Maidenhead Missing Links Business Case · Construction of a new underpass under the A4 for cyclists...
Transcript of Maidenhead Missing Links Business Case · Construction of a new underpass under the A4 for cyclists...
Maidenhead Missing Links
Business Case
Date: November 2018
Created by
Naomi Barnes [email protected]
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of Report
This report sets out the business case for the Maidenhead Town Centre Missing
Links, which includes a package of measures to improve cycling facilities ,
connecting residential areas to the north of Maidenhead across the A4 to
Maidenhead Town Centre and linking in with proposed improvements at
Maidenhead Railway Station.
The scheme is a key transport infrastructure project that support the
regeneration of Maidenhead town centre by improving connectivity for local
cyclists across the town, to work, for leisure and to key transport links.
Strategic case
The scheme will create an opportunity to increase levels of cycling by: improving
existing cycle facilities; providing new facilities; and creating a safe link across
the A4 to improve connectivity for cyclists between major planned
developments, residential areas, local facilities, the town centre and key
transport links such as Maidenhead Railway Station.
The scheme supports the Thames Valley Berkshire Strategic Economic Plan goals
with respect to infrastructure, and is a key element of the Royal Borough of
Windsor and Maidenhead’s Borough Local Plan, Maidenhead Town Centre Area
Action Plan and Infrastructure Delivery Plan.
It also supports the draft Cycling Action Plan which key focus is connecting
residential areas to destinations, such as town centres, local centres, railway
stations, employment sites, and education facilities.
It will contribute significantly towards both strategic and local transport
objectives.
Key Issues
The current network does not provide off-carriageway access across the
A4 or B4447, requiring cyclists to remain on carriageway in high volumes
of traffic; or use pedestrian facilities that are not suitable for shared used,
either at the subway where the ceiling height is too low; or path widths
are too narrow;
3
High number of cycling collisions particularly at the junction of the
B4447/A4;
Existing bridges across Strand Water are too narrow for shared use
resulting in conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists;
The approaches to bridges over Strand Water are at sharp angles making
manoeuvring and visibility of oncoming cyclists difficult , creating
potential for loss of control and conflicts between pedestrians and
cyclists;
Off highway routes are not lit, meaning that cycle routes may be
unusable / unattractive in hours of darkness;
There are no cycling facilities within the town centre, resulting in conflicts
with motor vehicles; other cyclists and pedestrians;
Option Assessment
An Options Assessment has been undertaken which: identified key missing links in
the area; how these connected proposed developments; and the suitability and
buildability of four options to cross the A4. The results of this assessment informed
the selection of the optimum route.
The preferred scheme proposes improvements including:
Construction of a new underpass under the A4 for cyclists only north-
east of an existing pedestrian underpass;
Replacing the wooden pedestrian bridge south of Ray Mill Road West
with a wider bridge suitable for shared use to improve connectivity for
cyclists was considered, however, the costs benefits in relation to
usage were low and is therefore not being progressed at this stage
Replace the metal/concrete bridge at Holmanleaze with a wider
bridge suitable for shared use to improve connectivity for cyclists;
Widen the existing paths across Town Moor to accommodate
shared/segregated cycle facilities and increase width of existing
facilities that fall below standard;
Upgrade footways and provide semi segregated cycle facilities
through Kidwells Park;
4
Replace pedestrian crossing on B4447 Cookham Road with a toucan
crossing, relocating this to follow the desire line between the St Cloud
Way development and Kidwells Park;
Upgrade paving along King Street to provide semi-segregation in
shared areas; and
Provide additional cycle parking at various locations along the route
to meet increased demand.
The Economic Case
The scheme provides an upgrade to existing cycling provision with crossing
facilities (including new subway), wider paths, a new route through Kidwells Park
and shared use provision along the full length of King Street which is currently a
pedestrianised zone at the northern end. The overall Value for Money (VfM)
assessment considers the monetised Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) and non-monetised
benefits in order to assess the economic impact of the scheme. This is
particularly pertinent for the ‘Missing Links’ scheme, which has several non-
monetised benefits that should be considered when making an economic
assessment of the scheme.
Of the benefits quantified, the core scenario with the A4 subway option without
the Ray Mill Road West Bridge or paving upgrade on King Street identified a BCR
of 2.1, which represents High VfM. Non-monetised benefits relate to the reduced
severance of the A4, improvements to public realm and regeneration of sites
along the route. Sensitivity testing taking into account the increase in cycling to
6% of trips resulted in an increased BCR of 2.74, which represents High VfM.
There are large journey time savings associated with Component H (510 seconds
- subway), which reflect the elimination of additional delay associated with the
existing poor crossing facilities for the A4, requiring cyclists to dismount.
The scheme generates a strong beneficial impact in casualty reduction as a
result of the identified cycle routes and greater awareness amongst other road
users of the likelihood of cyclists along the route. With improvements in
perceived safety, this can help to encourage more people to cycle. The scheme
is anticipated to encourage and support the uptake of cycling, with greater
levels of physical activity having notable health benefits .
5
The Financial Case
The Maidenhead Missing Links proposals are a strong fit to both local and
national policy relating to transportation investment and growth. Funding is
available through the Local Growth Fund (LGF) and has been provisionally
allocated to this project.
The LEP provisionally agreed a £3.048m contribution to this project, with £1.0m of
S106 contributions and £705k from the RBWM Capital Programme, making a
grand total of £4.753m.
Funding for the scheme will be provided through a combination of Section 106
contributions from the Royal Borough and Local Growth funding. Total LGF
funding required for scheme delivery will be £2,241,788 with a S106 contribution
from the Royal Borough of £420,335 and Capital funding of £140,112.
Included within the budget is a contingency risk of £472k plus an allowance for
preliminaries (20% of construction costs) and design fees (10% of construction
costs)
The Commercial Case
RBWM is able to draw on existing long-term framework contracts for delivery of
aspects of the project including:
Volker Highways for delivery of highways construction services, traffic
signs and road markings;
Project Centre Ltd for professional engineering services, including
structures, highway planning and design services;
AA Lighting / Zeta for the design and delivery of street lighting solutions.
Maydencroft for the implementation of bridges/subways.
RBWM will undertake signal design using in-house expertise. Delivery of the
signals schemes will be through preferred contractors Siemens and Simone
Surveys.
Wider marketplace procurement will take place for specialist construction
elements, such as the subway and bridge structures.
6
The Project Manager will have overall responsibility for ensuring that the risk
management process is implemented and managed in accordance with
agreed protocols.
The existing contract for construction currently runs to 2021. However, this would
be extended for job specific projects currently under construction for the
duration of that scheme.
The contract follows a traditional NEC 3 format, ensuring that the contractual /
commercial arrangement will be well defined.
The Management Case
The Royal Borough has effective management and governance arrangements in
place to ensure effective delivery of LGF projects, including an established
project management toolkit and governance arrangements that involve both
elected members and senior officers of the council.
7
CONTENTS PAGE PAGE NO.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
CONTENTS PAGE 7
1. INTRODUCTION 10
1.1 Purpose of the Report 10
1.2 Route Overview 10
1.3 Purpose of the Scheme 11
2. STRATEGIC CASE 13
2.1 Introduction 13
2.2 Scheme Objectives 13
2.3 Contribution to National, Regional and Local Strategic Priorities 14
2.4 Drivers for Change 20
2.5 Existing Cycle Use 20
2.6 Existing Collisions and Road Safety 21
2.7 Route Description and Key Issues 24
2.8 Impact of No Change: 26
2.9 Measures for Success 27
2.10 Constraints 28
2.11 Inter-dependencies 29
2.12 Stakeholders 29
2.13 Options Appraisal 30
2.14 Scope 33
2.15 Design Criteria 34
3. THE ECONOMIC CASE 35
3.1 Background 35
3.2 Scheme Overview 35
3.3 Report Structure 38
3.4 Appraisal Methodology 38
3.5 Demand 39
3.6 Existing Demand 39
3.7 Underlying Demand 45
3.8 New Demand 45
3.9 Benefits 49
8
3.10 Journey Time Savings 50
3.11 Journey Quality 51
3.12 Cycling 51
3.13 Walking 52
3.14 Accidents 53
3.15 Non-user Benefits (Decongestion and Environment) 55
3.16 Physical Activity and Absenteeism 55
3.17 Costs 56
3.18 Ongoing Costs 59
3.19 Appraisal Results 59
3.20 Sensitivity Tests 60
3.21 Benefits 61
3.22 Appraisal Summary Table 62
3.23 Value for Money Assessment 63
4. THE FINANCIAL CASE 65
4.1 Overview of Affordability Assessment 65
4.2 Project Costs 65
4.3 Cost Profile 66
5. THE COMMERCIAL CASE 68
5.1 Output based specification 68
5.2 Procurement Strategy and Sourcing Options 69
5.3 Payment/ Charging mechanisms and framework 69
5.4 Risk allocation and transfer 70
5.5 Contract length 70
5.6 Human Resource issues 71
5.7 Contract management 71
6. THE MANAGEMENT CASE 72
6.1 Introduction 72
6.2 Evidence of similar projects 72
6.3 Programme / Project dependencies 74
6.4 Governance, organisational structure & roles 75
6.5 Programme / Project plan 78
6.6 Assurance & approval plan 79
6.7 Communications & stakeholder management 80
9
6.8 Programme / project reporting 81
6.9 Implementation 81
6.10 Risk Management 82
6.11 Benefits Realisation 83
6.12 Monitoring & Evaluation 84
7. CONCLUSIONS 88
DOCUMENT CONTROL
APPENDIX A – OPTION ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX B– RISK REGISTER
APPENDIX C – DESIGN OPTIONS
APPENDIX D – PROGRAMME
APPENDIX E – ECONOMIC APPRAISAL APPENDICES
10
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of the Report
1.1.1 This report sets out the business case for the Maidenhead Missing Links
scheme, which includes a package of measures to improve cycling
facilities connecting residential areas to the north of Maidenhead across
the A4 to Maidenhead Town Centre and linking in with proposed
improvements at Maidenhead Railway Station.
1.1.2 This report has been prepared in accordance with the Department for
Transport (DfT)'s Transport Appraisal Guidance (TAG) and has been
structured as follows:
Section 1 – Introduction: Outlines the purpose and background of
the report
Section 2 – Strategic Case: Sets out the case for change and why
the scheme is needed
Section 3 – Economic Case: Presents an appraisal of the impacts
of a range of options and the resulting value for money of the
Scheme
Section 4 – Financial Case: Describes the affordability of the
Scheme, including the cost and funding arrangements
Section 5 – Commercial Case: Provides evidence of the
commercial viability of the Scheme and an expected
procurement strategy
Section 6 – Management Case: Sets out how the delivery of the
scheme will be managed, including programme and risk
Section 7 – Conclusions: Presents a summary and conclusions of
the Business Case
1.1.3 An Options Assessment Report (OAR) has been prepared which sets out
the background and methodology in developing the route and its
proposals and is attached in Appendix A.
1.2 Route Overview
1.2.1 The proposed route commences on Ray Mill Road (W) to the north of
Maidenhead and links with National Cycle Network (NCN) Route 50
which currently runs between Maidenhead and Cookham. Once
completed the NCN 50 will extend to Winslow.
11
1.2.2 From Ray Mead Road (W) The Missing Links scheme continues south
across Strand Water via a pedestrian bridge and runs through a wooded
area adjacent to the waterway. It continues through an area of open
space (Town Moor) and crosses a pedestrian bridge to Holmanleaze.
There are two spurs across Town Moor open space, one to Blackamoor
Lane and one to A4 Bridge Road leading to the Reform Road
Development. Once over Holmanleaze Bridge, it bears left along
Holmanleaze, a residential road with properties on both sides and then
bears right through what is currently the Magnet Leisure Centre. This will
be redeveloped to form part of the St Cloud Way development. It crosses
the B4447 into Kidwells Park ensuring cyclists avoid the main roads, and
provides a safe link across the A4 into the town centre. The route directly
serves the West Street and The Landing developments and Maidenhead
Railway Station where it links to NCN 4. Map 1a below details the extent
of the route and the location of proposed developments in its vicinity.
1.3 Purpose of the Scheme
1.3.1 The purpose of the scheme is to:
Complete the ‘missing links’ between planned major
development areas in and around Maidenhead Town Centre;
Support employers and commuters by linking existing and
proposed residential developments with the key employment
areas, the Town Centre and Maidenhead Railway Station which
provides a direct link into London;
Encourage a modal shift towards cycling, reducing car
dependency, reducing congestion and improving air quality in
the town centre.
1.3.2 Improvement proposals include: widening of footways and bridges to
create shared footway/cycle links; provision of toucan crossings; and a
crossing of the A4, which represents a major barrier to walking and cycling
trips.
12
Map 1a: Proposed route with direct links to development sites
13
2. STRATEGIC CASE
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 The strategic case sets out RBWM’s aspirations in relation to the provision
of cycling associated with the Missing Links scheme and how this vision
fits with guiding policy aims.
2.1.2 The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (RBWM) is one of six
unitary authorities that lie within the Thames Valley Berkshire (TVB) sub-
region. Berkshire’s proximity to London and Heathrow Airport makes it
attractive to businesses and it has the highest economic output and
productivity rates outside of London, contributing over £35 billion in Gross
Value Added (GVA) to the UK economy.
2.1.3 The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead plays a key role in the
economic success of the TVB area. It was ranked 10th in the UK
Competitiveness Index 2016 and was the only non-London borough to
feature in the top ten.
2.1.4 The current business environment is very favourable with office
accommodation in demand across the borough. This is likely to continue,
with an ambitious regeneration programme underway in Maidenhead
providing an improved offer of commercial and residential space within
the next few years.
2.1.5 Investment in local and strategic transport networks is critically important
not only to alleviate existing congestion, but also to unlock new housing
and support continued economic growth in the area.
2.1.6 Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership (TVLEP) has worked
in partnership with the Berkshire local authorities and local businesses to
produce a Strategic Economic Plan (SEP). It sets out their vision for
delivering sustainable economic growth in the period to 2020/21. This has
successfully been used to secure Growth Deal funding from Central
Government.
