mott macdonald report template - merseytravel · pdf file2.12.3 fit with promoting...

Windle Island

Major Scheme Business Case

August 2015

St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

331738 ITD TPN 1 A

PiMS Livelink Explorer\EUNA PiMS Livelink\Favorites\331738 - St. Helens MSBC Support - Windl\Document

03 August 2015

Windle Island


Windle Island


August 2015

St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

Mott MacDonald, 9th Floor, Royal Liver Building, Pier Head, Liverpool L3 1JH, United Kingdom

T +44 (0)151 482 9910 F +44 (0)151 236 2985 W www.mottmac.com

331738/ITD/TPN/1/A 03 August 2015 PiMS Livelink Explorer\EUNA PiMS Livelink\Favorites\331738 - St. Helens MSBC Support - Windl\Document

Windle Island Major Scheme Business Case

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description

1

03/08/2015

Sarah Tuohy

Amy Leather

Dave Drury

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

2 13/08/2015 Sarah Tuohy Amy Leather Dave Drury FINAL

Issue and revision record

Information class: Standard

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.



Chapter Title Page

1 Scheme Summary 2

1.1 Headline Description ________________________________________________________________ 2 1.1.1 The Scheme _______________________________________________________________________ 2 1.2 Headline Benefits ___________________________________________________________________ 4 1.3 Background to the Scheme ___________________________________________________________ 4 1.4 Strategic Need _____________________________________________________________________ 4 1.5 Economic Benefits __________________________________________________________________ 5 1.6 Scheme Costs _____________________________________________________________________ 6 1.7 Delivery Timescales _________________________________________________________________ 6

2 The Strategic Case 7

2.1 Key Messages _____________________________________________________________________ 7 2.2 Strategic Case Compliance ___________________________________________________________ 7 2.3 Background _______________________________________________________________________ 8 2.4 The Need for Intervention _____________________________________________________________ 8 2.4.1 Windle Island ______________________________________________________________________ 8 2.4.2 Current Situation in St. Helens _________________________________________________________ 8 2.5 Issues and Opportunities ____________________________________________________________ 16 2.5.1 Strategic Context __________________________________________________________________ 16 2.6 Identified Problems & Issues _________________________________________________________ 18 2.6.1 Economic ________________________________________________________________________ 19 2.6.2 Social ___________________________________________________________________________ 26 2.6.3 Transport ________________________________________________________________________ 28 2.6.4 Environment ______________________________________________________________________ 38 2.7 Scheme Aim & Objectives ___________________________________________________________ 39 2.7.1 Aim _____________________________________________________________________________ 39 2.7.2 Objectives ________________________________________________________________________ 39 2.8 Scheme History ___________________________________________________________________ 41 2.9 Options __________________________________________________________________________ 41 2.9.1 Long-List of Options ________________________________________________________________ 42 2.9.2 Options considered in the Options Appraisal Report _______________________________________ 44 2.9.3 Options Appraisal Report ____________________________________________________________ 46 2.10 Scheme Description ________________________________________________________________ 47 2.10.1 Scope of the Project ________________________________________________________________ 47 2.11 Benefits _________________________________________________________________________ 47 2.11.1 Operational Benefits ________________________________________________________________ 49 2.11.2 Strategic Benefits __________________________________________________________________ 51 2.12 Strategic Fit ______________________________________________________________________ 52 2.12.1 Contribution to National Government Objectives __________________________________________ 52 2.12.2 Contribution to LCR Objectives _______________________________________________________ 54 2.12.3 Fit with Promoting Organisation Aims and Objectives ______________________________________ 56 2.13 Delivery and Success _______________________________________________________________ 60 2.13.1 Delivery _________________________________________________________________________ 60

Contents



2.13.2 Constraints _______________________________________________________________________ 60 2.13.3 Key Risks ________________________________________________________________________ 60 2.13.4 Measures for Success and Benefits Realisation __________________________________________ 61 2.13.5 Impact of No Change _______________________________________________________________ 64 2.13.6 Integrated Assurance Plan ___________________________________________________________ 64 2.14 Stakeholder Management ___________________________________________________________ 64 2.14.1 Stakeholders _____________________________________________________________________ 64 2.14.2 Internal or External Business Drivers ___________________________________________________ 66 2.14.3 Synergy _________________________________________________________________________ 66 2.15 Conclusions ______________________________________________________________________ 67

3 The Economic Case 68

3.1 Overview ________________________________________________________________________ 68 3.2 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 68 3.3 Methodology ______________________________________________________________________ 70 3.4 Assumptions ______________________________________________________________________ 71 3.4.1 Appraisal Period ___________________________________________________________________ 71 3.4.2 Modelled Years ___________________________________________________________________ 71 3.4.3 Model Inputs ______________________________________________________________________ 72 3.4.4 Annualisation _____________________________________________________________________ 72 3.4.5 Traffic Growth _____________________________________________________________________ 72 3.5 The Transport Economic Appraisal ____________________________________________________ 73 3.6 Transport Economic Efficiency ________________________________________________________ 74 3.7 Public Accounts Impacts ____________________________________________________________ 74 3.8 Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits _______________________________________________ 74 3.9 Safety Benefits ____________________________________________________________________ 74 3.10 Environmental Impacts ______________________________________________________________ 75 3.10.1 TUBA Output _____________________________________________________________________ 75 3.10.2 Environment Impact Assessment ______________________________________________________ 75 3.11 Social and Distributional Impacts ______________________________________________________ 76 3.11.1 Social Impact Appraisal Summary _____________________________________________________ 76 3.11.2 Distributional Impact Appraisal Summary ________________________________________________ 77 3.12 Wider Economic Benefits ____________________________________________________________ 78 3.13 Reliability Benefits _________________________________________________________________ 79 3.14 Appraisal Summary Table ___________________________________________________________ 79 3.15 Value for Money Statement __________________________________________________________ 80 3.16 Conclusion _______________________________________________________________________ 82

4 The Financial Case 83

4.1 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 83 4.2 Methodology ______________________________________________________________________ 83 4.3 Assumptions ______________________________________________________________________ 83 4.4 Base Scheme Costs ________________________________________________________________ 83 4.4.1 Maintenance Costs _________________________________________________________________ 84 4.5 Quantified Risk Assessment __________________________________________________________ 85 4.6 Optimism Bias ____________________________________________________________________ 85



4.7 Scheme Costs Adjusted for Risk and Optimism Bias _______________________________________ 86 4.8 Preferred Funding Arrangements ______________________________________________________ 86 4.9 Alternative Funding Arrangements _____________________________________________________ 86 4.10 Conclusion _______________________________________________________________________ 86

5 The Commercial Case 87

5.1 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 87 5.2 Procurement Method _______________________________________________________________ 87 5.2.1 Alternative Options _________________________________________________________________ 87 5.3 Payment Mechanisms ______________________________________________________________ 87 5.4 Pricing Framework and Charging Mechanisms ___________________________________________ 88 5.5 Contract Length ___________________________________________________________________ 88 5.6 Contract Management ______________________________________________________________ 88 5.7 Programme Implication and Risk ______________________________________________________ 88 5.7.1 Procurement Timeline ______________________________________________________________ 88 5.7.2 Contract Risk Management __________________________________________________________ 89 5.8 Conclusion _______________________________________________________________________ 89

6 The Management Case 90

6.1 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 90 6.2 Evidence of Similar Projects __________________________________________________________ 90 6.3 Programme/Project Dependencies _____________________________________________________ 92 6.4 Governance ______________________________________________________________________ 92 6.4.1 Liverpool City Region Governance _____________________________________________________ 92 6.4.2 St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council Governance _____________________________________ 94 6.5 Assurance _______________________________________________________________________ 97 6.6 Delivery Programme ________________________________________________________________ 98 6.7 Risk Management__________________________________________________________________ 99 6.7.1 St. Helens MBC Risk Management Strategy _____________________________________________ 99 6.7.2 Risk Assessment __________________________________________________________________ 99 6.8 Communication and Stakeholder Management ___________________________________________ 99 6.8.1 Consultation to Date ________________________________________________________________ 99 6.8.2 Stakeholder Management Strategy ___________________________________________________ 100 6.9 Monitoring & Evaluation ____________________________________________________________ 102 6.9.1 Benefits Realisation Plan ___________________________________________________________ 102 6.9.2 Monitoring & Evaluation ____________________________________________________________ 104 6.10 Conclusion ______________________________________________________________________ 106

7 Summary and Conclusions 107

7.1 Summary _______________________________________________________________________ 107 7.2 Conclusions _____________________________________________________________________ 107

Appendices 108



1

Appendix A. Options Appraisal Report

Appendix B. Scheme Drawing

Appendix C. Economic Appraisal Report

Appendix D. Analysis of Available Data (Covered in Appendix C)

Appendix E. Transport Economic Efficiency

Appendix F. Safety Benefits (Covered in Appendix P and Q)

Appendix G. Environmental Appraisal

Appendix H. Appraisal Summary Table

Appendix I. Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB)

Appendix J. Public Accounts Table

Appendix K. Scheme Cost Estimates

Appendix L. Letter from Section 151 Officer

Appendix M. Scheme Delivery Programme

Appendix N. Risk Assessment and Management Strategy

Appendix O. Economic Impact Assessment

Appendix P. Social Impact Appraisal

Appendix Q. Distributional Impact Screening

Appendix R. St. Helens Council Consultation Code



2

1.1 Headline Description

The Windle Island improvements scheme seeks to address current severe congestion, safety and network

resilience issues at the Windle Island junction. Located central to the M57, M58, M6 and M62, the junction

is a significant link in the Liverpool City Region (LCR), providing:

Critical north-south and east-west movements;

A key arterial to SuperPort, supporting the LCR freight and logistics hub;

An important link to key employment and investment sites; and

A vital connection to future housing developments.

Figure 1.1 shows the strategic location of Windle Island and its importance in terms of access to key

economic sites across the City Region.

1.1.1 The Scheme

The scheme will deliver benefits to St. Helens and the wider LCR through:

The installation of controlled pedestrian crossings on all arms of the junction;

Toucan crossings across the A570 South and A580 East arms;

Widening of existing pedestrian crossing refuges at the Windle Island and A570/Bleak Hill Road

junctions;

Widening of the A570 North arm to allow the provision of an additional left turn flare on the A570

southbound carriageway;

Lengthening to the existing right turn flare on the A580 West arm;

Widening of the central reserve along the A580 through the junction to allow the provision of a vehicle

restraint barrier;

Segregation of the existing right turn from the A570 South arm to the A580 East arm; and

Upgrades to the existing intelligent transport facilities to include increased CCTV coverage and variable

message signs.

1 Scheme Summary

3 331738/ITD/TPN/1/A 03 August 2015 PiMS Livelink Explorer\EUNA PiMS Livelink\Favorites\331738 - St. Helens MSBC Support - Windl\Document


Figure 1.1: Strategic Location



4

1.2 Headline Benefits

At an operational level, the scheme will deliver a number of key benefits, including:

A reduction in current congestion levels;

Improved journey time reliability;

Potential accident reductions; and

Infrastructure ready to deal with future demand.

At a strategic level, the scheme will support an increase in new economic and employment opportunities,

aid key growth sites in reaching their potential and facilitate further development in the LCR.

1.3 Background to the Scheme

Windle Island has been identified as a key pinch point on the LCR road network for a number of years. In

seeking to address the current issues, St. Helens Council has applied to draw down on funding from the

Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) to enable future improvements to take place.

In 2008, a fatal accident occurred at the junction which raised questions about safety. Further investigation

concluded that the accident was not due to the design of the junction and highlighted the high levels of

congestion experienced daily that can increase the risk of dangerous pedestrian, cyclist and vehicle

movements.

The high level of congestion at the junction, which acts as a barrier for economic growth and development,

has been a catalyst to invest in junction improvements. Due to the number of large developments planned

for the LCR during coming years (e.g. SuperPort and Mersey Gateway which are expected to deliver

30,000 jobs and 4,640 jobs respectively) the scheme has become even more relevant and a high priority in

the LCR Growth Strategy. If the Windle Island improvements scheme is not delivered, these high profile

developments will struggle to meet their full potential and growth in the LCR will be restricted.

The LCR Growth Strategy states that ‘Transport projects will be brought forward that maximise the impact

on the local economy to reduce congestion, improve travel times/experience, attract new businesses and

allow businesses to operate more efficiently.’ Windle Island has the potential to support growth in the local

economy by delivering an efficient and well-functioning junction that serves the needs of the LCR.

Recently, resurfacing of the carriageway has been carried out in order to reduce the risk of accidents by

providing a better quality ride for vehicles. This is only the first step in improving the junction and much

more needs to be done to future proof the site to ensure that it can meet future demand.

1.4 Strategic Need

The junction acts as a barrier to vehicular, pedestrian and cyclist movements and is unable to sustain any

level of future traffic growth. The A580 East Ahead Left, A580 East Right, A570 South Right and A570



5

North Left Ahead arms of the Windle Island junction are operating over capacity at present (over 90%

degree of saturation1); whilst the other arms are operating close to capacity.

The key issues are understood to be:

Economic:

– Major congestion pinch point.

– Barrier to the growth of Knowsley Industrial Park (KIP) SuperPort, Mersey Waters, Mersey

Multimodal Gateway (3MG) and other key growth sites.

Social:

– Barrier to new housing developments.

– Barrier to new employment developments.

– Hinders the ability of local people to access opportunities.

Transport:

– Poor road safety record.

– Limits north-south and east-west connections in St. Helens.

– Barrier to cyclist movements.

These issues act as a barrier to development, growth and investment in St. Helens and the wider City

Region.

The LCR’s key aspiration is for growth, both in terms of Gross Value Added (GVA) and employment.

Growth is being driven across four key sectors: Low Carbon Economy; Knowledge Economy; Visitor

Economy; and SuperPort. Windle Island is part of the key arterial route to SuperPort; therefore issues at

the junction need to be addressed to ensure that the full potential of SuperPort can be realised.

1.5 Economic Benefits

The monetised economic benefits (based on transport modelling outcomes) show that the scheme

produces an overall BCR of 6.24 from a Present Value of Benefits of £24.3m and a cost to Public

Accounts of £3.9m (discounted to 2010). According to DfT guidance and criteria, the scheme BCR of 6.24

represents Very High Value for Money (VfM). The initial BCR calculated based on TUBA outputs alone

also yields Very High VfM.

In addition, an Economic Impact Assessment (EcIA) undertaken in October 2014 during the development

of this scheme identified a number of potential commercial and housing development sites which will

experience an economic benefit from improvements to Windle Island. The net additional benefits from the

proposed road enhancements equate to a total of 78 jobs and £4m of GVA per annum. That is to say that

78 jobs and £4m of GVA pa would not otherwise occur without the infrastructure works being completed

and bringing development forward at a faster rate than would otherwise occur.

1 The volume of traffic using the link in relation to its maximum capacity (TfL) ‘Roads Task Force - Technical Note 11’

https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/technical-note-11-to-what-extent-is-congestion-and-unreliability-on-the-road-network.pdf

https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/technical-note-11-to-what-extent-is-congestion-and-unreliability-on-the-road-network.pdf



6

1.6 Scheme Costs

Table 1.1: Cost Profile

£m 2016/17 2017/18 Total

Major scheme funding required £3,080,868 770,217 3,851,086

Local contribution 342,319 85,580 427,898

Annual Totals 3,423,187 855,797 4,278,984

1.7 Delivery Timescales

Construction of the scheme will be completed by September 2017, as illustrated by the scheme delivery

programme at Appendix M.



7

2.1 Key Messages

2.2 Strategic Case Compliance

Table 2.1 shows the structure of the Strategic Case.

Table 2.1: Compliance

Element Section

Key Messages 2.1

The Scheme 1.1

Background 2.3

The Need for Intervention 2.4

Issues and Opportunities 2.5

Problem Identification 2.6

Scheme Aim and Objectives 2.7

Scheme History 2.8

Options 2.9

Scheme Description 2.10

Scheme Benefits 2.11

Strategic Fit 2.12

Delivery & Success 2.13

2 The Strategic Case

The Windle Island improvements scheme will address congestion, road safety and air

quality issues to benefit residents in St. Helens and the wider LCR;

The scheme will provide opportunities for new housing and employment sites to meet

the needs of local residents;

The scheme will support growth at key growth sites in the City Region such as KIP,

3MG and SuperPort by facilitating improved access;

The scheme supports the three themes of the LCR Growth Plan: Business; People; and

Place;

The scheme has a BCR of 6.24 which represents Very High VfM.



8

2.3 Background

The A580/A570 junction (Windle Island) improvement scheme was submitted by St. Helens Metropolitan

Borough Council to the LCR Local Transport Body (LTB) in April 2013 as the first step in the process for

accessing major transport scheme funding for the period 2015/16 – 2018/19.

Following a City Region prioritisation process the scheme, which seeks to address current severe

congestion, safety and network resilience issues at Windle Island, was ranked twelfth in the shortlist of

major schemes across the LCR. This Major Scheme Business Case (MSBC) has been prepared to

demonstrate the affordability and deliverability of the scheme and set out the anticipated benefits it will

bring, in order to access the £3.37m of funding that has been provisionally allocated through the Local

Growth Fund.

2.4 The Need for Intervention

2.4.1 Windle Island

The Windle Island junction is in a unique position at the centre of both the St. Helens and LCR strategic

road network. Its location enables it to serve a number of sites in the City Region including KIP, SuperPort,

3MG, Haydock Industrial Estate, Liverpool City Centre and Liverpool Waters which are identified in the

Local Growth Plan as key growth sites.

Windle Island is of strategic City Region importance as:

It is part of the Strategic Freight Network - almost 10% of vehicles using the A580 eastbound (from

Liverpool to St. Helens) are Heavy Goods Vehicles;

It is a key arterial route E-W and N-S;

It provides local access for industrial estates; and

It provides strategic access to SuperPort.

2.4.2 Current Situation in St. Helens

St. Helens borough has a population of around 176,000 people, in an area of 135 square kilometres, and is

a second tier centre in the LCR. The borough is now emerging from the low points of its past and the

economic difficulties of the 1980s and early 1990s with a stabilising population, decreasing unemployment

rates, decreasing deprivation rates and an increase in health and educational achievements (St. Helens

Local Plan Core Strategy, 2012).

2.4.2.1 A Stagnant Population

The population of St. Helens has been fairly static over the past thirteen years, in the context of steady

growth in the LCR. However, this rate of growth is in contrast to the level of population growth experienced

in the North West region and Great Britain as shown in Table 2.2.



