Category Archives: blog

Meeting Ten – 20th November

Notes taken at the tenth meeting of the group held on Monday 20th November 2017

Present: John Dales, Independent Facilitator; Graham Grant, Head of Transport Investment, Ali Lamb, Engagement Officer; Mike Scott, Nexus; Cllrs Stella Postlethwaite (North Jesmond); Catherine Walker (North Jesmond) & Nick Cott (West Gosforth); Sean Peacock – Open Lab.

Representatives of stakeholder groups: T&W Public Transport User Group; Jesmond Residents Association; Newcastle Cycling Campaign; Save Newcastle Wildlife; Space for Gosforth, Newcastle Cycling Forum; Gosforth Traffic; Jesmond Dene Estate Residents Association; West Gosforth Residents Association; Petition; High West Jesmond Residents Association.

Apologies: Dominic Raymont (East Gosforth)

John welcomed everyone to the meeting, especially those representing groups on behalf of the regular attendees who could not make it.

John circulated a draft paper summarising the recommendations he is intending to make to Newcastle City Council. His recommendations are presented under three headings:

The first, relates to the case for change at Blue House and covers the five key issues that changes must address – road safety, walking, cycling and public transport facilities and finally, the capacity of the junction to deal with vehicle demand.

The recommendation deals with the possibility that there may need to be a junction with bigger capacity in that location in the future, but, for now, the recommendation is that it isn’t built and that work on reducing demand commences instead.

The second, looks at the supporting actions that the Council and its partners could take to manage and potentially reduce demand to keep the junction working.

The third, addresses the future role of the Blue House Working Group in terms of sharing and advocating messages about changing travel behaviours locally to help protect the Town Moor and, going on to transform into a Streets for People group helping to manage the network around the Blue House to avoid any unintended consequences in terms traffic cutting through nearby residential streets.

Graham presented a series of slides about travel behaviours in the area, drawn from census data which illustrate the points made in John’s draft recommendation paper. The presentation also includes a timeline and outline process map showing the stages of approval, awareness raising and formal consultation that the design for Blue House would need to get through.

Discussion Points

  • If WG members do decide to take on an advocate role for the scheme, what data sets and other support will they have to help them work on the behaviour change agenda?
  • Will the census data be available to WG members?
  • It will be important to reconnect with the sentiments of the people who marched on the Moor to protest about the large roundabout last year and tap into their energy for the behaviour change campaign. Local people have far more travel choices (as illustrated by the travel behaviour map on Graham’s presentation) and are therefore more likely to change their travel behaviour. Travellers from further afield will be more difficult to convert because they have fewer choices and further to travel.
  • Will the WG have access to PR and Marketing expertise and other resources to support them marketing the recommendation to the wider public?
  • A WG member wanted clarification on the preferred design in the recommendation, to establish if the northbound, left turn lane into Grandstand Road can be retained. They believed that the left turn lane contributes significantly to clearing the junction at busy times. JD is prepared to model that option and finesse the design if possible.
  • JD reminds everyone that the measures to address the key issues for change, will reduce the capacity at the junction anyway and agrees that it is logical that local residents would conclude that taking out a lane will have a negative impact on capacity, increase queues and air pollution but that this was the process that had been collaboratively worked on.
  • The messages that go with marketing the recommendation need to be slick and evidenced and backed up with a solid set of actions.
  • The WG would like clarity on what aspects of the recommendation are to be showcased first? The last consultation option included banned turns on Jesmond Dene Road / Osborne Road – local people would need to know that those proposals had been withdrawn as an opener. It was confirmed these would be included.
  • A WG member asked for the Jesmond Dene Road proposals to feature strongly in the recommendations too.
  • GG confirms that we must cover all aspects of the recommendation in the awareness raising exercise.
  • The web site will hold all the resources used in the development of the recommendations and present emerging key messages. The FAQs should be about the key issues and non-technical plans should also be provided to make the proposals more accessible.
  • A WG member raised the availability of city centre parking on demand through the Blue House.
  • JD described something called a ‘Work Place Parking Levy’ which has been adopted by Nottingham City Council. Businesses who provide city centre parking spaces for their employees are required to pay a fee per space to the council – they have invested those fees in the city’s tram network.
  • GG said that NCC is revisiting the car parking strategy with Gateshead. We currently have 10,000 publicly accessible spaces in the city, not all controlled by the council and around 10,000 private non residential spaces completely out with the council.
  • A WG member commented that it’s important that city centre parking isn’t displaced into residential areas.
  • In terms of the future role of the WG, a member said that there needed to be more thought about discussing behaviour change in all sorts forums not just the groups represented in the WG. The membership of the WG needs to be broader to help build a consensus. There is also concern about the continued availability of funding since the criteria can change very quickly and also the consistency of the councillors, officers and reps involved. What about the involvement of people from outside Gosforth in the group?
  • A WG member welcomed the agreement to look into a single stage crossing on the Grandstand Road arm but is disappointed by the 2 stage crossing on the Jesmond Dene Road arm although the 2 crossings will help to facilitate the east – west route through the junction. Could Park & Ride facilities be thought about further afield than Gosforth too?
  • JD will model a single stage crossing on both arms and finesse if possible.
  • What potential future uses could the Blue House building have if it’s not going to be used as a dwelling? WG members expressed concern that the Freemen could withdraw maintenance and support for the Blue House anyway which would jeopardise its future.
  • GG pointed out that most of the people who work in Newcastle, live in Newcastle as well although, overall, we import more trips than we export. Car borne trips are a massively popular choice all over the city but the map shown, shows that some areas have far more choice of mode than others.
  • GG described the timeline that the recommendation is following:
  • Early Dec – JD makes his formal recommendation and it goes up on the Blue House Group web site
  • Dec – Jan 18 – the Council will review the recommendation and discuss it with the funding agency.
  • Likely Feb 18 – Cabinet approval sought on a report about the design and the engagement & consultation process surrounding it.
  • The stakeholder engagement process will include information drop ins to equip stakeholders with the knowledge they need to participate in the formal consultation process which will follow.
  • The formal consultation will be run by the council as the Planning Authority as a planning exercise – ultimately the Planning Committee will decide because the design will need planning permission.
  • JD would like to hear feedback from WG members about what they think the group needs to be able to deliver on the challenge of presenting the recommendation to the community and getting buy in.
  • GG offers light touch support over Christmas in terms of pulling FAQ’s together.
  • In terms of resources, GG references the Air Quality Strategy as potentially providing funding for behaviour change as well as the Transforming Cities Funding which is due to be announced in the budget.
  • JD is aiming to provide more data after Christmas.
  • GG would like WG members to consider putting themselves forward as contacts for the media and cautions against too much professional PR.
  • A WG member noted that it is vital to get the language right and to make sure ‘consultation’ isn’t used to describe anything other than genuine consultation when participants can influence the outcome – anything else is information.
  • Technical explanations should be available for people who want them – attending drop ins or browsing the web site.

The Blue House Group Web Site

  • The web site has been largely dormant since last June – the notes from the June meeting are still missing as are the notes from the last meeting. The discussion wall has been left unanswered.
  • There are a lot of questions about the web site. Is it still needed, what is it for, who will manage it and who will respond to the comments?
  • The consensus is that the web site is very important and the WG want to keep it. They want to keep it because it’s already well known and was well used last year, it has lots of resources on it but needs updating and tidying up. The Comments feature needs to be addressed – themed answers to the most popular questions provided and then the comment feature turned off.
  • All 3 sets of notes and the recommendation papers need to be published on the web site when the recommendation goes to the council.
  • Sean’s support in providing this service is greatly appreciated.

