Local Highways Maintenance Challenge
Fund
Application Form
The level of information provided should be proportionate to the size and complexity of the
scheme proposed. As a guide, for a small scheme we would suggest around 10 to 15 pages
including annexes would be appropriate and for a larger scheme, 15 to 30 pages.
A separate application form should be completed for each scheme up to a maximum or
one large bid and one small bid for each local highway authority.
Applicant Information
Local authority name(s)*: Wigan Council
Bid Manager Name and position: Shantu Mistry Bridges Design and Structural
Strategy Engineer
. Contact telephone number: 01942 489272
Email address: s.mistry@wigan.gov.uk
Postal address
Infrastructure Asset Group
Places
Wigan Council
Wigan Life Centre
Wigan
WN1 1NJ
When authorities submit a bid for funding to the Department, as part of the Government’s
commitment to greater openness in the public sector under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, they must also publish a version excluding
any commercially sensitive information on their own website within two working days of
submitting the final bid to the Department. The Department reserves the right to deem the
business case as non-compliant if this is not adhered to.
Please specify the weblink where this bid will be published:
http://www.wigan.gov.uk/Resident/Parking-Roads-Travel/Roads/Highway-maintenance.aspx
SECTION A - Scheme description and funding profile
A1. Scheme name:
Br.1. Golborne Railway Bridge No. 010
Br.2. Morleys Canal Bridge No 003
A2. Headline description:
Br.1. Major Structural Maintenance – Re-waterproofing, replace buried joints and major structural
concrete repairs.
Br. 2 Major structural maintenance - Deck re-waterproofing, replacement of bearings, renewing of
deck joints and renewing of steelwork corrosion protection (protective paint system)
A3. Geographical area:
Please provide a short description of area covered by the bid (in no more than 50 words)
Br.1. 360456 E -- 397062 N. This bridge is located in the Golborne District of Wigan and carries
A580 East Lancashire Rd over the West Coast main Railway line.
Br.2. 369062E-- N 399476N This bridge is located in the Tyldesley District of Wigan and carries
A580, East Lancashire Road over the Bridgewater Canal linking Leeds/Liverpool Canal to
Manchester Ship Canal
See attached map for a full programme of bridge works.( Appendix 1)
Please append a map showing the location (and route) of the proposed scheme, existing
transport infrastructure and other points of particular interest to the bid e.g. development sites,
areas of existing employment, constraints etc.
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
Large project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £20m plus)
Major maintenance, strengthening or renewal of bridges, tunnels, retaining walls or other
structures
2
Major maintenance or renewal of carriageways (roads)
Major maintenance or renewal of footways or cycleways
Major maintenance or renewal of drainage assets
Upgrade of Street Lighting
A5. Equality Analysis
Has any Equality Analysis been undertaken in line with the Equality Duty?
Yes
No
SECTION B – The Business Case
B1. The Scheme – Summary/History (Maximum 200 words)
Br.1 and Br.2 - These bridges carry the strategically important A580 East Lancashire Road which
links the M6 and M60 motorway networks. Without these works being implemented it is likely
that both weight and lane restrictions will be imposed on the bridges. This would cause HGV
traffic to be diverted through nearby town centres where existing transport infrastructure is
already at full capacity and would adversely affect local economies.
Br. 1. Carrying out major maintenance work on this bridge will avoid implementing weight and
lane restrictions. The bridge spans the West Coast Main Railway line between London and
Glasgow, and any disruption, from further spalling of concrete onto the railway line would be very
costly.
Br. 2. This bridge is deteriorating rapidly due to the failed deck waterproofing membrane and
failed buried deck joints. The deck steelwork has corroded extensively and bridge bearings have
seized. Their replacement will avoid further damage to the bridge which would be more costly to
either strengthen or replace the bridge.
B2. The Strategic Case (Maximum 650 words)
The A580 is a strategically important route connecting M6 and M60. In the past these bridges
were maintained by various Local Authorities, Department for Transport and the Highways
Agency. Since 2004 when the A580 was detrunked, Wigan Council has maintained these bridges
in accordance with The Code of Practice for Management of Highway Structures.
Br.1 Golborne Railway Bridge.
Carry out re-waterproofing of the deck and renewal of buried deck joints in 2015/16.
Carry out structural concrete repairs to bridge deck soffit in 2015/16 & 2016/17
Br.2 Morleys Canal Bridge
2015/16- deck re-waterproofing, construct new bridge bearing plinths and install new bridge
bearings
2016/17- Steelwork cleaned to bare metal and apply new protective paint system
3
What are the current problems to be addressed by your scheme? (Describe any economic,
environmental, social problems or opportunities which will be addressed by the scheme.
The A580 is a strategically important route connecting M6 and M60 in GM area.
Br.1. & Br. 2 were built in 1929 and carried single carriageway traffic along the A580 East
Lancashire Road across the West Coast Main Railway Line and the Bridgewater Canal
connecting Leeds-Liverpool Canal to Manchester Ship Canal respectively. In 1950s and 1960s
the A580 East Lancashire Road was widened to dual carriageway with central reservation.
Br.1 is strategically very important as it affects both rail and road traffic on a very busy routes.
Any disruption due to this bridge on the electrified West Coast Main Line would cause severe
delays to the movement of rail freight and passenger journeys leading to excessive economic
problems and longer journey times to the rail users.
Similarly for the road users on Br.1 & Br.2, longer journey times would cause economic problems
and cause environmental and social problems to the local residents due to excessive vehicle
fumes & pollutants.
