A35 / A326 final
Local Highways Maintenance Challenge
Fund
Application Form
Applicant Information
Local authority name: Hampshire County Council
Bid Managers:
Clive Griffiths (Asset and TAG team Manager)
Phil Yexley
(Project Engineer)
Project Manager: Brian Hill
Contact telephone numbers:
Postal address:
(Chief Engineer - Structures)
01962 847566
01962 846956
Email: clive.griffiths@hants.gov.uk
Email: phil.yexley@hants.gov.uk
Capital House 2nd Floor
48- 52 Andover Road
Winchester SO23 7BH
weblink where this bid will be published: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/transport-fundingbids.htm
SECTION A - Scheme description and funding profile
A1. Scheme name: Redbridge Causeway / A35 / A326 - Major Maintenance
A2. Headline description:
This is a route improvement for the A35 / A326 between Southampton and Fawley, with
major maintenance and strengthening of bridges, carriageway reconstruction and
cycleway resurfacing. The main element is the refurbishment of four bridges on
Redbridge Causeway over the tidal River Test, including a 20-span viaduct .
A3. Geographical area:
The A35 / A326 strategic route connects Hampshire’s western population and its largest
heavy industrial area, including Fawley oil refinery and Marchwood military port, to the
motorway network, Southampton, and southern Hampshire . It is the major nonmotorway crossing of the River Test, for buses, motorised and non-motorised users.
OS Grid References and Postcodes:
A35
Redbridge/M271:
Foxhills Rbt, Hounsdown :
437293,113775
435097,111609
(SO15 0DR)
(SO40 7EL)
A326
Rushington Roundabout:
Long Lane Rbt, Fawley
435769,112698
443991,103399
(SO40 9EB)
(SO45 2LD)
See Annexes 1 and 2 for maps of the location and route of the proposed scheme,
diversion routes, and transport infrastructure and other points of particular interest.
A4. Type of bid (please tick relevant box):
Small project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £5m and £20m)
Major maintenance, strengthening or renewal of bridges, tunnels, retaining walls or other
structures
Major maintenance or renewal of carriageways (roads)
Major maintenance or renewal of footways or cycleways
Major maintenance or renewal of drainage assets
Upgrade of Street Lighting
A5. Equality Analysis
Has any Equality Analysis been undertaken in line with the Equality Duty?
(This will be completed at detailed design stage)
No
SECTION B – The Business Case
B1. The Scheme – Summary/History
This project will remove the possibility of weight and / or lane restrictions on the four
bridges, including Redbridge Viaduct, built in1966, that cross the River Test and the
Southampton / Romsey railway line.
The main work will be on these four bridges and will comprise:
- surfacing
- deck waterproofing
- expansion joints replacement
- significant reinforced concrete repairs, particularly on substructures
- cathodic protection
Another seven bridges from the 10 on the route, will have similar, but not so extensive,
work on surfacing, waterproofing, joints and parapets, as identified from inspections.
The project will also include 1.8km of 100mm inlay on the eastern section of the
carriageway and 1.2km of 40mm inlay on the western section, and resurfacing of the
adjacent cycleway, to improve safety and prolong the life of the assets. Some locally
funded footway improvements are already programmed for the eastern section
2
All this will be carried out in an efficiently phased programme, over a relatively short
timescale. This will coordinate traffic management, allow economies of scale, and reduce
set-up costs and disruption. (See Annex 3 for works summary, location and estimates).
B2. The Strategic Case (Maximum 650 words)
What are the current problems to be addressed by your scheme?
The A35 is the major non-motorway crossing of the River Test, see Section A3. It also
carries significant tourist and holiday traffic for the New Forest National Park.
Principal inspections have identified deteriorating problems on the four Redbridge
Causeway bridges, including spalling and reinforcement corrosion, caused by poor
detailing and leaking expansion joints, making them vulnerable to the effects of de-icing
salts and sea water. The Bridge Condition Indicators (available if required) reflect the
poor condition and suggest that capacity may be affected, leading to weight and / or lane
restrictions, if not addressed. Therefore, the main element of the project is their major
refurbishment to ensure that they remain safe for use and fit for purpose for all users.
