Connecting Tees Valley

[Rob590]

The newly-elected Tees Valley Mayor has produced a roads strategy called 'Connecting Tees Valley', with two headline proposals.

The first is a new Tees crossing. One suggestion for a rather vague 'East Tees' crossing doesn't seem to be beyond the stage of imagination. The other suggestion, with a couple of differing route options, is a 'Central Tees' crossing that would enhance capacity at the current Newport Bridge/A19 crossings. The proposals seem to be either to add a second bridge next to the Newport Bridge so that traffic can follow this route between the A19 and Middlesbrough, or to add another bridge for local traffic next to current the A19. The A19/Newport proposal is being "taken forward in partnership with the Department for Transport", whatever that means.

The second proposal is a Darlington North Link Road between the A66 and the A1(M) at J59. The obvious benefit here being that traffic from the A66 to/from the A1 north would not have to go through Darlington. This proposal is associated with widening of the A66 between Teesside and Darlington. There's no sense as to where this project is at from a planning perspective.

Both would have regional significance but I don't really know what power the Mayor actually has to make any of this happen!

[M19]

Notice on page 3 that the entry from the slip road onto the roundabout (A1(M)/A167) has been modified from smooth tangential entry to a horrible entry path overlap special.

Looks like much of the existing Darlington bypass is going to be left as it is, which is disappointing, as it does carry a lot of traffic, which is unlikely to disappear with the northern link.

[KeithW]

The newly-elected Tees Valley Mayor has produced a roads strategy called 'Connecting Tees Valley', with two headline proposals.

The first is a new Tees crossing. One suggestion for a rather vague 'East Tees' crossing doesn't seem to be beyond the stage of imagination. The other suggestion, with a couple of differing route options, is a 'Central Tees' crossing that would enhance capacity at the current Newport Bridge/A19 crossings. The proposals seem to be either to add a second bridge next to the Newport Bridge so that traffic can follow this route between the A19 and Middlesbrough, or to add another bridge for local traffic next to current the A19. The A19/Newport proposal is being "taken forward in partnership with the Department for Transport", whatever that means.

The second proposal is a Darlington North Link Road between the A66 and the A1(M) at J59. The obvious benefit here being that traffic from the A66 to/from the A1 north would not have to go through Darlington. This proposal is associated with widening of the A66 between Teesside and Darlington. There's no sense as to where this project is at from a planning perspective.

Both would have regional significance but I don't really know what power the Mayor actually has to make any of this happen!

Ideally I would like to see a crossing closer to the mouth of the Tees in the general region of the Transporter Bridge. There is an awful lot of traffic that comes across the river at Newport and the !9 that subsequently runs through Haverton Hill to the Greatham area. A crossing there could use an upgraded Cowpen Bewley link to the A19 north. Trouble is this would either have to be a high level viaduct or a tunnel as river traffic still goes upstream as far as the old San Hunter shipyard. The cheapest option would be a low level crossing alongside the Newport Bridge and is I suspect what is likely to happen.

There is already an S2 A66 Darlington bypass from the A66(M) at J57 and A1 northbound traffic does not go through Darlington. It goes up the A19 to Wolviston and then either takes the A689 to the A1 at Bradbury or if heading further north takes the A1231 from Sunderland to Birtley

[c2R]

I actually had to get around Darlington this morning - I used the Burtree Lane/ A1150 cut through - along with a vast amount of other traffic - it's clear that for growth in the area, the A66 does need higher capacity links with the A1

[Mark Hewitt]

The second proposal is a Darlington North Link Road between the A66 and the A1(M) at J59. The obvious benefit here being that traffic from the A66 to/from the A1 north would not have to go through Darlington. This proposal is associated with widening of the A66 between Teesside and Darlington. There's no sense as to where this project is at from a planning perspective.

Oh so much this! It's another one of those - why on earth wasn't this built like this in the first place. From Middlesbrough to the Great Burdon roundabout you have a high quality now fully grade seperated D2 road. Then you're dumped straight into suburban Darlington. It's a little better if you're heading south but not by much as the A66 is a congested S2.

