Local Pinch Point Fund Application Form Applicant Information
Local authority name(s)*: Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council
Bid Manager Name and position: Sean Traynor, Head of Highways and Transportation
Contact telephone number: 0151 443 2699 Email address: [email protected]
Postal address: Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council PO Box 24, Archway Road Huyton Knowsley Merseyside, L36 9YU
This scheme has the support of:
Please specify the weblink where this bid will be published: http://www.knowsley.gov.uk/residents/roads-and-transport/transport-planning.aspx
SECTION A - Project description and funding profile
A1. Project name: The Liverpool Gateway: Greystone Road Bridge – Supporting Access to Opportunity through Sustainable „Active Modes‟
A2. Headline description:
Knowsley is a Metropolitan District within the Merseyside sub-region. It is making great strides in improving access to employment and opportunity for its residents, of whom many live in England‟s most deprived wards. Established and thriving employers such as Jaguar Landrover, Halewood International and News International have chosen Knowsley as their preferred location to do business. However, challenges remain and Knowsley Council and its partners are keen to remove „pinch points‟ which are continuing to impede resident‟s ability to access employment and opportunity.
The Greystone Road Bridge provides a vital access link to employment opportunity, key services and Artist's Impression of the Liverpool education for Gateway: Greystone Road Bridge residents of Knowsley living either side of the M62 motorway, one of the busiest in the country and at this point the Eastern Approaches gateway into the City of Liverpool. Without the bridge, residents wishing to travel to Broadgreen Hospital, numerous local primary and secondary schools, key employment locations, and important recreational opportunities such as the National Wildflower Centre have to detour a considerable distance along a circuitous and traffic-heavy route or even worse, suffer exclusion.
The bridge is in a perilous state of repair. Several Type of Structure condition surveys have tracked the bridge‟s deteriorating condition and now is the time to act. However, the Local Pinch Point programme provides the City Region, Knowsley and its residents with the opportunity to do more than a simple „like for like‟ replacement.
Knowsley Council and its partners wish to replace the bridge with a new structure which continues to provide access on foot, but which also links to the National Cycle Network and the National Route 62 Trans Pennine Trail for cyclists and equestrians and as the structure is the last one before the end of the M62 the intention is to provide a much improved and impressive gateway into the Liverpool City Region.
A3. Geographical area:
The Greystone Road Bridge crosses the M62 motorway in the centre of Knowsley. The M62 at this point enters a cutting as the motorway approaches the outskirts of the city of Liverpool and
the footbridge provides a vital access route for residents wishing to cross the motorway to access housing, employment, healthcare or social facilities.
The map below shows the location of the footbridge and the key pedestrian „desire‟ lines for those using the bridge. The map clearly illustrates the importance of the bridge in reducing the potential severance caused by the motorway. Without use of the bridge, those seeking to cross the bridge would be forced to travel either west bound to a major highway interchange to access Broadgreen hospital, or they would have to cross via a series of underpasses and difficult crossings close to a major roundabout to the east of the footbridge as shown.
OS Grid Reference: 53°24'23.27''N / 2°53'25.46''W Postcode: L36 Structure Number 064
A4. Type of bid (please tick relevant box):
Small project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £1m and £5m) Scheme Bid Structure Maintenance Bid
Large project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £5m and £20m) Scheme Bid Structure Maintenance Bid
Note: Scheme and Structure Maintenance bids will be assessed using the same criteria.
A5. Equality Analysis
Has any Equality Analysis been undertaken in line with the Equality Duty? Yes No
Please see Appendix J
„As Knowsley Council‟s Community Cohesion Manager I am fully supportive of the scheme as it is outlined in the bid document. The proposal to replace the Liverpool Gateway: Greystone Road Bridge is most welcome, as it guarantees safe and sustainable access for those who may otherwise be excluded from accessing local jobs, services and public transport facilities. I am also pleased to see that the design is user friendly. I feel the scheme treats all members of society with equal favour according to need, particularly as our intention is to follow the statutory obligation of “Due Regard” through use of the council Corporate Equality and Diversity Equality Impact Assessment process. This is an iterative process and the bid will be accompanied by version 1 of this activity.‟
Paul Peng, Knowsley Council.
A6. Partnership bodies
Please provide details of the partnership bodies (if any) you plan to work within the design and delivery of the proposed scheme. This should include a short description of the role and responsibilities of the partnership bodies (which may include Development Corporations, National Parks Authorities, private sector bodies and transport operators) with confirmatory evidence of their willingness to participate in delivering the bid proposals.
Knowsley Council will work closely with 2020 Knowsley to ensure successful delivery of the Greystone Road Bridge scheme. 2020 Knowsley is a joint venture company representing a public/private partnership between Mouchel and the Metropolitan Borough of Knowsley. 2020 delivers professional architectural, landscape and engineering design services to clients in the public and private sector. As part of Mouchel, they are able to draw upon a wide range of additional expertise and resource for the benefit of the schemes they deliver. A letter from 2020 can be found at Appendix K highlighting their commitment to the scheme.
A7. Local Enterprise Partnership / Local Transport Body Involvement
Have you appended a letter from the LEP / LTB to support this case? Yes No
SECTION B – The Business Case
B1. The Scheme - Summary
Please select what the scheme is trying to achieve (this will need to be supported by evidence in the Business Case). Please select all categories that apply.
Improve access to a development site that has the potential to create housing Improve access to a development site that has the potential to create jobs Improve access to urban employment centres Improve access to Enterprise Zones Maintain accessibility by addressing the condition of structures Ease congestion / bottlenecks
Other(s), Please specify -
B2. The Strategic Case
The Liverpool City Region
Liverpool City Region, with its population of 1.5 million people and a £21.9bn economy, is vital for the North West regional economy. The City Region is well connected to global markets, through its ports, Liverpool John Lennon Airport, Manchester International Airport, an extensive motorway network and through the work of its many multinational companies which are located in the area. This connectivity is set to increase with development and infrastructure schemes such as 3MG, the Atlantic Gateway Liverpool L2, SuperPort and the New Mersey Gateway marked as city region priorities by the LEP.
Over £5bn has been invested across the City Region in new infrastructure and businesses in the last decade. The City Region is committed to improving its economic performance and long- term prospects with a projected 100,000 jobs to be created over the next 10 years (Merseyside Economic Review 2012). Employment and transport are two key priorities for the Liverpool City Region Deal with Government, alongside addressing the skills gap to enable residents to benefit from job creation and economic growth.
A Well Connected Knowsley
Knowsley has a population of 149,000 people and is home to around 3,000 businesses with approximately 56,500 people working within the borough. The borough sits at the heart of the City Region; bordered to the west by Liverpool, the north by Sefton and West Lancashire, the east by St Helens and the south by Halton. It is crossed by the M62 which runs across its width east to west. This provides enormous advantages in terms of connectivity into Liverpool City Centre to the west and to the M6 and Manchester to the east. However, it also causes major severance issues; assets such as the Greystone Road Bridge crossing the M62 are a vital means by which local accessibility to employment and opportunity is maintained for local residents.
The districts‟ connectivity is its strength and allows it to play a major role as a location for employment. A recent local business survey indicated that Knowsley‟s transport infrastructure is one of the main reasons why companies choose to be based there. On a daily basis around 24,000 City Region residents travel into Knowsley for work and around 25,000 Knowsley residents leave the borough to work across the City Region. This significant movement of employees places Knowsley in an advantageous position to both enable and capitalise on the investment and developments planned for the Liverpool City Region. However, it also means that the transport network must be „fit for purpose‟ as a key tool in the district‟s ability to continue to act as a key economic driver.
An Economically Vibrant Borough
In addition to the economic investment planned across the Liverpool City Region there is a growing housing need in Knowsley. There is predicted to be over 10,000 (+15.9%) more households in the borough in 2029 than in 2006 compared to an increase of +12.0% for the Merseyside sub-region over the same period. Without appropriate planning and management, including improvements to the local road network, this increase will adversely affect an already overcapacity local road network. As the number of new homes in Knowsley increases by 3,000 over the next five years and money is invested in development sites and job creation, improved
accessibility and reduced severance will be critical in assisting much needed regeneration and growth.
22.6% of the working age population of Knowsley is currently claiming a key Department for Work and Pensions out of work benefit. JSA claimants in Knowsley lie at 6.4%, higher than the Liverpool City Region figure of 5.6%, and in 2011 24.8% of households in Knowsley were classed as workless. The national rate was 18.9%. Almost two thirds of Knowsley‟s children and young people live in poverty. Children living in poverty are more likely to lack the skills or qualifications they need to access higher paid jobs and it is likely that their children will also live in poverty.
Low car ownership within the borough indicates an increased reliance on other transport modes such as public transport, walking and cycling to access jobs and services. According to the County Wide Survey (2010), 37% of households in Merseyside have no access to a vehicle and when considering the Merseyside Disadvantaged Communities Study (2010) this figure rises to 59%. Affordability of public transport may be an issue for some residents as well as availability of public transport services which run from north to south within the borough – although they are regular they are infrequent e.g. half hourly services after peak hours or services stop completely in the evening.
The Existing Greystone Road Bridge – A Fragile Asset
The Greystone Road Bridge crosses the M62, close to the local political boundary with Liverpool, and links two housing developments on opposite sides of the motorway. It provides a safe and active route for residents to cross the motorway and access schools, leisure facilities, hospitals and employment. In a district with high levels of worklessness, low levels of car ownership, child poverty and obesity as well as traffic congestion it is an important asset to the local area.
Engineering reports show that the bridge is near collapse and failure to upgrade the bridge will result in its closure. Closing the bridge would perpetuate many of these issues whilst collapse would result in widespread disruption to the M62; a section of the Strategic Road Network vital to the economic health and vitality of Knowsley and the wider Liverpool City Region.