9

Table 2.2: Population 2000-2013, 000s

Total Population Growth 2000/2013

2000 2008 2013 Absolute Annual

St. Helens 177 175 176 -0.3% 0.0%*

Liverpool City Region

1,493 1,492 1,513 1.3% 0.1%

North West 6,774 6,959 7,103 4.9% 0.4%

Great Britain 57,203 60,045 62,276 8.9% 0.7%

Source: Mid-Year Population Estimates,

ONS*average annual change is -0.03%, which is shown as negligible when displaying results to one decimal place

2.4.2.2 Continuing Levels of Unemployment

Employment growth in St. Helens and the LCR subsided following the onset of the national recession in

2007/08 and fell by 2.1% between 2008 and 2010. However, this decline was more acute in St. Helens

than experienced in the sub-region, region or nationally. Recently, following the beginnings of a national

economic recovery, employment levels have picked up and returned to net growth for St. Helens and the

LCR.

Table 2.3: Total Employment Growth Rate

Total Growth, %

2000-08 2008-10 2010-2012

St. Helens 9.2 -2.1 0.9

Liverpool City Region 5.5 -1.4 0.8

North West 6.0 -0.8 0.1

Great Britain 5.8 -0.4 0.5

Source: NOMIS 2014 (Annual Business Inquiry employee survey and Business Register and Employment Survey)

The public sector (including education, health and public administration) accounts for the largest proportion

of employment in St. Helens (25%), although reliance on the public sector for jobs is lower in St. Helens

than the wider LCR (where the proportion of workers in the public sector is 35%). Therefore whilst there is

a high reliance on the public sector for jobs in this area, the borough has the opportunity to grow the

economy from a stronger base of private sector jobs. A key focus area in the LCR Growth Plan is

rebalancing the economy to place more emphasis on private sector employment growth.

Other key sectors in St. Helens include professional business services (including IT, finance and

insurance, property and professional services) at 22%, retail (11%) and manufacturing (11%). These

largely follow the regional and national trends with manufacturing accounting for a higher proportion of

employment (11% compared to 9% nationally).

In addition to manufacturing, wholesale (5%) and transport & storage (8%) are sectors with higher

proportions in St Helens than regional and national figures. By bringing forward development sites, growth



10

can be facilitated in these three relatively strong sectors, encouraging private sector employment to further

reduce reliance on the public sector for jobs. Growth in these areas can only be achieved through the

provision of an efficient transport system that supports fast and efficient freight movements to 3MG,

SuperPort, KIP, Liverpool Waters and other key growth sites.

Table 2.4: Employment by Sector, %

% St. Helens

Liverpool City

Region North West Great Britain

Agriculture, forestry & fishing 0 0 0 1

Mining, quarrying & utilities 1 1 1 1

Manufacturing 11 8 10 9

Construction 5 4 5 4

Motor trades 2 1 2 2

Wholesale 5 3 4 4

Retail 11 11 10 10

Transport & storage (inc.

postal)

8 5 5 5

Accommodation & food

services

6 6 7 7

Professional business

services

22 22 23 25

Public sector 25 35 29 28

Arts, entertainment,

recreation & other services

4 4 4 4

Column Total 100 100 100 100

Source: BRES, ONS

When compared to the wider LCR, St. Helens’ economy is stronger in the manufacturing, transport and

wholesale sectors. These sectors are facilitated by the logistics and haulage industry, which will become

an increasingly important industry for the North West region following development and growth aspirations

for the Atlantic Gateway and related transport corridors (see Figure 2.5).

These three sectors are all served by logistics and haulage related industries, and these sectors will

become an increasingly important industry for the North West region as it progresses SuperPort as well as

initiatives such as the Atlantic Gateway – these initiatives are also served by the proposed Parkside

Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI). Note that in support of these initiatives there are numerous road

improvement and access schemes for the M62 and A580 corridors proposed or underway. Improvements

to Windle Island have the potential to support the development of these key sectors to support significant

economic growth in the City Region.



11

Figure 2.1: Relative Employment Structure, St. Helens vs LCR (Employment Percentage Point Difference)

Source: BRES, 2012 data

2.4.2.3 Unequal Levels of Deprivation

Unemployment has been consistently higher for the LCR (averaging 4.4% between 2000 and 2014)

compared to the North West region and national trends (averaging 2.9% and 2.6% respectively). St.

Helens has an average of 3.7% for this time period which is still considerably higher than the regional and

national figures (see Figure 2.2).

-10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0

Public sector

Accommodation & food services

Retail

Arts, entertainment, recreation & other services

Agriculture, forestry & fishing

Mining, quarrying & utilities

Professional business services

Motor trades

Construction

Wholesale

Transport & storage (inc postal)

Manufacturing

pp diff, St Helens - LCR

More concentratedLess concentrated



12

Figure 2.2: Unemployment Rate Using Claimant Count Data, 2000-2014

Source: ONS

In terms of deprivation, large areas of the LCR lie within the most deprived quintile (20%) of population as

per the 2010 Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) data; these areas of high deprivation are predominantly

within and around the sub-region’s core area, particularly North Liverpool, South Sefton, North Knowsley

and central St. Helens (Figure 2.3).

Whilst the North Western areas of St. Helens fall into the fourth and least deprived quintiles in England, a

large proportion of the borough is in the most deprived 20%. At Lower Super Output Area level (LSOA),

over a fifth of all LSOAs2 in St. Helens fall within the top 10% most deprived LSOAs in England (out of a

total of 32,482)3, demonstrating the varied nature of deprivation in the area.

Windle itself has economic activity rates marginally above the St. Helens average; however this is still well

below national average figures (74% - figures from 2001 Census of Population). The IMD map in Figure

2.4 shows that there is a cluster of SOAs falling within the most deprived 5% nationally in Town Centre,

Parr, Thatto Heath and Bold, with pockets of high deprivation in Windle as well as Newton.

2 24 out of 117 LSOAs in the St. Helens District

3 Department for Communities and Local Government (24 March 2011): English indices of deprivation 2010

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Un

em

plo

yme

nt

Rat

e

Year

St Helens LCR North West Great Britain



13

Thus Windle Island sits within LSOAs from the most deprived to the least deprived quintile, reflecting the

diverse make-up of deprivation in the borough of St. Helens. This location presents an opportunity to

reduce deprivation in the surrounding area by increasing access to employment for local people, with the

potential to rebalance the levels of deprivation in the borough.

The closest industrial area to Windle Island, Rainford Estate, actually sits within the top 10% least deprived

areas; i.e. better than 90% of all areas in England. This estate provides a key opportunity to build on

existing economic links. Improvements to Windle Island may help to grow this estate, providing more

employment opportunities in the borough.

Figure 2.3: Index of Multiple Deprivation for Liverpool City Region, 2010

Source: Mott MacDonald



14

Figure 2.4: Index of Multiple Deprivation for St. Helens, 2010




15

2.4.2.4 The Future Economic Situation in St. Helens

The economic projections for the LCR LEP provide a long term outlook for St. Helens. Projections indicate

moderate growth in the local population can be anticipated through to 2025, but at a lower growth rate than

that expected within regional and national geographies.

Table 2.5: Baseline and Projected Population Growth for the LCR

2010-2015 (%pa) 2015-2020 (%pa) 2020-2025 (%pa)

St. Helens 0.2 0.1 0.2

Liverpool City Region 0.0 0.1 0.1

North West 0.3 0.3 0.3

UK 0.6 0.6 0.6

Source: The Mersey Partnership

Over the coming decade the financial and business services, construction and transport and

communications sectors are forecast to drive economic growth. In contrast the public sector, which

contributed significantly to employment growth over 2000/10, will expand very slowly – this reemphasises

the requirement to rebalance the LCR economy.

Transport and communications is a sector for which growth is forecast within the LCR. This growth forecast

reflects the increasing importance of logistics activities in the local economy. Proposed developments as

part of the Atlantic Gateway expansions, Parkside SRFI and KIP will increase pressure on Windle Island’s

strategic location on the key ‘East Lancs Road’ (A580) and its use as a Tactical Diversion Route when

problems occur on the M6. This pressure will be relieved through the proposed junction improvements

which will add capacity to the junction, improving journey time reliability.

Although employment in manufacturing is set to continue to decline, financial and business services is the

sector for which the highest growth rate is predicted, and this sector includes many services that are

closely related to production. There are many businesses in St. Helens which will be well placed to support

the increased demand for logistics and freight transportation in the wider LCR. By focusing on the direct

employment and GVA impacts of infrastructure improvements, this study provides only an indication of the

benefits a well-functioning East Lancs Road brings to the sustainability and growth potential of these

businesses.

Table 2.6: Employment Growth by Sector in Liverpool City Region, NW and UK (% pa)

LCR North West UK

2000 - 2010 2010 - 2025 2000 - 2010 2010 - 2025 2000 - 2010 2010 - 2025

Agriculture 10.2 -2.3 2.9 -2.1 1.0 -1.2

Mining & quarrying

-11.1 -1.4 -4.6 -0.9 -3.0 -1.1

Manufacturing -1.6 -1.0 -4.6 -0.7 -4.3 -0.9

Electricity, gas 5.1 -2.8 -1.6 -2.0 -0.1 -1.8



16

LCR North West UK

2000 - 2010 2010 - 2025 2000 - 2010 2010 - 2025 2000 - 2010 2010 - 2025

& water

Construction -0.6 0.8 1.2 0.7 0.8 1.0

Distribution, hotels & catering

-0.5 0.2 -0.3 0.3 -0.1 0.6

Transport & comms

1.7 0.4 0.9 0.3 -0.2 0.4

Financial & business services

0.5 1.0 1.7 1.2 1.8 1.3

Government & other services

1.8 0.0 1.9 0.4 1.6 0.4

Total 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6

Source: The Mersey Partnership

2.5 Issues and Opportunities

2.5.1 Strategic Context

Windle Island is an important intersection in the LCR road network, located close to its border with Wigan.

Situated in the centre of St. Helens borough, the junction lies close to the borough’s boundary with

Knowsley, providing a critical link in both east-west and north-south movements across the City Region.

The A580 and A570 form a strategic crossroads at the junction. The A580 provides a strategic link

between Liverpool and Manchester while the A570 provides key north-south movements within St. Helens.

The junction is also located central to the M57, M58, M6 and M62, providing a critical link between the LCR

and the wider North West.

Figure 2.5 highlights the strategic context in which the junction is located. It provides access to a number of

key employment sites within St. Helens including Haydock Industrial Park and Rainford Industrial Estate as

well as employment sites across the City Region including KIP and Liverpool City Centre.



Figure 2.5: Windle Island: Strategic Context



18

Due to the strategic location of the junction, high traffic volumes lead to congestion at peak times. The

SWOT analysis below summaries the existing arrangements at Windle Island which could be better utilised

to maximise the potential of the junction.

2.6 Identified Problems & Issues

A number of issues have been identified at Windle Island that act as a barrier to development, growth and

investment. These issues can be split into four categories; economic, social, transport and environmental.

These are described in more detail below.

•Impedes the effectiveness of improvements to surrounding junctions

•Restricts potential of SuperPort

•Potential for new housing sites close to the junction

•Growth in local jobs

•Increase cycling levels

•One of the last unfunded bottlenecks on the corridor

•Congestion

•Accidents

•Barrier to north-south cyclist movements

•Close to key employment sites

•Main arterial route to SuperPort

•Part of an economic strategy for the corridor

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

THREATS OPPORTUNITIES



19

2.6.1 Economic

2.6.1.1 Congestion

Windle Island is one of the most congested junctions in the LCR. Traffic volumes through the junction and

in its immediate vicinity are high and long queues are a daily occurrence at peak times.

Figure 2.6 and Figure 2.7 identify journey time reliability for key roads in the LCR. The maps show that in

both the AM and PM, journey time reliability is less than 75% at Windle Island. Journey time reliability is

particularly poor in the AM peak along the north and east arms of the junction. In the PM peak, journey

time reliability is at its worst on the western arm of the junction. This poor journey time reliability is not as

concentrated at other junctions along the A580 or A570, highlighting Windle Island as a key pinch point in

St. Helens.



20

Figure 2.6: Journey Time Reliability AM




21

Figure 2.7: Journey Time Reliability PM




22

Congestion at the junction is partly stimulated by the A580 and A570 being part of the Strategic Freight

Network (SFN). Table 2.7 highlights the increased number of HGVs using Windle Island compared to other

A-roads in the City Region. Almost 10% of vehicles using the A580 eastbound (from Liverpool to St.

Helens) are Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs), highlighting the importance of this road as part of the SFN.

Table 2.7: Annual Average Daily Flow on A-roads in the City Region (2013)

Location A Road HGV Proportion All Vehicles Proportion

St. Helens A580 (B5203 to A570) 2,072 21,324 9.7%

St. Helens A580 (A570 to Moss Bank Rd)

1,666 27,398 6.1%

St. Helens A570 (Dentons Green Lane to A580)

488 13,719 3.6%

St. Helens A570 (A580 to B5203) 478 12,348 3.9%

St. Helens A58 (A570 to A572) 779 22,759 3.4%

St. Helens A49 (A572 Billington Ave)

299 8,576 3.5%

Liverpool A57 (A5036 to A5042 155 6,437 2.4%

Liverpool A565 (A5056 to LA Boundary)

943 22,157 4.3%

Wirral A5207 (A553 to A5030)

138 7,056 2.0%

Wirral A41 (Queensway Mersey Tunnel to A41)

46 34,757 0.1%

Sefton A566 (A5090 to A5038)

200 12,698 1.6%

Sefton A567 (A566 to A5036) 137 8,402 1.6%

Knowsley A5300 (M62 to A562) 4,427 49,549 8.9%

Knowsley A57 (A58/M57 slips to A58)

189 11,085 1.7%

Halton A558 (A533 to Blackheath Lane

871 26,850 3.2%

Halton A56 (M56 to A558) 1600 21,537 7.4%

Source: Annual average daily flow at Windle Island (2013)

The A580 is a key access route between Liverpool City Centre/SuperPort and employment sites in the

northern LCR, while the A570 provides critical north-south movements between employment and

development sites within St. Helens. Significant economic investment is planned across the City Region, at

sites such as SuperPort and the proposed Parkside SRFI. This will place further pressure on the junction,

particularly the A580 route, causing increased congestion and even poorer journey time reliability.

Figure 2.8 shows the current layout of the junction and highlights current Passenger Car Unit (PCU)

movements during the morning peak.



23

Figure 2.8: PCU movements at Windle Island During the Morning Peak (0700-1000)

At present, Windle Island is unable to sustain any level of traffic increase. Congestion will only worsen as

the freight network continues to grow. This increased pressure on the local road network will act as a direct

barrier to future growth and investment, constraining economic growth in St. Helens and in the wider LCR.

A570

A580 WINDLE

ISLAND

A580

A570

1,4

97

1

,186

1,804

2,617 581

700

59

6

40

7



24

2.6.1.2 SuperPort

The A580 is one of the main arterial routes to SuperPort. It provides direct access between sites in

Liverpool and Manchester through a network of key junctions, including Windle Island.

To ensure this route supports rather than hinders the development of SuperPort, a pipeline of junction

improvements have been identified along the A580 to address the pinch points. This is part of a strategy to

improve the whole corridor (see Figure 2.9). Further details about each of these schemes are included in

Table 2.8.



Figure 2.9: Strategic Freight Route from SuperPort

KEY Windle Island

Junctions Funded

SuperPort

Multi-Phase Investment Sites (Strategic Economic Plan)

Transport Investment for Growth



26

Table 2.8: Improvements on the A580 Strategic Corridor

Scheme Description Benefits Funding Secured?

M6 J23 Upgrade of junction to allow greater volumes of through traffic, allowing right turns from A49 onto central through carriageway and improvements for cyclists

Increased junction

capacity

Improved journey times

Scheme completed

KIP A package of junction improvements including allowing right turns from the A580 to Moorgate Road South, Moorgate Road North and Ormskirk Road and a right turn from Moorgate Road North onto the A580

Improve access to the

Park

Reduce congestion

when accessing and

exiting the Park

Sustainable Transport Enhancement Package (STEP) Haydock Connectivity

New crossing facilities and cycleways for those on foot or cycle within the vicinity of Haydock Industrial Estate and its boundary with the A580.

Improved access to

Haydock Industrial

Estate

Improved sustainable

access

Windle Island is one of the few remaining junctions to be improved along the A580. Failure to invest at this

key location will impede the ability of the corridor to reach its full potential. Improvements to Windle Island

can therefore be seen as the missing piece of the jigsaw designed to maximise the opportunities of

SuperPort and other key economic sites for the City Region as a whole.

2.6.2 Social

2.6.2.1 Need for New Housing Sites

The St. Helens Plan 2014-2017 identifies a priority to deliver high quality housing and housing support that

meets local needs. Between 2003 and 2027, the Council needs to deliver 13,680 new dwellings; 3500 of

which need to be delivered in the next five years.

A number of sites in the vicinity of Windle Island are being assessed as potential sites for new

developments. They have been identified due to the large availability of development land in this area and

the strategic benefit of their locations – in close proximity to the local transport network and employment

sites.

However, planning permission for new housing proposals may not be granted without the necessary

improvements to Windle Island. Congestion is already a major issue and additional traffic associated with

future local housing developments will only add to this.



27

Therefore if the proposed improvements to Windle Island are not taken forward, the ability of St. Helens

Council to meet its housing targets may be compromised.

2.6.2.2 Need for New Employment Sites

The LCR Growth Plan and Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) identifies a vision for the LCR to be ‘A globally

connected City Region delivering sustainable growth, opportunity and prosperity for people and

businesses.’ A key objective of the LEP is for growth – both in terms of GVA and jobs by creating a more

competitive business base. This includes the provision of new infrastructure and a better connected

transport network to support the growth of existing business located in the LCR and to promote the LCR as

an attractive place for new businesses to locate.

The St. Helens Plan identifies a priority to increase employment and reduce the number of people who are

economically inactive. There has been a growth in employment levels and wages in the borough in recent

years but more still needs to be done. The number of residents who are economically active was 76.3% as

of March 2014; 1.3% higher than the average for the North West but still 1% lower than the national

average (77.4%) (Nomis, 2014).

The LEP’s overall vision is to secure job growth of between 95,000-130,000 jobs over the next 5 – 15

years by supporting growth across economic sectors including SuperPort and the Mersey Gateway

Project.

SuperPort

SuperPort presents significant opportunities for growth across the whole City Region. Currently 90% of

deep sea cargo enters the UK via the South, yet 50% of the UK container market is actually closer to

Liverpool. Sites close to the port will benefit from opportunities to capitalise on the need for greater

shipping and handling capabilities while sites across the wider LCR can take advantage of increased

warehousing and distribution activity.

