Buckinghamshire Local Road Renewal with Recycled Materials
DfT Local Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund Buckinghamshire County Council Bid - February 2015 Buckinghamshire Local Road Renewal with Recycled Materials
Contents
Foreword by Ruth Vigor-Hedderly, the County’s Cabinet Member for Transportation
APPLICATION FORM: Local Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund
Appendices:
A. Geographical Area covered by Buckinghamshire County Council
B. County Highway Network (Classified Roads)
C. County’s Local Roads (C-class and Unclassified)
D. Table 1 and RAG Map – Condition of Local Roads categorised as ‘Red’ or ‘Amber’
E. Graph illustrating Rate of Deterioration of Unclassified Roads
F. Examples of Results of Condition and Customer Satisfaction Surveys
G. Photographs of Failed Local Roads
H. Local Roads forming part of the County’s Bus Route Network
I. Letters of Support for Bid from Stakeholders
J. Figures 1 to 5 – Typical Design Strategy and Examples of Local Modifications
K. Project Plan / Programme
L. Strategic Organogram with interrelationship between BCC and TfB.
M. Organogram for Scheme Delivery
N. Process Map – Scheme Identification and Selection
O. Risk Register
P. Letter of Support from Eurovia
Q. Foambase Product Information Sheet
R. Economic Appraisal: Supporting Documents including Appraisal Summary Table
Cabinet Member Buckinghamshire County Council Transportation County Hall, Walton Street Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP20 1UA
Ruth Vigor-Hedderly Telephone 01296 382707
[email protected] www.buckscc.gov.uk
The Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP 05 February 2015 Secretary of State for Transport Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR
Dear Mr McLoughlin
Buckinghamshire CC’s Local Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund (LHMCF) Bid to DfT Scheme: Renewal of ‘Failed’ Local Roads centred on the use of Recycled Materials
As the County’s Cabinet Member for Transportation, which includes the portfolio for Highway Maintenance, I fully welcome the opportunity provided by your Department to bid for additional funding for major maintenance projects.
Approximately 33% of the County’s Unclassified Roads are now categorised as ‘red’ (requiring structural strengthening and/or reconstruction) and approximately 40% of our C-Roads are categorised as ‘red’ or ‘amber’. This, together with the alarming rate of deterioration of these local roads, including a greater than tenfold increase in Unclassified Roads categorised as ‘red’ in the last 7 years, demonstrates that major investment in this asset is clearly urgently required.
I am therefore delighted to fully endorse the County’s bid for a ‘Large Scheme’ involving the renewal of local roads at the end of their serviceable life, utilising recycled materials reclaimed from the County’s own capital programme.
The number and range of stakeholders from local, regional and national organisations that are supporting our bid clearly demonstrate the associated benefits of the scheme of the promotion of sustainable modes of transport, such as buses, cycling and walking, together with associated improvements in highway safety.
Finally, I’d also like to confirm the clear consensus and commitment across all of the County’s political parties to address our failing highway assets, as demonstrated by our planned capital programme for highway maintenance in 2015/16.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Ruth Vigor-Hedderly Cabinet Member for Transportation
Local Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund
Application Form
The level of information provided should be proportionate to the size and complexity of the scheme proposed. As a guide, for a small scheme we would suggest around 10 to 15 pages including annexes would be appropriate and for a larger scheme, 15 to 30 pages.
A separate application form should be completed for each scheme up to a maximum of one large bid and one small bid for each local highway authority.
Applicant Information
Local authority name(s)*: Buckinghamshire County Council (BCC)
*If the bid is a joint proposal, please enter the names of all participating local authorities and specify the lead authority
Bid Manager Name and position: David Stewart Scheme Delivery Manager Transport for Buckinghamshire
Name and position of officer with day to day responsibility for delivering the proposed scheme.
Contact telephone number: 07894-788087 Email address: [email protected]
Postal address: County Hall Walton Street Aylesbury Bucks HP20 1UY
When authorities submit a bid for funding to the Department, as part of the Government’s commitment to greater openness in the public sector under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, they must also publish a version excluding any commercially sensitive information on their own website within two working days of submitting the final bid to the Department. The Department reserves the right to deem the business case as non-compliant if this is not adhered to.
Please specify the weblink where this bid will be published: www.buckscc.gov.uk/lhmcf
SECTION A - Scheme description and funding profile
A1. Scheme name:
Buckinghamshire’s Local Road Renewal with Recycled Materials
A2. Headline description:
Please enter a brief description of the proposed scheme (in no more than 50 words)
Renewal of Buckinghamshire’s Local Roads (C-class and Unclassified) at the end of their serviceable life utilising a structural overlay with treated recycled materials reclaimed from the County’s own capital programme with associated drainage improvements. Schemes will be selected to promote sustainable modes of transport, such as buses, cycling and walking.
A3. Geographical area:
Please provide a short description of area covered by the bid (in no more than 50 words)
The countywide scheme extends across the wider area covered by Buckinghamshire, which is illustrated in Appendix A. The bid includes works on sections of the county’s Local Roads (C-class and Unclassified) which are illustrated in Appendix C.
OS Grid Reference(s): SP51, SP53, SP60–SP64, SP70–SP74, SP80–SP83, SP90–SP92, SU78, SU79, SU87–SU89, SU97–SU99, TL00, TQ08, TQ09.
Postcode(s): HP4 to HP18, HP20 to HP23, HP27, LU6 and LU7, MK18 to MK19, NN13, OX6, RG9, SL0 to SL4, SL6 to SL9, UB9, WD3.
Please append a map showing the location (and route) of the proposed scheme, existing transport infrastructure and other points of particular interest to the bid e.g. development sites, areas of existing employment, constraints etc. –
The County’s Highway Network of Classified Roads in illustrated in Appendix B.
A4. Type of bid (please tick relevant box):
Small project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £5m and £20m)
Major maintenance, strengthening or renewal of bridges, tunnels, retaining walls or other structures
Major maintenance or renewal of carriageways (roads)
Major maintenance or renewal of footways or cycleways
Major maintenance or renewal of drainage assets
Upgrade of Street Lighting
2 Large project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £20m plus)
Major maintenance, strengthening or renewal of bridges, tunnels, retaining walls or other structures
Major maintenance or renewal of carriageways (roads)
Major maintenance or renewal of footways or cycleways
Major maintenance or renewal of drainage assets
Upgrade of Street Lighting
A5. Equality Analysis
Has any Equality Analysis been undertaken in line with the Equality Duty? Yes No
SECTION B – The Business Case
B1. The Scheme – Summary/History (Maximum 200 words)
Please select what the scheme is trying to achieve (this will need to be supported by short evidence in the Business Case).
The County has been targeting its investment to its strategic roads to support its Corporate Objectives as defined in its Asset Management Policy. As a consequence the County’s lower classification roads have received a proportionately lower budget allocation; the length of local roads at the end of their serviceable life is now high and increasing at an unprecedented rate.
Approximately one third (604km) of BCC’s (1,803km) Unclassified Roads are now categorised as ‘red’ requiring structural strengthening and/or reconstruction, and approximately 40% (330km) of BCC’s (826km) of C-Roads are categorised as ‘red’ or ‘amber’ [Refer to Appendix D]. Furthermore, the rate of deterioration of these local roads is increasing at an unprecedented rate with a greater than tenfold increase in Unclassified roads classified as ‘red’ in the last 7 years; i.e. from 3% (2006/07) to 33.5% (2013/14) [Refer to Appendix E].
In order to help reverse this rapid decline, an extensive scheme of comprehensive road renewal is proposed on approximately 70km of the Local Road network, which will include for other associated maintenance requirements, in particular addressing longstanding drainage issues.
3
B2. The Strategic Case (Maximum 650 words)
What are the current problems to be addressed by your scheme? (Describe any economic, environmental, social problems or opportunities which will be addressed by the scheme.
The length of County’s local roads at the end of their serviceable life is high and increasing at an unprecedented rate [refer Section B1]. The poor and deteriorating condition of the roads adversely impacts on all highway users, but particularly sustainable modes of transport. Links to rural and more isolated communities are also affected.
Why the asset is in need of urgent funding?
Significant capital investment is required to reverse the rapid decline in the condition of the County’s Local Roads [refer Section B1], as illustrated by the Condition and Customer Satisfaction Surveys and Photographs included in Appendices F & G.
What options have been considered and why have alternatives have been rejected?
A range of potential remedial works and treatments on the sections of failed roads have been identified as part of the BCC’s asset management strategy including localised patching, resurfacing and strengthening. However, the scale of renewal described in this Scheme is not currently achievable within existing budgetary constraints.
What are the expected benefits / outcomes?
As outlined in Section C1, the dramatic decline in the lengths of unserviceable Local Roads will be reversed by this major capital investment, and invested [as outlined in section B6c] achieves a 42% reduction in the length of unserviceable C-roads [from 66.1km to 38.6km] and a 7% reduction in the length of unserviceable U-roads [from 604km to 561km].
The outcome of this Scheme will deliver a step change in the performance of Buckinghamshire’s Local Roads.
Other practical benefits include improved highway drainage and flood mitigation measures, which form an integral part of the highway proposals.
The proposed wide-scale use of recycled materials to overlay unserviceable roads brings innovation to the scheme as well as sustainability benefits through:- o Diverting waste from landfill with 90% of constituents of overlay from recycled sources; o Approx. 50% reduction in CO2 emissions compared to conventional solutions.
The scheme will also provide a range of added value benefits:
Public Transport (Buses) including Community/School/Special Education Needs (SEN) Transport: o Improved ride quality; o Reduction in level of damage to buses and injuries to passengers, particularly to vulnerable groups, resulting from poor quality carriageway surfaces; 4 o Improved timekeeping and fuel consumption if buses can maintain consistent speeds; o Improved local access provided for essential transport services which are frequently required to access more isolated communities and indeed individual residences.
Note: Local Roads form a major part (approximately 50%) of the County’s Bus Route Network, see Appendix H.
Cycling and Walking o Improved ride quality; o Reducing accidents involving cyclists caused by poor road surface condition; o Releasing suppressed demand for cycling, where cyclists are deterred from cycling due to the condition of their local roads; o Supports local cycling initiatives including BCC’s ‘Cycle to School’ campaign; o Improved health benefits; o Improved links between communities, footpaths, bridleways and byways; o Greater confidence and convenience, particularly for vulnerable users; o Improved opportunities for exercise and health benefits.
These benefits are evidenced in letters of support provided by representatives of the above user groups, included in Appendix I.
Please provide information on the geographical areas that will benefit from your scheme. You should indicate those areas that will directly benefit, areas that will indirectly benefit and those areas that will be impacted adversely.
Benefits would occur across the County consistent with the proposed countywide spread of renewal schemes. Associated with the improvements to the highway network, significant lengths of bus routes and cycle networks will also be enhanced, together with local routes used by school and SEN transport, community transport and walkers. Adverse impacts would be limited to short-term local disruptions to communities and traffic when road closures and diversions are affected to facilitate implementation.
What will happen if funding for this scheme is not secured - would an alternative (lower cost) solution be implemented (if yes, please describe this alternative and how it differs from the proposed scheme)?
As stated above, a range of potential remedial works have been identified which are ‘lower cost’ in the ‘short term’, but which would lead to higher ‘whole life’ costs when taking into account the frequency of interventions and reactive repairs.
What is the impact of the scheme?
The scheme will provide:- o A step change to the highway network and condition of assets; o Reduction in future maintenance costs; o Drainage improvements; o Enhancements for sustainable modes of travel; o Road safety benefits; o Improved links between rural and isolated communities and reductions in severance; o Increase in recycling with associated carbon savings; o Innovation. 5 B3. The Financial Case – Project Costs
Please complete the following tables. Figures should be entered in £000s (i.e. £10,000 = 10).
Table A: Funding profile (Nominal terms)
£000s 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Total DfT Funding £4,325 £7,835 £7,840 £20,000 Sought LA Contribution £1,675 £2,165 £2,160 £6,000
Other Third Party ------Funding
Notes: 1) Department for Transport funding must not go beyond 2017-18 financial year. 2) A minimum local contribution of 10% (local authority and/or third party) of the project costs is required.
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. 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.
In addition to the overall Local Authority (LA) contribution (of >23%), BCC is also investing a further £3.325M on preventative treatments (in accordance with guidance contained in the pothole review - prevention and a better cure) in Year 1 (2015/16) [i.e. a total Year 1 Local Authority investment on Local Roads = £5M], on Local Road schemes that are not covered by this Major Scheme involving recycling.
It should also be noted that due to the economic growth in the County, where appropriate, contributions towards new capacity and enhancement of unserviceable highways in the vicinity of new developments will be actively sought by BCC, as Planning Authority, during the Planning Approval processes from the relevant developers. 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) 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.
Not applicable.
6 B5. The Financial Case – Affordability and Financial Risk (maximum 300 words)
Please provide evidence on the following points (where applicable): a) What risk allowance has been applied to the project cost?
The local conditions for each section of unserviceable Local Road will vary, as will the infrastructure works required for each locality.
