Between November 2024 and January 2025 the North East Combined Authority consulted on its draft North East Local Transport Plan. This blog is SPACE for Gosforth’s response to that consultation.

The Local Transport Plan covers local journeys, for example to school, to work or to the shops, as well as longer journeys around the NE region. Once agreed, the NE Transport Plan will determine how the regional transport budget, up to £732.3 million over five years, will be spent. Amongst the things we have asked for are:

• A commitment from the Mayor to honour her manifesto pledge “to make sure it’s safe for families to walk or cycle to school”, and for significant progress on this within the Mayor’s four-year term of office.
• Measurable time-bound targets for improving road safety and cutting emissions.
• Action to mitigate the risks that will be caused by growth in vehicle traffic, which the plan states is forecast to grow by 20% between 2020 and 2050. Targets to cut emissions, cut congestion and improve road safety are unlikely to be achievable if this happens. 

We have also proposed specific schemes for Regent Centre, Gosforth High Street and Haddricks Mill Road.

Our response is best read alongside the draft Transport Plan and the associated Delivery Plan, which can be found on the consultation website https://www.northeast-ca.gov.uk/localtransportplan.

It is quite a long response so if you just want the headlines we suggest you just read the introduction and Part 1 – Key Points.

You can also see our group’s responses to previous iterations of the NE local transport plan from 2016 and 2021.

---

Dear North East Combined Authority,

Re: North East Local Transport Plan Consultation – January 2025

Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the updated North East Local Transport Plan.

We welcome the Mayor’s manifesto commitment to “make the North East the best connected and greenest region in the UK” and the vision for a green, safe and integrated regional transport network that provides realistic choices for people to walk, cycle and use public transport for everyday journeys.

We especially agree that infrastructure that not just encourages, but enables people to walk, wheel or cycle should be central to the transport network (Ambition 10 page 48) and that all road users in our region should feel safe when using the network, including pedestrians, cyclists, wheelers, car drivers and HGV drivers (Ambition 18 page 56).

Our feedback below is set out in the following parts:

1. A summary of key points that we would like NECA to consider in finalising the North East Local Transport Plan.
2. Detailed feedback on the Transport Plan
3. Feedback on the associated Delivery Plan
4. Example proposals from the Gosforth area of Newcastle upon Tyne that would support the Mayor to achieve her transport vision.
5. Other initiatives that will help achieve KPI targets
6. Appendices
   1. Appendix A – Manifesto Commitments to walking and cycling
   2. Appendix B – Local Authority Net Zero Commitments
   3. Appendix C – Net Zero Commitments by other UK Mayors.

PART 1 – Key points

1. To be complete, the plan must set out both the direction of change and the pace at which it will happen. The pace aspect is what will determine if this is a plan with ambition or just a list of good intentions that will never be realised. We urge NECA to pay particular attention to the pace it intends to deliver and to communicate this through the use of time-bound KPI targets, including interim milestones setting out what the Mayor will achieve in her term of office.
2. A ‘gap analysis’ should urgently be completed to determine if the list of planned interventions in Annex A of the Delivery Plan will achieve the time-bound KPI targets, or if further (or different) interventions are required.
3. Based on the Integrated Sustainability Assessment (ISA) that traffic levels will likely increase by 10% over the period of the plan, we can be certain the gap is likely to be substantial and that the plan will not achieve objectives related to cutting emissions or improving road safety. NECA and the Mayor need to address this in the final version of the plan following this consultation.
4. Governance and accountability for how targets will be met needs to be spelled out clearly, especially how responsibility will be split between the Mayor, local authorities and the Northumbria and Durham Police and Crime Commissioners. Monitoring reports should likewise show achievement against targets at both local authority and at combined authority level.
5. On active travel, one of the Mayor’s key manifesto promises was to work “with local authorities to make sure it’s safe for families to walk or cycle to school.“ This is a key every-day journey for women and girls. According to the 2021 public attitudes to active travel study quoted in the plan, only 25% of females who cycle were willing to cycle on North East Roads due to safety concerns. This should be addressed as one of the most urgent priorities, just as it would be If only 25% of females were willing to use the bus or Metro.
6. The Mayor also committed to “make the North East the best connected and greenest region in the UK”. The plan should set out the detail of what this means by reference to other UK regions, with interim targets to set out what she expects to achieve by the end of her term of office. We have included other region’s net zero commitments in Appendix C.
7. On Net Zero, the plan has a comprehensive description of the sources of greenhouse gas emissions from transport but needs a similarly comprehensive strategy setting out what will be done to reduce emissions in line with local authority commitments and within UK Carbon Budgets. The first test for this will be to determine if, or to what extent, the Northumberland Line has led to lower emissions by reducing traffic volumes as predicted by the leader of Northumberland Council.
8. To support Net Zero, the plan should stop using roads to “unlock” new housing or other new development and use public transport and active travel instead. If those that can travel by bus or active travel do so, existing roads will be more than sufficient for those that need to drive including freight and other deliveries. Any new development should be designed to be accessed by public transport and active travel as ‘retrofitting’ will be either expensive or not possible.
9. One of the biggest threats to the plan’s objectives, especially Net Zero, is the forecast 20% growth in vehicle traffic between 2020 and 2050 (NE LTP ISA Carbon Report section 4.2). If this happens, it will negatively impact road safety, air quality, carbon emissions and congestion, and most likely will lead to reduced public transport usage. NECA should look to other cities and regions where traffic volumes have been successfully lowered, for example the recent introduction of a Congestion Relief Zone in New York (USA not North Tyneside).
10. We also strongly support the creation of a road safety ‘action plan’ (Ambition 18, page 56) and the “Vision Zero” target to significantly reduce deaths and serious injuries to zero by 2040. Since the start of 2020, 236 people have been killed on the region’s roads and 3,016 seriously injured. Of these 49 deaths and 938 serious injuries were women or girls. The number of deaths and serious injuries between 2024 and 2028 (the Mayor’s term of office) will be a key metric to determine the success of this plan.

PART 2 – Feedback on the NORTH EAST LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN

1. Executive Summary

Where the Executive Summary states the aim to create “a green, integrated transport network that works for all”, it would be helpful to clarify that this network includes walking, wheeling and cycling routes as well as public transport.

“The principle that making any form of journey in the North East is good” does not make economic sense. There are clearly benefits to be gained from making journeys, but travelling itself is a cost. For some journeys, the cost will outweigh the benefits. Rather than enabling all journeys regardless of cost, the plan should be seeking to gain the maximum possible benefits for the lowest possible financial and environmental cost. For example, it is clearly cheaper and more efficient for some meetings to be held via a video call than spend both money and time physically travelling; or to walk to a local shop rather than driving to a distant retail park.

The only journeys that are universally good are those walked, wheeled or cycled because they are low cost, have little or no impact on the environment and have positive health benefits over and above the main purpose of the journey.

To quote the UK’s Chief Medical Officer, “Making walking and cycling more practical and safer, and access to green space easier and more equitable, would go a long way toward removing barriers to improving physical activity levels and could significantly improve the health of England’s increasingly urban population.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/chief-medical-officers-annual-report-2024-health-in-cities

2. What is the North East Local Transport Plan?

Please could you clarify what “other networks” you are referring to in “acts as a yardstick on which all other networks are judged”, and what this will mean in practice?

