West Cheltenham Transport Improvement Scheme (WCTIS) Phase 3 & 4: A40 Eastbound from Arle Court to TGI Fridays (A40/A4633) Full Business Case (FBC) Gloucestershire County Council (GCC)
07 May 2020
WCTIS Phases 3 & 4
Notice
This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely as information for Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) and use in relation to the Full Business Case. Atkins Limited assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents. This document has 115 pages including the cover.
Document history Document title: Full Business Case (FBC) Document reference: WCTIS Phase 3 & 4 Origin- Revision Purpose description ated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date Rev 1.0 First draft for AECOM IS JB FQ RS 09/04/2020 Rev 2.0 First draft for AECOM IS JB FQ RS 17/04/2020 Rev 3.0 Final IS JB FQ RS 07/05/2020
Client signoff Client Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) Project West Cheltenham Transport Improvement Scheme (WCTIS) Phase 3 & 4: A40 Eastbound from Arle Court to TGI Fridays (A40/A4633): A40 Eastbound from Arle Court to TGI Fridays (A40/A4633) Job number 5188790 Client signature/date
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 2 of 115
Contents
Chapter Page Executive Summary 7 1. Introduction 8 1.1. Overview 8 1.2. Background to the Full Business Case (FBC) 8 1.3. WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 9 1.4. Scheme area and summary 9 1.5. Objectives 11 1.6. Document structure 11 2. Strategic Case 12 2.1. Introduction 12 2.2. Local policy context 15 2.3. Existing travel demand and level of service 21 2.4. Future challenges 27 2.5. Summary of identified problems and impact of not changing 29 2.6. Objectives 30 2.7. Scheme constraints and dependencies 30 2.8. Scheme selection and option identification 30 2.9. Scheme impacts and outcomes 39 3. Economic Case 41 3.1. Overview 41 3.2. Methodology 42 3.3. Environment Appraisal 46 3.4. Social and Distributional Impacts 67 3.5. Reliability Impacts 70 3.6. Economic Appraisal Results: Core Scenario 70 3.7. Value for Money Statement 78 3.8. Sensitivity testing 82 4. Financial Case 83 4.1. Overview 83 4.2. Breakdown and Time Profile of Project Costs 83 4.3. Project Funding 83 4.4. Financial Risk Management Strategy 84 4.5. Ongoing Maintenance 85 4.6. Land Purchase 85 5. Commercial Case 86 5.1. Introduction 86 5.2. Expected Outcomes from the Commercial Strategy 86 5.3. Scheme Procurement Strategy 86 5.4. Commercial Risk Assessment 87 6. Management Case 88 6.1. Overview 88 6.2. Project Governance, Roles and Responsibilities 88
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 3 of 115
6.3. Project Management Structure 88 6.4. Public Share Events 89 6.5. Communications and Engagement Management 91 6.6. Stakeholder engagement 91 6.7. Evidence of Previously Successful Management Strategy 96 6.8. Design and Construction Methodology 97 6.9. Legal Powers Required for Construction 99 6.10. Project Programme 99 6.11. Benefits Realisation Strategy 99 6.12. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 100 7. Conclusion 103 7.1. Summary 103 7.2. Recommended Next Steps 103
Appendices 104 Appendix A. Modelling Technical Note 105 Appendix B. Paramics Forecasting Report (Jacobs) 106 Appendix C. Local Model Validation Report (LMVR) 107 Appendix D. Social and Distributional Impacts (SDI) 108 Appendix E. Appraisal Summary Table 109 Appendix F. Noise Modelling 110 Appendix G. Air Quality 111 Appendix H. Quantified Risk Register 112 Appendix I. Programme 113 Appendix J. Scheme drawings 114 Appendix K. Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement Review 115
Tables Table 2-1 - West of Cheltenham Transport Improvement Scheme (WCTIS) and WCWCI 12 Table 2-2: Strategic objectives and priorities for WCTIS Phase 3 and 4 13 Table 2-3 - 24hr AADT flows on the A40 between Arle Court and TGI Fridays traffic lights. 21 Table 2-4 - WCTIS Phases 3 and 4, Accidents, 2014 - 2018 21 Table 2-5 - WCTIS Phases 3 and 4, Accidents in the impact area 22 Table 2-6 - TEMPro trip end forecasts and growth factors in Cheltenham 2017-2031 (AM Peak)27 Table 2-7 - Current challenges and their future impacts 29 Table 2-8 - Options Assessment, cumulative scoring 31 Table 2-9 - Route 1 Journey Time Comparison (AM-peak, journey time (s)) 35 Table 2-10 - Route 1 Journey Time Comparison (PM-peak, journey time (s)) 36 Table 2-11 - Route 2 Journey Time Comparison (AM-peak, journey time (s)) 36 Table 2-12 - Route 2 Journey Time Comparison (PM-peak, journey time (s)) 37 Table 2-13 - Route 3 Journey Time Comparison (AM-peak, journey time (s)) 37 Table 2-14 - Route 3 Journey Time Comparison (PM-peak, journey time (s)) 37 Table 2-15 - Phase 4 Journey Time Comparison, Route 1 AM 39
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 4 of 115
Table 2-16 - Phase 4 Journey Time Comparison, Route 1 PM 39 Table 2-17 - Summary of scheme impacts on transport objectives 39 Table 3-1 - Paramics Discovery and TUBA Parameters 42 Table 3-2 - Count and Seed Values from the Paramics Model Runs Removed During Filtering 42 Table 3-3 - Proportion of Demand Filtered from the 2017, 2021 and 2031 Matrices 43 Table 3-4 - Scheme Capital Costs, 2020 prices 43 Table 3-5 – Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits (all values in £000s) 71 Table 3-6 – Sectoral distribution of benefits 76 Table 3-7 - PA Table (all values in £000s) 77 Table 3-8 – Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (all values in £000s) 78 Table 3-9 - DfT VfM Categories 79 Table 3-10 - Summary of Forecast Growth Sensitivity Tests (values in £000s) 82 Table 4-1 - Breakdown of scheme capital costs, 2019 prices 83 Table 4-2 - Scheme funding sources and profile of contributions 83 Table 4-3 - Security and availability of scheme funding contributions 84 Table 4-4 - Qualitative financial risk assessment 85 Table 5-1 - Scheme Commercial Risk Assessment 87 Table 6-1 – Online Feedback Form Responses 90 Table 6-2 - Stakeholder categorisation approach 91 Table 6-3 - Stakeholder engagement levels 91 Table 6-4 - Stakeholder management strategy and method 92 Table 6-5 - Themes identified from comments received 93 Table 6-6 - Programme key dates 99 Table 6-7 - Logic map between scheme objectives and desired outputs and outcomes 100 Table 6-8 - Benefits realisation responsibilities 100 Table 6-9 – Current Traffic Flows, A40 ATC 101 Table 6-10 - Outputs and outcomes - indicators and targets 102
Figures Figure 1-1 - WCTIS Phase 3 & 4 Scheme Location 9 Figure 1-2 - Artists Impression: Telstar Way Junction 10 Figure 1-3 - Artists Impression: Benhall Roundabout, approaching eastbound 10 Figure 1-4 - Artists Impression: Benhall Roundabout, approaching westbound 11 Figure 2-1 – Cyber Central Scheme Location Map 20 Figure 2-2 - Pedestrian, cyclist and motor vehicle accidents by severity, West Cheltenham 23 Figure 2-3 DfT Accident data 2014-2018 at the A40/Telstar Way Junction 23 Figure 2-4 DfT Accident data 2014-2018 at Benhall Roundabout 24 Figure 2-5 DfT Accident data 2014-2018 along the A40 between Benhall Roundabout and Benhall Gardens 25 Figure 2-6 - Stagecoach West route map, Cheltenham 26 Figure 2-7 - Growth from Base 2017 to DM 2021, AM Peak Hour 28 Figure 2-8 - Growth from Base 2017 to DM 2021, PM Peak Hour 29
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 5 of 115
Figure 2-9 - Phases 3 & 4 Scheme Location 33 Figure 2-10 - Do Minimum Network Layout – Phase 3 33 Figure 2-11 - Route 1 - Arle Court to TGI Fridays (A40) 35 Figure 3-1 – Core Scenario Transport economic efficiency structure by travel purpose 72 Figure 3-2 - Core Scenario profile of Present Value of Benefit per year 73 Figure 3-3 - Core Scenario Benefit profile breakdown by Purpose 74 Figure 3-4 - Sector System 75 Figure 3-5 - Core Scenario Sectoral Distribution 76 Figure 3-6 - Value for Money of the scheme, costs and benefits structure, £000s 81 Figure 6-1 - Project Management Structure 89 Figure 6-2 - Letter drop area 90 Figure 6-3 - Works compound proposals 98
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 6 of 115
Executive Summary
This report is the Full Business Case (FBC) for Phases 3 and 4 of West Cheltenham Transport Improvement Scheme (WCTIS). The scheme represents the final two phases of WCTIS, and the package of transport improvements considered to be appropriate to achieve the policy aims and objectives of the GFirst Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). The overall budget for the scheme is £8.29m, of the total cost for WCTIS of £22m. The proposal is a highway scheme but, has been developed in conjunction with the associated West Cheltenham Walking and Cycling Improvement Scheme (WCWCI). WCWCI is subject to a discrete Business Case and, will compliment the WCTIS proposal which is by its nature, highway capacity focussed. GCC are committed to promoting and completing transport schemes that benefit all users, not just for the private motorist, and this WCTIS is therefore linked intrinsically to WCWCI. Due to the location and proposed construction programmes for WCWCI and the WCTIS Phase 3 and 4, it is proposed that both WCWCI and WCTIS Phases 3 and 4 be combined for construction. This avoids an extended works programme and provides opportunity for cost savings from economies of scale and the sharing of overhead facilities such as site compounds and site supervision. The FBC explains the process of identifying the final scheme, through both detailed modelling and on-site scheme assessments, and by following defined Business Case processes. The scheme assessments demonstrate that the proposal offers high value for money according to the Department for Transport (DfT) criteria and therefore represents a sound and justified spend of public funds. The most significant gain for the scheme is derived from the increase in journey time savings for vehicle passengers. The level of measurable economic benefit for the proposed scheme far exceeds the cost of the scheme. It is important to note that the Economic Case produces a Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) of 2.77, and classified as High Value for Money. It is therefore concluded that there is a sound justification for the scheme from a policy, environmental and economic perspective. It is recognised that the proposal does not fully address traffic issues in the long-term, particularly if the full quantum of development is completed at Cyber Central and the numerous housing sites including safeguarded land. WCTIS is designed to enable the early stages of the extensive development proposals in the local area, at a faster rate than would otherwise be possible. The potential environmental impacts of the scheme have been investigated as part of the completion of the Full Business Case. These assessments found some non-significant minor adverse effects from the scheme on Air Quality, Noise and Greenhouse Gas emissions. Following completion of these assessments, a thorough review of mitigation options was undertaken to identify ways which the scheme could mitigate these effects and enhance the local environment. This review has identified forward actions that will mitigate these effects, and confirmed inclusion within the scheme of some enhancements to landscape and biodiversity in the local area.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 7 of 115
1. Introduction 1.1. Overview This document provides information to support the implementation and delivery of the West Cheltenham Transport Improvement Scheme (WCTIS) Phases 3 and 4, with plans to widen sections of the A40 carriageway through Cheltenham, from Arle Court roundabout to the TGI Fridays Lights (A40/B4633), and improve the layout of junctions at Telstar Way and Benhall Roundabout. The scheme is consistent with the core aims of Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) to maintain a functioning highway network to support sustainable economic growth and enable community connectivity on the A40; a key connector between the county’s two primary economic centres of Gloucester and Cheltenham and a link that currently suffers from high traffic volumes and severe congestion, especially during peak hours. This report is only concerned with the highway elements of the scheme. These make the case for widening the existing highway to increase the capacity of existing links and improve the operational capacity of junctions with the A40, through targeted engineering improvements. The report is based on the preferred design options and aims to provide the required detail for the development of the Full Business Case (FBC) for the scheme. The evidence gathered as part of the business case preparation process has been prepared using the tools and guidance provided by the Department for Transport (DfT) and set out in the Transport Analysis Guidance (WebTAG) document1. An Appraisal Specification Report (ASR) has also been prepared for the Full Business Case. 1.2. Background to the Full Business Case (FBC) Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) received a request from Cheltenham Borough Council (CBC) to take over the role of ‘scheme promoter’ for Growth Deal 3 (GD3) transport improvements, now known as the West Cheltenham Transport Improvement Scheme (WCTIS). The scheme was split into four phases, with the subject of this business case focusing on Phases 3 and 4. The allocated budget for the scheme was £22million for all four phases; walking and cycling improvements are now the subject of a separate business case, West Cheltenham Walking and Cycling Improvements (WCWCI). Therefore, both Business Cases are linked and are being submitted separately, with one focusing on specific walking and cycling interventions (WCWCI), whereas this business case focuses on highway widening, junction improvements and roundabout re-configuration for WCTIS Phases 3 and 4. The first two phases of the WCTIS scheme have been agreed by the GFirst Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) with submitted and agreed FBCs. These two phases are currently out for tender via ProContract with award scheduled for early Spring and planned to start on-site in May 2020.
Phases 1 and 2 included: • M5 J11 to Arle Court eastbound carriageway widening (towards Cheltenham); • Provision of an additional circulatory lane around Arle Court; • Corresponding additional lanes to the A40 on the approaches and exits to and from the junction; • New bus lane on the B4063 approach from Staverton, also improving facilities for cyclists; • Bus Lane modifications to improve journey times for public transport; • Widening the Hatherley Lane arm to the south side of the roundabout; • Park and Ride Entrance/Exit westbound (towards Gloucester) from Arle Court Roundabout; and • Proposal to improve cyclist access at specific junctions, such as Fiddlers Green Lane.
Current information on all stages of the project can be found on the project website, available at https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/highways/major-projects-list/west-cheltenham-transport-improvement- schemes-uk-cyber-business-park/
1 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transport-analysis-guidance-webtag
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 8 of 115
1.3. WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 WCTIS Phases 3 and 4 have been combined into one scheme for the purposes of FBC development. The full scope of LEP schemes is presented in Figure 1.1 below, with four phases of works aimed to relieve existing congestion along the A40 and accommodate future development to the West of Cheltenham, including Joint Core Strategy strategic allocations, such as the nationally important UK Cyber Central. 1.4. Scheme area and summary The scheme area (Figure 1-1) is located on the west-side of Cheltenham on the A40 between Arle Court roundabout and the TGI Fridays junction. The aim of Phase 3 is to reduce congestion on the A40 eastbound between Arle Court and Benhall roundabout, with an additional focus of improving access into and out of GCHQ at the Telstar Way junction. The existing highway layout features two lanes for the A40 eastbound movement, a dedicated third left turn lane at Telstar Way, widening from two to three lanes on the approach to Benhall roundabout and a two-lane roundabout gyratory; one of the lanes on eastbound Benhall roundabout is a bus lane with associate bus lane approach on A40. The aim of Phase 4 is to reduce congestion on the A40 eastbound between Benhall roundabout and the TGI Fridays junction. The existing network layout consists of a single lane for mainline eastbound traffic and a segregated bus lane between Benhall roundabout and the A40 junction with Granley Road, where it joins regular traffic. Figures 1-1 to 1-4 are artists impressions of the scheme, with one figure showing Telstar Way, and two for Benhall roundabout.
Figure 1-1 - WCTIS Phase 3 & 4 Scheme Location
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 9 of 115
Figure 1-2 - Artists Impression: Telstar Way Junction
Figure 1-3 - Artists Impression: Benhall Roundabout, approaching eastbound
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 10 of 115
Figure 1-4 - Artists Impression: Benhall Roundabout, approaching westbound 1.5. Objectives The objectives of the scheme are the same as for Phases 1 and 2. They have been agreed with GCC and the LEP. These objectives also led to the provisional allocations of the funds for transport improvements and are as follows: • Contribute to accelerating the release of the employment land associated with the West Cheltenham Strategic Allocation along with the other strategic allocations in the JCS adjacent to GCHQ, which includes the proposed Cyber Park and Cyber Innovation Centre (now renamed as Cyber Central); • Deliver transport benefits to people living and working in Gloucestershire by improving traffic flows on the A40, one of the most important and busiest sections of Gloucestershire’s road network; • Aim to have an overall neutral impact on the Cheltenham Air Quality Management Area (AQMA); and • Maintain and improve the options for sustainable travel modes through the junction and on the approaches; walking, cycling, and where feasible providing for enhanced public transport facilities.
It is to be noted that the walking and cycling improvements for the corridor have now been discretely packaged as West Cheltenham Walking & Cycling Improvements (WCWCI), for which there is a separate business case. However, all parts of WCTIS and WCWCI are considered as a package that will complement each other. In addition, economies of scale and minimising disruption during construction will be achieved by working on all schemes within a similar timescale. 1.6. Document structure • Strategic Case (Section 2), setting out a rationale for the scheme, the need for investment in this location, options considered and the anticipated benefits of the scheme; • Economic Case (Section 3), identifying the key economic, environmental and social impacts of the scheme and its overall value for money; • Financial Case (Section 4), presenting evidence of the scheme’s affordability both initially (for the construction phase) and in terms of ongoing operations, maintenance and renewal; • Commercial Case (Section 5), summarising the approach to scheme procurement and justifying the commercial and legal viability of the approach; and • Management Case (Section 6), setting out how GCC will ensure that the scheme is delivered successfully – on time and to budget, with suitable governance and risk management processes in place.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 11 of 115
2. Strategic Case 2.1. Introduction This Full Business Case (FBC) is specifically for the highway elements of WCTIS Phases 3 and 4, which includes eastbound widening of the carriageway between Arle Court roundabout and Telstar Way, Benhall Roundabout improvements and the signalised junction at TGI Fridays. The Benhall roundabout re-modelling includes plans to improve the layout of the bus lanes that utilise the roundabout, and then continue on the A40 eastbound towards Cheltenham with an extra highway lane in addition to the bus lane. The sections of the A40 between Arle Court roundabout and TGI Fridays junction (A40/B4633) currently creates significant delays and congestion for traffic travelling into and out of Cheltenham, particularly in the morning and evening peak periods. This congestion would be increased with the significant additional development planned for the area and is the subject of ongoing planning discussions between developers’, promoters and planning authorities. WCTIS will progress in phases, with each phase needing to stand on its own merit in terms of aligning to and delivering the objectives. Phases 3 and 4 have been combined into one scheme for the purposes of business case development, and follow on from the proposals for Phases 1 and 2. This report does not include walking and cycling elements, which are now the subject of a separate business case, West Cheltenham Walking & Cycling Improvements (WCWCI). As such, proposed improvements across all phases are summarised in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1 - West of Cheltenham Transport Improvement Scheme (WCTIS) and WCWCI Phase Scope 1 Capacity improvements to Arle Court roundabout 2 Widening of the existing A40 carriageway eastbound from M5 J11 to Arle Court roundabout 3 • A40 eastbound widening from Benhall roundabout • Benhall roundabout remodelling 4 • Telstar Way junction re-modelling • TGI Friday Signal Improvements (A40/B4633) WCWCI Walking and Cycling proposals, planned in conjunction with phases 1 to 4 of WCTIS. Subject to a separate Business Case (WCWCI).
With Phases 1 and 2 now progressing, it is assumed that the further widening of the eastbound carriageway and the remodelling of junctions further east will complement works carried out on Arle Court roundabout and the link between the roundabout and M5 J11. As such, a number of objectives are outlined below for Phases 3 and 4. • Increase the capacity of the network between Arle Court and TGI Fridays; • Increase the capacity of Benhall roundabout and remove existing pinch points; • Future-proof the current network extent (including Benhall roundabout and Telstar Way) to facilitate planned developments; and • Improve connectivity with the surrounding network. It is important to note that an Outline Business Case OBC) was completed for all four phases of WCTIS, where all considered schemes were evaluated and prioritised through a comprehensive appraisal process, which is fully outlined in the OBC. The initial evaluation started with an assessment of 23 combined options on the corridor to identify those schemes that would be taken forward to the next stage of assessment.
2.1.1. Business strategy There are several sub-regional and local plans and policies for economic growth, spatial planning and transport which are of relevance to the scheme. Developed by the GFirst Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) and other local authorities (Gloucestershire City Council, Cheltenham
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 12 of 115
Borough Council Tewkesbury Borough Council), these plans and policies guide decisions on transport infrastructure investment, including any proposals for the WCTIS Phases 3 and 4, and are contained in the following reports: Joint Core Strategy (JCS) 2011-2031 – Gloucester City Council, Cheltenham Borough Council and Tewkesbury Borough Council (December 2017)2; Gloucestershire’s Local Transport Plan 2015-2031 (LTP3) (2016)3; GFirst LEP (Draft) Local Industrial Strategy (2019)4; GFirst LEP Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) 2.0 (2018)5; and Agreed LEP objectives for the WCTIS Phases 1 – 4.
The relevant strategic objectives from these plans and strategies are presented in Table 2-2, as well as the contribution of the scheme to objectives documented in these policy documents. Additionally, the scheme must not have a significant negative affect (after mitigation) on wider objectives relating to the environment, which will be offset by further work on environmental mitigation measures and surveys. Wider objectives regarding promoting sustainable transport modes, are covered in a separate business case, West Cheltenham Walking and Cycling Improvements (WCWCI). Table 2-2: Strategic objectives and priorities for WCTIS Phase 3 and 4
Document Relevant Description of objective and Contribution of scheme to local objectives and theme objectives* themes Joint Core Strategic Providing the right conditions ✓✓✓ - The WCTIS Phases 3 and Strategy (JCS) Objective 1: and sufficient land in 4 scheme will provide the right for Gloucester, Building a strong appropriate locations to support infrastructure conditions in the Cheltenham and and competitive existing businesses and correct location to release and Tewkesbury urban economy support new ones, particularly accelerate the delivery of (Adopted Dec from the major high tech and employment land in West 2017) knowledge-based industries Cheltenham, including Cyber Central.
Strategic Promoting bus priority on key ✓ - The WCTIS Phases 3 and 4 Objective 7: public transport corridors will offer better bus priority Promoting through the re-modelling of sustainable Benhall roundabout. All options transport include the development of a bus layby or broader arrangements to improve bus flow eastbound through the roundabout and towards Cheltenham town centre. The scheme will not specifically increase the level of service of public transport in the area but will improve the operational efficiency of routes via the A40 through a reduction in journey times and journey time variability. Strategic Deliver good quality new ü✓ - Provides additional capacity Objective 8: housing to meet the needs of to the current road network to Delivering a wide the current and future support future housing
2 https://www.jointcorestrategy.org/examination 3 https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/transport/gloucestershires-local-transport-plan-2015-2031/introduction/ 4 https://www.gfirstlep.com/downloads/2019/gloucestershire_draft_local-industrial-strategy_2019.pdf 5 https://www.gfirstlep.com/downloads/2018/sep-2-update2018v3.pdf
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 13 of 115
choice of quality population by delivering development in West homes residential developments that Cheltenham. are supported by the necessary transport, community and social infrastructure. Gloucestershire’s Strategic Gloucestershire is a place to do ✓✓✓ - The transport scheme will Local Transport Objective 1: business and attract provide very high value for money Plan (LTP) 2015 Support investment. The transport (please see Section 3) and – 2031 sustainable network is reliable, fit for improve the reliability of journeys Policy Document economic growth purpose and demonstrates along the A40 during AM and PM 4: Highways value for money. Increased peak periods. journey time reliability Strategic A business community which ✓✓✓ - The scheme will improve Objective 2: benefits from connectivity with connectivity between local, Enable local, national and international national and international markets community markets. Individuals benefit by improving access to connectivity from economic prosperity and Cheltenham town centre from M5 social benefits J11, via the A40. Strategic Transport schemes are Neutral (with mitigation) – An Objective 3: designed to reduce the adverse environmental mitigation and Conserve the impact of transport on enhancement review has been environment Gloucestershire’s high quality undertaken to identify ecological natural, built and historic improvements in the area. A environments habitat management strategy will be put forward for Hatherley Brook that runs in close proximity to the scheme. GFirst LEP Strategic Priority A40 – Improving Connectivity ✓✓✓ - Widening the A40 Strategic 3: Connectivity and Resilience eastbound carriageway will ease Economic Plan Delivering digital The A40 between Gloucester congestion and improve resilience v2.0 and integrated and Cheltenham is a key during the AM and PM peak transport connector for the county’s 2 periods. connectivity to primary economic centres and stimulate suffers from significant business growth, congestion. The A40 west of ensuring J11 of the M5 to the county infrastructure, boundary is also part of regeneration and Highways England’s Strategic housing meet the Road Network (SRN) and the future needs of primary route from the Forest the businesses of Dean into the economic and people of centre of the county, with very Gloucestershire high traffic flows in the morning and afternoon peak times. GFirst LEP Local Strategic GFirst LEP want ✓ - The transport scheme will Industrial Objective: Gloucestershire to be a fully provide better connectivity to Strategy Infrastructure connected county through major employment sites in West Delivery of local innovative transport solutions Cheltenham (e.g. GCHQ) and will plans to and digital connectivity so provide infrastructure and significantly people and businesses can additional capacity to absorb increase the easily connect and meet our future trips generated by future supply of housing house building commitment. residential development. in the county Agreed LEP Objectives for WCTIS Phases 1 – 4
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 14 of 115
GFirst LEP Accelerate Contribute to accelerating the ü✓✓ - The scheme will accelerate development of release of the employment land the release of employment land West Cheltenham associated with the West associated with the West Strategic Cheltenham Strategic Cheltenham Strategic Allocation, Allocation, Allocation along with the other including Cyber Central, by including Cyber strategic allocations in the JCS providing additional capacity on Central adjacent to GCHQ, which the A40 and an improvement in includes the proposed Cyber journey times and resilience that Park and Cyber Innovation will help accommodate the Centre (now renamed as Cyber additional trips generated Central) (particularly in peak times). Deliver transport Deliver transport benefits to ✓✓✓ - Transport benefits for benefits to people people living and working in commuters and other users living and working Gloucestershire by improving (people living and working in in traffic flows on the A40, one of Gloucestershire) are estimated at Gloucestershire the most important and busiest £20m (2010 prices, discounted to sections of Gloucestershire’s 2010) over a 60-year appraisal road network period from the scheme (see Section 3). This is due to a reduction in travel time. Cheltenham Aim to have an overall neutral Neutral (with mitigation) - An AQMA impact on the Cheltenham Air environmental mitigation and Quality Management Area enhancement review has been (AQMA) undertaken to offset any negative environmental air quality impacts. Sustainable Maintain and improve the Neutral - The improvement of transport options for sustainable travel active travel modes is the subject modes through the junction and of a separate business case, on the approaches; walking, West Cheltenham Walking and cycling, and where feasible Cycling Improvements (WCWCI). providing for enhanced public WCTIS phases 3 and 4 has taken transport facilities account of the need for improved walking and cycling infrastructure within the design and will maintain the options for sustainable travel modes through the junctions and on the approaches at Telstar Way and Benhall roundabout. *Qualitative and Quantitative assessment (where appropriate): ✓ - Minor contribution, ✓✓ - Moderate contribution, ✓✓✓ - Major contribution
2.2. Local policy context
2.2.1. Joint Core Strategy for Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury The JCS Transport Strategy Evidence Base was revised in May 2017 and took account of the transport impact of the Strategic Allocation sites for the JCS areas, of which West of Cheltenham is included (A7). The evidence base concludes that M5 J10 is a priority for the County, which is currently subject to an application for funding by GCC to the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF). In addition, the Transport Mitigation Considerations include improved access to M5 and Junction improvements at Arle Court Roundabout and/or M5 Junction 10.