 Next Steps

  • Publish the recommendation
  • Soft launch / discussion with local groups
  • Wider public awareness raising and information drop ins after Christmas.

Notes: Ali Lamb 21.11.17

Meeting Nine – 6th November

Notes taken at the ninth meeting of the group held on Monday 6th November 2017

Present: John Dales, Independent Facilitator; Graham Grant, Head of Transport Investment, Ali Lamb, Engagement Officer; Mike Scott, Nexus; Cllrs Stella Postlethwaite (North Jesmond); Catherine Walker (North Jesmond); Dominic Raymont (East Gosforth) & Nick Cott (West Gosforth); and towards the end of the meeting, Cllr Arlene Ainsley, Cabinet Member for Transport & Air Quality.

Representatives of stakeholder groups: T&W Public Transport User Group; Jesmond Residents Association; Save Newcastle Wildlife; Space for Gosforth, Newcastle Cycling Forum; Gosforth Traffic; Jesmond Dene Estate Residents Association; West Gosforth Residents Association; Petition; High West Jesmond Residents Association.

Apologies: Newcastle Cycling Campaign

John welcomed everyone to the meeting, especially those representing groups on behalf of the regular attenders. Before starting to discuss the issues on the agenda, a statement to the working group was read out by one of the representatives.

John asked Graham to outline the reasons for the lack of progress since the last meeting in June. Graham explained that there had been changes in the council over the summer and a new Assistant Director of Transport and a new Cabinet member were appointed and both needed to be briefed and brought up to speed. The timing was also an issue with staff holidays over the summer and the inevitable criticism we would attract for consulting in the holidays.

John did a walkthrough of his previously circulated and updated Position Statement, highlighting the 5 reasons that justify change at the Blue House junction:

  1. To improve conditions for people on foot;
  2. To improve conditions for people on bikes;
  3. To improve conditions for people on buses; (All the above are consistent with the council’s policies and are essential actions if we are going to ensure that forecasts for the growth in motor traffic are to be avoided. These changes are imperative if we are going to make it possible for large numbers of people to change modes);
  4. To tackle the road safety problem; and
  5. To address the capacity of the junction to deal with the volume of traffic.

John presented the ‘small roundabout’ option as his preferred recommendation to go with his Position Statement. That option was discussed early on in the working group’s deliberations, and, with the addition of walking and cycling facilities as discussed in previous meetings, has the potential to deliver on the ambitions expressed by the group and to seek a different future to the one that sees traffic growth. He explained that by adopting an approach to constrain traffic growth at the junction, while also addressing safety concerns and improving active and sustainable transport modes through the junction, the ambitions that we shared in terms of points 1 to 4, could be achieved, with a fall back option that the junction could be extended if required in a future year to address the general capacity of the junction. Dependent on the way people react to changes there are alternative options that could be delivered.  Increasing the capacity of the junction by increasing the size of the roundabout or reducing the demand for traffic capacity at the roundabout by changing travel behaviour.

John invited the working group members to comment on the Position Statement and the emerging recommendation.

Questions and Discussion Points:

  • What’s the ‘life span’ of this junction design? How long it is anticipated that it will be effective before needing an upgrade? This additional information might be helpful if it was included in the Position Statement.
  • Speed restrictions on the Great North Road – couldn’t they be implemented independently? (Graham said that the consultation on speed restrictions the length of GNR were done, the issue now was with legal amid concerns regarding the proximity of the restrictions to the Central Motorway). It was made clear that the speed restrictions will be changing.
  • Changes to address road noise and provide new road surfacing should be included.
  • The strengths and weaknesses of different surfaces for the new cycle and footpaths should be included.
  • The contribution that an extension to the Metro system into South East Northumberland would make to reducing traffic demand at Blue House should be referenced. (John has already shared his paper ‘Transport for a Healthy City’ which discusses a number of similar actions).
  • In terms of the Metro, Graham commented that there were a number of investment priorities – firstly, to replace the fleet of Metro Cars, secondly to complete the ongoing improvement programme to their existing assets and invest more in maintenance finally, to extend Metro coverage.
  • Some felt that potential game changer is that Nexus be encouraged to change the status of Regent Centre and bring it into Zone 1 – Graham noted that the council have approached Nexus on this issue before but have been told that such a change was not planned, NCC agreed to approach Nexus on this issue again.
  • Some Group members would like to see an additional crossing on Grandstand Road added to the recommendation.
  • Some Group members support single stage crossings and are sceptical about the safety of two stage crossings especially when used by groups including children – NCC agreed to look into single stage crossings.
  • A group member questioned whether it was necessary to design 4m wide paths, they felt it seemed excessive given the number of existing paths. They felt it would lead to, too much hard surface in the Moor.
  • Could there be more included in the report to support bus travel and make it more attractive?
  • A suggestion that the term ‘cycles’, when used in the Position Statement, stresses the range and variety of people and their bikes that we are designing for.
  • Where possible, the connections that the recommended layout will make with the existing cycling and walking network should be highlighted.
  • An appeal to make sure no fake grass appears in the design.
  • A group member welcomed the approach to a scheme that challenged people to travel differently.
  • A suggestion that the crossings at Blue House are fully synced with the traffic signals on the wider network.
  • John will look for opportunities to squeeze out any free time from the way that different sets of signals work together.
  • Question – we are agreeing to support a recommended design that only works if we are sure that in the future, there will be less traffic than has been forecasted. How can one junction on an entire network precipitate such a change?
  • John says that we need about 400 less trips in the peak hour through Blue House to achieve the reduction in demand. It could be as simple as 1 or 2 trips from each street in the locality, changing to a sustainable mode rather than being done in a car.
  • Suggestion that Park & Ride should be highlighted and incentivised.
  • Graham added that there is shift towards designing infrastructure that supports the last mile of a trip being taken sustainably.
  • A group member suggested that air quality needs to come out stronger in the Position Statement.
  • Is it the case that if cycling and walking are prioritised through the junction then, air quality becomes poorer in surrounding streets because of the delays experienced by the traffic?
  • There is further risk of impact on local streets if the traffic seeks to avoid delays at Blue House by cutting through local streets.
  • In terms of buses, the group member agrees with the Position Statement in terms of improving the reliability of bus services but not with the idea of increasing the frequency of buses travelling north / south. There is already a hundred buses and hour on the High Street, many of them running with few passengers on board outside of the peak hours. The poor service running east / west is another matter, and the group member would support greater frequencies in these directions.
  • Another group member suggested that more frequent communications with the group would be helpful. A fortnightly email update would be welcome.
  • It would be advisable to take action on the Tree Survey findings as well. Could the work be started on trees that have been identified for work and replacement? JD reminds the group that tree work in the area is relying on the Blue House project for funding to deliver it.
  • The group member also wanted an update on the relationship with the Freemen.
  • A group member said that they would like to see the language used in relation to trees in the Position Statement tightened up – currently a little nebulous, it could be clearer and more definite. For example, highlighting the benefits of planting different species as replacement trees, ones that soak up more CO2 and bring better air quality benefits and are more resistant to disease.
  • Equally, the language around the Blue House itself could be clearer, particularly in setting out the circumstances under which, demolition of the Blue House could be considered.
  • The question was raised about whether staged crossings could be mixed and matched ie. one or two stage depending on the time of day.
  • The group member doubted that this Working Group has much influence over wider issues such as Gosforth High Street and believes that anecdotally, Nexus have concerns about the capacity of Regent Centre so don’t want to make it more attractive as a P&R.
  • A group member suggested that the scheme should be investing in smarter crossings that were super flexible – GG described the City’s Urban Traffic Management & Control Centre and the commitment to best possible technology.
  • The virtue of a residents’ parking scheme around Moorfield was discussed. Would that ultimately affect take up at Regents Centre if Moorfield was unavailable?
  • A group member asked if the width of the island in a 2 stage crossing would affect the capacity of a road. It was pointed out that there is already an island on JDR.
  • A group member stressed the importance of bringing out the connectivity of the cycle facilities described in the Position statement more – for example, connections to Moor Road.


