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 or one large bid and one small bid for each local highway authority.

Applicant Information

Local authority name(s)*: Bristol City Council

Bid Manager Name and position: John Roy, Group Manager Transport Assets

Contact telephone number: 0117 922 3118 Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: Brunel House, St George’s Road, Bristol, BS1 5UY

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: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/page/transport-and-streets/local-highways-maintenance-challenge- fund

1

Section A - Scheme description and funding profile

A1. Scheme name Cumberland Basin maintenance and repair of 15 existing bridges and viaducts on the A370, A3029 and A4.

A2. Headline description

The existing highway interchange at the Cumberland Basin, in central Bristol, comprises the A370, A3029 and A4, and runs across a network of 15 existing highway bridges and viaducts. These structures require maintenance and repair to their bearings, waterproofing, expansion joints and parapets.

As the European Green Capital for 2015 Bristol City Council has a great opportunity to reinforce our environmental ambition and to showcase innovative working practises across Europe, as can be demonstrated by our “Laboratory for Change”. We won the award by proving we: • have achieved high environmental standards • have ambitious goals for sustainable development • can act as a role model to inspire other cities. We will use the skills and knowledge that we have gained form our status as Green Capital in delivering this scheme.

A3. Geographical area:

The A370/A3029 is the main arterial route into Bristol from North Somerset and links to the Temple Quay Enterprise Zone and the central business districts of Bristol. The A4 is the strategic route into Bristol from the M5/M49 motorway and connects to Avonmouth and Severnside Enterprise Area.

2

OS Grid Reference: 352,508 180,516

Postcode: BS11

Please see Appendix A for location of proposed scheme.

A4. Type of bid (please tick relevant box):

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

Please see Appendix B for Equality Relevance check

Section B – The Business Case

B1. The Scheme – Summary/History (Maximum 200 words)

Principal inspections of the 15 bridges and viaducts in the Cumberland Basin network have revealed that the following defects exist which require immediate attention; Replacement 332 number bridge bearings; Replacement of existing waterproofing membranes (over 26,000 square metres); Replacement 28 mechanical and asphaltic expansion joints (450 lin metres); Replace over 4,000m of high containment safety kerbs to footways/verges which will enable category N1 parapets to be installed; Drainage improvements to replace the original design which is extremely difficult to maintain and results in localised flooding on the highway during high intensity events; Repair to mechanical, electrical and operational systems of two swing bridges.

The elements described above are now reaching the end of their serviceable life having entered their 52nd year and need replacement and/or repair. By undertaking these works it will enable these assets to continue in a serviceable condition for the remainder of their design life which we estimate would be up to 2085. This would reduce significantly the future revenue and capital maintenance costs which would be required. Bristol City Council has undertaken a reactive regime of maintenance to these structures effectively managing their decline resulting in traffic restrictions and disruptions to businesses, residents and visitors to Bristol.

3

B2. The Strategic Case (Maximum 650 words)

The Cumberland Basin provides access to Bristol and the Enterprise Areas of Junction 21, Filton, Avonmouth & Severnside and Temple Quarter for the residents, businesses and visitors to Bristol. The Cumberland Basin is designated as part of the Resilience Network. More widely across the West of England region, it will provide access to approximately 40,000 jobs by 2030 in these Enterprise Areas. It also links directly to the recently completed works at Yanley Viaduct which were funded through the Local Pinch Point approved scheme with similar works comprising re-surfacing, waterproofing, replacement of expansion joints, bearings and parapets. These two schemes in combination will maintain access along this strategic route into Bristol from North Somerset.

