gateway 4: detailed options appraisaldemocracy.cityoflondon.gov.uk/documents/s7794/gresham st...
Post on 18-Oct-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Gateway 4: Detailed Options Appraisal
Committee(s): Date(s): Item no.
Streets & Walkways
Projects Sub
23 April 2012
17 April 2012
Subject:
Cheapside Stage 4A – Gresham Street
Evaluation
Public
Report of:
Director of the Built Environment
For Decision
Overview
Context Gresham Street was closed in 1993 to eastbound motor traffic
as part of the City‟s original Traffic & Environmental zone
(security zone). The zone was extended in 1996 to cover a
larger part of the City. The legacy arrangements at Gresham
Street remained but now no longer serve the original intended
purpose. The arrangements however, provide a level of
environmental benefits to local road users and surrounding
local occupiers, such as improved safety and lower traffic
volumes.
In June 2010, Gresham Street was re-opened to eastbound
traffic to facilitate works along Cheapside and surrounding
areas. During this temporary two-way arrangement there were
a number of requests to make Gresham Street permanently
open to traffic in both directions to improve accessibility in the
area. Gresham Street is currently opened to eastbound traffic
under an experimental traffic order.
In July 2011, Members approved that a formal assessment
should be undertaken.
Gresham Street is categorised as a Local Access Road in the
approved Highway hierarchy. The street is currently performing
a local distribution function, similar to that of Cheapside; which
is a Local Distributor Road.
Brief description of
project
To permanently re-open Gresham Street to east-bound motor
vehicles and to facilitate pedal cycle access from Angel Street
to Gresham Street.
This entails:-
Carrying out public consultation;
Implementing an experimental opening; and
Technical options appraisal.
The results of these assessments will be used to affirm the
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
engineering appraisal included in this report.
If Members are minded to approve an option (either 2 to 6), it
will then be designed in detail and implemented subject to
statutory processes and other necessary approvals.
Success Criteria The success criteria for this project will be:-
Improved motor vehicle accessibility for local occupiers;
Improved highway network resilience;
Improved cycling accessibility, convenience and safety;
Usability for pedestrians;
Minimise the impacts of increased traffic using Gresham
Street; and
Minimise impact upon road safety in general.
Notable Exclusions There are no notable exclusions.
Link to Strategic
Aims & Policy
Highways are a core infrastructure to facilitate community
needs and improving its network accords with the City‟s
strategic aims including:-
To provide modern, efficient and high quality local
services and policing within the Square Mile for workers,
residents and visitors with a view to delivering sustainable
outcomes.
This project has relevant links to the Local Development
Framework (LDF) and Local Implementation Plan (LIP).
Options 2-6 support the Core Strategy Vision of the LDF „The
City‟s streets will be managed to improve conditions for
pedestrians and cyclists, while providing for essential private
vehicle movements‟.
The LIP includes a delivery plan that considers both highway
hierarchy and streets as places which is directly relevant to this
project, as Gresham Street is a local access street that joins St
Martin‟s Le Grand, a borough distributor street.
Options 2-6 will act to improve cyclist permeability. Final design
elements of the authorised option such as a granite raised
table (if approved), the inclusion of pedestrian refuge(s) or a
re-think of the current parking bay arrangement will act to
improve road safety.
By increasing traffic on a local access road it could be argued
that the options 2-6 contradict the City‟s “filtered permeability”
approach as outlined in the traffic management programme
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
„(with the exception of buses) motor vehicle traffic that has
neither an origin nor a destination in the City should use only
the “box” formed by the strategic, London distributor and
borough distributor roads‟. A Plan of the road network can be
found in Appendix A.
The LIP also states in the section on streets as places, that „The
continued creation of more pedestrian and cyclist shared
routes and more pedestrian zones that permit access for
cyclists, i.e., the selective exclusion of motor vehicles from some
local access streets, at all times or only at some times of day‟.
Therefore it should be noted that options 3-6 incorporate
pedestrian and cyclist shared routes, however, they will also
act to add to traffic flows along a local access street, not all of
which will have an origin or destination within the vicinity of
Gresham Street.
Within which
category does the
project fit
Category 7a: Asset Enhancement/Improvement.
Resources
Expended To Date
To date the following resources have been expended on the
evaluation of the Cheapside 4A project:-
Gresham St Evaluation Budget Spend to date Remaining
P&T Staff Costs 38,000 29,000 9,000
Highways Staff Costs 2,000 1,800 200
Fees 17,000 3,900 13,100
GRAND TOTAL 57,000 34,700 22,300
From the table above, it can be seen that there is still some
£22,300 remaining to complete the evaluation. It is envisaged
that the whole amount will be required to obtain and analyse
traffic, pedestrian and accident data as well as to assess the
experimental opening and carry out the necessary stakeholder
engagement. There is currently a commitment in the fees
element of £4,000 relating to a radar survey and officers will
shortly be instructing traffic surveys. If however, there are
savings, these will be put towards Gateway 4C (detailed
design).
Detailed Options Appraisal Recommendation
List of options described There are six potential options for Members to
consider. Five of these will see the junction
reverting back to two-way operation for all vehicles
whilst the „do nothing‟ option will retain the existing
eastbound closure to motor vehicles. The options
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
are:-
Option 1 - Do nothing;
Option 2 - Basic two-way arrangement with
no cycling provisions;
Option 3 - Two-way arrangement and shared
footway on St Martin‟s Le Grand;
Option 4 - Two-way arrangement with raised
table and shared footway on St Martin‟s Le
Grand;
Option 5 - Two-way arrangement with raised
table, with no cycling provisions; and
Option 6 - Two-way signal controlled
arrangement together with shared footway
on St Martin‟s Le Grand.
See Appendix B for outline design options.
