pope a66 carkin moor to scotch corner oya report...

One Year After Study

A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner Improvement

JULY 2009

Post Opening Project Evaluation

A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner Improvement – One Year After Study

i

Contents Section Page

Glossary iii Executive Summary 1 1. Introduction 5

Purpose of the Report 5 Overview of POPE 5 The Evaluation Approach 5

2. The Scheme 8 Introduction 8 Scheme Objectives 8 Location Description 8 History of the Scheme 10

3. Data Collection 12 Introduction 12 Traffic Count Data 12 Journey Time Surveys 12 Safety 13 Traffic and Economic Forecasts 14 Environmental Data 14 Consultation 14

4. Traffic Data Analysis 15 Introduction 15 Changes in Traffic Volumes in A66 Corridor 16 Predicted and Observed Traffic Flows 18

5. Journey Times 21 Introduction 21 Before and After Opening 21 Comparison with Predicted Journey Times 21 Journey Speeds 22

6. Safety 23 Introduction 23 Accidents 23 Accident Rate 26 Predicted vs. Observed Accident Numbers 26 Personal Security 27 Road Safety Audit Stage 3 27 Local Safety Issues 28

7. Economy 36 Introduction 36 Forecasting the 30 years Benefits 36 Scheme Costs 38 Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) 38 Quadro 39 Journey Time Reliability 39 Wider Economic Impacts 40

8. Environmental Evaluation 42 Introduction 42 AST and Environmental Statement 42 Noise 43



ii

Local Air Quality 44 Greenhouse Gases 44 Landscape 44 Heritage of Historic Resources 44 Biodiversity 44 Water 44 Physical Fitness 45 Journey Ambience 45

9. Accessibility and Integration 47 Introduction 47 Accessibility 47 Integration 48 Quality of Life and Social Exclusion 51

10. Conclusions and Evaluation Summary Table 52 Summary 52

Annex A: Appraisal Summary Table (AST) 54 Annex B: Evaluation Summary Table (EST) 54 Annex C: Environmental Evaluation 56 Annex D: Record of Information Requested from Highways Agency 85

The maps in this document are reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Highways Agency Licence No. 100018928. Published 2009.



iii

Glossary The following Table details the acronyms and specialist terms used within the context of this report.

Term Definition

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic. Average of 24 hour flows, seven days a week, for all days within the year.

AAWT Annual Average Weekday Traffic. As AADT but for five days, (Monday to Friday) only.

Accessibility Accessibility can be defined as ‘ease of reaching’. The accessibility objective is concerned with increasing the ability with which people in different locations, and with differing availability of transport, can reach different types of facility.

AM denoting the morning peak period

AST Appraisal Summary Table. This records the impacts of the scheme according to the Government’s five key objects for transport, as defined in DfT guidance contained on its Transport Analysis Guidance web pages, WebTAG

ATC Automatic Traffic Count, a machine which measures traffic flow at a point in the road.

AWT Average Weekday Traffic. Average of Monday to Friday 24 hour flows.

BHS British Horse Society

COBA Cost Benefit Analysis – a computer program which compares the costs of providing road schemes with the benefits derived by road users (in terms of time, vehicle operating costs and accidents), and expresses the results in terms of a monetary valuation. The COBA model uses the fixed trip matrix.

CRF Congestion Reference Flow – AADT flow at which a road is likely to be congested in the peak periods of an average day.

DfT Department for Transport

Discounting

Discounting is a technique used to compare costs and benefits that occur in different time periods and is the process of adjusting future cash flows to their present values to reflect the time value of money, e.g. £1 worth of benefits now is worth more than £1 in the future. A standard base year needs to be used which is 2002 for the appraisal used in this report.

ES Environmental Statement

EST Evaluation Summary Table. In POPE studies, this is a summary of the evaluations of the TAG objectives using a similar format to the forecasts in the AST.

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle.

Highways Agency

An Executive Agency of the Department for Transport, responsible for operating, maintaining and improving the strategic road network in England.

IP Inter Peak, the time between the AM and PM peaks

KSI Killed or Seriously Injured

Light vehicle

Not a HGV. For traffic flow data, it is a vehicle less than 5.2m in length.

Managing Agent

A Managing Agent is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and improvement of the motorway and trunk road network of a Highways Agency area.



iv

NRTF National Road Traffic Forecast. This document defines the latest forecasts produced by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions of the growth in the volume of motor traffic. The most recent one is NRTF97 and the one previous was NRTF89.

OPR Order Publication Report

PIA Personal Injury Accident. A road traffic accident in which at least one person required medical treatment.

PIA/mvkm PIA/mvkm is the number of PIAs per million vehicle kilometres where ‘vehicle kilometres’ are the number of vehicles using a section of the road multiplied by the length of the road.

PM evening peak period

POPE Post Opening Project Evaluation, before & after monitoring of all major highway schemes in England.

QUADRO QUADRO (Queues and Delays at Roadworks) programme that assesses the costs of maintenance works and road used delays when works are carried out.

Route Stress

This is used as a proxy for journey time reliability. It is described as the stress level of a road and is calculated as the ratio of flow to capacity: AADT / CRF.

RTS Regional Transport Strategy

Seasonality Seasonality is the variation in traffic behaviour across the year due to varying daylight levels, weather conditions, school holidays, etc.

Severance Community severance is the separation of adjacent areas by road or heavy traffic, causing negative impact on non-motorised users, particularly pedestrians.

TAG Transport Analysis Guidance, as defined in WebTAG.

TAR Technical Appraisal Report

TEMPRO Trip End Model Presentation PROgram, DfT software which provides forecast data on trips for transport planning purposes.

TPI Targeted Programme of Improvements. The Highways Agency’s programme of investment in improvements to the Trunk road and Motorway road network comprised of a number of major schemes each costing more than £5m.

Vehicle hours

Vehicle hours refers to the total time spent by all vehicles using a road and is expressed normally as a yearly value. For example, if 10,000 vehicles a day used a route with a 6 minute journey time, then the route’s vehicle hours for the year would be 365,000.

VOT Value Of Time

vpd Vehicles Per Day

WebTAG DfT’s website for guidance on transport studies at http://www.webtag.org.uk/



1

Executive Summary The A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner Improvement is a major Highways Agency Scheme comprising dualling this section of the A66 and improved safety measures for pedestrians and cyclists including better crossing facilities.

The scheme opened to traffic during September 2007. The purpose of this report is to identify and quantify (where feasible) the effects of this scheme one year after opening, in accordance with the Agency’s procedures for Post Opening Project Evaluation (POPE).

Scheme Description

The scheme comprised the construction of dual carriageway between Carkin Moor and Scotch Corner, at the Junction with the A1. Specific elements of the scheme include:

Construction of a new carriageway next to the existing single carriageway over a

distance of 3.7 miles; Closure of some minor side roads and accesses;

Improvements to remaining junctions; and

Improved facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. Three dedicated crossing points including central corrals for equestrian use.

Objectives (from Technical Appraisal Report and AST) Objective Achieved?

Improve the poor safety record, particularly reducing the number of serious and fatal accidents

Too early to assess with confidence

To ease congestion when essential maintenance work is carried out Likely to be achieved

Improved journey times and reliability Yes

Key Findings

The objective of the A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner Scheme to improve journey times and reliability has been achieved, but it is too early to assess the impacts on safety, in particular the severity rate of accidents, with any confidence.

The number of accidents in the first year after opening has increased, but not to a statistically significant level. The impact of the scheme on accidents will require a further re-assessment 5 years after, when more data is available and firmer conclusions can be made.

A number of local safety concerns have been raised by local district and parish councils in relation to a number of junctions and crossings along the scheme. These concerns were addressed by the HA’s Stage 3 Road Safety Audit.

Traffic predictions have been reasonably accurate with observed flows one year after opening being between the low and high growth forecasts.

There has been little re-assignment of traffic as was expected. The simplistic approach to modelling was appropriate for a scheme of this type. Journey time savings are lower than predicted for the peaks, but higher than

predicted for the inter-peaks. The reasons behind this will be explored further in the 5 year after study.

Whilst costs were lower than forecast, the outturn BCR is lower than predicted because travel time benefits are lower than predicted. Safety benefits cannot be monetised at the one year after stage.



2

Environmental impacts are generally as expected and mitigation measures have been incorporated as planned.

The scheme has contributed to achievement of objectives in local plans and policies.

Summary of Scheme Impacts

Traffic

The improved section of the A66 is used by approximately 16,000 to 16,500 vehicles per day (vpd) – this is broadly in line with the traffic levels forecast prior to opening.

Flows are between 2% and 7% higher than before opening, in line with expected background traffic growth.

As expected in the scheme appraisal, there has been little reassignment of traffic from local roads.

Flows on the access roads are above both the low and high growth forecasts, but the absolute differences are small at between 100 and 200 vehicles per day.

Journey times have improved by up to 1 minute compared to the before situation, but the improvement is less than predicted in the peaks.

Safety

The main objective of the scheme was to reduce fatal and serious accidents. Changes in annual fatal and serious accident rates observed at the one year after stage have been insignificant and therefore it may take more time for more measurable and conclusive impacts to become evident.

The total annual average number of Personal Injury Accidents has increased from an average of around 7 to almost 9 per year following opening, an increase of over 2 accidents per year. This contrasts with a prediction that the scheme would reduce accidents by just under 1 per year. However, the changes in accident numbers are not statistically significant and it cannot be inferred that the changes are a direct result of the scheme.

Consultation with local councils raised a number of safety concerns with various junctions and crossings along the improvement. However, these have been addressed by the HA Stage 3 Road Safety Audit.

Environment

Post opening traffic flow levels were broadly in line with forecasts and therefore as expected the scheme has had a beneficial impact on noise levels and air quality.

Increase of 4% in tonnes of carbon emissions in the opening year. This can be attributed to the increase in traffic flows and speeds since the scheme opened. This compares to a forecast increase of 6%.

Landscape planting appears to have been implemented as expected and to be establishing satisfactorily. Subject to successful ongoing establishment the landscape mitigation measures should fulfil their long term objectives.

Impacts on other environmental objectives are as expected and mitigation measures have been implemented as planned.

Whilst provision for pedestrians, cyclist and equestrians has largely been implemented as expected some comments were received relating to crossing points In particular, visibility at the crossing has been raised, as well as issues relating to the design of equestrian crossings. These have been addressed by the HA Stage 3 Road Safety Audit.



3

Accessibility

Severance has reduced for the small number of pedestrians and other non-motorised users due to the improved crossing facilities.

As expected, the scheme has had no impact on access to the public transport system or option values as there is no significant public transport activity in the area. However, it is likely that the journey time savings will assist in the reliability of long-distance coaches and bus services.

Integration

As expected, the scheme had had no impact on transport interchange. It was not the intention of the scheme to directly improve public transport services and interchanges and no improvement to facilities have been made as a result of the scheme.

Whilst the appraisal forecast no impact on land use policy, the scheme objectives are consistent with those set out in a number of local and regional policies including: North East Regional Transport Strategy, County Durham Structure Plan, North Yorkshire County Council LTP, Durham County Council LTP and Richmondshire Local Plan.

Summary of Economic Performance

Costs in £m 2002 Prices discounted to 2002 at 3.5%1

Pre-scheme forecast Post-scheme re-forecast

Journey Time Benefit £55.4m £30.7m

Safety Benefits -2 -

Total 30 Year Benefits (PVB)

£55.4m £30.7m

Costs (2002) prices £12.8m £10.2m

Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)

4.3 3.0

Journey time benefits at £30.7m are 45% less than predicted, due to lower journey time savings than predicted.

Accident benefits cannot be monetised for this scheme at the one year after stage.

Out-turn costs at £10.2m were 25% lower than forecast.

Despite costs being less than forecast, the lower benefits result in the BCR being lower than expected, but still representing good value for money.

1 Discounted to 2002: the year 2002 has been used as the standard base year 2 Accident benefits removed to enable a like for like comparison with the outturn. This reduces the predicted total PVB from £75 million and the BCR from 5.8



4



5

1. Introduction

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

1.1 This report represents the ‘One Year After’ (OYA) study for the A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner Improvement and has been prepared as part of the Post Opening Project Evaluation (POPE) commission for the Highways Agency.

OVERVIEW OF POPE

1.2 The Highways Agency (HA) is responsible for improving the strategic highway network (motorways and trunk roads) by delivering the Major Projects Programme (formerly Targeted Programme of Improvements or TPI). At each key decision stage through the planning process schemes are subject to a rigorous appraisal process to provide a justification for the project’s continued development. When submitting a proposal for a major transport scheme the Department for Transport (DfT) specifies that an Appraisal Summary Table (AST) is produced which records the degree to which the five Central Government objectives for Transport (Environment, Safety, Economy, Accessibility and Integration) have been achieved. The contents of the AST (and where necessary its more detailed supporting documentation) allow judgements to be made about the overall value for money of the scheme. The AST for the A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner scheme is shown in Annex A.

1.3 During the planning process scheme effects are based on well informed predictions. However, it is vital to identify the strengths and weaknesses in the techniques used for appraising schemes so that improvements can be made in the future. For POPE this is achieved by comparing information collected before and after a scheme opens to traffic with predictions made during the planning process. Outturn impacts are summarised in an Evaluation Summary Table (EST). The EST summarises the extent to which the scheme objectives have been achieved and the EST for the scheme is shown in Annex B.

1.4 POPE is mandatory for all Major Projects and is carried out generally at one year and five years after opening.

Organisations Involved in This Study

1.5 The following organisations have been involved in this study and have supplied data and information used in the scheme evaluation:

Highways Agency;

Mouchel (Employer’s Agent);

A-One Integrated Highway Services (Managing Agent Contractor);

North Yorkshire County Council

Durham County Council;

Richmondshire District Council; and

Local Parish Councils

Natural England

English Heritage.

THE EVALUATION APPROACH

1.6 In line with the POPE procedures, this report compares traffic conditions in May 2006 before the improvement opened with those one year after, in May 2009. The report summarises traffic impacts as well as the five DfT appraisal objectives.



6

1.7 The main areas covered include:

Traffic volumes in corridor and wider area;

Journey times along the route;

Accident Analysis;

Outturn versus predicted economic forecasts;

Outturn versus predicted scheme costs;

Consideration of the longer term effects of this scheme, including new development, local impacts and other changes; and

An examination of the impact of the scheme on the environment, including landscape, townscape, heritage, biodiversity and water.

1.8 The most recent DfT objectives and sub-objectives are shown in Table 1.1. This refers to the most recent guidance and this is the format adopted in the production of the EST. Quality of Life and Social Exclusion are not specific DfT appraisal objectives. However, these have been included in more recent POPE evaluations.

Table 1.1 – AST/EST Framework: Impact Objectives and Sub-Objectives

Objective Sub-Objectives

Noise Local Air Quality Greenhouse Gases Landscape Townscape Biodiversity Heritage Water Physical Fitness

Environment

Journey Ambience

Accidents Safety Personal Security

Transport Economic Efficiency Reliability Economy

Wider Economic Impacts

Option Values Severance Accessibility

Access to the Transport System

Transport Interchange Land Use Policy Integration

Other Government Policies

Quality of Life Other relevant objectives Social Exclusion



7

Report Structure

1.9 Following this introduction, the report is divided into 9 further sections as follows:

Section 2 – The Scheme

Section 3 – Data Collection

Section 4 – Traffic Data Analysis

Section 5 – Journey Times

Section 6 – Safety

Section 7 – Economy

Section 8 – Environmental Evaluation

Section 9 – Accessibility and Integration

Section 10 – Conclusions and Evaluation Summary Table



8

2. The Scheme

INTRODUCTION

2.1 The A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner Improvement was opened on the 29th September 2007. The scheme was opened in conjunction with the A66 Greta Bridge to Stephen Bank Improvement, around 7 km north-west. A separate report has been produced for the Greta Bridge to Stephen Bank scheme.

2.2 Improvements to the A66 had long standing local and regional support. In particular, local residents and councillors had campaigned over a number of years for the A66 to be dualled. In addition, The Northern Echo newspaper launched its “Fix the A66 campaign” in 1995, backing the A66 Completion Group (a group of local councillors, businesses and road hauliers), which urged the Government to dual the whole route. During the public consultation for the Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner scheme in 1999, 84% of responses showed support for the improvements.

2.3 Prior to the improvement, 37% of traffic was heavy goods vehicles as compared to the national average of 10%, along with a mix of slow moving agricultural traffic, tourist traffic and business traffic (Technical Appraisal Report (TAR)). The heavy goods traffic and the slow moving agricultural traffic tended to cause the ‘platooning’ of vehicles leading to driver frustration. This was believed to lead to drivers taking unnecessary risks to overtake and contributed to a poor safety record. Whilst the overall accident rate was slightly higher than the national average, accidents resulting in a fatality were nearly twice the national average. The severity index for accidents (i.e., the number of accidents recorded as serious or fatal as a percentage of the total) before opening was reported as 44% (TAR).

2.4 In addition, essential maintenance work was hampered by the width of the single carriageway, with signals often required to control traffic flow. This gave rise to delays and congestion.

SCHEME OBJECTIVES

2.5 The scheme was implemented to address the following objectives (as stated in the TAR):

Improve the poor safety record, particularly reducing the number of serious and fatal accidents; and

To ease congestion when essential maintenance work is carried out 2.6 In addition, the AST stated that the scheme would:

Improve journey times and reliability

LOCATION DESCRIPTION

2.7 The scheme is located in a rural area, to the west of Darlington, near the boundary between North Yorkshire and County Durham.