2.2.2. M5 J10 HIF Bid The JCS Transport Evidence Base and other GCC policy focuses on the need for an all movements junction at M5 J10. A comprehensive bid has been submitted by the County Council and their partners to HIF. The bid links the need for an all-movements M5 J10 to the delivery of housing both at a higher level and earlier than
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 15 of 115
would otherwise be possible without M5 J10. GCC was successful in the bid and the scheme is currently under development. While no funding was sought in the HIF bid for the improvements along the A40 as proposed for the LEP (Phases 1 to 4), these improvements were an integral part of the bid for M5 J10.
2.2.3. GFirst LEP Strategic Economic Plan GFirst LEP has the aim to help Gloucestershire realise its economic potential and promote developments and business growth across the County. The SEP for Gloucestershire, submitted to the government in March 2014 in order to obtain Growth Deal funding, outlines how the LEP aims to achieve average economic growth of 4.8% GVA per annum by 2022. It enables the LEP to support local businesses, develop the skills of workers in high-growth sectors, and maximise the connections and opportunities of the M5 corridor. From this Growth Deal funding, £22m has been provisionally allocated to Gloucestershire County Council for the four phases of the West of Cheltenham Transport Improvement Scheme.
The SEP was recently refreshed in 2018, and restated ‘Connectivity’ as a strategic priority to improve and integrate transport in the county to stimulate business growth. The SEP defines four ‘Enablers for growth’ under the Connectivity strategic priority: housing, regeneration, transport infrastructure and collaboration. The SEP further identifies that unlocking employment land in a growth zone with good access to the M5 is especially important. The scheme will contribute to the aims of the SEP by reducing congestion; improving connectivity between the M5 and west Gloucestershire.
2.2.4. Gloucestershire’s Local Transport Plan (LTP) The LTP sets out the long-term transport strategy for Gloucestershire up to 20316. The revised LTP 2015-2041 draft was the subject of a public consultation between January and March 2020 and looks toward a new time horizon, 2041, to discuss new transport technologies and likely growth scenarios. All stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide feedback on the reviewed plan before adoption by the County Council.
The aim for GCC is to influence how and when people choose to travel so that individual travel decisions do not cumulatively impact on the attractiveness of Gloucestershire as a place to live, work and invest. The LTP outlines a number of relevant transport objectives, including: • Support sustainable economic growth The scheme will increase capacity and improve journey times and reliability on the A40 between Cheltenham (from the M5) and the wider Strategic Road Network. The attraction of the West of Cheltenham area as a place to live, work and invest is therefore enhanced, with the capacity for greater economic activity in the county. • Enable community connectivity Improved journey times and reliability along with the new slip from the Park & Ride will enhance the Public Transport provision in the area, providing an attractive alternative to the private car and genuine transport choices. GCC will implement a functioning highway network that supports Gloucestershire’s local transport objectives by ensuring the safe, accessible and expeditious movement of highway users and provide a resilient highway network that can withstand unforeseen events, including extreme weather events and long term changes to the climate according to the following principles7: • Reduce pressure on the local road network by promoting alternative sustainable travel options through the Thinktravel programme; • Lobby Government to pursue opportunities for the decriminalisation of the enforcement for moving traffic offences, regulated under the Traffic Management Act; • Develop MRN routes in line with guidelines, available funding and neighbouring authorities, to ensure the objectives for the network are achieved; • Maintain and, where possible feasibly improve the highway network for all non-motorised highway users prioritising the integration of transport modes;
6 https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/transport/gloucestershires-local-transport-plan-2015-2031/local-cycling-and-walking-infrastructure- plans/ 7 https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/media/2093897/full-draft-local-transport-plan-draft-for-consultation-171219-a.pdf
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 16 of 115
• Reduce the risk of conflict for all highway users by complying with national government guidance and legislation, including the use of mobility scooters on footpaths; • Increase the use of technology and social media (Intelligent Transport Systems) to increase awareness of any delays on the highway network, ensuring highway users are informed in advance or during their journey; • Take due regard for the strategic risk of climate change in line with Corporate Risk Management Strategy, Gloucestershire Climate Change Strategy, Local Adaptation Advisory Panel (LAAP) England, Severe Weather Impacts Monitoring (SWIM) and UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) to better manage highway network resilience; • Work in partnership with district councils, the Environment Agency, GFirst LEP, Homes England, Highways England, DfT and any other necessary government bodies, to seek investment in the county’s transport network as funding opportunities arise to address highway network flood risk and build in long-term resilience; • Explore opportunities for sharing data and intelligence to build an Integrated Environment Mapping Tool or similar, to draw together evidence of environmental constraints and opportunities to help target resources; • Continue working jointly with the Environment Agency to build evidence of the effects of flood risk and climate change on highway network infrastructure in order to develop a pipeline of schemes; • To deliver a collaborative approach to road safety with partners that include proactive highway design guidance, delivery of reactive engineering solutions to highway issues, provide evidence to support engineering, education and enforcement activities; • To introduce speed limits in accordance with the current national guidelines and prioritise them based on available evidence, including 20mph zones; and • Work in partnership with district councils, neighbouring authorities, Local Enterprise Partnership, Highways England, Network Rail, Train Operating Companies and Department for Transport (DfT) to encourage investment in the county’s transport network, as funding opportunities arise. Furthermore, to work with all interested parties to support transport improvements in line with delivery of the ‘Access for All’, LEP’s Strategic Economic Plan and Local Industrial Strategy.
2.2.5. Cheltenham Cyber Business Park – Taken from Gloucestershire’s Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (CWIP) “Cheltenham’s Cyber Business Park has provisionally been allocated £22 million from the Local Growth Fund. This funding is to enable the delivery of a unique opportunity to create a business park on 45ha of land next to the Government Communications Head Quarters (GCHQ), delivering a highly accessible ‘honeypot’ for the cyber security and high-tech supply chain to locate alongside the national cyber central. Cheltenham is a national centre of expertise in cyber security, the home of GCHQ, and hosts an established financial services sector which places cyber security as a very high priority. The funding allocated will be used to remove any transport barriers that may exist…’ Relevant policy objectives from Gloucestershire’s LCWIP that align with the local scheme objectives of the West Cheltenham Transport Improvement (WCTIS) scheme for Phases 3 and 4 include: • Support sustainable economic growth - Gloucestershire is a place to do business and attract investment; - The transport network is reliable, fit for purpose and demonstrates value for money; and - Increased journey time reliability.
• Enable community connectivity - Individuals benefit from economic prosperity and social benefits; - An integrated transport network which provides genuine transport choices; and - A transport network which provides individuals with the confidence to consider all travel choices.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 17 of 115
2.2.6. GFirst LEP’s Local Industrial Strategy and Gloucestershire Strategic Economic Plan The National Cyber Security Strategy and Industrial Strategy place huge importance on cyber growth. GFirst LEP’s Local Industrial Strategy and the Gloucestershire Strategic Economic Plan have all found that gaining growth opportunities in the cyber security sector will result in high value and growth employment opportunities which will help achieve key objectives of both of these strategies. Coordinated effort to support growth in this sector will help to boost productivity. Cyber Central will be the first of its kind in the UK, a unique location dedicated to the development of cyber research, skills and capability to counter a threat estimated to cost the UK up to £30bn annually. The intention is to deliver one of the best places in the world to design, create, grow and operate innovative cyber security businesses of various scales. Cyber Central will be a campus that integrates high-tech workplaces with academic facilities, accommodation and leisure, etc. These advanced facilities will be set within a new garden community with homes of all tenures and types, contributing significantly to local housing needs.
2.2.7. Cyber Central and the JCS Review for Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury The full potential of this unique employment-led mixed-use development opportunity in West Cheltenham (including Cyber Central) was considered in the preparation of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy (JCS), adopted in December 2017. This was a direct response to longer term economic challenges and the demand for new employment land. Working with key stakeholders, the JCS councils worked collaboratively to draft a new growth strategy for the area. Following the adoption of the JCS in 2017, the JCS authorities are now taking forward a review. An Issues and Options consultation took place between 12th November 2018 and 11th January 2019. More information on the Joint Core Strategy Review is available at https://www.jointcorestrategy.org/joint-core-strategy-review. JCS strategic allocation A7 shows the proposed site in West Cheltenham for employment, housing and wider mixed-use development. The ambition is to attract significant levels of inward investment whilst helping neighbouring communities to regenerate and actively engage in the opportunities this new development will create. Connectivity is a major determining factor in helping West Cheltenham realise its future economic potential by ensuring direct access to the M5 motorway network (via M5 Junction 10 and Junction 11) and the effective functioning of the local highway network, in particular, the A40. WCTIS Phases 3 and 4, will help support the key requirements and ambitions for the West Cheltenham and Cyber Central development sites, which include: • The creation of a mixed-use Cyber Central Cluster including the creation of over 50 ha of land, to bring together leading cyber businesses and innovators alongside academic facilities dedicated to cyber and digital technologies; • The delivery of approximately 3,000 new homes, including affordable housing and diverse living options; • The establishment of a diverse and vibrant neighbourhood with activities throughout the day and into the evening; • Creating a cohesive site wide green infrastructure, for the benefit of people, eco-system; • A development which creates new and transforms existing communities, ensuring they are healthy, biodiverse environments, encouraging physical and social wellbeing; • An exemplar development, setting high sustainability and design standards that is responsive to the character of the landscape; • Deploy new ‘smart’ technologies to reduce the use of resources including energy and water in both the development construction process, long term use of buildings and environments, and transport connections to, through and from the site; and • An accessible development that is physically, digitally and culturally integrated.
The scheme will support the ambitions above by enabling development to start as soon as possible, and providing capacity on the local highway network. WCTIS, and WCWCI will also support the ‘green’ ambitions of Cyber Central by providing improvements for walking and cycling and also fully taking in to account the importance of Environmental Mitigation (Appendix K).
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 18 of 115
2.2.8. Joint Core Strategy for Gloucester, Cheltenham – SPD Development Plans (supplementary policies) The Joint Core Strategy for Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury sets out a number of supplementary policies for development in West Cheltenham. The most relevant policies, development plans and principles are set out below.
Policy SA1 A delivery policy that defines the context of the JCS strategic allocations deliveries. Development proposals should enable a comprehensive scheme to be delivered via a masterplan. The policy sets out ambitions in policy terms of use of local green space, the planning of infrastructure and transport.
Policy A7 (West Cheltenham strategic allocation for development) Formally designates land at West Cheltenham for approximately 1,100 new homes and approximately 45 hectares of employment land. The policy provides detail within the context of Policy SA1 and Policy SD5 relating to comprehensive master planning, constraints and transport.
Policy SD5 Details the JCS policy for green belt, this also includes land identified to meet longer term development needs and allocated as safeguarded land. Land at West Cheltenham immediately adjacent to land allocated for development by Policy A7 is safeguarded. The trigger for development on this area is through a review of the JCS.
Sustainable development principles The principles of this SPD cover some of the core issues associated with delivering sustainable development and environmental resilience, as the most important role playing in delivering sustainable, carbon neutral, growth which takes proper account of the current climate emergency. The sustainability strategy for West Cheltenham is formed of five key themes: • Resource efficiency; • Resilience; • Community and culture; • Connection to nature; and • Mobility.
2.2.9. Cyber Central Garden Community Framework Masterplan The location and strategic objectives under the Cyber Central Garden Community Framework are outlined in the latest masterplan for the area with details on the type and density of employment and housing provided in Figure 2-1. The strategic objectives for the Cyber Central Garden Community development cover the five key themes for sustainability outlined in the JCS.
Objective A Embracing the highest standards of sustainability through ensuring development is resource efficient and carbon neutral; resilient through the application of sponge city principles; will enrich local biodiversity; forms the basis of a sustainable community and embraces the opportunity for sustainable transport and full urban integration.
Objective B Cyber Central, a new and unique dedicated campus for the cyber-tech community, will be the focus of a vibrant, integrated, inclusive and diverse range of uses and activities, serving existing and new communities at densities which make effective use of land.
Objective C Working with the natural landscape and its features to create new environments which integrate existing landscape assets; provision of generous and flexible network of formal and informal open spaces of varying scales which help to integrate with and connect to new and existing communities; create landscapes which help
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 19 of 115
to minimise and mitigate flood risk; promote local food production; support and promote local public art initiatives; and, benefit from an appropriately resourced management regime.
Objective D An integrated and connected extension of West Cheltenham through the establishment of an open and permeable network of streets and routes; the design and delivery of streets and junctions which prioritise the needs of people and sustainable modes of transport; the provision new direct connections to existing communities and facilities; and, a flexible approach to the application of parking standards to ensure development promotes modal shift.
Objective E Promoting the highest standards of design quality through making effective use of land through higher density development, learning from local, national and international exemplars of good design, and applying good urban design principles. Figure 2-1 – Cyber Central Scheme Location Map
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 20 of 115
2.3. Existing travel demand and level of service
2.3.1. Traffic flows and network performance The section of the A40 between Arle Court roundabout and TGI Fridays Traffic Lights (A40 Gloucester Road) lies to the east of the M5 motorway on the route into Cheltenham. Junction 10 of the M5 has only north-facing slips, meaning that the A40 represents the only direct route from Cheltenham to locations to the south via the M5. Improving connectivity and resilience along the A40 corridor is a key objective of Gloucestershire’s Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) identified as the primary route from the Forest of Dean into the economic centre of the county, with very high traffic flows in the morning and afternoon peak periods. The A40 from Arle Court to TGI Fridays traffic lights carries a significant volume of traffic, with large flows in both directions in both the AM and PM peak periods. Table 2-3 summarises the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) extracted from DfT count sites between these two locations from 2014 to 2018.
Table 2-3 - 24hr AADT flows on the A40 between Arle Court and TGI Fridays traffic lights. A40 Arle Court roundabout to Benhall roundabout (Count ID 77895, estimated from nearby links) Direction 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Combined 47,187 54,134 54,193 51,821 51,895 A40 Benhall roundabout to TGI Fridays Traffic lights (Count ID 58258) Direction 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Westbound 12,134 12,031 12,311 12,349 12,239 Eastbound 12,202 12,093 12,369 12,002 11,895 Combined 24,336 24,124 24,680 24,351 24, 134
DfT count data between Arle Court and Benhall roundabout shows a steady increase in combined traffic flows (both directions) over the five-year period from 2014 to 2018. Significant decreases in traffic flows in 2018 and 2018 suggest a lack of spare capacity on the road, and a declining level of service originating from high congestion and delay on this link. It is important to note that the A40 between Benhall roundabout and TGI Fridays traffic lights (at the TGI Fridays junction) is a single carriageway for the majority of the route, with high volumes of traffic flow in both directions that means the link is operating at close to capacity. The AADTs on this section of the A40 is close to 24,000, with traffic flows broadly corresponding to the 20,000 – 25,000 capacity of a single carriageway. Negligible changes in traffic flows are also observed over the five-year period, suggesting that the link is operating at close to capacity for a single carriageway. This provides further evidence to support the focus on changing the layout of junctions and adjoining links to increase the operational efficiency of this section of the A40.
2.3.2. Accident data Road safety data from the Department for Transport (STATS19)8 has been extracted for a five-year period from 2014 – 2018 for the WCTIS Phases 3 and 4 scheme extent. This includes the length of the A40 from Arle Court to Benhall roundabout and from Benhall roundabout to the TGI Fridays/Church Road junction, near Cheltenham Spa railway station. Accident data has been categorised by severity (fatal, severe, slight) and casualty type (pedestrian, motor vehicle and cyclists) as presented in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4 - WCTIS Phases 3 and 4, Accidents, 2014 - 2018 Casualty Type Severity
Fatal Severe Slight
Motorised Vehicles 1 2 11
8 https://data.gov.uk/dataset/cb7ae6f0-4be6-4935-9277-47e5ce24a11f/road-safety-data
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 21 of 115
Cyclists 0 0 3 Pedestrians 1 2 2 Total 2 4 16 Source: STATS19 Road Safety Data
To supplement the overall analysis, an examination of the location of accidents has also been carried out. Location and severity of accidents at the A40/Telstar Way Junction, Benhall Roundabout and the section of the A40 between Benhall Roundabout Benhall Gardens, as shown in Table 2-5. These locations have proposed changes to the road alignment included within the scheme interventions, so may experience significant changes to the rate and severity of accidents.
Table 2-5 - WCTIS Phases 3 and 4, Accidents in the impact area Date of Accident Location Severity Number of Casualties 28-07-2014 Slight 1 17-08-2014 Serious 2 A40/Telstar Way 08-09-2018 Slight 1 12-03-2016 Slight 1 31-07-2018 Slight 1 29-01-2016 Serious 1 12-03-2015 Slight 1 Benhall Roundabout 29-06-2015 Slight 1 11-07-2015 Slight 1 27-05-2017 Slight 1 08-10-2014 Serious 1 09-12-2016 A40 carriageway from Slight 2 Benhall Roundabout to 23-08-2015 Benhall Gardens Fatal 1 01-04-2017 Slight 1
Figure 2-2 shows the location and severity of accidents along the WCTIS Phases 3 and 4 scheme extent, from Arle Court roundabout to TGI Fridays traffic lights. Clusters of incidents and casualties are reported at a number of junctions with the A40, at Telstar Way (3 slight, 1 severe) and Benhall roundabout (5 slight, 1 severe). East of Benhall roundabout there were a small number of accidents, with varying severity on the approach to Kingsley Gardens junction with the A40 (4 slight, 1 severe, 1 fatal). A cluster of accidents with varying severity were recorded near the TGI Fridays and Church Road junction with the A40 (4 slight, 1 severe and 1 fatal).
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 22 of 115
Figure 2-2 - Pedestrian, cyclist and motor vehicle accidents by severity, West Cheltenham
The following figures show the exact location and severity of accidents at the 3 locations mentioned above. Figure 2-3 DfT Accident data 2014-2018 at the A40/Telstar Way Junction
There were four accidents which occurred between January 2014 and December 2018 at the A40/Telstar Way Junction. The first of these was a slight casualty which occurred in 2014 and involved a pedestrian using the crossing facilities and was hit by a car. The second accident was a serious accident which has also occurred in 2014, involving a car and two pedestrian casualties who were crossing the carriageway (not at the crossing). Another slight casualty occurred in 2016, between two cars, one going ahead and one turning right onto Telstar Way. A vehicle hit the central crash barrier and a car passenger was injured. The last accident at the junction
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 23 of 115
occurred in 2018, on the westbound off-slip and had a slight casualty. A car left the carriageway and hit a lamp post, injuring the car driver.
Figure 2-4 DfT Accident data 2014-2018 at Benhall Roundabout
In the 5-year period three slight accidents and one serious accident occurred on approach to Benhall Roundabout. One of the slight accidents occurred in 2015 and involved a car and a motorcycle as the car attempted to change lanes. The second slight accident on approach to Benhall Roundabout was registered in 2017 and involved a colision between a car and pedestrian. The third slight casualty on approach to Benhall Roundabout was between a cyclist and car, and the cyclist was injured. There was also a serious accident on approach to Benhall Roundabout eastbound, where a car was overtaking a stationary vehicle in the bus lane and a pedestrian was crossing the road and was masked by the stationary vehicle.
There were two slight casualties in the 5-year period which occurred on the roundabout circulatory. Both were in 2015 and both involved one casualty and two cars. Both occurred as a vehicle changed lanes and collided with a vehicle moving off.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 24 of 115
Figure 2-5 DfT Accident data 2014-2018 along the A40 between Benhall Roundabout and Benhall Gardens
Four accidents occurred between 2014 and 2018 along the section of the A40, which is proposed to be widened eastbound to allow an additional lane for traffic. Two of these accidents were slight, one of which had one casualty and the other two casualties. The first slight accident was registered in 2016 and resulted from a car overtaking on the nearside in the bus lane colliding with a vehicle turning right into Kingsley Gardens. The second slight accident (in 2017) involved two cars colliding. In contrast, a serious accident occurred at the A40/Kingsley Gardens Junction in 2014. A motorcyclist rider was injured due to a car turning right into Kingsley Gardens colliding with the motorcyclist. Moreover, there has been one fatal accident along the section of the A40 corridor, which occurred in 2015. The fatality was a 26 year old male motorcycle rider. The motorcyclist was changing lanes to the right and collided with a car going ahead.
2.3.3. Public transport provision Stagecoach West provide the main local bus services within Cheltenham and connecting Cheltenham to the wider Gloucestershire area. The routes which the company operates in Cheltenham are shown in Figure 2-6. Of these, the 93, 94 and 94 Gold services provide frequent and strategically important connections between Cheltenham and Gloucester, using the A40 and Arle Court Roundabout. These routes are the most-used in the county, with around 2.5 million passenger journeys per year. The 93 and 94 also stop at Arle Court Park and Ride (P&R), providing an alternative for private car users to reach the centre of Cheltenham. In addition to Stagecoach, a number of other local bus service and school bus operators also use the roundabout. Service 99 (run by Pulhams Coaches) is a Hospitals circular between Gloucester and Cheltenham linking Cheltenham A&E, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital (Gloucester) and Arle Court Park & Ride. There are also intercity services run by National Express and Megabus that stop on the A40 just to the east of Arle Court Roundabout opposite GCHQ. The most frequent services among these connect Cheltenham to Gloucester and Hereford to the north and London to the east. Along with the other users of Arle Court Roundabout, bus service operators and passengers suffer frequent delays from congestion at peak times the junction, reducing the reliability and attractiveness of the service. The Managing Director of Stagecoach West confirmed these issues, stating:
“The major roads around Arle Court, including the A40 and B4063 are heavily congested in peak periods and traffic congestion causes significant delays for buses travelling in the area, as reflected within the existing timetabling of the 94 service and other services utilising this route. Journey time variability is also an issue limiting the take up of public transport on this corridor. Without intervention these issues are likely to get worse in the future due to significant expansion in housing and employment planned for the A40 corridor as part of the
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 25 of 115
Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy (JCS). The more recently announced Cyber Central will also impact adversely on traffic congestion and the ability for bus operators to provide a punctual and reliable service.”
Phases 3 and 4 of WCTIS will add to the previous phases, 1 and 2, and represent much-needed investment to enhance bus connectivity between Cheltenham and Gloucester: improving access to jobs, reducing congestion and making the most of existing investments and assets such as the Park and Ride and Gloucester Transport Hub. Figure 2-6 - Stagecoach West route map, Cheltenham
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 26 of 115
2.4. Future challenges
2.4.1. Population and employment growth As of mid-2017, the population of Cheltenham was estimated to be 117,1283. The population is expected to grow and is projected to reach 121,600 by 2026 and 128,000 by 2041, representing population growth of 9.3% over 25 years9. While the population in Gloucestershire is forecast to increase in all age groups, the largest increases are expected among those aged at least 65, reflecting an ageing population. Indeed, those aged 65+ accounted for 20.8% of the population in 2016 yet they are expected to reach 28.9% by 2040. An ageing population will present financial and resource implications for Gloucestershire in the future. By investing in infrastructure that can contribute to enabling a growth zone in the M5 corridor, Gloucestershire can mitigate these challenges by attracting the businesses; jobs and working age population that it needs to prosper. In 2018, 82.7% of working-age residents in Cheltenham were in employment, compared to 78.5% in Great Britain as a whole10. In the 2011 census, 29,462 residents of Cheltenham commuted to work within Cheltenham itself and 14,037 commuted to the wider Gloucestershire area, predominantly Tewkesbury and Gloucester11. To meet the needs of this growing population, the adopted Joint Core Strategy identifies the need for 35,175 houses across Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tewkesbury between 2011 and 2031. GFirst’s Strategic Economic Plan also states that over the period 2014-2022, they aim to create 33,909 jobs in Gloucestershire. With an already congested road network, it is therefore clear that in order to deliver the aims of the Joint Core Strategy and Strategic Economic Plan, investment to increase the capacity for growth is required.
2.4.2. Planned changes in the transport network There are a number of key changes to the local highway network that will impact on the scheme, and have been taken into account for the development of the project, specifically: • Converting M5 J10 to an all-movements junction. As of 12th March, at the budget announcement, Junction and the associated work has been approved and will be progressed by Homes England; • Innsworth Gateway – New roundabout to the west of the A40 providing access to the Innsworth development, and capacity improvements at Longford (A40/A38) roundabout; • Through the widening of the existing road network along the A40, Phase 1,2,3 & 4 of the West of Cheltenham Transport Improvement Scheme has the potential to complement, and benefit from, the implementation of these other transport interventions.
2.4.3. Future travel demand TEMPro forecasts for the AM-peak period in Cheltenham indicate a greater growth in trips originating in Cheltenham as opposed to finishing in the town (see Table 2-6). This trend points towards a greater impact of housing developments and increases in the number of residents in comparison to increased employment in the area. This pattern emphasises the importance of focusing on the development of key strategic connections within the town (such as the A40 and M5 via Arle Court Roundabout) an essential step for connecting people to employment opportunities.
Table 2-6 - TEMPro trip end forecasts and growth factors in Cheltenham 2017-2031 (AM Peak) 2021 2031 2017 Origins - 1.0278 1.0671 Growth Factor Destinations - 1.0183 1.0522 Origins 69,403 71,333 74,063 Trip Ends Destinations 76,562 77,961 80,560 Source: TEMPro (7.2) - All modes and purposes
9 https://inform.gloucestershire.gov.uk/media/2082290/current-population-of-gloucestershire-overview-2017.pdf 10 https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/1946157372/report.aspx 11 https://inform.gloucestershire.gov.uk/media/1520759/economy_of_gloucestershire_2017-35.pdf
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 27 of 115
2.4.4. Future traffic flows and network performance This section presents outputs from the A40 Paramics microsimulation traffic model developed to appraise the scheme and provides an estimate of the anticipated change in traffic flows and behaviour. Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-8 show the forecast changes in vehicle flows on the road network for the AM and PM peak hours from the 2017 base model to the 2021 Do-Minimum forecast. In both time periods, there is a significant increase in vehicle flow along the A40, which seems to increase considerably more than the general growth expected in other areas of Cheltenham. An increase of over 100 vehicles is observed in both the eastbound and westbound direction between Arle Court roundabout and Telstar Way junction during the AM and PM peak hour. The increase in vehicles is far more pronounced in the PM peak hour, with 180-190 additional vehicles travelling in the eastbound direction between Arle Court roundabout and Benhall roundabout during this time period. The modelled outputs also show a large increase in traffic accessing Benhall roundabout in the PM peak hour, adding to the pressure on the already congested network and at A40 intersections and junctions. Westbound traffic flows are expected to increase at almost double the rate of eastbound traffic due to the transport interventions during Phase 4, with the PM seeing the greatest growth in traffic flow.