The £1.8bn investment in SuperPort has the potential to provide up to 30,000 new jobs and contribute

£18.3bn in GVA to the LCR economy by 2030 (see Figure 2.10). These jobs will be concentrated in areas

that can move people and freight at the lowest possible cost and the lowest possible carbon output.

Emphasis is therefore being placed on reducing pinch points on key arterial routes, while retailers and

manufacturers are seeking port-centric locations with strong strategic links to base their distribution.



28

Figure 2.10: SuperPort Growth Figures

Source: SuperPort Action Plan Delivering Economic Growth 2011-2020

The jewel in the crown of SuperPort is its ability to enable logistics operators to service both Scotland and

the south of England with same day delivery and the availability of a largely skilled workforce in the City

Region to provide suitable labour.

St. Helens has the ability to capitalise on its unique location along the key arterial route from SuperPort out

of the LCR. Windle Island is at the centre of St. Helens – close to the M6, M62, M57 and M58 which all

play a key role in transporting goods and people. This sets the Windle Island scheme apart from other

major transport schemes in the City Region which do not provide strategic access to the LCR’s biggest

growth asset – SuperPort.

However at present, severe congestion at Windle Island is limiting the ability of the LCR to harness the

opportunities that will arise from SuperPort. The area ticks all the boxes in terms of its strategic location

and connectivity; however its high level of congestion will deter businesses who will rely on moving people

and freight quickly and efficiently to and from the port. This will limit the ability of the City Region to create

a freight and logistics hub; a key priority in the LCR Growth Strategy.

2.6.3 Transport

Figure 2.11 illustrates the strategic transport network in the LCR.

30,000Additional jobs by

2030

£18.3bn Increase in GVA by

2030

SUPERPORT



Figure 2.11: LCR Strategic Transport Network



30

2.6.3.1 Tactical Diversion Route

Aside from their role as part of the SFN, the A580 and A570 which meet at Windle Island have also been

identified by Highways England (formerly the Highways Agency) as part of a Tactical Diversion Route

(TDR). Windle Island is bound by four motorways; the M57 to the west, M58 to the north, M6 to the east

and M62 to the south. When problems occur on the M6 between junctions 23 and 26, the TDR is

signposted to divert traffic around accident sites/spillages/road works on the M6 (see Figure 2.12). In

addition, while not an official TDR route, the A580 including Windle Island is an alternative route between

the LCR and the M6 when there are issues on the M62 and M58.



Figure 2.12: Sites of Congestion When the TDR Route is in Operation



32

When an accident does occur and the TDR is in place, long queues are observed along the A580

westbound carriageway for right turning traffic onto the A570. The right turn lane is not sufficient when the

TDR is in place. Right turners queue back along the outside lane of the two lane westbound carriageway,

causing severe congestion and an increased risk of accidents. The demand for the reverse left turn

movement (A750 southbound to A580 eastbound) also increases when the TDR is in place which cannot

be supported by the existing left turn flare.

2.6.3.2 Road Safety

Road safety is also an important issue to consider when examining the overall performance of the junction.

Windle Island has been identified as a ‘High Risk Site’ within the Council’s Annual Road Safety Plan.

Between 2008 and 2013, 23 accidents were recorded at the junction resulting in 46 casualties. A fatal

accident occurred at the junction in October 2008 that involved a teenage pedestrian.

Analysis of the 2008-2013 accident data suggests that the majority of accidents occurred due to rear shunt

accidents and vehicles running red lights. Two accidents involving cyclists have also occurred. It was not

found that these accidents were due to the design of the junction; however it is considered that

improvements could be made to prevent the type of driving that result in such incidents.

Figure 2.13 and Figure 2.14 highlight the difficulties that pedestrians and cyclists face in crossing the

junction. There are no controlled crossings on any of the junction arms, creating a difficult environment for

many pedestrians and cyclists to cross. The high level of traffic moving through the main roads and slip

roads often creates confusion and results in an intimidating environment for non-road users. It has been

observed that some cyclists prefer to disembark from their bicycle and walk across the junction which they

perceive as safer than cycling across.

Figure 2.13: Cyclist Crossing the A580 at Windle Island (North to South)




33

Figure 2.14: A Lack of Controlled Crossing Facilities at the Junction (this crossing is used to cross the A570 E-W and

the A580 S-N)


2.6.3.3 Barrier to Cyclist Movements

The junction acts as a barrier to pedestrian and cyclist movements due to a lack of dedicated facilities for

pedestrians and cyclists. A number of cycle lanes run through the junction (see Figure 2.15); however a

lack of controlled crossings reduces the potential of these routes in terms of encouraging sustainable

travel. The high number of HGVs at this junction creates an intimidating environment for pedestrians and

cyclists, reducing the potential for local residents to use these modes (see Figure 2.16).



34

Figure 2.15: Un-Controlled Crossing for Cyclists across the A580 (north to south)


Figure 2.16: Un-Controlled Crossing for Pedestrians across the A580 (south to north)




35

The St. Helens Local Plan Core Strategy sets out a policy to create a sustainable St. Helens through a

number of planning principles. A key requirement of this policy is to ensure a choice in mode of travel,

particularly maximising the potential for walking and cycling. A new cycleway has been built in the north of

the borough connecting Haydock Industrial Park to Windle Island using LSTF funding. However, poor

cycling crossing facilities at Windle Island discourage use of the cycleways along the A580 and the A570

and the wider cycle network.

Figure 2.17 highlights the cycle routes in St. Helens that serve a number of key employment sites including

Haydock Industrial Park, Pilkington Park and KIP. The map also shows the cycle routes serving key

education sites such as Rainford High Technology College and St Augustine of Canterbury Catholic

School. The lack of cyclist facilities at Windle Island prevent residents from the south cycling to

opportunities in the north and residents in the north from accessing opportunities in the south. This reduces

the potential of these cycleways to encourage people to travel sustainably to these sites.



Figure 2.17: Cycle Routes in St. Helens

Source: Merseytravel (2014)



37

2.6.3.4 North-South Connections

Windle Island provides critical movements in St. Helens, both north-south and east-west through the A570

and A580. Rail lines within the borough run primarily east-west, between Liverpool, Wigan and

Manchester. A lack of north-south rail connections places a greater reliance on the road network in St.

Helens for these north-south movements, particularly on Windle Island which is at the heart of the St.

Helens road network.

This reliance compounds congestion at Windle Island and will only increase as more development occurs

across the City Region.

2.6.3.5 Public Transport

A number of bus services travelling between north and south St. Helens pass through Windle Island (see

Table 2.9). In addition, a number of school bus services operate to/from Rainford High School and other

educational establishments in the area. Although some of these services are infrequent, the 152 and 38

operate hourly and twice per hour respectively during the peak compounding congestion at the junction.

These services will not offer an efficient service if high levels of congestion continue to worsen at Windle

Island which may encourage more people to drive.

Table 2.9: Bus Routes Passing Through Windle Island

Bus number Route Frequency

Mon-Fri Saturday Sunday

Peak Day Eve Day Eve

152 St. Helens – Bishop Road – Windle Island – Crank/Kings Moss – Rainford

60 60 - 60 - -

356 St. Helens – Dentons Green – Windle – Crank – Rainford – Rainford Station

- - 60 - 60 60

38 St. Helens – Dentons Green – Windle – Rainford – Rainford Station

30 30 - 30 - -

Source: Merseytravel



38

2.6.4 Environment

2.6.4.1 Air Quality

Windle Island lies approximately 2.4km north of both Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) No.3 (Borough

Rd) and AQMA No.4 (Reflection Court). Table 2.10 shows the relevant standards against which local air

quality effects are assessed.

Table 2.10: Relevant Air Quality Objectives

Pollutant Averaging Period Air Quality Objective Attainment Date(h)

Concentration Allowance

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

1-hour 200 µg/m3 18 per calendar year(e) 31 December 2005(a)(b)

1 January 2010(c)

Annual 40 µg/m3 - 31 December 2005(a)(b)

1 January 2010(c)

Particulates (PM10)

24-hour 50 µg/m3 35 per calendar year(f) 31 December 2004(a)(b)

1 January 2005(c)

Annual 40 µg/m3 - 31 December 2004(a)(b)

1 January 2005(c)(d)

Particulates (PM2.5) Annual 25 µg/m3 - 2020(b)(g)

1st January 2010(c)

(a) Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000 as amended.

(b) Air Quality Strategy 2007.

(c) EU Directive 2008/50/EEC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe and The Air Quality Standards Regulations

2010. Derogations (time extensions) have been agreed by the EU for meeting the NO2 limit values in some

zones/agglomerations.

(d)

In March 2011, the Commission agreed the UK's revised application for a time extension for meeting the daily PM10 limit

value, granting a "temporary and conditional exemption" for the Greater London urban area.

(e)

Can be expressed as the 99.79th percentile of 1 hour means.

(g)

Can be expressed as the 90.41st percentile of 24 hour means.

(g) Also a ‘Target’ of 15% reduction in annual mean concentrations at urban background between 2010 and 2020.

(h) The date by which the standard has to be met.

As the proposed scheme will result in changes to vehicle flows and speed, it has the potential to affect

local air quality and regional air pollution. It is therefore important that any improvements made contribute

towards AQMA targets.

2.6.4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Each year, The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) publishes estimates of greenhouse

gas emissions by local authority areas. The latest year available in the dataset is 2012, which was

published in 2014. Emissions for St Helens are summarised in Table 2.11 below.



39

Greenhouse gas emissions occurring on A-roads were reported as 113.1 kilo-tonnes of carbon dioxide

(ktCO2) in 2012. This is 35.8% of total road transport emissions, 33.7% of total transport emissions (all

modes), and 7.3% of grand total emissions in St. Helens. Grand total emissions in St. Helens in 2012 were

equivalent to 0.3% of UK national emissions.

Table 2.11: Greenhouse Gas Emissions in St. Helens, 2012 (ktCO2)

Emissions ktCO2

Grand Total 1559.1

Transport Total 335.5

Road transport (A roads) 113.1

Road transport (motorways) 134.1

Road transport (minor roads) 68.4

Diesel railways 18.9

Other transport 0.9

Source: DECC

St. Helens Council has a goal to reduce Scope 1 emissions (direct) and Scope 2 emissions (energy

indirect) by 3% each year based on 2009-10 levels. The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Report

2013/14 notes that by 2013/14, Scope 1 emissions had reduced by 10% and Scope 2 by 12%.

However, there is still a long way to go to meet national and international goals. It is therefore important

that any schemes undertaken to improve Windle Island recognise GHG emission goals and work towards

the emission reduction target.

2.7 Scheme Aim & Objectives

In response to the issues raised at Windle Island and based on the evidence above, a junction

improvement scheme was proposed to enhance Windle Island to ensure that it can meet current and future

demand.

2.7.1 Aim

The aim of the improvements to Windle Island is:

To address current severe congestion, safety and network resilience issues at Windle Island.

2.7.2 Objectives

Four objectives have been identified for the Windle Island improvements scheme:



40

These scheme objectives were derived to address a number of key issues identified and to fit with local

and regional objectives, as discussed in Table 2.12.

Table 2.12: Strategic Fit with Issues and Policies

Objective Fit with Identified Issues Fit with Local and Regional Policies

To promote capacity improvements to ensure that the road network in St. Helens supports the economic success of the City Region, particularly meeting the needs of SuperPort – a key component of the LCR LEP Strategic Economic Plan and the Local Investment Framework

High levels of congestion

SuperPort development

Tactical Diversion Route

North-south connections

Ensure transport infrastructure

supports business growth (LCR

Growth Plan and Strategic

Economic Plan, 2014)

Support the City Region’s

ambition to create a freight and

logistics hub (Liverpool City

Region Growth Deal, 2014)

Transform the business base to

increase employment levels (City

Growth Strategy 2008-2018)

To facilitate additional housing and Need for new housing Provide affordable housing in

To promote capacity improvements to ensure that the road network in St. Helens supports the economic success of the LCR, particularly meeting the needs of SuperPort – a key component of the LCR LEP Strategic Economic Plan and the Local Investment Framework.

To facilitate additional housing and employment growth in St. Helens and the LCR in line with the Growth Plan and Core Strategy.

To improve sustainable access to housing, employment and education sites to ensure equal access to sites of opportunity.

To improve network resilience and safety to enable improved health and wellbeing and road safety for residents of St. Helens and the LCR.

1

2

3

4



41

Objective Fit with Identified Issues Fit with Local and Regional Policies

employment growth in St. Helens and the LCR in line with the Growth Plan and Core Strategy

development

Need for new employment

opportunities

deprived areas to create

sustainable communities (St.

Helens Local Plan Core

Strategy, 2012)

Close the 90,000 deficit in jobs

(LCR Growth Plan and Strategic

Economic Plan)

To improve sustainable access to housing, employment and education sites to ensure equal access to sites of opportunity

Need for sustainable access to

sites of opportunity

North-south connections

Public transport

Ensuring a choice in mode of

travel (St. Helens Local Plan

Core Strategy, 2012)

Ensure that all communities have

access to jobs and education

(Liverpool City Region Deal with

Government, 2012)

To improve network resilience and safety to enable improved health and wellbeing and road safety for residents of St. Helens and the LCR

Poor network resilience

Road safety issues

Air quality

Greenhouse emissions

Ensure the transport system

promotes and enables improved

health and wellbeing and road

safety (Merseyside Local

Transport Plan: A New Mobility

Culture for Merseyside, 2011)

2.8 Scheme History

Windle Island has been identified as a key pinch point on the LCR road network for a number of years.

In 2008, a major incident occurred on the junction which raised questions about safety. Further

investigation concluded that the accident was not due to the design of the junction but highlighted that the

high levels of congestion experienced daily can increase the risk of dangerous pedestrian, cyclist and

vehicle movements.

The high level of congestion at the junction which acts as a barrier for economic growth and development

is a key catalyst for the scheme. Due to the number of large developments planned for the LCR during

coming years (e.g. SuperPort, Mersey Gateway), the scheme has become even more relevant and a high

priority for the City Region.

Recently, resurfacing of the carriageway has been carried out to reduce the risk of accidents by providing a

better quality ride for vehicles. This is only the first step in improving the junction and many further

improvements are required to bring the junction up to a standard that meets current and future needs.

2.9 Options

Based on the objectives agreed for the scheme, a number of scheme options were developed as set out

below.



42

2.9.1 Long-List of Options

Initial optioneering was undertaken by Faber Maunsell (AECOM) in February 2009 to investigate options for

improving the existing situation at the junction. Each option was tested using LinSig Version 2 and

ARCADY modelling software as appropriate, using the baseline results for the junction as a comparison.

Ten options were identified for improvements to Windle Island, as outlined in Figure 2.18.



43

Figure 2.18: Windle Island Improvement Options

•Provision of new barriers and fencing to protect and direct pedestrians around each corner of the junction Option 1

•Addition of formal controlled pedestrian crossing facilities to the junction by adding crossing lights to the existing signal heads Option 2

•Separate the right turning and straight-through links with a pedestrian refuge island Option 3

•Allow for the potential of revised staging by providing staggered pedestrian crossing facilities across each arm Option 4

•At Bleak Hill Road/Rainford Road junction add a three-arm mini-roundabout and pedestrian islands and buildouts on each arm of the roundabout Option 5

•Signalised junction at Bleak Hill Road with a two lane approach Option 6

•Signalised junction with single lane approach and pedestrian island on Bleak Hill Road Option 7

•Stopping up the existing access to Crank Road from Rainford Bypass and realigning the Crank Road to meet the bypass to the north at a new priority junction Option 8

•Double right turn from East Lancashire Road onto Rainford Bypass Option 9

•Extension of right turn lane on East Lancashire Road Option 10



44

2.9.1.1 Initial Option Testing

Several of the above options were tested using LinSig Version 2 software. The options were packaged into

three scenarios:

Scenario 1: Option 3 – Adding direct controlled pedestrian crossings on each arm, and a pedestrian

island to separate out the right turn on the southern arm;

Scenario 2: Option 3 and Option 8 – As above but implementing the alternative Crank Road layout to

create a long left turn lane on the Windle Island junction’s northern arm; and

Scenario 3: Options 3, 8, and 9 – As above but realigning the A580 eastern arm carriageway

southwards to create space for an extra right turning lane.

Modelling concluded that each scenario provided an improvement on the baseline situation, with the

largest reduction in queuing observed in Scenario 3. However even in Scenario 3, many links were still

over capacity, especially during the AM peak period when the maximum degree of saturation was 104.5%

on the A580 eastern arm. It was concluded that these improvements were not sufficient to improve

available capacity of the junction and other options should be investigated.

2.9.1.2 Further Option Testing

To improve operational efficiency and road safety at Windle Island, a further package of measures was

considered to improve the junction to the immediate south between Bleak Hill Road and Rainford Road.

Two options were assessed as part of this package:

Option 5: Mini-Roundabout at Junction of Bleak Hill Road / Rainford Road; and

Option 6: Signalised Junction at Bleak Hill Road with Two-Lane Approach

Option 5 was modelled using ARCADY 6 while Option 6 was modelled using LinSig Version 2 software.

Modelling concluded that neither of the design options would operate sufficiently due to the downstream

location of Windle Island. Therefore neither design could be recommended, requiring further design and

modelling work to be undertaken.

2.9.2 Options considered in the Options Appraisal Report

Following on from the initial optioneering process, three design options for Windle Island were considered

as set out in the Options Appraisal Report in Appendix A:

Option 1 – Do Nothing: Leave the junction to operate in its current state, making no improvements;

Option 2 – Do Something 1: Provide controlled pedestrian crossing facilities, an additional right turn

lane from the A580 westbound to the A570, a vehicle restraint barrier along the central reserve and

localised carriageway widening; and

Option 3 – Do Something 2: As per Option 2 but with an additional left turn flare on the A570 North.



45

2.9.2.1 Option 1 – Do Nothing

The Do Nothing scenario proposes no change to the existing layout of the junction. Table 2.13 identifies

the advantages and disadvantages of this option:

Table 2.13: Do Nothing: Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages Disadvantages

No land take required Failure to address current pedestrian safety concerns

No immediate impact upon the transport network Failure to alleviate current and future congestion issues

No financial commitment required Excessive queuing which will worsen as base traffic growth increases

Reduced access to employment & opportunity, deterring investment & future economic growth

This option does not meet the identified scheme objectives. Large queues would still be experienced on all

arms of the junction, whilst modelling shows that the degree of saturation would approach 100%

(saturation) in the 2014 and 2019 AM and PM peaks on several links. The PRC (Practical Reserve

Capacity) for the AM and PM peaks is negative indicating that the intersection would operate ‘over

capacity’ and that congestion would continue to be experienced.

