Project Orpheus
Phase 1A Summary Report
May 2003
PHASE 1A SUMMARY REPORT
Contents
Section
Page
1
Summary and Recommendations
3
2
Background
5
3
Overview of Process
6
4
Phase 1A Stakeholder Consultation
8
5
Corridor Selection Process
9
6
Route Assessment and Selection Process
11
Appendices
Date
A
Working Note 1
August 2002
B
Working Note 2 – Phase 1A Route Assessment
November 2002
and Selection
C
Working Note 2 – Phase 1A Route Assessment
January 2003
and Selection - UPDATE
PHASE 1A SUMMARY REPORT
1 Summary
The work programme for Orpheus has three distinct phases:
Phase 1A - option identification and preliminary assessment
Phase 1B - LRT Option Development
Phase 2 – Seek Government Approval
This report presents and summarises the work carried out in Phase 1A and the
recommendations from the consultant team with regards the identification, appraisal and
selection of potential Orpheus corridors and routes suitable for taking forward for more
detailed appraisal.
All the routes have been appraised in accordance with the latest Department for Transport
appraisal criteria for Major Schemes (GoMMMS and updates). This will be drawn up into
an Annex E submission to DfT for the preferred routes as part of the Phase 1B work
programme.
This information (from 1B) will also form a key element of the Outline Business Case to be
put to Central Government for funding support, and a decision to proceed to Transport &
Works Act Order (TWAO) proceedings.
The diagram over summarises the process adopted during Phase 1A:
3
PHASE 1A SUMMARY REPORT
4
PHASE 1A SUMMARY REPORT
2 Background
In 2001 Nexus published “Towards 2016”, the fifteen year strategy for the development of
public transport in Tyne & Wear. Project Orpheus, the development of the light rail
network, was a key constituent of this strategy.
Project Orpheus represents the proposed extension of the Metro network by increasing the
route length of the Metro system by approximately 100 kilometres.
In Spring 2002, Nexus appointed a multi-disciplinary consultant team to assist in the
development of the business case for these extensions as part of Project Orpheus. The
consultant team is comprised as follows:
Ernst & Young LLP - Lead Financial Adviser
Steer Davies Gleave - Transport Planning & Economics Adviser
Jacobs Gibb
- Technical and Engineering Adviser
Following on from previous preliminary work undertaken on the feasibility of extensions to
the system, the objective of the current work is to evaluate the case for possible extensions
to the system in line with current government appraisal guidance and develop a business
case submission to government based on the conclusions thereof.
5
PHASE 1A SUMMARY REPORT
3 Overview of Process
A summary of the work undertaken to date during Phase 1A is summarised in the next
summary sections 4 to 6. These cover:
· Stakeholder consultation
· Corridor Selection Process
· Route Assessment and Selection Process
The study process has been established on the basis of a three-stage approach:
Phase 1A
Scheme option identification and preliminary assessment:
· Build on work undertaken to date for “Towards 2016” and LTP development;
· Identify/update problems, opportunities and constraints individually with stakeholders;
· Identify potential additional extension corridors;
· Develop assessment of benefits, technical feasibility, cost and environmental impact on
comparable basis for all routes;
· Assessment of options in accordance with NATA framework, using existing data
sources;
· Identification of optimum technology for extensions and incorporation of potential LRT
routes into Project Orpheus; and
· Routes for which modes other than Light Rail are recommended to be taken forward
separately within the LTP process.
Phase 1A was established so that the large number of routes identified during stakeholder
consultations could be appraised to determine their initial suitability for light rail. This
sifting process was consistent with DfT appraisal requirements.
Phase 1B
LRT Option Development
Within Phase 1B Nexus and the consultant team working with key partners and stakeholders
will assess the routes recommended for LRT out of the Phase 1A process. From this an
Annex E submission will be developed as part of the Outline Business Case to be put to the
Department for Transport. At the time of writing, data collection surveys have been
undertaken and the extent of aerial surveys of the routes has been appraised, in order that the
detailed route appraisal work can progress.
In parallel, the in-house Metro team have developed an asset register of the existing system.
This will be used to inform a major business planning exercise that is being undertaken for
6
PHASE 1A SUMMARY REPORT
the existing Metro network going forward. The outputs from this work feed into the
Orpheus study framework as the base case comparator for both the Annex E submission and
the OBC.
In order to maintain the high profile status of the project within Central Government, during
the period of option development, a process of continuous liaison with Senior DfT
personnel and the economic appraisal team will be adopted.
Phase 2
Seek Government Approval
Following submission of the Annex E submission and business case to government, it is
anticipated that there will be a period of review and discussion prior to obtaining any
decisions on funding for the project.
7
PHASE 1A SUMMARY REPORT
4 Phase 1A Stakeholder Consultation
It was recognised that stakeholder consultation and involvement is vital to the success of the
Orpheus project, in respect to the identification and assessment of the network development
proposals.