The 15 structures in the Cumberland Basin have entered the 52nd life of their serviceable lifespan. Structural inspections have shown that immediate action is required to repair the structural elements that have failed and to return the structure to a serviceable condition. Please see summary at Appendix C which clearly shows the range of defects that exist on the structures in the Cumberland Basin. Without securing specific funding for this project, the maintenance of the structures and viaducts will only be carried out as part of normal Highways Capital Maintenance Needs programme in Bristol. Existing funding would restrict maintenance to short sections each year creating continued disruption to traffic, public transport and business e.g. road closures, one-way working. This approach would effectively be continual decline which will result in disruption and delay on this strategic route into Bristol being detrimental to the wider network in Bristol and impact negatively on jobs creation within the Enterprise Zones and Areas.

Without this funding these structures would continue to decline as our maintenance allocation cannot arrest the decline. The only two alternatives would be to direct a significant proportion of future Highways Capital Maintenance Needs Allocation for the next 10 years on these structures with resulting serious negative impact on all other transport assets in the city. In effect we would only be able to respond to emergency responses and undertake no proactive or planned maintenance on the wider range of assets. The other option would be Prudential Borrowing as part of a wider Invest to Save project across the wider highway network. The Invest to Save option is currently being investigated but is unlikely due to the Council’s other financial commitments and the uncertainty of future local funding.

Investment in the Cumberland Basin would extend the serviceable lifespan of the 15 bridges and viaducts until 2085 covering the timescale for the delivery of jobs and development growth within Enterprise Zones and Areas. This highway complex is crucial to ensuring that access is provided to the Enterprise Areas at Junction 21, Filton, Avonmouth & Severnside and Temple Quarter. With this investment this highway complex would be a fully fit for purpose route in a crucial economic area, able to support the projected traffic over the next 20 years without any future major maintenance interventions. Whole life costs will be minimised and significant economic growth in the area will be supported.

Please see Appendix D which shows the areas that will benefit directly from this scheme.

The impact of funding not being secured would be that a programme of planned weight restrictions and road closures would have to be implemented in order to protect the integrity of the 15 structures with the ensuing disruption to traffic, public transport and freight into/out of the city and more widely within the West of England region. In particular there is a high likelihood 4 that serious failure of the Avon Fixed Bridge will occur at some point in the next 5-10 years which would cause major disruption as this is the only strategic route into the City from North Somerset.

This investment would ensures that the highway complex within the Cumberland Basin remains open and functional until 2085 delivering sustained economic growth and wider access to employment within West of England Region providing access to Temple Quay Enterprise Zone.

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 £4,601 £12,269 £10,224 £27,094 Sought LA Contribution £460 £1,227 £1,022 £2,709

Other Third Party - - - - Funding

Please See Appendix E for cost estimate

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.

To be provided from Bristol City Council Capital Funding resources. 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

Please see Appendix F for letters of support. 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.

5

None

B5. The Financial Case – Affordability and Financial Risk (maximum 300 words)

a) What risk allowance has been applied to the project cost?

20% contingency for costs has been included in the project costs. b) How will cost overruns be dealt with?

Cost overruns will be met from Bristol City Council resources. c) What are the main risks to project delivery timescales and what impact this will have on cost?

The major risks to the delivery of this scheme have been identified in the risk register as: 1. Costs - The scale of this project presents new challenges for Bristol City Council in terms of the scope of work planned and the skills required to deliver them. In terms of managing cost risk we have already had our cost plan and programme reviewed and challenged by consultants and included appropriate changes within our bid; 2. Delivery - We will be appointing a dedicated Project Manager and Assistant Project Manager for the scheme to ensure that the project and more importantly the management of change, risk and financial implication within the project are managed appropriately throughout the whole life of the project; 3. Supply Chain – We will use the new Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and engage early with contractors and specialists early in order to obtain best value from the marketplace. Bristol City Council is therefore proposing to use Section 29 of the Public Contracts Regulations which will be a competitive process with negotiations. Adopting this process will drive innovation and reduce financial risk for both Bristol City Council and the supply chain;

The governance structure for the project includes a dedicated project board and team to ensure risk mitigation measures are instigated in a timely manner.

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

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;

6

- 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.