Figure 2-7 - Growth from Base 2017 to DM 2021, AM Peak Hour
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 28 of 115
Figure 2-8 - Growth from Base 2017 to DM 2021, PM Peak Hour
2.5. Summary of identified problems and impact of not changing
Table 2-7 - Current challenges and their future impacts
Challenge Impact identified High congestion levels along A40 Increase in trips and congestion levels due to future development resulting in an increase in journey times for all transport users, specifically approaching and travelling through Benhall Roundabout and exiting Benhall Roundabout on the A40 towards Cheltenham Deterioration of Air Quality An Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) has been declared to cover the whole of Cheltenham Borough and an Action Plan has been developed to address problem areas. A continuing increase in trips taken by motor vehicle due to future land development will exacerbate the situation and nullify the desired impacts of the action plan. Lack of connectivity A more congested A40 would result in residential areas south of Cheltenham being further cut off from attractors such as the GCHQ employment area and the new Cyber Park development to the west.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 29 of 115
Improved bus provision (stops and connections) for buses will aid this issue.
2.6. Objectives In response to future challenges, GCC has developed a set of objectives for all four phases of the West Cheltenham Transport Improvement Scheme (WCTIS) which were reviewed and agreed by the GFirst LEP. These objectives led to the provisional allocation of funds for the transport improvements and are as follows: • Contribute to accelerating the release of employment land associated with the ‘West Cheltenham’ strategic allocation along with other strategic allocations in the JCS adjacent to GCHQ, which includes the proposed Cyber Park and Cyber Innovation Centre; • Deliver transport benefits to people living and working in Gloucestershire by improving traffic flows on the A40, one of the most important and busiest sections of Gloucestershire’s road network; • Aim to have an overall neutral impact on the Cheltenham Air Quality Management Area (AQMA); and • Maintain and improve the options for sustainable travel modes through junctions and on approaches; walking, cycling and where feasible providing for enhanced public transport facilities. 2.7. Scheme constraints and dependencies In terms of the strategic approach and dependencies, there is a clear justification to undertake WCTIS Phases 3 and 4 now. There are a number of key drivers, including: • It is intended that Phases 3 and 4 construction will follow very closely on from WCTIS Phase 1 (Arle Court roundabout improvements) and Phase 2 (M5 Junction 11 to Arle Court); • It is intended that WCTIS Phases 3 and 4 construction will happen concurrently with upgrades to walking and cycling infrastructure between Arle Court roundabout and TGI Fridays junction which is currently the subject of a separate business case, the West Cheltenham Walking and Cycling Improvement (WCWCI) scheme. The two schemes are interconnected and need to be implemented in parallel when it comes to procurement, preparation and construction. As such, the programme for both schemes are identical to achieve economies of scale; • Scheme costs for WCTIS Phases 3 and 4 and WCWCI will be reduced by the use of shared site compound; and • Delays and disruption will be minimised through the co-ordination of Phases 3 and 4 and West Cheltenham walking and cycling improvements, as well as other Highways England works in the area. 2.8. Scheme selection and option identification To further inform GCC’s decision making, culminating in a recommendation to Cabinet, Amey Consulting were commissioned to undertake an initial scheme assessment exercise to begin defining, costing and planning potential transport improvement schemes, which would enable future development within Cheltenham Borough. Atkins took over the process from Amey Consulting at the reporting stage. The culmination of the collaboration between Atkins and GCC led to the project being split into four discrete phases, WCTIS Phases 1-4. A high-level assessment of alternative schemes was undertaken as part of the decision for GCC to become the scheme promoter in late 2018. At that point, the LEP Board approved the outcome of this assessment by agreeing to take forward the package of schemes. The comparison between alternative schemes on different parts of the network and at different locations will therefore not be part of the Business Case process going forward, however, alternative delivery solutions that are within the approved high-level scheme package are considered as part of the FBC for each delivery phase.
2.8.1. Step 1 – Initial sifting The sifting process is fully outlined in the Outline Business Case (OBC) for all four phases of WCTIS. An initial assessment of 23 combined options was carried out to identify those schemes that would be taken forward to the next stage of evaluation. The initial 23 options considered all potential schemes in the locality where information was available, realising that some of these were considerably historic and others, superseded by work since the initial assessment took place. Prior to undertaking a more detailed assessment of each option, consideration was given to whether each scheme has the potential to meet the scheme objectives and is seen
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 30 of 115
as deliverable. The criteria used in the assessment is listed below, with those schemes meeting the criteria, taken forward to the next stage of evaluation.
Transport Objectives • Deliver transport benefits to people living and working in Gloucestershire by improving traffic flows on one of the most important and busiest sections of Gloucestershire’s road network; • Neutral impact on the Cheltenham Air Quality Management Area (AQMA); and • Maintain or improve the options for sustainable travel modes through the junction and on the approaches. Walking, cycling and where feasible providing for enhanced public transport facilities.
Deliverability Objectives • Most suitable for the funding source (LEP); • Deliverability; and • Ensuring additional land was not required to avoid extended purchase negotiations.
A priority status was attached to each scheme on the basis of the above criteria for the assessment. This led to the allocation of schemes to be discounted, low, medium or high priority. Only schemes that were identified as high and medium priority were taken forward to further detailed assessment.
2.8.2. Step 2 – selection of short-listed projects Those schemes that were identified as high or medium priority (11 scheme combinations in total) were taken forward for further detailed assessment against core business case criteria listed below. • Economy; • Social; • Environmental impact; • Verify Deliverability (within LEP timescale of 2021); and • Indicative Cost.
The scoring is summarised in Table 2-8. Note that Benhall roundabout capacity improvements scores highly, with other aspects of the WCTIS Phases 3 and 4 highlighted below. This cumulative scoring process lead to the prioritisation of proposed projects that comprise Phases 1 -4 of the WCTIS.
Table 2-8 - Options Assessment, cumulative scoring Project Assessment Cumulative Scoring 1 Arle Court Roundabout capacity improvements 70.0 2 Benhall Roundabout capacity improvements 65.5 12 3 Staverton crossroads capacity improvements 65.5 4 M5 Junction 11 southbound off-slip capacity improvements (may be part funded by 64.5 HE)13 5 Telstar Way Junction to A40 improvements 63.5 6 A40 eastbound - Widening M5 Junction 11 to Arle Court, upgrade westbound access to 61.0 Park & Ride
12 This could be developer funded or subject on another LEP funding stream. Discussions are ongoing with HE, who also have Cycle Superhighway scheme that runs through this junction. 13 HE is developing a scheme through their VM process but decisions on preferred options will not be available in time for the proposed package.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 31 of 115
7 Telstar Way capacity improvements 60.5 8 A40 eastbound Telstar Way Junction to Benhall Roundabout capacity improvements 59.0 9 A40 eastbound Benhall Roundabout to Esso Garage capacity improvements 57.5 14 10 Tewkesbury Road (A4019) capacity improvements (may be funded by developers) 56.5 11 A40 eastbound Arle Court junction to Telstar Way junction capacity improvements 52.5
2.8.3. Step 3 – Paramics modelling for Phases 3 and 4 Following the initial identification of the full WCTIS scheme, detailed traffic modelling was undertaken for Phases 1 and 2, as reported in the two approved Full Business Cases. For this new FBC (Phases 3 & 4 of WCTIS), further modelling has been undertaken to demonstrate the benefits of the scheme. Therefore, the following section presents outputs from the A40 Paramics Discovery micro-simulation traffic model. Assumptions for the modelling are as follows: • All networks (three network options altogether) assume the completed construction of Phase 1 & Phase 2 schemes. • Phase 2 Do Something = Phase 3 Do Minimum • One change was applied to the Phase 3 Do Minimum model from the Phase 2 Do Something assessment, carried over to the Phase 3 Do Something models. Previously, vehicles waiting to turn right into Granley Road from the A40 would block all eastbound traffic flow. However, from local knowledge and on-site observations, it was found that blocked vehicles would use the adjacent bus lane to undertake those waiting. This was found to have a significant impact on the results of the Phase 3 assessment; therefore, the model was updated to reflect these localised observed conditions.
14 The Tewkesbury Road scheme could be developer funded, however it has been included within the schedule as a contingency, in case the programme for the Highways England schemes conflicts with some of the proposals and the A40 schemes cannot be progressed.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 32 of 115
2.8.3.1. Phase 3 Model Assessments The model was tested using a building-blocks approach, and Phase 3 was assessed first in terms of options. When the optimal layout was agreed for Phase 3, Phase 4 was then added to the model to assess the full scheme.
The aim of the Phase 3 scheme is to reduce congestion on the A40 eastbound between the Arle Court Roundabout and Benhall Roundabout, with additional focus on improving access into and out of GCHQ at the Telstar Way junction. The existing network layout has two lanes for the A40 eastbound movement, a dedicated third left-turn lane to Telstar Way, widening from two to three lanes on the approach to Benhall Roundabout, and a two-lane roundabout gyratory.
Figure 2-9 - Phases 3 & 4 Scheme Location
Figure 2-10 - Do Minimum Network Layout – Phase 3
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 33 of 115
For Phase 3, three options were tested, known as Option 1, Option 1a and Option 2a. The details of the layouts were as follows:
Option 1 • Four lanes on the A40 eastbound approach to Benhall Roundabout, with the current bus layby removed and replaced with bus boarder arrangement. - Lanes 1 and 2 left-turn only for all vehicles, with lane 2 allowing buses to go straight-ahead, and lanes 3 and 4 straight-ahead only. • Widening of the Benhall Roundabout northern circulatory to 3 lanes, with lane 1 for buses only.
Option 1a • Consistent with Option 1, with the inclusion of the bus layby on the A40 eastbound approach.
Option 2a • Three lanes on the A40 eastbound approach to Benhall Roundabout with the inclusion of the bus layby. - Lane 1 left-only for vehicles, with buses allowed to go straight-ahead, and lanes 2 and 3 for straight- ahead only. • Benhall Roundabout circulatory selectively widened on the northern side to 3 lanes, with lane 1 of northern circulatory for buses only.
The main outputs from the Paramics models are journey times for both AM and PM peak hours (8:00-9:00 and 17:00-18:00). The main routes assessed are as follows: • Route 1 – A40 mainline between Arle Court Roundabout and the A40/B4633 Gloucester Road (TGI Fridays Junction) split in to three sections – (as shown in the figure below). • Route 2 – A4013 Princess Elizabeth Way between Benhall Roundabout and the A4019/Kingsditch Lane Roundabout. • Route 3 – To and from GCHQ at Telstar Way to and from Arle Court Roundabout and Benhall Roundabout.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 34 of 115
Figure 2-11 - Route 1 - Arle Court to TGI Fridays (A40)
Table 2-9 - Route 1 Journey Time Comparison (AM-peak, journey time (s)) Do Section Direction Description Option 1 Option 1a Option 2a Minimum
1 Eb Arle Court to Telstar Way 39 30 30 30
Wb Telstar Way to Arle Court 59 60 59 59
2 Eb Telstar Way to Benhall 71 45 44 47
Wb Benhall to Telstar Way 68 59 59 59
3 Eb Benhall to TGI Fridays 122 139 144 155
Wb TGI Fridays to Benhall 107 100 100 102
Full Eb Arle Court to TGI Fridays 232 214 218 233 Route
Wb TGI Fridays to Arle Court 233 218 218 220
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 35 of 115
Table 2-10 - Route 1 Journey Time Comparison (PM-peak, journey time (s)) Do Section Direction Description Option 1 Option 1a Option 2a Minimum
1 Eb Arle Court to Telstar Way 34 30 30 30
Wb Telstar Way to Arle Court 50 49 50 48
2 Eb Telstar Way to Benhall 71 45 44 47
Wb Benhall to Telstar Way 57 56 56 56
3 Eb Benhall to TGI Fridays 83 99 107 104
Wb TGI Fridays to Benhall 104 89 90 89
Full Eb Arle Court to TGI Fridays 188 175 181 182 Route
Wb TGI Fridays to Arle Court 211 194 196 193
Table 2-9 and Table 2-10 show that almost all options tested for Route 1 result in improvements to both the eastbound and westbound travel times for the AM and PM peaks, when compared to the Do Minimum scenario. Option 2a eastbound in the AM peak is the main exception to this, with the total journey time comparable to the Do Minimum. The most notable decreases in average time are shown to occur on sections 1 and 2, with travel times of up to 27 seconds less. Journey times on section 3 eastbound between Benhall Roundabout and TGI Fridays can be seen to increase over the Do Minimum for all options tested. This may be a result of improvements upstream leading to more vehicles reaching this section in less time, leading to more congestion and thus greater travel times. This is addressed by Phase 4 of the improvements scheme which consists of widening of the A40 to two lanes for mainline traffic and improving the TGI signalised junction and is therefore not considered a significant issue in determining the best option for Phase 3.
Table 2-11 - Route 2 Journey Time Comparison (AM-peak, journey time (s)) Do Section Direction Description Option 1 Option 1a Option 2a Minimum Princess Elizabeth Way 1 Nb 240 241 240 242 South Princess Elizabeth Way Sb 225 226 222 223 South Princess Elizabeth Way 2 Sb 117 120 120 121 South Princess Elizabeth Way Nb 124 129 132 127 South Full Princess Elizabeth Way Nb 365 370 372 369 Route South Princess Elizabeth Way Sb 342 346 342 344 South
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 36 of 115
Table 2-12 - Route 2 Journey Time Comparison (PM-peak, journey time (s)) Do Section Direction Description Option 1 Option 1a Option 2a Minimum Princess Elizabeth Way 1 Nb 212 211 217 207 South Princess Elizabeth Way Sb 179 177 176 177 South Princess Elizabeth Way 2 Sb 129 132 133 134 South Princess Elizabeth Way Nb 143 145 145 145 South Full Princess Elizabeth Way Nb 355 356 362 352 Route South Princess Elizabeth Way Sb 308 309 309 310 South
The results for Route 2 as shown in Table 2-11 and Table 2-12 indicate little variation between the three options tested compared to the Do Minimum scenario, with the northbound direction actually experiencing a slight increase of up to 7 seconds in travel time. This is likely as a result of the new Pelican Crossing on Princess Elizabeth Way on the northbound exit of Benhall Roundabout, contributing to additional delay for section 2. The minimal difference from the Do Minimum model shown by the results is likely due to the route existing on the peripheral of the Phase 3 improvements, therefore is unlikely to experience much effect from the scheme.
Table 2-13 - Route 3 Journey Time Comparison (AM-peak, journey time (s)) Do Section Direction Description Option 1 Option 1a Option 2a Minimum
1 Eb Arle Court to GCHQ 55 61 61 61
2 Eb GCHQ to Benhall 74 66 65 72
3 Wb Benhall to GCHQ 99 93 94 93
4 Wb GCHQ to Arle Court 102 107 106 106
Table 2-14 - Route 3 Journey Time Comparison (PM-peak, journey time (s)) Do Section Direction Description Option 1 Option 1a Option 2a Minimum
1 Eb Arle Court to GCHQ 53 57 57 57
2 Eb GCHQ to Benhall 68 64 62 66
3 Wb Benhall to GCHQ 84 88 88 85
4 Wb GCHQ to Arle Court 109 93 93 92
In comparison to the Do Minimum model, Table 2-13 and Table 2-14 for Route 3 shows minimal changes to journey time for each of the Phase 3 options tested. Some sections are seen to experience minor increases in travel time, while others show a slight decrease. This may be reflective of the Phase 3 signal optimisation
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 37 of 115
carried out at the Telstar Way / A40 junction which aimed to give more priority to the A40 movement. As with previous routes, all three options perform similarly well when compared to each other. Analysis of queue lengths for Phase 3 were also reported through the modelling process and are included in Appendix A. Delay and impact for buses was also assessed, and all three of the options tested showed significant improvements to overall bus journey times from the baseline Do Minimum scenario. All options tested led to improvements to both journey time and queueing in comparison to the baseline (Do Minimum scenario). Option 1a, with both a four-lane approach to Benhall Roundabout and dedicated bus layby, resulted in slightly better modelled network performance when considering bus journey time improvements. However, Option 1 and 2a performed consistently well in comparison to the Do Minimum for both vehicle journey time and average queue lengths on key routes and junctions in the model. Therefore, it can be concluded that all three of the Phase 3 options tested would result in economic benefits. As Option 2a provides the lowest cost solution, and shown to perform on a comparable level with the other higher cost solutions, Option 2a was taken forward for the design.
2.8.3.2. Phase 4 Option 2a was taken forward from Phase 3, and two options subsequently tested for Phase 4 (added as a building-block to Phase 3). The full results are included as Appendix A with journey time and queue length analysis. The aim of the Phase 4 scheme is to reduce congestion on the A40 eastbound between Benhall Roundabout and the TGI Fridays junction. The existing network layout consists of a single lane for mainline eastbound traffic and a segregated bus lane between Benhall Roundabout and the A40 junction with Granley Road, where it joins regular traffic. To identify the optimal Phase 4 network design, the following two options were considered;
Option 1 – A40 Long Merge • Widening the existing general traffic provision from one to two lanes on the A40 eastbound exit from Benhall Roundabout, continuing to Oldfield Crescent where it merges back to a single lane, with the remaining section of the A40 eastbound continuing as existing. The current bus lane provision is maintained
Option 2 – A40 Short Merge • Widening the existing general traffic lane provision from one to two lanes on the A40 eastbound exit from Benhall Roundabout, continuing to Benhall Gardens where it merges back to a single lane, with the remaining section of the A40 eastbound continuing as existing. The current bus lane provision is maintained.
Journey Time results were collected for the same three key routes in the model that were used in the Phase 3 assessment, for both the AM and PM Peak hours (08:00 – 09:00 and 17:00 – 18:00 respectively). The Phase 4 results for journey time and queue lengths demonstrated that both Option 1 and 2 display positive improvements for average journey time and queue lengths on the key routes compared to the Do Minimum model scenario. The key route is 1, and as shown in the tables below, both Option 1 and 2 show measurable improvements eastbound (where the improvement is being implemented).
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 38 of 115
Table 2-15 - Phase 4 Journey Time Comparison, Route 1 AM Route 1 AM (08:00 – 09:00) Journey Time (s) Direction Section Description Do Minimum Option 1 Option 2 1 Arle Court to Telstar Way 38 30 30 2 Telstar Way to Benhall 71 47 47 Eastbound 3 Benhall to TGI Fridays 80 77 77 Total 189 154 154 1 TGI Fridays to Benhall 105 89 89 2 Benhall to Telstar Way 67 59 59 Westbound 3 Telstar Way to Arle Court 59 61 61 Total 230 209 209
Table 2-16 - Phase 4 Journey Time Comparison, Route 1 PM Route 1 PM (17:00 – 18:00) Journey Time (s) Direction Section Description Do Minimum Option 1 Option 2 1 Arle Court to Telstar Way 42 30 30 2 Telstar Way to Benhall 85 47 47 Eastbound 3 Benhall to TGI Fridays 114 89 87 Total 241 166 164 1 TGI Fridays to Benhall 123 81 83 2 Benhall to Telstar Way 60 59 60 Westbound 3 Telstar Way to Arle Court 56 58 57 Total 239 198 198
In terms of the bus journey time comparison for Phase 4, both options perform equally well (full results in Appendix A) and provide benefit for buses. The Phase 4 results for journey time and queue lengths show that both long and short options provide positive improvements, compared to the Do Minimum scenario. The longer merge option on the A40 eastbound does not contribute any significant benefit compared to the short merge option. By selecting this option, the existing highway verge can be considered for improvements as part of the walking and cycling proposals (WCWCI). Therefore, the short merge option (Option 2) has been taken forward to the detailed design and submission for the Business Case. 2.9. Scheme impacts and outcomes A summary of scheme impacts is presented in Table 2-17, which demonstrates that the scheme will achieve all transport objectives.
Table 2-17 - Summary of scheme impacts on transport objectives
Transport objectives Summary of forecast scheme impacts Contribute to accelerating the release of the Improving connectivity to West Cheltenham along employment land associated with the ‘West the A40, makes the area a more attractive place to Cheltenham’ Strategic Allocation along with the other invest and will increase demands to accelerate the strategic allocations in the JCS adjacent to GCHQ, release of employment land. The scheme will improve connectivity through reduced delay on the
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 39 of 115
which includes the proposed Cyber Park and Cyber A40 eastbound from Arle Court roundabout to the Innovation Centre TGI Fridays junction, via Benhall roundabout. Journey times will improve in the eastbound and westbound direction for the Phase 3 preferred option (option 1) between Arle Court and TGI Fridays junction. The largest improvement will be in the eastbound direction during the AM peak hour, at 18 seconds, and in the PM peak hour, the journey time saving is 13 seconds. Deliver transport benefits to people living and Monetised Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) working in Gloucestershire by improving traffic flows tables of £28.77m in 2010 prices and values (Table on one of the most important and busiest sections of 3-5). Gloucestershire’s road network Aim to have an overall neutral impact on the There is a slight increase in the net total emissions of Cheltenham Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) PM2.5 and NOx over the 60-year appraisal period due to a commensurate increase in total annual vehicle kilometres travelled. However, the change in traffic data as a result of the scheme has been analysed and will not result in any significant change to pollutant concentrations at selected sensitive receptors. There is no evidence to suggest that the scheme would affect local air quality within the Cheltenham Borough Council Air Quality Management Area.
The air quality assessment indicates that the scheme would not result in any new exceedances of AQS objectives or worsening of existing exceedances. Maintain and improve the options for sustainable WCTIS Phase 3 and 4 does not directly provide for travel modes through the junction and on the any new or enhanced public transport facilities, approaches; walking, cycling, and where feasible however, by improving the layout of Benhall providing for enhanced public transport facilities. roundabout, the scheme is assessed to improve journey times for public transport users with all options tested under Phase 3 leading to improvements in bus journey times. The most notable change is to the eastbound direction in the AM peak, with decreases of up to 28 seconds between Arle Court and Benhall Roundabout.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 40 of 115
3. Economic Case 3.1. Overview Funding of phases 3 & 4 of the West of Cheltenham Transport Improvement Scheme is part of a wider package of works aimed at improving connectivity along the A40 corridor between M5 J11 and the approaches South West of the town centre. The business cases for Phases 1 and 2 were submitted in October and November 2019 respectively, and included the following transport infrastructure improvements:
Phase 1: Capacity Improvements to Arle Road Roundabout, including: • The provision of an additional lane to the circulatory of the signalised roundabout; • Corresponding additional lanes to the A40 on the approaches and exits to and from the junction; • Providing a new bus lane on the B4063 Staverton approach to the roundabout, also improving facilities for cyclists; • Bus lane modifications to improve journey times for public transport • Widening the Hatherley Lane arm to the south-side of the roundabout, improving access to the Arle Court Park and Ride (P&R); • Investigating other cycling improvements as part of this phase • Proposal to improve cyclist access at specific junctions, such as Fiddlers Green Lane • Park and Ride Entrance/Exit westbound (towards Gloucester) from Arle Court Roundabout; and • Relocating the bus stop at the P&R and building a new one on the other side of the road to take advantage of the bus only slip.
Phase 2: Widening the existing A40 carriageway eastbound from M5 J11 to Arle Court Roundabout, including: • The A40 eastbound merge from M5 Junction 11 upgraded to a lane gain with ghost island merge; and, • A40 eastbound carriageway upgraded to three lanes from this lane gain all the way to Arle Court Roundabout.
To complete the package of works phases 3 and 4 include a series of improvements to the A40 carriageway between Arle Court Roundabout and TGI Fridays. These include: -
• A40 eastbound widening from Benhall roundabout; • Benhall roundabout re-modelling; • Telstar Way junction re-modelling; and • TGI Friday Signal Improvements (at the junction between the A40 and B4633)
The objectives for Phases 3 and 4 are to increase the capacity of the network between Arle Court and TGI Fridays, at Benhall roundabout, and to future-proof the current network and improve connectivity of the study area with the surrounding network. The scheme is expected to produce a net Present Value Benefit (PVB) of £23.5m over the 60-year appraisal period. This consists of £27.4m from travel time savings, £1.4m from reductions in vehicle operating costs, a fall in Government Indirect Tax of -£0.5m, noise impact costs of -£2.3m, costs from a reduction in air quality of £0.9m and costs from changes in greenhouse gases of £1.6m. The total scheme construction costs expressed as a Present Value of Costs (PVC) is £8.5m.
Overall assessment of costs and benefits generated by the project shows that the Phases 3 & 4 achieves a Benefit Cost Ratio figure of 2.77 with a Net Present Value (NPV) of £15.0 million. The scheme can be therefore categorised as achieving high value for money in the classification provided by DfT. The scheme is expected to have a neutral impact on water, geology, landscape, and accessibility. The scheme is expected to have a positive impact on journey quality. It is likely that the scheme will have a negative impact
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 41 of 115
on noise and the emissions of air pollutants, that that these impacts are not significant and will therefore not impact on the overall value for money classification of the scheme. 3.2. Methodology
3.2.1. Modelling Modelling for the economics was based on the Paramics Discovery 19 model developed for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 improvements scheme, presenting a Do Minimum and Do Something scenario for the 2021 and 2031 forecast years. The Do Minimum modelling scenario assumes the completed construction of the Phase 1 and 2 schemes, and therefore is consistent with the Do Something modelling option for Phase 2. The Do Something network comprises of the Do Minimum scenario with the proposed Phase 3 and 4 schemes in place. These consist of widening of the A40 eastbound between the Arle Court Roundabout and Benhall Roundabout from 2 to 3 lanes, associated widening and reconfiguring of the Benhall Roundabout northern circulatory, and widening the existing general traffic lane provision on the A40 eastbound exit from Benhall Roundabout to Benhall Gardens from one to two lanes. This configuration was selected based on network sensitivity tests detailed further in the Phase 3 & 4 Modelling Technical Note available in Appendix A.
