gateway 4: detailed options appraisaldemocracy.cityoflondon.gov.uk/documents/s7794/gresham st...

$: Gateway 4: Detailed Options Appraisaldemocracy.cityoflondon.gov.uk/documents/s7794/Gresham St Evaluatio… · d:\moderngov\data\published\intranet\c00000389\m00015253\ai00007532\$undrhoc1.doc$
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


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


„(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


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


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


Options 4 & 5

Task Cost (£)


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 (£)


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


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


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


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


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



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



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


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.



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.


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.



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



cycling provisions

will require traffic to be diverted to either

Cheapside and/or London Wall.




HR implications N/A


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.


out to date


section.


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



cycling provisions

Cheapside Area Strategy Improvements to cover

the costs required to take the project to detailed

design.


expenditure

Full expenditure on this project will take place in

the 2012/13 financial year.


(£)

N/A


with capital return

N/A


(£)

N/A



with income/savings

N/A




data

N/A


approach



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.


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.



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.


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.



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.


Task Date

Detailed design and


Apr-May 2012

Safety Audit May 2012


Design report

Apr-May 2012

Gateway 5 – Authority Sept 2012




to Start report


(avoiding the

Olympics)



will require traffic to be diverted to either London

Wall or Cheapside.




HR implications N/A


consultees


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.






out to date


section.


Estimated capital cost (£) The estimated cost to implement this option is also


below.


Works 63,000


Fees 3,000

Total 75,000







tendering process. No allowances have been

made for any statutory utility plant diversions.




design.


expenditure

Further expenditure on this project will all take

place in the 2012/13 financial year.


(£)

N/A


with capital return

N/A


(£)

N/A



with income/savings

N/A




data

N/A


approach








details.

Recommendation Not recommended.




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.






analysis of accident data.


will then be carried out. Costs will also be refined

and a Gateway 4C and 5 reports will then be

prepared prior to implementation.




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.


considered. If it‟s desirable pedestrian refuges will

be included in the design.



incorporated to seek improvements in line with the

projects success criteria.



See Appendix D.

Scope and exclusions No notable exclusions.








Task Date

Detailed design and


Apr-May 2012



Design report

Apr-May 2012

Gateway 5 – Authority Sept 2012




to Start report


(avoiding the

Olympics)

Note, it is estimated that a road closure of six


will require traffic to be diverted to other either

London Wall or Cheapside.




HR implications N/A


consultees





street.






out to date

See “Consultation prior to authority to start work”

section.




below.


Works 115,000


Fees 14,500

Total 143,500





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.




design.


expenditure




(£)

N/A


with capital return

N/A


(£)

N/A



with income/savings

N/A




data

N/A


approach








details.




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





analysis of all accident data.


will then be carried out. Costs will be refined and a

gateway 4C and 5 reports will be prepared prior to

implementation.




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.



See Appendix D.

Scope and exclusions This option excludes provisions for cyclists travelling

from Angel Street to Gresham Street.








Task Date

Detailed design and


Apr-May 2012



Design report

Apr-May 2012


to Start report

Sept 2012


(avoiding the

Olympics)

Note, it is estimated that a road closure of six



Wall or Cheapside.







HR implications N/A


consultees



comply with any necessary statutory processes.






out to date

See “Consultation prior to authority to start work”

section.




below.


Works 115,000


Fees 14,500

Total 143,500




tendering process.






design.


expenditure







(£)

N/A


with capital return

N/A


(£)

N/A



with income/savings

N/A




data

N/A


approach



Affordability Sufficient monies are expected be available in the

Reserve fund of the Cheapside Area Strategy




details.


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.









analysis of the accident data.


will be carried out. Costs will also be refined and a

Gateway 4C and 5 reports will then be prepared

prior to implementation.




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.


considered and if it‟s desirable, pedestrian refuges

will be included in the design.



fully considered to seek improvements in line with

the projects success criteria.



See Appendix D.

Scope and exclusions No notable exclusions.




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.


Task Date

Detailed design and


Apr-May 2012





Grand


Design report

Apr-May 2012


to Start report

Sept 2012


(avoiding the

Olympics)




Wall or Cheapside.




HR implications N/A


consultees





street.


residents, local business and relevant Members)




out to date


section.




below.




Grand


Works 118,000


Fees 6,000

Total 138,000


detailed design work and in any case, there may

be new rates as a result of the current term

contractor tendering process.






design.


expenditure




(£)

N/A


with capital return

N/A


(£)

N/A



with income/savings

N/A



Benchmarks or comparative N/A




Grand

data


approach




the reserve funds of the Cheapside Area Strategy




details.


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.






analysis of the accident data.


will be carried out. Costs will also be refined and a

Gateway 4C and 5 reports will then be prepared

prior to implementation.




Appendix A


Appendix B


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


Cheapside Stage 3



Variance (£)


885,096 820,000 -65,096 Paving/resurfacing/kerb


Drainage Construction


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


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


Cheapside Stage 4



Variance (£)


627,929 361,385 -266,544 Paving/resurfacing/kerb


Drainage construction


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


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


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.


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.


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

gateway 4: detailed options appraisaldemocracy.cityoflondon.gov.uk/documents/s7794/gresham st...

Documents