Option recommended to
progress to Authority to Start
Work stage
I recommend that Members:-
1. approve option 4 at a cost of £163,000 including
£19,500 for detailed design, to be met from the
£250,000 Cheapside Reserve.
2. delegate approval of the detailed design
(gateway 4C) and authority to start work (gateway
5) to the Director of the Built Environment, subject
to the tolerances as set out in the tolerances
section not being exceeded.
It should be noted that option 4 proposes the use
of granite setts to provide a raised “courtesy”
crossing. This is proposed primarily for safety and
accessibility reasons.
In accordance with the Review of Materials report
officers only recommend the use of granite setts
where it is believed demonstrable safety benefit
can be achieved. It is costly and more time
consuming to construct, however, research has
found that using materials such as granite setts can
reduce vehicle speeds by approximately 5mph.
This will be of significant benefit to road safety
where vehicle entry speed has been highlighted as
a problem.
The character of St Martin‟s Le Grand (and
Aldersgate Street) is very much one of a traffic
dominated street carrying large volumes of
through traffic at higher speeds than Gresham
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Street. It is therefore considered necessary to
convey to drivers that the character of Gresham
Street is very different. The raised granite courtesy
crossing will therefore encourage them to drive
more appropriately.
Whilst other materials could provide this contrast at
a reduced cost (e.g. anti-skid treatment), it is likely
these would not provide the same level of safety
benefit. Granite setts have the added advantage
of not only providing a visual contrast but also
tactile variation in the road surface.
Granite setts have a proven track record in the City
unlike other materials and are therefore considered
the most appropriate material for mitigating the
safety implications likely to arise from the opening
of the junction. It is therefore compliant with
Members approval on the use of this material.
Resource requirements to reach
Authority to Start Work and
source of funding
The resources required to reach authority to start
work stage and source of funding for the six options
are detailed below. It should be noted that these
are in addition to the budget totalling £57,000 to
evaluate Gresham Street, which covers extensive
consultation work, survey analysis and engineering
appraisal tasks as approved by Members in July
2011.
Option 1
There are no further costs associated with this
option
Options 2 & 3
Task Cost (£)
Staff cost (detailed
design & project
management)
11,600
Fees (safety audit,
statutory utility
company enquiries)
6,500
Total 18,100
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Options 4 & 5
Task Cost (£)
Staff cost (detailed
design & project
management)
13,000 *
Fees (safety audit,
statutory utility
company enquiries)
6,500
Total 19,500
* This costs more that options 2 & 3 due to the
additional design work required.
Option 6
Task Cost (£)
Staff cost (detailed
design & project
management
(including review of
traffic modelling))
17,000
Fees (safety audit,
statutory utility
company enquiries,
Modelling, TfL)
16,000
Total 33,000
In July 2011 Members‟ agreed that a Cheapside
Reserve fund of £250,000 was retained for potential
cost overruns on Stages 3 & 4. Subject to funds
remaining at the end of the overall Cheapside
project, it was agreed that the Reserve fund could
be set aside for the implementation of Cheapside
Stage 4A, namely Gresham Street. This
recommendation was further subject to Members‟
approval of a separate evaluation report which is
now being presented to your Committee.
Appendix C provides the financial summary and
the latest expenditure/outturn forecast. Based on
the information to date it is expected that
Cheapside Stages 2, 3 and 4 will be completed
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
below budget. It is expected that combined saving
of over £700,000 will be achieved for these stages
which can be retained until the final cost is
affirmed. But there is sufficient confidence for the
Cheapside Reserve fund to be re-allocated. It is
therefore recommended that the cost of
Cheapside 4A is met from the Cheapside Reserve
fund.
Cheapside Stage 1 is completed. Only snagging
work remains for stage 2. Stage 3 is virtually
complete with some resurfacing work outstanding.
All of these have so far been delivered within
budget.
Stage 4 is approximately 60% complete. Currently it
is projected that there will be a significant
underspend on this stage of the project. This mostly
results from the final civils works having a predicted
underspend of £267k. This can largely be attributed
to the following:
Resurfacing was calculated using the
previous contract rates, the recently
procured contract commences 1/7/2012
and offers significantly cheaper rates;
The budget for accelerated working was not
required;
Concrete replacement not likely to be
required; and
Following a redesign not as much drainage
was needed as was estimated for.
It is unlikely that the outturn report for the
Cheapside project will identify a need for major
remedial works, Stages 1-3 have been in operation
now for some months now with no significant
problems arising.
The final part of Stage 4 works should be
substantially completed by the end of June 2012, if
in the unlikely circumstance, that there is a need to
call upon the Reserve fund for Stage 4, the
Gateway 5 report (programmed for September
2012) will be presented to Members to consider
possible other funding options.
Plans for consultation prior to
Authority to Start Work
Extensive consultation has been undertaken as
part of the evaluation. Key stakeholders have been
contacted and signage was erected on Gresham
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Street to reach other users, in particular those
passing through the area.
Some 450 consultation documents, which included
a questionnaire, were sent to local occupiers and
businesses. The questionnaire comprised of these
two questions, 1) Do you support the general
principle of opening Gresham Street to two-way
traffic? and 2) Do you support the general principle
of improving cycling provisions from Angel Street to
Gresham Street? The form also invited any other
comments to be made.
As a result of this exercise, we received 81
responses which represent an approximate
response rate of 18%. The results were:
Question Response Did
not
answer Yes No
Q1. Do you support
the general principle
of opening Gresham
Street to two-way
traffic?
62
(77%)
19
(23%)
-
Q2. Do you support
the general principle
of improving cycling
provisions from Angel
Street to Gresham
Street?