Towards a Recommendation … adopting a new approach

JD explained that using this approach would allow us to make a recommendation that addresses the first 4 reasons for rationale for changes at Blue House. We don’t know definitely when we will need to address the capacity issues at the junction so, let’s do what we can do now and look at walking, cycling, public transport and road safety.

JD has picked out the small roundabout from the earlier ‘optioneering’ – the design does provide facilities that will encourage and support sustainable travel options but if those increased opportunities don’t have the required impact on demand at the junction, then the next stage would have to be to increase the capacity by demolition of the Blue House and redesigning the junction.  The opportunities for people to change the way they travel through the junction when they are making short journeys will affect people who live locally the most.

Discussion Points

  • The responsibility of local residents to change their travel behaviour was recognised.
  • A group member noticed that one of the 3 north bound lanes on the current layout, appears to be missing from the drawing.
  • JD commented that currently the junction is buying capacity at the expense of safety.
  • A group member commented that they were supportive of the approach and the process but wants a rationale for increasing the size of the roundabout.
  • JD wants a road safety audit done on the options.
  • A group member also wants to explore the responsibility of neighbouring local authorities who are generating the trips that are impacting on Newcastle.
  • JD agreed that a devolved planning authority would be beneficial.
  • There are different approaches to travel planning – “predict and provide” is one, “vision & validate” another – that is, what kind of city do we want to live in and what are the achievable actions to progress towards it … for example, a zone thing, a small number of people changing their travel behaviour, different approaches with partners, learning from best practise, extending the Metro network. This is the type of approach the council has adopted through this process.


If JD’s recommendation becomes this, then the following process will ensue:-

  • A full consultation including any required land negotiation with the Freemen and planning permissions – either immediately after Christmas or after the May elections (Purdah starts 3rd week in March).
  • In response to a question about issues caused by construction GG commented that disruption from the first phase of developments could be minimal because much of the new walking and cycling infra structure would be constructed off line.
  • A public consultation would be organised and this would, given the council’s various roles, consist of an information / awareness raising period to enable people to be well informed in advance of a formal planning consultation. It may include things like a Town Hall meeting and meeting for residents which could be supported by the Working Group.
  • In response to a query about limitations in terms of funding, council officers again reiterated that the funding criteria and the emerging recommendations and discussions would need to be aligned and discussions would need to be held with the funding agency – public support for the revised proposals would be crucial in this.
  • A group member pointed out that the Position Statement needed to include proposals for Jesmond Dene Road and Osborne Road and some drawings would be helpful.
  • A group member suggested that resources should be made available for the Working Group members to help them discuss the option with their groups.
  • GG suggested that group members start sending in their ideas for Frequently Asked Questions.
  • A group member sought assurance that the working group could still be involved even at the detailed design stage – GG agreed that there will be opportunities for the group to work with engineers through the detailed design process.
  • In conclusion, JD thanked everyone for their contribution and suggested reconvening in 2 weeks’ time.
  • A group member suggested that the Position Statement should include something about the continued involvement of the Working Group.
  • A working group member asked about the political approvals needed for the approach. Further information would be provided.

Councillor Arlene Ainsley, Cabinet Member for Transport & Air Quality, thanked the Working Group & John. She remarked that the road safety issues at the junction made improvements an imperative. She went on to support the ideas around changing travel behaviour and agreed that the improvements shouldn’t just shift the problem. She also noted that Newcastle already works very closely with other, neighbouring Local Authorities.

Next Meeting – provisionally Monday 20th November tbc

Meeting Eight – 19th June

Notes taken at the eighth meeting of the group held on Monday 19th June 2017

Present: John Dales – Independent Chair; Graham Grant – Head of Transport Investment; Ali Lamb – Transport Engagement; representatives of Open Lab and Newcastle University.

Representatives of organisations and groups:

Introduction and next steps:

John had previously circulated the draft position statement and invited feedback from the group. He was taking on board the comments, particularly those which highlighted that the case for a larger roundabout did not naturally emerge out of the discussion set out in the paper.

He was also noting that there had been considerable pace in the work of the group up to and including the meetings in December but then, delays in progress on certain things like modelling and the General Election of course, had led to a disappointing loss of momentum.

John suggested that, given the length of time since the last meeting, the small groups take some time to discuss the four options to refresh their knowledge and discuss the relative strengths and weaknesses of each. He also suggests that the reps then take some time over the summer to discuss the options with the membership of their groups and get their reaction to the direction of travel.

Following this meeting, John will revise the position statement, and publish it, without a recommendation, so that the working group members can discuss the contents with their members and get feedback for john which he will use to finalise his recommendation.

John & Graham suggested that in September, they would arrange another meeting for the reps and their groups.

A representative said that that would be a good idea to hold a wider meeting as long as it was about the options and not revisiting the criteria or discussing walking and cycling.

John’s recommendation will be made after big meeting in September.

So, working group members are asked to feed their comments to join, their own and their group’s ideas – please send directly to John rather than reply to all, simply for clarity.

A group member asked if one option was the inevitable choice because the funding criteria seemed to favour one option over all the others, is it not the case that, ignoring the demands of the funders risks losing the funding completely.

John reminded the group that doing nothing was always an option but the funding offers significant opportunity to improve road safety, create facilities for walking and cycling and deliver bus benefits. The current layout appears to be efficient in traffic terms but that is at the expense of safety.

Of the options to be discussed the smaller roundabout option would deliver significantly less traffic capacity so John could not recommend it.  One group member feels that would be significant opposition to a larger roundabout so why not try to get the funding anyway … John agrees not to completely close down the smaller option but cautions that it would make things significantly worse for traffic and therefore, for buses too.

A group member suggests that the way to approach the funders is to demonstrate that the new design for Blue House increases the junction’s capacity for people, that is, that the sustainable travel improvements bring additionality that is attracts the funding in the same way as traffic capacity.

Graham points out that throughout the working group time, he has been clear that the group’s criteria and the assurance framework that guides funding decisions are different, however, the working group process is exceptional and has been used itself to mitigate against the rigours of the current assurance framework.

A group member maintains that the residents’ view is that making the Blue House smoother and faster for traffic to negotiate will only shunt the problems to other parts of the network.

John explained a table of data which shows the modelled performance figures for the four options which are:

  • The 2016 consultation option
  • A signalised crossroads with all movements
  • A large roundabout
  • A small roundabout

For clarification, the modelling data takes account of the pedestrian and cycling facilties.