There are a number of key faults with the bridge Knowsley Council wish to address:
- The bridge has now exceeded its expected life span and is showing serious signs of deterioration. Assessor reports have suggested that it may be in imminent danger of collapse on to the M62;
- The current central pier does not adhere to good practice in bridge design. It causes visibility issues for drivers on the motorway and potentially exacerbates the consequences of any accident in the vicinity of the bridge; - The bridge is heavily targeted by graffiti as it presents an accessible and easily visible landmark; - The bridge presents a very poor image of the City of Liverpool and the wider City Region as motorists and visitors enter the area. Its tired and outdated design runs counter to the positive and dynamic image partners across the Liverpool City Region are seeking to promote; - The bridge is too narrow at present to accommodate cyclists, walkers and equestrians. Despite its close proximity to the National Cycle Network and the Trans Pennine Trail, the bridge currently offers little value for local residents wishing to travel by active mode to employment or training.
As the final bridge across the M62 before motorists enter Liverpool, it is proposed that the new bridge could be designed to act as an iconic Gateway to the City of Liverpool and the Liverpool City Region. The bridge has the potential to not only become a functional piece of architecture but a statement of intent and source of pride. A widened bridge could accommodate cyclists and walkers and would provide a valuable link into the National Trail and National Cycle Network for residents living to the south of the motorway.
Impact - Increased Congestion on the Motorway and Local Road Network
In the medium term the bridge risks full closure and collapse, this would be particularly dangerous as a gas main and electricity line runs through the bridge, Collapse would cause serious disruption to the M62 and the surrounding road network as traffic uses the required diversion routes. The M62 is the only motorway link out of Liverpool City Centre towards the M6 and onwards towards Manchester and Leeds. From Knowsley westbound to Liverpool, traffic would need to leave M62 at Junction 5 and divert around local roads. Network capacity would be a critical issue in doing this. From Liverpool heading eastbound there would be severe disruption and delay at the complex Rocket/Queens Drive/Edge Lane junction. Consequently traffic would back up along Edge Lane into Liverpool City Centre and around Queens Drive, the main road circling Liverpool.
To add to the congestion there would be increased traffic on local roads due to residents of the adjacent wards needing to use cars and taxis where they would previously have crossed the bridge on foot or cycle. Increased congestion and delay, even if only for a short time period, would have a significant adverse impact on the local economy through loss of business, loss of working days and would significantly isolate the area further from the surrounding City Region.
Impact - Reduced Accessibility to Key Services
Additionally, Broadgreen specialist heart and chest hospital and Alder Hey Children‟s Hospital are at the centre of where the disruption is likely to occur. As a tertiary hospital, Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital provides heart and chest services for the North West of England, including North Wales and the Isle of Man. Each year the hospital performs 12,000 inpatient procedures and sees 60,000 outpatients. In the UK it performs the highest number of aortic operations, pacing procedures and ICD procedures. In relation to health services, there is anecdotal evidence that moving some hospital clinics closer to the community has increased take-up of referrals and appointments.
Apart from the traffic impacts of bridge collapse, the closure, removal or collapse of the footbridge would sever the communities to the north and south where the population has a high proportion of young and elderly. It would remove pedestrian access to schools, leisure facilities, residential areas and families as well as employment (apart from the health implications, the
hospitals are also a large source of employment). Approximately 390 trips are made across the bridge each day (approximately 4% of these are cyclists). The majority of trips are made by school children and commuters with the highest flows occurring between 8:00-9:00 and 15:00- 18:00. Around 17% of children who attend the nearby Malvern primary school live on the other side of the bridge. If the bridge is removed the council would have to provide some form of public transport as the walking distance would increase to above the statutory „home to school‟ transport provision measure of 2.5 miles.
The bridge allows residents living on the Greystone Road side of the bridge to access the number 6 bus service; a direct route to Whiston hospital. Without the footbridge they will have to walk to Pilch Lane to pick up a bus service to Huyton, then change to another bus to Whiston. Alternatively, they could walk significantly further to East Prescot Road and pick up the number 10A, but this would likely deter use.
The bridge also offers residents of Greystone Road a quicker journey on foot to Broadgreen Station to travel to travel to Liverpool or further afield. Without the bridge it is likely that they will choose to drive to Broadgreen Road Station, adding pressure to the already congested Campbell Drive/Thomas Lane junction, or an increased number of residents will choose to drive to work – adding further pressure to the busy Rocket Junction entering Liverpool from the M62.
Health is a key challenge in this area and a priority for Knowsley Council. In Swanside ward, to the north of the bridge, there are particularly high levels of obesity in children with 21.7% of year 6 pupils obese in 2010/11. The footbridge provides access to the local park, climbing frame and exercise location at Court Hey for many children that live in Swanside. Without the bridge it is unlikely that children could get to the park without crossing the M62 roundabout, which has safety implications.
A Strong Link with Knowsley’s Policy Objectives
Replacing the Greystone Road Bridge will avoid this disruption, support the disadvantaged communities on either side of the bridge and help deliver Knowsley Council‟s Corporate Plan which aims to:
- Build empowered, resilient and cohesive communities. An empowered, cohesive community is more likely to be resilient to change and residents more likely to help each other and themselves rather than depend on others. Replacing the bridge supports this objective by ensuring accessibility between residential areas. Whereas closing the bridge would be detrimental and perpetuate severance issues. - Ensure quality infrastructure and environment such as schools, leisure facilities, highways, transport and green spaces; essential features if Knowsley is to attract more people to live and work in the borough. Actions to improve environmental quality limit carbon emissions and provide more accessible facilities and services to encourage residents to walk, cycle and use public transport are also important. Replacing the bridge enables vital access to schools, leisure facilities and green spaces to the south of the bridge for residents in Swanside ward to the north. Around two thirds of the land in the borough is classed as green space which is greater than any other authority in the Liverpool City Region – it is important that access to this green space is maintained. - Provide safe, attractive, sustainable neighbourhoods. Attractive and affordable quality housing, good educational provision, a safe, clean and green environment together with strong employment prospects and a vibrant retail offer will be key to sustaining Knowsley as „the borough of choice‟ in the future. Schools are accessed over the bridge and it acts as a key piece of infrastructure if further residential development is to take place in the area. - Everybody has the opportunity to have the best health and wellbeing throughout their life. Knowsley residents are more likely to smoke, drink alcohol and be obese than the rest of the
North West and this largely explains the high rates of cancers, respiratory disease, heart disease and strokes. However, there have been major reductions in cancer and heart disease death rates and a narrowing of the gap between Knowsley, the North West and the national average. The Greystone Road bridge has an important role in providing access to hospitals and green space whilst promoting active travel.
Benefits for Knowsley and the wider City Region
The outcome of the scheme is a fully functioning and safe bridge for pedestrian and cycle use. The bridge, as it does now, will continue to provide access across the M62 for commuters, those attending the hospitals, employment and schools. However, additional benefits will be achieved through the provision of a safer, wider bridge with additional capacity to provide an effective link within the National Cycle Network and National Trail.
A new bridge will avoid significant disruption to the M62 and surrounding roads and the knock- on impact on the economy of Liverpool and Knowsley. In order to maintain and enhance the economic performance and long-term prospects of the Liverpool City Region any potential structural failings of the Greystone Road Bridge must be averted and the opportunity to develop a new bridge to connect and integrate local communities & businesses should be seized.
Replacing Greystone Road Bridge will also avoid major severance issues. The proportion of residents over 64 in Swanside ward, to the north of the bridge, is 19%, one of the highest in Knowsley. Poverty and worklessness pose significant challenges and low car ownership means a reliance on other modes of transport. The bridge plays a critical role in supporting these communities.
Greystone Road Bridge also provides access to the National Wildflower Centre, situated in Court Hey to the south of the bridge. The centre has around 50,000 visitors each year and is one of Knowsley‟s main tourism attractions. It forms part of the Liverpool City Region Visitor Economy Strategy 2020 and provides a vital source of employment and economic support to the local area. Replacing the bridge will help to stabilise the future of this tourist attraction.
It is hoped that an indirect benefit of the scheme will be an increase in pedestrian and cycling levels in the area as improved facilities encourage more people to use the bridge rather than driving. If the width of the bridge was increased, it could incorporate a cycle path that connects to the National Cycle Network and Trans-Pennine trail.
A Lack of Alternatives for Knowsley
It is important to consider the implications for Knowsley and the wider Liverpool City Region should the funding not be available to support this scheme. Whilst the level of financial support required is relatively small compared to other improvement projects across the strategic highway network, the negative impact of not supporting this scheme would be considerable.
If funding for this scheme is not secured, the bridge will be closed because of its poor condition. This would cause disruption to the M62, as there would be an increased risk of concrete breaking off the bridge and falling on traffic below. Traffic management and other measures would be needed to prevent this. The only lower cost alternative to replacing the bridge is to have it safely removed. However, this would provide no benefit to local communities or the economy. Instead, it would cause dis-benefits and perpetuate current problems.
B3. The Financial Case – Project Costs
Before preparing a scheme proposal for submission, bid promoters should ensure they understand the financial implications of developing the scheme (including any implications for future resource spend and ongoing costs relating to maintaining and operating the asset), and the need to secure and underwrite any necessary funding outside the Department’s maximum contribution.
Please complete the following tables. Figures should be entered in £000s (i.e. £10,000 = 10).
Table A: Funding profile (Nominal terms) £000s 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total DfT funding sought 1090 0 1090 Local Authority contribution 467 0 0 467 Third Party contribution 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 1557 0 0 1557
Table B: Cost estimates (Nominal terms)
Cost heading Cost (£000s) Date estimated Status (e.g. target price) Works Non Contract 210 29/1/2013 Costed Main Contractor 1090 29/1/2013 Costed Land 0 0 N/A Contingencies 114 2013 10% Fees 143 0 See attached estimate
TOTAL 1557 0
Notes: 1) Department for Transport funding must not go beyond 2014-15 financial year. 2) A minimum local contribution of 30% (local authority and/or third party) of the project costs is required. 3) Costs in Table B should be presented in outturn prices and must match the total amount of funding indicated in Table A.