64
(79%)
14
(17%)
3
(4%)
There were also a significant number of comments
made. The majority of these generally fell in to
distinct groups such as:-
I support the two-way opening, it will
improve access/be beneficial to traffic
flow/reduce journey time;
It is currently dangerous to cross Gresham
Street, two-way traffic will make this worse;
I would like to see improvements to signage
to reduce the risk to pedestrians;
Drivers often enter Gresham Street too
quickly; and
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
The parking bays along Gresham Street
make crossing dangerous.
Comments relating to cycling were generally non-
supportive and the trend showed a general dislike
to shared footway arrangements. The general
views of cyclists and Cyclists in the City were
supportive of the improvements to cycling links,
however they noted that they would prefer an
alternative facility to that provided by a shared
space solution; Cyclists in the City were also
opposed to making Gresham Street two-way,
noting that it would make the street a less desirable
route for cyclists.
There were also concerns regarding access issues,
in particular with the shared use of the footway
along St Martin‟s Le Grand. It was considered that
this facility would be detrimental to disabled
pedestrians who can be intimidated in shared
space areas. The Access Team stated a
preference for a dedicated cycle track.
Further consultation/statutory processes will follow
to ensure that the chosen design takes into
account the comments made to date and is as
inclusive as practically possible.
Level of approval for Detailed
Design (if required)
It is recommended that the Director of the Built
Environment be authorised to approve the
following. This is because the proposals are of a
minor, low value and low risk nature.
1. Gateway 4C – Detailed Design.
2. Gateway 5 – Authority to Start Work, subject
to the tolerances as set out below not being
exceeded.
Procurement Strategy I will use the City‟s Highways term contractor.
Procurement will be in line with term contract
procedure.
Tolerances It is recommended that this project proceeds to
implementation without referring back to
committee subject to the following:-
1. Sufficient funding being available from
the Cheapside Project reserve funds;
2. No material amendments are required to
the approved option; and
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
3. No significant adverse outcome following
the experimental scheme.
The above will be confirmed in the Gateway 4C
(detailed design report).
Legal Implications (all options) In carrying out its highway and traffic functions the
City will have regard, amongst other things, to its
duty to assert and protect the rights of the public to
the use and enjoyment of the highway (s.120
Highways Act 1980); its duty to secure the
expeditious, convenient and safe movement of
traffic (including pedestrians) and provision of
suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off
the highway having regard, amongst other
things, to the effect on the amenities of the locality
and the importance of facilitating the passage of
public service vehicles (s.122 Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984); and its duty to secure the
efficient use of the road network avoiding
congestion and disruption (s.16 Traffic
Management Act 2004).
The Cheapside project is part funded from the On-
Street Parking Reserve. Section 55 of the Road
Traffic Regulation Act 1984 permits any surplus from
the on-street parking account to be applied for
specified purposes. If it appears to the local
authority to be unnecessary or undesirable to
provide further off-street parking accommodation
in its area, it may apply any surplus for, amongst
other things, the purposes of a highway
improvement project. For these purpose a
"highway improvement project" means a project
connected with the carrying out by the
appropriate highway authority of any operation
which constitutes an improvement (within the
meaning of the Highways Act 1980) of a highway
within the local authority's area.
Detailed Options Appraisal
Option Option 1 - Do nothing
Description This would see Gresham Street revert back to its
current permanent layout, i.e. a one-way street for
westbound vehicular traffic, with a segregated
contra-flow cycle lane on the north side allowing
cyclists to travel eastbound. There will be no
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Option Option 1 - Do nothing
provisions for cyclists to access Gresham Street
from Angel Street. Materials would remain
unchanged.
It would however, be necessary to carry out some
remedial work to the Gresham Street/St Martin‟s Le
Grand junction arising from the temporary
opening. The additional traffic has lead to
excessive “wear and tear” and repairs to surfaces,
street furniture and other re-instatement are
required.
Advantages/Disadvantages
and strategy for achievement
See Appendix D.
Scope and exclusions This option has the least scope; it results in no
changes to the current permanent arrangement.
Constraints and assumptions None other than to reinstate/repair the junction to
its former condition.
Programme Not applicable other than to reinstate the junction
at the earliest opportunity.
It is estimated that the construction of this option
would be completed in a single weekend.
Risk implications See Appendix E.
Legal implications See “detailed options Appraisal recommendation”
section of the report.
HR implications None
Anticipated stakeholders and
consultees
A letter will be sent to all stakeholders who were
consulted initially (i.e. local residents, local business
and relevant Members) updating them on the
results of the consultation and providing
information on plans to revert Gresham Street to its
current permanent one-way layout. No further
stakeholder engagement would take place.
Results of consultation carried
out to date
See consultation prior to authority to start work
section.
The vast majority of consultees would be opposed
to option 1; most respondents stated a wish to see
Gresham Street made two-way and/or an
improvement to the cycling provisions between
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Option Option 1 - Do nothing
Angel Street and Gresham Street.
Financial Implications
Estimated capital cost (£) The estimated cost to re-instate the junction would
be £11,500.
No detailed design costs would be incurred with
this option.
Source of capital funding Sufficient allowances have been made in the
Cheapside Area Strategy Project to re-instate this
junction as this was temporarily opened to aid the
Cheapside works. No further additional resources
are called for under this option.
Anticipated phasing of capital
expenditure
Re-instatement of this junction will be completed in
2012/13.
Estimated capital value/return
(£)
N/A
Fund/budget to be credited
with capital return
N/A
Estimated revenue implications
(£)
N/A
Source of revenue funding N/A
Fund/budget to be credited
with income/savings
N/A
Anticipated life N/A
Investment Appraisal N/A
Benchmarks or comparative
data
N/A
Proposed procurement
approach
The City‟s Highways term contractor would be used
to deliver the chosen option.
