|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decision Session – Executive Member for Transport
|
14 February 2022 |
|
Report of the Director of Environment, Transport and Planning |
|
Active Travel Programme – Project Scopes
Summary
1.
The Active Travel Programme consists
of 24 individual projects focussed on improvements to pedestrian
and cycling provision in the city, as part of the Council’s
wider commitment to enhancing sustainable travel in the city and
addressing the climate emergency. A copy of the current programme
summary is attached as Annex 1. Significant progress has been made
on the Tadcaster Road scheme and the Navigation Road scheme has
been implemented.
2.
The Government has recently
announced the creation of a new body, Active Travel England, to
oversee the implementation of walking and cycling schemes across
the country. This is extremely positive news, especially
considering the fact that this body will be located in York,
bringing employment and skills in sustainable transport projects to
the city.
3.
City of York Council takes this
opportunity seriously and has put measures in place to accelerate
the delivery of the Active Travel Programme. This is an exciting
time for the city and we look forward to working closely with
Active Travel England to achieve local and national objectives
around the promotion of walking and cycling. This report supports
that aim by providing further clarity on the Council’s own
Active Travel Programme.
4.
Many projects in the programme
originates from a bid to the government for ‘Active
Travel Fund’ support. This bid was successful and the
submitted bid is attached as background document 1.
5. Throughout 2020 and 2021, as part of the Government’s Emergency Active Travel Fund (EATF) the council implemented a range of temporary measures to support active travel throughout the pandemic. The work identified in this report will build on this by developing and introducing new, permanent infrastructure that will enable more convenient and safer walking and cycling across the city of York.
6.
Other projects in the programme
originates from a Budget allocation for walking and cycling
in July 2019 allocated through a Director Decision and accompanying
annex approved in May 2020. This report and annex are attached as
background documents 2 and 3.
7. Officers started work on these projects and undertook activities to pursue delivery alongside work on priority projects arising from the pandemic.
8.
In order to deliver the programme
effectively, it is important that there is a shared understanding
of the objectives for each of the active travel programme.
9.
This report seeks a decision to
approve the proposed project outlines, such that officers can
proceed with confidence, reducing abortive work and supporting a
more expeditious delivery of schemes.
10.
A decision is also sought to approve
procurement approaches for individual projects.
11.
A decision is also sought to
prioritise projects on the programme, including overall programme
budget prioritisation.
12.
This report does not replace further
public decision sessions on individual scheme design at the
relevant stages, where appropriate.
Recommendations
13.
The Executive Member is asked
to:
1)
Approve the proposed project
outlines attached as annexes to this report.
Reason: To enable officers to progress projects effectively within
the Active Travel Programme.
2) Delegate to the Director of Environment, Transport and Planning in consultation with Director of Governance and Chief Finance Officer the procurement of design resource for the ‘A19 Cycle Scheme’ and the A1237 section over the River Ouse’ scheme.
Reason: To support progress of the identified projects.
3)
Confirm and approve the proposed
prioritisation of projects within the programme.
Reason: To support the creation of more accurate programme
timescales and allow more effective assignment of
resource.
4)
Confirm and approve the budget
allocation follows the above prioritisation in recommendation 3.
This approach being one that assigns funding to projects as and
when the necessary feasibility information becomes available,
rather than waiting for information on all projects within the
programme.
Reason: To ensure an appropriate balance is reached between
obtaining value for money and the expeditious delivery of
schemes.
Consultation
14.
All schemes which impact on
residents and businesses will be subject to public consultation
prior to progressing the scheme. This consultation on
individual schemes within the programme will happen, when
sufficient information is available and in any case, prior to a
decision being made to proceed to construction.
15. Officers have supported the Executive Member in meeting ward Councillors to discuss the scope of some project outlines attached to this report in order to refine the parameters for design options.
Options
16.
Option A (Recommended) – To
approve the presented project scope outlines attached to this
report. Refer to section 24 of this report.