The design strategy employed in this Scheme, as illustrated in Figure 1 in Appendix J, is to utilise the existing pavement as a construction platform and overlay with a recycled basecourse and an appropriate bituminous surfacing course, obviating the risk involved in disturbing the road which is typically of limited quality. This strategy will be adapted to suit each site with examples of typical local modifications shown in Figures 2 to 5 in Appendix J.
Due to varying local scheme proposals, when developing budget costings, an appropriate allowance for risk has been made including the following assumptions: o Works on haunching/edge support required along 20% of the road length; o Drainage works required along the majority of the roads being renewed; o A full 200mm pavement ‘overlay’ with tie-ins to existing levels; o Allowance of 6% for Risk Items. b) How will cost overruns be dealt with?
The potential for cost overruns will be limited by the management arrangements put in place, as outlined in sections B8 to B10. However, in the event that scheme costs increase significantly for reasons such as those identified in the Risk Register (referenced in section B10), then the scope of the scheme in terms of length of roads to be renewed can readily be adjusted to suit the available budget. c) What are the main risks to project delivery timescales and what impact this will have on cost?
The main project risks outlined in the Risk Register are: o Adverse weather conditions; o Flooding/ground water; o Maintaining Foambase supplies; o Presence of tar in recycled materials; o Increasing inflationary costs.
All five of the main identified risks potentially impact on project delivery and/or increased scheme costs. However, the Risk Register identifies how these risks will be avoided and/or mitigated, and how timescales and costs will be managed and controlled.
B6. The Economic Case – Value for Money a) If available for smaller scheme bids, promoters should provide an estimate of the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of the scheme. b) For larger schemes costing £20 million or more we would expect the bid to include a BCR and this should align with WebTAG - https://www.gov.uk/transport-analysis- guidance-webtag
7 Where a BCR is provided please provide separate reporting in the form of an Annex to the bid to enable scrutiny of the data and assumptions used in deriving that BCR. This should include: - A description of the key risks and uncertainties in the data and assumptions and the impact these have on the BCR; - Key assumptions including (but not limited to): detail of the data used to support the analysis, appraisal period, forecast years, level of optimism bias applied; and - A description of the modelling approach used to forecast the impact of the scheme and evidence to demonstrate that it is fit-for-purpose. c) Please provide the following data which may form a key part of our assessment: Note this material should be provided even if a BCR estimate has been supplied (unless already covered in a VfM Annex).
A description of the do-minimum The lowest classification of roads, the County’s Local situation (i.e. what would happen Roads have understandably typically received a without Challenge Fund investment). proportionally lower budget allocation than higher category roads, and the length of Local Roads at the end of their serviceable life is high and increasingly at an unprecedented rate.
Approximately one third (604km) of BCC’s (1,803km) Unclassified Roads are now categorised as ‘red’ requiring structural strengthening and/or reconstruction, and approximately 40% (330km) of BCC’s (826km) of C-Roads are categorised as ‘red’ or ‘amber’.
Furthermore, the rate of deterioration of these local roads is increasing at an unprecedented rate with a greater than tenfold increase in Unclassified Roads classified as ‘red’ in the last 7 years; i.e. from 3% (in 2006/07) to 33.5% (in 2013/14).
BCC’s Medium Term Plan is for £25m to be invested in carriageways over the next 3 years (£25m in year 1 and £10m in each of years 2 and 3). In year 1, £5m is being allocated to C and Unclassified roads falling to £2m in each of years 2 and 3. This level of investment will not interrupt the rate of worsening unless additional capital funding is provided. This bid for £26m will supplement the authority’s MTP investment of £45m to provide a step change in the condition of its local roads.
Details of significant monetised and The economic assessment of the Scheme is based on non-monetised costs and benefits of a 30-year appraisal period with the aim to improve the the scheme (quantified where road conditions that can lead to economic, social and possible) environmental costs on road users. These benefits include: o Increase journey time; o Improved vehicle operating costs; and o Reduced road accidents. Please note that the economic analysis is based on following Tag Unit A1.1 guidelines and have used certain assumptions. These assumptions are listed
8 below and have been chosen using WebTAG guidelines and various other resources for similar kinds of studies.
Appraisal Start Year 2015 Appraisal Duration 30-years (based on the assumption of general pavement life) Price base year 2010 Discount rate 3.5% Inflation WebTAG November 2014 Average AADT 4,057 (based on traffic data, 2013). Purpose split taken from WebTAG Table A1.3.4 Road Roughness Do-minimum – 4.2, Index Do-something – 2.3 VOC and VOT Calculations are based on WebTAG 3.5.6 for the current and future year. For the Do-something speed improvement of 1.5km/hr per roughness index improvement. Journey time A simple assumption is made. Value of time is multiplied with the annual average vehicles and average journey time (based on road length and speed). Scheme length C-Class Roads = 27.54km, Unclassified Roads = 42.7km, Total = 70km (70.24km) Accidents/ Collisions Calculated based on length of the roadworks. Reduction factor of the 15% applied for the Do-something scenario. Accident proportion, Based on COBALT default value of accident and figures. casualty costs. Traffic flows and Based on county level and growth rates NTM projections.
9 Tables below provide BCR of the scheme:-
Do-minimum: Total Capital Costs £5,117,468 VOC £187,819,819 Journey Time £350,625,659 Accident £2,805,652 Total Do-minimum £541,251,130
Do-something: Total Capital Costs £18,852,740 VOC £184,990,866 Journey Time £331,081,812 Accident £2,423,266 Total Do-something £518,495,944
Net Present Value, 2010 prices Net Present Values £13,735,272 of Costs Net Present Values £22,755,186 of Benefits BCR 1.7
The Value for Money (VfM) assessment based on the above quantified costs and benefits of the scheme suggest that the scheme would prove medium value for money (BCR between 1.5 and 2.0).
A supporting technical note highlighting the overall methodology and calculation of the BCR is attached in Appendix R.
An Appraisal Summary Table (AST) is also included within Appendix R.
Length of scheme (km) Total Percentage Length at Length: at category Road Rural Condition 'Red' Classification (km) 'Red' (km) C Road (Rural) 460 8.0% 36.8 U Road (Rural) 503 33.5% 168.5
Scheme length considered for the assessment is C-roads = 27km and U-roads = 43km (Total length of Local Roads = 70km).
Number of vehicles on affected For the economic assessment, BCC’s traffic data base section (AADT in vehicles and if was interrogated for the C and U class road category possible split by vehicle type) – to for year 2013. During data analysis of the selected include details of data (age etc.) sites, which represent the scheme road network at 10 supporting this estimate. county level, it was resolved that average County C-class and U-roads carry an average AADT of 4,057 vehicles. This figure is considered for the economic assessment. For the purpose of this assessment COBA default vehicle proportion is used by mode and purpose. d) Other VfM information where relevant - depending on type of scheme bid: Details of required restrictions/closures if As the County’s C and U roads are typically funding not provided (e.g. type of restrictions; narrow, most road renewal work will require timing/duration of restrictions; etc.) short-term closures of affected roads, and traffic would need to be diverted to other suitable roads.
Length of any diversion route, if closure is The length of the diversion route will depend required (over and above existing route) (km) on the length of the roadworks and the presence of nearby by junctions in between the sections of roadworks. However, it is envisaged that the length of the diversion routes would be limited in length as other Local Roads can be considered and reasonably used for such diversion routes.
Regularity/duration of closures due to flooding: Information on the frequency and duration of (e.g. number of closures per year; average closures caused by flooding is not available. length of closure (hrs); etc.) However, 41.5km of the County’s Local Roads were subjected to flooding during the exceptional weather conditions experienced in 2013/14.
Number and severity of accidents: both for the For the purpose of this assessment, DfT’s do minimum and the forecast impact of the accident database was interrogated for the scheme (e.g. existing number of accidents Local Roads category in Buckinghamshire. and/or accident rate; forecast number of Collision per road length was calculated for the accidents and or accident rate with and without total scheme length of 70km. Collision the scheme) contributory factors were assessed to find the number of accidents due to poor road conditions to consider for the assessment.
Based on this methodology, an average of 12 accidents was calculated for the scheme length under the poor road category contributory factor. This figure was taken for the Do-minimum assessment. For the Do- something assessment, a reduction factor of 15% was applied to the Do-minimum accident rates based on literature review.
For the accident severity and reduction factors calculations, standard COBALT default figures are applied for the S2 category.
11 Number of existing cyclists; forecasts of No detailed information on existing and cycling usage with and without the scheme projected cycle usage is available. However, (and if available length of journey) the Scheme will release suppressed demand for cycling, as cyclists are currently deterred from cycling due to the condition of their local roads. This view is supported by cycle organisations including SUSTRANS as evidenced in the letters of support for the bid in Appendix I.
B7. The Commercial Case (maximum 300 words)
What is the preferred procurement route for the scheme? For example, if it is proposed to use existing framework agreements or contracts, the contract must be appropriate in terms of scale and scope.
This scheme will be delivered through an existing fully integrated service (i.e. Transport for Buckinghamshire, TfB) procured in 2009 by BCC to remove the duplication of roles and reduce administration. The service provider, Ringway Jacobs, is procured through an actual cost contract and is paid an agreed fee. An organogram is referenced in B9.
The integrated services delivered through TfB allow the County to enjoy excellent value for money services. In the first four years of the contract, TfB delivered cumulative budgetary savings of £19m, constituting a 16% saving on cumulative turnover.
In addition to efficient and effective delivery, one of the additional strengths of TfB’s position is being able to draw on expertise and staff resources from their parent companies, Ringway and Jacobs, which will support TfB in the prompt establishment of a dedicated Project Delivery team, which is an essential requirement for scheme delivery to proceed quickly in accordance with the Scheme Programme Project Plan referenced in Section B8 and included as Appendix K.
In summary, the integrated service delivery model with established supply chains provided to BCC by TfB will enable the Scheme to be initiated and delivered promptly. TfB is also in a position to quickly establish a dedicated Project Delivery Team, which has been identified as a key requirement to the successful delivery of a scheme of this scale.
BCC and TfB also understand the benefit of early Stakeholder engagement and ‘buy-in’, which is evidenced by the Letters of Support for the Scheme in Appendix I.
*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. An assurance that a strategy is in place that is legally compliant is likely to achieve the best value for money outcomes is required from your Section 151 Officer below.
12 B8. Management Case - Delivery (maximum 300 words – for b)
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. The following statutory procedures will need to be satisfied as a minimum: o New Roads and Street Works Act (NRSWA) – Statutory Undertakers Consultation, Road Space Booking/Notices (Section 58) o BCC’s Permit Scheme for Road Works and Street Works (Traffic Management Act 2004) o Health and Safety legislation – F10 Notice to HSE, CDM 2015 etc. o Temporary Traffic Regulations Orders (TTROs) – to effect construction by way of road closures, restrictions on traffic movements, route diversions etc.
However, it is envisaged that the scheme requirements to satisfy these procedures will be achieved with low risk.
a) An outline project plan (typically in Gantt chart form) with milestones should be included as an annex, covering the period from submission of the bid to scheme completion. The definition of the key milestones should be clear and explained. The critical path should be identifiable and any contingency periods, key dependencies (internal or external) should be explained.
Has a project plan been appended to your bid? Yes No
Project Plans for each of the fiscal years 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 are included in Appendix K.
b) Please summarise any lessons your authority has learned from the experience of delivering other DfT funded programmes (such as pinch point schemes, local majors, Local Sustainable Transport Fund, and Better Bus Areas) and what would be different on this project as a result.
BCC has a proud and successful history of the delivery of both its own capital-funded schemes and those funded wholly or in part by the DfT, and this excellent record of project delivery has been maintained since TfB’s involvement in the County in 2009.
BCC’s excellent delivery record is evidenced by its work on the DfT’s ‘pinch point scheme’ programme, when the County were amongst the first Highway Authorities nationally to deliver a scheme on the ground (at Wycombe).
Decisions on the scope of the proposed Scheme, which has initially been limited to £26m, has been directly influenced by the County’s practical and realistic approach to project delivery, and an assessment of what deliverables are fully achievable within the constraints of the project, and in particular timescales.
As part of TfB’s accredited Business Management Systems, projects are systematically reviewed for more efficient and effective project delivery and opportunities for added value. These project reviews occur both during and after scheme delivery and incorporate independent reviews and lessons learned workshops by a senior professional not directly involved in the project. Projects are similarly subjected to technical scrutiny.
13 When efficiency savings are identified, these are reinvested back into service and scheme delivery, and in the context of the Scheme, these savings would be used to extend the length of the unserviceable Local Roads that are renewed.
B9. Management Case – Governance (maximum 300 words)
Please name who is responsible for delivering the scheme, the roles (Project Manager, SRO etc.) and set out the responsibilities of those involved and how key decisions are/will be made. An organogram may be useful here. This may be attached as an Annex.
The Highway Authority’s, Buckinghamshire Country Council (BCC’s), Senior Responsible Officer (SRO), will be Mike Freestone, Director of Transport Services. The SRO will report to a Programme Board chaired by the Cabinet Member, Cllr Ruth Vigor-Hedderly.
A ‘strategic’ organogram is provided in Appendix L showing the interrelationship between BCC and Transport for Buckinghamshire (TfB), and the TfB’s contracted role in service delivery. This organogram also illustrates the strength of TfB’s position in being able to draw on expertise and staff resources from their parent companies, Ringway and Jacobs.