The BCR for this scheme has been estimated as 32.85. Please note that a summary of BCR assumptions are included within section C below. A full technical report will be available at http://www.bristol.gov.uk/page/transport-and-streets/local-highways-maintenance-challenge- fund during week commencing 9th February 2015 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- Bristol City Council is only able to carry out limited maintenance minimum situation (i.e. what on the structures within the Cumberland Basin complex within its would happen without current and future Needs funding allocations. The impact of this Challenge Fund investment). will be the further managed decline of these structures.

The impact of funding not being secured would be that weight restrictions and road closures would have to be implemented in order to protect the integrity of the 15 structures with the ensuing disruption to traffic and freight into/out of the city and more widely within the West of England region. In particular a potential route closure across the Avon Fixed Bridge would cause major disruption as this is a key strategic route into the City from North Somerset. Details of significant Benefits of the scheme have been identified as: monetised and non- • Avoidance of traffic disruption that would be caused by monetised costs and restrictions / closures if funding not obtained benefits of the scheme • Avoidance of carbon impacts associated with traffic (quantified where possible) disruption that would be caused by restrictions / closures if funding not obtained • Accident benefits due to improved road surface.

Calculation of traffic disruption and carbon benefits have been identified through a series of scenarios modelled using the GBATS strategic transport model for the Greater Bristol area. (This is a WebTAG-compliant model that has been used for a number of successful major scheme DfT funding submissions in recent years.) These scenarios have solely focussed on potential restrictions to the Avon Fixed Bridge which is the only structure providing a route across the River Avon on this part of the network. The scenarios have been modelled as follows: • Weight restrictions (no HGVs) • Lane closures (reduced from two lanes to one lane per direction) • Route closure Each of these scenarios was tested at 2018 and 2031 forecast years, with impacts of each scenario monetised using TUBA (v1.9.5).

It should be noted that without Challenge Fund investment there 7 will be potential restrictions and closures on the other structures in the scheme which have not been assessed, and hence the benefits assessment is conservative

The TUBA results were factored and combined based on a probability matrix of restriction type and timeframe. These were determined based on inspection reports and required structural repairs as follows:

Avon Bridge % Likelihood of restriction Type of restriction 0 to 10 yrs 10 to 20 yrs 20 to 40 yrs 40 to 60 yrs weight restriction 40% 50% 60% 90% lane closure 30% 40% 50% 80% route closure 10% 20% 30% 70%

Due to the inherent uncertainty, the likelihood values were halved to provide conservative estimates. To avoid double counting, a further adjustment was undertaken applying Bayesian probability theory to reflect the interdependence of the likelihood values (for example, if there is a route closure then no further restrictions can be applied). This resulted in the following adjusted probability matrix:

Avon Bridge % Likelihood of restriction Type of restriction 0 to 10 yrs 10 to 20 yrs 20 to 40 yrs 40 to 60 yrs weight restriction 16% 18% 19% 18% lane closure 14% 18% 21% 26% route closure 5% 10% 15% 35%

The above adjusted probabilities were applied to the TUBA results for each scenario and summed to calculate the overall ‘likelihood-weighted’ impacts due to route restrictions / closures. This included carbon, economic efficiency and indirect tax.

Traffic disruption impacts due to scheme works have been assessed for Avon Fixed Bridge, which is consistent with the calculation of scheme benefits focussing on this key structure. These have been calculated using TUBA results (as referred to above) to identify carbon, economic efficiency and indirect tax impacts based on Avon Fixed Bridge operation reduced to one lane per direction for 60% of the time for 38 weeks during FY 17/18, in accordance with the works programme.

Accident benefits have been monetised using TAG values applied to predicted reductions in accident rates due to scheme implementation. Expected reductions in accident rates were based on a review of historic accident data taking into account vehicle type, cause and severity.

