share of environmental burdens) and unity indicates complete inequality. Figure 1.49 Environmental equity Road traffic accidents: over the trend road safety measures (inherent in the DMRB accident coefficients) result in a reduction in accidents per vehicle km which more than offsets accidents associated with the additional vkms travelled per year by 2031 on the network. Thus over the trend, accidents fall by c. 20%. The introduction of a road user charge reduces vkms (increase 16% over trend without RUC, 9% with) and has little effect on speed, resulting in a further c. 3% reduction. The spatial options have accidents rates very similar to the Trend: compaction and dispersal are c 0.5% greater, and expansion c. 0.5% fewer. Table Road traffic accidents in the TWCR Trend no RUC 2001 No RUC RUC Compaction Dispersal Expansion Fatalities (yr) Total PIAs (yr) % change from 2000 Total accident cost ( M 2000)* % change from *Includes damage to vehicles, other property, insurance administration and police time. 57

58 Per cent of base year value Total PIA's Total accident costs 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 2000 Trend Trend+RUC Compaction Dispersal Expansion Figure 1.50 Change from base year of total personal injury accidents and accidents costs Traffic noise: These results reveal a substantial rise in traffic noise over the Trend. The extent of the network with emission >65db grows by at c. 5% for the region (Table 4.42). The introduction of a road user charge results in a reduction in noise to levels compared to the Trend, but not the base year. The 2031 spatial options all experience a reduction in noise compared to the Trend (all options with road user charging), although the effect of the options are much less than that observed under the Trend (where traffic and vehicle kms grow substantively), or with the implementation of a road user charge, which reduces total vehicle kms. Whilst Compaction makes little difference to noise exposure, Dispersal and Expansion increase exposure, presumably as dwellings are developed in zones that have good accessibility by private transport which tend to be those zones where average noise emission from highways is already relatively high. Table Traffic noise Trend RUC Road noise 2001 No RUC RUC Compaction Dispersal Expansion Emission (db) zonal average of road network links Emission (% links above 65 db LA10 18hr emission) Households in zones above 65 db LA10 18hr emission)

59 % of all households Households in zones >65 db LA10 18hr emission Households in zones >68 db LA10 18hr emission Trend Trend +RUC Compaction +RUC Dispersal +RUC Expansion +RUC Note: Values are noise emission as LA10,18h db, and are modelled for all roads links 10m from the roadside, and are presented as a frequency weighted mean. An increase of approximately 3dB is equivalent to a doubling of noise intensity. 1% of households is c. 7,400 households in 2001, and 8,500 households in Figure 1.41 Population exposure to road traffic noise Route stress: Driver stress ( route stress or known as journey ambience under the NATA appraisal scheme) is calculated in SMARTNET using DMRB methods (Highways Agency, 2007: Vol. 11, part 3, section 9) that consider driver frustration, fear of accidents and uncertainty over the route being followed. These results indicate that drivers on the majority of the road network in the TWCR area experience moderate levels of route stress, and a significant proportion experience high levels of stress. Over the Trend, there is a shift from lower to higher stress categories, with the extent of the network with high driver stress grow by c. 5% (consistent with the London case study). The shift towards high stress routes is attributed to increases in traffic flow rather than reductions in speeds (which are very modest). The application of a road user charge acts to mitigate increases in high route stress, but not sufficiently to return stress levels to those experienced in the base year. The spatial options exert a modest effect on stress levels, with the compaction and dispersal options elevating the share of high stress links by 1.9 and 0.6% respectively, and the expansion option reduces high stress links by 0.4%. Whilst vkms fall most under the compaction option (c. 1,5% relative to the Trend), it is likely that the reductions in speed (i.e. congestion), albeit small, account for the relative increase in high stress routes under the compaction option. Table 1.42 Route (driver) stress (% all road links) Stress level (% links Trend no RUC in each band) 2001 No RUC Compaction Dispersal Expansion RUC Medium High

60 3.5 Summary Figure 4.35 summarises the results in a graphic form using spider/radar diagrams. Here, two criteria have been (subjectively) selected from each of the four assessment domains: Economic, Resource, Environment, and Social. These diagrams are constructed by translating criteria natural values to a common unit-less scale, with the reference case set to zero. The diagrams are an illustrative aid to comparison only. Note that the values for the compensation variation indicator of economic performance have been transformed to net economic cost. In this form all the indicators point in the same direction: if values reduce inwards the alternative performs better with respect to the base (solid dark line) while if it expands outwards, the performance is worse. As can be seen the differences between 2031 options are small, especially in comparison to the differences evident over the 1997 to 2031 Trend. Net Economic cost (CV) 100 Social segregation Crowding Economic efficiency (Transport Cost) Land take NOx emission Energy used Impermeability Trend 1997 Compaction RUC Planned Expansion RUC Trend RUC Dispersal RUC Figure 4.35 Comparison of key indicators to illustrate the performance of each option with respect to the base year (2001) in the main domains of economic (net economic cost and transport costs), resources (land and energy), environment (impermeability and NOx emission) and social (crowding and social segregation) Figure 4.36 illustrates the performance of each option against the Trend with Road User Charges, this time using 2031 (with RUC) as the comparative base case. The diagram thus shows the differences in a more magnified form. It can be observed that the Compaction option performs relatively well in the use of resources (land and 60

61 energy), badly in the social domain (particularly crowding) and is mixed for economic (badly for net economic costs, well for transport cost) and environmental indicators (badly in impermeability, well in NOx emission). At the other extreme, the Dispersal option performs well in economic and environmental indicators, and mixed for resource and social indicators. The Planned Expansion option performs in a similar way to the Dispersal option, although costs are a little less (particularly transport), and emissions nad energy use a little more. Net Economic cost (CV) 100 Social segregation Economic efficiency (Transport Cost) Crowding Land take NOx emission Energy used Impermeability Trend RUC Dispersal RUC Compaction RUC Planned Expansion RUC Figure 4.36 Comparison of key indicators to illustrate the performance of each option with respect to the 2031 Trend with road user charges year in the main areas of economic (net economic cost and transport costs), resources (land and energy), environment (impermeability and NOx emission) and social (crowding and segregation). 61

62 4. Conclusions The forecast growth of employment and households in the Tyne and Wear City Region up to 2031 is only around 0.5% per annum. Thus the ability to make substantial impacts on the spatial structure of the region is very limited. Most of the current land uses and transport systems will be the same in Consequently, the results reported here are not dramatically different from the trend, but hopefully, realistic. However, despite the limited overall change there will be some areas that will have greater rates of change than others, depending on the design option The current spatial strategy in the TWCR will reduce the long term sustainability of the region in three important aspects: In economic terms the current trend will add an estimated cost to the basic employment of 865m per annum by 2031, which if not compensated by an equivalent increase in productivity, will reduce the regional competitiveness. This is due, in part, to the increases in housing costs due to an imbalance in the location of supply of new dwellings. The dispersal of working households is increasing the demand for housing in these outer areas. This is pushing up the average rents and the average cost of living. Transport costs are also increasing due to greater car ownership, longer travel distances and a slight worsening of congestion. In resources and environmental terms, the trend will increase carbon emissions by around 10% to 2031, even though population growth is only around 6%. This is mainly due to the increase in car travel and more residential housing as household sizes reduce. This increase in energy use per person is due to the rate of socio economic transformation to a more white collar economy with a more dispersed pattern of homes and workplaces. This counteracts the gains achieved by slightly more fuel efficient vehicles. In social terms, the current trend towards non-manual employment will result in a demand for higher standards of living. This will result in higher living costs, especially for the non working households, increasing the latter cost by 407m per annum. There is a large growth in non working households of 18% to year 2031 and almost all of this growth is forecast to be in the Tyne and Wear districts with hardly any in the outer parts of the TWCR The Trend and options are tested with a dwelling vacancy rate of 5% on the assumption that the supply of new dwellings will increase to accommodate the increase in households. If there is insufficient overall supply of dwellings to keep pace with the increase in households then this would increase house prices. For example, if the vacancy rate was to reduce to just 1.5% then the rental cost of housing would increase by 16%, thereby adding an economic cost to the City Region of 620m per annum Although this is not a detailed study of road user charging (RUC), the sensitivity test suggests that RUC would add 28m to the cost of basic employment, making the city region less competitive. It would also result in the 6% dispersal of jobs from the Newcastle/Gateshead areas, especially for retail, (-15%). There are no time saving benefits to outweigh the extra cost of the charge because travel by car is much faster than by public transport even without road user charging. The charge does slightly reduce congestion and the number of car trips but the people who switch from car to public transport would have slower journeys and this outweighs the relatively small time 62

63 savings to car users. Road user charging has a bigger impact on reducing car vehiclekm travelled (-7%), which leads to a 2.3% reduction in CO 2 emissions. This is a bigger reduction than achieved by the following options for the spatial disposition of land use and transport The Compaction option does not have a substantial impact in terms of sustainability, even with the most favourable assumptions for the location of employment, and the inclusion of RUC. There is only a small reduction of vehicle-km travelled leading to a 1.1% reduction in CO 2 emissions. The increase in densities reduces the land developed in the region, but at a cost of a reduction in space standards that may not be acceptable by the public at large (although we note that the NE enjoys the lowest rate of overcrowding in England). There is slight increase in the economic cost to the region The Dispersal option does follow the market demand following a relaxation of green belt constraints. There is a small reduction in production costs for the basic employment making the region more competitive and housing more affordable. There would be difference in total CO 2 emissions from the Trend. There is an increase in space standards and more varied housing types, but it will necessitate an increase of 25% more land than the additional need in the Trend, but this extra land represents less than 0.5% of the total WSE land The Planned Expansion produces a similar small economic benefit to the dispersed option. The results are highly dependent on being able to attract the basic employment to the urban expansion areas. It may require financial incentives to make this option a practical proposition. The planned expansions would provide dwellings with a space standard that would reduce crowding compared to the Trend and Compaction options. CO 2 emissions are unchanged from the trend The main conclusion that can be drawn out of this case study is that realistically, the alternative design options, by themselves, can make only a small contribution to the overall sustainability of the Tyne and Wear City Region. This is because the changes in land uses or in transport provision are relatively marginal compared to the amount of existing development, and the spatial strategies are only a small part in determining the behaviour of people. The market adapts to optimise the constraints imposed by the supply of land and transport, which reduces the overall differences of the options. But the effect on sustainability is overwhelmingly determined by the changes in socioeconomic characteristics, of employment and households. The change in employment sectors leads to a change of socio-economic composition which in turn changes the demands for space and mobility In the absence of drastic change in behaviour, the hope for substantial improvements to the sustainability of the TWCR region must, therefore, rely on possible technological developments. These could range from the development of renewable sources of energy and materials to improve the efficiency of building and transport systems to retrofitting the existing stock of buildings. The feasibility of adopting new technologies depends partly on spatial design. For example, it may be difficult to capture ground source energy or harvest water in high density cities, but equally, combined heat and power systems may need a minimum size and density of settlement to be economically viable. The research into these possibilities is the objective of the new EPSRC funded research ReVISIONS which is part of the Sustainable Urban Environment programme. 63

64 5. References Aditjandra, P., Mulley, C. and Nelson, J. (2007). Neighbourhood design perception and travel behaviour in Tyne and Wear, North East England, United Kingdom. Paper presented at The 10th European Urban Research Association (EURA) Vital City Conference September 2007, Glasgow. Audit Commission (2004). Scrutiny Report Market Renewal Newcastle Gateshead Pathfinder, Feb 2004, UK Barker, K. (2006). Barker Review of Land Use Planning, HMSO, Norwich. CLG (2007). Communities and Local Government: Generalised Land Use Database Statistics for England 2005, HMSO, London CLG (2008). Communities and Local Government: Land Use Change Statistics in Department for Transport (2002) Delivering Better Transport: Progress Report (London: Department for Transport). Echenique, M. H. (1994). Urban and regional planning at the Martin Centre: Its origin, its present, and its future. Environmental Planning B, 21 (5) Eddington, R (2006). The Eddington Transport Study, HMSO, Norwich Ewing, R., K. Bartholomew, S. Winkelman. J. Walters and D. Chen (2007). Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change, Urban Land Institute, 2007, Chicago. Ewing, R. and R. Cervero (2001). Travel and Built Environment Synthesis in Transportation Research Record 1780, GLA 2003 Goodwin, P. B. (1992). A review of new demand elasticities with special reference to short and long run effects of price changes, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 26, pp Goodwin, P.B., Dargay, J. and Hanly, M. (2004). Elasticities of Road Traffic and Fuel Consumption with Respect to Price and Income: A Review, Transport Reviews, Vol. 24, No. 3, , May 2004 Gordon, I. (1997). Densities, Urban Form and Travel Behaviour in Town and Country Planning 66, Gordon, I. (1997). Density and the Built Environment in Energy Policy 36 pp Gordon, P., H. Richardson and M. Jun (1991). The commuting paradox: Evidence from the Top Twenty in Journal of American Planning Association, 57(4), Government Office for the North East (2008). The North East of England Plan: Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East. Communities and Local Government July 2008, TSO London 64

65 Housing Market Consortium (2008). Housing Market Summary: North East Region 1st Quarter of Leather P., I. Cole, E Ferrari, J. Flint, D. Robinson, C.Simpson and M. Hopley (2007).National Evaluation of the HMR Pathfinder Programme: Baseline Report. Communities and Local Government March 2007, London Lowry, I. S. (1964) A Model of Metropolis RAND Memorandum 4025-RC Moving forward the Northern Way Tyne and Wear City Region Development Programme Final Version Office for National Statistics (2006) 2006 based sub-national population projections, Richardson, H. (2001). Compactness or Sprawl: America s Future vs. the Present in Cities for the New Millennium, M. Echenique and A. Saint (Eds.), Spon Press, London Rogers, R. and R. Burdett (2001) Let s cram more into the city in Cities for the New Millennium, eds M. Echenique and A. Saint, 2001, Spon Press, London SCATTER (2005) Sprawling Cities and Transport T: from Evaluation to Recommendations; Final Report Travers, T. (2001) Density means better cities in Cities for the New Millennium, M. Echenique and A. Saint (Eds.), Spon Press, London Tyne and Wear City Region Development Programme, Tyne and Wear Partners (2008) Tyne & Wear Transport Innovation Fund, Further Comparison of Integrated Congestion Management Packages, May

66 66

67 Appendix A: Option Design with TAMMS Model for the SOLUTIONS Research Project Authors: A. J. Hargreaves, K. Nakamura, S.D. Wright 1 Overview This appendix briefly summarises the land use transport model used for the Tyne and Wear case study and gives details of the Trend and the options tested. The trend is from year 2000 to 2031 and the main policy option tests are for The testing has been carried out using the TAMMS Land-Use Transport Interaction (LUTI) Model, comprising of a MENTOR land-use model interfaced with a TRIPS transport model. The alternatives tested are the: Trend Compaction Dispersal Planned Expansion The alternatives are tested with and without road user charging (RUC). The SOLUTIONS Project is focused on policy options for While the TAMMS land-use output for 2016 Trend option has been employed as a starting point to forecast different 2031 options, the option design is for land-use and transport changes from 2000 to The options are tested with road user charges (RUC) as well as without RUC for the 2031 Trend and the policy options. The road user charge scheme is the same for the trend and all of the policy options to allow direct comparison. The trend has the same land-use inputs with and without RUC, as do each of the separate options except the Dispersal option, as an aid to direct comparison, although in reality RUC may have some effect on the allocation of land use by planners. However, for the dispersal option the aim is to simulate market led development and so the option was simulated in stages which resulted in the land use evolving differently with and without RUC. The sensitivity tests of extra dwellings are made for the Trend and policy options. The Trend with extra dwellings has a similar number of dwellings to the TEMPROv5.4 for 2031, which is broadly consistent with the trend policies in the Regional Spatial Strategy. The extra dwellings result in an average of 0.95 households per dwellings which is similar to the historic vacancy rates in Tyne and Wear. The 2031 Trend without the extra dwellings is the same as the 2031 land use in the original TAMMS model which results in almost 0.99 households per dwelling. This creates excessive pressure on housing with some areas having more than one household per dwelling. This is inconsistent with the current policies in Tyne and Wear of providing sufficient housing to accommodate demand. The extra dwellings are added to ensure that each zone has at least a 3% vacancy rate in the 2031 Trend, (no more than 0.97 households per dwelling). The same amounts of extra dwellings are added per zone to the trend and the policy options to allow direct comparison. The transport inputs are same between the options with and without extra dwellings to represent purely the impact of extra dwellings. For each of the option tests, around 3 rounds of experimental model runs were carried out to fine-tune the inputs and obtain the convergent outputs. Typically the test runs have been carried out in this manner: The first run of a given policy option is based on the initial option design for distribution of dwellings and employment floorspace to the identified urban zones and suburban zones. Based on the results of the first run, the inputs of dwelling and floorspace design are fine-tuned by making sure the reasonable amount of distribution of households and employment, keeping the study area wide totals unchanged for a particular forecast year. 67