B4. The Financial Case - Local Contribution / Third Party Funding
Please provide information on the following points (where applicable): a) The non-DfT contribution may include funding from organisations other than the scheme promoter. If the scheme improves transport links to a new development, we would expect to see a significant contribution from the developer. Please provide details of all non-DfT funding contributions to the scheme costs. This should include evidence to show how any third party contributions are being secured, the level of commitment and when they will become available.
All non-DfT funding for this scheme will be provided by Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (KMBC).
b) Where the contribution is from external sources, please provide a letter confirming the body’s commitment to contribute to the cost of the scheme. The Department is unlikely to fund any scheme where significant financial contributions from other sources have not been secured or appear to be at risk.
Have you appended a letter(s) to support this case? Yes No N/A c) The Department may accept the provision of land in the local contribution towards scheme costs. Please provide evidence in the form of a letter from an independent valuer to verify the true market value of the land.
Have you appended a letter to support this case? Yes No N/A d) Please list any other funding applications you have made for this scheme or variants thereof and the outcome of these applications, including any reasons for rejection. N/A
B5. The Financial Case – Affordability and Financial Risk
This section should provide a narrative setting out how you will mitigate any financial risks associated with the scheme (you should refer to the Risk Register / QRA – see Section B11).
Please ensure that in the risk / QRA cost that you have not included any risks associated with ongoing operational costs and have used the P50 value.
Please provide evidence on the following points (where applicable): a) What risk allowance has been applied to the project cost?
A contingency fund of 10% has been applied to meet any cost increases incurred by risks on this project. b) How will cost overruns be dealt with?
Robust project and risk management procedures will be implemented to minimise the likelihood and scale of cost overruns. c) What are the main risks to project delivery timescales and what impact this will have on cost?
A full risk register and QRA can be found at Appendix F and H respectively. The risk register details the financial implications of each risk occurring and mitigating actions. d) How will cost overruns be shared between non-DfT funding partners (DfT funding will be capped and will not be able to fund any overruns)?
Knowsley Council will take full responsibility for any project cost overruns.
B6. The Economic Case – Value for Money
Local impact
The bridge connects communities to the north and south of the M62 and provides amenity value to people living in communities either side of the motorway. If it becomes unusable, the people who use the bridge regularly would have to take alternative routes via Thomas Lane to the west and the underpass connecting Childwall Lane and Rimmer Avenue to the east. Due to different start and end points for individual journeys it is hard to quantify the impact on individuals of this but the additional journey time could easily be 30 minutes for the majority of users. This may have knock-on effects for local businesses (as productivity is affected by employees arriving late for work), for local schools and colleges (as students arrive late for lessons) and for local residents who previously walked to work or school etc but now travel by car as the walking route has become too long. Consequently, there is a potential economic disbenefit from the bridge becoming unusable though it is difficult to quantify given its relatively small scale and the localised nature of its influence.
The data (Appendix E) shows that many individuals would be affected if the bridge became unusable and it is our assessment that for those who do use the bridge for journeys to work, school, leisure and visiting the impact would be very large adverse; for those residents that don‟t use the bridge regularly the impact is likely to be neutral.
The area shown on the map as Malvern is likely to be particularly adversely affected if the bridge becomes unusable. Any residents wishing to travel south on foot or cycle will need to travel north and then via one of the links mentioned above before they can access areas to the south of the M62.
Redrow Homes is currently on site at Summerhill Park to the northeast of the bridge constructing 100 new 2, 3 and 4 bedroom homes on the site of the former Thingwall Hall. The development site will deliver a greater number of dwellings in future years and subsequent phases of development amounting to 525 in total. The site is directly accessible to the bridge and increased population numbers in the area will generate increased demand for connectivity and accessibility which the bridge is integral to. The houses are likely to be desirable but may be more so if the bridge is open to the public in future.
- 250 people from the onsite development at present (100 dwellings x 2.5 average residents); and - 1,312 people once the development is complete (525 total dwellings x 2.5 average residents
As part of the Redrow development, the western part of the site will create a new park (Broad Green Park) forming part of the area‟s green infrastructure and the bridge will form an important access route for local residents visiting the park.
Wider Impacts
There is no direct link between the bridge and employment creation or Gross Value Added.
Indirectly, the bridge has a potential impact on one of the main vehicular access routes to Liverpool city centre and the City Region‟s commercial heart. In terms of the agglomeration effects of the city centre, it relies on the supply of workers and goods from the City Region and beyond with the M62 being a primary connecting route. If the bridge was to cause lane reduction or closure on the M62 it could restrict the flows into and out of the city centre which would have significant effects on the local economy during the period that the carriageway was out of commission.
The wider area is primarily residential but does accommodate some important centres of economic activity. The bridge does not have a direct impact on their operation but its failure at any point has potential to cause indirect disbenefit by affecting the accessibility and connectivity of these sites for workers and visitors. The sites that could be affected include:
- Broadgreen Hospital – is a large employer and specialist heart and chest hospital. As well as patient traffic to the hospital there are many more visitor journeys and residents wishing to walk from south of the M62 may use the bridge as part of their route. - Knowsley Community College (Roby Campus) – The Roby Campus accommodates about 350 to 400 students on a range of courses including „A‟ levels and further education. Its site is separated from the area to the south of the M62 by the motorway and its junctions so students/ staff wishing to walk or cycle to the college may use the bridge as part of their route. - National Wildflower Centre – The Centre has a visitor and conference centre as well as a shop. The bridge provides a convenient link to it for residents from north of the M62 wishing to visit.
Summary
Replacing the bridge is unlikely to deliver any direct, tangible economic benefits in terms of jobs or GVA.
However, the bridge provides amenity value to those that use it regularly and forms part of the local network of routeways and pathways used by local people. Its removal from this network would have an impact on amenity for those that use it but quantifying the impact is difficult without data on user type and purpose.
The bridge‟s failure could have a significant knock-on effect for travel to work and supply routes to Liverpool city centre leading to significant economic disbenefit if stretches of carriageway are unusable for any stretch of time.
Housing development on land adjacent to the bridge will generate more demand for connectivity to areas to the south in future.
Local residents used to using the bridge will experience longer journey times if they have to walk or cycle on alternative routes. This could lead them to travel by car with a negative impact on congestion as well as a negative impact on their physical fitness and wellbeing over time. a) Small project bidders should provide the following as annexes as supporting material:
Has a Scheme Impacts Pro Forma been appended? Yes No N/A
Has a description of data sources / forecasts been appended? Yes No N/A
Has an Appraisal Summary Table been appended? Yes No N/A
B7. The Commercial Case
This section should set out the procurement strategy that will be used to select a contractor and, importantly for this fund, set out the timescales involved in the procurement process to show that delivery can proceed quickly. a) Please provide evidence to show the risk allocation and transfer between the promoter and contractor, contract timescales and implementation timescales (this can be cross-referenced to your Risk Management Strategy).
The works will be procured using the NEC3 form of Contract which provides flexible contractual options. As the process will involve a full and detailed design being completed prior to tender, it is envisaged that an NEC3 „Option A‟ will be used which, by utilising a fixed-price mechanism, provides the Employer with the greatest degree of cost certainty. The NEC3 contract provides for a robust Risk Management process which ensures that construction risks are raised at the earliest opportunity and dealt with expeditiously thus optimising key project targets such as expenditure of project funds and impact of the project on the public. During the contract formulation stage, a thorough and detailed examination of risks are interpreted into a contract Risk Register, which transfers the ownership of each risk to either the Employer or Contractor on the basis of which party is best placed to deal with the risk should it arise.
The timescales have been assessed as follows:
- Contract procurement and award – 4 months - Post award / Pre-construction period – 1 months - Construction period and completion of works – 7 months
This equates to a total of 11 months. The periods referenced above are deemed to be inclusive of risks reasonably expected to incur such as:
- Delays in finalising design - Delays to procurement process and contract award - Delays to the construction programme b) What is the preferred procurement route for the scheme and how and why was this identified as the preferred procurement route? For example, if it is proposed to use existing framework agreements or contracts, the contract must be appropriate in terms of scale and scope.
The preferred procurement route is a restricted tender process which conforms with the Public Contracts Regulations. This form of procurement is beneficial as we have already been able to involve our partners, 2020 Knowsley Ltd., to carry out preliminary design work. It is therefore a fluid process for 2020 Knowsley to finalise the detailed design and works information which can be sent out to the market for tenders. With the Restricted tender process, the first stage will involve a Pre-Qualification Questionnaire to the open market. This questionnaire will be carefully drafted and used to produce a shortlist of, say, 6 of the most suitable contractors for carrying out works of this nature. The basis for tender award will follow the MEAT criteria (Most Economically Advantageous Tender) which will evaluate both technical (qualitative) and price aspects of the tender. It is envisaged that this will be a 60% (Price) / 40% (Quality) split. The tender process will be managed to ensure that there is a suitable period from the point of tender award to the point of commencement of the works, ensuring that a schedule of meetings take place between the parties to the contract to best guarantee a smooth transition onto the construction period.
This form of procurement has been chosen because our existing framework contracts (used for works typically between £50k and £250k) are not suitable for procuring works of this value and nature and it is therefore necessary to look to the wider market. Following this, it was therefore felt that the restricted process is most suitable as it will give a degree of control to ensure that the most suitable type of contractors only are invited to tender and that the quality of the technical aspects of the bids are not overlooked for the sake of price alone. c) A procurement strategy will not need to form part of the bid documentation submitted to DfT. Instead, the Department will require the bid to include a joint letter from the local authority’s
Section 151 Officer and Head of Procurement confirming that a strategy is in place that is legally compliant and is likely to achieve the best value for money outcome.