Affordability Sufficient allowances have been made in the
Cheapside Area Strategy Project to re-instate this
junction as it was temporarily opened to aid the
Cheapside works. No further additional resources
are called for.
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Option Option 1 - Do nothing
Recommendation Not recommended
Reasons Offers no improvement over the existing
permanent layout, therefore this option does not
adequately address the success criteria.
This option is at odds with the wishes of the majority
of those who responded to the consultation.
However, this layout has functioned adequately
since 1996, when the restricted movements where
introduced for the Traffic and Environment zone.
This constrained traffic flows and has provided a
level of environmental and safety benefits, in
particular to pedestrians. This is therefore a viable
option should Members decide that two-way
motor vehicle functionality at the Gresham Street
junction is undesirable.
Next Steps Should Members authorise Option 1, the
experimental traffic order will be terminated and
works to reinstate the junction would then
commence.
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Option Option 2 - Basic two-way arrangement, with no
cycling provisions
Description This option adds two-way functionality to the
Gresham Street junction in the simplest form
possible. As a consequence additional traffic plus
two-way traffic flow will increase potential safety
risk. There would be no specific provisions for pedal
cyclists to access Gresham Street from Angel Street
or other pedestrian facilities along Gresham Street.
There would be no specific mitigating measures to
address safety.
Advantages/Disadvantages
and strategy for achievement
See Appendix D.
Scope and exclusions This option excludes improvements to cycling from
Angel Street to Gresham Street. The design does
not incorporate a raised courtesy crossing or other
facilities to assist pedestrian e.g. pedestrian
refuges.
Constraints and assumptions Forecasts have been made with regards to the
increase in vehicular traffic likely to use Gresham
Street. These have been based upon „snap-shot
surveys‟ and their validity will be checked as part
of the monitoring of the experimental scheme.
Programme Outline Programme
Task Date
Detailed design and
refine cost estimate
Apr-May 2012
Gateway 4C – Detailed
Design report
Apr-May 2012
Gateway 5 – Authority
to Start report
Sep 2012
Implementation Nov 2012 - Jan 2013
(avoiding the
Olympics)
Note, it is estimated that a road closure of three
weeks will be required to construct this option. This
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Option Option 2 - Basic two-way arrangement, with no
cycling provisions
will require traffic to be diverted to either
Cheapside and/or London Wall.
Risk implications See Appendix E.
Legal implications See “detailed options Appraisal recommendation”
section of the report.
HR implications N/A
Anticipated stakeholders and
consultees
Option 2 will require further consultation with a
number of key stakeholders and compliance with
any necessary statutory processes, such as liaising
with TfL to agree changes to the street.
Stakeholders who were consulted initially (i.e. local
residents, local business & relevant Members)
including those who separately responded will be
updated accordingly.
Results of consultation carried
out to date
See consultation prior to authority to start work
section.
Financial Implications
Estimated capital cost (£) The estimated cost to implement option 2 is
£75,000. A breakdown of this estimate is provided
below.
Task Estimated cost (£)
Works 63,000
Staff supervision 9,000
Fees 3,000
Total 75,000
Note, this estimate would be refined as part of the
detailed design work and in any case, there will be
new rates as a result of the current term contractor
tendering process. No allowances have been
made for any statutory utility plant diversions. Any
necessary diversions will be detailed in the next
gateway report.
Source of capital funding I propose to use the reserve funds from the
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Option Option 2 - Basic two-way arrangement, with no
cycling provisions
Cheapside Area Strategy Improvements to cover
the costs required to take the project to detailed
design.
Anticipated phasing of capital
expenditure
Full expenditure on this project will take place in
the 2012/13 financial year.
Estimated capital value/return
(£)
N/A
Fund/budget to be credited
with capital return
N/A
Estimated revenue implications
(£)
N/A
Source of revenue funding N/A
Fund/budget to be credited
with income/savings
N/A
Anticipated life N/A
Investment Appraisal N/A
Benchmarks or comparative
data
N/A
Proposed procurement
approach
The City‟s Highways term contractor would be used
to deliver the chosen option.
Affordability Sufficient monies are expected to be available in
the Reserve fund of the Cheapside Area Strategy
Improvements project.
See “Resources requirements to reach Authority to
Start Work and source of funding” section for
details.
Recommendation Not recommended
Reasons This option fails to provide provisions to mitigate
safety implications, accessibility and to improve the
pedestrian convenience.
There are also no improvements or provisions for
cyclists travelling from Angel Street to Gresham
Street.
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Option Option 2 - Basic two-way arrangement, with no
cycling provisions
It would only achieve some of the success criteria.
Next Steps Should Members approve this option, monitoring
and evaluation of the experimental scheme will
continue with the impacts of the proposed
changes fully assessed. This will entail analysis of
traffic surveys alongside observation work and
analysis of accident data.
Detailed design together with safety assessments
will then be carried out followed by a Gateway 4C
Detailed Design report. Costs will also be refined
and a Gateway 4C and 5 reports will then be
prepared prior to implementation.
Additional consultation will begin as outlined in the
additional stakeholders and consultees section.
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Option Option 3 - Two-way arrangement and shared
footway on St Martin‟s Le Grand
Description This option is the same as option 2 but with the
addition of dropped kerbs for cyclists and a shared
pedestrian/cyclist footway arrangement along the
western footway of St Martin‟s Le Grand to improve
cycle access to Gresham Street from Angel Street.
This offers the same mitigation of potential safety
risks for cyclists but offers no such mitigation for
pedestrians at the junction.
Pedestrian facilities along the link will be fully
considered and if it‟s desirable, pedestrian refuges
will be included in the design.
In addition, any changes to the existing parking
bay arrangement along Gresham Street will be
fully considered to seek improvements in line with
the projects success criteria.