68 Carrying out the further test runs for convergence of the outputs. The key process of the input design and the inputs of the final round of model runs are presented in this appendix. The inputs of the intermediate model runs have been archived as records but are not presented. 2 Validation of TAMMS Model 2.1 Mentor Land Use Model The applicability of the TAMMS land-use inputs to the SOLUTIONS Mentor model is confirmed with the current projection of TEMPRO5.4 for the consistency with the estimated land-use outputs of the Mentor model. Table A.1, Table A.2 and Figure A.1 compare the trend output and the current TEMPROv5.4 forecast for households and employed residents at the district level of the study area in different years from 2000 to 2031, including Gateshead, Newcastle-upon- Tyne, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Sunderland, Chester-le-Street, Derwentside, Durham City, Easington, Blyth Valley, Castle Morpeth and Wandbeck. Overall, the distribution of households and employed residents in the trend output of the Mentor model is similar to the current TEMPRO forecast, which suggests that the TAMMS Mentor model is applicable to the current Solutions study. However, there are also some gaps between the Mentor Trend output and the TEMPRO forecast. Particularly, the growth of employed residents in Newcastle-upon- Tyne is underestimated in the Mentor Trend output, although there is no such a gap in households. This suggests that more growth of unemployed and inactive people is assumed in the future years in the Mentor model. Table A.1: Comparison of Households between Tempro Forecasts and Mentor Inputs in 2000, 2006, 2011, 2016 and 2031 by District Households District Tempro 2000 Mentor Gap Tempro 2006 Mentor Gap Tempro 2011 Mentor Gap Tempro 2016 Mentor Gap Tempro 2031 Mentor Gap Gateshead 84,828 90,921 7% 87,418 93,864 7% 89,682 94,274 5% 92,632 95,115 3% 103, ,409-3% Newcastle-upon-Tyne 112, ,993 0% 115, ,007 4% 119, ,658 4% 123, ,325 3% 138, ,753-6% North Tyneside 85,145 87,924 3% 89,459 93,262 4% 92,393 95,960 4% 95,709 98,508 3% 106, ,239-3% South Tyneside 66,435 65,856-1% 67,744 68,675 1% 69,304 69,341 0% 71,126 70,475-1% 77,662 78,671 1% Sunderland 117, ,013 4% 120, ,179 4% 123, ,488 2% 127, ,249-1% 140, ,479-5% Chester-le-Street 22,853 22,869 0% 23,720 23,329-2% 24,178 24,523 1% 24,783 25,078 1% 26,914 25,647-5% Derwentside 36,627 37,207 2% 38,229 38,275 0% 40,111 39,865-1% 41,844 40,471-3% 46,755 40,172-14% Durham City 34,895 34,271-2% 36,822 34,736-6% 38,330 36,489-5% 39,632 36,990-7% 43,917 36,919-16% Easington 39,132 39,299 0% 40,237 41,240 2% 41,873 43,723 4% 42,773 44,043 3% 45,152 45,779 1% Blyth Valley 34,546 34,160-1% 36,097 35,728-1% 37,516 37,976 1% 39,178 38,758-1% 44,468 40,630-9% Castle Morpeth 20,126 20,156 0% 21,153 19,910-6% 21,994 20,575-6% 22,754 22,069-3% 25,338 23,229-8% Wansbeck 26,578 26,911 1% 27,636 28,498 3% 28,629 30,184 5% 29,637 31,052 5% 33,026 34,421 4% * Gap = (Mentor-Tempro)*100 Table A.2: Comparison of Employed Residents between Tempro Forecasts and Mentor Inputs in 2000, 2006, 2011, 2016 and 2031 by District Employed Residents District Tempro 2000 Mentor Gap Tempro 2006 Mentor Gap Tempro 2011 Mentor Gap Tempro 2016 Mentor Gap Tempro 2031 Mentor Gap Gateshead 78,589 86,923 11% 89,532 88,396-1% 94,476 90,571-4% 96,487 86,448-10% 97,710 94,105-4% Newcastle-upon-Tyne 102, ,684-1% 123, ,748-12% 134, ,951-15% 141, ,521-18% 146, ,744-16% North Tyneside 83,222 83,339 0% 97,665 88,182-10% 103,248 93,351-10% 104,502 93,634-10% 107,017 95,874-10% South Tyneside 57,518 56,784-1% 58,155 56,071-4% 59,683 57,054-4% 59,796 53,963-10% 59,734 52,381-12% Sunderland 113, ,474-2% 113, ,682-2% 114, ,351 1% 114, ,013-2% 115, ,599-4% Chester-le-Street 24,178 24,657 2% 23,265 27,259 17% 23,398 30,447 30% 22,841 31,284 37% 22,175 31,677 43% Derwentside 35,275 36,168 3% 35,021 37,538 7% 36,377 39,947 10% 36,277 39,393 9% 36,574 40,022 9% Durham City 34,896 36,093 3% 38,044 40,143 6% 39,511 44,209 12% 39,508 46,251 17% 40,187 46,112 15% Easington 32,857 33,562 2% 33,221 33,736 2% 34,411 35,173 2% 34,467 34,144-1% 33,635 33,570 0% Blyth Valley 36,284 36,564 1% 41,557 38,956-6% 42,973 41,794-3% 42,976 42,675-1% 43,025 42,286-2% Castle Morpeth 20,626 21,208 3% 23,588 25,703 9% 24,167 29,149 21% 24,083 33,483 39% 23,642 34,765 47% Wansbeck 25,535 25,579 0% 29,410 25,727-13% 30,731 26,444-14% 31,207 25,622-18% 31,029 24,520-21% * Gap = (Mentor-Tempro)*100 68

69 Mentor Trend Mentor Trend Households in Districts Employed Residents in Districts 150, ,000 Newcastle-upon-Tyne 100, , , , , , , , , ,000 Tempro Forecast Tempro Forecast Figure A.1; Comparison between the Trend output of the TAMMS Mentor and Current TEMPRO Forecast for households and employed residents in the districts of study area from 2000 to 2031 Figure A.2 shows the growth of employment, employed residents, households and dwellings in Tyne and Wear from 2000 to 2031, comparing the Mentor Trend output, including the input of dwellings, and the current forecast based on TEMPRO and RSS. In the general trend of Tyne and Wear, the estimated households have more growth than the estimated employment, which is more significant in the current forecast. While the growth of employed residents is much higher than the employment growth in the current forecast, the lower estimated growth of employed residents is shown in the Mentor output. This suggests that the Mentor output underestimates the household growth and overestimates the growth of unemployed people in Tyne and Wear, compared with the current forecast. The estimation of dwelling growth is similar to the household growth in both the Mentor and the current forecast, in which extra dwellings are added to the original TAMMS Mentor input for the 5% vacancy to achieve the RSS development target. 120,000 Mentor Output ,000 Current Forecasts , ,000 80,000 Employment 80,000 Employment 60,000 40,000 Employed Residents Households 60,000 40,000 Employed Residents Households 20,000 Dwellings 20,000 Dwellings - Mentor Output - Forecast Source: Tempro v5.4 for Employment (10% deduction for second jobs), Employed Residents and Households, North East Regional Spatial Strategy for Dwellings Figure A.2; Comparison between the Trend output of the TAMMS Mentor and Current TEMPRO Forecast for the Growth of Employment, Households and Dwellings in Tyne and Wear 69

70 Average AM Peak Hour Modelled Average Inter Peak Hour Modelled 2.2 TRIPS Transport Model For the application of the TAMMS model to the Solutions work, the transport model is validated by replicating the TAMMS 2000 base year results. Overall the difference between the TAMMS and SOLUTIONS assigned flows over all cordons for the 2000 base year network is (Table A.3): 0.17% for the AM peak average hour on both Inbound and Outbound directions -0.15% Inbound and 0.33% Outbound for the Interpeak average hour flows. Figure A.3 illustrates the comparison of the SOLUTIONS modelled flows (on the Y axes) against observed flows (on the X axes) on key highway links in the network. The location of the plots along the diagonal red line shows a good correlation (i.e. the values of observed counts match very closely with the SOLUTIONS modelled flows) and provides confidence that the SOLUTIONS model for the base year data is performing as expected. Comparison of Flows on A1, A19, A184, A194 Comparison of Flows on A1, A19, A184, A194 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1, ,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9, ,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 Average AM Peak Hour Count Average Inter Peak Hour Count Figure A.3: Comparison of Solutions modelled flows and TAMMS observed flows The sensitivity of the model in reacting to changes in cost is crucial. Based on DfT research 11, 12, 13, car drivers price elasticity should be at least -0.3 meaning a 10% increase in cost results in a 3% reduction in demand. To test the sensitivity of the model in responding to changes in highway costs a road user charge was introduced (full details of the charging regime are provided in the later section). Overall the charge resulted in a change in disutility to car trips of 31%. The effect of this on the length of vehicle travel was to reduce total vehicle-km by 16%. This represents a price elasticity of (so a 10% increase in cost results in a 5.3% reduction in demand). It can be seen from Table A.4 that the price elasticity is actually variable depending on the purpose of the trip. For example home based work (HBW) or commuter trips have a price elasticity of which is in line with DfT research, while home based employers business (HBEB) trips have a much lower elasticity of reflecting the fact that when the employer is paying the driver is less sensitive to changes in cost. Home based other (HBO) trips have a higher elasticity of Again this is sensible since a proportion of these trips may be optional leisure trips. 11 Goodwin, P. B. (1992) A review of new demand elasticities with special reference to short and long run effects of price changes, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 26, pp Department for Transport (2002) Delivering Better Transport: Progress Report (London: Department for Transport). 13 Goodwin, P.B., Darday, J. and Hanly, M. (2004) Elasticities of Road Traffic and Fuel Consumption with Respect to Price and Income: A Review, Transport Reviews, Vol. 24, No. 3, , May

71 Table A.3: Comparison of TAMMS modelled flows (veh/h) and SOLUTIONS modelled flows (veh/h) at cordon links SOLUTIONS MODELLED FLOWS TAMMS MODELLED FLOWS DIFFERENCE Am Peak Average Hour Inter Peak Average Hour Am Peak Average Hour Inter Peak Average Hour Am Peak Average HouInter Peak Average Hour Inner cordon north Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound B1318 Gt North Road 2,042 1,231 1,432 1, % 0.78% -0.06% 2.90% A167, Northwest Radial 1, ,216 1, % -0.07% 0.54% -0.09% Claremont Rd % -1.05% 0.80% 2.62% Richardson Rd % 0.02% -0.01% -6.77% A189 Barrack Rd % 0.45% 1.04% -1.34% Stanhope St % 0.09% -0.07% 0.62% A186 Westgate Rd % 0.97% -5.33% -5.28% B1311 Elswick Rd % -0.43% 5.55% -1.32% Westmorland Rd % 3.33% -2.52% -0.06% A695 Scotswood Rd % -1.23% -0.07% 1.03% Monarch St % -0.15% 0.05% 0.39% A186 City Road % -0.06% 0.00% 0.14% A193 Byker Bridge % -0.03% -0.09% 0.05% Warwick St % -0.22% 0.59% 0.39% A1058, Jesmond Road 1,941 1,635 1,493 1, % 0.60% -0.17% 0.29% B1600 Osborne Rd % -0.04% -0.02% 0.02% Total north 9,576 7,102 7,058 7, % 0.19% 0.04% 0.56% Inner cordon south Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Clockmill Rd % 0.02% 0.41% 0.84% A184 2,551 1,673 1,671 2, % 0.37% 0.11% 0.18% Cuthbert St % 1.38% -0.87% 1.38% B1426 Bensham Rd % 0.70% 2.05% 0.05% Prince Consort Rd % 0.93% 3.16% -0.28% High West St % 2.15% -0.35% -0.05% A167 Elevated Section 1, % -0.51% -1.53% -1.92% A184 Park Lane 1,584 1,481 1,385 1, % -0.15% 3.23% -0.03% Saltmeadow Rd % 2.71% 0.13% 0.01% Total south 8,557 5,918 5,910 6, % 0.35% 0.77% -0.04% Total Inner Cordon 18,133 13,020 12,968 13, % 0.26% 0.37% 0.28% River Tyne Crossings Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound NorthboundSouthbound Northbound Southbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound A19 Tyne Tunnel 1,193 1,319 1,049 1, % -0.06% -2.38% -0.29% Tyne Bridge 3,161 2,813 2,384 2, % -0.60% 3.42% 0.16% Swing & High Level Bridge 1, % 0.94% -2.93% -1.01% Redheugh Bridge 1,869 1,045 1,221 1, % 0.82% -1.75% 0.34% Scotswood Bridge 1,441 1,046 1,018 1, % -0.47% -0.85% -1.69% Blaydon Bridge 2,683 2,722 2,328 2, % 0.43% -1.04% 1.32% Total Cordon 11,707 9,540 8,657 8, % 0.03% -0.25% 0.08% A1 Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound NorthboundSouthbound Northbound Southbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound A1 south of Seaton Burn 1,411 1,274 1,184 1, % 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% A1 north of A69 3,189 3,430 2,946 2, % 0.27% 0.10% 1.95% A1 Blaydon Bridge 2,683 2,722 2,328 2, % 0.43% -1.04% 1.32% A1 East Of Metro Centre 2,756 3,320 2,708 2, % 0.18% -0.59% -0.14% A1 South of A692 3,380 3,174 2,884 2, % 0.01% 0.18% 0.40% Total Count Points 13,420 13,921 12,050 11, % 0.20% -0.27% 0.81% A19 Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound NorthboundSouthbound Northbound Southbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound A19 North of Backworth 877 1, % -0.02% -1.83% -0.67% A19 Tyne Tunnel 1,193 1,319 1,049 1, % -0.06% -2.38% -0.29% A194 between A19 and A184 1,140 1,140 1,043 1, % 0.28% -0.50% -0.50% Total Count Points 3,210 3,688 3,024 3, % 0.06% -1.57% -0.48% All Cordons 46,471 40,169 36,700 36, % 0.17% -0.15% 0.33% Table A.4: Results from testing the price elasticity of the model. HBW HBED HBO HBEB NHBEB NHBO Total Disutility no RUC Change in Disutility with RUC % Change in Disutility 37% 36% 38% 17% 17% 38% 31% Vehicle-km no RUC Change in Veh-km with RUC % Change in Veh-km -11% -1% -33% -1% -2% -12% -16% Elasticty Note: HBW: Home Based Work, HBED: Home Based Education, HBO: Home Based Other, HBEB: Home Based Employers Business, NHBEB: Non Home Based Employers Business, NHBO: Non Home Based Other 71

72 3 Updating TAMMS Base Year transport networks It was necessary to update the TAMMS base year transport network to include the major transport schemes which have been implemented between the TAMMS base year (2000) and the SOLUTIONS 2006 reference case. The 2006 reference case transport networks are established to better reflect the current transport networks in Tyne and Wear. The schemes included in the 2006 reference case are a reality and so need to be represented by the model. It is not the intention of the project to undo measures which are in place. From the reference case year onwards the transport schemes being considered (whether planned or aspirational) have yet to be implemented and so there is, in theory, still flexibility in how the available transport funding be spent. to include the major transport schemes which have been implemented since the TAMMS base year (2000) to better reflect the current transport networks in Tyne and Wear. The Public Transport and Highway Infrastructure measures which have been incorporated into SOLUTIONS 2006 reference case transport model are listed in Table A.5. Table A.5: Major transport measures introduced in Tyne and Wear between year 2000 and 2006 (Sources: TAMMS reports , LTP1 17, LTP2 18, TPM 19, and TIF 20 ). Scheme Cost Description Public Transport Measures Sunderland 105.8m Sunderland Direct is an extension of the existing Tyne and Wear Direct Metro service to Sunderland and beyond. CentreLink 31.1m Provision of a high quality public transport link between Gateshead town centre and the Metro Centre, including a new interchange in Gateshead town centre and sections of dedicated busway along the route. Quayside Transit 7.7m Infrastructure improvements to facilitate a high quality public transport service between Newcastle city centre, Newcastle and Gateshead quaysides and Gateshead town centre including the provision of a guided busway. Stephenson 12.2m Provision of a high quality public transport link between Royal Corridor Jobs Quays and Palmersville with a new ferry service from South Link Shields to Royal Quays to provide public transport access to existing industrial estates and new developments in North Metro Track Dualling 11.8m Highway Infrastructure Measures Newcastle West Central Route Scotswood Road Improvement Tyneside. Dualling of a single-track section of Metro line in South Tyneside that previously imposed operational constraints on the whole network. 24m The project provides a high standard distributor road around the western fringe of the city centre, eliminating the reliance on existing tortuous routes and improving their poor accident records. 16.7m The final section of dualling on this key link between the A1 and Newcastle city centre Sunderland Southern Radial Route 31.6m A single carriageway bypass of the existing A1018 through Grangetown and Ryhope, together with improvements to the existing Commercial Road 14 ARUP and Scott Wilson (2001) TAMMS Report Phase 3/4 Scenario Development Report. March, ARUP and Scott Wilson (2002) TAMMS Report Phase 6 Scenario Testing Report. September, ARUP and Scott Wilson (2002) Tyneside Area Multi Modal Study Study Report, November Local Transport Plan Tyne and Wear (2005) LTP1 Delivery Report Local Transport Plan Tyne and Wear (2007) LTP2 Main Document Jacobs Consultancy (2008) TN8: TPM Reference Case Tyne & Wear Transport Planning Model (TPM). Technical Note submitted to the Joint Transport Working Group of the Tyne & Wear Authorities 20 Faber Maunsell (2008) Tyne & Wear Transport Innovation Fund (TIF). Further Comparison of Integrated Congestion Management Packages Tyne & Wear Partners. May,