Some group members are also keen to see crossing facilities on all legs, those on the west and south appear to be missing from the drawings and are essential to support modal shift. They feel that crossings should also be single stage although John warns that single stage, although desirable, will kill the junction’s capacity and benefits for vehicles.

Another group member points out that there was supposed to be a new crossing on Jesmond Dene Road, opposite Friday Fields and that seems to be missing too. … just an error.

A period of group work and discussion followed

Round up and closing remarks

John offers additional resource to answer any questions on the Assurance Framework, for example, queries about the impact on buses.

He reminded everyone about sending their feedback on the position statement and asked for headline feedback from tonight’s group work:

  • Believes there is a safety case for the larger roundabout – better lane discipline but difficult to be specific on the safety differences between the large and small roundabout’s – slower speeds only get you so far because slow can cause frustration also.
  • Agrees that there is no discernible safety benefits between the 2 roundabouts although the question of Air Quality and the impact of the 2 has not described.

Graham is clear that we have not done any modelling on Air Quality so anything we say here is speculation or assumption. Broadly speaking, fewer vehicles make AQ better but, idling and stop start makes it worse again.

  • Still a little sceptical about the accuracy of the models – Graham and John however, have confidence in them.

John introduces a policy paper that he and Graham have written about Transport and Health.

John also reminds everyone to send their feedback about the position statement in the next 2 weeks so that the stage one draft can be published and the reps can start to consult their members.

Notes by Ali Lamb


Meeting Seven – 13th March

Blue House & Jesmond Dene Road Working Group

Notes of the seventh meeting taken by Ali Lamb, Transport Engagement Officer, Newcastle City Council

Present: John Dales, Independent Facilitator; Graham Grant, Head of Transport Investment, Ali Lamb, Engagement Officer; Mike Scott, Nexus; Cllrs Catherine Walker (North Jesmond); Dominic Raymont (East Gosforth); Nick Cott (West Gosforth); Stella Postlethwaite (North Jesmond).

Representatives of stakeholder groups: New Cycling; Jesmond Residents Association; Save Newcastle Wildlife; Space for Gosforth, Newcastle Cycling Forum; Gosforth Traffic; Jesmond Dene Estate Residents Association; West Gosforth Residents Association; Petition; High West Jesmond Residents Association; the Five Admirals Residents Association; T&W Public Transport User Group; Open Lab, Newcastle University.

Apologies: Save our Town Moor.

Agenda Items

  1. Welcome & introductions

JD welcomed substitute representatives for Save our Newcastle Wildlife, the Cycling Forum and Space for Gosforth.

  1. Update

JD gave an update on the progress since the last meeting and noted the following:

  • Further modelling work on the junction had unfortunately not been completed because of work pressures in the team of consultants who do the modelling for the council.
  • There is also other modelling work to be commissioned – in line with points made by group members, models need to be made to assess the impact of junction design on the wider network using “S-Paramics” software and the impact of the junction design on the bus network also needs to be modelled.
  • JD feels that we do know more about the performance of various junction designs than we did in December, but not enough to make a recommendation.
  • GG gave an update on the contact with the Freemen – he submitted a report to the Stewards Committee and a full meeting in January – it presented the issues and options for providing facilities for people on foot and on bikes around the junction and some challenges around the Blue House itself. The feedback he had received suggested that the report was received without objection in both meetings.
  • Consultancy support has recently been procured by the council in support of the work of 3 new community groups – Streets for People Reference Groups in Arthur’s Hill & Fenham; Jesmond; Heaton & Ouseburn. The support comes via a company called Phil Jones Associates – the Streets for People project seeks to design and deliver neighbourhood improvements to encourage walking and cycling. JD is part of the PJA team and is working in Jesmond. Streets for People is a complementary piece of work and supports what the Blue House Group have been seeking to achieve in terms of behaviour change.

Updates from the Working Group membership:

High West Jesmond RA – at a meeting attended by 40 – 45 members, the following feedback was received:

  • HWJRA are pleased with the process and the level of engagement
  • They approve of keeping the recommendation within the footprint of the current junction
  • They would prefer to have a smaller junction and retain the Blue House
  • They support the separation of cars, cycles and people
  • They have reservations about the safety of people using paths set deeper into the Moor.
  • There are also concerns about potential light pollution if lit paths are provided to address personal safety issues.
  • There are concerns about the length of the bus lane
  • They would like to see a pedestrian crossing on Grandstand Road.
  • Overall a cautious welcome to the designs
  • In terms of ideas about Moorfield …. Some people were against the removal of parking on Moorfield because of the fear of displacement parking that may occur in other streets.
  • Not keen on making it one way at the eastern end i.e. the junction of Moorfield with JDR end.
  • They are in broad agreement but have some concerns about the left only lane to turn into Osborne Road – it has been tried before and caused tailbacks.
  • JD feels that a parking survey would be beneficial.

Jesmond Dene Estate RA –

  • Agree with HWJRA but have additional concerns about the development of the former nursery site in Jesmond Dene and egress arrangements from JDR onto Matthew Bank, need to ensure the plans are connected.

Five Admirals RA –

  • Also agrees with HWJRA but also stresses support for the retention of traffic lights to control the turn from Moorfield into JDR and would like to see a crossing at the La Sagesse corner.

West Gosforth RA-

  • More support for the smaller roundabout and the retention of the Blue House
  • Support safe crossing points
  • Retain connectivity between neighbourhoods – no banned movements
  • Urge the council not to plan to accommodate increased traffic.

Reducing Traffic Demand

As previously stated, reducing the demand for travel by car through the junction by around 10% in the peaks would enable relatively compact junction designs to handle the predicted 2031 traffic flows safely.

In order to achieve this level of reduction, it will be vital that the attractiveness of bus services is improved, and this means there should be good bus priority on approach to the junction. Nexus (MS) will be involved in discussions to ensure that the correct modelling occurs in public transport terms.

Group members are curious about possible plans to expand the Metro network for example up to Cramlington. MS confirms that the metro extension under consideration is along the Ashington, Blyth & Tyne light Railway

JD cautioned the group against over-estimating the council’s powers in terms of public transport reform and improvements.

GG noted that the council is supporting the Metro renewal programme to replace tracks and refurbish metro cars and is also working with partners including Nexus to look at securing funding for a new fleet of Metro cars and considering extensions to the Metro where the priority is on a light rail extension on the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne line rather than to Cramlington. Newcastle is also working with others to examine the potential for expansion at Park and Rides.

MS confirmed that the metro extension under consideration is along the Ashington, Blyth & Tyne light Railway

A group member noted that currently it is not reasonable to expect the council to influence public transport massively but under the Bus Services Bill, the council could have more powers. It is not possible to model the impact of the Bill, but it could ultimately have an impact on the volume of traffic on the network.

A group member said that the expected growth in driverless and electric cars could also mean that a larger roundabout is redundant in the future and asks whether the council would be required to return the funding if it chose the smaller design.

JD explained that the scheme funding is dependent on the design delivering the required benefits for all road users as outlined earlier in the process.

A group member stated that Gosforth High Street doesn’t need any more bus services – there is already over provision, so the investment in the Metro network is preferable.

There are issues to be resolved with the fare structure and zones on the metro network in Gosforth – Regent Centre and South Gosforth are in different zones. Metro travel is very expensive for families travelling shorter distances.

The Park & Ride at the Regent Centre is under used – it needs to be promoted.

Some group members felt that Ilford Road Metro Station had become a popular park & ride – how much traffic going through Blue House is generated by the Ilford Road Metro users?