3.2.1.1. Compatibility with Economic Appraisal To quantify the economic impacts, the Paramics models was set up following modelling for economics outputs guidance from Systra. The parameters identified as essential for undertaking fixed trip matrix economic assessments are included in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 - Paramics Discovery and TUBA Parameters Parameter Setting / Comment Seed Value It is essential to undertake both the Do Minimum and Do Something model runs using the same random seed values in each case. This ensures consistency of the number of trips released and in their modelled characteristics. Preserve Choice The “preserve choice” option must be toggled on in all models. This ensures consistency of release link within a zone where multiple options exist. Simulation Time The simulation must be run for long enough to ensure that all trips that are released between 07:00 and 19:00 complete their journey and are recorded in the outputs. With regards to the simulation time parameter, a total of 30 fixed-seed runs for the 2021 and 2031 models were carried out, with an additional cool-down hour included without demand. This ensured enough runs where additional simulated traffic in the AM and PM peaks was able to completely clear the network over the modelled period. The runs were further filtered by removing those where the mean difference in distance and travel time from the average across all runs exceeded 10% for both the 2021 and 2031 models. This was to remove any runs experiencing an extreme difference from the average, preventing them from potentially skewing the overall results. The runs removed during this process are listed in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2 - Count and Seed Values from the Paramics Model Runs Removed During Filtering AM Peak (08:00 – 09:00) PM Peak (17:00 – 18:00) Model Year Count Seed Value Count Seed Value Do Minimum 2021 0 - 1 17 2036 11 1, 8, 13, 15, 16, 18, 14 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26 16, 18, 20, 25, 26, 27 Do Something 2021 0 - 0 -
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 42 of 115
2036 12 5, 7, 12, 13, 14, 16, 14 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 30 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30 Due to how Paramics Discovery assigns trips, and despite using the same demand matrices across the Do Minimum and Do Something models, there are still occurrences where a trip may occur for a particular Origin- Destination (OD) movement in one model and not the other. For TUBA modelling, these OD pairs need to be consistent across all modelled years for the AM and PM peaks individually, else TUBA flags a serious warning. Therefore, filtering was carried out across all modelled years for the AM and PM peak results separately to retain only OD pairs which featured in the Base, Do Minimum and Do Something models alike. In the context of this study and with reference to Table 3-3 below, the difference between the unfiltered demand and the final demand appraised is considered to be insignificant.
Table 3-3 - Proportion of Demand Filtered from the 2017, 2021 and 2031 Matrices Time Demand Year Unfiltered Total Filtered Total Difference % Difference AM Base (2017) 27168 27090 78 -0.29% (08:00 – 09:00) 2021 28622 28541 81 -0.28% 2031 31503 31415 88 -0.28% PM Base (2017) 27565 27420 145 0.53% (17:00 – 18:00) 2021 28861 28708 153 0.53% 2031 31678 31510 168 0.53%
3.2.2. Estimation of Costs
3.2.2.1. Capital Costs The scheme capital costs have been estimated as £8.29m (2020 prices); see table below. A contingency has been included to account for potential risks. This amounts to £1.88m (2020 prices). Table 3-4 displays the breakdown of capital costs of the scheme in 2020 prices.
Table 3-4 - Scheme Capital Costs, 2020 prices
Project Cost * Cost Components Capital Cost Estimate Costs by year (£) Totals Phase 3&4 Items Status Cyberpark (O/P/D/T) 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22
Design & Design fees, Management Surveys and trial P £189,831 £370,000 £955,444 £74,725 £1,590,000 holes, Land Purchase Construction Non-Routine including Reconstruction Traffic Related Maintenance Site clearance, Diversions of P - £94,700 £4,725,500 £4,820,200 Statutory services.
Widening and re- surfacing of carriageway. Contingency Risk adjustment P - £200,000 £1,679,800 £1,879,800 Indirect Tax Non-recoverable ------VAT (if applicable)
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 43 of 115
Total Cost (NB – Not Base Cost with Real Cost P £189,831 £370,000 £1,250,144 £6,480,025 £8,290,000 Adjustment)
3.2.2.2. Maintenance Costs The BCR has been calculated using capital costs only. To cover two surface treatments and a surface course resurfacing, the cost of the ongoing maintenance is estimated as £23.20 per m2. Over a 30-year design life this would equate to £0.77 per m2 per year. The scheme will construct additional carriageway area of 2880 m2. The additional maintenance liability would therefore equate to £2,218 per year and GCC will include for this in maintenance budgets, and therefore does not impact on the budget and LEP funding for the Scheme. Therefore, operation and maintenance costs will be negligible for calculating the BCR.
3.2.3. Economic Appraisal Approach Economic assessment compares the monetised costs and benefits of the proposed scheme against the alternative without scheme scenario. It also considers non-monetised impacts to provide a broad view of the scheme performance beyond that captured in the BCR. The Economic Assessment for this scheme was carried out using standard procedures and economic parameters as defined by TAG Unit A1.1 – Cost Benefit Analysis15. The results from the different elements of the economic assessment are presented in TEE, PA and AMCB tables. The following key economic statistics are used to demonstrate the case for the scheme. • The PVB (Present Value of Benefits) represents the total monetised benefits from the scheme, including the impact of the scheme on central government indirect tax revenues, discounted to 2010 prices and values; • The PVC (Present Value of Costs) represents the total scheme investment and maintenance costs; • The NPV (Net Present Value) represents the absolute difference between the PVB and PVC; • The BCR is the ratio of PVB to PVC and represents the scheme’s overall value for money; and • The Appraisal Summary Table (AST) helps to summarise all the monetised, qualitative and quantitative impacts of the scheme.
3.2.4. Software used for the Appraisal TUBA (Transport Users Benefit Appraisal) software (version 1.9.13) was used in this appraisal. This version incorporates the latest values set out in the DfT WebTAG data book (version v1.12) published in May 2019. This software has been produced by the DfT to carry out transport scheme economic appraisals using a ‘willingness to pay’ approach with fixed or variable demand. As noted, the economic impacts of a scheme are derived by comparing the future year situation with the scheme (Do Something scenario) to the situation without the scheme (Do Minimum).
3.2.4.1. TUBA Assessment and the use of Paramics Outputs in the Economic Appraisal An economic assessment to facilitate the quantification and monetisation of scheme costs and benefits is undertaken over a 60-year economic appraisal period in accordance with the requirement of TAG Unit A1.1. Economic assessment results are presented in the form of Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE), Public Accounts (PA), and Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) tables. The results are also input to an Appraisal Summary Table (AST) and combined with qualitative assessments which demonstrate overall VfM. The following sections provide details of how the various elements of the Paramics transport model outputs have been used within the TUBA economic assessment to conduct the economic appraisal.
3.2.4.2. Time Periods The Paramics model was developed with a base year of 2017. This model has been used to develop forecast models for 2021, which corresponds to the scheme opening year, and 2031 forecast years for a Do Minimum scenario and a Do Something scenario.
15 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/webtag-tag-unit-a1-1-cost-benefit-analysis-may-2018
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 44 of 115
Models have been developed for AM and PM peak periods, which cover: • AM Peak: 0700 to 1000; and • PM Peak: 1600 to 1900
For input into TUBA, outputs were taken from the model in the peak hours: • AM Peak: 0800 to 0900 hours; and • PM Peak: 1700 to 1800 hours Although 3-hour demand matrices were assigned using 3-hour average demand profile, the first and the last hours acted as the warm-up period and cooling off period respectively.
3.2.4.3. Demand Three matrix levels, one for car, one for LGV’s and one with a combination of OGV1 and OGV2 are included within the model: • Matrix Level 1 = Car (100%); • Matrix Level 2 = LGV (100%); and • Matrix Level 3 = HGV with split of OGV1 (50%) and OGV2 (50%) Accordingly, the Paramics model has produced demand, time and distance skims/matrices required for TUBA assessments for three user classes only, namely for Car, LGV and HGV.
3.2.4.4. Derivation of Annualisation Factors Annualisation factors are used to scale-up the modelled hours to represent traffic in peak periods throughout the year. In line with the calibration and validation methodology and in order to guarantee accuracy in the economic analysis, only demand of the AM peak hour of 0800-0900 and the PM peak hour of 1700-1800 were used in the economic analysis. To obtain annualisation factors, a comparison analysis of single hour demand to the overall 3-hour demand for the AM and PM peaks was carried out. Based on this analysis the peak hour to peak period expansion factors were derived as: • AM Peak: 2.64; and • PM Peak: 2.76 Using this expansion factor, the derived annualisation factors are as follows: • Weekday AM Peak – 668; and • Weekday PM Peak – 698 NB: Number of weekdays was considered 253 days (365 total days in a year, reduced by 104 weekend days and 8 Bank Holidays).
3.2.4.5. User Classes and Journey Purposes As explained in previous section, the demand matrices have been taken from the M5 Junction 11 and 12 Paramics Discovery Model developed by Amey that disaggregates the demand by purpose in three user classes. These three user classes have been further segregated into following seven user classes as per WebTAG guidelines as required for the TUBA economic appraisal: • Car Commuting; • Car Business; • Car Other; • OGV1; • OGV2; • LGV Personal; and • LGV Freight. The Car user class was disaggregated using TUBA default purpose splits defined in the economics file16.
16 TUBA default purpose splits are based on WebTAG Data Book Table A 1.3.4. Default purpose split: for AM Peak 16.5% Car Business, 44.1% Car Commute and 39.4% Car Other, while for PM Peak 11.8% Car Business, 41.3% Car Commute and 46.9% Car Other.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 45 of 115
The LGV user class was disaggregated into LGV Personal and LGV Freight using the WebTAG Data Book Table A1.3.4, giving a default proportional split of 12% for LGV Personal and 88% for LGV Freight. The HGV user class was disaggregated into 50% of OGV1 and 50% of OGV2 using the original split of matrix level 3 used in the M5 Junction 11 and 12 Paramics Discovery Model developed by Amey.
3.2.4.6. Travel Time Savings Travel time savings are calculated using the ‘rule of a half’ applied to generalised time skims from the Traffic Model. Since there are no modelled tolls, and parking costs are not included in the M5 Junction 11 and 12 Paramics Discovery Model developed by Amey, generalised time equates solely to in-vehicle time. Travel times in the traffic model are represented in seconds. These have been converted to vehicle hours and annualised for each time period, so that annual travel time savings can be calculated. Annual time savings are calculated for each modelled year by comparing the DS and DM time skims extracted from the Paramics model. Benefits for non-modelled years are calculated via linear interpolation between modelled years, and flat-line extrapolation beyond the final modelled year. However, the impact of discounting on estimated benefits means that the benefits ‘curve’ declines towards the end of the appraisal period. Default economic assumptions have been applied, as contained in the TUBA software (v1.9.13) and based on the guidance contained in the DfT WebTAG data book (version v1.12) published in May 2019.
3.2.4.7. Vehicle Operating Cost Savings Vehicle operating costs (VOCs) are calculated for both fuel and non-fuel elements of the journey, based on formulae set out in the DfT’s WebTAG guidance. The ‘rule of a half’ formula is broadly applied as for travel times, but with vehicle operating costs being based on distance travelled (vehicle-kilometres) and average vehicle speeds. The change in distance travelled as the result of the scheme is measured by comparing the Paramics model skim matrices values in DM and DS. Additionally, the average network speed for each scenario is derived from the time and distance Paramics skim matrices and the change is then measured by comparing the DM and DS values. All assumptions relating to fuel costs, duty and vehicle efficiency are those contained in the default TUBA economics file. The same annualisation factors as defined above are applied to derive VOC benefits.
3.2.5. Present Value of Costs The scheme construction costs have been estimated by the engineering team. These include results of a quantified risk assessment, and the effects of construction price inflation. These non-economic costs are set out in the Financial Case. To convert these costs to Present Value Costs (PVC), the following adjustments have been applied: • Values converted to 2010 prices; • Real inflation added (e.g. Tender Price Index or Retail Price Index depending on the cost type less background inflation); • Contingency was estimated, and optimism bias was considered at 15%. As scheme costs are based on estimation stage prior to the detailed design, an optimism bias of 15% was applied to total costs, in line with guidance set out in DfT TAG unit A1-2; • Conversion to market prices (using a factor for the average rate of indirect taxation in the economy of 1.19); and • Discounting at 3.5% per annum to present values. 3.3. Environment Appraisal
3.3.1. Biodiversity A desktop assessment and extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey were conducted in 2018. The scheme has evolved since then and includes works that may not have previously been considered. Atkins undertook a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) of the Scheme in November 2019. The desktop survey found two statutory sites within 2km of the works required to deliver the Scheme, including Badgeworth Site of Special Scientific Interest (approximately 900 m to the South) and Griffith Avenue Local Nature Reserve (approximately 1.5km to the east). Three other designations were also identified, including
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 46 of 115
Cold Pool Lane Conservation Road Verge, and two ‘Unconfirmed Key Wildlife Sites’. There should be no impact from the Phase 3 & 4 Scheme on any statutory or non-statutory sites. The Scheme is situated within Cheltenham and the ‘soft landscaped’ habitats are predominantly planted and or managed. Surveys identified habitats of potential ecological value within the Scheme area, including linear strips of deciduous woodland, scrub, a shallow slow-flowing watercourse (Hatherley Brook) and semi-improved neutral grassland (road verges). The Scheme will impact upon these areas and result in a net loss of soft landscaped areas. Deciduous woodland is identified as a Priority Habitat on the Priority Habitat Inventory. Some loss to deciduous woodland is unavoidable but the Scheme will seek to keep this to the absolute minimum necessary. Impacts on the watercourse will also be kept to a minimum. As well as committed landscape planting within the scheme design, additional opportunities to manage the potential adverse effects of habitat loss through appropriate planting and appropriate, nature conservation sympathetic management of adjacent public green space habitat. Further ecological surveys have been scheduled for 2020 to inform which ecological constraints remain present. The field survey identified suitable habitat for roosting, foraging and commuting bats including linear woodlands throughout the site. Four trees within Phase 3 were identified as having either low or medium bat roost potential. Three of these trees had ivy present, and these trees were assessed as having at least low bat roost potential as a precaution. One field maple (found in the north west of the site) was assessed as having medium bat potential with a north facing crack feature 1-metre from the ground. Nine trees within Phase 4 were identified as having low or medium bat potential. All trees had ivy present, these trees were assessed as having at least low bat roost potential as a precaution. The culvert for Hatherley Brook, found in Phase 3, under the A40 had limited access for survey and therefore on a precautionary assessment was assigned moderate bat roost potential until further surveys are conducted in 2020. There is potential for the works to impact the above trees or structures either directly through vegetation removal or indirectly through noise, vibration and light pollution. Further bat surveys and mitigation measures will be necessary prior to scheme commencement to comply with legal requirements regarding the protection of bats and their roosts. Where the chances of impacts on bats are limited, a Precautionary Method of Working (PMW) may be applicable and is likely to include mitigation (for example careful vegetation clearance and ecological clerk of works). More significant works or works close to confirmed bat roosts would likely require a European Protected Species (EPS) License issued by Natural England. This may require an appropriate method to clear the site of bats prior to works. Survey undertaken as part of the PEA and desk study information used to inform a Great crested newts (GCN) technical note have identified six ponds within 500 m of the scheme. GCN can use habitats within 500m of breeding ponds but tend to make greater use of habitat within 250m. A GCN Technical Note has been produced, using desk-based information and assesses the risks relating to GCN for the Scheme. This identified two ponds requiring further surveys, initially comprising Habitat Suitably Index (HSI) assessment and environmental (e) DNA surveys. Until the ponds have undergone HSI and eDNA assessments, it must be assumed that they have suitability for GCN, and that there is a possibility of impacting GCN or their habitat during the works. Where the chances of impacts on GCN are limited, (either minor works or works in locations distant from a pond) a Precautionary Method of Working (PMW) may be applicable and is likely to include mitigation (for example careful vegetation clearance and ecological clerk of works). More significant works or works close to ponds used by GCN would likely require a European Protected Species (EPS) License issued by Natural England. This may require an appropriate method to clear the site of GCN prior to works. Hatherley Brook offers suitable habitat for otter, water vole and white-clawed crayfish and further surveys will need to determine presence/ likely absence of these species. Surveys have identified potential for hazel dormice and common species of reptile and amphibian within the scheme area. Appropriate mitigation (for example careful vegetation clearance and ecological clerk of works) will be required during site clearance works and any species of common reptile will need to be re-located to an appropriate place of safety (either within the scheme or at possibly on a separate ‘receptor site’ which might need to be created or enhanced). More significant works or works close to confirmed hazel dormouse habitat would likely require a European Protected Species (EPS) License issued by Natural England. This may require an appropriate method to clear the site of dormice prior to works. There is habitat suitable for nesting birds and appropriate mitigation will be required during site clearance, ideally through the avoidance of the bird nesting season (between February to September).
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 47 of 115
Further ecological field surveys will identify ecological constraints prior to commencement of works to ensure findings are complete and up to date and mitigation is appropriate. Appropriate measures will be required in relation to protection of water courses from silt and other contaminants. Upon completion of these surveys and implementation of mitigation measures, it is predicted the scheme will have a neutral effect on local Biodiversity. As part of the work undertaken and demonstrated in Appendix K - Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement Review, opportunities for ecological improvement in the local area are being investigated. As part of these works, revised landscape planting along the highway boundary between the A40 and Miserden Road will be designed to increase bat foraging activity. Additionally, other opportunities for ecological enhancement are being investigated as part of the detailed design, such as the creation of a Habitat Management Strategy for Hatherley Brook and the possibility of converting local green space to wildflower meadow. Further detail on these measures are provided in Appendix K.
3.3.2. Water environment
3.3.2.1. Study area This section sets out a review of the water environment relevant to the Arle Court to Benhall Scheme. Surface water quality, flood risk, groundwater and Water Framework Directive (WFD) compliance have been assessed. The assessment has used publicly available data and is based on the proposed alignment at the time of reporting. Should this change, baseline conditions may be subject to change. For the purposes of this Business Case, the spatial scope of the assessment includes features of the water environment within 1km of the Scheme. In accordance with LA 113 (formerly known as HD45/09), a 1km study area is considered appropriate for the assessment of surface water quality soluble pollutants and therefore has been used throughout the water environment scoping process. For groundwater, the potential zone of impact screened was on the underlying Water Framework Directive (WFD) groundwater body. No designated sites are within the study area.
3.3.2.2. Existing environment
Surface water Water bodies within the study area fall within the Severn River Basin District (RBD) as set out within the Severn River Basin Management Plan (Defra, 2018). One Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) assessed surface water body has been identified within the study area. This is Hatherley Brook (source to conf River Severn) GB109054032801, which is also a Main River and located to the west of the Scheme. It is an existing crossing over the A40 alignment, flowing in a south to north direction. The current overall status for Hatherley Brook is moderate. Reasons for not achieving good status include urban and transport. No other watercourses have been identified within the study area. Equally, there are no WFD designated lakes within the study area.
Other water features There are two ponds within the study area, which are not WFD designated. One is located upstream and approximately 140m south east of the Hatherley Brook crossing. The other approximately 400m north east of the Hatherley Brook crossing.
Abstractions and discharges At the time of reporting details on surface and groundwater abstractions and discharge have not been sourced.
Flood risk Hatherley Brook (main river) flows under the A40 Gloucester Road approximately 570m westbound from Benhall roundabout. The proposed additional eastbound lane and the relocated shared-use path cross Hatherley Brook via an existing culvert. It is not anticipated that the culvert is to be extended or modified in any way to facilitate the scheme. There is floodplain associated with Hatherley Brook (EA Flood Zones 2 and 3) adjacent to the scheme at the culvert inlet and outlet locations. However, the scheme is not anticipated to occupy any area within Flood Zones 2 and 3 and therefore would have no impact on floodplain storage. The EA Risk of Flooding from Surface Water (RoFSW) maps show that there are a number of locations at risk of surface water flooding at the Benhall roundabout and along the eastern and western approaches to the roundabout on the A40. The existing surface water flood risk locations identified are:
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 48 of 115
• Westbound A40 from Benhall roundabout to Telstar Way - Low, Medium and High-Risk zones; • Eastbound A40 from Telstar Way to Benhall roundabout - Low Risk zone; • Benhall roundabout circular lanes - Low, Medium and High-Risk zones; and • Eastbound and westbound A40 from Benhall roundabout to Kingsley Gardens, including the pedestrian subway that crosses under the carriageway at a location approximately 50m east of the roundabout - Low, Medium and High-Risk zones.
Groundwater The study area is underlain by Secondary (undifferentiated) bedrock aquifers. Secondary A superficial aquifers are distributed around the study area and appear to be associated with Hatherley Brook within the study area. There is one WFD groundwater body underlaying the study area. This is the Secondary Vale (Secondary Combined) – GB40902G04900. The current overall status for this waterbody is good. There are no Source Protection Zones (SPZ) within the study area.
3.3.2.3. Design assumptions The potential effects are based on the following design assumptions. As the design progresses these assumptions should be reviewed, and the potential effects revised where necessary. • The compound location is still to be confirmed as such it is assumed this will be located outside of Hatherley Brook floodplain. • No culvert extension or realignment on Hatherley Brook is required to accommodate the bridge for the shared-use cycleway crossing. • Temporary works to Hatherley Brook to facilitate construction, such as temporary bridge crossings to facilitate haul roads and access are not anticipated. • The existing drainage network will be modified to accommodate the increased surface area. This will increase runoff from the road. However, the destination of this runoff is currently uncertain, but likely to be partially discharged into Hatherley Brook. • No piling works are anticipated at this stage. • Road runoff will not be discharged to ground.
3.3.2.4. Potential construction impacts
Surface water quality • The excavation of materials, and the subsequent deposition of soils, sediment, or other construction materials, for example through the construction of the proposed shared-use cycleway. • The spillage of fuels or other contaminating liquids from plant used in the construction process. • The mobilisation of contamination following the disturbance of contaminated ground or groundwater during the construction phases. • Runoff from construction sites creating contamination sources to the water environment.
Flood risk • The storage of materials and temporary impermeable areas at site compounds may result in an increase in flood risk to the scheme itself and surrounding land. • There are surface water flood extents on the Scheme. Increasing the impermeable area will increase this risk or the scheme and off-site areas. • Where Scheme elements coincide with areas of existing groundwater flood risk, these may lead to an increased risk of groundwater flooding. Where subsurface activities are in an area of significant groundwater presence, risk of groundwater flooding is increased.
Groundwater • Deep foundations such as those created to construct the retaining wall may create rapid vertical flow pathways into groundwater and may form a barrier to groundwater flow, potentially reducing groundwater contributions to adjacent water courses and any groundwater abstractions in the water body.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 49 of 115
3.3.2.5. Potential operational impacts
Surface water quality The existing drainage network will be modified to accommodate the increased surface areas. The increased surface area will increase runoff from the road. However, the destination of this runoff is currently uncertain, but likely to be partially discharged into Hatherley Brook. As such, there are potential impacts to surface water quality and flow volumes on Hatherley Brook owing to the increase in impermeable area as a result of the widening works and the additional risks associated with road runoff and pollution. On all roads, there is also a risk that a spillage may lead to an acute pollution incident. Where spillages do reach Hatherley Brook the pollution impact could be severe, but the pollution impact is usually of short duration, typical of an acute pollution impact. In addition, surface water abstractions downstream could be affected by the contaminated road runoff. A broad range of potential pollutants are also associated with routine cleaning activities such as cleaning gully pots and similar entrapment structures to carriageway maintenance work. The flushing-out of gully pots has been identified as a potential source of pollutants, which may be as damaging as some spillage impacts. The use of herbicides for the control of plant growth along road verges and central reservations may also lead to contamination of road runoff. During operation, potential ‘trip generators’ using the proposed shared-use cycleway could include people traveling on foot or by bicycle to places of employment; school; retail centres; or community facilities. It could also include people using the cycleway for recreational purposes. The potential operational pollution impact associated with such generators is assumed to be low and would contain negligible concentrations of substances associated with road pollution.
Flood risk Changes to floodplain storage as a result of the proposed works would have the potential to impact adjacent receptors (both upstream and downstream) such as businesses, residential properties and the local road network. Widening of the carriageway does not impinge on the Hatherley Brook floodplain and therefore does not reduce this storage. There is a potential for an increase in surface water flooding due to increased impermeable area associated the widening works. With an increase in impermeable catchment, more water is collected for a given rainfall event, which induces higher rates and volumes of runoff. This has the potential to overload the capacity of the drainage system. The increased flow rates can also contribute to larger flood peaks in receiving watercourses. Deep foundations may create rapid vertical flow pathways into the underlying aquifers or affect flow paths which can cause flooding on the surface.
Groundwater On the roads, there is also a risk that a spillage may lead to an acute pollution incident. Where spillages do reach groundwater the pollution impact can be long lasting and difficult, if not impossible, to remediate.
Water Framework Directive Compliance There is potential for some WFD quality elements (biological, physico-chemical and/or chemical quality elements) to be affected by road runoff. The proposed shared-use cycleway will cross Hatherley Brook. However, it is thought that no culvert extensions or realignments are required and as such no/minimal hydromorphology impacts are anticipated. It is anticipated there will be no physical morphological changes to Hatherley Brook. At this stage impacts are assumed to be restricted to some localised scour or indirect chemical impact which will need to be assessed further once the design is progressed.
3.3.2.6. Potential mitigation In the absence of specific quantitative data, specific inherent/embedded mitigation cannot be determined at this stage. As more detail becomes available, and the Scheme progresses these can be refined thereby providing reassurance and confidence in mitigation measures.
Construction mitigation Construction mitigation will include, but not be limited to the following:
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 50 of 115
• All works to be undertaken with regards to Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPGs). These detail good practice advice for undertaking works which may have the potential to cause water pollution. • Areas which may generate contaminated water, such as oil storage areas would need to be bunded and have water discharged to self–contained units with treatment facilities. There would be no discharge to groundwater. • Tests would be undertaken to ensure contaminated material is identified, isolated and reworked or removed to special landfill to avoid any leachate problems; and • Temporary land–take required for construction will include adequate areas of land set aside for robust control measures, for example sustainable drainage control. • Construction activities within the floodplain will be minimised as far as possible. • The Environment Agency flood warning system will be adopted during construction. A suitable plan would be put in place to ensure effective and safe evacuation of personnel (and plant if safe to do so) from the areas at risk on receipt of a flood warning. • For construction work which has drainage implications, the proposed drainage system should comply with the National Standards, such as Schedule 3 under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. • Furthermore, at the time of reporting no water crossings or hydro morphological physical impacts on any watercourses are anticipated. • Furthermore, at the time of reporting no water crossings or hydro morphological physical impacts on any watercourses are anticipated.
Operation mitigation The design of the drainage system should comply with all current standards and Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) best practice techniques to ensure that sustainability is a key drainage design criterion. • The preferred approach is to provide mitigation in the form of SuDS to be used to treat run-off and provide mitigation for both the quality and attenuation of water. The choice of the system is dependent on the physical environment of the Scheme and needs to consider the availability of land, climate and rainfall characteristics, soil permeability, topography and spillage risk. • Enhanced drainage and provision of SUDS can mitigate impacts on surface water flood risk and consideration will be given to options for reducing surface water flood risk compared to the existing situation. • The proposed drainage design will incorporate mitigation in the form of SuDS to ensure that the runoff from the Scheme is attenuated so there will be no increase in surface water runoff from the Scheme. • Deep foundations extending below the groundwater table should be designed in accordance with industry standards, considering the site-specific water level and flow monitoring data obtained from intrusive ground investigation for the Scheme. • No discharge from road runoff to ground is anticipated therefore no mitigation is envisaged at the time of reporting.
3.3.2.7. Summary In summary, based on the design assumptions, the key issues are: 1. For surface water quality owing to the discharge of road runoff from the carriageway widening into Hatherley Brook, it is recommended that the drainage design takes this into account to ensure no increase in road discharge rates and ensure there is no decrease in water quality as a result of the scheme. 2. The need for a Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy will be discussed with the Lead Local Flood Authority (Gloucestershire County Council) and Environment Agency. Detailed design will be progressed in consultation with the Lead Local Flood Authority and Environment Agency to discuss any flood management actions/issues under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. If the drainage design can suitably factor in the above, the proposed effect of the scheme is likely to be neutral.