Advantages/Disadvantages
and strategy for achievement
See Appendix D.
Scope and exclusions This option excludes the provision of a raised
courtesy crossing or other facilities to assist
pedestrians along Gresham Street.
Constraints and assumptions Some calculated assumptions have been made
with regards to the increase in vehicular flows that
will occur as a result of making Gresham Street
two-way. These are based on „snap-shot surveys‟
and their validity will be checked as part of the
monitoring of the experimental layout.
Programme Outline Programme
Task Date
Detailed design and
refine cost estimate
Apr-May 2012
Safety Audit May 2012
Gateway 4C – Detailed
Design report
Apr-May 2012
Gateway 5 – Authority Sept 2012
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Option Option 3 - Two-way arrangement and shared
footway on St Martin‟s Le Grand
to Start report
Implementation Nov 2012 - Jan 2013
(avoiding the
Olympics)
Note, it is estimated that a road closure of three
weeks will be required to construct this option. This
will require traffic to be diverted to either London
Wall or Cheapside.
Risk implications See Appendix E.
Legal implications See “detailed options Appraisal recommendation”
section of the report.
HR implications N/A
Anticipated stakeholders and
consultees
Option 3 will require further consultation with a
number of key stakeholders and to obtain or
comply with any necessary statutory processes,
such as liaising with TfL to agree changes to the
street.
Stakeholders who were consulted initially (i.e. local
residents, local business & relevant Members)
including those who separately responded will be
updated accordingly.
Results of consultation carried
out to date
See consultation prior to authority to start work
section.
Financial Implications
Estimated capital cost (£) The estimated cost to implement this option is also
£75,000. A breakdown of this estimate is provided
below.
Task Estimated cost (£)
Works 63,000
Staff supervision 9,000
Fees 3,000
Total 75,000
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Option Option 3 - Two-way arrangement and shared
footway on St Martin‟s Le Grand
Note, this estimate would be refined as part of the
detailed design work and in any case, there will be
new rates as a result of the current term contractor
tendering process. No allowances have been
made for any statutory utility plant diversions.
Source of capital funding I propose to use the reserve funds from the
Cheapside Area Strategy Improvements to cover
the costs required to take the project to detailed
design.
Anticipated phasing of capital
expenditure
Further expenditure on this project will all take
place in the 2012/13 financial year.
Estimated capital value/return
(£)
N/A
Fund/budget to be credited
with capital return
N/A
Estimated revenue implications
(£)
N/A
Source of revenue funding N/A
Fund/budget to be credited
with income/savings
N/A
Anticipated life N/A
Investment Appraisal N/A
Benchmarks or comparative
data
N/A
Proposed procurement
approach
The City‟s Highways term contractor would be used
to deliver the chosen option.
Affordability Sufficient monies are expected to be available in
the Reserve fund of the Cheapside Area Strategy
Improvements project.
See “Resources requirements to reach Authority to
Start Work and source of funding” section for
details.
Recommendation Not recommended.
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Option Option 3 - Two-way arrangement and shared
footway on St Martin‟s Le Grand
Reasons This option fails to provide adequate provisions to
mitigate the safety implications for pedestrians,
accessibility or to improve the pedestrian
convenience.
While this option would provide some of the
benefits of the success criteria, other options would
provide greater benefits.
Next Steps Should Members approve this option, monitoring
and evaluation of the experimental scheme will
continue with the impacts of the proposed
changes fully assessed. This will entail analysis of
traffic surveys alongside observation work and
analysis of accident data.
Detailed design together with safety assessments
will then be carried out. Costs will also be refined
and a Gateway 4C and 5 reports will then be
prepared prior to implementation.
Additional consultation will begin as outlined in the
additional stakeholders and consultees section.
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Option Option 4 –Two-way arrangement with raised table
and shared footway on St Martin‟s Le Grand
Description This option is the same as option 3; the difference
being the inclusion of a raised courtesy crossing
constructed using granite setts at the Gresham
Street junction. This will reduce vehicle speeds,
improve pedestrian accessibility, convenience and
mitigate the safety implications arising from this
change.
The addition of a shared footpath on the western
side of St Martin‟s Le Grand will also improve
cycling provisions to access Gresham Street.
Pedestrian facilities along the link will be fully
considered. If it‟s desirable pedestrian refuges will
be included in the design.
In addition, any changes to the existing parking
bay arrangement along Gresham Street will be
incorporated to seek improvements in line with the
projects success criteria.
Advantages/Disadvantages
and strategy for achievement
See Appendix D.
Scope and exclusions No notable exclusions.
Constraints and assumptions Some calculated assumptions have been made
with regards to the increase in vehicular flows that
will occur as a result of making Gresham Street
two-way. These are based on „snap-shot surveys‟
and their validity will be checked as part of the
monitoring of the experimental layout.
Programme Outline Programme
Task Date
Detailed design and
refine cost estimate
Apr-May 2012
Safety Audit May 2012
Gateway 4C – Detailed
Design report
Apr-May 2012
Gateway 5 – Authority Sept 2012
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Option Option 4 –Two-way arrangement with raised table
and shared footway on St Martin‟s Le Grand
to Start report
Implementation Nov 2012 - Jan 2013
(avoiding the
Olympics)
Note, it is estimated that a road closure of six
weeks will be required to construct this option. This
will require traffic to be diverted to other either
London Wall or Cheapside.
Risk implications See Appendix E.
Legal implications See “detailed options Appraisal recommendation”
section of the report.
HR implications N/A
Anticipated stakeholders and
consultees
Option 4 will require further consultation with a
number of key stakeholders and to obtain or
comply with any necessary statutory processes,
such as liaising with TfL to agree changes to the
street.