JD concluded that all these points will make a valid contribution towards addressing the target of reducing the predicted traffic demand by around 10% before 2031 but so too would people to change their current travel behaviour.

Group Work – table discussions about junction designs …

  • 2 & 3 lane conventional roundabouts and ‘triangle’ (Moorfield, Ilford Road and JDR) proposals
  • Both plans require further modelling

Clarification on the trees – some trees are earmarked on the plan for removal, they are either dead or dying. There are also a few trees within the garden of the Blue House that are not part of the avenues and had not been surveyed because they are within the property boundaries.

Group Feedback

The Triangle proposals (Moorfield, Ilford Road and JDR) –

  • Why not create cycle tracks along Moorfield at the top of the triangle? That would require the removal of parking and the street has relatively low traffic so it could be considered to be unnecessary. The route would certainly be signed.
  • One reported their reservations about Moorfield being a safe cycle route given the current volume of traffic using it.
  • What about the connectivity of the cycle route onto Matthew Bank – this will be a popular route and safe integration with the traffic going down the bank is needed.
  • The number of lanes along JDR was discussed – 2 lanes are squeezed in now when vehicle size allows but there are issues at the top of Osborne Road – Left turn only lane discussed.
  • Better signals could give options to stack queuing traffic further back from Osborne Road junction – at Moorfield / JDR junction for example.
  • The performance of the Moorfield / Ilford Road junction was discussed – could a 4 way give way work? Are there options for a pedestrian / cycle crossing?
  • Generally, there is question about how best to connect two-way cycle tracks back into normal traffic flow – not yet resolved but clearly the design of this junction would be important.

Roundabout proposals –

Group asked to review and comment on the following features:

  • The position of footpaths and cycle paths
  • Whether paths should be located within the tree line or not
  • How best to protect the trees
  • The choice of materials

Comments included:

  • The paths when it’s dark – existing street lights would provide safety and security on paths next to the road but paths deeper in the Moor would need additional lighting.
  • Making the paths next to the road shared areas might overcome this.
  • Cycles are best placed away from the road, cyclists falling off would be safer deeper into the Moor rather than next to the road.
  • A group member feels that the proposed cycle paths are far enough away from the houses to make lighting them acceptable to local residents.
  • Putting paths between the trees is attractive but there may be issues with leaf fall and delivering the routes in these areas in terms of protecting tree roots.
  • The Blue house was discussed – there are different views on its history and purpose, local value and options for its future.
  • Flooding issues and opportunities to address flooding in the immediate area.
  • Trees and replanting opportunities.
  • Choice of materials for new paths – recycled tyres and other materials were discussed – the group would like to see some samples.

Next Meeting

Monday 24th April 2017, 5.30 for 6pm, Committee Room, Civic Centre

Meeting postponed due the pre-election period for the General Election – it was reconvened after the election.

Residents’ group survey on traffic choices at Blue House roundabout

The five residents’ groups represented on the Blue House roundabout carried out a survey of their members during January, to establish their views on whether they would be motivated to switch from car use to an alternative means of travel.

Open Lab at Newcastle University has kindly assisted with the analysis of the survey which you can find on the website, there were nearly 300 responses.

You can see the analysis of the survey here.


Meeting Six – 12th December

Blue House & Jesmond Dene Road Working Group

Monday 12th December 2016

Notes of the sixth meeting taken by Ali Lamb, Transport Engagement Officer, Newcastle City Council

Present: John Dales, Independent Facilitator; Graham Grant, Head of Transport Investment, Ali Lamb, Engagement Officer; Mike Scott, Nexus; Cllrs Catherine Walker (North Jesmond); Dominic Raymont (East Gosforth); Nick Cott (West Gosforth); Stella Postlethwaite (North Jesmond) govwnsq.

Representatives of stakeholder groups: New Cycling; Jesmond Residents Association; Save Newcastle Wildlife; Space for Gosforth, Newcastle Cycling Forum; Gosforth Traffic; Jesmond Dene Estate Residents Association; West Gosforth Residents Association; Petition; High West Jesmond Residents Association; the Five Admirals Residents Association; T&W Public Transport User Group; Save our Town Moor; Open Lab, Newcastle University.

Plans and documents examined in the meeting: 

Gosforth-Jesmond Dene Junction Proposal

Blue House Junction Turbo Roundabout Proposal

Blue House Junction cycle roots and branches proposal

Blue House Junction performance data summary

Blue House blank map

Agenda Items

  1. Welcome & introductions

JD welcomed substitute representatives for Save our Newcastle Wildlife and the Cycling Forum and noted the apologies.

  1. Communications and web Site

Researchers from Open Lab were seeking feedback on the website …. How well has the web site and resources worked for the group members and their wider memberships, how has the web site been received by the general public?

Comments included:

  • Mixed reactions to the illustrated minutes of meetings – in particular the new animated version to music was criticised – some people felt that it trivialised the work of the group and was too simplistic. The music accompanying the animations seemed particularly unpopular.
  • Some people in the group would prefer a static image.
  • Compliments for the web site and resources have also been made and it was noted that buying in such resources commercially would be very expensive.
  • Everyone is grateful to the university for giving their time and skills free of charge to the working group – this is a University funded research project.
  • The plans and diagrams are difficult to locate because they are posted with the notes from a particular meeting – it would be better to have all the plans and drawings in one place.
  • The web site is well used and great resource for the already engaged – the issue is how to engage with the excluded and the web site is not really achieving this.
  • The illustrated minutes are one way of trying to increase the accessibility of the material on the web site – different age groups have different preferences for the way they prefer to access material – younger people tend to prefer video over written reports. Maintaining a variety is important.
  • The model images and formats that have been used to create the illustrated minutes (the asset bank) will be posted on the web site. Any group members interested are welcome to use them to make their own posters or annotate notes and newsletters.
  • The comments feature on the web site was discussed …. Members of the public can leave comments and ask questions but the management of the feature is proving to be difficult. The comments can be wide ranging and it’s difficult for an individual to reply on behalf of the group or to bring the comments forward for the whole group’s attention. CC & AL will compose a reply to each of the comments to acknowledge the contribution and explain how the comments will be used by the group. CC will collate and catalogue the comments so they are more accessible to the group and can be discussed at pertinent times during the process of refining the recommendation.
  • Open Lab were congratulated and thanked for their work on the web site.
  • The next stage of development of the web site will be to consider how it can be used in the engagement of the wider public going forward – a suggestion was made about a video being made which distils the learning and process the working group have been through, this will benefit people outside the working group better understand their recommendations.
  1. Jesmond Dene Road Junctions

JD tabled a revised drawing and highlighted various features of the proposal which he would like the small groups to discuss and feedback on:

  • the addition of a crossing at the Friday Fields ‘Cut’ and
  • the widened footways on the north side of JDR which would offer the opportunity of bi directional cycling
  • signals at or around the junction of Moorfield / JDR – either a single pelican crossing on JDR just after the junction, so drivers would need to look for gaps in the flow and or take advantage of the gaps created by the pelican, or, the junction could be fully signalised as it is now
  • The pros and cons of one way traffic over the metro bridge at Moorfield.
  • A commitment to a pedestrian crossing at the top of Osborne Road.
  • The opportunities for creating better cycling conditions on JDR – particularly around the JDR metro bridge.

