Critical rural road maintenance in the vicinity of Surrey Hills AONB Challenge Fund Tranche 2A Application Form Surrey County Council

March 2017

Local Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund Application Form (for Tranche 2A) The level of information provided should be proportionate to the size and complexity of the scheme proposed. Note that DfT funding is a maximum of £5 million per scheme. An individual local authority may apply only for one scheme. For schemes submitted by components of a Combined Authority a separate application form should be completed for each scheme, then the CA should rank them in order of preference.

Applicant Information Local authority name: Surrey County Council Bid Manager Name and position: Amanda Richards, Network & Asset Management Group Manager Name and position of officer with day to day responsibility for delivering the proposed scheme. Contact telephone number: 01483 518078 Email address: Amanda.Richards@surreycc.gov.uk Postal address: Merrow Complex Merrow Lane Guildford GU4 7BQ Combined Authorities If the bid is from a local highway authority within a Combined Authority, please specify the contact and ensure that the Combined Authority has submitted a Combined Authority Application Ranking Form.

Name and position of Combined Authority Bid Co-ordinator:

Contact telephone number: Email address:

Postal address:

When authorities submit a bid for funding to the Department, as part of the Government’s commitment to greater openness in the public sector under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, they must also publish a version excluding any commercially sensitive information on their own website within two working days of submitting the final bid to the Department. The Department reserves the right to deem the business case as non-compliant if this is not adhered to.

Please specify the weblink where this bid will be published: https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-

and-transport/road-maintenance-and-cleaning/maintaining-our-roads-and-pavements/department-for-

transport-capital-funding-for-highways

SECTION A - Scheme description

A1. Scheme name: Critical rural road maintenance in the vicinity of the Surrey Hills AONB

A2. Headline description: Please enter a brief description of the proposed scheme and its timetable including the completion date (in no more than 50 words) Deliverable May 2017 – March 2018 this project resurfaces, improves edge condition and extends the life of rural roads that formed part of, or connect to, the London 2012 Olympic road race. This route has become a busy cycle tourism attraction and an annual professional and amateur cyclist event: Prudential RideLondon ‘Surrey 100’ and ‘Surrey Classic’.

A3. Geographical area: Please provide a short description of area covered by the bid (in no more than 50 words) The bid covers the boroughs/districts of: Guildford; Mole Valley; Waverley; Elmbridge; Epsom & Ewell; and Woking. A significant proportion of the roads addressed by the scheme are located within the Surrey Hills AONB and represent key routes that connect nearby settlements. OS Grid Reference: Elmbridge 43UB, Epsom & Ewell 43UC, Guildford 43UD, Mole Valley 43UE, Waverley 43UL, Woking 43UM. Postcode: Elmbridge KT10, Epsom & Ewell KT17, Guildford GU1-4, Mole Valley KT21, Waverley 43UL, Woking GU21-22. Please append a map showing the location (and route) of the proposed scheme, existing transport infrastructure and other points of particular interest to the bid e.g. development sites, areas of existing employment, constraints on land use, planning etc. See Appendix A for a map of the proposed scheme.

A4. Type of scheme (please tick relevant box): Small project bids (requiring DfT funding of up to £5 million Major maintenance, strengthening or renewal of bridges, tunnels, retaining walls or other structures Major maintenance or renewal of carriageways (roads) Major maintenance or renewal of footways or cycleways Major maintenance or renewal of drainage assets

SECTION B – The Business Case

B1. The Financial Case – Project Costs and Profile Before preparing a scheme proposal for submission, bid promoters should ensure they understand the financial implications of developing the scheme (including any implications for future resource spend and ongoing costs relating to maintaining and operating the asset), and the need to secure and underwrite any necessary funding outside the Department’s maximum contribution. Please complete the following tables. Figures should be entered in £000s (i.e. £10,000 = 10). Table A: Funding profile (Nominal terms)

Funding Source 2017-18 (£000s)

DfT Funding Sought

4,796

Surrey County Council Contribution

500

London and Surrey Cycling Partnership

34

Total 5,330

Notes: 1) Department for Transport funding is only for the 2017-18 financial year. 2) A minimum local contribution of 10% (by the local authority and/or third party) of the project costs is required.