Why the asset is in need of urgent funding?
Br.1 - Load carrying capacity of the bridge is reduced and weight restriction on the bridge is
imminent.
Spalled concrete from the bridge deck soffit falling on the electrified West Coast Main Railway
line tracks carrying 125 MPH high speed trains running between London and Glasgow.
Br.2. - Deck waterproofing and deck joints have failed resulting in de- icing salt water pouring
down on structural steelwork and bearings. Deck steelwork has corroded extensively and bridge
bearings have ceased to be effective.
What options have been considered and why have alternatives have been rejected?
Br.2 -Not carrying out these structural maintenance works would cause the bridge to deteriorate
further to the point that weight and lane width restrictions would have to be imposed. The
subsequent bridge strengthening works or bridge replacement would be more costly than the
proposed maintenance carried out in next 3 years
What are the expected benefits / outcomes?
Br.1.Avoid further spalled concrete falling on high speed trains using the tracks below which
could result in catastrophic consequences. Avoid implementing weight and lane width restrictions
on the bridge.
Br.2. - This bridge is 85 years old and by carrying out the proposed major structural maintenance
work, the life of the bridge could be extended for another 30 to 40 years with routine maintenance
works.
Please provide information on the geographical areas that will benefit from your scheme.
You should indicate those areas that will directly benefit, areas that will indirectly benefit
and those areas that will be impacted adversely.
The Greater Manchester conurbation will benefit from the scheme as A580 is a primary route for
abnormal load movement from north and east of the area to Liverpool docks.
4
What will happen if funding for this scheme is not secured - would an alternative (lower
cost) solution be implemented?
If the funding is not secured then the works will not take place and both weight and lane
restrictions will be implemented to limit the load placed on the bridges. By deferring the schemes
to a later date, the costs to undertake the works will escalate as there will have been further
damage to the structure.
What is the impact of the scheme?
The impact of the scheme will be to ensure that this strategic route is kept open to traffic,
particularly HGV’s, the risk to trains travelling along the main west coast mainline railway is
eliminated and the rail network is kept open to rail traffic, the structures will be maintained to
meet their expected whole lifecycle of around 120 years.
B3. The Financial Case – Project Costs
Before preparing a scheme proposal for submission, bid promoters should ensure they
understand the financial implications of developing the scheme (including any implications for
future resource spend and ongoing costs relating to maintaining and operating the asset), and
the need to secure and underwrite any necessary funding outside the Department’s maximum
contribution.
Please complete the following tables. Figures should be entered in £000s (i.e. £10,000 = 10).
Table A: Funding profile (Nominal terms)
£000s
DfT Funding
Sought
LA Contribution
2015-16
592.5
2016-17
395
157.5
105
2017-18
Total
987.5
262.5 (21%)
Other Third Party
Funding
Notes:
1) Department for Transport funding must not go beyond 2017-18 financial year.
2) A minimum local contribution of 10% (local authority and/or third party) of the project costs is
required.
B4. The Financial Case - Local Contribution / Third Party Funding
Please provide information on the following points (where applicable):
a) The non-DfT contribution may include funding from organisations other than the scheme
promoter. Please provide details of all non-DfT funding contributions to the scheme costs.
This should include evidence to show how any third party contributions are being secured, the
level of commitment and when they will become available.
The promoter is prepared to contribute 21% of the required funding through Council resources
and will be available from April 2015.
5
b) Where the contribution is from external sources, please provide a letter confirming the body’s
commitment to contribute to the cost of the scheme. The Department is unlikely to fund any
scheme where significant financial contributions from other sources have not been secured or
appear to be at risk.
Have you appended a letter(s) to support this case?
Yes
No
N/A
c) Please list any other funding applications you have made for this scheme or variants thereof
and the outcome of these applications, including any reasons for rejection.
B5. The Financial Case – Affordability and Financial Risk (maximum 300 words)
This section should provide a narrative setting out how you will mitigate any financial risks
associated with the scheme (you should refer to the Risk Register – see Section B10).
Please ensure that in the risk register that you have not included any risks associated with
ongoing operational costs and have used the P50 value.
Please provide evidence on the following points (where applicable):
a) What risk allowance has been applied to the project cost?
A risk allowance of 5% has been applied to the scheme. This is based on our recent experience
of delivering previous similar structural maintenance schemes.
b) How will cost overruns be dealt with?
Any cost overruns will be funded in addition to the 21% contribution. Schemes have been
estimated from current tender rates and around known site conditions. Robust Project
management will be implemented to mitigate the risk of any overrun.
c) What are the main risks to project delivery timescales and what impact this will have
on cost?
The main risks is associated with Br.1 with regard to the planned rail possession to carry out
works on the underside of the structure that can only be accessed with closure of the rail
network. Other risks will be contractor availability and supply of specified materials. However, the
risks will be managed by close coordination with Network Rail and ensuring standard materials
are specified. Additionally, the bridge decking works will be programmed within the spring and
summer months to mitigate wherever possible against severe weather. Contractors from
Council’s Select list of contractors for Bridgeworks will be used which is regularly updated to
ensure their availability additionally we are able to procure from a Greater Manchester alliance
contract for scheme delivery.
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.