Small group feedback – Comments and ideas included:

  • Removing the parking on the east side of Moorfield and replacing it with a cycle lane (a suggestion that isn’t supported by the High West Jesmond Residents Association rep).
  • Making Moorfield one way (a suggestion that isn’t supported by the High West Jesmond Residents Association rep).
  • The proposal to remove the traffic light between Moorfield and JDR was strongly opposed in one group’s feedback. They want the traffic light to be retained and be demand-driven through detecting motor vehicles.
  • Create cycling facilities on both sides of JDR rather than the bi directional facilities suggested by the plan.
  • Build a new pedestrian / cycling bridge over the Metro at the top of Osborne Road on the south side of the existing bridge.
  • Could more space be identified along JDR between the Metro Bridge and the Moorfield by taking out the hedge and a strip of land from the allotments?
  • Could the ‘triangle’ of Moorfield and Ilford Road be accepted by cyclists as an alternative to the more direct JDR route?
  • A group member commented that they would need to understand more about the cycling flows and popular routes from all directions before reaching a view on whether bi directional on one side or directional facilities on both sides of JDR is best.
  • Maps of the local area showing existing cycle routes – strategic and local were shared to help this part of the discussion.
  • The maps were well received and it was noted that this kind of map showing routes within residential neighbourhoods would be helpful for the Cycling Strategy’s refresh next year.
  • There is a debate to be had about what would make the most difference to cycling in neighbourhoods – better infrastructure and or better signage.
  1. Comparative performance data for different junction styles

A summary paper of the most recent modelling data was shared.

The results show that the current junction arrangement at Blue House delivers reasonable efficiency, but the efficiencies are made at the expense of safety, i.e. no walking or cycling facilities.

A large conventional roundabout performs poorly going forward.

A Turbo roundabout provides better performance than the conventional one.

The best performance is delivered by a signalised crossroads with 2 banned movements – using the same footprint as the existing arrangement but at the expense of some trees.

JD commented that the model didn’t show a great deal of difference in performance between the designs and also JD has some reservations about the assumptions on which the modelling has been made. More modelling work is required.

Small group work to discuss the pros and cons of the junction designs referencing the assessment criteria established earlier in the working group process.

Comments following the small group work from one of the 3 groups:

  • Relocating the Blue house would improve the visibility at the junction
  • The turbo option is safer because it offers better lane discipline, cycling facilities and crossing points – it happens to handle higher traffic volumes as well.
  • Connected traffic lights are important to the success of any solution, they can help to smooth and regulate speeds by creating green waves and dis-incentivising speeding by impeding progress with red lights.
  • It is important that we don’t place the emphasis on better traffic performance when discussing the junction solutions – people want to see less traffic and city planning needs to reflect and support this position.
  1. Some members of the working group believe that better traffic performance is an extremely important consideration and should be a key indicator of a successful junction).
  1. Next Steps

In terms of the predicted traffic flows in our modelling … what can we recommend / explore to reduce the demand?

JD summarised the areas of emerging consensus in the working group – the new junction should be at the current location, there should be little or no tree loss, better walking and cycling facilities are essential, and, there is an acceptance that the Blue House itself may be required in terms of space.

GG will prepare a paper for the next full meeting of the Freemen in January 2017 to explain the key issues for replacing the junction including cycling and walking paths within the tree line and the potential for the footprint of the Blue House. GG will copy the paper to the Working Group.

JD will start to write a paper to collate the work that the working group have done and record the process.

GG & JD will work up more detailed traffic modelling on options and look at variations, for example, more lanes on the turbo roundabout; a larger conventional roundabout; the addition of cycling and pedestrian facilities to the current layout.

JD will provide these extras to the Working Group in advance of the next meeting at the end of January.

The Working Group are asked to take some work back to their groups – to start discussions and generate ideas about what the council might do to change the travel habits of commuters and other travellers in order to ensure that the predicted demand forecasted in the models, does not emerge. Basically, it boils down to how to lose 400 car trips to keep demand in 2031 to the same levels as 2016.

Group members were also asked to take blank locality maps and highlight the streets that are current rat-runs in the area.

  1. Next meeting

Tbc – end of January 2017

Meeting Five – 28th of November

Blue House & Jesmond Dene Road Working Group

Monday 28th November 2016

Notes of the fifth meeting taken by Ali Lamb, Transport Engagement Officer, Newcastle City Council

Present: John Dales, Independent Facilitator; Graham Grant, Head of Transport Investment, Ali Lamb, Engagement Officer; Mike Scott, Nexus; Cllrs Catherine Walker (North Jesmond); Dominic Raymont (East Gosforth); Nick Cott (West Gosforth); Stella Postlethwaite (North Jesmond).

Representatives of stakeholder groups: New Cycling; Jesmond Residents Association; Save Newcastle Wildlife; Space for Gosforth, Newcastle Cycling Forum; Gosforth Traffic; Jesmond Dene Estate Residents Association; West Gosforth Residents Association; Petition; High West Jesmond Residents Association; the Five Admirals Residents Association; T&W Public Transport User Group; Save our Town Moor; Open Lab, Newcastle University.

Agenda Items

  1. Welcome & introductions

Welcomes were extended by JD and he referred to the paper that some group members had received on email from Nick Brown MP’s office. It was apparent that only some of the group had received the paper, no one was clear how the email addresses had been accessed given that the council had explained to the MP’s office that any papers for distribution to the group must come to the council to be shared – under the data protection rules the council would never share personal contact details with a 3rd party.

It was agreed that AL would circulate the paper to the whole group and that a discussion about the contents would be deferred until the next meeting.

  1. Proposed changes to speed limits

GG gave a short presentation to describe the proposed changes to the speed limits along the Great North Road, these proposals represent a holistic approach to the whole length, from Blue House to the North Brunton Interchange.

The proposals are a mixture of 20 to 40mph stretches depending on the conditions – the most built up stretches attracting a 20mph limit and the most open, a 40mph limit. The proposals have been through a technical consultation with the emergency services, bus operators and decision makers. The next stage is a formal consultation which includes the general public and those people who are directly affected – this is likely to be after Christmas.

Q: Will the council be modelling the impact of the proposed speed reductions on the function of Blue House?

GG agrees to have a look at this idea.

There is speculation about the impact and effectiveness of speed reductions and it was noted that signs are only part of the picture, the design and enforcement are also crucial in supporting speed reduction.

Group members suggest that they believe that speed contributes to the collision statistics at Blue House.

Enforcement is a key issue and GG points out the council does not have the powers to enforce moving traffic offenses – the police have responsibility for that.

A group member questioned whether 20mph zones were enforceable? JD said that they were as long as they were signed properly. GG remarked that the issue can sometimes be one of resources and priorities. The police and the council do meet regularly to agree priorities.

Q: Could average speed cameras be a tool in enforcing the speed restrictions?

In conclusion, JD states that he believes the speed reductions are a positive contribution to the redesign of the Blue House.

  1. Review of performance data for junction options considered to date

JD introduced the paper he had prepared with the modelling data for the 3 different junctions the groups have previously considered.  In summary, the data showed that Design 1 (a simple turbo roundabout, considered at the BHWG on 31 October – some tree loss) does not perform well in the short or long term (which assumes a forecasted 10% growth in traffic, which can, however, be questioned) , Design 2 (the large oval roundabout, also considered by BHWG on 31 October – excessive tree loss therefore disregarded) performs slightly better in the short term but much worse in the long term; Design 3 (a conventional circular roundabout considered by BHWG on 14 November – no tree loss) performs ok for the current demand at am peak times, slightly less well at pm peak times but struggles in the peak times in 2031 if the forecasted growth in demand occurs.