2.1.7 This project directly supports and strengthens the regeneration plans for
Maidenhead in line with the Maidenhead Town Centre Area Action Plan
which sets a clear vision for economic growth.
2.2 Scheme Objectives
2.2.1 This scheme creates an opportunity to increase levels of cycling by:
improving existing cycle facilities; providing new facilities ; and creating a
safe link across the A4 to improve safety and connectivity for cyclists
between major planned developments, residential areas, local facilities
and the town centre.
14
2.2.2 The primary objectives of the scheme are to provide a safe, convenient
direct cycle routes through Maidenhead to:
Encourage a modal shift towards cycling for a range of journey
purposes including work, education and leisure;
Reduce the necessity to undertake journeys in private motor
vehicles;
Improve journey times and quality for cyclists;
Increase the number of female cyclists to address current gender
inequalities;
Connect existing and proposed local and national cycle
infrastructure including NCN50 and NCN4;
Improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians; and
Reduce cycle personal injury accidents within the town.
2.3 Contribution to National, Regional and Local Strategic Priorities
2.3.1 In line with DfT’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy, this scheme
aims to encourage cycling and walking as the preferred choice for
shorter journeys, for example to the town and local centres, schools and
work; as well as part of longer journeys such as travelling to the railway
station.
2.3.2 The proposals support the strategy’s aims and objectives by:
Improving safety by providing streets where cyclists and
pedestrians feel safe and better connected;
Providing better quality cycling facilities to local facilities;
increasing cycle routes around public transport hubs; promoting
a change in behaviour and integrating routes for people with
mobility impairments; and
Improving streets with better planning for walking and cycling by
providing a wider green network through the parks and open
spaces into the town centre.
2.3.3 The Thames Valley Berkshire Strategic Economic Plan recognises that the
transport and communications infrastructure on which we rely is heavily
congested and that this in turn is threatening to undermine our intrinsic
growth potential. The SEP acknowledges that it is essential to invest in the
15
transport network and also to encourage local sustainable transport
networks that promote active travel on foot and by bike.
2.3.4 The scheme supports the TVLEP’s goals with respect to infrastructure,
ensuring that:
Economic potential is not stifled by labour supply issues by
tackling congestion and linking new housing developments with
the town centre and the railway station;
Ensuring that Berkshire’s towns function as ‘real hubs’ with
effective transport infrastructure providing connections within
Maidenhead and to neighbouring towns and villages such as
Cookham thus, supporting town centre regeneration.
2.3.5 The Royal Borough is located in the heart of the Thames Valley, less than
30 miles to the west of Central London. It borders several other
administrative local authorities and has important inter-connections with
employment and housing catchments, plus strategic transport links.
Maidenhead itself is served by the M4, A308(M) and A404(M) motorways.
It also lies on the Great Western Main Line, which connects London
Paddington with South West England and Wales. Rail services will be
further enhanced with the arrival of the Elizabeth Line (formerly known as
Crossrail) from December 2019, which wil l provide direct rail access to
Central London and The City.
2.3.6 The Borough Local Plan (BLP), which was submitted in January 2018
provides the framework to guide the future development of RBWM. It sets
out a spatial strategy and policies for managing development and
infrastructure to meet the environmental, social and economic
opportunities and challenges facing the area up to 2033.
2.3.7 It builds on the Maidenhead Town Centre Area Action Plan (AAP) which
was adopted in September 2011 and sets an ambitious strategy focusing
on regeneration, setting out how the true potential of Maidenhead Town
Centre can be unlocked with a clear vision for economic growth. It
identifies a need to enhance entrance points into the town centre with
high quality public realm; improving exiting public spaces with a focus on
the train station. It seeks to optimise accessibility to the town centre for
all modes of transport with a specific focus on creating and safe and
comfortable environment for pedestrians and cyclists as well as
improving access by public transport.
16
2.3.8 The RBWM Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) was updated in January 2018.
It identifies the infrastructure considered necessary to support the
development proposed in the Borough Local Plan (BLP) and outlines how
and when this will be delivered. The IDP plays a key role in demonstrating
that planned growth can be accommodated in a sustainable manner,
through the timely and coordinated delivery of critical and strategic
infrastructure. This scheme supports the following objectives which are set
out in the section 4 of the BLP:
Objective 6 - Infrastructure – To retain, improve and provide new
facilities and other infrastructure to support new development
and ensure a high quality of life for residents of all ages; secure
the provision of utilities, services, and facilities to enable planned
development in a coordinated and timely manner and; ensure
that new development makes an appropriate contribution
towards infrastructure needs arising from such development.
Objective 7 - Sustainable Transport – To promote sustainable
transport and alternatives to the use of private vehicles;
Encourage the provision of facilities for pedestrians and cyclists in
new development; locate development to minimise the need for
travel; and promote the use of public transport.
Objective 10 – Open Space and leisure – to maintain and
enhance leisure and recreational routes which includes cycling
and providing links to recreational areas such as The Moor and
Kidwells Park.
2.3.9 The BLP provides for at least 14,200 new dwellings across the Borough
and 2,300 in the town centre by 2031. This scheme provides links between
the NCN 50 to the following development sites detailed in Map 2a, into
the town centre and to Maidenhead Railway Station:
Maidenhead Railway Station - 150 dwellings - completion date to
be confirmed;
Reform Road via spur B – 310 dwellings although currently there is
no clear link across the A4- expected completion autumn 2025;
St Cloud Way – 600 dwellings – Expected completion summer
2025;
West Street – 150 dwellings – Expected completion summer 2024
York Road – 229 dwellings and 1930 sqm of employment floor
space – Expected completion winter 2024. Whilst not directly on
the route it can be access through the town centre providing a
17
link across the A4 to Kidwell Park and then northern area of the
town;
‘The Landing’ development including 480 dwellings plus
employment space including retail, restaurants, cafes and bars -
Expected completion summer 2022.
18
Map 2a: Development sites in relation to the proposed route
2.3.10 This scheme also supports the RBWM Draft Cycling Action Plan which
focuses on connecting residential areas to key destinations, such as town
and local centres, railway stations, employment sites, and education
facilities by providing a network of safe, convenient, connected and
19
legible cycle routes and by improving road conditions so they are safer
for cyclists and encourage cycling.
2.3.11 Its aims are:
To deliver a safe, direct, convenient, coherent and connected
cycle route network;
To improve integration between cycling and other forms of
transport;
To ensure that cycling provision is an integral part of the design of
new development and is not considered as an afterthought;
To ensure that cycling facilities are designed and buil t in
accordance with (and where appropriate exceed) standards
specified in national guidance and best practice;
To improve local health outcomes for residents by increasing
cycling activity levels;
To cater for cyclists regardless of age, gender or ability; and
To establish monitoring and evaluation mechanisms that will
measure the impact of local cycling investment.
2.3.12 This scheme meets these requirements by allowing cyclists to cross the
busy A4, which currently severs the town centre from residential areas to
the north; and by enabling cyclists to bypass the town centre with its
complicated network of one-way streets and pedestrianised areas. It
includes improved links to existing residential areas, local shops and the
Waterway towpath. Improved links will increase the proportion of local
trips made on foot and by bike, leading to a reduction in car trips and
therefore reducing congestion and improving air quality.
2.3.13 Improvements to Maidenhead Railway Station are being developed
separately and will include enhancements to pedestrian and cycle
facilities, improvements to the public realm to enhance accessibility and
functionality of the station. Maidenhead Railway Station provides direct
link to London and people are increasingly commuting into the ci ty
centre. This is set to increase with introduction of the Elizabeth Line
(Crossrail) improving links to Central London and They City.
2.3.14 The scheme links with the Maidenhead Waterways project which is
integral to the regeneration of the town centre. Its aim is to restore and
enlarge the waterways that run through the town centre; providing
continuous navigation for small boats and enhancing the Chapel Arches
20
development. Towpaths will provide improved access to the town centre
for pedestrians and cyclists linking with the wider network.
2.4 Drivers for Change
2.4.1 The Royal Borough is in the process of updating its Borough Local Plan
(BLP). The submission version makes provision for at least 14,420 new
dwellings over the plan period to 2033. Around 2,300 dwellings are
proposed for Maidenhead Town Centre of which 1,480 of these dwellings
are on or in close proximity to the proposed route. In addition, 2,000
residential units are planned for Maidenhead Golf Course, which is
located just to the south-west of the town centre.
2.4.2 These developments will generate a significant increase in the number of
motor vehicles as well as pedestrian and cycle movements.
Improvements in connectivity for cyclists and pedestrians from residential
areas to the town centre will encourage a modal shift for shorter journeys
from motor vehicles to walking and cycling, reducing congestion on
main routes, improving air quality and providing health benefits.
2.5 Existing Cycle Use
2.5.1 According to the 2011 Census, over half (55.2%) of Borough residents
have a commuting distance of less than 10km, while over a third (36.1%)
commute less than 5km (3 miles). Many of these journeys could readily be
made by bike. However, the 2011 Census shows that cycling accounts for
less than 3% of all journeys to work by Royal Borough residents (excluding
those who work mainly at / from home), while walking accounts for less
than 10% of commuting journeys. This suggests that there is significant
potential to achieve a modal shift from car to walking and cycling for
local commuting journeys. RBWM cycling monitoring reports indicate that
cycling levels in Maidenhead have peaked and in many areas, are
declining. Significant investment in cycling infrastructure is needed to
help reverse this trend.
2.5.2 Cycling data which has included an assessment of gender indicates that
female cyclists represent a sixth of the total number of cyclists, which is
lower than the UK national average of 29%. Research published by TfL
indicates that across a sample population, female cyclists are less
inclined than men to cycle on heavily trafficked routes or where there is
limited separation. The provision of more traffic free routes, or routes with
full or partial separation from motor vehicles should encourage greater
use by female cyclists.
21
2.6 Existing Collisions and Road Safety
2.6.1 There have been two reported collisions involving cyclists on the sections
directly along the route identified in the five years between 01/06/2013 –
31/05/2018.
2.6.2 Both occurred at the King Street/Nicholsons Lane junction (section L) and
involved slight injuries as a result of cars hitting cycles travelling in the
opposite direction. The first collision occurred at 16:55 on 9/8/2014 and
the second at 17:30 on 19/4/2018. Both were in dry conditions and in
daylight. Improvements to road safety could be achieved by provision of
a raised table and clear definition of priorities at this location. This could
result in the saving of a single collision at this location which would
equate to a saving of 0.2 collision per annum.
2.6.3 A review of collisions on the wider network has been undertaken to
identify where collisions on parallel busy main roads may be reduced by
cyclists switching to the proposed cycle route, which is largely traffic-
free.
2.6.4 This review identified 17 collisions involving cyclists of which 3 resulted in a
serious injury and 14 in slight injuries as detailed in Table 2a.
2.6.5 Map 2b details the location and severity of the collisions.
2.6.6 It is evident that there are no significant issues with collisions occurring in
hours of darkness or in wet conditions. However, it is notable that the
majority occurred in either the am or pm peak periods, coinciding with
commuter travel.
2.6.7 A proportion of the collisions occurred on the roundabouts on the A4.
These included:
Four (23.5%)at the junction with the A308;
Five (29.4%) at the junction with the B4447 Cookham Road; and
Three (17.6%) at the junction with the Forlease Road.
2.6.8 The proposed route enables cyclists to avoid the main routes and
therefore will result in a significant improvement in road safety.
2.6.9 It is feasible that some cyclists travelling on carriageway and negotiating
the A308 and B4447 roundabouts would be diverted onto the off-
carriageway route. It is noted that some cyclists will not be travelling to
and from the town centre, therefore for the purpose of this assessment it
is estimated that three of the collisions on the B4447 roundabout could
22
have been saved and two on the A308 roundabout. This amounts to a
saving of one collision per year.
2.6.10 Combined with the estimate saving on King Street this amounts to 1.2
collisions per year. An overall saving of 31.6%.
2.6.11 Information about any collisions off the adopted highway which would
include Kidwells Park and along by the Waterway is not available,
Table 2a: Cycle collisions on the wider network
Date Time Sev Light Cond Location Description
Jun-13 719 SL DAY DRY A4 Bath Road rbt/B4447
Cookham Road
Turning right on rbt
and struck by car
Nov-13 825 SL DAY DRY A4 Castle Hill Rbt/A308 Marlow
Road
Struck by car entering
rbt
Dec-13 1726 SL DK WET A4 St Clouds Way/B4447
Cookham Road
Collision on rbt
Jan-14 1637 SE DK WET A4 St Cloud Jnc Forlease Rd Car pulling out and
striking cyclist
May-
14
1820 SL DAY DRY A4 Bridge Road Rbt jnc road to
police station
Struck by car entering
rbt
Jul-14 1550 SL DAY DRY A4 Bad Godesberg Way Rbt jnc
Cookham Road
Rear End Shunt
Aug-14 1745 SL DAY DRY A308 Frascati Way Rbt Jnc Bath
Road
Rear End Shunt
Oct-14 800 SE DAY DRY A4 St Clouds Way/B4447
Cookham Road
Struck on Roundabout
Mar-15 730 SL DAY DRY High Street jnc St Ives Road PC turning right struck
by C1 turning left
Sep-15 1706 SE DAY DRY B4447 Cookham Road jnc Ray
Mill Road West
Rear End Shunt
Dec-15 730 SL DAY DRY A4 Bridge Rd RBT/Forlease Road Struck by car entering
rbt
Mar-16 1441 SL DAY DRY Moorbridge Road/90m E of
Forlease Road
PC struck by left
turning C1
Aug-16 1330 SL DAY WET A4 Castle Hill Rbt/Frascati Way Struck by car entering
rbt
Aug-16 935 SL DAY DRY A4 Bridge Road jnc Waldeck
Road
PC struck by right
turning C1
Nov-16 717 S: DAY DRY A4 St Clouds Way/B4447
Cookham Road
Struck on Roundabout
Sep-17 1745 SL DAY DRY A4 Bad Godesberg Way Rbt jnc
A308 Frascati Way
MC turned right across
PC
Dec-17 1755 SL DAY DRY High Street Struck pedestrian
23
Map 2b: Location of collisions involving cyclists
24
2.7 Route Description and Key Issues
2.7.1 Table 2b summarises the existing situation along the proposed route.
Table 2b: Existing Situation
Location Existing Situation
A: Ray Mill Road West to
Holmanleaze Bridge
• Links with National Cycle Network (NCN
50 on Ray Mill Road (W).