Forecast annual savings in street lighting operating costs have been identified based on more efficient running costs after replacement. 8

15% annual inflation has been applied to scheme costs incurred in second and third years of implementation, as a conservative assumption. 44% optimism bias has been included as a conservative assumption. Scheme costs are summarised as follows:

Public Accounts (£'000)

Investment costs 39,080 Operating costs (street lighting) - 223

Broad Transport Budget 38,857 Wider Public Finances 30,116

2010 values and prices

The cost benefit analysis is summarised as follows:

Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (£'000)

Greenhouse Gases 10,511 Accidents 1,135 Economic Efficiency 1,291,898 Wider Public Finances - 30,116

Present Value of Benefits 1,273,428 Present Value of Costs 38,857

Net Present Value (NPV) 1,234,571 Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 32.8

2010 values and prices

The scheme represents very high value for money with a BCR of 32.8.

Length of scheme (km) 10.6km Number of vehicles on Please see Appendix G for summary of vehicles movements affected section (AADT in within Cumberland Basin complex but in simple summary counts vehicles and if possible split are 30,334 (Brunel Way south of Jessops Underpass, 7 day 24hr by vehicle type) – to include ATC data January 2012 with seasonal adjustment to AADT) details of data (age etc.) supporting this estimate. d) Other VfM information where relevant - depending on type of scheme bid: Details of required restrictions/closures if An annual programme of planned restrictions funding not provided (e.g. type of restrictions; and potential weight restrictions would be timing/duration of restrictions; etc.) required to replace bearings, waterproofing and expansion joints but this would be in the

9

context of managed decline. In the event of a serious failure occurring this would result in permanent weight restriction, lane or route closures until such time that funds are available for necessary repairs. Length of any diversion route, if closure is The length of diversion route would vary from required (over and above existing route) (km) between 5-20km depending on where diversion trigger points are set. It is likely that a number of diversion routes would be introduced on the basis of local diversions and strategic diversions from primary route nodes out of the city. Regularity/duration of closures due to flooding: There were three instances of the A4 being (e.g. number of closures per year; average temporarily close due to high tides coupled length of closure (hrs); etc.) with tidal surges in 2014. This resulted in short term closures and diversions. Number and severity of accidents: both for the Based on latest 5 yr accidents (1/11/2009 to do minimum and the forecast impact of the 31/10/2014); scheme (e.g. existing number of accidents DM Total Accidents/yr = 17.4; and/or accident rate; forecast number of DM Slight accidents/yr =16.2; accidents and or accident rate with and without DM serious accidents/yr =1.2; the scheme) DM fatal accidents/yr = 0; DS total accidents/yr = 15.2; DS slight accidents/yr = 14.1; DS serious accidents/yr = 1.1; DS fatal accidents/yr = 0.

The accident data is also presented in the

Value for Money pro-forma in Appendix K. Number of existing cyclists; forecasts of Some reallocation of road space to provide cycling usage with and without the scheme enhanced cycle facilities may result in (and if available length of journey) increased usage.

B7. The Commercial Case (maximum 300 words)

This scheme will be procured through the new Public Contracts Regulations 2015 which are due to come into effect in late summer 2015. These new regulations emphasize the need for early engagement with the supply chain in order to obtain best value from the marketplace. Bristol City Council is therefore proposing to use Section 29 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 which will be a competitive process with negotiations. Adopting this process will drive innovation and reduce risk for both Bristol City Council, the main contractor and through into the supply chain which in turn will facilitate a timely start on site, higher degree of cost certainty and fair disruption of risk between the Council and the main contractor.

Bristol City Council is already working in accordance with HMEP guidance to understand clearly the new thinking of the Public Contracts Regulations to ensure we have the necessary skills and processes in place to deliver this planned programme of works.

B8. Management Case - Delivery (maximum 300 words – for b)

10

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. 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

Please see Appendix H 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.