3.3.3. Geology The British Geological Survey (BGS) online open geosciences mapping indicates that the scheme is underlain by the Charmouth Mudstone Formation, part of the Lias Group, which is classified by the Environment Agency as a Secondary (Undifferentiated) Aquifer.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 51 of 115
No artificial ground is recorded; however, Made Ground associated with the previous phases of construction along the scheme is expected to be encountered. The nearest surface water feature is located 20m north of the scheme. The scheme is located within an area where the maximum radon potential is less than 1%. The topography of the surrounding area appears to be relatively level; however, given the potential for residual shear planes to be present in the Lias Clay Group strata it is recommended that a watching brief is kept of any excavations by a suitably qualified Engineer in order that any shear planes may be identified. The Coal Authority online interactive map does not identify the site to be within a Coal Mining Reporting Area. No historical mining or quarrying is noted at the site. A historical landfill site (Land off Hatherley Lane) is located approximately 425m west of the scheme. The landfill was operated from 21/04/1994 to 06/10/1994 and is understood to have accepted inert waste. The landfill site was redeveloped as a park-and-ride area and car sales outlet and is covered in hard standing. The Zetica Unexploded Bomb Risk Map indicates the scheme is in area of low risk from WWII air dropped bomb which is quantified as areas indicated as having 15 bombs per 1000acre or less. No ground investigation data is available for the site; however, in February 2019 Geotechnical Engineering Ltd. conducted a ground investigation specified by Amey to the immediate west of the site (Phase 2). The scope of the investigation included two boreholes and six California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests on and adjacent to the Arle Court Roundabout. Ground conditions encountered generally confirmed the expected geology, consisting of Made Ground to depths between 0.20m and 0.70m, overlying soft to firm clay in one location (0.40m to 1.00m bgl), in turn overlying a stiff becoming very stiff clay of the Charmouth Mudstone Formation, which was described as a stiff becoming very stiff grey silty clay with mudstone lithorelicts and extremely to very closely spaced planar smooth fissures to c. 7.0m bgl. Fossils were present and limestone cobbles were also identified. No groundwater was recorded during drilling. The weathered Charmouth Mudstone was underlain by the solid strata comprising extremely weak indistinctly structured mudstone with fossils and shells to 7.39m bgl. During the 2019 investigation, groundwater was encountered in BH01 at 0.35m bgl (no rise after 20 minutes) with a seepage noted in CBR04 at 0.70m bgl. Post investigation monitoring recorded a groundwater level of 0.55m bgl in BH01, above the response zone of 1.00m to 7.38m bgl. It was recommended that further monitoring was undertaken to characterise groundwater levels. The Charmouth Mudstone is a potentially pyritic strata and as such is a suitable sulphate resistant buried concrete used in construction. The 2019 investigation included sulphate testing of one sample of the Charmouth Mudstone Formation and four of the Made Ground samples, with results indicating a design sulphate class of DS-1 and ACEC class of AC-1 (mobile groundwater and brownfield site). As the BRE guidance advises that the Lower Lias Clay (Charmouth Mudstone Formation) is a geological stratum most likely to have substantial sulphate concentrations and, given the variance between the results of the investigations, a sulphate design class of DS-4 and ACEC class AC-Ss should be adopted or further testing undertaken. The stiff to very stiff weathered Charmouth Mudstone is likely to be suitable founding strata for any proposed structures, pending confirmed loads. As part of the 2019 investigation, five soil samples from the Made Ground were submitted for analysis including metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), petroleum hydrocarbons speciated to the TPHCWG fractions, BTEX and asbestos. The concentrations were assessed using published screening criteria (C4SLs and S4ULs) and Atkins ATRISK values in the absence of published criteria. The end use of Public Open Space (Parks) was adopted as it was considered to be suitably conservative, while still representative of the proposed end use. The majority of contaminants analysed were below the adopted screening criteria, with the exception of three PAHs (benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene). It was considered by Amey that the exceedances were likely to be linked to bituminous material of the overlying road construction and should the site be left uncovered this would present a long-term risk to human health. Asbestos was assessed based on the limit of detection (0.001%), however, no asbestos was detected in the samples analysed. There is no additional information on current or historical potential contamination issues along the scheme and consequently a full assessment of contamination risk cannot be completed. However, the most significant contamination source based on a review of readily available online data is anticipated to be the Made Ground along the scheme. It should be considered that tarmacadam/bituminous material may contain coal tars which will be classified as hazardous waste and if it is confirmed that coal tars are present then the tarmacadam will be required to be
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 52 of 115
disposed of at a suitably licensed landfill facility. Based on a desk-based assessment of the available information Made Ground is considered to be the most significant source of contamination; however, the scheme will largely be covered by hard standing and therefore the pathway broken in terms of human health risk. The risk to human health is low based on available information. If ground investigation is proposed within these phases it would be recommended that chemical testing of the soils is undertaken during the investigation to confirm the low risk to human health. Appropriate Construction Environmental Management Plans (CEMP), Site Waste Management Plans (SWMP) and/or Materials Management Plans (MMP) should be in place prior to commencement of works. Consultation with the EA and LA will be required should visually evidence of contaminated land be identified during the works. The overall effect of the scheme with appropriate mitigation measures in place is considered to be neutral.
3.3.4. Heritage The historic environment is recognised as an irreplaceable resource that should be preserved in a manner appropriate to its significance. No Designated Assets, such as Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields or World Heritage Sites will be directly impacted upon by the scheme. There are two Listed Buildings 80m southwest of the beginning of Phase 3 at Hatherley Brook, which are within 19th century pleasure grounds recorded on the HER (GHER 49308) as belonging to Grade II Arle Court (NHLE 474628). These are: • Grade II Listed Lodge for Arle Court, NHLE 34717; and • Grade II Listed gate piers, railings and gates to Arle Court, NHLE 34716 Consultation with the local Conservation Officer was sought but has not been possible as yet. There may be an opportunity to enhance these heritage assets through future consultation with the local Conservation Officers. Evaluation and excavation within the area surrounding Arle Court has confirmed that there is a degree of archaeological potential within the wider landscape on either side of the road within Phase 3, extending from Late Iron Age, Roman and Medieval, through to a large area of Second World War government offices, but the proposals are confined to the existing highway boundary and works on the original construction of the A40 are likely to have removed or significantly truncated any archaeological remains which existed. Large Second World War installations are recorded on the HER (GHER48062) as having been located at Benhall Roundabout, but these remains are very likely to have been removed by the construction of the A40 and development of the Monkscroft estate. Although there is potential for archaeological remains within the wider area, the proposals are confined to the existing highway boundary and works on the original construction of the A40 are likely to have removed or significantly truncated any unknown archaeological remains which existed. Consultation with the County Archaeologist (5-10th March 2020) confirmed that there is a low risk that any archaeology will be impacted by the works and that there is no requirement for an archaeological investigation or recording to be undertaken in relation to this scheme. The impact of the scheme would therefore be neutral, and this topic has been scoped out from further assessment, however the potential for enhancement of these assets, has where possible, been taken into consideration in the scheme design.
3.3.5. Landscape and visual Beyond Arle Court roundabout, the A40 is bordered by linear blocks of trees, shrubs and hedges which provide an attractive character, with some distinctive features such as the row of trees adjacent to GCHQ and amenity shrubs and trees fronting Benhall Gardens. Between Arle Court Roundabout up to Kingsley Gardens, the main visual receptors are: (1) residential properties of Telstar Way/Gemini Close, which are mainly well screened but some properties have open views over the A40; (2) Miserden Road and Campden Road, with relatively dense intervening vegetation providing good screening, although with views from upper floors; and (3) Sotherby Drive, Monks Croft and Benhall Gardens with quite open or filtered views. Between Arle Court roundabout and Telstar Way, a new shared use cycle/footway is proposed, off set from the A40 through the trees in this area. Some trees and vegetation would be required to be removed to accommodate the route, but this is not expected to affect the overall character or amenity of the area and
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 53 of 115
replacement planting would be provided where feasible. The proposed shared use route follows an existing desire line and would provide improved amenity for users. The shared route would continue between Telstar Way and Benhall roundabout, again off set from the A40 on the north side of the line trees outside GCHQ, as agreed with the LPA Tree Officer. Two of these trees would be required to be removed or relocated to accommodate visibility of road signage. A new pedestrian crossing is proposed on the A40 eastbound approach island to Benhall Roundabout. The Scheme seeks to limit vegetation removal to that which is necessary for the Scheme. Although, as described above, there would be some loss of trees and loss of strips of amenity grass, these are not expected to affect the overall landscape character or visual amenity of the area and there is not expected to be any loss of visual screening for receptors. The effects from the removal and pruning of vegetation and trees are expected to be negligible. Replacement planting of trees on a 2 for 1 basis within or just beyond the Scheme would be provided to limit any overall loss of biodiversity. Opportunities for enhancement would also be explored in the final design to help enhance the context and soften the built features and prominence of the highway corridor within this area and ensure the qualities of this Greenbelt edge location are retained and enjoyed by those nearby or passing through. The effect of the proposed scheme is expected to be neutral given the proposed mitigation, with additional enhancement measures possibly able to provide slight beneficial effect of the development. The potential measures being investigated are included in appendix K Environmental mitigation and Enhancement Review. Some of the areas which will be targeted for landscape improvement include: the additional planting on the strip of vegetation between Miserden Road and the A40 to provide greater visual screening of the A40 and provide greater ecological foraging opportunities; and, management improvements and new planting in local green areas.
3.3.6. Air quality
3.3.6.1. Air quality Local air quality impacts for Phase 3/4 of the proposed scheme were assessed following the guidance presented in TAG Unit A3 Chapter 317. The Damage Cost approach was used as the proposed scheme is not likely to affect legal air pollution limits and the air quality impacts were estimated to have a net present value less than £50 million. Traffic data used were provided by the Atkins Transportation Team for the with and without proposed scheme scenarios for an opening year (2021) and forecast year (2031). The study area was defined by the extents of the traffic model area. The traffic data used in the assessment included the annual average daily LDV and HDV18 flows, and the annual average daily speed taken from the traffic model.
Total emissions of NOx and PM2.5 for each road link in the traffic model were calculated using DEFRA’s Emission Factor Toolkit (EFT) v9.019 published in May 2019. The scenarios assessed included the with and without proposed scheme scenarios for the opening (2021) and forecast (2031) years. It was assumed that emissions of NOx and PM2.5 would change incrementally between these two years and would remain unchanged post 2031 for the remainder of the 60 year appraisal period. The change in emissions is presented in the Appraisal Summary Table and air quality valuation workbook. The changes in NOx and PM2.5 emissions were used to determine a Net Present Value (£) for air quality for the proposed scheme.
3.3.6.2. Assumptions
3.3.6.3. Assumptions Vehicle emission factors are only available within the EFT up to 2030 and therefore the 2030 factors were used in the calculations for the forecast year (2031). This limitation is considered conservative, given that vehicle emissions are expected to improve further in the future, and is consistent with industry practice.
17 Department for Transport - TAG Unit A3 -Environmental Impact Appraisal, published May 2019, Available from [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/825064/tag-unit-a3-environmental- impact-appraisal.pdf] 18 LDV – Light Diesel Vehicles - weight<3.5 tonnes and HDV – Heavy Diesel Vehicles - weight > 3.5 tonnes 19 Department for Environment and Rural Affairs – Emissions Factor Toolkit v9.0, published May 2019, Available from https://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-assessment/tools/emissions-factors-toolkit.html
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 54 of 115
3.3.6.4. Results
Air Quality Methodology Appraisal Emissions 60-year period (tonnes): (WebTAG) PM2.5: 7 NOx: 44 Monetary £(NPV)
PM2.5 NPV: -£651,985 NOx NPV: -£205,440 Total value of change in air quality: -£857,425
The Cheltenham city-wide Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) covers the extent of the proposed scheme and is unlikely to be significantly affected by changes in road traffic emissions as a result of the proposed scheme. Changes in traffic between the completion of the proposed Phase 2 scheme and the completion of the proposed Phase 3/4 scheme have been analysed and will not result in any significant change to pollutant concentrations at selected sensitive receptors.
Overall, there would be an increase in PM2.5 and NOx emissions across the traffic model area as a result of increases in road traffic movements across the traffic model area but these are not significant.
Conclusions The results of this assessment indicate that the proposed scheme is likely to result in a minor increase in emissions of NOx andPM2. as a result of increased road traffic movements due to the increased capacity across the traffic model area over the appraisal period. A thorough review of potential mitigation options has been considered in Appendix K Mitigation and Enhancement Review. This review has investigated some options for air quality improvement and provided the reasoning as to why they are not deemed appropriate for use in this location as part of the scheme. The review has also considered further improvements/alterations hat could be made to the existing highway network that could influence air pollutant emissions. Appendix K found that the primary source of reduction in air pollutants could be achieved through the driving of a modal shift against carbonised single occupancy transport towards active travel, higher vehicle occupancy, use of Hybrid/electric cars and public transport. GCC is already promoting modal shift in West Cheltenham through its promotion of the West Cheltenham Walking and Cycling Improvement (WCWCI) scheme which is currently going through its own business case process. This scheme will help to drive modal shift as it will make movement by active travel more enjoyable, faster and safer across the study area. Further, GCC is also promoting facility and capacity improvements to the Arle Court Park and Ride in the coming years and has been awarded money by Homes England through its Housing Infrastructure Fund to undertake this work. This extension will help to reduce traffic movements through the Phase 3 and 4 area through utilisation of public transport, and thus should reduce air quality pollutants. In addition to the ongoing work on the above, GCC is committed to further drive Modal shift in West Cheltenham through a West Cheltenham Working Group. More information on this is provided in Appendix K Mitigation and Enhancement Review.
3.3.7. Greenhouse Gases The assessment completed to quantify the effect of the scheme on greenhouse gas levels is formed of two parts, the increase in greenhouse gases as a result of the construction of the scheme, and the increase from the operation of the Scheme.
3.3.7.1. Construction Carbon A high-level assessment has been carried out to determine the likely scale and key sources of carbon emissions (as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e)) during the construction stage of the WCTIS project. The assessment used information provided by the design team on material types and quantities, and estimations of construction plant use. This information was entered into the Highways England Carbon Tool to produce
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 55 of 115
carbon emissions for each component. Further information about the assessment, the assumptions and methodology are provided in Appendix K.
Summary of Findings Total emissions of greenhouse gases from the construction of the Scheme are estimated to be approximately 1,917 tonnes CO2e, based on early stage design information provided for assessment.
Waste disposal 18%
Construction processes 2%
Material transport 6%
Material production 74%
The assessment proposed potential opportunities for reducing these emissions along the four key principles below. More information about the types of carbon reduction opportunities that lie behind each principle is provided in Appendix K - Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement Review. • Build Less -This principle relies upon looking for opportunities to avoid construction of new assets, such as repurposing existing assets, reducing the amount of key emitting materials used and maximising soft engineering solutions where possible. • Build Clever – This principle includes looking for opportunities to use recycled materials, use low carbon material alternatives, utilise off-site modular construction (locally) and select long-life products to reduce maintenance requirements to drive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. • Build Efficiently – This principle includes activities and opportunities such as recycling wastes rather than sending to landfill, use of locally sourced materials, use of more sustainable means of transport of materials, use of local labour and digital technology to reduce vehicle trips and avoid use of diesel on- site and in travel to site where possible. • Remediate – This principle focuses on measures such as maximising vegetation cover to enhance carbon sequestration.
Mitigation Following the initial study outlined above, a design workshop was held utilising the principles above to identify areas in which emissions reductions could be achieved through the construction phase of the Scheme. The outcomes of this design workshop are outlined below under their respective design principles.
Build Less As justified in the traffic sections above, there is a clear requirement to improve the capacity of Benhall Roundabout and the A40 in this area to alleviate existing traffic congestion and provide capacity for future
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 56 of 115
increased traffic flows. Consideration has been made in how to achieve easing this existing congestion without extending the highway. The option of not constructing a new retaining wall from Telstar Way to Benhall Roundabout to incorporate the cycleway, with this either being lost or leading to the removal of the row of Oak Trees was considered at the Concept Design Stage. It was felt that retaining and ultimately improving cycling provision as part of the Scheme would provide a greater carbon and community benefit than avoiding construction activities in this location. After consultation with Cheltenham Borough Council it was agreed that the loss of the trees running parallel to the highway in this location was not favourable in respect to visual impact of the works, and therefore it was not possible to avoid the requirement for the retaining wall in this location. The nature of the initial design had already tried to minimise the creation of new structures and minimise material usage where possible to save costs to the Scheme, whilst maintaining design security.
Build Clever The original design and procurement process was not set up to drive carbon reduction under this principle. However some elements were already incorporated into the Scheme. The Scheme had already assumed the use of pre-cast concrete for the construction of the retaining wall between Telstar Way and Benhall Roundabout, as well as for the concrete drainage materials which are also to be pre-cast. Further opportunities for offsite and modular construction will be investigated as the design develops. Following the design workshops, further opportunities for carbon reduction were agreed with the following actions taken to drive carbon reduction against the baseline design: • The potential for the surfacing of the Cycleways for the scheme to be constructed using recycled plastic asphalt through the ongoing development of the detailed design. • Explore the opportunity to use low carbon and recycled aggregate in the design (noting the requirement for confidence in design life and safety standards).
Build Efficiently In respect of the type of measures involved with the ‘Build Efficiently’ principle, the following measures will be included as requirements as part of the specification to the contractor for the works to drive carbon reductions in worker travel. These include: • The use of local labour on the project. • A construction workforce travel plan which maximises vehicle sharing and reduces vehicle trip numbers to be produced and signed off prior to works commencement. • Requirement that pool cars for use on the Scheme are electric, and that an electric charging point is provided within the contractor’s compound to allow for the charging of electric vehicles. • Construction lighting on the Scheme to be provided by either mains or battery power wherever possible (in-line with Health and Safety Requirements). In the baseline design for the Scheme, all wastes were assumed to be going to landfill, no ‘low carbon’ alternative materials were specified and there was no restriction on the locality of the materials to be used on site. However, following the design workshop, it was agreed that the tender for the works would include quality questions on each of these items and optional pricing models to allow the effect of these to be understood. This will allow potential contractors bidding for the works to distinguish particular opportunities for waste recycling and local materials sourcing, demonstrate their benefit, and then price these items without discouraging contractors from more sustainable solutions through the cost implications in a bid format. This will drive contractors to compete to look for these opportunities to distinguish their bid, as well as potentially helping to build their network of suppliers for future schemes.
Remediate There are unfortunately no opportunities for the input of renewable technology alongside the scheme due to the limited land area under GCC’s control, whilst the use of wood for permanent design elements were not feasible within the design of the Scheme. The Scheme does however already incorporate agreements for new vegetation planting in the local area as part of the Scheme design. This will be developed further as the Scheme design progresses. A summary for what will be included in the revised planting design is provided in Section 3.3.5.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 57 of 115
3.3.7.2. Operational greenhouse gases Changes in greenhouse gas emissions were assessed following the guidance presented in TAG Unit A3 Chapter 4. Total emissions of CO2 with and without the proposed Scheme were calculated in the same way as for NOx and PM2.5 in the air quality assessment.
The change in CO2 emissions as a result of the proposed Scheme was calculated for the opening (2021) and forecast (2031) years. It was assumed that emissions of CO2 would change incrementally between these two years and would remain unchanged post 2031 for the remainder of the 60 year appraisal period. Vehicle emission factors are only available within the EFT up to 2030 and therefore the 2030 factors were used in the calculations for the forecast year (2031). This limitation is considered conservative, given that vehicle emissions are expected to improve further in the future, and is consistent with industry practice.
Results Methodology
Appraisal Change in non-traded carbon over 60y (CO2e tonnes) (WebTAG) +39,845 Monetary £(NPV) -£1,797,546
The results of the TAG assessment show that over the 60 year period there would be an overall increase in CO2 emissions. This comprises of a decrease of -0.1% in opening year but an increase of +0.7% in the forecast year and for the rest of the appraisal period. The net increase in CO2 emissions reflects the net increase in road traffic movements across the traffic model area, with a commensurate damage cost of about £1.8 million. A decrease in CO2 emissions in the 'with scheme' scenario in the opening year of - 0.1% compared with the 'without scheme' scenario reflects an increase in the average speed across the network resulting from improvements in currently congested conditions allowing more vehicles to travel at more efficient speeds across the traffic model area with the proposed Scheme in place. These benefits in terms of a reduction in emissions associated with an increase in average speeds have been modelled separately as part of the TUBA outputs.
3.3.7.3. Summary Following the carbon reduction design workshop, commitments have been made to drive carbon reductions in the Scheme to the completion of the initial assessment. The quantification of these carbon reductions is at this point challenging, in that further design work is required to understand what opportunities can, and what cannot be taken forward to the built scheme. However some sizeable reductions in carbon emissions from the construction stage are likely to be achieved. In respect of operational greenhouse gas emissions, it is clear that there is an increase in emissions likely to occur due to the Scheme. However, other GCC developments such as the WCWCI scheme and the improvements to the Park and Ride (to become a Park and Interchange) will drive a positive modal shift away from carbonised single occupancy transport, which will help to reduce the potential effects reported above. In addition to this, the West Cheltenham Modal Shift Working Group will review a series of other opportunities to drive further positive modal shift in the future, to further assist in preventing the environmental effects reported in the operational assessment above. Further information on the Park and Ride improvements, the WCWCI scheme and the West Cheltenham Modal Shift Working Group is provided in Appendix K.
3.3.8. Noise and vibration
3.3.8.1. Study Area The study area for the assessment of noise and vibration effects is defined in the DMRB 11:3:7 as follows: 1) The area within 600m of new road links or road links physically changed or bypassed by the project; and 2) The area within 50m of other road links with potential to experience a short-term Basic Noise Level (BNL) change of more than 1.0 dB(A) as a result of the project.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 58 of 115
The study area also includes several Noise Important Areas (NIAs), as follows: • NIA 3898, a small local authority NIA, approximately 350 m west of the junction. • NIA 3899, a local authority NIA covering an area of the A40 approximately 300 m east and west of the Arle Court Roundabout. • NIA 6036, a local authority NIA covering an area of the A40 between Telstar Way and Granley Road, including the Benhall Roundabout. • NIA 3945, a local authority NIA covering an area of Princess Elizabeth Way between the A40 and Dowty Road.
3.3.8.2. Methodology Noise modelling has been undertaken to predict noise levels with and without the Scheme in its projected opening year (2021) and future assessment year (2031). This information was used to complete an assessment in accordance with the guidance contained within the DMRB 11:3:7, consisting of the following elements:
• Prediction of daytime (LA10, 18h) noise levels in the short-term (Scheme opening) and the long-term (future assessment year) at noise-sensitive receptors in the study area using the Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) procedures and the advice in DMRB 11.3.7 (including CRTN modifications).
• Prediction of night-time (Lnight) noise levels in the short-term and long-term at noise-sensitive receptors within the study area; and • Assessment of noise levels at traffic links located in the wider area. To complete the assessment, as outlined above, the following traffic scenarios have been modelled and assessed: • Do Minimum (without the Scheme) in the opening year (DM 2021); • Do Something (with the Scheme) in the opening year (DS 2021); • Do Minimum in the future assessment year (DM 2031); and • Do Something in the future assessment year (DS 2031). The noise modelling was undertaken using NoiseMap v5.2.4 software and traffic projections provided by Atkins’ transport team. The traffic data comprised 18-hour average annual weekly traffic flows for each traffic link in the study area and the wider area, and the corresponding traffic speed and fleet composition for each traffic link. The noise modelling software predicted the road traffic noise levels at sensitive receptors by implementing the calculation procedure detailed in CRTN, which involves calculating the Basic Noise Level at 10 m from the kerb using the traffic parameters described above and considering topography, ground absorption and screening from intervening structures. No existing noise mitigation measures are present in the study area. The topographical model was built from scheme drawings and LiDAR DTM 2m data at locations further away from the Scheme. Ordnance Survey base mapping (MasterMap) were used to establish the relevant noise sensitive receptors within the appropriate calculation area. This included residential noise sensitive receptors and non-residential noise sensitive receptors, such as schools, medical facilities and places of worship. All buildings in the noise model were set to 6m in height. Noise maps were generated in each case at 4m height with a grid resolution of 10m.
3.3.8.3. Results The noise modelling results are presented in the following figures in Error! Reference source not found.: • Figure 1: Absolute Noise Levels Daytime (LA10, 18h), Do Minimum Opening Year (2021) • Figure 2: Absolute Noise Levels Daytime (LA10, 18h), Do Something Opening Year (2021) • Figure 3: Absolute Noise Levels Daytime (LA10, 18h), Do Something Design Year (2031) • Figure 4: Noise Level Change Daytime (with scheme), Short-Term (LA10, 18h) – Do Minimum Opening Year (2021) vs Do Something Opening Year (2021) • Figure 5: Noise Level Change Daytime (with scheme), Long-Term (LA10, 18h) – Do Minimum Opening Year (2021) vs Do Something Design Year (2031) • Figure 6: Absolute Noise Levels Night-time (LA10, 18h), Do Minimum Opening Year (2021)
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 59 of 115
• Figure 7: Absolute Noise Levels Night-time (LA10, 18h), Do Something Opening Year (2021) • Figure 8: Absolute Noise Levels Night-time (LA10, 18h), Do Something Design Year (2031) • Figure 9: Noise Level Change Night-time (with scheme), Short-Term (LA10, 18h) – Do Minimum Opening Year (2021) vs Do Something Opening Year (2021) • Figure 10: Noise Level Change Night-time (with scheme), Long-Term (LA10, 18h) – Do Minimum Opening Year (2021) vs Do Something Design Year (2031)
3.3.8.4. Assessment
Potential Significance of Environmental Effects As a starting point, assessment of the Scheme is undertaken using the magnitude of change descriptors provided in the DMRB 11:3:7. These are summarised in the Table 1.
Table 1: Classification of magnitude of noise impacts Short-term noise change Long-term noise change Magnitude of impact (adverse (LA10,18h, dB) (LA10,18h, dB) or beneficial) 0 0 No change 0.1 - 0.9 0.1 - 2.9 Negligible 1 - 2.9 3 - 4.9 Minor 3 - 4.9 5 - 9.9 Moderate 5+ 10+ Major Detailed predictions have been carried out for a total of 3,801 residential receptors identified within the study area. The sections below detail the short-term and long-term impacts of the Scheme. For short-term impacts, a comparison is made between the Do Something and Do Minimum scenarios in 2021, the opening year of the Scheme. For long-term impacts as a result of the Scheme, a comparison is made between the Do Minimum scenario in 2021 and the Do Something scenario in 2031. Long-term impacts without the Scheme have also been considered.
Daytime road traffic noise levels Table 2 to Table 4 show the predicted changes in daytime noise levels (06:00 to 00:00) for residential and non- residential receptors in the study area. The predicted daytime noise levels throughout the study area are shown in noise change contours provided in Figure 4 and Figure 5 to illustrate how road traffic noise levels change in the short-term and the long-term. The predicted changes in daytime road traffic noise levels in the short-term with the Scheme are shown in Table 2 and Figure 4.