TfB’s Scheme Manager, David Stewart, who leads the team responsible for the delivery of BCC’s capital highways works programme, will be responsible for delivery of the scheme for TfB. In view of the magnitude and importance of the scheme, TfB will appoint a Project Manager and Project Team dedicated to scheme delivery, as illustrated in the Organogram in Appendix M.
The integrated service delivery model with established supply chains provided to BCC by TfB will enable the Scheme to be initiated and delivered promptly, and will also assist TfB in the prompt establishment of the dedicated Project Delivery team. [Refer to Section B7]
The accountability for network performance and scheme selection rests with the Asset Investment Manager who will take account of asset condition surveys including Coarse Visual Inspections (CVIs) on unclassified roads and SCANNER surveys on C-roads. Proposals will be scrutinised by BCC Officers and Members at the Programme Board prior to programmes being finalised.
The scheme identification and selection process will also involve Stakeholder engagement and input, as illustrated in the Process Map included as Appendix N.
B10. Management Case - Risk Management
A risk register covering the top 5 (maximum) specific risks to this scheme should be attached as an annex including, if relevant and in the top 5, financial, delivery, and commercial and stakeholder issues.
Please ensure that in the risk register cost that you have not included any risks associated with ongoing operational costs and have used the P50 value.
Has a risk register been appended to your bid? Yes No
A Risk Register for the ‘top 5’ risks relating to this scheme is included in Appendix O, which relates to both delivery and commercial aspects.
14 SECTION C – Monitoring, Evaluation and Benefits Realisation
C1. Benefits Realisation (maximum 250 words)
Please provide details on the profile of benefits, and of baseline benefits and benefit ownership. This should be proportionate to the size of the proposed scheme.
Budgetary scheme estimates developed with main suppliers indicate that £26M invested in Local Roads will be delivered in parallel with BCC’s MTP Capital programme of £45m investment over the next 3 years.
The proposed Scheme is based on renewing 27.5km of C- Roads and 42.5km of U-Roads (Total = 70km), being proportionally delivered as 20% in Year 1, 40% in Year 2 and 40% in Year 3.
The Scheme will significantly improve the extremely poor state of the County’s Local Roads Assuming all renewed sections of road are at category ‘red’, then the Scheme would achieve a 42% reduction in the length of failed C-roads [from 66.1km to 38.6km] and a 7% reduction the length of failed U-roads [from 604km to 561km]. Note: in practice, local elements of the Scheme will include sections classified as less than ‘red’.
As outlined in section B2, benefits realised will include:- o Reduced future maintenance costs; o Reduction in damage to vehicles and injuries to drivers/passengers, with reduced claims; o Personal Injury Accidents reductions; o Recycling benefits, carbon savings, less CO2 emissions and reduced of waste to landfill (compared to conventional construction methods); o Improved links between rural and isolated communities and reduced severance; o Promoting sustainable modes of travel; o Improved ride quality; o Improved timekeeping for public transport; o Releasing suppressed demand for cycling and walking; o Improved opportunities for exercise and health benefits; o Greater convenience, particularly for vulnerable users; o Improved highway drainage and flood mitigation.
C2. Monitoring and Evaluation (maximum 250 words)
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 lengths of Local Roads renewed by the Scheme is directly measurable, and together with the percentage reduction in the condition category of Local Roads changed from ‘red’ and ‘amber’ to ‘green’, will be assessed and reported to Stakeholders, including the DfT.
A Performance Management Regime will be developed to both monitor and deliver planned benefits and outcomes. A series of performance indicators will be developed to ensure positive outcomes are realised including: o Improvement in network performance; o Reduced CO2 emissions and carbon savings; o Reduction in waste sent to landfill; o Improvements in highway safety; and o Increases in sustainable modes of travel. 15 The network performance element of the performance management regime will rely on ongoing condition surveys such as CVI and SCANNER to measure and monitor improvements to the network. Updated condition data will also be used to refine scheme selection in the 2nd and 3rd years of the programme to maximise the benefits of the investment.
The outcomes will be reported to Members via the Programme Board and formal Council approval processes, and shared with Stakeholders and the public by way of a Communications Strategy involving direct communications, press releases, postings on the County’s website etc.
The technical outcomes will also be reported in the County’s annual ‘State of the Asset’ report with the Scheme deliverables helping limit the reported instances of potholes and associated claims against the County.
A fuller evaluation for large schemes may also be required depending on their size and type.
16
Appendix A
Map of Buckinghamshire Geographical Area Appendix B
County Highway Network Classified Roads Appendix C
County’s Unclassified & Non Principal (C) Roads Appendix D
Condition of Local Roads categorised as ‘Red’ or ‘Amber’
Length of Percentage Length of Percentage Road Total Length category at Condition category at Condition (km) ‘Amber’ Classification ‘Red’ ‘Red’ (km) ‘Amber’ (km)
C Road 826 8.0% 66.1 31.9% 263.5
U Road 1,803 33.5% 604.0 - -
C Road Classification U Road Classification
8%
33%
32%
60% 67% Appendix D
Road Condition Key: Classified condition COLOUR SCALE AMBER: Plan investigation soon GREEN: Generally good condition RED: Plan maintenance soon Unclassified_Condition_Legend COLOUR SCALE RED - BV224b Deficient in one or more of Wearing Course, Edge, Structure GREEN - Generally Satisfactory Condition
This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office© Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. © Copyright Buckinghamshire County Council Licence No. 100021529 2013 County’s Unclassified & Non Principal (C) Roads Red, Amber, Green (RAG) Map Appendix E
Graph showing rate of deterioration of Buckinghamshire’s unclassified roads.
Rate of deterioration of Buckinghamshire's Unclassified Roads 40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014
Appendix F
Condition and Customer Satisfaction Surveys
Recommended UKPMS Maintenance Treatments on Rural Unclassified Road
Note: Pie chart illustrating the length of roads (in km) requiring maintenance treatment, and shows that nearly 50km (48.6km) of rural unclassified roads require strengthening or renewal.
Source: Data collected for BCC’s State of the Asset Report 2013/14
Reported Defects on BCC’s Highway Network
Bar Chart illustrating approx. 20,000 reported defects on Local Roads (C-class and Unclassified)
Defects in Urban and Rural Areas
25000
20000
15000 Urban Rural 10000
5000
0 A Roads B Roads C Roads U Roads Total
Source: BCC’s State of the Asset Report 2013/14 Appendix F
Results of National Highways & Transport (NHT) Public Satisfaction Surveys
Table showing that BCC is currently ranked 23rd out of 24 County Councils for public satisfaction for the condition of carriageways from the 2014 survey. The 2013 results, when BCC was in last position is also included.
Source: National Highways & Transport (NHT) Public Satisfaction Surveys 2014 Appendix G
Potholes
Cracking - Structural Failure
Failed Haunching
Page 1 of 3 Appendix G
Inadequate Drainage
Blocked Overgrown Ditches Lack of Edge Restraint
SU Service Trenches
Page 2 of 3 Appendix G
Structural Failure & Subsidence
Surfaces with reduced Skid Resistance Loss of Surfacing
Alligator Cracking & Rutting
Page 3 of 3 Appendix H
X5* to 8 Cambridge Helmdon Silverstone MILTON N S H II R E MILTON Buckinghamshire Local Roads formingP T O partN S of County’s KE YNES A M Cosgrove Public Transport Map Bus RouteH Network Old 22 Routes operating at least hourly 6 or more days a week Syresham Stratford T Lillingstone MILTON Millbook KEYNES 22 Routes operating less frequently 5 or more days a week R CC Lovell Wolverton MK R Deanshanger Biddlesden Central Coachway 22 Routes operating less than 5 days a week O Lillingstone Milton O CC Stony Dayrell Stratford Keynes X5* Lidlington CC Wicken Two Mile Bus Routes on C-class and Unclassified Roads N 8 Calverton Ash 150 Dadford X5* Leckhampstead Milton Keynes Woughton- Brackley Turweston 134 Akeley Loughton Central on-the-Green Buckinghamshire CC Beachampton Coffee Walton Hall Apsley 131 Hall Guise Bus Operating 132 151 Wavendon Ridgemont Shalstone X5* Shenley Arriva Carousel First GroupRed RoseRedline Z & S Other Companies 134 Chackmore Church End 150 X60 Railway or Main Waterway Westbury 70 Woburn 131 132 131 Maids Thornton Shenley Underground Evenley Moreton Brook End LineSands & Station County Boundary Water BUCKINGHAM Whaddon 0 kilometres 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mixbury Stratford Bletchley Bus services see separate Nash 133 map for Thornborough 68 as at O Little Radclive 151 54B Westcroft 2/11/2014 Tingewick details 68 Centre 0 miles 1 Woburn2 3 4 5 FinmereTingewick X5* 70 X 8 132 132 50 Water Little 132 X6600 Newton Eaton Brickhill FF 37 Barton Gawcott 50 Longville Hartshorn 60 68 Little Newton 133 Horwood O Purcell Padbury Great 154 133 54B Horwood 67 Stoke Great Preston Adstock Hammond Brickhill Bissett 18 Hethe R X60 54A R Chetwode Mursley Drayton 162 SS 133 60 54A Parslow 37 Hillesden Addington DD DD Fringford 50 50 150 Winslow 50 70 Heath EE Steeple Soulbury and SS Claydon 54A Reach Middle X60 Swanbourne Stewkley BB Claydon Stratton HH Twyford 67 Audley 154 Leighton 16 Buzzard East 162 8 II Poundon 54C Claydon Hoggeston CaversfieldX5 Poundon 1818 18 60 Eggington * R Botolph Granborough LinsladeLinslade to Cambridge R Charndon 151533 70 1616 Charndon Calvert Claydon 60 DuntonDunton 151500 X5& Oxford* A 154 B Leighton to Luton to Oxford Marsh 154 162 Stanbridge EE 67 162 Stanbridge 18 Gibbon Buzzard 7070 WingWing Bicester 18 North 161644 BicesterNorth 16 North 16 Marston 165 Edgcott 165 BicesterBicester LauntonLaunton X60 Billington DunstableDunstable Bicester LedburnLedburn BicesterTown X60 CublingtonCublington Totternhoe Town 161644 Totternhoe Oving 165 30 GrendonGrendon 165 EatonEaton 30 UnderwoodUnderwood Whitchurch 150 167 SlaptonSlapton BrayBray 6161 Quainton 60 150 167 161622 60 Aston 161644 to Lutonto Luton 16 Abbotts Ambrosden 16 Ambrosden 165 NorthallNorthall Blackthorn HardwickHardwick MentmoreMentmore Blackthorn HortonHorton EdlesboroughEdlesborough 16 Weedon WingraveWingrave Weedon 161622 IvinghoeIvinghoe LudgershallLudgershall 150 Aston Aston Whipsnade 153 Cheddington 112112 151544 150 RowshamRowsham 161644 162 Whipsnade Piddington 30 16 X60 Piddington 30 WestcottWestcott 16 16 X60 164 162 16 60 161655 167 IvinghoeIvinghoe 61 Waddesdon 60 167 171755 1744 67 BiertonBierton 61 DagnallDagnall C 112 LongLong 167 D 175 Aylesbury Vale Parkway MarstonMarston MarsworthMarsworth 167 Upper Quarrendon Pitstone50 Boarstall Winchendon 175 112 Ashendon 112 see separate map Puttenham 164 Dorton for details 61 50 Brill 61 50 Ringshall 112 Fairford AYLESBURY 164 Wilstone Little 118 500 Gaddesden Horton-cum- Leys 501 Studley Stone Aston 110 Bedgrove Clinton Drayton Aldbury Oakley 111 Walton Beauchamp Tring 113 Court Tring 118 Chilton 280 Great 111 Cuddington 50 164 501 30 H Gaddesden 113 112 111 Dinton 50 E Chearsley Bishopstone Weston 61 500 Easington 280 Stoke Turville Wiggington R Mandeville Halton 501 50 Cow T S Stanton St John Ford Roast 354 110 Haddenham 112 300 RAF 50 Long Halton 500 Worminghall 111 Haddenham 112 300 55 Berkhamsted Crendon & Thame Parkway 194 501 321 50 110 110 Church Terrick 50 Buckland 500 End Butlers Wendover Common Northchurch Ickford 280 Little 149 Shabbington 270 Kimble Cross Cholesbury 501 Owlswick 194 Kingsey RCB 321 Hawridge 113 EllesboroughEllesborough 55 CommonCommon 113 354 to Hemel LongwickLongwick SwanSwan 149 Hempstead Thame TowerseyTowersey Monks Great Kimble Hemel 280 Thame Monks BottomBottom Bellingdon 194 500 Hempstead 280 