2.9.2.2 Do Minimum

As reported in the Options Appraisal Report (Appendix A), a Do Minimum option was not tested as

previous optioneering work indicates that minor changes to the junction are not sufficient to provide a

reduction in congestion or the number of accidents at Windle Island.

2.9.2.3 Option 2 – Do Something 1

The Do Something 1 scenario proposes a number of improvements to the junction, as follows:

Widening of existing and construction of new pedestrian refuges to enable controlled crossing facilities;

Segregated right turn on the A570 South;

Extended right turn lanes on the A580 (both directions);

Additional right turn lane on the A580 East;

Carriageway widening to enable the above improvements;

Junction resurfacing;

Junction re-proofing and relocation of gullies where required; and

Provision of improved Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS).

This option is estimated to cost £3,260,716 (based on 2014 costs).

Table 2.14 highlights the advantages and disadvantages of this option.



46

Table 2.14: Do Something 1: Advantages and Disadvantages


Pedestrian safety concerns addressed Failure to improve intersection conditions from all approaches, particularly when the TDR is in operation

Additional vehicular safety measures provided Fails to fully address congestion issues

Vehicular delay reduced Small loss of open space required for localised widening

Capacity increased

This option would provide improvement in terms of capacity and delay compared to the Do Nothing

scenario. Although the intersection would not operate within acceptable capacity parameters, the PRC

would increase and the degree of saturation on all links would decrease. However, large queues in excess

of 100 vehicles would be expected on the A580 westbound during the future year AM peak.

2.9.2.4 Option 3 – Do Something 2

Do Something 2 is as per Do Something 1 but with the addition of a left turn flare on the A570 North and

toucan crossings on the A570 south and A580 east arms. This option is estimated to cost

£4,028,667(based on 2014 costs). Table 2.15 identifies the advantages and disadvantages of this option:

Table 2.15: Do Something 2: Advantages and Disadvantages


Pedestrian safety concerns addressed Land take required for localised widening

Additional vehicular safety measures provided

Vehicular delay reduced

Capacity increased

Aids alleviation of congestion issues during operation of the TDR

This option provides the greatest benefits in terms of capacity and delay. Modelling for this option suggests

that there would be a 32% reduction in delay during the 2019 base AM peak and 37% reduction during the

2019 PM peak. The intersection will operate with a positive reserve capacity in the majority of future

scenarios. This option will further improve the operation of the intersection when the TDR is in place. Of all

the options considered, this option achieves best fit with the identified scheme objectives.

LinSig traffic signal software and PICADY priority junction capacity assessment software have been used

to assess each option. The full Options Appraisal Report is included in Appendix A.

2.9.3 Options Appraisal Report

The preferred option has been identified as Option 3 – Do Something 2. This option fully meets the

objectives of the scheme providing the greatest improvements in performance and delays. It will also

improve pedestrian and vehicular safety at Windle Island and will alleviate congestion during the AM and



47

PM peaks. The improvements will also reduce the severe congestion experienced when the TDR is in

operation.

The layout of this option is included in Appendix B.

2.10 Scheme Description

2.10.1 Scope of the Project

Improvements to Windle Island will deliver:

Controlled pedestrian crossings on all junction arms;

Toucan crossings across the A570 South and A580 East arms;

Widening of existing pedestrian crossing refuges at the Windle Island and A570/Bleak Hill Road

junctions;

Widening of the A570 North arm to allow the provision of an additional left turn flare on the A570

southbound carriageway;

Lengthening to the existing right turn flare on the A580 West arm;

Widening of the central reserve along the A580 through the junction to allow the provision of a vehicle

restraint barrier;

Segregation of the existing right turn from the A570 South arm to the A580 East arm; and

Upgrades to the existing intelligent transport facilities to include increased CCTV coverage and variable

message signs.

2.11 Benefits

Improvements to Windle Island will provide a wide range of operational and strategic benefits, as identified

in Figure 2.19.



Figure 2.19: Operational & Strategic Benefits

*NB the total net additional impact is 1,573 jobs and £81m in GVA. The additional growth attributable to infrastructure works is 78 jobs and £4m in GVA.

Operational Benefits

• Reduce current congestion

• Improve journey time reliability

• More efficient corridor

• Potential accident reduction

• Infrastructure ready to deal with future demand

• Enhanced operation of the Strategic Freight Network

Social Benefits

• Support an increase in new economic and employment opportunities

• Support pedestrian and cyclist movements

• Facilitate new housing developments

Economic Benefits

• Support the development of SuperPort

• Encourage investment in St. Helens from the freight industry

• Deliver 1,573 jobs and £81m of GVA*

Environmental Benefits

• Positive impact on air quality, green house gases and noise pollution as a result of reduced congestion and queuing traffic

• No negative impacts on noise, landscape and biodiversity



49

2.11.1 Operational Benefits

The proposed scheme will significantly reduce congestion and increase capacity at the junction,

particularly when the TDR is in operation. LinSig modelling results undertaken during the options appraisal

indicate the level of impact that can be expected.

Table 2.16 highlights the impacts on queuing and delays expected from the proposed scheme, which

include:

Queuing is reduced during both the morning and evening peaks on all junction arms, with the exception

of the A580 West right turn movement which increases by a maximum of three vehicles in the 2019

scenarios;

Queuing is significantly reduced on the A580 and A570 southbound;

Queuing is reduced by 30 vehicles on both the A580 eastbound (left and ahead link) and the A570

southbound (left and ahead link);

A reduction in delays by approximately a third during the 2019 AM and PM peak;

The junction is predicted to operate with a positive reserve capacity in all scenarios, with the exception

of the 2019 AM peak, future proofing the junction for future development; and

Total delay (PCUHr) is reduced during the AM and PM peak.



Table 2.16: LinSig Results

2014 AM 2014 PM 2019 AM 2019 PM

Degree of Saturation

(%)

Mean Maximum

Queue (PCU)


(%)

Mean Maximum

Queue (PCU)


(%)

Mean Maximum

Queue (PCU)


(%)

Mean Maximum

Queue (PCU)

A580 East Ahead Left

Existing operation 96.5 90.6 85.7 64.1 101.3 110.4 90.2 69.9

Proposed scheme 88.8 62.1 76.7 60.2 92.4 88.4 80.7 64.8

A580 East Right Existing operation 97.1 25.7 95.5 32.3 101.9 30.9 100.6 38.7

Proposed scheme 66.4 14.8 75.6 14.8 71.5 20.7 79.6 28.7

A570 South Left Ahead


Proposed scheme 88.6 38.0 76.2 39.1 92.9 55.1 80.2 42.4

A570 South Right Existing operation 94.6 18.1 96.3 16.0 99.3 21.0 101.3 19.0

Proposed scheme 86.7 12.6 73.9 12.6 91.0 17.7 77.8 13.0

A580 West Left Ahead


Proposed scheme 57.5 36.1 73.5 36.1 60.1 50.9 77.4 67.0

A580 West Right Existing operation 79.0 17.1 58.3 15.3 82.9 18.3 61.4 16.3

Proposed scheme 88.9 14.9 76.7 17.9 93.3 21.1 80.7 18.5

A570 North Left Ahead


Proposed scheme 64.0 38.5 67.9 47.2 74.3 53.0 71.5 50.6

A570 North Right Existing operation 81.2 13.7 74.6 11.7 85.3 14.8 78.5 12.6

Proposed scheme 59.5 9.1 57.3 10.6 66.1 12.9 60.4 11.2

PRC (%) Existing operation -7.9 -7.4 -13.3 -13.1

Proposed scheme 13 17.3 -3.7 11.5

Total Delay (PCUHr)

Existing operation 142.96 139.28 186.61 181.59

Proposed scheme 91.74 105.54 127.58 114.30

Cycle time (s) Existing operation 240 240 240 240

Proposed scheme 180 240 240 240



51

Analysis of delays through the junction suggests that there will be a 32% reduction in delays during the

morning peak and 37% reduction during the evening peak in the 2019 scenario (see Table 2.17).

Table 2.17: Delay Comparison for Preferred Option

Before (pcuHr) After Change % age Change

Base 2014 AM 142.96 91.74 51.22 36%

Base 2014 PM 139.28 105.54 33.74 24%

Base 2019 AM 186.61 127.58 59.03 32%

Base 2019 PM 181.59 114.30 67.29 37%

Reduction in queuing and delays at the junction will combat high levels of congestion at the junction, both

now and in the future. This will particularly benefit SuperPort and the wider freight and logistics sector in

the LCR through the provision of an efficient and reliable road network.

2.11.2 Strategic Benefits

Improvements to Windle Island will also deliver a number of economic, social and environmental benefits

as described below.

2.11.2.1 Economic Benefits

Transport & Wider Economic Benefits

The Windle Island scheme is forecast to deliver a present value of main transport economic benefits (PVB)

of £20.1m over the standard appraisal period of 60 years. When the PVB is taken together with the present

value of scheme costs (PVC) of £3.9m (in 2010 prices and discounted to 2010) the initial BCR is calculated

as 5.16 According to Department for Transport Guidance, the BCR of 5.16 represents very high Value for

Money (VfM).

However, the Windle Island scheme produces changes in travel costs that, in turn, produce wider

economic benefits, of which agglomeration and welfare benefits have been calculated. Journey time

reliability benefits have also been calculated and included in the calculation of the modified BCR, including:

Journey time reliability benefits – this accounts for an additional £0.7m which is equivalent to 3.6% of

the main TUBA-based economic benefits;

Wider economic benefits (which are predominantly agglomeration benefits) account for £2.4m which is

equivalent to 11.8% of the main TUBA-based economic benefits. This uses OWeL economic dataset in

the calculations; and

Accident benefits account for £1.091m which is equivalent to 5.4% of the main TUBA based benefits.

Therefore, the modified BCR is more indicative of the quantifiable economic benefits of the package of

schemes for Windle Island scheme. This is calculated as 6.24 and represents Very High VfM. Further

detail is provided in the Economic Case in Section 3.



52

Indirect Economic Impact

An Economic Impact Assessment (EcIA), undertaken in October 2014 during the development of this

scheme, identified a number of potential commercial and housing development sites which will experience

an economic benefit from improvements to Windle Island. The net additional benefits from the proposed

road enhancements equate to a total of 78 jobs and £4m of GVA per annum. That is to say that 78 jobs

and £4m of GVA pa would not otherwise occur without the infrastructure works being completed and

bringing development forward at a faster rate than would otherwise occur.

The Economic Impact Assessment (EcIA) is included in Appendix O.

2.11.2.2 Social Benefits

The scheme will support an increase in economic activity, employment opportunities and new housing

developments in St. Helens. It will also support the development of a freight and logistics hub in the City

Region, bringing a range of new job opportunities for residents.

An increase in job opportunities will help to reduce unemployment levels and address the high levels of

inequality experienced in the borough. An increase in new job opportunities will also reduce reliance on

public sector employment and increase the number of jobs available in the transport and storage sectors.

Improvements to the junction will also enable local residents to travel further to reach employment

opportunities at new developments such as SuperPort, 3MG and Sci-Tech Daresbury, through

improvements to journey times and journey time reliability. The provision of controlled crossings will help to

reduce accidents at the junction and aid pedestrian and cyclist movements.

2.11.2.3 Environmental Benefits

The scheme is expected to have a positive impact on air quality, greenhouse gases and noise through the

reduction in congestion at the junction and by improving provision for active travel.

2.12 Strategic Fit

2.12.1 Contribution to National Government Objectives

National Government policy has had a crucial focus on transport and economic growth during recent years.

The government paper ‘Transport: An Engine for Growth’ sets out the strategic context for investments

made in transport during the 2013 spending round. The document highlights the importance of transport for

economic growth, a key government objective, and its crucial role in everything we do. Prerequisites for

this growth include high-performing networks which are essential for the UK to compete in the global

marketplace. It is therefore vital that we think of our transport network as a connected whole, serving the

UK, rather than a series of separate systems.



53

The Windle Island improvements scheme fits with a number of these national policies.

2.12.1.1 Transport

The National Transport Strategy ‘Transport: An Engine for Growth’ (2013) states that transport investments

should support jobs, strengthen the supply chain and help position the UK as a global leader for transport

and innovation. The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) suggests that transport investments

should support strategies for the growth of ports, airports or other major generators of travel demand. The

proposed scheme supports these policies through facilitating a strategic access route to SuperPort, helping

to create a world class port that can efficiently transport people and goods.

The DfT paper ‘Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon: Making Sustainable Local Transport Happen’ (2011)

suggests that it is at the local level that most can be done to enable people to make more sustainable

transport choices and to offer a wider range of genuinely sustainable transport modes. The provision of

controlled pedestrian crossings at Windle Island will help to encourage more people to walk and cycle by

providing a safer environment in which to do so. Improved pedestrian and cyclist facilities will also increase

access to key employment sites, in line with national government objectives to increase employment

levels.

2.12.1.2 Economic Growth

Economic growth is a core part of National Government policy. The Plan for Growth (2011) identifies a key

objective to ‘achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth that is more evenly shared across the

country and between industries.’

The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) states that planning policies should contribute to building

a strong, responsive and competitive economy and recognise, and seek to address, potential barriers to

investment.

The paper ‘Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon: Making Sustainable Local Transport Happen’ (2011) notes

that economic growth is one of the UK’s biggest challenges. It recognises the important role that transport

plays in getting people to work and services, improving quality of life in addition to enhancing people’s

spending power.

The National Transport Strategy ‘Transport: An Engine for Growth’ (2013) suggests that DfT transport

investments will support a rebalanced economy to ensure sustainable prosperity for all.

Capacity improvements to Windle Island align with each of these policies through facilitating growth in the

LCR economy. By removing congestion as a potential barrier to investment in St. Helens, increased

accessibility can help to promote the LCR as an attractive place for businesses to invest.



54

2.12.2 Contribution to LCR Objectives

At the LCR level, the proposed scheme supports three areas of policy – transport, economic growth and

employment (as outlined in Table 2.18).

Table 2.18: Growth plan themes

Symbol Theme Description

Place Be a competitive place…by investing in major employment sites to create growth but also in the regeneration of our communities such as through town centre regeneration and improvements to the City Region housing offer as well as through using transport as a stimulant to growth.

People With competitive people…through targeting our efforts on those who need re-engaging with the labour market, through up-skilling our workforce and through seeking flexibilities in delivery that support our local economy

Business Develop a more competitive business base… we will seek to see all of our economy capitalise on business growth opportunities as we aim to develop a more competitive business base by encouraging businesses of all types to grasp economic opportunities and create jobs.

B B

B

P

P

B



Figure 2.20: Contribution to LCR Objectives

LCR Policy Areas

Transport

Create a freight and logistics hub to serve an

expanded Port of Liverpool

Encourage businesses to invest in the LCR to

capitliase on its unique connectivity

Transport assets to be developed sustainably and

to their full potential

Support the LCR freight and logistics hub in reaching its

potential

Economic Growth

Produce a step change in the scale of enterprise and

business activity

Providing reliable journey times to ensure the LCR is

competitive

Accelerate growth and close the productivity gap with the

rest of the UK.

Keep the freight network moving to encourage further

investment

Employment

Achieve an economically active population on par with that of the UK pre-

recession

Ensuring our people are competitive and employable

by helping them to move around more easily and by

a wider range of modes

B

P

P

B

B

P

P

B

B



56

2.12.2.1 Transport

Transport is fundamental to the Liverpool City Region’s growth ambitions and is described in the LCR

Strategic Economic Plan (SEP, 2014) as essential for the quality of life and economy of the City Region.

Transport is at the heart of the LCR Growth Deal (March, 2014) that supports the City Region’s ambitions

to create a freight and logistics hub. Improvements to Windle Island will benefit both businesses and

people. In terms of businesses, an efficient local road network will create an attractive location for

businesses to invest, bringing new employment opportunities for residents. In terms of people,

improvements for road users, pedestrians and cyclists will increase access to these employment sites.

The Liverpool City Region Deal with Government (May 2012) identifies a vision for transport assets to be

developed sustainably and to their full potential in order to enable businesses to thrive due to their ability to

move people, goods and services quickly and efficiently both within the UK and overseas. Investment in

the LCR road network, at sites such as Windle Island, will provide reliable journey times for businesses to

ensure that the LCR remains competitive.

2.12.2.2 Economic Growth

Economic growth is the core aim of LCR policy. The LCR’s Strategic Economic Plan (March 2014) notes

that the overarching goal is to produce a step change in the scale of enterprise and business activity, to

expand the business base and accelerate economic growth. Similarly, the LCR Employment and Skills

Strategy and Commissioning Framework (2010) identifies a priority to accelerate growth and substantially

close the productivity gap with the rest of the UK.

Improvements to Windle Island will improve access to key growth sites in the City Region including 3MG,

KIP, SuperPort and Liverpool Waters, which together schemes have the potential to substantially increase

economic growth and prosperity.

2.12.2.3 Employment

The LCR SEP suggests that there are too few jobs in the City Region for the number of residents aged 16-

64, equating to a 90,000 jobs short-fall. The Economic Review (2012) identifies a challenge for the LCR to

achieve an economically active population on par with that of the UK pre-recession; an additional 41,000

economically active residents.

Improvements to Windle Island will help to support growth at key employment sites in the LCR and capture

further investment by creating an attractive location for businesses to invest. This will help the City Region

to meet its employment goals and provide more opportunities for residents.

2.12.3 Fit with Promoting Organisation Aims and Objectives

The Windle Island improvement scheme has a strong strategic fit with the vision for St. Helens, as

illustrated in Figure 2.21.



57

Figure 2.21: Vision: St. Helens 2027

Source: St. Helens Local Plan Core Strategy, October 2012

The scheme objectives meet a number of local objectives, including:

Ensuring a choice in mode of travel (St. Helens Local Plan Core Strategy, 2012);

Transform the business base to increase employment levels (City Growth Strategy 2008-2018);

Strengthening the local economy, promoting business growth, retention and investment (The St.

Helens Plan 2014-2017);

Provide quality housing in St. Helens (St. Helens Local Plan Core Strategy, 2012);

Improving the standard and safety of our transport network and infrastructure (The St. Helens Plan

2014-2017); and

Create a high quality physical environment for residents, businesses and visitors through increased

connectivity (City Growth Strategy 2008-2018).

The Red Amber Green (RAG) assessment in Table 2.19 summarises the strategic fit of Windle Island with

key national, regional and local policy documents.



