Liverpool City Region Roads to Productivity National Productivity Investment Fund Bid 2018-20 Liverpool City Region Roads to Productivity Contents Page

LIVERPOOL CITY REGION ROADS TO PRODUCTIVITY NATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY INVESTMENT FUND BID 2018-20 LIVERPOOL CITY REGION ROADS TO PRODUCTIVITY CONTENTS PAGE

 PAGE 3/ 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – STEVE ROTHERHAM LIVERPOOL CITY REGION MAYOR

 PAGE 5 LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP SUPPORTING LETTER

 PAGE 6 COMBINED AUTHORITY PRIORITISATION LIST

 PAGE 7 LIVERPOOL CITY REGION MAP

 PAGE 8 – 41 A59 – LIVERPOOL CITY GATEWAY NPIF BID

 PAGE 42 – 76 A554 - TOWER ROAD CIVILISED STREET SCHEME NPIF BID

 PAGE 77 – 81 LETTERS OF SUPPORT ROADS TO PRODUCTIVITY – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY National Productivity Investment Fund for the Local Road Network Submission of bid by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority

Dear Haydn,

The Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (LCRCA) of Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, Sefton, St Helens and Wirral working in partnership with Merseytravel is proud to present our ROADS TO PRODUCTIVITY submission.

All of the Liverpool City Region (LCR) partners are committed to working together to prioritise and bring forth growth and job creating projects across the City Region. The LCR economy has grown significantly in recent years and is well positioned to capitalise on the strengthening UK economy, locally the economy is worth £23.1bn. Given its unique assets, such as its strategically located port, strong visitor economy and its globally renowned cultural heritage, the potential for strong growth over the next decade is significant.

As an enabler of growth, transport and in particular a well maintained, functioning highway network will be key to unlocking any potential growth. Therefore, the improvements set out in the attached bid indicate how we plan to invest in transport and specifically, in the highway network to ease urban congestion, support economic growth and housing.

Our bid is valued at £8,000,000 with £5,600,000 being sought from NPIF with £2,400,000 being secured from City Region contributions. The details of the schemes being supported through the LCR bid are set out below:-

A59 Liverpool City Gateway

The improvements include three upgraded crossings, a toucan crossing and 2 pedestrian crossings, bus priority at 3 junctions, 2km resurfacing

Steve Rotheram Metro Mayor Liverpool City Region Mann Island, PO Box 1976, Liverpool, L69 3HN 3 of the carriageway, improved interchange between bus and rail and upgrades to 6 junctions on the mainline. This route links to the Port of Liverpool, Liverpool Waters and Housing developments to the motorway system. The resulting BCR is 2.4 indicating high value for money.

A554 Tower Road Civilised Street Scheme

The scheme consists of major public realm improvements to the A554 Tower Road with the provision of wider pavements to provide high quality facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, shared surface areas and reduced carriageway widths to reduce traffic speeds, which will benefit road safety and the experience for road users. The resulting BCR is 4.99 indicating high value for money.

The Combined Authority is recommending that the above Roads to Productivity schemes are funded from the National Productivity Investment Fund. They demonstrate the LCR’s priorities for supporting the transport network by enhancing access to jobs to local services and supporting housing developments across the city region. The schemes are listed below in priority order, based on data led prioritisation process undertaken by the LCRCA. A copy of the prioritisation form is provided in this document.

All bids will be published on the Merseytravel website at - http://www.merseytravel.gov.uk/about-us/local-transport- delivery/Pages/National-Productivity-Investment-Fund.aspx

Yours sincerely

Steve Rotheram Metro Mayor, Liverpool City Region

Steve Rotheram Metro Mayor Liverpool City Region Mann Island, PO Box 1976, Liverpool, L69 3HN 4 5 6 7 LIVERPOOL CITY REGION ROADS TO PRODUCTIVITY NATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY INVESTMENT FUND BID 2018-20

A59 LIVERPOOL CITY GATEWAY

8 9 National Productivity Investment Fund for the Local Road Network Application Form

The level of information provided should be proportionate to the size and complexity of the project proposed. As a guide, for a small project we would suggest around 10 -15 pages including annexes would be appropriate.

One application form should be completed per project and will constitute a bid. Applicant Information

Local authority name(s)*: Liverpool City Council/ Merseytravel *If the bid is for a joint project, please enter the names of all participating local authorities and specify the lead authority.

Bid Manager Name and position: John Davies, Assistant Highways Manager

Name and position of officer with day to day responsibility for delivering the proposed project.

Contact telephone number:0151 233 0281 Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: Liverpool City Council, Cunard Building. Water Street. Liverpool L3 1AH

Combined Authorities If the bid is from an authority within a Combined Authority, please specify the contact, ensure that the Combined Authority has provided a note ranking multiple applications, and append a copy to this bid.

Name and position of Combined Authority Bid Co-ordinator: Frank Rogers, Merseytravel Chief Executive and Director General

Contact telephone number: 0151 330 1040 Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: Merseytravel No. 1 Mann Island Liverpool L3 1BP

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: Merseytravel.gov.uk/fundingapplications

10 SECTION A - Project description and funding profile

A1. Project name: A59 Liverpool City Gateway

A2 : Please enter a brief description of the proposed project (no more than 50 words) Improvements to the corridor will create a gateway to the City Centre. The improvements include three upgraded crossings, a toucan crossing and 2 pedestrian crossings, bus priority at 3 junctions, 2km resurfacing of the carriageway, improved interchange between bus and rail, and upgrades to junctions on the mainline and one nearby junction. The resulting BCR is 2.4 indicating high value for money.

A3 : Please provide a short description of area covered by the bid (no more than 50 words) The scheme includes improvements to the A59 carriageway between the Great Mersey Street and Queens Drive junctions, and improvements at, between, and nearby junctions with Everton Valley, Kirkdale Vale, Barlow Lane/Spellow Lane, Harlech Street/ Andrew Street, Hale Road, Queens Drive, Orrell lane (including Moss Lane) and The Black Bull (Longmoor Lane). This route links to the Port of Liverpool, Liverpool Waters and Housing developments to the motorway system. OS Grid Reference: SJ 35863 94971 Postcode: L9 1BN

A4. How much funding are you bidding for? (please tick the relevant box):

Small project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £2m and £5m)

Large project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £5m and £10m)

A5. Has any Equality Analysis been undertaken in line with the Equality Duty? Yes No

A6. If you are planning to work with partnership bodies on this project (such as Development Corporations, National Parks Authorities, private sector bodies and transport operators) please include a short description below of how they will be involved.

Liverpool City Council/ Merseytravel: Overall project management (both) and specification of bus stop infrastructure and public transport affected by the scheme (Merseytravel); Civil Engineering Consultant: Detail Design, Tender preparation and site supervision including CDM duties. Bus Alliance/Stagecoach and Arriva Bus Operators: Provision of pertinent bus data. Appointed Contractor: Construction work.

A7. Combined Authority (CA) Involvement

Have you appended a letter from the Combined Authority supporting this bid? Yes No

A8. Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Involvement and support for housing delivery

Have you appended a letter from the LEP supporting this bid? Yes No

For proposed projects which encourage the delivery of housing, have you appended supporting evidence from the housebuilder/developer? Yes No

11 SECTION B – The Business Case

B1: Project Summary

Please select what the project is trying to achieve (select all categories that apply)

Essential Ease urban congestion Unlock economic growth and job creation opportunities Enable the delivery of housing development

Desirable Improve Air Quality and /or Reduce CO2 emissions Incentivising skills and apprentices

Other(s), Please specify – o Reduce journey time and improving safety for public transport users; o Support journeys made to employment by sustainable modes, particularly by bus, bike, and on foot; o Reduce conflict between commuters and HGV traffic; o Reduce noise pollution; o Improve public health by encouraging the uptake of active journeys; o Improve interchange between bus and rail.

B2 : Please provide evidence on the following questions (max 100 words for each question): a) What is the problem that is being addressed?

The proposed scheme addresses severe congestion along this busy section of the A59 corridor. During peak times vehicles speeds are typically slower than pedestrians (circa 3 mph from Spellow Lane to the Black Bull area). Merseytravel Real Time Information (RTI) data demonstrates that 86.76% of all journeys along this corridor are delayed due to congestion and the average journey time delay is 4 minutes, 6 seconds The congestion contributes to the poor air quality in the City Centre and data from air quality monitors along this corridor suggests higher reading of NOx than in other areas of the city. The area also has problems with traffic accidents, air quality, and poor facilities for pedestrians and cyclists and drainage. b) What options have been considered and why have alternatives been rejected?

Do Nothing – this was discounted as the highway assets would continue to deteriorate and congestion will increase based on stress tests results for future years, 2020 and 2030. Do Minimum – this will be filling pot holes and surface dressing. This will last around 2 years then will require more roadworks causing delays. This will not prevent the further deterioration, and congestion will not be reduced. If additional funding is directed to this route from existing budgets it will be to the detriment of other projects. c) What are the expected benefits/outcomes? For example, could include easing urban congestion, job creation, enabling a number of new dwellings, facilitating increased GVA.

Expected benefits of the proposed investment include reduced congestion, improved road safety, and improved journey experience for existing public transport users, pedestrians and cyclists, as well as to encourage the uptake of these modes. Other benefits include a reduction in carbon emissions, increased access to employment and other opportunities by nearby

12 communities (including areas of high deprivation), and an improvement to public health. By linking to adjacent schemes, the A59 Package is expected to unlock economic growth by improving the viability for investors to develop in nearby areas which would lead to job creation. The bus priority measures that form part of the scheme will increase reliability of bus journeys. d) Are there are any related activities that the success of this project relies upon? For example, land acquisition, other transport interventions requiring separate funding or consents?

There are no permissions or third party land acquisition required as part of the scheme. e) What will happen if funding for this project is not secured - would an alternative (lower cost) solution be implemented (if yes, please describe this alternative and how it differs from the proposed project)?

The costs of continued maintenance on the road and ongoing traffic delays will have a negative impact on economic growth in this area. The road has been flooded 4 times 2012-2015 and had to be closed, and the diversion route is 3.4km. Furthermore, poor provision for pedestrians and cyclists limits the potential uptake of these modes. Ongoing reliability issues with public transport makes buses a less desirable option for potential users, which is detrimental to the achievement of objectives of the Bus Strategy to grow patronage. As the A59 Package scheme links to two other bus schemes in the vicinity, failure to deliver this scheme will lessen the potential benefits created by delivering those schemes. f) What is the impact of the project – and any associated mitigation works – on any statutory environmental constraints? For example, Local Air Quality Management Zones. There will be a reduction in accidents as junctions will be improved. There will be improved bus punctuality on services 21, 22, 23, 310, 345, 821 and 892 from improved and more consistent journey times. With faster journey times air quality will improve. The scheme is inside Liverpool City Centre Air Quality Management Zone.

B3 : Please complete the following table. Figures should be entered in £000s (i.e. £10,000 = 10).

Table A: Funding profile (Nominal terms) £000s 2018-19 2019-20

DfT funding sought 3500

Local Authority contribution 1500

Third Party contribution 0

TOTAL 5000 Notes: 1) Department for Transport funding must not go beyond 2019-20 financial year. 2) Bidders are asked to consider making a local contribution to the total cost. It is indicated that this might be around 30%, although this is not mandatory.

13 B4 : Local Contribution & Third Party Funding : Please provide information on the following questions (max 100 words on items a and b): a) Provide an outline of all non-DfT funding contributions to the project costs, the level of commitment, and when the contributions will become available.

The Liverpool City Council £1.5m contribution will come from the Council’s transport capital programme and is available immediately after scheme approval. b) List any other funding applications you have made for this project or variants thereof and the outcome of these applications, including any reasons for rejection.

There has been bid for a complementary scheme on this route within the Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund. Though that scheme is also on the A59 in the Wirral and Sefton, the outcome is not yet known.