Constructing a new D2 from Great Burdon isn't massively challenging. It's mostly farm land and getting across the railway, it could be achieved with no demolitions.

It's the reason why I use the A66 then cut through Sadberge to Bradbury - like many others do because the road network is incomplete.

[jackal]

Improvements to Cargo Fleet and Tees Dock Road roundabouts are therefore planned to improve the capacity of the A66 between the A19 and Teesport.

As these are the first two flat roundabouts after the grade separated section, I wonder if they'll be looking at GSJs?

The 'viaduct' option for the Tees crossing is curious as it just seems to replicate the A19 crossing. I guess simply widening the existing bridge is not technically feasible so they would add lanes on a separate structure or structures. Unfortunately this would significantly complicate the tie in to the freeflow GSJ to the south - I hope they aren't planning to do anything unpleasant to it.

The Newport option seems to similarly entail replication of an existing crossing, though it looks like a different tie-in to the A19 is indicated. Apparently the new bridge would be northbound and the existing one southbound.

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teess ... y-12735825

[Rob590]

A1 northbound traffic does not go through Darlington. It goes up the A19 to Wolviston and then either takes the A689 to the A1 at Bradbury or if heading further north takes the A1231 from Sunderland to Birtley

Medium or longer distance traffic perhaps, but there's plenty of local traffic travelling around parts of Darlington itself, or from the western parts of Teesside (Eaglescliffe/Thornaby/Stockton/Yarm in particular) to west or central County Durham. By taking this local traffic off the A19, you'd also help that longer distance traffic too. It would also be a key part of any growth at Durham Tees Valley Airport which, if it can limp through the next few years, is due to get direct flights to Heathrow with the expansion there.

[Mark Hewitt]

A1 northbound traffic does not go through Darlington. It goes up the A19 to Wolviston and then either takes the A689 to the A1 at Bradbury or if heading further north takes the A1231 from Sunderland to Birtley

Medium or longer distance traffic perhaps, but there's plenty of local traffic travelling around parts of Darlington itself, or from the western parts of Teesside (Eaglescliffe/Thornaby/Stockton/Yarm in particular) to west or central County Durham. By taking this local traffic off the A19, you'd also help that longer distance traffic too. It would also be a key part of any growth at Durham Tees Valley Airport which, if it can limp through the next few years, is due to get direct flights to Heathrow with the expansion there.

Well I'm starting from just south of the A66 in Stockton. I could go Tees flyover but it's massively congested and using A66/A19/A689 is a much longer distance. I'm actually better off ploughing through the middle of Stockton and using the A177 than I am using the trunk roads.

[Mark Hewitt]

A1 northbound traffic does not go through Darlington. It goes up the A19 to Wolviston and then either takes the A689 to the A1 at Bradbury or if heading further north takes the A1231 from Sunderland to Birtley

Medium or longer distance traffic perhaps, but there's plenty of local traffic travelling around parts of Darlington itself, or from the western parts of Teesside (Eaglescliffe/Thornaby/Stockton/Yarm in particular) to west or central County Durham. By taking this local traffic off the A19, you'd also help that longer distance traffic too. It would also be a key part of any growth at Durham Tees Valley Airport which, if it can limp through the next few years, is due to get direct flights to Heathrow with the expansion there.

Well I'm starting from just south of the A66 in Stockton. I could go Tees flyover but it's massively congested and using A66/A19/A689 is a much longer distance. I'm actually better off ploughing through the middle of Stockton and using the A177 than I am using the trunk roads.

[Chris Bertram]

It would also be a key part of any growth at Durham Tees Valley Airport which, if it can limp through the next few years, is due to get direct flights to Heathrow with the expansion there.

Growth? At Teesside Airport? Ha bloody ha. Not convinced that Peel Holdings actually want to grow the facility anyway. Everything they've done so far points to "managed decline".

[jackal]

There are more details on the Darlington northern bypass here:

Both routes are presently being developed as dual carriageway roads with grade
separated junctions. Both schemes at this stage include:
 A grade separated junction at Little Burdon
 dualling the A66 from Little Burdon to Morton Palms

Route A (the northern or 'outer' route) is costed at £289.2million with 2.4 BCR, Route B is costed at £244 million with 2.3 BCR.