73 4 Total Funding Constraints Applied in the Transport Modelling The following four basic land use and transport options were tested: 1. Trend land use combined with mixed transport investment in highways and public transport. 2. Compaction of land use combined with all transport investment in public transport. 3. Free market dispersal of land use with all transport investment in highways. 4. Planned urban expansion of land use combined with mixed transport investment in highways and public transport. Although the options are very different in conceptual design they share the same overall levels of change to employment floorspace and numbers of dwellings (it is the location of these which differs between options) and importantly the total amount of investment in transport schemes is the same for each option to allow fair comparison. An estimate of the total funding available for major transport schemes between 2006 and 2031 has been made based on the anticipated North East share of the Regional Funding Allocation (RFA), the expected funding from the (then) Strategic Rail Authority for the NE region, and other sources of (non rail) funding likely for the NE including road safety grant to local authorities, the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF), Private Finance Initiative (PFI) credits, the Community Infrastructure Fund and Growth Area Fund grants. Regional Funding Allocation (RFA) The annual Regional Funding Allocation (RFA) for transport investment in the North East is 43 million for rising to 52 million for It is assumed that the RFA for transport in the North East will continue to deliver 52m per annum (at 2018 prices) between 2019 and This gives a total RFA for the North East of approximately 1,500m between 2006 and 2031 which equates to a total of 811m at year 2000 prices (applying the government recommended discount rate of 3.5%). This allocation is set aside to meet the cost of major schemes across the region as promoted by local authorities and the Highways Agency. Historically Tyne and Wear schemes comprise approximately 70% of the total funding allocated to the North East - making 568m available for the Tyne and Wear sub-region to Strategic Rail Authority funding Until its abolition the Strategic Rail Authority was the key facilitating agency for new rail investment, with Network Rail being the body that delivers the schemes. It is anticipated that approximately 389m (in year 2000 prices) is likely to be available to spend on major rail investment in Tyne and Wear between 2006 and Other sources of funding include the road safety grant to local authorities, the Transport Innovation Fund, Private Finance Initiative (PFI) credits, the Community Infrastructure Fund and Growth Area Fund grants. The total funding available from these other sources is difficult to 21 HM Treasury, Regional Funding Advice Guidance on preparing advice, July Faber Maunsell (2008) Tyne & Wear Transport Innovation Fund (TIF). Further Comparison of Integrated Congestion Management Packages Tyne & Wear Partners. May, Derived from ARUP and Scott Wilson (2001) TAMMS Report Phase 3/4 Scenario Development Report, March, 2001 and Faber Maunsell (2008) Tyne & Wear Transport Innovation Fund (TIF). Further Comparison of Integrated Congestion Management Packages Tyne & Wear Partners, May,

74 predict with any accuracy. Using the figures available for the period between 2000 and 2006 an estimate can be made of the funding likely to be available 24 : Between 2000 and 2006 approximately 245million was spent on major transport schemes in Tyne and Wear. None of this was spent on major rail schemes. The Regional Funding Allocation for Tyne and Wear during the same period was million. Therefore about 73.5m (30% of the total spend) came from other sources. Assuming a similar funding ratio between RFA and Other sources funding for the period 2006 to 2031 it is estimated that RFA makes up approximately 70% of the total spend and so other non-rail based sources will contribute 243 million. Total Major Scheme Transport Funding Total funding available to the NE for the period 2006 to 2031 is 568m (RFA funding) + 243m (other non-rail funding) + 389m (rail funding) = 1200m [in year 2000 prices]. Note that this is capital funding only and does not include maintenance or revenue budgets Trend excluding Road User Charging (2031 No RUC) The land use input assumptions adopted for this Trend run are based on the inputs of the TAMMS Mentor model. Transport supply is based on updating the transport networks with schemes which have been implemented since year 2000 as well including proposed major schemes detailed in current plans for investment up to 2031.Road User Charging is not included. This scenario provides the base position for Land Use Inputs The number of dwellings in 2031 is calculated from the input of the TAMMS model and is summarised in Table 5. The TAMMS study designed low supply of dwellings with supply of 79,850 dwellings (+11%) from 2000 to 2031 for the study area, which is much smaller than the target of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) with 100,000 dwelling supply only in Tyne and Wear for the next decades. As a result, there is the only 1% vacancy of total dwellings against total households in the study area. For the less constraint of dwelling supply, this SOLUTIONS study designs 5% vacancy of dwellings in the study area. In the first design of zonal dwellings, the extra zonal supply of dwellings is added to the original zonal allocation of dwellings in the TAMMS model in order to achieve the 5% vacancy in each zone. Then, the first design for the zonal allocation is tuned to make sure the targeted total dwellings with the 5% vacancy of against the total households in the study area. Accordingly, approximately 30,000 extra dwellings are designed in total for the study area, which increase the growth of dwellings from 2000 to 2031 by 4%. While the extra dwellings are applied for the Trend of the SOLUTIONS model, the dwelling input of the TAMMS model is also employed as the Trend without extra dwellings for the sensitivity test of extra dwellings, on which the design of the policy options without extra dwellings is based. The design of growth of employment floorspace for business, retail and industry sectors is derived from the TAMMS model and is summarised in Table A Derived from Local Transport Plan Tyne and Wear (2005) LTP1 Delivery Report , ARUP and Scott Wilson (2001) TAMMS Report Phase 3/4 Scenario Development Report, March 2001, and HM Treasury, Regional Funding Allocations Guidance on preparing advice, July

75 Table A.6: Dwellings in 2000 and 2031 for the TAMMS and SOLUTIONS Models Zone No. Zone Name Zone Type TAMMS 2031 SOLUTIONS SOLUTIONS-TAMMS Dwellings Dwellings % (31-00) Dwellings % (31-00) Extra Dwellings 1 Bede Urban 4,297 4,550 6% 4,916 14% Bensham Urban 3,906 4,216 8% 4,277 9% 61 3 Chowdene Urban 4,072 4,323 6% 4,621 13% Deckham Urban 3,963 4,301 9% 4,727 19% Dunston Urban 4,505 4,826 7% 5,232 16% Felling Urban 4,390 4,708 7% 5,194 18% High Fell Urban 3,833 4,100 7% 4,608 20% Leam Urban 4,470 4,758 6% 5,231 17% Low Fell Urban 4,472 4,763 7% 4,739 6% Pelaw and Heworth Urban 3,864 4,109 6% 4,391 14% Saltwell Urban 4,394 4,640 6% 4,930 12% Teams Urban 4,472 4,707 5% 5,253 17% Wrekendyke Suburban 4,850 5,201 7% 5,655 17% Whickham (N) & Blaydon Urban 8,544 8,904 4% 9,029 6% Whickham South Suburban 4,597 4,898 7% 4,978 8% Birtley & Lamesley Suburban 8,719 9,268 6% 9,516 9% Prudhoe Suburban 16,401 16,993 4% 16,949 3% Benwell Urban 3,860 5,800 50% 5,773 50% Blakelaw Urban 5,267 6,720 28% 7,185 36% Byker Urban 4,739 4,896 3% 5,351 13% Dene Urban 6,382 6,641 4% 6,614 4% Elswick Urban 4,055 6,375 57% 6,347 57% Fawdon Urban 4,710 4,867 3% 5,002 6% Fenham Urban 4,726 4,884 3% 5,050 7% Grange Urban 5,566 5,889 6% 5,864 5% Heaton Urban 4,991 5,154 3% 5,132 3% Jesmond Urban 5,370 5,623 5% 5,604 4% Kenton Urban 4,594 4,773 4% 4,751 3% Monkchester Urban 4,155 4,322 4% 4,808 16% Moorside Urban 4,528 4,674 3% 4,653 3% Sandyford Urban 5,592 5,744 3% 5,719 2% Scotswood Urban 3,438 6,210 81% 6,129 78% South Gosforth Urban 4,543 4,829 6% 4,811 6% Walker Urban 3,984 7,294 83% 8, % Walkergate Urban 4,646 4,829 4% 5,226 12% West City Urban 4,463 4,616 3% 4,924 10% Wingrove Urban 4,271 4,431 4% 4,413 3% Castle Suburban 4,729 7,326 55% 7,363 56% Denton & Westerhope Suburban 9,825 9,995 2% 10,529 7% Lemington & Newburn Suburban 8,389 8,616 3% 9,088 8% Woolsington Suburban 3,511 3,669 5% 3,653 4% Battle Hill Urban 5,140 5,634 10% 6,145 20% Benton Urban 3,963 4,448 12% 4,507 14% Chirton Urban 4,192 4,622 10% 5,105 22% Collingwood Urban 4,398 4,840 10% 5,331 21% Cullercoats Urban 4,433 4,911 11% 4,890 10% Howdon Urban 4,071 4,508 11% 4,977 22% Monkseaton & St Mary's Suburban 8,007 8,779 10% 8,916 11% North Shields Urban 5,009 5,858 17% 5,843 17% Northumberland Urban 5,325 5,825 9% 6,298 18% Riverside Urban 4,605 5,325 16% 5,892 28% Holystone Suburban 5,493 6,312 15% 6,573 20% Seatonville Urban 4,083 4,677 15% 4,657 14% Tynemouth Urban 4,430 4,889 10% 4,867 10% Wallsend Urban 4,913 5,557 13% 6,044 23% Whitley Bay Urban 3,908 4,349 11% 4,434 13% Camperdown, Longbenton & Weesl Suburban 13,618 15,330 13% 15,428 13% Valley Suburban 5,870 7,978 36% 8,082 38% Fellgate and Hedwort Suburban 3,560 3,790 6% 4,089 15% Bolden Suburban 10,878 11,218 3% 11,167 3% All Saints Urban 3,589 3,797 6% 4,283 19% Beacon and Bents Urban 3,225 3,440 7% 3,795 18% Bede Urban 3,387 3,651 8% 4,180 23% Biddick Hall Urban 3,085 3,281 6% 3,644 18% Cleadon Park Urban 3,271 3,476 6% 3,909 19% Harton, Horsley Hill & Westoe Urban 10,265 10,746 5% 11,240 9% Hebburn Quay Urban 3,534 3,888 10% 4,289 21% Hebburn South Urban 2,707 2,914 8% 3,231 19% Monkton Urban 3,588 3,796 6% 4,291 20% Primrose Urban 3,579 3,793 6% 4,251 19% Rekendyke Urban 3,877 4,603 19% 5,185 34% Tyne Dock and Simons Urban 2,860 3,052 7% 3,424 20% West Park Urban 3,151 3,378 7% 3,587 14% Whiteleas Urban 3,239 3,442 6% 3,868 19% Sunderland (NW) Urban 13,164 13,866 5% 15,348 17% 1, Sunderland (SE) Urban 19,381 20,084 4% 19,995 3% Sunderland (NE) Urban 13,418 14,116 5% 14,534 8% Sundeerland (SW) Urban 18,625 19,380 4% 20,677 11% 1, Silksworth Suburban 10,129 10,778 6% 11,139 10% Houghton Suburban 10,218 10,807 6% 11,180 9% Houghton Suburban 10,215 10,701 5% 11,322 11% Ryhope Suburban 7,244 8,079 12% 8,776 21% Washington (N) Suburban 10,329 11,093 7% 11,760 14% Washington (E) Suburban 13,307 14,193 7% 14,171 6% Chester-le-Street Suburban 6,208 7,103 14% 7,072 14% Ouston Suburban 3,017 3,556 18% 3,609 20% North Lodge Suburban 1,000 1,379 38% 1,447 45% Pelton Suburban 5,529 6,287 14% 6,259 13% Plawsworth Suburban 4,696 5,423 15% 5,400 15% Lumley Suburban 3,278 3,883 18% 3,885 19% 2 91 Derwentside (N) Suburban 24,666 27,758 13% 27,717 12% Derwentside (S) Buffer 14,187 15,577 10% 15,767 11% Durham Buffer 16,245 17,978 11% 17,905 10% Durham (W) Buffer 10,779 12,551 16% 12,497 16% Durham (E) Buffer 8,718 10,231 17% 10,187 17% Seaham Suburban 12,806 14,320 12% 15,242 19% Peterlee Buffer 28,344 31,942 13% 32,734 15% Hartley Suburban 7,048 8,213 17% 8,176 16% Blyth Suburban 15,926 18,136 14% 18,966 19% Cramlington Suburban 12,386 14,860 20% 15,343 24% Hebron,Hepscott and Buffer 7,380 8,236 12% 8,340 13% Ulgham Buffer 6,896 7,398 7% 7,790 13% Heddon-On-The-Wall Buffer 6,755 7,605 13% 7,770 15% South Tynedale Buffer 16,448 18,475 12% 18,409 12% Wansbeck Suburban 27,959 31,934 14% 34,445 23% 2,511 Total 739, ,485 11% 850,700 15% 31,215 75