IlmerIlmer Risborough 177 Bellingdon 194 AshleyAshley Wheatley 270 Risborough Askett300 Dunsmore D Green 501 TiddingtonTiddington270 Green Apsley 280 280 C Askett Asheridge Whelpley 121200 TheThe LeeLee LeeLee Asheridge Whelpley to Oxford to Oxford Hill 500 275 40 321 Common Great Lye MiltonMilton 120 Princes Hivings 501 275 CommonCommon 40 120 Princes 55 Chartridge Hivings Green Princes Risborough to Watford 323200 RisboroughPrinces Risborough 177 340 Risborough RCB BallingerBallinger TetsworthTetsworth EmmingtonEmmington Common 737300 RCB Common 77 Botley SydenhamSydenham 300 GreatGreat H BledlowBledlow HampdenHampden 55 SouthSouth Ley H Heath Ley Loosley 333 CHESHAM HillHill E D Chinnor Loosley 333 PrestwoodPrestwood D Chinnor RCB 32321 Row RCB 171777 see separatesee R S RCB Row RCB 333344 Great 177 map at S 272755 Missenden 177 separate T H Saunderton Hyde 190 www.buckscc.map H 272755 Saunderton LaceyLacey Speen Chesham gov.uk/ S Aston 333311 LeeLee GreenGreen 4848 Heath Chesham O I Aston BryantsBryants BoisBois travelinfo I RowantRowant Bledlow UpperUpper BottomBottom Great Little Latimer Postcombe KingstonKingston Bledlow NorthNorth Little 55 R Postcombe Blount RidgeRidge KingshillKingshill KingshillKingshill AMERSHAMAMERSHAM X Blount DeanDean 55 Little Chenies 4040 LtLt MissendenMissenden Little E SaundertonSaunderton Walters Widmer ChalfontChalfont336 F LewknorLewknor Ash Hughenden Widmer 177 340 Ash Hughenden EndEnd Holmer 177 to ValleyValley Green Amersham Watford O BradenhamBradenham NaphillNaphill Green Old ChalfontChalfont & &336 Common LatimerLatimer Stokenchurch RadnageRadnage Amersham Common Stokenchurch 272755 1 336 R 321 300 11 PennPenn 336 353533 to E 275 333311 300 F Watford 4040 48 StreetStreet 737300 D 275 48A HazlemereHazlemere 73 Coleshill Chorleywood Downley 73 Coleshill West see separate Watlington Studley Wycombe Tylers Winchmore Rickmansworth S map at 31 Green Hill 28 Green 275 www.buckscc. Chalfont Totteridge 724 H Christmas Piddington gov.uk/ Penn St Giles H 28 Sands 577 Maple to Watford, Common Ibstone travelinfo 377 St Albans & HIGH 580 Chalfont Cross Northend 48A 48 Micklefield Common Harlow II 48A WYCOMBE Seer Cadmore Wycombe Knotty Green Jordans 580 End Lane Green 335 RR Cressex Marsh Chalfont Ewelme Turville End Booker Heath Loudwater St Peter Harefield Turville Fingest Seer Green & Jordans E 28 353 E BEACONSFIELD 580 Frieth Marlow 800 see separate Gerrards 331 Skirmett 32 Bottom FLACKWELL map 730 Cross to 850 Ruislip 160 HEATH 335 158 see separate X74 A40 Denham Stonor Chisbridge map at 740 581 353 Green Cross see separate www.buckscc. Wooburn 581 map at Little gov.uk/ Green Marlow Denham www.buckscc.gov.uk/ travelinfo 74 Golf Club Hedgerley Denham Fawley travelinfo Bourne BOURNE Bovingdon MARLOW End END X74 583 Tatling Denham Hambleden Green Marlow 353 End A40 Egypt 331 Greenlands 800 Fulmer 730 724 New Mill Danesfield Cliveden Farnham Denham End Common 740 580 850 Cookham Burnham Cookham Beeches Stoke 335 800 Bisham Cookham 68 Poges Wexham Medmenham Dean Cookham 582 Uxbridge 850 Rise Farnham Street Iver 155 Britwell Royal 583 Henley-on 37 Burnham Wexham Heath Pinkneys Furze 58 Park 58 -Thames 53 7 W Green Platt Taplow Hospital Henley I 2 Stoke 7 M N Maidenhead 63 Green 583 A D Burnham 2 George I D S Green Yiewsley D 53 Slough 583 Iver 63 75 S 58 Lower E O Iver Shiplake L Langley West 75 Drayton N Bray 68 O U Shiplake R O U Richings Shiplake Dorney 68 58 Park Wargrave H Reach H Dorney G 583 800 & Eton Wargrave 850 E H 75 75 to Reading Holyport 582 H to Reading A Datchet to Heathrow Twyford 53 D Windsor Colnbrook Charvil to Bracknell Appendix I
Letters of support from the following organisations:
Cycling
Public Transport
Community Transport
WalkingWalking
Appendix J
Fig. 1 Typical Pavement Section - No Edge Restraint Pavement depth represent worst case scenario. Layer thickness will vary depending on road condition.
6m wide Typical (C-Roads) 4m wide Typical (Unclassified)
50 mm thick HRA Existing verge surface course Existing verge reshaped with reshaped with drainage grips drainage grips Foambase Overlay reinstated reinstated (150 mm thick)
Existing Drainage Existing Drainage Existing pavement excavated to Existing pavement excavated to unbound layers formation level bound layers formation level Appendix J
Fig 2. Typical Pavement - Kerbed Section (Kerbed section - Assume 5m for every 100m of carriagway).
6m wide Typical (C-Roads) Existing verge Existing verge reshaped with reshaped with 50 mm thick HRA drainage grips drainage grips surface course reinstated (Kerb reinstated (Kerb Weir outlets where Weir outlets where appropriate) Foambase Overlay appropriate) (150 mm thick)
Existing Drainage Existing Drainage HB2 kerbs bedded HB2 kerbs bedded excavated to Existing pavement excavated to in concrete with in concrete with formation level bound layers formation level 125mm upstand 125mm upstand Existing pavement unbound layers Appendix J
Fig. 3 Typical Pavement with Edge Haunching on Both Sides (Assume required on 20% of all roads)
6m wide Typical (C-Roads)
50 mm thick HRA Existing verge surface course Existing verge reshaped with reshaped with drainage grips drainage grips Foambase Overlay reinstated reinstated (150 mm thick) 1.2 1.2
Existing Drainage Existing Drainage excavated to Existing pavement excavated to formation level Existing bound layers Existing bound layers formation level planned off, and bound layers planned off, and sub-base excavated to a sub-base excavated to a depth of 300mm from Existing pavement depth of 300mm from existing road surface unbound layers existing road surface and replaced with well and replaced with well compacted Storage compacted Storage grade foam base grade foam base Appendix J
Fig. 4 Typical Pavement Section (Unclassified road)
4m wide Typical
50 mm thick HRA Existing verge surface course Existing verge reshaped with reshaped with drainage grips drainage grips reinstated Foambase Overlay reinstated (150 mm thick)
Existing Drainage Existing Drainage excavated to Existing pavement excavated to Existing pavement formation level unbound layers formation level bound layers Appendix J
Fig. 5 Typical Pavement Section - Cutting (Assume that Footways Present)
New kerb with a kerbface of New kerb with a kerbface of 125mm to new surface 50 mm thick HRA 125mm to new surface course.Existing footway surface course course.Existing footway overlaid to raise achieve a overlaid to raise achieve a 1:40 fall to new kerb Foambase Overlay 1:40 fall to new kerb (150 mm thick)
Any existing gullies Level of existing Existing pavement to be raised to level Existing pavement footway. unbound layers of new pavement bound layers Appendix K
Buckinghamshire Local Road Renewal 2015/2016 ID Task Task Name Duration Start Finish h April May June July August SeptembeOctober Novembe DecemberJanuary February March A Mode E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E 1 2 2015/2016 Financial Year 3 Mobilisation/NRSWA/TTROs 60 days Wed 01/04/15 Tue 23/06/15 4 Public Information Programme/Communication Strategy 158 days Wed 01/04/15 Fri 06/11/15 5 Reclaim materials from BCC Highways maintenance 140 days Wed 01/04/15 Tue 13/10/15 programme 6 Foambase mixture design (Including laboratory analysis) 40 days Wed 01/04/15 Tue 26/05/15 7 Scheme identification, selection and approvals 43 days Wed 01/04/15 Fri 29/05/15 8 Commission site for local Foambase plant. 63 days Wed 01/04/15 Fri 26/06/15 9 Advance notification to Statutory Undertakers (SUs) and SU 64 days Wed 01/04/15 Sat 27/06/15 Consultation) 10 Design and preparation of work packages for selected roads 80 days Mon 01/06/15 Fri 18/09/15 11 Traffic management design and highway approvals 20 days Mon 13/04/15 Fri 08/05/15 12 Road space booking 60 days Mon 11/05/15 Fri 31/07/15 13 Drainage improvements and verge reshaping 40 days Mon 04/05/15 Fri 26/06/15 14 Haunches construction 40 days Mon 18/05/15 Fri 10/07/15 15 Road preparation work (Patching, crack sealing, etc.) 20 days Mon 01/06/15 Fri 26/06/15 16 Establishment of a local Foambase plant 10 days Mon 15/06/15 Fri 26/06/15 17 Overlay works (Foambase and HRA) 80 days Mon 29/06/15 Fri 16/10/15 18 Mobilisation/NRSWA/TTROs 59 days Mon 11/01/16 Thu 31/03/16 19 Public Information Programme/Communication strategy 19 days Mon 07/03/16 Thu 31/03/16 20 Reclaim materials from BCC Highways maintenance programme19 days Mon 07/03/16 Thu 31/03/16 21 Foambase mixture design‐ (Including laboratory testing) 19 days Mon 07/03/16 Thu 31/03/16 22 Design, preparation of work packages for selected roads 59 days Mon 11/01/16 Thu 31/03/16 23 Traffic management design and approvals 20 days Mon 08/02/16 Fri 04/03/16 24 Performance management/Condition survey to inform year 2 120 days Fri 16/10/15 Thu 31/03/16 (2016/17) programme
Task Project Summary Inactive Milestone Manual Summary Rollup Deadline
Project: C and U Roads delivery Pr Split External Tasks Inactive Summary Manual Summary Progress Date: Mon 09/02/15 Milestone External Milestone Manual Task Start‐only Summary Inactive Task Duration‐only Finish‐only
Page 1 Page 1 of 3 Appendix K
Buckinghamshire Local Road Renewal 2016/2017 ID Task Task Name Duration Start Finish April May June July August Septembe October Novembe December January February March Mode B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E 1 2 2016/17 Financial Year 3 Public Information Programme/Communication strategy 145 days Fri 01/04/16 Thu 20/10/16 4 Reclaim materials from BCC Highways maintenance 140 days Fri 01/04/16 Thu 13/10/16 programme 5 Scheme identification, selection and approvals 40 days Mon 04/01/16 Fri 26/02/16 6 Advance notification to statutory Undertakers (SUs) and SU 64 days Fri 01/04/16 Wed 29/06/16 Consultation 7 Design, preparation of work packages for selected roads 80 days Fri 01/04/16 Thu 21/07/16 8 Road space booking 60 days Fri 01/04/16 Thu 23/06/16 9 Drainage improvements and verge reshaping 40 days Mon 16/05/16 Fri 08/07/16 10 Haunches construction 40 days Mon 23/05/16 Fri 15/07/16 11 Road preparation work (Patching, crack sealing, etc.) 20 days Mon 30/05/16 Fri 24/06/16 12 Overlay works (Foambase and HRA) 100 days Mon 06/06/16 Fri 21/10/16 13 Mobilisation/NRSWA/TTROs 30 days Mon 23/01/17 Fri 03/03/17 14 Public Information Programme/Communication strategy 20 days Mon 06/03/17 Fri 31/03/17 15 Reclaim materials from BCC Highways maintenance programme20 days Mon 06/03/17 Fri 31/03/17 16 Foambase mixture design‐ (Including Laboratory testing) 20 days Mon 06/03/17 Fri 31/03/17 17 Scheme identification, selection and approvals 40 days Mon 09/01/17 Fri 03/03/17 18 Design and preparation of work packages for selected roads 60 days Mon 09/01/17 Fri 31/03/17 19 Traffic management design and approvals 20 days Mon 13/02/17 Fri 10/03/17 20 Road space booking 110 days Mon 31/10/16 Fri 31/03/17 21 Performance management survey to inform year 3 (2017/18) 120 days Mon 17/10/16 Fri 31/03/17 programme
Task Project Summary Inactive Milestone Manual Summary Rollup Deadline
Project: C and U Roads delivery Pr Split External Tasks Inactive Summary Manual Summary Progress Date: Mon 09/02/15 Milestone External Milestone Manual Task Start‐only Summary Inactive Task Duration‐only Finish‐only
Page 1 Page 2 of 3 Appendix K
Buckinghamshire Local Road Renewal 2017/2018 ID Task Task Name Duration Start Finish April May June July August Septembe October Novembe December January February March Mode B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E B M E 1 2 2017/18 Financial Year 260 days Mon 03/04/17Fri 30/03/18 3 Public Information Programme/Communication strategy 172 days Mon 03/04/17 Tue 28/11/17 4 Reclaim materials from BCC Highways maintenance 140 days Mon 03/04/17 Fri 13/10/17 programme 5 Advance notification to Statutory Undertakers (SUs) and SU 64 days Mon 03/04/17 Thu 29/06/17 Consultation) 6 Design and preparation of work packages for selected roads 10 days Mon 03/04/17 Fri 14/04/17 7 Road space booking 110 days Mon 03/04/17 Fri 01/09/17 8 Drainage improvements and verge reshaping 40 days Mon 08/05/17 Fri 30/06/17 9 Haunches construction 35 days Mon 22/05/17 Fri 07/07/17 10 Road preparation work (Patching, crack sealing, etc.) 30 days Mon 05/06/17 Fri 14/07/17 11 Overlay works (Foambase and HRA) 80 days Tue 04/07/17 Mon 23/10/17 12 Performance management and condition survey to inform 120 days Mon 16/10/17 Fri 30/03/18 future years work.