An interesting question is which direction the grade-separation at Little Burdon would be in.

[Mark Hewitt]

an outer route, to the east of the Skerne and further from existing
residential areas
 a route closer to the current extents of the town, to the west of the
Skerne, crossing the A167

Only trouble is I can't find' 'Skerne' on any maps! Only the River Skerne.

[KeithW]

Improvements to Cargo Fleet and Tees Dock Road roundabouts are therefore planned to improve the capacity of the A66 between the A19 and Teesport.

As these are the first two flat roundabouts after the grade separated section, I wonder if they'll be looking at GSJs?

The 'viaduct' option for the Tees crossing is curious as it just seems to replicate the A19 crossing. I guess simply widening the existing bridge is not technically feasible so they would add lanes on a separate structure or structures. Unfortunately this would significantly complicate the tie in to the freeflow GSJ to the south - I hope they aren't planning to do anything unpleasant to it.

The Newport option seems to similarly entail replication of an existing crossing, though it looks like a different tie-in to the A19 is indicated. Apparently the new bridge would be northbound and the existing one southbound.

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teess ... y-12735825

I think a GSJ at Cargo Fleet should be on the cards , this would be true to a lesser extent at Teesport which is pretty much at the end of the A66 but there seems to be more than enough space to do it so why not.

As for Newport crossing I think what needs to be the focus is separating the A19 through traffic flow from the local traffic and that will need some creative thing and rejigging of the approaches and junctions both north and south of the river. These are little more than roundabouts that have grown in size over the years but really to sort out the traffic efficiently they need to be redone. As it is coming in from the southern fringes of Middlesbrough the only viable option is the cross the A19 viaduct. Slogging through the traffic in Middlesbrough is just not an attractive option and taking the A66 to Newport bridge from the flyover GSJ usually leave you stuck at the Newport Roundabout.

[jackal]

I've realized there's an existing thread for the new Tees Crossing(s) here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35895&p=907681&hili ... ng#p907681 Perhaps this thread can be reserved for the A66 improvements.

[KeithW]

There are more details on the Darlington northern bypass here:

Both routes are presently being developed as dual carriageway roads with grade
separated junctions. Both schemes at this stage include:
 A grade separated junction at Little Burdon
 dualling the A66 from Little Burdon to Morton Palms

Route A (the northern or 'outer' route) is costed at £289.2million with 2.4 BCR, Route B is costed at £244 million with 2.3 BCR.

An interesting question is which direction the grade-separation at Little Burdon would be in.

Given that the AADF on the A1150 and A167 and A66 are about the same I would guess that it comes down to the details of the final route. I am rather disappointed that they appear to have discounted improving the existing A66 southern bypass however.

[Mark Hewitt]

Given that the AADF on the A1150 and A167 and A66 are about the same I would guess that it comes down to the details of the final route. I am rather disappointed that they appear to have discounted improving the existing A66 southern bypass however.

I would imagine a significant proportion of the current traffic using A66/A66(M) would continue to on the A1(M) and use J59 and the new extension to access the A66 East of Great Burdon.

Indeed if the A66 is extended to J59 then presumably this will take the A66 number? If so what will the Darlington bypass and A66(M) be numbered?

We assume it'll plug into J59 and they aren't going to build a new junction? If they did I would suspect the road would cross the A167 then join the A1(M) south of J59.

[Mark Hewitt]

https://teesvalley-ca.gov.uk/wp-content ... ochure.pdf brochure as posted in the other thread. Contains maps.