Section 2.1 says the plan will “look at any additional powers that are needed” but this is not mentioned again in the plan.

Section 2.4 first paragraph: We think you mean “less of a negative impact on our health…” as active travel has a very beneficial impact on health.

In Section 2.5 we suggest rather than “Creating a fully integrated transport network based around the five areas of focus could make active travel and public transport more attractive options” instead “This plan will, by creating a fully integrated transport network based around the five areas of focus, ensure as many journeys as possible can be made by active travel and public transport”.

In the challenge starting “Commuting to workplaces is dominated by car travel” in section 2.6 unless you have evidence to the contrary, we suggest you remove ‘increases inactivity’ caused by congestion. More likely congestion acts as a limit to driving and therefore also prevents inactivity. If there was no congestion more people would drive and therefore more people would be inactive.

Section 2.9 refers to related transport policies. NECA needs to ensure that work on these other policies does not take precedence over or delay urgent action required to improve road safety and to cut emissions.

3. North East Combined Authority vision and commitments

We support the three strategic themes: a more inclusive economy, a better environment and a healthier North East. Enabling more people to walk and cycle more often will be key to achieving these objectives.

We note however that encouraging more air travel and air freight “An International North East” is contrary to the aims of the plan, in particular the aim to cut greenhouse gas emissions. NECA should ensure that any transport investments related to the airport are compatible with its targets to reduce emissions.

4. Regional context

While we are keen to celebrate our region’s successes, we think it very optimistic to suggest “our region has been at the forefront of decarbonisation and developing low-carbon solutions for our transport network”. Over the last decade, hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent expanding road capacity for vehicles that cause the most emissions, whereas the bus network has declined and spend on safe active travel routes has been minimal by comparison. Also, as section 4.4.3 states, zero emission vehicles currently make up less than 1% of registered vehicles in the region.

It may be true to say “transport emissions in the North East in 2022 were about 22% lower than in 2005” however this could be seen as misleading as most of this reduction happened between 2005 and 2012, and transport emissions in the North East increased from 2013 to 2019 only then reducing due to Covid.

Source: https://evidencehub.northeast-ca.gov.uk/report/transport-greenhouse-gas-emissions

On page 30 the plan refers to the UK’s net zero target date of 2050. Of equal relevance are the climate emergency declarations made by NECA’s constituent local authorities, most of which have a target of 2030.

In section 4.4.3 this should say “This high level of car and van use results in poor air quality on some parts of our road network, particularly during peak travel hours”. Congestion can improve air quality and reduce emissions if it is a result of reducing capacity for car travel.

5. Where we want to be – a green, integrated transport network that works for all

We support the inclusion of ‘standards for what the network should consist of’ to make clear the outcomes we should expect from the plan.

Ambition 1: Information, help, or assistance should be easily available…

If the network covers all transport modes, then this should also include information relevant to walking and cycling, not just for routes but also leading to a consistent standard for NE destinations to ensure they include instructions on their website for how to arrive by bike and where to securely store a cycle (including cargo bikes) while at that destination.

We recommend walking and cycling routes are created and signposted at public transport stops and any other locations where transport information is provided.

Routing apps will need to be updated to include the option to combine cycling and public transport. E.g. on Google Maps, if selecting public transport, it will assume you will walk to/from the nearest bus or Metro. By reducing the total travel time, this will make both cycling and public transport more attractive.

Ambition 2: Live journey information…

The plan needs to reflect that transport networks where vehicle use is prioritised are inherently inefficient because vehicles require a large amount of space per person compared to cycling or buses. The priority should be to improve efficiency through mode shift rather than trying to optimise the inefficiency.

Current live information, e.g. @NELiveTraffic on X, focuses almost exclusively on vehicle delays. This should cover all traffic modes including walking and cycling. It should show comparative journey times by bus, bike and car to demonstrate that in urban areas cycling journeys are more reliable and take no longer (and are often quicker) than other modes of transport.

Instead of ‘road accidents’ please use the phrase ‘road traffic collisions’. Please see the road collision reporting guidelines for why: https://www.rc-rg.com

Ambition 3: Strong Identity…

The Great North Road from the city centre to Regent Centre and up to Brunton Lane has a very high frequency of buses, but multiple routes. A single consistent identity for all these routes, similar to a Metro line, would improve awareness of the route. See also our proposal for an electric shuttle from Haymarket to Regent Centre in part 4 of this response.

Ambition 4: Fares should be simple…

We support simple fares that are easy to use. Publicity should also cover walking and cycling options e.g. routes between adjacent Metro stations and highlight that walking and cycling don’t require tickets and cost nothing.

Ambition 5: People should be able to travel across the whole region…

This ambition should include walking and cycling.

Ambition 6: The transport network should extend into every community…

This ambition should include walking and cycling. We could learn from the Dutch where a very high proportion of people cycle to stations. Cycling especially extends the reach of public transport at minimal cost because cycling is about three times quicker than walking, thus expanding the area served by a public transport stop by a factor of nine. See our proposal for the Regent Centre active travel hub in part 4 of this response.

Ambition 7: A joined-up approach to transport infrastructure investment and spatial planning…

We agree that new (and existing) employment sites and housing should have sustainable travel links. Currently around the edge of Tyneside we see many new low-density estates accessed via dual carriageways and giant roundabouts prioritising driving and discouraging other modes of transport.

NECA should ensure (a) that roads within and surrounding new estates are planned on the assumption that most travel to those sites will be via public transport, walking or cycling, and ensure that any money paid by developers for infrastructure as a condition of planning permission is fully allocated to sustainable transport.

If NECA wishes to increase road capacity to the airport or to sea ports, it needs to demonstrate that this is compatible with meeting Net Zero targets and remaining within the local allocation of UK carbon budgets. We suggest NECA’s calculations should be independently verified by experts in the field, for example the Institute of Transport Studies at Leeds University.

The cycle network should enable people who work at the airport or sea ports to cycle to work and provide good facilities for people cycling to use the Amsterdam ferry, including under cover waiting areas at the port.

NECA should consider linking Metro from Percy Main station to the North Shields ferry terminal, initially with a shuttle bus but in the longer term with a rail spur to complete the connection. The distance is less than a mile, but since the ferry route connects with long distance European rail routes at Amsterdam, it would open up a more sustainable alternative to air travel. We also support transport accessibility, and any review should include making sure pavements and cycle routes are clear and accessible. Wheels for Wellbeing have issued useful guidance for cycle routes.

Ambition 8: shift patterns…

This should also ensure walking and cycling routes are safe to use after dark.

Ambition 9: Connectivity beyond our boundaries…

We support increasing rail freight. Any freight plan should also include the use of cargo bikes for last-mile deliveries and how they will integrate with other modes to maximise efficiency. The cycle network should also ensure that workers who deliver goods on foot or by cycle can do so safely.

NECA should work with Transport for the North, to promote schemes that align with its objectives including the objective to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Schemes that increase road capacity are not consistent with this objective.

Ambition 10: Infrastructure that enables people to walk, wheel, or cycle should be central to the transport network and should link to public transport for longer journeys.

We agree, and this should be the main priority for transport investment in the next few years because it is relatively cheap (compared to road expansion or rail projects), quick to deliver and enables the quickest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

This ambition should include a statement for cycling like the statement in the second bullet relating to pedestrian infrastructure. Cycle routes, like pedestrian routes, should have high levels of infrastructure maintenance including clearing litter, snow and leaves from cycle lanes.