2.8 This section of the A66 route predominantly follows the line of a Roman Road and is therefore relatively straight but undulating. It forms one of the major east west crossing of the Pennines, linking the northeast of England and in particular the conurbation and port of Teesside, with the northwest of England and southwest Scotland, and ultimately Northern Ireland via the Loch Ryan ports. The alternative to the A66 crossing is provided by either the M62 Motorway, some 100 kms to the south



9

and the A69 trunk road some 60 kms to the north. The location of the scheme in the wider regional context is shown in Figure 2.1 below.

Figure 2.1 - A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner and adjacent Scheme Regional Context

SCHEME DESCRIPTION

2.9 The scheme comprised the predominantly off-line construction of dual carriageway between Carkin Moor and Scotch Corner, at the junction with the A1(M). The new carriageway was constructed to the north of the existing single carriageway over a distance of 6km, using materials with low noise properties. The new dual carriageway would allow safer overtaking of slow moving vehicles and reduce the risk of collisions.

2.10 As well as the new dual carriageway, the scheme included:

Improvement to existing junctions: Winston Crossroads (A66/B6274) realigned to provide staggered crossroads

with wide central reserve maintained to accommodate turning movements Melsonby crossroads realigned to provide an improved staggered junction

Closure of some minor side roads (Jagger Lane and Warrener Road North);

Closure and replacement of some property/field accesses Access to Sedbury Home Farm, Sedbury Lodge and Vintage Hotel

maintained

Improved facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders Dedicated crossing points to west of Winston Crossroads, Melsonby

Crossroads and at Jagger lane. Users cross A66 in two stages uiltising the wide central reserve as a refuge and including a 'Corral' for equestrian use.

Closure of existing lay-bys and provision of new ones. Sedbury lay-by retained for westbound traffic



10

New lay-by provided for eastbound traffic at former Kirklands Garage site Other existing lay-bys closed

2.11 Figure 2.2 shows the location of the completed scheme in more detail.

Figure 2.2 – A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner Scheme Details

HISTORY OF THE SCHEME

2.12 Table 2.1 summarises the history of the A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner scheme.

Table 2.1 - Chronology of the A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner Scheme

Date Event

1996 Highways Agency/North Yorkshire CC study into possible dualling on A66

1998 Ministerial approval for scheme and preferred route announced

1999 Public Consultation

April 2000 Engineering review undertaken

August 2002 Scheme enters Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI)

September/November 2002 Orders published

September 2003 Public Inquiry

March 2004 Scheme gets go ahead

July 2006 Start of construction

29th/30th September 2007 Scheme opened.



11

Key Points from Section 2: The Scheme

The A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner Improvement Scheme was the dualling of 6km of A66 west of Scotch Corner;

The scheme opened to traffic on the 29th September 2007; and

The scheme was implemented to improve the poor safety record, improve journey times and reduce traffic congestion at times of essential maintenance.



12

3. Data Collection

INTRODUCTION

3.1 This section outlines the details of the traffic surveys carried out and other data collected for the One Year After Study.

TRAFFIC COUNT DATA

3.2 Counts were undertaken before the opening of the scheme to record the volume of traffic, by vehicles per day (vpd). The same count sites have been used at both the before (2006) and one year after opening (2009) stages to assess any changes that may be a result of the improvements and for comparison with the forecasts.

Choice of Evaluation Month

3.3 For the purposes of this study, the traffic survey data was collected in May 2009. This enables a like for like comparison with the before data and does not include the peak holiday season.

3.4 Traffic flow data has been obtained from a number of sources including the Highways Agency permanent count sites at the following locations:

A66, West of A1;

A1, North of A66; and

A1, South of A66.

3.5 In addition, a count was commissioned by Atkins:

Warrener Lane, south-west of A66.

3.6 Atkins also commissioned manual classified turning counts at the following sites:

The crossroads at A66 – B5274 Forcett Lane (Winston Crossroads); and

The crossroads at A66 – Moor lane – Hargill (Melsonby Crossroads).

JOURNEY TIME SURVEYS

3.7 Journey time surveys were undertaken before and after the scheme opening to quantify any time savings due to the new scheme. The survey route was the A66 between the west exit from the Scotch Corner Roundabout (TP1) and Warrener Lane, Carkin Moor (TP5), as shown in Figure 3.1. Surveys were undertaken using the moving observer method.



13

Figure 3.1 – Journey Time Route

3.8 The before surveys were carried out in May 2006. These surveys were repeated at the one year after stage in May 2009. The surveys were conducted on weekdays for the following periods:

AM Peak – 07:30-09:00

Inter Peak – 10:00-15:00

PM Peak – 16:30-18:00

3.9 At least six journey time runs in each time period and by direction of travel were conducted.

SAFETY

3.10 North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) has provided accident data for the 3 years prior to scheme opening and the first year and a half after. The accident data covers all recorded Personal Injury Accidents (PIA’s), including details of the severity of casualty injuries (slight, serious, fatal).

3.11 The Highways agency have also supplied the Designers response to the Stage 3 Road Safety Audit report (Balfour Beatty/Atkins, January 2008).



14

TRAFFIC AND ECONOMIC FORECASTS

3.12 The following documents have been used in the preparation of the traffic and economic sections of the report:

Appraisal Summary Table (2002);

Technical Appraisal Report, Mouchel (May 2003);

Project Appraisal Report (2002);

COBA inputs; and

Outturn scheme costs (as of May 2009),

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA

3.13 The following documents have been used in the preparation of the environmental section of the report:

Environmental Statement Volume 1 (September 2002), Volume 2 (also September 2002) including Part 1 Landscape, Part 2 Ecology and Part 3 Cultural Heritage. Figures were noted as being separately in Volume 1a of the Environmental Statement, however these were not provided;

Appraisal Summary Table (2002);

Archaeological Post-excavation Assessment (November 2008), Oxford Archaeology North;

Handover Environmental Management Plan (HEMP) October 2007 (2nd Draft May 2008); and

Highways Agency newsletters and web based scheme information.

CONSULTATION

3.14 The County Councils and Parish Councils in the area were consulted for their views as part of the POPE process. The councils were asked for their opinions on the scheme impacts in the area, including traffic, safety and accessibility.

Key Points from Section 3: Data Collection

A comprehensive data collection exercise was undertaken for the One Year After study;

Traffic data has been supplied by the Highways Agency;

Journey times surveys have been carried out;

Accident data has been supplied by North Yorkshire County Council;

Environmental data has been supplied by the Highways Agency and its agents; and

Local Councils were consulted on scheme impacts.



15

4. Traffic Data Analysis

INTRODUCTION

4.1 This chapter describes the main traffic volume changes that have taken place in the A66 corridor and surrounding area before and one year after the scheme opened to traffic. Comparisons are also made with predictions.

Background Traffic Growth

4.2 When making comparisons between the ‘before’ and ‘after’ situation, consideration should be given to the level of natural traffic growth likely to occur in the area between 2006 (the year before opening) and 2009 (one year after opening).

4.3 There are two sources of national and regional traffic growth information. These have been extracted such that any traffic volume changes as a result of the scheme are put into context against ‘background’ traffic growth (i.e. growth that would have occurred regardless of whether the scheme was built).

4.4 Predicted percentage increases in traffic by year are published in the National Road Traffic Forecasts (NRTF) which is amended periodically. The latest available version of NRTF was published by the DfT in 2007.

4.5 TEMPRO (Trip End Model Presentation Program) is a DfT package that provides local and regional predictions of growth over time, and the version used in this study is TEMPRO 5.1. TEMPRO is able to produce growth factors that are region specific, taking into account population trends, allocated development sites and the associated growth in traffic.

4.6 In order to make estimates of likely traffic growth specific to the North Yorkshire region, predictions from NRTF were adjusted to reflect local conditions using figures from TEMPRO (details of the method are contained in the TEMPRO Guidance Note). Table 4.1 below shows the predicted traffic growth for the area. The table shows that between 2006 and 2009 traffic in this area was expected to grow by 7%.

Table 4.1 – Predicted Regional Traffic Growth

Year NRTF Growth with TEMPRO Adjustment

2006 - 2009 7%

4.7 The figures above have been provided to show the predicted level of traffic growth. For the purposes of this report, traffic flows have not been factored to represent this background growth.

Monthly Variations in Traffic Flow

4.8 Figure 4.1 shows the monthly variation in average daily traffic on the A66 from July 2005 to May 2009. The traffic flows are taken from a site on the A66, West of the A67. Whilst this site is outside of the scheme limits, located to the North West of the scheme, this is the only TRADS site available within the immediate area.

4.9 The figure shows the following trends in traffic volumes on the A66:



16

There are seasonal trends in traffic flows with the lowest volumes occurring in the winter months and then an increase through the summer, with a peak in August;

This reflects the importance of the route for tourist traffic; and

Overall, average traffic flows have remained reasonably steady over the period.

Figure 4.1 – Monthly Variation in Traffic Flows A66, West of A67

02000400060008000

1000012000140001600018000

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

Ma

yJu

nJu

lA

ug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

Ma

yJu

nJu

lA

ug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

Ma

yJu

nJu

lA

ug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

Ma

y

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Month/Year

Avera

ge

Daily

Flo

w

Average Daily Flow Moving Average

CHANGES IN TRAFFIC VOLUMES IN A66 CORRIDOR

4.10 Table 4.3 and Figure 4.2 shows the changes in daily traffic volumes on the A66 and other roads in the area, for the following periods:

Before scheme opening (May 2006); and

One year after opening (May 2009).



17

Table 4.3 – Traffic Volume Changes A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner

Traffic flows (ADT)

Count Site Before One Year After

Difference (OYA-Before)

A66, East of Moor Road 15,600 15,900 +300 (+2%)

Moor Road, North of A66 1,300 1,500 +200 (+15%)

Hargill, South of A66 1,700 1,900 +200 (+12%)

A66, West of B6274 15,400 16,500 +1,100 (+7%)

B6274, South of A66 1,200 1,300 +100 (+8%)

Warrener Lane, south-west of A66 180 130 -50 (28%)

A1, North of Scotch Corner 56,700 56,000 -700 (-1%)

A1, South of Scotch Corner 55,600 54,700 -900 (-1%)

4.11 The key observations post-scheme implementation are:

The A66 between Carkin Moor and Scotch Corner is used by between 16,000 and 16,500 vpd. This is an increase of between 2% and 7% from before the scheme improvements, which is less than or the same as expected background growth;

As expected in a rural area, traffic from the side roads accessing the A66 was at a low level before the improvement;

These flows have increased by between 8% and 15% (above expected background growth), but the absolute numbers remain low;

The very low flows on Warrener Lane have decreased by 28%;

These changes are believed to be local traffic diverting due to the closure of roads such the Warrener Lane westbound exit and Jagger Lane;

Elsewhere, contrary to expected growth traffic on the A1 both north and south of the A66 has reduced slightly; and

These changes indicate little re-assignment from local roads which is as expected in the scheme appraisal.



18

Figure 4.2 – Traffic Volume Changes A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner

PREDICTED AND OBSERVED TRAFFIC FLOWS

4.12 In order to identify how accurately the flows predicted at the time of the original assessment compare to the observed post opening traffic levels POPE normally uses the scheme forecasting report. However, for this scheme is was not considered necessary to produce a traffic model. The scheme’s Technical Appraisal Report (TAR) states that this was because the traffic flows in the area were known accurately, turning movements from side roads to and from the A66 are low and re-assignment from other routes following the improvements was anticipated to be low as alternatives routes for most traffic are not available. However, modelling was carried out on the existing traffic data to produce forecasts by applying expected growth to pre-scheme flows. Flows were assessed for the area covered by the scheme and side road accesses to the A66.

4.13 The TAR stated that the Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner section of route carried approximately 13,500 vpd (for the year 2000). Traffic flows were growthed from the survey year of 2000 to 2006 (expected opening year) and 2021 (design year) using National Road Traffic Forecasts (NRTF97). The same process was also applied to traffic flows on access roads to the A66. Table 4.4 shows the 2006 predicted do-minimum flows compared with the observed before flows. Predictions were not made for flows on the A1(M).

56,000

56,700

-1%

54,700

55,600

-1%

1,300

1,200

+8%

16,500

15,400

+7%

1,500

1,300

+15%

15,900

15,600

+2%

1,900

1,700

+12%

KKEEYY Before 1 Year After % Difference

© Crown Copyright. All Rights Reserved. Highways Agency 100018928.2009

130

180

-28%



19

Table 4.4 – Comparison of Predicted and Observed Traffic Flows (ADT)

Predicted do-minimum Flows

(2006)

% Difference

Low High

Observed Before

Flows (2006) Low High

A66, East of Moor Road 14,800 15,600 15,600 +5% -

Moor Road, North of A66 1,300 1,300 1,300 - -

Hargill, South of A66 1,500 1,600 1,700 +13% +6%

A66, West of B6274 14,800 15,600 15,400 +4% -1%

B6274, South of A66 1,000 1,000 1,200 +20% +20%

4.14 The table shows:

Predicted do-minimum flows on the A66 were reasonably accurate, with actual flows being above the low growth forecast by around 4% to 5% and approximately the same as the high growth forecast; and

Traffic from some of the side roads accessing the A66 was a lot higher than predicted, but the absolute differences in numbers are small.

4.15 The comparison of scheme predicted flows with after opening is summarised in Table 4.5. Factoring the predicted flows for 2006 to 2009 by 7% (expected background growth, see table 4.1), allows a comparison to be made between the predictions and the One Year After observed flows.

Table 4.5 – Comparison of Predicted Do-Something and Observed Traffic Flows (ADT)

Predicted Do-Something

Flows (2006)

Factored to 2009

% Difference

Low High Low High

Observed Flows (2009)

Low High

A66, East of Moor Road 14,800 15,600 15,800 16,600 15,900 +1% -4%

Moor Road, North of A66 1,300 1,300 1,400 1,400 1,500 +7% +7%

Hargill, South of A66 1,500 1,600 1,600 1,700 1,900 +19% +12%

A66, West of B6274 14,800 15,600 15,800 16,600 16,500 +4% -1%

B6274, South of A66 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,100 1,300 +30% +18%



20


Predicted flows on the A66 and some of the side roads is the same as in the do-minimum, as little traffic was expected to re-assign following the improvement;

Flows on the main A66 section were reasonably accurate, with actual flows being above the low growth forecast but below the high growth forecast; and

Traffic from the side roads accessing the A66 is a lot higher in percentage terms than predicted, but the absolute differences in numbers are small.

Key Points from Section 4: Traffic Data Analysis

The section of the A66 between Carkin Moor and Scotch Corner is used by between 16,000 and 16,500 vpd. This is an increase of between 2% and 7% from before the scheme improvements and is in line with expected background traffic growth;

Flows on the side roads to the A66 have increased by between 8% and 15% which may reflect the improvements at the junctions, but the absolute numbers remain low;

These changes in flows indicate little re-assignment from local roads which is as expected in the scheme appraisal; and

Predicted traffic levels on the A66 were reasonably accurate.



21

5. Journey Times

INTRODUCTION

5.1 This chapter considers the journey time changes that have taken place in the Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner section of the A66 corridor since scheme opening. The journey time route is shown on Figure 3.1.

BEFORE AND AFTER OPENING

5.2 Before journey times (pre the improvement scheme) are compared to the one year after journey times (with the scheme) and this is shown in table 5.1.

Table 5.1 – Average Journey Times A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner (mins:secs)

Direction Time

Period Before OYA Difference

AM 04:22 03:43 -00:39

IP 04:15 03:45 -00:30 North-westbound

PM 04:17 03:43 -00:34

AM 04:40 03:47 -00:53

IP 04:40 03:36 -01:04 South-eastbound

PM 04:33 03:41 -00:52


Carkin Moor and Scotch Corner for all surveyed time periods and directions of travel are between 30 seconds and 1 minute quicker then before the scheme opened;

Journey time variation before opening was 25 seconds which improved in the after period to 10 seconds;

There is little variation in journey time by direction of travel or time period; and

Journey time savings are greater in the south-eastbound direction.

COMPARISON WITH PREDICTED JOURNEY TIMES

5.4 Table 5.2 below shows a comparison of predicted and actual journey time savings.

Table 5.2 – Predicted and Observed Journey Time Savings

Period Predicted (AST)*1 Observed (OYA) *2

Peaks 1 min 12 secs 0 min 45 secs

Interpeak 0 min 33 secs 0 min 47 secs

*1 Average of low and high growth *2 Average of the 2 direction journey times


The AST showed predicted journey time savings of over a minute in the peaks and around half a minute in the interpeaks; and



22

Outturn journey time savings are lower than predicted for the peaks, but higher than predicted for the interpeak.

JOURNEY SPEEDS

5.6 This section contains an analysis of journey speeds in the A66 corridor since scheme opening. The average speeds have been derived from the journey time surveys discussed above and are summarised in table 5.3 below. The table shows:

Journey speeds have increased since the improvements, especially in the south-eastbound direction.

Table 5.3 – Average Journey Speeds (Kph) A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner

Direction Time


AM 80 94 +14

IP 82 93 +11 North-westbound

PM 81 93 +12

AM 75 92 +17

IP 75 97 +22 South-eastbound

PM 76 95 +19

Key Points from Section 5: Journey Times

As expected from a dualling scheme there has been significant improvements in journey times on this route;

Journey times on the section of the A66 between Carkin Moor and Scotch Corner are between 30 seconds and 1 minute quicker than before scheme opening;

There is little variation in journey times by time period or by direction of travel;

The journey time savings are lower than predicted in the peaks, but higher in the interpeak; and

Speeds in the improved section are approximately 11 to 22 kph quicker than before opening.