B5 Economic Case This section should set out the range of impacts – both beneficial and adverse – of the project. The scope of information requested (and in the supporting annexes) will vary, including according to whether the application is for a small or large project.

A) Requirements for small project bids (i.e. DfT contribution of less than £5m) a) Please provide a description of your assessment of the impact of the project to include:

- Significant positive and negative impacts (quantified where possible) including in relation to air quality and CO₂ emissions. - A description of the key risks and uncertainties; - If any modelling has been used to forecast the impact of the project please set out the methods used to determine that it is fit for purpose * Small projects bids are not required to produce a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) but may want to include this here if available.

Overview The A59 corridor scheme includes a number of elements: junction improvements, improvements to pedestrian and cycling facilities, bus priority works, and carriageway reconstruction works. An appraisal of the carriageway reconstruction element of the scheme was completed using the Highways Maintenance Analysis Tool (HMAT) (source- gov.uk/government/publications/local-highways-maintenance-economic-costs-and-benefits- tool). The HMAT tool provides an assessment of the costs, benefits, and dis-benefits associated with carriageway works.

To calculate a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR), two HMAT model runs were completed and compared: firstly for the proposed preferred scheme and secondly for a ‘do minimum’ scenario where only a background level of improvement is made to the carriageway. Both scenarios consider a 2.24km stretch of the A59 from its roundabout at Queens Drive in the north to a point near the A59 Smith Street bus stop to the south. The analysis considers the outcomes of works over a 30 year period from 2017 to 2046.

For the do minimum scenario a base level of resurfacing activity was assumed to be undertaken annually in each year of the study period. Due to an absence of pertinent data for Liverpool City Council, resurfacing rates, budget, and costs for base level resurfacing were used from a

14 comparable local authority. Liverpool City Council does not currently have any explicit plans to undertake resurfacing of the A59 carriageway.

For the analysis of the proposed scheme, the budget allocated to the carriageway reconstruction element of the A59 corridor scheme is £3.25m. All reconstruction was assumed to take place in 2018 and 2019, with the works and subsequent costs spread equally between these two years. In all other years of the study period, a base level of resurfacing was assumed (as in the do minimum scenario). A carriageway reconstruction rate was used from a comparable local authority as this figure was not available for Liverpool City Council. Table 1 shows a summary of parameters used in each of the two scenarios considered.

Table 1. Assumptions used for the two HMAT scenarios considered DO MINIMUM (RESURFACING) PREFERRED A59 CORRIDOR SCHEME SCENARIO (RECONSTRUCTION) SCENARIO 2018/19 Budget 10,000 1,625,000 (£ per annum) Resurfacing rate 1,200 88.5 (sq. m per hr) Cost 4.06 108.42 (£ per sq. m) The HMAT requires information on the carriageway type, width and length under consideration within any proposal. Given that these factors vary along the stretch of carriageway covered by the scheme, the carriageway was broken up into four segments for the purpose of the analysis, summarised in Table 2.

Table 2. A59 road segments used in the HMAT appraisal. CARRIAGEWAY SEGMENT DETAILS

Southern end of roadworks - 5 Length: 200m Walton Road Width (max): 23m Type: A-Road Urban Dual Condition: 63% Poor (rest split equally between Very Good, Good and Fair)1 5 Walton Road - Luton Grove Length: 570m Junction Width (max): 11m Type: A-Road Urban Single Condition: 63% Poor (rest split equally between Very Good, Good and Fair)1 Luton Grove Junction - 229 Length: 1270m County Road Width (max): 13m Type: A-Road Urban Single Condition: 62% Poor (rest split equally between Very Good, Good and Fair)1 229 County Road - Queens Length: 200m Drive Roundabout Width (max): 15m Type: A-Road Urban Single Condition: 61% Poor (rest split equally between Very Good, Good and Fair)1 1 Road condition based on 2015 condition surveys, supplied to SYSTRA on email sent by client on 03 May 2017

To calculate the benefits of the proposed schemes, HMAT requires information on current traffic conditions, estimates of traffic growth over the study period, and annual traffic accident rates. DfT traffic count data used was collected on the A59 south of the Queens Drive junction, (source: dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/area.php?region=Merseyside&la=Liverpool) as well as traffic

15 growth forecasts for North West England published March 2015 (source: gov.uk/government/publications/road-traffic-forecasts-2015, CP 56139). Traffic growth rates used were for the North West principal roads. Rates were only available until 2040 and, as such, the annual growth rates of years 2041 to 2046 was assumed to be the same as 2040. Annual accident rates were taken from Crash Map UK (source- www.crashmap.co.uk/) averaged over 5 years (2011-2016).

Appraisal Outcomes The greatest expected benefits of the scheme include a £9.7m reduction in Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC), £1.2m generated in Gross Value Added (GVA) including the creation of 22 jobs, and £1.3m saved in Value of Time (VOT) after the works are complete. Dis-benefits of the scheme are all associated with roadworks. The largest dis-benefit is a reduction in road users travel time due to road works costing an expected £61. This results in a net VOT saving of £1.2m. The magnitude of costs associated with dis-benefits are small in comparison to the benefits in terms of money saved or generated through the scheme. Table 3 below summarises the expected monetised benefits and costs of the A59 carriageway reconstruction.

The scheme costs include a 15% uplift for Optimism Bias, and both costs and benefits were discounted to a base year of 2010.

Table 3. Net benefits of the proposed carriageway reconstruction compared to the do minimum scenario. SOURCE OF BENEFITS PRESENT VALUE OF BENEFITS

VOC after scheme completion £9,717,261

Value of time after scheme completion £1,275,323

Carbon (fuel) after scheme completion £53,663

Accidents during roadworks -£34,386

Carbon (fuel) during roadworks -£493

Value of time during roadworks -£60,668

Embodied Carbon -£52,100

GVA Impact £1,173,422

Benefit Cost Ratio The Present Value of Benefits of the proposed scheme is £12.1m and the Present Value of Costs is £3.5m, and the resulting BCR is 3.4 indicating high value for money for the reconstruction element of the scheme.

BCR considering the full scheme costs The analysis described above considers only the impact of the reconstruction element of the A59 carriageway, and does not include the costs or benefits of other elements of the scheme. The BCR was recalculated to account for full scheme costs (Present Value of Benefits/ Present Value of Costs for the whole scheme). The full-scheme BCR became 2.4 which still indicates a high value for money. Furthermore, it is expected that full-scheme BCR is a conservative value as it does not account for the benefits associated with the non-reconstruction elements of the proposed scheme. Other scheme benefits

16 In addition to carriageway reconstruction, £500k of the proposed investment has been assigned to a bus prioritisation scheme. The bus prioritisation element of the scheme aims to improve bus reliability and punctuality on services 21, 22, 23, 310, 345,821 and 892, which use the A59 in this area. There are over 4.3 million passenger journeys made on routes that travel through the area each year (bus operator data) and over 700 buses and coaches use the area each day. Merseytravel RTI data demonstrates that 87% of all journeys along this corridor are delayed due to congestion and the average journey time delay is 4 minutes 6 seconds; the proposed scheme is expected to alleviate these pressures. Furthermore, it is expected that fewer roadworks will be required in the subsequent 30 years and, as such, there will be a reduction to delays caused by roadworks over this time period.

Reducing traffic flows will reduce accidents and improve safety. It is anticipated that a faster and safer public transport service will encourage a modal shift by current non-public transport users.

Through the proposed improvements to cycling and walking facilities, the scheme is expected to improve access to housing, employment, and educational destinations by supporting travel by active modes. This, in turn, could improve access to jobs and facilities for those living in deprived communities; Liverpool is ranked 4th of the most deprived English Local Authorities and, within Liverpool, the two local wards, Everton and Anfield, are in the top 10% most deprived. Specifically, the scheme is expected to improve access to the nearby housing development at Norris Green where 698 new units are currently; to 21,000 jobs in the area including those at Netherton Industrial Estate and Sefton Business Park; and for 3,000 pupils at three nearby Primary Schools and two High Schools.

A 2015 count showed that 116 people were cycling on the A59, short of Liverpool’s target of a 10%. Access to existing business parks is currently insufficient for cyclists and pedestrians. Therefore improvements made through the scheme to cycling facilities could help meet Liverpool’s target of 10% journeys made by bike. Furthermore, by encouraging active travel and reducing the travel time of motorised vehicles, the scheme is expected to reduce carbon emissions and local pollution, with associated benefits to public health.

The scheme supports future economic development in the area, including the Liverpool Waters and Anfield Regeneration developments, by improving accessibility for HGVs, drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, and public transport users. This will enhance the area's ability to attract businesses, with an anticipated 24,000 jobs being created over a 5 year period (source - Local Growth Fund 3 Forward Planning: Strategic Investment Priorities).

Summary The full-scheme BCR of 2.4 reflects full scheme costs but does not account for all of the potential benefits. Benefits not included in the full-scheme BCR comprise health and air quality benefits associated with increased travel by active modes, improved access to employment and other opportunities for those living in deprived communities, and access to an anticipated 24,000 new jobs generated by nearby developments. As such, the full-scheme BCR of 2.4 offers a robust estimate which illustrates the high value for money of the proposed A59 corridor scheme.

Small project bidders should provide the following in annexes as supporting material:

Has a Project Impacts Pro Forma been appended? Yes No N/A

Has a description of data sources / forecasts been appended? Yes No N/A Has an Appraisal Summary Table been appended? Yes No N/A

17 Other material supporting your assessment of the project described in this section should be appended to the bid.

* This list is not necessarily exhaustive and it is the responsibility of bidders to provide sufficient information to demonstrate the analysis supporting the economic case is fit-for-purpose.

B) Additional requirements for large project bids (i.e. DfT contribution of more than £5m) b) Please provide a short description (max 500 words) of your assessment of the value for money of the project including your estimate of the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) to include:

- Significant monetised and non-monetised costs and benefits - Description of the key risks and uncertainties and the impact these have on the BCR; - Key assumptions including: appraisal period, forecast years, optimism bias applied; and - Description of the modelling approach used to forecast the impact of the project and the checks that have been undertaken to determine that it is fit-for-purpose. N/A c) Additionally detailed evidence supporting your assessment, including the completed Appraisal Summary Table, should be attached as annexes to this bid. A checklist of material to be submitted in support of large project bids has been provided.

Has an Appraisal Summary Table been appended? Yes No N/A

- Please append any additional supporting information (as set out in the Checklist). *It is the responsibility of bidders to provide sufficient information for DfT to undertake a full review of the analysis.

B6 Economic Case: For all bids the following questions relating to desirable criteria should be answered.

Please describe the air quality situation in the area where the project will be implemented by answering the three questions below. i) Has Defra’s national air quality assessment, as reported to the EU Commission, identified and/or projected an exceedance in the area where the project will be implemented?

Yes No ii) Is there one or more Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) in the area where the project will be implemented? AQMAs must have been declared on or before the 31 March 2017

Yes No iii) What is the project’s impact on local air quality?

Positive Neutral Negative

- Please supply further details: Traffic will move faster when the scheme is implemented reducing emissions. iv) Does the project promoter incentivise skills development through its supply chain? Yes No N/A - Please supply further details:

18 The tender documents include questions about apprenticeships and work placements

B7. Management Case - Delivery (Essential)

Deliverability is one of the essential criteria for this Fund and as such any bid should set out, with a limit of 100 words for each of a) to b), any necessary statutory procedures that are needed before it can be constructed. a) A project plan (typically summarised in Gantt chart form) with milestones should be included, covering the period from submission of the bid to project completion.

Has a project plan been appended to your bid? Yes No b) If delivery of the project is dependent on land acquisition, please include a letter from the respective land owner(s) to demonstrate that arrangements are in place to secure the land to enable the authority to meet its construction milestones.