We suggest NECA develops some key routes it wishes to develop as well as more local interventions, for example, safe all age ability cycle routes from Cramlington and Ponteland to Newcastle.

As the Mayor committed in her manifesto to work with local groups, we suggest NECA convenes a regular Active Travel forum where officers can brief residents and groups on progress and updates relating to active travel schemes and where residents and groups can provide the sort of input envisaged in her commitment “work with cycling groups to help them design a region-wide campaign to get people out of their cars and on to their bikes”.

Ambition 11: The network should be able to deal with disruptions, accidents and extreme weather more effectively.

We suggest using ‘incidents’ instead of ‘accidents’.

Maintenance funding should be prioritised over building additional road capacity (adding to the maintenance burden) and should include maintenance of walking and cycling routes, including winter maintenance.

We suggest this ambition specifically reference adaption to climate change, which could particularly impact coastal and low-lying areas.

Page 50 How do we get there?

NECA should withdraw the A19 junctions and A1 dualling from its planning. Promoting these schemes at the same time as claiming to target net zero is an act of hypocrisy.

These schemes cannot be justified economically. A1 dualling will cost close to £500m but only has a benefit to cost ratio of 0.95 i.e. all benefits combined are less than the cost and substantially less than the expectation that to be funded by NECA an intervention should achieve benefits at least double the costs (Delivery Plan page 44).

The Chronicle has recently reported about the A19 junctions that “all upgrades represent poor value for money. They [National Highways] have stood down their project team.”
Source: https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/moor-farm-seaton-burn-roundabout-30832720

Nor can they be delivered in a way that is compatible with achieving Net Zero. National Highways estimate that dualling the A1 will lead to 2.487 million tonnes additional CO2e compared to doing nothing.

The ISA Carbon Assessment Report (section 3.3) recognises this saying “There is evidence that new road infrastructure can result in new road journeys being made… This phenomenon is termed ‘induced demand’ and poses a considerable risk of resulting in more motorised trips and increasing carbon emissions, which would work against carbon reduction objectives.”

Likewise, air quality will not be improved by increasing car usage, and there are many more effective ways to spend the money if improving road safety is the objective.

Speed cameras, overtaking restrictions and lower speed limits, would make the A1 and A19 safer and cut carbon emissions at far lower cost. Parallel roads and crossings for farm vehicles and people walking or cycling would also improve safety and remove delays.

Ambition 12: Our highway network should provide essential access…

While we support resilience, ‘the flow of traffic’ goes beyond resilience and is not relevant to this ambition.

NECA should ensure that any diversion routes are suitable e.g. not diverting main road traffic down residential streets, and that diversions include consideration of walking and cycling.

Ambition 13: Charging infrastructure…

Charging infrastructure for e-bike and e-cargo-bikes should also be present across the whole network including at workplaces and other destinations.

Ambition 14: Capacity should be boosted on the East Coast Main Line and the Durham Coast Line…

In line with NECA’s ambition for a single integrated transport network, it should be straightforward to take cycles on local rail journeys to enable more end-to-end journeys by public transport.

Ambition 15: Clear and effective channels to report harassment and violence against women and girls…

We support this and presume, in line with the rest of the plan document, that ‘transport network’ in this section refers to all modes of transport.

Ambition 16: Targeted action to prevent violence against women and girls…

We support this and suggest it includes when women and girls are travelling to and from and waiting at public transport stops as well as when on a bus or Metro.

Similar consideration needs to be given to ensure women and girls can cycle in safety.

Ambition 17: Women and girls should have increased trust, confidence and perception of safety on the transport network.

This section should also consider how women and girls might travel. For example, not having access to the family car, more local trips with multiple stops, travelling with younger or older children.

Ambition 18: Roads should be made safer, with a specific focus on the most vulnerable users.

We strongly agree with this ambition and the Mayor should set urgent interim targets for a reduction in people killed or injured on the transport network.

As this is a priority, the action plan referred to should be included in the Delivery Plan as a costed intervention covering both the Key Route Network and Local Authority roads. To be most effective this should also be in collaboration with the region’s two Police and Crime Commissioners.

In line with best practice, the road safety plan should focus on reducing danger, and be based on a safe systems approach and in accordance with the hierarchy of hazard controls. An example hierarchy of controls is shown below for cycling, but the same approach can be applied to other modes of transport. We recommend the plan is renamed to be the Vision Zero plan, to align with other regions that are targeting zero killed or seriously injured in road traffic collisions and to build support for the initiative.

A good explanation of systemic safety can be found in the YouTube video ‘Systematic Safety: The Principles Behind Vision Zero’. Link: https://youtu.be/5aNtsWvNYKE

The NECA and local authority funded “Road Safety GB NE” Social Media account should be refocused on addressing the most dangerous behaviours, rather than putting responsibility on society’s most vulnerable to protect themselves from harm.

Ambition 19: Comply with legal and policy accessibility requirements…

We agree with this ambition, however, there do not appear to be any actions in the plan to deliver bullet 2 “Our communities should not be impacted negatively by vehicular traffic, with volumes, speeds and any resultant air pollution being kept to a minimum”.
If the Mayor does not act on this, routing algorithms used by Google Maps and other similar applications will direct traffic to use which road is the quickest regardless of whether it is suitable for that level of traffic and regardless of whether doing so creates safety or other issues for other users of those roads.

Ambition 20: Customer experience should be transformed…

“Improving the flow of traffic” is not an effective way to reduce air pollution. The Government’s Air Quality Plan stated (about measures to optimise traffic flow) that “there is considerable uncertainty on the real world impacts of such actions“. This is because rather than reducing air pollution, changes that are designed to improve or optimise flow can lead to more traffic (and therefore more pollution).
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/air-quality-plan-for-nitrogen-dioxide-no2-in-uk-2017
See also: https://walkablestreets.wordpress.com/1993/04/18/does-free-flowing-car-traffic-reduce-fuel-consumption-and-air-pollution/

In the third bullet “The strategic highway network should offer more reliable journey times for the movement of both people and goods. This should help lead to a greater share of journeys being made by sustainable travel, as well as freeing up capacity on [the] road network for essential journeys.”, the second sentence is not a logical consequence of the first. Improving sustainable travel and restricting vehicle capacity (not expanding it) are the only ways to increase the share of journeys being made by sustainable travel.

Regarding the use of “Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)” we suggest NECA commission a study of existing ITS implementations to determine the impact ITS had, including whether it led to increased traffic levels and/or any change in air pollution compared to a suitable reference site.

Ambition 21: Consistent and cohesive branding…

We support this for route finding and suggest NECA investigate implementing a numbered-node cycle network (Knooppunt), as this works very well in the Netherlands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbered-node_cycle_network

Ambition 22: Set the highest standards for a fleet of green public transport vehicles.

Rather than “The integrated network must help enable significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from transport” we suggest “The integrated network will be designed to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport”.

We suggest this also includes a Direct Vision standard as is applied in London.
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/deliveries-in-london/delivering-safely/direct-vision-in-heavy-goods-vehicles

Ambition 23: People should feel a sense of pride in the network…

This should also apply to walking and cycling routes.