58

Table 2.19: Strategic Fit of the Windle Island Improvements Scheme

Policy Key Extracts Strategic Fit

National Policy

The National Planning Policy

Framework

Plans should protect and exploit opportunities for the use

of sustainable transport

Plans should contribute to building a strong, responsive

and competitive economy

Planning policies should recognise and seek to address

potential barriers to investment Develop strategies for transport that support the growth of

ports, airports or other major generators of travel

G

Planning Policy Statement 4:

Planning for Sustainable

Economic Growth

Planning policies should support existing business sectors Plans should help to build prosperous communities by

improving the economic performance of cities, towns,

regions, sub-regions and local areas

Plans should help to reduce the gap in economic growth

rates between regions, promoting regeneration and

tacking deprivation

A

National transport Strategy:

‘Transport: An Engine for

Growth’

Support significant private sector investment in ports and

airports, including enabling good surface access by rail

and road

Work in tandem with private sector partners to secure

mutually supportive and integrated upgrades to the

transport network

Wherever possible, investments will support jobs,

strengthen the supply chain and help position the UK as a

global leader for transport and innovation

Investments will support a rebalanced economy to ensure

sustainable prosperity for all

G

Creating Growth, Cutting

Carbon,: Making Sustainable

Local Transport Happen

Vision is for a transport system that is an engine for

economic growth but one that is also greener and safer

and improves quality of life G

Sub National Policy


Strategic Economic Plan

The overarching goal for the LCR is to produce a step

change in the scale of enterprise and business activity, to

expand the business base and accelerate economic

growth

LCR needs to close the 90,000 deficit in jobs

Development of City Region transport infrastructure

should reduce the transport costs of businesses and open

new business opportunities

Invest in transport and key site infrastructure to capitalise

on our unique ‘connectivity’ opportunity in the national

context

A

Liverpool City Region Growth

Deal

Support improved access by a range of transport modes

to and from the Port of Liverpool to ensure opportunities

for economic growth and job creation are maximised G

Economic Review The challenge over the next two years is to rapidly

accelerate the rate of private sector job creation A



59

Policy Key Extracts Strategic Fit

The challenge for the City Region is to achieve an

economically active population on a par with that of the

UK pre-recession - it needs an additional 41,000 people to

be economically active


Employment and Skills

Strategy and Commissioning

Framework

Goal: To accelerate growth and substantially close the

productivity gap with the rest of the UK

Goal: To reduce worklessness across Liverpool City

Region, providing routes for people to move into work and

progress in their jobs

A

Liverpool City Region Growth

Deal with Government

Priority: To increase employment by combining up to

£80m public and private employment and skills

investments and empowering businesses to create more

jobs, tackle skills gaps and raise productivity; supporting

17,400 people into work and creating 6,000

apprenticeships;

Priority: To put transport at the heart of economic

development through a revised approach to governance

and creation of a joint investment fund of £800m

supporting the creation of 15,000 jobs; and

Priority: To harness the City Region’s science and

knowledge assets, attracting ‘big science investment’,

increasing GVA and generating 2,000 high value jobs

A

Local Policy

The St. Helens Plan 2014-2017

Strengthen the local economy, promoting business

growth, retention and investment

Improve the standard and safety of our transport network

and infrastructure

G

St. Helens Local Plan Core Strategy

Create an accessible St. Helens

Provide quality housing

Ensure a strong and sustainable St. Helens economy

Safeguard and enhance quality of life in St. Helens

G

City Growth Strategy 2008-2018

Transform perceptions – raise the profile of the borough

as a modern, vibrant and exciting place

Make St. Helens a more attractive location for residents,

investors and visitors

A

Strategic Fit with Scheme X

G Strong strategic fit with policy

A Neutral / minimal strategic fit with policy

R Negative strategic fit with policy



60

2.13 Delivery and Success

2.13.1 Delivery

The Windle Island improvements will be completed by September 2017, as shown in the Project Delivery

Plan included in Appendix M.

The key project milestones are outlined in Table 2.20.

Table 2.20: Key Project Milestones

Milestone Date

Confirmation of Funding November 2015

Tender Selection February/March 2016

Detailed Design June – August 2016

Start of Construction September 2016

Scheme Opening September 2017

2.13.2 Constraints

All land required to deliver the scheme falls within the existing highway boundary; therefore no planning

permission is required.

Only one environmental constraint was identified during the Environmental Appraisal (included in Appendix G); impact upon the Historic Environment as described below.

2.13.2.1 Historic Environment

The proposed highway improvements have the potential to impact on unknown buried archaeological

remains within the footprint of the proposed development area. It is possible that medieval remains

associated with the Windleshaw Abbey may extend north and into the development area. Impacts to buried

archaeological remains are likely to occur during re-grading or excavation of ground to provide new

highway or to extend the existing highway. Where archaeological remains may be lost as a result of the

scheme, an appropriate programme of archaeological investigation should be implemented prior to, or

during construction. The level of investigation will be proportionate to the significance of the remains likely

to be affected and the level of impact.

2.13.3 Key Risks

Table 2.23 outlines the top three risks as identified in the appended Risk Register (Appendix N).



61

Table 2.21: Key Risks

Risk Event Consequence Mitigation Probability Impact Overall

Procurement of services may not be successful or may be delayed or challenged.

Delivery of scheme is

delayed and jeopardised.

Due diligence during

appointment process.

25 High 8

Poor contractor performance and / or contractor becomes insolvent within the contract period.

Additional revenue required

to support delivery of the scheme.

Due diligence during the

procurement process.

10 High 6

Increase in scheme costs e.g. cost of materials and infrastructure.

The level of funding made

available is insufficient to

meet the proposed scheme

delivery costs.

The Project Board will monitor cost

and delivery throughout the

project.

30 Medium 7

All three key risks have a low-medium probability following mitigation; however the impact would still be

high if they were to occur (Please refer to Management Case and Appendix N for further detail). Mitigation

measures will continue to be applied as appropriate throughout the scheme development process to

minimise the likelihood of a risk occurring.

A contingency budget has been put forward as part of the proposal, taking into account the Quantified Risk

Assessment (QRA) undertaken (refer to the Finance Case for further detail). Any additional costs will be

underwritten by St. Helens Council. The procurement and tendering process will seek to place increased

liability on the contractor, where possible.

2.13.4 Measures for Success and Benefits Realisation

Success of the Windle Island improvements scheme will be determined by a number of factors:

Delivery to time, budget and specification;

Reduction in queuing and delays at the junction;


Increase in cycling levels, particularly north-south journeys across the A580;

Increase in use of junction by pedestrians;

Facilitation of new business and housing development in key areas surrounding Windle Island;

Improved resilience of the motorway network (M6, M58, M62) in case of incidents; and

Reduction in number of accidents.

Figure 2.22 summarises the methods proposed for monitoring and evaluating the success of the scheme in

achieving its expected outcomes and impacts.



62

Assessing the success of the scheme will primarily use information that is readily available, such as

Trafficmaster journey time data and accident records. This will be supported by bespoke cycling and

pedestrian counts, (pre and post scheme implementation) to assess the number of cycling trips and an

evaluation of business developments and housing units before and after scheme completion.



Figure 2.22: Measuring Success

OUTPUTS

•Controlled pedestrian crossings on all arms of the junction

•Toucan crossings on A570 South and A580 East arms

•Widening of existing pedestrian crossing refuges at the Windle Island and A570/Bleak Hill Road

•Widening of the A580 East arm to allow the provision of an additional right turn flare on the A580 westbound carriageway

•Widening of the A570 North arm to allow the provision of an additional left turn flare on the A570 southbound carriageway

•Lengthening of the existing right turn flare on the A580 West arm

•Widening of the central reserve along the A580 through the junction to allow the provision of a vehicle resistant barrier

•Segregating the existing right turn from the A570 South arm to the A580 East arm

•Upgrading the existing intelligent transport facilities to include increased CCTV coverage and variable message signs

OUTCOMES

•Reduction in queues on approach to junction

•Improved traffic flow

•Reduced congestion and increased journey time reliability for freight transport

•Reduced congestion and increased journey time reliability for other motorists

•Increase in north-south journeys across the A580 by cyclists

•Increase in use of junction by pedestrians

•Reduction in number of accidents

•Improved air quality

WIDER IMPACTS

•Enhanced confidence in LCR economy as a major freight and logistics hub

•Increased accessibility to key learning and employment opportunities in Rainford

•Facilitation of new housing development

•Facilitation of new business development

•Improved resilience of the motorway network (M6, M58, M62) in case of incidents

MEASURES

•DfT Trafficmaster journey time data

•Bespoke journey time surveys - pre and post implementation

•Cycling and pedestrian counts - pre and post implementation

•Accident data

•Number of new housing units in the surrounding area

•Sq ft of new business development in the surrounding area

•Air quality data



64

2.13.5 Impact of No Change

The impact of not changing is that congestion and delays at Windle Island will continue to worsen,

impeding economic growth in St. Helens and the wider LCR. As investment sites in the City Region

continue to develop, pressure on the already overcapacity junction will increase. This is likely to lead to

longer queues, a greater risk of accidents and a reduction in the already low numbers of cyclists willing to

use the junction. In addition, without improvements to the junction, developments around the site are less

likely to go ahead compromising the ability of St. Helens Council to meet its housing and employment

goals.

Increased congestion at the junction would also have an economic impact on the wider LCR. The A580 is

a key arterial route to SuperPort; a development which is expected to rival leading international ports in

New York, Dubai and Singapore. Congestion at Windle Island could stifle the ability of the port to transport

people and goods quickly and efficiently, hindering the operations of this key LCR investment site.

2.13.6 Integrated Assurance Plan

An internal St. Helens Council Assurance Plan has been put in place to ensure the project is objectively

reviewed at key decision points. There are three key review points identified, as illustrated in Figure 2.23.

Further detail can be found in the Management Case presented in Section 6.

Figure 2.23: Assurance Review Timeline

2.14 Stakeholder Management

2.14.1 Stakeholders

Through the development of the Windle Island improvement scheme, St. Helens Council has engaged with

a number of key stakeholders, including:

Local highway authority;

Highways England (formerly the Highways Agency);

Local businesses;

The LCR LEP;

Council members; and

November 2015

August 2016

November 2017

Business Case Review Pre-Implementation Review Operational Benefits Review



65

Freight transport associations.

Figure 2.24 identifies the level of influence exerted by each of the key stakeholders and their interest in the

scheme. Overall, there is there is strong support for this scheme to address congestion and support

economic growth in the LCR. Further details about stakeholder management can be found in the

Management Case.

Figure 2.24: Stakeholder impact/influence



66

2.14.2 Internal or External Business Drivers

There are a number of influential internal and external business drivers that are helping this scheme to

progress, many of which have been covered in other sections of this Strategic Case. A summary is

provided in Table 2.22.

Table 2.22: Internal & External Drivers for Windle Island Investment

Internal Drivers (to SHMBC) External Drivers

High levels of congestion and queuing Significant investment across the LCR, including SuperPort, 3MG, Mersey Gateway and Liverpool2

Windle Island identified as the ‘missing piece of the jigsaw’ in creating a strategic route to SuperPort

Identification of Windle Island as a pinchpoint on the key arterial route to SuperPort

Need to support economic growth and new employment opportunities in the borough

LCR objective to create a freight and logistics hub that relies on moving goods and people efficiently

Need for new housing developments in the borough The need to ensure that the LCR captures as much growth potential as possible and does not lose out to other

areas

Need to remove the barrier to pedestrian and cyclist movement through the junction to encourage sustainable travel

2.14.3 Synergy

Improvements to Windle Island will complement a number of other major transport and regeneration

schemes underway or recently completed in the LCR, as detailed in Table 2.23.

Table 2.23: Synergy with other Major Schemes

Scheme Description Benefits Synergy

M6 J23 Upgrade of junction to allow greater volumes of through traffic, allowing right turns from the A49 onto the central carriageway and improvements for cyclists

Increased junction capacity

Improved journey times

Improvements to Windle Island will support this scheme in providing better traffic flow on the A580. Windle Island also acts as a TDR when a major incident occurs on the M58/M6/M62

KIP Regeneration Programme

Physical infrastructure improvements to enhance KIP, to increase the attractiveness of the area as desirable business location.

Increased accessibility to the Park

Enhanced environment and appearance

Improve quality of Park as business location

Creation of growth and employment opportunities for residents

Improvements to Windle Island will support the regeneration of KIP by strengthening the strategic corridor to SuperPort and improving the potential for investment along this route.

A570 Linkway Capacity improvements to Alleviates existing capacity Improvements to Windle



67

Scheme Description Benefits Synergy

two roundabouts and lighting, signage and visibility improvements to the linkway to support future development and investment in St. Helens

issues

Improve resilience of the junction

Increases access for pedestrians and cyclists

Improves access to St. Helens town centre

Island will improve access to St. Helens town centre from the north of the borough while improvements to the A570 Linkway will improve access to the town centre from the south. Together they will radically improve access to this key location and encourage redevelopment.

M6 Smart Motorways The North West of England will benefit from 9 new road schemes worth around £800 million, including:

M6 junction 21a to junction 26 upgrading to smart motorway including hard shoulder running which will link to the smart motorway scheme on the M62 junctions 10 to 12 to the east.

Better manage the flow of traffic

Improve motorway safety

Improve journey times

The M6 Smart Motorway and Windle Island improvements will make journeys through St. Helens road network more reliable by improving capacity and reducing journey times.

2.15 Conclusions

In summary, the Strategic Case highlights the following:

The Windle Island improvements scheme will address congestion, road safety and air

quality issues to benefit residents in St. Helens and the wider LCR;

The scheme will provide opportunities for new housing and employment sites to meet the

needs of local residents;

The scheme will support growth at key growth sites in the City Region such as KIP, 3MG

and SuperPort through facilitating improved access and improved journey time reliability;

The scheme supports the three themes of the LCR Growth Plan; Business, People and

Place;

The scheme has a BCR of 6.24 which represents Very High VfM;

The net additional benefits equate to a total of 78 jobs and £4m of GVA per annum.



68

3.1 Overview

Mott MacDonald has undertaken analysis of transport economic benefits for transport improvements at the

A570/A580 junction (otherwise called Windle Island) in St. Helens as part of St. Helen’s Windle Island

Major Scheme Business Case. The economic appraisal uses the Department for Transport’s (DfT) TUBA

(Transport Users Benefit Appraisal) software which carries out economic appraisal in accordance with

published DfT guidance. The appraisal is based on data from the Liverpool City Region Transport Model

(LCRTM) and travel cost changes implied by the proposed improvements to the A570/A580 junction.

3.2 Introduction

An economic appraisal has been carried out for transport improvements at Windle Island as part of the St.

Helen’s Windle Island Major Scheme Business Case. The Windle Island scheme improves the junction

intersection between the A580 and the A570.

The intersection impacts on both local and strategic movements being located central to the M57, M58, M6

and M62, providing a critical link throughout the City Region. The A580 and A570 provide access to key

employment areas and development sites such as St. Helens, the A570 corridor, Rainford Industrial

Estate, Parkside, Haydock Industrial Estate, Lea Green Industrial Estate, Ravenhead Retail Park and KIP.

The transport modelling and appraisal carried out for Windle Island captures both local and strategic

impacts of the scheme. The key transport objectives of the scheme are to:

Address current and future congestion;

Improve road safety at the junction and approaches;

Provide a TDR (for strategic trips) and

Improve the infrastructure condition of the junction.

The modelling and economic appraisal presented in this report captures the first three of these objectives

and quantifies them in monetary terms.

The economic appraisal focuses on the preferred option for Windle Island which includes the features

indicated in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Preferred Option Features

Improvement Description

Pedestrian crossing Provides controlled pedestrian crossings on all arms of the intersection

Refuges Widens existing pedestrian crossing refuges at the Windle Island and A570/Bleak Hill Road junctions

Right-turn flare Widens the A580 East arm to allow the provision of an additional right turn flare on the A580 westbound

carriageway

Left-turn flare Widens the A570 North arm to allow the provision of an additional left turn flare on the A570 southbound

3 The Economic Case



69

Improvement Description

carriageway

Right-turn flare extension Lengthens the existing right turn flare on the A580 West arm

Central reserve widening Widens the central reserve along the A580 through the intersection to allow the provision of a vehicle restraint

barrier

Right turn segregation Segregates the existing right turn from the A570 South arm to the A580 East arm

Intelligent transport Upgrades the existing intelligent transport facilities to include increased CCTV coverage and variable message

signs.

The next sections discuss the following elements of the modelling and economic case development:

Methodology;

Assumptions;

Transport Economic Efficiency;

Safety Benefits;

Environmental and Social Impacts;

Wider Economic Benefits;

Appraisal Summary Table (AST); and

Value for Money (VfM) Statement.



70

Figure 3.1: Preferred Option – Windle Island

3.3 Methodology

The economic appraisal has been carried out in line with DfT guidance with a number of relevant

simplifying assumptions adopted specifically to produce a robust VfM assessment for the Windle Island

scheme and that are consistent with local evidence. Much use is made of modelling evidence and outputs

from LCRTM which has been used for several DfT-funded projects within Merseyside.

The appraisal has also employed OWeL (Operating WITA Extended Locally) - a toolkit that is compatible

with LCRTM and that enables wider economic benefits and impacts of multi-modal transport interventions

to be quantified. It produces Merseyside wider economic benefits that are largely calculated by the DfT’s

WITA software (which is based on WebTAG A2.1).

The economic benefits calculated for the scheme include:



71

Transport economic benefits (WebTAG A1). The transport economic appraisal has been undertaken

using TUBA which carries out economic appraisal in accordance with published DfT guidance. This is

based on trip and cost matrices from LCRTM and travel cost changes implied by the proposed

schemes.

Wider economic benefits (using OWeL). This follows WebTAG methodology (WebTAG unit A2.1)

and only captures impacts that are not already included in the conventional user benefit calculations

from TUBA. These include agglomeration; increased/decreased output in imperfectly competitive

markets; and labour market impacts. However, the wider economic benefits calculated here do not

include new jobs or changes in GVA which are part of separate analysis.

Journey reliability benefits (WebTAG A1). The estimate of journey time reliability benefits is made to

satisfy the ‘Reliable journeys’ sub-objectives within the ‘Economy’ section of scheme appraisal. The

calculations assume that the model area is dominated by urban regions and therefore uses the urban

journey time reliability calculations that are set out in the TAG unit.

Accident benefits. Estimation of accident benefits has been carried out using COBALT, the DfT’s tool

for accident appraisal.