Stakeholders who were consulted initially (i.e. local
residents, local business & relevant Members)
including those who separately responded will be
updated accordingly.
Results of consultation carried
out to date
See “Consultation prior to authority to start work”
section.
Financial Implications
Estimated capital cost (£) The estimated cost to implement option 4 is
£143,500. A breakdown of this estimate is provided
below.
Task Estimated cost (£)
Works 115,000
Staff supervision 14,000
Fees 14,500
Total 143,500
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Option Option 4 –Two-way arrangement with raised table
and shared footway on St Martin‟s Le Grand
Note, this estimate would be refined as part of the
detailed design work and in any case, there may
be new rates as a result of the current term
contractor tendering process.
No allowances have been made for any statutory
utility plant diversions.
Source of capital funding I propose to use the reserve funds from the
Cheapside Area Strategy Improvements to cover
the costs required to take the project to detailed
design.
Anticipated phasing of capital
expenditure
Further expenditure on this project will all take
place in the 2012/13 financial year.
Estimated capital value/return
(£)
N/A
Fund/budget to be credited
with capital return
N/A
Estimated revenue implications
(£)
N/A
Source of revenue funding N/A
Fund/budget to be credited
with income/savings
N/A
Anticipated life N/A
Investment Appraisal N/A
Benchmarks or comparative
data
N/A
Proposed procurement
approach
The City‟s Highways term contractor would be used
to deliver the chosen option.
Affordability Sufficient monies are expected to be available in
the Reserve fund of the Cheapside Area Strategy
Improvements project.
See “Resources requirements to reach Authority to
Start Work and source of funding” section for
details.
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Option Option 4 –Two-way arrangement with raised table
and shared footway on St Martin‟s Le Grand
Recommendation Recommended
Reasons This option is the most appropriate option to
achieve the success criteria as set out in this report.
It has the ingredients to make the opening of the
junction successful by balancing the needs of all
road users.
The opening of the junction will improve motor
vehicle access whilst the other measures, in
particular the raised granite courtesy crossing will
mitigate the safety implications likely to arise from
the change. Provisions for pedestrians and cyclists
have also been adequately addressed.
Next Steps Should Members approve the option, monitoring
and evaluation of the experimental scheme will
continue with the impacts of the proposed
changes fully assessed. This will entail analysis of
traffic surveys alongside observation work and
analysis of all accident data.
Detailed design together with safety assessments
will then be carried out. Costs will be refined and a
gateway 4C and 5 reports will be prepared prior to
implementation.
Additional consultation will begin as outlined in the
additional stakeholders and consultees section.
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Option Option 5 –Two-way arrangement with raised table,
with no cycling provisions
Description This option is effectively the same as option 4 but
excludes provisions for cyclists sharing the footway
when travelling from Angel Street to Gresham
Street.
Advantages/Disadvantages
and strategy for achievement
See Appendix D.
Scope and exclusions This option excludes provisions for cyclists travelling
from Angel Street to Gresham Street.
Constraints and assumptions Some calculated assumptions have been made
with regards to the increase in vehicular flows that
will occur as a result of making Gresham Street
two-way. These are based on „snap-shot surveys‟
and their validity will be checked as part of the
monitoring of the experimental layout.
Programme Outline Programme
Task Date
Detailed design and
refine cost estimate
Apr-May 2012
Safety Audit May 2012
Gateway 4C – Detailed
Design report
Apr-May 2012
Gateway 5 – Authority
to Start report
Sept 2012
Implementation Nov 2012 - Jan 2013
(avoiding the
Olympics)
Note, it is estimated that a road closure of six
weeks will be required to construct this option. This
will require traffic to be diverted to either London
Wall or Cheapside.
Risk implications See Appendix E.
Legal implications See “detailed options Appraisal recommendation”
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Option Option 5 –Two-way arrangement with raised table,
with no cycling provisions
section of the report.
HR implications N/A
Anticipated stakeholders and
consultees
Option 5 will require further consultation with a
number of key stakeholders and to obtain or
comply with any necessary statutory processes.
Stakeholders who were consulted initially (i.e. local
residents, local business & relevant Members)
including those who separately responded will be
updated accordingly.
Results of consultation carried
out to date
See “Consultation prior to authority to start work”
section.
Financial Implications
Estimated capital cost (£) The estimated cost to implement option 5 is
£143,500. A breakdown of this estimate is provided
below.
Task Estimated cost (£)
Works 115,000
Staff supervision 14,000
Fees 14,500
Total 143,500
Note, this estimate would be refined as part of the
detailed design work and in any case, there will be
new rates as a result of the current term contractor
tendering process.
No allowances have been made for any statutory
utility plant diversions.
Source of capital funding I propose to use the reserve funds from the
Cheapside Area Strategy Improvements to cover
the costs required to take the project to detailed
design.
Anticipated phasing of capital
expenditure
Further expenditure on this project will all take
place in the 2012/13 financial year.
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Option Option 5 –Two-way arrangement with raised table,
with no cycling provisions
Estimated capital value/return
(£)
N/A
Fund/budget to be credited
with capital return
N/A
Estimated revenue implications
(£)
N/A
Source of revenue funding N/A
Fund/budget to be credited
with income/savings
N/A
Anticipated life N/A
Investment Appraisal N/A
Benchmarks or comparative
data
N/A
Proposed procurement
approach
The City‟s Highways term contractor would be used
to deliver the chosen option.
Affordability Sufficient monies are expected be available in the
Reserve fund of the Cheapside Area Strategy
Improvements project.
See “Resources requirements to reach Authority to
Start Work and source of funding” section for
details.
Recommendation Not recommended
Reasons This option would achieve most of the success
criteria as set out in this report. It has included
measures which will mitigate the safety implications
that may arise from the changes and will provide
facilities to assist pedestrians. However, it does not
provide provisions to benefit or encourage cycling.