Ambition 24: No longer consider different forms of transport as separate networks…

No comments.

Ambition 25: Making it easier to switch between different types of transport…

Given the focus on integration, we suggest NECA could model their cycle hire scheme on the Dutch OV Fiets.
https://www.ns.nl/en/door-to-door/ov-fiets

Ambition 26: Co-ordinated public transport timetables…

See our proposal for the Regent Centre active travel hub in part 4 of this response.

Ambition 27: Shields ferry…

The Shields ferry provides a useful service for people walking and cycling. The Tyne pedestrian tunnel also needs a proper maintenance plan to ensure the lifts remain functional.

Ambition 28: Park and ride…

Development of Park and Ride and associated pricing should ensure it is beneficial to park as soon as possible rather than drive into the centre of the city. For example, for someone living in Morpeth it should be better to park in Morpeth and take the train or bus than drive to a park and ride site at the edge of Newcastle.

Summary

We suggest in the list of ‘Types of inventions’ NECA adds:

• Road-space reallocation – having the dual benefit of enabling sustainable travel and reducing vehicle use.
• Road and parking charging, including tolls (like the Tyne Tunnel), clean air zones, or a workplace parking levy.

6. Current situation and challenges

We suggest adding to the current transport network in numbers:

• the proportion of households without access to car or a van
• the length of roads in the NE, and the proportion that include a LTN1/20 standard cycle way
• CO2e emissions due to transport
• Number of people killed or injured in the last five years

In section 6.1, unless you have evidence to the contrary, we suggest you remove ‘increases inactivity’ caused by congestion. Car commuting increases inactivity, congestion does not. (Also noted in section 2.6)

In section 6.2 it should be noted that finding safe cycle routes away from heavy traffic is very difficult unless you are already an experienced cyclist or know someone who is. Currently, in many cases, safe routes do not exist or are so circuitous that most people would choose to drive instead.

In section 6.4 ‘Reach – current situation’ the current wording “Active travel infrastructure is another area that serves large parts of our region” is misleading. Most urban areas have pavements of variable quality, but safe all age and ability cycling routes are largely absent other than in a few urban locations. According to the Sustrans Walking and Cycling Index for Tyneside, there were (in 2021) only 10 miles of cycle paths physically separated from traffic and pedestrians in the whole of Tyneside.

We agree it worth highlighting the National Cycle Network routes in the plan, although while these are great for tourism and leisure, they are for the most part of little use for day-to-day journeys such as travel to work, school or to local shops. To enable mode shift from driving to cycling, the cycle network must enable these every day journeys for all ages and abilities including women, girls, families and older people.

Regarding the statement ‘The two road Tyne Tunnels handle large traffic volumes, in March 2024 alone there were 1.6 million vehicle journeys made that otherwise would have to route through central Newcastle.’ Have an extra 1.6 million journeys (or equivalent pro rata) been observed in Newcastle on days when the Tyne Tunnels have been closed? If not, we suggest you delete this assertion. Years of evidence of multiple closures, and we suspect soon also from the Gateshead Flyover closure, show that consistently large proportions of traffic disappear when roads are closed.

Source: https://nacto.org/references/cairns-sally-stephen-atkins-and-phil-goodwin/

Regarding “Coaches also support sustainable travel, producing lower greenhouse gas emissions per passenger than any other type of transport.” Have you validated this and can you provide a source? Is a diesel coach (as most are diesel) lower emission than an electric bus, or an e-bike, or an unpowered cycle, or walking?

Please can you replace ‘accident rates remain high’ with ‘injury rates remain high? See road collision reporting guidelines: https://www.rc-rg.com

Section 6.4 ‘Reach – challenges’ should also mention the lack of safe cycling routes, as this is a key reason why many people do not cycle.

Section 6.4 ‘Resilience – challenges’ should mention car dependency as a major issue. Road networks based on private vehicle use are inherently inefficient and prone to failure when heavily loaded. The answer isn’t, as suggested in this section, to increase the size of the road network increasing emissions and further entrenching car dependency. Rather NECA should be focusing on improving more efficient, more sustainable alternatives to reduce the demand on the network and eliminate car dependency. The diagram below shows an estimate for how many people an hour can travel using a single 3.5m wide road lane depending on how they are travelling.

Regarding this statement: “There are also gender differences in perceptions of active travel. The 2021 public attitudes to active travel study found that only 25% of females who cycle were willing to cycle on North East roads, compared to 40% of males who cycle. Women stated that safety concerns were the top barrier, particularly the lack of segregated cycle lanes and the perceived high volume and speed of other traffic on roads.”

The gender difference is important, but the key consideration is few people in total are willing to cycle due to the lack of safe routes. If only 25% of females and 40% of males were willing to use a bus that would be viewed as a catastrophe for the bus network, and these figures should be viewed in a similar manner with urgent action prioritised. This should be added to the key insight box at the end of section 6.

Figure 23 shows a reduction in casualty figures since 2013. This is largely due to a reduction in slight injuries. Our assumption is this is largely down to a reduction in people reporting injuries as no similar reduction has occurred for KSIs. NECA could engage with the Police to validate this and take action to improve reporting of slight injuries.

The 2023 Tyneside Walking and Cycling Index has some useful data relating to section 6.5, including:

• 64% of women said they thought walking or wheeling safety in their local area is good.
• 44% of women said they thought cycling safety in their local area is good.
• 28% of women said they do not cycle but would like to.

Source: https://www.sustrans.org.uk/the-walking-and-cycling-index/tyneside-walking-and-cycling-index/

7. Measures of success/ Key Performance Indicators

This section needs to set out the KPIs that will apply to NECA and separately the KPIs that each local authority in the NE region will sign up to, to ensure NE KPI targets are met.

KPIs, both for NECA and local authorities, should include realistic interim targets setting out the rate of change expected and what will be achieved by the end of the Mayor’s term of office. Monitoring reports should show outcomes at both a local authority and combined authority level.

Sustainable Travel KPI

This KPI should reference the NE Active Travel Strategy (2023) target mentioned on NELTP p13 for “over half of all shorter journeys (under five miles) in the North East to be made using active travel by 2035” and the Government Decarbonising Transport Plan target of 50% of all journeys in towns and cities cycled or walked by 2030.

Link: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/610d63ffe90e0706d92fa282/decarbonising-transport-a-better-greener-britain.pdf

We recommend NECA look to cities such as London or Paris to see what actions they took at a regional level that led to increase cycling mode share. One lesson is that strong political leadership is required to deliver on the ambition to enable more active travel, but also that those leaders have been rewarded with multiple terms of office.

The DfT Decarbonising Transport Report (page 58) also sets out what interventions will be most effective: “There is clear evidence that the provision of segregated cycle lanes and other measures such as low-traffic neighbourhoods drives significant increases in cycling and – after an initial period of adjustment – reductions in motor traffic, both locally and more widely.”

Public Transport Accessibility KPI

This KPI could be improved by redeploying buses from urban areas (where the 45-minute target is easily met) to rural routes. Is there an equivalent metric for urban areas? E.g. services within 15 minutes walking, cycling or public transport.

Climate Action KPI

This KPI should reference and support achievement of the Net Zero targets for each of the local authorities as set out on page 210 of the Integrated Sustainability Assessment and in Appendix B of this response. The overarching target should either align with these or, given the additional funding due to the devolution deal, be more ambitious.