Table 2: Short-term traffic noise magnitude changes with the Scheme (daytime) Change in noise level DMRB impact Number of Number of other magnitude dwellings sensitive receptors Increase in noise 0.1 - 0.9 Negligible 3263 4 level, LA10,18h dB 1 - 2.9 Minor 366 0 3 - 4.9 Moderate 0 0 ≥ 5 Major 0 0 No change 0 No change 138 0 0.1 - 0.9 Negligible 28 0 1 - 2.9 Minor 6 0
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 60 of 115
Decrease in 3 - 4.9 Moderate 0 0 noise level, ≥ 5 Major 0 0 LA10,18h dB Table 2 and Figure 4 show that when the Scheme becomes operational, 3263 properties will be subject to negligible increase in noise levels, no change is expected at 138 properties and a further 28 properties will be subject to a negligible decrease in noise level. A minor increase in noise level is expected at 366 properties when the scheme becomes operational. Changes at these properties are due to predicted increases in road traffic flow and/or average speeds on nearby roads, and the location of these properties is summarised as follows: • 6 No. properties in Hathurstfield Park north of the B4063; • 1 No. property on Badgeworth Road near Valley Roundabout Nurseries; • 53 No properties on Southerby Drive, north of the A40 at Benhall Roundabout; • 25 No. properties on Miserden Road, south of the A40 between the Arle Court and Benhall; • 21 No. properties on Stanway Road, south of Miserden Road; • 42 No. properties on Coberley Road, south of Stanway Road; • 59 No. properties on Whittington Road, between the A40 and Benhall Avenue; • 18 No. properties on Benhall Avenue; • 13 No. properties in Redgrove Park/Colesbourne Road, south of Benhall Woods; • 70 No. properties in Benhall, south of the A40 between Campden Road and Church Road; and • 62 No. properties in St. Marks, north of the A40 between Campden Road and Church Road. For road traffic noise levels of minor magnitude, it is normally concluded that these would not result in changes to behaviour or response to noise, and hence would not give rise to a potentially significant effect. Although there are minor impacts at one receptor expected in the short-term, other factors must also be taken under consideration, such as the absolute level of noise. For this purpose, the absolute noise levels predicted at noise sensitive receptors in the opening year of the Scheme have been compared with the SOAEL20 of 68 dB LA10, 18h. Analysis of the predicted noise levels (Do Something 2021 / Do Something 2031) for the daytime indicates that there is potential for the SOAEL to be exceeded, and additionally that noise levels would increase by more than 1 dB, at the following properties: • 22 No. properties on Miserden Road, south of the A40 between the Arle Court and Benhall; • 25 No. properties in Benhall, south of the A40 between Campden Road and Church Road; • 5 No. properties in St. Marks, north of the A40 between Campden Road and Church Road; and • 2 No. properties in Hathurstfield Park north of the B4063; This indicates a potentially significant effect in the short term for these properties. However, in accordance with DMRB 11:3:7, the following factors are additionally considered: • Increases in noise levels in the short-term are only marginally above the 1 dB threshold (by no more than 0.8 dB at any receptor) for all receptors in Miserden Road (22No.). • Increases in noise levels in the short-term are only very marginally above the 1 dB threshold (by no more than 0.3 dB at any receptor) for all receptors in B4063/Benhall/St. Marks (32No.). • There are only negligible increases in noise for all these receptors in the long-term (see assessment to follow). For marginal impacts, the DMRB indicates that these are less likely to be potentially significant when considered in the context of other factors, e.g. an effect in the short-term is less likely to be significant where the long-term effects are not potentially significant. Given consideration of the above, it is concluded that these changes would not amount to a potentially significant effect.
20 Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL) for road traffic, as defined within DMRB 11:3:7 for daytime and night-time periods.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 61 of 115
The predicted changes in daytime road traffic noise levels in the long-term with and without the Scheme are shown in Table 3 (without Scheme) and Table 4 / Error! Reference source not found. (with Scheme).
Table 3: Long-term traffic noise magnitude changes without the Scheme (daytime) Change in noise level DMRB impact Number of Number of other magnitude dwellings sensitive receptors Increase in noise 0.1 - 2.9 Negligible 531 0 level, LA10,18h dB 3 - 4.9 Minor 0 0 5 - 9.9 Moderate 0 0 ≥ 10 Major 0 0 No change 0 No change 680 3 Decrease in 0.1 - 2.9 Negligible 2590 1 noise level, 3 - 4.9 Minor 0 0 LA10,18h dB 5 - 9.9 Moderate 0 0 ≥ 10 Major 0 0
Table 4: Long-term traffic noise magnitude changes with the Scheme (daytime) Change in noise level DMRB impact Number of Number of other magnitude dwellings sensitive receptors Increase in noise 0.1 - 2.9 Negligible 3764 4 level, LA10,18h dB 3 - 4.9 Minor 0 0 5 - 9.9 Moderate 0 0 ≥ 10 Major 0 0 No change 0 No change 27 0 Decrease in 0.1 - 2.9 Negligible 10 0 noise level, 3 - 4.9 Minor 0 0 LA10,18h dB 5 - 9.9 Moderate 0 0 ≥ 10 Major 0 0 Table 4, and figure 5 show that in the long-term, all receptors will be subject to a negligible change in noise levels. With the Scheme, it is predicted that 3764 properties will be subject to a negligible increase in noise level, with no change predicted at 27 properties and negligible decrease at 10 properties. Overall, the potential impacts of the scheme on daytime noise levels in the long-term are negligible, and hence would not cause changes to behaviour or response to noise and vibration. As such, these will not give rise to a significant environmental effect in the long-term.
Night-time road traffic noise levels Table 5 to Table 7 show the predicted changes in night-time noise levels (23:00 to 07:00) for residential and non-residential receptors in the study area. The predicted night-time noise levels throughout the study area are shown in noise change contours provided in 9 and 10 to illustrate how road traffic noise levels change in the short-term and the long-term. The predicted changes in daytime road traffic noise levels in the short-term with the Scheme are shown in Table 5 and Figure 9.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 62 of 115
Table 5: Short-term traffic noise magnitude changes with the Scheme (night-time) Change in noise level DMRB impact Number of Number of other magnitude dwellings sensitive receptors Increase in noise 0.1 - 0.9 Negligible 3314 4 level, LA10,18h dB 1 - 2.9 Minor 272 0 3 - 4.9 Moderate 0 0 ≥ 5 Major 0 0 No change 0 No change 184 0 Decrease in 0.1 - 0.9 Negligible 31 0 noise level, 1 - 2.9 Minor 0 0 LA10,18h dB 3 - 4.9 Moderate 0 0 ≥ 5 Major 0 0 Table 2 and Figure 9 show that when the Scheme becomes operational, 3311 properties will be subject to negligible increase in noise levels, no change is expected at 184 properties and a further 31 properties will be subject to a negligible decrease in noise level. A minor increase in noise level is expected at 272 properties when the scheme becomes operational. Changes at these properties are due to predicted increases in road traffic flow and/or average speeds on nearby roads, and the location of these properties is summarised as follows: • 4 No. properties in Hathurstfield Park north of the B4063; • 50 No. properties on Southerby Drive, north of the A40 at Benhall Roundabout; • 18 No. properties on Miserden Road, south of the A40 between the Arle Court and Benhall; • 9 No. properties on Stanway Road, south of Miserden Road; • 40 No. properties on Coberley Road, south of Stanway Road; • 57 No. properties on Whittington Road, between the A40 and Benhall Avenue; • 5 No. properties on Benhall Avenue; • 3 No. properties in Colesbourne Road, south of Benhall Woods; • 44 No. properties in Benhall, south of the A40 between Campden Road and Church Road; and • 42 No. properties in St. Marks, north of the A40 between Campden Road and Church Road. For road traffic noise levels of minor magnitude, it is normally concluded that these would not result in changes to behaviour or response to noise, and hence would not give rise to a potentially significant effect. Although there are minor impacts at one receptor expected in the short-term, other factors must also be taken under consideration, such as the absolute level of noise. For this purpose, the absolute noise levels predicted at noise sensitive receptors in the opening year of the Scheme have been compared with the SOAEL of 55 dB Lnight. Analysis of the predicted noise levels (Do Something 2021 / Do Something 2031) for the daytime indicates that there is potential for the SOAEL to be exceeded, and additionally that noise levels would increase by more than 1 dB, at the following properties: • 16 No. properties on Miserden Road, south of the A40 between the Arle Court and Benhall; • 21 No. properties in Benhall, south of the A40 between Campden Road and Church Road; • 21 No. properties in St. Marks, north of the A40 between Campden Road and Church Road; and • 2 No. properties in Hathurstfield Park north of the B4063. This indicates a potentially significant effect in the short-term for these properties. However, in accordance with DMRB 11:3:7, the following factors are additionally considered: • Increases in noise levels in the short-term are only marginally above the 1 dB threshold (by no more than 0.8 dB at any receptor) for all receptors in Miserden Road (22No.);
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 63 of 115
• Increases in noise levels in the short-term are only very marginally above the 1 dB threshold (by no more than 0.3 dB at any receptor) for all receptors in B4063/Benhall/St. Marks 44No.); and • There are only negligible increases in noise for all these receptors in the long-term (see assessment to follow). For marginal impacts the DMRB indicates that these are less likely to be potentially significant when considered in the context of other factors, e.g. an effect in the short-term is less likely to be significant where the long-term effects are not potentially significant. Given consideration of the above, it is concluded that these changes would not amount to a potentially significant effect. The predicted changes in night-time road traffic noise levels in the long-term with and without the Scheme are shown in Table 6 (without Scheme) and Table 7 / 10 (with Scheme).
Table 6: Long-term traffic noise magnitude changes without the Scheme (night-time) Change in noise level DMRB impact Number of Number of other magnitude dwellings sensitive receptors Increase in noise 0.1 - 2.9 Negligible 505 0 level, LA10,18h dB 3 - 4.9 Minor 0 0 5 - 9.9 Moderate 0 0 ≥ 10 Major 0 0 No change 0 No change 816 3 Decrease in 0.1 - 2.9 Negligible 2480 1 noise level, 3 - 4.9 Minor 0 0 LA10,18h dB 5 - 9.9 Moderate 0 0 ≥ 10 Major 0 0
Table 7: Long-term traffic noise magnitude changes with the Scheme (night-time) Change in noise level DMRB impact Number of Number of other magnitude dwellings sensitive receptors Increase in noise 0.1 - 2.9 Negligible 3750 4 level, LA10,18h dB 3 - 4.9 Minor 0 0 5 - 9.9 Moderate 0 0 ≥ 10 Major 0 0 No change 0 No change 42 0 Decrease in 0.1 - 2.9 Negligible 9 0 noise level, 3 - 4.9 Minor 0 0 LA10,18h dB 5 - 9.9 Moderate 0 0 ≥ 10 Major 0 0 Table 7, and Figure 10 show that in the long-term, all receptors will be subject to a negligible change in noise levels. With the Scheme, it is predicted that 3,750 properties will be subject to a negligible increase in noise level, with no change predicted at 42 properties and negligible decrease at 9 properties. Overall, the potential impacts of the scheme on night-time noise levels in the long-term are negligible, and hence would not cause changes to behaviour or response to noise and vibration. As such, these will not give rise to a significant environmental effect in the long-term.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 64 of 115
Changes to road traffic noise levels in the wider area To determine the potential effects within the wider area, the Basic Noise Levels (BNLs) were calculated using the methodology in the CRTN for road links outside of the detailed calculation area. In the short-term and the long-term, the BNL calculations indicated that there are no affected road links outside of the DMRB study area.
Noise Important Areas (NIAs) In accordance with the Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006, and as defined within DEFRAs Noise Action Plan: Roads (2 July 2019), Important Areas with respect to noise from major roads outside agglomerations are where the 1% of the population that are affected by the highest noise levels from major roads are located (according to the results of the Round 3 strategic noise mapping). In general, any increases in noise levels within NIAs are to be avoided, whilst improvements in noise level (i.e. a reduction) should be delivered, where possible. Analysis of the short-term and long-term change maps for NIAs indicate that there may be negligible to minor increases in road traffic noise for receptors in the following NIAs: • NIA 3898, a small local authority NIA, approximately 350 m west of the junction; • NIA 3899, a local authority NIA covering an area of the A40 approximately 300 m east and west of the Arle Court Roundabout; • NIA 6036, a local authority NIA covering an area of the A40 between Telstar Way and Granley Road, including the Benhall Roundabout; and • NIA 3945, a local authority NIA covering an area of Princess Elizabeth Way between the A40 and Dowty Road. The highway authority will therefore be responsible for forming a view about what measures, if any, might be taken in order to assist with the implementation of the Government’s policy on noise. Examples of such measures include the provision of noise barriers and/or low noise road surfacing.
Noise Insulation Regulations (NIRs) Regulation 3 of the UK Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended 1988), imposes a duty on authorities to undertake or make a grant in respect of the cost of undertaking noise insulation work in or to eligible (residential) buildings, subject to meeting certain criteria, as follows: • the property must be within 300m of the Scheme; • the relevant noise level21 is greater by at least 1dB(A) than the prevailing noise level22 and is not less than the specified level23, and • noise caused or expected to be caused by traffic using or expected to use the highway makes an effective contribution to the relevant noise level of at least 1 dB(A). It is important to note that the above refers to the effects of noise caused by a new or improved highway, and not to any effects on the wider road network as a result of the Scheme. Initial analysis of the modelling data indicates that there are potentially 22 properties on Miserden Road, south of the A40 between Arle Court and Benhall where all of the above criteria could be met. Monitoring of the noise levels at the properties will be undertaken before and after the implementation of the scheme to confirm if noise insulation is required.
3.3.8.5. WebTAG Appraisal An appraisal of predicted changes in noise level across the study area (as determined in accordance with DMRB 11:3:7) was completed, in accordance with the online Transport Analysis Guidance (WebTAG) for
21 “relevant noise level” means the level of noise, expressed as a level of L 10 (18-hour), one metre in front of the most exposed of any windows and doors in a facade of a building caused or expected to be caused by traffic using or expected to use any highway.
22 “prevailing noise level” means the level of noise, expressed as a level of L 10 (18-hour), one metre in front of the most exposed of any windows and doors in a facade of a building caused by traffic using any highway immediately before works for the construction of a highway or additional carriageway, or for the alteration of a highway, as the case may be, were begun.
23 “specified level” means a noise level of L 10 (18-hour) of 68dB(A).
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 65 of 115
Noise24. For each one decibel change in average noise level, a monetary value is assigned for the change in the following health impacts: amenity (annoyance), acute myocardial infarction, dementia, stroke and sleep disturbance. Completion of the TAG workbook for noise yields a result of -£2,279,613 for the Net Present Value of the Scheme. The negative value indicates a net increase in noise as a result of scheme development, and hence a net adverse effect on health and wellbeing.
3.3.8.6. Summary In summary, the assessments undertaken in relation to the WCTIS Phase 3 and 4 as outlined above have shown that: • The Scheme would have no significant, adverse environmental effects in the short term at most of the receptors considered, and in the short-term at the remaining receptors considering additional contextual factors in accordance with DMRB 11:3:7 (marginal nature of impacts and results in the long-term). • The Scheme would have no significant, adverse environmental effects on any receptor in the long-term. • The Scheme is expected to result in increases in noise levels within NIA 6036 due to the increased highway capacity and traffic speeds through the area. Therefore, in accordance with DEFRAs Noise Action Plan: Roads (2 July 2019), the highway authority will therefore be responsible for forming a view about what measures, if any, might be taken in order to assist with the implementation of the Government’s policy on noise. • Analysis of the modelling data indicates that there are 22 No. properties on Miserden Road, south of the A40 between the Arle Court and Benhall where all of the qualifying criteria for works or grants under the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended 1988) criteria are met. The highways authority will therefore have a duty to undertake sound insulation works or make grants in respect of the NIRs at these properties. • An appraisal of the scheme in accordance with webTAG indicates a Net Present Value of -£2,279,613, i.e. a net increase in noise and a net adverse effect on health and wellbeing. A thorough review of potential mitigation options has been considered in Appendix K Mitigation and Enhancement Review. This review has investigated options for noise reduction at local properties and provided the reasoning as to why they are not deemed appropriate for use in this location as part of the scheme. As stated in Appendix K, a positive modal shift away from carbonised single occupancy transport would have a beneficial effect upon noise effects from the scheme (as well as reduction in air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions). The WCTIS Phase 3 and 4 scheme is in itself linked to the West Cheltenham Walking and Cycling Improvement (WCWCI) scheme. This in itself will help to drive modal shift to help reduce noise at local residential receptors, although the benefit of this scheme is not quantifiable at this stage and therefore does not allow for the noise effects predicted above to be reduced. GCC is also looking to encourage modal shift through further improvements to the Park and Ride. Whilst some improvements to the Park and Ride are proposed as part of the WCTIS Phase 1 works, further improvements are anticipated at the site to create larger capacity and other improvement at the site. GCC is also investigating other methods to drive modal shift in West Cheltenham to help reduce these anticipated noise effects. Further information in this regard is provided in Appendix K Mitigation and Enhancement Review.
24 Latest revision (May 2019), Base Year 2010
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 66 of 115
3.4. Social and Distributional Impacts
3.4.1. Social Impacts Assessment
The social impact appraisal has been undertaken in accordance with requirements set out in TAG unit A4-1 published by the Department of Transport (DfT). This includes a qualitative assessment supplemented by quantitative measures where appropriate. Final results are presented in a seven-point scale of beneficial, neutral or adverse. A summary of findings for the eight social impact is provided below. Further details on the analysis undertaken are presented in Appendix D, with detailed justification for the assessment and scoring given.
3.4.1.1. Physical activity The addition of a lane on the A40 eastbound between Benhall Roundabout and Benhall Gardens as well as the increased capacity through the A40/Telstar Way, Benhall Roundabout and TGI Fridays Junction may cause a modal shift away from active travel. This is due to increased capacity leading to reduced congestion and travel times. This may make private car travel a more attractive mode, leading to a mode shift from active modes to private car travel. It should be noted that this assessment is qualitative and based on professional judgement. There is a shared use cycle/footway to the north of the A40 between Arle Court and Benhall Roundabout and between Kingsley Gardens and the TGI Fridays Junction. There is a segregated foot/cycle path to the north of the A40 between Benhall Roundabout and Kingsley Gardens. It is assumed that these pedestrian and cycle facilities will be maintained as part of the WCTIS Phases 3 and 4. The scheme also proposes the addition of two signalised pedestrian crossings across the northern and western exits of Benhall Roundabout. This may make walking along this route a more attractive mode, as it will be easier to cross at this location. Therefore, a significant mode shift away from active modes is not anticipated as a result of the Phases 3 and 4 upgrades. Therefore, the immediate impact of the scheme to physical activity is considered to be neutral.
3.4.1.2. Journey quality Overall, there is a slight beneficial impact to journey quality for all considered users. The increased capacity along the A40 which will reduce driver’s stress and frustration and will improve the reliability of public transport services. As a result, beneficial impacts for motorists and public transport users are expected. There are two additional signalised toucan crossings included in the scheme, hence there is also a beneficial impact to facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore, the journey quality appraisal for WCTIS Phases 3 and 4 has been assessed as slight beneficial.
3.4.1.3. Accidents The accident assessment is based on the total number, location and severity of historical accidents which occurred between January 2014 and December 2018 across the Affected Road Network (ARN). To supplement the analysis, an examination of the location of accidents has also been carried out. A summary of findings for the accident component of the social impact assessment is presented in Appendix D. According to the modelling results, there is a significant speed increase in sections of the A40 eastbound. This is likely due to the increased capacity along the A40 eastbound reducing congestion, meaning vehicles can travel faster along the road. According to the literature, there is a stronger relationship between accidents and the increase of traffic speeds. A high-speed traffic flow may cause a possible an increase in the number of accidents and injuries sustained are likely to be more severe if accidents occur at higher speeds25. Therefore, the accident appraisal for the scheme has been assessed as slight adverse. It is to be noted that due to mitigation provided and the consideration of safety in all aspects of design and development of the project, the aim will be for this to be neutral, but given the potential increase in speeds, it is recorded as slight adverse.
25 See for example: • Shah, S. A. R., Ahmad, N., Shen, Y., Kamal, M. A., Basheer, M. A., & Brijs, T. (2019). Relationship between road traffic features and accidents: An application of two-stage decision-making approach for transportation engineers. Journal of Safety Research, 69, 201- 215. • Aljanahi, A. A. M., Rhodes, A. H., & Metcalfe, A. V. (1999). Speed, speed limits and road traffic accidents under free flow conditions. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 31(1-2), 161-168.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 67 of 115
3.4.1.4. Security In the absence of observable data, a high-level qualitative security assessment has been undertaken. A light touch consideration of security indicators was deemed to be proportionate. The overall assessment of the security impact was then made by considering the changes in the level of the security indicators and the relative importance of the indicators, as indicated in the guidance. Consideration was also given to the scheme specific characteristics. On this basis, it was concluded that it is unlikely that there will be any significant impact to security as a result of the WCTIS Phases 3 and 4. Hence, a neutral security impact is expected.
3.4.1.5. Accessibility For the purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that the frequency or routings of buses will not be altered as a result of WCTIS Phases 3 and 4. Modelling results have shown positive improvements to average journey time and queue lengths on key routes and junctions on the modelled network from the Do Minimum model scenario. These results have also shown improvements to overall bus journey times which is expected to increase accessibility to some extent. In addition, there will be journey time savings as a result of reduced congestion along the section of the A40. These time savings may result in a reduction in the cost of transport. This may enhance accessibility for car users. Services from Gloucester towards Cheltenham, which currently run along the section of the A40, may have slight journey time savings as a result of the scheme. However, it is unlikely there will be any significant accessibility impact as a result of this. The improvements may have a positive impact on accessibility. However, in the absence of robust data to accurately evaluate the effect of the scheme in reducing the key barriers impacting on accessibility, the impact has been estimated to be neutral. The estimate is considered conservative in comparison to the potential maximum direct impacts on accessibility to services.
3.4.1.6. Personal Affordability Affordability of transportation is primarily a distributional issue as it can be a major barrier to the mobility of certain groups. The assessment presented in this section provides a ‘light touch’ consideration of affordability from a wider perspective. As this intervention only significantly affects road users, changes in affordability are only relevant if a household owns a car. The changes in vehicle operating costs are captured in the TUBA outputs. The total impact to vehicle operating costs for home-based ‘commuting and other’ trips is approximately a £600,000 benefit, for the scheme assessment area. Reduced congestion caused by the increased capacity along the A40 eastbound will lead to reduced vehicle operating costs as vehicles aren’t idling and accelerating in queues. In some cases, minor affordability disbenefits were found, likely caused by increased vehicle speeds leading to increased fuel consumption. However, the decreased vehicle operating costs outweigh the affordability disbenefits for the WCTIS Phase 3 and 4. Therefore, the overall impact of the scheme to personal affordability is appraised as moderate beneficial.
3.4.1.7. Severance Severance can be affected in two ways: through substantial physical changes in transport infrastructure or through changes to traffic conditions. For the purposes of this analysis, in line with TAG Unit A4-2, speed changes of greater than 10% have been used as a proxy for analysing severance. The impact of severance on pedestrians also considered the location and type of pedestrian crossings proposed by the scheme across the network. Overall, it is likely that the effect of the WCTIS Phases 3 and 4 on severance will be neutral, as increases in severance are broadly balanced by relief of severance. It should be noted that there are approximately 80 links within the model extent with increased traffic speed and 40 links with decreased traffic speed of greater than 10% - this could serve to increase severance However, the package of measures proposed improvements in pedestrian crossing facilities which may counter increases in severance from higher traffic speeds. On balance, the overall impact of WCTIS Phases 3 and 4 is appraised as neutral.
3.4.1.8. Option Values and Non-Use Values TAG Unit A4-1 requires that option values and non-use values are assessed if the scheme being appraised includes measures that will substantially change the availability of transport services within the study area. Specific examples include the opening or closure of a rail service, and the introduction or withdrawal of buses serving a particular rural area.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 68 of 115
As phases 3 and 4 include no changes to any public transport routes or services provided in the area, no significant changes to transport services are anticipated. Therefore, no further appraisal is required for this indicator.
3.4.2. Distributional Impacts Assessment In accordance with Transport Appraisal Guidance (TAG) Unit A4-2 – Distributional Impact Appraisal, a distributional impact analysis has been undertaken to determine whether the proposed scheme unduly favor or disadvantage particular social groups; rather than the overall impact of the options on all groups, which is the main focus of economic appraisal analysis presented in Section 3.6. A summary of findings for the eight distributional impact indicators is provided in Table 1. Further details on the assessment of distributional impacts derived from phases 3 & 4 of the West of Cheltenham Transport Improvement Scheme are presented in Appendix D.
Table 1: Distributional impact assessment – Summary of the results DI indicator Assessment Comments Accessibility No further The scheme does not introduce any changes in routings or timings of appraisal current public transport services, any changes to public transport assessed provision, including routing, frequencies, waiting facilities and rolling stock, or any indirect impacts on accessibility to services. As a consequence, the distributional impact of the scheme to accessibility will not need to be examined further. Security No further There are no planned changes to public transport waiting or appraisal interchange facilities. Consequently, changes in user perception of assessed personal security are not anticipated as no pedestrianised areas are affected by the scheme. Severance Neutral There are approximately the same number of links where traffic speed reduces by >10% and increases by >10% where there are concentrations of children, elderly and no car households. As a result, it is expected that the adverse and beneficial severance impacts will be broadly balanced. There is one link with increased traffic speed and three links with decreased traffic speed in areas where there are high proportions of DLA claimants. However, it is unlikely that pedestrians will cross the roundabout circulatory at Kingfisher Drive/Blaisdon Way, where traffic speeds are increased. As a result, the increased traffic speed at this location is not expected to deteriorate the quality of the pedestrian environment. Accidents Neutral There are no road links where traffic speed increases by >10%, which could lead to an increase in collisions involving cyclists, young male drivers and those from the 20% most income deprived LSOAs in England. There are a greater number of casualties involving pedestrians, elderly people and those from the 20% least income deprived LSOAs on links with increased traffic speed than those with a decrease traffic speed. As per the assumed relationship between accidents and the variability of traffic speeds, the impact on these vulnerable groups is therefore slight adverse. Building on the same analysis, the accident impact of the WCTIS Phases 3 and 4 for motorcyclists and children is appraised as slight beneficial. Since there is a slight beneficial accident impact for children and motorcyclists, a slight adverse impact for pedestrians and elderly people and neutral otherwise, the overall SDI assessment on accidents is considered to be neutral.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 69 of 115
Air quality Moderate There is a neutral impact to air quality for the most income deprived adverse residents and a moderate adverse impact for children and for residents in income quintiles 4 and 5. On the contrary, a slight adverse impact is anticipated for income quintile 2. As a result, the overall impact of the scheme to air quality is appraised as moderate adverse. However, it should be noted that the output from this assessment is based on a light touch consideration of air quality. Noise Neutral The DI assessment demonstrates whether the noise impacts as a result of the proposed scheme are distributed evenly and contextualises who the likely winners and losers are in terms of vulnerable groups. The noise assessment has shown that there is a slight beneficial impact for the 20% most income deprived residents, (two receptors experiencing a reduction in noise levels vs. 465 with no change in noise levels). Since there are neutral impacts for children and income quintile 2 and slight adverse impacts for less income deprived residents, the overall impact of the scheme to noise is assumed to be neutral. User Moderate The cost and time impacts for commuters and other non-business trips benefits beneficial outweigh the disbenefits across all income quintiles (£20,304,633 in total), due to the overall congestion benefits associated with the proposal. The dis-benefits are almost entirely focused on the locations with the highest concentration of the least deprived income quintiles (4 and 5), however, the overall impact for this group is still beneficial. Affordability Moderate The affordability benefits of the scheme outweigh the affordability beneficial disbenefits with no disbenefits experienced by residents within income quintiles 1-3 and small disbenefits for those in income quintiles 4 and 5. The analysis shows a positive impact across all income groups (£601,109). The benefits are evenly distributed and there is a moderate beneficial affordability impact for each income quintile and overall.