17.
Option B – Do not approve the
presented project scope outlines. Alter or adjust the scope of
works for one or more projects. Refer to section 28 of this
report.
18.
Option C (Recommended) – To
approve the proposed procurement approach described within section
31 of this report.
19.
Option D – Do not approve the
proposed procurement approach. Refer to section 38 of this
report.
20.
Option E (Recommended) – To
approve the proposed project prioritisation list described in
section 40 of this report.
21.
Option F – Do not approve the
proposed project prioritisation list. Refer to section 50 of this
report.
22.
Option G (Recommended) – To
approve the proposed programme budget prioritisation approach
described in section 54 of this report.
23.
Option H – Do not approve the
proposed programme budget prioritisation approach. Refer to section
60 of this report.
Analysis
Project Scope Outlines
(Option A - Recommended)
24.
Attached as annexes to this report
are ‘Project Outline’ documents for 18 projects on the
programme. These documents highlight key elements for each scheme,
including the currently proposed scope of works.
25.
These scopes were created by
officers and have been refined taking account Council Plan
objectives, existing strategies and local knowledge.
26.
The project outlines attached to
this report reflect the current understanding of officers as to
what is expected for any given scheme. Some projects have
progressed further than others along the lines defined in these
documents.
27.
It is recommended to approve the
project outlines (Option A) attached to this report, such that
officers can proceed. This will also allow certain procurements to
progress, as per Option C.
Project Scope
Outlines (Option B – Not Recommended)
28.
A decision to not approve the
presented project outlines, or to adjust the scope of works for any
given project, will potentially have an impact upon delivery.
29.
Depending on the proposed
alterations, projects could be affected in terms of timescales,
costs, quality, risk, or other factors. These effects would likely
vary significantly depending on the projects that are to be
altered.
30. Should a change of scope be proposed, officers will work to understand the impacts that these changes would cause, and would come back to a future decision session with a revised project outline.
Project Support Procurement Approach (Option C - Recommended)
31.
Included in the project outline
documents is a short section laying out the proposed approach to
procuring design resource for each project (where relevant)
32.
11 Projects have a contract in place
for design resource, or use in house design resource, and no
decision is required. The procurement approach for each project is
outlined within the relevant project outline document, attached as
annexes to this report.
33.
5 projects do not yet have design
resource in place and advice from procurement is that a tender
process needs to be followed to obtain the required resource. This
process will start when the project outlines are approved (Option
A), such that we can give clarity to the tenderers on what they are
expected to deliver. The procurement approach for each project is
outlined within the relevant project outline document, attached as
annexes to this report.
34.
2 projects have a provider lined up
via a framework agreement and a quotation has been received. A
decision is required to proceed with the award of preliminary
design services. The procurement approach for each project is
outlined within the relevant project outline document, attached as
annexes to this report.
35.
A quotation for preliminary design
services has been received for the ‘A19 Cycle Scheme’
and the ‘A1237 section over the River Ouse’ scheme. The
quoted costs are £69,125 and £18,267 respectively.
36.
Following the preliminary design
work, further detailed design work would be required if the scheme
were progressed to construction. Cost estimates for this stage are
dependant upon the outcome of the preliminary design stage.
37.
It is recommended (Option C) to make
a decision to proceed to award this work. Note that this can only
occur if the proposed project outlines are also approved (Option A)
to ensure we are commissioning the correct work.
Project Support
Procurement Approach (Option D – Not
Recommended)
38.
An alternative approach would be to
instead include these 2 schemes into the tender process described
in para 33. This approach would potentially result in reduced
costs, but would increase timescales significantly and is therefore
not recommended.
39.
Should a decision be made to explore
another procurement route, then this approach would be evaluated by
officers with a further decision coming back to a future decision
session to agree on how to proceed. This would have timescale
implications.
Project Prioritisation (Option E - Recommended)
40.