To ensure the Mayor can meet her manifesto commitment to make the NE the “greenest region in the UK” the Climate Action KPI target should be more ambitious than those set by other regions as set out in Appendix C to this response.

We suggest the KPI should be total emissions rather than per capita. It is total emissions that matter.

We note the Integrated Sustainability Assessment Carbon Assessment Report section 5.1 states “emissions will not reduce at the pace required to meet national decarbonisation commitments if the region relies solely on future uptake of zero emissions vehicles: it will also be necessary to reduce vehicle traffic.”

We expect that, to meet UK carbon budgets, total miles driven will need to reduce. Most likely the reduction will need to be more than 20%. This could substantially reduce congestion and improve air quality as well as reducing carbon emissions.

Source: https://www.spaceforgosforth.com/how-much-less-will-we-use-our-cars-in-future/

If NECA doesn’t already know what percentage reduction will be required in the North East, if urgently needs to work this out. The Carbon Assessment Report (section 2.5) supports this suggesting “The North East CA has not set a pathway for the reduction of transport emissions in its area. It is strongly recommended that work is undertaken to determine an ambitious but achievable pathway for the region, which will help to inform future decarbonisation policies and priorities.”

Either way, it would be useful to reinstate the Motor Vehicle Traffic KPI from the 2021 NE Transport Plan. If this is not possible, miles driven in the North East should be published alongside KPI results in the monitoring reports.

One approach to reducing emissions would be to target different journeys that people currently drive based on their length e.g.

• Journeys < 1 mile could be walked instead of driven.
• Journeys or part journeys < 5 miles could be cycled (or e-cycled) instead of driven once safe routes are provided.
• Journeys between 3 and 20 miles could be replaced by a combination of walking, cycling and bus services enabled by the integrated network.
• Journeys > 10 miles could use rail services where available.

The diagram below from NECA’s Active Travel Strategy showing the opportunity, especially for cycling and e-bikes to replace driven journeys between one and five miles.

NECA should prioritise creating sustainable travel options ahead of increasing road capacity that would increase traffic and worsen emissions, as well as using up budget that could be better used to support active travel or public transport.

As the Carbon Assessment Report concludes “it will be important to apply whole life carbon management principles”. NECA should therefore ensure the KPI emissions measurement includes:

• Road construction emissions, including emissions from National Highways schemes.
• Increased emissions due to more driving where National Highways increase road capacity on the SRN.
• Emissions caused by additional air travel and/or air freight caused by improving transport to Newcastle airport.

We also suggest NECA seek expert assistance to estimate changes to emissions due to:

• Reduced traffic on roads parallel to the Northumberland line.
• Reduced traffic due to the Tyne Bridge works and the closure of the Gateshead flyover.
• Reduced traffic due to the Killingworth Road roadworks.
• Low traffic neighbourhood schemes in Newcastle.
• Increased traffic due to the removal of Tyne Tunnel toll booths.

TADU and other Council data is available to make these estimates, which would create an evidence base that can be used to establish what approaches will be most effective to reduce emissions.

Air Quality KPI

This KPI should reference the legal duty to meet air quality limits in the shortest possible timescales. See ClientEarth v Secretary of State for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Case No: CO/1508/2016).

NECA should work with local authorities to take the most effective approaches to reduce air pollution. SPACE for Gosforth has summarised the evidence for what works.

Link: https://www.spaceforgosforth.com/air-quality-what-works/

Network Performance KPI

This KPI needs to be redesigned to avoid incentivising removing sustainable travel from the road network. E.g. by removing (or not installing) bus or cycle lanes in an attempt increase average vehicle speeds, rather than prioritising sustainable transport; or by banning cycling (as cycles are vehicles and will typically travel at <50% of free flow driving speed).

Page 157 of the ISA says “there are aspects such as highway capacity improvements, extended rail services / capacity, re-opening of rail lines and so on that could have adverse effects on air quality, particularly at a local level, as well as continued emission of carbon.” We believe therefore the strategic themes ‘Healthier North East’ and ‘Better Environment’ for this KPI been included in error and should be removed.

Note that the KPI talks about 50% of free flow speed but the Delivery Plan (p66) says 85% of the speed limit.

If the transport plan is successful in achieving mode-shift from driving to sustainable modes, this mode-shift should be sufficient to improve network performance without requiring schemes to increase road capacity/performance. To prevent this KPI getting worse, NECA should ensure that new developments are designed so that access by public transport, walking and cycling are prioritised over driving in accordance with the Making the Right Travel Choice strategy.

If Network Performance is to be a priority, we recommend NECA look at the recently introduced New York Congestion Relief Zone which has sped up journey times, reduced traffic levels and has created an income stream that can be used to improve active travel and public transport.

Road Safety KPIs

We suggest injuries per trip/mile would give a better view of journey safety, where total injuries could incentivise suppressing cycling and walking because injury rates are higher than for people travelling by car.

NECA should also seek to validate accuracy of the number of slight injuries, given they are likely under-reported. This could explain the reduction in the number of slight injuries over the last decade.

Note that the baseline statistics are against the wrong KPIs (baseline KSIs in row for slight injuries and vice versa) in the table on page 92 and 93 of the draft plan.

Lower speed limits, low-traffic neighbourhoods and protected cycle lanes are amongst the most effective ways to improve road safety, with benefits for all road users. A coordinated region-wide approach to implement these should be included in the pipeline of schemes.

Uptake in ZEVs KPI

This KPI appears to assume a corresponding decrease in ICE vehicles as the insight (e.g. reduced pollutants) does not appear to make sense without this. NECA should therefore track and publish actual numbers of ICE vehicles, or ICE vehicle-miles driven, to validate this assumption, otherwise the KPI will be relatively meaningless.

7.3 Monitoring

In the 2021 transport plan no specific targets were included with the reason given being uncertainty of funding. Now there is much more certainty of funding there are still no specific targets.

The new rationale given is the “infancy of the North East CA”, which neglects the fact that NECA has existed for many years and has consulted twice on a NE transport plan in 2016 and 2021.

At the very least a target date should be set for when targets will be set, otherwise this gives the impression of kicking the can down the road, and evading accountability.

Paragraph 2 of the NE Devolution Deal included the words “Central to this is the election of a directly elected leader across the deal area to champion its interests, deliver on local priorities and be accountable to local people.” How will the leader be accountable if no targets are set?

PART 3 – Feedback on the NORTH EAST LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN DELIVERY PLAN

Executive Summary

Are the proposals to be delivered by 2027 still subject both to funding and to powers? Are not one or both clarified now?

The “joined up walking and cycling network” should presumably include safe cycling to schools given the Mayor’s manifesto commitment to “to make sure it’s safe for families to walk or cycle to school”.

Given the plan’s prioritisation of safety while travelling, and safety of women and girls in particular, it would be sensible to include a summary of the interventions to reduce road danger and cut the number of deaths and serious injuries that will be implemented by 2027.

In the section “Delivery by 2032”, multiple road schemes are referred to including Moor Farm/Seaton Burn, the A1, A19 and A66. At the very least these should be caveated that they will only be delivered if value money and consistent with the required decarbonisation pathway.