Option 4 is therefore preferable.
Next Steps Should Members approve this option, monitoring
and evaluation of the experimental scheme will
continue with the impacts of the proposed
changes fully assessed. This will entail analysis of
traffic surveys alongside observation work and
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Option Option 5 –Two-way arrangement with raised table,
with no cycling provisions
analysis of the accident data.
Detailed design together with safety assessments
will be carried out. Costs will also be refined and a
Gateway 4C and 5 reports will then be prepared
prior to implementation.
Additional consultation will begin as outlined in the
additional stakeholders and consultees section.
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Option Option 6 - Two-way signal controlled arrangement
together with shared footway on St Martin‟s Le
Grand
Description This option relies upon the signalised junction to
manage traffic and as a consequence would
remove the need for a raised crossing; otherwise
this option is the same as Option 4.
This option utilises signals to control the flows of
traffic including cyclists and pedestrians at the
junction. It will allow two-way traffic along
Gresham Street as well as providing designated
periods for pedestrians and cyclists to cross/enter
and egress Gresham Street.
Pedestrian facilities along the link will be fully
considered and if it‟s desirable, pedestrian refuges
will be included in the design.
In addition, any changes to the existing parking
bay arrangement along Gresham Street will be
fully considered to seek improvements in line with
the projects success criteria.
Advantages/Disadvantages
and strategy for achievement
See Appendix D.
Scope and exclusions No notable exclusions.
Constraints and assumptions Some calculated assumptions have been made
with regards to the increase in vehicular flows that
will occur as a result of making Gresham Street
two-way and the impact of signalising the junction.
These are based on „snap-shot surveys‟ and their
validity will be checked as part of the monitoring of
the experimental layout.
These estimates have also informed signalisation
justification calculations.
Programme Outline Programme
Task Date
Detailed design and
refine cost estimate
Apr-May 2012
Safety Audit May 2012
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Option Option 6 - Two-way signal controlled arrangement
together with shared footway on St Martin‟s Le
Grand
Gateway 4C – Detailed
Design report
Apr-May 2012
Gateway 5 – Authority
to Start report
Sept 2012
Implementation Nov 2012 - Jan 2013
(avoiding the
Olympics)
Note, it is estimated that a road closure of three
weeks will be required to construct this option. This
will require traffic to be diverted to either London
Wall or Cheapside.
Risk implications See Appendix E.
Legal implications See “detailed options Appraisal recommendation”
section of the report.
HR implications N/A
Anticipated stakeholders and
consultees
Option 6 will require further consultation with a
number of key stakeholders and to obtain or
comply with any necessary statutory processes,
such as liaising with TfL to agree changes to the
street.
Stakeholders who were consulted initially (i.e. local
residents, local business and relevant Members)
including those who separately responded will be
updated accordingly.
Results of consultation carried
out to date
See consultation prior to authority to start work
section.
Financial Implications
Estimated capital cost (£) The estimated cost to implement option 6 is
£138,000. A breakdown of this estimate is provided
below.
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Option Option 6 - Two-way signal controlled arrangement
together with shared footway on St Martin‟s Le
Grand
Task Estimated cost (£)
Works 118,000
Staff supervision 14,000
Fees 6,000
Total 138,000
Note, this estimate would be refined as part of the
detailed design work and in any case, there may
be new rates as a result of the current term
contractor tendering process.
No allowances have been made for any statutory
utility plant diversions.
Source of capital funding I propose to use the reserve funds from the
Cheapside Area Strategy Improvements to cover
the costs required to take the project to detailed
design.
Anticipated phasing of capital
expenditure
Further expenditure on this project will all take
place in the 2012/13 financial year.
Estimated capital value/return
(£)
N/A
Fund/budget to be credited
with capital return
N/A
Estimated revenue implications
(£)
N/A
Source of revenue funding N/A
Fund/budget to be credited
with income/savings
N/A
Anticipated life N/A
Investment Appraisal N/A
Benchmarks or comparative N/A
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Option Option 6 - Two-way signal controlled arrangement
together with shared footway on St Martin‟s Le
Grand
data
Proposed procurement
approach
The City‟s Highways term contractor would be used
to deliver the chosen option.
Affordability Sufficient monies are expected to be available in
the reserve funds of the Cheapside Area Strategy
Improvements project.
See “Resources requirements to reach Authority to
Start Work and source of funding” section for
details.
Recommendation Not recommended
Reasons Analysis has shown that signalisation of the junction
would be “over-engineered” and unjustified due to
the low level of usage. It would also increase costs.
It is quite likely that pedestrians and cyclists would
cross when convenient rather than wait for the
appropriate signal making signalisation redundant
and placing an unnecessary delay upon vehicles.
Next Steps Should Members approve this option, monitoring
and evaluation of the experimental scheme will
continue with the impacts of the proposed
changes fully assessed. This will entail analysis of
traffic surveys alongside observation work and
analysis of the accident data.
Detailed design together with safety assessments
will be carried out. Costs will also be refined and a
Gateway 4C and 5 reports will then be prepared
prior to implementation.
Additional consultation will begin as outlined in the
additional stakeholders and consultees section.