• Existing 2.0m wide timber footbridge.
• Existing footway/cycleway 1.5-2m
crushed aggregate (no lighting).
• Bounded by trees and properties for
200m.
• Strand Water running along western
side.
B: Holmanleaze Bridge to A4
Bridge Road
• Existing footways/cycleways 1.5-2m
crushed aggregate (no lighting).
C: Holmanleaze Bridge to
Blackamoor Lane
• Two existing footway/cycleway 1.5-2m
crushed aggregate (no lighting).
D: Holmanlaze bridge to Cherwell
Close
• 2.0 wide footbridge crossing Strand
Water, made up of steel and concrete
construction (no lighting).
E: Holmanleaze/ Cherwell
Close/Kennet Road Junction
• Two 2.0m wide Non-Motorised User
facility linking into Cherwell Close
junction.
• Poor junction arrangement for users.
• The route bears left along Holmanleaze,
subject to on street parking restrictions.
• Current traffic flows are low.
F: Saint Clouds Way Development • Car park cut-through from Holmanleaze
to B4447 Cookham Road.
• No footway currently for majority of this
link.
25
G: Cookham Road Toucan
Crossing
• 2.5m footway on eastern and western
side of Cookham Road.
• Motor vehicle traffic regulation order
preventing right turn out of Section F –
enforced by vehicle restraint system.
• Existing pelican crossing, north of desire
line into Kidwells Park.
H2 Kidwells Park • 2-3m wide footway tarmac construction
(illuminated)
K: West Street/High St link • Off-carriageway link from West Street to
High Street / King Street for pedestrians.
• Existing dropped kerb.
• Paved area currently 3.5 – 4.0m in width.
L: King Street (High Street to
Broadway)
• Wide pedestrian zone (cycling not
permitted) north Nicholson Street.
• Narrow carriageway with existing
footways on either side (2.5m wide)
south of its junction with Nicholson
Street.
• Cul-de-sac on southern side of Section L
leading to Broadway.
• Existing toucan crossing with raised
table crossing Broadway to Section M.
M: King Street (Broadway to Keys
Place)
• Wide pedestrian zone where cycling is
permitted with no formal cycle facilities.
• Wide eastern footway (approximately
4.0m wide) adjacent to Keys Place to
junction with Queen Street.
2.7.2 There is a need to provide and improve access and movement for
cyclists between new and proposed developments; and across the A4
linking the town centre and railway station with the wider network and
residential areas. Key constraints include:
The current network does not provide off-carriageway access
across the A4 or B4447, requiring cyclists to remain on
26
carriageway in high volumes of traffic; or use pedestrian facilities
that are not suitable for shared used, either at the subway where
the ceiling height is too low; or along the Green Way where path
widths are too narrow;
There are high numbers of cycling collisions particularly at the
junction of the B4447/A4;
Bridges across Strand Water are too narrow for shared use
resulting in conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists;
The approaches to bridges over Strand Water are at sharp angles
making manoeuvring and visibility of oncoming cyclists difficult
leading to loss of control and conflicts between pedestrians and
cyclists;
There are no cycling facilities within the town centre resulting in
conflicts with motor vehicles; other cyclists and pedestrians;
There are poor links between existing and proposed residential
developments and the town centre.
2.8 Impact of No Change:
2.8.1 There is considerable residential and commercial development planned
in the area, which will result in additional travel demand for journeys to
and from the town centre. Without provision for alternative modes of
transport and cycling there will be increased pressure on the network in
terms of use of motor vehicles. This will result in increased congestion
throughout the town centre and reduced air quality, which in turn could
discourage further businesses from basing themselves in Maidenhead.
This would impact negatively on economic development and
regeneration in the town centre. Table 2c illustrates the strategic policy
impact of not bringing forward the Maidenhead Missing Link proposals.
27
Table 2c: Do nothing scenario
Impact Type Description
Economic impacts
⚫ Regeneration and development activity in and
around the town centre could be constrained or
deferred due to poor access.
⚫ Businesses may be put off locating to Maidenhead
town centre due to high levels of congestion
resulting in high journey times.
⚫ People may be discouraged from moving to the
area due to high levels of congestion and poor
connectivity to and from the town centre.
⚫ Businesses in the town centre may struggle if
shoppers, employees etc are unable to access the
town centre easily.
Environmental
impacts
⚫ Additional congestion particularly at peak hours
would have a negative impact on air quality.
Social impacts
⚫ Inadequate crossing facilities would discourage
people from walking and cycling to and from the
town centre, having a negative impact on health
and wellbeing.
⚫ Inadequate cycle facilities both dedicated and
shared would discourage people from walking and
cycling to and from the town centre, having a
negative impact on health and wellbeing.
⚫ People on low incomes would be disproportionately
affected, since they are less likely to be able to
afford to travel by car.
2.9 Measures for Success
2.9.1 Successful delivery against the scheme objectives will be monitored as
part of the post construction scheme evaluation, details of which are
discussed in Section 7 (The Management Case) of this report.
2.9.2 Measures include:
An increase in walking and cycling for all journey purposes to and
from the town centre and railway station;
An increase in female cyclists;
28
A reduction in local journeys by motor vehicle;
A reduction in congestion and queue lengths resulting in
improved journey times;
Reduction in collisions involving cyclists;
An improvement in air quality; and
Improved residents’ cycling satisfaction surveys.
2.9.3 Cycling levels are monitored on an annual basis around Maidenhead,
with male and female cyclists recorded separately. Comparison with
base year flows will show whether cycling number have increased as a
whole across Maidenhead post construction. It will also determine if there
has been a shift in the gender inequality currently observed.
2.9.4 An additional programme of monitoring will also be put in place prior to
construction, then again at one and five-year post construction at key
points around and along the proposed route to determine ‘before and
after’ cycling numbers and determine if there has been a shift in cycle
journeys.
2.10 Constraints
2.10.1 Potential constraints exist for the scheme and these have been
considered with the risk assessment in Appendix B, which also discusses
proposed mitigating measures.
2.10.2 The main constraints consist of:
Objections from stakeholders over installation of a signalised
crossing on the A4 resulting in increased congestion. An initial
modelling exercise has been undertaken which determines that
queue lengths on the A4 will be within acceptable levels,
however, further modelling will be required to determine the
impact on the wider network.
Traffic Management associated with the construction of Option 3
(cycle subway) resulting in severe traffic delays as there are
limited diversion routes.
2.10.3 A Construction Management Plan will be produced to mitigate for the
potential disruption and ensure critical path elements are fully
understood and managed.
29
2.11 Inter-dependencies
2.11.1 A comprehensive list of risks has been prepared and is presented in
Appendix B.
2.11.2 The delivery of the scheme to the stated programme is dependent on
these risks either not arising or being sufficiently mitigated so that scheme
delivery remains unaffected.
2.11.3 A total of 26 risks have been identified. There are certain risks for which
the likelihood of occurrence, or their impact so low that the scheme
cannot be defined as dependent upon their negation.
2.11.4 For the purposes of this section of the Business Case, therefore it is
sufficient to summarise key areas of risk / dependency. The key inter -
dependencies can be summarised as:
Strategic risk of development sites not comping forward as
planned, affecting the B4447 crossing and West Street sections;
Confirmation of the procurement strategy and confirmation of
construction tender prices based on this;
The costs of utilities diversion and the impact of C4 works on the
delivery programme; and
The buildability of the A4 subway and the potential impact on
traffic movements during construction.
2.12 Stakeholders
2.12.1 The stakeholders to be consulted as part of the scheme development are
summarised below:
TVB LEP;
National and Local cycling groups;
RBWM Parks and Countryside Team;
RBWM Parking Team;
RBWM Planning Team;
Local councillors and ward members;
Residents, Commuters and Businesses along the entirety of the
proposed route;
The St Cloud Way and West Street development teams; and
Other user groups e.g. walking and disability groups.
30
2.13 Options Appraisal
2.13.1 An Options Appraisal Report (OAR) has been undertaken and is attached
in Appendix A. It outlines how the options for each section of the Missing
Links scheme were identified and assessed and how the preferred
scheme was selected.
2.13.2 The starting point was to identify where there was a lack of connectivity.
The OAR identified that whilst other areas of the network had existing
cycling facilities, there was a clear gap in connective routes from the
North Town and Riverside areas of the town. In addition, it was clear that
the links across the A4 to the town centre and southern sections of the
town were missing, resulting in cyclists having to travel on carriageway in
high volumes of traffic.
2.13.3 RBWM regularly review cycling trips across the borough by means of
annual snapshot surveys at access points across Windsor and
Maidenhead town centres. The draft Cycling Action Plan (CAP) identifies
that over the last 10 years between 2007 and 2017 that there has been
little or no growth in cycling trips across Maidenhead and since 2015
there has been a notable decline.
2.13.4 This suggests that cycling levels in Maidenhead are being suppressed
and that there is potential to significantly increase cycling activity. This
can be achieved by improving existing facilities to better cater for
shared use, and providing links between existing facilities, existing
residential areas and local centres, proposed developments (including St
Cloud Way and West Street) and the town centre. It was considered
particularly important to provide safer routes avoiding main roads such
as the B4447 and A4 to link with the town centre.
2.13.5 The key decision for route alignment was to determine where to cross the
A4. The four locations considered were:
Option 1 – Upgrade the existing subway west of Forlease Road
which provides a link for existing users across the A4 to the town
centre. It is also links users from the southern side of the A4 to the
NCN 50 in the north and links with the York Road development.
Option 2 – Converting existing footbridge from the Magnet Leisure
Centre to a shared facility linking new users from the St Cloud
Way development and connecting them with the town centre, as
with the above it provides a l ink to the NCN 50 north of the A4
and links with the York Road development;
31
Option 3 – Toucan crossing opposite the Premier Inn Hotel
provides a link to the town centre for existing and new users of
the St Cloud Way development as well as being in close proximity
to the West Street development providing a link to the north of
the A4; and
Option 4 – New dedicated cycle subway east of the A308
roundabout a link to the town centre for existing and new users of
the St Clouds Development as well as linking directly with the
West Street development.
2.13.6 Table 2d (taken from the OAR) identifies how this decision was made.
2.13.7 The OAR concluded that the ‘Missing Link’ would provide a connection
from the NCN 50 to the St. Clouds Way development, though Kidwells
Park linking with a proposed cycle route across the A308 to the west and
a crossing the A4 into the town centre via either Option 3 (Toucan
crossing) or Option 4 (dedicated subway). There are local concerns
about the introduction of traffic signals on the A4 having a negative
impact on traffic resulting in increased congestion and longer traffic
queue. Therefore, an option which does not impact on traffic flows is
preferred.
Table 2d: Options for A4 Crossing
Location Considerations
Option 1
Existing
Subway
Crossing the A4 just west of
Forlease Road using existing
subway
• Restricted widths / heights
• Links to the Sainsbury’s piazza which
is private land that is currently
covered by a walkway agreement
that expressly bans cycling
• Currently cyclists have been
observed using the existing subway
which is prohibited
Option 2 –
Existing
Footbridge
upgrade
Converting an existing
footbridge to a shared
cycle facility from the
Magnet Leisure Centre
across the A4.
• Land ownership and forecourt issues
• Connecting to Sainsbury’s car park –
may be a requirement to reach
agreements with third party
32
• Not utilising whole development by
Saint-Cloud Way i.e. going against
the purpose of this scheme
• Length of ramps require large
amount of land use and negatively
impacting the development
• Increased construction costs
• Currently it is not possible to cross
the A4 at the location on a bicycle
at this location
Option 3
Toucan
Crossing
At-grade staggered Toucan
crossing west of A4/B4447
roundabout
• Potential negative impact on traffic
flows
• Use of private road adjacent to
Premier Inn
• Pinch point for cyclists on footway
outside Premier Inn, potential need
for land acquisition
• Politically less favourable
• Cyclists currently use the
carriageway resulting in cyclists
negotiating high levels of traffic and
poor safety record on roundabout.
Toucan crossing provides off road
alternative
33
Option 4
New
dedicated
cycle
subway
Adjacent to existing cycle
way east of the A308
roundabout linking with
West Street development.
• High cost presenting reduced
economic benefits
• Buildability – increased congestion
• No impact on traffic congestion on
completion of scheme
• Existing desire line exists
• Provides a connection through the
park and links with a proposed route
across the A308
• Currently cyclists have been
observed using the existing subway
which is prohibited
2.14 Scope
2.14.1 To develop the route, a site visit was undertaken by RBWM officers and
engineers from Project Centre. The OAR reviewed the condition of the
proposed route and identified options for improvement which are
summarised below. Map 2 above details the final proposed route
identified.
I. Construction of a second underpass leading into the West Street
development site dedicated for cyclists, north east of the existing
pedestrian underpass;
II. Replace wooden pedestrian bridge with wider bridge suitable for
semi- segregated use at Ray Mill Road W to improve connectivity for
cyclists. Due to a lack of cost benefit this is not being taken forward
at this time; although improved signage will be provided;
III. Replace metal/concrete bridge at Holmanleaze with wider bridge
suitable for semi-segregated use at Holmanleaze to improve
connectivity for cyclists;
IV. Widen existing footways to accommodate semi-segregated cycle
facilities and increase width of existing facilities that fall below
standard;
V. Replace pedestrian crossing on B4447 with a Toucan crossing,
relocating to follow the desire line to and from the St Clouds
Development and Kidwells Park; and
34
VI. Replace pedestrianised area on King Street between West Street
and Nicholson Road with a shared facility, incorporating a semi
segregated route for cyclists; and
VII. Provide segregated routes in shared areas along King Street.
2.14.2 Plan numbers 1000005025-SK02 - 01 to 06, 1000005025-SK08 - 01 to 03 and
Structures Sketches attached in Appendix C detail the proposed route
and measures identified. This includes details of both the toucan option
for information and the preferred subway option, plus bridge and subway
alignments.