Why is the Mayor’s manifesto commitment to have “the best connected and greenest network” delayed until 2040, and why does it call out public transport when the public transport network is already relatively green? The key challenge for decarbonising the ‘network’, which the plan defines as covering all modes of transport, will be decarbonising driving.

We are concerned that the plan contains no assessment of whether the 327 proposed schemes, together costing £8.7 billion, will deliver the desired objectives. Even the Carbon Assessment Report only provides a lukewarm endorsement saying “the LTP has the potential to support reductions in transport user carbon emissions across the North East region” and it only achieves this positivity by excluding 32 road schemes from its analysis.

1. About the Delivery Plan

We support the proposed transparency “we will publish regular reports tracking the progress of the development and delivery of interventions contained within the Delivery Plan” and hope for major projects this will track how they have impacted the plan’s KPIs. We would like to ask that a dedicated web page is set up for these reports, so residents don’t have to hunt around meeting minutes to find them.

2. Introduction

The Areas of Focus section states “Commuting to work places is dominated by car travel, so congestion is a significant issue on our roads, which affects public transport access and attractiveness, reduces productivity, and increases inactivity and vehicle emissions.” Unless you have evidence to the contrary, we suggest you remove ‘increases inactivity’. Car commuting increases inactivity, congestion does not.

3. Translating Policy and Practice into Action

As above, we are concerned that the plan contains no assessment of whether the 327 proposed schemes, together costing £8.7 billion, will deliver the ambition set out in the LTP. The LTP itself is not clear on what the ambition is for the LTP KPIs, as the KPIs do not have time-bound targets.

This section describes a form to be completed for each intervention containing seven parts. This form needs to include expected benefits and how the proposal will impact the plan’s KPIs, and it also needs to contain sufficient information to enable the ‘gap analysis’ described below.

4. Identifying and Testing Initiatives

NECA needs to ensure that the process to identify initiatives remains focused on the bigger picture to ensure the overarching plan objectives and KPIs will be met. The fact that a scheme is aligned with the objectives should not be sufficient. It should be necessary that only the most effective interventions are funded based on how effective they are (per £) to achieve the plan’s KPIs. This will enable objectives to be met in the shortest possible timescales while also achieving maximum value for money.

As well as assessing whether individual proposals align with the objectives, NECA should carry out a gap analysis to determine whether the combined effect of all planned interventions will achieve the plan’s objectives and KPIs. If the interventions will not achieve the objectives, the gap analysis should set out what in addition needs to be done to close that gap.

We have provided comments on the appraisal matrix in Annex D below. One key point is that NECA will need a way to prioritise between proposals, rather than just to determine if an intervention “has an overall positive impact”.

As NECA refreshes the pipeline it should also show how the refresh has contributed to reducing the gap between what the plan will achieve vs the plan’s targets.

5. Summary of Delivery Plan Pipeline

This section appears to repeat the content in section 5 of the transport plan, only in less detail.

The one piece of additional information is the order in which initiatives will be delivered. It would be simpler and clearer to show in the transport plan when each aspect of each ambition will be delivered.

Pages 26 to 30 describe actions arising from the Integrated Sustainability Assessment (ISA). This might be better as a separate section.

The summary of the ISA misses two key facts that:

1. In section 4.2 of the NE LTP ISA Carbon Report, included as part of the ISA Appendices, it says “Across the region, an overall 20% growth in traffic is forecast between 2020 and 2050, which will exacerbate the challenge in reducing transport user carbon.” and
2. Section 4.5 states “The calculations do not take account of the potential impact of the 32 highway schemes identified in Step 1 as having the potential to increase emissions.”

The ISA report also confirms that the actions in the plan are not sufficient to offset this growth in traffic so the outcome of the draft plan will be more traffic in 2040 compared to 2020. This is without considering the 32 highway schemes that will lead to even more traffic.

In section 5.3 it says “This report has highlighted the potential challenges associated with 32 road-based schemes in the Delivery Programme, from which there is a significant potential risk of induced traffic. It is strongly recommended that these schemes are reviewed in more detail, to address this potential risk.”

Either these schemes should be dropped, or this review should be top of the list of actions to be undertaken by NECA in 2025.

6. How Will We Fund Investments

The North East already has examples of funding options that are not included in this section including:

• a Charging Clean Air Zone in Newcastle City Centre,
• a Road User Charge Zone in the centre of Durham,
• road tolls to use the Tyne Tunnel.
• park and ride charges.

In addition, Nottingham has successfully used a Workplace Parking Levy to reduce traffic and support the construction of a new tram system.

While NECA may not want to use these funding approaches immediately, they should be considered and included in the delivery plan as options for the future.

7. Managing Risks, Monitoring Outcomes and Assurance

The “significant potential risk of induced traffic” due to the 32 road schemes should be included as a top risk as this could undermine the whole plan along with the risk that, in the absence of a gap analysis, there is a high probability the plan will not be sufficient to meet the plan’s objectives.

We have provided comments on the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework in Annex E below.

We support the “expectation that all interventions must endeavour to achieve “high” VfM, where benefits are at least double the costs”.

8. Reporting and Refreshing

We suggest NECA arranges a regular forum, maybe quarterly, to brief NE campaigners and residents on plans for and work underway or completed to improve active travel in the region.

Annex A: Intervention Summary Tables

We assume Annex A is made up of the tables from pages 68 to 137 of the consultation version of the delivery plan, as a separate document has not been provided.

Please could you include an explanation of the difference between ‘Headline priorities’ and ‘Wider schemes’, especially in terms of what that means for funding?

We would expect manifesto commitments like “a joined-up walking and cycling network” and “working with local authorities to make sure it’s safe for families to walk or cycle to school” should be included in the list of headline priorities with significant progress expected by 2027.

We expect NECA should be able to present good evidence on the efficacy of ‘behaviour change’ projects compared to other investments that would directly reduce the source of danger, especially given the intent to spend over £100m on behaviour change interventions.

The pipeline includes expensive road schemes that will not achieve required value for money and will increase carbon emissions, the opposite of the plan’s stated objective. These should be removed from the delivery pipeline until a way can be found to implement these without increasing emissions.

The Headline Priorities “Reach and Resilience of Infrastructure” package of work to be delivered by 2027 contains two of these road schemes, which together have been allocated about three quarters of the total budget for this package. Neither of these schemes look like they would contribute to improving the reach or resilience of infrastructure in the NE (as defined by Ambitions 6 to 14, pages 44 to 52). If NECA is serious about improving the reach and resilience of infrastructure in the region it should revisit this package urgently and prioritise sustainable transport interventions that support the nine relevant ambitions.

It would be useful if NECA could show which interventions would together achieve the plan’s objectives, rather than the much weaker statement that interventions are aligned with the objectives. As we have said, we have low confidence that the schemes in the pipeline, while beneficial individually (other than the road schemes), will achieve the plan’s objectives.

The road safety action plan referred to in Ambition 18, page 56 should be included in the pipeline as a costed initiative.

Scheme reference CA44 is called “North East active travel partnership board”. The role of the board should be set out in the main part of the Delivery Plan e.g. in relation to identifying and testing initiatives, managing risk and monitoring outcomes.

Annex B: Glossary of Terms

No comments.