Task Project Summary Inactive Milestone Manual Summary Rollup Deadline
Project: C and U Roads delivery Pr Split External Tasks Inactive Summary Manual Summary Progress Date: Mon 09/02/15 Milestone External Milestone Manual Task Start‐only Summary Inactive Task Duration‐only Finish‐only
Page 1 Page 3 of 3 Appendix L
Transport Services Provision in Buckinghamshire
Buckinghamshire County Council Highway and Traffic Authority
Transportation Services Delivery
Local Delivery
Transport for Buckinghamshire Ringway Jacobs Local Suppliers (Ringway Jacobs) Number of staff = 250+ and Supply Chain (50/50 shareholding Partners between Ringway & Jacobs UK)
National Support
Ringway Jacobs UK
Eurovia
Global Expertise Jacobs Engineering Group Vinci Appendix M
Delivery Structure for Scheme
Programme Board (Chaired by Cabinet Member for Transportation)
BCC Senior Responsible Owner (SRO)
TfB Scheme Manager
TfB Integrated Services
Asset and Network TfB Project Management Manager Project Dedicated Team Communications Project Delivery Team Appendix N
Scheme Identification and Selection
Highway Asset Management Technical and Business Case
Member (Local Knowledge) Public Transport Case Case Scheme Identification Community Sustainability Transport, School Case and Transport, SEN Transport Case Selection Walking Case Cycling Case
Highway Authority (Officer and Member) Approval
Approved Scheme for Delivery Appendix O RISK REGISTER Buckinghamshire County Council LHMCF Bid (Tranche 1) Scheme: Buckinghamshire’s Local Road Renewal with Recycled Materials
Potential Probability Risk Management / Mitigation Impact of of Ref Source of Risk Risk Description Effect of Risk Measures Risk Occurrence
(without (with mitigation) mitigation) 1. Adverse Weather The proposed ‘recycled’ • Limits period within which • Limit the construction programme to High Low Conditions road material, Foambase, works can be completed. periods of typically suitable weather; to be used as the main April/May to Sept/October with ‘structure’ of the • Potential delays to winter ‘shut-down’. carriageway renewal programme when bad programme cannot be laid weather occurs. • BCC’s integrated service delivery in ‘adverse’ weather model with established supplies conditions. • Potential cost of abortive or chains will enable the Scheme to be failed works when bad initiated promptly. weather conditions occur. • TfB are in a position to quickly establish a dedicated Project Delivery Team.
• Have capability for increased scale of implementation of works during the available 6-month construction period to offset any lost time.
• Have contingency plans in place to replace Foambase with a less ‘weather-sensitive’ product (such as DBM) when bad weather unexpectedly occurs when works are on an active site.
1
Appendix O RISK REGISTER Buckinghamshire County Council LHMCF Bid (Tranche 1) Scheme: Buckinghamshire’s Local Road Renewal with Recycled Materials
Potential Probability Risk Management / Mitigation Impact of of Ref Source of Risk Risk Description Effect of Risk Measures Risk Occurrence (without (with mitigation) mitigation) 2. Flooding / The proposed ‘recycled’ • Limits period within which • Limit the construction programme to High Low High Ground Water road material, Foambase, works can be completed. periods of typically dryer weather; Levels to be used as the main April/May to Sept/October with ‘structure’ of the • Potential delays to winter ‘shut-down’. carriageway renewal programme when flooding programme cannot be laid or high ground water levels • Have capability for increased scale where there are high levels occur. of implementation of works during of ground or ‘standing’ the available 6-month construction water. • Potential cost of abortive or period to offset any lost time. failed works when flooding or high ground water levels • Proposals to include drainage occur. improvement works to assist keeping ground water level(s) below formation level(s) and refurbishment of verges as required.
3. Maintaining Supply • Site for Foambase plant • Impact on delivery • The scope of the Scheme has High Low of Foambase* not established in the programme. initially been limited to £26M, which material County at start of Year is directly influenced by the 1. • Increase in project costs. County’s practical and realistic Note*: Foambase • Supply of recycled approach to project delivery, and an Product Information material affected by a assessment of what deliverables Sheet is included in disruption on BCC’s are fully achievable within the Appendix Q. resurfacing program. constraints of the project, and in • Availability or particular timescales. breakdown of • Support for the bid has been Foambase plant or secured from Eurovia, who are the machinery. suppliers of Foambase, as Cont’d evidenced by letter of support
2 Appendix O RISK REGISTER Buckinghamshire County Council LHMCF Bid (Tranche 1) Scheme: Buckinghamshire’s Local Road Renewal with Recycled Materials
Potential Probability Risk Management / Mitigation Impact of of Ref Source of Risk Risk Description Effect of Risk Measures Risk Occurrence
(without (with mitigation) mitigation) Maintaining Supply • Environment Agency included as Appendix P. of Foambase approval of storage of Eurovia are a Parent Company of material recyclable material is TfB with commercial arrangements (cont’d) typically limited to in place. defined quantities. • If required, Foambase can be delivered from existing depots in West London at the start of Year 1. • Foambase can be substituted by alternative road base materials such as DBM etc. • Eurovia can hire additional plant in the event of limited availability due to other demands or in the event that plant is unable to be repaired following breakdown. • Early engagement and agreements with the Environment Agency on the storage of recycled materials. • Recycled materials may be re- directed from other Highway Authorities’ capital programmes. • Make provisional arrangements for use of alternative forms of treated recycled material, similar to Foambase, which are available from other suppliers.
3
Appendix O RISK REGISTER Buckinghamshire County Council LHMCF Bid (Tranche 1) Scheme: Buckinghamshire’s Local Road Renewal with Recycled Materials
Potential Probability Risk Management / Mitigation Impact of of Ref Source of Risk Risk Description Effect of Risk Measures Risk Occurrence
(without (with mitigation) mitigation) 4. Presence of tar in Presence of tar in • Impact on delivery • Site investigations and testing to High Low prospective prospective recyclable programme in respect of identify the presence of tar in the recyclable material material limits and/or where material may be reclaimed materials. restricts the scope for its used. use. • Increased costs due to • Site investigations to identify local additional treatment roads where tar is present, to Note: Foambase is requirements. confirm as potential sites for permitted for the Foambase with a tar content. encapsulation of tar bound materials, but the process • Ongoing assessments of the ‘cost v is governed by much more benefits’ of re-using materials with stringent quality and tar in recycled Foambase environmental protocols compared to treating it and both in terms of storage, confining it as waste for landfill. handling and manufacture. Furthermore, the end use site must be where tar already exists.
4
Appendix O RISK REGISTER Buckinghamshire County Council LHMCF Bid (Tranche 1) Scheme: Buckinghamshire’s Local Road Renewal with Recycled Materials
Potential Probability Risk Management / Mitigation Impact of of Ref Source of Risk Risk Description Effect of Risk Measures Risk Occurrence
(without (with mitigation) mitigation) 5. Increas ing Increased implementation • Impact on scheme costs. • The significant use of recycled High Low inflationary costs costs resulting from the material as an integral part of the demand for • Reduction in the extent of Scheme limits exposure to plant/materials/labour lengths of road renewal increases in material costs. ‘outstripping’ availability achieved by the scheme. relating to market forces • Implementation/Construction costs arising from increased to be subjected to tight controls and countrywide and regional market testing. capital investment. • TfB’s Parent Companies, Eurovia and Vinci, have accessibility to and influence with national and international markets.
• Extent of scheme can be tailored to the available budget through both increases and reductions in the length of roads to be renewed.
• Efficiencies to be actively and continually sought through effective project management and cost controls.
5
Appendix P Appendix Q
A: Albion House, Springfield Road Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 2RW
T: 01403 215800 F:01403 215801 E: [email protected] Foambase W: www.eurovia.co.uk
Foambase is a high-quality highway material that delivers significant Experience environmental and financial savings through cold recycling technology. Worcestershire We used 457 tonnes of our There are two grades of Foambase: structural-grade, recycled and • structural grade, which has added cement and is used on processed Foambase material on a carriageways; and carriageway-resurfacing scheme on the B4190 Wolverley Road, Franche • storage grade, which has a 6-8 week shelf life and is typically used (Worcestershire). Through ECI, this for footways and cyclepaths. was identified as a replacement for a traditional binder course, and Using foamed bitumen technology perfected over a decade of laid at a 70mm thickness, prior development, Foambase provides consistent quality and durability. to a 55/14 surface course being applied. Foambase has many advantages: • Halves the carbon emissions of conventional solutions Wiltshire • Eliminates the need for virgin aggregates 7000t of Foambase was laid on the • Its fully mobile mixing plant minimises truck movements, A338 near Bodenham, Wiltshire, congestion and pollution along a 1.1km section for Wiltshire County Council. The authority had • Strength comparable to cement-bound materials but far more not used Foambase before but was flexible aware of its performance in the • Can be designed for most pavement engineering problems past and possible financial benefits. • Can also re-use pulverised fuel ash and incinerator bottom ash 300mm of the existing 40 year • A quality-controlled, reliable product old carriageway was planed out to produce the majority of the material to be recycled. Planed material went back into the Foambase mix including lean mix concrete base course material and the original kerbs. The Foambase was laid in three 80mm layers before being overlaid with conventional binder and surface courses. Ringway set up the Foambase plant close to the road and used only four lorries to transport the planings to the plant and the new base material back out – a huge reduction in lorry movements compared to the number required if new material had been used. Appendix R
Buckinghamshire’s Local Road Renewal with Recycled Materials
Benefit Cost Analysis Technical Note 6th February 2015
Appendix R
Contents
1 Introduction Background Overview of Scheme Overview of Approach Report Contents 2 Cost Estimates Introduction Cost Estimates 3 BCA Methodology Introduction BCA and Value for Money Quantification of Scheme Benefits Forecasting Benefits over the Appraisal Period 4 Results Introduction BCA Results 5 Summary & Conclusion Summary Conclusion
Appendix A BCA Assessment Results
2 Appendix R
1. Introduction Background This report documents the findings and approach of an economic assessment of the Buckinghamshire’s Local Road Renewal with Recycled Materials scheme in support for their bid to DfT’s Challenge Fund. Ringway Jacobs were commissioned by Buckinghamshire county council to undertake an outline Benefit Cost Appraisal (BCA) analysis of the scheme in order to assess the potential economic benefits that could be generated for residents and businesses in the locality. This assessment includes two assessments against a ‘Do Something’ scenario (where the investment is undertaken to maintain current provision): • A ‘Do Minimum’ vs ‘Do Something’ assessment – of poor condition of carriageway, due to limited fund availability resulting in failure of the carriageway vs improved road condition due to increase in funding from the DfT of the unclassified roads within the county. Costs of long-term maintenance and ‘clean-up’ costs (in addition to the regular maintenance regime for this road type) are currently not undertaken and therefore are not included in the assessment. Whilst costs of the carriageway maintenance are included in the following section of this report, this represents the present cost of foambase resurfacing reconstruction, and is therefore a preventative measure to avert potentially significantly higher future costs. Should the carriageway totally fail, reconstruction costs may be significantly higher and do not include the risk of accidents or a potential fatality should the worst occur. Overview of Scheme Buckinghamshire County Council's rural C class network is 460km (826km in total) and its rural Unclassified network is 503km (1803km in total). About 8% of the C-class road is under “Red” category and about 33.5% of the U-class road is under ‘Red’ category which requires immediate maintenance. Over a period of years there has been a deterioration of these roads and the rate of deterioration is increasing at an unprecedented rate as illustrated in figure below. The condition of these roads will have a significant impact on road users and in the local and wider area. Figure 1-A illustrates the deterioration of condition of unclassified road.
3 Appendix R
Figure 1-A Unclassified road deterioration
Reported BV224b figures - Condition of U roads 40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
Defective Percentage 10%
5%
0% 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 Year
For the purpose of this assessment a total of 70km of road length is considered for the assessment. This combined both the C-class and U-class road network within the county. Overview of Approach The BCA assessment has been undertaken to assess the transport user costs and benefits of the scheme. Following elements are considered for the assessment • Accidents; • Vehicle Operating Costs; • Journey Time savings; • Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues). All values, whilst presented annually have also been presented in 2010 prices and values, discounted in line with Treasury and WebTAG standards. Report Contents This remainder of this report is structured as follows: • Cost Estimates; • BCA Methodology; • Results; and • Summary & Conclusion.