2.15 Design Criteria
2.15.1 The scheme is being designed to meet the needs of all cyclists based on
the design criteria below. The following documents are being used
through the design process to ensure that good design practice is
followed:
Traffic Regulations and General Direction 2016
London Cycling Design Standards. Transport for London 2014
(whilst the scheme is outside London the LCDS is referenced as
good practice);
London Transport Note (LTN) 1-12 Shared use routes for
pedestrians and cyclists DfT 2012;
LTN 2-08 Cycle Infrastructure Design DfT 2008;
Cycle Network Signing Technical Information Note no. 5 Sustrans
2013;
Segregation of Shared use routes – technical Information note No.
19 Sustrans 2014; and
Guidance on the use of tactile paving surfaces. Department for
Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1998.
35
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
3. THE ECONOMIC CASE
3.1 Background
3.1.1 On behalf of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, Project
Centre have identified a scheme to complete the ‘missing links’ between
planned major development areas in and around Maidenhead, and
improve their connectivity to the town centre, rail station, surrounding
residential areas, local schools and other facilities. The Thames Valley
Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) has provisionally allocated
£3m for the scheme, subject to the production of a satisfactory business
case. This note presents the approach and results of an economic
appraisal of the ‘missing links’ scheme.
3.2 Scheme Overview
3.2.1 The Maidenhead ‘missing links’ scheme is comprised of a number of
components and these have been grouped into three distinct sections:
Section 1: Off-road route east of The Strand;
Section 2: Holmanleaze Bridge to the A4; and
Section 3: The A4 to Maidenhead Station.
3.2.2 Table 3.1 describes each component, whilst they are shown in Figure
3.1. The map shows the proposed cycle route between the off -road
routes east of The Strand via Kidwells Park and a new subway under
the A4 and onwards towards Maidenhead Rail Station.
3.2.3 Component F is a proposed pedestrian and cycle boulevard through
Saint Clouds Way and would be provided as part of the development
so is considered out of scope for the economic appraisal.
36
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
Figure 3.1: Maidenhead Missing Links Scheme
37
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
Table 3.1: Maidenhead Missing Links Scheme Description Overview
Section Component Location Description
1 A1 Ray Mill Road
West
Consideration given to replace existing footbridge with a
new 4m wide structure to allow shared use, however
costs benefits were in sufficient therefore it is not to be
progressed at this time
A2 Ray Mill Road
West to
Holmanleaze
Bridge
Consideration was given to widening p ath widened to 4m,
and providing lighting. However, du to current and
expected usage costs benefits were not considered
sufficient for it to be progressed at this time.
B Holmanleaze
Bridge to A4
Bridge Road
Path to be widened to 3m for shared use and provide
signage
C Holmanleaze
Bridge to
Blackamoor
Lane
Path to be widened to 3m for shared use and provide
signage
2 D Holmanleaze
Bridge
Replace existing structure over Strand Water with a new
4m wide bridge to accommodate shared use, provide
lighting and signage
E Cherwell Close /
Kennet Road
Junction
Footway widening, segregated path to new bridge, raised
junction treatment, provide signage
F Saint Clouds
Way
Development
New pedestrian and cycle link through development site
[N.B. to be funded by development]
G Cookham Road
Pedestrian
Crossing
Upgrade existing pedestrian crossing to toucan crossing,
provide signage
H Kidwells Park
and Subway
under A4
New path through Kidwell Park linking to a new shared
use subway under A4 – Cycling is not currently permitted
within the park or existing pedestrian subway
3 K West Street Provide clear link from West Street on to the shared
facility / pedestrian zone, provide signage
L1 King Street (High
Street to
Nicholsons Lane)
Shared use arrangement with review of pedestrian zone,
either by line marking or change of paving materials to
highlight cycle track
L2 King Street
(Nicholsons Lane
to Broadway)
Shared use arrangement with review of pedestrian zone,
either by line marking or change of paving materials to
highlight cycle track
M King Street
(Broadway to
Queen Street)
Remove / relocate existing planters and provide a link
through to Maidenhead station
38
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
3.3 Report Structure
3.3.1 Following this introduction, the report is structured as follows:
An overview of the appraisal methodology;
The approach to estimating the existing and future demand;
The benefits;
Treatment of costs; and
The results of the economic appraisal.
3.4 Appraisal Methodology
3.4.1 Figure 3.1 summarises the appraisal methodology. Further detail on each
aspect of the appraisal has been described in the appropriate sections
of this report.
Figure 3.1: Methodology Overview
3.4.2 The key appraisal assumptions were:
An anticipated appraisal period of 30 years which was
determined following a thorough review of the scheme details;
Scheme construction assumed to be 2019 and 2020;
39
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
Scheme opening in 2021;
Tax correction factor of 1.19 has been applied, as appropriate to
any cost and revenue impacts;
WebTAG discount rate of 3.5% has been applied for the appraisal
period for first 30 years from the appraisal year (2010) and then
3.0% applied; and
In line with WebTAG, the scheme costs and benefits have been
presented in 2010 prices and values.
3.5 Demand
3.5.1 In order to determine the benefits of the scheme, it was first necessary to
understand the level of existing and anticipated future cycling and
walking demand.
3.6 Existing Demand
3.6.1 A partial cordon of count sites for Maidenhead Town Centre was
available and provides data collected for one weekday (07:00-19:00) in
September 2017. Two additional counts were undertaken in September
2018 to supplement the available cordon data for the route. Figure 3.2
shows the location of these sites, whilst Table 3.2 provides a summary of
the two-way daily counts.
40
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
Figure 3.2 Count Sites (Pedestrian and Cycle Counts)
Town Centre partial
cordon
41
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
Table 3.2 Count Sites –Two Way Daily Counts (07:00-19:00)
N.B. Sites 1-13 from 2017, whilst Sites 14 and 15 are from 2018.
3.6.2 The demand for each component has been determined using the count
site data. Table 3.3 shows how the count site data has been mapped to
each component. This highlights the higher cycling demand towards
Maidenhead rail station with the demand at the components furthest
from the station notably lower.
3.6.3 2011 Census data regarding the usual mode to work has also been
analysed for a defined area, based on Lower-layer Super Output Areas
(LSOAs) (Figure 3.3). Owing to the size of the scheme, Census data was
utilised to indicate an overall estimate of pedestrian and cycle demand.
Table 3.4 provides an overview of the journey to work data for the
selected LSOAs and highlights 2.7% cycled to work and 16.3% walked to
work.
Site Location Day Pedestrians Cyclists
1 Albert Street (steps to Frascati Way) Wednesday 306 3
2 Bad Gosesberg Way Wednesday 2,973 56
3 Bridge Street (west of Forlease Road) Tuesday 3,824 134
4 The Broadway (east of Frascati Way) Thursday 387 32
5 Greenway (St Cloud ’s subway) Tuesday 273 20
6 Greenway (York Road) Tuesday 391 22
7 High Town Road Wednesday 2,825 165
8 King Street / Queen Street Tuesday 8,903 420
9 Market Street (outside Sygnus Court) Wednesday 2,393 121
10 Nicholsons Lane (east of Frascati Way) Wednesday 264 4
11 Sainsburys Bridge Wednesday 386 4
12 Sainsburys Underpass Tuesday 5,093 150
13 York Road Tuesday 754 94
14
a. Cherwell Close Bridge – Ray Mill
Road
Tuesday
261 52
b. Cherwell Close Bridge – Blackamoor
Lane 336 30
c. Cherwell Close Bridge – Salters Close 430 86
d. Cherwell Close Bridge 705 94
15 Pelican Crossing Cookham Road Tuesday 1,409 76
42
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
Table 3.3: Scheme Components and Count Sites
Ref Scheme Location Count Site Two-way Daily, Neutral Weekday
Pedestrians Cyclists
A1 Ray Mill Road West
14a 261 52 A2
Ray Mill Road West to
Holmanleaze Bridge
B Holmanleaze Bridge to A4
Bridge Road 14c 430 86
C Holmanleaze Bridge to
Blackamoor Lane 14b 336 30
D Holmanleaze Bridge 14 705 94
E Holmanleaze / Cherwell Close /
Kennet Road Junction 14 705 94
F Saint Clouds Way Development 14 705 94
G Cookham Road Pedestrian
Crossing 15 1,409 76
H Kidwells Park
Average of 2 and 15
Cyclists also include
two-thirds of those at
5, 11 and 12
2,191 181
I Kidwells Park Drive Pedestrians: 2
Cyclists: as per H 2,973 181
J West Street / Kidwells Park
Drive
Average of
Component I and L 2,899 173
K West Street
Maximum of 1, 7 and
10
2,825 165
L1 King Street (High Street to
Nicholsons Lane) 2,825 165
L2 King Street (Nicholsons Lane to
Broadway) 2,825 165
M King Street (Broadway to
Queen Street) 8 8,903 420
43
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
Figure 3.3: Scheme LSOAs
Table 3.4: Journey to Work data
Source: 2011 Census
Usual Mode to Work Count (n) Percent (%)
Underground, metro, light rail, tram 78 0.9
Train 1,077 12.0
Bus, minibus, coach 168 1.9
Taxi 66 0.7
Motorcycle, scooter, moped 70 0.8
Driving a car / van 5,419 60.4
Passenger in a car / van 318 3.5
Bicycle 246 2.7
On foot 1,459 16.3
Other 68 0.8
Sub-total 8,969 100.0
Work mainly at or from home 663
Not in employment 3,919
Total 13,551
44
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
3.6.4 A number of developments are proposed within the vicinity of the
corridor and this is expected to increase travel demand for all modes, as
these developments are located within close proximity to the corridors.
These developments will provide new homes and additional space for
employment opportunities. Owing to the uncertainty around the
potential travel demand impact of employment space, the demand has
considered the impact of new homes. Table 3.5 summarises the new
developments and the impact on cycling demand on the specified
section of the corridor.
3.6.5 The 2011 Census has been used to inform assumptions regarding the
number of people per home (2.48) and proportion of new residents that
will be commuting (37.1%). The proportion of commuters cycling was
assumed to be 10% owing to the limited car parking provision and
availability of cycle parking at each development site. The number of
cyclists using the ‘missing links’ route for each development was profiled
for each component of the route. The proportion of new residents that
will walk for their commute was assumed to be 16.3%, as per the 2011
Census (Table 3.4).
Table 3.5: Developments in Vicinity of Route
The Landing York Road West Street Saint Clouds
Way Reform Road
Completion Date 2022 2024 2024 2025 2025
New Homes 480 229 150 600 310
Population 1,190 568 372 1,488 769
Commuters 441 210 138 551 285
% using Missing
Links route 20% 20% 100% 100% 10%
Commuters
Cycling 44 21 14 55 28
Commuters
Cycling Missing
Links Route
9 4 14 55 3
Commuters
Walking 72 34 33 90 46
Commuters
Walking Missing
Links Route
14 7 22 90 5
45
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
3.6.6 Section 3 of the ‘missing links’ route provides a connection to
Maidenhead Rail Station. Growth in rail patronage at the station is
therefore expected to increase cycling and pedestrian demand along
the route. Table 3.6 summarises the station data and assumptions
provided by Project Centre to inform the appraisal. Project Centre
advised that 80% of those visiting the station use the forecourt entrance
and 20% use the southern entrance. Therefore, the following proportions
were assumed for the three sections of the ‘missing links’ route:
Section 1: 2%;
Section 2: 10%; and
Section 3: 40%.
Table 3.5: Maidenhead Rail Station Patronage Growth
2016 2020 Forecast
Annual Demand 4,480,424 5,536,000
Walk Mode Share (%) 36.5% 37%
Walk Mode Share (annual) 1,635,354 2,048,320
Walk Mode Share (daily) 5,242 6,565
Cycle Mode Share (%) 4% 4%
Cycle Mode Share (annual) 179,216 221,440
Cycle Mode Share (daily) 574 710
3.7 Underlying Demand
3.7.1 Regardless of the investment, there is an underlying level of cycling and
walking growth which has been included within the appraisal. DfTs TEMPro
(NTEM v7.2) has been used to understand the local annual growth
forecasts for walking and cycling in the local authority of Windsor and
Maidenhead. This identified annual growth of just 0.17% in cycling and
0.33% in walking.
3.8 New Demand
3.8.1 Some of the components of the scheme are anticipated to generate
new cycling demand. WebTAG Unit A5.1 (May 2018) presents three
methodologies for forecasting cycling demand:
Approach One: Comparative Study – based on evidence from
similar cycling studies to determine potential cycle mode share
following an intervention;
46
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
Approach Two: Estimating from Disaggregate Mode Choice Model
– following a model approach, based on utility of changes to
cycle facilities, specified in WebTAG Unit A5.1; and
Approach Three: Sketch Plan Methods – changes as evidenced or
forecast within nationally available datasets.
3.8.2 Approach Two was considered to be the most appropriate for the
Maidenhead Missing Links scheme. Table 3.4 highlighted the existing
mode share is 2.7%, as Approach One typically assumes an increase in
cycle mode share to 2.4%, which was identified in the Cycling
Demonstration Towns programme, this is not suitable for this scheme.
Approach Three relies on evidence within nationally available datasets
and the nature of this scheme is bespoke to Maidenhead so the use of
Approach Two, which tailors the forecast to the specific scheme, was
considered more appropriate.
3.8.3 To determine the future demand, the existing demand for each section
has been determined and the change in utility for that section applied.
The existing demand for each section was calculated as follows:
Section 1: Sum of the demand for Components A, B and C (N.B.
A1 and A2 were treated as one demand);
Section 2: Maximum of Components D to I; and
Section 3: Average of Components J to M.
3.8.4 The assumptions regarding the change in utility for each section are
shown in Table 3.6. The utility values within WebTAG Unit A5.1 (Active
Mode Appraisal) were then applied accordingly.