B2 Local Contribution / Third Party Funding Please provide information on the following points (where applicable): a) The non-DfT contribution may include funding from organisations other than the scheme promoter.

Please provide details of all non-DfT funding contributions to the scheme costs. This should include evidence to show how any third party contributions are being secured, the level of commitment and when they will become available.

Surrey County Council has committed to borrowing the required match funding in order to enable the scheme. A local contribution of £0.5m was approved by Surrey County Council’s Cabinet on 28 March 2017. London and Surrey Cycling Partnership LLP has committed £34k towards this project from their 2018 budget, therefore this element will be used towards the end of the programme. b) Where the contribution is from external sources, please provide a letter confirming the body’s

commitment to contribute to the cost of the scheme. The Department is unlikely to fund any scheme where significant financial contributions from other sources have not been secured or appear to be at risk.

Have you appended a letter(s) to support this case? Yes No N/A

See Appendix H

c) Please list any other funding applications you have made for this scheme or variants thereof and the outcome of these applications, including any reasons for rejection (e.g. through the Access Fund or similar competition).

None.

B3. Strategic Case (Maximum 50 words for each section a) to g) This section should briefly set out the rationale for making the investment and evidence of the existing situation, set out the history of the asset and why it is needs to be repaired or renewed. It should also include how the scheme it fits into the overall asset management strategy for the authority and why it cannot be funded through the annual Highways Maintenance Block Funding grant. a) What are the current problems to be addressed by your scheme? (Describe economic, environmental, social problems or opportunities which will be addressed by the scheme). Please see Appraisal Summary Table below:

Impact Assessed Issues

Resolved

Intervention Benefit

Slightly Beneficial

Moderately Beneficial

Significantly Beneficial

Economic Impact

Business users & transport providers

D

Reliability D

Wider Impacts P,D,C

Environmental Impact

Noise P,D

Air Quality D,C

Carbon D

Townscape P,C

Social Impact

Commuting and other uses (Tourism)

P,C,D

Physical Activity P,C

Journey Quality P,C

Accidents P,C

Issues Key: P = Potholes, D = Lengthy Diversions, C = Carriageway Deterioration b) Why the asset is in need of urgent funding? - Traffic demand exceeds normal expectations for rural routes, accelerating carriageway deterioration towards the end of its practical life; - Unfeasible to fund these long term solutions from normal maintenance allocations; - Road safety risks are increasing along the route; - EM3 and C2C LEP growth areas c) What options have been considered and why have alternatives have been rejected? The 'Do Nothing' has been discounted as the highway asset deteriorates and needs to be maintained. The 'Do Minimum' utilises existing overprescribed budgets allocated on a competitive basis. The Preferred Option includes significant amounts of resurfacing and haunching. d) What are the expected benefits / outcomes? Main Outcomes: - Approximately 114km surface dressing and 9.5km of haunching

Key benefits: - Improved road carriageway condition for all users - Reduced reactive maintenance costs - Extended road life - Reduced accidents/claims - Reduced noise/air pollution in Surrey Hills - Increased cycling (health, well-being and tourism) e) Please provide information on the geographical areas that will benefit from your scheme. The scheme, situated predominantly in the Surrey Hills, benefits the districts of: Elmbridge, Epsom & Ewell, Guildford, Mole Valley, Waverley and Woking. Maps of the scheme extents and the RideLondon Surrey Classic / Surrey 100 routes are provided in Appendix A. f) What will happen if funding for this scheme is not secured - would an alternative (lower cost) solution be implemented (if yes, please describe this alternative and how it differs from the proposed scheme)? SCC would maintain the highway in accordance with the Highways Act 1980. Carriageway defects would be addressed on an ad-hoc basis. Limited patched maintenance would not deliver the same benefits as a single strategic approach. BAU investment fails to accommodate the longer term solution the public expects, discouraging visitors and reducing likelihood of private investment in the area. g) What is the impact of the scheme? - Reduced asset failures and unplanned maintenance - Reduced future asset investment funding requirements - Improved safety through the replacement of failing assets - Improved asset condition and lifespan - Improved journey time reliability by removing emergency road works/diversions - Increased economic activity for businesses/tourism - Increased asset attractiveness to active travel modes