23

6. Safety

INTRODUCTION

6.1 This chapter evaluates the safety impacts of the scheme on the affected road network and compares this to the forecast impacts. It also examines the changes that have occurred in the number and severity of Personal Injury Accidents (PIA’s) occurring on the A66. Safety issues raised by local councils during consultation are also included.

6.2 The AST states:

‘Safety improved by the provision of dual carriageway standard, along with alignment and junction improvements.’

6.3 The TAR states that whilst the average accident rate for this section of the A66 was close to the national average at the time, the severity of injuries resulting from the accidents was twice the national average. As a result, the main objective of the upgrade of the road to dual carriageway was to improve road safety. The main aim was not to reduce total accidents, but to reduce fatal and serious accidents in particular. As these types of accident are not that common this scheme needs a longer timeframe for meaningful analysis of trends.

ACCIDENTS

6.4 A detailed analysis of PIA’s has been carried out, covering the A66 between Carkin Moor and Scotch Corner. The information relates to traffic accidents (i.e. collisions, which may involve more than one person) that resulted in personal injuries.

6.5 It should be noted that at this stage, the accident data has not yet been validated by the DfT. The requirement for up to date and site specific information necessitated the use of unvalidated data sourced from the local authority. Thus the data is judged to be sufficiently robust for use in this study, but it may be subject to change. However, it is not anticipated that this would be significant in terms of the analysis of accident numbers presented in this report.

6.6 Table 6.1 summarises the accidents along the A66 from Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner categorised by the severity level of the most seriously injured person. Two time periods have been compared. The construction phase (July 2006 to September 2007) has been removed from the analysis:

Before scheme construction – June 2003 to May 2006 (3 years); and

After scheme opening – October 2007 to April 2009 (19 months).

6.7 A breakdown of the accidents is included in Table 6.1 and also shown on figure 6.1.



24

Table 6.1 – Number and Severity of Accidents


The average number of fatalities has increased from an average of 0.7 per year to 1.3 in the first 19 months;

The average number of serious accidents has also increased from an average of 0.7 per year to 1.3 per year;

The average number of slight accidents per year has increased from an average of just over 5 to just over 6; and

There is a change in the severity index (i.e., the number of serious or fatal accidents as a percentage of the total number of accidents), which increases from an average of 20% before scheme opening to an average of 29% after.

6.9 A statistical test3 on the accidents in the area provides 95% confidence that the increase in the number accidents in the 19 months since opening of the scheme occurred as a result of chance. Therefore, we can not infer that the observed slight increase in accident numbers indicative of a real change as a direct impact of the scheme.

6.10 Figure 6.1 shows:

Accidents before construction were spread along the corridor, but were particularly found at junctions and farm accesses;

In particular there were a number of accidents at or on the approaches to the junction at A66 to Gilling West and Melsonby (Melsonby Crossroads);

There is a similar pattern after opening with accidents focused at junctions and farm accesses; and

Since opening a fatal accident has occurred at the A66/B6274 Junction and a number of accidents at Melsonby Crossroads.

3 A Chi-square test was used to compare the change in the accident rates (number of accidents / traffic volume in the local area) before and after the scheme opened. This gives a Chi Square value of 0.45.

Year Fatal Serious Slight TOTAL Severity Index

June 2003 to May 2004 2 0 2 4 50%

June 2004 to May 2005 0 0 7 7 -

June 2005 to May 2006 0 2 7 9 22%

TOTAL 2 2 16 20 20%

Before Period (Average Per Year) 0.7 0.7 5.3 6.7 20%

October 2007 to April 2009 (19 Months) 2 2 10 14 29%

After Period (Average per Year) 1.3 1.3 6.3 8.8 29%



25

Figure 6.1 – Accidents (Before and After)



26

ACCIDENT RATE

6.11 Table 6.2 summarises the accident rate along the A66 from Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner. The average before flows have been taken from the count carried as part of the scheme appraisal in 2000 and the before opening count undertaken in 2006, with the average flows for the intervening years based on straight line growth.


Before scheme construction there were on average just under 7 personal injury accidents per year;

Following opening the yearly average has increased to almost 9 accidents per year; and

The accident rate has increased from an average of 0.202 PIA/mvkm to an average of 0.252, above the national average for this type of road.

6.13 Whilst accidents have increased since scheme opening it must be noted that it is usual for accident savings to be evaluated at least three years after opening in order to get a fair reflection in the number of accidents in the corridor. Therefore, this evaluation for the One Year After Study is an initial view, and cannot be considered as a firm conclusion.

Table 6.2 – Summary of Accident Data

Year Length of Road (km)

Average Flow

(AADT)

No of Accidents

Accident Rate (PIA/mvkm)

National Average Rate by Road Type

Before Period (June 2003 to May 2006)

6.0 15,120 20 0.202 0.381

After Period (October 2007 to April 2009)

6.0 15,920 14 0.252 0.131

PREDICTED VS. OBSERVED ACCIDENT NUMBERS

6.14 Table 6.3 below shows the difference between the actual number of accidents before and after opening of the scheme, and the difference between the numbers predicted by the COBA model for the opening year. For the ‘Actual’ accidents the Do-Minimum (DM) figures and the Do-Something (DS) figures are the annual average before and after the scheme was opened and are for the same area as used in COBA.



27

Table 6.3 – Comparison of actual and predicted number of accidents

Average number of accidents

Low Growth High Growth

DM (no scheme) 6.4 6.7

DS (with scheme) 5.6 5.9 COBA Opening

year

Saving (reduction) -0.8 -0.8

DM (‘Before’) 6.7

DS (‘After’) 8.8 Actual (Annual

Average)

Increase +2.1

6.15 Table 6.3 shows:

The COBA model of the scheme predicted the average number of accidents in the do-minimum scenario at 6.6 (average of low and high growth). This compares favourably with the actual before average of 6.7;

The model predicted a saving of 0.8 accidents, for both low and high growth. The model predicted a reduction in the number of fatal accidents over the long term, but an increase in the number of accidents resulting in slight injuries; and

However, the number of accidents over the same links increased by over 2 in the short period following scheme opening.

There is thus a difference of 3 accidents between the observed and predicted. As shown by the statistical test result this difference can easily occur through random variation in accident numbers.

PERSONAL SECURITY

Forecast

6.16 The aim of this sub-objective is to reflect both changes in security and the likely numbers of users affected. In terms of roads, security includes the perception or risk of personal injury, damage to or theft of vehicles, and theft of property from individuals or from vehicles.

6.17 The AST assessed the scheme would have no impact on security.

Evaluation

6.18 There have been no changes in the corridor in terms of lighting or road security as part of the scheme. Laybys have been removed but alternatives have been provided. Therefore the scheme is assessed as having had no impact on personal security as predicted.

ROAD SAFETY AUDIT STAGE 3

6.19 A Stage 3 Road Safety Audit (RSA3) was produced in December 2007. The audit looked at issue under five headings; general, alignment, junctions, non-motorised users and signing and lighting. Under each of these headings the problems found are described and recommendations to address the problems are made. A designer’s response to the issues raised in the audit was produced in January 2008. In most cases the recommendation of the safety audit have been accepted



28

6.20 The details of the audit are now re-produced here in detail, but are referred to in the following section where applicable.

LOCAL SAFETY ISSUES

6.21 The County Council, District Council and Parish Councils in the area were consulted for their views on this scheme as part of the POPE process. The councils were asked for their opinions on the scheme impacts in the area, including traffic, safety and accessibility. These consultations highlighted a number of safety issues relating to certain junctions along the A66 and crossings for horse riders. Comments were also received from individuals (via the Parish Councils), but as these covered similar issues raised by the various Councils they have not been included in the report. The main issues are summarised below:

County Councillor, Richmondshire North Electoral Division

6.22 The County Councillor for the area raised issues that agreed with and supported many of the comments made by the District and Parish Council discussed below.

6.23 The Councillor raised two main areas of concern for traffic; the two roads to the A66 that lead from Gilling West, which both lead to a crossing of the A66 “which is difficult and for some people is alarming and potentially dangerous.” The Councillor also raised safety concerns at the approaches to the A66 from Ravensworth (note: this is beyond the scheme limits and lies in the single carriageway gap between this scheme and the Greta Bridge to Stephen Bank scheme (see comments from Ravensworth Parish Council below).

District Councillor, Richmondshire District Council

6.24 A local district councillor for the area raised safety issues regarding the crossing at A66/B6274 (known locally as Winston Crossroads - see figure 2.2). The Councillor’s view is that for traffic “it is a dangerous crossing and sadly things have not improved.”

6.25 The main issue relates to visibility problems when crossing the junction. The councillor reports that when travelling from north to south across the A66 to Gilling West the view of traffic approaching from the east is impaired by the positioning of a “no entry” sign. It is suggested that the sign could be moved a few metres to the west to resolve the problem. In addition, trees and shrubs in the central reservation also block the same view of traffic. These were initially removed, but new trees have been re-planted. The Councillor’s view was that these should be removed before they recreate the original problem.

6.26 A second visibility problem is reported in the opposite direction of travel when heading north. The view towards Cumbria is obstructed by the crash barrier. There are “Give Way” lines but cars have to move beyond the lines onto the main carriageway to obtain a view.

6.27 As shown in figure 6.1 there has been a fatal accident at the crossroads since opening.

6.28 The RSA3 did not raise any traffic safety problems at the junction.



29

Ravensworth Parish Council

6.29 The Parish Council have raised two issues4;

Safety problems with the two junctions that connect the A66 with accesses from Ravensworth village; and

Safety problems in the single carriageway section between this scheme and the Greta Bridge to Stephen Bank Improvement.

6.30 In the Parish Council’s view neither of the two village accesses have a safe or satisfactory junction with the A66. It reports that accidents have occurred at both junctions. As these junctions are outside the limits of the Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner scheme, the details are not addressed here in detail but are summarised for completeness. The main issues are:

Limited visibility at both junctions caused by undulations on the A66, buildings and vegetation;

Lack of a central reservation or refuge, meaning vehicles travelling to the village from the west brings eastbound traffic to a standstill; and

The short, narrow slip road at the easterly junction can not be used by large commercial vehicles.

6.31 The Council also reports knock-on effects from the two dual carriageway sections on the single carriageway section in between. The Parish Council believe that the improved sections either side encourage vehicles to travel faster on the single carriageway section, despite there being four road junctions and limited forward visibility, due to undulations in the road. This makes the stream of traffic on the A66 more continuous in both directions, as a slow moving vehicle can not hold back faster traffic on the dual carriageway enabling a gap to appear in the traffic flow. As a result, crossing onto the A66 from any of the side roads has become more hazardous on the single carriageway section.

6.32 The journey time surveys carried out across the two improvement schemes also covered the single carriageway section between. In general, speeds have increased by between 4kph and 18kph as shown in table 6.4 below, but have decreased slightly in the PM Peak south-eastbound.

Table 6.4 – Average Speeds A66 Single Carriageway Section (kph)

Direction Time


AM 76 90 +14

IP 79 93 +14 North-westbound

PM 86 91 +5

AM 71 89 +18

IP 89 93 +4 South-eastbound

PM 85 82 -3

4 These issues are the same as reported in the Greta Bridge to Stephen Bank Improvement One Year After Report



30

6.33 Whilst commending the Highways Agency for the A66 improvements, the Council states that, “This stretch of road must be made safer by upgrading it to dual carriageway.” Failing this the Council has previously suggested various improvements, including:

Installing a ghost lane at the Ravensworth and East Layton junction;

Extending and widening the slip road at Ravensworth; and

Implementing a 50 mph speed limit on the lengths of the single carriageway sections.

6.34 These options were considered by the Highways Agency but discounted for various reasons, including cost, practicality and lack of police support.

Melsonby Parish Council

6.35 The Parish Council have raised two issues:

Safety problems with the crossing from Melsonby to Gilling West over the A66 (Melsonby Crossroads - see figure 2.2); and

For users of the horse crossings.

6.36 The council states that when vehicles are crossing from Melsonby to Gilling West at Melsonby Crossing it is almost impossible to see oncoming traffic travelling westbound from Scotch Corner when in the middle of the crossing as there is a dip in the road and vehicles can not be seen until they come over the brow of the hill. This causes problems for some drivers when they think the road is clear to cross, but a vehicle is in the ‘dip’ travelling at fast speeds.

6.37 The RSA3 raised two problems at the crossroads and these and the recommended solutions are summarised in the table below. Both of the recommendations were accepted in the Designer’s Response.

Table 6.5; RSA3 Problems and Recommendations at Melsonby Crossroads

Problem Recommendation

Due to the vertical alignment drivers on the westbound approach to the crossroads are unable to see the junction layout until they pass the 100yd count down marker. This may result in driver confusion, late manoeuvres, shunts and turning accidents.

Provide additional warning signs to Diag No 507.1 in the vicinity of the 100yd countdown marker, and duplicate the countdown markers on the central reserve (set to reflect the actual start of the deceleration lane)

Poor visibility on the Hargill Road approach to the crossroads. Although the advance signing of the junction on Hargill Road is good, it is not possible to see the ‘Give Way’ sign until very late. Neither the ‘Give Way’ triangle (Diag No. 1023) nor the central hatch marking are visible. The junction has a history of give way accidents

Relocate the ‘Give Way’ triangle back to the maximum permitted 15m from the give way line. Extend the central hatching to cover 2 additional modules of the warning line on the approach to the refuge island.

6.38 The Council also reports that “Most riders who have used these [horse] crossings find them very dangerous for various reasons.” These reasons are summarised as follows:



31

The surface of the bridleway alongside the A66 and in the corral in the middle of the crossings is made of very dense smooth tarmac which horses are unable to grip properly. There is a danger that if traffic makes the horse nervous when in the coral they could slip, fall and unseat their rider causing injury; and

Warning lights were initially installed at the horse crossing, but these resembled traffic lights and were viewed as being too close to the crossings to have any effect. Following driver complaints they were removed. Riders now have no way of warning traffic they are crossing, “which is unacceptable”. The council suggests that lights with the words ‘slow down – horses crossing’ could be installed at a reasonable distance form the crossings.

6.39 As a result of the above, lone riders “do not feel safe crossing the A66 any more”. It is not always possible for riders to go out in pairs and many riders are put off crossing the A66, thus “denying them access to some excellent bridleways on either side of the road.”

6.40 Similar comments regarding horse riding were made by the former British Horse Society access officer.

6.41 The RSA3 considered a number of problems at the equestrian crossings and these and the recommended solutions are summarised in the table below. All of the recommendations were accepted in the Designer’s Response.



32

Table 6.6: RSA3 Problems and Recommendations at Equestrian Crossings


The push-button controlled warning lights are not understood by equestrians or vehicle drivers. The equestrian is expected to press a button to activate the lights, but is given no indication whether the lights are flashing or for how long. The lights can appear to drivers as a conventional set of traffic lights, with reports of a driver braking severely on seeing the lights flashing. Equestrians movement are light, but the consequences of an accident involving a horse at one of the crossings is likely to be severe. The audit team considered whether the light should be removed, remain unchanged and reconsidered at the stage 4 audit, altered by relocating the lights in advance of the crossings and indicators added for equestrians, or replaced with Variable Message Signs (VMS). Most of the options were ruled out on the grounds of excessive cost.

The push-button controlled lights should be removed.

At the crossings the flashing signs are post-mounted above horse crossing warning signs to Diag no 550.1m most approximately 3m behind the kerb line. As a result, the horse crossing signs obstruct visibility for equestrians waiting to cross the road, increasing accident risk involving horses

Re-site the signs, ensuring they remain visible to approaching traffic (see also above )

There is no restriction on the bridle paths to prevent their use by vehicles and there is evidence of vehicles using a number of the equestrian crossings to gain access to the A66. There is an increased risk of collisions between vehicles abusing the crossings and traffic on the main carriageway.

Provide bollards or bridle gates to prevent the use of the equestrian corrals by vehicular traffic.

At the crossing facilities at Melsonby Crossroads, Jagger Lane and Winston Crossroads the corral fencing has been provided with a return which will in effect reinforce the fencing against vehicle collision, increasing the risk of damage or injury to drivers or passengers in errant vehicles. If such features are required they should be protected by safety barrier.

Remove the fencing returns. Ensure that corral fencing close to the carriageway is passive, presenting the broad face of embedded posts to road traffic.

There are no mounting blocks provided at any of the crossing points, including the Thorpe Farm subway. This may result in accidents involving equestrians as they attempt crossing whilst not in optimum control of their horses.

Provide mounting blocks in accordance with the design

Eppleby Parish Council

6.42 The Parish Council have made comments on the A66/B6274 (Winston Crossroads). These are very similar to those raised by the Richmondshire District Councillor detailed above, so are not repeated here in detail.

6.43 The Council also raised a problem with signage at the junction, particularly for drivers who are not familiar with the junction. These issues are:

Traffic from the West turning onto the B6274 towards Gilling appear uncertain whether to turn at the first or second opening; and

Traffic on the B6274 from Gilling West travelling across the A66 to Forcett appear uncertain whether to go straight across and turn on the north side of the central reservation (on the eastern carriageway) before trying to cross. Others turn onto the inside lane of the western carriageway and then realise they should be in the central reservation before trying to cross to head towards Forcett.



33

6.44 The Council reports that the above manoeuvres have been witnessed since the A66 improvement. The District Councillors also reported similar incidents. The RSA3 did not raise any traffic safety problems at the junction.