47
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
Table 3.6: Scheme Breakdown
Component
Existing With Scheme
Type Length
(m)
Time
(secs)
Type Length
(m)
Time
(secs)
B; Holmanleaze
Bridge to A4
Bridge Road
Off-road
segregated cycle
track
430 96.2
Off-road
segregated cycle
track
430 76.92
C: Holmanleaze
Bridge to
Blackamoor Lane
Off-road
segregated cycle
track
280 62.64
Off-road
segregated cycle
track
280 50.09
D: Holmanleaze
Bridge
Off-road
segregated cycle
track
80 59.7
Off-road
segregated cycle
track
80 14.31
E: Holmanleaze /
Cherwell Close /
Kennet Road
Junction
No facilities 75 16.78
On-road
segregated cycle
lane (two-thirds),
off-road
segregated cycle
track (one-third)
75 13.42
F: Saint Clouds
Way Development
G: Cookham
Road Pedestrian
Crossing
On-road non-
segregated cycle
lane
15 0
On-road non-
segregated cycle
lane
15 0
H: Kidwells Park
(subway)
No facilities
900 671.64
Off-road
segregated cycle
track
900 161
K: West Street No facilities 60 13.42
Off-road
segregated cycle
track
60 10.73
L1: King Street
(High Street to
Nicholsons Lane)
Off-road
segregated cycle
track
60 13.42
Off-road
segregated cycle
track
60 10.73
L2: King Street
(Nicholsons Lane
to Broadway)
No facilities 140 31.32
Off-road
segregated cycle
track
140 25.04
M: King Street
(Broadway to
Queen Street)
Off-road
segregated cycle
track
130 29.08
Off-road
segregated cycle
track
130 23.26
48
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
3.8.5 It has been assumed that 75% of the demand is for commuting purposes,
whilst 25% of the demand is for other purposes. This proportional split has
been determined based on the route being towards Maidenhead Town
Centre and rail station, and therefore a likely commuter route.
3.8.6 It has been assumed that a number of the new cycle journeys are
currently being undertaken by car / taxi and that the presence of the
new infrastructure will result in a transfer of these trips to cycling. The
cycling diversion factors by source mode within WebTAG databook
(A5.4.7) have been utilised.
3.8.7 The appraisal has assumed that the scheme changes do not induce
additional pedestrian demand as there are existing routes available
(albeit of a lower standard); therefore, this is a conservative estimate and
considered proportional to the scale of the new / upgraded
infrastructure.
3.8.8 Table 3.7 provides a summary of the demand, by section and highlights
the change in demand for scheme. The table shows the considerably
greater new user demand for Section 2 and this is driven by the
substantial improvement in amenity (no facilities to off-road) and journey
time saving for Component H.
3.8.9 The inclusion of the new user demand, discussed above, will increase the
overall mode share for cycling from the existing 2.7%. For the corridor as
a whole a 32% increase in cycling journeys is predicted, though this is
mainly concentrated on Section 2 of the corridor (subway) which saw a
90% increase in cycling. This compares well to the growth in cycling
achieved other studies, such as Cycling Demonstration Towns1, where for
automatic count data, there was an overall 29% increase in the six
Cycling Demonstration Towns (CDT) in five and a half years, ranging from
6% to 59%; and an overall increase of 24% in the 12 Cycling City and
Towns (CCT) over three years, ranging from 9% to 62% across towns.
1 Evaluation of the Cycling City and Towns and Cycling Demonstration Towns Programmes (www.sustrans.org)
49
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
Table 3.7: Demand Summary
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3
Existing Demand
Observed Cycle Count 116 181 229
Observed Pedestrian Count 766 1,253 4,345
Rail Station – Cyclists (Forecast Growth
Scheme Open) 1 7 27
Rail Station – Pedestrians (Forecast Growth
Scheme Open) 13 66 265
Development Demand (Forecast) 12 69 55
New User Cycle Demand (Transfer from Car / Taxi)
Observed Count and Station Growth 1 (0.2) 79 (15) 9 (2)
Developments 0.1 (0.0) 20.1 (3.8) 1.5 (0.3)
Change in cycle mode share
Existing Mode Share 2.7% 2.7% 2.7%
Post intervention mode share 2.8% 5.1% 2.9%
Typical neutral weekday, two way, cycling and walking demand
3.9 Benefits
3.9.1 The following walking and cycling benefits have been quantified within
the appraisal:
Journey time savings associated with a more direct route for
cyclists;
Journey quality as a result of the segregation from vehicular
traffic and improved signage for pedestrians and cyclists (as
appropriate);
Accidents as a result of the segregation from vehicular traffic for
cyclists;
Non-user benefits regarding decongestion and environment
(greenhouse gases, noise and air quality) benefits due to the
50
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
reduction in car km following modal shift from car / van to
cycling;
Physical activity associated with the uptake of cycling for new
cyclists; and
Absenteeism benefits owing to greater levels of physical activity.
3.10 Journey Time Savings
3.10.1 Project Centre determined cycle journey time savings for each scheme
component; a copy of the existing and proposed journey time is
provided in Appendix A, whilst Table 3.8 presents the journey time
savings. It is understood that these savings have been determined based
on the following assumptions for cycle speed:
Dismount and walk speed of 3mph;
Unmade cycling speed of 10mph;
Fast cycling speed of 12.5mph; and
Penalties for crossing (30 secs), a major junction (20 secs) and a
minor junction (10secs).
3.10.2 It is assumed that these values have been verified and are suitable for
inclusion within the appraisal.
3.10.3 The journey time savings were profiled over the appraisal period with
the demand and values of time for commuting and other applied
accordingly. Table 3.9 summarises the journey time saving per section
and assumed value. This highlights Section 2 has the greatest journey
time saving owing to Component H (Kidwells Park and A4 Crossing –
toucan or subway).
51
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
Table 3.8: Cycle Journey Time Savings, by Component
Component Location Journey Time Saving
(secs)
B Holmanleaze Bridge to A4 Bridge Road 19.27
C Holmanleaze Bridge to Blackamoor Lane 12.55
D Holmanleaze Bridge 45.39
E Holmanleaze / Cherwell Close / Kennet Road Junction 3.36
F Saint Clouds Way Development 18.6
G Cookham Road Pedestrian Crossing
H Kidwells Park (subway) 510.64
K West Street
11.65 L1 King Street (High Street to Nicholsons Lane)
L2 King Street (Nicholsons Lane to Broadway)
M King Street (Broadway to Queen Street) 5.83
Table 3.9- Monetised Cycle Journey Time Savings, by Section
Route Cyclist Journey Time Saving (£)
Full Route £2,005.42
N.B. Values shown in 2010 prices and values, for the 30 year appraisal period.
3.11 Journey Quality
3.11.1 Journey quality includes several aspects, including the infrastructure and
environmental conditions along the route and the fear of potential
accidents. Journey quality has been determined for cyclists and
pedestrians for each section.
3.12 Cycling
3.12.1 Table 3.10 presents the value of journey ambience benefits of cycle
facilities relative to no facilities according to WebTAG. The scheme types
within Table 3.10 contain broad descriptions of facilities, so rather than
quantifying at a component level, the analysis has been undertaken for
the three sections. Furthermore, the scheme types available within
WebTAG limit the assessment as the missing links scheme improvements
are more subtle than the types identified; therefore, a proportion of the
full value has been utilised to describe the existing provision. Table 3.11
summarises the assumed changes in utility for each section of the
scheme.
52
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
Table 3.10: Value of Journey Ambience Benefit of Cycle Facilities Relative to No
Facilities
Scheme Type Value p/min
Off-road segregated cycle track 7.03
On-road segregated cycle lane 2.99
On-road non-segregated cycle lane 2.97
Wider lane 1.81
Shared bus lane 0.77
Source: WebTAG Databook Table A4.1.6 (May 2018), 2010 prices
Table 3.11: Cycling Journey Ambience
Section Ambience Benefit
(pence per trip) Commentary
1 5.58 Assume 50% of off-road segregated cycle track for time spent
without scheme, and the full benefit for time spent with scheme.
2
21.49
Neutralised change in journey time with scheme to enable
ambience benefit to be captured. Ambience benefit for the off-
road segregated cycle track section.
3
6.96
Assume 50% of off-road segregated cycle track for time spent
without scheme, and the full benefit for time spent with scheme.
3.12.2 Cycle parking has been identified at several locations along the corridor,
with a total of 140 spaces provided. It has been assumed that these
would be 80% occupied with one use per day.
3.12.3 WebTAG refers to ‘secure cycle parking facilities’ so half of this value has
been assumed, as the stands will not be within an enclosed hub.
3.13 Walking
3.13.1 Table 3.12 shows the values for aspects in the pedestrian environment
within WebTAG and an assessment of each component has been made
to determine the presence of each aspect. The key benefits for
pedestrians will be pavement evenness, street lighting, directional
signage and kerb evenness. Table 3.13 highlights the anticipated
ambience benefit within each section and provides commentary about
the aspects of the pedestrian environment included for each section
53
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
Table 3.12: Value of Aspects in Pedestrian Environment
Scheme Type Value p/km
Street lighting 3.7
Kerb level 2.6
Crowding 1.9
Pavement evenness 0.9
Information panels 0.9
Benches 0.5
Directional signage 0.5
Source: WebTAG Databook Table A4.1.6 (May 2018), 2010 prices
Table 3.13: Walking Journey Ambience
Section Ambience Benefit
(pence per trip) Commentary
1 3.27 This includes street lighting and pavement evenness
improvements for pedestrians.
2 0.76 This includes small sections with street lighting, kerb level,
pavement evenness and directional signage.
3 2.17 This includes sections with kerb level, crowding, pavement
evenness and directional signage.
3.14 Accidents
3.14.1 Improving cycle provision is likely to result in a reduction in the number
of cycling related accidents; the appraisal will consider the change in
accidents along the corridor. Accident data for a five year period
(2013- 2018) has been analysed to understand the extent and severity
of existing pedestrian and cyclist casualties along the route and
parallel routes. Figure 3.4 shows the location of pedestrian and cyclist
accidents captured within the appraisal, whilst Table 3.14 tabulates
the accidents by section and severity.
54
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
Figure 3.4: Pedestrian and Cycle Accidents along Corridor
. Table 3.14: Number of Casualties, by Section (2013 - 2018)
3.14.2 The values within WebTAG for the average value of prevention of road
accidents (Table 3.15) have been applied to the number of casualties in
Table 3,16 to determine the five year cost of accidents. An annual cost
has then been inferred with assumed accident savings of 31.6% for
cyclists and 10% for pedestrians as a result of the scheme. This assumption
Severity Fatal Serious Slight
Section 1
Pedestrians 0 0 0
Cyclists 0 0 0
Section 2
Pedestrians 0 1 1
Cyclists 0 2 6
Section 3
Pedestrians 0 0 4
Cyclists 0 0 2
55
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
is because the scheme will provide safer crossing points, encourage
cyclists to use dedicated infrastructure and reduce the interaction
between cyclists and general traffic. This has resulted in an annual
accident saving of £35,835 for cyclist casualties and £5,670 for pedestrian
casualties.
Table 3.15: Average Value of Prevention of Road Accidents by Severity
Severity Value
Fatal £1,727,859
Serious £199,710
Slight £20,948
Source: WebTAG Databook Table A4.1.3 (May 2018), 2010 prices and values
3.15 Non-user Benefits (Decongestion and Environment)
3.15.1 Modal shift from car to cycling will result in a reduction of car km; the
cycling diversion factors within the WebTAG databook have been utilised
to determine the number of new users that would have travelled by car.
As a result of the reduction in car km, the decongestion and environment
(air quality, noise, greenhouse gas) impacts will be captured within the
appraisal. The Active Mode Appraisal Toolkit has been used to determine
the non-user benefits and Table 3.16 summarises the results.
Table 3.16: Non-User Benefits (£000s)
Section Congestion Local Air Quality Noise Greenhouse Gases
1 1.55 0.00 0.04 0.12
2 122.13 0.06 0.80 2.29
3 13.14 0.01 0.09 0.25
N.B. Values shown in 2010 prices and values.
3.16 Physical Activity and Absenteeism
3.16.1 Physical activity benefits typically form a considerable proportion of
benefits for active mode schemes; the improved facilities encourage an
uptake of cycling with greater levels of physical activity leading to a
reduction in the mortality rate. The Active Mode Appraisal Toolkit has
been used to determine annual mortality benefits. WebTAG Unit A5.1
highlights this approach is included within the World Health Organisation
(WHO) Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT).
56
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
3.16.2 Within the appraisal, physical activity benefits have only been included
for those new users transferring from car / taxi (Table 3.5); therefore this is
likely to be conservative because other new users may gain health
benefits (e.g. those previously travelling by public transport that are
cycling as a result of the improvements).
3.16.3 Greater levels of physical activity will improve health, which can lead to
reductions in short-term absence from work. To calculate the benefits
associated with reduced absenteeism, an assumption of employees
working for eight hours a day alongside the assumed values within the
WebTAG databook. As per the physical activity benefits, the
absenteeism benefits will only be included for those new users
transferring from car.
3.16.4 Table 3.17 presents the physical activity and absenteeism benefits, by
section.
Table 3.17: Physical Activity and Absenteeism Benefits (£000s)
Section Physical Activity Absenteeism
1 15.99 4.61
2 1,263.40 364.01
3 135.94 39.17
N.B. Values shown in 2010 prices and values.
3.17 Costs
Capital Costs
3.17.1 Project Centre provided the capital cost for each component of the
project, including assumptions regarding preliminaries (20% of capital
cost) and design fees (10% of capital cost), as shown in Table 3.18.
Project Centre also provided additional costs which removed paving
within Components K and M to varying extents. It was advised that this
57
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
change would have no impact on the anticipated demand and benefits
of the scheme.
3.17.2 Project Centre completed a Quantified Risk Assessment which identified
a value of £471,500. This results in a total cost) of £2,802,735;
3.17.3 Project Centre also identified do-minimum costs which would be incurred
regardless of the scheme taking place. These do-minimum costs have
been removed from the capital costs within the economic appraisal, with
a value of £243,292 for the subway option.
