Archived decisions

Contact: Helen Ackerman, ext 5077 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The 2004/05 programme amendments proposed reflect programme and cost variations on individual schemes. Amendments and additions to the Capital Programme are made regularly and reported quarterly in order to maintain a forecast annual expenditure that is manageable, and flexible enough to ensure the target spend can be achieved.

2. Corporate Strategy

2.1 Decisions on the Capital Programme will support a range of the Corporate Strategy Aims covered by the Environment Department Services. The schemes relate to:

(i) Aim 1 (Maximising Life Opportunities) through improved accessibility;

(ii) Aim 2 (Stewardship of the Environment) through promoting alternatives to the car and promoting waste reduction;

(iii) Aim 4 (Building Strong and Safe Communities) as well as directly enhancing services, for example for public transport users; and

(iv) Aim 5 (Improving Services) by directly enhancing services, for example for public transport users.

2.2 This report was considered by the Environment Policy Review Committee on 1 December 2004.

3. Introduction

3.1 Resources available in 2004/05 for Integrated Transport are as follows:

3.2 In addition to the current year's programme of schemes, the net resources available at the start of the year (£13.933 million) have to fund expenditure on previous years' schemes where costs are still being incurred, together with some development fees on future years' schemes. Therefore the resources available for the current year programme of schemes are as follows:

3.3 The programme revisions (including new entries and deferments) outlined in Appendix 2 have a limited impact on the Capital Programme which remains in the region of £20 million (Appendix 1). These schemes are all expected to start construction this year, and collectively they are forecast to spend in the region of £11 million this year, with an ongoing commitment in 2005/06 for a further £8 million as construction continues throughout that year.

3.4 Total expenditure in 2004/05 is therefore forecast at £16.551 million, against an original settlement figure of £15.783 million.

3.5 The overspend, calculated at 4.8%, is considered to be within manageable tolerances of the spend target, while still enabling flexibility at year end. Considerations will continue to be given each month to adjustments and further changes to ensure the target spend is not exceeded.

4. Notification of Cost Increases to 2003/04 Transport Capital Programme Included in Spending Plan

4.1 In July 2004 the final 2003/04 programme was approved. The changes submitted at that time reflected the latest total costs for each scheme in that programme. Any changes following formal closure of the programme are reported for information only as the programme cannot be amended.

4.2 Using the latest forecast details supplied in October 2004 there are four schemes either at, or forecasting, an increase over 10% of the 2003/04 programme value.

Tor Way to Town Centre Cycles, Petersfield - £120,000
Latest costs and forecast £138,000 (+15%)

4.3 During construction ground conditions were found to contain some very soft soil areas which were not identified during the early tests. This required some revisions to the detail design and construction methods to be made during the construction period, resulting in these additional costs.

Romsey Road Corridor Improvements, Winchester - £50,000
Latest forecast £58,000 (+16%)

4.4 Works costs were reasonably close to original estimates, however, due to the smallscale and diverse nature of the improvements, a disproportionately large amount of site supervision and minor design alterations have been required. As Romsey Road is one of the main arterial routes into Winchester and particularly traffic-sensitive, the project manager was more heavily involved in the traffic management.

High Street, Fordingbridge - £168,000 LTP/£15,000 External Funding Latest forecast £200,000 (+19% LTP / +9% overall)

4.5 The £15,000 developer contribution was to be collected when the development reached a certain level of build. However, the development never started, and the site has subsequently been sold. There are no other developer contributions within the Fordingbridge area that can be used to replace this contribution. The scheme is therefore completely LTP (Local Transport Plan) funded at a value of £200,000.

4.6 Other additional expenditure totalling £17,000, included in the latest forecast, has been due to the following:

(i) additional Engineering Consultancy fees in managing the project in light of postponement of start date due to emergency works in nearby location;

(ii) additional work associated with the construction (site instructions, variations and re-measured quantities, which were all subject to an on-cost for restricted working);

(iii) the contract period was extended due to the constraints within the site to ensure safe working adjacent to live traffic. Subsequently additional traffic management costs were incurred;

(iv) site supervision fee costs subsequently increased;

(v) following the completion of the British Telecom diversionary work there was an increase in cost for their works; and

(vi) historic fees (2000/01) relating to early preparatory surveys previously not accounted for.

Bridgemary Shelters - £100,000 External Funding

Latest forecast £116,000 (+16%)

4.7 The latest forecast includes six additional bus stops that were replaced during construction. These existing stops, not identified for replacement in the original design, were found to be in a worse state of repair than originally expected, and were subsequently included.