4 Appendix R
2. Cost Estimates Introduction This section of the report outlines the input preliminary cost estimates included in the assessment provided by the client. Cost Estimates Cost estimates were provided by Buckinghamshire County Council in February 2015 and are summarised in Table 2-A. Costs were provided in 2014 prices, discounted to 2014. Table 2-A Scheme Cost Estimate Year 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 Total DfT funding £4,325,000 £7,835,000 £7,840,000 £20,000,000 sought
Bucks £1,675,000 £2,165,000 £2,160,000 £6,000,000
Total £26,000,000
The above costs include the total scheme cost is including construction, and supervision. Optimism Bias has been included as per guidance (WebTAG Unit A1.2, paragraph 3.5.6, Table 8).
5 Appendix R
3. BCA Methodology
Introduction
This section of the report outlines the methodology for quantifying transport user benefits arising from the proposed highway improvements of the scheme.
BCA and Value for Money
BCA is the traditional approach to quantifying the costs or benefits of a transport intervention. The output Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) from the assessment is therefore a prominent input into how a scheme intervention is appraised as part of the Business Case submission and supporting documentation.
Figure 3-A illustrates how the outputs from the BCA feed into the appraisal process and ‘Value for Money (VfM)’ categories.
Figure 3-B BCA & VfM1
Costs of the scheme for both Do-minimum and Do-something have been provided by Buckinghamshire County Council (the Client), as outlined in the previous section.
As per Department for Transport (DfT) guidance, the output BCR from the BCA determines the VfM category the scheme falls within, as defined below:
• poor VfM if the BCR is less than 1.0; • low VfM if the BCR is between 1.0 and 1.5; • medium VfM if the BCR is between 1.5 and 2.0; • high VfM if the BCR is between 2.0 and 4.0; or • very high VfM if the BCR is greater than 4.0. UIltimately, the BCR benchmarks the scheme against others across the country to inform the allocation of funding and ensure value for money.
1 DfT (Dec 2013) Value for Money Assessment: Advice Note for Local Transport Decision Makers.
6 Appendix R
Quantification of Scheme Benefits
There is a wide range of potential impacts of road maintenance due to changes in level of maintenance funding. Reduction in highway maintenance budgets can mean curtailment of some services such as street lighting, vegetation control, and street cleaning and a decline in the repair and renewal of highway assets including street furniture, footways, cycle tracks, carriageways. Scheme benefits have been derived from analysis of the existing observed traffic flows and speeds along the unclassified road network within the county, utilising observed traffic flows provided by Buckinghamshire County Council. Using these flows and speeds, the current level of provision was quantified, representing the ‘Do Minimum’ Scenario. Do-something scenario is quantified by improvement in accidents rates, VOC and Travel Time savings.
The two-way traffic counts, undertaken in 2013, were interrogated to calculate the proportion of heavy vehicles (OGV1, OGV2 and PSV) currently utilising each route in AADT format. This was necessary to split out the various journey purposes observed to apply the correct values for each vehicle time and journey purpose (using current WebTAG November 2014 values and projections). These were then growthed using TEMPRO local growth factors to the opening year and forecast year for the scheme (2016 and 2031 respectively).
As the available traffic count data was for 2013, this was then growthed using Road Traffic Forecasts 2013 (RTF13) increase in delay factors (for the South East, “Other Rural” road type) to the 2016 opening year and up until final appraisal year 2045 (30-year appraisal).
Travel time and Vehicle operating costs benefits were calculated from the change between the DM and DS in the opening and future year. The concept behind calculating benefits from improved road condition is largely based on the HDM models. The logic of these models is a link from road condition (predominantly summarised by road roughness) through road user costs and travel time.
Vehicle operating costs area summation of fuel and engine oil consumptions, tyre use, vehicle depreciation and maintenance and repair costs. In terms of modelling impacts of road maintenance, the models depend primarily of road roughness changes as other road conditions. Road roughness does have an effect on vehicle speeds in so far as road users will travel at lower speeds on roads which are in a worse condition.
For the purpose of this assessment current roughness index is taken as 4.2 (poor category) and for the DS the condition would improve to 2.3 (good category). These figures been taken from the WSP report on Analysis of DfT Road Network using HDM-4, March 2011. For the purpose of the travel time savings, an average of 1.5km/hour speed increase is assumed per 1 roughness index improvement. This is taken from the report published by the Transport Scotland on Impacts of pavement conditions which is based on various researches carried out on effects of the highways maintenance.
With respect to accidents savings, various reports suggest that improved road condition can contribute reduction of accidents. Isle of Wight Council Highways PFI bid in May 2012
7 Appendix R suggests that improved road condition could lead up to one third reduction in accidents. For the purpose this assessment a more conservative approach is taken and assumed that improved road condition could save about 15% of the accidents where poor road condition was the main contributory factor.
Forecasting Benefits over the Appraisal Period
Time savings for the opening and future years have been monetised using standard WebTAG values of time (VoT) based on vehicle and journey purpose splits, as outlined in WebTAG guidance. The benefits have then been factored up to an annual period to produce a yearly benefit for the scheme (for the opening and future year) and interpolated and projected over a 30-year appraisal period as illustrated in Figure 3-D.
Figure 3-C Interpolation and projection of benefits
Benefits have then been discounted to 2010 values, as outlined in standard Treasury Green Book appraisal methodology. The cost of the scheme has then been compared with the projected benefits over 30-years to produce the overall BCR, as outlined in the following results section.
8 Appendix R
4. Results
Introduction
This section presents the results from the BCA and GVA analysis.
BCA Results
Table 4-A below outlines the outputs of the Benefit Cost Analysis for the scheme.
Table 4-A Scheme Benefits
Scheme Assessment: Do Minimum Do Something Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC) Car Business £10,229,484 £10,048,219 Commute £19,257,091 £18,990,758 Other £70,862,301 £69,882,249 LGV Work £28,323,096 £28,189,823 Non-Work £1,977,060 £1,972,904 OGV OGV1 £18,537,275 £18,152,720 OGV2 £38,633,513 £37,754,192 VOC, Total £187,819,819 £184,990,866 Journey time savings Car Business £60,126,503 £56,775,056 Commute £73,421,024 £69,328,542 Other £99,887,615 £94,319,888 LGV Work £69,728,471 £65,841,811 Non-Work £7,197,072 £6,795,908 OGV OGV1 £19,108,801 £18,043,678 OGV2 £21,156,173 £19,976,929 Journey time savings, Total £350,625,659 £331,081,812 Accidents Fatal £458,974 £396,309 Serious £769,984 £664,856 Slight £596,060 £514,678 Damage Only £980,635 £847,424 Accidents, Total £2,805,652 £2,423,266 Present Value of Costs (PVC) £13,735,272 Present Value of Benefits (PVB) £22,735,272 Broad Transport Budget £18,852,740 Net Present Value (NPV) £9,019,914 Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 1.7 With a BCR of 1.7, the Scheme could deliver Medium value for money, as outlined in DfT guidance. Outputs from the BCA assessments for both schemes are included in the appendix.
9 Appendix R
5. Summary & Conclusion
Summary
This report presents the results of the BCA analysis undertaken for the Local Road Renewal Scheme.
The BCA analysis is based on several assumptions as outlined in the report due to the schemes currently being defined as a maintenance scheme. Benefits calculated from the schemes have been undertaken using standard approaches in accordance with guidance. Benefits calculated have been interpolated between the 2016 scheme opening year and 2045 (final year of appraisal). Standard WebTAG and Treasury Green Book approaches have been used to undertake the benefit cost appraisal, discounted to 2010 prices over a standard 30-year appraisal period.
The BCA analysis has shown that the scheme would provide benefits to existing transport users, reducing journey times and significant marginal external cost savings due to the increased travel length of the diversion route.
Two scenarios have been assessed to quantify the effects of a ‘Do Nothing’, total failure of the carriageway, and a ‘Do Minimum’ scenario, where limited diversions would be introduced over the appraisal period.
Conclusion
The Unclassified Road Maintenance Scheme will deliver Medium value for money, based on a traditional transport BCR of 1.7.
The present analysis has made use of the best available information at the time of writing from the Client, but should be updated as additional information is made available (e.g. modelling of the proposed junction improvements in an appropriately suitable software package). It should be noted that this analysis is based upon the best available information at the time of writing and is subject to change as the scheme progresses through concept, outline and detailed design.
10 Appendix R
Appendix A: BCA Assessment Results
Table A.1: Discounted “Do-minimum” Costs
DM Discount Factor 3.50% Year GDP Total Cost - Discount Total Costs Deflator undiscounted Factor (discounted price to 2010) 2010 1 1 2011 0.98 0.966 2012 0.97 0.934 2013 0.95 0.902 2014 0.93 0.871 2015 0.91 £435,902 0.842 £335,563 2016 0.90 £435,902 0.814 £318,482 2017 0.88 £435,902 0.786 £301,975 2018 0.86 £435,902 0.759 £286,042 2019 0.85 £435,902 0.734 £270,818 2020 0.83 £435,902 0.709 £256,278 2021 0.81 £435,902 0.685 £242,400 2022 0.79 £435,902 0.662 £229,161 2023 0.78 £435,902 0.639 £216,645 2024 0.76 £435,902 0.618 £204,813 2025 0.74 £435,902 0.597 £193,628 2026 0.73 £435,902 0.577 £183,053 2027 0.71 £435,902 0.557 £173,055 2028 0.70 £435,902 0.538 £163,604 2029 0.68 £435,902 0.520 £154,669 2030 0.67 £435,902 0.503 £146,221 2031 0.65 £435,902 0.486 £138,236 2032 0.64 £435,902 0.469 £130,686 2033 0.63 £435,902 0.453 £123,548 2034 0.61 £435,902 0.438 £116,801 2035 0.60 £435,902 0.423 £110,422 2036 0.59 £435,902 0.409 £104,391 2037 0.57 £435,902 0.395 £98,690 2038 0.56 £435,902 0.382 £93,300 2039 0.55 £435,902 0.369 £88,204 2040 0.54 £435,902 0.356 £83,387 2041 0.53 £435,902 0.344 £78,833 2042 0.51 £435,902 0.333 £74,527 2043 0.50 £435,902 0.321 £70,457 2044 0.49 £435,902 0.310 £66,609 2045 0.48 £435,902 0.300 £62,971 Total £13,512,962 £5,117,468
11 Appendix R
Table A.2: Discounted “Do-something” Costs