Our approach has been to involve the stakeholders at the following key points in the project
so far:
· June 2002 - Stakeholder Inception Meeting with GONE, One North East and the
seven local authorities, namely Durham and Northumberland counties, North
Tyneside, South Tyneside, Gateshead, Sunderland and Newcastle;
· June/July 2002 – One-to-one follow-up meetings with all the seven local
authorities to discuss the issues specific to their area;
· December 2002 – to report the findings of the Phase 1A work
Additional stakeholders consulted include Port of Tyne Authority, Newcastle International
Airport, Tyne & Wear Health Action Zone and the Learning and Skills Council. This
consultation was concluded on 10 July 2002.
8
PHASE 1A SUMMARY REPORT
5 Corridor Selection Process
Through the workshop and subsequent discussions with the individual Districts, 29 transport
corridors were identified as requiring appraisal against Phase 1A criteria. These are listed at
the end of this section.
Corridor Sifting
Using an abridged version of the NATA/GoMMMS appraisal criteria, the Consultant Team
formulated Corridor Summary Tables (CSTs) for each corridor. These data tables collated
information on potential demand and market share, indicative capital and operating costs,
local constraints and opportunities, engineering feasibility, and network integration issues.
The 29 corridors identified by the stakeholder consultation exercise were assessed for their
ability to deliver the Orpheus objectives and against the following measures:
· Economy
· Environment
· Wider Policy Integration
· Implementability
Where a corridor did not lend itself easily to Orpheus and LRT development, the Consultant
team identified the potential alternative solution in the guise of guided bus, Superoute or
heavy rail development designation. A separate report covers the options for corridors
considered unsuitable as LRT Metro extensions.
This initial sift of the corridors concluded that 16 out of the 29 corridors would be viable in
terms of their ability to deliver the Orpheus objectives and were taken forward into Phase
1B as potential Metro extensions. At this point it became necessary to focus in on realistic
route alignments in order to assess the technical implications that could affect the ability of
the route to show positive cost to benefit ratios, this being a significant test applied by
Department for Transport to such major transport investments.
The details of this corridor selection process are set out in Appendix A – Working Note 1.
From this point it became necessary to look at the development of route alignments,
primarily to verify the technical deliverability of a route by reference to physical constraints
such as space, topography, achievable run-times and existing infrastructure. This approach
had the added benefit to better inform the decision making process, from both a transport
economics and financial perspective.
9
PHASE 1A SUMMARY REPORT
The 29 Corridors identified during Stakeholder Consultation
1 Sunderland – Seaham via Heavy Rail
2 Sunderland – (P&R) – Doxford Park – Ryhope
3 Sunderland – Doxford Park – (P&R) Houghton-le-Spring – Hetton-le-Hole – Murton -
Seaham
4 Sunderland – (P&R) - Doxford Park – Washington
5 South Hylton – Washington Extension
6 Sunderland – Hylton Castle – Strategic Site – Washington
7 Washington – Chester-le-Street
8 Washington – Gateshead via A167 or Queen Elizabeth Hospital
9 Washington – Gateshead via Team Valley
10 Washington – Gateshead via Strategic Site
11 Washington – Gateshead via A195
12 South Shields – Sunderland via existing Metro
13 South Shields - Marsden
14 West Harton - Marsden
15 South Shields – Bolden – Strategic Site – Washington
16 Stanley – Metro Centre
17 Rowlands Gill – Metro Centre – Gateshead
18 Prudhoe – Metro centre – Gateshead
19 Metro Centre – Gateshead
20 Metro Centre – Blaydon – Denton – Airport
21 Newcastle city centre – Denton
22 Newcastle city centre – Gosforth –Regent Centre – Great Park – Airport
23 Four Lane Ends – Killingworth – Cramlington
24 Airport – Great Park – Shirebrook – North Shields
25 Ashington – Newcastle heavy rail conversion
26 Stephenson’s Link
27 Newcastle city centre – A1055 – Preston Grange – Whitley Bay
28 Walker area
29 Link between 28 and 23.
10
PHASE 1A SUMMARY REPORT
6 Route Assessment and Selection Process
For the 16 route options, work has been undertaken to develop Appraisal Summary Tables
for each route. This involved developing and refining cost estimates and developing
conclusions regarding technical feasibility. It has also involved the development of an
economic assessment that incorporates these cost estimates and presents a summary of the
key economic indicators relevant to the exercise.
The route assessment incorporated estimates of the economic benefit and revenues based on
analysis of the potential effects of the routes on generalised costs of travel and estimates of
travel patterns and volumes within the region. The assessment compared these benefits with
updated operating and capital costs over a thirty year period yielding an economic net
present value and an economic benefit to cost ratio for each route option.
This process has been designed in accordance with the guidelines set by government for
scheme development and the process for assessing the options designed to be consistent
with the NATA appraisal framework.
In December 2002, 10 routes were recommended to be taken forward into Phase 1B of the
study process. The table at the end of this section summarises these conclusions. A
schematic map documenting the routes in relation to the existing network has been included
at the end of this section. On the 28th January 2003, Nexus hosted a Parliamentary
Reception to promote Orpheus, this included invitees from the political arena, the private
sector and the wider transportation audience.
Full details of the route assessment process are set out in Working Note 2 and an update
thereto (Appendices B and C).