3.5. Reliability Impacts Reliability impacts have not been explicitly assessed or monetised following WebTAG guidelines. However, it is expected that the additional capacity will improve reliability due to the reduction in congestion and result in consistent benefits throughout the day but most significantly during peak hours. 3.6. Economic Appraisal Results: Core Scenario This chapter sets out the results of the economic appraisal for the core scenario in line with the assessment methodologies set out in chapter 3.
3.6.1. Core Scenario definition The following section describes the Core Scenario benefits analysis during normal operation in terms of savings relating to travel times, vehicle operating costs and user charges user benefit. The model forecasting report produced by Jacobs (Appendix B) details that NTEM District level growth factors were used to forecast future car demands, and the National Traffic Model (NTM) for LGV and HGV demand forecasting from the 2017 base demand to 2021 and 2031. These high-level growth factors have not been adjusted locally, and the impact of uncertainty around demand forecast was not considered. The forecasting methodology also did not feature an uncertainty log covering the central forecasting assumptions made in the model that would affect travel demand and supply. There is however information on the economic development in the modelled area until 2021, namely targets set for Gloucestershire over the growth period to 2021. The First LEP Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) identifies unlocking employment land in a growth zone with good access to the M5 as especially important. Within the model area specifically, the SEP informs that funding has been secured for Cheltenham Cyber Business Park with occupation expected in 2021. The Gloucestershire, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031 identifies housing needs following the National Planning Policy Framework and Guidance, that
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 70 of 115
takes the official population forecasts and household projections as its starting point. The Joint Core Strategy does not project other housing developments in addition to the national households forecast. In the long term there is no significant development identified in the vicinity of the model area, therefore it is understood that the high-level growth applied in 2031 lacks in detail for the local area of the model. Due to the nature of the microsimulation model, with a focus on a limited local area, the demand forecast would be more appropriately represented if adjusted to reflect the local conditions and uncertainties. Given that the high level (District and National) forecast growth has been applied unadjusted to the study area, the growth has been capped to the forecast year of 2021 in the core scenario since 2021 is the most illustrative forecast scenario in the context of this project. This scenario represents the realistic demand scenario. Additional demand scenarios were tested in the sensitivity analysis (section 3.8).
3.6.2. Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) All benefits and costs were calculated in monetary terms and expressed as present values (PV) in 2010 prices, discounted to 2010.This enables direct economic comparison with other schemes which may have very different timescales. Table 3-5 below presents the TEE table for the core scenario TUBA assessment results.
Table 3-5 – Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits (all values in £000s)
Non-business: Commuting User benefits TOTAL Travel time 11059 Vehicle operating costs 289 User charges 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 NET NON-BUSINESS BENEFITS: COMMUTING 11347
Non-business: Other ALL MODES User benefits TOTAL Travel time 8645 Vehicle operating costs 323 User charges 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 NET NON-BUSINESS BENEFITS: OTHER 8968
Business
User benefits Travel time 7667 Vehicle operating costs 792 User charges 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 Subtotal 8458
Private sector provider impacts Revenue 0 Operating costs 0 Investment costs 0 Grant/subsidy 0
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 71 of 115
Subtotal 0 Other business impacts Developer contributions 0 NET BUSINESS IMPACT 8458
TOTAL
Present Value of Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits (TEE) 28773 Notes: Benefits appear as positive numbers, while costs appear as negative numbers. All entries are discounted present values, in 2010 prices and value The economic appraisal conducted in compliance with WebTAG (Data Book), evaluates the travel time savings and the vehicle operating costs (VOC) that the scheme is forecast to produce. The scheme is forecast to produce net benefits for all users of £27.37 million from the travel time savings and £0.21 million from vehicle operating cost savings. In conclusion, the transport economic benefits assessment predicts the scheme will deliver overall net benefits for all users of £28.77 million. It should be noted that no private sector provider impacts benefits nor developer contributions were considered. In addition, the impact of delays during construction and maintenance was not assessed. Closer analysis of the results, presented in Figure 3-1, shows that transport economic benefits accrued from non-commuting purposes of non-business users is 31%. Net business benefits account for 29%, and non-business commuters’ account for 39% of the total value of transport economic benefits.
Figure 3-1 – Core Scenario Transport economic efficiency structure by travel purpose
3.6.3. Present Value of Benefits (PVB) The scheme is expected to bring a Present Value Benefit (PVB) of £23.5m over the 60-year appraisal period (2021 - 2080). These benefits are generated by travel time savings of £27.4m, vehicle operating costs benefits of £1.4m, a reduction in Government Indirect Tax of -£0.5m, noise costs of -£2.3m, air quality costs of -£0.9m and GHG emission costs of -£1.6m The scheme is estimated to provide user benefits of £731k during the first forecast modelled year (2021), and £598k during the second modelled year (2031). The PM peak provides higher benefits than the AM peak throughout the 60-year appraisal period, as shown in Figure 3-2.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 72 of 115
Figure 3-2 - Core Scenario profile of Present Value of Benefit per year
Over the 60-year appraisal period, the distribution of benefits by purpose is shown in Figure 3-3.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 73 of 115
Figure 3-3 - Core Scenario Benefit profile breakdown by Purpose
3.6.4. Present Value of Costs (PVC) The scheme construction costs have been estimated by the engineering team, as detailed in section 3.2.2. To convert the costs to present value the calculations presented in section 3.2.6 have been performed. The total scheme construction costs expressed as a PVC is £8.5m.
3.6.5. Spatial Distribution of TUBA Benefits To understand the spatial distribution of benefits from the scheme, sector analysis was carried out. The following section describes the sector system used for the study.
3.6.5.1. Sector System A system of eight sectors was developed to provide grouping of zones that are expected to be affected in similar manner by the scheme. The proposed sector system is composed of two sectors in the vicinity of the scheme (two sectors immediately north and south of Arle Court junction), two sectors for the strategic M5 long distance trips running north and south of J11 and the remaining four sectors providing geographical groupings of more distant local areas that are quite likely to feed trips through A40 / Arle Court corridor. The sector system is shown in Figure 3-4 below.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 74 of 115
Figure 3-4 - Sector System
A detailed description of the sectors adopted in the sector system is listed below:
• Sectors 1 and 2 capture strategic traffic running on the M5. • Sector 3 is the built-up area of Gloucester within the A40 northern and A417 eastern bypasses. • Sector 4 is rest of Cheltenham east of the scheme. • Sector 5 is the build-up area of Cheltenham south of Arle Court including The Reddings and Badgeworth which lie very close to the scheme. • Sector 6 is the villages west of M5 and north of A40 such as Staverton Bridge, Innsworth and Churchdown (N) and Gloucester Airport. • Sector 7 is remaining part of Churchdown south of A40.
Sector 8 is the area immediately north of the scheme extending to include Fiddlers Green and Golden Valley.
3.6.5.2. Sectoral Distribution of TUBA Benefits Sectoral benefits are shown in Figure 3-5 and Table 3-6 below.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 75 of 115
Figure 3-5 - Core Scenario Sectoral Distribution
Table 3-6 – Sectoral distribution of benefits Sector 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total
1 0.00 77.58 -3.59 2141.48 17.48 5.70 -0.97 -1.86 2235.82
2 211.33 0.00 79.84 498.35 18.32 25.11 -24.43 12.40 820.92
3 62.77 -526.37 570.53 2985.84 11.75 282.48 -98.47 -15.11 3273.41
4 1645.04 1160.10 3292.99 11581.68 992.22 892.25 115.99 192.80 19873.06
5 -10.06 5.07 34.93 725.58 15.76 -3.23 -18.63 4.50 753.91
6 24.21 14.44 -1121.81 1162.31 91.59 502.03 149.24 13.30 835.31
7 -2.92 -73.42 -341.07 195.16 8.96 -271.07 -35.49 -5.33 -525.17
8 11.90 10.84 5.80 90.07 -8.30 -5.63 -1.26 0.01 103.44
Total 1942.27 668.24 2517.62 19380.46 1147.78 1427.65 85.99 200.70 27370.70 Note - Cells in red are the bottom 5 movements and cells in green are the top 5 movements. All values are in £000 in 2010 market prices discounted to 2010.
It can be observed from Table 3-6 that approximately 73% of all scheme journey time benefits are experienced by trips originating from sector 4 and 71% of all journey time benefits are experienced by trips destined to sector 4. Focussing on the 60-year appraisal period, the movements with the highest benefits are: • £11.58m - Sector 4 to Sector 4; • £3.29m - Sector 4 to Sector 3;
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 76 of 115
• £2.99m - Sector 3 to Sector 4; • £2.14m - Sector 1 to Sector 4; and • £1.65m - Sector 4 to Sector 1. The highest benefits can be observed in movements originating from sector 4 to sector 4. Some sector-to-sector movements are forecast to experience a dis-benefit, and the movements with the highest dis-benefits are: • – £1.12m - Sector 6 to Sector 3; • – £0.53m - Sector 3 to Sector 2; • – £0.34m - Sector 7 to Sector 3; • – £0.27m - Sector 7 to Sector 6; and • – £0.10m - Sector 3 to Sector 7 Compared with sector time benefits, sector time disbenefits are relatively low.
3.6.6. Public Accounts The Public Accounts table (Table 3-7) brings together the costs of the scheme and the revenue and tax changes which would result. The revenue and tax changes which follow from changes in traffic routes and speeds are derived from the TUBA output, while the capital and operating costs, less any offsetting developer contributions, are as described.
Table 3-7 - PA Table (all values in £000s) Local Government Funding Revenue 0 Operating Costs 0 Investment Costs 8,486 Developer and Other Contributions 0 Grant/Subsidy Payments 0
NET IMPACT 8,486
Central Government Funding: Transport Revenue 0 Operating costs 0 Investment Costs 0 Developer and Other Contributions 0 Grant/Subsidy Payments 0
NET IMPACT 0
Central Government Funding: Non- Transport Indirect Tax Revenues 534
TOTALS
Broad Transport Budget 8,486
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 77 of 115
Wider Public Finances 534 Notes: Costs appear as positive numbers, while revenues and ‘Developer and Other Contributions' appear as negative numbers. All entries are discounted present values in 2010 prices and values.
3.6.7. Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits Table 3-8 presents the Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) table.
Table 3-8 – Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (all values in £000s)
Noise -2280
Local Air Quality -857
Greenhouse Gases -1577
Journey Quality Not assessed
Physical Activity Not assessed
Accidents Not assessed
Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Commuting) 11347
Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Other) 8968
Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers 8458 -534 Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues)
23525 Present Value of Benefits (PVB)
Broad Transport Budget 8,486
Present Value of Costs (PVC) 8,486
OVERALL IMPACTS
Net Present Value (NPV) 15,039
Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 2.77
3.6.8. Appraisal Summary Table (AST) Following the production of the AMCB table, the relevant values in the TEE/PA/AMCB tables are transcribed to the AST and are complemented by the environmental and social and distributional impacts assessment results. The AST table is reproduced in Appendix E. 3.7. Value for Money Statement
The Value for Money (FM) assessment is carried out as a staged process to ensure that a complete and robust analysis is undertaken. A VfM statement has been produced for the core scenario using information within the AST to provide a summary of the conclusions from the VfM assessment. The DfT VfM categories and their relationship with BCRs to be generated through the cost-benefit analysis is presented on
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 78 of 115
Table 3-9.
Table 3-9 - DfT VfM Categories BCR Category Less than 1.0 Poor 1.0 to 1.5 Low 1.5 to 2.0 Medium 2.0 to 4.0 High Greater than 4.0 Very High
Overall assessment of costs and benefits generated by the project shows that the scheme achieves a Benefit Cost Ratio figure of 2.77 with a Net Present Value (NPV) of approximately £15.0 million. The scheme can be therefore categorised as achieving high value for money in the classification provided by DfT. This BCR value confirms the importance of the scheme and urgency of its implementation. The majority of benefits derives from time savings, because current poor traffic conditions cause long delays to all types of trips and thus hinder the productivity of local communities and local economic growth. This scheme will help to overcome these issues which otherwise would have a cumulative negative impact in the next few years.
The structure of the benefits is presented in
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 79 of 115
Figure 3-6. These are presented as the cumulative benefits from lower benefits to higher benefits and lower disbenefits to higher disbenefits, adding up to the Net Present Value.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 80 of 115
Figure 3-6 - Value for Money of the scheme, costs and benefits structure, £000s
A number of other benefits have been assessed qualitatively as part of this Business Case. These include Environmental impacts (biodiversity, heritage, landscape, air quality, noise and vibration and water environment/ flooding) and Social impacts (social and distributional impacts, physical activity, journey quality, accidents, security, access to services, affordability, severance). Reliability impacts on commuting and other users were not assessed as part of this study.
The Value for Money statement presented below summaries the benefits in each category and clarifies which monetised assessments were completed.
Scheme Name WCTIS Phases 3 & 4: A40 Widening Description of Scheme Widening of the A40 through Cheltenham from Arle Court Roundabout to TGI Fridays lights; improvements to the layout of junctions at Telstar Way and Benhall Roundabout.
PV Costs (in £000s) PVC, 2010 prices/values 8,486
PV Benefits (in £000s) Physical Activity Not Assessed Urban Realm Not Assessed Travel Time savings 27,371 Vehicle operating costs 1,404 Indirect Taxation Revenues -534
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 81 of 115
Greenhouse gases -1,577 Deduction to account for 0 private sector contributions PVB, 2010 prices/values 23,527 Accidents Not assessed Air Quality -857 Noise -2,280 Wider Impacts Not Assessed Public Transport Impacts Not Assessed Benefit to Cost Ratio 2.77 Value for Money category High
The detailed Appraisal Summary Table is presented in Appendix E. 3.8. Sensitivity testing This section describes the sensitivity tests carried which reflect the uncertainty in local demand growth factors. The sensitivity testing carried out consisted of comparing the PVB derived from the TUBA appraisals of the following alternative scenario: • The optimistic scenario, where demand will grow until the last forecasting year 2031, in line with what was set out in the forecasting report (Appendix B).
Table 3-10 summarises the results of the sensitivity test. Results produced from this analysis show that the expected BCR range from 2.77 in core to 12.85 in the optimistic scenario.
Table 3-10 - Summary of Forecast Growth Sensitivity Tests (values in £000s)
Item Optimistic Time benefits 82,050 Vehicle operating costs (fuel) 1,840 Vehicle operating costs (non- 1,410 fuel) Greenhouse Gas emissions 480 Wider Public Finances (Indirect -1,070 Taxation Revenues) Present Value of Benefits 84,700 (PVB) Broad Transport Budget 6,589 Present Value of Costs (PVC) 6,589 Net Present Value (NPV) 78,111 Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 12.85
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 82 of 115
4. Financial Case
4.1. Overview This chapter considers the capital costs associated with the proposed scheme investment. Commitment to funding the scheme will be sought at a full LEP Board meeting. The anticipated cost of the scheme is approximately £8.29m, for both Phases 3 and 4. Approximate proportions are Phase 3 accounts for 77.5% of the cost, and Phase 4 22.5%. The current full breakdown of costs is provided in Table 4-1.
4.2. Breakdown and Time Profile of Project Costs
Table 4-1 - Breakdown of scheme capital costs, 2019 prices Project cost Capital cost Estimate Costs by year (£) Totals components items status* 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Design & Design fees, Management Surveys and trial holes, P £189,831 £370,000 £955,444 £74,725 £1,590,000 Land Purchase Construction Non-Routine including Re- Traffic- construction Related Site Maintenance clearance, Diversions P - £94,700 £4,725,000 £4,820,200 of Statutory services. Widening and re- Surfacing of carriageway. Contingency Risk P - £200,000 £1,679,800 £1,879,800 Adjustment Indirect Tax Non- Recoverable ------VAT (if applicable) (NB – Base Total Cost cost + 3% P £189,831 £370,000 £1,250,144 £6,480,025 £8,290,000 inflation) *O = Outline estimate, P = Preliminary estimate, D = Detailed estimate, T = Tender price
4.3. Project Funding This section considers the capital funding requirements and commitments for the proposed scheme investment.
4.3.1. Sources of Funding The sources of funding for the scheme are summarised below.
Table 4-2 - Scheme funding sources and profile of contributions
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 83 of 115
2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Total Capital Rev Capital Rev Capital Rev Capital Rev LEP funding £189,831 n/a £370,000 n/a £1,250,144 n/a £6,480,025 n/a £8,290,000 (Growth Deal 3) GCC - n/a - n/a - n/a - n/a - Total All figures are in outturn prices
Within the scheme costs shown in Table 4-1 a suitable adjustment for risk and contingency is included.
4.3.2. Security and earliest availability of funds
Table 4-3 - Security and availability of scheme funding contributions Security of funding contribution (✓) Earliest available date for securing fund contribution Funding Fund details Low Medium High Part funding Full funding source date date LEP LEP ✓ Subject to n/a On Board approval by approval the LEP November Board 2019 GCC GCC – n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Capital Funds
As scheme promoter, GCC will be liable for any future cost overruns associated with the delivery of the suite of transport schemes. This will be funded from within the scheme funding envelope of the full £22 million Capital grant or alternative funding, such as the highways capital programme, Section 106 developer contributions, Community Infrastructure Levy, etc. As stated in the County Council’s Constitution, ‘Directors are responsible for ensuring that variations in capital project estimates that occur during the course of a contract are contained within the resources allocated to that service’. The scheme’s costs will be monitored and managed accordingly. Funding for delivery for each of phase of the works is subject to variation in scope, market forces and risks being realised, agreement is in place with the GFirst LEP that funding can be transferred between phases to reflect underspend/overspend. This will be reflected in the extent of the scheme developed. 4.4. Financial Risk Management Strategy This section examines the risks associated with the costs and financial requirements of the onsite infrastructure and engineering works. It considers the mitigation that may be needed to handle the identified risks, if they arise.
4.4.1. Risks to the Scheme Cost Estimate and Funding Strategy Table 4-4 shows the financial risks and suggested mitigation measures associated with this scheme. The Risk Register included as Appendix H has assessed the costs for the risks and is therefore a Quantified Risk Register.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 84 of 115
Table 4-4 - Qualitative financial risk assessment
Likelihood of Impact Predicted risk arising severity (✓) impact on (✓) scheme delivery and outcome (✓)
Scheme financial risk item Suggested mitigation
Low Medium High Slight Moderate Severe Slight Moderate Severe
Unforeseen increase in ✓ ✓ ✓ Scheme will be amended to scheme cost reduces the reduce costs whilst VfM ensuring that agreed Outputs are achieved. In the event of cost overruns, GCC would value engineer the schemes to fit the available budget. Earmarked / secured funds ✓ ✓ ✓ As above do not cover current scheme capital cost
4.5. Ongoing Maintenance As noted in the Economic Case, the BCR has been calculated using capital costs only. To cover two surface treatments and a surface course resurfacing, the cost of the ongoing maintenance is estimated as £23.20 per m2. Over a 30-year design life this would equate to £0.77 per m2 per year. The scheme will construct additional carriageway area of 2880 m2. The additional maintenance liability would therefore equate to £2,218 per year and GCC will include for this in maintenance budgets, and therefore does not impact on the budget and LEP funding for the Scheme. Therefore, operation and maintenance costs will be negligible for calculating the BCR.
4.6. Land Purchase No additional land is required to be purchased from third parties in order to progress the scheme, either for the widened carriageway or its construction.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 85 of 115
5. Commercial Case
5.1. Introduction The Commercial Case provides evidence that the proposed investment can be procured, implemented and operated in a viable and sustainable way. The aim is to achieve best value during the process, by engaging with the commercial market.
5.2. Expected Outcomes from the Commercial Strategy The outcomes which the commercial strategy must deliver are to: • Confirm that procedures are available to procure the scheme successfully; • Check that available/ allocated capital funds will cover contractor and Construction costs; • Verify that the risk allowance is sufficient; and • Ensure that arrangements have been made to handle cost overruns.
5.3. Scheme Procurement Strategy GCC have identified three procurement options for the delivery of LEP funded schemes. The alternative options are: Full Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR) compliant tender (Schemes greater than OJEU limit of £4,733,252) GCC would opt for either an ‘open’ tender process, where anyone may submit a tender, or a ‘restricted’ tender process, where a Pre-Qualification is used to limit the number of candidates wo will be invited to submit tenders. An open procedure will take approximately one and a half months to complete, whereas a restricted procedure will take approximately two and a half months to complete following the date on which a contact notice is published on the OJEU website. Once the tenders are received, they will be assessed and a preferred supplier identified, following which a . mandatory 10 day ‘standstill’ period will be observed, during which unsuccessful tenderers may challenge the council’s intention to award the proposed contract to the preferred contractor if they have grounds for believing that the council’s procurement process did not meet the requirements of public procurement law. Open Tender (Schemes greater than £1M but less than OJEU limit) GCC would opt for an ‘open’ tender, where anyone may submit a tender. The tender would include a set of eligibility criteria and a quality submission. Depending on the exact tender assessment method chosen, candidates would be required to meet a quality threshold score or be selected using a quality / price evaluation. Schemes will be procured via ProContract and this would include prior notifications of the tender approximately 4 weeks before the formal tender. Depending upon the complexity of the scheme supplier engagement, presentations by candidates will be arranged. The minimum tender period is 5 weeks but could be longer for more complex schemes. All suppliers that meet the eligibility criteria will be assessed and a preferred supplier identified. Delivery through Term Maintenance Contract (TMC) (Schemes less than £1M) This option would involve GCC’s Term Maintenance Contractor undertaking the work themselves, or appointing appropriate suppliers where necessary, under the council’s existing Term Maintenance Contract. The TMC incorporates a Schedule of Rates that was agreed at the inception of the contract. The price for each individual scheme is determined by identifying the quantities of each required item thereunder into a Bill of Quantities. TMC may price ‘star’ items if no rate already exists for the required item. If the scope of a specific scheme is different from the item coverage within the TMC contract, a new rate can be negotiated.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 86 of 115
Procurement route The preferred procurement route for WCTIS Phases 3 and 4 is Option A, Full PCR 2015 compliant Tender, as the scheme is above the PCR financial limit. For budget certainty, the scheme will be procured on a lump sum basis as an ECC Option A contract (Lump Sum with Activity schedule). This option is preferred as it allows for a greater transfer of risk to the Contractor through a priced contract. The Activity Schedule used in this form of contract also gives greater confidence in the Contractor’s price. This is as a result of the importance given to the Contractor’s programme, as tenderers have to plan the scheme whilst preparing their Activity Schedule. This also means the programme is realistic and more likely to be adhered to as payments to the Contractor are linked to their activity schedule. The ECC Option A contract is Gloucestershire County Councils preferred method of delivery for this size and type of scheme. This ensures consistency with internal processes, staff members, supply chain, benchmarking, performance etc. which should all aid successful delivery.
5.4. Commercial Risk Assessment The table below provides a summary of the identified commercial risks surrounding the scheme.
Table 5-1 - Scheme Commercial Risk Assessment
Qualitative Commercial Risk Assessment Predicted Effect on Scheme Likelihood of Impact Severity (ü) Procurement, Risk Arising (ü) Immediate Bearer Scheme Delivery & Operation of Risk and Commercial Risk (ü)
Suggested
Item
Mitigation
Low Medium High Slight Moderate Severe Slight Moderate Severe GCC, as scheme promoter, bears the *Scheme risk. construction is Ensure that scheme delayed and/or development, costs increase. design, procurement
✓ ✓ ✓ and construction E.g. from procedures are unexpected sufficiently robust to engineering minimise likelihood difficulties. of construction difficulties. GCC, as scheme promoter, bears the risk. Ensure that scheme Ongoing design, materials maintenance selection and costs of scheme ✓ ✓ ✓ construction higher than procedures are expected sufficiently robust to minimise likelihood of maintenance issues. *Risk allocation will be apportioned between GCC and the Contractor undertaking the site works. This will be based upon NEC principles and regular on-site Risk Management meetings will be held to ensure prompt mitigation of risks.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 87 of 115
6. Management Case
6.1. Overview The Management Case outlines how the proposed scheme and its intended outcomes will be delivered successfully. It gives assurances that the scheme content, programme, resources, impacts, problems, affected groups and decision makers, will all be handled appropriately, to ensure that the scheme is ultimately successful.
6.2. Project Governance, Roles and Responsibilities
Project Governance GCC have set up a clear and robust structure to provide accountability and an effectual decision-making process for the management of the LEP funded schemes. Each scheme will have a designated project manager who will be an appropriately trained and experienced member of GCC staff. A detailed breakdown of meetings (along with the attendees, scope and output of each) which make up the established governance process is set out below.
Project Board Meetings (PBM) Project Board Meetings are held monthly to discuss individual progress on each scheme and are chaired by Gloucester County Council term contractor Project Managers (PMs). Attendees include representatives for different aspects of LEP management (i.e. Communication, Traffic, Risk Management, and GCC Consultants design and/or construction team). Progress is also discussed in technical detail raising any issues or concerns for all to action. A progress report, minutes of meeting and an update on programme dates are provided ahead of the meeting for collation and production of the LEP Progress and Highlight Report.
LEP Progress and Highlight Report The Progress and Highlight Reports sent by the GCC PMs comprise of the following updates; general progress, project finances, issues, risks and meeting dates. The report also identifies any areas of concern or where decisions are required by the PBM. An agreed version of the latest Progress and Highlight Report is issued to the PB meeting attendees during the meeting.