JD suggests that the group start to look at back-casting rather than forecasting – establishing what the tolerances are in terms of delays and then translating that to look at the performance of the junction.

Q: How are delays on public transport measured?

A: The model does allow for the bus movements to be extracted.

It was also noted that in order to advantage buses, although they will need to wait at the junction, they must have a means to get to the front of the queue.

Q: Do the modelling figures include the impact of the crossings and the inevitable delays when they are used?

A: No, the figures don’t include crossings and each time they are called, a new source of delay will be introduced. However, there are ways of minimising the delay for example, never allowing full red on all 4 approaches at the same time.

Q: How does the performance of the junction options described affect the other pinch points in the network?

A: The modelling hasn’t been done yet on the network as a whole but JD will get it done.

The group would like give consideration to what length of time is an acceptable delay and how time of day might affect those tolerances.

It was noted that the consequence of delays must also be considered, that is that delays will lead to rat running through residential streets.  JD remarks that this is the genius of cities – the fact that people have options, they may change their route, and they may change their time or mode of travel.  Supporting a variety of choices such as walking or cycling might be a contribution to managing growth and retaining capacity at peak times.

It is acknowledged that currently, there aren’t any delays outside of peak hours. It was also pointed out that we don’t have any representatives of non-residential users of the junction who are affected by the performance and capacity and don’t have an option to change their journey plans or modes. NCC has a duty to consider the needs of all users’, not just residents.

Q: Will Blue House and Haddricks be delivered at the same time?

A: No decision has been taken as yet but the group will be asked to express a view as to what is preferable – more disruption but less time to do, less disruption but a longer working period.

A group member agreed that the council had to consider the needs of all users but suggested that the total journey time is the important factor for NCC to look at.

Q: Do speed limits affect delays?

A: To a certain extent but ultimately delays occur at junctions rather than on links.

  1. Consideration of a new roundabout layout for Blue House junction

JD tabled a plan which had been developed after discussing options with the Freeman in terms of land use to facilitate cycling and walking facilities and options for relocating the resident of the Blue House itself, demolishing the building and using the footprint for the junction improvements.

The proposal uses a type of turbo roundabout design and delivers encouraging performance figures on all peak times and future forecasts.

After a period table based discussions and questions, JD asks the group to agree to further developmental work on this option.

Q: Why are we spending time on this option when it appears to deliver very little advantage now and greater advantage in the future but the long term aim is to have far less traffic?

  1. Consideration of proposals for Jesmond Dene Road junctions

A plan was shared that tidy’s up the existing layouts, smartens the junctions and introduces at pedestrian crossing at the top of Osborne Road. A new crossing is proposed at the La Sagesse development, the left turn into Osborne Road from JDS becomes left only and all traffic signals are upgraded and connected to work together.

A table discussion followed and various issues were raised with JD and GG. There were questions about provision for cycling to clarify where it was. Comment was made that it needed to be of a high enough quality to attract new users and better thought through to enable it to link adequately with surrounding area and a wider network.

  1. Actions
  • JD compile comparative figures for the 3 junctions in the frame in order to help the process of moving towards a recommendation
  • JD will produce more information about how the 3 potential junctions would operate within the network
  • Group members are invited to share the information with their networks after the usual 3 day period.

A group member reminded everyone that a discussion about modal shift is outstanding and JD assured that the back-casting discussion next time would encompass modal shift and behaviour change. It was also raised that there may be need for a least one more working group meeting in view of the complex issues arising from nearby changes other than to the roundabout itself.

Next meeting

Monday 12th December 2016 – 5.30 for a 6pm start

Additional documentation

Click on the following link for the option for the Jesmond Dene / Osborne Road junction improvement.

Image below – the new proposed plan.

<a href=" diovan online.jpg”>25-11-16-blue-house-1-500_str-option

Meeting Four – 14th November


Blue House & Jesmond Dene Road Working Group

Monday 14th November 2016

Notes of the fourth meeting taken by Ali Lamb, Transport Engagement Officer, Newcastle City Council

Present: John Dales, Independent Facilitator; Graham Grant, Head of Transport Investment, Ali Lamb, Engagement Officer; Mike Scott, Nexus; Cllrs Catherine Walker (North Jesmond); Dominic Raymont (East Gosforth); Nick Cott (West Gosforth); Stella Postlethwaite (North Jesmond).

Representatives of stakeholder groups: New Cycling; Jesmond Residents Association; Save Newcastle Wildlife; Space for Gosforth, Newcastle Cycling Forum; Gosforth Traffic; Jesmond Dene Estate Residents Association; West Gosforth Residents Association; Petition; High West Jesmond Residents Association; the Five Admirals Residents Association; T&W Public Transport User Group; Save our Town Moor; Open Lab, Newcastle University.

Agenda Items

  1. Welcome & introductions

JD welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions followed because there were a couple of new representatives attending to cover for absences.

  1. Tree Survey

Discussion points:

JD introduced a tree survey which had been undertaken between April and August this year. The survey is a condition survey of each tree completed to British Standards by arboriculturalists, the trees surveyed have also been plotted on a map.

820 trees were surveyed, 38 are currently at risk because they are dying, dead, damaged or diseased.

A number of questions were raised, the answers have been added to these notes after the meeting:

Q: What would happen to the trees identified as ‘at risk’ normally and when?

A: The at risk trees would be reported to the Arbor squad and they would schedule appropriate work – pruning or removal

Q: Would the survey have been completed anyway or was it prompted by the proposed highway works?

A: The survey is part of a full Town Moor Tree Survey, there are over 3,000 trees around the Moor and the management plan is being updated as a result.

Q: Some trees are designated ‘remove’ and some are designated ‘recommended remove’ – what is the difference?

A: ‘Remove’ is a definite instruction for the tree to be felled, ‘recommended remove’ suggested fell but also a request for a second opinion before that is done.

  1. Amendments / comments about the notes of the last meeting

Amendment to the reported collision figures from the meeting notes from 31.10.16 – figures should read between June 2010 and June 2016 there were 75 collisions which resulted in 115 injuries.

It was also noted that the notes did not convey the level of positive feeling about retaining the open space and trees in the area rather than expanding the profile of the junction that came out of the small group work … that is largely attributable to the fact that the small group work wasn’t recorded in the notes and that each group was supposed to send their findings in to be added after the meeting.

The drawn record of the meeting also misses out the group work because they were inspired by the written notes.

Web site comments – people are posting comments on the web site but there is no one to take on the responsibility of pulling the replies together. It was agreed that the best thing to do is to put a statement together to let anyone who posts know that their views are being noted and fed into the working group – CC

  1. Collisions data

The comparison figures requested at the last meeting were tabled for reference, they show the collision data for 40 junctions compared on a rolling average.

They show that Blue House has risen from 19th worst in Tyne & Wear to the worst and or second worst in the last 3 years.

Q: When does the period that data is collected start and finish

A: Data is compiled on a monthly basis and presented in 5 year clusters – the last data set that our figures relate too was collected in August 2016.

Q: The data suggests that there was a rapid increase in collisions at Blue House 5 years ago – did something happen at the junction to cause this? For example, is that when the 2 lane right turns were introduced?