76 Table A.7: Employment Floorspace in 2000 and 2031 for the TAMMS and SOLUTIONS Models Zone No. Zone Name Zone Type Business Floorspace (m2) Retail Floorspace (m2) Industrial Floorspace (m2) % (31-00) % (31-00) % (31-00) 1 Bede Urban 30,408 38,634 27% 54,007 57,004 6% 266, ,559-7% 2 Bensham Urban 10,218 12,102 18% 11,310 11,082-2% 41,226 38,568-6% 3 Chowdene Urban 562 7, % 2,897 19, % 1,154 1,092-5% 4 Deckham Urban 2,542 2,542 0% 7,065 6,966-1% 4,825 4,516-6% 5 Dunston Urban 12,931 17,751 37% 20,764 28,780 39% 147, ,524-6% 6 Felling Urban 15,717 24,103 53% 14,181 14,056-1% 125, ,271-6% 7 High Fell Urban % 9,505 9,392-1% 3,147 2,957-6% 8 Leam Urban 904 9, % 2,745 19, % 4,511 4,279-5% 9 Low Fell Urban 10,389 10,388 0% 14,715 14,395-2% 12,798 12,009-6% 10 Pelaw and Heworth Urban 19,066 21,069 11% 6,049 6,021 0% 133, ,603-6% 11 Saltwell Urban 6,087 9,376 54% 6,608 13, % 4,616 4,339-6% 12 Teams Urban 51,014 74,589 46% 46,637 55,105 18% 872, ,890-6% 13 Wrekendyke Suburban 953 8, % 9,073 9,009-1% % 14 Whickham (N) & Blaydon Urban 18,871 45, % 175, ,586 32% 261, ,697-7% 15 Whickham South Suburban 4,009 4,010 0% 11,513 10,322-10% 13,637 12,735-7% 16 Birtley & Lamesley Suburban 29,797 37,394 25% 37,921 37,601-1% 520, ,520-6% 17 Prudhoe Suburban 15,302 29,131 90% 30,373 29,365-3% 87,487 82,052-6% 18 Benwell Urban 4,165 4,551 9% 5,677 8,076 42% 36,774 34,491-6% 19 Blakelaw Urban 4,454 9, % 27,626 34,931 26% 14,474 13,587-6% 20 Byker Urban 38,643 43,718 13% 35,326 85, % 82,769 77,292-7% 21 Dene Urban 33,813 38,888 15% 26,738 26,539-1% 12,598 11,659-7% 22 Elswick Urban 4,628 14, % 14,149 39, % 6,862 6,425-6% 23 Fawdon Urban 11,252 16,327 45% 5,384 5,362 0% 35,059 32,863-6% 24 Fenham Urban 4,281 14, % 16,091 47, % 2,734 2,567-6% 25 Grange Urban 30,747 39,594 29% 24,742 25,909 5% 40,419 37,480-7% 26 Heaton Urban 5,843 10,918 87% 16,767 16,713 0% 14,581 13,672-6% 27 Jesmond Urban 26,321 31,396 19% 34,593 34,224-1% 11,740 10,836-8% 28 Kenton Urban 5,611 5,612 0% 4,854 4,833 0% 4,932 4,592-7% 29 Monkchester Urban 6,710 32, % 13,237 22,511 70% 12,919 12,150-6% 30 Moorside Urban 131, ,519 0% 205, ,055 9% 30,609 28,192-8% 31 Sandyford Urban 88,277 93,352 6% 37,621 37,217-1% 53,124 49,333-7% 32 Scotswood Urban 8,793 13,979 59% 9,237 8,304-10% 58,538 54,941-6% 33 South Gosforth Urban 24,933 30,008 20% 20,150 19,913-1% 11,365 10,512-8% 34 Walker Urban 2,632 12, % 5,794 5,750-1% 45,673 43,181-5% 35 Walkergate Urban 1,533 1,533 0% 4,412 4,401 0% 8,255 7,717-7% 36 West City Urban 378, ,969 2% 221, ,099 10% 152, ,046-7% 37 Wingrove Urban 10,731 15,806 47% 15,914 15,750-1% 1,823 1,693-7% 38 Castle Suburban 7, , % 26,123 42,619 63% 34,040 31,799-7% 39 Denton & Westerhope Suburban 6,363 6,364 0% 16,532 25,464 54% 20,049 18,885-6% 40 Lemington & Newburn Suburban 7,896 60, % 27,476 30,925 13% 113, ,842-6% 41 Woolsington Suburban 7,058 78, % 15,533 17,908 15% 14,688 13,774-6% 42 Battle Hill Urban 5,582 6,739 21% 21,898 25,087 15% 4,941 4,643-6% 43 Benton Urban 3,546 4,704 33% 18,218 31,698 74% 7,675 7,171-7% 44 Chirton Urban 3,068 10, % 13,506 32, % 40,528 38,081-6% 45 Collingwood Urban 1,332 9, % 7,449 11,259 51% 153, ,938-6% 46 Cullercoats Urban % 5,475 13, % 1,577 1,475-6% 47 Howdon Urban 673 5, % 3,971 14, % 34,167 32,295-5% 48 Monkseaton & St Mary's Suburban 4,624 4,624 0% 13,372 13,297-1% 6,413 5,952-7% 49 North Shields Urban 14,739 17,689 20% 41,080 48,286 18% 15,086 14,059-7% 50 Northumberland Urban 2,993 2,993 0% 17,028 16,840-1% 1, % 51 Riverside Urban 5,896 23, % 8,548 10,107 18% 68,703 64,667-6% 52 Holystone Suburban 6,150 9,481 54% 10,702 14,905 39% 73,801 69,138-6% 53 Seatonville Urban 2,379 3,536 49% 18,913 18,758-1% 6,150 5,743-7% 54 Tynemouth Urban 2,469 2,596 5% 14,853 14,755-1% 29,594 27,602-7% 55 Wallsend Urban 23,104 25,672 11% 10,634 10,562-1% 252, ,785-6% 56 Whitley Bay Urban 7,063 9,377 33% 41,506 47,302 14% 12,458 11,616-7% 57 Camperdown, Longbenton & Weesl Suburban 18,376 45, % 28,763 28,403-1% 484, ,358-7% 58 Valley Suburban 1,811 8, % 7,965 16, % 28,595 26,817-6% 59 Fellgate and Hedwort Suburban 121 5, % 2,250 15, % 1,936 1,833-5% 60 Bolden Suburban 8,167 10,769 32% 47,085 46,631-1% 43,410 40,780-6% 61 All Saints Urban 1,171 1,171 0% 7,508 7,492 0% 11,843 11,078-6% 62 Beacon and Bents Urban 5,126 6,615 29% 31,001 41,061 32% 7,512 7,084-6% 63 Bede Urban 10,455 17,085 63% 21,788 25,188 16% 133, ,915-6% 64 Biddick Hall Urban % 1,990 1,985 0% % 65 Cleadon Park Urban % 1,989 4, % % 66 Harton, Horsley Hill & Westoe Urban 1,803 2,788 55% 15,370 18,524 21% 4,885 4,603-6% 67 Hebburn Quay Urban 2,382 5, % 7,366 7,326-1% 120, ,220-6% 68 Hebburn South Urban 404 2, % 3,150 5,939 89% 4,378 4,114-6% 69 Monkton Urban 875 8, % 2,818 2,804-1% 4,101 3,882-5% 70 Primrose Urban 646 1,142 77% 2,084 2,078 0% 1,198 1,130-6% 71 Rekendyke Urban 14,989 16,669 11% 56,176 60,340 7% 151, ,989-6% 72 Tyne Dock and Simons Urban 8,638 12,202 41% 6,418 9,051 41% 52,580 49,714-5% 73 West Park Urban % 6,134 6,120 0% 1,843 1,729-6% 74 Whiteleas Urban % 2,818 2,806 0% 1, % 75 Sunderland (NW) Urban 20,268 34,707 71% 39,956 43,298 8% 167, ,790-6% 76 Sunderland (SE) Urban 113, ,961 11% 268, ,972 6% 197, ,460-6% 77 Sunderland (NE) Urban 8,855 14,913 68% 48,379 81,644 69% 50,084 47,138-6% 78 Sundeerland (SW) Urban 3,662 12, % 20,166 50, % 174, ,015-6% 79 Silksworth Suburban 12,052 17,583 46% 23,590 34,095 45% 14,875 13,995-6% 80 Houghton Suburban 10,231 16,296 59% 23,965 23,710-1% 72,679 68,370-6% 81 Houghton Suburban 2,906 11, % 17,618 17,503-1% 95,979 90,436-6% 82 Ryhope Suburban 853 8, % 4,848 11, % 5,978 5,628-6% 83 Washington (N) Suburban 46,445 92, % 40,681 43,436 7% 499, ,049-6% 84 Washington (E) Suburban 24,104 43,290 80% 67,546 74,018 10% 229, ,155-6% 85 Chester-le-Street Suburban 10,722 32, % 37,398 58,684 57% 23,449 21,976-6% 86 Ouston Suburban 1,147 7, % 3,472 13, % 15,225 14,140-7% 87 North Lodge Suburban 2,552 18, % 4,237 40, % 73,014 68,135-7% 88 Pelton Suburban 1,418 3, % 7,480 7,435-1% 18,115 16,984-6% 89 Plawsworth Suburban 735 6, % 8,603 28, % 25,227 23,580-7% 90 Lumley Suburban , % 11,104 12,563 13% 5,446 5,108-6% 91 Derwentside (N) Suburban 9,578 25, % 69,496 97,181 40% 281, ,484-6% 92 Derwentside (S) Buffer 5,450 23, % 58,196 88,547 52% 145, ,188-7% 93 Durham Buffer 50, , % 116, ,508 22% 307, ,728-7% 94 Durham (W) Buffer 25,066 61, % 21,772 24,352 12% 118, ,485-6% 95 Durham (E) Buffer 5,010 46, % 21,121 53, % 83,806 78,597-6% 96 Seaham Suburban 3,720 5,900 59% 20,342 20,721 2% 57,010 53,881-5% 97 Peterlee Buffer 13,498 19,069 41% 59,038 66,699 13% 345, ,637-6% 98 Hartley Suburban 3,235 3,236 0% 11,192 14,468 29% 61,810 57,667-7% 99 Blyth Suburban 10,152 15,536 53% 44,762 68,867 54% 190, ,608-6% 100 Cramlington Suburban 7,140 19, % 22,807 41,175 81% 376, ,778-7% 101 Hebron,Hepscott and Buffer 7,568 42, % 33,011 63,204 91% 77,581 70,284-9% 102 Ulgham Buffer 778 8, % 10,201 22, % 20,716 18,231-12% 103 Heddon-On-The-Wall Buffer 3,548 18, % 11,157 15,731 41% 28,509 26,084-9% 104 South Tynedale Buffer 11,641 26, % 88, ,880 45% 230, ,103-8% 105 Wansbeck Suburban 16,069 75, % 100, ,069 81% 230, ,063-6% Total 1,675,264 2,835,333 69% 3,108,432 4,082,768 31% 9,309,216 8,715,777-6% 76

77 5.2 Transport Inputs The Trend follows the plans for investment in major transport schemes identified from a variety of sources including TAMMS documentation 25, the LTP major scheme descriptions 26 and TIF proposals 27. From these sources a picture of the Trend for transport investment has been built. The listing of the major transport schemes included in the Trend with scheme details is provided in Table A.8. The Trend suggests an even split of the 1200m investment between highways schemes ( 600m) and public transport schemes ( 606m). The locations of these schemes in Tyne and Wear are illustrated in main report in Figure 1.9 for major highway schemes, Figure 1.10 for major rail schemes and Figure 1.11 for non-rail major public transport schemes Trend including Road User Charging (2031 with RUC) This Trend run has the same transport network and land use inputs as outlined in the previous section, but it includes Road User Charging (RUC). Note the same RUC is implemented in the policy option tests (see below) to allow direct comparison with this 2031 Trend run. 6.1 Land Use Inputs The Land Use inputs are identical to those used in the Trend excluding Road User Charging. 6.2 Transport Inputs The road user charging applied is a distance based charge (variable according to link type) as defined in Section 2.1 of the main report. Figure1.25 in the main report shows the spread of links with different levels of road user charge across the network. It should be noted that the motorway and dual carriageway charges have only been applied in the Tyne and Wear area and not to external motorway/dual carriageway links in the modelled network. 25 ARUP and Scott Wilson (2002) Tyneside Area Multi Modal Study Study Report, Ove Arup & Partners International Limited and Scott Wilson Scotland Ltd, November Tyne & Wear Transport Innovation Fund, Further Comparison of Integrated Congestion Management Packages, Tyne & Wear Partners, May

78 Table A.8: Major transport schemes included between 2006 and 2031 for the Trend Scheme Cost (2000) Description Highway Infrastructure Measures A1 Western Bypass Widening A1 Junction Rationalisation A19 Junction Grade Separation 271m A1 Western Bypass would be widened to 3 through lanes, between Seaton Burn and the A1(M) ~ widening for approximately 24 km Approx 50m The following junction improvement schemes were included on the A1 Western Bypass Rationalisation of the MetroCentre and Swalwell Junctions; closure of the Dunston Junction; junction linking schemes between the A184 Askew Road and A692 Lobley Hill Junctions and between the A167 Eighton Lodge and A1231 Blackfell junctions. 99m A19 Improvement Scheme consisting of junction improvements and some limited carriageway realignment creating a grade separated motorway standard dual carriageway route from Washington via the A194(M) to the A1 north of Seaton Burn. New Tyne Crossing 180m A new road tunnel, adjacent to the existing Tyne Tunnel, to increase capacity and provide improved access to job opportunities in the A19 corridor through North & South Tyneside. TOTAL 600m Public Transport Measures Ashington, Blyth and Tyne Line 44m Upgrading of existing freight railway line to enable the reintroduction of two passenger trains per hour in each direction. Former Ashington station re-opened and new stations at North Seaton, Bedlington, Bebside, Seaton Delaval & Backworth. Leamside Line 42m Three trains per hour, two stopping (Newcastle Central station, East Gateshead, Washington Parkway, Washington, Penshaw, Fence Houses, Belmont, Ferryhill then on to Tees Valley) and one semi-fast (Newcastle Central station, Washington Parkway, Washington, Belmont only then on to Tees Valley). Durham / Morpeth / Hexham enhancements Metro Complementary Routes (MCR) (3 routes) TOTAL 606m 303m A new service with 2 trains per hour in each direction. The East Coast Main Line would be used through urban areas but in rural areas additional tracks would be provided parallel to the East Coast Main Line. These additional tracks would be between Cramlington and West Moor, Benton to Heaton, A1 (Team Valley) and A693 (Chester-le- Street) and A167 (Chester-le-Street) and Durham. Six new stations required including relocating Cramlington station and other stations would be constructed at Dudley, West Moor, Team Valley, Birtley and Newton Hall. 217m MCRs comprise a light rail or tram system being considered to serve the Tyne and Wear area to complement the Metro system. The following 3 schemes have been included in the mixed investment scenario: Sunderland to Westerhope, Washington to Newcastle City Centre, and Westerhope to Newcastle City Centre. The total length of track for all three routes amounts to approximately 41 km and comprises a mixture of track type. Capital Cost based on the CfIT Affordable Mass Transit Guidance of 5.3 m/km. 78

79 Compaction The main purpose of this policy option test is to minimise travel distances by locating households, places of employment and other attractions close to each other in urban areas which have good public transport, high employment and good access to retail. As new dwellings and employment floorspace are concentrated on these areas whilst maintaining the total amounts of dwellings and floorspace in the study area, this policy option assumes that far smaller amounts of new dwellings and floorspace will be built outside the identified urban zones than the 2031 Trend. Both the option without RUC and one with RUC are tested for the Compaction policy option tests. 7.1 Land Use Inputs The additional allocation of dwellings, business floorspace and retail floorspace to the 2031 Trend allocation is made to urban areas with good public transport accessibility, high employment density and good access to retail. For the zonal allocation, each zone is given a score based on the number of metro stations, jobs per dwelling and proximity to major retail areas. Approximately 35,000 dwellings, 215,000m2 of business floorspace and 255,000 m 2 of retail floorspace are newly allocated within the urban zones from the suburban zones, compared with the Trend. These amounts of compaction are decided based on their proportions to the total increases of the study area from 2000 to 2031 at the comparable level to the London study. The amounts of dwellings and floorspace in the suburban area are reduced to retain the same total amounts in the study area to allow direct comparison between runs. 79

80 Table A.9: Zonal Allocation of Dwellings in Compaction Zone No. Zone Name Zone Type High Allocation Trend 2031 Compaction Dwellings Dwellings % (31-00) Dwellings % (31-00) No Extra Dwellings 1 Bede Urban yes 4,297 4,916 14% 8, % 8,410 2 Bensham Urban yes 3,906 4,277 9% 5,166 32% 5,105 3 Chowdene Urban 4,072 4,621 13% 4,629 14% 4,331 4 Deckham Urban 3,963 4,727 19% 4,838 22% 4,412 5 Dunston Urban yes 4,505 5,232 16% 7,327 63% 6,920 6 Felling Urban yes 4,390 5,194 18% 8,145 86% 7,659 7 High Fell Urban 3,833 4,608 20% 4,621 21% 4,113 8 Leam Urban 4,470 5,231 17% 5,506 23% 5,032 9 Low Fell Urban 4,472 4,739 6% 4,740 6% 4, Pelaw and Heworth Urban 3,864 4,391 14% 4,500 16% 4, Saltwell Urban 4,394 4,930 12% 4,943 12% 4, Teams Urban yes 4,472 5,253 17% 8,308 86% 7, Wrekendyke Suburban 4,850 5,655 17% 5,048 4% 4, Whickham (N) & Blaydon Urban 8,544 9,029 6% 8,744 2% 8, Whickham South Suburban 4,597 4,978 8% 4,385-5% 4, Birtley & Lamesley Suburban 8,719 9,516 9% 8,430-3% 8, Prudhoe Suburban 16,401 16,949 3% 14,852-9% 14, Benwell Urban 3,860 5,773 50% 5,758 49% 5, Blakelaw Urban 5,267 7,185 36% 7,196 37% 6, Byker Urban yes 4,739 5,351 13% 9,310 96% 8, Dene Urban 6,382 6,614 4% 6,695 5% 6, Elswick Urban yes 4,055 6,347 57% 6,725 66% 6, Fawdon Urban 4,710 5,002 6% 4,996 6% 4, Fenham Urban 4,726 5,050 7% 5,050 7% 4, Grange Urban 5,566 5,864 5% 5,933 7% 5, Heaton Urban yes 4,991 5,132 3% 6,163 23% 6, Jesmond Urban yes 5,370 5,604 4% 6,541 22% 6, Kenton Urban 4,594 4,751 3% 4,746 3% 4, Monkchester Urban yes 4,155 4,808 16% 6,660 60% 6, Moorside Urban yes 4,528 4,653 3% 7,052 56% 7, Sandyford Urban yes 5,592 5,719 2% 8,811 58% 8, Scotswood Urban 3,438 6,129 78% 6,179 80% 6, South Gosforth Urban 4,543 4,811 6% 4,812 6% 4, Walker Urban 3,984 8, % 8, % 7, Walkergate Urban 4,646 5,226 12% 5,235 13% 4, West City Urban yes 4,463 4,924 10% 8,889 99% 8, Wingrove Urban yes 4,271 4,413 3% 5,248 23% 5, Castle Suburban 4,729 7,363 56% 6,487 37% 6, Denton & Westerhope Suburban 9,825 10,529 7% 9,345-5% 8, Lemington & Newburn Suburban 8,389 9,088 8% 8,063-4% 7, Woolsington Suburban 3,511 3,653 4% 3,210-9% 3, Battle Hill Urban 5,140 6,145 20% 6,120 19% 5, Benton Urban 3,963 4,507 14% 4,505 14% 4, Chirton Urban 4,192 5,105 22% 5,117 22% 4, Collingwood Urban 4,398 5,331 21% 5,411 23% 4, Cullercoats Urban 4,433 4,890 10% 4,884 10% 4, Howdon Urban 4,071 4,977 22% 4,956 22% 4, Monkseaton & St Mary's Suburban 8,007 8,916 11% 7,869-2% 7, North Shields Urban 5,009 5,843 17% 5,964 19% 5, Northumberland Urban 5,325 6,298 18% 6,494 22% 6, Riverside Urban 4,605 5,892 28% 5,903 28% 5, Holystone Suburban 5,493 6,573 20% 5,826 6% 5, Seatonville Urban 4,083 4,657 14% 5,152 26% 5, Tynemouth Urban 4,430 4,867 10% 4,860 10% 4, Wallsend Urban 4,913 6,044 23% 5,816 18% 5, Whitley Bay Urban 3,908 4,434 13% 4,522 16% 4, Camperdown, Longbenton & Weesl Suburban 13,618 15,428 13% 13,588 0% 13, Valley Suburban 5,870 8,082 38% 7,126 21% 7, Fellgate and Hedwort Suburban 3,560 4,089 15% 3,646 2% 3, Bolden Suburban 10,878 11,167 3% 9,823-10% 9, All Saints Urban 3,589 4,283 19% 4,296 20% 3, Beacon and Bents Urban 3,225 3,795 18% 3,804 18% 3, Bede Urban 3,387 4,180 23% 4,246 25% 3, Biddick Hall Urban 3,085 3,644 18% 3,655 18% 3, Cleadon Park Urban 3,271 3,909 19% 3,922 20% 3, Harton, Horsley Hill & Westoe Urban 10,265 11,240 9% 11,248 10% 10, Hebburn Quay Urban 3,534 4,289 21% 4,300 22% 3, Hebburn South Urban 2,707 3,231 19% 3,312 22% 2, Monkton Urban 3,588 4,291 20% 4,333 21% 3, Primrose Urban 3,579 4,251 19% 4,282 20% 3, Rekendyke Urban 3,877 5,185 34% 5,454 41% 4, Tyne Dock and Simons Urban 2,860 3,424 20% 3,435 20% 3, West Park Urban 3,151 3,587 14% 3,593 14% 3, Whiteleas Urban 3,239 3,868 19% 3,881 20% 3, Sunderland (NW) Urban 13,164 15,348 17% 15,613 19% 14, Sunderland (SE) Urban 19,381 19,995 3% 20,306 5% 20, Sunderland (NE) Urban 13,418 14,534 8% 15,535 16% 15, Sundeerland (SW) Urban 18,625 20,677 11% 20,704 11% 19, Silksworth Suburban 10,129 11,139 10% 11,078 9% 10, Houghton Suburban 10,218 11,180 9% 9,900-3% 9, Houghton Suburban 10,215 11,322 11% 10,060-2% 9, Ryhope Suburban 7,244 8,776 21% 7,833 8% 7, Washington (N) Suburban 10,329 11,760 14% 10,457 1% 9, Washington (E) Suburban 13,307 14,171 6% 14,081 6% 14, Chester-le-Street Suburban 6,208 7,072 14% 8,062 30% 8, Ouston Suburban 3,017 3,609 20% 3,188 6% 3, North Lodge Suburban 1,000 1,447 45% 1,285 28% 1, Pelton Suburban 5,529 6,259 13% 5,503 0% 5, Plawsworth Suburban 4,696 5,400 15% 4,746 1% 4, Lumley Suburban 3,278 3,885 19% 3,420 4% 3, Derwentside (N) Suburban 24,666 27,717 12% 24,360-1% 24, Derwentside (S) Buffer 14,187 15,767 11% 15,750 11% 15, Durham Buffer 16,245 17,905 10% 17,879 10% 17, Durham (W) Buffer 10,779 12,497 16% 12,479 16% 12, Durham (E) Buffer 8,718 10,187 17% 10,175 17% 10, Seaham Suburban 12,806 15,242 19% 13,559 6% 12, Peterlee Buffer 28,344 32,734 15% 32,726 15% 31, Hartley Suburban 7,048 8,176 16% 7,191 2% 7, Blyth Suburban 15,926 18,966 19% 16,817 6% 15, Cramlington Suburban 12,386 15,343 24% 13,585 10% 13, Hebron,Hepscott and Buffer 7,380 8,340 13% 8,341 13% 8, Ulgham Buffer 6,896 7,790 13% 7,803 13% 7, Heddon-On-The-Wall Buffer 6,755 7,770 15% 7,779 15% 7, South Tynedale Buffer 16,448 18,409 12% 18,364 12% 18, Wansbeck Suburban 27,959 34,445 23% 30,693 10% 28,182 Total 739, ,700 15% 850,865 15% 819,649 80