6.3. Project Management Structure Gloucestershire County Council and their Consultants have agreed a project management structure for the project, as shown in Figure 6-1 below.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 88 of 115
Figure 6-1 - Project Management Structure
6.4. Public Share Events A total of two Public Share Events covering the WCWCI and WCTIS were scheduled to be held at two different locations in Cheltenham: 1. 17th March 2020 (14:00 – 19:00): Hester Way Community Resource Centre, Cassin Drive, Cheltenham GL51 0LG. 2. 19th March 2020 (16:30 – 20:30): Jurys Inn Hotel, Cheltenham, Gloucester Rd, Cheltenham GL51 0TS. Due to public health concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic, both events had to be cancelled at short notice. However, circa 1,200 properties received a leaflet regarding the consultation (and a subsequent leaflet with notification of the cancellation), and therefore awareness of the scheme and the event was high. In addition, the scheme was covered by the local press and radio, with further requests for feedback regarding the design of WCTIS. The public were directed to the GCC Major Projects website, with four questions directly related to the WCTIS scheme. The results are summarised below, with the number of responses and percentages. The results show that the scheme was supported by the public. Themes received from the comments on the website are summarised in Table 6-5.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 89 of 115
Table 6-1 – Online Feedback Form Responses Reduce traffic congestion Increase the Encourage future Represent at Benhall roundabout and capacity of the development in the good use of on the A40 eastbound highway network? West Cheltenham area public funds? (from Arle Court by releasing network roundabout to TGI capacity? Fridays)? Agree 40 38 39 35 Disagree 23 16 17 18 Neither 10 19 17 20 Agree or Disagree Total 73 73 73 73
Reduce traffic congestion Increase the Encourage future Represent at Benhall roundabout and capacity of the development in the good use of on the A40 eastbound highway network? West Cheltenham area public funds? (from Arle Court by releasing network roundabout to TGI capacity? Fridays)? Agree 55% 52% 53% 48% Disagree 32% 22% 23% 25% Neither 14% 26% 23% 27% Agree or Disagree
Figure 6-2 - Letter drop area
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 90 of 115
6.5. Communications and Engagement Management GCC have a tried and tested Communication and Engagement Management Plan which is used on all major projects. Effective use of the plan has resulted in limited adverse feedback from the public and ensured successful delivery of schemes both from a project management and public relations perspective. This section will provide further information on how stakeholders are identified, how they are communicated to and the methods/ techniques used to communicate.
Aims and objectives The main aim of the Communication and Engagement Plan is to ensure that stakeholders and members of the public are kept informed throughout the development and implementation of a scheme. This can range from keeping key stakeholders updated with critical information, (essential to the successful delivery of the scheme) to providing information to the public.
Table 6-2 - Stakeholder categorisation approach Stakeholder Category Stakeholder Characteristics Beneficiary Stakeholders who will receive some direct or indirect benefit from the scheme. Affected Stakeholders who are directly affected by the scheme in terms of its construction and/ or operation Interest Stakeholders who have some interest in the scheme, although not affected directly by its construction or operation Statutory Stakeholders who have a statutory interest in the scheme, its construction, operation or wider impacts Funding Stakeholders who are involved in the funding of the construction or operation of the scheme
Engagement categories The information supplied to stakeholders can vary depending on their involvement with the scheme. The following table indicates the level of engagement that the variety of stakeholders can expect in relation to this scheme.
Table 6-3 - Stakeholder engagement levels Engagement Category Details of Engagement Method Intensive consultation Stakeholders who are directly affected by the scheme and whose agreement is required in order for the scheme to progress. Consultation throughout the design and implementation. Consultation Stakeholders who are affected by the scheme and can contribute to the success of its design, construction or operation. Consultation at key stages. Information Stakeholders with some interest in the scheme or its use. Information to be provided at appropriate stages.
6.6. Stakeholder engagement Section 6.5 summarises the strategy for managing engagement with stakeholders for the scheme. It itemises the relevant stakeholders and interests and indicates the stakeholder category with which each is associated.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 91 of 115
Liaison has taken place with the following stakeholders:
Table 6-4 - Stakeholder management strategy and method Name of Stakeholder / Stakeholder Category Engagement and Engagement Method Interested Group Consultation Level Property owners and Affected Intensive consultation Pre-exhibition briefing businesses operating in Direct contact with building affected by the owners and where works appropriate their agents. Local MPs Interest Consultation Pre-exhibition briefing Elected Members Interest Intensive consultation Pre-exhibition briefing Scheme users Beneficiary Consultation Public Share Events Information Local press/radio Interest Information Pre-exhibition briefing Local Enterprise Beneficiary Information Through LGF Business Partnership Funding Cases & progress reports The following list details the statutory consultees who were contacted by email and provided with an overview of the scheme and copies of the current plans: • Gloucestershire Constabulary; • Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service; • South Western Ambulance Service; • Gloucestershire CoC; • Road Haulage Association; • Freight Transport Association; • Highways England • GCHQ Cheltenham; • GCC Highway Records; • GCC Local Highway Manager; • GWR; and • Stagecoach (bus service providers bulletin); • Local MPs (Alex Chalk, Laurence Robertson, Richard Graham issued briefings and bulletins); • Cheltenham Borough Council (Rhonda Tauman, Jem Williamson sent copies of plans and have commented); • Officers from across Gloucestershire County Council (Transport Planning, Think Travel, ITU, Local Highways Managers etc some representatives at share session); • Gloucestershire County Council Cycle Advisory and Liaison Group (Cycle Groups, Lead Cabinet Members, Members, Interest Groups at meetings and presented the plans at share session); • Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service (bulletin); • South Western Ambulance Service (bulletin); • Road Haulage Association (bulletin); • Freight Transport Association (bulletin); • Cycle, Walking and Horse-Riding Groups (those identified as relevant on attachment included on bulletin circulation); • Residents, general public and businesses (Residents on the bulletin list were asked to comment on WCTIS 3 and 4 and WCWCI which many have done);
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 92 of 115
• Local press / radio (Press are aware of the wider scheme, but they wouldn’t take interest in the specific design); • GFirst LEP (Barry attended CALG plan share and commented); • Local Businesses (bulletin circulation); • County Councillors (briefings and bulletin); • Borough Councillors (briefings and bulletin); and • Disability Groups (bulletin). For all the Public Consultation and Stakeholder Engagement, GCC have completed a variety of communications and engagement activity, to utilise as many digital channels as possible. Activity has included: • Councils connected newsletter; article sent to all parish and town councils at the end of March 2020; • Two members briefings; a letter and later a pdf presentation; • Letter drops to 1200 properties x2 (one to invite residents to drop ins and one to cancel the events); • Signs on the cycle path and footpaths in the scheme area; • Email cascade within Cheltenham Borough Council; • Requests to local public sector communications partners to display information; • MP briefings via email. The Cheltenham MP was briefed face to face by a scheme supporter; • Direct emails to key stakeholders – including local accessibility and cycling groups; • Local businesses gathered for A40 travel forum, providing feedback on the travel plans as well as consenting to future scheme contact; • WCTIS bulletins to our stakeholders list; made up of local businesses, key transport and community contacts and politicians; • Highways staff newsletter – informing staff about proposals; • Press release to local media; generating online and broadcast coverage; • News item displayed on our website, generating 1,081 page views (of these 477 were unique); • Latest News alert to 9000 gov delivery subscribers; and • Social media posts x 10; reaching 181,165 accounts and achieving 246 clicks to the webpage
The table below summarises the comments received by all the methods of consultation, including the feedback from the website and comments from stakeholders. How the comments are addressed is also summarised, demonstrating that all themes have been taken into account in developing the scheme.
Table 6-5 - Themes identified from comments received Theme Examples How we responded to and / or addressed the comments Walking and cycling Attendees thought that the scheme The design team have fully considered provision could focus more on walking and walking and cycling during the design, cycling provision with concerns over with the separate WCWCI scheme the safety and suitability of present created to allocate specific funding to cycle routes in the area. cycling and walking provision. Crossings at junctions should be Further reviews of cycling provision are single phase and not multi-stage zig taking place following the feedback, such zag routes. as trying to reduce the number of phases to the cycleway crossings at Telstar Way Extension of the segregated route and TGI junction. further into Cheltenham and towards Arle Court. In addition, cycling routes from Scheme required to link to Cheltenham to Gloucester and existing Cheltenham Town Centre and plans from CBC and Highways England Gloucester. regarding cycling (including from GCHQ to the station) are being considered and have been accommodated within the designs.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 93 of 115
Theme Examples How we responded to and / or addressed the comments Air quality / climate Increased traffic taking advantage of While highway improvements may in change the extra capacity at the roundabout certain cases result in more traffic could increase greenhouse gas attracted to the network, free-flowing emissions and air quality concerns at traffic is integral to mitigating the impact a time when the ‘climate emergency’ of road traffic on air-quality. The overall is hitting the headlines. impact on Air Quality of the scheme has been fully assessed, and is expected to Prioritisation of sustainable forms of be neutral. The scheme has been transport over car use. developed to benefit all users. Alternative proposal Attendees suggested concern that Alternatives had been explored, but the / scepticism the modifications at Benhall proposal put forward is shown to provide Roundabout will not alleviate the the greatest value for money solution. traffic issues. Downstream traffic on A40 known to be Short merge length on A40 and issue and significant work being traffic on PE Way will continue to completed to maximise the capacity at provide a bottleneck. TGI junction. Impact on adjacent Most of these comments related to Restrictive working outside of peak properties and concern noise and traffic disruption periods will be accommodated wherever businesses possible. The impact on the other nearest adjacent properties will be fully considered in the detailed design, and where improvements can be made in terms of screening and/or improving the level of vegetation, this will be implemented. Cyber Park Concern that much of the benefit It was clarified that the overall scheme would be used by the Cyber Central would not mitigate for the full Cyber Park development and not the wider A40 development but will assist in bringing corridor. . forward potential developments in the West of Cheltenham by addressing some of the existing traffic issues. It was made clear that it would be incumbent on GCC and the developer to continue to provide the necessary transport infrastructure improvements as part of any planning application/transport assessment. The team were also able to provide further information on the proposals for M5 J10 and the positive impact this would have on A40 traffic Modal shift Responses described induced To further address this a separate demand resulting from increasing funding stream has been introduced to highway capacity, potentially specifically target walking and cycling encouraging single-occupancy car improvements. use instead of public transport. M5 J10 Upgrading J10 of the M5 would GCC have recently been successful in alleviate some of the pressure on their bid to Homes England for the Princess Elizabeth Way and the A40 funding to upgrade J10 to create an all from Benhall to Roundabout to J11. movements junction. Consideration of Responses were centred around Although it is known that the Cyber Park development in the wider concerns about planning and North West Cheltenham (Elms Park) area allocations sites to the west of Strategic Allocation Sites are close to full Cheltenham. planning applications, there are at
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 94 of 115
Theme Examples How we responded to and / or addressed the comments present no agreed Transport Assessments or trip generations/distributions that are agreed by the Council (submitted by the developers). Therefore, the scheme is not solely for the enabling of the North West Cheltenham and West Cheltenham developments and is not specifically for their benefit, but to relieve current traffic congestion and facilitate early development for all potential developments. However, all planning applications are subject to approval in terms of traffic and typically require a full Transport Assessment with appropriate mitigation proposed to enable the application. Road markings and Install additional advanced signage The design team is aware of the risk of signage and line markings, so cyclists are cars trying to turn left into Princess clear that they can use the nearside Elizabeth way from middle lane. The lane at the eastbound approach to design team will be reviewing the road Benhall roundabout to go straight to marks and signage to ensure safety at A40. the next design stage. Motorcycles use of Responses related to allowing This was considered when the bus lane motorcycles to use the bus lane on Gloucestershire renewed its Bus Lane A40 eastbound towards Benhall Order in 2017 and a decision was taken roundabout. not to allow motorcycles to use bus lanes. Environmental Importance of the screening on the During the optioneering stage the length Improvements north side of A40 between Benhall of widening on the A40 was reduced, and TGIs. enabling much of the screening to remain in place. Improvements to planting in key A range of environmental enhancements corridor. E.g. Planting that would are being considered both within the look great during March and the immediate scheme area and the wider Cheltenham festival. community. Landscaping and plating proposals will be developed. Impact on side Kingsley Gardens maintained as a There are no plans to open up access to roads dead end with bollards. vehicles to Kingsley Gardens, the existing bollards will remain. Making Griffiths Avenue and Church Measures to improve the junctions with Road exit only. Griffiths Avenue and Church Road are being considered which could include restricting existing vehicle movements. If these are taken forward, a traffic regulation order will be required and full consultation will take place on these specific areas. Improvements for Improved access to bus stops at Ongoing liaison with Stagecoach to buses Benhall roundabout. confirm bus stop and lane configuration layouts. Allocate further road space to buses Maintain key length of bus lane from and not all traffic. Benhall Roundabout to Griffiths Avenue.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 95 of 115
Theme Examples How we responded to and / or addressed the comments A40 bus stop located in more convenient position for access to rail station. Safety Concerns Cyclist visibility (looking back over RSA 1 complete. shoulder) and vehicle compliance at Review and finalisation of lane markings cycle priority raised crossings. and signage at Benhall ongoing and will be subject to final road safety audit. Left turning traffic at Benhall Roundabout into PE Way. Benhall Subway Subway is unpleasant, narrow and Unlikely to be feasible to increase the not well lit. dimensions of the subway. Lighting improvements will be Difficult to access for cyclists. implemented, along with a review of other measures to improve the safety and appearance of the subway. Quality of existing Issues raised around the quality of Design to review existing condition and cycleway surfacing existing cycleway surfacing implement treatments.
6.7. Evidence of Previously Successful Management Strategy GCC continue to deliver a wide and varied range of highway schemes from design conception through to delivery. The following examples are selected from a range of schemes that demonstrate GCC delivery capability and support the success of the management and governance strategy used. Since 2014, the A40 Gloucester Northern Bypass has seen significant junction improvements funded through both the GFirst LEP and the DfT. Primarily these improvements have focussed on delivering additional network capacity at key pinch points, to alleviate congestion and improve journey times. The Walls Roundabout, C&G roundabout, Elmbridge Court roundabout and Over roundabout have all been subject to significant highway improvements in the last 5 years – Over roundabout being completed most recently in 2018. All of these schemes were managed by GCC from feasibility, through detailed design, procurement and construction. These projects are good examples of schemes previously completed by GCC which had a very similar management structure to the proposed A40 eastbound merge scheme. The Walls and C&G scheme, completed in October 2014, was designed to support economic development, job creation and social regeneration, improving access with high quality connections between the urban centres, transport hubs and development sites. The overall objectives of the scheme were to unlock the development potential of the area, attract inward investment and maximise job opportunities for local people. The scheme was successfully delivered within budget and on programme through the adoption of a robust management approach. The total value of the scheme was £3.1M of which £0.5M was funded by Central Government. The scheme was procured through an open tender process using the NEC 3 Option A contract which will also be the preferred method for this scheme GCC also worked in partnership with Griffiths contractors Ltd on the Elmbridge Court Roundabout major scheme. This was a £6.4m contract to improve capacity and reduce journey times on the A40 at the busiest roundabout in the County. This scheme follows the management strategy set out in this business case and was completed both on time (September 2017) and on budget. Finally, Over Roundabout was completed in autumn 2018, again using the tried and tested procurement and management/governance methods detailed in this FBC. Other recently completed schemes within the portfolio included the junction, signals and footway/cycleway improvements scheme at Metz Way/Abbeymead Avenue. This was a smaller contract (£1.4m), but one set across a number of sites (eight in total) that required a different approach to how the scheme was procured, the on-site management and stakeholder communications. GCC acknowledges the importance of continual assessment for the appropriateness of the management and governance structure within our major schemes. And whilst recent projects can demonstrate a high level of
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 96 of 115
success, we continue to work with our Members, commercial support, consultants and delivery partners to ensure that we deliver future schemes to the same, high standard. The scheme is intended to be delivered using a collaborative approach between GCC staff and their appointed support organisations. GCC have identified appropriately trained and experienced staff that will be responsible for the management of the scheme. The identified staff fulfilling the GCC Project Manager and Atkins Project Manager roles, have been ring-fenced to support the scheme throughout its duration, from design through scheme procurement and onto construction supervision. They will have more junior staff available to support them as required. GCC will utilise dedicated Professional Services Consultant resource through an existing contract to undertake design and also arrange early contractor involvement (ECI), where appropriate, to the design process to ensure best value.
6.8. Design and Construction Methodology
6.8.1. Design Methodology The scheme is based on best practice for the design, construction and maintenance of WCTIS, and draws on the following guidance and manuals to inform the development of the scheme. • Gloucestershire County Council's Manual for Gloucestershire Streets26; • Inclusive Mobility; • Traffic Signs Manual and Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016
6.8.2. Construction Methodology The proposed works all involve standard construction methodology in accordance with Specification for Highway Works. The proposed works do not require special construction techniques and could be wholly carried out by conventional methods. The Contractor selected for the works will have a proven track record in carrying out similar works. The methodology has also been reviewed as part of the construction carbon assessments. Opportunities that the project is utilising to reduce construction carbon are detailed in Appendix K and summarised in section 3.3.7 of the Business Case.
6.8.3. Works compound It is intended that the works compound for construction will be in the same location as the one for WCTIS Phase 1. This will be situated within land to the south-west of Arle Court Roundabout, as shown in the figure below.
26 https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/highways/plans-policies-procedures-manuals/manual-for-gloucestershire-streets/
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 97 of 115
Figure 6-3 - Works compound proposals
The works compound will consist of hardstanding areas for material storage and welfare facilities. The proposed compound boundary treatment along Hatherley Lane and the A40 would be close boarded fencing. Access to the works compound is likely to be from Hatherley Lane. A minimum of 10m from the edge of Hatherley Lane shall be surfaced with bituminous material. An exit from the compound, onto the bus lane slip road on the A40, shall be provided with the same treatment.
6.8.4. Demolition No demolition is required to complete the scheme.
6.8.5. Traffic management The traffic management arrangements for the scheme will be based on the requirement to meet constraints in respect of HE works strengthening at M5 JCT 11 and Staverton Bridge, which are programmed to run concurrently with the works. There will be programme constraints ensuring traffic management restriction are not in place during Public Holidays, Cheltenham Festival of Racing in March and other significant festivals in the annual Cheltenham calendar. The HE works and the Festivals have the potential to substantially increase traffic flows in the area. The methodology of delivery of the construction will be shaped to maintain existing flow capacity during peak traffic hours. This will be achieved by off-carriageway working behind Varioguard barrier and some night and off-peak working when we can safely reduce flow capacity without detriment to vehicle movements. Traffic orders will be in place to reduce road speeds during the works and the successful contractor will be charged with booking road space and liaising with HE, GCC and Stakeholders via direct contact and (where appropriate) social media.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 98 of 115
6.9. Legal Powers Required for Construction
6.9.1. Land/Access Works are all within the highways boundary and there is no requirement for land purchase for temporary and permanent works.
6.9.2. Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO) The requirement of a TRO has been reviewed and the proposed alterations to the mainline carriageway will be covered by an existing Clearway order. No further TROs are required for the purposes of this scheme.
6.9.3. Environmental Restraints As part of the preliminary design, environmental site walkovers have been carried out as well as desktop environmental scoping reports. Liaison is ongoing with Environmental Health Officer to confirm whether a Section 61 permissions will be required for night-working. Any other permissions that may arise, although not anticipated, will be addressed via the legally required procedures. Where further detailed design work or environmental surveys are required, any mitigation or identified risk will be included in the Risk Register and costed for.
6.10. Project Programme Milestone dates for the programme from detailed design to the construction are outlined in the table below. A more detailed programme for the scheme is provided in Appendix I. It is accepted that there are currently unknown factors related to COVID-19 that could impact on the programme, and the ability to continue as planned, but at present the key dates are not affected.
Table 6-6 - Programme key dates Activity Target Date Detailed Design Start November 2019 Detailed Design End July 2020 Submit Full Business Case for Approval May 2020 Approve Full Business Case July 2020 Issue Supplier Engagement Notice July 2020 Issue Tender Documents August 2020 Tenders Return September 2020 Complete Tender assessment and award November 2020 Construction Start January 2021 Construction End December 2021
6.11. Benefits Realisation Strategy The Benefits Realisation Strategy is designed to allow benefits that are expected to be derived from the scheme to be planned for, tracked and realised. It also sets out the evaluation of the scheme delivery, including construction and budget management. The outputs and outcomes are those expected to be derived from the scheme: • Outputs - tangible effects that are funded and produced directly as a result of the scheme; and/or • Outcomes - final impacts brought about by the scheme in the short, medium and long term. The scheme objectives and desired outputs / outcomes are summarised in Table 6-7.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 99 of 115
The monitoring of the benefits realised against each objective is controlled within the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan which will set out the necessary data and information requirements to track the performance of the objectives.
Table 6-7 - Logic map between scheme objectives and desired outputs and outcomes Objective Output / outcome Contribute to accelerating the release of the • Improvement to roads employment land associated with the ‘West • New lanes Cheltenham’ Strategic Allocation along with the other • Increased traffic capacity for the corridor strategic allocations in the JCS adjacent to GCHQ, which includes Cyber Central • This outcome will contribute to the objective by providing the capacity needed for new employment developments Deliver transport benefits to people living and Improvement in journey time along the A40 working in Gloucestershire by improving traffic flows on one of the most important and busiest sections of Gloucestershire’s road network Aim to have an overall neutral impact on the Neutral impact on the Cheltenham AQMA Cheltenham Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) Maintain and improve the options for sustainable Improved journey times and reliability for buses on travel modes through the junction and on the the A40 corridor approaches; walking, cycling, and where feasible providing for enhanced public transport facilities
Tracking the scheme benefits will be a key element in understanding the success of the scheme. Table 6-8 links the benefit realisation for specific measures with responsibility. It is also important to refer to the Risk Register for specific risks and associated controls throughout the project.
Table 6-8 - Benefits realisation responsibilities Measure Benefits Realisation Responsibility Delivery on time Through contract management Contractor Delivery on budget Through contract management Contractor Accelerating the release New employment delivered at the West of GCC / Cheltenham Borough of employment land Cheltenham strategic allocation Council / Developers Wider transport benefits Realisation involves completion of the LEP / GCC scheme to enhance capacity at the junction
6.12. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan The purpose of the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan is to identify how the scheme benefits (direct and wider) and actual scheme delivery, (including construction and budget management), are to be evaluated. The Monitoring and Evaluation Plan is to be owned by the Senior Responsible Officer (SRO), although ownership will be reviewed and delegated as necessary. To determine whether the scheme benefits are being realised, the desired outputs and associated outcomes have been converted into measurable indicators of scheme benefits, as set out in Table 6-10. below. In order to evaluate the impacts of the scheme, baseline data is required which will allow the pre-scheme opening situation to be quantified. This is required for benefit assessment indicators #02, #03, #04, and #05. This will include the following: • Automatic Traffic counts (ATCs);
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 100 of 115
• Air quality monitoring site - in agreement with CBC to install further monitoring; • Journey Times on the A40, • NO2 concentrations; and • Accident records – data to be obtained from GCC over a 5-year period. There is already a permanent ATC site on the A40 between Kingsley Gardens and Griffiths Avenue, and this will enable monitoring of traffic volumes travelling along the A40. Current data available for the ATC from early March 2020 (pre-work and also pre COVID-19) is summarised below.
Table 6-9 – Current Traffic Flows, A40 ATC 7am-7pm Total Direction Peak hour flow AM Peak hour flow PM Traffic (weekday) All directions 1845 1841 21041 Eb - Bus Lane 67 62 541 Eb - Lane 2 837 923 9859 Wb 993 936 10641
The scheme implementation monitoring will focus on scheme delivery including the extent to which the construction programme was delivered within the estimated timescales and budget. A Monitoring Report will be produced prior to scheme opening detailing the baseline survey data. After opening, studies will be carried out approximately one year and five years later. These will include assessment against the scheme details and desired outcomes, with benefit indicator #03 (minimal accidents along the A40 corridor) covered in the five-year post opening study only to allow sufficient evidence to compare the situation before and after scheme opening.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 101 of 115
Table 6-10 - Outputs and outcomes - indicators and targets Ref # Benefit Benefit Target Type Specific data (Desired output indicator requirements / outcome) Desired outputs 1 New lane Completion of 0.85kms – Sections Highway n/a created project 3 and 4 of the Improvement WCTIS Desired outcomes 2 Improvement in Reduced Reduction in Quantitative Basemap journey time journey times vehicle journey along the A40. along the A40 times immediately after the scheme is implemented 3 Minimal Number of No increase in Quantitative Accident data accidents along accidents accidents 5 years the A40 corridor Baseline after construction 4 Increased traffic Increasing Increased actual Quantitative Traffic counts capacity for the traffic flows flow along the A40, (ATC) corridor through the especially junction eastbound
5 Neutral impact Stable NO2 No statistically Quantitative NO2 diffusion on the concentration significant increase tubes Cheltenham in annual mean
AQMA NO2 concentration in the Affected Road Network after opening
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 102 of 115
7. Conclusion
7.1. Summary Phases 3 and 4 of WCTIS are the final sections of a highway scheme representing a budget of £22m for the highway works, and a further £1.6m for the Walking and Cycling (WCWCI). The scheme will link in with the WCTIS Phase 1 and 2 schemes, and further address congestion and access issues as far east as possible towards Cheltenham, finishing at the TGI Fridays junction. The most significant benefit from this scheme is derived from reductions in travel times, however the level of benefits far exceeds the cost of the scheme resulting in a high Present Value Benefit (PVB) value and a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR). The scheme generates a PVB of £23.5m over 60 years. The budget for the scheme is £8.29m, and the total scheme construction costs expressed as a Present Value of Cost (PVC) is £8.5m. Overall assessment of costs and benefits generated by the project shows that the scheme achieves a Benefit Cost Ratio figure of 2.77 with a Net Present Value (NPV) of £15.0m. The scheme can be therefore categorised as achieving ‘High Value for Money’. Further justification for the selection of the scheme is detailed throughout the report and in the results of traffic modelling and analysis via the Business Case. It is also advised that the planned improvements would provide further betterment and futureproofing of the corridor for increased traffic flows that are anticipated, due to significant ongoing and future development in the local area. It is also strategically prudent and logical to undertake Phases 3 and 4 as close in schedule to Phases 1 and 2 and WCWCI as is possible, to minimise disruption for businesses and residents, and to reduce set-up costs for construction. 7.2. Recommended Next Steps Development and delivery of the scheme should be approved. Due to the outcomes reported in this study, and the anticipated return on public funds, it is advised that the scheme represents high value for money, meets the criteria of schemes for the LEP, and therefore should be approved for funding.
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 103 of 115
Appendices
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 104 of 115
Appendix A. Modelling Technical Note
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 105 of 115
Appendix B. Paramics Forecasting Report (Jacobs)
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 106 of 115
Appendix C. Local Model Validation Report (LMVR)
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 107 of 115
Appendix D. Social and Distributional Impacts (SDI)
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 108 of 115
Appendix E. Appraisal Summary Table
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 109 of 115
Appendix F. Noise Modelling
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 110 of 115
Appendix G. Air Quality
Contains sensitive information WCTIS Phases 3 & 4 | 1.0 | 07 May 2020 Atkins | WCTIS Phases 3 4 - FBC website 290520.docx Page 111 of 115
Appendix H. Quantified Risk Register
Appendix I. Programme
Appendix J. Scheme drawings
Appendix K. Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement Review