6.45 It is recommended that the Highways Agency continues to cooperate with the Parish Council to address these issues.

Gilling West with Hartforth and Sedbury Parish Council

6.46 The Parish Council have raised a concern with the modified junction with the A66 at Warrener Lane. This junction is at the western end of the section of improvement. Following the A66 upgrading the Hartforth End westbound slip road was closed down (see figure 6.3). The Council’s view is that this forces traffic that is joining the A66 westbound to enter a stream of traffic that is descending a hill at high speed. The visibility of the brow of the hill is viewed as “not the best and therefore joining the traffic flow from a standing start will inevitably create a dangerous obstruction to westbound traffic travelling at speed”. The Parish has raised this issue with the County Council and asked for a reinstatement of the entry slip-road.

Figure 6.2 – Warrener Lane Junction with A66

6.47 The RSA3 identified three problems at this part of the junction and these and the recommended solutions are summarised in the table below. All of the recommendations were accepted in the Designer’s Response.



34

Table 6.7; RSA3 Problems and Recommendations at Warrener Lane Junction


Limited forward visibility on the westbound approach to Warrener Lane junction. Although the departure standard for forward visibility of 163m has been met, the vertical and horizontal alignment at this location is likely to result in high vehicle speeds. The junction is used for turning movements by slow moving buses and agricultural vehicles. Collisions with turning vehicles are likely, and if they occur, the severity of injuries is likely to be high.

Provide ‘red patch’ and ‘slow; markings, followed by approximately 163m of grey high friction surfacing on the westbound approach to the junction. Monitor the situation at the junction and if accidents continue consider closure of the junction.

The countdown markers on the westbound approach to Warrener Lane junction appear to be measured back from the junction radius rather than the start of the deceleration lane, which is not consistent with other junctions on this section of the A66 and will give a false impression of the location of the junction. In view of the reduced forward visibility at this location and the history of accidents, this is likely to increase the risk of collisions with turning vehicles, and the severity of injuries.

Reset the countdown markers from the start of the deceleration lane.

Approaching Warrener Lane junction northbound on Warrener Lane the ‘Give Way’ markings do not become visible to drivers until they are very close to the junction. This may result in failure to give way accidents.

Relocate the ‘Give Way’ triangle to the maximum permitted 15m from the ‘Give Way’ line to ensure visibility on the approaches from Warrener Lane.

Gayles Parish Meeting

6.48 The Parish raised two issues, both in the single carriageway section, i.e., the section not improved by this scheme. These are summarised below:

Mains Gill Junction – A separate turning lane is required or better signage to the farm as vehicles make last minute decisions to turn, resulting in near misses, especially with vehicles waiting at the junction opposite from East Layton.

Ravensworth Junction – This is the main area of concern for the Parish. The approach to the junction westbound is downhill and although marked with hatching cars still overtake here to the danger of cars pulling out of the junction and heading east. The Parish believe full white lines are required. The run off area to turn left westbound is felt to be too narrow and cars have to take up space on the main carriageway before the final turn, impeding vehicles on the main carriageway, especially HGV’s.



35

Key Points from Section 6: Safety

The main objective of the scheme was to reduce fatal and serious accidents, not just accidents in general. Therefore, for this scheme a longer timeframe will be required to assess changes in accidents;

The number of Personal Injury Accidents has increased from an average of just under 7 per year before the scheme opened to almost 9 per year over the 1.5 years since opening, an increase of over 2 accidents per year;

This compares with a prediction that the scheme would reduce accidents by just under 1 per year;

However, these numbers are very small and are not evidence that the scheme has either:

o Caused more accidents in the short term; o Or that it will not over the longer term succeed in reducing accidents, especially fatal

and severe ones

In addition, the changes in accident numbers are not statistically significant and it can not be inferred that the changes are a direct result of the scheme; and

Consultation with local councils raised a number of safety concerns with various junctions and crossings along the improvement.



36

7. Economy

INTRODUCTION

7.1 This section evaluates the economic benefits of the A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner Improvement Scheme. Comparisons are made between the economic forecasts for the scheme with an evaluation of the actual costs and updated forecasts of the benefits based on observed data.

FORECASTING THE 30 YEARS BENEFITS

7.2 When the scheme was appraised, benefits were forecast over a 30 year period in accordance with DMRB volume 13, comparing the monetary costs of two scenarios: ‘do minimum’ i.e. without the scheme with ‘do-something’ being the proposed scheme.

7.3 Economic benefits for the prior assessment of this scheme (before construction) were predicted using the Department of Transport’s COBA (Cost Benefit Analysis) program, which considers changes in:

Time for Link Transit and Junction Delay – The time on each affected link both before and after opening weighted by vehicle flows and the delays at junctions;

Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC) – Reflects fuel and other operating costs calculated by a change in total distance travelled on the affected links, but also considering vehicle speeds; and

Accident Statistics – These change after infrastructure improvements, as accidents are normally less frequent on new roads due to safer geometric design.

7.4 At the time of the inclusion of the scheme in the then Targeted Programme of Improvements in 2002, an Appraisal Summary Table (AST) was prepared for the scheme. This records the predicted impacts of the scheme against Economy objectives in addition to environment, safety, accessibility and integration and is included in this report in Annex A. This section is only concerned with the impacts which are monetised. The economic benefits have been taken from the Technical Appraisal Report (TAR).

COBA Network

7.5 A simple COBA network was used in the appraisal of this scheme. A wide network was not deemed required as the scheme was not expected to have a wide area of influence. The network, therefore, covered the area of the scheme along the A66 from Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner only.

Methodology for calculating Journey Time Benefits

7.6 The methodology used changes in annual vehicle-hours on selected key links to derive economic benefits, as these are the key elements of economic benefit for the whole scheme. The relationship between predicted vehicle hour saving and monetary benefit in the COBA is then applied to the observed vehicle hour savings to obtain an estimate of monetary benefit over 30 years. The observed vehicle hour savings have been calculated from the traffic counts and journey time surveys, discussed in chapters 4 and 5 respectively. This method uses the differences between the do-minimum and do something values for the following variables:

Link Distance;



37

Traffic Speeds; and

Traffic Flow.

Monetised Journey Time Benefits

7.7 The evaluation focused on key links on the A66 between Carkin Moor and Scotch Corner. The COBA model (low and high growth) was re-run with the actual opening year of 2007.

7.8 The following methodology was then applied as described below to obtain a POPE re-forecast for the 30 year journey time benefits as shown in Tables 7.1 and 7.2 below.

1. The predicted vehicle hour and monetary benefit was obtained from the COBA model.

2. The predicted vehicle hour benefit was then acquired for all the key links on the A66 in the COBA model.

3. The actual vehicle hour saving in the first year was calculated using observed flow and journey time data.

4. The ratio between predicted vehicle savings and actual savings for the key links was applied to the monetarised benefit from the full COBA. This is based on the assumption that the savings for key links are replicated for links not considered key.

Table 7.1 - Comparison of Predicted and Observed Annual Vehicle Hours

Total Vehicle Hours (opening year on A66)

Do-Minimum

Do-Something

454,000

356,000 COBA Low/High Growth Average

Difference -98,000

Before

After

448,000

394,000 Observed

Difference -54,000

7.9 The table shows an observed saving in vehicle hours for the A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner scheme of 54,000 per year (12% decrease). This compares to the COBA prediction for the same key links 98,000 per year (22% decrease). Therefore, the observed saving is around 55% of that predicted. This is due to journey time savings in the peaks being lower than predicted.

7.10 The full COBA assessment showed that the link time benefits for the scheme were £26.53 million (1998 prices and values). Using the ratio between the COBA model of the hours saved on the A66 in the opening year and the hours saving and the economic benefit over the whole 30 year appraisal period, the observed hours saving correlates to a benefit of £14.68 million, as shown in Table 7.2 below.



38

Table 7.2 – Link Transit Time Benefits (1998 Prices)

Difference in Vehicle Hours in Opening year

Predicted Benefit over 30 years

COBA Low/High Growth Average 98,000 £26.53m

Observed 54,000 £14.68m

Monetised Accident Benefits

7.11 As shown in section 6, the COBA model predicted an opening year saving of just under 1 PIA and over 30 years, a monetary benefit of £9.35 million in 1998 prices. As discussed in the safety chapter, the main scheme objective was to reduce fatal and serious accidents, not accidents in general. At this stage the change in the number of accidents is statistically not significant and it is clearly too soon to interpolate the finding of a slight increase in accident numbers over the full appraisal period. Hence, accident benefits have not been monetised at the one year after stage for this scheme.

SCHEME COSTS

7.12 Table 7.4 shows the predicted costs calculated before opening for the A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner, as well as the actual costs converted to the same price base (2002) so that direct comparisons can be made between them. The predicted costs are taken from the Technical Appraisal Summary and converted to 2002 levels. The outturn spend profile for this scheme has been obtained from Regional Finance Manager at the Highways Agency and shows the as-spent figures for the period 2000 – 2009 (as of May 2009). These have also been converted to 2002 prices and can be compared with the forecast cost on a comparable basis.

Table 7.3 – Scheme Costs in 2002 Prices

Predicted Cost (£m) Outturn Cost (£m)

Construction 15.03

Preparation 0.95

Supervision 0.79

11.21

Land 0.94 0.72

Total 17.71 11.93

7.13 The comparison between predicted and outturn costs shows that costs were estimated at £17.71m (2002 prices), whereas the actual costs at the same price base are £11.93 million. The outturn costs are £5.78 million or 33% less than predicted.

7.14 Scheme costs are discounted to 2002 values using the rate of 3.5% to obtain the PVC for use in calculating the BCR.

BENEFIT/COST RATIO (BCR)

7.15 Table 7.5 below compares the predicted (TAR) and outturn costs and benefits. Costs and benefits in the TAR at 1998 prices and values have been factored to 2002 prices and values.



39

Table 7.4 – 30 Year BCR Evaluation

2002 Prices discounted at 3.5% TAR Outturn Forecast

PVC £12.8m £10.2m

Journey Time Benefits £55.4m £30.7m

Accident Benefits £19.6m -

PVB £75.0m £30.7m

BCR 5.8 3.0


The TAR forecast a BCR of 5.8, with journey time benefits providing almost 75% of total benefits; and

Using actual values results in a BCR of 3.0.

QUADRO

7.17 Avoiding delays at times of essential maintenance work was an objective of the scheme. The QUADRO (Queues and Delays at Roadworks) programme was used to assess the costs of maintenance works and road used delays when works are carried out. The results for this scheme showed a saving in user delay costs of £6.34m when comparing the do-minimum and do-something. When the works costs are included this reduced to a cost saving of £2.20m

7.18 QUADRO has not been re-run, but as predicted traffic flows were reasonably accurate it can be assumed that the QUADRO forecast is valid.

JOURNEY TIME RELIABILITY

7.19 Reliability of journey times is an important economic factor for travellers but it is not simple to measure. The WebTAG guidance uses the measurement of the route stress as a reasonable proxy for measuring the reliability sub-objective; the concept of ‘stress’ has been developed to provide a broad indication of the relationship between volumes and capacity on a road.

Forecast

7.20 The AST forecast that route stress on this stretch of the A66 would improve considerably from 74% to 22%.

7.21 The calculation of stress is calculated to be the ratio of the AADT volume to the Congestion Reference Flow (CRF) expressed as a percentage. The lower the percentage, the higher the likelihood that journey time reliability is better. The CRF is defined in the DMRB Volume 5 Section 1 Part 3 as:

CRF = CAPACITY * No of Lanes * WidthFactor * 100/PeakFlow * 100/PeakDirectionSplit * AADT/AAWT

The capacity of a road is based on the number of lanes and the proportion of HGV’s in the peak period.

Evaluation

7.22 The results of the route stress calculations are shown below in Table 7.6. The table shows:



40

Route stress for the A66 has decreased from 73% before opening to 21% after opening;

The route stress after the scheme opening is similar to the AST prediction of 22%;

These figures suggest that journey time reliability for traffic in the area has improved; and

Dft Guidance5 states that only values between 75% and 125% should be considered and anything outside this range should be adjusted up or down to 75% or 125%. As a result, the adjusted stress figures are included in brackets.

Table 7.5 – Assessment of Route Stress

Forecast (AST) Observed

Before Opening

After Before (2006)

OYA (2009)

A66 74% (75%) 22% (75%) 73% (75%) 21% (75%)

7.23 In addition, a scheme objective was to reduce congestion at times of essential maintenance. The Increase in highway capacity as a result of the scheme is likely to have achieved this.

WIDER ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Forecast

7.24 The AST stated that the scheme would have no wider economic impacts.

7.25 The TAR stated that the only significant development proposal in the area was an employment allocation south of the A66 and Scotch Corner Hotel and on the west side of the A1. The 7ha site was allocated for B1 and B8 use. The road improvements would have a direct effect on the development and also enhance accessibility to the west of England and Scotland.

7.26 The TAR also stated that the owners of the Gatherley Moor Quarry were granted permission in 2000 to re-open the quarry. Access would be from Moor Lane and the improvement scheme was expected to improve safety and ease of access to the development.

Evaluation

7.27 The scheme passes through a predominantly rural area, with little residential, retail or industrial development.

7.28 The Richmondshire Joint Employment review, January 2007 reported that take up of large scale employment land in the area, including the site at Scotch Corner, has been slow. The review recommended the site is reserved for long term future use and due to its proximity to the A1 and widened A66 the site is more likely suited to B8/Distribution use.

7.29 Whilst local and national business will have benefited from improved journey times and reduced delays, it is assessed that there has been no significant impact as expected in the AST.

5 http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/economics/rdg/multimodal/anewdealfortrunkroadsinengla5491?page=7



41

Key Points from Section 7: Economy

The POPE re-evaluation of the predicted 30 year journey time benefit (1998 prices and values) is £14.7 million, based on an annual time saving of 54,000 vehicle hours. This compares with a predicted benefit of £26.5 million;

COBA predicted accident benefits of £9.4 million over 30 years (1998 prices and values). However, the change in the number of accidents is statistically not significant and it is too soon to interpolate the finding of a slight increase in accident numbers over the full appraisal period. Hence, accident benefits have not been monitised at the one year after stage for this scheme;

Total benefits in 2002 prices and values are £31 million, compared to the TAR forecast of £55 million;

Outturn costs (2002 prices) at £11.9 million are 33% lower than the predicted cost of £17.7 million (2002 prices);

The outturn BCR is 3.0 compared to the AST prediction of 5.8; and

Route stress on this stretch of the A66 has reduced from 73% to 21%. This suggests that journey time reliability has improved.



42

8. Environmental Evaluation

INTRODUCTION

8.1 The Environment objective in the current WebTAG guidance consists of the following sub objectives:

Noise;

Local air quality;

Greenhouse gases;

Landscape;

Townscape;

Biodiversity;

Heritage;

Water quality;

Physical fitness; and

Journey ambience.

8.2 This section contains a summary of the detailed analysis of each of these sub-objectives in relation to the A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner Improvements scheme. Full details of the evaluation can be found in Appendix C.

AST AND ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

8.3 The AST stated that negative environmental impacts of the scheme would be on:

Greenhouse Gases - slight increase per year change in CO2 emissions predicted;

Landscape - slight adverse to neutral effect predicted;

Heritage of Historic Resources - slight adverse effect predicted due to impacts on Scheduled Monuments and other regionally important sites; and

Biodiversity - slight adverse effect.

8.4 The AST stated that there would be no significant impact on:

Water Environment - neutral impact predicted.

8.5 The AST also stated the environmental benefits would be:

Noise – reduction of noise impacts due to use of low noise wearing course to surface the new carriageway;

Local Air Quality – improvement expected due to the additional distance between the new carriageway and sensitive properties;

Physical Fitness - improved due to crossing the carriageway in two stages; and

Journey Ambience - large beneficial effect predicted due to reduced driver frustration and also lay-bys.

8.6 The Environmental Statement (ES) stated that the adverse environmental impacts of the scheme would be on:

Landscape – slight adverse to neutral impact upon the character and quality of the existing landscape. Visual impacts were limited to Grenton (at Gatherley Moor) which was expected to experience a slight adverse visual impact; and



43

Cultural Heritage – 11 sites of archaeological interest. The effects would be moderate at 4 sites and slight at two 7 sites. The remaining impacts would be small scale. There were two Grade II listed buildings along the route but none would be directly affected by the proposals.

8.7 The ES also stated there would be no significant impact on:

Air Quality - the overall effect of the proposals on air quality would not be significant. Some properties would experience a small detrimental impact whereas others would benefit;

Ecology - impacts on ecology and nature conservation would be minor and would be offset by measures such as tree and shrub planting and the creation of new habitats in verges and around the balancing ponds; and

Water Environment - springs or boreholes would not be affected by the proposals. The watercourses identified as potentially affected include several routes at Carkin Moor Farm, Diddersley and Kirklands which ultimately flow into Gilling Beck and Holme Beck. The drainage of the existing road would continue broadly as existing with new balancing ponds and retention ditches that would ensure that the rate of discharge would be the same as that for agricultural land and would reduce the risk of serious pollution from an incident on the road.

8.8 The ES also stated the environmental benefits would be on:

Noise – changes would be less than 3 dB(A) and these changes were not significant. Proposed mitigation measures were limited to the use of a low noise wearing course to the new carriageway;

Landscape - six other properties would experience slight beneficial visual impacts as a result of carriageway relocation and proposed planting;

Heritage - the setting of two listed buildings would benefit from proposed landscape mitigation measures and enhancement of the surrounding landscape;

Physical Fitness - all important existing roads, bridleways and footpaths links used by pedestrians and cyclists would be maintained and in part extended. Crossing the A66 has been made safer by the introduction of central reserves; and

Journey Ambience - driver stress has been reduced and a new lay-by created ion the eastbound carriageway.