81 Table A.10: Zonal Allocation of Employment Floorspace in Compaction Zone No. Zone Name Zone Type High Allocation Business Floorspace (m2) Retail Floorspace (m2) Industrial Floorspace (m2) Trend % (31-00) Compaction % (31-00) Trend % (31-00) Compaction % (31-00) % (31-00) 1 Bede Urban yes 30,408 38,634 27% 53,960 77% 54,007 57,004 6% 75,974 41% 266, ,559-7% 2 Bensham Urban yes 10,218 12,102 18% 23, % 11,310 11,082-2% 20,213 79% 41,226 38,568-6% 3 Chowdene Urban 562 7, % 7, % 2,897 19, % 18, % 1,154 1,092-5% 4 Deckham Urban 2,542 2,542 0% 2,478-3% 7,065 6,966-1% 6,498-8% 4,825 4,516-6% 5 Dunston Urban yes 12,931 17,751 37% 29, % 20,764 28,780 39% 66, % 147, ,524-6% 6 Felling Urban yes 15,717 24,103 53% 33, % 14,181 14,056-1% 33, % 125, ,271-6% 7 High Fell Urban % 373 9% 9,505 9,392-1% 8,911-6% 3,147 2,957-6% 8 Leam Urban 904 9, % 8, % 2,745 19, % 17, % 4,511 4,279-5% 9 Low Fell Urban 10,389 10,388 0% 10,556 2% 14,715 14,395-2% 14,118-4% 12,798 12,009-6% 10 Pelaw and Heworth Urban 19,066 21,069 11% 22,216 17% 6,049 6,021 0% 5,654-7% 133, ,603-6% 11 Saltwell Urban 6,087 9,376 54% 9,683 59% 6,608 13, % 12,436 88% 4,616 4,339-6% 12 Teams Urban yes 51,014 74,589 46% 89,408 75% 46,637 55,105 18% 56,994 22% 872, ,890-6% 13 Wrekendyke Suburban 953 8, % 5, % 9,073 9,009-1% 7,395-18% % 14 Whickham (N) & Blaydon Urban 18,871 45, % 45, % 175, ,586 32% 134,893-23% 261, ,697-7% 15 Whickham South Suburban 4,009 4,010 0% 3,266-19% 11,513 10,322-10% 10,970-5% 13,637 12,735-7% 16 Birtley & Lamesley Suburban 29,797 37,394 25% 30,999 4% 37,921 37,601-1% 35,633-6% 520, ,520-6% 17 Prudhoe Suburban 15,302 29,131 90% 22,145 45% 30,373 29,365-3% 28,822-5% 87,487 82,052-6% 18 Benwell Urban 4,165 4,551 9% 4,622 11% 5,677 8,076 42% 7,592 34% 36,774 34,491-6% 19 Blakelaw Urban 4,454 9, % 9, % 27,626 34,931 26% 33,373 21% 14,474 13,587-6% 20 Byker Urban yes 38,643 43,718 13% 54,437 41% 35,326 85, % 113, % 82,769 77,292-7% 21 Dene Urban 33,813 38,888 15% 41,459 23% 26,738 26,539-1% 24,737-7% 12,598 11,659-7% 22 Elswick Urban yes 4,628 14, % 18, % 14,149 39, % 46, % 6,862 6,425-6% 23 Fawdon Urban 11,252 16,327 45% 17,443 55% 5,384 5,362 0% 5,205-3% 35,059 32,863-6% 24 Fenham Urban 4,281 14, % 14, % 16,091 47, % 44, % 2,734 2,567-6% 25 Grange Urban 30,747 39,594 29% 42,069 37% 24,742 25,909 5% 25,248 2% 40,419 37,480-7% 26 Heaton Urban yes 5,843 10,918 87% 28, % 16,767 16,713 0% 26,418 58% 14,581 13,672-6% 27 Jesmond Urban yes 26,321 31,396 19% 36,159 37% 34,593 34,224-1% 36,507 6% 11,740 10,836-8% 28 Kenton Urban 5,611 5,612 0% 5,876 5% 4,854 4,833 0% 4,781-2% 4,932 4,592-7% 29 Monkchester Urban yes 6,710 32, % 34, % 13,237 22,511 70% 30, % 12,919 12,150-6% 30 Moorside Urban yes 131, ,519 0% 147,279 12% 205, ,055 9% 235,274 14% 30,609 28,192-8% 31 Sandyford Urban yes 88,277 93,352 6% 113,045 28% 37,621 37,217-1% 58,080 54% 53,124 49,333-7% 32 Scotswood Urban 8,793 13,979 59% 14,851 69% 9,237 8,304-10% 10,386 12% 58,538 54,941-6% 33 South Gosforth Urban 24,933 30,008 20% 31,743 27% 20,150 19,913-1% 18,417-9% 11,365 10,512-8% 34 Walker Urban 2,632 12, % 12, % 5,794 5,750-1% 4,246-27% 45,673 43,181-5% 35 Walkergate Urban 1,533 1,533 0% 1,611 5% 4,412 4,401 0% 4,004-9% 8,255 7,717-7% 36 West City Urban yes 378, ,969 2% 425,692 12% 221, ,099 10% 435,167 96% 152, ,046-7% 37 Wingrove Urban yes 10,731 15,806 47% 21, % 15,914 15,750-1% 22,148 39% 1,823 1,693-7% 38 Castle Suburban 7, , % 99, % 26,123 42,619 63% 30,270 16% 34,040 31,799-7% 39 Denton & Westerhope Suburban 6,363 6,364 0% 4,864-24% 16,532 25,464 54% 17,298 5% 20,049 18,885-6% 40 Lemington & Newburn Suburban 7,896 60, % 44, % 27,476 30,925 13% 25,350-8% 113, ,842-6% 41 Woolsington Suburban 7,058 78, % 56, % 15,533 17,908 15% 14,468-7% 14,688 13,774-6% 42 Battle Hill Urban 5,582 6,739 21% 7,000 25% 21,898 25,087 15% 22,732 4% 4,941 4,643-6% 43 Benton Urban 3,546 4,704 33% 4,990 41% 18,218 31,698 74% 28,312 55% 7,675 7,171-7% 44 Chirton Urban 3,068 10, % 11, % 13,506 32, % 32, % 40,528 38,081-6% 45 Collingwood Urban 1,332 9, % 8, % 7,449 11,259 51% 9,971 34% 153, ,938-6% 46 Cullercoats Urban % 788 1% 5,475 13, % 13, % 1,577 1,475-6% 47 Howdon Urban 673 5, % 5, % 3,971 14, % 13, % 34,167 32,295-5% 48 Monkseaton & St Mary's Suburban 4,624 4,624 0% 3,531-24% 13,372 13,297-1% 11,219-16% 6,413 5,952-7% 49 North Shields Urban 14,739 17,689 20% 18,828 28% 41,080 48,286 18% 48,301 18% 15,086 14,059-7% 50 Northumberland Urban 2,993 2,993 0% 3,124 4% 17,028 16,840-1% 14,020-18% 1, % 51 Riverside Urban 5,896 23, % 25, % 8,548 10,107 18% 9,870 15% 68,703 64,667-6% 52 Holystone Suburban 6,150 9,481 54% 7,414 21% 10,702 14,905 39% 9,591-10% 73,801 69,138-6% 53 Seatonville Urban 2,379 3,536 49% 3,456 45% 18,913 18,758-1% 16,959-10% 6,150 5,743-7% 54 Tynemouth Urban 2,469 2,596 5% 2,471 0% 14,853 14,755-1% 13,796-7% 29,594 27,602-7% 55 Wallsend Urban 23,104 25,672 11% 27,147 17% 10,634 10,562-1% 9,365-12% 252, ,785-6% 56 Whitley Bay Urban 7,063 9,377 33% 10,056 42% 41,506 47,302 14% 43,226 4% 12,458 11,616-7% 57 Camperdown, Longbenton & Weesl Suburban 18,376 45, % 34,941 90% 28,763 28,403-1% 22,362-22% 484, ,358-7% 58 Valley Suburban 1,811 8, % 6, % 7,965 16, % 9,426 18% 28,595 26,817-6% 59 Fellgate and Hedwort Suburban 121 5, % 3, % 2,250 15, % 4,004 78% 1,936 1,833-5% 60 Bolden Suburban 8,167 10,769 32% 8,456 4% 47,085 46,631-1% 41,285-12% 43,410 40,780-6% 61 All Saints Urban 1,171 1,171 0% 1,149-2% 7,508 7,492 0% 7,345-2% 11,843 11,078-6% 62 Beacon and Bents Urban 5,126 6,615 29% 6,990 36% 31,001 41,061 32% 45,370 46% 7,512 7,084-6% 63 Bede Urban 10,455 17,085 63% 18,838 80% 21,788 25,188 16% 25,422 17% 133, ,915-6% 64 Biddick Hall Urban % % 1,990 1,985 0% 1,800-10% % 65 Cleadon Park Urban % 542 9% 1,989 4, % 4, % % 66 Harton, Horsley Hill & Westoe Urban 1,803 2,788 55% 2,953 64% 15,370 18,524 21% 18,636 21% 4,885 4,603-6% 67 Hebburn Quay Urban 2,382 5, % 5, % 7,366 7,326-1% 7,059-4% 120, ,220-6% 68 Hebburn South Urban 404 2, % 2, % 3,150 5,939 89% 5,389 71% 4,378 4,114-6% 69 Monkton Urban 875 8, % 8, % 2,818 2,804-1% 2,716-4% 4,101 3,882-5% 70 Primrose Urban 646 1,142 77% 1,140 76% 2,084 2,078 0% 2,030-3% 1,198 1,130-6% 71 Rekendyke Urban 14,989 16,669 11% 17,840 19% 56,176 60,340 7% 61,577 10% 151, ,989-6% 72 Tyne Dock and Simons Urban 8,638 12,202 41% 12,688 47% 6,418 9,051 41% 8,752 36% 52,580 49,714-5% 73 West Park Urban % 531 7% 6,134 6,120 0% 6,137 0% 1,843 1,729-6% 74 Whiteleas Urban % % 2,818 2,806 0% 2,378-16% 1, % 75 Sunderland (NW) Urban 20,268 34,707 71% 35,282 74% 39,956 43,298 8% 44,388 11% 167, ,790-6% 76 Sunderland (SE) Urban 113, ,961 11% 133,556 18% 268, ,972 6% 303,010 13% 197, ,460-6% 77 Sunderland (NE) Urban 8,855 14,913 68% 16,047 81% 48,379 81,644 69% 85,267 76% 50,084 47,138-6% 78 Sundeerland (SW) Urban 3,662 12, % 13, % 20,166 50, % 49, % 174, ,015-6% 79 Silksworth Suburban 12,052 17,583 46% 14,858 23% 23,590 34,095 45% 31,419 33% 14,875 13,995-6% 80 Houghton Suburban 10,231 16,296 59% 12,617 23% 23,965 23,710-1% 20,507-14% 72,679 68,370-6% 81 Houghton Suburban 2,906 11, % 7, % 17,618 17,503-1% 14,402-18% 95,979 90,436-6% 82 Ryhope Suburban 853 8, % 5, % 4,848 11, % 6,041 25% 5,978 5,628-6% 83 Washington (N) Suburban 46,445 92, % 71,497 54% 40,681 43,436 7% 37,473-8% 499, ,049-6% 84 Washington (E) Suburban 24,104 43,290 80% 36,348 51% 67,546 74,018 10% 68,426 1% 229, ,155-6% 85 Chester-le-Street Suburban 10,722 32, % 29, % 37,398 58,684 57% 56,491 51% 23,449 21,976-6% 86 Ouston Suburban 1,147 7, % 5, % 3,472 13, % 4,699 35% 15,225 14,140-7% 87 North Lodge Suburban 2,552 18, % 12, % 4,237 40, % 43, % 73,014 68,135-7% 88 Pelton Suburban 1,418 3, % 2,264 60% 7,480 7,435-1% 6,369-15% 18,115 16,984-6% 89 Plawsworth Suburban 735 6, % 4, % 8,603 28, % 13,105 52% 25,227 23,580-7% 90 Lumley Suburban , % 12, % 11,104 12,563 13% 10,425-6% 5,446 5,108-6% 91 Derwentside (N) Suburban 9,578 25, % 18,729 96% 69,496 97,181 40% 72,254 4% 281, ,484-6% 92 Derwentside (S) Buffer 5,450 23, % 23, % 58,196 88,547 52% 88,989 53% 145, ,188-7% 93 Durham Buffer 50, , % 113, % 116, ,508 22% 143,230 23% 307, ,728-7% 94 Durham (W) Buffer 25,066 61, % 61, % 21,772 24,352 12% 24,435 12% 118, ,485-6% 95 Durham (E) Buffer 5,010 46, % 46, % 21,121 53, % 53, % 83,806 78,597-6% 96 Seaham Suburban 3,720 5,900 59% 4,387 18% 20,342 20,721 2% 16,064-21% 57,010 53,881-5% 97 Peterlee Buffer 13,498 19,069 41% 19,070 41% 59,038 66,699 13% 66,895 13% 345, ,637-6% 98 Hartley Suburban 3,235 3,236 0% 2,596-20% 11,192 14,468 29% 9,865-12% 61,810 57,667-7% 99 Blyth Suburban 10,152 15,536 53% 12,185 20% 44,762 68,867 54% 51,754 16% 190, ,608-6% 100 Cramlington Suburban 7,140 19, % 14, % 22,807 41,175 81% 25,103 10% 376, ,778-7% 101 Hebron,Hepscott and Buffer 7,568 42, % 42, % 33,011 63,204 91% 63,911 94% 77,581 70,284-9% 102 Ulgham Buffer 778 8, % 8, % 10,201 22, % 22, % 20,716 18,231-12% 103 Heddon-On-The-Wall Buffer 3,548 18, % 18, % 11,157 15,731 41% 16,128 45% 28,509 26,084-9% 104 South Tynedale Buffer 11,641 26, % 26, % 88, ,880 45% 130,114 46% 230, ,103-8% 105 Wansbeck Suburban 16,069 75, % 54, % 100, ,069 81% 120,022 19% 230, ,063-6% Total 1,675,264 2,835,333 69% 2,835,312 69% 3,108,432 4,082,768 31% 4,099,469 32% 9,309,216 8,715,777-6% 81

82 Based on the new total amounts of allocations of dwellings, business floorspace and retail floorspace to the urban area and the suburban area, the new zonal allocations are designed as additional allocations to the 2031 Trend (Table A.9 and Table A.10) as follows: The particularly high additional allocations are made to the urban zones highlighted in Figure A.4, based on large amount of undeveloped land and high growth of dwellings and floorspace in the Trend from 2000 to Figure A.4: High Allocation Urban Zones in Compaction For the remaining urban zones, the additional allocations are designed based on the allocation scores in a way that the scores decide the level of increases in the growth of the zonal allocations between 2000 and 2031 from the Trend. Only the urban zones with the worst scores are assumed to have decreases in the growth for the period. The reduced total amounts of the suburban growth from 2000 to 2031 are distributed to each suburban zone. The allocation scores are applied to decide the level of decreases in the growth of the zonal allocation for the period from the Trend. The suburban zones with the worst score may result in lower amounts of dwellings and floorspace than year The designed zonal allocations are fine-tuned throughout a number of runs. Particularly, the allocations of business floorspace and retail floorspace are adjusted to make sure the reasonable amount of floorspace per employee. The land-use inputs are same between the tests for the option without RUC and one with RUC. 82