Has a joint letter been appended to your bid? Yes No
*It is the promoting authority’s responsibility to decide whether or not their scheme proposal is lawful; and the extent of any new legal powers that need to be sought. Scheme promoters should ensure that any project complies with the Public Contracts Regulations as well as European Union State Aid rules, and should be prepared to provide the Department with confirmation of this, if required.
B8. Management Case - Delivery
Deliverability is one of the essential criteria for this Fund and as such any bid should set out any necessary statutory procedures that are needed before it can be constructed.
Has a project plan been appended to your bid? Yes No
Has a letter relating to land acquisition been appended? Yes No N/A a) Please provide summary details of your construction milestones (at least one but no more than 5 or 6) between start and completion of works:
Table C: Construction milestones
Estimated Date Feasibility/Inspection Works April 2013 Outline Design Structure/Sub Structure April 2013 Procurement/Tender/Award April 2013 Construction (start) September 2013 Completion of works March 2014
Please list any major transport schemes costing over £5m in the last 5 years which the authority has delivered, including details of whether these were completed to time and budget (and if not, whether there were any mitigating circumstances)
Knowsley Council worked alongside the Highways Agency and contractors to ensure successful delivery of major junction improvement works at M62 Junction 6, Tarbock Island. Tarbock Island links the M62 and M57, located in the centre of Knowsley. The scheme provided two new free- flow link roads at the junction to relieve the heavily congested roundabout.
The scheme was given the go ahead by the Secretary of State in January 2007, work started on site in April 2007 and the link roads were completed by December 2008. The scheme was successfully completed to time, despite delays due to weather over the summer of 2007, and within the budget of £38million.
Close partnership working benefited all the organisations concerned. For instance, Knowsley Council were able to use the lane closures during the improvements to carry out routine road
maintenance. This reduced the number of lane closures, with obvious benefits for people using the road.
Since opening, the link roads have removed over 20,000 vehicles every day from the roundabout, this represents 30% of the total daily flow.
B9. Management Case – Statutory Powers and Consents a) Please list separately each power / consents etc obtained, details of date acquired, challenge period (if applicable) and date of expiry of powers and conditions attached to them. Any key dates should be referenced in your project plan.
N/A b) Please list separately any outstanding statutory powers / consents etc, including the timetable for obtaining them.
To replace the existing bridge, Knowsley Council understand that they require planning permission from Liverpool City Council. The bridge itself lies on the boundary between the two authorities and whilst Knowsley Council own the two portions of land either side of the motorway to which the bridge connects, it is deemed to be good practice to gain appropriate permissions from Liverpool City Council as the neighbouring authority, given the desired change in the nature of the bridge. Furthermore, the bridge actually crosses Liverpool City Council land as it traverses the motorway. Knowsley Council and Liverpool City Council are actively engaged on this issue and Liverpool City Council support the replacement of the bridge.
B10. Management Case – Governance.
Knowsley Council has a comprehensive approval process to ensure robust decisions are made regarding improvements to the road network.
An issue on the highway network may be highlighted to Knowsley Council via a number of different routes; for example, through the Highways Asset Management Team and development of the asset management plan, through creation of the local plan or the investment profile, from stakeholder intelligence, formal surveys or queries from the public.
When an issue is identified the Council officers undertake a feasibility assessment of options for solution. Feasible options are then appraised. Appraisal takes into consideration cost, benefit, deliverability, level of risk and the fit of the option with the current work programme. Through options appraisal a preferred solution is identified. Officers seek approval for the preferred option from the relevant Director and Cabinet Member and then endorsement from the full Cabinet.
The approved scheme is communicated to the public and stakeholders and published on the Council‟s website. Following which the Council undertakes any statutory duties, legal and planning activities. The scheme is inserted into the work programme and subsequently delivered.
Once the scheme enters the delivery phase, the Council implements a proportionate governance structure.
Knowsley‟s Local Pinch Point schemes will be managed at a senior level by Director for Regeneration, Economy & Skills, Lisa Harris, and Head of Highways & Transportation, Sean Traynor. Lisa and Sean will be responsible for project control; they will make decisions within the scope of Cabinet approval and were appropriate decisions on any minor scope alterations. Any exceptional decisions outside of the approved scope of the scheme will be referred to the relevant Cabinet Member.
The Management Team will be comprised of officers from across the Authority with a specific role in the successful delivery of the project. The management team will meet regularly to track progress and report to the Head of Service and Director. They will be responsible for discussing and resolving any issues arising, with experts from finance, procurement, highways, policy, legal and communications, able to advise on their specialist areas. Where needed the group will escalate issues upwards for decision.
The project manager sitting within Knowsley Council, the „client‟ Project Manager will manage the project from the client side. The client project manager is responsible for undertaking regular project control meetings and liaison with the delivery body 20/20, ensuring timescales and budgets are met and any issues identified early. They will report to the management team. One point of contact provides continuity to the interface between the Authority and 20/20.
20/20‟s Project Manager holds responsibility for managing delivery of the project, leading and coordinating the project team. The project team comprises of specialists in all the relevant disciplines of delivery who carry out the required works.
B11. Management Case - Risk Management
All schemes will be expected to undertake a thorough Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) and a detailed risk register should be included in the bid. The QRA should be proportionate to the nature and complexity of the scheme. A Risk Management Strategy should be developed and should outline on how risks will be managed.
Please ensure that in the risk / QRA cost that you have not included any risks associated with ongoing operational costs and have used the P50 value.
Has a QRA been appended to your bid? Yes No
Has a Risk Management Strategy been appended to your bid? Yes No
B12. Management Case - Stakeholder Management
Please provide a summary of your strategy for managing stakeholders, with details of the key stakeholders together with a brief analysis of their influences and interests.
Knowsley Council have conducted a stakeholder review during the development of this application. The review was conducted through a meeting of the bid team, senior Council staff and members of staff from 20/20 as the delivery agent for the proposed scheme. A summary of the key stakeholders and their position on a chart considering their level of „interest‟ and „influence‟ over the scheme is provided below.
The diagram reinforces our need to maintain effective dialogue with partner authorities and our own members whilst at the same time engaging with the business community. We will also ensure that we manage robust forums for dialogue with the Highways Agency and utility companies during the development of the proposed scheme. Our strategy is set out in further detail in the table below.
a) Can the scheme be considered as controversial in any way? Yes No b) Have there been any external campaigns either supporting or opposing the scheme?
Yes No
B13. Management Case - Assurance
We will require Section 151 Officer confirmation (Section D) that adequate assurance systems are in place.
Please see attached letter from Section 151 officer at Appendix K.
SECTION C – Monitoring, Evaluation and Benefits Realisation
C1. Benefits Realisation Please provide details on the profile and baseline benefits and their ownership. This should be proportionate to the size of the proposed scheme.
Benefit Who will Enablers Outcome Baseline Who is When will benefit? required to displayed if measure responsible? it occur? realise benefits realised benefit Creation of a Visitors and Planning Clear entrance to Look of the Knowsley On scheme gateway to other entrants consent. the Liverpool City current Metropolitan completion the Liverpool to the Completion Region. bridge. Borough – March City Region Liverpool City of new Improved public Graffiti levels. Council 2014 Region. bridge. realm for local (KMBC) Local residents. residents. Less vandalism and graffiti (resulting in reduction of M62 closures to clean up). Avoidance of Local Planning No disruption to Traffic flow on KMBC On scheme
bridge failure residents, consent. M62 and other surrounding completion /closure school Completion critical routes in roads. – March children, of new Knowsley and Numbers of 2014 elderly bridge. Liverpool. children people, Traffic levels do attending commuters not increase. school on and M62 No severance of opposite side users communities on of bridge. either side of the Structural bridge. assessment Access retained of bridge. for schools, leisure, green space, hospitals and employment. Improved health and safety for pedestrians and road users. Enhanced Local Planning Increased Walking and KMBC On scheme walking and residents, consent. numbers of people cycling flows completion cycling school Completion using the bridge on the bridge. – March facilities children, of new for active travel 2014 elderly bridge. people, commuters and road users Extension of Local Planning Reduction in Current KMBC On scheme asset residents, consent. levels and cost of maintenance completion lifespan school Completion maintenance. and cost – March children, of new Retention of levels. 2014 elderly bridge. accessibility people, provided by commuters, bridge. road users and KMBC
C2. Monitoring and Evaluation
Evaluation is an essential part of scheme development and should be considered and built into the planning of a scheme from the earliest stages. Evaluating the outcomes and impacts of schemes is important to show if a scheme has been successful.
Please set out how you plan to measure and report on the benefits identified in Section C1, alongside any other outcomes and impacts of the scheme
The benefits identified above will be measured through a combination of methods, as follows:
Method Purpose Observed flow counts and surveys To track usage of the bridge To measure active traffic levels Semi-structured interviews (market survey) To gain feedback on the use of the bridge as a gateway to the Liverpool City Region Area officer To understand and evaluate the impact on Home visitor feedback local residents and the local community as Feedback from Councillor's surgeries a whole Community groups impact survey Minority groups impact survey
Monitoring will be undertaken 6 months and 12 months post completion of the new bridge and an evaluation report produced.
SECTION D: Declarations
D1. Senior Responsible Owner Declaration As Senior Responsible Owner for the Liverpool Gateway – Greystone Road Bridge, I hereby submit this request for approval to DfT on behalf of Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council and confirm that I have the necessary authority to do so.