8.9 The key outcomes of the POPE evaluation are as follows:

NOISE

- Traffic flows are largely as predicted in the ES and it is likely that noise due to traffic is as expected.

- A low noise surface has been used for the new eastbound carriageway. Impacts are as expected.

- Observed traffic flows fall within the low and high growth scheme forecasts. Therefore, it is expected that the effects on noise have been beneficial as predicted.



44

LOCAL AIR QUALITY

- Analysis illustrates that traffic flows do not vary by +/- 5000ADT compared to those originally predicted.

- As expected it is likely that there have been benefits for properties where traffic has moved further away and disbenefits where traffic has moved closer. Impacts are as expected.

GREENHOUSE GASES

- There has been an outturn increase of +161 tonnes of carbon in the opening year, a 4% increase compared to if the improvement had not been built. This can be attributed to the increase in traffic flows since the scheme opened. The AST forecast a 6% increase.

LANDSCAPE

- Due to the rural nature of the area there are very few residential properties with views to the Scheme and hence the impacts are considered to be as expected.

- Mitigation appears to have been implemented in accordance with the As Built drawings included in the HEMP and in line with the ES written descriptions. Impacts are as expected.

HERITAGE OF HISTORIC RESOURCES

- Mitigation by design had a positive influence and reduced the number of sites that would be affected by the scheme.

- The scheme design included preservation in situ and a comprehensive exercise of field assessment, recording and analysis.

- Listed buildings have not been directly affected. Landscaping has improved the setting of these buildings.

- Mitigation by recording, as prescribed by the ES, has been implemented, as expected. Impacts are as expected.

BIODIVERSITY

- Ecological mitigation would appear to have been implemented largely as proposed although further information would be required to fully evaluate biodiversity e.g. in relation to translocation, wildflower seeding and fauna. Based on the information available it is likely that impacts are as expected

WATER

- Very little information has been made available but there is nothing to suggest that the mitigation measures are functioning other than as intended.

- Further information would be required to fully evaluate this sub-objective.

- Impacts are likely to be as expected.



45

PHYSICAL FITNESS

- The crossing points and new links between rights of way have improved the opportunities for walking and cycling as expected.

- Provision for pedestrians, cyclist and equestrians has largely been implemented as expected however feedback from Parish Council suggests that these are not providing the expected benefits.

- Some comments have been received regarding visibility at crossings and provision for equestrians and these should be circulated within the HA to inform future schemes

- Likely to be as expected although no survey information to confirm numbers.

JOURNEY AMBIENCE

- There is no change in visual amenity from the road to the surrounding area.

- Driver stress is likely to have improved due to dual carriageway easing congestion, allowing for safe overtaking and also improved junctions, although the safety of these has been commented upon locally.

- Lay-bys are provided/retained as expected.



46

Key Points from Section 8: Environmental Evaluation

Noise and Air Quality - Based on traffic flows it is likely that local noise and air quality impacts are as expected;

Greenhouse Gases – 4% increase in Carbon in first year of opening, compared to a 6% increase forecasted;

Landscape – Mitigation measures appear to have been implemented as expected and to be establishing satisfactorily. No ES plans or figures were available to POPE in support of the ES written summary descriptions of mitigation measures and it has not been possible to compare the scheme as built to the ES biodiversity drawings. It is anticipated that subject to successful ongoing establishment the landscape mitigation measures should fulfil their long term objectives. Monitoring of vegetation was not included in the HEMP but is likely to take place as part of the ongoing management and maintenance of the road corridor and this should be reviewed as part of the Five Year After study.

Biodiversity – – No ES plans or figures were available to POPE in support of the ES written summary descriptions of mitigation measures and it has not been possible to compare the scheme as built to the ES biodiversity drawings. Furthermore no after opening survey or monitoring information has been made available, however it is not clear if these surveys were undertaken. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the scheme, although limited information was available to POPE regarding any measures incorporated for fauna. It is too early to evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation and biodiversity should be considered in more detail at the Five Year After stage when any monitoring information, including grassland translocation areas and animal mortality data, might be available to help inform the review.

Cultural Heritage - Impacts on listed buildings are as expected, as are the impacts on archaeology based on the information available. The Archaeological Post Excavation Assessment has been produced but has yet to be published and finds deposited with the local museum and this aspect could be confirmed at Five Years After.

Water Environment – Based on the information available it would appear that mitigation measures have been incorporated into the scheme as expected and it is likely that the impacts on the water environment are as expected. However, further information would be required to fully evaluate the effectiveness of the scheme in relation to water issues and it is suggested that this is included within the Five Year After study.

Physical Fitness – Provision for pedestrians, cyclist and equestrians has largely been implemented as expected although some comments were received relating to crossing points and use of these by pedestrians and equestrians; and

Journey Ambience – It is considered that impacts on Journey Ambience are generally as expected although local concern has been raised regarding safety of junctions.



47

9. Accessibility and Integration

INTRODUCTION

9.1 Accessibility and Integration are the remaining objectives of the five government objectives for transport according to the NATA transport appraisal guidance. As part of the schemes appraisal at the time of entry to the Highways Agency TPI (now Major Schemes) programme in 2002, these objectives were assessed in the AST (see Annex A).

ACCESSIBILITY

Severance

Forecast

9.2 The AST stated that the scheme would have a slight beneficial impact upon severance, with only a small number of people affected:

‘The new dual carriageway can be crossed in two stages, with a wide central reserve. Separated equestrian/pedestrian crossings have been provided with corrals in the wide central reserve.’ (see figure 9.1).

Figure 9.1 – Example Crossing Point with Widened Central Reserve and Equestrian Corral

Evaluation

9.3 Pre-improvement the A66 deterred pedestrian movements along and across it, due to perceived danger of fast vehicle speeds and the high proportion of heavy goods vehicles. As part of the scheme new crossing facilities have been implemented that



48

should enable safer crossing of the road However, consultation with local councils raised some safety issues with the equestrian crossings.

9.4 Overall however, it can be concluded that the impacts of the scheme have been as expected in the AST due to the low numbers of people affected.

Access to the Transport System

Forecast

9.5 The AST stated that the scheme would have no impacts on access to the transport system.

Evaluation

9.6 There is no significant public transport activity in the area or major area of population to be served. It is likely that the journey time savings discussed in section 5 will assist reliability of long-distance coaches and the bus services shown below. However, any improvement in reliability as a result of reduced congestion and improved junctions would be low, and the number of passengers affected would also be low.

9.7 A limited bus service is provided in the A66 corridor:

78A service between Barnard Castle and Eppleby, which operates one weekday journey (Wednesday);

79/79X service Barnard Castle to Richmond, Monday to Saturday daytime service (to early evening), approximately every 2 hours. However, only a small section of these routes operate along the A66, instead they serve various villages off the main corridor; and

An additional limited stop service (355) operates between Ryhope and Blackpool via Middlesbrough, Friday to Monday one journey per day operating from May to November.

9.8 Overall it can be concluded that the impacts of the scheme on access to the transport system have been neutral as expected in the AST.

INTEGRATION

9.9 The integration objective consists of two main elements:

Interchange with other transport modes; and

Land Use Policy

9.10 The AST stated that the scheme would no impact on integration.

Transport Interchange

9.11 TAG defines that for transport interchange the AST requires:

“…a qualitative description of the ways in which passenger interchange would be improved by the strategy or plan in the study area and on particular modes should be given in the qualitative column. An entry in the quantitative column of the AST should include the number of interchanges improved, the number of new interchanges created and the approximate number of users affected (TAG Unit 3.7.1 section 1.2)”

Forecast

9.12 The AST states that the scheme will have no impact on transport interchange. It was not the intention of the scheme to directly improve (the limited) public transport



49

services and public transport interchanges and no improvement to facilities have been made as a result of the scheme.

Evaluation

9.13 No improvements have been made to interchanges. Overall, there is likely to have been no impact as expected in the AST.

Land Use Policy

9.14 For land use policy, TAG defines that:

“This sub-objective summarises the assessments made of the extent to which the proposal is integrated with land use proposals and policies and with proposals and policies concerning transport (all modes). The assessment of proposals in the context of national, regional, strategic and detailed local planning policies is included in current recommended appraisal practice (TAG Unit 3.7.2 Para 1.1.1).”

Forecast

9.15 The AST states that there would be no impact on land use policy.

Evaluation

9.16 Improvements in the A66 corridor were supported in various local policy documents.

North East Regional Transport Strategy

9.17 The North East Regional Assembly has produced the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the North East (The North East of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021, July 2008). This incorporates the Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) originally prepared in 2001/02, to ensure that planning and transport are more integrated. The key transport objectives of the RTS are to:

Improve access to markets and contribute to the competitiveness of North East businesses;

Provide effective and sustainable access to the North East for inbound tourism;

Improve access to employment, learning, health facilities and services for all sections of society;

Support the development of a dynamic labour market for North East businesses;

Minimise the impact of the movement of people and goods on the environment and climate change;

Reduce the need to travel, particularly by private modes of transport;

Promote and increase the proportion of journeys made by public transport, cycling and walking through demand management measures;

Improve connectivity and accessibility between the Tyne & Wear and Tees Valley city regions;

Improve access and connectivity to the North East's international gateways;

Making best use of resources and existing infrastructure; and

Ensure safe transport networks and infrastructure.

9.18 The A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner improvement scheme will have contributed to a number of the above objectives (shown in bold), especially those to improve accessibility and improve connectivity.



50

County Durham Structure Plan (1999 to 2006)

9.19 The County Durham Structure Plan approved in 1999 and covering the period to 2006 included a general policy to address the approach to transport network improvement proposals. Policy 30 stated that improvements would be assessed against various environmental and regeneration criteria.

9.20 In relation to improvements on the A66, the structure plan gave support to the dualling of the road and was included in a list of schemes the council wanted to be implemented.

North Yorkshire County Council Local Transport Plan

9.21 The first Local Transport Plan (LTP) covered the period 2001 – 2006 and was issued in July 2000. Objective 6 of the plan was to reduce the number and severity of casualties arising from road accidents in the County. The County Council was particularly concerned about the high number of accidents on the A66. The County Council viewed upgrading between Scotch Corner and the County boundary to the west as a high priority.

9.22 The 2006 – 2011 LTP issued in March 2006 noted that the Highways Agency intended to complete the dualling of the A66 from Penrith to Scotch Corner, with two schemes proposed within North Yorkshire; Greta Bridge to Stephen Corner and Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner. The County Council supported in principle these schemes recognising the need to improve the road safety record of the A66 and their importance to economies of the North West and north east of England. The County also expressed support for a third scheme, Stephen Bank to Carkin Moor

Durham County Council Local Transport Plan

9.23 The Durham County Council LTP 2001 – 2006 recognised safety as a problem along the A66.

While the A66 trans-Pennine route experiences no major capacity constraints, major safety problems exist along this route (Objective S1)

9.24 The 2006 – 2011 LTP stated that the Regional Economic Strategy (prepared October

2002) recognised the importance of continuing investment and improvement in the transport infrastructure and identified upgrading of the A66 as a priority.

Richmondshire Local Plan

9.25 The Richmondshire Local Plan was approved in 1998. An alteration to the plan, adopted in 2001 included a specific policy related to the A66 improvements. Policy 87A stated:

Land will be safeguarded in Richmondshire District west of Scotch Corner, where required for the upgrading of the A66 to dual carriageway standard. Detailed proposals should be supported by an environmental statement and include design and landscaping measures, which minimise the impact on the surrounding area.

9.26 The Plan included the scheme as a “major road proposal”. The policy was justified by the Government’s proposals to address accident problems and improve road safety.

Summary

9.27 The above assessment shows that the scheme was supported in and contributed to achieving the objectives of local plans and policies.



51

QUALITY OF LIFE AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION

9.28 Quality of life and social exclusion are not specific WebTAG sub-objectives, but they are recent additions to the POPE process following reviews of POPE by external parties. However, the improvement scheme will not have impacted greatly in these 2 areas as the scheme passes through a very lightly populated, rural area. The new crossing provided by the scheme will improve access for pedestrians and cyclists but there have been no improvements to public transport facilities or services as a result of the scheme.

Key Points from Section 9: Accessibility and Integration

The impacts on accessibility and integration have been assessed as generally being as expected in the AST;

Severance has improved for the small number of pedestrians and other non-motorised users due to the improved crossing facilities;

The scheme has contributed to achievement of objectives in local plans and policies;



52

10. Conclusions and Evaluation Summary Table 10.1 In order to summarise the evaluation of the impacts of the A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch

Corner Improvement, a review of the Appraisal Summary Table (AST) has been undertaken and an Evaluation Summary Table (EST) has been produced. The AST is re-produced in Annex A. The EST which summarises the findings from this report is shown in Annex B.

SUMMARY

10.2 Opened in September 2007, the A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner Improvement Scheme, aimed to improve safety in the corridor. The scheme was implemented to address the following objectives:

Improve the poor safety record;

To ease congestion when essential maintenance work is carried out; and

Improve journey times and reliability.

10.3 The main conclusions from this study are:

The A66 between Carkin Moor and Scotch Corner is used by between 16,000 and 16,500 vpd;

This is an increase of between 2% and 7% from before the scheme opened, in line with expected background growth;

Compared to the actual traffic flows, predicted flows were reasonably accurate; Journey times have decreased by up to 1 minute; The number of accidents has increased in the first 19 months since scheme

opening, but not at a statistically significant level; Some adverse comments received from local parish and district councils

regarding safety at junctions; Outturn travel time benefits are lower than expected, as journey times in the

peaks have decreased less than expected; Costs are lower than predicted; Accident benefits can not be evaluated at this stage; The outturn BCR of 3.0 compares to the forecast of 5.8; Environmental effects generally as expected; and Effects on accessibility and integration are as expected.

10.4 At this stage it is too early to assess whether or not the scheme has been successful in meetings all its objectives. Journey times along the Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner section of the A66 have improved. Whilst there has been an increase in accidents in the period since opening compared to the average before it was not the aim of the scheme to reduce total accidents. It is also normal for accidents to be assessed over a longer period, such as at least three years. The five year after study will assess accidents changes over a longer period and will be able to provide firmer conclusions.



53

Objective Objective Achieved?

Improve poor safety record Increased number of accidents at OYA stage, but too early too assess with any confidence

Ease congestion when essential maintenance work is carried out

Increased highway capacity likely to reduce congestion during maintenance

Improve journey times and reliability Yes



54

Annex A: Appraisal Summary Table (AST)

Annex B: Evaluation Summary Table (EST)



55

Option: A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner Improvement

Description: , opened in 2007

OBJECTIVE SUB-OBJECTIVE QUALITATIVE IMPACTS QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT

Noise Low noise surface used for scheme. Observed traffic flows fall between the low and high growth forecasts. Therefore it is expected that the effects of the scheme on noise are beneficial as predicted.

Benefit

Local air quality Observed traffic flows fall between the low and high growth forecasts. Therefore it is expected that the effects of the scheme on local air quality are beneficial as predicted

Benefit

Greenhouse Gases Increased greenhouse gases after opening, but less than expected. 4% increase in carbon, resulting from increased traffic flows in area. Compares to prediction of 6% increase

Adverse

Landscape/Townscape Mitigation measures appear to have been implemented as expected and to be establishing satisfactorily. It is anticipated that subject to successful ongoing establishment the landscape mitigation measures should fulfil their long term objectives

Slight Adverse

Heritage Impacts on listed buildings are as expected, as are the impacts on archaeology based on the information available Slight Adverse

Biodiversity Mitigation measures have been incorporated in to the scheme, although limited information was available to POPE regarding any measures incorporated for fauna. It is too early to evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation and biodiversity should be considered in more detail at the Five Year After stage

Slight Adverse

Water Environment Based on the information available it would appear that mitigation measures have been incorporated into the scheme as expected and it is likely that the impacts on the water environment are as expected

Neutral Impact

Physical fitness Provision for pedestrians, cyclist and equestrians has largely been implemented as expected although some comments were received relating to crossing points and use of these by pedestrians and equestrians

Slight benefit

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Journey Ambience It is considered that impacts on Journey Ambience are generally as expected although local concern has been raised regarding safety of junctions

Large beneficial Impact

Accidents Increased number of accidents in first 1.5 years since opening, but too early to assess impact on fatal and serious accidents.

+2.1 accidents on average per year Too early to assess SAFETY

Personal Security No changes to street lighting, as expected. Neutral

Transport Economic Efficiency

Improvement to journey times lower than expected. Scheme costs lower than predicted. Journey time benefits lower than predicted.

Journey times up to a minute quicker. PVB £31 PVC £10.2m BCR 3.0

Reliability New dual carriageway, improving reliability as expected. Route stress on A66 before 73%, One Year After 21%.

Beneficial Economy

Wider Economic ImpactsNo impact as expected No impact No impact

Option values No impact as expected No impact No impact

Severance Two stage pedestrian and equestrian crossings provided. Some safety issues raised by horse riders, but impacts as expected.

Low number of people effected. Slight beneficial impact. ACCESSIBILITY

Access to transport system

Bus services and users likely to benefit from reduced journey times and more reliable journeys, but limited service available, so no impacts as expected.