Annex C: Policy mapping and future scenario testing

Our observations on the Policy mapping table are:

• Section 2 says this annex “demonstrates a positive policy alignment between the LTP and the North East CA commitments.” Would it not make more sense to assess each ambition against NECA’s strategic themes for transport and the LTP KPIs rather than the higher level NECA commitments?
• We don’t understand why enabling people to walk, wheel or cycle (Ambition 10, page 48) has been scored lower than journey information (2) and branding (3) for ‘A fairer north east’. Active travel improves access to job opportunities, especially for those that cannot afford a car, improves quality of life, reduces inequalities and improves health.
• Ambition 10 should also have a significant positive impact on ‘A Successful North East’ as active travel schemes are typically high or very high value for money and are the most cost, space and energy efficient ways people can travel. If NECA wants to attract people with ‘green skills’ to the region it needs to provide for the lifestyle and transport options that those ‘green skilled’ people will desire.
• Ambition 10 could also be part of a campaign to attract cycle tourism from Europe via the Newcastle to Amsterdam ferry, thus contributing to ‘An International North East’.
• Making roads safer (Ambition 18) should have a significant positive impact on ‘A greener North East’ by enabling more people to walk, wheel and cycle more often. It can also contribute to ‘A connected North East’ as currently walking, wheeling and cycle networks are mostly limited to urban areas and for cycling often do not connect at all.
• We note none of the ambitions are rated less than neutral for ‘a greener North East’ but are somehow being used to justify 32 road schemes. Whichever ambition is being used to justify these road schemes should be scored -2 Significant Negative Effects for ‘a greener North East’
• Ambition 7 includes “improving road freight movements into and out of Newcastle International Airport”. The ‘greener North East’ should reflect this with a negative or significant negative impact.

Our observations on the future scenario testing table are:

• It is not clear what ‘objective is robust’ means in practice. E.g. does ‘objective is redundant’ (score = 3) mean the objective would be met automatically in the given scenario or that NECA would choose not to pursue that objective? It would make more sense to score based on whether an objective is easier or harder to meet in a particular scenario.
• Ambition 18 (road safety) is scored zero for the ‘urban zero carbon’ scenario. Is this a typo as zero is not included as an option in the key?

Annex D: Options assessment matrix

It is not particularly clear how this matrix will be used if it is not (as stated in section 4) being used to filter or prioritise interventions?

There will be a lot of competing ideas for funding, so NECA do need an effective and transparent way to filter and prioritise proposals. This should include an assessment of whether schemes support achievement of the LTP KPIs.

We suggest as a starting point that the agreed Greener Journeys ‘decision tree’ (NELTP p8) be used to prioritise schemes. i.e. increasing vehicle capacity is only funded where there is no possibility of mode shift to walking, cycling or public transport.

Schemes should be judged on whether they are likely to be effective in achieving the benefits expected, ideally based on real life case studies of what similar schemes have achieved elsewhere. Over time NECA should build up an evidence base for what works and what does not, starting with an assessment of whether, and to what extent, the Northumberland Line has led to a reduction in traffic on parallel roads.

Where schemes could negatively affect KPIs e.g. road schemes increasing emissions, the appraisal must ensure that those schemes do not prevent achievement of targets, e.g. Local Authority commitments to Net Zero, and the NE share of the UK carbon budgets.

“Value for Money which is Low or Medium” should not be given a positive scoring. As stated in section 7, there should be a “general expectation that all interventions must endeavour to achieve “high” VfM, where benefits are at least double the costs. We suggest high is given a scoring of 1 and very high a scoring of 2.

The appraisal must be useable in a simplified form so that smaller scale interventions that are high value for money but not big enough to warrant a full Carbon Assessment, are not disadvantaged. One way of addressing this may be to have generic assessments for types of schemes, like Sustrans has produced for low traffic neighbourhoods.
Link: https://www.sustrans.org.uk/for-professionals/infrastructure/an-introductory-guide-to-low-traffic-neighbourhood-design/an-introductory-guide-to-low-traffic-neighbourhood-design-contents/8-a-guide-to-the-evidence-around-low-traffic-neighbourhoods/

One of SPACE for Gosforth’s recent consultation responses also included evidence related to low traffic neighbourhoods. https://www.spaceforgosforth.com/safe-newcastle-bridges/

There is a typo in the Affordability line “Funding source is in pwlace”

Annex E: Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

We support the proposed data collection approach that includes capturing data on KPI performance and how scheme objectives are met.

Accountability should be clear on whether it lies with NECA or one of the local authorities. For this to happen KPIs will need to be defined for both NECA and local authorities separately.

Monitoring also needs to be pragmatic and proportionate so larger schemes with uncertain benefits are monitored more closely than smaller schemes or schemes where the benefit is more obvious (e.g. lowering speed limits).

PART 4 – EXAMPLE PROPOSALS FROM THE GOSFORTH AREA

In this section we describe five local proposals that support the Mayor’s commitment to a green, integrated regional transport network.

Proposal 1: A scholar’s cycle network for Gosforth

The Proposal

Gosforth’s schools are organised into a three-tier system with younger children often escorted by parents, but children 13 years and older expected to travel to school unaccompanied (as confirmed by the recent adjudication on admissions at Gosforth Academy).

A scholar’s cycle network would connect first schools to middle schools to Gosforth

Academy’s two sites as well as other local facilities for children.

The heart of this network would be a half-mile east-west cycle lane between St Charles Primary and Archbishop Runcie first school.

SPACE for Gosforth has set out this proposal in more detail here, including a fly-through: https://www.spaceforgosforth.com/regent-centre/

Benefits

• Supports the Mayor’s manifesto commitment to safe cycling to school.
• Safer for women and girls travelling to school and around the local area.
• Enables residents to travel in a healthy, sustainable and low-carbon way.
• Links three schools, Gosforth swimming pool and library and Gosforth Civic Theatre as well local offices.
• Connects to the Strategic Cycle Route through Gosforth, linking to the Regent Centre interchange and expanding the reach of the current cycle network.
• Allows for the creation of a new park and play area using the large green space in the centre of the Regent Centre roundabout.
• A safer crossing over The Great North Road.
• Likely very high value for money.

Proposal 2: Electric Bus Shuttle from Haymarket to Regent Centre

The Proposal

The Bus Service Improvement Plan calls for a reduction in services on busy bus corridors, like Gosforth High Street, to enable improved services in currently less well served locations.

We propose current Northumberland buses terminate at Regent Centre, with a new high-frequency (every 5 minutes vs 46 an hour currently) electric bus shuttle to operate between Regent Centre and Haymarket.

The new e-shuttle route could be branded and advertised like metro line map.
Waiting areas for bus passengers should be improved to be a similar or better standard than Haymarket or Four Lane Ends.

Benefits

• Maintains service levels but with fewer buses, meaning the extra capacity can be used elsewhere for no additional cost.
• Improves air quality through both the Gosforth and City Centre Air Quality Management Areas.
• Reduced congestion on Percy Street and at Haymarket bus station, freeing up space for other services including those currently using Blackett Street.
• Simpler – just get on any shuttle and change at Regent Centre.
• Improved reliability for Northumberland buses as they don’t get stuck in city traffic.

Proposal 3: Active Travel Hub at Regent Centre

The Proposal

Regent Centre is well served by the Metro, buses and has a car park with 183 spaces.
Rather than encouraging people to drive to Regent Centre to park their cars, a more sustainable option would be for people to cycle to Regent Centre to start their public transport journey.