Has a letter relating to land acquisition been appended? Yes No N/A c) Please provide in Table C summary details of your construction milestones (at least one but no more than 6) between start and completion of works:

Table C: Construction milestones

Estimated Date Start of works April 2018

Preliminaries April 2018 Design May 2018 Tender and award of contract June 2018 Opening date February 2019 Completion of works (if different) February 2019 d) Please list any major transport projects costing over £5m in the last 5 years which the authority has delivered, including details of whether these were completed to time and budget (and if not, whether there were any mitigating circumstances) Programme Value Time Key outputs delivered Delivered Delivered Name frame to time? to budget? Sustainable £41.4m 2015- • Over 26km of new or ON TRACK ON Transport capital 2021 improved cycle routes TRACK Enhancements delivered in years 1 and 2 Package • Journey time savings on (STEP) Liverpool City Corridor • Improved public realm for 30 business Merseyside £25m 2011- • Over 350 cycle parking YES YES LSTF capital 2015 spaces and introduced/upgraded revenue • Over 40km of new or improved cycle routes delivered • Over 100 cycle hire stations introduced

19 A580 East £10m 2015 - • Traffic signal upgrades YES YES Lancashire Capital 2018 • Road Reconstruction/ Road (2 resurfacing phases) Edge Lane £20m 2010/12 • 1.5kms of new and YES YES capital upgraded dual carriageway, • 3 new signalised junctions, the installation of pedestrian and cycle facilities Great Howard £8.5m 2015/2017 • Rebuilt Bridge YES ON Street Capital TRACK

B8. Management Case – Statutory Powers and Consents (Essential) a) Please list if applicable, each power / consent etc. already obtained, details of date acquired, challenge period (if applicable), date of expiry of powers and conditions attached to them. Any key dates should be referenced in your project plan. N/A b) Please list if applicable any outstanding statutory powers / consents etc. including the timetable for obtaining them. N/A

B9. Management Case – Governance (Essential)

Please name those who will be responsible for delivering the project, their roles (Project Manager, SRO etc.) and responsibilities, and how key decisions are/will be made. An organogram may be useful here.

Governance of the NPIF2 programme will follow the Liverpool City Council Strategic Transport Structure which has a strong track record of successful delivery. Liverpool City Council (LCC) has set up a clear and robust structure to provide accountability and an effectual decision making process for the management of externally funded schemes. Each scheme will have a designated project manager (also referred to as the Senior Responsible Officer) who will be an appropriately trained and experienced member of LCC staff. The figure below indicates the Management Delivery Structure adopted by LCC for Road Schemes.

Project assurance and approvals are the main responsibility of the Project Board supported by the Project Steering Group which will also ensure the quality of the work carried out. The scheme will be managed in line with the main programme and project plan and the Project Board will sign off each of these stages and provide authorisation to proceed to the following stage. An internal assurance plan has been introduced to ensure the project is objectively reviewed at key decision points. The aim of this process is to review the current phases of work to provide assurance that the project is on track and can progress successfully to the next stage. Reviews will be undertaken by a Review Team comprising LCC Officers independent of the development and delivery of the scheme.

20 The principal aim is to ensure that the project is on track and, if necessary, to identify potential measures to be addressed. The scheme will be project managed in line with the new Merseytravel project management guidelines and regular dashboard reporting will take place between the scheme promoters and Programme Management Office (PMO). This will track progress, key milestones, decisions, mitigation measures, and spend profiles. The programme has been scheduled for delivery over 6 months in two phases. On-site work on the scheme is due to commence in April 2018 with completion in February 2019. Over the contract period of delivery, in line with the new Merseytravel project management process, progress on the scheme will be reported every four weeks with formal reviews undertaken on a quarterly basis. The first review will take place immediately following award of the funding; followed by regular dashboard updates every four weeks with operational reviews every 12 weeks throughout the life of the programme. A final review of operational benefits will take place post implementation. The reviews will be undertaken by the Formal Review Panel, consisting of the Project Manager for Liverpool City Council and the Project Board. The Benefits Realisation Manager will feed into the Panel and provide updates on benefits forecast to be realised at relevant review stages. Key staff involved in scheme delivery and their roles are: Senior Responsible Officer: Andrew Barr (Divisional Manager, Highways & Transportation - LCC) Project Manager: John Davies (Assistant Highways Manager - LCC)

Figure 1: The Liverpool City Council Governance Structure

21 B10. Management Case - Risk Management (Essential)

All projects will be expected to undertake a Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) and a risk register should be included. Both should be proportionate to the nature and complexity of the project. A Risk Management Strategy should be developed that outlines how risks will be managed.

Please ensure that in the risk / QRA cost that you have not included any risks associated with ongoing operational costs and have used the P50 value.

Has a QRA been appended to your bid? Yes No

Has a Risk Management Strategy been appended to your bid? Yes No

Please provide evidence on the following points (where applicable) with a limit of 50 words for each: a) What risk allowance has been applied to the project cost?

The risk register includes a contingency item for construction risks of 10%. The construction estimates are based on rates that have been obtained through competitive tender for similar, if smaller, projects. An allowance for third party design, checking and supervision is also included in the overall bid costs. b) How will cost overruns be dealt with?

The two partners involved (Liverpool City Council and Merseytravel) will fund any costs over and above the values indicated in the funding profile shown in section B3 above. However, significant but appropriate risk sums included in the bid should cover all eventualities. c) What are the main risks to project timescales and what impact this will have on cost?

The project delivery timescales are based on experience gained from delivering projects of a similar nature. The costs are based on undertaking a large element of the resurfacing works overnight to minimise delay and disruption on the highway network. It is anticipated that the extent of night working will be reduced once the successful contractor has developed their programme and this will generate savings that could be offset against unforeseen events.

B11. Management Case - Stakeholder Management (Essential)

The bid should demonstrate that the key stakeholders and their interests have been identified and considered as appropriate. These could include other local authorities, the Highways England, statutory consultees, landowners, transport operators, local residents, utilities companies etc. This is particularly important in respect of any bids related to structures that may require support of Network Rail and, possibly, train operating company(ies). a) Please provide a summary in no more than 100 words of your strategy for managing stakeholders, with details of the key stakeholders together with a brief analysis of their influences and interests.

A stakeholder mapping exercise has allowed us to identify key stakeholders who provide valuable comments and input to the A59 package scheme. Through effective engagement, we

22 hope to obtain early buy-in to the A59 package scheme. Through early and frequent communication with stakeholders, where appropriate, we can ensure the aims, objectives and benefits of the A59 package scheme is shared and fully understood by all stakeholders Stakeholder Influences and Interests Peel Holdings and Peel Ports They are owners of the Port of Liverpool and would like congestion reduced on a route used to access it. Arriva/Stagecoach Bus They operate a number of bus services on scheme route and company are keen to improve journey times. Cycle and Walking Interest The groups would like less traffic and improved safety groups measures on the scheme route. Residents and Local They would like less congestion on route to enable better Businesses access by their customers and themselves. b) Can the project be considered as controversial in any way? Yes No If yes, please provide a brief summary in no more than 100 words c) Have there been any external campaigns either supporting or opposing the project?

Yes No

If yes, please provide a brief summary (in no more than 100 words) d) For large projects only please also provide a Stakeholder Analysis and append this to your application.

Has a Stakeholder Analysis been appended? Yes No N/A e) For large projects only please provide a Communications Plan with details of the level of engagement required (depending on their interests and influence), and a description of how and by what means they will be engaged with.

Has a Communications Plan been appended? Yes No N/A

B12. Management Case – Local MP support (Desirable) e) Does this proposal have the support of the local MP(s);

Name of MP(s) and Constituency 1 Dan Carden, Walton Yes No

B13. Management Case - Assurance (Essential)

We will require Section 151 Officer confirmation (Section D) that adequate assurance systems are in place.

Additionally, for large projects please provide evidence of an integrated assurance and approval plan. This should include details of planned health checks or gateway reviews.

23 n/a

SECTION C – Monitoring, Evaluation and Benefits Realisation

C2. Please set out, in no more than 100 words, how you plan to measure and report on the benefits of this project, alongside any other outcomes and impacts of the project.

There will be independent monitoring and evaluation. It is proposed to use data from traffic counts along Country Road and Walton Road. There is an anticipation that monitoring will be undertaken as part of any successful funding application to demonstrate journey time savings. In addition a post-completion consultative exercise by letter and leaflet drop will be undertaken once the scheme has been implemented.

A fuller evaluation for large projects may also be required depending on their size and type.

24 SECTION D: Declarations

D1. Senior Responsible Owner Declaration As Senior Responsible Owner for A59 Liverpool City Gateway I hereby submit this request for approval to DfT on behalf of Liverpool City Council and confirm that I have the necessary authority to do so.

I confirm that Liverpool City Council will have all the necessary statutory powers in place to ensure the planned timescales in the application can be realised. Name: Andy Barr Signed:

Position: (Divisional Manager, Highways & Transportation, Liverpool City Council

D2. Section 151 Officer Declaration As Section 151 Officer for [name of authority] I declare that the project cost estimates quoted in this bid are accurate to the best of my knowledge and that [name of authority]

- has allocated sufficient budget to deliver this project on the basis of its proposed funding contribution - accepts responsibility for meeting any costs over and above the DfT contribution requested, including potential cost overruns and the underwriting of any funding contributions expected from third parties - accepts responsibility for meeting any ongoing revenue requirements in relation to the project - accepts that no further increase in DfT funding will be considered beyond the maximum contribution requested and that no DfT funding will be provided for this bid in 2020/21. - confirms that the authority has the necessary governance / assurance arrangements in place and, for smaller project bids, the authority can provide, if required, evidence of a stakeholder analysis and communications plan in place - confirms that if required a procurement strategy for the project is in place, is legally compliant and is likely to achieve the best value for money outcome Name: Signed:

Becky Hellard

HAVE YOU INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING WITH YOUR BID?

Combined Authority multiple bid ranking note (if applicable) Yes No N/A Map showing location of the project and its wider context Yes No N/A Combined Authority support letter (if applicable) Yes No N/A LEP support letter (if applicable) Yes No N/A Housebuilder / developer evidence letter (if applicable) Yes No N/A Land acquisition letter (if applicable) Yes No N/A Projects impact pro forma (must be a separate MS Excel) Yes No N/A Appraisal summary table Yes No N/A Project plan/Gantt chart Yes No N/A

25 Scheme Impact Pro Forma for Small Project Bids - Please fill in the cells highlighted in yellow NPIF Year of assessment 2018

AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Inter-Peak Hr Annual Average Notes Scenario Input Data / Key Performance Indicators Unit Weekday Weekday Weekday Daily Flow Number of highway trips affected vehicles 18,532 1 Total vehicle travelled time vehicle-hours Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km 41,511 1 Do-Minimum Highway peak period conversion factor - Number of PT passenger trips on affected routes passenger trips 11,781 2 Total PT travelled time passenger-hrs PT peak period conversion factor - Number of highway trips affected vehicles 18,532 1 Total vehicle travelled time vehicle-hours Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km 41,511 1 Do-Something Highway peak period conversion factor - Number of PT passenger trips on affected routes passenger trips 11,781 2 Total PT travelled time passenger-hrs PT peak period conversion factor - Notes 1 Estimated from DfT AADF count data 2016 growthed using traffic growth rates contained within HMAT for North West Principal roads. Includes cycles. 2 Source bus operator data, year unnknown

26 A59 – description of data sources/ forecasts

Traffic growth forecasts for North West England published March 2015 (source: gov.uk/government/publications/road-traffic-forecasts-2015, CP 56139). Traffic growth rates used were for the North West principal roads. Rates were only available until 2040 and, as such, the annual growth rates of years 2041 to 2046 was assumed to be the same as 2040

Table 1 Traffic Growth Rates – annual growth %

2017- 2021- 2026- 2031- 2036- 2020 2025 2030 2035 2046 Cars and 1.48 1.39 1.30 1.32 1.27 bikes Motorbikes 1.48 1.39 1.30 1.32 1.27 Light vans 1.69 1.64 1.59 1.52 1.49 Good 1.27 1.14 1.22 1.18 1.15 Vehicles Buses and 0.00 -1.20 -1.19 -1.19 -1.18 Coaches

Annual accident rates were taken from Crash Map UK (source- www.crashmap.co.uk/) averaged over 5 years (2011-2016).