No impact No impact

Transport Interchange No Impact, limited PT service available. No impact No impact

Land Use Policies Scheme supports number of local policies and plans. No impact No impact

Quality of Life No impact as expected. No impact No impact INTEGRATION

Social Inclusion No impact as expected No impact No impact



56

Annex C: Environmental Evaluation

Introduction

This section evaluates the scheme performance against the environmental sub-objectives for highways schemes as defined in WebTAG.

Documents Obtained

Copies of the following documents have been used in the compilation of this section of the report:

Environmental Statement Volume 1 (September 2002), Volume 2 (also September 2002) including Part 1 Landscape, Part 2 Ecology and Part 3 Cultural Heritage. Figures were noted as being separately bound in Volume 1a of the Environmental Statement, however these have not been made available;

Appraisal Summary Table;

Archaeological Post-excavation Assessment (November 2008), Oxford Archaeology North;

Handover Environmental Management Plan (HEMP) October 2007 (2nd Draft May 2008); and

Highways Agency newsletters and web based scheme information. A full list of all the information requested and received for the compilation of this report is included in Appendix D.

Site Inspection

Site inspection of the scheme was carried out in May 2009.

Consultations

Statutory environmental organisations (Natural England, English Heritage and the Environment Agency) and the local authorities have been contacted regarding their views on the impacts they perceive the road scheme has had on the environment, and whether they feel that the mitigation measures implemented have been effective. As a result of the initial consultations, contact was also made with officers of the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

In relation to noise and air quality, the Environmental Health department of Durham County Council were also contacted.

The following table sets out the organisations contacted, related area of interest and their outline comments.



57

Table C.1 - Summary of Environmental Consultees

Organisation Field of Interest Comments

Natural England contacted via telephone and email

Biodiversity & Landscape

No concerns. No monitoring or evaluation work in the area. No feedback from AONB teams.

English Heritage contacted via telephone and email

Heritage No response.

Environment Agency contacted via telephone and email

Water No response.

North Yorkshire County Council contacted via telephone and email

General Feedback from biodiversity and heritage teams noting that members of staff with knowledge of the scheme are no longer in post, but in general there are no concerns or issues.

North Yorkshire County Council Rights of Way Officer contacted via email

Rights of way No response.

Durham County Council contact via telephone and email

General (inc. Environmental Health)

No ongoing monitoring of air quality or noise issues.

North Pennines AONB Officers via forwarded email

Landscape No feedback provided.

Melsonby Parish Council, incoming email via Clerk of Parish Council

Rights of way Equestrian use of crossings

It is understood from the Highways Agency Part 1 Team that the Scheme is in the early stages of the claim period and it is not yet clear how many claims are likely to be successful. Additional information relating to Part 1 Claims will be included in the five year after evaluation.

Evaluation

Traffic Flows Defined in the Environmental Statement

The Environmental Statement (ES) outlined the need for the scheme and included data on the annual average daily totals (AADT) for traffic flows summarised as follows.

The AADT for the Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner section of the route in 2000 was 13,600 vehicles;

Summer peak values for the section of route approach 17,000 vehicles per day;

Growth forecast were 17,950 vehicles per day and 20,800 vehicles per day for low traffic and high traffic growth respectively, for the design year of 2021 (15 years after opening);

Single figures for the forecast are weighted 60/40 for low growth/high growth, the resulting figure is approximately 19,100 vehicles per day); and

The route carried approximately 37% of heavy goods vehicles (HGV’s).



58

Traffic Flow Updates

Further detail on the comparison of predicted and observed traffic flows is provided in Chapter 4 of this report. Three of the environmental sub-objectives (noise, local air quality and greenhouse gases) are directly related to traffic flows and references to the updated traffic survey findings are included in the relevant topic, as appropriate.

Noise

Predicted Impacts

The AST indicated that increases in noise levels would be higher in the ‘Do Minimum’ scenario than the ‘Do Something’.

The ES concluded that both the ‘Do Minimum’ and ‘Do Something’ situations would result in changes of less than 3 dB(A) and that these changes were not significant.

Proposed mitigation measures outlined in the AST and ES were limited to the use of a low noise wearing course to the new carriageway (expected to reduce road traffic noise by at least 2 dB(A)) and, where applicable, noise insulation to properties.

Approved scheme

The noise assessment presented in the ES addressed the predicted road traffic noise at three key stages, including:

Road traffic noise in the existing situation;

Predicted road traffic noise in opening year (stated as 2006); and

Predicted road traffic noise in the design year (stated as 2021). The ES selected individual properties in critical locations. The predicted prevailing road traffic noise (LA10, 18 hr) ranged between 70 to 80 dB(A), with the highest levels at Granary Cottage and at Grenton (next to Melsonby crossroads).

The ES also noted that the following locations had noise recording levels of less than 68 dB(A):

The caravan site;

Gatherley Moor Cottages;

Gilling Bank;

Holly Garth;

Scotch Corner Hotel; and

West View Bungalow. The ES identified that when comparing the ‘Do Minimum’ and ‘With Scheme’ situations for the predicted opening year (2006) there would be a net reduction of road traffic noise, ranging between a 0 to 1.4 dB(A) decrease.

The same comparison for the design year (2021) between the ‘Do Minimum’ and ‘With Scheme’ situations identified that the net effect of the scheme would also be a reduction in road traffic noise, ranging between a 0 to 1.4 dB(A) decrease.

In terms of mitigation, the ES noted that the wearing course for the scheme was proposed as a low-noise, thin course and that this was to be applied to the new and to the altered



59

carriageway of the A66. The ES predicted that this would reduce traffic noise by approximately 2-4 dB(A).

Other mitigation included the provision of noise insulation for eligible properties. Criteria for eligibility included properties where noise levels were predicted to exceed 68 dB(A), that the noise levels would increase by at least 1 dB(A) and that the contribution to the increase in traffic noise level from the new or altered roads was predicted to be at least 1 dB(A). Furthermore the properties must be located within 300m of the new or altered road and must be occupied before it was first opened to traffic. The ES noted that Hargill House and the Scotch Corner Hotel would be eligible for noise insulation.

The ES concluded that for general environmental noise, the detectable difference was usually taken as being 2 or 3 dB(A) and that these changes were not considered to be significant. Furthermore a review of the traffic flow between 10pm and 6am (addressing effects of traffic on sleep disturbance) had identified that the percentage traffic flow between these times was not predicted to cause a change in nuisance.

In summary the changes in road traffic noise during a 15 year period following opening of the scheme, in both the ‘Do Minimum’ and ‘With Scheme’ situations, were predicted to be less than 3 dB(A).

Modification to Scheme

This report has not been made aware of any modifications to the scheme since the ES.

Consultation Comments

Information provided by the Employers Agent notes that the following locations were identified as being eligible for noise insulation, however the offer was declined:

Sedbury Lodge; and

The Vintage Motel. The feedback from the local authority environmental health team suggests that there are no current concerns of the noise impacts associated with the scheme.

Key Findings

Data and analysis on traffic flows are included in Chapter 4 of this report. The data analysis shows that overall the traffic flows identified during the most recent survey are very similar to forecasts flows in the TAR for the A66. There have been some increases in traffic on side roads but the actual numbers are still low.

The feedback from the local authority environmental health team suggests that there are no current concerns of the noise impacts associated with the scheme.

The ES predicted that Hargill House and the Scotch Corner Hotel would be eligible for noise insulation however subsequent information provided by the Employers Agent has noted that Sedbury Lodge and The Vintage Motel are eligible. This suggests that predicted noise impacts for specific locations are not as expected.

As expected, a low noise wearing course has been used to surface new and existing sections of carriageway.



60

Table C.2 - Summary Table of Predicted Noise Effects

Origin of Assessment

Summary of Predicted Effects Assessment

AST The use of low noise wearing course to surface the new carriageway would result in an overall reduction in road traffic noise.

The quantitative measure for noise has been defined in the AST as No. of people annoyed:

Do Minimum - 13.4

Do Something - 12.2

Estimated population annoyed by noise - 1.2

EST Traffic flows are largely as predicted in the ES and it is likely that noise due to traffic is as expected.

A low noise surface has been used for the new eastbound carriageway.

Impacts as expected.

Local Air Quality

Predicted Impacts

The AST predicted road side NO2 and PM10 would be reduced but both of these pollutants would exceed the recommended values. Overall the AST concluded that 15 properties would experience better air quality and no properties would experience worse air quality.

The ES expected that the overall effect of the proposals on air quality would not be significant. Some properties would experience a small detrimental impact whereas others would benefit.

Approved scheme

The ES included assessment of air quality at local and regional levels.

When assessing local impact on properties, background concentrations of pollutants were considered. The ES stated that carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon and particulates pollutant levels were predicted to be lower than National Air Quality (NAQ) objectives (for both existing and ‘With Scheme’ for all years, at each location assessed). Existing and future pollutant levels were predicted to be highest at the Scotch Corner Hotel.

The ES made detailed reference to the effects of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) on potential receptors. In summary the ES identified that for the ‘Do Minimum’ situation NO2 would be higher than the annual average standard in 7 locations. The ES noted that the ‘Do Something’ situation would (for opening year) reduce the predicted levels overall (i.e. at all 7 locations), with 3 locations being reduced to below the recommended standard, these included:

The Lodge (Hargill);

The Lay-by Café; and

The Vintage Motel. Regional impact assessment showed the net effect on total traffic emissions would be an overall increase (with the exception of particulates) and this might be attributed to the increase speeds with the scheme.



61

The regional assessment also noted that the increase of CO emissions of 50% was due entirely to the predicted increase in light duty vehicles travelling at an increased speed from 110KPH to 120 KPH.

There were some small detrimental impacts from a slight increase in CO but these did not exceed National Air Quality Objectives.

The ES concluded that overall the impacts would not be significant and that more detailed air quality assessment need not be undertaken.




The Environmental Health Department of Durham County Council has confirmed that no previous or ongoing air quality monitoring has been carried out.

Key Findings

Traffic surveys undertaken for POPE in 2009 have identified that the outturn traffic flows are generally as predicted with only negligible variations and that these do not exceed a +/- 5000ADT variation from those identified by the ES. Therefore it is assumed for POPE that the environmental impacts related to air quality are as predicted.

The feedback from the local authority environmental health team suggests that there are no current concerns of the air quality impacts associated with the scheme.

Based on this information it is likely that local air quality impacts are as expected.

Table C.3 - Summary Table of Predicted Local Air Quality Effects



AST Predicted roadside NO2 is reduced to 33ppb but still exceeds the recommended value of 21ppb. Predicted roadside PM10 is reduced to 66.3ug/m3 but still exceeds the recommended value of 50ug/m3.

The quantitative measure for air quality has been defined in the AST as No. of properties experiencing:

better air quality = 15

worse air quality = 0

-5.2 NO2

-21.4 PM10

EST Analysis illustrates that traffic flows do not vary by +/- 5000ADT compared to those originally predicted.

As expected it is likely that there have been benefits for properties where traffic has moved further away and disbenefits where traffic has moved closer.

Impacts as expected.

Greenhouse Gases

Background

The assessment of the impacts of transport schemes on emissions of greenhouse gases is now one of the environment sub-objectives. WebTAG notes that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is considered the most important greenhouse gas for transport and therefore has been used as the key indicator for the purposes of assessing the impacts of transport options on climate change. Changes in CO2 levels are considered in terms of equivalent tonnes of carbon



62

released as a result of the scheme under evaluation. Carbon emissions should be estimated for the 'with scheme' and 'without scheme' options for each year of the appraisal period.

Predicted Impacts

Changes in CO2 levels are considered in terms of equivalent tonnes of Carbon released as a result of the scheme under evaluation. The impact of greenhouse gases for a road scheme is based on the net change in emissions of tonnes of carbon in the atmosphere. Calculations of carbon emissions are based on field consumption which is in turn base upon traffic volumes, speeds and consumption. Carbon emissions should be estimated for the 'with scheme' and 'without scheme' options for each year of the appraisal period.

The ES does not assess greenhouse gases as a separate topic and no previous COBA modelling has been undertaken, however the AST includes a summary of qualitative impacts that states that a slight increase in CO2 emissions is expected due to a predicted increase in speed on the new dual carriageway. The AST also includes quantitative measures of a do-minimum scenario of 12.4 kilo-tonnes and a do-something scenario of 13.2 kilo-tonnes and an assessment prediction of +0.8kilo-tonnes per year change in CO2 emissions.




No consultation comments have been received.

Evaluation

Opening Year Evaluation based on DMRB Method

The POPE evaluation of the carbon emissions of this scheme is based on the methodology given in DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 Part 1 and supported by a spreadsheet6. The spreadsheet method calculates Carbon emission values from the fuel consumption values using average densities for petrol and diesel and carbon proportions by mass. Fuel consumption is calculated for the key links in the network around the scheme based on: link length, AADT, average speed, road type, and proportion of HGV’s.

The DMRB methodology is used to calculate carbon emissions for the ‘Do Minimum’ and ‘Do Something’ scenarios for the opening year using outturn data on flows and speeds before (as a proxy for the ‘Do-Minimum’) and one year after scheme opening. The scheme impact is then calculated from the difference between the two scenarios.

Key Findings

The carbon emissions of vehicles using the network with and without the scheme are shown in Table C.4

6 DMRB Air Quality Spreadsheet, latest version, July 2007: DMRB Screening Method V1.03c (12-07-07) locked.xls



63

Table C.4 - Evaluation of Opening Year Carbon Emissions by Scenario

Scenario Carbon

(tonnes/year)

Do Minimum – No scheme 3,994

Do Something – With scheme 4,155

Difference +161

% Difference +4%

The difference between the emissions calculated for the modelled scenarios with and without the scheme shows the net impact is +161 tonnes of carbon in the opening year, a 4% increase compared to if the improvement had not been built. This can be attributed to the increase in traffic flows since the scheme opened. The AST forecast a 6% increase.

Landscape

Predicted Impacts

The AST identified that the major part of the proposals would be within an area of recognised landscape quality but that the route would closely parallel the existing road corridor and therefore would have limited impact. The AST also specifically identified that the alignment diverged at the eastern end of the scheme in order to avoid a significant belt of mature trees. The AST stated that mitigation measures would aid integration with the surrounding landscape. Overall a slight adverse/neutral impact was predicted.

The ES anticipated that there would be a slight adverse to neutral impact upon the character and quality of the existing landscape. The most significant impacts of the scheme would be the construction of the new junctions.

Only the property Grenton, at Gatherley Moor, was expected to experience a slight adverse visual impact at the design year (15 years after opening) however six other properties would experience slight beneficial impact as a result of carriageway relocation and proposed planting.

Approved scheme

The A66 improvements have largely been implemented within or directly adjacent to the existing road corridor. The AST stated that mitigation measures would aid integration with the surrounding landscape.

The ES described a number of general impacts and noted that these would be on the wider landscape rather than any significant adverse impacts to properties adjacent to the road. It also noted that these impacts would largely be due to the increased area of ‘blacktop’ (i.e. road surface), and loss of roadside vegetation to accommodate junction improvements and sightlines.

The ES also noted that in this location the existing A66 occupies a narrow corridor of land and therefore the majority of improvements would be outside the existing land take to the north of the current alignment and that in the majority of cases this would move traffic further from properties.



64

The ES stated that all but the eastern end of the study area is located within Richmondshire District Council’s Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV). The ES also noted that only three public rights of way directly join the A66:

Footpath (No 20) from the east of Scots Dike northwards to High Merrybent Farm;

Bridleway (No 2) from opposite Sedbury Home Farm northwards to Kneeton Hall; and

Footpath (No 1) from adjacent to Sedbury Lodge southwards through Sedbury Park. Assessment of visual impacts was undertaken at Year 1 of opening (2006/07) during winter (potentially at the greatest level of impact) and also at Year 15 (2021) considering both summer and winter views.

The key landscape impacts as identified within the ES are summarised as follows:

Scheme construction leading to slight adverse to neutral impact upon character and quality of landscape;

Loss of woodland in limited number of locations (about 0.79 hectares), particularly Gatherley Moor Quarry Plantation and Gatherley Moor Plantation;

Loss of mature trees in general and specifically at Kirklands House and Sedbury Home Farm; and

Demolition of properties, namely The Bungalow and Kirklands Grange. The key visual impacts as identified within the ES are summarised as follows:

Carkin Moor Farm, Warrener House and Grenton (Gatherley Moor Farm ) would experience slight adverse impacts at opening year;

Only Grenton (Gatherley Moor Farm) would experience a slight adverse impact at 15 Years from opening (the design year);

Construction of 3 at-grade junctions at Warrener Lane, Winston Crossroads and Melsonby Crossroads. Specifically, Melsonby Crossroads would be in close proximity to Grenton and Granary Cottage.

The ES also noted that a number of properties would also be subject to beneficial visual impacts as a result of carriageway relocation and proposed mitigation by the design year and locations included:

The Lodge (off Hargill);

No’s 1, 2 and 3 Gatherley Moor Cottages;

Kirklands Cottage; and

Kirklands Farm. The ES included mitigation proposals for the scheme developed around several objectives that addressed the pattern and character of the landscape, visual impacts on properties, the effects of provision of public rights of way, minimising the loss and degradation of existing landscape and ecological features and increasing nature conservation resources.

In order to achieve the objectives, the ES noted a number of mitigation proposals for the scheme, these are summarised as follows:

Optimised alignments of the road design;



65

Areas of new tree and shrub planting to the new highway verges and central reserve, to provide connections to existing hedgerows and maintain integrity, including use of locally present species and specification of local provenance stock;

Where appropriate use of diverse wildflower mixes for highway verges;

Retention of existing vegetation where possible Figure C.1 below;

Creation of wildlife habitats (including planting of balancing ponds, enhancing and creating new habitats in addition to meeting the primary engineering and drainage purposes);

Planting on private property by agreement (i.e. off site planting and enhancements); and

Use of local building materials for structures and to reflect the existing landscape character.