83 In the sensitivity test of extra dwellings, the same amount of extra dwellings in the Trend is subtracted from the zonal allocation for the design of the Compaction option without extra dwelling. 7.2 Transport Inputs This policy has the same total transport investment available as the 'Trend'. This investment potential is concentrated on public transport enhancements (Figure 1.32). The Compaction option aims to locate people as close as possible to where they work, shop, and carry out their personal business. The transport provision to support this policy focuses all future investment in Public Transport measures. Therefore between 2006 and 2031 the estimated 1200m funding available for transport investment is allocated as follows: 600m worth of public transport measures included in the Trend option remain for the Compaction option. in addition to this a further 600m of aspirational public transport schemes are included - these are generally schemes which have been identified in previous planning and strategy documents for the area but have been dropped or altered due largely to cost constraints. It is important to understand that this scenario is not aiming to reflect the public transport schemes which are currently being developed but rather to reflect schemes which could be developed given higher levels of PT funding than currently exist. The full list of measures included in the Compaction option is detailed in Table A.11. For the Compaction option with RUC, road user charging is implemented in the same way as the Trend with RUC. 83

84 Table A.11: Major transport schemes included in the Compaction option Scheme Cost (2000) Description Public Transport Measures Ashington, Blyth 44m As described in Trend option and Tyne Line Leamside Line 42m As described in Trend option Durham / Morpeth / Hexham enhancements New rail timetables Metro Complementary Routes Provision of guided busways 303m As described in Trend option Approx 120m 477m ( 217m included in the Trend option for 3 MCRs) TOTAL 1202m Due to the rail infrastructure improvements introduced, additional capacity is freed on existing lines enabling some new routes and revised service provision on a number of existing routes. Operational costs of 1m per additional hourly train per annum are applied (based on Faber Maunsell estimate used in the TIF work in Tyne and Wear). Applied over the 20 year period this will cost 20m per additional hourly service. It is proposed to increase the frequency on the following routes: Hexham MetroCentre Dunston Newcastle Central Chester-le-Street Durham Hexham MetroCentre Newcastle Central Sunderland Hartlepool Middlesbrough Alnmouth Morpeth Newcastle MetroCentre Newcastle Central Durham Stockton Thornaby Middlesbrough Seven MCR schemes have been included in the public transport investment scenario. These are: Walker Monument Denton MetroCentre Gateshead - Washington - Sunderland Teams Gateshead Washington Ryhope Sunderland - South Shields South Shields - Marsden Airport GNP Regent Centre - 4 Lane Ends Killingworth - Cramlington Walker Monument Denton Westerhope Airport Metro Centre Gateshead- Haymarket The total length of new track for all routes amounts to approximately 90 km. 216m Segregated busways in the following corridors guarantees journey speeds of 20kph at peak times: Newburn Rd/Scotswood Rd (Throckley to Newcastle Centre, 10km) Durham Road (A693/Durham Rd nr Chester Le Street to Gateshead Centre, 11km) Coast Road/Jesmond Road (Billy Mill to Newcastle Centre, 10km) Great North Road (A1/A19 jnc to Newcastle Centre, 10km) Ponteland Road (Ponteland to Newcastle Centre, 13km) Based on the costs of the Huntingdon-Cambridge busway, costs of 4m per km have been applied. 84

85 Dispersal The main purpose of this policy option test is to achieve a better balance between the supply and demand for dwellings by removing the planning restrictions in suburban areas that have been assumed in the 2031 Trend. As new dwellings and employment floorspace are dispersed to these areas whilst maintaining the total amounts of dwellings and floorspace in the study area, this policy option assumes that far smaller amounts of new dwellings and floorspace will be built inside the identified urban zones than the 2031 Trend. Both the option without RUC and one with RUC are tested with different land-use inputs for the Dispersal policy option tests. 8.2 Land Use Inputs The additional allocations of dwellings, business floorspace, retail floorspace and industrial floorspace to the 2031 Trend allocation are made to suburban areas of high demand irrespective of whether the land is currently classified as green belt. For the zonal allocation, the demand for location in each zone is measured with the zonal rent, assuming that higher rents reflect higher demand. This policy assumes dispersal of 35,000 dwellings, 300,000m2 of business floorspace, 350,000m2 of retail floorspace and 250,000m2 of industrial floorspace from the urban zones to the suburban zones, compared with the Trend. These amounts of dispersal are decided based on their proportions to the total increases of the study area from 2000 to 2031 at the comparable level to the London study. The total amounts of dwellings and floorspace in the study area match the total in the other policy options to allow direct comparisons, although such a change in planning laws may significantly increase the amounts of dwellings and floorspace in reality. 85

86 Table A.12: Zonal Allocation of Dwellings in Dispersal Zone No. Zone Name Zone Type Deprived Trend 2031 Dispersal no RUC 2031 Dispersal RUC Dwellings Dwellings % (31-00) Dwellings % (31-00) No Extra Dwellings Dwellings % (31-00) 1 Bede Urban yes 4,297 4,916 14% 3,442-20% 3,076 3,482-19% 2 Bensham Urban yes 3,906 4,277 9% 3,111-20% 3,050 3,087-21% 3 Chowdene Urban 4,072 4,621 13% 4,621 13% 4,323 4,624 14% 4 Deckham Urban 3,963 4,727 19% 4,394 11% 3,968 4,413 11% 5 Dunston Urban 4,505 5,232 16% 4,921 9% 4,514 4,979 11% 6 Felling Urban yes 4,390 5,194 18% 3,734-15% 3,248 3,668-16% 7 High Fell Urban 3,833 4,608 20% 4,351 14% 3,843 4,350 13% 8 Leam Urban 4,470 5,231 17% 4,950 11% 4,476 4,949 11% 9 Low Fell Urban 4,472 4,739 6% 4,742 6% 4,767 4,708 5% 10 Pelaw and Heworth Urban 3,864 4,391 14% 4,150 7% 3,868 4,157 8% 11 Saltwell Urban yes 4,394 4,930 12% 3,946-10% 3,655 3,840-13% 12 Teams Urban 4,472 5,253 17% 5,032 13% 4,487 5,033 13% 13 Wrekendyke Suburban 4,850 5,655 17% 5,375 11% 4,921 5,306 9% 14 Whickham (N) & Blaydon Urban 8,544 9,029 6% 8,985 5% 8,859 9,045 6% 15 Whickham South Suburban 4,597 4,978 8% 7,667 67% 7,587 8,075 76% 16 Birtley & Lamesley Suburban 8,719 9,516 9% 9,974 14% 9,725 9,935 14% 17 Prudhoe Suburban 16,401 16,949 3% 19,436 19% 19,480 20,551 25% 18 Benwell Urban yes 3,860 5,773 50% 3,872 0% 3,899 3,945 2% 19 Blakelaw Urban 5,267 7,185 36% 6,878 31% 6,413 6,674 27% 20 Byker Urban yes 4,739 5,351 13% 3,685-22% 3,230 3,632-23% 21 Dene Urban 6,382 6,614 4% 6,598 3% 6,626 6,610 4% 22 Elswick Urban yes 4,055 6,347 57% 4,179 3% 4,206 4,354 7% 23 Fawdon Urban 4,710 5,002 6% 4,852 3% 4,717 4,851 3% 24 Fenham Urban 4,726 5,050 7% 4,893 4% 4,727 4,903 4% 25 Grange Urban 5,566 5,864 5% 5,859 5% 5,884 5,833 5% 26 Heaton Urban 4,991 5,132 3% 4,972 0% 4,994 4,971 0% 27 Jesmond Urban 5,370 5,604 4% 5,591 4% 5,610 5,625 5% 28 Kenton Urban 4,594 4,751 3% 4,741 3% 4,762 4,700 2% 29 Monkchester Urban yes 4,155 4,808 16% 3,220-23% 2,734 3,091-26% 30 Moorside Urban 4,528 4,653 3% 4,512 0% 4,534 4,587 1% 31 Sandyford Urban 5,592 5,719 2% 5,571 0% 5,596 5,625 1% 32 Scotswood Urban yes 3,438 6,129 78% 3,560 4% 3,641 4,093 19% 33 South Gosforth Urban 4,543 4,811 6% 4,810 6% 4,827 4,780 5% 34 Walker Urban yes 3,984 8, % 5,322 34% 4,431 5,094 28% 35 Walkergate Urban 4,646 5,226 12% 5,046 9% 4,649 5,045 9% 36 West City Urban yes 4,463 4,924 10% 2,823-37% 2,515 3,039-32% 37 Wingrove Urban 4,271 4,413 3% 4,257 0% 4,274 4,290 0% 38 Castle Suburban 4,729 7,363 56% 11, % 11,004 11, % 39 Denton & Westerhope Suburban 9,825 10,529 7% 11,701 19% 11,167 11,633 18% 40 Lemington & Newburn Suburban 8,389 9,088 8% 8,846 5% 8,374 8,999 7% 41 Woolsington Suburban 3,511 3,653 4% 3,488-1% 3,505 3,496 0% 42 Battle Hill Urban 5,140 6,145 20% 6,046 18% 5,535 5,896 15% 43 Benton Urban 3,963 4,507 14% 4,528 14% 4,469 4,404 11% 44 Chirton Urban 4,192 5,105 22% 4,685 12% 4,202 4,684 12% 45 Collingwood Urban 4,398 5,331 21% 4,898 11% 4,407 4,898 11% 46 Cullercoats Urban 4,433 4,890 10% 4,907 11% 4,928 4,905 11% 47 Howdon Urban 4,071 4,977 22% 4,550 12% 4,080 4,549 12% 48 Monkseaton & St Mary's Suburban 8,007 8,916 11% 15,421 93% 15,284 15, % 49 North Shields Urban 5,009 5,843 17% 5,878 17% 5,892 5,890 18% 50 Northumberland Urban 5,325 6,298 18% 5,822 9% 5,349 5,806 9% 51 Riverside Urban yes 4,605 5,892 28% 3,913-15% 3,345 3,761-18% 52 Holystone Suburban 5,493 6,573 20% 6,646 21% 6,385 6,722 22% 53 Seatonville Urban 4,083 4,657 14% 4,686 15% 4,706 4,677 15% 54 Tynemouth Urban 4,430 4,867 10% 4,882 10% 4,903 4,852 10% 55 Wallsend Urban 4,913 6,044 23% 5,416 10% 4,930 5,415 10% 56 Whitley Bay Urban 3,908 4,434 13% 4,451 14% 4,367 4,468 14% 57 Camperdown, Longbenton & Weesl Suburban 13,618 15,428 13% 14,248 5% 14,149 14,492 6% 58 Valley Suburban 5,870 8,082 38% 8,200 40% 8,096 8,110 38% 59 Fellgate and Hedwort Suburban 3,560 4,089 15% 3,854 8% 3,555 3,862 8% 60 Bolden Suburban 10,878 11,167 3% 14,500 33% 14,551 14,222 31% 61 All Saints Urban 3,589 4,283 19% 4,084 14% 3,599 4,083 14% 62 Beacon and Bents Urban 3,225 3,795 18% 3,583 11% 3,228 3,685 14% 63 Bede Urban yes 3,387 4,180 23% 3,053-10% 2,524 3,000-11% 64 Biddick Hall Urban yes 3,085 3,644 18% 2,975-4% 2,612 2,899-6% 65 Cleadon Park Urban 3,271 3,909 19% 3,707 13% 3,275 3,706 13% 66 Harton, Horsley Hill & Westoe Urban 10,265 11,240 9% 11,186 9% 10,692 11,272 10% 67 Hebburn Quay Urban 3,534 4,289 21% 3,941 12% 3,539 3,940 11% 68 Hebburn South Urban 2,707 3,231 19% 3,027 12% 2,710 3,027 12% 69 Monkton Urban 3,588 4,291 20% 4,088 14% 3,593 4,087 14% 70 Primrose Urban 3,579 4,251 19% 4,042 13% 3,583 4,041 13% 71 Rekendyke Urban yes 3,877 5,185 34% 3,696-5% 3,114 3,764-3% 72 Tyne Dock and Simons Urban yes 2,860 3,424 20% 2,699-6% 2,326 2,649-7% 73 West Park Urban 3,151 3,587 14% 3,589 14% 3,380 3,591 14% 74 Whiteleas Urban 3,239 3,868 19% 3,671 13% 3,245 3,670 13% 75 Sunderland (NW) Urban 13,164 15,348 17% 14,685 12% 13,203 14,679 12% 76 Sunderland (SE) Urban yes 19,381 19,995 3% 19,942 3% 20,030 19,913 3% 77 Sunderland (NE) Urban 13,418 14,534 8% 14,517 8% 14,099 14,472 8% 78 Sundeerland (SW) Urban 18,625 20,677 11% 19,939 7% 18,641 19,936 7% 79 Silksworth Suburban 10,129 11,139 10% 11,620 15% 11,259 11,358 12% 80 Houghton Suburban 10,218 11,180 9% 11,722 15% 11,349 11,426 12% 81 Houghton Suburban 10,215 11,322 11% 10,821 6% 10,200 10,845 6% 82 Ryhope Suburban 7,244 8,776 21% 8,890 23% 8,193 8,547 18% 83 Washington (N) Suburban 10,329 11,760 14% 11,266 9% 10,599 11,094 7% 84 Washington (E) Suburban 13,307 14,171 6% 18,812 41% 18,834 18,542 39% 85 Chester-le-Street Suburban 6,208 7,072 14% 8,132 31% 8,163 8,370 35% 86 Ouston Suburban 3,017 3,609 20% 7, % 7,247 7, % 87 North Lodge Suburban 1,000 1,447 45% 4, % 3,936 4, % 88 Pelton Suburban 5,529 6,259 13% 6,896 25% 6,925 6,898 25% 89 Plawsworth Suburban 4,696 5,400 15% 5,603 19% 5,627 5,673 21% 90 Lumley Suburban 3,278 3,885 19% 5,278 61% 5,276 5,237 60% 91 Derwentside (N) Suburban 24,666 27,717 12% 29,276 19% 29,317 28,707 16% 92 Derwentside (S) Buffer 14,187 15,767 11% 15,765 11% 15,574 15,763 11% 93 Durham Buffer 16,245 17,905 10% 17,900 10% 17,973 17,900 10% 94 Durham (W) Buffer 10,779 12,497 16% 12,496 16% 12,550 12,494 16% 95 Durham (E) Buffer 8,718 10,187 17% 10,187 17% 10,230 10,186 17% 96 Seaham Suburban 12,806 15,242 19% 13,835 8% 12,913 13,732 7% 97 Peterlee Buffer 28,344 32,734 15% 32,731 15% 31,940 32,728 15% 98 Hartley Suburban 7,048 8,176 16% 9,886 40% 9,923 9,746 38% 99 Blyth Suburban 15,926 18,966 19% 17,319 9% 16,489 17,221 8% 100 Cramlington Suburban 12,386 15,343 24% 19,281 56% 18,798 19,178 55% 101 Hebron,Hepscott and Buffer 7,380 8,340 13% 8,341 13% 8,238 8,340 13% 102 Ulgham Buffer 6,896 7,790 13% 7,790 13% 7,398 7,789 13% 103 Heddon-On-The-Wall Buffer 6,755 7,770 15% 7,772 15% 7,608 7,771 15% 104 South Tynedale Buffer 16,448 18,409 12% 18,397 12% 18,463 18,395 12% 105 Wansbeck Suburban 27,959 34,445 23% 32,279 15% 29,767 30,980 11% Total 739, ,700 15% 850,694 15% 819, ,630 15% 86

