Major Road Improvement Projects 2013–2018 - Prioritisation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 5 FEBRUARY 2014 MAJOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2013–2018 - PRIORITISATION Report by Director of Technical Services PURPOSE OF REPORT To seek the Comhairle’s approval for the continuation of the extant prioritised programmes for Spinal Route and Roads to Communities projects. COMPETENCE 1.1 There are no equalities or other constraints to the recommendations being implemented. Funding of the preparatory work has been identified in the Comhairle’s Capital allocation. SUMMARY 2.1 Capital funding for the strategic improvement of roads was previously provided for in capital programmes under the headings Spinal Route and Roads to Communities and has seen a number of large scale projects delivered over the past 10-15 years, generally with financial support from the European Union through the ERDF. The most recent of these schemes is the widening and realignment of the northern approaches to the village of Leverburgh in Harris at a cost of approximately £900k. This project was part-funded by the ERDF at an intervention rate of 25%. 2.2 The Comhairle in November 2013 approved expenditure on two further capital projects previously identified through the approved scoring mechanism for Spinal Route projects and work on these projects is in progress. The two projects are at Stockinish in Harris and Carinish in North Uist. Both these projects are to be part funded through the ERDF with an intervention rate of 25%. Funding opportunities for such infrastructure projects is likely to be much-reduced in future and it will generally be necessary to fully-fund any future projects from the Comhairle’s own resources. 2.3 The Comhairle in November 2013 also approved a sum of £234k to progress future Spinal Route projects to “tender-ready” stage. 2.4 The extant prioritised lists of projects for both Spinal Route and Roads to Communities programmes were established on the basis of the criteria agreed by the Comhairle. This prioritisation criteria and weighting are similar to the Scottish Government’s Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) process and are detailed in Appendix 1 to the Report. Appendices 2 and 3 provide details of the prioritised Spinal Route and Roads to Communities programmes respectively. 2.5 The Director of Technical Services has reviewed the evaluation processes and extant programmes and, on the basis that there are no material changes to either the criteria on which the scoring was based or the outcome of the scoring exercise itself, it is considered that the current priorities still reflect the best options for asset and infrastructure improvement for the foreseeable future. 2.6 It is therefore proposed that the extant criteria and programmes of schemes for both Spinal Route and Roads to Communities projects be retained and, specifically, that development work on the preparation of projects on the Spinal Route programme be progressed to tender-ready stage for delivery when the necessary funding becomes available in the current or future Capital Programmes. RECOMMENDATION 3.1 It is recommended that the Comhairle agree to retain the extant programmes for Spinal Route and Roads to Communities projects and that development work be progressed to tender- ready stage on the projects identified in the Spinal Routes programme included as Appendix 2.2 as far as available funding allows. Contact: Donald MacRae, 01851 822664 Appendices: 1. Criteria Weightings and Scorings 2. Western Isles Spinal Route 2.1 Sections of Routes 2.2 Spinal Route Programme 3 Western Isles Road to Communities 3.1 Sections of Routes 3.2 Roads to Communities Programme Appendix 1 Criteria Weightings and Scoring Criteria Weighting National and Regional Objectives (STAG) • Environment 1 • Economy 3 • Accessibility 2 • Integration 1 • Road Safety 3 Local Issues 3 • Existing Asset Condition 2 • Other Maintenance Issues 1 • Local Significance 2 • Special Road Safety Issues 3 • Traffic Volumes 1 • Density of Township(s) 1 • Existing Speed Limit(s) Projects - Criteria Scoring Criteria - National and Regional Objectives Rating (1-4) • Environment How the proposal will contribute towards reducing emissions of CO2 and other pollutants, and promote better air and water quality. Are there adverse impacts on the environment? What are the distributional impacts, who will be the gainers and losers? Significant impact on local landscape and local built environment with minimal contribution to environmental improvement. 1 Moderate impact on local landscape and built environment with moderate contribution to larger scale environmental improvement. 2 Minimal impact on local landscape and built environment with significant contribution to larger scale environmental improvement. 