I confirm that Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council will have all the necessary statutory powers in place to ensure the planned timescales in the application can be realised. Name: Sean Traynor Signed: Position: Head of Highways & Transportation
D2. Section 151 Officer Declaration As Section 151 Officer for Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council I declare that the scheme cost estimates quoted in this bid are accurate to the best of my knowledge and that Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council
- has allocated sufficient budget to deliver this scheme on the basis of its proposed funding contribution - accepts responsibility for meeting any costs over and above the DfT contribution requested, including potential cost overruns and the underwriting of any funding contributions expected from third parties - accepts responsibility for meeting any ongoing revenue requirements in relation to the scheme - accepts that no further increase in DfT funding will be considered beyond the maximum contribution requested and that no DfT funding will be provided after 2014/15 - confirms that the authority has the necessary governance / assurance arrangements in place and, for smaller scheme bids, the authority can provide, if required, evidence of a stakeholder analysis and communications plan in place
Name: Signed:
James Duncan
Submission of bids:
For both small bids and large bids the deadline is 5pm, 21 February 2013
One hard copy and a CD version of each bid and supporting material should be submitted to:
Steve Berry Local Transport Funding, Growth & Delivery Division Department for Transport Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR
An electronic copy should also be submitted to [email protected]
Appendix A – Strategic Case – Supporting Maps
Appendix B – Scheme Environmental Appraisal
Environmental Benefits
What is the impact of the scheme – and any associated mitigation works – on any statutory environmental constraints? For example, Local Air Quality Management Zones.
Transport is a significant contributor to a number of environmental challenges facing Knowsley. This principally relates to emissions of pollution to air and the release of greenhouses gases which are contributors to climate change. However, there are less obvious environmental effects relating to transport and the infrastructure needed to enable safe transit; such as noise disturbance or segregation of habitats and communities.
Early environmental appraisal provides a rational approach to sustainable development. For the purpose of this bid, a „Rapid Environmental Appraisal‟ is considered to be an appropriate level of assessment. Previously, this approach has enabled the determination of potential benefits and challenges attributable to the activities within the projects and programmes proposed on sensitive environmental receptors.
The rapid appraisal provided for this application is intended to act as a pre-cursor to detailed analysis of environmental impacts, which are taken up only if the need is subsequently demonstrated. For this more detailed level of assessment to be undertaken, it should be determined whether or not the project is likely to have significant environmental effects; therefore, this requires comprehensive information on the project scope, scale, location, phasing and an assessment of the baseline environment. At this stage, however, such a detailed assessment is not considered viable or necessary.
A bespoke environmental appraisal has been developed and undertaken for the purpose of this bid. The objective of the exercise was to assess and provide a high level environmental appraisal of the scheme, in order to support the economic case. In support of the decision- making process, the potential environmental impacts are identified and potential mitigations suggested.
We have appended an Environmental Appraisal summary of the environmental constraints, impacts and possible mitigation measures for the scheme to this bid, which have been identified through a high-level environmental appraisal. A number of environmental themes have been considered, and an overview of each theme is provided below:
- Landscape and Visual Amenity – including the scheme setting, landscape / townscape, land take - Cultural Heritage - including historic and cultural buildings / assets and archaeological sites / remains (both discovered and potential). - Ecology – including flora and fauna. - Water Resources - relating to all aspects of the water environment including groundwater, surface water and water environments. - Noise and Vibration - relating to all sources of environmental (ambient) noise and vibration from transportation, traffic and associated infrastructure. - Air Quality - encompassing all emissions to air from vehicles, and includes greenhouse gases (including water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone) that are key contributors to climate change. - Waste and Land Contamination – includes waste generation from construction and operation, and identification of ground contamination.
The environmental appraisal has been undertaken by giving consideration to the benefits and impacts of the Scheme against the seven environmental themes outlined above. In addition, the effects of the scheme have been identified using the scale outlined below:
Impact 5 Beneficial 4 Slight Beneficial 3 Neutral 2 Slight Adverse 1 Adverse This appraisal has been undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced environmental specialist using desk-based techniques. The results of the exercise have been determined based on previous experience on transportation/infrastructure projects, best practice and sound professional judgement.
Aspect Baseline Impacts Mitigation Effects The footbridge is located above the busy M62. It links two housing developments During the construction on opposite sides of the phase there is expected to The bridge itself will be a vast motorway. There is also be a temporary decrease in improvement on the current Landscape green, open space, visual amenity due to footbridge, both in terms of quality and Visual including Thigwall Hall construction activities. 5 and appearance. Opportunities for Amenity (100m west), Court Hey However, the proposed landscape enhancement should be Park / National Wildflower footbridge is expected to explored. Centre (150m south east) have a more aesthetically and King George V pleasing appearance. Memorial Field (250m south west). There are no SM's or There will be no impacts on archaeological remains in No mitigation measures are required 3 SM's or archaeology. the area. Best practice site working methods to be implemented in order to avoid any The Railway Bridge, which damage to listed building. joins the northern section of
footbridge to Greystone Mitigation measures will be Cultural Road, is a Grade II listed Potential damage to the considered in the following hierarchy: Heritage building. This building is listed building and loss of - avoid adverse effects as far as listed under the Planning 2 build heritage during possible by use of preventative (Listed Buildings and construction phase. measures including scheme design; Conservation Areas) Act - minimise or reduce adverse effects 1990 as amended for its to „as low as practicable‟ levels; and special architectural or - remedy or compensate for adverse historic interest. effects which are unavoidable and can be reduced further. There are no sites of international, national or There will be no impacts on No mitigation measures are required 3 local importance in close these sites. proximity to the footbridge. There are, however, a number of mature trees on Mitigation measures could include the banks of the M62 and Ecology tree planting and habitat creation; which surround the Excavation during the however, this would need to footbridge. It is unknown, at construction phase could monitored after construction to 2 this stage, whether any of lead to a loss of ensure the intended measures are these trees (or any other biodiversity. sustained and making a positive vegetation) will have to be impact as proposed. removed as part of the Scheme development.
These trees could provide habitat for birds. All British birds, their nests and eggs are protected by law during the breeding season under the WCA 1981 and Birds, nests and eggs are Ensure an ecologist visits the site in Conservation Regs. Part 1 legally protected, which the first instance. Mitigations will 3 of the WCA makes it is an could cause delays to depend on the findings from the offence to deliberately take, construction. ecologist assessment. kill or injure any wild bird or to take, damage, or destroy any nest (even while being built) or egg of any wild bird. Any newly constructed drainage should tie into the existing drainage No water bodies located in It is anticipated that the system and design measures will be close proximity to the construction and operation installed to ensure that pollution of Water development, it is not of the proposed bridge will groundwater is prevented. All site 3 Resources located within a not have any impact upon practices should adhere to best groundwater SPZ or within water resources (due to practice methods to ensure that the a flood risk zone. proximity). risk of unintentional pollution incidents is kept to a minimum. Best Practicable Means (BPM), to keep noise to a minimum, would be Likely impacts could include adopted and a regime of noise damage, disturbance and monitoring should be implemented. It There are a number of nuisance, to people (and is unknown whether there will be any sensitive receptors, possibly animals). There residual effects from the construction including residential areas are expected to be and implementation of the road traffic Noise and 20m to the north and south temporary noise and Schemes. 3 Vibration of the footbridge; Malvern vibration effects during the
Primary School (100m north construction phase of the Under section 61 of the Control of east); National Wildflower proposed Scheme. There Pollution Act 1974, consent can be Centre (150m south east). are not predicted to be any applied for when it is expected that effects during the operation such a notice might be breached. In phase. this instance, it may be advisable that a Section 61 Notice is applied for. Activities associated with Implementation of a Code of No AQMA‟s have been the construction of the Construction Practice (CoCP), which declared within Knowsley. Scheme have the potential will identify a series of measures to However, air quality is to generate dust. In reduce the environmental effects predicted to be low on the addition, an increase in during the construction period and Air Quality 3 bridge, as it is directly localised air pollution is will cover environmental and safety above the M62 where expected, due to aspects affecting the interests of concentrations of exhaust congestion and traffic as a residents, businesses, all road users emissions are high. result of construction and the general public in the vicinity activities. of the works. The use of a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) during The Scheme is likely to the demolition/construction phase will generate waste during the introduce the necessary construction phase. This management and monitoring may include excavation measures required to minimise The footbridge is comprised waste from earthworks, effects of these activities. In addition, 4 of steel and concrete. demolition waste (in resource efficiency and effective particular, steel and waste management (in accordance concrete) and excess waste with the waste hierarchy) will ensure materials generated during environmental impacts are Waste and construction. minimised. The scope for re-use of Land materials would be fully explored at a Contamination later stage. There is potential for A Ground Investigation (GI) survey localised ground may be carried out and soil samples contamination at the site as analysed, including Waste a result of spillages and Acceptance Testing, which will The bridge is located leaks, including fuel oils, determine levels of contamination. approximately 10m south of 2 lubricating oils and greases Best practice site investigation a railway line. fro the operation of the train techniques should be employed to line. In addition, general ensure that, in the event that contamination of a site may contamination is identified, pathways have occurred through the are not created which permit
wind dispersal of airborne migration of contaminants. contaminants such as coal dust and metal particulates.
Current Scheme proposals Thingwall Hall (100m east) will not disturb No mitigation measures are required. 3 is a historic landfill site. contaminated land.