87 Table A.13: Zonal Allocation of Employment Floorspace in Dispersal no RUC Business Floorspace (m2) Retail Floorspace (m2) Industrial Floorspace (m2) Zone No. Zone Name Zone Type Deprived Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal Trend % (31-00) no RUC % (31-00) Trend % (31-00) no RUC % (31-00) Trend % (31-00) no RUC % (31-00) 1 Bede Urban yes 30,408 38,634 27% 19,317-36% 54,007 57,004 6% 40,383-25% 266, ,559-7% 230,902-13% 2 Bensham Urban yes 10,218 12,102 18% 6,051-41% 11,310 11,082-2% 7,844-31% 41,226 38,568-6% 35,831-13% 3 Chowdene Urban 562 7, % 4, % 2,897 19, % 20, % 1,154 1,092-5% 1,015-12% 4 Deckham Urban 2,542 2,542 0% 2,374-7% 7,065 6,966-1% 6,928-2% 4,825 4,516-6% 4,198-13% 5 Dunston Urban 12,931 17,751 37% 16,521 28% 20,764 28,780 39% 29,535 42% 147, ,524-6% 128,783-13% 6 Felling Urban yes 15,717 24,103 53% 12,901-18% 14,181 14,056-1% 13,126-7% 125, ,271-6% 109,889-13% 7 High Fell Urban % % 9,505 9,392-1% 9,351-2% 3,147 2,957-6% 2,749-13% 8 Leam Urban 904 9, % 4, % 2,745 19, % 19, % 4,511 4,279-5% 3,976-12% 9 Low Fell Urban 10,389 10,388 0% 9,702-7% 14,715 14,395-2% 14,234-3% 12,798 12,009-6% 11,164-13% 10 Pelaw and Heworth Urban 19,066 21,069 11% 19,675 3% 6,049 6,021 0% 5,972-1% 133, ,603-6% 115,819-13% 11 Saltwell Urban yes 6,087 9,376 54% 4,688-23% 6,608 13, % 12,211 85% 4,616 4,339-6% 4,032-13% 12 Teams Urban 51,014 74,589 46% 69,656 37% 46,637 55,105 18% 55,620 19% 872, ,890-6% 759,246-13% 13 Wrekendyke Suburban 953 8, % 6, % 9,073 9,009-1% 10,730 18% % 955 1% 14 Whickham (N) & Blaydon Urban 18,871 45, % 52, % 175, ,586 32% 154,601-12% 261, ,697-7% 261,671 0% 15 Whickham South Suburban 4,009 4,010 0% 11, % 11,513 10,322-10% 50, % 13,637 12,735-7% 13,628 0% 16 Birtley & Lamesley Suburban 29,797 37,394 25% 52,468 76% 37,921 37,601-1% 57,742 52% 520, ,520-6% 521,302 0% 17 Prudhoe Suburban 15,302 29,131 90% 61, % 30,373 29,365-3% 44,224 46% 87,487 82,052-6% 87,914 0% 18 Benwell Urban yes 4,165 4,551 9% 2,276-45% 5,677 8,076 42% 5,806 2% 36,774 34,491-6% 32,051-13% 19 Blakelaw Urban 4,454 9, % 8, % 27,626 34,931 26% 35,144 27% 14,474 13,587-6% 12,637-13% 20 Byker Urban yes 38,643 43,718 13% 25,634-34% 35,326 85, % 63,765 81% 82,769 77,292-7% 71,770-13% 21 Dene Urban 33,813 38,888 15% 32,748-3% 26,738 26,539-1% 26,303-2% 12,598 11,659-7% 10,839-14% 22 Elswick Urban yes 4,628 14, % 7,389 60% 14,149 39, % 27,376 93% 6,862 6,425-6% 5,968-13% 23 Fawdon Urban 11,252 16,327 45% 14,276 27% 5,384 5,362 0% 5,321-1% 35,059 32,863-6% 30,568-13% 24 Fenham Urban 4,281 14, % 7,216 69% 16,091 47, % 43, % 2,734 2,567-6% 2,386-13% 25 Grange Urban 30,747 39,594 29% 36,974 20% 24,742 25,909 5% 25,815 4% 40,419 37,480-7% 34,863-14% 26 Heaton Urban 5,843 10,918 87% 7,424 27% 16,767 16,713 0% 10,826-35% 14,581 13,672-6% 12,699-13% 27 Jesmond Urban 26,321 31,396 19% 29,319 11% 34,593 34,224-1% 34,055-2% 11,740 10,836-8% 10,073-14% 28 Kenton Urban 5,611 5,612 0% 5,240-7% 4,854 4,833 0% 4,797-1% 4,932 4,592-7% 4,272-13% 29 Monkchester Urban yes 6,710 32, % 16, % 13,237 22,511 70% 11,244-15% 12,919 12,150-6% 11,281-13% 30 Moorside Urban 131, ,519 0% 122,004-7% 205, ,055 9% 224,594 9% 30,609 28,192-8% 26,195-14% 31 Sandyford Urban 88,277 93,352 6% 82,005-7% 37,621 37,217-1% 35,182-6% 53,124 49,333-7% 45,832-14% 32 Scotswood Urban yes 8,793 13,979 59% 6,991-20% 9,237 8,304-10% 4,256-54% 58,538 54,941-6% 51,050-13% 33 South Gosforth Urban 24,933 30,008 20% 28,023 12% 20,150 19,913-1% 19,823-2% 11,365 10,512-8% 9,775-14% 34 Walker Urban yes 2,632 12, % 6, % 5,794 5,750-1% 2,881-50% 45,673 43,181-5% 40,073-12% 35 Walkergate Urban 1,533 1,533 0% 1,432-7% 4,412 4,401 0% 4,344-2% 8,255 7,717-7% 7,170-13% 36 West City Urban yes 378, ,969 2% 301,500-20% 221, ,099 10% 121,784-45% 152, ,046-7% 131,910-14% 37 Wingrove Urban 10,731 15,806 47% 14,760 38% 15,914 15,750-1% 15,690-1% 1,823 1,693-7% 1,574-14% 38 Castle Suburban 7, , % 222, % 26,123 42,619 63% 67, % 34,040 31,799-7% 34,024 0% 39 Denton & Westerhope Suburban 6,363 6,364 0% 15, % 16,532 25,464 54% 35, % 20,049 18,885-6% 20,211 1% 40 Lemington & Newburn Suburban 7,896 60, % 99, % 27,476 30,925 13% 40,765 48% 113, ,842-6% 113,236 0% 41 Woolsington Suburban 7,058 78, % 106, % 15,533 17,908 15% 23,393 51% 14,688 13,774-6% 14,744 0% 42 Battle Hill Urban 5,582 6,739 21% 6,293 13% 21,898 25,087 15% 24,602 12% 4,941 4,643-6% 4,315-13% 43 Benton Urban 3,546 4,704 33% 4,392 24% 18,218 31,698 74% 32,606 79% 7,675 7,171-7% 6,668-13% 44 Chirton Urban 3,068 10, % 9, % 13,506 32, % 21,892 62% 40,528 38,081-6% 35,385-13% 45 Collingwood Urban 1,332 9, % 8, % 7,449 11,259 51% 10,710 44% 153, ,938-6% 133,803-13% 46 Cullercoats Urban % 727-7% 5,475 13, % 11, % 1,577 1,475-6% 1,373-13% 47 Howdon Urban 673 5, % 2, % 3,971 14, % 10, % 34,167 32,295-5% 29,998-12% 48 Monkseaton & St Mary's Suburban 4,624 4,624 0% 23, % 13,372 13,297-1% 40, % 6,413 5,952-7% 6,366-1% 49 North Shields Urban 14,739 17,689 20% 16,519 12% 41,080 48,286 18% 42,280 3% 15,086 14,059-7% 13,067-13% 50 Northumberland Urban 2,993 2,993 0% 2,795-7% 17,028 16,840-1% 16,737-2% 1, % % 51 Riverside Urban yes 5,896 23, % 11, % 8,548 10,107 18% 5,774-32% 68,703 64,667-6% 60,055-13% 52 Holystone Suburban 6,150 9,481 54% 8,201 33% 10,702 14,905 39% 14,550 36% 73,801 69,138-6% 73,951 0% 53 Seatonville Urban 2,379 3,536 49% 3,302 39% 18,913 18,758-1% 18,582-2% 6,150 5,743-7% 5,338-13% 54 Tynemouth Urban 2,469 2,596 5% 1,884-24% 14,853 14,755-1% 14,316-4% 29,594 27,602-7% 25,679-13% 55 Wallsend Urban 23,104 25,672 11% 22,308-3% 10,634 10,562-1% 9,434-11% 252, ,785-6% 220,928-12% 56 Whitley Bay Urban 7,063 9,377 33% 8,757 24% 41,506 47,302 14% 47,327 14% 12,458 11,616-7% 10,802-13% 57 Camperdown, Longbenton & Weesl Suburban 18,376 45, % 43, % 28,763 28,403-1% 29,729 3% 484, ,358-7% 484,007 0% 58 Valley Suburban 1,811 8, % 10, % 7,965 16, % 17, % 28,595 26,817-6% 28,685 0% 59 Fellgate and Hedwort Suburban 121 5, % 5, % 2,250 15, % 15, % 1,936 1,833-5% 1,961 1% 60 Bolden Suburban 8,167 10,769 32% 19, % 47,085 46,631-1% 75,264 60% 43,410 40,780-6% 43,637 1% 61 All Saints Urban 1,171 1,171 0% % 7,508 7,492 0% 7,240-4% 11,843 11,078-6% 10,294-13% 62 Beacon and Bents Urban 5,126 6,615 29% 5,246 2% 31,001 41,061 32% 27,483-11% 7,512 7,084-6% 6,584-12% 63 Bede Urban yes 10,455 17,085 63% 13,479 29% 21,788 25,188 16% 17,743-19% 133, ,915-6% 116,966-12% 64 Biddick Hall Urban yes % % 1,990 1,985 0% 1,532-23% % % 65 Cleadon Park Urban % 465-7% 1,989 4, % 4, % % 41-12% 66 Harton, Horsley Hill & Westoe Urban 1,803 2,788 55% 2,604 44% 15,370 18,524 21% 18,520 20% 4,885 4,603-6% 4,279-12% 67 Hebburn Quay Urban 2,382 5, % 4,023 69% 7,366 7,326-1% 7,268-1% 120, ,220-6% 105,216-13% 68 Hebburn South Urban 404 2, % 1, % 3,150 5,939 89% 6,056 92% 4,378 4,114-6% 3,824-13% 69 Monkton Urban 875 8, % 7, % 2,818 2,804-1% 2,781-1% 4,101 3,882-5% 3,608-12% 70 Primrose Urban 646 1,142 77% 1,066 65% 2,084 2,078 0% 2,056-1% 1,198 1,130-6% 1,050-12% 71 Rekendyke Urban yes 14,989 16,669 11% 8,335-44% 56,176 60,340 7% 48,263-14% 151, ,989-6% 132,878-13% 72 Tyne Dock and Simons Urban yes 8,638 12,202 41% 6,101-29% 6,418 9,051 41% 6,027-6% 52,580 49,714-5% 46,189-12% 73 West Park Urban % 465-7% 6,134 6,120 0% 6,060-1% 1,843 1,729-6% 1,607-13% 74 Whiteleas Urban % % 2,818 2,806 0% 2,023-28% 1, % % 75 Sunderland (NW) Urban 20,268 34,707 71% 32,411 60% 39,956 43,298 8% 43,165 8% 167, ,790-6% 146,678-13% 76 Sunderland (SE) Urban yes 113, ,961 11% 116,334 3% 268, ,972 6% 285,175 6% 197, ,460-6% 172,539-13% 77 Sunderland (NE) Urban 8,855 14,913 68% 13,266 50% 48,379 81,644 69% 82,955 71% 50,084 47,138-6% 43,857-12% 78 Sundeerland (SW) Urban 3,662 12, % 11, % 20,166 50, % 50, % 174, ,015-6% 152,545-13% 79 Silksworth Suburban 12,052 17,583 46% 16,553 37% 23,590 34,095 45% 35,375 50% 14,875 13,995-6% 14,976 1% 80 Houghton Suburban 10,231 16,296 59% 19,517 91% 23,965 23,710-1% 26,054 9% 72,679 68,370-6% 73,172 1% 81 Houghton Suburban 2,906 11, % 17, % 17,618 17,503-1% 18,766 7% 95,979 90,436-6% 96,768 1% 82 Ryhope Suburban 853 8, % 8, % 4,848 11, % 12, % 5,978 5,628-6% 6,021 1% 83 Washington (N) Suburban 46,445 92, % 90,072 94% 40,681 43,436 7% 53,119 31% 499, ,049-6% 501,711 1% 84 Washington (E) Suburban 24,104 43,290 80% 55, % 67,546 74,018 10% 119,020 76% 229, ,155-6% 230,182 0% 85 Chester-le-Street Suburban 10,722 32, % 38, % 37,398 58,684 57% 72,776 95% 23,449 21,976-6% 23,524 0% 86 Ouston Suburban 1,147 7, % 42, % 3,472 13, % 23, % 15,225 14,140-7% 15,143-1% 87 North Lodge Suburban 2,552 18, % 25, % 4,237 40, % 49, % 73,014 68,135-7% 72,767 0% 88 Pelton Suburban 1,418 3, % 7, % 7,480 7,435-1% 10,241 37% 18,115 16,984-6% 18,179 0% 89 Plawsworth Suburban 735 6, % 7, % 8,603 28, % 30, % 25,227 23,580-7% 25,240 0% 90 Lumley Suburban , % 24, % 11,104 12,563 13% 27, % 5,446 5,108-6% 5,468 0% 91 Derwentside (N) Suburban 9,578 25, % 28, % 69,496 97,181 40% 114,557 65% 281, ,484-6% 282,048 0% 92 Derwentside (S) Buffer 5,450 23, % 23, % 58,196 88,547 52% 88,720 52% 145, ,188-7% 136,279-7% 93 Durham Buffer 50, , % 113, % 116, ,508 22% 142,600 22% 307, ,728-7% 285,995-7% 94 Durham (W) Buffer 25,066 61, % 61, % 21,772 24,352 12% 24,384 12% 118, ,485-6% 111,585-6% 95 Durham (E) Buffer 5,010 46, % 46, % 21,121 53, % 53, % 83,806 78,597-6% 78,652-6% 96 Seaham Suburban 3,720 5,900 59% 3,603-3% 20,342 20,721 2% 20,758 2% 57,010 53,881-5% 57,640 1% 97 Peterlee Buffer 13,498 19,069 41% 19,070 41% 59,038 66,699 13% 66,740 13% 345, ,637-6% 325,865-6% 98 Hartley Suburban 3,235 3,236 0% 8, % 11,192 14,468 29% 27, % 61,810 57,667-7% 61,729 0% 99 Blyth Suburban 10,152 15,536 53% 12,093 19% 44,762 68,867 54% 61,162 37% 190, ,608-6% 192,160 1% 100 Cramlington Suburban 7,140 19, % 24, % 22,807 41,175 81% 73, % 376, ,778-7% 376,771 0% 101 Hebron,Hepscott and Buffer 7,568 42, % 42, % 33,011 63,204 91% 63,564 93% 77,581 70,284-9% 70,783-9% 102 Ulgham Buffer 778 8, % 8, % 10,201 22, % 22, % 20,716 18,231-12% 18,648-10% 103 Heddon-On-The-Wall Buffer 3,548 18, % 18, % 11,157 15,731 41% 15,887 42% 28,509 26,084-9% 26,107-8% 104 South Tynedale Buffer 11,641 26, % 26, % 88, ,880 45% 129,365 46% 230, ,103-8% 212,478-8% 105 Wansbeck Suburban 16,069 75, % 55, % 100, ,069 81% 183,995 83% 230, ,063-6% 231,266 0% Total 1,675,264 2,835,333 69% 2,835,320 69% 3,108,432 4,082,768 31% 4,086,982 31% 9,309,216 8,715,777-6% 8,715,942-6% 87