Many projects within the programme
require input from some of the same professional resources. Some of
these resources have limited capacity, and it is therefore
necessary to prioritise the projects within the programme.
41.
Prioritising the projects will
enable Project Managers to produce more reliable project plan
timescales.
42.
The programme timescales shown in
Annex A will be revised following the outcomes of the decisions
presented within this report.
43.
There are effectively 3
‘teams’ of available resource working on the programme.
The following lists provide an indication of the priority schemes
for each team.
44.
This list does not mean that
officers will wait to complete each scheme before starting on the
next. When all possible actions have been completed at any given
point in time, the resource will move onto the next prioritised
scheme until further actions become due on the higher priority
schemes again. Based on resulting design work and
consultation, the list can be revised in the future to ensure the
right priorities continue to be worked on.
45.
Analysis of deliverability and
engagement with the Executive Member has resulted in prioritisation
of resources as per the lists in the following paragraphs. A
decision is sought to approve these proposed prioritisations.
46.
The University Road Minor Pedestrian
Works scheme is not shown on this priority list, however it is a
safety related scheme and shall therefore be progressed with a
priority commensurate with this aim.
47. Team 1 Project List:
Very High Priority - A19 Cycle Scheme
Very High Priority - A1237 section
over the River Ouse
48. Team 2 Project List:
Very High Priority - St Georges Field Crossing
Very High Priority - City Centre Bridges
Very High Priority - People Streets
Very High Priority - Hospital Fields Road Cycle Improvements
High Priority - Tang Hall Lane / Foss Islands Path Access
High Priority - Manor Lane / Shipton Road Improvements
High Priority - Orbital Cycle Route – Lawrence / James / Regent St
High Priority - Skeldergate – Cycle Improvements at Buildout
High Priority - Rougier St / Tanners Moat Gap
Medium: Nunthorpe Grove / Southlands Road Improvements
Medium: Nunnery Lane / Victor St – Puffin to Toucan
Medium: Chocolate Works Riverside
Path Improvements (S106 funded)
49. Team 3 Project List:
Very High Priority - Fishergate Gyratory Cycle Scheme
Very High Priority - Wheldrake / Heslington Path
Very High Priority - Acomb Road Cycle Scheme
High Priority - City Centre North South Cycle Route
High Priority - Fulford Road / Frederick House Scheme (S106 funded)
High Priority - University East West
Campus Link
Project Prioritisation
(Option F – Not Recommended)
50.
Deciding to not approve the proposed
project prioritisation list will mean that teams will continue to
work on projects based on those tasks that most immediately present
themselves at any given time.
51.
This approach makes it very hard to
present realistic timescales and project monitoring information,
meaning presented timescales will continue to be at a very high
level with limited levels of certainty.
52.
A decision can be made to change
priorities within any given team without significant impact,
however an attempt to change priorities by moving projects between
teams is more complex due to contractual arrangements.
53. Should a decision be made to move projects between lists, officers will consider the implications and present a further report for a decision.
Programme Budget
Prioritisation (Option G - Recommended)
54.
Cost estimates for individual
projects are refined at progressive stages throughout scheme
development. Initial cost estimates are produced at the feasibility
stage and then refined during the detailed design process.
55.
Because feasibility and detailed
design work has not yet been completed for a number of projects on
the programme, it is not yet possible to give a significant degree
of certainty as to how much it will ultimately cost to implement
the entire programme.
56.
It is however assumed that the
current funding assignment is not likely to be sufficient to take
every scheme on the programme through to construction. This
presents the need to plan how decisions will be made with respect
to approving individual schemes.
57.
It is proposed to make decisions on
individual schemes as and when the information becomes available,
without waiting for cost estimates for all other projects on the
programme.
58.
This would result in the most timely
delivery of schemes, with the downside of this approach being that
it is likely that the budget will be fully spent before some
projects are considered at a decision session.
59. Should further funding become available in the future, this approach can be reconsidered.
Programme Budget
Prioritisation (Option H – Not
Recommended)
60.