Appendix C – Further Scheme Cost Information
Cost Estimates (Nominal Terms)
Cost Heading Cost (£000's) Date Estimated
Works Non Contract British Telecom 0 29/01/2013 United Utilities 0 29/01/2013 Scottish Power 30 29/01/2013 Transco(incl temporary support gantry) 180 29/01/2013 National Grid 0 29/01/2013 Network Rail 0 29/01/2013 Telewest 0 29/01/2013 Main Contractor Preliminaries(incl TM/Ped diversion) 100 29/01/2013 Clear Site 10 29/01/2013 Demolish Structure (incl Ex. Substructures) 80 29/01/2013 New Cable Stay Footbridge (ped/cycleway) 700 29/01/2013 New Abutments/Piers 100 29/01/2013 Additional Civils/incl retaining wall works 100 29/01/2013 Street Lighting Works (inc Manweb supply) St Lighting Engineer 0 29/01/2013 Landscaping 0 29/01/2013 Landscaping Maintenance 0 29/01/2013 Other contracts 0 29/01/2013 Land Acquisition Estates 0 29/01/2013 Land Compensation Act Inc Dble Glazing Estates 0 29/01/2013 Contingencies 10% of all eligible items 114 29/01/2013 Fees Feasibility Fees - up to max of: Project Manager 0 29/01/2013 Outline/Preliminary Design 30% Auto Calc 18 29/01/2013 Detailed Design 30% Auto Calc 18 29/01/2013 Final Proposals and tender action 20% Auto Calc 12 29/01/2013 Construction Administration 20% Auto Calc 12 29/01/2013 Civil Eng Supervision Fees - up to max of : Time Based 56 29/01/2013 Planning Supervisor Auto Calc 11 29/01/2013 Establishment Fees Project Manager 0 29/01/2013 Geotech Survey/Reports 15 29/01/2013 Topographical Survey 1 29/01/2013 Total 1557
Appendix D – Scheme Impacts Proforma
Data source: observed flow count
AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Inter-Peak Hr Nights Sat Sun Scenario Input Data / Key Performance Indicators Unit Weekday Weekday Weekday 19:00-07:00 07:00-19:00 07:00-19:00 Number of highway trips affected vehicles Total vehicle travelled time vehicle-hours Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km Total network delays vehicle-km Highway peak period conversion factor - Number of PT passenger trips on affected routes passenger trips Bus journey time on affected routes minutes Total PT travelled time passenger-hrs Do-Minimum Total PT travelled distance passenger-km PT peak period conversion factor - Number of walking and cycling trips person trips 67 72 117 Mode share in affected area - Walking and cycling person trips - Bus/BRT person trips - Rail person trips - Car person trips - Total person trips Number of highway trips affected vehicles Total vehicle travelled time vehicle-hours Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km Total network delays vehicle-km Highway peak period conversion factor - Number of PT passenger trips on affected routes passenger trips Bus journey time on affected routes minutes Do-Something Total PT travelled time passenger-hrs Total PT travelled distance passenger-km PT peak period conversion factor - Number of walking and cycling trips person trips Mode share in affected area - Walking and cycling person trips - Bus/BRT person trips
- Rail person trips - Car person trips - Total person trips
For Do-Minimum Scenario AM Peak PM Peak Inter -Peak Hr Hr Hr Vehicle Category Weekday Weekday Weekday Car Work Car Non-work Commuting Car Non-work Other Average Car 0% 0% 0% LGV OGV1 OGV2 PSV All Total 0% 0% 0% Public Transport Bus Work Bus Non-work Commuting Bus Non-work Other Bus Total 0% 0% 0% Rail Work Rail Non-work Commuting Rail Non-work Other Rail Total 0% 0% 0%
AM Peak PM Peak Inter -Peak Hr Hr Hr Average Network Speed (kph) Weekday Weekday Weekday Car LGV HGV & PSV
For Do-Something Scenario AM Peak PM Peak Inter -Peak Hr Hr Hr
Vehicle Category Weekday Weekday Weekday Car Work Car Non-work Commuting Car Non-work Other Average Car 0% 0% 0% LGV OGV1 OGV2 PSV All Total 0% 0% 0% Public Transport Bus Work Bus Non-work Commuting Bus Non-work Other Bus Total 0% 0% 0% Rail Work Rail Non-work Commuting Rail Non-work Other Rail Total 0% 0% 0%
AM Peak PM Peak Inter -Peak Hr Hr Hr Average Network Speed (kph) Weekday Weekday Weekday Car LGV HGV & PSV
Appendix E – Appraisal Summary Table
Appraisal Summary Table Date 15 2 1 Contact: produced: 3 Name of scheme: The Liverpool Gateway - Greystone Road Bridge Name Andy Millar Description of Replacement of the Greystone Road bridge to provide a 'gateway' to Organisati Knowsley scheme: Liverpool and a bridge across the M62 motorway which reduces local on MDC severance and which supports access to key services by 'active' modes Role Promoter / Official
Impacts Summary of key impacts Assessment Quantitative Qualitative Monetary Distributional £(NPV) 7-pt scale/ vulnerable grp Business users & No assessment has been Value of journey transport providers undertaken for this factor for time changes(£) this scheme application Net journey time changes (£) - N/A Not Assessed 0 to 2 to > 5min 2min 5min - Reliability impact No assessment has been on Business users undertaken for this factor for - - N/A Not assessed this scheme application
Regeneration Although a quantitative assessment of the scheme's regeneration benefits has not Scheme would been undertaken, section B6 support
of the application notes that continued whilst replacement of the accessibility to bridge would have no direct Moderate - local N/A GVA benefits it would support Beneficial employment, local accessibility to education and
Economy employment centres and healthcare locations which support services. economic growth.
Wider Impacts Although a quantitative Wider assessment of wider impacts economic has not been made, the benefits would assessment of the scheme's be expected to wider impacts in section B6 accrue notes the potential positive because of the benefits on one of the main reported - N/A Beneficial vehicular access routes to the reductions in centre of Liverpool. journey times as a result of the scheme. No values have been calculated Noise No assessment has been undertaken for this factor for - - N/A Not Assessed
this application.
Air Quality Scheme is anticipated to Qualitative deliver a beneficial impact on information on local air quality levels through the air quality supporting local residents in benefits of this No quantitative assessment using 'active modes' rather application are Moderate has been undertaken for this N/A than supporting private car provided in the Beneficial factor
Environmental use. main bid within the Environmental Appraisal
Greenhouse gases A quantitative assessment of the impact of the scheme on greenhouse gases has not been made. However, through supporting access to employment, social and healthcare sites by 'active modes' it is anticipated that a Change in non-traded - small but significant level of carbon over 60y (CO2e) localised mode shift will take place which will have a positive impact on greenhouse gas emmissions. Furthermore, maintaining the bridge as an asset, rather than managing its removal, will at the very Qualitative least preserve levels of cycling information on and walking in the local area. the air quality benefits of this N/A Beneficial application are provided in the main bid.
Change in traded carbon - over 60y (CO2e)
Landscape Knowsley MDC have undertaken a proportionate Further Environmental Appraisal for Townscape information on the scheme to identify key the likely Heritage of Historic environmental risks. This is environmental resources included as an Appendix to impacts of the the main bid. The appraisal scheme is Biodiversity has highlighted the good presented in environmental performance of Water Environment the the scheme, and indicates proportionate where project partners are SDI and required to implement Environmental - N/A Beneficial mitigation procedures during Appraisal the construciton phase to assessments. minimise any environmental The overall impacts. The appraisal results of this specifically notes the assessment townscape benefits of the new indicate that bridge thanks to improved this application design. should result in a beneficial result for the area.
Commuting and The Greystone Road Value of journey
Other users footbridge crosses the M62, time changes(£) not far out of Liverpool, links Net journey time two housing developments on opposite sides. Any upgrade changes (£) 0 to 2 to of the Greystone Road > 5min footbridge will ensure 2min 5min
connectivity and prevent
increased journey times to key Large - N/A services for those from low Beneficial income households, children,
Social older people, people with disabilities and residents - without a car (all of whom are more likely to make pedestrian journeys).
Reliability impact Replacement of the bridge will - Without N/A Beneficial
on Commuting and maintain current journey time replacement of Other users levels for 'active mode' users the current using the bridge to access structure, Broadgreen Hospital or other journey time local employment centres. reliability will be reduced due to extended trip length for active mode users Physical activity Replacement of the bridge will support continued accessibility by 'active modes' for access to employment and education. Removal of the existing bridge without an adequate - - N/A Beneficial replacement will reduce physical activity through forcing a move to private vehicle use.
Journey quality A quantitative assessment of journey quality has not been made for this scheme. However, a key benefit of the scheme is the continued support of 'active mode' use Scheme will via a safe and secure lead to a infrastructure asset. Without reduction in the bridge, pedestrians and - journey time N/A Beneficial cyclists will experience a and increased reduction in journey quality as journey time they will have to use the local reliability road network and cross congested major road junctions.
Accidents No quantitative assessment of accident benefits has been undertaken. However, removal of the existing bridge without Approximately 390 trips are an adequate replacement will made across the bridge each day (approximately 4% of lead to an increase in accident Scheme will these are cyclists). The levels amongst 'active mode' reduce the majority of trips are made by users (particularly younger probability of N/A Beneficial school children and members of the public accidents commuters with the highest accessing education who are increasing. the predominant users of the flows occurring between existing bridge). 8:00-9:00 and 15:00-18:00.
Security No assessment has been undertaken of this factor for - Not Assessed this scheme Access to services Scheme will have considerable accessibility benefits on a Detailed consideration is given local level for to the scheme's accessibility residents. It will benefits for both local support access residents and 'active mode' - to employment N/A users in the scheme Strategic and education Large Case. The scheme shows and will also Beneficial strong accessibility benefits for support long access to Healthcare, access distance to Employment and access to accessibility both primary and secondary through Education. improved access to the National Cycle Network and Trans Pennine Trail.
Affordability No assessment has been undertaken of this factor for - Not Assessed this scheme Severance Scheme will ensure that local residents do not Whilst the M62 motorway experience provides a vital access route prohibitive into the centre of Liverpool for levels of car drivers, it also causes local severance due severance issues for residents to the loss of in areas such as Knowsley. the bridge. The loss of the bridge due to Scheme also Large its collapse would lead to includes Beneficial severance of local residents to widening of the employment, education and crossing of the employment. The scheme M62 which will strategic case provides a full support explanation of the benefits of improved the scheme in mitigating local accessibility for severance. cyclists to the Trans Pennine Trail and local cycle network. Option values No assessment has been undertaken of this factor for - Not Assessed this scheme
Cost to Broad The cost to the broad Transport Budget transport budget is presented in 2012 prices. £1.557m - £1.557m
Indirect Tax A quantitaive assessment of Revenues indirect tax revenues has not been made. The installation of
the bridge would support mode shift to 'active modes' and would result in the consumption of less fuel and therefore likely having a negative impact on indirect tax revenues. However, increased Not Assessed facilitaties for 'active mode' - - N/A
users would result in an Public Accounts Public increased demand for travel, which might offset the negative impact on indirect tax revenues due to reduced congestion.
