APPENDIX A: Public Engagement Responses
Organisation / Comment /English Heritage / Thank you for consulting English Heritage on the above document. At this stage, we have no comments to make on its content.
Highways Agency (1) / I have reviewed the list of schemes and we are content to work in partnership with you on schemes that may have an impact upon the strategic road network.
Highways Agency (2) / Of the 24 major transport schemes put forward in your consultation document, a total of 9 schemes have some level of involvement for the Highways Agency's Strategic Road Network (SRN). These schemes are as follows:
· Preston West Distributor, including a new junction on the M55 Motorway
· A570 Ormskirk Bypass
· M55 to Norcross Link Road
· NB5410 Heyhouses Link Road Completion
· A6 Broughton Bypass Southern Section
· Whinney Hill Link Road
· Haslingden Road Corridor Improvements
· M65 J4 Upgrade
· M65 Managed Motorway
A number of the schemes will provide benefit to the local highway network in isolation, whilst others will obviously benefit both the local highway network and the SRN. All of the schemes, though, will help to support economic growth, which is a fundamental aim of Government policy and I can confirm that we would welcome the opportunity to work in partnership with Transport for Lancashire to assist, where possible and appropriate, withthe delivery of all of the above schemes. In particular, and as you will be aware, the Highways Agency is currently in the process of seeking funding to deliver the M65 J4 scheme before March 2015, which, if successful, will hopefully release funding to be used elsewhere by TfL.
I trust that the above information is of assistance and provides the necessary assurance that the Highways Agency, as a partner stakeholder, understands and accepts the need for the above schemes.
Pendle Borough Council / While Pendle is pleased to see that the Colne to Foulridge Bypass scheme (revised) is in the development pool, we are disappointed that the scheme is not in the upper quartile of schemes and therefore the current Investment Programme. With a Scheme Assessment Score of 39, it is of course only a couple of points outside the top quartile.
We have been heavily involved in the recent excellent M65 Corridor Study undertaken by yourselves and your consultant Jacobs. The study commenced with the Problem and Issues Workshop on 29 November 2012 and concluded with a draft Final Report to officers on 18 July 2013. As the study unfolded the potential benefits of a revised version of the old Colne to Foulridge Bypass scheme became clearer. (NB: The old scheme was at one time Lancashire County Council’s number one priority in the – pre-Local Transport Plan – former Transport, Policies and Programme.)
In particular, the study identified the economic development benefits such a scheme would open up at the southern end of the Bypass (Colne/Barrowford boundary) and the northern end (Foulridge) plus future development in the West Craven Development Zone.
The Scheme Assessment Scoring Themes and Criteria are summarised in the second attachment.
REQUEST 1: Please can the scores be reassessed/double-checked against the Economy Criteria (particularly ECON 4) and the Social and Distribution Criteria (particularly S&D1 a.
As the study reached a conclusion it was possible to refine estimates for a possible Bypass Scheme. Page 63 of the East Lancashire Highways and Transport Masterplan sets the (understandable) timescales for the Transport for Lancashire Committee to make decisions (1 July 2013) but did not quite tie in with the completion of the M65 Corridor Study.
The scheme cost quoted in the first attachment at £43m was based on a best estimate at the time. The revised figure is of course £34m.
The previous A56 Villages Bypass Scheme (see third and fourth attachments) had a cost of £36.7m and a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 3.4. This was the cost in 2000. Looking at the Government Department for Business Innovation and Skills Price and Cost Indices the equivalent cost at today’s prices would be some £65m to £70m. (The scheme was for a 12km bypass, compared with the bypass now proposed of 4.2km.)
Most of the benefits of the previous A56 Villages Bypass scheme accrued in the southern (ie Colne to Foulridge) section.
We would therefore anticipate a much higher BCR for the (revised) Colne to Foulridge Bypass (most of the benefits/a much reduced cost in real terms).
REQUEST 2: Please can the score be double-checked against Value for Money/Deliverability Criteria (particularly VFM1).
Rossendale Borough Council / The schemes identified for investigation have (in the vast majority of cases) been subject to debate for a considerable period so it is good to see them undergo some form of consistent appraisal and comparison against each other. This is a difficult subject and inevitably there are "winners and losers" so it is important to have transparency.
I would have little argument about the value of the different schemes that have been prioritised. However how the scoring is undertaken can clearly influence prioritisation significantly-for example, the Blackpool Bridges and Yeadon Way schemes shoot up the scores because of "value for money/derivability" criteria. This, and the level of previous work undertaken, had the effect of increasing the chances of schemes being included that are relatively" shovel-ready".
Reading through the documentation one thing that is unclear to me is how the list of 24 schemes for appraisal was derived as there doesn't appear to be a "long list" from which the projects were selected. For example, from a Rossendale perspective, options for including the East Lancashire Railway or bus corridor improvements along the M66 were not included in the list and the authority were not consulted. This could probably be replicated in other Districts.
Given that the funding period runs up to 2018/19 I would suggest that the first quatile of schemes retain certainty but that the second quartile of schemes are reviewed annually against a broader group of schemes that are derived from the Transport Masterplans and associated studies that derive from them.
The report by Jo Turton to the TFL Board in July 2013 (Paragraph 3) indicates that in part rail schemes performed poorly because of lack of information about scheme costs. However, in the prioritisation exercise the costs for the M65 Managed motorway are unknown -and it would rely on HA approval-yet the scheme scores 4th on Policy ranking and still achieves a score of 11 for deliverability. (This is not to say this would probably be a valuable scheme). Equally the cost of rail schemes is stated as being unlikely to be deliverable through the Local Major Transport Schemes budget and the importance of Network Rail's contribution is rightly noted. However, the M55-Norcross Link Road is costed at £200 million (twice as much as Colne-Skipton) and would require co-operation from the Highways Agency but achieves a higher score. There should be a consistency in approach therefore to high cost/external agency schemes.