B4. Affordability and Financial Risk (maximum 50 words for each of a) to c) What is your Authority’s most recent total outturn annual capital spending on highways maintenance (Year 2016/17) figures should be entered in £000s (i.e. £10,000 = 10) £22,492 What is the DfT contribution sought as a % and that annual total (to 3 decimal places) 21.323% (LA contribution = 2.223% of total annual capital highway maintenance spend) This section should provide a narrative setting out how you will mitigate any financial risks associated with the scheme Please provide evidence on the following points (where applicable): a) What risk allowance has been applied to the project cost?

5%

Risks such as traffic sensitive streetworks restrictions and clashes with statutory undertakers are less likely on the rural network. Other scheme variables associated with similar size programmes in

previous years have also been removed as sites have been selected on the basis that preparatory works are complete. b) How will cost overruns be dealt with? As our Benefit Cost Ratio does not monetise the benefits of haunching, in the event of cost overrun we would reduce this aspect of the works accordingly. c) What are the main risks to project delivery timescales and what impact this will have on cost? The main project delivery risks identified are: time to prepare the scheme and application of permits, consultation on local issues and network management co-ordination with statutory undertakers. This will not impact upon costs as we have ensured that there is sufficient contingency in the programme to enable the necessary processes. We feel the contingency we have applied whilst modest is sufficient to cover these risks.

B5. Equality Analysis Has any Equality Analysis been undertaken in line with the Equality Duty? Yes No Note: an Equalities Impact Assessment ‘Initial Screening’ has been undertaken. Formal sign-off and publication will follow in due course.

B6. Value for Money a) For all scheme bids, promoters should provide, where available, an estimate of the Benefit

Cost Ratio (BCR) of the scheme.

Where a BCR is provided please be aware that DfT may wish to scrutinise the data and assumptions used in deriving that BCR. The Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) has been produced by dividing the total discounted costs by the total discounted benefits. A BCR of 1.25 has been calculated. This excludes: the monetised benefits of reduced delay on the network, reduced Vehicle Operating Costs, insurance claims that could be avoided, etc. There are significant benefits described below which we are unable to include in the calculation due to the timescales involved and a lack of data availability, however, in our experience we would expect the BCR for the whole package to be in the region of 1.5-2.0, placing it within the DfT’s ‘medium’ value for money category. Please see Appendix D for all supplementary information on the data and assumptions made for the BCR calculation.

b) Please provide the following data will form a key part of our assessment: Note this material should be provided even if a BCR estimate has been supplied and has also to be entered and returned as an MS Excel file in the VfM Annex MS Excel file).

A description of the do-minimum situation (i.e. what would happen without

Surrey County Council prioritises road maintenance using asset management best practice, assessing sites on a needs basis in accordance with the assets life cycle and our current budget limits for

Challenge Fund investment). the 2017/18 programme. Hence, additional carriageway defects would continue to be addressed on an ad-hoc basis, leading to potential disruption along routes. Planned patched maintenance is limited due to financial constraints and competing resources, and would not necessarily include haunching which reduces edge and profile damage. This is often ignored in scheme evaluation, meaning that the Road Condition Index does not improve in single data list figures. Surrey would continue to carry out essential maintenance works that require protection of vulnerable joins etc. with a preventative surface treatment.

