Download - A303 A358 A30: CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMME

January 2013

A303 A358 A30: CORRIDOR

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMME

PHASE 3 - SECTIONAL ECONOMICANALYSIS

Somerset County Council

285333CP-HLT/P3-1/3Final

(A technical addendum to Phase 2 – Economic Impact Study)

A303 A358 A30: CorridorImprovement Programme

Phase 3 - Sectional EconomicAnalysis

285333CP-HLT/P3-1/3

Prepared forSomerset County Council

County HallTaunton

SomersetTA1 4DY

Prepared byParsons Brinckerhoff

www.pbworld.com

(A technical addendum to Phase 2 – Economic Impact Study)

Report Title : A303 A358 A30: Corridor ImprovementProgramme Phase 3 - Sectional EconomicAnalysis

Report Status : Final

Job No : 285333CP-HLT

Date : January 2013

DOCUMENT HISTORY AND STATUS

Document control

Prepared by Adam Walton and MarcusChick

Checked by(technical) Marcus Chick

Approved by - Checked by(quality assurance) David Carter

Revision details

Version Date Pagesaffected Comments

114

December2012

- Preliminary Draft for SCC comment

221

December2012

- Final Draft - revisions based on SCC comments dated 19December 2012

3 January2013 - Final incorporating next steps

A303 A358 A30: Corridor ImprovementProgramme Phase 3 - Sectional Economic

Analysis

A303 Phase 3 - Sectional Economic Analysis v1.3.docx Prepared by Parsons BrinckerhoffJanuary 2013 for Somerset County Council

CONTENTSPage

1 Introduction 11.1 General 11.2 Phase 3 Objectives 11.3 Improvement Sections 11.4 Background to the A303 / A358 / A30 Route Corridor 21.5 Report Structure 2

2 Transport Economic Efficiency 32.1 General 32.2 Methodology 32.3 Summary Results 5

3 Wider Economic Impact Assesment 63.1 General 63.2 Qualitative Assessment 6

4 Conclusions and Recommendations 74.1 General 74.2 TEE 74.3 WEI 7

FiguresFigure 1 – Plan showing Improvement Schemes 8

AppendixAppendix 1 – TEE Outputs by Section i

List of TablesTable 1 – TEE Summary Table 5


Analysis


- 1 -

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

1.1.1 In January 2012, following the Chancellor’s 2011 Autumn Statement in which heannounced support and further funding availability for infrastructure projects,Somerset County Council (SCC) identified a need for a study into potential A303 /A30 infrastructure upgrades and consequently commissioned Parsons Brinckerhoff(PB) to undertake the Phase 1 study.

1.1.2 The Phase 1 study findings were presented to Ministers in July 2012. A subsequentphase of work (Economic Impact Study (EIS) - Phase 2) was identified by SCC seniorleaders as being required. The purpose of the Phase 2 work was to demonstrate theprogramme wide economic benefits of dualling the A303 / A30 from Amesbury toHoniton and the A358 from Ilminster to Taunton.

1.1.3 Following on from the Phase 2 package of work, SCC requested a further phase ofwork (Phase 3) in November 2012 to assess the economic merits of individualimprovements to the A303 / A358 / A30.

1.1.4 This report presents the findings of the Phase 3 - Sectional Economic Analysis whichis an addendum to the Phase 2 – EIS ‘A303 A358 A30: Corridor ImprovementProgramme - Economic Impact Study’, January 2013 (285333CP-HLT/4/6).

1.2 Phase 3 Objectives

1.2.1 The objectives of the Phase 3 – Sectional Economic Analysis are:

1. To demonstrate the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) impacts by section;

2. To demonstrate the Wider Economic Impacts (WEI) by section (if feasible); and

3. To identify a suitable phasing strategy based on benefit accrual.

1.3 Improvement Sections

1.3.1 The improvements sections for which the Sectional Economic Analysis relates arelisted below and shown on Figure 1.

1. A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down (Stonehenge)

2. A303 Wylye to Stockton Wood

3. A303 Chicklade Bottom to Mere

4. A303 Sparkford to Ilchester

5. A303 Podimore Roundabout

6. A303 South Petherton to Southfields

7. A303 Cartgate Roundabout

8. A358 Southfields to M5 Junction 25


Analysis


- 2 -

9. A303 Southfields to Honiton

1.4 Background to the A303 / A358 / A30 Route Corridor

1.4.1 The A303 / A30 passes through Devon, Somerset, Wiltshire and a 2.5-mile section inDorset. It is a trunk road of regional importance and a popular route for long distancetraffic as an alternative to the M4/M5 motorway.