Reliability benefits, accident benefits and wider economic benefits are included in the calculation of the

adjusted BCR as suggested by DfT guidance4. Other components of the benefits of the schemes are

described qualitatively in the Appraisal Summary Table.

The Economic Appraisal Report (EAR) is included as Appendix C.

3.4 Assumptions

In order to arrive at the economic benefits summarised in Table 3.4 a number of modelling and appraisal

assumptions have been adopted. The standard WebTAG appraisal forms the basis of the approach with

specific assumptions and simplifications made to allow best use of available local modelling data and

perceived nature of the schemes and longevity of their impacts.

3.4.1 Appraisal Period

The Windle Island scheme includes some road junction changes that have impacts on both local and

strategic traffic movements. On this basis, although the total scheme costs do not exceed £5m, the

WebTAG recommended appraisal period of 60 years has been adopted.

3.4.2 Modelled Years

The scheme is due for implementation during the period 2015-2017. In order to be proportionate in the

modelling effort for the appraisal, the economic assessment has been based on traffic modelling for 2020

4 Value for Money Assessment: Advice Note for Local Transport Decision Makers, Department for Transport. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267296/vfm-advice-local-decision-makers.pdf



72

and 2030 where data is readily available for LCRTM. These results are then interpolated and extrapolated

accordingly (in the modelling and appraisal tools) to obtain economic benefits for all other years, which are

then discounted to 2010 prices.

3.4.3 Model Inputs

LCRTM is a strategic transport model and as such does not contain detailed junction modelling.

Therefore, this scheme is represented through the transfer of time savings calculated in LinSig junction

models to the junction approach links in LCRTM. Table 3.2 presents the time savings input to LCRTM.

Table 3.2: Time Savings

AM PM

Do Minimum

Delay Do Something

Delay Factor Do Minimum

Delay Do Something

Delay Factor

A580 West 93 55 0.59 155 79 0.51

A580 East 166 114 0.69 125 72 0.57

A570 South 119 106 0.89 120 92 0.77

A570 North 156 85 0.54 146 54 0.37

3.4.4 Annualisation

Annualisation factors convert benefits calculated for each day into totals for the full year. To achieve this,

annualisation factors developed for LCRTM have been adopted. These factors have been used and

accepted by the DfT on funding application projects such as the Merseyside Local Sustainable Transport

Fund (LSTF), Local Pinch Point applications and the Better Bus Fund application. The annualisation

factors are robust and suitable for the current appraisals. Table 3.3 outlines the annualisation factors.

Table 3.3: Annualisation Factors

Time Period Factor

AM (0800-0900) 637

IP (average hour 1000-1600) 1518

PM (1700-1800) 675

3.4.5 Traffic Growth

Traffic growth in LCRTM from the 2012 base year to the 2020 and 2030 forecast years is estimated using

local housing and employment projections, but with an overall constraint on trip numbers to match those

forecasted in Version 6.2 of National Trip End Model Forecasts (NTEM). This method of producing forecast

trip matrices is in accordance with DfT guidance on forecasting and uncertainty, as set out in WebTAG Unit

M4.



73

3.5 The Transport Economic Appraisal

The economic appraisal has been carried out in line with DfT guidance with a number of relevant

simplifying assumptions adopted in order to produce a robust VfM assessment and maximise use of

available modelling evidence. As indicated above, TUBA has been used to calculate the main economic

benefits. Wider economic benefits have been calculated using the DfT’s WITA software and Merseyside’s

OWeL dataset. Both analyses use transport modelling results from LCRTM that reflect delay and traffic

reassignment impacts of the Windle Island scheme.

The table below presents the initial BCR calculated from the main economic benefits of the Windle Island

scheme. In line with the appraisal guidance, a modified BCR has been calculated by including quantifiable

wider economic benefits and journey reliability benefits that arise from the transport interventions. Table

3.4 below summarises the BCR calculations.

Table 3.4: Appraisal Summary (in 2010 prices if not stated)

Initial BCR (£000s) Modified BCR (£000s)

Scheme Costs in 2014 prices £3,503 £3,503

Scheme Costs including optimism bias of 15% in 2014 prices

£4,029 £4,029

(All entries below are present values discounted to 2010, in 2010 prices)

Scheme Costs (including optimism bias of 15%)

£3,853 £3,853

Main Transport Economic Benefits £20,130 £20,130

Wider Economic Benefits (Agglomeration and Welfare Benefits)

£2,391

Reliability Benefits £728

Accident Benefits £1,091

Present Value of Costs (PVC) £3,902 £3,902

Present Value of Benefits (PVB) £20,130 £24,340

Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 5.16 6.24

Table 3.4 shows that the Windle Island scheme is forecast to deliver a present value of main transport

economic benefits (PVB) of £20.1m over a standard appraisal period of 60 years. When the PVB is taken

together with the present value of scheme costs (PVC) of £3.9m the initial BCR is calculated as 5.16.

According to DfT guidance, the BCR of 5.16 represents Very High VfM.

The Windle Island scheme produces changes in travel costs that, in turn, produce wider economic

benefits, of which agglomeration and welfare benefits have been calculated. Journey time reliability

benefits have also been calculated and included in the calculation of the modified BCR:



74

Journey time reliability benefits – this accounts for an additional £0.7m which is equivalent to 3.6% of

the main TUBA-based economic benefits.

Wider economic benefits (which are predominantly agglomeration benefits) account for £2.4m which is

equivalent to 11.8% of the main TUBA-based economic benefits. This uses OWeL economic dataset in

the calculations.

Accident benefits account for £1.091m which is equivalent to 5.4% of the main TUBA based benefits.

Therefore, the modified BCR is more indicative of the quantifiable economic benefits of the package of

schemes for Windle Island scheme. This is calculated as 6.24 and represents Very High VfM.

3.6 Transport Economic Efficiency

The completed Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) table is included in Appendix E. Transport modelling

has shown that the junction improvements of the Windle Island scheme produce significant delay and

journey time reductions for traffic. The TEE table reflects this and shows that the transport interventions

result in significant benefits for all road users but mostly longer distance trips.

The overall Present Value of Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits is £20.9m (2010 prices, discounted to

2010). This is shown in Appendix E.

3.7 Public Accounts Impacts

The impact on Public Accounts for the full Windle Island scheme costs as set out in the Public Accounts

table is a cost to Public Accounts of £3.9m. As a result of reductions in travel costs for drivers as a result of

the scheme improvements, there is also a loss of £0.9m in Indirect Tax Cost for central government.

This is shown in Appendix J.

3.8 Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits

The Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) table is provided in Appendix I. It shows an overall

scheme cost of £3.9m against an overall Present Value of Benefits (PVB) of £20.1m having allowed for

impacts of indirect taxation on the economy and greenhouse gases.

This gives an initial BCR of 5.16 before wider economic impacts implied by the journey time changes are

included.

3.9 Safety Benefits

The appraisal of accidents was carried out using the DfT's new COBALT accident appraisal tool, initially

released in 2013 to replace the accident appraisal function of COBA. COBALT produces an appraisal of

accidents in accordance with WebTAG Unit A4.1 on Social Impact Appraisal.



75

COBALT was run with links and junctions combined using the default set of accident rates specified in the

standard COBALT parameters file which are taken from the WebTAG Databook.

It was found that the total level of benefits for the 60 year appraisal period (2016-2075) was £1.091m (2010

prices, discounted to 2010). The accident benefits are the result of the redistribution of traffic flows

following the implementation of the scheme and are outlined in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5 shows that over a 60 year period, the accident benefits will be over £1m which is 5% of the main

transport economic benefit.

Table 3.5: Accident Benefits (National values)

Accident Benefits Costs £000s Number of Accidents

With-Out Scheme Accidents 18,086,824 147,118

With Scheme Accidents 18,085,733 147,108

Accident Benefits (60 year period) 1,091 10.4

Source: COBALT

All entries are present values discounted to 2010, in 2010 prices

3.10 Environmental Impacts

3.10.1 TUBA Output

Greenhouse gas emissions have been calculated using TUBA (see output in Economic Appraisal Report in

Appendix C). This shows a small beneficial impact in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and

yields economic benefits of £0.1m over the 60 year appraisal period. The scheme is practically neutral on

greenhouse gas emissions.

3.10.2 Environment Impact Assessment

The environmental impacts of the proposed scheme have been assessed in an Environmental Appraisal

included in Appendix G. It is anticipated that the proposed works will have:

A positive impact on air quality (local) and greenhouse gases through reduced congestion and

improved traffic flow through Windle Island;

A neutral impact on noise, air quality (regional), landscape and biodiversity; and

A slightly adverse impact on the historic environment.

The scheme is expected to reduce the overall energy consumption (in the form of fuel and electricity) of

vehicles using the junction. Over the 60 year impact period, total untraded savings of 2,188 tonnes of

carbon dioxide (tCO2) are expected, with an additional 7 tCO2 traded. This is compared to the without-

scheme scenario. Likewise, the proposed scheme will result in changes to vehicle flows and speed thereby

improving local air quality due to less idling vehicles and less very low speed traffic.



76

Noise, air quality (regional), landscape and biodiversity impacts are expected to be neutral:

It is not anticipated that there will be any significant impacts of the scheme on noise assuming

appropriate noise mitigation measures are put into place.

It is not anticipated that there will be a significant change to emissions of regional air pollutants as a

result of the scheme.

Assuming appropriate mitigation is put into place, it is anticipated that there will be a neutral effect on

landscape.

An assessment of biodiversity shows that as long as the works occur outside of March – August (more

than five metres away from the hedgerow) or by a suitably qualified ecologist undertaking nesting bird

checks between March and August there will be no negative impacts.

The proposed scheme may have some slightly adverse impacts on the historic environment. The proposed

highway improvements have the potential to impact on unknown buried archaeological remains within the

footprint of the proposed development area. It is possible that medieval remains associated with the

Windleshaw Abbey may extend north and into the development area. Impacts to buried archaeological

remains are likely to occur during re-grading or excavation of ground to provide new highway or to extend

the existing highway. Where archaeological remains may be lost as a result of the scheme, an appropriate

programme of archaeological investigation should be implemented prior to, or during construction. The

level of investigation will be proportionate to the significance of the remains likely to be affected and the

level of impact.

Townscape and water environment were scoped out of the environmental appraisal due to the site setting

and distance from these features.

3.11 Social and Distributional Impacts

3.11.1 Social Impact Appraisal Summary

As part of WebTAG social impacts of the scheme are covered by guidance within Unit 4.1. This outlines

the requirements for a social impact appraisal which covers the human experience of the transport system

and its impact on social factors and is additional to those considered within the economic and

environmental impact areas of WebTAG. Each social impact is assessed as part of the appraisal and an

assessment entered into the Appraisal Summary Table (AST). The eight social impacts are:

Accidents;

Physical Activity;

Security;

Severance;

Journey Quality;

Option and Non-Use Values;

Accessibility; and

Personal Affordability.



77

The appraisal in Appendix P has utilised the methods prescribed in WebTAG Unit 4.1 to determine any

beneficial or adverse impacts of the preferred scheme option. The assessments are mainly based on the

analysis of qualitative data as only a small amount of quantifiable data is available.

The appraisal has assigned an assessment score on a seven point scale of beneficial, neutral and adverse

for each impact area, which can be seen in Table 3.6 below. It is assessed that the scheme will have the

greatest positive impact on accidents, severance and journey quality. As stated, the junction is classed as

a ‘high risk site’, and improving safety for motorists and pedestrians is a key consideration in the preferred

option. The improvements at the junction will help to remove a major severance point for pedestrians and

cyclists, as currently the junction has no controlled pedestrian or cyclist crossings. Finally, journey quality

for motorists should improve as a result of the decreased congestion and improved Intelligent Transport

Systems.

Table 3.6: Social Impact Appraisal Summary

Impact Area Score

Accidents Moderate beneficial

Physical activity 0 Neutral (scoped out)

Security 0 Neutral (scoped out)

Severance Moderate beneficial

Journey quality Slight beneficial

Option and non-use values 0 Neutral (scoped out)

Accessibility 0 Neutral (scoped out)

Personal affordability 0 Neutral (scoped out)

Table 3.6 shows that the proposed scheme will deliver a broadly positive benefit. At present, no adverse

impacts are expected to result from the scheme.

3.11.2 Distributional Impact Appraisal Summary

Distributional Impacts (DIs) consider the variance of the scheme’s impact across different social groups.

The Distributional Impact Appraisal for the scheme is underway and the work already undertaken can be

seen in Appendix Q. Both beneficial and / or adverse DIs of the various proposed interventions will be

considered, along with the identification of social groups likely to be affected. These indicators are: user

benefits, noise, air quality, accidents, security, severance, accessibility and personal affordability.

Step 1 of the process involved an initial screening stage to determine whether each indicator needed to be

appraised further. It was concluded that the full assessment of DIs should be considered further for all

indicators with the exception of security, accessibility and personal affordability.

Step 2A of the DI appraisal determined the affected areas for each indicator. For the purposes of this

study, two separate areas were determined for the mapping of the socio-demographic groups. The

principal affected area consisted of the LCR as the scheme forms part of a series of projects aiming to re-

generate the City Region and support growth. A second study area was created to more accurately portray



78

the effects of Air Quality and Noise impacts in the vicinity of the junction. This was set to 1km around the

scheme boundary with an inner study area of 250m to align with the environmental appraisal.

Step 2B mapped the social groups identified in WebTAG for each indicator at the appropriate study area

level. The assessment indicated that Windle Island is located in an area of low income deprivation when

compared to the greater LCR. Approximately 37% of the impact area population is located in the lowest

income quintile, broadly in line with the St. Helens District average of 35%, but significantly higher than the

national average figure of 20% (which accounts for 20% of LSOAs and not the national population).

However, the proportion of households with no access to a car (14%) in the impact area is considerably

lower than both district and national figures (27% and 26% respectively). Step 2C identified which trip

attractors / amenities are located within the noise and air quality impact areas.

Step 3 appraised the results and provided an assessment of the impacts of the intervention. The summary

table provided an overview of the social group proportions in each impact area, and also displayed the

district and national averages. Table 3.7 shows the results of the appraisal. Moderate beneficial impacts

are expected for user benefits, air quality, accidents and severance, with neutral impacts on noise.

Table 3.7: Distributional Impact Appraisal Summary

Impact area Score

User benefits Moderate beneficial

Noise Neutral

Air quality Moderate beneficial

Accidents Moderate beneficial

Severance Moderate beneficial

3.12 Wider Economic Benefits

Wider economic benefits presented in this section have been calculated following WebTAG methodology

(WebTAG Unit A2.1) and capture impacts that are not already included in the conventional user benefit

calculations from TUBA. These include:

Agglomeration;

Increased/decreased output in imperfectly competitive markets; and

Labour market impacts.

However the wider economic benefits outlined in Table 3.8 do not include new jobs or changes in GVA

which form part of separate analysis.



79

Table 3.8: Wider Economic Benefits

SUMMARY OF WIDER IMPACTS - £000s

All entries are in thousands of pounds discounted to 2010 in 2010 Prices

Impacts for Each Modelled Year

Appraisal Period: 2016 to 2076 Year 2020 Year 2030 Full Appraisal Period

Agglomeration

Agglomeration – manufacturing 3 1 58

Agglomeration – construction 3 1 57

Agglomeration - consumer services 13 3 241

Agglomeration - producer services 40 7 702

Agglomeration – Total 59 12 1,059

Labour supply impact 23 8 456

Increased output in imperfectly competitive market 876

The move to more/less productive jobs 0

Total 82 19 2,391

3.13 Reliability Benefits

Journey time reliability benefits arise from more predictable journey times that arise from decongestion

impacts of the scheme. Reliability benefits have been calculated as £0.7m.

Table 3.9: Reliability Benefits

Reliability Benefits £000s

Journey Time Variability Benefits 2020 4.6

Journey Time Variability Benefits 2030 15.7

Journey Time Variability Benefits (60 year period) 728

All entries are present values discounted to 2010, in 2010 prices

3.14 Appraisal Summary Table

The Appraisal Summary Table (AST) presents evidence from the analysis that is undertaken to inform the

Economic Case of the intervention. This is given in Appendix H and shows that the scheme provides the

following impacts:

Table 3.10: Estimated Impacts of the Scheme in the AST

Impacts Sub-Impacts Estimated Impact

Economy Business users & transport providers High

Reliability impact on Business users Low

Regeneration N/A

Wider Impacts Low



80

Impacts Sub-Impacts Estimated Impact

Environmental Noise N/A

Air Quality N/A

Greenhouse gases Low

Landscape N/A

Townscape N/A

Heritage of Historic resources N/A

Biodiversity N/A

Water Environment N/A

Social Commuting and Other users High

Reliability impact on Commuting and Other users

Low

Physical activity N/A

Journey quality N/A

Accidents Low

Security N/A

Access to services N/A

Affordability N/A

Severance N/A

Option values N/A

Public Accounts Cost to Broad Transport Budget Low

Indirect Tax Revenues Low

A full description of the levels of benefit is given in the AST presented in Appendix H.

3.15 Value for Money Statement

The completed Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) table is included in Appendix I. This,

together with the Appraisal Summary Table, forms the basis for the VfM statement. Economic benefits for

Windle Island Scheme have been calculated based on preferred options for the package of interventions.

The analysis provides an indication of likely economic benefits and BCRs for the package of schemes

using TUBA and other DfT methodologies.

The calculation of the initial and modified BCR values is given in Table 3.11. The monetised economic

benefits (based on transport modelling outcomes) show that the scheme produces an overall BCR of 6.24

from Present Value of Benefits of £24.3m and a cost to Public Accounts of £3.9m (discounted to 2010).



81

Table 3.11: Summary of BCRs for VfM

Initial BCR (£000s) Modified BCR (£000s)

Scheme Costs in 2014 prices 3,503 3,503

Scheme Costs including optimism bias of 15% in 2014 prices

4,029 4,029

(All entries below are present values discounted to 2010, in 2010 prices)

Scheme Costs (including optimism bias of 15%)

3,853 3,853

Main Transport Economic Benefits 20,130 20,130

Wider Economic Benefits (Agglomeration and Welfare Benefits)

2,391

Reliability Benefits 728

Accident Benefits 1,091

Present Value of Costs (PVC) 3,902 3,902

Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 20,130 24,340

Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 5.16 6.24

According to DfT guidance and criteria5, the modified BCR of 6.24 for the Windle Island scheme represents

Very High VfM. The initial BCR calculated based on TUBA outputs alone also yields Very High Value for

Money.