BCR of the scheme = 14.37. (Analysis attached Please See Appendix 3)
Pro-forma for the economic case is attached. Please See Appendix 2
6
b) For larger schemes costing £20 million or more we would expect the bid to include a
BCR and this should align with WebTAG - https://www.gov.uk/transport-analysisguidance-webtag
Where a BCR is provided please provide separate reporting in the form of an Annex to the bid to
enable scrutiny of the data and assumptions used in deriving that BCR. This should include:
- A description of the key risks and uncertainties in the data and assumptions and the impact
these have on the BCR;
- Key assumptions including (but not limited to): detail of the data used to support the analysis,
appraisal period, forecast years, level of optimism bias applied; and
- A description of the modelling approach used to forecast the impact of the scheme and
evidence to demonstrate that it is fit-for-purpose.
c) Please provide the following data which may form a key part of our assessment:
Note this material should be provided even if a BCR estimate has been supplied (unless already
covered in a VfM Annex).
A description of the do-minimum situation (i.e. Implement weight and lane restrictions on the
what would happen without Challenge Fund
bridges located on a strategically important
investment).
route. Traffic diversions and delays to local road
network
Details of significant monetised and nonDeck replacement costs would be significantly
monetised costs and benefits of the scheme
larger than proposed £ 1.2 M. By example the
(quantified where possible)
Morleys Canal bridge proposal is estimated at
£1m but replacement cost would be around
£3.5m.
Length of scheme (km)
NA
Number of vehicles on affected section (AADT Total - Br.1 - 35300 Br.2 - 32700
in vehicles and if possible split by vehicle type) Cars Br. 1 - 23298 Br.2 21582
– to include details of data (age etc.)
LGV - Br.1- 6354 Br.2 5886
supporting this estimate.
HGV Br. 1 - 5648 Br.2.5232
d) Other VfM information where relevant - depending on type of scheme bid:
Details of required restrictions/closures if
"If funding is not provided the then Br.1
funding not provided (e.g. type of restrictions;
Golborne Railway Br.will have to be closed to all
timing/duration of restrictions; etc.)
HGV and monitor bridge deck soffit for any
further spalling of concrete with cars and LGVs
going over the bridge. 26 tonnes Weight
restriction and/or lane restriction to be
implemented Feb/March 2015. Br.2. Morleys
Canal Bridge - Weight restriction likely to be
imposed in 2016/17
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); etc.)
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
Br.1 – 3.8 km
Br.2 – 6.72 km
NA
NA
7
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)
B7. The Commercial Case (maximum 300 words)
This section should set out the procurement strategy that will be used to select a contractor and,
importantly for this fund, set out the timescales involved in the procurement process to show that
delivery can proceed quickly.
What is the preferred procurement route for the scheme? For example, if it is proposed to use
existing framework agreements or contracts, the contract must be appropriate in terms of scale
and scope.
Wigan Council has a select list of approved contractors for bridgeworks that we have used for
many years providing good quality work and value for money.
Wigan Council’s Infrastructure Asset Group will procure and manage the scheme on site,
overseen by the Councils Bridges Design and Structural Strategy Engineer.
In previous years similar bridgeworks schemes have been procured utilising the New Engineering
Contract 3 and the highway works standard specifications. All tenders are accessed and
returned and evaluated electronically through CHEST. Across Greater Manchester there are
Framework contracts in operation that we are able to utilise. If the bid is secured we will evaluate
the tender rates of the Framework contracts with our tender returns to ensure value for money,
and award accordingly.
With reference to the tender process we have successfully delivered similar major bridge
strengthening and maintenance contracts over recent years under tight timescales. If funding is
secured, then we are able to commence procurement of the works immediately in April 2015.
This approach would ensure that we are on site delivering the schemes in late spring early
summer 2015 and complete by October 2015 to ensure waterproofing and joint replacement
takes place in the warmer months and within the school holiday period to minimise disruption.
*It is the promoting authority’s responsibility to decide whether or not their scheme proposal is
lawful; and the extent of any new legal powers that need to be sought. Scheme promoters
should ensure that any project complies with the Public Contracts Regulations as well as
European Union State Aid rules, and should be prepared to provide the Department with
confirmation of this, if required. An assurance that a strategy is in place that is legally compliant
is likely to achieve the best value for money outcomes are required from your Section 151 Officer
below.
8
B8. Management Case - Delivery (maximum 300 words – for b)
Deliverability is one of the essential criteria for this Fund and as such any bid should set
out any necessary statutory procedures that are needed before it can be constructed.
a) An outline project plan (typically in Gantt chart form) with milestones should be
included as an annex, covering the period from submission of the bid to scheme
completion. The definition of the key milestones should be clear and explained. The
critical path should be identifiable and any contingency periods, key dependencies
(internal or external) should be explained.
A proposed schedule of works is provided in the annex below to show details of the timescales
for delivery and completion. This approach has served us well over recent years in delivering
schemes from additional DfT funding allocations.
Has a project plan been appended to your bid?
Yes
No
Please See Appendix 4
b) Please summarise any lessons your authority has learned from the experience of delivering
other DfT funded programmes (such as pinch point schemes, local majors, Local Sustainable
Transport Fund, and Better Bus Areas) and what would be different on this project as a result.
Br1 is dependent on the availability of rail possession and therefore this scheme is programmed
to run over a 2 year period to achieve longer rail possessions.
Br.2 is over a canal and previous experiences of delivering similar projects have been successful
and within the scheduled timeframes.
B9. Management Case – Governance (maximum 300 words)
Please name who is responsible for delivering the scheme, the roles (Project Manager, SRO etc.)
and set out the responsibilities of those involved and how key decisions are/will be made. An
organogram may be useful here. This may be attached as an Annex.