DM Discount Factor 3.50% Year GDP Total Cost - Discount Total Costs Deflator undiscounted Factor (discounted price to 2010) 2010 1 1 2011 0.98 0.966 2012 0.97 0.934 2013 0.95 0.902 2014 0.93 0.871 2015 0.91 £6,000,000 0.842 £4,618,871 2016 0.90 £10,000,000 0.814 £7,306,283 2017 0.88 £10,000,000 0.786 £6,927,586 2018 0.86 0.759 2019 0.85 0.734 2020 0.83 0.709 2021 0.81 0.685 2022 0.79 0.662 2023 0.78 0.639 2024 0.76 0.618 2025 0.74 0.597 2026 0.73 0.577 2027 0.71 0.557 2028 0.70 0.538 2029 0.68 0.520 2030 0.67 0.503 2031 0.65 0.486 2032 0.64 0.469 2033 0.63 0.453 2034 0.61 0.438 2035 0.60 0.423 2036 0.59 0.409 2037 0.57 0.395 2038 0.56 0.382 2039 0.55 0.369 2040 0.54 0.356 2041 0.53 0.344 2042 0.51 0.333 2043 0.50 0.321 2044 0.49 0.310 2045 0.48 0.300 Total £26,000,000 £18,852,740
12 Appendix R
Table A.3: Discounted “Do-minimum” Vehicle Operating Costs Year Discount Fuel VOC, Car,£s Fuel VOC, LGV, £s Fuel VOC OGV, £s factor Business Commute Other Work Non-Work OGV1 OGV2 2010 1 2011 0.9662 2012 0.9335 £903,809 £4,403,358 £16,203,489 £2,523,731 £412,974 £1,832,615 £3,755,631 2013 0.9019 £846,417 £4,123,745 £15,174,571 £2,358,467 £385,931 £1,746,877 £3,579,924 2014 0.8714 £778,730 £3,793,973 £13,961,074 £2,174,716 £355,863 £1,643,652 £3,368,382 2015 0.8420 £720,277 £3,509,190 £12,913,126 £2,006,304 £328,304 £1,546,687 £3,169,670 2016 0.8135 £678,536 £3,305,828 £12,164,796 £1,900,507 £310,992 £1,499,301 £3,072,559 2017 0.7860 £647,268 £3,153,491 £11,604,226 £1,823,648 £298,415 £1,472,315 £3,017,257 2018 0.7594 £623,778 £3,039,045 £11,183,087 £1,768,465 £289,385 £1,461,226 £2,994,532 2019 0.7337 £601,196 £2,929,029 £10,778,249 £1,715,047 £280,644 £1,450,326 £2,972,194 2020 0.7089 £581,528 £2,833,206 £10,425,641 £1,669,658 £273,217 £1,445,100 £2,961,484 2021 0.6849 £560,112 £2,728,866 £10,041,690 £1,622,468 £265,495 £1,435,815 £2,942,456 2022 0.6618 £539,035 £2,626,180 £9,663,823 £1,575,329 £257,781 £1,425,444 £2,921,202 2023 0.6394 £518,675 £2,526,984 £9,298,804 £1,529,314 £250,251 £1,414,931 £2,899,657 2024 0.6178 £499,012 £2,431,186 £8,946,287 £1,484,411 £242,904 £1,404,286 £2,877,842 2025 0.5969 £480,199 £2,339,530 £8,609,009 £1,441,142 £235,823 £1,394,036 £2,856,837 2026 0.5767 £466,938 £2,274,922 £8,371,264 £1,412,112 £231,073 £1,384,156 £2,836,591 2027 0.5572 £453,975 £2,211,764 £8,138,856 £1,383,448 £226,382 £1,374,130 £2,816,042 2028 0.5384 £441,457 £2,150,780 £7,914,446 £1,355,636 £221,831 £1,364,450 £2,796,205 2029 0.5202 £429,220 £2,091,158 £7,695,049 £1,328,170 £217,337 £1,354,621 £2,776,064 2030 0.5026 £417,398 £2,033,563 £7,483,110 £1,301,505 £212,974 £1,345,118 £2,756,588 2031 0.4856 £407,697 £1,986,298 £7,309,187 £1,278,609 £209,227 £1,335,919 £2,737,737 2032 0.4692 £398,229 £1,940,170 £7,139,443 £1,262,325 £206,562 £1,326,562 £2,718,560 2033 0.4533 £388,988 £1,895,149 £6,973,773 £1,246,048 £203,899 £1,317,057 £2,699,081 2034 0.4380 £379,969 £1,851,207 £6,812,078 £1,230,581 £201,368 £1,308,262 £2,681,058 2035 0.4231 £371,166 £1,808,319 £6,654,259 £1,215,099 £198,834 £1,299,302 £2,662,696 2036 0.4088 £365,539 £1,780,906 £6,553,383 £1,195,222 £195,582 £1,278,009 £2,619,059 2037 0.3950 £360,004 £1,753,942 £6,454,159 £1,175,705 £192,388 £1,257,100 £2,576,211 2038 0.3817 £354,560 £1,727,418 £6,356,558 £1,156,539 £189,252 £1,236,569 £2,534,136 2039 0.3687 £349,205 £1,701,328 £6,260,553 £1,137,719 £186,172 £1,216,408 £2,492,819 2040 0.3563 £343,938 £1,675,664 £6,166,114 £1,119,237 £183,148 £1,196,610 £2,452,247 2041 0.3442 £338,756 £1,650,418 £6,073,215 £1,101,086 £180,178 £1,177,168 £2,412,404 2042 0.3326 £333,658 £1,625,584 £5,981,828 £1,083,261 £177,261 £1,158,075 £2,373,276 2043 0.3213 £328,644 £1,601,153 £5,891,929 £1,065,754 £174,396 £1,139,324 £2,334,849 2044 0.3105 £323,711 £1,577,120 £5,803,490 £1,048,561 £171,583 £1,120,909 £2,297,110 2045 0.3000 £318,858 £1,553,476 £5,716,487 £1,031,674 £168,819 £1,102,823 £2,260,045 £13,301,249 £64,803,685 £238,464,792 £40,658,281 £6,653,173 £39,695,348 £81,348,798
13 Appendix R
Table A.4: Discounted “Do-something” Vehicle Operating Costs Year Discount Fuel VOC, Car,£s Fuel VOC, LGV, £s Fuel VOC OGV, £s factor Business Commute Other Work Non-Work OGV1 OGV2 2010 1 2011 0.9662 2012 0.9335 £891,309 £4,342,458 £15,979,389 £2,518,426 £412,106 £1,799,065 £3,674,919 2013 0.9019 £834,711 £4,066,713 £14,964,701 £2,353,510 £385,120 £1,714,896 £3,502,989 2014 0.8714 £767,960 £3,741,501 £13,767,987 £2,170,145 £355,115 £1,613,561 £3,295,993 2015 0.8420 £710,315 £3,460,656 £12,734,533 £2,002,087 £327,614 £1,518,372 £3,101,552 2016 0.8135 £669,152 £3,260,107 £11,996,552 £1,896,512 £310,338 £1,471,852 £3,006,528 2017 0.7860 £638,316 £3,109,877 £11,443,736 £1,819,815 £297,788 £1,445,361 £2,952,414 2018 0.7594 £615,151 £2,997,014 £11,028,421 £1,764,748 £288,777 £1,434,475 £2,930,177 2019 0.7337 £592,882 £2,888,519 £10,629,182 £1,711,442 £280,054 £1,423,774 £2,908,319 2020 0.7089 £573,486 £2,794,022 £10,281,451 £1,666,148 £272,642 £1,418,644 £2,897,840 2021 0.6849 £552,366 £2,691,125 £9,902,810 £1,619,058 £264,937 £1,409,529 £2,879,221 2022 0.6618 £531,580 £2,589,859 £9,530,169 £1,572,018 £257,239 £1,399,347 £2,858,423 2023 0.6394 £511,501 £2,492,035 £9,170,198 £1,526,099 £249,725 £1,389,027 £2,837,341 2024 0.6178 £492,110 £2,397,562 £8,822,557 £1,481,290 £242,393 £1,378,577 £2,815,995 2025 0.5969 £473,558 £2,307,173 £8,489,943 £1,438,112 £235,327 £1,368,514 £2,795,441 2026 0.5767 £460,480 £2,243,459 £8,255,486 £1,409,144 £230,587 £1,358,816 £2,775,630 2027 0.5572 £447,696 £2,181,174 £8,026,292 £1,380,540 £225,906 £1,348,973 £2,755,524 2028 0.5384 £435,352 £2,121,034 £7,804,986 £1,352,786 £221,365 £1,339,470 £2,736,113 2029 0.5202 £423,283 £2,062,236 £7,588,624 £1,325,378 £216,880 £1,329,822 £2,716,404 2030 0.5026 £411,625 £2,005,438 £7,379,616 £1,298,769 £212,526 £1,320,492 £2,697,347 2031 0.4856 £402,058 £1,958,827 £7,208,098 £1,275,922 £208,787 £1,311,462 £2,678,901 2032 0.4692 £392,721 £1,913,337 £7,040,701 £1,259,671 £206,128 £1,302,276 £2,660,137 2033 0.4533 £383,608 £1,868,938 £6,877,323 £1,243,429 £203,470 £1,292,945 £2,641,076 2034 0.4380 £374,714 £1,825,604 £6,717,865 £1,227,994 £200,945 £1,284,311 £2,623,440 2035 0.4231 £366,032 £1,783,310 £6,562,228 £1,212,544 £198,416 £1,275,515 £2,605,473 2036 0.4088 £360,483 £1,756,275 £6,462,748 £1,192,710 £195,171 £1,254,611 £2,562,774 2037 0.3950 £355,025 £1,729,684 £6,364,896 £1,173,234 £191,984 £1,234,086 £2,520,846 2038 0.3817 £349,657 £1,703,527 £6,268,645 £1,154,108 £188,854 £1,213,931 £2,479,675 2039 0.3687 £344,376 £1,677,798 £6,173,967 £1,135,327 £185,781 £1,194,139 £2,439,247 2040 0.3563 £339,181 £1,652,489 £6,080,834 £1,116,884 £182,763 £1,174,703 £2,399,546 2041 0.3442 £334,071 £1,627,593 £5,989,220 £1,098,772 £179,799 £1,155,617 £2,360,559 2042 0.3326 £329,044 £1,603,101 £5,899,097 £1,080,984 £176,888 £1,136,873 £2,322,272 2043 0.3213 £324,099 £1,579,009 £5,810,441 £1,063,514 £174,030 £1,118,466 £2,284,671 2044 0.3105 £319,234 £1,555,308 £5,723,226 £1,046,357 £171,222 £1,100,388 £2,247,743 2045 0.3000 £314,448 £1,531,991 £5,637,425 £1,029,506 £168,465 £1,082,633 £2,211,476 £13,117,288 £63,907,426 £235,166,736 £40,572,819 £6,639,189 £38,968,627 £79,600,555
14 Appendix R
Table A.5: Discounted “Do-minimum” Travel Time Costs Year Discount Travel Time, Car,£s Travel Time, LGV, £s Travel Time, £s factor Business Commute Other Work Non-Work OGV1 OGV2 2010 1 2011 0.9662 2012 0.9335 £7,141,455 £8,720,496 £11,864,035 £8,281,917 £854,824 £2,269,625 £2,512,800 2013 0.9019 £7,062,356 £8,623,907 £11,732,628 £8,190,186 £845,356 £2,244,487 £2,484,968 2014 0.8714 £7,050,457 £8,609,378 £11,712,861 £8,176,388 £843,932 £2,240,705 £2,480,781 2015 0.8420 £7,012,369 £8,562,868 £11,649,586 £8,132,217 £839,372 £2,228,601 £2,467,379 2016 0.8135 £6,993,695 £8,540,065 £11,618,562 £8,110,561 £837,137 £2,222,666 £2,460,809 2017 0.7860 £6,977,807 £8,520,664 £11,592,168 £8,092,136 £835,235 £2,217,617 £2,455,218 2018 0.7594 £6,955,812 £8,493,806 £11,555,627 £8,066,628 £832,603 £2,210,626 £2,447,479 2019 0.7337 £6,934,566 £8,467,863 £11,520,333 £8,041,990 £830,060 £2,203,874 £2,440,004 2020 0.7089 £6,912,707 £8,441,171 £11,484,018 £8,016,640 £827,443 £2,196,927 £2,432,312 2021 0.6849 £6,889,565 £8,412,911 £11,445,572 £7,989,802 £824,673 £2,189,572 £2,424,169 2022 0.6618 £6,865,826 £8,383,923 £11,406,134 £7,962,272 £821,831 £2,182,028 £2,415,817 2023 0.6394 £6,843,512 £8,356,675 £11,369,065 £7,936,394 £819,160 £2,174,936 £2,407,965 2024 0.6178 £6,821,940 £8,330,334 £11,333,227 £7,911,377 £816,578 £2,168,080 £2,400,375 2025 0.5969 £6,801,771 £8,305,705 £11,299,720 £7,887,987 £814,164 £2,161,670 £2,393,278 2026 0.5767 £6,782,992 £8,282,774 £11,268,523 £7,866,209 £811,916 £2,155,702 £2,386,670 2027 0.5572 £6,764,929 £8,260,716 £11,238,515 £7,845,261 £809,754 £2,149,962 £2,380,315 2028 0.5384 £6,748,237 £8,240,334 £11,210,785 £7,825,904 £807,756 £2,144,657 £2,374,442 2029 0.5202 £6,732,907 £8,221,614 £11,185,317 £7,808,126 £805,921 £2,139,785 £2,369,047 2030 0.5026 £6,718,929 £8,204,545 £11,162,095 £7,791,915 £804,248 £2,135,342 £2,364,129 2031 0.4856 £6,705,637 £8,188,315 £11,140,014 £7,776,501 £802,657 £2,131,118 £2,359,452 2032 0.4692 £6,693,683 £8,173,718 £11,120,155 £7,762,638 £801,226 £2,127,319 £2,355,246 2033 0.4533 £6,682,406 £8,159,947 £11,101,420 £7,749,560 £799,876 £2,123,735 £2,351,278 2034 0.4380 £6,671,801 £8,146,998 £11,083,803 £7,737,262 £798,607 £2,120,365 £2,347,547 2035 0.4231 £6,661,866 £8,134,866 £11,067,298 £7,725,740 £797,418 £2,117,207 £2,344,051 2036 0.4088 £6,652,597 £8,123,548 £11,051,900 £7,714,991 £796,308 £2,114,262 £2,340,790 2037 0.3950 £6,643,992 £8,113,040 £11,037,604 £7,705,012 £795,278 £2,111,527 £2,337,762 2038 0.3817 £6,636,048 £8,103,340 £11,024,407 £7,695,799 £794,327 £2,109,002 £2,334,967 2039 0.3687 £6,628,114 £8,093,651 £11,011,226 £7,686,598 £793,378 £2,106,481 £2,332,175 2040 0.3563 £6,620,189 £8,083,974 £10,998,060 £7,677,407 £792,429 £2,103,962 £2,329,386 2041 0.3442 £6,612,274 £8,074,308 £10,984,910 £7,668,228 £791,481 £2,101,446 £2,326,601 2042 0.3326 £6,605,661 £8,066,234 £10,973,925 £7,660,560 £790,690 £2,099,345 £2,324,275 2043 0.3213 £6,599,056 £8,058,167 £10,962,952 £7,652,899 £789,899 £2,097,246 £2,321,950 2044 0.3105 £6,592,457 £8,050,109 £10,951,989 £7,645,246 £789,109 £2,095,148 £2,319,629 2045 0.3000 £6,585,864 £8,042,059 £10,941,037 £7,637,601 £788,320 £2,093,053 £2,317,309 £202,336,839 £247,075,371 £336,140,362 £234,649,244 £24,219,484 £64,304,662 £71,194,447
15 Appendix R