27 28 29 LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL AND MERSEYTRAVEL NPIF A59 PACKAGE FUND BID 2018-19

Annex 1: Risk Assessment and Management Strategy

Approach

1. The LCR partners have identified the risks associated with the management and delivery of the NPIF programme for 2018-2019 in the form of a risk register. The production of a risk register is an integral component of the standard project management procedures that are conducted by the LCR Combined Authority. 2. The NPIF A59 package Team will have day-to-day responsibility for managing the risks identified in the register and escalating any issues to the Transport Advisory Group (TAG). The risk register will be reviewed regularly throughout the delivery of the programme by the Project Team. During the procurement phase the holder (client or contractor) for any identified construction related risks will be clearly defined in the contract documentation. This established process has led to the successful delivery of a number of long-term transport programmes in the LCR, such as the Merseyside LSTF programme and Great Howard Street Bridge. 3. The Section 151 Officers of each of the LCR partners have confirmed that they support the proposals for NPIF A59 package programme for 2018-2019. The governance, finance and contract procedures set out in the Management and Commercial Cases provide a robust framework for delivery which give relevant officers the authority to action and allocate resources to mitigate any risks arising. 4. A risk workshop was undertaken with officers from each of the LCR partners in 19th May 2017 to identify programme wide governance, commercial and financial risks risks and mitigation measures associated with delivery of the schemes, and assess their likely impact in terms of both time and cost. The resulting risk register formed the basis of the Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) undertaken. 5. The full risk register and associated QRA outputs can be found at the end of this Annex. The risk register is broken down into three sections:

• Programme Governance Risks; • Financial & Commercial Risks; and • Scheme Delivery Risks. 6. The following sections summarise the main risks and proposed mitigation measures for each of these three types of risk.

Programme Governance Risks

30 7. At the programme governance level, the most significant risks to the successful delivery of NPIF A59 package are related to potential staffing issues. In particular, there is a risk that there is insufficient staff available for programme management and delivery, or that the structure of the responsible team needs to change midway through the delivery programme. 8. These risks will be mitigated internally by using a commissioning model and via the existing term contracts already in place in each area. This enables the LCR partners to ensure early contractor involvement following business case approval. This will ensure that progress can be made in terms of implementation as soon as possible within the 2018 financial year.

9. Thirdly, there is a risk that the use of the schemes is lower than expected, so that the benefits of the scheme we expect to achieve are not realised. Since this may have a knock-on effect on future funding applications, it is important to mitigate against this risk. Appropriate communications and promotional activities will be undertaken during scheme delivery and upon scheme completion to raise awareness, both locally and more widely, which will help to ensure that the anticipated level of benefits will be realised.

Financial & Commercial Risks 10. One of the key financial and commercial risks is that local contributions from funding partners cannot be secured. To mitigate against this risk, the Section 151 Officers from all partners have committed to underwrite any scheme costs over and above those sought from the NPIF, thus transferring the risk. 11. In terms of procurement, there is a risk that a procurement strategy for the scheme is not agreed on time, leading to delays to the programme and potential cost implications. This risk will be mitigated by early contractor involvement. Discussions are currently ongoing to establish parallel contracts for use by all LCR partners which may be used for procurement in 2018 onwards.

Scheme Delivery Risks

12. Scheme delivery risks were broken down and put into a risk register which informed the basis of the risk workshop that was undertaken with the LCR partners to identify any additional risks, determine the potential impact of each risk and to define appropriate mitigation measures for the scheme. The main risks are of partners/contractors performing poorly or becoming insolvent within the contract period, leading to significant delays and increased cost for the project. While this risk cannot be entirely avoided, it will be mitigated by following rigorous procurement mechanisms that check the partners/contractor’s credentials, history and insurance.

13. In terms of scheme delivery, one of the key risks is projects performing poorly, leading to significant delays and increased cost. This risk will be mitigated by

following rigorous mechanisms that check the existing performance of outputs and associated outcomes.

Overview

14. Table 1 summarises the risks that were ranked highest as part of the risk assessment exercise. All four risks have a low probability of occurring following mitigation; however if the risk were to occur the impact on the programme would still be at least medium or high.

Table 1: Key Programme Wide Risks

Key Risk Component Mitigation Measures Likelihood Impact (following (following mitigation) mitigation) Insufficient staff available for The project will be commissioned to Low £100,000 - programme management and deliver the necessary outputs to £1 million delivery. achieve our outcomes

Changes in the team Shared responsibility across a Low £100,000 - responsible for programme Programme Management Team with £1 million management and delivery; regular communication meetings with delays in appointment of new partners and information sharing as team members. appropriate. Failure to secure planned Section 151 Officer sign-off has been Low £150,000 - funding contributions from received from all partners to commit £2 million partners and key stakeholders. to underwriting scheme costs over and above those being sought from NPIF. Partners do not agree on a is proposing to commission the Low £150,000 - procurement strategy for the outputs to ensure that we deliver our £2 million project in time. outcomes

15. The full risk register, which includes details of the mitigation measures that will be employed to reduce the potential impact of programme-wide governance, commercial and financial risks, as well as scheme delivery risks, is included for reference below.

32 NPIF A59 Package Risk Register (2018-2019)

Risk Matrix: Project Risks (Governance, Financial & Commercial)

TOTAL VALUE: £4.55 MILLION

Time Impact Cost Impact Prob abilistic Assess ment

(Delay to end date) Minimum Most Likely Maximum

> 12 months > £2 million Very High 5 10 15 20 25 £2,000,000 £2,500,000 £3,000,000

6 months to 12 months £1m to £2m High 4 8 12 16 20 £1,000,000 £1,500,000 £2,000,000

3 months to 6 months £200k to £1m Medium 3 6 9 12 15 £200,000 £600,000 £1,000,000

1 month to 3 months £100,000 to £200,000 Low 2 4 6 8 10 £100,000 £150,000 £200,000

< 1 month < £ 100,000 Very Low 1 2 3 4 5 £0 £50,000 £100,000

Very Low Low Medium High Very High

0% 15% 35% 65% 85% 100% Probability

33 Risk Matrix: Delivery

TOTAL VALUE: 4.55m

Time Impact Cost Impact Proba bilistic Assess ment

(Delay to end date) Minimum Most Likely Maximum

> 12 months > £1.8 million Very High 5 10 15 20 25 £1,500,000 £2,000,000 £2,500,000

6 months to 12 months £1m to £1.8m High 4 8 12 16 20 £1,000,000 £1,400,000 £1,800,000

3 months to 6 months £500,000 to £1m Medium 3 6 9 12 15 £500,000 £750,000 £1,000,000

1 month to 3 months £100,000 to £500,000 Low 2 4 6 8 10 £100,000 £250,000 £500,000

< 1 month < £100,000 Very Low 1 2 3 4 5 £0 £50,000 £100,000

Very Low Low Medium High Very High

0% 15% 35% 65% 85% 100%

Probability Very Low Low Medium High Very High

34 NPIF FUND: Risk Register Probabilit y

Programme Governance Risks Risk Priority Ranking Risk Priority Ranking

PRE MITIGATION POST MITIGATION

Risk Risk Matrix Matrix Risk Type Project Risk Ref RISK EVENT Probability Impact MITIGATION MEASURES Probability Impact Priority Priority Ranking Ranking

Engagement with all Members and political parties to ensure Political Risk Change of local political administration. 20 Medium 5 understanding and level of 'buy-in' to the ambitions of the 10 Medium 4 strategy including approval at CA.

Changes in legislation increases costs of Schemes being developed by long term contracts where costs Legislative Risk 30 Low 5 10 Low 3 Political Environment development. are listed and agreed in advance.

Changes of national / local policy direction not Appraisal of proposal and approach has taken place for the 3 Policy Risk 20 Low 4 10 Low 3 involving legislation. years both at a local and national level.

35 NPIF FUND: Risk Register

Programme Governance Risks Risk Priority Ranking Risk Priority Ranking PRE MITIGATION POST MITIGATION

Risk Risk Matrix Matrix Risk Type Project Risk Ref RISK EVENT Probability Impact MITIGATION MEASURES Probability Impact Priority Priority Ranking Ranking

Commission the necessary resources at the outset of the Insufficient staff available for programme Staff Resource Risk 50 High 12 programme. Utilise experienced external resources to fill 30 Medium 7 management and delivery. gaps.

Commission the necessary parnters at the outset of the Available staff needs additional training to acquire Staff Training Risk 50 Medium 9 programme Share experiences and knowledge across LCR 25 Medium 6 the necessary expertise. amongst staff via overarching programme management.

Changes in the team responsible for programme Shared responsibility across a Programme Management Staff Continuity Risk management and delivery; delays in appointment 60 High 14 Team with regular communication meetings with partners and 30 Medium 7 Programme of new team members. information sharing as appropriate. Management Poor communication and co-ordination between Internal Regular progress meetings and communication and the programme management team and delivery 20 High 7 10 Medium 4 Communication Risk appropriate record keeping. partners. Early involvement of contractors via commission and External Poor communication and co-ordination with 20 High 7 frameworks and joint preparation of programmes for 10 Medium 4 Communication Risk contractors responsible for delivery. delivery.

The construction of the physical assets is not Regular progress meetings with contractors and project Construction completed on time and to specification by 40 Very high 13 management team at a local level to identify and mitigate 15 High 6 Programme Risk contractors. against any potential delays or risk to delivery.

36 NPIF FUND: Risk Register (2016/17)

Programme Governance Risks Risk Priority Ranking Risk Priority Ranking

PRE MITIGATION POST MITIGATION

Risk Risk Matrix Matrix Risk Type Project Risk Ref RISK EVENT Probability Impact MITIGATION MEASURES Probability Impact Priority Priority Ranking Ranking

Stakeholder Support Programme lacks support from key stakeholder Engagement and communication with key stakeholders as 30 Medium 7 10 Medium 4 Risk groups. programme develops.

Implement a comprehensive communications strategy to Community Support Programme lacks support from the general 20 Medium 5 ensure general public are kept informed as progress is made 10 Low 3 Community Risk public. on individual schemes. Engagement Consider anti-vandalism features as part of original scheme Repeated vandalism to infrastructure design. If occurrence does happen consider necessary Vandalism Risk investments, particular those with signage or on 25 Medium 6 5 Low 2 changes to design and learn lessons for future scheme street meaures for active mode users. delivery.

Undertake appropriate communications / promotional activity The use of the scheme is lower than expected, Benefits Realisation once schemes are complete and even look to identify suitable so that the expected benefits of the programme 35 High 10 20 Medium 5 members of the population with which to undertake this Risk are not realised. promotional activity. Benefits Realisation Consider most appropriate and effective methods of Benefits of the project are unevenly distributed Benefits Distribution engagement in the Communications Strategy. Target amongst different societal groups or benefits are 30 Medium 7 10 Medium 4 Risk appropriate activity at appropriate groups to maximise benefits not experienced amongst hard to reach groups. distribution.

37 NPIF FUND: Risk Register Financial & Commercial Risks Risk Priority Ranking Risk Priority Ranking PRE MITIGATION POST MITIGATION

Risk Risk Matrix Matrix Risk Type Project Risk Ref RISK EVENT Probability Impact MITIGATION MEASURES Probability Impact Priority Priority Ranking Ranking

Completion of funding bid and approval to appropriate Delay in award of funding, leading to delays timeline and submission of bid to ensure full approval by CA Funding Award Risk 30 Very high 12 10 Low 3 in the delivery programme. to required timeline.

Funding Failure to secure planned funding Section 151 Officer sign-off received from all partners to Local Contribution contributions from partners and key 40 High 11 commit to underwriting scheme costs over and above those 20 High 8 Risk stakeholders. being sought from NPIF budgets.