Br.1 has been identified through a Special Inspection carried out in December 2014. This
inspection was carried out as a result of concrete spalling from the underside of the structure
onto the railway bridge below.
Br.2 has been identified by Wigan Council’s Infrastructure Asset Management Group through its
planned programme of Principal and General inspection’s undertaken in line with our HAMP.
Senior Responsible Owner (SRO)
The Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) for the programme will be TfGM’s Head of Highways. The
SRO has overall accountability for ensuring that the scheme meets its objectives and delivers the
anticipated benefits.
A governance structure for the scheme including the SRO and project Manager is attached.
Please see TfGM Governance details in Challenge Bid overview
9
B10. Management Case - Risk Management
A risk register covering the top 5 (maximum) specific risks to this scheme should be attached as
an annex including, if relevant and in the top 5, financial, delivery, commercial and stakeholder
issues.
Please ensure that in the risk register cost that you have not included any risks associated with
ongoing operational costs and have used the P50 value.
Has a risk register been appended to your bid?
Please see appendix 5
Yes
No
SECTION C – Monitoring, Evaluation and Benefits Realisation
C1. Benefits Realisation (maximum 250 words)
Please provide details on the profile of benefits, and of baseline benefits and benefit ownership.
This should be proportionate to the size of the proposed scheme.
The main benefit will be the avoidance of a weight restriction which would have severe economic
effects on the local and regional business communities. The structure’s life cycle will be
increased at minimal cost because of the early intervention, instead of increased significant costs
due to more severe deterioration.
C2. Monitoring and Evaluation (maximum 250 words)
Evaluation is an essential part of scheme development and should be considered and built into
the planning of a scheme from the earliest stages. Evaluating the outcomes and impacts of
schemes is important to show if a scheme has been successful.
Please set out how you plan to measure and report on the benefits identified in Section C1,
alongside any other outcomes and impacts of the scheme
We can quantify the number and costs of previous structural maintenance costs and reactive
repair works and the number of public complaints received about these bridges. If the scheme is
delivered we can estimate the cost avoided with not having to deal with these issues, the avoided
cost associated with reactive repairs and more over the cost avoided through having to
implement weight and lane width restrictions and the cost of any diversions and delays that result
form this action.
DRC will be compared before and after the works through our asset management structural
toolkit. This investment will reduce our backlog costs for maintenance.
A fuller evaluation for large schemes may also be required depending on their size and type.
10
SECTION D: Declarations
D1. Senior Responsible Owner Declaration
As Senior Responsible Owner for Br.1. Golborne Railway Bridge No. 010
Br.2. Morleys Canal Bridge No 003 I hereby submit this request
for approval to DfT on behalf of Wigan Council and confirm that I have the necessary authority to
do so.
I confirm that Wigan Council will have all the necessary powers in place to ensure the planned
timescales in the application can be realised.
Name:
Signed:
Position: :
TfGM’s Head of Highways
D2. Section 151 Officer Declaration
As Section 151 Officer for Wigan Council I declare that the scheme cost estimates quoted in this
bid are accurate to the best of my knowledge and that Wigan 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
Signed:
Name:
Paul McKevitt
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
11
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Input data
Specific Data
Other Supporting Data / Information (either input directly
or provide reference to supporting information reported
elsewhere)
Information requested
Length of Schem e
(Km )
Not applicable
Provide length of route covered b y the schem e - if an area wide
schem e then provide total route length covered b y schem e.
Num ber of vehicles (or us ers ) on affected s ection
(s plit by vehicle type if pos s ible)
(Total Vehs - AADT)
Total - Br.1 - 35300 Br.2 - 32700
Cars Br. 1 - 23298 Br.2 21582
LGV - Br.1- 6354 Br.2 5886
HGV Br. 1 - 5648 Br.2.5232
Provide an estim ate of the traffic flow on the section of route
covered b y the schem e - also provide details of the data used to
support that estim ate (e.g. age, type and duration of count, etc.).
If funding is not provided the then Br.1 Golborne Railway
Br.will have to be clos ed to all HGV and m onitor bridge
deck s offit for any further s palling of concrete with cars and
LGVs going over the bridge. 26 tonnes Weight res triction
and/or lane res triction to be im plem ented Feb/March 2015.
Br.2. Morleys Canal Bridge - Weight res triction likely to be
im pos ed in 2016/17
Provide details of any future restrictions. E.g. If restrictions
to particular vehicle types will be needed in the do minimum
(i.e. without funding) provide details of why they are required,
what vehicle types are covered and when such restrictions
will come into place.
(Cars - AADT)
(LGV - AADT)
(HGV - AADT)
Details of required res trictions /clos ures if funding not
provided (e.g. type of res trictions ; tim ing/duration of
res trictions ; etc.)
(res triction type - text
des cription)
Length of any divers ion route, if clos ure is required
(over and above exis ting route)
(Km )
Br.1 -Golborne Railway Bridge - 3.8 Km
Br.2 - Morleys Canal Bridge - 6.7Km
Provide estimate of the length of diversion route over and
above existing route. It would be helpful to support this with
some mapping to demonstrate this.
Average extra tim e per vehicle on divers ion route (over
and above exis ting route)
(m ins )
Br.1 - 40 m inutes
Br.2 - 60 m inutes
Provide estimate of the average extra time vehicles would
spend on the diversion route over and above existing route.
It would be helpful to support this with details of any data
used/assumptions made (e.g. source of speed data used in
any calculations).
Not applicable
Provide estimates of closures / durations /delay and provide
details of the data used to support those estimates (e.g.
number of years of data etc.).
