Maidenhead Missing Links Business Case · Construction of a new underpass under the A4 for cyclists only north-east of an existing pedestrian underpass; Replacing the wooden pedestrian

Maidenhead Missing Links

Business Case

Date: November 2018

Created by

Naomi Barnes [email protected]

mailto:[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


C: Holmanleaze Bridge to

Blackamoor Lane

• Two existing footway/cycleway 1.5-2m


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


Figure 3.1: Maidenhead Missing Links Scheme

37


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


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


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


Figure 3.2 Count Sites (Pedestrian and Cycle Counts)

Town Centre partial

cordon

41


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)

http://www.sustrans.org/

49


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Documents

Maidenhead Missing Links Business Case · Construction of a new underpass under the A4 for cyclists only north-east of an existing pedestrian underpass; Replacing the wooden pedestrian