Actual inflation differs from assumed inflation Appropriate allowance for inflation given to each scheme at Inflation Risk 20 Medium 5 10 Medium 4 rates. the outset.

Costs Use of commissioning and long term existing framework Increase in scheme costs e.g. cost of agreements where costs are well established and known in Construction Cost Risk 30 High 9 10 Medium 4 materials and infrastructure. advance. Some contracts allow for Value Added Band to allow for increase in costs where necessary.

38 NPIF FUND Risk Registar Financial & Commercial Risks Risk Priority Ranking Risk Priority Ranking PRE MITIGATION POST MITIGATION

Risk Risk Matrix Matrix Risk Type Project Risk Ref RISK EVENT Probability Impact MITIGATION MEASURES Probability Impact Priority Priority Ranking Ranking

Introduce a commissioning model and make use of current Procurement Strategy Partners do not agree on a procurement contractual arrangements for all partners. Discussions 35 High 10 20 High 8 Risk strategy for the programme in time. ongoing to establish parallel contracts for use by all LCR partners. Existing contractors arrangements to be utilised wherever Procurement Process The procurement process is delayed. 40 High 11 possible. A commissioning model will reduce separate 15 High 6 Risk procurement processes. Procurement The chosen procurement strategy does not Early contractor involvement via existing framework Procurement Award result in the appointment of sufficient 20 Very High 9 arrangements will help to identify any risk at an early stage 10 Medium 4 Risk suitable contractors where appropriate mitigation can be put in place.

Use of a commissioning model and existing frameworks Procurement The award of contracts to contractors is 20 High 7 already operating and procured via the appropriate 10 High 5 Challenge Risk challenged. mechanisms, ensuring that any financial limits are adhered to.

39 NPIF FUND: Risk Register

Financial & Commercial Risks Risk Priority Ranking Risk Priority Ranking PRE MITIGATION POST MITIGATION

Risk Risk Matrix Matrix Risk Type Project Risk Ref RISK EVENT Probability Impact MITIGATION MEASURES Probability Impact Priority Priority Ranking Ranking

Failure to gain approval from Combined CA Spend Approval Review of business case by independent scrutiny to identify Authority to allocate funds to partners for 25 High 8 10 Low 3 Risk any gaps or areas where it is not sufficiently robust. delivery. Partner Spend Failure from partners to gain internal Member involvement at an early stage in each district by 25 High 8 10 Low 3 Approval Risk approval to spend funds for delivery. appropriate senior officers.

Payment Timescale Failure to pay suppliers according to contract Appropriate financial arrangements established as part of 25 High 8 10 Low 3 Risk specification. contract. Fund Management Supplier does not validate invoice claims Lead authority project management procedures will be in Invoicing Risk with substantiating evidence of works carried 30 Medium 7 10 Medium 4 place to ensure confirmation of evidence. out.

Existing mechanisms as part of existing contracts will Suppliers submit financial claims against the accommodate this. Section 151 officer signature as part of Claims Risk 25 High 8 25 Low 4 Authority agreement with CA will mean LA will cover any additional scheme costs.

40 NPIF FUND: Risk Register

Scheme Delivery Risk Risk Priority Ranking Risk Priority Ranking

PRE MITIGATION POST MITIGATION

Risk Risk Matrix Matrix Risk Type Project Risk Ref RISK EVENT Probability Impact MITIGATION MEASURES Probability Impact Priority Priority Ranking Ranking

Use of a commissioning model. Follow rigorous Poor performance by partners and / or contractors Provider Risk 30 High 9 procurement mechanisms including checks of contractor 15 High 6 become insolvent within the contract period. credentials, history and insurance. A commission would avoid any conflicts. Conflict with delivery arrangements between different Internal Interface Risk 20 Medium 5 10 Low 2 Access Fund schemes.

Conduct consultations with Highways Authority, District Councils Conflict with delivery arrangements for other schemes in and Combined Authority at an early stage. Programme the External Interface Risk 20 Medium 5 10 Low 2 the Region e.g. Major Schemes. delivery of interfacing schemes to minimise conflicts where possible. The nature of the schemes and the locations in which they will The implementation of schemes fails to adhere to the be sited will mean that it is unlikely that planning permission will terms of planning permission / detailed planning cannot be required. However, any potential planning permission Planning Risk 20 High 7 10 Medium 3 be obtained / can only be implemented at greater than requirements will be identified at the earliest possible stage, and budgeted costs. sufficient time will be allowed in the programme of works for obtaining permission.

At this stage, it is not thought that any of the scheme will be sited Scheme may be partially sited on third party land. on third party land. However, any potential land ownership issues 25 High 8 15 Low 3 Land Risk will be determined at the earliest possible stage and plans will be put in place accordingly.

No need for TROs. Scheme Delivery Any required Traffic Regulation Orders do not receive Regulation Risk 40 Medium 8 20 Medium 5 support and are not approved.

Key stakeholder groups have been consulted during the development of the programme and will be kept informed during Special Interest Local special interest groups oppose the scheme. 25 Medium 6 the scheme design and delivery process. Refer to the 10 Low 2 Groups Risk Stakeholder Management & Communications Strategy for more details.

Environmental assessment has been carried out during the development of the Business Case and no significant impacts have been identified. Where required, surveys will be Environmental risks e.g. failure to meet environmental Environmental Risk 20 High 7 undertaken at an early stage to provide sufficient time to alter 10 Low 2 legislation and risk of flooding. the scheme design or put mitigation measures in place. Plan environmentally sensitive works in advance of construction at an appropriate time of year.

Utilities surveys will be undertaken at an early stage in the design process in order that the design can be altered to avoid Utilities Risk Conflicts between scheme and underground utilities. 40 Very high 13 20 Medium 6 conflicts where possible. Regular coordination meetings with statutory undertakers. Check historical plans for potential physical and structural Unforeseen physical / structural issues where scheme issues. Conduct site survey works in advance of any Structural Risk 50 High 14 15 Medium 4 is to be delivered. construction. Design schemes in a manner that avoids known physical & structural issues.

41 LIVERPOOL CITY REGION ROADS TO PRODUCTIVITY NATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY INVESTMENT FUND BID 2018-20

A554 TOWER ROAD CIVILISED STREET SCHEME

42 43 44 45 46 National Productivity Investment Fund for the Local Road Network Application Form

One application form should be completed per project and will constitute a bid. Applicant Information

Local authority name(s)*: Wirral Borough Council *If the bid is for a joint project, please enter the names of all participating local authorities and specify the lead authority.

Bid Manager Name and position: Mark Smith, Strategic Commissioner - Environment

Name and position of officer with day to day responsibility for delivering the proposed project.

Contact telephone number: 0151 606 2103 Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: Mark Smith Wirral Council Wallasey Town Hall Brighton Street, Wallasey Wirral, CH44 8ED

Name and position of Combined Authority Bid Co-ordinator: Frank Rogers, Merseytravel, Chief Executive and Director General

Contact telephone number: 0151 330 1040 Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: Merseytravel No. 1 Mann Island Liverpool, L3 1BP

Please specify the weblink where this bid will be published: Merseytravel.gov.uk/fundingapplications

47 SECTION A - Project description and funding profile

A1. Project name: A554 Tower Road Civilised Street Scheme, Birkenhead

A2. Please enter a brief description of the proposed project (no more than 50 words)

A3. Please provide a short description of area covered by the bid (no more than 50 words)

The scheme covers a 0.5km length of the A554 Tower Road corridor from a point 25m north of its roundabout junction with Canning Street and Rendell Street in the south to the Wirral Docks ‘A’ Bridge in the north.

OS Grid Reference: SJ 32171 89878 Postcode: CH41 1FN

Please append a map showing the location (and route) of the project, existing transport infrastructure and other points of particular relevance to the bid, e.g. housing and other development sites, employment areas, air quality management areas, constraints etc.

Drawing Numbers VD15351-SK08 Rev B - Tower Road South Conceptual Layout Plan, VD15351-SK09 Rev B - Tower Road South General Layout Plan and VD15351-SK10 Location Plan are appended to this application form.

A4. How much funding are you bidding for? (please tick the relevant box):

Small project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £2m and £5m) 

Large project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £5m and £10m)

A5. Has any Equality Analysis been undertaken in line with the Equality Duty?  Yes No

The Equality Impact Assessment for the A554 Tower Road Civilised Street Scheme is appended to this application form.

48 o Peel Holdings – Joint design development to align with Wirral Waters Tower Road cluster development projects, including public realm design. o Wirral Waters Transport Steering Group (TSG) – The TSG Parties are responsible for co- ordinating the transport strategy underpinning the delivery of Wirral Waters. In respect of the A554 Tower Road Civilised Street Scheme, the TSG will advise on the delivery of this proposed intervention and it is envisaged that their ongoing input will be formalised through regular meetings during the design and construction programme. Stakeholders include Wirral Council, Local Enterprise Partnership, Merseytravel and Peel. o Public Transport Operators – Key stakeholder consultees. o Ro-Ro Terminal Operators (Stena Line) – Key stakeholder consultees.

A7. Combined Authority (CA) Involvement

Have you appended a letter from the Combined Authority supporting this bid?  Yes No

A letter from the Mayor of Liverpool on behalf of Merseytravel is appended to this application form.

A8. Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Involvement and support for housing delivery

Have you appended a letter from the LEP supporting this bid?  Yes No

A letter from the Liverpool Local Enterprise Partnership is appended to this application form.

For proposed projects which encourage the delivery of housing, have you appended supporting evidence from the housebuilder/developer?  Yes No

Supporting letters from Peel Holdings (lead developer for Wirral Waters) as well as the following organisations who are either occupiers in the Tower Road area or have an interest in the location where the scheme is proposed are appended to this application form: o Belong. o Liverpool John Moores University. o Stream Marine Training (SMT). o Wirral Metropolitan College.

49 SECTION B – The Business Case

B1: Project Summary

Please select what the project is trying to achieve (select all categories that apply)

Essential  Ease urban congestion  Unlock economic growth and job creation opportunities  Enable the delivery of housing development

Desirable  Improve Air Quality and /or Reduce CO2 emissions  Incentivising skills and apprentices

 Other(s), Please specify – o Improve road safety through the provision of shared surface areas, reduced carriageway widths to lower traffic speeds. o Minimise conflicts between motorised traffic, pedestrian and cyclist road users through the provision of wider footways and cycleways and shared surface areas to make crossing movements safer and easier. o Improve the public realm and placemaking potential of Tower Road. o Improve Health and Wellbeing through the uptake of active modes. o Future proof the area to support the Wirral Waters Vision through the reallocation of highway land to enable the provision of innovative transport infrastructure e.g. Wirral Waters Streetcar – a proposed new tramway where the first pilot phase will run between Woodside and Tower Road.

B2 : Please provide evidence on the following questions (max 100 words for each question): a) What is the problem that is being addressed?

The Tower Road corridor is vehicle dominated, has a poor safety record (especially for vulnerable road users), with a poor environment and image. The existing layout of Tower Road creates severance issues for the existing occupiers, including Wirral Metropolitan College and a large Contact Company. It is a hostile environment for pedestrians and cyclists which discourages the use of active travel modes. Pre-consultation has taken place within the Wirral Waters TSG and the Tower Road Place Making Group forums. Feedback from Wirral Metropolitan College, existing businesses, plus potential occupiers highlighted the poor image and environment. b) What options have been considered and why have alternatives been rejected?

Feedback from key stakeholders, including the Mersey Waters Enterprise Zone Board, has highlighted the problems and challenges associated with transport for progressing projects on Tower Road. The Civilised Street Scheme is considered essential to overcome the issues around vehicle domination, road safety and poor image and environment. Considerable thought has gone into potential options including more standard highway arrangements for pedestrians and cyclists. However, following consideration of more innovative approaches, such as at

50 Poynton, Cheshire, a decision was taken to pursue a more ambitious shared space concept for Tower Road to enhance the public realm and address severance issues. c) What are the expected benefits/outcomes? For example, could include easing urban congestion, job creation, enabling a number of new dwellings, facilitating increased GVA.