58
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
Table 3.18: Capital Costs, by Component
Component Capital Cost Preliminaries Design Fees Total
B: Holmanleaze Bridge to A4
Bridge Road £83,304 £16,661 £8,330 £108,295
C: Holmanleaze Bridge to
Blackamoor Lane £60,494 £12,099 £6,049 £78,642
D: Holmanleaze Bridge £358,378 £71,676 £35,838 £465,891
E: Cherwell Close / Kennet
Road Junction £26,607 £5,321 £2,661 £34,589
G: Cookham Road
Pedestrian Crossing £91,915 £18,383 £9,192 £119,490
H: Kidwells Park (subway) £779,390 £155,878 £77,939 £1,013,207
K: West Street £23,562 £4,712 £2,356 £30,631
L1: King Street (High Street
to Nicholsons Lane) £46,599 £9,320 £4,660 £60,579
L2: King Street (Nicholsons
Lane to Broadway) £45,044 £9,009 £4,504 £58,557
M: King Street (Broadway to
Queens Street) £86,811 £17,362 £8,681 £112,854
Full Route (subway) £1,602,104 £320,421 £160,210 £2,082,735
N.B. Costs shown in 2017 prices.
3.17.4
3.17.5 Project Centre completed a Quantified Risk Assessment which
identified a value of £471,000 for the subway. This results in a total cost
of £2,802,235.of:
3.17.6 Project Centre also identified do-minimum costs which would be
incurred regardless of the scheme taking place. These do-minimum
costs have been removed from the capital costs within the economic
appraisal, with a value of £243,292 for the subway option.
3.17.7 To prepare the costs for the appraisal, the costs were treated as
follows:
Optimism Bias: a 15% optimism bias has been applied as this
reflects cycling schemes at Stage 2 (OBC).
Real Price Increases: assumed price increases of 4.0% per annum
for capital costs and 1.5% per annum for ongoing costs.
59
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
Adjustment to 2010 prices: has been made using the GDP deflator
from the WebTAG databook to adjust costs from 2017 prices to
the appraisal base price year (2010).
Costs have been discounted to 2010 values and the tax
correction adjustment (1.19) applied.
3.17.8 Project Centre provided a funding profile which has been used to
determine the proportion of costs by year, as shown in Table 3.19.
Table 3.19: Proportion of Costs, by Year
Year % of Costs Cumulative %
2017 3.3 3.3
2018 9.0 12.3
2019 29.8 42.1
2020 57.9 100.0
3.18 Ongoing Costs
Project Centre advised that an annual cost of 2.5% of the capital costs
(excluding preliminaries and design fees) should be applied to reflect the
ongoing maintenance and renewals. It has been assumed that there
would be no ongoing costs for the first seven years following the scheme
opening. Optimism bias of 1% has been applied to the ongoing costs.
3.19 Appraisal Results
Core Results
3.19.1 The costs and monetised benefits identified in sections 4 and 5 have
been used to determine the Present Value of Benefits (PVB) and Present
Value of Costs (PVC) and inform the Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) and
resulting Value for Money (VfM) category. Table 3.20 presents these
results for the full route, including the subway under the A4. The full
AMCB, TEE and PA tables are contained within Appendix E.
3.19.2 The results show the subway route has a BCR of 2.10 which represents
High VfM. The benefits associated with the subway option are largely
driven by the journey time savings which in turn influence the anticipated
new user demand and level of cycling amenity.
60
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
Table 3.20: Core Results
Route PVB PVC NPV BCR VfM
Category
Subway £5,414 £2,581 £2,803 2.10 High
N.B. Results shown in 2010 prices and values.
3.20 Sensitivity Tests
3.20.1 A series of sensitivity tests (Table 3.21) have been undertaken to test the
resilience of the BCRs.
3.20.2 The first test considered the price increases of 1.5% per annum for the
capital costs, rather than 4%. This strengthens the BCR with it increasing
from 2.10 to 2.21, and maintains the High VfM category.
3.20.3 The second test considered a change in the capital costs. The results
show a 15% increase in capital costs for the subway option would reduce
the BCR and it would fall to the Medium VfM. Meanwhile, a 15%
reduction in the capital costs would result in a stronger BCR of 2.45 and
within the High VfM category.
3.20.4 The third test considered a varying proportion of ongoing costs with the
impact on the BCR being small and having no impact on the overall VfM
category compared with the core results.
3.20.5 A fourth sensitivity test considered increasing the existing cycle mode
share from 2.7% to 6%. This reflects the aspiration target mode shares for
cycling which Maidenhead are working towards achieving. This test did
not impact on the new user demand defined by the scheme, or
development related demand which already assumes higher cycling
mode shares. This test resulted in a substantial improvement in the
scheme value for money, effectively doubling the existing cycling
demand within the corridor. This test mainly impacts on the ambience
and journey time benefits, showing an increase in BCR from 2.10 to 2.74.
3.20.6 A fifth sensitivity test considered Components E and G being assessed as
an ‘off-road segregated cycle track’ as a result of the scheme. As these
sections are very short, this has a negligible impact on the economic
appraisal and the BCR remains at 2.10.
61
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
Table 3.21: Sensitivity Test Results
Route Sensitivity
Test PVB PVC NPV BCR
VfM Category
Core Results
Core: Subway £5,414 £2,581 £2,833 2.10 High
Test One: Real Price Increase of 1.5% on Capital Costs (rather than 4%)
Real price increase of 1.5% on capital cost
£5,434 £2,464 £2,970 2.21 High
Test Two: Capital Costs
Capex +15% £5,414 £2,953 £2,461 1.83 Medium
Capex -15% £5,414 £2,209 £3,205 2.45 High
Test Three: Ongoing Costs
3% of Capex pa £5,414 £2,674 £2,740 2.02 High
2% of Capex pa £5,414 £2,475 £2,939 2.19 High
Test Four: Aspirational Cycling Mode Share 6% (Existing Users)
6% mode share (from
2.7%) £7,067 £2,581 £4,486 2.74 High
Test Five: Proposed Route includes All Components as ‘off-road non-segregated’
Full route off-road non-
segregated £5,420 £2,581 £2,839 2.10 High
3.21 Benefits
3.21.1 It is not feasible to quantity and monetise several benefits of the scheme.
Table 3.22 identifies the key non-monetised benefits and describes their
anticipated impact on the value for money category. These highlight a
strengthening of the value for money as a result of the improvements,
particularly the reduced severance, public realm improvements and
contribution to the regeneration of the local area.
62
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
Table 3.22: Non-Monetised Benefits
Non-Monetised
Benefit
Impact on Value for Money
Severance Moderate Positive: The A4 is a barrier for cyclists with limited provision to
cross this busy highway. A dedicated crossing facility would therefore address
the severance barrier for cyclists and improve the cycling experience as well
as perception of cycling.
Public realm Slight to Moderate Positive: Enhancements to public realm would have a
positive impact on the local environment as the route becomes a nicer place to
walk and cycle along. Furthermore, the decluttering of street furniture in
Components L2 and M will also help to create a more pleasant route which is
suitable for all users.
Regeneration Slight to Moderate Positive: Upgrading the route can help to regenerate the
area as the environment becomes more amenable for pedestrians and
cyclists. With greater people walking and cycling , this can support local
businesses along the route and contribute to local regeneration.
Pedestrian
Journey Time
Savings
Slight Positive: Whilst cycle journey time savings as a result of the scheme
have been quantified and monetised, the impact on pedestrian journey times
is harder to quantify. There may be small improvements associated with the
improved signage and shared use facility. This journey time improvement
would have a positive impact on the value for money.
Induced
pedestrian
demand
Slight Positive: Although likely to be very small, the scheme itself may
encourage uptake of walking, particularly in Section 1 with the provision of a
more pleasant pedestrian environment with wider path, high quality surface
and additional lighting. Greater pedestrian demand would have a positive
impact on the value for money as there would be additional beneficiaries of the
scheme.
Highway Journey
Time
Slight Negative: LinSig modelling of the changes to the crossings identified
marginal impacts to the highway network (Component G). A slight delay in
highway journey times associated with the conversion of the existing crossing
to a toucan crossing would have a slight negative impact on the value of
money.
3.22 Appraisal Summary Table
3.22.1 A standard approach to the assessment of costs and benefits relating to
the scheme has been adopted, in line with DfT guidance. The Appraisal
Summary Table (AST) provides a summary of the impacts of the scheme
against three assessment areas defined in WebTAG: Economy, Society
and Environment. For each of these elements, benefits have been
ranked on a seven-point scale depending on their level of impact. The
ranking system used is:
Strong
Beneficial
Moderate
Beneficial
Slight
Beneficial
Neutral /
No Impact
Slight
Adverse
Moderate
Adverse
Strong
Adverse
63
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
3.22.2 Table 3.23 summarises the AST assessment for both elements, whilst
Appendix E contains a detailed AST which explains the rationale for the
assessment score. This highlights the key benefits for accidents, physical
activity, journey quality, severance and journey time savings for those
travelling for the commute / other journey purposes.
Table 6.4: AST Summary
WebTAG Assessment Area Maidenhead Missing Links
Eco
no
my
Business Users and Transport Providers Slight Beneficial
Reliability Impact on Business Users Neutral / No Impact
Regeneration Slight Beneficial
Wider Impacts Neutral / No Impact
So
cie
ty
Commuting and Other Users Moderate Beneficial
Physical Activity Strong Beneficial
Journey Quality Moderate Beneficial
Accidents Strong Beneficial
Personal Safety Slight Beneficial
Affordability Neutral / No Impact
Severance Moderate Beneficial
Access to Services Slight Beneficial
Option Values Neutral / No Impact
En
vir
on
men
t
Noise Neutral / No Impact
Local Air Quality Slight Beneficial
Greenhouse Gases Slight Beneficial
Landscape and Townscape Neutral / No Impact
Cultural Heritage Neutral / No Impact
Biodiversity Neutral / No Impact
Water Environment Neutral / No Impact
3.23 Value for Money Assessment
3.23.1 The ‘missing links’ scheme provides an upgrade to existing cycling
provision with crossing facilities (including new subway), wider paths, a
64
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
new route through Kidwells Park and shared use provision along King
Street rather than a pedestrianised zone. The overall VfM assessment
considers the monetised (BCR) and non-monetised benefits in order to
assess the economic impact of the scheme. This is particularly per tinent
for the ‘missing links’ scheme which has several non-monetised benefits
that should be considered when making an economic assessment of the
scheme.
3.23.2 Of the benefits quantified, the core scenario with the A4 crossing subway
option identified a BCR of 2.10 which represents High VfM. With several
non-monetised benefits, particularly regarding the reduced severance,
improvements to public realm and regeneration on the route, it is
reasonable to assume this could strengthen the assessment of a High VfM
category.
3.23.3 The economic appraisal identified large journey time savings associated
with Component H (510 seconds - subway), which reflects the additional
delay associated with the existing poor crossing facilities for the A4,
requiring cyclists to dismount. The time spent travelling informs the new
user cycling demand as a result of the change in utility as well as the
cycling ambience benefit. Therefore, it is a critical impact on the benefits
realised and the economic appraisal is highly sensitive to the journey
time saving achieved.
3.23.4 The scheme generates a strong beneficial impact on accidents as a
result of the identified cycle routes and greater awareness amongst
other road users of the likelihood of cyclists along the route. With
improvements in perceived safety, this can help to encourage more
people to cycle. The scheme is anticipated to encourage and support
the uptake of cycling, with greater levels of physical activity having
notable health benefits.
3.23.5 Should the scheme progress to Full Business Case, further analysis of the
key assumptions, particularly journey time savings, is recommended to
provide assurance with regards to the VfM.
65
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
4. THE FINANCIAL CASE
4.1 Overview of Affordability Assessment
4.1.1 In September 2012, the DfT set out firm proposals for the devolution of
funding for local major transport schemes from 2015 from a national
pot of £2bn. The Government's response further confirmed the
commitment to delegate funding decisions and negotiate a Growth
Deal with every Local Transport Body (LTB) to deliver local growth and
infrastructure priorities.
4.1.2 The Maidenhead Missing Links proposal is a strong fit to both local and
national policy relating to transportation investment and growth.
Funding is available through the Local Growth Fund (LGF) and has
been provisionally allocated to this project.
4.2 Project Costs
4.2.1 The LEP provisionally agreed a £3.048m contribution to this project,
with £1.0m of S106 contributions and £705k from the RBWM Capital
Programme, making a grand total of £4.753m.
4.2.2 The costs for the scheme are set out in Table 4a below. The cost
estimate includes preparatory costs associated with preliminary and
detailed scheme design, and scheme construction.
4.2.3 A contingency (risk) budget of £471k is included within the cost
estimates based on the Quantified Risk Register (see risk register
Appendix B). It will be reviewed and refined throughout the design
and commissioning process to give improved levels of confidence
regarding scheme cost.
4.2.4 An estimate of design fees and charges has been included at 10% of
construction costs.
4.2.5 An estimate of preliminaries, legal fees and charges has been
included at 20% of construction costs. This includes all surveys, an
Environmental Impact Assessment for the bridges, Public Rights of Way
(PROW), permanent and temporary Traffic Orders.
4.2.6 Cost estimates are based on knowledge, understanding and
experience of the quantum of costs required to deliver the various
measures proposed. They will be refined based on preliminary design
following approval of this business case.
4.2.7 There are maintenance costs associated with existing highway
infrastructure, therefore the proposed replacement and refurbishment
of footways and carriageways with new surfacing will reduce
66
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
maintenance costs due to the increased life-cycle of replacement
surfacing. Costs have been identified for the resurfacing of the A4 Bad
Godesberg Way, which is on the current resurfacing programme.
4.3 Cost Profile
4.3.1 Table 4a presents the scheme costs profiled by financial year for the
duration of the funding period.
4.3.2 Further planning, consultation and detailed design work will take place
during 2018/19, with works commencing in 2019/20.
4.3.3 The scheme will be fully delivered in 2020/21.
Table 4a – Cost Profile 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total
Expenditure (estimated costs) £000 £000 £000 £000
Design 179 - - 179
Prelims 125 234 359
Construction - 624 1,169 1,793
Contingency (QRA) - 164 307 471
TOTAL COST 304 1,022 1,476 2,802
4.3.4 Funding for the scheme will be provided through a combination of
Section 106 contributions and Capital Funding from RBWM and Local
Growth funding. Table 4b sets out how the two funding sources will be
utilised to deliver the project.