Bristol City Council has extensive experience of delivering DfT and Government funded major infrastructure projects and programmes; Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF WEST) – a joint programme with West of England partners to deliver a package of measures and initiatives aimed at promoting sustainable travel across the West of England area; Cycle Ambition Fund – the construction of improved cycling infrastructure at two key locations on the local transport network as well as wider package or other supporting measures; Better By Bus Area/Greater Bristol Bus Network – a major package of infrastructure measures involving the construction of bus priority measures on several radial routes into Bristol; Cycle City – investment in the construction and infrastructure improvements on several strategic cycle routes linking Bristol and South Gloucestershire; Pothole Fund/Severe Weather funding – delivery of a package of road maintenance works.

These projects have involved working in partnership with a wide range of stakeholders and have involved complex joint procurements, management of both change and risk. This scheme will draw on these experiences to manage this project successfully, within budget and deliver quality outcomes for residents, business and visitors to the area.

A critical lesson learned from previous projects is the importance of project governance to maintain project direction, decision making and allocation of appropriate resources. The project governance detailed in section B9 will ensure this is delivered e.g. early appointment of Project and Assistant Project Manager.

A stakeholder communications plan that involves early stakeholder consultation and involvement is a key element in ensuring community and user benefits are maximised and disruption impacts minimised. We will utilise the experience Bristol City Council has through the Local Sustainable Transport Fund work to engage with businesses and stakeholders.

B9. Management Case – Governance (maximum 300 words)

A Project Board will be formed, and meet monthly, to ensure the successful delivery this project within programme, to cost and quality and will comprise the following people;

Project Board Role Name Job Title 11

Project Executive Gareth Vaughan-Williams Service Manager Highways Senior Responsible Officer Peter Mann Service Director Transport Senior User John Roy Group Manager Transport Assets Senior Supplier Shaun Taylor Highway Maintenance Group Manager Project Manager To be appointed Assistant Project Manager To be appointed

Peter Mann as Senior Responsible Officer, will be responsible for providing the overall direction and be accountable for the success of the project. Gareth Vaughan-Williams will be the Project Executive who will be responsible for the Business Case. There will be a project manager appointed specifically to manage this project, who in turn will be supported by a dedicated assistant project manager.

The Project Manager, in partnership with the Project Team, comprising staff from our existing Structures, Legal and Procurement Teams will be responsible for the design and delivery programme, stakeholder engagement, cost management, Construction Design and Management responsibilities and project monitoring.

Political governance will be provided through regular briefings to Mayor or Assistant Mayor for Place Directorate as appropriate. The Senior User will ensure that appropriate political governance and oversight is provided. In addition scrutiny will be provided thought the West of England Partnership Heads of Transport monthly meetings as appropriate.

Please see Appendix I which sets out these roles and responsibilities.

The project will be run using the PRINCE 2 based project management systems employed by Bristol City Council.

B10. Management Case - Risk Management

Has a risk register been appended to your bid? Yes No

Please see Appendix J.

Section C – Monitoring, Evaluation and Benefits Realisation

C1. Benefits Realisation (maximum 250 words)

The benefits from the scheme will be: 1. Reduction of future maintenance liability for Bristol City Council resulting in reduced revenue and capital costs for the future management of the network of 15 bridges and viaducts in the Cumberland Basin complex; 2. Reduced insurance claims, vehicle operation costs, journey time delay costs and reduction in accidents for business and industry; 3. Reduced vehicle operation costs, journey time delay costs and reduction in accidents for business and industry; 4. Reduced delays to Public Transport operators; 5. Improved air quality resulting from improved traffic flow and reduced traffic disruption. 12

C2. Monitoring and Evaluation (maximum 250 words)

A proportional approach to monitoring and evaluation of the outcomes of the scheme will be undertaken in order to evidence the benefits outlined in section C1 above. A range of baseline data will be collected prior to commencement of the scheme. The following quantifiable outcomes will be monitored; 1. HMEP life cycle modelling will be carried out using survey information and built into Bristol City Council’s life asset management plans. Through this Bristol City Council will be able to compare service life of materials and technologies uses 2. Financial investment will be demonstrated by monitoring future interventions against the modelled asset management plan and reported to Government through Whole Government Accounts process; 3. Journey time reliability will be monitored through before and after surveys; 4. Service life compared to advertised design life of materials and technologies used; 5. Accidents and claims monitoring of events. 6. Air quality.