[jackal]

A consultation on the Combined Authority's Strategic Transport Plan was run in late 2019, with a final report to be available in early 2020. The roads plan indicates a number of 'live' schemes for which 'feasibility and design work is being undertaken and business cases are being developed to illustrate the need for these schemes and how they can be delivered and funded'. Details as follows:

New Tees Crossing
There are currently 10 crossings of the River Tees between the west of Stockton and the
mouth of the estuary, however, only two of these crossings are capable of carrying large
volumes of traffic: the A66 Surtees Bridge and the A19 Tees Viaduct. The Tees Viaduct in
particular is carrying traffic volumes far in excess of its design capacity, and any incident on
the A19 or A66 causes significant congestion on the local road crossings and the Local
Road Network. A new strategic crossing of the River Tees will provide additional capacity for
up to 72,000 vehicles per day, addressing the current issue with congestion and slow
journey times and ensuring that new housing and employment sites across the Tees Valley
can be brought forward. From a long list of 14 options, a preferred option has now been
identified by the Combined Authority and its partners, providing a new route for local traffic to
cross the river, freeing up capacity on the current A19 Tees Flyover. An Outline Business
Case identifying the preferred option has been submitted to DfT for consideration and a
public consultation exercise was held during Spring 2019.

Portrack Relief Road
The scheme would include the creation of a new 1.3km highway link parallel to Portrack
Lane, by utilising the former Billingham Beck branch railway between Marston Road and the
A1032 Newport Bridge Approach Road as an integral part of the New Tees Crossing
scheme. The area is well served by highway infrastructure but the intersection of the A19
with the A66 is one of the most heavily congested parts of the Tees Valley network and
Portrack Interchange experiences peak period congestion. It is recognised that to open up
development opportunities in both Middlesbrough and Stockton, a package of proposals
needs to be delivered which include a combination of improvements and management of the
primary road infrastructure, additional secondary road infrastructure, improvements to public
transport and various traffic management measures. Implementation of the scheme could be
standalone, or in association with the New Tees Crossing proposal.

A66 Darlington Northern Link Road
Access to and from Tees Valley is restricted at Junction 57 of the A1(M), where vehicles can
only join the A1(M) and travel south from the A66, and vehicles from the north cannot leave
the A1(M) to access Tees Valley. Strategic traffic therefore has to use local roads, such as
the A1150 and A167, which pass through built up residential areas and are not suitable for
the types and volume of vehicles travelling on them. This causes significant stress on the
local roads in Darlington, causing conflict with local residents walking or cycling, and also
causes delays to buses, with knock-on environmental concerns and issues of safety. A new
route is being considered around the north of Darlington to accommodate strategic traffic
movements between the A1(M) and the Tees Valley, and to provide economic and housing
growth opportunities within Darlington. An Outline Business Case identifying the preferred
option is being prepared in advance of submission to the DfT for consideration.
A19 grade separated junction, Elwick bypass and Hartlepool Western Link
This scheme will provide a new strategic route for road traffic to/from Hartlepool to the A19,
thereby relieving congestion on the existing A179 and A689 routes and by creating a new
grade separated junction with the A19, overcome safety concerns with regards to the
existing at-grade junctions. The scheme will provide direct benefits to the residents of Elwick
village through significantly reducing through traffic, helping to make it a safer environment,
and it will also facilitate housing development in West Hartlepool. A Strategic Outline
Business Case was prepared in Summer 2016 and detailed design is now underway.

A689 Wynyard Improvements
This package of works includes along the A689 corridor in County Durham, Stockton-onTees and Hartlepool is aimed at improving capacity, journey time reliability and facilitate
housing and business growth. Current proposals include junction improvements to four
current roundabouts at Wynyard, a capacity improvement at the A19/A689 interchange,
pedestrian and cyclist bridge crossings of the A19 (just to the north of A689 interchange) and
A689 to improve accessibility for active modes between Wynyard and Billingham and
Hartlepool, localised junction and safety improvements in the Hartlepool urban area and a
cycle route link between Hartlepool and Wolviston, parallel to the A689. The proposal
complements the A19 Norton to Wynyard widening scheme being delivered by Highways
England and the New Tees Crossing scheme.

Cargo Fleet Roundabout
This five arm, signalised roundabout is the first at-grade junction on the A66 travelling east
towards Teesport after the Little Burdon roundabout in north east Darlington. As the
intersection between the key east-west A66 route and the A171 running to the south, it is a
major junction on the KRN and experiences peak hour congestion. A feasibility study
completed in Spring 2017 recommended at “throughabout” solution to address existing
issues and to help accommodate the forecast increase in traffic related to Teesport as the
regeneration areas along the south bank of the River Tees. Detailed design work is
underway.