On a detailed point, I am slightly confused why on a policy basis the A56 Villages Bypass scores significantly higher than the Colne-Skipton Rail line on the policy criteria element of the scoring when essentially the same corridor is covered (I accept that deliverability is more of a challenge for the rail route).
It would be helpful to see Network Rail's comments on proposals (minutes of 30th May meeting).
Weighting given to economy-while I recognise this is important in the current climate, and the fact that schemes are being promoted via the LEP it does inevitably weight schemes towards this element of the appraisal. If this approach is to be taken we need a more refined approach to the broader economic benefit of schemes (especially non road schemes) that are not necessarily captures in current approaches to scheme appraisal.
* Deliverability and Value for money-again, very important. It will be more difficult to prove this in areas of the county which are more economically challenged and developer funding is limited.
Weighting given to the key economic centres-these locations appear to get a "double counting" benefit as Key Economic Centres and as areas requiring regeneration. This could make it more difficult to establish as strong as economic case in smaller centres. It would be helpful to clarify in ECON4 whether "Key Growth Centres" which are emboldened in the text carry more weight than other locations (I don't think so but it's not totally clear). This is especially important as ECON2 is definitely aimed at the Key Growth Centres who therefore get the weight of the points for this criteria.
It would also be helpful to understand if you get more points if more sites or locations in your area are addressed (e.g. in ECON 3 Lancaster could potentially pick up points for being a Growth Centre, Having a Strategic Growth Point and being a tourist destination while Rossendale would only get points for Tourism.
The following points are really clarifications to try and understand how the system works (as even in the best system scoring can be interpreted to get the results desired!).
The scoring system should also be kept up to date to reflect the government's planned tweaks to WEBTAG and CBA.
The current prioritisation process tends to favour road schemes that can be delivered by the Highway Authorities; Blackpool Tram is a similar situation because of Blackpool Council's stake in the company. The only exception is the Clitheroe-Manchester Rail link where there is a synergy with Network Rail because of long-running reliability issues on the route.
West Lancashire Borough Council / I am writing to you regarding the Transport for Lancashire proposals for the Local Major Transport Scheme Investment Programme, which I became aware of through the Lancashire Chief Executives Group on 13 September 2013.
Since that meeting my officers have accessed the information available on the Lancashire LEP’s website, including the report to the Transport for Lancashire Committee, dated 1 July 2013, and all the accompanying information. I note that there is also an opportunity to comment on the proposed transport priorities on the website, and West Lancashire Borough Council will be submitting the comments contained within this letter as part of that consultation by the deadline of 1 November 2013.
As you will be aware, our Councils have a history of strong partnership working, however I need to advise you that there is extreme disappointment at West Lancashire Borough Council (WLBC) with the proposed transport priorities set out in the Transport for Lancashire Local Major Transport Scheme Investment Programme. In addition the lack of consultation that Lancashire County Council (LCC) and the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) have conducted with WLBC and other Lancashire authorities on this important matter is of great concern.
The first invitation received by WLBC to engage with the process for setting priorities for the Local Major Transport Scheme Investment Programme came in an email on 10 April 2013 to John Harrison (Assistant Director Planning) inviting him to a workshop on “Local Major Transport Scheme Devolution” on 23 April. Given the short notice, John could not attend the event but a substitute did attend on behalf of WLBC.
I understand that the invitation to the event contained little explanation of what the workshop would involve and no advanced sight was given of any documentation that would be discussed at the workshop. This was unfortunate given attendees were asked to comment at the workshop on proposed criteria that would be used to identify the priority schemes that would benefit from the only source of major transport scheme funding that would be available through LCC or the LEP.
Feedback from the workshop was collated and shared with participants, together with an amended set of criteria, on 1 May 2013, with a request that any further comments be received by 3 May 2013, only two days later. Despite this short turn-around, WLBC did submit detailed comments on the amended criteria, expressing a great deal of concern about the criteria, on 3 May 2013. WLBC have yet to receive a response, or even acknowledgement, of these comments.
In terms of the four West Lancashire schemes that were assessed, one was the Ormskirk Bypass, a scheme which has been addressed by two studies commissioned by LCC in recent years. The first study (A570 Ormskirk Bypass Study Area – Wider Transport Review, Mouchelle, July 2008) looked at a range of alternative “smaller schemes” that could collectively be implemented to greater benefit and less financial and environmental cost than the Ormskirk Bypass. The second study (M58 to Southport Corridor Study, Jacobs, August 2012) took this a stage further and refined the collection of smaller schemes that should be brought forward in Ormskirk, while at the same time effectively recommending that the Ormskirk Bypass should not be considered further.
It would therefore seem at odds with these studies (and the forthcoming West Lancashire Highways & Transport Masterplan being prepared by LCC) to have assessed the Ormskirk Bypass under the Local Major Transport Scheme Investment Programme, and not assess the proposed smaller schemes in the Ormskirk area which, collectively, do constitute a major transport scheme and would bring significant benefit to an already congested town centre road network, but which would also have a significant cost set against them.
In relation to the three other schemes in West Lancashire, all of which are rail schemes, while costs are currently uncertain for them, each has significant potential benefits