This would include cycle hire and an expansion of secure cycle storage with improved look and feel akin to the cycle garages found in Dutch cities.
Regent Centre would need to be modified to enable safe direct access by bike.

Benefits

• Supports the Mayor’s commitment to integrated transport and active travel hubs.
• Significantly extends the reach of the buses and Metro that already serve Regent Centre.
• Enables parents to escort children to school and then continue their onward journey to work.
• Builds on the benefits of proposals 1 and 2.
• Could support a local business to service and repair cycles while people are at work.
• Aligned with initiative NX04.

Proposal 4: Gosforth High Street – Sustainable Destination

The Proposal

Currently Gosforth High Street is well served by buses travelling north but has few east-west services. It is also dangerous to cycle, and the recent installation of the bus lane has led to an increase in injuries.

All road users, but especially women and girls, should be able to access local shops and services on Gosforth High Street safely however they wish to travel. To enable this, we suggest removing the bus lane in the central section of Gosforth High Street, replacing it with a protected cycle lane compliant with the LTN1/20 standard (unlike the current arrangement), and improved bus stops.

Cycle and bus routes should allow people living in the local area safe and rapid access to Gosforth High Street. Benefits

• Supports the Mayor’s commitment to active travel and improved road safety.
• Enables more people to be able to travel to Gosforth High Street, boosting local businesses without adding to congestion or poor air quality.
• Buses priority can still be provided along most of the Great North Road (about 4 miles) other than on Gosforth High Street.
• Links to the Scholar’s cycle network and Regent Centre Active Travel hub enabling trip-chaining journeys to include schools, shops and other local destinations.
• Enables other improvements to Gosforth High Street, like removal of the black bollards that currently use 60cm of pavement on each side.
• Aligns with the work to be undertaken by the Mayor’s High Streets Commission.

Proposal 5: Northumberland Line Cycle Way – Haddricks Mill Road

The Proposal

With the Northumberland Line now running, Council leaders in Northumberland have stated that this will significantly alleviate traffic levels on the A189 into Newcastle. This would include the section between Haddricks Mill junction and the junction with Moorfield in Gosforth.
Source: https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/a1-dualling-northumberland-space-gosforth-29067934

With less demand for driving, road space could be reallocated to provide a safe cycle route. This would be quick to implement as designs already exist.
Improved pedestrian crossings would make it easier for residents to access Jesmond Dene for leisure and exercise.

Benefits

• Supports the Mayor’s commitment to active travel and improved road safety.
• Connects to existing cycle routes on Killingworth Road / Salters Lane, and the Longbenton Wagonway. Completes the regional cycle route from Killingworth and beyond to Newcastle City Centre.
• Enables safe cycling journeys to and across Jesmond Dene, via Castle Farm Road and Jesmond Dene Road, also linking to Freeman Hospital and Ilford Road Metro.
• Supports the creation of the Ouseburn Way
  https://www.theouseburnway.co.uk
• Quick to implement as designs already exist.

PART 5 – OTHER INITIATIVES THAT WILL HELP ACHIEVE KPI TARGETS

These are schemes that will support urgent time-bound objectives and should be prioritised and delivered early in the plan timescale:

• Widespread (region-wide) implementation of low traffic neighbourhoods and school streets.
• New main road crossings, in support of new safe walking and cycling networks.
• Narrowing lanes on urban main roads to 3m maximum width for improved safety for all users.
• Trial schemes to reallocate space on main roads to create wider pop-up protected cycle lanes.
• Review of speed limits to meet Vision Zero principles: 20 mph speed limits in cities, 40mph limits on rural minor roads.
• Clean Air Zones where air quality limits are currently not met.
• Using parking charges to manage and limit traffic demand in busy city centres, including workplace parking levies.
• New bus lanes, where space is not needed for walking and cycling facilities.
• Tightening entrances and exits from junctions to prevent vehicles from travelling through those junctions at high speeds, putting other users at risk.
• Better enforcement of traffic offences, including via the use of ANPR cameras.
• Enforcement of pavement parking.
• Improved winter maintenance of pavements and cycle lanes.
• On-street secure cycle storage (e.g. cycle hoops)
• Definition and implementation of a minimum viable cycle network that connects homes to major destinations and can then be expanded and improved on.
• Creation of a plan for a regional cycle network including traffic-free cycle links between adjacent urban areas e.g. Newcastle to Ponteland, Killingworth or Cramlington.

PART 6 – APPENDICES

Appendix A – Manifesto Commitments to walking and cycling

Mayor McGuinness was elected in May 2024 for a term of 4 years with the following manifesto commitments for walking and cycling:

• “I want to make the North East the best connected and greenest region in the UK. From the most environmentally-friendly buses to the largest electric vehicle charging network in the country and a joined-up walking and cycling network that helps people make an active, but safe choice.” The Mayor’s Manifesto (page 11).
• “I’ll work to expand our cycle network and introduce an electric bike hire scheme and appoint an Active Travel Champion to deliver improvements across our region, making sure bike and walking routes are joined up and active travel hubs are introduced. I’ll work with cycling groups to help them design a region-wide campaign to get people out of their cars and on to their bikes — we’ll start by working with local authorities to make sure it’s safe for families to walk or cycle to school.“ The Mayor’s Manifesto (page 13).

Appendix B – Local Authority Net Zero Commitments

This summary of Local Authority Net Zero commitments is taken from the Integrated Sustainability Assessment for the North East Local Transport Plan, page 210.

• Newcastle City Council: Declared a climate emergency in April 2019, with the aim of making the city carbon neutral by 2030.
• North Tyneside Council: Declared a climate emergency in June 2019, with the aim of reducing the council’s carbon footprint by 50% by 2027.
• Northumberland County Council: Declared a climate emergency in June 2019, with the aim of becoming carbon neutral by 2030
• Durham County Council: Declared a climate emergency in February 2019 including aim to reduce emissions from Durham County Council’s operations by 80% from 2008/09 levels by 2030 and is investigating what further actions are necessary to make County Durham carbon neutral by 2050.
• Gateshead Council: Declared a climate emergency in May 2019, with the aim of becoming carbon neutral by 2030.
• South Tyneside Council: Declared a climate emergency in July 2019, with the aim of becoming carbon neutral by 2030.
• Sunderland City Council: Declared a climate emergency in March 2019, with the aim of becoming carbon neutral by 2030

Appendix C – Net Zero Commitments by other UK Mayors.

Greater Manchester – Carbon Neutral by 2038 https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/news/greater-manchester-can-be-carbon-neutral-by-2038-but-we-cannot-do-it-alone/

London – Net Zero Carbon by 2030 https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/climate-change/zero-carbon-london/pathways-net-zero-carbon-2030 Including “a 27 per cent reduction in car vehicle kilometres travelled by 2030”.

West of England – Net Zero Carbon by 2030 https://www.westofengland-ca.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/climate-ecological-strategy/

West Yorkshire – Net Zero Carbon by 2038 https://www.westyorks-ca.gov.uk/growing-the-economy/tackling-the-climate-and-environmental-emergency-in-west-yorkshire/

West Midlands – Net Zero Carbon by 2041 https://www.wmca.org.uk/news/draft-action-plan-shows-how-region-can-reach-net-zero-carbon-by-2041-and-create-thousands-of-new-jobs/