The scheme will provide high quality public realm and improve the area’s image to create the market confidence for investment, improving the viability of development. It will create the conditions for providing jobs, educational facilities, homes and increased visitor attractions. Through better management of traffic with lower speeds and provision of new crossing points, the scheme will reduce severance and benefit road safety. Completing quality pedestrian and cycle connections will increase their mode share, improve connectivity with other transport modes and to the surrounding areas. The scheme will therefore benefit social inclusion by facilitating access to employment and training. d) Are there are any related activities that the success of this project relies upon? For example, land acquisition, other transport interventions requiring separate funding or consents?

There are no planning permissions or land acquisition required to enable the delivery of this scheme as it is on the Key Route Network (KRN) and within the adopted highway boundary. The scheme will integrate with the current works being undertaken to replace the current Docks Bridges. The scheme directly connects to Tower Road Sustainable Transport Enhancements Programme (STEP) (2016/17), and the Northbank STEP shared footway and cycleway schemes (2017/18) along Dock Road to the north. It also directly connects to the proposed Dock Edge pedestrian and cycle facilities being progressed through the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) process. e) What will happen if funding for this project is not secured - would an alternative (lower cost) solution be implemented (if yes, please describe this alternative and how it differs from the proposed project)?

Without funding the Tower Road corridor will remain a vehicle dominated route, with safety issues and a poor environment and image. The subsequent implications could be that the delivery of regeneration development projects is challenging, and the timescales for associated growth and jobs creation is extended or predicted benefits are not realised. In the absence of a high quality streetscape, there would be a greater reliance on the private car to access new jobs and destinations, therefore making Tower Road less attractive for investment. f) What is the impact of the project – and any associated mitigation works – on any statutory environmental constraints? For example, Local Air Quality Management Zones.

There is a diffusion tube site located on Tower Road in the vicinity of the proposed scheme area. The monthly results for the monitoring of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) in 2016 show that the annual mean for NOX levels on Tower Road was 28ug/m3 within the maximum acceptable limit of 40ug/m3. The key benefits of the Civilised Street Scheme will be to lower vehicle speeds, reduce peak hour congestion and ease traffic flow, which will combine to further improve the air quality in the area.

51 B3 : Please complete the following table. Figures should be entered in £000s (i.e. £10,000 = 10).

Table A: Funding profile (Nominal terms) £000s 2018-19 2019-20 DfT funding sought 450 1,650 Local Authority contribution (Wirral 600 Council / Wirral Waters Investment Fund) Third Party contribution (Peel Holdings) 300 0 TOTAL 750 2,250 Notes: 1) Department for Transport funding must not go beyond 2019-20 financial year. 2) Bidders are asked to consider making a local contribution to the total cost. It is indicated that this might be around 30%, although this is not mandatory.

B4 : Local Contribution & Third Party Funding : Please provide information on the following questions (max 100 words on items a and b): a) Provide an outline of all non-DfT funding contributions to the project costs, the level of commitment, and when the contributions will become available.

The proposed level of non-DfT funding contributions for this project is 30% (£900,000). Given the critical nature of the project to the delivery of the Four Bridges Northbank development cluster at Wirral Waters, non-DfT funding would be provided by Peel Holdings, Wirral Council and the Wirral Waters Investment Fund. This funding would be available between 2018 to 2020 to align with the timeframe of the funding profile and the design and construction programme for the project. b) List any other funding applications you have made for this project or variants thereof and the outcome of these applications, including any reasons for rejection.

None

A) Requirements for small project bids (i.e. DfT contribution of less than £5m) a) Please provide a description of your assessment of the impact of the project to include:

- Significant positive and negative impacts (quantified where possible) including in relation to air quality and CO₂ emissions. - A description of the key risks and uncertainties; - If any modelling has been used to forecast the impact of the project please set out the methods used to determine that it is fit for purpose Improving Pedestrian and Cycling Facilities: The scheme will transform Tower Road into a Civilised Street with wider pavements, shared surface areas and reduced carriageway widths, and it will create some 1km of shared footway / cycleway. It will link to existing and proposed

52 pedestrian / cycle routes and bus stops, facilitating access to wider areas, making Tower Road a high quality destination for workers, students, residents and visitors accessing the area by these modes.

An appraisal of the benefits of the scheme has been undertaken using the DfT’s Active Mode Appraisal Toolkit (AMAT) which quantifies the active travel benefits, and COBALT to quantify the safety benefits. This approach has been adopted in line with the objectives of the proposed investment, to show how the benefits to active travel, safety and the improved sense of place can be realised.

The AMAT assessment, which identifies the benefits of the scheme to cyclists and pedestrians, shows quantified benefits worth £ £13,334,970.

This appraisal is based on the 1km of new segregated footway / cycleway proposed as part of the scheme. The appraisal has been informed by Census journey to work data, cycle and pedestrian counts, and forecasts of pedestrian and cycle usage in the ‘Do Something’ scenario. A 20 year appraisal period has been used. The active mode benefits as a result of this scheme can be reasonably assumed to be greater than those quantified in this appraisal, as the pedestrian benefits from new and improved crossing points and narrower carriageways for vehicles have not been assessed. The monetised benefits of the scheme from the AMAT appraisal are as follows:

- Noise – £10,030 - Greenhouse gases – £32,100 - Journey quality – £1,092,030 - Physical activity – £9,785,630 - Accidents – £146,960 - Decongestion – £1,731,250 - Indirect taxation – -£159,420

Carbon Emissions: The Tower Road Civilised Streets Scheme will deliver quality pedestrian and cycle facilities on Tower Road and link into the wider existing and committed pedestrian and cycle routes network. This will increase the mode share of these uses, reduce private car use, reduce congestion, reduce carbon emissions and improve local air quality and hence reduce average per journey carbon emissions. This forms part of an overall Sustainable Transport Strategy for Wirral Waters to create exemplar pedestrian and cycle connections and public realm. Base mode share data in the Transport Assessment for the East Float Outline Application indicated that cycling constituted 1.5% journeys around 230 daily cycle trips, but with improved connections and Travel Plans a 5% target is reasonable around 900 daily cycle trips This would lead to a significant reduction in car trips and hence carbon emissions. The AMAT assessment showed that this equates to £ £32,100 of benefits over a 20 year appraisal period. The scheme will also reduce existing congestion to benefit carbon emission reduction.

Access to Employment and Training: The scheme will provide a high quality public realm environment and improve the area’s image to create market confidence for investment, therefore creating the conditions for providing jobs and educational facilities. The proposed shared surface areas at existing junctions and future access points will provide better connectivity between education facilities including college campuses totalling 16,000 students, and the improved pedestrian and cyclist facilities will benefit social inclusion by providing access to employment and training opportunities. The Tower Road scheme will provide direct access to local employment opportunities such as the Contact Company (1,200 jobs) and to an educational hub, including the existing Wirral Metropolitan College and the Maritime Knowledge Hub. Based on the Wirral Waters Investment Plan (source Amion Consulting) by 2020 new development including the Tower Road cluster will support 1,360 gross jobs generating over 53 £37m net additional GVA per annum at the Liverpool City Region (LCR) level. Over the life of the Enterprise Zone, new space across Wirral Waters will accommodate more than 10,000 gross jobs generating in excess of £230m net additional GVA at the LCR level.

Access to Housing: At a local level the scheme provides direct access linking committed footway and cycleways to new housing within the Northbank / Tower Road development cluster totalling approximately 1,700 units planned to 2024, with key projects including Northbank Housing (320 units), Belong Village (120 units) and Northbank Phases 3 and 4 (1,250 units). The link will also connect new housing sites with employment areas and provide access to wider Wirral Waters housing which is identified in the LCR Strategic Land Allocations (to 2030) to deliver 7,340 dwellings. The scheme provides connectivity as part of the East Float Master Plan to some 13,000 planning approved housing units. Improved connectivity will improve access to some 11,000 households within a 2km walk catchment, and 66,000 households within a 5km cycle catchment.

Access to Skills: The high quality pedestrian and cycle environment including shared surface areas at junctions will provide links to wider areas increasing access to both existing and proposed educational hubs, thus providing excellent opportunities to establishments to learn appropriate skills and develop the workforce. The scheme will directly support new education development within the Tower Road educational hub, Maritime Knowledge Hub (1,000 jobs / students), Wirral Metropolitan College Built Environment Hub (350 jobs / students – completed) and provide enhanced connections to the directly adjacent Twelve Quays Wirral Metropolitan College Campus. It will provide the missing quality connection between Wallasey and North Wirral to education destinations, and to the wider business community which will also provide access to a range of skills.

Economic Growth: A key benefit of the scheme is to provide the conditions to drive economic growth within the Enterprise Zone, short term within the Northbank / Tower Road development cluster and longer term to facilitate the delivery of economic development at East Float within Wirral Waters, this regeneration site being an integral part of the LCR Growth Strategy. The Civilised Street scheme will create an attractive destination to generate market confidence and attract development investment to the benefit of the economy. The scheme is essential to deliver accelerated growth within the EZ, and improve the integration of transport networks and land use development. The scheme will drive forward investment and the delivery of new projects, and this will help increase demand and associated land values in the area enabling the growth and development of Wirral Waters.

Sense of Place: The public realm enhancements that will be delivered as part of the scheme, including the soft landscaping and new street furniture, will provide a space where people who live and work in the area can meet and interact meaning this new infrastructure will have a significant role as a community hub, including improved access to the revitalised waterfront areas. The scheme will help improve the sense of place by encouraging the use of active modes and creating an improved environment for all road users.

Addressing Maintenance Issues: The Tower Road Scheme will comprise of the new construction of a Civilised Street that will deliver a 40 year life span plus removal of traffic signal control at the Tower Road / Tower Wharf junction, which will lead to a reduction in overall maintenance liability compared to the existing situation.

Linkage to Other Transport Schemes: The scheme integrates with A and C Bridges at the northern extents that are being replaced using DfT Maintenance Challenge Funding (£6.4m) to include enhanced pedestrian and cycle facilities (2017/18). The proposals directly connect to Tower Road (south) STEP (£250K 2016/17), and the Northbank STEP shared footway and cycleway scheme (£550K 2017/18) along Dock Road to the north. It also directly connects to

54 the proposed Dock Edge pedestrian and cycle facilities being progressed through ESIF. The scheme will retain the existing bus stop provision on Tower Road either side of its junction with Tower Wharf and it has been designed to future proof delivery of Streetcar Phase 1, which is proposed to link the Wirral Waters Northbank / Tower Road development cluster to Woodside and Hamilton Square Station.

The scheme will also link to the committed STEP funded scheme at Duke Street Phases 1 and 2, and into the proposed improved pedestrian and cycleways at Beaufort Road and Wallasey Bridge Road bids for LGF3 funding. The completion of the Tower Road link to existing and future enhanced pedestrian and cycle facilities will contribute to the objective of securing sustainable connections throughout the Wirral Waters opportunity area in line with the Sustainable Transport Strategy. The scheme will also link into the whole place approach to delivering sustainable local transport under the LCR ESIF bid for Low Carbon projects, including the delivery of the City Boulevard strategy east-west sustainable transport and landscape corridor, improved pedestrian and cycle connections to Seacombe Ferry, Woodside Ferry, Hamilton Square Station, and Birkenhead Town Centre. The scheme forms an intrinsic part of the overall infrastructure strategy for the EZ and Wirral Waters, in combination with other transport schemes.

Improving Safety: The scheme is predicted to result in a reduction in the number and severity of accidents, including a reduction in accidents involving non-motorised road users (there has been one reported incident involving a pedestrian and seven involving pedal cycles over the last five year period). These benefits will accrue due to the reductions in speeds and congestion, including at junctions, and making it easier and safer for connections to be made by non- motorised users. This is particularly important given the expected increase in journeys generated by adjacent developments and the proposed intervention will minimise conflict and accident risk.