Figure C.1 – Mature trees and woodland retained as part of mitigation measures

Specific off site mitigation and enhancements were proposed for the following locations:

Hargill House (additional planting in garden to reinforce existing);

Caravan site at Gatherley Moor (reinforcement of vegetation along boundary); and

Sedbury Home Farm (planting to farm side of boundary wall). There was no existing carriageway lighting and no new lighting was proposed.




Natural England has responded to the consultation and state that there has been no monitoring or evaluation work with regard to landscape in that area. Furthermore it has had



66

no additional response back from the AONB. In conclusion Natural England has no views on the post scheme stage.

No other consultation comments have been received.

Key Findings

The mitigation proposals have been considered at the design stage. This included the design of the eastern end of the route to diverge to avoid a large block of woodland in this area. As a result the woodland block remains intact and adds to the diversity and structure of the landscape (Refer to Figure C.1, above). This has helped to integrate the scheme within the existing landscape. Additional mitigation planting has been implemented to reinforce this woodland block which will also be beneficial in the long term.

No ES plans or figures were available to POPE in support of the written ES summary descriptions of mitigation measures and it has no been possible to compare the scheme as built with the ES landscape plans. A Handover Environmental Management Plan which included As Built drawings was available from the Managing Agent Contractor (MAC) Team. Based on the site visit, landscape mitigation measures appear to have been implemented in accordance with these drawings and are establishing satisfactorily,

The improvements have largely been implemented within or directly adjacent to the existing road corridor and therefore wider physical impacts have been minimised.

Where possible the vegetation has been retained at the edge of the route corridor or removal limited by adaptation of the design. Junction locations have required the most significant loss of existing vegetation due to the wider areas required for construction and also the implementation of required sightlines. The proposed mitigation planting that has been implemented along the highway corridor is in character with the surrounding landscape. Furthermore hard features such as walls and gates have also been relocated or reinstated. Local materials have been used and therefore these also remain in keeping with local character.

Overall mitigation measures appear to have been implemented as expected. Evaluation at the Five Year After stage will identify the effects of this mitigation in the long term.

Offsite planting has been implemented at the following locations, which include additional areas noted in the HEMP:

Several standard trees at Carkin Moor Farm;

Infill planting to the frontage of Hargill House;

Caravan site at Gatherley Moor (reinforcement of vegetation along boundary); and

Sedbury Home Farm (planting to farm side of boundary wall). As expected no lighting has been incorporated into the Scheme.

The key visual impacts that were identified in the ES have been reviewed and visited during the site survey and are considered to be as expected. This includes the relevant footpaths (Nos 1 and 20 and also Bridleway No 2). Subject to the mitigation measures continuing to establish successfully then these visual impacts should reduce as expected.

In general the landscape mitigation measures are considered to be establishing well. Blocks and belts of tree and shrub planting appeared healthy and vigorous with few or no gaps in



67

the planting. Stakes and shelters are intact and secure. Verges and other grass areas were established and appeared to be under a regular maintenance regime.

Whilst the loss of mature woodland cannot be mitigated for in the short term there has been a considerable amount of replacement planting using native species. Over time this should continue to establish and should create tree belts and blocks of woodland that are in keeping with the character of the area and balance the loss of woodland. The ongoing establishment of this should be reviewed as part of the Five Year After Study.

The former locations of The Bungalow and Kirklands Grange (demolished as part of the works) have been incorporated into the existing landscape.

In general during the site visit, the road corridor was observed to be free of noxious weeds however there was a small infestation of teasel on the verges between Melsonby Crossroads and Gatherley Moor plantation Figure C.2 (below). This is an invasive species that can become dominant and reduce biodiversity value of not managed appropriately.

Figure C.2 - Infestation of teasel at Melsonby Crossroads

The consultation feedback provided by Natural England notes that there has been no monitoring or evaluation as part of its remit and this suggests that there are no current concerns of the scheme related to landscape or visual matters.

The HEMP includes management prescriptions for the ongoing maintenance and management of the landscape planting and seeded areas during the five year aftercare period. Subject to successful ongoing establishment the landscape mitigation measures should fulfil their long term objectives. It would be appropriate for this to be reviewed during the Five Year After study. The HEMP does not include any proposal for monitoring of this element.



68

Off site mitigation has been implemented:

Table C.5 - Summary Table of Predicted Landscape & Visual Effects

Origin of Assessment Summary of Predicted Effects Assessment

AST The major part of the proposals would be within an area of recognised landscape quality. Route closely parallels existing road corridor, so would have limited impact. The alignment diverges at the eastern end to avoid a significant belt of mature trees. Proposed mitigation measures would aid integration with the surrounding landscape.

Slight adverse/neutral effect

EST Due to the rural nature of the area there are very few residential properties with views to the Scheme and these are considered to be as expected.

Mitigation appears to have been implemented in accordance with the As Built drawings included in the HEMP and in line with the ES written descriptions.

As expected

Biodiversity

Predicted Impacts

The AST identified that the scheme would result in impacts upon habitats at local, parish, district and county level with direct loss and severance of habitats occurring and that there was potential for increase in badger road fatalities. The AST stated that mitigation measures would partly offset impacts. The AST concluded that overall the scheme would result in a slight adverse impact upon biodiversity.

The AST also stated that further detailed study was required to assess the potential impact on bats at selective locations.

The ES stated that the impacts on ecology and nature conservation would mostly affect habitats of low conservation value and no sites of national ecological importance would be affected. Any impacts would be minor and would be offset by measures such as tree and shrub planting and the creation of new habitats in verges and around the balancing ponds.

Approved scheme

Effects and biodiversity were covered in the Ecology and Nature Conservation chapter of the ES. The chapter noted that there were no Designated Sites of Nature Conservation Importance within the defined study area however the nearest designation of note included a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and 2 Sites of Local Nature Conservation Importance (SLNCI) approximately 1.5km from the existing line of the A66.

Habitats identified in the ES included:

Semi-natural broadleaved woodland;

Broadleaved plantation and coniferous / mixed plantation;

Scrub;

Hedge boundaries;

Various Grassland types (including unimproved / semi-improved and improved); and

Wetlands.



69

The ES also identified several types of fauna that had potential to be affected by the scheme. These are summarised below:

Badgers were noted to be present within the study area, protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Survey information was included within a separate confidential report (not viewed for this study);

Potential for roosting bats in mature trees, protected under both the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation Regulations 1994;

Roe Deer;

Bird fauna, noted as not specifically recorded but envisaged that the areas of woodland would be of value to birds and that the rank grassland verges would support small mammals that may in turn be predated by raptors such as kestrel; and

Invertebrates in general (noted as unrecorded) however a range of common butterfly species were present.

When describing the ecological impacts and mitigation measures the ES stated that the proposed scheme impacted primarily on habitats of low conservation value such as land under arable cultivation and improved pasture (due to the alignment of the scheme outside of the existing road corridor). Notwithstanding this general comment the ES also stated that more significant impacts outside the road corridor would be the loss of inter-field hedgerows and short sections of hedge along the northern side of the road corridor, primarily between Scots Dike and Kirklands House (however none of these were considered to be particularly significant in terms of their value or diversity.

The ES also noted that some standard trees within the inter-field hedgerows and lane side hedges would be lost as a result of the proposed carriageway and access roads onto the A66. It also noted that approximately 0.45ha of woodland would be lost at Gatherley Moor and 0.34ha of woodland would be lost (at Kirkland’s Garage).

The assessment stated that the new carriageway would impact upon a relatively small area of unimproved grassland along the western side of Forcett Lane, to the north of the A66. Although noted as not being particularly diverse (but with some interesting species) it should be translocated to a suitable receptor site on the verge of the new carriageway.

In relation to wetland habitats the ES noted that direct impacts would be limited to a minor field ditch and that this was of low conservation value and therefore impacts would be limited.

Reference to the impacts upon fauna in the ES was limited to more general comments. It noted that mammals and other taxa such as birds and amphibians could be more susceptible to fatalities with the isolation of habitats in a central reservation (due to isolation and lack of safe dispersal routes).

Mitigation measures proposed for the scheme included:

Appropriate method statements and pre-construction surveys and clearance, as necessary for relevant fauna and habitats;

Tree, shrub and hedgerow planting as part of the wider landscape scheme (including use of native and local provenance species where possible);

Inspection of standard (and mature) trees to ensure no visible signs of roosting bats, including appropriate measures if bats were identified;



70

Translocation, particularly of an area of unimproved roadside grassland;

Creation of additional habitat (within the highways boundary), namely wildflower swards;

The provision of balancing ponds and appropriate treatment of these with landscaping measures to increase biodiversity value; and

Implementation of sympathetic management regimes for habitats of conservation value (within the highways boundary).

The overall finding of the ES was that generally impacts would be minor adverse and could be offset by mitigation proposals.




The response received from Natural England noted that it currently had no remit to undertake evaluation or monitoring work in this area.

A response was received from the Biodiversity Officer of North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) who notes that no one who might have been involved in the scheme is still in post. However, in terms of impacts upon biodiversity they have not had any concerns raised by the public or other interested parties regarding the scheme.

NYCC has provided some anecdotal evidence for the area in general and note that the wetland area west of Scotch Corner holds a good breeding population of black headed gulls and that a pair of Mediterranean gulls have bred there. It also notes the general point that there has been no adverse impact on common buzzards which have been identified occasionally on this route (formerly uncommon, but increasing in the North East).

Key Findings

No ES plans or figures were available to POPE in support of the ES written summary descriptions of mitigation measures and it has not been possible to compare the scheme as built to the ES biodiversity drawings. A Handover Environment Management Plan was available from the MAC Team. Biodiversity measures appear to have been implemented in accordance with these drawings.

These measures include the planting of areas of trees, woodlands and a number of hedgerow sections. Given the relatively low nature conservation value of the previous existing inter-field hedgerows, it is anticipated that planting of new hedgerows and woodland belts would mitigate the loss.

Roadside verges currently comprise dense grassland. No ES plans or figures were available to POPE in support of the written ES summary descriptions of mitigation measures and it has no been possible to compare the scheme as built with the ES landscape plans in relation to the area of translocated grassland. The HEMP has noted that implemented mitigation measures include the translocation of topsoil for creation of species rich grassland and verges (nb. No information available on locations of these areas).

If the location of translocated material can be established then this should be considered as part of the Five Year After study. In addition, if relevant figures of the ES can be obtained for the Five Year After study, the proposed environmental function of each different mitigation



71

element as set out in the DMRB guidance. This would enable the current state of habitats to be more accurately evaluated.

Notwithstanding the lack of available figures, the key areas of ecological mitigation in relation to new habitats and features were viewed during the site visit. No animal fatalities were noted during the site survey work. It would appear that the new and replacement habitats have been created within the highway boundary as expected including species rich grassland, hedgerows and tree and shrub planting. Balancing ponds have also been designed using marshy grassland and marginal species.

A translocated bat roost has been located on the eastbound carriageway close to Sedbury Home Farm. The ES recommended that, prior to felling, trees should be visually inspected however there are no suggested requirements for long term monitoring. Therefore, there is no information relating to ongoing monitoring of bat roosts.

The ES noted that badgers are present within the study area, however further detail on this is included in a separate report which was not included with the requested environmental information. This information should be obtained and considered as part of the Five Year After evaluation report.

The ES also notes that the proposed balancing ponds would add to biodiversity value (see also Water Environment section). Furthermore, whilst not addressed by the Ecology chapter of the ES, the assessment of impacts on the Water Environment made reference to mitigation proposals that incorporate measures to allow passage of mammals through the watercourse network.

No after opening survey or monitoring information has been made available and no new surveys have been undertaken specifically for this report. Further information would be required to fully evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation measures.

However it should be noted that in terms of the growth and development of habitats it is very early to fully evaluate the success of many of the habitats (such as species rich grassland). Therefore the ongoing maintenance and establishment should be evaluated as part of the Five Year After study.

With regard to fauna very little information has been available for this report to enable an evaluation of the impacts of the scheme on the species mentioned in the ES. Animal mortality data was not available from the MAC at this stage but would hopefully be available for the Five Year After study. This would be relevant in establishing the effects on badger populations.

It is suggested that the consultation process as part of POPE should be extended for the Fiver Year After report to include the local Wildlife Trust and bat and badger groups who were consulted for the ES and therefore might have more detailed knowledge of the scheme.



72

Table C.6 - Summary Table of Predicted Biodiversity Effects


AST Habitats of local, parish, district and county level affected by scheme with direct loss and severance. Mitigation measures would partly offset impacts. Potential for increase in badger road fatalities. Further detailed study required to assess potential impact on bats at selective locations.

There are no quantitative measures defined for biodiversity.

Slight adverse effect

EST Ecological mitigation would appear to have been implemented largely as proposed although further information would be required to fully evaluate biodiversity e.g. in relation to translocation, wildflower seeding and fauna.

Based on the information available it is likely that impacts are as expected

Cultural Heritage

Predicted Impacts

The AST identified a number of impacts on specific archaeological sites but stated that impacts could be mitigated by preservation by record or by preservation in situ. The assessment predicted that impacts would be ‘slight adverse’.

The ES noted that the proposals would have adverse impacts on 11 sites of archaeological interest. The effects would be moderate at 4 sites and slight at two 7 sites. The remaining impacts would be small scale. Those identified as slight impacts included two scheduled monuments, Scot’s Dike and a Roman Fort (at Carkin Moor). Where it would be impossible to avoid disturbing an archaeological site, suitable measures would be used to mitigate the impact. There were two Grade II listed buildings along the route but none would be directly affected by the proposals.

Approved scheme

In relation to archaeological sites, the ES stated that a total of 16 sites were known or suspected to be lying within or immediately adjacent to the proposal road corridor. These were summarised (including reference to importance) as follows:

2 Scheduled Monuments of National importance, including Carkin Moor Roman Fort and a section of Scots Dike;

6 sites of Regional importance, including several sections of Roman Road, a potential Roman extra-mural settlement (east of Carkin Roman Fort), an Iron Age settlement and field system (west of Melsonby Crossroads), Iron Age/Romano-British enclosures and field systems (The Bungalow) and the site of an Iron Age settlement (The Vintage Motel);

3 sites of District importance, including an Iron Age field system (west of Melsonby Crossroads), Gatherley Moor Quarries and an Iron Age/Romano-British occupation and field system (Black Plantation); and

5 sites of local importance, including quarries, ridge and furrow, field boundaries (crop marks) and quarry pits (sites of).

The ES also provided details on the importance of the built environment and identified 2 Listed Buildings or buildings of special architectural or historic interest, these are summarised as follows:



73

Gatherley Moor Farmhouse (Grade II Listed, Regional Importance); and

Sedbury Hall Lodge (Grade II Listed, Regional Lodge). The ES noted that trial trenching found relatively few features of significance and as a result archaeological potential was lower than previously thought. The impact upon cultural heritage resources identified direct impacts (prior to mitigation) upon the identified archaeological sites or areas. These are summarised as follows:

8 sites (including 2 Scheduled Monuments, Scot’s Dike and Carkin Moor Roman Fort and 1 Regional site) would be slight adverse;

4 sites (3 regional) moderate adverse;

2 Grade II Listed Buildings would be unaffected; and

Overall effect would be slight adverse. In relation to mitigation, the ES identified that the physical preservation of archaeological sites would be the preferred option with the excavation of deposits (preservation by record) seen as a last resort.

Mitigation related to archaeological sites and built environment included mitigation by design. This approach led to the alignment of the proposed scheme being influenced to avoid important archaeological sites. This included the re-alignment and a reduction in size of the central verges at the following locations:

Scots Dike (width of central reservation and verges reduced to minimum), also including a change in construction technique to a raft foundation to reduce disturbance to archaeological features;

Realignment to the West of Scotch Corner; and

Realignment to avoid sites field boundaries, quarry pit sites and ridge and furrow earthworks.

In addition to mitigation by design and the re-alignment of the route, the ES provided details of a range of measures for the mitigation of impacts on the scheme where it had not been possible to avoid the disturbance or destruction of cultural heritage sites. This included a phased programme of investigation and recording undertaken in advance of, and also during, construction. The key stages of this are summarised as follows:

Phase 1 - Detailed evaluation, including a variety of additional surveys, trial trenching and building assessment as appropriate;

Phase 2 - Pre-construction investigation, including detailed excavation and recording of significant sites;

Phase 3 - Watching brief during construction, including investigation and recording of previously identified and also newly exposed sites;

Phase 4 - Post excavation assessment, including assessment of results from the archaeological investigations and potential for data analysis; and

Phase 5 - Post excavation analysis and publication. The ES noted that as a result of mitigation there would be direct impacts upon 12 sites and that the impact would be major (1 site), significant (4 sites), small (7 sites). Overall significance on these would be moderate (2 sites) and slight (for remaining 10 sites).



74

The ES also noted that neither of the two listed buildings would be directly affected by the scheme and that their settings would be slightly improved by the implementation of landscape planting.




No response has been received from English Heritage.

North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) responded that the persons who dealt with the scheme are no longer in post. NYCC did note that no monitoring of cultural heritage aspects was scheduled and therefore there are no concerns.