Appendix F – Risk Management Tables
Risk Matrix
Time Impact Cost Impact
(Delay to end date)
> 6 months >£250,000 Very High 5 10 15 20 25
3 months to 6 months £80,000 to £250,000 High 4 8 12 16 20
1 month to 3 months £10,000 to £80,000 Medium 3 6 9 12 15
2 weeks to 1 month £5,000 to £10,000 Low 2 4 6 8 10
< 2 weeks < £5,000 Very Low 1 2 3 4 5
Very Low Low Medium High Very High
0% 65% 85% 100% 15% 35%
Probability
Knowsley LPP Bid: Risk Register
Strategic Risk Risk Priority Ranking
Risk Matrix Priority Scores
Risk Matrix Risk Type Project Risk Ref RISK EVENT CONSEQUENCES MITIGATION Probability Impact Priority Ranking
LPP scheme implementation becomes a lower Confirm & obtain support from Political Risk Change of political administration. priority for local other key political parties that 10 Low 2 elected members, represent the area. influencing success of local delivery. 1. Review potential changes in legislation currently being Changes in promoted by central legislation & government and review Changes in legislation increase taxation regimes will throughout planning and Political Risk Legislative Risk 25 Low 4 costs. have a direct impact implementation. on capital and 2. Update risk register and revenue budgets. delivery programme in response to any proposed change. Restrictions placed over land use development may Ensure the scheme complies Changes or restrictions in land Land Use Risk delay the with local and national land use 10 Low 2 use policy. commencement of policy. the scheme or stop it completely.
Policy changes may 1. Fully understand national result in scheme legislation frameworks and components incorporate flexibility to adapt to Changes of national / local policy becoming redundant potential changes. Policy Risk 10 Low 2 direction not involving legislation. and / or additional 2. Update risk register and measures needed to delivery programme in support local and response to any proposed national ambitions. change. 1. Ensure that a staff continuity Changes in the team responsible Delay to overall plan is put in place at the start for delivery; delays in Staff Risk delivery of the of the delivery process. 25 Medium 6 appointment of new team scheme. 2. Respond quickly to changes members. in staffing.
Communication and 1. Appoint appropriate Project co-ordination issues Manager and delivery team. Lack of communication and co- could result in 2. Develop and implement Communication ordination between KMBC and programme delay, robust governance and 25 Medium 6 Risks 20/20 responsible for scheme political frustration communication plans. delivery. and additional 3. Ensure all staff involved are scheme costs. clear on communication routes.
1. Ensure that the scheme is substantially developed in advance of programme commencement. The construction of the physical Additional costs 2. Early and active engagement Management assets is not completed on time required to deliver Construction with 20/20 as delivery body Risk and/or to specification e.g. completed scheme. Programme along with other key 40 High 12 potential cost/time increase of The benefits of the Risk stakeholders during closing M62 for bridge scheme are delayed programme development. construction or lost. 3. Implement effective programme review and contingency planning procedures. 1. Establish robust governance and project management structures. Additional costs 2. Adopt formal monitoring and required to deliver The construction of the physical review procedures including Construction completed scheme assets is not completed to LPP Gateway control, building on 25 High 8 Budget Risk and potential fund budget. existing „best practice‟ benefits not processes already embedded. delivered on time. 3. Value Management of all proposals, in particular capital elements.
1. KMBC have already The implementation of the Scheme engaged Liverpool City Council footbridge fails to adhere to the components cannot (LCC) who support the terms of planning permission / be delivered due to scheme. detailed planning cannot be planning 2. Seek planning permissions Planning Risk 25 High 8 obtained / if obtained, can only be requirements. The from LCC at the earliest implemented at costs greater benefits of the opportunity. than in the original scheme scheme are delayed 3. Work will not begin before budget. or lost. planning permission is obtained.
1. Undertake comprehensive engagement/consultation Scheme lacks local exercises with key stakeholder Lack of support from key support resulting in groups, local community stakeholders and local community a reorganisation of Delivery Risk Stakeholder forums etc. e.g. Broadgreen Hospital, KMBC priorities. 25 Low 4 Risk 2. Identify „Local Champions‟ National Wildflower Centre, The benefits of the including Members to promote Malvern Primary School scheme are delayed schemes and benefits. or lost. 3. Develop robust strategic and local communication plans Some relevant interest groups Lack of buy-in from Identify any further interest may not be identified. It is key groups. groups that should be essential to identify groups such Special Interest Disengagement and considered and consulted. as: 10 Very Low 1 Groups lack of Once identified, designated -Residents and Neighbourhood receptiveness to the officer to contact these groups forums scheme. and engage as required. -Local businesses Procurement of services may not Procurement Delivery of services Continued development of be successful or may be delayed 25 High 8 risks is jeopardised. robust procurement framework. or challenged.
Financial Risk Risk Priority Ranking
Risk Matrix Priority Scores
Risk Project Risk Matrix Risk Type RISK EVENT CONSEQUENCES MITIGATION Probability Impact Ref Priority Ranking
1. Develop detailed operation Operating costs vary from schedules - note that LPP funding Additional revenue budget; performance is only available in financial years Operational would be required in the standards slip; or the 2013-14 and 2014-15 25 Low 4 Risk longer term to support service cannot be 2. Identify service performance ongoing operation. provided. standards before additional services are contracted. 1. Develop robust financial forecasts. Additional costs required Actual inflation differs from 2. Adjust forecasts to account for Inflation Risk to deliver completed 10 Low 2 assumed inflation rates. any predicted rate change and scheme. reflect change in the scheme delivery programme. Funding Risk Lower than expected Failure to secure funding, with further Contributions necessary contributions N/A N/A N/A N/A importance placed upon from partners. the LPP fund. Costs overun and 1. Detailed design and robust Project costs are additional costs are costing exercise undertaken Costings 25 Medium 6 underestimated required to complete the 2. Contingency fund and scheme. procedures implemented 1. Identify value of proposed bridge and possible depreciation at initial Uncertainty of the value of Residual Long term reduction in design stage. physical assets at the end 25 Medium 6 Value Risk asset value. 2. Value of the new bridge will be of the contract. positive compared to old bridge due to current high level of risk
Infrastructure Risk Risk Priority Ranking
Risk Matrix Priority Scores
Risk Matrix Risk Type Project Risk Ref RISK EVENT CONSEQUENCES MITIGATION Probability Impact Priority Ranking
The level of funding Increase in scheme costs made available is Costs will be fixed with supplier Cost Risk e.g. costs of materials & insufficient to meet on procurement and cost risk 25 N/A N/A key design infrastructure the proposed scheme transferred to them. delivery costs. 1. Further detailed work will be undertaken to ensure that expected benefits are realised Poor contractor Additional revenue during the design, performance and / or would be required to implementation and Provider Risk contractor becomes 25 Medium 6 support delivery of the management stages. insolvent within the scheme. 2. Degree of rigour imposed contract period. during the contractor procurement process, including performance bond in contract. Potential disturbance Work with utilities companies to Environmental upon local gas & Conflicts between the ensure their requirements are Infrastructure electricity supply due 25 High 8 scheme and utilities etc. understood and factored into Risks to utility infrastructure design and build. within current bridge. Environmental Risk Environmental risks (eg Scheme is The project team (including failure to meet implemented without partner organisations) will keep Environmental environmental legislation, due consideration of up to date on any legislation 10 Low 2 Risks risk of flooding, relevent changes which may affect the Environmental Impact environmental delivery of the project. Assessment). legislation.