5. Additions to the 2004/05 Capital Programme Included in Spending Plan

5.1 At Greatbridge Road Rail Bridge, Romsey, and Hill Road/Station Road Rail Bridge, Portchester, safety schemes are added to the programme following identification of serious risk of personal injury to vulnerable road users.

Greatbridge Road, Rail Bridge, Romsey Safety Scheme

5.2 The Greatbridge Rail over-road bridge spans the A3057 just to the north of Romsey town centre. The bridge, which is the responsibility of Network Rail, has a restricted headroom and is currently protected by reflective edge-beams installed by Network Rail. The height restriction is also extensively signed for some distance around the location. Despite this there have been a number of direct bridge strikes by over-height vehicles, including a number of high profile recent incidents which have brought traffic in Romsey town centre to a standstill. Due to the angle of the bridge, over-height vehicles have struck the edge-beams and toppled over onto the footway. Although there have been no serious injuries resulting from these incidents, the risk is extremely significant, especially as this is on a school route.

5.3 In the short term additional signing will be provided to supplement that already in place, but as existing signing is already highly conspicuous, the additional signs are likely to have only limited effect. It is now proposed to introduce electronic height detection with interactive warning signing that will warn drivers directly if they are over-height at an estimated cost of £100,000. Network Rail have been requested to share the cost of remedial works and are currently considering their position.

5.4 A full Project Appraisal will be presented to the Executive Member for Environment in January 2005. An initial programme suggests that the system can be installed by the end of March 2005. It is therefore proposed to add this scheme to the 2004/05 Capital Programme at an estimated value of £100,000.

Hill Road/Station Road Railway Bridge, Portchester

5.5 Resulting from identified risk to vulnerable road users, a temporary priority give-way system was installed in July 2003 to complement construction of a much improved and wider footway under the bridge. The width of the bridge was such that this could only be achieved by narrowing the carriageway to a point where shuttle working became essential.

5.6 Monitoring has shown that the current unsignalled priority arrangements creates uncertainty for some drivers regarding who has priority. This uncertainty will be eliminated by the presence of signals, and furthermore the system will react to approaching traffic and hence minimise unnecessary delays.

5.7 Options for a pedestrian underpass have been considered, but ruled out on the grounds of likely costs (greater than £1.5 million) and land acquisition issues. On balance, therefore, the shuttle signals represent the most cost-effective way of providing a vastly improved footway under the bridge whilst maintaining a managed and safer system for all road users.

5.8 A full Project Appraisal will be presented to the Executive Member for Environment in January 2005. An initial programme suggests that the signals will be installed by the end of March 2005. It is therefore proposed to add this scheme to the 2004/05 Capital Programme at an estimated value of £100,000.

6. Changes to the 2004/05 Programme Values Included in Spending Plan

6.1 Appendix 2 sets out all the changes to the current 2004/05 Capital Programme, LTP and Externally Funded, since approval in September 2004.

6.2 Appendix 3 sets out schemes delayed or deleted from the 2004/05 Capital Programme, LTP and Externally Funded, since approval in September 2004, providing brief details of the reason for delay.

7. 2004/05 Externally Funded Programme

7.1 Appendix 1 also sets out the revised 2004/05 Externally Funded Programme. The total value of external funding assigned to these projects is in the region of £6.3 million. These schemes are all expected to start construction this year, and are forecast to spend collectively £2.5 million this year, with an ongoing commitment in future years of £3.4 million.

7.2 The breakdown of expenditure forecast for 2004/05 from external sources is set out below:

8. 2005/06 Capital Programme

8.1 The current assessment of forecasts indicates a committed expenditure of around £8 million carried forward into 2005/06 from the historic and current years' programmes. This significant carry forward is primarily owing to the late start of many schemes within the 2004/05 programme which is due, in part, to the annual LTP funding process by the DfT and the increasing complexity and time to develop schemes.

8.2 As a direct result, a reduced 2005/06 programme has now been submitted to the Area Transport Strategy Panels for comment and prioritisation. The new 2005/06 Transport Capital Programme will be submitted to the Environment Policy Review Committee and the Executive Member for Environment in January 2005, following the LTP settlement announcement in mid-December 2004, prior to Council's consideration of the revenue budget and capital programme in February.

Recommendations

1. That the revised 2004/05 Transport Capital Programme, as set out in Appendix 1, be approved.

2. That the progress on the 2004/05 Transport Capital Programme be noted.

9090/HA