3 Negligible or no impact on local landscape and built environment with significant contribution to larger scale environmental improvement. 4 • Economy How will the proposal affect traffic volumes, journey times, or the reliability of travel times? Will there be gainers and losers, and if so what are the impacts on users and operators of different transport modes and in different areas? How might the proposal help attract new jobs, help existing businesses, open up appropriate land for development? Unlikely to generate any new or safeguard existing jobs; little or no reduction in journey times or costs. 1 Moderate likelihood of generating new or safeguarding existing jobs, little or no reduction in journey times or costs. 2 Moderate likelihood of generating new or safeguarding existing jobs, moderate reduction in journey times or costs. 3 Significant likelihood of generating new or safeguarding existing jobs, moderate or significant reduction in journey times or costs. 4 • Accessibility How does the proposal affect accessibility for transport users and for others, including access to jobs, communities, shops, services and other facilities? How does it impact in terms of tackling social exclusion? Provides little or no improvement in accessibility for transport users; limited impact on social inclusion 1 Provides moderate improvement in accessibility for transport users; moderate impact on social inclusion 2 Provides moderate improvement in accessibility for transport users; significant impact on social inclusion 3 Provides significant improvement in accessibility for transport users; significant impact on social inclusion 4 • Integration How will the proposal promote or enhance transport integration? Will services be able to function in a more complementary manner? How does the proposal fit with wider government policy including national transport targets? Little or no contribution to promotion or enhancement of transport integration; little or no contribution to national transport targets. 1 Moderate contribution to promotion or enhancement of transport integration; little or no contribution to national transport targets. 2 Moderate or significant contribution to promotion or enhancement of transport integration; moderate or no contribution to national transport targets. 3 Significant contribution to promotion or enhancement of transport integration; significant contribution to national transport targets. 4 • Road Safety How will the proposal enhance safety for different types of transport users? Will it involve gainers and losers in terms of safety? Are there impacts on personal safety/security? Little or no contribution to ensuring or enhancing general road safety for majority of transport users; little or no contribution to national and regional road safety targets. 1 Moderate contribution to ensuring or enhancing general road safety for majority of transport users; limited contribution to national and regional road safety targets. 2 Moderate contribution to ensuring or enhancing general road safety for majority of transport users; moderate contribution to national and regional road safety targets. 3 Significant contribution to ensuring or enhancing general road safety for majority of transport users; moderate to significant contribution to national and regional road safety targets. 4 Rating Criteria - Local Issues (1-4) • Existing Asset Condition Little or no repair or general maintenance works to surfacing or foundations required; condition: generally fit for purpose. 1 Moderate requirement for repairs or general maintenance to surfacing or foundations (£5k - £10k) in medium to long term (5 - 10 years); condition: generally fit for purpose but some risk of becoming worse. 2 Moderate requirement for repairs or general maintenance to surfacing or foundations (£5k - £10k) in short to medium term (1 - 5 years); condition: moderate risk of becoming worse. 3 Significant requirement for repairs or general maintenance to surfacing or foundations (greater than £10k) in short to medium term (1 - 5 years); condition: generally inadequate for purpose, significant risk of becoming worse. 4 • Other Maintenance Issues Verges, culverts and other structures in good condition; little or no requirement for repairs or maintenance 1 Verges, culverts and other structures in reasonable condition; requirement for minor repairs or maintenance work (less than £5k) in longer term (5 - 10 years) 2 Verges, culverts and other structures in poor condition; moderate requirement for repairs or maintenance work (£5k - £15k) in short to medium term (1 - 5 years) 3 Verges, culverts and other structures in critical condition; significant requirement for repairs or maintenance work greater than £5k) in short to medium term (1 - 5 years) 4 • Local Significance No public buildings (e.g. Church,