As part of the design process, the Tower Road Civilised Street Scheme will be subject to a series of Road Safety Audits to ensure that any potential safety issues are addressed and the needs of all users, including those groups with additional mobility requirements, are catered for within the proposal. In addition, the stakeholder engagement process will include consultation with the Active Travel Forum, and this group comprises of specific individual Forum members such as Representatives for the Blind and Partially Sighted, Elderly and Pregnant Women, to ensure that the project is acceptable for users with additional mobility requirements.

A COBALT assessment was undertaken to analyse the impact on accidents as a result of the removal of a signalised junction at the Tower Road / Tower Wharf signals. Traffic flow data for the peak hour was converted to Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) using DfT traffic count data for site 81473 (on Tower Road North) for the purposes of this assessment. The default accident rate contained within the WebTAG parameters file was used. The COBALT assessment tests the implications of junction type 3 (signals) in the ‘Do Minimum’ and junction type 0 (priority) in the ‘Do Something’. This assessment has quantified economic benefits due to decreased accidents of £1,691,500 over a traditional 60 year appraisal period and £696,400 over a 20 year appraisal period in line with the AMAT appraisal.

Visitor Economy: The scheme will provide improved pedestrian and cycle accessibility to the area which will help boost and harness the strength of the associated visitor economy, which is centred around the development of the Wirral Beacon visitor attraction (estimated at 330,000 visitors per annum).

Reducing Congestion on Tower Road: It is expected that there will be reduced congestion on Tower Road with the introduction of the Civilised Street Scheme as a result of existing through traffic changing to alternative more suitable north-south routes, such as Duke Street. Analysis

55 of the proposed scheme using the Wirral Waters Paramics Model shows an approximate 15- 20% decrease in traffic flows on the Tower Road corridor in the weekday peak periods compared with the transport improvements not being implemented. The scheme is expected to reduce HGVs on the section for Tower Road south of the Ro-Ro access and on the highway network through Birkenhead and Woodside, further assisting reduced congestion locally and on the wider network.

It is considered that that the potential negative impacts, risks and uncertainties associated with the proposed scheme are low. The reduced congestion and associated traffic flows on Tower Road will translate to an increase in traffic in the Duke Street corridor to the west. However, as part of the wider Wirral Waters East Float Master Plan there is a transport strategy to provide the necessary sustainable measures and highway capacity improvements on the network to underpin the future development in the area, and this will offset any increased congestion that occurs in the short term on Duke Street as a result of the introduction of the Tower Road Civilised Street Scheme. There are no planning permissions or land acquisition required to enable the delivery of this scheme as it is on the KRN and within the adopted highway boundary, which makes this a low risk scheme. Indirectly the key risk, negative impact and uncertainty relates to the impact if the scheme does not receive funding and is not delivered. As a result the delivery of regeneration development projects and associated growth and job creation will be extended, and at worst growth creating development would not occur.

Combining the accident benefits from COBALT over the 20 year appraisal period with those from AMAT gives a BCR of 4.66. Including 60 years of accident benefits gives a BCR of 4.99.

* Small projects bids are not required to produce a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) but may want to include this here if available. b) Small project bidders should provide the following in annexes as supporting material:

Has a Project Impacts Pro Forma been appended? Yes No  N/A

Has a description of data sources / forecasts been appended? Yes No N/A Has an Appraisal Summary Table been appended? Yes No N/A

* This list is not necessarily exhaustive and it is the responsibility of bidders to provide sufficient information to demonstrate the analysis supporting the economic case is fit-for-purpose.

B) Additional requirements for large project bids (i.e. DfT contribution of more than £5m) c) Please provide a short description (max 500 words) of your assessment of the value for money of the project including your estimate of the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) to include:

- Significant monetised and non-monetised costs and benefits - Description of the key risks and uncertainties and the impact these have on the BCR; - Key assumptions including: appraisal period, forecast years, optimism bias applied; and - Description of the modelling approach used to forecast the impact of the project and the checks that have been undertaken to determine that it is fit-for-purpose. d) Additionally detailed evidence supporting your assessment, including the completed Appraisal Summary Table, should be attached as annexes to this bid. A checklist of material to be submitted in support of large project bids has been provided.

Has an Appraisal Summary Table been appended? Yes No N/A

56 B6 Economic Case: For all bids the following questions relating to desirable criteria should be answered.

Yes  No ii) Is there one or more Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) in the area where the project will be implemented? AQMAs must have been declared on or before the 31 March 2017

Yes  No iii) What is the project’s impact on local air quality?

 Positive Neutral Negative

- Please supply further details:

Please refer to information presented above under B5 A) Carbon Emissions. iv) Does the project promoter incentivise skills development through its supply chain?

 Yes No N/A

- Please supply further details:

Wirral Council is part of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and through its Employment and Skills Board is creating a Skills Commission to work with businesses, learners and education providers to oversee a Skills Strategy for commissioning our locally devolved Adult Skills budgets. We have responded to opportunities to strengthen our local supply chain by linking the LCR Skills for Growth Advisors with the Wirral Business Growth Hub Advisors in order to provide businesses with potential access to funding and bespoke advice on skills. The Council continues to support skills development in the Borough which feeds into the supply chain through projects such as Wirral Metropolitan’s College new Campus for the Built Environment at Wirral Waters (Tower Road).

B7. Management Case - Delivery (Essential)

Has a project plan been appended to your bid?  Yes No

57 b) If delivery of the project is dependent on land acquisition, please include a letter from the respective land owner(s) to demonstrate that arrangements are in place to secure the land to enable the authority to meet its construction milestones.

Has a letter relating to land acquisition been appended? Yes No  N/A c) Please provide in Table C summary details of your construction milestones (at least one but no more than 6) between start and completion of works:

Table C: Construction milestones Estimated Date Construction of Highway Works (Ref 5.00 in Project Plan) Milestone 1 – Commence On-Site July 2019 Milestone 2 – Construction Period July 2019-March 2020 Milestone 3 – Stage 3 Road Safety Audit July 2019-March 2020 Milestone 4 – Defects Correction, Include Actions July 2019-March 2020 from the Stage 3 Road Safety Audit Milestone 5 – Practical Completion & Commencement of 12 Months Maintenance July 2019-March 2020 Period Milestone 6 – Works Complete March 2020 Opening date March 2020 Completion of works (if different) N/A d) Please list any major transport projects costing over £5m in the last 5 years which the authority has delivered, including details of whether these were completed to time and budget (and if not, whether there were any mitigating circumstances)

Wirral Docks Bridges (DfT Challenge Fund £6.4m) – project is on-site and on track for completion as per the funding agreement.

All of the proposed works are within the adopted highway boundary. Wirral Council will perform statutory undertakings to establish the location of apparatus and liaise with the public utility companies when necessary. b) Please list if applicable any outstanding statutory powers / consents etc. including the timetable for obtaining them.

The proposed works are within the adopted highway and this is a Wirral Council led scheme. A Memorandum of Understanding will be required between the key parties involved in the project linking funding to delivery, namely the DfT, Wirral Council, Peel Holdings and Wirral Waters Investment Fund.

58 B9. Management Case – Governance (Essential)

A Project Board will be established to deliver this scheme with defined terms of reference agreed by all members. The Project Board will provide the necessary ownership, governance and strategic direction and ensure that all project objectives, outputs and outcomes are achieved within agreed budgets and timescales. The project governance comprises representatives from Wirral Council, Merseytravel, Peel Group and design and construction consultants (once appointed). The Project Board will meet on a regular basis, generally quarterly but more often if required, to ensure that all aspects of the scheme are being delivered to the agreed standard and that any issues or potential delays are identified, communicated and mitigated as early as possible.

The Project Manager will be responsible for the day-to-day running of the scheme in accordance with the Council’s project management handbook, based on PRINCE2 project management principles, using Concerto web-based project management tool. The scheme will be monitored by the project assurance teams from the Council’s Commissioning Support directorate via Concerto. Issues will be resolved on a sub-project level and reported by exception to the project board.

A Wirral Waters Tower Road Civilised Street Project Governance Structure Organogram is appended to this application form.

B10. Management Case - Risk Management (Essential)

Please ensure that in the risk / QRA cost that you have not included any risks associated with ongoing operational costs and have used the P50 value.

Has a QRA been appended to your bid? sYe No

Has a Risk Management Strategy been appended to your bid?  Yes No

Please provide evidence on the following points (where applicable) with a limit of 50 words for each: a) What risk allowance has been applied to the project cost?

Construction contingency at 20% of the budget cost estimate (approximately £420,000) has been budgeted at this stage based on the Tower Road South General Layout Plan.

How will cost overruns be dealt with?

Please refer to the QRA and risk register that is appended to this application form.

59 b) What are the main risks to project timescales and what impact this will have on cost?

The main risks to timescales prior to construction are funding approvals. The main construction risks are unforeseen ground conditions and utilities obstructions. Appropriate cost risk allowances have been included against these items in the risk register and this will be reviewed in detail once a principal contractor is appointed.

B11. Management Case - Stakeholder Management (Essential)

For previous transport schemes Wirral Council has developed public consultation, stakeholder engagement and communication programmes to ensure that projects are accepted, and that any short term disruption whilst construction takes place is well understood as part of a wider and long term vision for the area. Merseytravel will be the key channel to local bus operators that will be impacted by the closure of Tower Road. The Ro-Ro ferry operated by Stena Line will be consulted about the impact upon traffic accessing the terminal. Key businesses will also be consulted on the proposals and the wider impacts of the scheme. b) Can the project be considered as controversial in any way? Yes  No If yes, please provide a brief summary in no more than 100 words c) Have there been any external campaigns either supporting or opposing the project?

Yes  No

If yes, please provide a brief summary (in no more than 100 words) d) For large projects only please also provide a Stakeholder Analysis and append this to your application.

Has a Stakeholder Analysis been appended? Yes No  N/A e) For large projects only please provide a Communications Plan with details of the level of engagement required (depending on their interests and influence), and a description of how and by what means they will be engaged with.

Has a Communications Plan been appended? Yes No  N/A

B12. Management Case – Local MP support (Desirable) e) Does this proposal have the support of the local MP(s);

60 Name of MP(s) and Constituency 1 Frank Field, MP for Birkenhead sYe No

2 Yes No

3 Yes No

B13. Management Case - Assurance (Essential)

We will require Section 151 Officer confirmation (Section D) that adequate assurance systems are in place.

Additionally, for large projects please provide evidence of an integrated assurance and approval plan. This should include details of planned health checks or gateway reviews.

N/A

SECTION C – Monitoring, Evaluation and Benefits Realisation

C2. Please set out, in no more than 100 words, how you plan to measure and report on the benefits of this project, alongside any other outcomes and impacts of the project.

We will develop a robust monitoring and evaluation programme for the project which will include: o Existing Transport Plan for Growth programme and performance monitoring indicators. o Automated data collection e.g. traffic counters. o Manual data collection e.g. pedestrian counts. o Perceptions data gathering e.g. focus groups and route user surveys. o STEP Capital programme monitoring. Additional local data to be collected for Tower Road to include undertaking vehicle (volume and speed), pedestrian and cycle surveys, monitoring of air quality and accident statistics, to enable Wirral Council to evaluate the project’s effectiveness as a Placemaking scheme for the area.

A fuller evaluation for large projects may also be required depending on their size and type.

61 SECTION D: Declarations

D1. Senior Responsible Owner Declaration As Senior Responsible Owner for [project name] I hereby submit this request for approval to DfT on behalf of [name of authority] and confirm that I have the necessary authority to do so.

I confirm that [name of authority] will have all the necessary statutory powers in place to ensure the planned timescales in the application can be realised. Name: Mark Smith Signed:

Position: Strategic Commissioner - Environment

HAVE YOU INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING WITH YOUR BID?