This assessment has been based mainly on

Journey time benefits;

Wider economic benefits;

Accident Benefits; and

Reliability Benefits.

It can be concluded, therefore, that the quantifiable elements of the benefits for Windle Island interventions

produce a strong VfM. Consideration of the qualitative benefits further strengthen the economic case. The

qualitative benefits are set out in the Appraisal Summary Table as well as the AMCB and TEE tables that

are provided in the Appendices.

5 Value for Money Assessment: Advice Note for Local Transport Decision Makers, Department for Transport

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267296/vfm-advice-local-decision-makers.pdf



82

3.16 Conclusion

In summary, the economic case highlights the following:

The scheme presents Very High VfM with a modified BCR of 6.24;

The scheme will deliver a Present Value of Benefits of £24.3m;

The scheme is unlikely to cause any negative Social or Distributional impacts.

The scheme is expected to have a positive impact on air quality and greenhouse gases.



83

4.1 Introduction

The Financial Case concentrates on the affordability of the proposal, its funding arrangements and

technical accounting issues. The Financial Case is discussed under the following headings:

Methodology;

Assumptions;

Base Costs;

Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA);

Optimism Bias;

Scheme Costs Adjusted for Risk and Optimism Bias;

Preferred Funding Arrangements;

Alternative Funding Arrangements; and

Conclusion.

4.2 Methodology

The overall estimated base cost for the Windle Island scheme is £3.503m. Scheme costs have been

developed based upon the design as detailed in Appendix B (Scheme Drawing) and Appendix K (Cost

Estimate).

The scheme cost is considered proportionate and affordable to the scale of the problem identified in the

Strategic Case and the predicted benefits of the scheme assessed in the Economic Case. The Options

Appraisal Report (OAR) presented in Appendix A gives adequate consideration to lower cost options which

have been discounted.

4.3 Assumptions

Key assumptions made with regards to deriving scheme costs include:

Construction will begin in September 2016 and be completed in September 2017; and

An opening year of 2017.

4.4 Base Scheme Costs

Table 4.1: Base Scheme Costs

Cost Type Breakdown Estimated Costs

Measured Works 200: Site Clearance £17,798

400: Road Restraint System £78,938

500: Drainage and Service Ducts £49,572

600: Earthworks £97,700

700: Pavements £298,336

1100: Kerbs, Footways and Paved Areas £142,168

1200: Traffic Signs and Road Markings £39,886

4 The Financial Case



84

Cost Type Breakdown Estimated Costs

1300: Road Lighting Columns etc. £63,025

1400: Electrical Work for Road Lighting etc. £232,698

Sections Total £1,020,121

Spon's cost @ 2012 plus 5% to bring up to 2014 £51,006

Sub Total 1 £1,071,128

Allowances CCTV £50,000

Traffic Signals £250,000

Traffic Management £225,000

Sub Total 2 £525,000

Utilities BT (C3 Works Estimate) £183,666

BT (C4 Estimate Cost of provision) £3,479

NG Gas (Med Pressure C3 Works Estimate) £380,000

NG Gas (HP Protection Works allowance) £100,000

NG Gas (C4 Estimate provision allowance) £5,000

SP Energy (C3 Works Estimate) £128,639

SP Energy (C4 Estimate provision allowance) £4,000

Vodafone (C3 Works Estimate) £173,362

Vodafone (C4 Estimate cost of provision) £4,000

Virgin Media (C3 Works allowance) £100,000

Sub-Total 3 £1,082,145

Add-ons Preliminaries 15% £401,741

Design 8% £214,262

Client Costs 5% £133,914

Supervision allowance £75,000

Sub-Total 4 £824,916

Scheme Total TOTAL £3,503,189

All land in question is within St. Helens Council ownership.

4.4.1 Maintenance Costs

Table 4.2: Annual Maintenance Costs

Item Cost

Lighting barriers £3,000

Annual maintenance UTC £12,000

Grass cutting £1,500

Weed spray £1,500

Cleansing and winter maintenance £10,500



85

Item Cost

Energy for street lighting £1,500

Total £30,000

4.5 Quantified Risk Assessment

A Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) is included in Appendix N. The QRA uses a Monte Carlo simulation,

which takes the probability based risk register as an input and samples in a random fashion to produce a

number of iterations, and the costs associated with them. The QRA suggests that in 50% of cases (P50)

the costs associated with risk will not exceed £544,166.

Table 4.3 summarises the top three risk components. All three risks have a low likelihood of occurring

following mitigation; however the impact if the risk were to occur would still be low or medium. Mitigation

measures will continue through further scheme development and implementation to manage the likelihood

of the risk occurring.

Table 4.3: Quantified Risk Assessment (Summary)

Key Risk Components Likelihood Impact on Cost Mitigation Measures

Procurement of services may not be successful or may be delayed or challenged.

Low £500,000 to £750,000

Due diligence during appointment process.

Poor contractor performance and/or contractor becomes insolvent within the contract period.

Very low £500,000 to £750,000

Due diligence during the procurement process.

Increase in scheme costs e.g. cost of materials and infrastructure.

Low £200,000 to £500,000

The Project Board will monitor cost and delivery throughout the project.

Likelihood / Impact on Cost

High

Medium

Low

4.6 Optimism Bias

Optimism bias is defined as the historic tendency to underestimate scheme costs. Further to this, TAG Unit

A1.2 provides differing rates of optimism bias according to which stage of development the project is at.

This decreases as the project progresses towards completion.

The Windle Island scheme has gained conditional approval and delivery of the scheme is expected to start

within the next two years. Therefore, the level optimism bias has been based on Optimism Bias Stage 2

which recommends a 15% uplift for road schemes.



86

4.7 Scheme Costs Adjusted for Risk and Optimism Bias

Table 4.4: Scheme Costs Adjusted for Risk and Optimism Bias

Category Estimated Cost

Base cost £3,503,189

Risk allowance 40% of the 50%ile base cost * £217,667

Optimism bias 15% (of base + risk) £558,128

Scheme Total £4,278,984

*Please note the scheme involves the upgrading of an existing junction within the existing highway

boundary with no planning or land purchase necessary. Therefore based on experience and the nature of

the scheme a 50%ile QRA risk allowance of £544,167 is considered very high and a reduction has been

applied.

4.8 Preferred Funding Arrangements

Table 4.5 sets out the level of funding sought and the level of local contribution being made by St. Helens

Council. A signed letter from St. Helens Council’s Section 151 Officer is included at Appendix L.

Table 4.5: Cost Profile

£m 2016/17 2017/18 Total

Major scheme funding required £3,080,868 770,217 3,851,086

Local contribution 342,319 85,580 427,898

Annual Totals 3,423,187 855,797 4,278,984

4.9 Alternative Funding Arrangements

No alternative funding arrangements have been identified. Without Local Growth Funding the scheme will

not go ahead.

4.10 Conclusion

In summary, the financial case highlights the following:

Overall costs for the scheme are estimated at £4,278,984 including allowances for risk and

optimism bias;

This includes a local contribution of £427,898;

The scheme cost is considered proportionate and affordable; and

Any additional costs will be underwritten by St. Helens Council.



87

5.1 Introduction

This Commercial Case provides evidence on the commercial viability of the scheme proposals and sets

out the procurement strategy that will be used to engage the market. It presents evidence on risk allocation

and transfer, contract timescales and implementation timescale as well as details of the capability and

skills of the team delivering the project.

The Commercial Case is discussed under the following headings:

Procurement Method;

Payment Mechanisms;

Pricing Framework and Charging Mechanisms;

Contract Length;

Contract Management;

Programme Implications and Risk; and

Conclusion.

5.2 Procurement Method

The scheme will be procured using Early Contractor Involvement. The key stage using this method will be

initial discussions with a select list of contractors. A target price contract will then be issued to potential

contractors. This method has been chosen due to successful previous experience. This method is low risk;

therefore it is used extensively on highways schemes. Payment and contract length arrangements will be

set in the tender document as per the JCT contract. The use of the JCT contract will be managed by the

Council Project Manager and Project Delivery Group.

5.2.1 Alternative Options

The alternative option that was considered and discounted is set out in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Alternative Procurement Options

Option Advantages Why Discounted

Use of a PQQ to produce a framework of contractors enabling works to be tendered by those contractors either individually or as a package.

Provides the opportunity to spread works across a number of contractors; for instance if specific contractors are best suited to particular elements of the works or if resource limitations would reduce deliverability of the works as one.

The extent of the package of works is deemed unlikely to stretch contractor resource limitations.

For the purposes of coordination of schemes and traffic management a single contractor is preferable.

Efficiency savings can be made.

5.3 Payment Mechanisms

The contract will take the form of a target price contract whereby the target is fixed at the outset to ensure

that costs do not escalate significantly. The target can be adjusted to take account of any employer

5 The Commercial Case



88

changes and other price risks under the terms of the contract. This method gives St. Helens Council

certainty about the maximum amount that it will pay, but still shares the risks and benefits fairly.

5.4 Pricing Framework and Charging Mechanisms

The contract will include a gain share/pain share incentive mechanism, fixed at the outset, to ensure that

costs are kept to a minimum and benefits are shared equally. The actual costs will be compared with the

target cost and savings or over expenditure will be shared between the Council and the contractor as

initially agreed.

A target price contract encourages an honest working relationship between the two parties, and provides

benefits to both. The contract provides costs savings to the Council and encourages issues and risks to be

identified early and managed efficiently. The gain share for the contractor will be capped at 5%.

The schemes will be offered as a package to incentivise contractors.

5.5 Contract Length

It is anticipated that the contract will run for a period of 17 months from award; May 2016 through to September 2017.

The following contractual clauses should be noted:

A retention sum of the project will be kept for 12 months and paid to the contractor during September

2018; and

Construction will be programmed to avoid heavy traffic periods (e.g. Christmas) and thus construction

work and traffic management may be suspended during established demand periods.

5.6 Contract Management

It is anticipated that the contract will be managed by the Asset Management Section of St. Helens Council.

The financial management of the contract will be managed by external cost consultants.

Procurement of the contract will be management by Environmental Protection Engineering staff in liaison

with St. Helens Council Procurement and Audit Sections.

5.7 Programme Implication and Risk

5.7.1 Procurement Timeline

Discussion with select list of contractors – December 2015

Issue tender documents – February/March 2016



89

Award of contract – May 2016

Approval of detailed design – August 2016

Commence works – September 2016

5.7.2 Contract Risk Management

A scheme delivery risk workshop was undertaken with St. Helens Council Officers in September 2014 to

identify risks and mitigations and assess the likely level of impact in terms of both time and cost. The

outputs of the workshop can be found in Appendix N. These formed the basis of the QRA undertaken and

were used to inform cost contingencies.

The use of an NEC3 contract provides for a robust Risk Management process which ensures that

construction risks are identified at the earliest opportunity and dealt with expeditiously, thus optimising key

project targets such as expenditure of project funds and impact of the project on the public.

NEC3 Option C Target Drive with Activity Schedules has been used by St. Helens Council to successfully

deliver nine lighting projects in the last 10 years.

5.8 Conclusion

In summary, the commercial case highlights the following:

Procurement for the scheme will take place from December 2015 to May 2016 using Early

Contractor Involvement;

Construction will take place between September 2016 and September 2017;

The benefit of procurement through Early Contractor Involvement is that it is lower risk

compared to alternative procurement routes.

The benefit of a target price contract is that it gives St. Helens Council certainty about the

maximum cost that it will pay, but shares the risks and benefits fairly.



90

6.1 Introduction

This Management Case provides evidence of the deliverability of the scheme proposals, setting out the

governance structure, identifying key risks and how they will be managed, detailing the communications

and stakeholder management processes that will be put in place, setting out the Project Plan and providing

information on benefits realisation and assurance.

6.2 Evidence of Similar Projects

Table 6.1 provides evidence of similar schemes delivered successfully by St. Helens Council.

Table 6.1: Evidence of Similar Projects

Project Cost Delivered to Time? Delivered to Budget?

Blackbrook Bypass £7.8m Yes Yes

Highway improvements, new junction and bridge

£4m Yes Yes

Local Sustainable Transport Fund Schemes (LSTF)

£5m Yes Yes

A570 New Roundabout to serve a Regeneration Site

£2m Yes Yes

Blackbrook Bypass

The 1.3km Blackbrook by-pass was built to replace the West End Road section of the A58 through

Blackbrook.

The by-pass commences at the Ship Inn at Blackbrook and runs to the north west of West End Road

ending at the junction of the A58/A580 at Pewfall. At the Ship Inn, West End Road joins the new road at a

give-way junction. There is a spur road connecting Vicarage Road with the by-pass at a roundabout

junction, providing access to the bypass from Clipsley Lane.

The bypass reduces traffic on West End Road, substantially improving the environment and safety in

Blackbrook, improves access to St Helens for commercial traffic assisting the economic regeneration of the

town, and provides for a wide range of environmental improvements in the Stanley Bank area.

The scheme won many national awards including:

CEEQUAL Outstanding Achievement Award 2011;

CEEQUAL Whole Project Award 2008 (Excellent);

Builder Award 2007 – Public Project of the Year;

ICE North West Merit Award; and

Considerate Constructer’s Gold Award.

6 The Management Case



91

Highway Improvements, New Junction and Bridge

The scheme included:

Improvements to the A570 St. Helens Linkway;

A new junction providing access to St. Helens Stadium and brownfield development site; and

A new bridge over St. Helens Linkway providing direct access from the Town Centre to the Saints

Stadium.

The scheme successfully brought regeneration to derelict areas close to the town centre.

The scheme won national awards including the Structural Steel Design Award 2013 (Commendation).

The scheme is in close proximity to the junctions which are proposed for improvement as part of the

Growth Fund Projects.

Local Sustainable Transport Fund Schemes (LSTF)

St. Helens Council successfully delivered over £5m of LSTF funded projects, including:

The construction of two footway/cycleways along the route of former railway lines between St. Helens

and Ormskirk and between St. Helens and Widnes.

The construction of a footway/cycleway alongside the Sankey Canal which will form part of a

continuous route between St. Helens and Warrington.

Cycleways/footways alongside the A580 (East Lancashire Road) which now provide an almost

continuous footway/cycleway from Wigan (at the eastern approach to the Borough) to the Knowsley

boundary on the approaches to Liverpool.

Outputs from the LSTF projects have been both varied and highly effective. Over 10.6km of new

sustainable travel routes have been constructed across the Borough, directly connecting people to key

employment sites and providing residents with sustainable access to employment and training

opportunities.

Amongst other positive outcomes, this has led to a 14% increase in cycling. In a separate scheme

delivered in partnership with other local authorities, more than 400 young unemployed people have

received travel support and advice. This has led to over 100 completing a course of training, many for the

first time, and a further 63 securing employment for over 13 weeks. Over 100 companies in the borough

are now covered by a travel plan including both small and medium enterprises. 1300 participants have

engaged with a supported cycle project; which is currently operating at capacity and is oversubscribed.

A570 New Roundabout to serve a Regeneration Site

This scheme involved a new roundabout being constructed on the A570 Linkway on the southern fringes of

St. Helens Town Centre immediately adjacent to the junction improvement cited in the Growth point

projects. The scheme included a new Toucan crossing and associated pedestrian links.



92

The project provided access to a new brownfield development site consisting of a stadium and

supermarket and successfully brought regeneration to derelict areas.

6.3 Programme/Project Dependencies

At this time, it is understood that the project can be delivered independently and is not dependent on or

expected to impact upon any external projects.

6.4 Governance

6.4.1 Liverpool City Region Governance

Figure 6.1 and Table 6.2 present an overview of strategic transport governance in the LCR, including

membership, roles and responsibilities.



93

Figure 6.1: LCR Strategic Transport Governance

LCR Combined Authority LCR Local Authority Leaders

Elected Mayor of Liverpool

Chair of LCR LEP

Merseytravel Committee Elected Councillors from each of the

LCR LAs

Delivery Agents LAs

Merseytravel

Other agencies

LCR Transport Delivery Groups

Officers from each of the LCR LAs

Partner representatives as appropriate

LCR LEP

LCR District

Cabinets

Wider Stakeholder Group Public transport operators

Highways England

Network Rail

Other Government Agencies

Businesses

Local interest groups

Public

Transport Advisory Group (TAG)

Senior Officers from each of the LCR LAs

LEP representative

DfT representative



94

Table 6.2: LCR Strategic Transport Governance – Roles & Responsibilities

Title Role Responsibilities

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (LCR CA)

Combined Authority for Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St. Helens, Sefton and Wirral.

Strategic decision making for economic development, transport, strategic housing and employment and skills functions for the LCR.

Merseytravel Committee CA Committee leading on transport for the LCR. Six meetings held per year. Membership formed of elected Councillors.

Provides democratic leadership on strategic transport issues and advise the CA.


Transport Advisory Group meets monthly, supporting the transport agenda at a senior office level. Members include the LEP.

Provides technical advice and recommendations to the Merseytravel Committee.

Wider Stakeholder Group The wider stakeholder group is a virtual group of key LCR transport stakeholders that LCR Officers and Councillors engage as appropriate.

Provides feedback to Merseytravel Committee, TAG and LCR Delivery Groups on transport policy and projects as appropriate.

LCR Delivery Groups Various delivery groups are formed of representatives from Merseytravel and each LCR LA as well as partner organisations as appropriate.

Oversee the delivery of transport schemes and provide advice to delivery agents.

Delivery agents LCR LAs and other Delivery Partners delivering transport schemes across the LCR.

Responsible for the delivery of any agreed transport schemes.

6.4.2 St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council Governance

In order to deliver the project it is proposed a Project Board will operate to oversee and scrutinise delivery.

The Project Board will be accountable to St. Helens Cabinet Members. A Project Management Team will

be set up for delivery of the project, which will report to the Project Board and be responsible for delivery.

Figure 6.2 presents the proposed management structure, with Project Board members shown in green and

relationships with the LCR strategic transport governance shown in blue. Table 6.3 provides details on the

responsibilities of the individual Project Board members.