Not applicable
Provide estimates of accidents (split by severity if possible)
or accident rates for the without scheme (DM) case and the
with scheme case (DS). Provide details of the data and
assumptions/analysis used to support these estimates (e.g.
number of years of data, etc.).
Not applicable
Provide estimates of the number of cyclists (and if possible
trip length) for the without scheme (DM) case and the with
scheme case (DS). Provide details of the data and
assumptions/analysis used to support these estimates.
(s tart date of res triction MM/YY)
Regularity/duration of closures due to flooding: (e.g. (num ber of clos ures /year)
number of closures per year; average duration of
(duration of clos ure - hrs )
closure (hrs); etc.)
(length of divers ion - Km )
(extra tim e in us ing divers ion m ins )
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 the scheme)
(DM Total Accidents/yr)
(DM Slight Accidents/yr)
(DM Serious Accidents/yr)
(DM Fatal Accidents/yr)
(DM Accident Rate PIA/MVKm)
(DS Total Accidents/yr)
(DS Slight Accidents/yr)
(DS Serious Accidents/yr)
(DS Fatal Accidents/yr)
(DS Accident Rate PIA/MVKm)
(DM cyclists/day)
Number of existing cyclists; forecasts of cycling
usage with and without the scheme (and if available (DM av trip length - Km)
(DS cyclists/day)
length of journey)
(DS av trip length - Km)
Other salient information for the VfM Case
At Br.1 electrified West Coast Main Railway line would be affected by the spalling
concrete falling on the high speed train tracks. Delays to passenger and freight
journeys times could be cosiderably high if the rail traffic has to be diverted through
other rail network.
13
A description of the do-minimum situation (i.e. what would
happen without Challenge Fund investment). Details of
significant monetised and non-monetised costs and benefits
of the scheme.
Appendix 3
DfT
Nominal Costs £'s
Local
2015
2016
2015
2016
TOTAL
£750,000
£500,000
£157,500
£105,000
£1,512,500
1.00%
Real
1.00
1.01
1.00
1.01
2.50%
Inflation
1.00
1.03
1.00
1.03
Market Price
1.21
1.21
1.21
1.21
Discounting to 2010
0.84
0.81
0.84
0.81
2010 prices from 2015 prices
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
Nominal Costs
£750,000
£500,000
£157,500
£105,000
£1,512,500
Cost including real cost inflation
£750,000
£487,805
£157,500
£102,439
£1,497,744
Investment Cost (in 2015 prices)
£750,000
£482,975
£157,500
£101,425
£1,491,900
Including Market Prices
£906,750
£589,756
£190,418
£123,849
£1,810,772
Including Optimism Bias
£906,750
£589,756
£164,575
£421,307
£2,082,388
Discounted to 2010 Market Prices and Values
£657,544
£413,209
£119,344
£295,186
£1,485,283
2015
2016
£776,888
£708,395
Optimism Bias
3.03%
2010 prices and values
1.15
Total
27.9%
DfT
Local
TOTALS
£1,070,753
£414,530
£1,485,283
PA Table
£1,070,753
£414,530
£1,485,283
£0
£0
£0
Difference
0.00%
Appendix 3 (contd.)
14
Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund Bid
Structures schemes appraisal data input sheet
Appraisal year
2010
Scheme:
A580 Bridges structural repairs
District:
Wigan
Metropolitan Borough Council
Timescale
Construction year
2016
Opening year
2017
Appraisal period
10
years
Capital costs
Costs estimated in
2015
Land acquisition
Preparation
Design
Construction
Management
QRA
£0
£0
£0
£1,497,744
£0
£0
Optimism Bias %
Optimism Bias
15%
£224,662
Total
District contribution
values and resource costs
£1,722,405
£484,601
28% Should cover Optimism Bias
Capital costs at appraisal year Resouce Cost Values and Prices
Final capital cost
District contribution
Central Government
Factors to appraisal year
Cost
1.00
Price
1.00
-£1,722,405
-£484,601
-£1,237,805
15
Appendix 3 (contd.)
Traffic flows over scheme
AADT
21847
Car
Light Goods Vehicle
4325
Other Goods Vehicle 1
734
Other Goods Vehicle 2
1190
Bus
34
Average traffic speed
48
kph
Do Minimum Case
Description
Bridge 1: Golborne Railway Bridge No. 010 - managed deterioration
Vehicle travelling distances across scheme area
Average speed
Distance (km) kph
mph
Car
2.1
64
40
2.1
64
40
Light Goods Vehicle
Other Goods Vehicle 1
2.1
64
40
Other Goods Vehicle 2
3.8
32
20
2.1
64
40
Bus
Vehicle travelling times across scheme area
Car
Light Goods Vehicle
Other Goods Vehicle 1
Other Goods Vehicle 2
Bus
Days per year for which the Do Minimum Case applies
365
Annualisation factor
365
16
Time (minutes)
1.957319255
1.957319255
1.957319255
7.083631589
1.957319255
Appendix 3 (contd.)
Main route distance
Diversion distance
2.1 Km
3.8 Km
Appendix 3 (contd.)
17
Description
Bridge 1 Golborne Railway Bridge No. 010 - major structural maintenance
Vehicle travelling distances across scheme area
Average speed
Distance (km) kph
mph
Car
2.1
64
40
Light Goods Vehicle
2.1
64
40
Other Goods Vehicle 1
2.1
64
40
Other Goods Vehicle 2
2.1
64
40
Bus
2.1
64
40
Vehicle travelling times across scheme area
Distance impacts by vehicle type p.a.