Options for routes not recommended for further analysis as LRT Metro extensions have
been set out in a separate report.
11
PHASE 1A SUMMARY REPORT
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF PHASE 1A RECOMMENDATIONS
Route Extension
Assumed
Service
Recommendations for Phase 1B
No
Service
Type
Seaham to
Seaham to
Recommendations awaiting further discussion of
1
Sunderland
Segregated
Sunderland
feasibility issues
Central
Sunderland to
Sunderland
Street running
Ryhope via
Recommendations awaiting further discussion of
2
Central to Ryhope for 30% of
Doxford
feasibility issues
via Doxford Int.
route
International
Sunderland to
Sunderland
Street running Reject - recommended that non-LRT-based alternatives
5
Washington via S Central to
for 46% of
be pursued for both Sunderland-Washington routes in
Hylton
Washington
route
view of feasibility concerns and poor economic
performance. Alternative may include examination of
Sunderland to
Sunderland
Street running the future potential for the South Hylton route to be
6
Washington via
Central to
for 82% of
extended to a new station on the reopened Leamside
Southwick
Washington
route
Line
Reject - in view of limited potential for segregated
Street running alignments, and other feasibility issues, recommended
Washington to
Washington to
for 39% of
that non-LRT-based scheme be pursued (possibly
8
Gateshead via
Four Lane Ends
route to
extension of existing Superroutes). Potential for
Heworth
Heworth
segregation may be improved were significant
reallocation of roadspace to be achievable.
Reject - recommended for non-LRT based solution -
bus-based option recommended, potentially making use
Team Valley to
Team Valley to
9
Segregated
of parts of Centrelink infrastructure, reflecting
Gateshead
Four Lane Ends
difficulty of serving dispersed employment area with
fixed link
Reject - in view of limited potential for segregated
Street running alignments, and other feasibility issues, recommended
Washington to
Washington to
10A
for 36% of
that non-LRT-based scheme be pursued (possibly
Pelaw
Four Lane Ends
route to Pelaw incorporating improved access to proposed new stations
on Leamside line)
West Harton to
South Shields to
Recommendations awaiting further discussion of
12
Segregated
Biddick Hall
Sunderland
feasibility issues relating to Railtrack line
Street running Reject - bus-based option recommended for further
Tyne Dock to
South Shields to
for 35% of
15A
development reflecting difficulty of serving dispersed
Washington
Washington
route to Tyne catchment with fixed link.
Dock
Gateshead to
Four Lane Ends to
19
Segregated
Reject – committed Centrelink bus scheme will provide
MetroCentre
MetroCentre
a big improvement in access to MetroCentre from the
12
PHASE 1A SUMMARY REPORT
Route Extension
Assumed
Service
Recommendations for Phase 1B
No
Service
Type
Metro network
Street running
St James to
Tynemouth to
for 66% of
21a
Walbottle P&R
Walbottle P&R
route to
Walbottle
Include - take forward both route alternatives to Phase
1B, but may require further work to improve journey
Street running times by reducing extent of street running
St James to
Tynemouth to
for 66% of
21b
MetroCentre
MetroCentre
route to
MetroCentre
Street running
for 8% of
Great Park to
Great Park to
22a
route to
Wansbeck Rd
Pelaw
Reject – good integration with policy but high cost/km
Wansbeck
& difficult alignment produces poor economic case
Road
even were significant growth in travel to Great Park
Street running above TAMMS 2011 levels to eventuate. Non-fixed
Airport via Great
for 8% of
link to Metro (Regent Centre) recommended for further
22b
Park to Wansbeck Airport to Pelaw
route to
analysis.
Rd
Wansbeck
Road
Recommendation pending – fairly poor economic
performance as examined here reflects difficulty in
providing a segregated alignment within new the towns
Street running - however good fit with other appraisal criteria and
Cramlington to
Cramlington to
for 73% of
23
there may be the potential to improve the scheme
Four Lane Ends
Pelaw
route to Four through improved segregation (potentially through
Lane Ends
reallocation of roadspace) or through the development
of alternative route options and thus recommended for
inclusion in Phase 1B
Ashington to
Ashington to
Reject – heavy-rail based alternative likely to be more
25
Segregated
Backworth
Pelaw
cost-effective for distance involved
Street running
North Quay to
North Quay to
for 88% of
26a
Backworth via
Backworth
route to Four Reject – difficultly of designing fixed link to provide
road alignment
Lane Ends
good access to employment opportunities in
Stephensons corridor reflected in high costs and poor
North Quay to
economic performance. Committed bus link to provide
North Quay to
26b
Backworth via rail
Segregated
crucial link to Metro in the medium term.
Backworth
alignment
Street running Recommendations awaiting further discussion of
Byker to
St James to
for 96% of
potential cost savings from network effects (particularly
28
Walkergate
Walkergate
route to Four integration with route 21) and potential for obtaining
Lane Ends
segregated route, but currently performs poorly
13
PHASE 1A SUMMARY REPORT
Schematic Map showing the Ten Corridors going through to Phase 1B Analysis
14
Document Outline