Figure 6.2: Windle Island Scheme: Proposed Governance Structure (Project Board members are shown in green)

St. Helens Council

Chief Executive

Cabinet Member Environmental Protection

Cabinet Member Regeneration, Housing and Culture

Director Regeneration, Housing and Culture

Senior User Assistant Director

Regeneration Mark Dickens

Project Manager Head of Asset Management John Sheward

LCR Combined Authority


Project Management Team

Senior Responsible Owner / Senior Supplier Assistant Director

Engineering Rory Lingham

Director Environmental Protection



96

Table 6.3: Project Board – Roles & Responsibilities

Role Who Responsibilities Accountabilities

Senior Responsible Owner

Assistant Director (Engineering)

Project direction Monitor and control Project Plan Monitor financial expenditure Monitor and Review Project

Controls Report to Chief Executive Officer Organise / chair Project Board

Delivery of formal reports to seek appropriate Council approvals

Direct and control delivery of scheme within approved delegation

Senior Supplier Assistant Director (Engineering)

Agree objectives for supplier activities

Ensure resources available Contribute supplier opinions Brief non-technical management

on supplier aspects Manage the procurement of the

scheme

Manage resources to deliver project

Financial accountability

Senior User Head of Regeneration

Report back ERDF Represent end users Represent those interested in the

project

Ensure end users views fully represented

Report to ERDF

Project Manager Head of Asset Management

Manage delivery of the project Prepare and monitor Project Plans Give direction for work packages Manage project delivery through

project delivery team and co-ordination of meeting

Manage allocated funding Prepare and report to project

board

Report to Project Board Planning and development of

work programme Completion of work

packages to meet project timescales

Directing and co-ordination of Project Team resources

Financial accountability

The Project Board is chaired by the Senior User.

As shown in Figure 6.2, a Project Management Team will support the Project Board. This team of officers

will be responsible for the day to day delivery and management of the project and will report regularly to

the Project Board. All officers on the Project Management Team have experience in delivering transport

projects, regeneration and financial management. The composition of the Project Management Team is

shown in Table 6.4.

The Project Management Team is chaired by the Project Manager.

Table 6.4: Project Management Team – Roles & Responsibilities

Role Responsibilities

Principal Transport Officer (Development) Highway planning issues

Business Support Manager Management of Councils capital programme

Regeneration Projects Manager Claims management

Funding & Economic Intelligence Manger Application for funding, funding agreements & monitoring

Head of Traffic Traffic Management & Road Safety

Assistant Engineer Support to Project Manager



97

Role Responsibilities

Principal Transport Officer (Policy) Application for funding and transport policy

Transport Planning Assistant Liaise with local businesses

Press & PR Manager Press release & PR for scheme

The Project Management Team consists of officers from the Council’s Transport Planning Policy,

Environmental Protection and Highways and Economic Development teams. The experience of these

teams in developing and implementing transport projects is outlined below.

6.4.2.1 Transport Planning Policy

The team has extensive knowledge regarding the development of transport projects within the borough,

including the development of three separate LSTF projects, which include major capital transport schemes

totalling £5m. Experience covers a variety of transport projects including public transport, walking and

cycling and minor road schemes including developing pedestrian and cycling improvements in local retail

centres. They are responsible for project managing the individual projects under STEP.

6.4.2.2 Environmental Protection - Highway Engineers

The team implements and manages development of the highway network including scheduling of

maintenance, highway improvement and safety schemes. Overseeing a range of contracts, they have

strong recent experience of operating ECI contracts on major capital schemes such as the Blackbrook

Diversion, an £8.45m road scheme completed in 2007. The team has also implemented numerous

schemes that have been funded through Merseyside EU Objective 1 funding within the borough. The team

will be responsible for the development of the ECI contract, survey work, site inspections and relevant

highway orders and approvals required for the scheme.

6.4.2.3 Economic Development Team

The role of this team would be to provide compliance and monitoring support to the project, including

providing the main liaison point with the funders. This team has long experience and skills in managing and

monitoring ERDF and other funded projects. It is currently coordinating an Interreg/ERDF project (Pure

Hubs), STEP projects, including some major capital transport schemes, and a number of employment and

skills projects.

Throughout construction the Project Board will meet every two weeks. The Project Management Team will

meet every two weeks during the construction phase. The Project Manager for the scheme will sit on both

the Project Management Team and the Project Board.

6.5 Assurance

An internal St. Helens Council assurance plan has been put in place to ensure the project is objectively

reviewed at key decision points. The aim of this process is to review the current phases of work to provide



98

assurance that the project is on track and can progress successfully to the next stage. There are three key

review points identified, as illustrated in Figure 6.3. Reviews will be undertaken by a Review Team

comprising St. Helens Council Officers independent of the development and delivery of the project.

Figure 6.3: Assurance Review Timeline

The Business Case review will be held in November 2015. It will:

Confirm the Business Case now the project is fully defined;

Review detailed design;

Confirm the objectives, outputs and desired outcomes of scheme;

Ensure the proposed plan for delivery and management is robust; and

Ensure continuing support for the project within St. Helens Council.

The Pre-Implementation review will take place in August 2016. The review will:

Review the procurement process and contract in place;

Reaffirm justification for the investment;

Review project risks and contingencies;

Assess the continuity of key personnel involved; and

Ensure change control is in place.

The Operational Benefits review will take place post implementation in November 2017. Its purpose will be

to:

Confirm that the benefits set out in benefits realisation plan have been achieved;

Assess the effectiveness of the contract and contract management procedures; and

Identify any key lessons learnt.

6.6 Delivery Programme

A detailed scheme delivery programme is included in Appendix M showing key milestones, dependencies

and the critical path of the programme.

November 2015

August 2016

November 2017

Business Case Review Pre-Implementation Review Operational Benefits Review



99

6.7 Risk Management

6.7.1 St. Helens MBC Risk Management Strategy

The production of a Risk Register is an integral component of the standard project management

procedures that are conducted by St. Helens Council. During the works development stage, a thorough

and detailed examination of risks will be incorporated into a contract Risk Register. This will transfer the

ownership of each risk to either the Employer or Contractor on the basis of which party is best placed to

deal with the risk should it arise.

The Project Manager will have day to day responsibility for managing risks and will escalate any issues to

the Senior Responsible Owner as indicated in Figure 6.2. The Risk Register will be reviewed regularly

throughout the detailed design, procurement, construction and indeed post-construction phases as a

standing item in progress meetings. During the procurement phase the holder (St. Helens Council or

Contractor) of any identified construction related risks will be clearly defined in the contract documentation.

This established process has led to the successful delivery by St. Helens Council of significant projects,

which include Blackbrook Diversion, a £6.9m highways scheme which was delivered through ECI to time

and budget.

SHMBC, through Section 151, will be responsible for any project overspend. Management of this risk is

greatly assisted by the NEC3 contract which will reduce the risk of overspend through early contractor

involvement and using target price with capped ‘pain and gain’.

The scheme has the support of the St. Helens Section 151 Officer (as evidenced in Appendix L), The

Council scheme of delegation, together with its finance and contract procedure rules provide relevant

officers with the authority to action and allocate resources to mitigate any risks arising.

6.7.2 Risk Assessment

A scheme delivery risk workshop was undertaken with St. Helens Council Officers in September 2014 to

identify risks and mitigations and assess the likely level of impact, both time and cost. These formed the

basis of the QRA undertaken and have been used to inform cost contingencies.

The Risk Assessment and Management Strategy and related QRA Outputs are included in Appendix N.

6.8 Communication and Stakeholder Management

6.8.1 Consultation to Date

The scheme has been developed internally and approved via the elected LCR Combined Authority.

Delegated decision powers have been used to progress the scheme to Business Case stage where

following confirmation of funding, consultation will be taken with the stakeholders outlined in Table 6.5.



100

The Windle Island scheme is contained in the St. Helens Plan 2015-17, which outlines the consultation

approach of St. Helens Council, and has been developed with the Local Strategic Partnership.

The design of the scheme has been influenced by highway standards, land ownership/availability, cost and

deliverability. There is limited flexibility to provide a variation of design options during future consultation to

enable the selection of a preferred scheme.

6.8.2 Stakeholder Management Strategy

Table 6.5 presents the stakeholder management strategy for the scheme going forwards. The majority of

stakeholders with national focus will be consulted through existing relationships with local organisations

(e.g. Chamber of Commerce). Consultation for the schemes will be progressed using the St. Helens

Consultation Toolkit (included in Appendix R).

Table 6.5: Stakeholder Management Strategy

Stakeholder Influence Interest Strategy Responsibility for Communication

Regional Stakeholders

LEP High Importance of scheme to improving access to key development sites in the Liverpool City Region, particularly along the A580 corridor

Keep informed Project Manager

Highways England High Strategic Diversion Route, links to M6, M57, M58 and M62

Meeting to discuss plans and keep informed of progress

Project Manager

Freight transport associations

High Importance of junction to the Strategic Freight Network, particularly the east-west connection to the Port of Liverpool

Meeting to discuss plans and keep informed of progress

Project Manager

Merseytravel Medium Impacts on public transport Keep informed Project Manager

Public transport operators

Medium Impacts of new layout on bus services

Potential disruptions whilst scheme is undertaken

Meeting to discuss layout plans and keep informed

Project Manager

Utilities companies High Gas, electric and communications infrastructure underneath the junction

Letter, meeting to discuss design of junction, and ad hoc meetings in case of any issues

Project Manager

Emergency services Medium Understanding of new layout Communicate project plans and schedule

Project Manager

Local Stakeholders

Council Members High Politically important scheme for the economy of St. Helens and the wider

Keep informed of progress and escalate major decisions as per




101


Liverpool City Region the governance structure set out in figure 6.2.

Local highway authority High Responsible for local highway network

Represented on Project Board


Chamber of Commerce Medium Potential of increased junction capacity to support economic growth

Letters and regular meetings with business representative

Project Manager

Local residents Medium Access to employment and amenities, potential impact of disruptions

Public meetings to consult on plans, press releases and website

Press & Communications Officer

Neighbourhood Action Groups

Medium General interest in what is going on at the junction and how it may impact them

Public meetings to consult on plans, press releases and website

Press and PR officer

Local Strategic Partnership


Meetings to consult on plans, press releases and website


Sub Local Stakeholders

Tesco High Located adjacent to the junction

Meeting and keep informed

Project Manager

Starbucks High Located adjacent to the junction


Project Manager

Rainford Parish Council High Improved access to key development sites in Rainford


Rainford Hub (business association)

High Improved access to training and employment in Rainford for young people and other residents living south of the A580


Project Manager

Rainford High School Medium Improved sustainable access to Rainford High School for students living south of the A580


Wider Stakeholders

General public Medium General interest in what is going on at the junction and how it may impact them

Keep informed/public meetings


Media Medium Promoting the impact during construction and Benefits of scheme

Keep informed through Council communication team


DfT Medium General interest in what is going on at the junction and how it may impact them

Keep informed via LCR Combined Authority/LEP/ Merseytravel

Principal Transport Officer (Policy)

Major Employers along route (e.g. Knowsley Industrial Park &


Keep informed via Chamber link or directly

Project Manager



102


Haydock Industrial Park)

6.9 Monitoring & Evaluation

6.9.1 Benefits Realisation Plan

The Benefits Realisation Plan set out in Table 6.6 identifies key beneficiaries of the scheme, outcomes,

baseline measures, responsibility and timeframes for each of the key strategic outcomes. This plan will sit

with the MSBC Operational Board, who will be responsible for ensuring benefits realisation, including

monitoring and evaluation of scheme benefits, is on track.



Table 6.6: Benefits Realisation Plan

Benefit Who will benefit? Enablers required to realise benefit

Outcomes displayed if benefits realised

Baseline measure Who is responsible?

When will it occur?

Reduction in queuing & delays at junction

All users of junction; particularly east-west freight transport along the A580

Completion of proposed works

Increase in journey time reliability

Increased accessibility to the Port of Liverpool

Enhanced confidence in LCR economy as a major freight and logistics hub

Facilitation of new business development

Facilitation of new housing development

Pre-implementation bespoke journey time surveys (to be completed by March 2016)

Number of new housing units in the surrounding area

Sq ft of new business development on defined business sites in the surrounding area

St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (SHMBC)

On scheme completion

Increase in capacity

All users of junction; particularly east-west freight transport along the A580 and local residents travelling to and from St. Helens and Rainford

Completion of proposed works

Junction can meet future demand

Supports growth of economy and uplift in economic activity across LCR, but particularly the Port and Freight community

Pre-implementation bespoke journey time surveys (to be completed by March 2016)

SHMBC On scheme completion

Improved cycling facilities

Cyclists Completion of proposed works

Increase in use of junction by cyclists

Sustainable accessibility to learning and employment opportunities in Rainford

Pre-implementation cycling counts (to be completed March, 2016)


Improved pedestrian facilities

Pedestrians Completion of proposed works

Increase in use of junction by pedestrians

Pre-implementation counts (to be completed March 2016)


Increase in road safety

All users of junction Completion of proposed works

Reduction in number of accidents

Accident data SHMBC On scheme completion



104

6.9.2 Monitoring & Evaluation

Success of the Windle Island scheme will be determined by a number of factors, including:

Delivery to time, budget and specification;

Reduction in queuing and delays at the junction;


Increase in cycling levels, particularly north-south journeys across the A580;

Increase in use of junction by pedestrians;

Facilitation of new business and housing development in key areas surrounding Windle Island;

Improved resilience of the motorway network (M6, M58, M62) in case of incidents; and

Reduction in the number of accidents.

Assessing the success of the scheme will be based primarily upon information readily available, such as

DfT TrafficMaster journey time data for the A570 and A580, accident data, and data on housing and

business development in St. Helens. This will be supplemented by bespoke journey time surveys and

counts that can be used to assess journey time savings, increased reliability and increased sustainable

access.

Figure 6.4 provides a logic map of the expected outputs, outcomes and impacts of the scheme as a whole

and details the measures the Council intends to use to assess the success of the scheme against its

strategic outcomes and impacts. The proposed measures will provide both quantitative and qualitative data

which can be analysed and evaluated as set out in the table below, to assess success of the scheme in

meeting its objectives.



Figure 6.4: Outputs, Outcomes and Measures

OUTPUTS

•Controlled pedestrian crossings on all arms of the junction

•Widening of the existing pedestrian crossing refuges at the Windle Island and A570/Bleak Hill Road

•Widening of the A580 East arm to allow the provision of an additional right turn flare on the A580 westbound carriageway

•Widening of the A570 North arm to allow the provision of an additional left turn flare on the A570 southbound carriageway

•Lengthening of the existing right turn flare on the A580 West arm

•Widening of the central reserve along the A580 through the junction to allow the provision of a vehicle resistant barrier

•Segregating the existing right turn from the A570 South arm to the A580 East arm

•Upgrading the existing intelligent transport facilities to include increased CCTV coverage and variable message signs

OUTCOMES

•Reduction in queues on approach to junction

•Improved traffic flow

•Reduced congestion and increased journey time reliability for freight transport

•Reduced congestion and increased journey time reliability for other motorists

•Increase in north-south journeys across the A580 by cyclists

•Increase in use of junction by pedestrians

•Reduction in number of accidents

•Improved air quality

WIDER IMPACTS

•Enhanced confidence in LCR economy as a major freight and logistics hub

•Increased accessibility to key learning and employment opportunities in Rainford

•Facilitation of new housing development

•Facilitation of new business development

•Improved resilience of the motorway network (M6, M58, M62) in case of incidents

MEASURES

•DfT Trafficmaster journey time data

•Bespoke journey time surveys - pre and post implementation

•Cycling and pedestrian counts - pre and post implementation

•Accident data

•Number of new housing units in the surrounding area

•Sq ft of new business development in the surrounding area

•Air quality data



106

The proposed measures will provide quantitative and qualitative data which can be analysed and

evaluated, as set out in Table 6.7, to assess success of the scheme in meeting its objectives.

Table 6.7: Monitoring and Evaluation

Methods to be used to monitor & evaluate outcomes and wider impacts

Evaluation to be undertaken

DfT TrafficMaster journey time data

Review of trends / changes in journey time

Bespoke journey time surveys - pre and post implementation Review of trends / changes in journey time

Calculation of CO2 savings

Cycling and pedestrian counts – pre and post implementation Review of trends / changes in walking and cycling use

Accident data Review of trends / changes in accident patterns

Number of new housing units in the surrounding area Review of trends / changes in housing development

Sq ft of new business development in the surrounding area Review of trends / changes in business development

Air quality data Review of trends / changes in air quality

Monitoring and evaluation will be based primarily upon processes already in place and information readily

available, minimising costs. Where added monitoring and evaluation is required to accurately assess

success costs will be covered by the Council.

6.10 Conclusion

In summary, the management case highlights the following:

The scheme will be constructed over an 12 month period from September 2016 to September

2017;

Robust governance, assurance and risk management processes are in place to deliver the

scheme;

Risks have been fully considered and mitigation measures have been put in place;

Stakeholder views have been taken into account in scheme development;

A communications and stakeholder management strategy is in place to ensure effective

engagement through scheme delivery;

Monitoring and evaluation plans will provide data to assess the success of the scheme in meeting

its objectives.



107

7.1 Summary

The proposed Windle Island improvements scheme performs well against each of the five cases set out

above, as summarised in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1: Business Case Summary

Case Windle Island Improvements Scheme

Strategic Case The scheme demonstrates a convincing case for change, highlighting a number of issues that need to be addressed

in order for St. Helens to support growth in the LCR

Economic Case The scheme demonstrates Very High VfM from both its direct deliverables and wider economic benefits

Finance Case The scheme cost is accepted as appropriate in relation to the size and scale of the problem identified and appropriate contingencies have been included

Commercial Case The scheme is commercially viable and St. Helens Council is able to procure it effectively

Management Case The scheme is readily deliverable and St. Helens Council has the necessary measures in place to ensure the

benefits are realised

7.2 Conclusions

7 Summary and Conclusions

The Outline Business Case for the Windle Island improvements scheme sets out a clear

rationale for investment, providing evidence that investing in the junction will:

Address key issues in St. Helens to support economic growth in the wider City Region;

Provide Very High VfM;

Provide a cost effective solution to issues of congestion and journey time reliability at

Windle Island;

Be delivered effectively and efficiently.



108

Appendix A. Options Appraisal Report

Appendix B. Scheme Drawing

Appendix C. Economic Appraisal Report

Appendix D. Analysis of Available Data (Covered in Appendix C)

Appendix E. Transport Economic Efficiency

Appendix F. Safety Benefits (Covered in Appendix P and Q)

Appendix G. Environmental Appraisal

Appendix H. Appraisal Summary Table

Appendix I. Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB)

Appendix J. Public Accounts Table

Appendix K. Scheme Cost Estimates

Appendix L. Letter from Section 151 Officer

Appendix M. Scheme Delivery Programme

Appendix N. Risk Assessment and Management Strategy

Appendix O. Economic Impact Assessment

Appendix P. Social Impact Appraisal

Appendix Q. Distributional Impact Screening

Appendix R. St. Helens Council Consultation Code

Appendices

mott macdonald report template - merseytravel · pdf file2.12.3 fit with promoting...

Documents