The most recent significant maintenance, £1.25m in 2007 - 2009, was installation of
concrete barriers on these structures to improve safety for all users.
Principal inspections of all four bridges, including extensive sampling and testing, have
been carried out, £300k in 2013, together with special inspections on five spans of
Redbridge Viaduct that are post-tensioned longitudinally and transversely. The identified
remedial works will be included in this project. A strength re –assessment, £110k, is
currently being commissioned, to better inform the phasing of the works, particularly the
concrete repairs.
The A326 is generally in good condition, with £3m to £4m spent on maintenance here
over the last five years, and does not need funding from this bid. A 2.0km length near
Fawley does need an estimated £600k maintenance, that will be accommodated within
Hampshire’s future maintenance budget.
The opportunity will be taken to complete work identified from annual inspections, on the
carriageway and cycleway and on another seven bridges, namely waterproofing, joints
and replacement of two parapets.
Why the asset is in need of urgent funding?
Permanent restrictions are unacceptable on this route, but with this funding all the
maintenance can be completed over a short timeframe. This will minimise disruption
when compared with the current programme of small value works, approximately £1.0m
annually, over 10 years or more.
What options have been considered and why have alternatives have been rejected?
The only alternative for Redbridge Viaduct is complete replacement. This is currently
estimated at £45m, based on Structures Toolkit rates, and maintenance gives much
better value for money.
The other bridges are not such bad condition, so maintenance is the best solution.
The alternatives entail detailed discussions about extent of concrete repair and type of
cathodic protection, which need to be considered together with the phasing and traffic
management limitations.
3
What are the expected benefits / outcomes?
The main benefit is removal of the need for long term restrictions, requiring lengthy
diversions, up to 16km for motorway traffic and 25km for non-motorway.
The condition of the carriageway and adjacent cycleway, will also be improved, as will
the safety, by improving the skid resistance.
The other main positive outcome is the ability to apply full asset management principles,
giving an efficient, prioritised and phased programme of works, rather than one
constrained by annual financial limits.
The areas shown in Annex 2 will all directly benefit in the long term, though there will be
adverse impact, namely disruption, during the works.
What will happen if funding for this scheme is not secured ?
Without this Challenge funding, the bridge maintenance will be phased over a longer
period, 10 years or more, in a much less efficient programme. £1.0m will be allocated
each year from the annual maintenance programmes, for the Redbridge Causeway
bridges alone, at the expense of other smaller schemes, such as strengthenings,
flooding and safety improvements.
The other bridge, carriageway and cycleway improvements will also be delayed or
possibly have shorter life works carried out.
What is the impact of the scheme?
Over the three years, there will be significant disruption caused by this major
maintenance of an existing route, though this will be less than the alternative, a
programme of 10 years or more. The long term impact for road users is the removal of
the need for restrictions with lengthy diversion routes, and no significant disruption on
the route for many years.
B3. The Financial Case – Project Costs.
Table A: Funding profile (Nominal terms)
£000s
DfT Funding
Sought
LA Contribution
2015-16
2,700
2016-17
9,200
2017-18
2,700
Total
14,600
500
1,800
700
3,000
Other Third Party
Funding
-
-
-
-
B4. The Financial Case - Local Contribution / Third Party Funding
a) None
b) N/A
c) None
4
B5. The Financial Case – Affordability and Financial Risk (maximum 300 words)
a) What risk allowance has been applied to the project cost ?
The preliminary estimate includes works, fees, surveys, restricted working hours, railway
possessions, and a three year allowance for inflation. For the bridges elements the initial
optimism bias has been set at 60% in line with the Supplementary Green Book Guidance
for non-standard civil engineering projects. This figure will be reduced as the detailed
design is progressed but will be left at 15% after contract award.
How will cost overruns be dealt with?
Cost overruns should be contained within the optimism bias figure. In the event that this
is not the case then additional monies will be found from local resources. Project
governance will ensure that the risk of this occurring will be minimised.
b) What are main risks to project delivery timescales and what impact will this have on cost?