Combined Authority multiple bid ranking note (if applicable)  Yes No N/A Map showing location of the project and its wider context  Yes No N/A Combined Authority support letter (if applicable)  Yes No N/A LEP support letter (if applicable) sYe No N/A Housebuilder / developer evidence letter (if applicable)  Yes No N/A Land acquisition letter (if applicable) Yes No AN/ Projects impact pro forma (must be a separate MS Excel) Yes No N/A Appraisal summary table sYe No N/A Project plan/Gantt chart sYe No N/A

62 A554 – description of data sources/ forecasts

Cycle data

Current cycle flows were taken from the below cycle turning count data at junctions along Tower Road.

63 Given the nature and scale of the future development in the area, and the implementation of appropriate Travel Plans, an expected future cycle flows assume an aspirational 5% cycle mode share, which equates to 900 two-way cycle movements.

Pedestrian data

Current pedestrian flows were taken from a pedestrian count survey conducted on Tower Road on Wednesday 3rd May 2017 between 7am and 7pm. The total used represents all flows on the western and eastern pavements. The data is summarised below.

Table 1 Tower Road existing pedestrian flow data

Western pavement Eastern pavement Time Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound 0700-0800 5 2 6 7 0800-0900 7 32 14 14 0900-1000 5 44 14 5 1000-1100 18 24 12 7 1100-1200 36 24 12 10 1200-1300 44 56 20 16 1300-1400 17 27 11 14 1400-1500 27 13 18 14 1500-1600 39 16 22 8 1600-1700 18 15 11 12 1700-1800 8 18 18 13 1800-1900 11 11 17 10 Total 235 282 175 130

Expected future pedestrian flows are forecast from the Four Bridges and Northbank Masterplan Area, and are represented below.

64 65 66 B10. Management Case - Risk Management (Essential)

Wirral Council have identified the risks associated with the management and delivery of the Tower Road Civilised Street Scheme in the form of a risk register. The production of a Quantified Risk Assessment and risk register is an integral component of the project management procedure. The risk register will be reviewed regularly throughout the delivery of the programme by the Core Programme Team, who will have day-to-day responsibility for managing the risks identified in the register and escalating any issues to the Tower Road Civilised Street Project Board. During the procurement phase the holder (client or contractor) for any identified construction related risks will be clearly defined in the contract documentation.

The full risk register, which includes details of the mitigation measures that will be employed to reduce the potential impact of programme-wide governance, commercial and financial risks, as well as scheme delivery risks is included below.

67 Risk Key Risk Component Likelihood Mitigation Measures Risk Action Update Likelihood Impact Ref (before (following (following mitigation) mitigation) mitigation)

R1 Wirral Council, Peel Holdings Medium Set up Project Board to deliver this No progress until NPIF funding Low £0 and Wirral Waters TSG unable scheme announcement to agree technical proposals/design of the Tower Road Civilised Street Scheme. R2 Revised pre-construction cost Medium Contingency allowance built into budget Construction contingency @ Low £0 estimates exceed budget scheme cost estimate 20% estimate or provision. R3 OJEU challenge to construction Medium Project team and Council’s Corporate No progress Low £0 procurement by unsuccessful Procurement and Legal teams will allow bidder(s). sufficient time in procurement programme, thoroughly check consistency, accuracy and legality of documents and will develop procedures and allocate resources to anticipated challenges. Project programme to allow sufficient time for challenge and response process. R4 Unforeseen ground conditions or High Detailed site investigation surveys and Not currently active risk until Medium £100,000 - obstructions. thorough desktop study will be detailed design process £1 million conducted as part of detailed design commences. Construction and contract preparation. contingency @ 20% R5 Delays due to severe weather. Medium Contractor to programme for weather Not currently active risk until Low £0 delays in time risk allowance construction process commences

R6 Delays implementing the Medium Contractor’s method statements, This is considered a low risk Low £0 scheme affects shipping programme and risk assessment. scheme operations. Contract clauses.

68 R7 Utilities issues and associated High Utilities searches and consultations will Not currently active risk until Medium £100,000 - costs. be conducted in stage 3 of the detailed design process £1 million submitted procurement programme. commences. Construction Utilities diversions will be designed at contingency @ 20% detailed design stage. Contractor’s risk assessment. Contingency allowance built into budget scheme cost estimate. Employer’s risk allowance to be included in budget figure. R8 Project Manager instructions and Medium Proposed use of D&B form of contract Not currently active risk until Low £0 variations to the works should help mitigate Employer’s liability. construction process information during construction Works information will be designed at commences for technical reasons or to cover detailed design stage. Employer’s risk errors or emissions leading to allowance to be included in budget Compensation Events. figure.

R9 Delays due to issues imposed by Medium Regular stakeholder engagement. Communications plan to be Low £0 other third parties and Employer’s risk allowance to be developed once full funding associated costs. included in budget figure. approval is received

R10 Traffic Management Plan Medium Traffic diversion routes are well- TM plan to be developed once Low £0 generates opposition and established in this area and already full funding approval is received disruption to programme. contain VMS. Extensive public consultation and stakeholder engagement to be detailed in project communications plan. Measures to assist local businesses to be agreed in advance. R13 Failure to secure planned Medium Section 151 Officer sign-off has been No progress Low £0 funding contributions from received from all partners to commit to partners and key stakeholders. underwriting scheme costs over and above those being sought from the NPIF budget. Quantified Risk Assessment and Risk Register

69 70 Equality Impact Assessment Toolkit (March 2017)

Section 1: Your details

EIA lead Officer: Colin Irlam

Email address: [email protected]

Head of Section: Mark Smith

Chief Officer: Clare Fish

Directorate: Strategic Hub - Environment

Date: 08/06/17

Section 2: What Council proposal is being assessed?

A554 Tower Road Civilised Street Scheme

Section 2a: Will this EIA be submitted to a Cabinet or Committee meeting?

Yes / No If ‘yes’ please state which meeting and what date

……………………………………………………………

Please select hyperlink to where your EIA is/will be published on the Council’s website (please select appropriate link & delete those not relevant)

Strategy (Health & Care, Intelligence, Communications, Growth, Health & Wellbeing, Strategy, Environment, Schools Commission, Housing Commission) https://www.wirral.gov.uk/communities-and-neighbourhoods/equality-impact- assessments/equality-impact-assessments-2017-0

71 Section 3: Does the proposal have the potential to affect…… (please tick relevant boxes)

 Services

 The workforce

 Communities

 Other (please state eg: Partners, Private Sector, Voluntary & Community Sector)

If you have ticked one or more of above, please go to section 4.

 None (please stop here and email this form to your Chief Officer who needs to email it to [email protected] for publishing)

72 Section 4: Could the proposal have a positive or negative impact on any protected groups (race, gender, disability, gender reassignment, age, pregnancy and maternity, religion and belief, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership)?

You may also want to consider socio-economic status of individuals.

Please list in the table below and include actions required to mitigate any potential negative impact.

Which Potential positive or negative impact Action required to Lead person Timescale Resource group(s) of mitigate any potential implications people could negative impact be affected

Disability Negative – Historically shared space design The consultation for the Simon Fox Jul 18 Undertaken has been criticised for the removal of features design of Tower Road will as part of the that are necessary for the partially sighted / consult with partially sighted consultation blind. The removal of dropped kerbs, tactile and blind groups to alleviate process paving, a non-conventional kerb height have issues of isolation and to all been criticised and can leave partially ensure that the scheme sighted and blind members of the public does not impact negatively feeling isolated and unsure of safe crossing on that group. points.

Shared space design also has issues with the removal of tapping places and can also be confusing for guide dogs that are not familiar with such designs.

Shared spaces can also have a negative impact on people with walking disabilities who, due to their speed, may not be confident 73 to cross the road without a formal crossing point Age The existing condition of the footway currently The improvements to the Simon Fox Jul 18 Undertaken means that less mobile pedestrians, footway will benefit as part of the particularly elderly people, experience greater pedestrians of all ages. design difficulty with varying surfaces on the footway. They will receive a greater process and benefit from the footway consultation improvements as the process surface and width will be easier and safer to use. The scheme will therefore have a positive impact in relation to age. Pregnancy / The existing condition of the footway currently The improvements to the Simon Fox Jul 18 Undertaken Maternity means that less mobile pedestrians, footway will benefit pregnant as part of the particularly pregnant women or those with women or those with design prams/buggies, experience greater difficulty prams/buggies through the process and with varying surfaces on the footway. footway improvements as consultation the surface and width will be process easier and safer to use. The scheme will therefore have a positive impact in relation to pregnancy and maternity.

74 Section 4a: Where and how will the above actions be monitored?

Any actions will be monitored by the Project Board, which will be established to deliver this scheme. The Project Board will provide the necessary ownership, governance and strategic direction and ensure that all issues in regards with inequality are rectified in line with the project objectives, outputs and outcomes within agreed timescales.

The project governance will be comprised of representatives from Wirral Council, Merseytravel, Peel Group and design and construction consultants (once appointed). The board will also include the Communities Equalities Officer from Wirral Council to ensure that issues are discussed in detail and where reasonable, solutions found.

The Project Board will meet on a quarterly basis, to ensure that all aspects of the scheme are being delivered to the agreed standard and that any issues or potential delays are identified, communicated and mitigated as early as possible.

Section 4b: If you think there is no negative impact, what is your reasoning behind this?

Section 5: What research / data / information have you used in support of this process? In support of this process we examined a report with recommendations, following an enquiry into disability and the built environment, published by a cross-party group of MPs. http://linkis.com/parliament.uk/SdNLm

Section 6: Are you intending to carry out any consultation with regard to this Council proposal?

Yes / No – (please delete as appropriate)

If ‘yes’ please continue to section 7. Yes

If ‘no’ please state your reason(s) why:

(please stop here and email this form to your Chief Officer who needs to email it to [email protected] for publishing)

75 Section 7: How will consultation take place and by when?

Consultation will take place as part of the wider consultation for the scheme and will include disabled groups such as partially sighted and blind, as well as groups with mobility difficulties. These groups will be contacted through the Council’s ‘Active Travel’ group, via e- mail.

Before you complete your consultation, please email your preliminary EIA to [email protected] via your Chief Officer in order for the Council to ensure it is meeting it’s legal publishing requirements. The EIA will need to be published with a note saying we are awaiting outcomes from a consultation exercise.

Once you have completed your consultation, please review your actions in section 4. Then email this form to your Chief Officer who needs to email it to [email protected] for publishing.

Section 8: Have you remembered to: a) Select appropriate directorate hyperlink to where your EIA is/will be published (section 2a) b) Include any potential positive impacts as well as negative impacts? (section 4) c) Send this EIA to [email protected] via your Chief Officer? d) Review section 4 once consultation has taken place and sent your updated EIA to [email protected] via your Chief Officer for re-publishing?

76 77 Pepper House, Market Street Nantwich, Cheshire CW5 5DQ Telephone: 01270 613500 Fax: 01270 628127 www.belong.org.uk

23 June 2017

Wirral Council Wallasey Town Hall Brighton Street Wallasey Wirral CH44 8ED

Dear Sirs

The A554 Tower Road Civilised Street Scheme

I refer to the request by Wirral Council and Merseyrail for funding from the Department of Transport’s National Productivity Investment Fund for the scheme referred to as the A554 Tower Road Civilised Street Scheme.

We are currently working with Peel Holdings to develop a Belong village on a site at Dock Road. The village will provide care for older people and services open to the local community. The objective of the scheme to lower traffic speeds through the area will create an improved environment for all road users and the village.

The aim of the scheme to provide wider pavements with high quality facilities for pedestrians and cyclists with shared surface areas and reduced carriageway widths on the A554 Tower Road corridor between the Canning Street roundabout and a bridge will greatly benefit our residents and their family and friends who visit the village.

I confirm that I fully support this request for funding.

Yours faithfully

Tracey Stakes Finance Director and Secretary

Belong Limited is, a Registered Society under the Co-Operative and Communities Benefit Societies Act 2014, registered number 27346R, registered in England & Wales at Pepper House, Market Street, Nantwich, Cheshire, CW5 5DQ 78 79 80 81