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Appendix A
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Appendix B
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Appendix C
Overall Approved Financial Summary
Description S106
contribution (£000)
On Street Parking Reserve (£000)
TfL (£000) Unfunded
(£000) Total Project Cost (£000)
Stage 1 945 0 0 0 945
Stage 2 1,087 793 392 0 2,272
Stage 3 0 946 458 0 1,404
Stage 4 993 0 0 0 993
Stage 4A 0 57 0 0 57
Outcome Report 0 40 0 0 40
Reserve Funds 0 250 0 0 250
TOTAL 3,025 2,086 850 0 5,961
Cheapside Stage 2
Task Approved Budget (£)
Projected Final Expenditure (£)
Variance (£)
Evaluation & Design (inc. Stages 3 and 4) 221,900 221,900 0
Site clearance/preparation
1,204,000 1,165,572 -38,428
Paving/resurfacing/kerb
Adjusting boxes/utility covers
Drainage construction 65,200 46,539 -18,661
Street furniture, lighting 65,000 65,000 0
Planting and irrigation 90,000 55,818 -34,182
Traffic signals & ducting 65,000 62,463 -2,537
Possible Utility Diversions 319,000 236,843 -82,157
Works Sub Total 1,808,200 1,632,235 -175,965
Fees 65,000 59,247 -5,753
CoL supervision & administration 130,000 130,000 0
Sub Total 195,000 189,247 -5,753
Total 2,225,100 2,043,382 -181,718
Project Contingency 20,000 0 -20,000
Central Client Contingency 0 0 0
5 years of maintenance & cleansing 27,000 27,000 0
GRAND TOTAL 2,272,100 2,070,382 -201,718
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Cheapside Stage 3
Task Approved Budget (£)
Projected Final Expenditure (£)
Variance (£)
Site clearance/preparation
885,096 820,000 -65,096 Paving/resurfacing/kerb
Adjusting boxes/utility covers
Drainage Construction
Street furniture, lighting 79,404 79,404 0
Planting and irrigation 19,000 16,455 -2,545
Traffic signals & ducting 30,000 25,342 -4,658
Possible Utility Diversions* 0 0 0
Works Sub Total 1,013,500 941,201 -72,299
Fees 20,000 12,000 -8,000
CoL supervision & administration 155,000 155,000 0
Sub Total 175,000 167,000 -8,000
Contingency 88,000 0 -88,000
5 years of maintenance & tree management 10,000 10,000 0
Total 1,286,500 1,118,201 -168,299
Sunken Garden 117,000 117,000 0
Central Client Contingency 0 0 0
GRAND TOTAL 1,403,500 1,235,201 -168,299
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Cheapside Stage 4
Task Approved Budget (£)
Projected Final Expenditure (£)
Variance (£)
Site clearance/preparation
627,929 361,385 -266,544 Paving/resurfacing/kerb
Adjusting boxes/utility covers
Drainage construction
Street furniture, lighting 36,500 36,500 0
Planting and irrigation 0 0 0
Traffic signals & ducting 0 0 0
Possible Utility Diversions 91,949 75,000 -16,949
Accelerated working/out of hours 34,435 0 -34,435
Works Sub Total 790,813 472,885 -317,928
Contingencies 66,718 66,718* 0
CoL supervision & administration 90,396 90,396 0
Fees 45,050 10,000 -35,050
Sub Total 202,164 167,114 -35,050
GRAND TOTAL 992,977 639,999 -352,978
* Note its is likely the full contingency will not be required
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Appendix D
Advantages & Disadvantages Matrix
Benefit Option
1 Option
2 Option
3 Option
4 Option
5 Option
6 Notes
Appeases stakeholders who do not wish to see Gresham Street made permanently two-
way.
Appeases stakeholders who do not wish to see shared footway arrangements.
Is the cheapest option.
Provides increased accessibility to the local area.
Is the cheapest option to provide two-way functionality.
Will likely reduce levels of traffic at Cheapside.
The reduction will be estimated and the impact considered during the
operation of the experimental traffic order.
Is in line with the majority of consultees who wished to see Gresham Street made two-
way permanently.
Will improve cycling provisions between Angel Lane and Gresham Street.
The granite raised table will reduce vehicle entry speed and improve safety.
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Disadvantage Option
1 Option
2 Option
3 Option
4 Option
5 Option
6 Notes
Offers no improvement over existing situation.
Offers no improvements to cycling provision.
Fails to address the wishes of the majority of consultation respondents.
Cycle link from Angel Street to Gresham street may negatively impact upon disabled
users of the street.
Opening Gresham Street to two-way traffic will make it a less desirable route for cyclists.
Will increase vehicular traffic along Gresham Street by approximately 75% Possibly to the detriment of noise & air quality/public realm
in general. *
The increase will be monitored and
impact assessed during the operation of the experimental traffic order.
Will increase vehicular traffic along Gresham Street by approximately 75%. Possibly
having an impact upon pedestrian safety. *
The increase will be monitored and impact assessed during the operation
of the experimental traffic order.
May necessitate reducing provision of parking bays on Gresham Street.
Exclusion of raised table would result in higher vehicle entry speeds to the detriment
of safety.
Signalisation will delay vehicular traffic travelling south along St Martin's Le Grand.
Junction does not justify signalisation.
* Based upon a snap shot AM peak traffic count survey. Note further, more comprehensive surveys will be undertaken.
d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc
Appendix E
Risk Matrix
Description of Risk Risk Category Probability Impact
Total Risk Value
Affected Options
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
Option 6
Results of surveys/analysis during the experimental traffic order necessitate a substantial re-design of approved option.
Cost, Time Low High Medium
Insufficient funds available from reserve funds or from underspend in previous stages of the Cheapside Area Strategy Improvements project.
Cost Low High Medium
Inability to agree design with TfL.
Cost, Time Low High Medium
Unforeseen issues resulting in serious programme slip.
Time Low Low Low
Unforeseen technical issues arising during construction resulting in significant changes to the design.
Cost, Time Low Medium Low
Significant objection to design from key internal/external stakeholders.
Cost, Time Low Medium Low
Reputational damage to the City if two-way operation is not implemented following the support for this approach from the majority of response’s to the consultation.
Reputational Medium Low Low
top related