Details of significant monetised and non-monetised costs and benefits of the scheme (quantified where possible)

The BCR calculation relates to the benefits of reduced reactive maintenance requirements for the life of the surfacing and also the reduction in collisions attributed to surface quality. See appendix D for further details. Outside of these two areas there are significant additional benefits which are either too complex to quantify, or these cannot be quantified in the current timescales due to availability of suitable data. Rural roads have suffered recently from a lack of maintenance provision due to the need to prioritise strategic roads and, because the road edge is not considered as part of scheme evaluation, rural roads are becoming effectively narrower to road users. Damages By delivering the scheme the Council will avoid future damage claims in this area. Over the five-year period up to March 2017, Surrey County Council has incurred costs of approximately £146,000 in resolved insurance claims due to highway defects on the roads specifically targeted by this scheme. This figure is likely to increase further due to some historic litigation cases still in progress. It should be noted that these monetised benefits have not been accounted for within the BCR calculation. Road Width The haunching planned as part of this project will ensure that the full road width is available for the whole life of the road. Many of these roads also require adequate passing places and as the edging becomes damaged vehicles occasionally leave the road and suffer minor damage. As part of the haunching work existing drainage grips will be improved which will further increase the longevity and resilience of the highway structure. The benefits of proposed haunching could not be monetised due to the lack of a sufficient method of quantifying the effect. Vehicle Operating Costs The scheme is also anticipated to have positive benefit on the operating cost of vehicles using the targeted routes. Research has indicated that deteriorating surface conditions contribute to an associated increase in vehicle operating costs through higher levels of friction and reduced average vehicle speeds. The impacts include

reduced fuel efficiency, increased travel time, increased tyre wear and general vehicle maintenance/repair1. The operating costs for a passenger car have been estimated to increase by approx. 7.5% per 1000km following a two-point increase in surface roughness from 3.0 to 5.0 (International Roughness Index)2. Increased travel time costs may also be incurred through unplanned reactive maintenance, whereby disruption is caused by diversionary routes put in place for the emergency repairs. By taking a strategic and holistic approach, this scheme will be able to engage with local stakeholders and provide advanced information on the works (see Appendix F), thus mitigating against disruption and travel costs associated with the traffic management restrictions. Active Travel This project is targeted on key cycle routes. Cycling in Surrey is a major Olympic legacy and in order to maintain this momentum we need to continue to provide safe running surfaces for all road users. Improvements such as haunching will increase the effective width available to road users throughout the road’s life and removing defects will improve interaction between cyclists and motorised traffic on overcrowded rural roads, encouraging further uptake of leisure cycling as part of our Olympic legacy. Poor road surfaces can contribute towards the likelihood of accidents for all road users due to the potential for skidding and the need to take evasive action to avoid defects (e.g. potholes), the impact of which can be particularly great for cyclists. The Department for Transport concluded that a poor or defective road surface was one of the most significant risk factors for cyclist incidents involving a single vehicle3.Poor surfacing can therefore be seen as a significant barrier to cycling. Whilst this primarily impacts on existing leisure cyclists (figures presented in 5c) this will have a further impact on

encouraging modal shift amongst potential new cyclists. Some of the

economic benefits of active travel evidenced in research includes:

Physically active workers take 27% fewer sick days4.

Users of the cycle network take approximately half the days off compared to the average worker resulting in a £13.7 billion annual boost to the British economy5.

Switching to active travel for short motor vehicle trips could save £17bn in NHS costs over a 20-year period6.

In addition encouraging modal shift will help improve congestion issues experienced on Surrey’s roads. There is also a thriving community of small businesses serving the leisure and commuter cycling population in Surrey and beyond.

1 Zaabar I. & Chatti L., 2014. Estimating vehicle operating costs caused by pavement surface conditions. Transportation Research

Record. Vol 2455, 63-76. 2 Transport Research Laboratory, 2012. Economic, Environmental and Social Impact of Changes in Maintenance Spend on the

Scottish Trunk Road Network. Crown; Transport Scotland. 3 Department for Transport, 2011. Infrastructure and Cyclist Safety (TRL Report PPR 580). TRL, DfT.

4 Pricewaterhouse Cooper, 2008. Working towards wellness, http://www.pwc.com/us/en/healthcare/publications/working- towards-

wellness.jhtml. 5 Sustrans, 2013. Increasing business through sustainable travel.