Swan’s Corner Roundabout/Flatts Lane Improvements
Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council has developed improvement schemes at these two
junctions – the first a re-aligned roundabout and the second a new traffic signal junction –
aimed at addressing existing congestion on the network and allied to housing growth
proposals in Redcar & Cleveland. Detailed design work is underway.

Darlington Growth and Enterprise Zone Connectivity
This package of improvements to the east of Darlington will see the widening of the Yarm
Road/McMullen Road roundabout, traffic signals at the Yarm Road/Lingfield Way junction
and a reconfiguration of the junction between the B6279 and Haughton Road to
accommodate housing and mixed use development in this area of the town. Implementation
of these improvements is now underway.

Yarm Road Roundabout
Highways England has identified a short term improvement to capacity at the A66/A67
Roundabout to the east of Darlington in response to existing congestion issues, and
implementation of this improvement was completed in 2018. Work is ongoing to identify
longer term solutions for the junction in line with the Darlington Northern Link Road
proposals.

Greystones Roundabout
Highways England has identified a short term improvement to capacity at the Greystones
Roundabout on the A174 in response to existing congestion issues and the importance of
the junction in providing access to Teesport and the Wilton site. However, the roundabout is
likely to experience congestion in future years even with this short term improvement and
further work is required to ascertain how the junction could accommodate the anticipated
increase in traffic flows on the A174 allied to housing growth proposals in Redcar &
Cleveland. Work is ongoing to identify additional solutions, including grade separation of the
junction, and to develop the business case for this further investment.

https://teesvalley-ca.gov.uk/transport/ ... ort-plans/

[KeithW]

Work on the Cargo Fleet Lane Throughabout is underway and causing chaos I might add.
https://www.middlesbrough.gov.uk/parkin ... provements

Personally I have serious doubts about its usefulness, a similar installation in Darlington actually made things worse what is needed here is a GSJ and there is adequate space for such an installation.

HE are responsible for the A66 to a point west of the roundabout, It was built with GSJ's. The section east of there to Teesport is the responsibility of the local authorities who did it on the cheap and also allowed the building of car dealerships, supermarkets etc around the roundabouts. Ideally it should be trunked to Teessport and the necessary improvements made. Given that the Tees Valley Combined Authority are trying to attract industry to the old Industrial Areas along the river putting in the proper road infrastructure seems a necessity. Network Rail and the TVCA are already doing that for the rail connections.
https://www.pdports.co.uk/news-media/20 ... rail-link/

Describing the work being done at Swan's Corner as being justified to alleviate congestion is a bad joke. What actually happened is that Redcar and Cleveland greenlighted a housing development there and have added greatly to what was already a traffic pinchpoint, worse they built them on land that had been reserved for a new East Middlesbrough bypass which really would have helped.

[jackal]

GSJ for Cargo Fleet drawn up by Mouchel in 2016:

From the accompanying report it's not clear why the throughabout was selected:

7.2.15. For DS6a, adding a grade separated roundabout at A66 / Cargo Fleet Lane gives some benefits to road users, but its high cost means it provides minor economic benefit. The preliminary BCR for DS6a is categorised as providing ‘medium’ VfM.
7.2.16. The individual benefits of Option 5.1 have been calculated by discounting the costs and economic benefits of DS5. The preliminary BCR resulting from this calculation is categorised as providing a ‘neutral’ VFM.
7.2.17. For DS6b, adding an at grade ‘throughabout’ at A66 / Cargo Fleet Lane gives a small amount of benefit to road users but not enough to cover the cost of its construction. The preliminary BCR for DS6b is, however, categorised as providing ‘medium’ VfM due to the lower cost of the scheme.
7.2.18. The individual benefits of Option 5.2 have been calculated by discounting the costs and economic benefits of DS5. The preliminary BCR resulting from this calculation is categorised as providing a ‘poor’ VFM.