Table A.6: Discounted “Do-something” Travel Time Costs Year Discount Travel Time, Car,£s Travel Time, LGV, £s Travel Time, £s factor Business Commute Other Work Non-Work OGV1 OGV2 2010 1 2011 0.9662 2012 0.9335 £6,743,391 £8,234,416 £11,202,734 £7,820,284 £807,176 £2,143,117 £2,372,736 2013 0.9019 £6,668,700 £8,143,211 £11,078,652 £7,733,666 £798,236 £2,119,379 £2,346,456 2014 0.8714 £6,657,465 £8,129,492 £11,059,987 £7,720,636 £796,891 £2,115,809 £2,342,502 2015 0.8420 £6,621,500 £8,085,575 £11,000,239 £7,678,928 £792,586 £2,104,379 £2,329,848 2016 0.8135 £6,603,867 £8,064,043 £10,970,945 £7,658,479 £790,475 £2,098,775 £2,323,643 2017 0.7860 £6,588,865 £8,045,723 £10,946,021 £7,641,081 £788,679 £2,094,007 £2,318,365 2018 0.7594 £6,568,095 £8,020,362 £10,911,518 £7,616,995 £786,193 £2,087,406 £2,311,057 2019 0.7337 £6,548,034 £7,995,865 £10,878,190 £7,593,730 £783,792 £2,081,030 £2,303,998 2020 0.7089 £6,527,394 £7,970,660 £10,843,900 £7,569,793 £781,321 £2,074,471 £2,296,735 2021 0.6849 £6,505,541 £7,943,976 £10,807,597 £7,544,451 £778,706 £2,067,526 £2,289,046 2022 0.6618 £6,483,125 £7,916,604 £10,770,357 £7,518,455 £776,023 £2,060,402 £2,281,159 2023 0.6394 £6,462,055 £7,890,875 £10,735,354 £7,494,020 £773,500 £2,053,705 £2,273,745 2024 0.6178 £6,441,686 £7,866,001 £10,701,514 £7,470,398 £771,062 £2,047,232 £2,266,578 2025 0.5969 £6,422,641 £7,842,745 £10,669,875 £7,448,311 £768,783 £2,041,179 £2,259,877 2026 0.5767 £6,404,909 £7,821,093 £10,640,417 £7,427,747 £766,660 £2,035,544 £2,253,638 2027 0.5572 £6,387,852 £7,800,265 £10,612,081 £7,407,967 £764,618 £2,030,123 £2,247,636 2028 0.5384 £6,372,091 £7,781,018 £10,585,897 £7,389,689 £762,732 £2,025,114 £2,242,090 2029 0.5202 £6,357,615 £7,763,342 £10,561,848 £7,372,901 £760,999 £2,020,513 £2,236,997 2030 0.5026 £6,344,416 £7,747,225 £10,539,921 £7,357,594 £759,419 £2,016,319 £2,232,353 2031 0.4856 £6,331,865 £7,731,899 £10,519,070 £7,343,039 £757,917 £2,012,330 £2,227,937 2032 0.4692 £6,320,578 £7,718,116 £10,500,319 £7,329,949 £756,566 £2,008,743 £2,223,965 2033 0.4533 £6,309,929 £7,705,112 £10,482,628 £7,317,600 £755,291 £2,005,358 £2,220,218 2034 0.4380 £6,299,915 £7,692,885 £10,465,993 £7,305,987 £754,093 £2,002,176 £2,216,695 2035 0.4231 £6,290,534 £7,681,429 £10,450,407 £7,295,108 £752,970 £1,999,194 £2,213,394 2036 0.4088 £6,281,782 £7,670,742 £10,435,868 £7,284,958 £751,922 £1,996,413 £2,210,314 2037 0.3950 £6,273,657 £7,660,820 £10,422,369 £7,275,535 £750,949 £1,993,831 £2,207,455 2038 0.3817 £6,266,156 £7,651,660 £10,409,908 £7,266,836 £750,052 £1,991,447 £2,204,816 2039 0.3687 £6,258,663 £7,642,511 £10,397,461 £7,258,148 £749,155 £1,989,066 £2,202,180 2040 0.3563 £6,251,180 £7,633,374 £10,385,029 £7,249,469 £748,259 £1,986,687 £2,199,547 2041 0.3442 £6,243,706 £7,624,247 £10,372,612 £7,240,802 £747,364 £1,984,312 £2,196,917 2042 0.3326 £6,237,462 £7,616,622 £10,362,240 £7,233,561 £746,617 £1,982,328 £2,194,720 2043 0.3213 £6,231,225 £7,609,006 £10,351,877 £7,226,327 £745,870 £1,980,345 £2,192,525 2044 0.3105 £6,224,994 £7,601,397 £10,341,526 £7,219,101 £745,124 £1,978,365 £2,190,333 2045 0.3000 £6,218,769 £7,593,795 £10,331,184 £7,211,882 £744,379 £1,976,387 £2,188,142 £191,058,600 £233,303,409 £317,403,925 £221,569,914 £22,869,492 £60,720,325 £67,226,074
16 Appendix R
Table A.7: Discounted “Do-minimum” Accidents Costs
Total Costs- Accident + Casualty, Discounted to 2010
Year Fatal Serious Slight Damage Only
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 £41,207 £69,130 £53,515 £92,561 2016 £39,913 £66,959 £51,837 £85,124 2017 £36,691 £61,553 £47,647 £78,108 2018 £33,697 £56,530 £43,759 £71,670 2019 £30,916 £51,865 £40,148 £65,717 2020 £28,351 £47,562 £36,816 £60,224 2021 £25,986 £43,595 £33,744 £55,168 2022 £23,807 £39,939 £30,915 £50,527 2023 £21,800 £36,572 £28,309 £46,271 2024 £19,962 £33,489 £25,923 £42,379 2025 £18,279 £30,665 £23,738 £38,813 2026 £16,738 £28,080 £21,737 £35,544 2027 £15,327 £25,713 £19,906 £32,560 2028 £14,035 £23,545 £18,228 £29,821 2029 £12,852 £21,560 £16,691 £27,310 2030 £11,768 £19,743 £15,285 £25,012 2031 £10,776 £18,078 £13,996 £22,906 2032 £9,770 £16,390 £12,689 £20,769 2033 £8,858 £14,860 £11,505 £18,831 2034 £8,030 £13,472 £10,431 £17,075 2035 £7,281 £12,214 £9,457 £15,482 2036 £6,601 £11,074 £8,574 £14,038 2037 £5,984 £10,040 £7,773 £12,727 2038 £5,426 £9,102 £7,047 £11,538 2039 £4,919 £8,252 £6,389 £10,461 £458,974 £769,984 £596,060 £980,635
More Information follow - COBALT Parameters, 2014.3 Web TAG Parameters, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cobalt-software-and-user-manuals
PIA and casualty per PIA is based on COBALT default parameters – link and junction combined
Also refer DfT data book Nov 2014
Accident reduction factor of 15% applied to DS accidents
17 Appendix R
Table A.8: Discounted “Do-something” Accidents Costs
Total Costs- Accident + Casualty, Discounted to 2010
Year Fatal Serious Slight Damage Only
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 £41,207 £69,130 £53,515 £92,561 2016 £33,926 £56,915 £44,061 £72,355 2017 £31,187 £52,320 £40,500 £66,391 2018 £28,642 £48,050 £37,195 £60,919 2019 £26,279 £44,085 £34,125 £55,860 2020 £24,099 £40,428 £31,293 £51,190 2021 £22,088 £37,055 £28,683 £46,893 2022 £20,236 £33,948 £26,278 £42,948 2023 £18,530 £31,086 £24,063 £39,331 2024 £16,968 £28,465 £22,035 £36,022 2025 £15,537 £26,066 £20,178 £32,991 2026 £14,227 £23,868 £18,477 £30,213 2027 £13,028 £21,856 £16,920 £27,676 2028 £11,930 £20,014 £15,494 £25,348 2029 £10,924 £18,326 £14,188 £23,213 2030 £10,003 £16,781 £12,992 £21,260 2031 £9,160 £15,367 £11,897 £19,470 2032 £8,304 £13,932 £10,786 £17,653 2033 £7,529 £12,631 £9,779 £16,007 2034 £6,826 £11,451 £8,866 £14,513 2035 £6,189 £10,382 £8,038 £13,160 2036 £5,611 £9,413 £7,288 £11,932 2037 £5,087 £8,534 £6,607 £10,818 2038 £4,612 £7,737 £5,990 £9,808 2039 £4,181 £7,015 £5,431 £8,892 £396,309 £664,856 £514,678 £847,424 More Information follow - COBALT Parameters, 2014.3 Web TAG Parameters, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cobalt-software-and-user-manuals
PIA and casualty per PIA is based on COBALT default parameters – link and junction combined
Also refer DfT data book Nov 2014
Accident reduction factor of 15% applied to DS accidents
18 Appendix R
Appraisal Summary Table Date produced: Feb-15 Contact:
Name of scheme: Large LHCF Bid: Buckinghamshire’s Local Road Renewal with Recycled Materials Name Description of scheme: Renewal of Buckinghamshire’s Local Roads (C-class and Unclassified) at the end of their serviceable life utilising a structural overlay with treated recycled materials Organisation Buckinghamshire CC reclaimed from the County’s own capital programme with associated drainage improvements. Schemes will be selected to promote sustainable modes of transport, Role Promoter such as buses, cycling and walking.
Impacts Summary of key impacts Assessment Quantitative Qualitative Monetary Distributional £(NPV) 7-pt scale/ vulnerable grp Business users & transport Business users will experience large travel time and VOC benefits particularly due to improved Value of journey time changes(£) £7,552,644 Not assessed - screened providers road condition. the travel time benefits of £7,238,106 and vehicle operating cost benefits of Net journey time changes (£) out at initial screening £314,538. VOC savings - £314,538, Travel Large Beneficial 0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min Time Savings - £7,238,106 Economy N/A N/A N/A
Reliability impact on There will be slight reliability benefits for users due to improved road condition. Business users Not assessed at this stage Beneficial Not applicable Regeneration Improved access to and condition of roads will assist businesses in attracting investment. It will Not assessed at this stage Beneficial unlock growth within the Bucks CC. Not applicable Wider Impacts The scheme will not have significant impacts on agglomeration or the operation and production outputs in Bucks CC. It will have local benefits by maintaining Bucks transport infrastructure, maintaining accessibility and the attractiveness of the local area for existing business and future development. However, these impacts will not be large enough to significantly affect travel Not applicable Neutral Not applicable costs, labour supply or competitive at a wide regional or national level
Noise Noise will slightly increase due to increase speed in the network Not assessed - screened Not assessed at this stage Neutral Not applicable out at initial screening Air Quality Air quality of all links affected road network will slightly worse off due to increase in speed and Not assessed - screened therefore increase in carbon emissions Not assessed at this stage Neutral Not applicable out at initial screening
Greenhouse gases Slight increase in green house gas emission due to increase speed. not assessed at Not assessed - screened Environmental Change in non-traded carbon over 25y (CO2e) this stage Slight adverse Not applicable out at initial screening not assessed at Change in traded carbon over 25y (CO2e) this stage Landscape Not applicable Not applicable Neutral Not applicable Townscape Not applicable Not applicable Neutral Not applicable Historic Environment Not applicable Not applicable Neutral Not applicable Biodiversity Not applicable Not applicable Neutral Not applicable Water Environment Not applicable Not applicable Neutral Not applicable Commuting and Other users Commuting and other users will experience travel time time savings and VOC benefits Value of journey time changes(£) £14,820,156 Not assessed - screened particularly due to improved road condition. The travel time benefits of £14,820,156 and VOC out at initial screening Net journey time changes (£) VOC savings - £2,514,416 Travel savings of £2,514,416 is expected Large Beneficial Social 0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min Time Savings - £112,305,741
Reliability impact on There will be slight reliability benefits for users due to improved road condition. Commuting and Other users Not assessed at this stage Beneficial Not applicable Physical activity Modal shift from car to other sustainable modes specifically cycle is expected due to improved Not assessed at this stage Beneficial road condition. Significant physical activity benefits would be expected. Not applicable Journey quality Improved road condition will reduce driver frustration and fear of accidents and will increase route certainty in comparison to the do-minimum option. Traveller views are unlikely to change Not assessed at this stage Beneficial Not applicable significantly. Accidents improved road surface will have positive impacts on reduction of accidents. It is expected Not assessed - screened Do-minimum accidents - £382,386, Do-something accidents - accident rates will go down by 15% due to improved road condition where poor road condition Beneficial £382,386 out at initial screening was main contributory factor of the accidents. £2,423,266 Security Not applicable Not assessed - screened Not applicable Neutral Not applicable out at initial screening
Access to services Access to the services will be improved due to improved road condition Not assessed - screened Not assessed at this stage Beneficial Not applicable out at initial screening
Affordability The Do Something option does not involve any changes to the existing network and it is not Not assessed - screened anticipated that there will be an increase in public transport fares. Overall it is concluded that Not applicable Neutral Not applicable out at initial screening the Do Something option will not have an impact on user charges. Severance no severance impacts have been identified Not assessed - screened Not applicable Neutral out at initial screening
Option and non-use values neutral - no assessment undertaken Not applicable Neutral Cost to Broad Transport There is a moderate capital cost. See quantitative Budget capital cost Slight adverse £18,852,740
Indirect Tax Revenues Negative impacts due to improvement in VOC. Not assessed - screened out at initial screening -£3,670,051 Slight adverse -£3,670,051 Public Accounts