Travel time impacts by vehicle type p.a.
Car
Light Goods Vehicle
Other Goods Vehicle 1
Other Goods Vehicle 2
Bus
∆ Distance (vehicle-km)
0
0
0
-738395
0
Car
Light Goods Vehicle
Other Goods Vehicle 1
Other Goods Vehicle 2
Bus
Car
Light Goods Vehicle
Other Goods Vehicle 1
Other Goods Vehicle 2
Bus
Baseline traffic growth rates
Car
Light Goods Vehicle
Other Goods Vehicle 1
Other Goods Vehicle 2
Bus
Growth p.a.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
From appraisal year until
2035
2035
2035
2035
2035
No growth thereafter
Appendix 3 (contd.)
18
Time (minutes)
1.957319255
1.957319255
1.957319255
1.957319255
1.957319255
∆ Time (vehicle-minutes)
0
0
0
-2226613.76
0
Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund Bid
Structures schemes appraisal data input sheet
Appraisal year
2010
Scheme:
A580 Bridges structural repairs
District:
Wigan
Metropolitan Borough Council
Timescale
Construction year
2016
Opening year
2018
Appraisal period
10
years
Capital costs
Costs estimated in
2015
values and resource costs
Land acquisition
Preparation
Design
Construction
Management
QRA
£0
£0
£0
£0
£0
£0
Optimism Bias %
Optimism Bias
0%
£0
Total
£0
District contribution
£0
0% Should cover Optimism Bias
Capital costs at appraisal year Resouce Cost Values and Prices
Final capital cost
District contribution
Central Government
Factors to appraisal year
Cost
1.00
Price
1.00
£0
£0
£0
Appendix 3 (contd.)
19
Traffic flows over
scheme
Car
Light Goods Vehicle
Other Goods Vehicle 1
Other Goods Vehicle 2
Bus
Average traffic speed
AADT
23521
4579
676
1577
38
48
kph
Do Minimum Case
Description
Bridge 2: Morleys Canal Bridge No. 003 - managed deterioration
Vehicle travelling distances across scheme area
Average speed
Distance
(km)
kph
mph
Car
5.33
64
40
Light Goods Vehicle
5.33
64
40
Other Goods Vehicle 1
5.33
64
40
Other Goods Vehicle 2
6.72
32
20
Bus
5.33
64
40
Days per year for which the Do Minimum Case
applies
Vehicle travelling times across scheme area
Car
Light Goods Vehicle
Other Goods Vehicle 1
Other Goods Vehicle 2
Bus
365
Appendix 3 (contd.)
20
Time (minutes)
4.9679
4.9679
4.9679
12.527
4.9679
Main route
distance
Diversion distance
5.33 Km
6.72 Km
21
Appendix 3 (contd.)
Scheme case
Description
Vehicle travelling distances
Bridge
across
2: scheme
Morleys area
Canal Bridge No. 003 - major structural maintenance
Vehicle travelling times across scheme area
Car
Light Goods Vehicle
Other Goods Vehicle 1
Other Goods Vehicle 2
Bus
Average speed
Distance (km) kph
mph
5.33
64
40
5.33
64
40
5.33
64
40
5.33
64
40
5.33
64
40
Distance impacts by vehicle type p.a.
Car
Light Goods Vehicle
Other Goods Vehicle 1
Other Goods Vehicle 2
Bus
Time (minutes)
4.9679
4.9679
4.9679
4.9679
4.9679
Travel time impacts by vehicle type p.a.
Car
Light Goods Vehicle
Other Goods Vehicle 1
Other Goods Vehicle 2
Bus
∆ Distance (vehicle-km)
0
0
0
-800090.95
0
Baseline traffic growth rates
Car
Light Goods Vehicle
Other Goods Vehicle 1
Other Goods Vehicle 2
Bus
Growth p.a.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Car
Light Goods Vehicle
Other Goods Vehicle 1
Other Goods Vehicle 2
Bus
From appraisal year until
2035
2035
2035
2035
2035
No growth thereafter
22
∆ Time (vehicle-minutes)
0
0
0
-4E+06
0
Appendix 3 (contd.)
Economic Efficiency of the Transport System (TEE)
Non-business: Commuting
User benefits
Travel time
Vehicle operating costs
User charges
During Construction & Maintenance
NET NON-BUSINESS BENEFITS:
ALL MODES
TOTAL
£0
£0
£0
£0
£0
Non-business: Other
User benefits
Travel time
Vehicle operating costs
User charges
During Construction & Maintenance
NET NON-BUSINESS BENEFITS:
ALL MODES
TOTAL
£0
£0
£0
£0
£0
ROAD
Private Cars and LGVs
£0
£0
(1a)
(1b)
BUS and COACH
RAIL
METROLINK
BUS and COACH
RAIL
METROLINK
£0
ROAD
Private Cars and LGVs
£0
£0
£0
£0
£0
£0
Business
User benefits
Travel time
Vehicle operating costs
User charges
During Construction & Maintenance
Subtotal
Private sector provider impacts
Revenue
Operating costs
Investment costs
Grant/subsidy
Subtotal
Other business impacts
Developer contributions
NET BUSINESS IMPACT
TOTAL
Present Value of Transport Economic
£11,784,738
£12,390,443
£0
£0
£24,175,181
(2)
£0
£0
£0
£0
£0
£0
£24,175,181
Goods Vehicles
£11,784,738
£12,390,443
Business Cars &
LGVs
£0
£0
£24,175,181
£0
£0
0
0
0
(3)
£0
£0
£0
£0
(4)
(5) = (2) + (3) + (4)
£0
£0
£0
£24,175,181
(6) = (1a) + (1b) + (5)
Notes: Benefits appear as positive numbers, while costs appear as negative numbers.