Table 4b – Budget Provision 2018/18 2019/20 2021/22 Total
Expenditure (estimated costs) £000 £000 £000 £000
LGF Funding 227 877 1,138 2,242
Capital Programme* 14 55 71 140
S106 Funding (RBWM) 43 164 213 420
TOTAL COST 284 1,096 1,422 2,802
Total LGF funding required for scheme delivery will therefore be
£2,241,788
67
Created by AECOM on behalf of Project Centre for RBWM
Capital Funding from RBWM will be £140,112
S106 contribution from RBWM will be £420,335
68
5. THE COMMERCIAL CASE
5.1 Output based specification
5.1.1 The Commercial Case details the procurement strategy for the project
and is informed by the following strategic outcome objectives:
Achieve cost certainty, or certainty that the scheme can be
delivered within the available funding constraints;
Obtain contractor experience and input to the construction
programme to ensure the implementation programme is robust
and achievable;
Minimise further preparation costs with respect to scheme
design by ensuring best value, and appropriate quality;
Obtain contractor input to risk management and appraisals,
including mitigation measures, to capitalise at an early stage
on opportunities to reduce construction risk and improve out-
turn certainty thereby reducing risks to a level that is ‘As Low as
Reasonably Practicable’ (HSE Risk Management).
5.1.2 Key deliverables for the scheme include:
Widen existing paths across Town Moor to permit shared use by
pedestrians and cyclists, with a bound surface to improve
durability;
Replace existing footbridge across Strand Water with wider
bridges to accommodate cyclists;
Connect to the proposed pedestrian / cycle route through the
St Clouds Way development site;
Replace the existing pelican crossing over B4447 Cookham
Road with a toucan crossing;
Widen existing paths across Kidwells Park to permit semi
segregated use by pedestrians and cyclists;
Construct a new subway suitable for cyclists to provide a safe
crossing across the A4 to the Town Centre;
69
Provided a segregated cycle route in shared pedestrian/cycle
areas along King Street;
Provide a signed cycle route along King Street to provide a
connection to Maidenhead Station to the west and NCN4 to
the south;
5.2 Procurement Strategy and Sourcing Options
5.2.1 RBWM is able to draw on existing long-term framework contracts for
delivery of aspects of the project including:
Volker Highways for delivery of highways construction services,
traffic signs and road markings;
Project Centre Ltd for professional engineering services,
including structures, highway planning and design services;
AA Lighting for the design and delivery of street lighting
solutions.
Maydencroft for the implementation of bridges/subways.
5.2.2 The cycle path construction, paving and associated signing and lining
will be procured directly through Volker Highways who will also be in a
position to deliver early contractor involvement in the design and
development of the scheme.
5.2.3 RBWM will undertake signal design using in-house expertise. Delivery of
the signals schemes will be through preferred contractors Siemens and
Simone Surveys. This combination has been demonstrated to provide
the optimum balance of cost and quality on previous projects.
5.2.1 Wider marketplace procurement will take place for specialist
construction elements, such as the subway and bridge structures.
5.3 Payment/ Charging mechanisms and framework
5.3.1 The existing term contracts are based on the NEC 3 contract model,
which allows for penalty clauses, specifically relating to over running.
5.3.2 Payments to the contractors will be made monthly in arrears to the
value of 80% of the project, subject to the project engineer checking
and agreeing the submission made by the contractor as the build
progresses.
70
5.3.3 Payments made to the contractor will be subject to cross checking
against the programme to ensure that the absolute minimum over run
occurs. If any penalty is due to be applied, the Council will work with
the contractor to rectify/remedy this.
5.3.4 The final 20% will be paid once the project is complete and has been
signed off.
5.4 Risk allocation and transfer
5.4.1 Resources are available to manage risks across the scheme. Risks shall
be allocated and managed in a cost-effective manner by the most
appropriate party to do this and at the appropriate level.
5.4.2 The Project Board as defined in Section 6 shall be primarily concerned
with managing strategic level risks relating to interfaces between the
scheme and the wider project environment.
5.4.3 The Project Manager will have overall responsibility for ensuring that
the risk management process is implemented and managed in
accordance with best practice. They will ensure that risks are actively
managed in a consistent and appropriate manner across all work
streams. All severe risks will be reported to the Project Board. In
addition, all risks which relate to the overall direction, organisation and
control of the scheme shall be reported to the Project Board.
5.4.4 The Project Manager will:
Ensure that an appropriate procedural framework is adopted;
Report to the Project Director in review and management of
project performance;
Agree the required level of risk management support to be
provided for risk identification, analysis, review and reporting;
Facilitate risk workshops/meetings as appropriate; and
Be the custodian of the risk register.
5.4.5 The Risk Owner will be responsible for the day to day management of
the risk(s) that they own. The selection and appointment (by the
Project Manager) of a risk owner will be on a “best person for the task”
approach and, once appointed, the risk owner will monitor and
update the risk register informing the Project Manager of changes.
5.5 Contract length
5.5.1 The design and build elements of the scheme will be procured
separately. Project Centre are identified to undertake preliminary and
71
detailed designs which will be undertaken in line with the programme
attached in the Appendix. A review of the programme can be
undertaken at each stage and incorporated into the delivery plan.
5.5.2 The existing Volkers contract for construction currently runs to 2021.
However, this would be extended for job specific projects currently
under construction for the duration of that scheme.
5.5.3 Construction of bridges, subways and signals will be procured
separately.
5.6 Human Resource issues
5.6.1 The ability for the contractor to resource the project effectively will be
scrutinised at procurement stage via the procurement specifications.
5.6.2 Design resource is readily available via Project Centre, who hold a
long-term, sole-source framework with RBWM.
5.7 Contract management
5.7.1 The contract follows a traditional NEC 3 format, ensuring that the
contractual / commercial arrangement will be well defined. This form
of contract is well understood throughout the supply chain and relies
on a pre-defined risk register to allocate and manage anticipated risk.
5.7.2 During contract negotiations, risk will be allocated to the party best
able to manage it in the most cost-effective way.
5.7.3 The contracts will be managed through a combination of workshops,
reviews, meetings and day to day operation to enable all actions to
be discussed and agreed.
72
6. THE MANAGEMENT CASE
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 The DfT’s guidance document, ‘The Transport Business Case:
Management Case’, outlines the areas that should be covered as part
of the Transport Business Case documentation. These aspects are
covered under the following sections of this Management Case:
Evidence of similar projects
Programme and project dependencies;
Governance, Resourcing and Responsibilities;
Managing Project Risks;
Stakeholder management; and
Benefits Realisation.
6.1.2 The management approach has been developed following the outline
set out below:
Set the appropriate governance structure to ensure outcomes
and objectives are met;
Identify and plan for the key approval milestones ensuring
information is provided in good time so as to not delay the
programme; and
Assess how the delivery process will be managed to achieve
optimum financial and impact performance.
6.2 Evidence of similar projects
6.2.1 This section presents evidence to demonstrate that RBWM and its
consultants/contractors are experienced at delivering similar
infrastructure projects to those proposed for this scheme.
6.2.2 RBWM has extensive experience of delivering similar schemes as part
of its annual capital programme. Similar schemes that have been
implemented recently include:
Stafferton Way Link, Maidenhead – construction of a new £6
million link road to the south of Maidenhead town centre,
including a new bridge over the flood relief channel with
shared-use footway / cycleways, toucan crossing, new road
junctions, lighting, noise barriers and a roundabout at the
A4/B3028 junction.
73
High Street, Maidenhead – development of a materials master
plan for Maidenhead town centre including paving, lighting
and street furniture and delivery of environmental
enhancement scheme involving new lighting, paving and
drainage in the pedestrianised section of High Street.
Maidenhead Station Forecourt – enhancement of the station
to cater for the Elizabeth Line and achieve a more sustainable
transport mode split. The scheme includes the removal of long
stay parking from the forecourt, the doubling of cycle parking
capacity, the creation of a pedestrian area, widened
footways and a gateway to the town centre.
6.2.3 The management structure and practices proposed for the
Maidenhead Missing Links are the same as those which were applied
to deliver the Stafferton Link Road project.
6.2.4 The client project management team were responsible for
commissioning a professional services team and procurement of a
contractor, Balfour Beatty, who successfully delivered this major
project.
6.2.5 Project and programme management services were led by RBWM,
who undertook all associated programme and risk management
activities and coordinated the professional services team.
6.2.6 Scheme delivery was managed through a design and build contract,
which was specified and procured by the RBWM team.
6.2.7 The Stafferton Way scheme delivered all elements of the scheme to
the required standard and has been successful in delivering the
missing section of the town centre ring-road to unlock investment in
the vicinity of Stafferton Way with a new supermarket and housing
development being constructed since the scheme opened.
6.2.8 The scheme did experience a significant overspend, which was due to
changes to project scope including additional items requested by
members, engineering complexity and unforeseen utilities costs. The
council allocated additional funds to the project to ensure that it was
delivered in full.
6.2.9 A detailed review of the project was undertaken, which highlighted
several key learning points, including: the need for timely reporting of
financial information; understanding trade-offs between scope and
74
cost; and the need for full involvement of elected members, officers
and consultants in the decision-making process throughout the lifetime
of the project.
6.2.10 The council has since put in place a comprehensive, scalable and
mandated project management methodology for use with all major
projects, which is described in full later in this document.
6.2.11 RBWM’s professional services consultants, Project Centre (PC), have
extensive experience in developing business cases for major LEP
schemes and assisting local authorities to design and deliver those
schemes; and it is expected that they will be leading on the design
elements of the scheme.
6.2.12 Project Centre have previously assisted Medway Council to secure
£11m of LEP funding for a transportation and public realm
improvement scheme in Commercial Road Car Park Strood.
6.2.13 Project Centre also provided preliminary design, consultation and
detailed design services which included traffic modelling, street and
architectural lighting design, public and stakeholder consultation,
public realm and street art design, design iteration development and
detailed design of construction plans.
6.2.14 The Strood project is now complete and was delivered within
programme and budget constraints.
6.2.15 Project Centre also provided services for the Waltham Forest Mini
Holland Scheme, which included traffic engineering and public realm
design for 5km of cycle/bus/walking routes of strategic highway. Lea
Bridge Road was the focus of the study and a flagship project for the
Transport for London mini-Holland programme, for which Waltham
Forest Council received £30m in funding. Project Centre delivered
preliminary design and supported the consultation process, and they
are currently working on the detailed design.
6.2.16 The scheme incorporated junction designs, removal of bus lanes, the
introduction of cycle lanes and facilities for pedestrians. The road
section has over 30 junctions with 6 signalised junctions ranging from a
simple 3-arm junction with one lane approach to a complex 4-arm
junction with 3-lane approach.
6.3 Programme / Project dependencies
6.3.1 The scheme programme is dependent on the following:
Political backing;
75
Stakeholder support;
Funding from the identified funding streams;
Successful liaison with the local community and businesses,
ensuring they are included in regular updates throughout the
schemes development; and
West Street development in terms of incorporating the subway
design with the site proposals which is due for completion in
Summer 2024.
6.3.2 Although the project will ultimately integrate with the St Cloud’s Way
development, it is not dependent upon it and can be progressed
independently, however, the Toucan crossing on the B4447 may be
dependent on the closure of the exit to the Magnet Leisure Centre on
the B4447.
6.3.3 The route will interface with The Landing development and the
Maidenhead Station Access scheme, however, it is not dependent
upon these schemes being completed before works commence.
6.3.4 The subway crossing will link in with the West Street development.
Careful liaison with developers will be required to ensure the subway
design connects in with the development at their detailed design
stage
6.3.5 There are several major regeneration and transport schemes proposed
in the coming months. In order to manage this RBWM has set up a
working group including representatives from the council and
developers. This ensures that each party has early sight of the others’
programmes and for works to be properly coordinated. This i s in
addition to the usual governance arrangements outlined below.
6.4 Governance, organisational structure & roles
6.4.1 RBWM will operate the design, construction and monitoring stages of
the scheme utilising a governance structure described in table 6a.
76
Table 6a – RBWM management and governance arrangements
Responsible
group or officer Responsibility
Cabinet
Member group that manages council business including high
value/high risk procurement and projects including LGF
projects.
Overview and
Scrutiny Panel
Provides on-going member oversight of the development and
delivery of major transport schemes.
Project Sponsor
Senior officer with overall accountability for the project.
Responsible for providing regular updates to relevant Cabinet
portfolio members.
For the Maidenhead Missing Links project this role will be
fulfilled by Ben Smith, Head of Commissioning | Communities
Project Board
Provides senior officer project management oversight and
support. For Maidenhead Missing Links, the Project Board
includes senior representatives from:
Highways, Parks and Countryside
Community Protection and Enforcement
Property
Regeneration
Parking
Finance
The Group is responsible for the strategic management of the
project and has authority to commit resources to the project
in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.
General tasks include:
appointing the project manager;
signing off the project brief and business case;
approving the Project Initiation Document (PID);
agreeing project controls;
authorising project start;
77
reviewing progress against the agreed programme;
authorising variations to expenditure;
managing key risks in the highlighted risk log;
authorising project closure.
The project board meets on a monthly basis and an LGF
update report is a standing item on the agenda.
Project Manager
Vikki Roberts
(RBWM)
Naomi Barnes
(PCL)
Responsible for delivering the project on behalf of the Project
Board.
Leads and manages the Project Team – has the authority and
responsibility to run the project on a day-to-day basis.
Delivers the agreed outputs to the required level of quality
and within the specified constraints of time, cost, resources
and risk.
Prepares project information, including the Project Initiation
Document (PID) and Project Plan.
Identifies and evaluates risks, determines and manages
actions, and maintains the risk log.
Manages and controls changes to the project scope,
requirements, personnel etc.
Ensures the project is properly resourced, with sufficient,
properly skilled support.
Monitors and reports progress against the agreed programme,
budget and other performance metrics, updating the
Council’s project management system each month.