6 Jarrett J, Woodcock J, Griffiths U et al, 2012. Effects of increasing active travel in urban England and Wales on costs to the

National Health Service. The Lancet. Vol 379: 2198-2205.

Visual Amenity Although difficult to quantify, the condition of the road surface has a recognisable impact on the visual amenity value placed on an area. Research suggests that surface quality and maintenance accounts for 19% of the personal value attributed to the walking environment7. Surveys found that 85% of people felt their quality of life was directly impacted by improved maintenance expenditure (including road surfacing) as well as non-maintenance expenditure. The effect of roads on visual amenity can also be understood through market effects. Case studies have shown that improved road quality corresponded with increased property values and the effect was particularly noticeable in areas of proximity to open spaces – particularly relevant in relation to this scheme’s focus around the Surrey Hills AONB8. Research/Innovation Elements of the project will include use of Microsurfacing; this will enable us to assess the use of these materials in a rural setting and establish the value of the County adopting further use of new materials in future.

Length of scheme (km) Approximately 114km (surface dressing) & 9.5km (haunching)

Number of vehicles on affected section (Average Annual Daily Traffic in vehicles and if possible split by vehicle type) – to include details of data (age etc.) supporting this estimate.

This table presents the average weekday 12 hr flows by road type (A, B, C, D and Unclassified) across the study area.

Vehicle type

Road type

A B C D U All

vehicles 13971 6305 1436 1117 1132

Cars 11724 5472 1222 1093 963

LGV 1626 678 169 126 145

HGV 340 188 15 18 17 The data has been collated over a period of 5 years (2011-2016), and summarises a mixture of surveys including turning movements, Automatic Traffic Counts (short and long term) and Manual Classified Counts (DfT and SCC). Unfortunately we are not able to provide an accurate AADT value due to the vast network of roads being considered.

c) Other VfM information where relevant - depending on type of scheme bid:

Details of required restrictions/closures if funding not provided (e.g. type of restrictions; timing/duration of restrictions; etc.)

If funding was not provided for this scheme the roads on the scheme network would continue to be occasionally restricted or, in extreme cases, closed. Ad hoc reactive maintenance would have to continue over time and this may lead to very short term restrictions or one day closures of the minor road for repairs. However, it is not possible to calculate the timings and durations for these minor repairs and it is considered that the disruption to traffic will be minimal.

Length of any diversion route, if closure is required (over and above existing route) (km)

It is anticipated that 70% of the programme will require temporary road closures. Diversionary routes would therefore be put in place, however,

7 Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), 2007. Paved with gold - The real value of good street design.

London, UK: CABE. 8 Ibid

given the large area covered by the bid and short term nature of the closures it is not suitable to quantify the exact length of diversion route.

Regularity/duration of closures due to flooding: (e.g. number of closures per year; average length of closure (hrs); etc.)

n/a

Number and severity of accidents: both for the do minimum and the forecast impact of the scheme (e.g. existing number of accidents and/or accident rate; forecast number of accidents and or accident rate with and without the scheme)

This data comes from the Police STATS 19 database (2012-2016), which records collisions where a police officer was in attendance. Collisions (DM) have been reported in the table below which can be directly attributed to the poor or defective road surface. Only collisions that could be prevented in the future (DS) have been included in this box.

Year Number Severity

2012 1 Serious

2013 1 Serious

2014 1 Serious

2015 2 1 Slight, 1 Serious

2016 2 1 Slight, 1 Serious

TOTAL 7

Number of existing cyclists; forecasts of cycling usage with and without the scheme (and if available length of journey)

Cycle data from an Automatic Cycle Count on the Zig Zag Road up to Boxhill has been collected over the period of a year (Dec 15 - Dec 16). This is the only cycle counter site on the routes that are being assessed.