The main project delivery risks are
- time to procure the project, the majority of which is outside the scope of
Hampshire’s Term Highways Contract
- consultation and approvals from Network Rail (NR) for possessions, Natural
England (NE) for environmental matters, and the Marine Management Organisation
(MMO) for tidal working
- phasing of concrete repairs to ensure the short term integrity of the bridges
- co-ordination of required road space and diversions with the Highways Agency
and Southampton City Council
- impact of national economic factors on variation of tender returns
Also see Risk Register in Annex 4 for impact on cost
B6. The Economic Case – Value for Money
a) If available for smaller scheme bids, promoters should provide an estimate of the
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of the scheme.
The BCR is calculated for the four bridges on Redbridge Causeway and their associated
potential restrictions, as they are the major element ( >80%) of the project. See Annex 5
b)
Please provide the following data which may form a key part of our assessment:
A description of the do-minimum
situation (i.e. what would happen
without Challenge Fund
investment).
Progressively more restrictions would be needed on the
various bridges. In particular, those on Redbridge
Causeway would have a combination of weight and
width restrictions, which would eventually have an
impact on the route capacity for light vehicles as well
as HGVs. The methodology would need to minimise the
impact on the fifteen buses per hour in each direction,
that use Redbridge Causeway
Details of significant monetised
and non-monetised costs and
benefits of the scheme
(quantified where possible)
A significant saving will be realised if we can secure
this funding and construct the scheme while oil prices
are low. Our current THC and framework arrangements
offer extremely competitive rates, which we are advised
will increase with any new contracts. The majority of
the project will be procured via an OJEU tender, which
again will give competitive rates
5
Length of scheme (km)
Road length 3 km – Lane length 6 km
Deck areas
Four Redbridge Causeway bridges 8817 sq m
Seven other bridges
2466 sq m
Number of vehicles on affected
A326 (2014)
section (AADT in vehicles and if
Total vehicles = 30105
possible split by vehicle type) – to Cars = 27851, LGV’s = 3191(10.6%), HGV’s = 1144 (3.8%)
include details of data (age etc.)
supporting this estimate.
A35 (2014)
Total vehicles = 31202
Cars = 25679,LGV’s = 3419 (10.9%),HGV’s = 1144 (4.3%)
More detailed figures are available if required.
c) Other VfM information where relevant - depending on type of scheme bid:
Details of required
This is a strategic A road and full monitoring would be
restrictions/closures if funding not used before imposing weight/ width restrictions.
provided (e.g. type of restrictions; However, this may become necessary to maintain the
timing/duration of restrictions;
structures in a ‘Safe for Use’ condition, although they
etc.)
would not be ‘Fit for Purpose’.
Length of any diversion route, if
closure is required (over and
above existing route) (km)
Regularity/duration of closures
due to flooding: (e.g. number of
closures per year; average length
of closure (hrs);
Number and severity of
accidents: both for the do
minimum and the forecast impact
of the scheme (e.g. existing
number of accidents and/or
accident rate; forecast number of
accidents and or accident rate
with and without the scheme)
Number of existing cyclists;
forecasts of cycling usage with
and without the scheme (and if
available length of journey)
Any restrictions would be provided by temporary
orders as it is very unlikely that permanent orders
would be approved. Therefore, significant works could
only be deferred for two years. Unless the project’s full
funding was in place, this would result in the use of a
series of individual contracts, that would increase
congestion and costs.
Up to 25 km for non-motorway traffic
Up to 16 km for motorway traffic
No significant closures due to flooding.
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total
Fatal
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
Serious
0
2
3
1
2
2
10
Slight
3
8
6
8
8
9
42
Total
3
10
10
9
10
12
54
It is predicted that the A35 resurfacing will reduce the
injury accidents with a First Year Rate of Return (FYRR)
of 118%. Further information available if required.