All results in £s
All entries are discounted present values to 2010, in 2010 prices and values
23
Appendix 3 (contd.)
Public Accounts
Local Government Funding
Revenue
Operating Costs
Investment Costs
Developer and Other Contributions
Grant/Subsidy Payments
NET IMPACT
ALL MODES
TOTAL
£0
£0
£414,530
£0
£0
£414,530 (7)
Central Government Funding: Transport
Revenue
Operating costs
Investment Costs
Developer and Other Contributions
Grant/Subsidy Payments
NET IMPACT
£0
£0
£1,070,753
£0
£0
£1,070,753 (8)
Central Government Funding: Non-Transport
Indirect Tax Revenues
£2,831,453 (9)
TOTALS
Broad Transport Budget
Wider Public Finances
£1,485,283 (10) = (7) + (8)
£2,831,453 (11) = (9)
ROAD
INFRASTRUCTURE
BUS and COACH
RAIL
METROLINK
£414,530
£1,070,753
£1,070,753
£0
£0
£2,831,453
Notes: Costs appear as positive numbers, while revenues and ‘Developer and Other Contributions' appear as negative
All results in £s
All entries are discounted to 2010 present values in 2010 prices and values.
24
£0
Appendix 3 (contd.)
Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits
Noise
Local Air Quality
Gree nhouse Gases
Journey Ambience
Accidents
Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users
(Commuting)
Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users
(Other)
Economic Efficiency: Busine ss Users and
Providers
£0
£0
£0
£0
£0
£0
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(1a)
£0 (1b)
£24,175,181 (5)
Health benefits (users)
W ider P ublic Finances (Indirect Taxation
Revenues)
Option Values
Pre sent Value of Benefits
(see notes)
(PVB)
Broad Transport Budget
Pre sent Value of Costs
(see notes)
OVERALL IMPACTS
Net Present Value (NPV)
Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR)
-£2,831,453 - (11) - sign changed from PA
table, as PA table represents
costs, not benefits
£0 (17)
£21,343,728 (PVB) = (12) + (13) + (14) +
(15) + (16) + (1a) + (1b) + (5) +
(17) - (11)
£1,485,283 (10)
(P VC)
£1,485,283 (PVC) = (10)
£19,858,445
14.37
NPV=PVB-PVC
BCR=PVB/PVC
Note : This table includes costs and benefits w hich a re regularly or occa sionally presented in
monetised form in transport appraisals, together w ith some w here monetisa tion is in prospect. There
may a lso be other significa nt costs and benefits, some of w hich cannot be presented in monetised
form. W here this is the case, the analysis presente d above does NOT provide a good measure of
value for mone y a nd should not be used as the sole basis for decisions.
25
Appendix 4
KEY ROUTE NETWORK HIGHWAY STRUCTURES PROGRAMME CHART
2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016
APR MAY JUN
JUL
AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Br.1 GOLBORNE RAILWAY BRIDGE No 010
Deck Waterproofing & Deck joints renewing
Design & Tender documents
Tender Procurement
Site work
Concrete Repairs to Deck soffit
Design & Tender documents
Tender procurement
Site Work ( Various Rail possessions)
15 short night Rail Possessions( Saturdays)
2 Full days (Christmas days) Rail possessions
Br.2 MORLEYS CANAL BRIDGE No 003
Design & Tender documents
Tender Procurement
Site work
Replacement of Bearings
Deck waterproofing, concrete repairs,deck Joint replacements & Abutment repairs
Protective paint system to deck steelwork.
26
JAN
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
JUL
AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Appendix 5
Highway Structures Programme 2015-2017 Risk Register
ID
No.
Description of Risk
Consequence
Owner
Management
Actions
Likelihood
Impact
Priority
Rating
4 Near Certain
3 Likely
2 Possible
1 Unlikely
4 High
3 Medium
2 Low
1 None
3 High
2 Medium
1 Low
May 2015
1
3
3
March 2015
1
2
1
On -going
1
3
3
On going
1
3
3
Date by
PM Project
Manager
Cost
Time
Quality
=C
=T
=Q
SRO Single
Responsible
Officer
(or closed)
Intelligence or
Comments
Status
1. Delivery
a.
b.
c.
d.
Preparation of
documents and
information is delayed
Programme
delay. Contract
does not start as
scheduled
Change of key
personnel
Resources are
lost to the
preparation of
the contract
Lack of contractor
availability
Programme
delayed
Lack of supply of
standard specified
materials
Programme
delayed
T
C
PM
SRO
T
PM
T
C
PM
T
PM
SRO
Monitor progress
against
programme and
accelerate as
necessary
Monitor and
consider
contingency plan
Contractors from
Council’s Select
list of contractors
for Bridgeworks
used and
regularly
updated to
ensure their
availability
Ensure
availability of
standard
materials before
specifying.
27
Control measures in place
with regular liaison
progress meetings
scheduled.
No service reviews or
changes to staffing
structures have been
identified
Pre scheme planning
availability of the
contractor from the select
list checked
Scheme specified
standard materials or
innovative materials that
are readily available will be
used
On - Going
On - Going
On - Going
On - Going
Appendix 5 (contd)
ID
No.