Annual per day

Uphill 198770 545

Downhill 67804 186

B7. The Commercial Case This section categorizes the procurement strategy that will be used to appoint a contractor and, importantly for this fund, set out the timescales involved in the procurement process to show that delivery can proceed quickly. What is the preferred procurement route for the scheme? For example, if it is proposed to use existing framework agreements or contracts, the contract must be appropriate in terms of scale and scope. Framework Contract Council Contractor Competitive Tender An existing framework contract with ‘Hazell and Jefferies’ will be utilised for surface dressing, whilst an existing Term Maintenance Contract with ‘Kier’ will be utilised for haunching. Both contractors have confirmed they have capacity to complete these works within the proposed timescales. *It is the promoting authority’s responsibility to decide whether or not their scheme proposal is lawful; and the extent of any new legal powers that need to be sought. Scheme promoters should ensure that any project complies with the Public Contracts Regulations as well as European Union State Aid rules, and should be prepared to provide the Department with confirmation of this, if required. An

assurance that a strategy is in place that is legally compliant and is likely to achieve the best value for money outcomes is required from your Section 151 Officer below.

B8. Delivery (maximum 50 words for a) and 100 words for b) a) Are any statutory procedures required to deliver the project, if yes please provide details below;

Yes No Details of statutory procedure (50 words maximum) The notice period for those sites requiring temporary closures for traffic management purposes is 3 months. All remaining sites can be permitted within 5 days. 70% of the programme will require TROs for temporary road closures. See Appendix C for the scheme delivery programme. b) Please summarise any lessons your authority has learned from the experience of delivering other

DfT funded programmes (such as Challenge Fund tranche 1, pinch point schemes, local majors, Local Sustainable Transport Fund, Better Bus Areas) and what would be different on this project as a result.

Please see Appendix G for details pertaining to Surrey's previous Maintenance and Major Scheme delivery performance. This scheme will be delivered alongside Surrey's annual highways maintenance programme which is valued at c£22.492m per annum. By aligning this scheme with our maintenance programme we will ensure these improvements are delivered to time and budget.

B9. Stakeholder Support (maximum 50 words for a) and 100 words for b) c) Does this proposal have the support of the Local MP(s);

Yes No The following MPs have been informed of the work as their constituencies benefit most from the scheme. Confirmation of their support is expected and we will provide letters of this at the earliest opportunity. Name of MP(s) and Constituency 1 Anne Milton, Guildford 2 Sir Paul Beresford, Mole Valley 3 Jeremy Hunt, SW Surrey List other stakeholders supporting the Scheme: 1 London and Surrey Cycling Partnership LLP

SECTION C: Declarations C1. Senior Responsible Owner Declaration

As Senior Responsible Owner for Critical rural road maintenance in the vicinity of the Surrey Hills AONB, I hereby submit this request for approval to DfT on behalf of Surrey County Council and confirm that I have the necessary authority to do so. I confirm that Surrey County Council will have all the necessary powers in place to ensure the planned timescales in the application can be realised.

Name: Jason Russell

Signed:

Position: Deputy Director for Environment & Infrastructure

C2. Section 151 Officer Declaration

As Section 151 Officer for Surrey County Council I declare that the scheme cost estimates quoted in this bid are accurate to the best of my knowledge and that Surrey County Council

- has allocated sufficient budget to deliver this scheme on the basis of its proposed funding contribution

- will allocate sufficient staff and other necessary resources to deliver this scheme on time and on budget

- accepts responsibility for meeting any costs over and above the DfT contribution requested, including potential cost overruns and the underwriting of any funding contributions expected from third parties

- accepts responsibility for meeting any ongoing revenue requirements in relation to the scheme - accepts that no further increase in DfT funding will be considered beyond the maximum

contribution requested - has the necessary governance / assurance arrangements in place - has identified a procurement strategy that is legally compliant and is likely to achieve the best

value for money outcome - will ensure that a robust and effective stakeholder and communications plan is put in place

Name: Sheila Little, Director of Finance

Signed:

Submission of bids: The deadline for bid submission is 5pm on: 31 March 2017 for Challenge Fund Tranche 2A (2017/18 funding) An electronic copy only of the bid including any supporting material should be submitted to: roadmaintenance@dft.gsi.gov.uk copying in Paul.O’Hara@dft.gsi.gov.uk