Resurfacing of the 1.8km cycleway does solve the
issues raised by the CTC (National Cycling Charity)
representative, namely “to resurface the entire length of
the route, widen and add barriers where possible from
Redbridge to Rushington Roundabout”. Also see
Southampton City Council’s bid for the cyclist
improvements in their A33 Western Approaches bid.
6
B7. The Commercial Case (maximum 300 words)
What is the preferred procurement route for the scheme?
The major work of this project is the refurbishment of the four bridges on the Rebridge
Causeway and this will be procured via an OJEU tender process.
The remainder of the works will be offered to our Term Highway Contractor (THC) in the
first instance. There are no monetary constraints other than OJEU limits for this
Contract, but it should be noted that the Contract with the current provider is due to end
in 2017. We are discussing resources with them to ensure that we can mitigate any
issues of overrun and contract end dates. To achieve this we are dividing this remainder
into discrete work packages, which can be let as one or more contracts.
In addition to the THC, we have in place framework arrangements with a number of
contractors. These can accommodate a maximum value of £5m and cover all highway
works, both improvement and maintenance, and will also be suitable for this remainder.
We also have a strategic consultant partner, who, given the tight timescale, will assist in
design and assessment.
We are confident that the options described above will provide solutions which meet the
timeframes specified and currently there are no plans to consider alternatives.
These procurement options minimise the lead in time for the project, and some
preliminary and resurfacing works could start as soon as the DfT approvals are in place.
B8. Management Case - Delivery (maximum 300 words – for b)
a) Has a project plan been appended to your bid?
Yes
See Annex 4
b) Please summarise any lessons learned from delivering other DfT funded programmes
Over the past three years HCC has successfully delivered, and is on programme to
deliver the remaining components of, all the DfT funded schemes within the agreed
programme. Delivery of some elements of the approximately £25m Local Sustainable
Transport Fund allocated within Hampshire proved challenging due the scale of the
various packages. However the spend targets will be met by the end of March deadline,
as will those for the three Pinch Point schemes.
In recent years many local authorities have been shrunk to become commissioning
authorities, but fortunately HCC has managed to retain key experienced staff allowing the
successful development and delivery of schemes to programme and budget.
One of the key lessons learned is the importance of planning procurements routes at the
bid stage. HCC now has direct access to the marketplace through additional frameworks
and agreements which reduce uncertainty and minimises risk of delay. Another lesson
learned relates to one of the three HCC Pinch Point schemes. It was designed by an
external consultancy practice and the in-house contract audit highlighted a significant
number of discrepancies.with potential to delay the scheme. Consequently procedures
were changed and HCC’s in-house Engineering Consultancy now works in tandem with
the external consultancies, with ongoing reviews of schemes, rather than a stand-alone
check immediately prior to tender.
7
B9. Management Case – Governance (maximum 300 words)
Please name who is responsible for delivering the scheme,
The above Hampshire team will deliver the project, assisted by its strategic consultant
partner for design, site supervision and quantity surveying, as required.
The Deputy Director, as Senior Officer Responsible, will have overall authority for
contract decisions, for the main OJEU contract, the THC and the consultant and
contractor frameworks. For the THC authority is already delegated to the Head of
Highways HQ, and for the main OJEU some will be delegated to the Project Manager.
The Deputy Director will also liaise with the Director and Departmental Management
Team and the County Councillors, particularly the Executive Member and the Leader.
The Project Manager will manage the contract, and will have delegated powers as
allowed by the contract. For this project, the Project Manager is the Chief Engineer –
Structures, and, as such, also has delegated powers for technical approval.
Because this project is more than 80% bridgeworks, the Project Engineer - Bridges will
be responsible for the day to day running of the main contract, and liaison with the
Project Engineer - Highways, the Head of Highways HQ, for the highways elements.
The Project Engineer - Highwayswill be responsible for the THC works, mainly highways,
together with minor structural items on the smaller bridges, such as joints and
waterproofing. He will be the lead on liaison with the THC and Hampshire’s Area
maintenance teams.
The Project Team of designers, site staff and quantity surveyors will be responsible for
the preparation, procurement, day to day running and delivery of the main contract and
the THC elements.