Description of Risk
Consequence
Owner
Management
Actions
Date by
PM Project
Manager
Cost
Time
Quality
=C
=T
=Q
SRO Single
Responsible
Officer
(or closed)
Likelihood
4 Near Certain
3 Likely
2 Possible
1 Unlikely
Impact
Priority
Rating
4 High
3 Medium
2 Low
1 None
3 High
2 Medium
1 Low
Intelligence or
Comments
Status
2. Procurement
a.
b.
c.
Procurement not
carried out in
accordance with
internal Standing
Orders or EU
procurement rules
Contract not
legal. Need to
re- draft the
contract
Poor Contractor
Performance
Poor quality,
increased cost
or programme
delay
Excessive staff time
taken to procure 2
bridge major
maintenance schemes
Delays in
procurement
task and
subsequent
delays in
delivery on the
ground.
T
C
T
C
Q
T
C
PM
SRO
PM
PM
Keep Audit, Legal
and Procurement
office involved
throughout
April 2015
1
4
3
Procurement will be
through using standard
NEC 3 or alliance
framework contracts in use
across Greater
Manchester
Contractors on
Select list for
Bridgeworks are
regularly
assessed in order
to ensure that the
desired
performance is
achieved from
them.
April 2015
1
4
3
The standing list of
contractors for
bridgeworks is reviewed
every 4 years. This is to
ensure that the quality of
the management,
performance, financial
strength, business integrity
and health & safety
assessment of the
contractors & their
suppliers is to the required
standards.
Ensure works are
tendered as per
the programme
and target dates
achieved.
April 2015
1
3
3
Procurement will be
through using standard
NEC 3 or alliance
framework contracts in use
across Greater
Manchester. Tendering
procedure will be carried
out electronically (CHEST)
in order to minimise
delays.
28
On - Going
On-going
On-going
Appendix 5(contd)
ID
No.
Description of Risk
Consequence
Owner
Management
Actions
Date by
PM Project
Manager
Cost
Time
Quality
=C
=T
=Q
SRO Single
Responsible
Officer
(or closed)
Likelihood
4 Near Certain
3 Likely
2 Possible
1 Unlikely
Impact
Priority
Rating
4 High
3 Medium
2 Low
1 None
3 High
2 Medium
1 Low
Intelligence or
Comments
Status
3. Financial
a.
Scheme costs increase
due to unforeseen site
conditions
b.
Scheme overrun due to
contractor lack of
performance
c.
Scheme interruption
due to emergency or
unplanned Utility works
Delays in
scheme
progress and
increased costs
Delays in
scheme
progress and
increased costs
through possible
contractor
claims.
T
C
PM
SRO
Engineers
Ensure detailed
estimates are
secured for
individual sites and
include known site
history /
investigation.
May 2015
2
3
3
In-house site specific
knowledge and pre
scheme history is known
on the bridges identified.
On-going
P50 value of £1,250,000 to
be sought
T
C
PM
SRO
Engineers
Ensure regular
scheduled progress
meetings take
place. Ensure
progress and
performance is
monitored on site.
Contractor
performance issues
will be dealt with
through the contract
and penalties
imposed to recoup
any increased
costs.
On-going
2
2
2
On site scheme monitoring
will take place and any
emerging concerns will be
addressed on site.
On-going
T
C
PM
SRO
Engineers
Ensure planned
utility company
coordination
meetings are
scheduled where
scheme plans can
be shared and
analysed.
May 2015
2
3
3
Scheduled coordination
meeting are in place to
deliver our annual capital
programme, therefore
these meetings will be
used to discuss the
challenge fund bid also
On-going
29
Appendix 5 (contd)
ID
No.
Description of Risk
Consequence
Owner
Management
Actions
Date by
PM Project
Manager
Cost
Time
Quality
=C
=T
=Q
SRO Single
Responsible
Officer
(or closed)
Likelihood
4 Near Certain
3 Likely
2 Possible
1 Unlikely
Impact
Priority
Rating
4 High
3 Medium
2 Low
1 None
3 High
2 Medium
1 Low
Intelligence or
Comments
Status
4. Commercial
a.
Scheme overruns
leading to extended
road closures
Potential
prolonged
commercial and
economic effects
on local
businesses and
residents within
the closures
T
PM
SRO
Engineers
Ensure planned
programme of
works progresses
without undue
delay and
anticipate any
possible delay
issues.
On-going
2
3
3
Pre scheme information
notifications will be issued
to businesses and resident
affected by temporary
traffic management. Works
on site to be phased so
that one lane of traffic in
either direction will be
maintained at all times
On-going
b.
Journey delays during
operational works on
site because of road
closures and temporary
diversions
Delayed journey
times and
increased traffic
volume on
diversion routes.
T
C
SRO
Engineers
Ensure planned
programme of
works progresses
without undue
delay. Liaise
closely with
contractor to
ensure planned
programme is on
schedule
On-going
3
3
3
Ensure adequate pre
scheme information signs
are erected on site well
before works on site begin.
On-going
PM
SRO
engineers
Ensure Members
and residents are
notified in detail
about forthcoming
road works in their
wards.
On-going
1
2
2
Ensure scheme
information is delivered pre
scheme and published on
Council website road
works bulletin. Ensure
members are notified of
schemes well in advance o
the works.
On-going
5. Stakeholder
a.
Programme delivery
delays
May affect
residents and the
business
community going
about their daily
business caused by
undue delays,
which may raise the
number of member
enquiries which
may damage
Council reputation.
T
C
30