Key Findings

As expected, none of the identified Listed Buildings were directly affected by the scheme and they remain in close proximity to the road corridor. Their settings have been not been affected by the introduction of the additional carriageway and also the landscape mitigation (as described in earlier sections of this report) has had a beneficial effect.

Popular and academic reports on the scheme have not yet been published; however the Employers Agent was able to provide a copy of the Post-excavation Assessment.

The report includes investigation, assessment, options for curation and conservation, statements of national and local potential, through a programme of evaluation, additional field work including trial trenching and watching briefs.

The report notes that where preservation in situ was not possible, a programme of archaeological investigation was designed to ensure that the extent of any archaeological remains was determined and that they were appropriately investigated and characterised.

According to the report the mitigation for impacts on archaeological remains can broadly be summarised as evaluation, pre-construction investigation, construction watching briefs and post excavation assessment, analysis and publication. Other than publication (Phase 5) each of the other proposed mitigation phases have been addressed and therefore the effects of the scheme are considered to be as expected. Final publication and deposition of the finds with the local museum should be confirmed at the Five Year After stage.



75

Table C.7 - Summary Table of Predicted Cultural Heritage Effects


AST The proposals will have adverse impacts on 11 archaeological sites in all. Seven sites, including two SAMs and one regionally important site, will have slight adverse impacts while there will be moderate adverse impacts on four sites, three of which are of regional importance.

Extensive field investigations have established presence/absence of deposits throughout proposed corridor, and impacts can be mitigated through field survey (preservation by record) and design solutions (preservation in situ). Two Grade II listed buildings will not be physically affected by the scheme.

Slight adverse effect

EST Mitigation by design had a positive influence and reduced the number of sites that would be affected by the scheme.

The scheme design included preservation in situ and a comprehensive exercise of field assessment, recording and analysis.

Listed buildings have not been directly affected. Landscaping has improved the setting of these buildings.

Mitigation by recording, as prescribed by the ES, has been implemented, as expected.

As expected

Water Environment

Predicted Impacts

The AST stated that the area had good quality water, used for agricultural abstraction, local drainage and was a fish spawning area; typical of the locality. The highways drainage out-fall would be controlled by balancing ponds with pollutant interceptors Overall the impact was assessed as ‘neutral’.

The ES noted that existing water abstraction from springs or boreholes would not be affected by the proposals. The watercourses identified as potentially affected include several routes at Carkin Moor Farm, Diddersley and Kirklands which ultimately flow into Gilling Beck and Holme Beck. The drainage of the existing road would continue broadly as existing. Surface water from the new carriageway would discharge into existing watercourses via three balancing ponds and a retention ditch. These ponds and ditch would ensure that the rate of discharge would be the same as that for agricultural land and would reduce the risk of serious pollution from an incident on the road.

Approved scheme

The ES outlined the existing water conditions and then provided detail of discharge and mitigation proposals before undertaking a risk assessment for accidents and spillages.

The ES noted that watercourses located at:

Carkin Moor Farm - culverted under the A66 leading to Holme Beck and onto Gilling Beck;

Diddersley - minor stream leading to Holme Beck; and



76

A minor stream flowing south to a pond at Sedbury Estate and eventually outfalling to Gilling Beck.

Gilling Beck was identified as being classified A (Very Good) under the Environment Agency classification scheme. The ES broadly described the engineering work that would be included for each of the above locations:

Carkin Moor Farm - 14m extension to the culvert;

Diddersley - 20m extension to the concrete pipe; and

Minor stream - no work. Mitigation included filter drains and outfalls to balancing ponds. The proposals for mitigation also made reference to the incorporation of measures to allow passage of mammals through the watercourse network.

Figure C.3 – Example balancing pond providing additional ecological enhancements

The risk assessment included in the ES was based on predictions of the expected number of accidents per year, involving heavy goods vehicles carrying hazardous materials (for the design year of 2021). In summary the ES stated that:

The combined risk of a serious pollution incident from operational run off was 2.49 incidents in 100 years with a return period of 1 in 40 years (assuming no mitigation); and

Provision of pollutant cut-off facilities (i.e. mitigation) would reduce this risk to 0.87 incidents in 100 years, with a return period of 1 in 115 years.

The ES concluded that the risk of a serious pollution incident was initially low and would be reduced by mitigation measures. It noted that there was potential for pollution during



77

widening of the proposed culverts but that this would be managed by good contract management.




No consultation comments have been received.

Key Findings

No As Built highway drainage drawings have been made available to POPE but it would appear from the site visit that road drainage for the scheme is directed to the new attenuation ponds with the remainder discharging to existing outfalls. Pollution control measures have been incorporated into the attenuation pond.

It is not known whether there have been any pollution incidents or not as no information has been made available.

Based on site visits it would appear that mitigation measures have been incorporated into the scheme as expected and it is likely that the impacts on the water environment are as expected. However, further information would be required to fully evaluate the effectiveness of the scheme in relation to water issues and this should be considered in more detail as part of the Five Year After study.

Table C.8 - Summary Table of Predicted Water Environment Effects


AST Good quality water which is used for agricultural abstraction, local drainage and is a fish spawning area. This is typical of the locality. The highways drainage out-fall will be controlled by balancing ponds with pollutant interceptors.

The quantitative measure defined by the AST for the Water Environment is defined as ‘neutral’.

Neutral

EST Very little information made available but nothing to suggest that the mitigation measures are functioning other than as intended.

Further information would be required to fully evaluate this sub-objective.

Likely to be as expected

Physical Fitness

Predicted Impacts

The AST stated that amenity would be improved as the dual carriageway could be crossed in two stages, with a wide central reserve. The quantitative measure was assessed as ‘Zero’ as it was assumed that anyone walking or cycling would be doing so for more than 30 minutes as it is a remote, rural area’.

The ES noted that there would be a slight beneficial improvement in amenity for road users and for non-motorised users at the major junctions. This was noted as being due to the ability to cross the dual carriageway in two stages, using the wide central reserve as a refuge. The ES also noted that dedicated crossings for equestrians would be provided at Jagger Lane, Winston and Melsonby Crossroads with a central corral for increased safety.



78

Approved scheme

The ES did not include a specific chapter on physical fitness; however it did address the potential impacts upon Pedestrians, Equestrians and Communities. It included details of public footpaths and bridleways, cyclist provision, equestrian provision and community facilities.

The ES addressed the existing situation, assessment and mitigation on each of these resources on an individual basis. Therefore the following summaries of impacts and mitigation are sub-divided in a similar format.

Public footpaths and bridleways

The ES noted that public rights of way (PROW) were relatively sparse over this section of the A66 with the main facility for pedestrians and other users limited to the system of minor country roads. The ES also noted that there were, however, three PROW which joined the A66 but that did not directly cross the trunk road.

The A66 was identified in the ES as a deterrent to pedestrians due to the perceived danger of fast vehicle speeds and the high proportion of Heavy Goods Vehicles and that in relation to the proposed layout the proposed alignment would have a negligible affect on the pattern of current movements.

Figure C.4 – Example crossing point with widened central reserve and equestrian corral



79

Specific comment was made on several locations, these are summarised as follows:

Crossing from Warrener Lane, north to south, would involve walking 60m from the hammerhead along a dedicated track and crossing a widened central reserve;

Designated crossing were to be provided for all non-motorised users at Winston Crossroads, Jagger Lane and Melsonby Crossroads.

A new footpath link would be created between the bridleway opposite Sedbury Home Farm (Bridleway No.2), along a widened central reserve and connecting to the footpath at Sedbury Lodge.

Cyclist provision

In relation to public footpaths and bridleways the ES states that the impact would be neutral to beneficial for cyclists. The ES noted the justification for this as:

Additional space on the dual carriageway for cars and HGV’s to overtake; and

Improved crossing facilities at various locations.

Equestrian provision

The ES noted that the narrow verges along the A66 tended to limit use by equestrians. Furthermore crossing the trunk road could be problematic for equestrians as it involved waiting for the road to be clear in both directions.

The ES stated that equestrians would be able to use the A66 and its verges and would be able to cross at any point where central reserve barriers allowed and that the dedicated fenced corral areas would also provide links into the existing network of local side roads and bridleways.

The effect on equestrian amenity was assessed as neutral as the benefits of crossing improvements would be offset by the need to travel further along the existing network of local side roads.




Outside of the general consultation process, the initial consultation email has been forwarded to a Melsonby resident (former British Horse Society Access Officer) who has responded with comments. These are summarised as follows:

Visibility concerns relating to oncoming traffic (westbound) in the central reservation of the crossing from Melsonby to Gilling West.

In relation to the horse crossings it is noted that: “Most riders who have used these crossings find them very dangerous for various

reasons:

- “The bridleway that runs alongside the A66 and the crossings in the middle are made of very dense smooth tarmac which the horses are unable to grip properly. If they become nervous of fast moving traffic when they are in the coral in the middle of a very busy A66, they can “dance” around and are unable to hold their footing. This could cause the horse to slip, fall and unseat the rider, causing injury.



80

- Warning lights were promised for the horse crossings. Lights were installed but resembled traffic lights and were also too close to the crossings to have any effect. A few motorists apparently complained that the lights resembled traffic lights so they were taken away. Riders do not now have any way of warning traffic that they are crossing, which is unacceptable. Surely some lights with the words “slow down – horses crossing” could be installed at a reasonable distance from these crossings to ensure drivers have at least read and digested this fact.

- Lone riders do not feel safe crossing the A66 any more. It is not always possible for riders to go out in pairs. It has put many riders off crossing the A66 thus denying them access to some excellent bridleways on either side of this road.”

Similar comments were received from Melsonby Parish Council.

Key Findings

Changes and mitigation in relation to the rights of way network appears to have been implemented largely as expected.

The Managing Agent Contractor has confirmed that no post opening Non-motorised user surveys have been undertaken and therefore no assumptions can be made regarding increases or decreases in user numbers on the network of footpaths and bridleways.

Whilst received indirectly, the consultation from the member of Melsonby Parish Council provides anecdotal evidence on the scheme design. Future schemes should ensure that where suggestions for improvements are made, they are informed by the needs and requirements of relevant user groups, possibly during design and construction stages. This could be achieved through the formation of an Environmental Liaison Group (ELG) that includes representatives of smaller, non statutory bodies to enable them to constructively input into the design, assessment and implementation processes.

Other facilities, such as bridleway links, have been included in the scheme. In general the construction and finishes to these are to a high standard. In some locations mounting boxes/steps are not being regularly used and therefore they are becoming overgrown by herbaceous weeds. The lack of use of crossings and mounting boxes is an indicator that the crossing points may not be well used by equestrians. Furthermore there is little evidence on site that equestrians are using the verges. It is suggested that consultation should be extended at Five Years After to include the BHS.

No new surveys have been undertaken specifically for this POPE report.



81

Table C.9 - Summary Table of Predicted Physical Fitness Effects



AST Amenity improved as the dual carriageway can be crossed in two stages, with a wide central reserve.

The quantitative measure defined by the AST for Physical Fitness is ‘Zero, it is assumed that anyone walking or cycling will be doing so for more than 30mins as it is a remote, rural area’.

8 No. Pedestrians/cyclists per day.

EST Provision for pedestrians, cyclist and equestrians has largely been implemented as expected however feedback from Parish Council suggests that these are not providing the expected benefits.

Some comments have been received regarding visibility at crossings and provision for equestrians and these should be circulated within the HA to inform future schemes

Likely to be as expected although no survey information to confirm numbers.

Journey Ambience

Predicted Impacts

The AST referred to the provision of a new eastbound lay-by and continued access to the existing westbound lay-bys on the A66. The AST also noted that long range views would be retained by alignments and landscape treatments. The quantitative measure assessed the number of travellers affected as greater than 10,000. Overall it was assessed that there would be a large beneficial effect.

The ES did not include a specific chapter on Journey Ambience however it did address the potential impacts upon Vehicle Travellers.

Approved scheme

The ES noted that users of the proposed scheme would generally continue to experience the open and extensive views, particularly those towards the south across Gilling Beck and towards the Pennines.

The ES considered the effects of the scheme on driver stress in terms of frustration, fear and potential accidents/uncertainty.

In summary the ES noted that driver stress would be reduced due to the safer overtaking, reducing driver frustration and also the improved junctions which would eliminate perceived dangers and therefore reduce fear. Improvements to lay-bys would also improve journey ambience.

There was no overall conclusion on the significance of these effects.




No consultation comments have been received relating to Journey Ambience.



82

Key Findings

Driver Stress

As the dual carriageway is now in place and the junction improvements have been completed it is anticipated that driver stress is likely to have been reduced, although some concerns have been raised locally about the safety of the junctions and this would have a bearing on diver stress. The dual carriageway provides the opportunity for safer overtaking, is free of congestion and journey times have improved. During the site visits it was noted that the change from single carriageway to dual was clearly signed for drivers.

View from the Road

Views from the road remain much as existed prior to the improvements and have been maintained, particularly the open views to the south. As previously these tend to be available from the western extents of the scheme as the retained areas of woodland screen views from sections of the road closer to Scotch Corner.

Traveller Care

The new lay-by has been provided on the eastbound carriageway and the existing lay-by retained westbound. During the site visit it was noted that these were well used. The westbound lay-by included amenities in the form of a roadside café.

Figure C.5 – Lay-by

Overall the impacts at Year One After opening are considered to be as expected.



83

Table C.10 - Summary Table of Predicted Journey Ambience Effects



AST The eastbound carriageway of the proposed road will have access to the new lay-by, adjacent to which there is land for private development of related amenities. Westbound traffic will retain access to existing lay-by/amenity facilities.

Proposed alignments and landscape treatments will retain existing long range views.

The quantitative measure defined by the AST states that the ‘number of travellers affected is greater than 10,000’.

Large beneficial effect

EST No change in visual amenity from the road to the surrounding area.

Driver stress is likely to have improved due to dual carriageway easing congestion, allowing for safe overtaking and also improved junctions, although the safety of these has been commented upon locally.

Lay-bys provided/retained as expected

As expected



84

Key Points from Annex C: Environment

Noise and Air Quality - based on traffic flows it is likely that noise and air quality are as expected are as expected

Greenhouse Gases – +161 tonnes of carbon in the opening year, a 4% increase compared to if the improvement had not been built. This can be attributed to the increase in traffic flows since the scheme opened;

Landscape – Mitigation measures appear to have been implemented as expected and to be establishing satisfactorily. No ES plans or figures were available to POPE in support of the ES written summary descriptions of mitigation measures and it has not been possible to compare the scheme as built to the ES biodiversity drawings. It is anticipated that subject to successful ongoing establishment the landscape mitigation measures should fulfil their long term objectives. Monitoring of vegetation was not included in the HEMP but is likely to take place as part of the ongoing management and maintenance of the road corridor and this should be reviewed as part of the Five Year After study.

Biodiversity – No ES plans or figures were available to POPE in support of the ES written summary descriptions of mitigation measures and it has not been possible to compare the scheme as built to the ES biodiversity drawings. Furthermore no after opening survey or monitoring information has been made available, however it is not clear if these surveys were undertaken. Mitigation measures have been incorporated in to the scheme, although limited information was available to POPE regarding any measures incorporated for fauna. It is too early to evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation and biodiversity should be considered in more detail at the Five Year After stage when any monitoring information, including grassland translocation areas and animal mortality data, might be available to help inform the review.

Cultural heritage - Impacts on listed buildings are as expected, as are the impacts on archaeology based on the information available. The Archaeological Post Excavation Assessment has been produced but has yet to be published and finds deposited with the local museum and this aspect could be confirmed at Five Years After.

Water Environment – Based on the information available it would appear that mitigation measures have been incorporated into the scheme as expected and it is likely that the impacts on the water environment are as expected. However, further information would be required to fully evaluate the effectiveness of the scheme in relation to water issues and it is suggested that this is included within the Five Year After study.

Physical Fitness – Provision for pedestrians, cyclist and equestrians has largely been implemented as expected although some comments were received relating to crossing points and use of these by pedestrians and equestrians;

Journey Ambience – It is considered that impacts on Journey Ambience are generally as expected although local concern has been raised regarding safety of junctions; and

General - Limited consultation responses have been received and it is recommended that consultation is extended at the Five Year After stage to included organisation with local knowledge e.g. wildlife groups and the BHS.



85

Annex D: Record of Information Requested from Highways Agency The following table sets out all of the information that has been requested and received for the One Year After analysis and subsequent compilation of this report.

Table D.1 - Summary of Box 1 Information Requested and Received

Information Notes

Environmental Statement Text Environmental Statement Volume 1 (September 2002), Volume 2 (September 2002) including Part 1 Landscape, Part 2 Ecology and Part 3 Cultural Heritage.

Environmental Statement Figures Not made available to POPE

AST Provided

Environmental Statement Updates/amendments

Minimal information received from Employers Agent

As built drawings Provided within the HEMP, excluding details on water/drainage.

Landscape and ecological management plans

Handover Environmental Management Plan (HEMP) October 2007 (2nd Draft May 2008) provided by MAC

Construction Environment Management Plans

Included with the HEMP

Statutory Consultee contact details Sourced by POPE team

Local Authority contact details Provided

MAC contact details Provided

Specialist contact details Sourced by POPE team

Archaeological reports Archaeological Post-excavation Assessment (November 2008) – included in HEMP

List of properties eligible for noise insulation

Received from Employers Agent

List of Part 1 Claims Too early in the claims process and information will be provided by HA Part 1 Claims Team for the FYA report

Survey results of post opening surveys Provided by POPE team

Animal mortality data Not available

Scheme newsletters or publicity material Available from HA web page

Non motorised User post opening survey Not undertaken