Hampshire also have a newly formed Highways Operation Centre, HOC, and its staff will
help deal with the media, councillors and the public, including enquiries, complaints,
social networks and the website.
B10. Management Case - Risk Management
Has a risk register been appended to your bid?
Yes
8
See Annex 4
SECTION C – Monitoring, Evaluation and Benefits Realisation
C1. Benefits Realisation (maximum 250 words)
Improving resilience
The main benefit is removal of the need for any short to medium term restrictions on the
route, and this can then be continued long term, by minor preventative maintenance.
Optimised treatments and whole life cost benefits
This level of funding will keep the structures safe for use and fit for purpose and extend
the life of the carriageway. It will allow a full asset management approach giving an
efficient phased programme of works over a relatively short timescale.
Identifying and eliminating potential safety issues
Resurfacing will improve the safety on this route, in particular at the Rushington
Roundabout and the adjacent pedestrian crossing, by improving skid resistance,
resulting in a reduction in accidents.
Economies of scale
This holistic approach will provide opportunities for competitive pricing, working
collaboratively with the contractor to achieve the best outcomes at the best price.
Public perception
The travelling public and local communities on the route will benefit from a joined up
approach, where programmes and advance notices can be flexible. The end product will
ensure that continual short term maintenance options have been minimised, improving
journeys for the foreseeable future.
C2. Monitoring and Evaluation (maximum 250 words)
Please set out how you plan to measure and report on the benefits identified in Section C1
If the bid is successful Hampshire will provide a forum on social media and our
Hampshire Highways website. This will allow live information updates and a forum for
feedback. Analysis will then allow evaluation of impact and success from a public
perspective.
The major benefit will be the removal of the need for any future weight or width
restrictions on the bridges on Redbridge Causeway. Any closures and / or lane
restrictions during the works will be monitored and evaluated to measure the cost
incurred. This will inform this and future cost / benefit analyses. The BCIs for all the
bridges will also be monitored as part of the annual inpections, to confirm the
improvement in the condition.
The FYRR calculations will be carried out after the completion of the works and checked
against the expected improvements.
Subject to commercial sensitivity issues, we will collaborate with the Contractors to
identify the savings which have been achieved by the forward planning, programming
flexibility and scale of works that this commitment to funding provides.
We will undertake an exercise to value the maintenance regime without additional
funding against the capital cost and the lifecycle cost benefits accrued as a result of the
project. This will include an assessment of value engineering factors and cost.
9
SECTION D: Declarations
D1. Senior Responsible Owner Declaration
As Senior Responsible Owner for A35 / A326 major maintenance, I hereby submit this request
for approval to DfT on behalf of Hampshire County Council and confirm that I have the
necessary authority to do so.
I confirm that Hampshire County Council will have all the necessary powers in place to ensure
the planned timescales in the application can be realised.
Name:
Signed:
Position:
D2. Section 151 Officer Declaration
As Section 151 Officer for Hampshire County Council I declare that the scheme cost estimates
quoted in this bid are accurate to the best of my knowledge and that Hampshire County Council
- has allocated sufficient budget to deliver this scheme on the basis of its proposed funding
contribution
- will allocate sufficient staff and other necessary resources to deliver this scheme on time
and on budget
- accepts responsibility for meeting any costs over and above the DfT contribution
requested, including potential cost overruns and the underwriting of any funding
contributions expected from third parties
- accepts responsibility for meeting any ongoing revenue requirements in relation to the
scheme
- accepts that no further increase in DfT funding will be considered beyond the maximum
contribution requested
- has the necessary governance / assurance arrangements in place
- has identified a procurement strategy that is legally compliant and is likely to achieve the
best value for money outcome
- will ensure that a robust and effective stakeholder and communications plan is put in
place
Name:
Signed:
Submission of bids:
The deadline for bid submission is 5pm, 9 February 2015
An electronic copy only of the bid including any supporting material should be submitted to:
roadmaintenance@dft.gsi.gov.uk copying in steve.berry@dft.gsi.gov.uk
10