Delayed / restricted Community consultation Objections from local Community implementation of the strategy will be implemented to communities regarding the 25 Very low 2 Risks scheme; public inform members of the public of proposed scheme. opposition. scheme benefits The urban nature of the scheme site implies that the Higher maintenance risk of vandalism is likely to be costs; infrastructure high. It is possible to reduce Acts of vandalism on new Vandalism Risk may need to be this risk through good design 40 Low 6 infrastructure. closed whilst and extensive consultation undergoing repairs. exercises / effective engagement with local Stakeholder Risk communities. 1. KMBC have already engaged Liverpool City Council Potential land ownership Scheme delays / (LCC) who support the scheme. Land Risks 10 Medium 3 issues. cancellation. 2. Seek planning permissions from LCC at the earliest opportunity. The project team (including partner organisations) will keep Other schemes that could Complementary Loss of scheme up to date on any support the development 25 Medium 6 Scheme Risks support & demand. complimentary scheme fall through. changes which may affect the delivery of the project. 1. All partners will conduct site Physical / structural issues Time delays, with a survey works in advance of at the site where the potential resultant construction. Structural Risk Structural Risks scheme is to be delivered 25 High 8 increase in scheme 2. Design will factor in gas & e.g gas & electrical costs. electrical infrastructure infrastructure within bridge requirements
Appendix G – Project Plan
The project plan equates to a total of 11 months. The periods referenced above are deemed to be inclusive of risks reasonably expected to incur such as:
Delays in finalising design Delays to procurement process and contract award Delays to the construction programme
Appendix H – Quantified Risk Assessment Mott MacDonald QRA @RISK Output Report for TOTAL / Total Impact Performed By: Amin, Amar Date: 14 February 2013 09:44:27
Simulation Summary Information Workbook Name B11. Management Case - Risk Register - Footbridge_V3 AA.xls Number of Simulations 1 Number of Iterations 1000 Number of Inputs 48 Number of Outputs 1 Sampling Type Latin Hypercube Simulation Start Time 2/14/13 9:44:16 Simulation Duration 00:00:01 Random # Generator Mersenne Twister Random Seed 458219145
Summary Statistics for TOTAL / Total Impact Statistics Percentile Minimum £0.00 5% £64,752.51
Maximum £1,002,986.38 10% £103,619.82 Mean £313,033.34 15% £140,892.05 Std Dev £163,753.99 20% £166,601.49 Variance 26815368596 25% £188,887.59 Skewness 0.442043554 30% £214,484.48 Kurtosis 3.092754949 35% £236,515.74 Median £296,711.14 40% £261,578.52 Mode £265,549.57 45% £277,701.27 Left X £296,711.14 50% £296,711.14 Left P 50% 55% £324,629.58 Right X £450,530.72 60% £346,169.47 Right P 80% 65% £370,975.77 Diff X £153,819.58 70% £399,681.30
Diff P 30% 75% £420,052.34 #Errors 0 80% £450,530.72 Filter Min Off 85% £488,680.43 Filter Max Off 90% £528,180.35
#Filtered 0 95% £602,225.91
Regression and Rank Information for TOTAL / Total Impact Rank Name Regr Corr 1 The construction of the physical assets is not completed on time and/or to 0.408 0.387 specification e.g. potential cost/time increase of closing M62 for bridge construction 2 Physical / structural issues at the site where the scheme is to be delivered 0.354 0.320 e.g gas & electrical infrastructure within bridge 3 Conflicts between the scheme and utilities etc. 0.352 0.342 4 The construction of the physical assets is not completed to LPP fund 0.348 0.339 budget. 5 The implementation of the footbridge fails to adhere to the terms of 0.347 0.302 planning permission / detailed planning cannot be obtained / if obtained, can only be implemented at costs greater than in the original scheme budget. 6 Procurement of services may not be successful or may be delayed or 0.347 0.336 challenged. 7 Lack of communication and co-ordination between KMBC and 20/20 0.149 0.148 responsible for scheme delivery. 8 Project costs are underestimated 0.137 0.144 9 Uncertainty of the value of physical assets at the end of the contract. 0.137 0.111 10 Changes in the team responsible for delivery; delays in appointment of new 0.135 0.158 team members. 11 Poor contractor performance and / or contractor becomes insolvent within 0.132 0.174 the contract period. 12 Other schemes that could support the development fall through. 0.131 0.119 13 The construction of the physical assets is not completed on time and/or to 0.104 0.034 specification e.g. potential cost/time increase of closing M62 for bridge construction 14 Potential land ownership issues. 0.091 0.084
Appendix I – Assessment of Social and Distributional Impacts
The Liverpool Gateway – Greystone Road Bridge Are potential Impact? Can potential Screening impacts, where (Positive / negative impacts be Indicator Assessment Justification Impact on Key Groups presumed, likely to No Change / mitigated through be significant & Negative) design? concentrated? User The scheme is to maintain a The Greystone Road footbridge Positive YES - The proposed Benefits key pedestrian connectivity crosses the M62, not far out of scheme is expected point (Greystone Road Liverpool, links two housing to be significant to footbridge) to local services developments on opposite sides. Any both local residents and communities, while also upgrade of the Greystone Road and commuters ensuring the future of a footbridge will ensure connectivity travelling in & out of vehicular priority access point and prevent increased journey times Liverpool via the (M62) to the Liverpool City to key services for those from low M62. Region. income households, children, older people, people with disabilities and residents without a car (all of whom are more likely to make pedestrian journeys). Engineering reports show that the bridge is near collapse and failure to upgrade it will result in closure. Closing the bridge would perpetuate many of these issues whilst collapse would result in significant risk of serious injury and widespread disruption to the M62; a section of the Strategic Road Network vital to the economic health and vitality of Knowsley and the wider Liverpool City Region. Noise There are no specific objectives that relate to noise.
Air Quality There are no specific objectives that relate to air quality.
Accidents The Greystone Road The absence of the footbridge means No Change It is expected that Partial YES - The footbridge has been identified that residents (including children and the scheme will proposed scheme as being close to collapsing older people) would not be able to reduce the will avoid accidents and in desperate need of cross the M62 without attempting a probability of and the risk of upgrading if future accidents dangerous and illegal crossing of the accidents occurring serious injury, as are to be avoided. carriageway. Without the bridge it is and thus negative well as any unlikely that children could get to the impacts are not significant nearby Court Hey park without identified. disturbance to the crossing the M62 roundabout, which M62, whilst has safety implications, or walking the maintaining long way around which is significantly accessibility to further and likely to deter this option. services of local Structural upgrade of the bridge will residents. enable those local residents identified above to continue to reach key services safely while encouraging new users. Avoiding a potential collapse of the bridge will prevent the occurrence of serious accidents involving footbridge and motorway users, as well as the ensuing disruption to the M62 and the negative effects on the economy of the Liverpool City Region do not occur. Security There are no specific objectives that relate to safety.
Severance Replacing Greystone Road The M62 constitutes a major obstacle Positive YES - The scheme footbridge will avoid major for the communities that lie either will have a significant severance issues involving the side of it. Closure of the bridge would impact in ensuring communities divided by the result in significant severance of any that the M62 .One of the top priorities services lying on the other side. communities split by of the scheme is to ensure Maintenance of the bridge, therefore, the M62 don't potential severance issues are will reduce any future severance develop further stopped from developing issues that would make it difficult for severance issues. further. those without access to a private vehicle to reach neighbouring communities, employment and local services. This is likely to have particular impact on older people (the proportion of residents over 64 in Swanside ward, to the north of the bridge, is 19%, one of the highest in Knowsley). Low income households experiencing poverty and worklessness and low car ownership means a reliance on other modes of transport. The bridge plays a critical role in supporting these communities. Accessibility Maintaining accessibility to The ease & speed at which local Positive YES - The proposed employment, residences and residents can cross the M62 in order scheme is expected other services is a key to access destinations of employment, to have a significant objective of the scheme. The schools, transport and medical centres impact upon the Greystone Road footbridge will be maintained while also accessibility of local crosses the M62, linking two encouraging a healthier lifestyle. services to residents housing developments on Accessibility provided by the bridge who live by the opposite sides. It provides a helps to build an empowered, bridge and ensure safe and active route for cohesive community that is more continued access to residents to cross the likely to be resilient to change and the Liverpool City motorway and access schools, residents more likely to help each region via the M62 leisure facilities, hospitals and other and themselves rather than for private vehicle employment. In a borough depend on others. Replacing the owners. with high levels of bridge supports this objective by worklessness, low levels of car ensuring accessibility between
ownership, child poverty and residential areas. Whereas closing the obesity as well as traffic bridge would be detrimental and congestion it is an important perpetuate severance issues. asset to the local area.
Personal Although not a core objective, The Greystone Road footbridge Positive YES - The scheme Affordability the scheme will maintain a provides residents with the most cost will have a significant significant affordable mode of effective mode of travel to reach impact upon local travel via the bridge to local services that would otherwise be residents and their residents. Low car ownership inaccessible without the use of a car ability to reach key within the borough indicates or public transport. Affordability of services at an an increased reliance on other public transport is an issue for some affordable price. transport modes such as residents with low incomes (which public transport, walking and may include children, younger adults cycling to access jobs and and older people) as well as services. availability of public transport services which run from north to south within the borough – although they are regular they are infrequent (e.g. half hourly services after peak hours or stop completely in the evening).
Appendix J – Equalities Assessment
Directorate: Service area: Responsible Officer: Completed by: Date: Regeneration & Housing Highways & Lisa Harris Andy Millar, Paul Peng 11/02/2013 (V1) Transportation Name and brief description of Bid to Department for Transport for funding to deliver two schemes: Policy/Decision/Function/Project/Service to be (1) M57 Extension A5300 Knowsley Expressway reviewed: (2) Liverpool Gateway: Greystone Road Footbridge
Give details, with evidence, of the impact of the function on each of the protected characteristics in relation to the general duty:
1. Eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation 2. Advancing equality of opportunity between people who share protected characteristics and those who don‟t share it 3. Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who don‟t
Please give special consideration to, (this list is not intended to be exhaustive)
Accessibility Community Cohesion Delivery of contracts Human Rights Act Positive action Procurement Reasonable adjustments
Does the Policy/Decision/Function/Project/Service have a direct impact on Yes people? If yes, please complete the grid below. If no, consider whether or not an More detailed iterations of this document will be processed Equality Impact Assessment is necessary, if not state why not and exit in the event of a successful funding obtainment. process: Have you conducted a consultation? No (if yes please attach evidence or include link) We have not yet conducted a specific consultation on either scheme. However, the Local Transport Plan for Merseyside was subject to extensive statutory consultation, and contained similar proposals for the A5300, and an asset management plan. Informal consultations show outstanding support for both schemes. A full statutory consultation will be undertaken at the point of
commissioning.
Who did you consult with? How and when did you consult? What was the feedback? N/A N/A N/A
Is there any Is there any What evidence do What action will you take How will you monitor and potential potential negative you have? (E.g. to mitigate negative review the actions that you positive Impact? Impact? complaints, impact? Please state if have taken to mitigate the statistics, surveys negative impact is intended impact? etc disaggregated due to positive action. by equality groups.) Age Yes – as a No consequence of all age groups from young to elder having improved access. Carer’s Yes – as a No Status consequence of people who have responsibility for caring dependents or relatives having improved access? Disability Yes -as a No consequence of people who are designated as Disabled having improved access.
Gender N/A N/A
Gender N/A N/A Identity Offending N/A N/A Past Sexual N/A N/A Orientation Race N/A N/A (including Gypsies and Travellers) Religion or N/A N/A Belief Social Yes – as a No Economic consequence of Status people who are excluded due to their economic status having improved access to opportunity.
Appendix K – Supporting Letters