88 Table A.14: Zonal Allocation of Employment Floorspace in Dispersal RUC Zone No. Zone Name Zone Type Deprived Business Floorspace (m2) Retail Floorspace (m2) Trend % (31-00) Dispersal RUC % (31-00) Trend % (31-00) Industrial Floorspace (m2) Dispersal RUC % (31-00) Trend % (31-00) Dispersal RUC % (31-00) 1 Bede Urban yes 30,408 38,634 27% 26,366-13% 54,007 57,004 6% 38,563-29% 266, ,559-7% 230,902-13% 2 Bensham Urban yes 10,218 12,102 18% 8,774-14% 11,310 11,082-2% 7,731-32% 41,226 38,568-6% 35,831-13% 3 Chowdene Urban 562 7, % 6, % 2,897 19, % 19, % 1,154 1,092-5% 1,015-12% 4 Deckham Urban 2,542 2,542 0% 2,417-5% 7,065 6,966-1% 6,265-11% 4,825 4,516-6% 4,198-13% 5 Dunston Urban 12,931 17,751 37% 13,691 6% 20,764 28,780 39% 21,521 4% 147, ,524-6% 128,783-13% 6 Felling Urban yes 15,717 24,103 53% 17,805 13% 14,181 14,056-1% 12,591-11% 125, ,271-6% 109,889-13% 7 High Fell Urban % 364 6% 9,505 9,392-1% 8,715-8% 3,147 2,957-6% 2,749-13% 8 Leam Urban 904 9, % 4, % 2,745 19, % 18, % 4,511 4,279-5% 3,976-12% 9 Low Fell Urban 10,389 10,388 0% 9,383-10% 14,715 14,395-2% 12,960-12% 12,798 12,009-6% 11,164-13% 10 Pelaw and Heworth Urban 19,066 21,069 11% 17,935-6% 6,049 6,021 0% 5,831-4% 133, ,603-6% 115,819-13% 11 Saltwell Urban yes 6,087 9,376 54% 6,105 0% 6,608 13, % 10,845 64% 4,616 4,339-6% 4,032-13% 12 Teams Urban 51,014 74,589 46% 62,922 23% 46,637 55,105 18% 34,491-26% 872, ,890-6% 759,246-13% 13 Wrekendyke Suburban 953 8, % 7, % 9,073 9,009-1% 10,780 19% % 955 1% 14 Whickham (N) & Blaydon Urban 18,871 45, % 42, % 175, ,586 32% 194,714 11% 261, ,697-7% 261,671 0% 15 Whickham South Suburban 4,009 4,010 0% 9, % 11,513 10,322-10% 20,953 82% 13,637 12,735-7% 13,628 0% 16 Birtley & Lamesley Suburban 29,797 37,394 25% 51,982 74% 37,921 37,601-1% 56,975 50% 520, ,520-6% 521,302 0% 17 Prudhoe Suburban 15,302 29,131 90% 43, % 30,373 29,365-3% 46,999 55% 87,487 82,052-6% 87,914 0% 18 Benwell Urban yes 4,165 4,551 9% 3,131-25% 5,677 8,076 42% 5,534-3% 36,774 34,491-6% 32,051-13% 19 Blakelaw Urban 4,454 9, % 8,448 90% 27,626 34,931 26% 38,519 39% 14,474 13,587-6% 12,637-13% 20 Byker Urban yes 38,643 43,718 13% 31,352-19% 35,326 85, % 50,266 42% 82,769 77,292-7% 71,770-13% 21 Dene Urban 33,813 38,888 15% 28,845-15% 26,738 26,539-1% 24,434-9% 12,598 11,659-7% 10,839-14% 22 Elswick Urban yes 4,628 14, % 7,607 64% 14,149 39, % 25,126 78% 6,862 6,425-6% 5,968-13% 23 Fawdon Urban 11,252 16,327 45% 13,141 17% 5,384 5,362 0% 4,875-9% 35,059 32,863-6% 30,568-13% 24 Fenham Urban 4,281 14, % 8,498 99% 16,091 47, % 38, % 2,734 2,567-6% 2,386-13% 25 Grange Urban 30,747 39,594 29% 34,895 13% 24,742 25,909 5% 24,417-1% 40,419 37,480-7% 34,863-14% 26 Heaton Urban 5,843 10,918 87% 7,401 27% 16,767 16,713 0% 13,145-22% 14,581 13,672-6% 12,699-13% 27 Jesmond Urban 26,321 31,396 19% 26,663 1% 34,593 34,224-1% 26,366-24% 11,740 10,836-8% 10,073-14% 28 Kenton Urban 5,611 5,612 0% 4,961-12% 4,854 4,833 0% 4,569-6% 4,932 4,592-7% 4,272-13% 29 Monkchester Urban yes 6,710 32, % 22, % 13,237 22,511 70% 15,861 20% 12,919 12,150-6% 11,281-13% 30 Moorside Urban 131, ,519 0% 114,244-13% 205, ,055 9% 167,229-19% 30,609 28,192-8% 26,195-14% 31 Sandyford Urban 88,277 93,352 6% 77,888-12% 37,621 37,217-1% 25,715-32% 53,124 49,333-7% 45,832-14% 32 Scotswood Urban yes 8,793 13,979 59% 8,054-8% 9,237 8,304-10% 4,264-54% 58,538 54,941-6% 51,050-13% 33 South Gosforth Urban 24,933 30,008 20% 25,444 2% 20,150 19,913-1% 16,502-18% 11,365 10,512-8% 9,775-14% 34 Walker Urban yes 2,632 12, % 6, % 5,794 5,750-1% 3,076-47% 45,673 43,181-5% 40,073-12% 35 Walkergate Urban 1,533 1,533 0% 1,429-7% 4,412 4,401 0% 4,134-6% 8,255 7,717-7% 7,170-13% 36 West City Urban yes 378, ,969 2% 320,887-15% 221, ,099 10% 206,683-7% 152, ,046-7% 131,910-14% 37 Wingrove Urban 10,731 15,806 47% 13,313 24% 15,914 15,750-1% 12,030-24% 1,823 1,693-7% 1,574-14% 38 Castle Suburban 7, , % 208, % 26,123 42,619 63% 66, % 34,040 31,799-7% 34,024 0% 39 Denton & Westerhope Suburban 6,363 6,364 0% 19, % 16,532 25,464 54% 35, % 20,049 18,885-6% 20,211 1% 40 Lemington & Newburn Suburban 7,896 60, % 74, % 27,476 30,925 13% 37,081 35% 113, ,842-6% 113,236 0% 41 Woolsington Suburban 7,058 78, % 104, % 15,533 17,908 15% 20,334 31% 14,688 13,774-6% 14,744 0% 42 Battle Hill Urban 5,582 6,739 21% 5,772 3% 21,898 25,087 15% 26,493 21% 4,941 4,643-6% 4,315-13% 43 Benton Urban 3,546 4,704 33% 3,878 9% 18,218 31,698 74% 29,146 60% 7,675 7,171-7% 6,668-13% 44 Chirton Urban 3,068 10, % 8, % 13,506 32, % 25,511 89% 40,528 38,081-6% 35,385-13% 45 Collingwood Urban 1,332 9, % 8, % 7,449 11,259 51% 10,683 43% 153, ,938-6% 133,803-13% 46 Cullercoats Urban % 821 5% 5,475 13, % 11, % 1,577 1,475-6% 1,373-13% 47 Howdon Urban 673 5, % 3, % 3,971 14, % 12, % 34,167 32,295-5% 29,998-12% 48 Monkseaton & St Mary's Suburban 4,624 4,624 0% 14, % 13,372 13,297-1% 49, % 6,413 5,952-7% 6,366-1% 49 North Shields Urban 14,739 17,689 20% 13,600-8% 41,080 48,286 18% 44,153 7% 15,086 14,059-7% 13,067-13% 50 Northumberland Urban 2,993 2,993 0% 2,553-15% 17,028 16,840-1% 16,816-1% 1, % % 51 Riverside Urban yes 5,896 23, % 16, % 8,548 10,107 18% 7,851-8% 68,703 64,667-6% 60,055-13% 52 Holystone Suburban 6,150 9,481 54% 9,661 57% 10,702 14,905 39% 17,312 62% 73,801 69,138-6% 73,951 0% 53 Seatonville Urban 2,379 3,536 49% 3,052 28% 18,913 18,758-1% 22,653 20% 6,150 5,743-7% 5,338-13% 54 Tynemouth Urban 2,469 2,596 5% 2,231-10% 14,853 14,755-1% 13,214-11% 29,594 27,602-7% 25,679-13% 55 Wallsend Urban 23,104 25,672 11% 18,824-19% 10,634 10,562-1% 9,534-10% 252, ,785-6% 220,928-12% 56 Whitley Bay Urban 7,063 9,377 33% 8,299 17% 41,506 47,302 14% 58,711 41% 12,458 11,616-7% 10,802-13% 57 Camperdown, Longbenton & Weesl Suburban 18,376 45, % 54, % 28,763 28,403-1% 33,001 15% 484, ,358-7% 484,007 0% 58 Valley Suburban 1,811 8, % 17, % 7,965 16, % 20, % 28,595 26,817-6% 28,685 0% 59 Fellgate and Hedwort Suburban 121 5, % 5, % 2,250 15, % 16, % 1,936 1,833-5% 1,961 1% 60 Bolden Suburban 8,167 10,769 32% 18, % 47,085 46,631-1% 75,899 61% 43,410 40,780-6% 43,637 1% 61 All Saints Urban 1,171 1,171 0% % 7,508 7,492 0% 7,217-4% 11,843 11,078-6% 10,294-13% 62 Beacon and Bents Urban 5,126 6,615 29% 4,977-3% 31,001 41,061 32% 45,438 47% 7,512 7,084-6% 6,584-12% 63 Bede Urban yes 10,455 17,085 63% 14,819 42% 21,788 25,188 16% 23,196 6% 133, ,915-6% 116,966-12% 64 Biddick Hall Urban yes % 235-3% 1,990 1,985 0% 1,454-27% % % 65 Cleadon Park Urban % 531 7% 1,989 4, % 4, % % 41-12% 66 Harton, Horsley Hill & Westoe Urban 1,803 2,788 55% 2,640 46% 15,370 18,524 21% 17,428 13% 4,885 4,603-6% 4,279-12% 67 Hebburn Quay Urban 2,382 5, % 4,242 78% 7,366 7,326-1% 7,557 3% 120, ,220-6% 105,216-13% 68 Hebburn South Urban 404 2, % 2, % 3,150 5,939 89% 5,894 87% 4,378 4,114-6% 3,824-13% 69 Monkton Urban 875 8, % 7, % 2,818 2,804-1% 3,195 13% 4,101 3,882-5% 3,608-12% 70 Primrose Urban 646 1,142 77% 1,078 67% 2,084 2,078 0% 2,103 1% 1,198 1,130-6% 1,050-12% 71 Rekendyke Urban yes 14,989 16,669 11% 12,391-17% 56,176 60,340 7% 50,149-11% 151, ,989-6% 132,878-13% 72 Tyne Dock and Simons Urban yes 8,638 12,202 41% 8,800 2% 6,418 9,051 41% 7,483 17% 52,580 49,714-5% 46,189-12% 73 West Park Urban % 521 5% 6,134 6,120 0% 6,134 0% 1,843 1,729-6% 1,607-13% 74 Whiteleas Urban % % 2,818 2,806 0% 1,906-32% 1, % % 75 Sunderland (NW) Urban 20,268 34,707 71% 30,681 51% 39,956 43,298 8% 40,564 2% 167, ,790-6% 146,678-13% 76 Sunderland (SE) Urban yes 113, ,961 11% 104,001-8% 268, ,972 6% 261,728-3% 197, ,460-6% 172,539-13% 77 Sunderland (NE) Urban 8,855 14,913 68% 12,179 38% 48,379 81,644 69% 76,648 58% 50,084 47,138-6% 43,857-12% 78 Sundeerland (SW) Urban 3,662 12, % 10, % 20,166 50, % 47, % 174, ,015-6% 152,545-13% 79 Silksworth Suburban 12,052 17,583 46% 18,735 55% 23,590 34,095 45% 35,089 49% 14,875 13,995-6% 14,976 1% 80 Houghton Suburban 10,231 16,296 59% 20, % 23,965 23,710-1% 24,825 4% 72,679 68,370-6% 73,173 1% 81 Houghton Suburban 2,906 11, % 16, % 17,618 17,503-1% 18,623 6% 95,979 90,436-6% 96,768 1% 82 Ryhope Suburban 853 8, % 9, % 4,848 11, % 13, % 5,978 5,628-6% 6,021 1% 83 Washington (N) Suburban 46,445 92, % 102, % 40,681 43,436 7% 45,972 13% 499, ,049-6% 501,712 1% 84 Washington (E) Suburban 24,104 43,290 80% 55, % 67,546 74,018 10% 103,902 54% 229, ,155-6% 230,182 0% 85 Chester-le-Street Suburban 10,722 32, % 39, % 37,398 58,684 57% 70,467 88% 23,449 21,976-6% 23,524 0% 86 Ouston Suburban 1,147 7, % 27, % 3,472 13, % 25, % 15,225 14,140-7% 15,143-1% 87 North Lodge Suburban 2,552 18, % 29, % 4,237 40, % 48, % 73,014 68,135-7% 72,767 0% 88 Pelton Suburban 1,418 3, % 6, % 7,480 7,435-1% 10,433 39% 18,115 16,984-6% 18,179 0% 89 Plawsworth Suburban 735 6, % 8, % 8,603 28, % 31, % 25,227 23,580-7% 25,240 0% 90 Lumley Suburban , % 27, % 11,104 12,563 13% 20,696 86% 5,446 5,108-6% 5,468 0% 91 Derwentside (N) Suburban 9,578 25, % 32, % 69,496 97,181 40% 110,889 60% 281, ,484-6% 282,048 0% 92 Derwentside (S) Buffer 5,450 23, % 23, % 58,196 88,547 52% 88,656 52% 145, ,188-7% 136,279-7% 93 Durham Buffer 50, , % 113, % 116, ,508 22% 142,991 23% 307, ,728-7% 285,995-7% 94 Durham (W) Buffer 25,066 61, % 61, % 21,772 24,352 12% 24,355 12% 118, ,485-6% 111,585-6% 95 Durham (E) Buffer 5,010 46, % 46, % 21,121 53, % 53, % 83,806 78,597-6% 78,652-6% 96 Seaham Suburban 3,720 5,900 59% 6,531 76% 20,342 20,721 2% 21,539 6% 57,010 53,881-5% 57,640 1% 97 Peterlee Buffer 13,498 19,069 41% 19,069 41% 59,038 66,699 13% 66,786 13% 345, ,637-6% 325,865-6% 98 Hartley Suburban 3,235 3,236 0% 8, % 11,192 14,468 29% 38, % 61,810 57,667-7% 61,729 0% 99 Blyth Suburban 10,152 15,536 53% 16,487 62% 44,762 68,867 54% 73,238 64% 190, ,608-6% 192,160 1% 100 Cramlington Suburban 7,140 19, % 27, % 22,807 41,175 81% 78, % 376, ,778-7% 376,772 0% 101 Hebron,Hepscott and Buffer 7,568 42, % 42, % 33,011 63,204 91% 63,685 93% 77,581 70,284-9% 70,783-9% 102 Ulgham Buffer 778 8, % 8, % 10,201 22, % 22, % 20,716 18,231-12% 18,648-10% 103 Heddon-On-The-Wall Buffer 3,548 18, % 18, % 11,157 15,731 41% 16,032 44% 28,509 26,084-9% 26,107-8% 104 South Tynedale Buffer 11,641 26, % 26, % 88, ,880 45% 129,564 46% 230, ,103-8% 212,477-8% 105 Wansbeck Suburban 16,069 75, % 82, % 100, ,069 81% 202, % 230, ,063-6% 231,266 0% Total 1,675,264 2,835,333 69% 2,835,326 69% 3,108,432 4,082,768 31% 4,090,355 32% 9,309,216 8,715,777-6% 8,715,943-6% 88

89 Based on the new total amounts of allocations to the urban area and the suburban area, the new zonal allocations are designed as additional allocations to the 2031 Trend (Table A.12, A13 and A14) by representing the gradual process of dispersal through a number of runs, as follows. In the first run, only zonal dwelling allocation is designed for dispersal based on the rent ratio of a zonal dwelling rent to the average dwelling rent of the study area in the Trend. In this design, the Trend allocation in each zone is changed in proportion to the rent ratio to provide more allocation to areas with higher dwelling rents in the Trend, in which the parameter of the rent ratio for the impact on the zonal allocation is calibrated to achieve the targeted total amounts of dispersal of dwellings from the urban area. To represent the dispersal from the urban area, the maximum limit of the zonal allocations to the urban zones is set as the 10% increase of the dwelling growth from 2000 to 2031 in the Trend. While the minimum limit of the zonal allocation is also set as the amounts of year 2000 for all zones, deprived areas are identified as the urban zones without the minimum limit, as is highlighted in Figure A.5, assuming that extensive demolition of dwellings and floorspace could take place there in this option. Figure A.5: Deprived Urban Zones in Dispersal Based on the results of the first run, zonal floorspace allocation is designed for business floorspace, retail floorspace and industrial floorspace to be dispersed from the first dwelling dispersal for the second run. The design of business floorspace and retail floorspace is made with the rent ratios of a zonal floorspace rent in the first-run results to a zonal floorspace rent in the Trend, which shows the rent increase from the dwelling dispersal. In these designs, the Trend allocation in each zone is changed in proportion to the rent ratio to provide more allocation to areas with the higher rent increases of floorspace from the dwelling dispersal, in which the parameter of the rent ratio for the impact on the zonal allocation is calibrated to achieve the 89

90 targeted total amounts of dispersal of floorspace from the urban area. The maximum limit of the zonal allocations to the urban zones is set as the 0% increase for business floorspace and 6% increase for retail floorspace of their growth from 2000 to 2031 in the Trend, which resulted from adjustment for the targeted total amounts of dispersal. The minimum limit of the zonal allocation is also set as a half of the zonal allocation in the 2031 Trend for all zones. The zonal allocation of industrial floorspace is assumed to have 7% decreases from the 2031 Trend allocation in the urban zones and 7% decreases in the suburban zones. The designed zonal allocations are fine-tuned throughout a number of further runs. The land-use inputs except industrial floorspace are different between the tests for the option without RUC and one with RUC because of the impact of RUC on rents as demand for location. While the design process of land-use inputs for the RUC test is same as ones for the test without RUC, the dwelling allocation is further adjusted based on the result of floorspace dispersal to reflect the RUC impact on dwelling dispersal. In the sensitivity test of extra dwellings, the same amount of extra dwellings in the Trend is subtracted from the zonal allocation for the design of the Dispersal option without extra dwelling. 8.2 Transport Inputs The same total transport investment as the 'Trend' and is used for targeted increases in highway capacities. To support the dispersed land use policy all future transport investment is directed towards highway improvement measures. Therefore between 2006 and 2031 the estimated 1200m funding available for transport investment is allocated as follows: 600m worth of identified highway measures included in the Trend option (and detailed in Table A.8) remain for the Dispersal option. In addition to this a further 600m of highway capacity increases are applied across the network through road widening or through junction improvement measures to achieve capacity increases. Based on the cost of completed highway schemes between 2000 and 2006 and proposed future highway improvements between 2006 and 2021 the average cost per capacity gain across the network was found to be 3,830 per km-pcu/hour. Allocating 600m of funding to highway capacity increases would buy a total of 156,658 km-pcu/hr of extra highway capacity to be applied across the network where congestion is expected to be greatest. At the same time this must take into account space and logistical limitations which are likely to exist, e.g., central areas are likely to have less space available for widening roads or creating additional lanes. A further restriction on the allocation of capacity increases is that the increase in capacity applied to different link types (urban, suburban, rural, motorway/dual carriageway) should match the actual increases in the link capacity for each type as a proportion of total network capacity increases over the 10 year period in the North East region as detailed in Table A.15. The following methodology was then applied to achieve the most suitable allocation of capacity increases: Over allocation of capacity to all links provides for initial widespread dispersal of employment and dwellings to outer areas without the road network constraining this dispersal. Following several runs of the transport and land use models this initial capacity increase is then pared down on links where it is not needed until the capacity increase for each link type (urban, suburban, rural, motorway) does not exceed the values detailed in Table A.15 ensuring the total funding limit is not exceeded. The models are then re-run to establish the impacts of the new network on dispersal and transport choices. 90

91 Table A.15: Relative capacity increases by link type in North East between 1993 and 2003 and for SOLUTIONS Dispersal option Road Type Proportion of increase in capacity in North East, Capacity increase applied in SOLUTIONS Dispersal option Motorway 4% 6,266 km-pcu/hr Urban 3% 4,700 km-pcu/hr Suburban 46% 72,063 km-pcu/hr Rural 47% 73,629 km-pcu/hr The resulting increases in capacity across the network are illustrated in Figure A.6. This shows a widespread distribution of capacity increases with the greatest increases (red links in Figure A.6) allocated to links outside the urban area. Figure A.6: Locations where new highway capacity is added for Dispersal option For the Dispersal option with RUC, Road User Charging is implemented in the same way as the Trend with RUC. 91