Liaises with the Project Board and Project Sponsor, securing
their approval and decisions at key project stages.
Head of Internal
Audit
Leads on providing financial governance advice. Involved in
the programme from an early stage.
6.4.2 The Council uses Microsoft Teams software to manage the project and
to provide visibility of the status of the work. This is regularly updated
by the Project Manager and is reviewed by the Project Sponsor and
Project Board on a monthly basis.
78
6.4.3 Key information entered within MS Teams includes:
Project toolkit:
o Delivery status
o Project milestones
o Risks log
o Issues log
o Decision / change log
o Costs
o Actions
Project plan / programme
Document management
o Project overview
o Scope / project initiation document
o Justification / approvals
o Project constraints
o Assumptions
o Meeting agendas / minutes
o Progress reports
6.4.4 A key benefit of using the MS Teams software is that it is a cloud-based
system, allowing for a common data environment, so all project
documentation can easily be shared with internal and external
stakeholders. It also enables collaboration and automatic version
control so all parties are confident that they are working on the latest
version of project documents.
6.4.5 A regular snapshot is taken of the MS Teams toolkit to provide status
reports for Project Board and Project Team meetings. This also provides
a useful audit trail.
6.5 Programme / Project plan
6.5.1 The outline programme for development and delivery of this scheme is
attached in Appendix D. This programme will be refined following full
scheme approval, and subject to detailed design of specific scheme
elements.
79
6.5.2 The key milestones are detailed below:
Stage Date
Feasibility design and Business Case September/October 2018
Preliminary design and \business case
review
November 2018 - May 2019
Public Consultation May 2019 – July 2019
Detailed design Sections B to C May 2019 – October 2019
Procurement October - November 2019
Construction October to December 2019
Detailed Design Sections D to M (incl
subway)
June 2019 – February 2020
Procurement March – July 2020
Commence construction July 2020
Completion of Construction March 2021
6.6 Assurance & approval plan
6.6.1 The Project Board will be the mechanism for assessing scheme
progress. This includes sign-off for each stage completed and
approval for commencing the next stage, as set out in the Project
Management Toolkit. This methodology enables:
Realistic and achievable targets to ensure successful delivery;
Deployment of relevant skills and competencies to a project;
Compliance with best practice;
Key stakeholder input and understanding;
Project feedback through lessons learnt; and
A visible Audit trail.
6.6.2 The key milestones for RBWM and LEP signoff are shown below:
Decision by BLTB/Thames Valley Berkshire LEP Board on
commitment of funding – November 2018;
80
Contract between BLTB, LEP and scheme delivery body
produced and signed – February 2019.
Detailed design approval – August 2019 (Sections B to C) and
November 2019 (Sections D to M)
Construction contract agreed – August 2019 (Sections B to C)
and March 2020 Sections D to M
6.6.3 These milestones have been built into the project programme and will
be monitored by the RBWM Project Manager and reported to the
Project Board.
6.7 Communications & stakeholder management
6.7.1 The key objectives of the scheme’s stakeholder management are to
keep stakeholders aware of the scheme’s progression and give an
opportunity for feedback / input to the design process.
6.7.2 It will also enable RBWM to increase public and stakeholder awareness
of the scheme by providing consistent, clear and regular information
to those affected by the scheme. This will include information on how
groups using the route might be affected by the scheme; and to
advertise the opening of the new route to encourage its use by
pedestrians and cyclists, including residents of the town centre major
development sites.
6.7.3 RBWM will publicise the scheme in the public domain in advance of
construction including details of the programme, its impact on traffic
movements including road closures etc. This will include:
Press releases;
Articles on the council website;
Social media releases;
Articles in Around the Royal Borough;
Messages on variable message signs around the town centre;
Engagement with the Developers’ Forum; and
Engagement of local businesses through the Town Manager.
6.7.4 Direct engagement with statutory consultees will occur during the
Detailed Design Stage of the project and further during the public
consultation stage.
81
6.7.5 The design team along with the project team will undertake these
consultation activities in partnership with the Royal Borough’s
communication team.
6.8 Programme / project reporting
6.8.1 Responsibility for accurate, timely and appropriate communications
within the project team rests with the RBWM Project Manager to ensure
that the Project Board is kept up-to-date with programme
developments.
6.8.2 The Project Manager is responsible for leading the Delivery Team and
reporting to the client project sponsor to ensure that all parties are up-
to-date.
6.8.3 The Project Sponsor is responsible for keeping the Lead Members
aware of the development of the scheme.
6.8.4 It is the responsibility of the Project Sponsor and Project Manager to
ensure that the Project Board has sufficient information and is involved
in all decisions that affect the programme and performance of the
project, achievement of the project objectives or deviation from
agreed and delegated responsibilities.
6.8.5 Project team meetings will be held monthly, with the outcomes
escalated to the Project Board.
6.9 Implementation
6.9.1 The key work streams required for implementing the project are as
follows:
Outline design (prepared by Project Centre);
Approval of business case;
Preliminary Design (prepared by Project Centre);
Consultation of the scheme;
Detailed design (prepared by Project Centre);
Procurement exercise (led in-house by project team,
supported by in-house procurement team);
Early site works (through appointed contractor for scheme);
Utility works (led by in-house team, carried out by appointed
contractor);
82
Construction of main scheme (through appointed contractor
for scheme)
Construction of bridge structures (through appointed
contractor for scheme);
Construction of subway (through appointed contractor by the
scheme);
Site supervision (led in-house); and
Monitoring and evaluation (led in-house).
6.10 Risk Management
6.10.1 The Risk Register is attached in Appendix B. It includes risks categorised
as:
Strategic/Political/Policy;
Economic/ Financial/Management;
Design/technical/preparatory works;
Stakeholder Management/Consultation;
Procurement;
Construction; and operation.
6.10.2 The key project risks will be managed throughout the planning and
implementation of the scheme; it includes severity of risk and assigns a
cost to each element. The main issues are summarised below:
Capital costs increase because of factors uncovered at
preparatory surveys and design stage;
Statutory undertaker diversions costs underestimated,
particularly associated with the subway option;
Unknown services struck during construction works, incurring
delays to programme, particularly associated with the subway
option;
Construction delays due to statutory undertaker diversions and
/ or access restrictions due to weather / other environmental
constraints.
83
Subway works require closure of the A4, a key route through
Maidenhead Town Centre; a construction option that reduces
this to a minimum will be required.
6.10.3 The Risk Register will remain a live document be continually updated
throughout the life of the project if/when a new risk is identified; or
where further development of the design results in mitigation of risks .
This would include appropriate levels of value engineering to optimise
value and reduce risk as well as appropriate road safety audits to
address any recommendations.
6.10.4 Following confirmation of scheme funding, ownership of the risks will
be allocated to those parties best able to manage them.
6.11 Benefits Realisation
6.11.1 This section presents the proposed monitoring and evaluation strategy
for the project as well as the key ‘Go / No Go’ decision points. The
proposed reporting and approval process will also be summarised.
6.11.2 The following stages of the project programme represent key points
where ‘Go / No Go’ decisions can be undertaken to ensure that the
appropriate project viability considerations are undertaken in
advance of significant capital commitment:
Public consultation stage;
Local Enterprise Partnership funding approval;
Internal funding approval.
6.11.3 Preconstruction surveys at key locations to determine cycle
movements along existing elements of the route; into the town centre
and to the railway station will be required to aid in the project
monitoring and evaluation process.
6.11.4 The Scheme Monitoring and Evaluation Plan will consist of three
distinct stages:
Stage 1 - Pre-Construction Study to be undertaken during
detailed design;
Stage 2 – One Year Post Opening Process Evaluation, Q2 2022;
and
Stage 3 - Five Year Post Opening Impact Evaluation Study, Q2
2026.
84
6.12 Monitoring & Evaluation
6.12.1 The Council are seeking agreement to the following Key Performance
Indicators to monitor the delivery and success of this project:
Table 6e –Key Performance Indicators
Core Benefit Indicator Target Additional
Data
Collection
Outputs: 2 x Bridge structures
and Subway
suitable for cycles
and Toucan
crossing
Scheme
delivery
100% of
schemes
delivered on
time / to
budget
None
Connected cycle
links between
existing routes,
residential and
commercial areas
and the town
centre and railway
station
Scheme
delivery
100% of
schemes
delivered on
time / to
budget
None
Total area/length of
off road cycle
paths
Length of off
road paths
2360m None
Total area/length of
on carriageway
cycle facilities
Length of on
carriageway
facilities
15m None
Number of cycle
parking spaces
provided
No of parking
spaces
140 None
Outcomes: Increase in walking
and cycling trips
along existing
elements of the
route; and to and
from Town Centre
and Maidenhead
Station.
Number of
pedestrians
and cycles
Increase after 5
years relative
to baseline
Video
surveys at
decision
points
along the
route
Increase in
percentage of
female cyclists
Number of
female cyclists
Increase after 5
years relative
to baseline
Video
surveys at
decision
85
points
along the
route
Improvement in air
quality due to
improved traffic
flow
Annual mean
concentration
of NOx
Reduction in
NOx after 5
years relative
to baseline
None
Increased
residents’ cycling
satisfaction score
against as
measured by NHS
NHT Benchmarking
Survey
NHT
Benchmarking
survey
Increase score
after
implementation
None
Reduction in
collisions involving
cyclists
Number of
reported slight,
serious and
fatal casualties
Reduction after
5 years relative
to baseline
None
Other
Outcomes: Increased connectivity with existing cycle routes
Increased investment in new/existing cycle routes
Increased physical activity rates leading to improved health and
wellbeing.
6.12.2 A Process Evaluation will be undertaken as the construction nears
completion. The aim will be to:
6.12.3 identify factors influencing the extent to which objectives have been
achieved;
6.12.4 identify and investigate unintended outcomes; and
6.12.5 identify lessons learned.
6.12.6 The Process Evaluation will involve interviews with key project officers
and a Process Review Workshop with key parties and stakeholders. This
will include an assessment of:
Programme management, success factors and key obstacles
to delivering the scheme;
Project plan assessment, delivery at key milestones;
A review of evidence collated through RBWM’s project
management and governance procedures;
86
Consultation with key stakeholders to garner a range of views
of the operation and success of the scheme;
Evolution of the risk register and the effectiveness of the risk
management strategy e.g. safety during construction, delays
to transport users, impacts on local business during
construction;
Contract management issues, including handling of early
warnings, change controls and value engineering
opportunities;
If and how the context and rationale behind the scheme has
changed; and
All costs involved in the management, construction and
delivery of the scheme compared to the forecast costs
including an assessment of risk and optimism bias in pricing.
6.12.7 This process will inform a formal Project Closedown, associated lessons
learned report and log. These reports will be used to assist in the
evaluation of the process from start to finish. As part of the project
closedown process a workshop will be held with key members of the
client and contractor teams to capture the items that went well and
did not go well and if there are additional lessons that need to be
learned. This will include a review of the impact of stakeholder
engagement based upon the feedback that was received during the
project, and perceptions of the construction phase obtained via the
residents’ attitudes surveys.
6.12.8 After completion of the monitoring and impact evaluation, an
economic evaluation will be undertaken to assess the accountability
of the investment into the scheme through answering the following
questions:
How do the realised benefits, and therefore, VfM correspond
with those estimates derived from the scheme appraisal?
Have any unexpected benefits occurred or have other
predicted benefits not materialised?
Are on-going benefits expected to change?
87
6.12.9 The actual outturn costs and movement data will be used to generate
a new assessment of cost benefit. This will be supplemented with an
assessment of the wider economic benefits generated by the scheme.
88
7. CONCLUSIONS
7.1.1 Several interventions are proposed to improve connectivity to the
Town Centre and Railway station for cyclists as part of the
Maidenhead Missing Links Scheme. These will form an integrated
package of measures and network improvements.
7.1.2 The scheme is forecast to deliver significant benefits for cyclists across
the Borough.
7.1.3 Pedestrians can also expect a significant benefit in their route to and
from the town centre. By providing area of segregated use and
increased sizes of shared space reducing conflict.
7.1.4 Cycle users will benefit from improved connectivity to and from the
town centre and railway station and a segregated crossing facility
across the A4; resulting in a significant improvement in journey time.
7.1.5 Cycle users will also benefit from an increase in the quantity and
quality of cycle storage provision, as well as a higher perception of
security from CCTV.
7.1.6 The scheme is anticipated to have limited noise and air impact,
considered to be neutral overall based on anticipated transfer from
car to rail use.
7.1.7 The scheme supports the Council’s wider regeneration ambit ions and
a desire for improved connectivity and is supported by the Council,
local developers and stakeholders.
7.1.8 Of the benefits quantified, the core scenario with the A4 crossing
subway option and partial additional paving of Section M identified a
BCR of 2.1 which represents High VfM. With several non-monetised
benefits, particularly regarding the reduced
7.1.9 severance, improvements to public realm and regeneration on the
route. Sensitivity testing undertaking increases the BCR rating to 2.74
which represents High VfM.
7.1.10 Funding for the scheme will be provided through a combination of
Section 106 contributions from the Royal Borough and Local Growth
funding. Total LGF funding required for scheme delivery will be
£2,241,788 with a S106 contribution from the Royal Borough of £420,335
and Capital funding of £140,112.
7.1.11 The Royal Borough and the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) has
arrangements in place to effectively procure, manage and govern the
projects funded through the LGF, with an established project
89
management toolkit and governance arrangements that involve both
elected members and senior officers of the council.
7.1.12 Should the scheme progress to Full Business Case, further analysis of
the key assumptions, particularly journey time savings, is
recommended to provide assurance with regards to the VfM.
90
DOCUMENT CONTROL
Project Centre shall not be liable for the use of any information contained
herein for any purpose other than the sole and specific use for which it was
prepared.
Job
Number Issue Description Originator/s Checked Approved
1000005025 Final Business
Case
Naomi Barnes
31/10/18
Gordon
Oliver
02/11/18
Chris Durban
04/11/18
File path: Project-BST\1000005025 - RBWM Maidenhead Missing Links Route\2
Project Delivery\3 Reports\2 Submitted to client\FINAL SUBMISSION