A: Traffic Management team have said that there have been no significant changes in road markings at the junction for over 8 years – google maps from 2008 shows the road markings to be the same as they are today with the only change being the refreshed paint in 2012. They have also commented that the police’s accident investigation would have identified road layout problems and changes would have been demanded as a result.

Q: Can we rely on historical comparisons between junctions to indicate the danger that a junction poses? Wouldn’t absolute numbers be a better indication? Also, the map of the location of the collisions shows that some of them are on the approaches not at the actual junction.

A: The collisions mapped are within 50m of the junction. We weren’t actually asked to provide the absolute numbers of collisions, we were asked to compare Blue House to other junctions in the City. But we do have some data about collisions at similar capacity junctions in the region which will be shared and shows that in absolute numbers, Blue House far exceeds similar junctions in the area.

Comment: Some of the most dangerous junctions have the fewest accidents because people try to avoid them.

  1. Growth Assumptions and turning counts – presentation by GG

The presentation shows graphically how the capacity of the junction was tested at different times of the day in 2015.

It was noted that the width of the lanes in the vicinity is below current standards. In terms of producing a reliable growth forecast, the method involves collecting data from ANPR (Automatic number plate recognition) cameras, turning counts and queue counts and adding them into a computer model to forecast how they will grow – the findings are validated by a localised model that compares them to what is currently happening. It was pointed out that the queue information, although valuable, does not show the extent to which delays were occurring slightly further ahead at nearby bottlenecks, and therefore does not give a full picture of the impact on journey times.

The data for this forecast was collected over the course of one week.

The council accepts that currently we don’t have a queueing problem outside of the peak hours. It was also noted that human behaviour leads to peak time spreading – that is people changing the time they make their journey – a little earlier or later or finding alternative routes to avoid queues. People prefer to keep moving even if the journey time ends up being the same.

ANPR records show that the popular traffic patterns within the area have been confined to the main roads thus far.

Comment: The queue lengths shown in the model seem to be much shorter than the experience of those travelling around the junction at peak times. One explanation suggested is that the queue lengths are averaged over a peak period, meaning that the time-spans of longer queues would be quite short.

Q: Does the model account for pinch points along the approaches? Most residents believe that congestion is generated away from the junction.

A: It is agreed that queues do build up at the lights on the approaches to the junction but once the traffic gets there, the roundabout has no way of managing the flow that comes on to it.

Q: What is the tipping point or tolerance for queue lengths?

A: The policy is to keep traffic on the roads that are designed to carry it and out of residential streets which are for access.

Q: Is it possible to use network planning to divert traffic away from Blue House and onto roads like the Coast Road? Or let the queues and congestion build so that people will decide to use public transport or other travelling methods instead….. 

Anticipating Growth – the National Trip End Model predicts growth in car ownership. Currently 42% of households in Newcastle don’t have access to a car but in some areas more than 60% of households do – the most deprived areas have the lowest car ownership. The model also looks at housing growth across the region to predict the increase in population – the council have used the lowest predicted growth figures for this scenario.

JD comments that the data shows that our travel time and the number of trips are remarkably constant – the way we travel means that we can travel further, faster, by car as opposed to travelling by public transport, walking or cycling.

Q: when will the working group look at how to change travel patterns and preferences … will the group challenge travel choices?

JD comments that national traffic forecasts predict growth but they are rarely reliable.

Group members raise the idea of back casting to assess the reliability of forecasting …

Also, the issues of climate change and air pollution have taken on a greater significance after the recent government court case. JD remarks that the future isn’t written and that better air quality, economic and personal health, congestion etc. are all linked to political decision making.

One of the working group members presented a proposal to introduce better cycling provision around the junction linking the improvements in the city centre north, up the Great North Road and into Gosforth …the proposals brings together the good support that the small groups seemed to share last time for better walking and cycling provision.

  1. Assessment of possible new layout

JD presented a junction proposals that had been worked up by his team, to deliver on concerns and issues such as better lane discipline, tighter turns, preserving trees, better provision for walking and cycling …. The design shows a simple roundabout with a bigger central circle and fewer lanes (which means that it has lower capacity).

The working group worked in small groups to assess this proposal using their previously determined criteria and assessment tools.

The Headline feedback:

Positives – preserves trees, slower and safer

Negatives – lower capacity (modelling still to be done), 2 stage crossings with poor air quality on islands in the traffic – less frequent green time for pedestrians can improve the capacity – JD will get some timings.

Some members weren’t convinced that cycling provision was needed on both sides of the GNR and noted that the location of the crossings would have an impact on the traffic flow.

However, crossings for all modes are an important feature on all legs and provision for buses is also important.

  1. Any other business

The group were told that the council have prepared a paper for the next Cabinet meeting on the 21st November where they are requesting to apply for planning permission for the Haddricks Mill and Killingworth Road proposals …. The Cabinet report references the Blue House working group and the redesign of the junction in the business case for the funding for Haddricks Mill. An indicative design has been included in the business case, it is not a design that is being progressed, it is an example as required for the funding bid to progress.

Next meeting

Monday 28th November 2016 – 5.30 for a 6pm start.

For additional supporting documents click on the links below.

Bill Dodds’ proposal to enhance provision of cycling

John Dale’s team new junction design proposal (work in progress)

Meeting Three – 31 October

Blue House & Jesmond Dene Road Working Group

Monday 31st October 2016

Notes of the third meeting taken by Ali Lamb, Transport Engagement Officer, Newcastle City Council

Present: John Dales, Independent Facilitator; Graham Grant, Head of Transport Investment, Ali Lamb, Engagement Officer; Open Lab, Newcastle University. Cllrs Catherine Walker (North Jesmond); Dominic Raymont (East Gosforth); Nick Cott (West Gosforth); Stella Postlethwaite (North Jesmond). Mike Scott, Nexus.

Representatives of stakeholder groups: NewCycling; Jesmond Residents Association; Save Newcastle Wildlife; Space for Gosforth, Newcastle Cycling Stakeholders Forum; Gosforth Traffic; Jesmond Dene Estate Residents Association; West Gosforth Residents Association; Petition; High West Jesmond Residents Association; the Five Admirals Residents Association; T&W Public Transport User Group; Save our Town Moor.

Agenda Items

JD welcomed everyone to the meeting and apologised for the late circulation of the papers. Other communication issues were discussed including the length of time between meetings when the group are in a collaborative but challenging period when good communication is so important. JD suggested that an additional meeting in 2 weeks’ time would be better than communicating using posts on the web site …meetings are a better way of exploring complex information and appreciating different points of view. JD noted that an extra meeting had also been added onto the end of the scheduled meetings, so all in all, the programme had gone from 4 to 6 meetings and the door was always open for others if they are needed.

It was agreed that an additional meeting on Monday 14th November would be arranged AL

Discussion points:

Discussion points;

Questions for clarification before the assessment session began:

Observations from the table sessions revealed that there were very similar discussions at each one – congestion; safety; provision for walking and cycling; protection of moorland.

Feedback sheets were collected and JD asked that any other feedback/comments be emailed to him.

Design 1 – A signalised crossroads with all movements possible

Design 2 – A signalised crossroads with some restricted movements

Design 3 – A compact roundabout or ‘turbo’ roundabout

Design 4 – A conventional roundabout

JD shared estimates on the number of trees that would be affected by each of the 4 options – to be circulated by JD

Next Meeting – Monday 14th November 2016, 5.30 for a 6pm start.