An alternative approach would be to
wait for all schemes on the programme to reach the end of
feasibility (when initial cost estimates will be available) before
making a decision on individual schemes.
61.
This would potentially allow each
project to be compared against each other, thus ensuring that
funding is spent on those schemes that have the best
cost-benefit.
62.
This approach is not recommended
however as it would mean that all projects would proceed at the
pace of the slowest project, introducing significant further delays
to delivery.
63.
Should the decision be to take an
approach other than those presented within this report, officers
will evaluate the implications of the decision and report back to a
future session.
Council Plan
64.
Delivery of the Active Travel
Programme supports the following Council Plan key priorities:
- getting around sustainably
- a greener and cleaner city
- safe communities and culture for all
- good health and wellbeing
Implications
65.
· Financial
The proposed Active Travel programme is funded from a combination of grant funding and council resources allocated through the capital programme. Once final costs for individual schemes are known the programme of schemes will need to be prioritised, in line with the approach outlined in the report, to fit within both the total budget available and to ensure the terms of any grant funding are met.
· Human Resources (HR)
There are no HR implications.
· Equalities
Each individual project is subject to its own equalities impact assessment, based on the specifics of the scheme.
· Legal
Some schemes on the programme have legal implications. These will be addressed as part of the individual projects processes.
· Crime and Disorder
There are no Crime and Disorder implications.
· Information Technology (IT)
There are no IT implications.
· Property
Some scheme on the programme have property implications, including
considerations of land ownership and potential land purchase. These
considerations will be considered as part of the individual
projects processes.
· Other
All other relevant considerations with regards to specific projects will be dealt with individually.
Risk Management
66. Each project on the programme has its own risks associated with it, and these will be managed separately in line with the relevant processes.
Project Managers will maintain risk registers for each project and
follow the corporate risk management strategy, as
appropriate.
Contact Details
|
Author: |
Chief Officer Responsible for the report:
|
|||||||
Christian WoodSmart Transport Programme ManagerTransport01904 551 652
|
James GilchristDirector of Environment, Transport and Planning
|
|||||||
|
Report Approved |
√ |
Date |
19/01/2022 |
|||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Specialist Implications Officer(s) List information for all
Financial: Patrick Looker Finance Manager
|
||||||||
|
Wards Affected: |
All |
Y |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
For further information please contact the author of the report |
|
|||||||
Background Papers:
BD1 - EATF T2 Application Submitted Copy
BD2 - Cycling & Walking Prioritisation Report Director DS 070520
BD3 - Cycling & Walking Prioritisation Report Annex A Director DS 070520
Annexes
1 - Active Travel Programme Summary
2- Project Outline – A19 Cycle Scheme
3 - Project Outline – Acomb Road Cycle Scheme
4 - Project Outline – University EW Campus Link
5 - Project Outline – People Streets
6 - Project Outline – A1237 section over the River Ouse
7 - Project Outline – City Centre North South Cycle Route
8 - Project Outline – City Centre Bridges
9 - Project Outline – University Road Minor Pedestrian Works
10 - Project Outline – Hospital Fields Road Cycle Improvement
11 - Project Outline – Tang Hall Lane / Foss Islands Path Access
12 - Project Outline – Manor Lane / Shipton Road Improvements
13 - Project Outline – Orbital Cycle Route – Lawrence / James / Regent St
14 - Project Outline – Wheldrake Heslington Path
15 - Project Outline – Fishergate Gyratory Ped and Cycle Scheme
16 - Project Outline – Fulford Road / Frederick House
17 - Project Outline – St Georges Field Crossing
18 - Project Outline – Rougier St / Tanners Moat Gap
19 - Project Outline – Skeldergate – Cycle Improvements at Buildout
List of Abbreviations Used in this Report
ATF – Active Travel Fund
EATF – Emergency Active Travel Fund
DfT – Department for Transport
ATP – Active Travel Programme
CYC – City of York Council