Section D: Declarations

D1. Senior Responsible Owner Declaration As Senior Responsible Owner for Cumberland Basin maintenance and repair of 15 existing bridges and viaducts on the A370, A3029 and A4. I hereby submit this request for approval to DfT on behalf of Bristol City Council and confirm that I have the necessary authority to do so.

I confirm that Bristol City Council will have all the necessary powers in place to ensure the planned timescales in the application can be realised. Name: Signed: Peter Mann Position: Service Director, Transport Service

D2. Section 151 Officer Declaration As Section 151 Officer for Bristol City Council I declare that the scheme cost estimates quoted in this bid are accurate to the best of my knowledge and that Bristol City Council

- has allocated sufficient budget to deliver this scheme on the basis of its proposed funding contribution - will allocate sufficient staff and other necessary resources to deliver this scheme on time and on budget - accepts responsibility for meeting any costs over and above the DfT contribution requested, including potential cost overruns and the underwriting of any funding contributions expected from third parties - accepts responsibility for meeting any ongoing revenue requirements in relation to the scheme - accepts that no further increase in DfT funding will be considered beyond the maximum 13

contribution requested - has the necessary governance / assurance arrangements in place - has identified a procurement strategy that is legally compliant and is likely to achieve the best value for money outcome - will ensure that a robust and effective stakeholder and communications plan is put in place

Name: Signed: Peter Gillett, Service Director Finance

Submission of bids:

The deadline for bid submission is 5pm, 9 February 2015

An electronic copy only of the bid including any supporting material should be submitted to: [email protected] copying in [email protected]

14

Appendices

Appendix A - Location plan Back to section A3

Location plan http://www.bristol.gov.uk/doc/appendix- cumberland-basin-location-plan

Appendix B - Equality Analysis Back to section A5

Equalities relevance check http://www.bristol.gov.uk/doc/appendix-b- equalities-relevance-check

Appendix C - Maintenance History Back to section B2

Maintenance History and Condition – http://www.bristol.gov.uk/doc/appendix-c- Executive Summary maintenance-history

Appendix D - Areas of benefit map Back to section B2

Areas of benefit map http://www.bristol.gov.uk/doc/appendix-d-areas- benefit-map

Appendix E - Costs Back to section B3

Costs http://www.bristol.gov.uk/doc/appendix-e-project- costs

Appendix F - Letters of support Back to section B4

West of England Local Enterprise http://www.bristol.gov.uk/doc/appendix-f-letters- Partnership support-business-west Business West http://www.bristol.gov.uk/doc/appendix-f-letters- support-woe-lep

15

Appendix G - Traffic Count Data Back to section B6/c

Cumberland basin - Traffic Count Data http://www.bristol.gov.uk/doc/appendix-g-traffic- count-data

Appendix H - Programme Back to section B8

Cumberland Basin – Programme of Works http://www.bristol.gov.uk/doc/appendix-h- programme-works

Appendix I - Organogram Back to section B9

Cumberland Basin Project Governance http://www.bristol.gov.uk/doc/appendix-i-project- Structure chart (Organogram) governance-organogram

Appendix J - Risk register Back to section B10

Cumberland Basin - Risk Assessment http://www.bristol.gov.uk/doc/appendix-j-risk- assessment

Appendix K – Value for Money Pro-Forma Back to section B6/d

Cumberland Basin - VFM pro-forma http://www.bristol.gov.uk/doc/appendix-k-vfm- proforma

16