1.4.2 The London to South West and South Wales Multi-Modal Study (SWARMMS),completed in 2002, provided a long term strategy to address passenger and freighttransport on the main rail and road corridors between London, the South West andSouth Wales. One of the recommendations of SWARMMS was to improve the A303 /A30 corridor between the M3 and the M5 at Exeter, to provide a high standard dualcarriageway alternative to the M4/M5.

1.4.3 Following SWARMMS, further work was undertaken by the Highways Agency onimprovements to the single carriageway sections of the A303 / A30. This includedwork to compare the A303 / A30 between Ilminster and Honiton, which runs throughthe Blackdown Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), with an alternativeimprovement to the A358 between Ilminster and the M5 at Taunton.

1.4.4 The work on the A358 led to a decision by the Transport Secretary at the end of 2004to upgrade the A358 alternative, thereby avoiding the environmentally sensitiveAONB. A series of Do Minimum improvements to the A303 / A30 between Ilminsterand Honiton also formed a part of the alternative solution.

1.4.5 However, by 2007, with the cancellation of the A303 Amesbury to Berwick DownScheme (which included Stonehenge) and the South West Region's conclusion thatthe A303 / A358 scheme could not be funded from the Regional Funding Allocation,the Highways Agency could no longer pursue the SWARMMS strategy and instead apackage of ‘Managed Solutions’ was investigated to improve the reliability andresilience of the A303/A30 corridor between Honiton and Amesbury.

1.4.6 The Area 2 Managing Agent Contractor (Balfour Beatty Mott MacDonald – BBMM)produced the A303 / A30 Corridor Management Study Options Report in November2010. Their report suggested a number of packages, some corridor wideimprovements and other local options.

1.5 Report Structure

1.5.1 This report is structured as follows:

Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background

Chapter 2 – Transport Economic Efficiency – reporting of TEE results by section

Chapter 3 – Wider Economic Impacts – a summary statement of feasibility

Chapter 4 – Conclusions and Recommendations


Analysis


- 3 -

2 TRANSPORT ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY

2.1 General

2.1.1 The purpose of this chapter is to document the methodology and results of theappraisal of the nine individual sections that make up the whole scheme.

2.1.2 This work has been based on the COBA modelling undertaken for Phase 2,disaggregating the results from that modelling to represent each section. No furtherCOBA modelling has been undertaken to assess each of the sections individually.

2.1.3 At this initial stage, the transport benefits have assumed that the whole route isimproved and results reported reflect the benefits of each section when providing theroute as a whole. The assessment does not consider the impact on traffic patterns asa result of providing a single (or a combination of) section(s) as this will be different tothe traffic patterns resulting from improving the whole route.

2.1.4 Further details of the approach to the development of the traffic patterns and theCOBA model can be found in the ‘A303 A358 A30: Corridor Improvement Programme– Economic Impact Study’, January 2013 (285333CP-HLT/4/6).

2.2 Methodology

2.2.1 The following section describes how the COBA outputs from the whole scheme havebeen adapted to provide estimates of the benefits (and costs) associated with thesections of the scheme. The TEE, Public Accounts and Analysis of Monetised Costsand Benefits tables for each of the Sections and the Whole Scheme, which documentthe make-up of the Present Value of Costs (PVC) and Present Value of Benefits(PVB), are included as Appendix 1 of the report.

2.2.2 A key point to note is that the sum of the benefits (and costs) of each section realisesthe total cost and benefit of the whole scheme. In reality should any of the sectionsbe constructed individually, the costs and benefits would be likely to change. Therewill be different changes in travel patterns over the wider area depending on thesection and the costs will fluctuate due to assumptions on economies of scale andinternalisation of costs if the whole scheme were to be built as one.

Transport Economic Efficiency

2.2.3 The Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) table documents the travel time and vehicleoperating costs by consumers and businesses broken down into vehicle types duringoperation, construction and maintenance.

2.2.4 To determine the benefits of each Section, the travel time benefits and vehicleoperating costs for each section were identified. This was possible as each Section isexplicitly modelled in the COBA model developed for the whole scheme. Thesebenefits were then used to apportion the results from the TEE table for the wholescheme, see overleaf. The same methodology was applied to determine vehicleoperating costs.


Analysis


- 4 -

=

= ( ) ,= , , /

2.2.5 For example, the undiscounted journey time savings for Section 1 and the WholeScheme are £313m and £1,588m respectively and the discounted journey timesavings for Consumers in Cars / LGVs for the Whole Scheme is £883m. Therefore,the discounted journey time savings for Consumers in Cars / LGVs is [313/1,588]*883or £174m.1

2.2.6 It is not possible to use results for each Section directly from COBA as the results foreach Section are not reported to the same price base as the scheme costs. But giventhat the benefits are assumed to be accrued over the same period of time for eachsection, the discounting rate for the benefits would be the same for all Sections.

Public Accounts

2.2.7 The Public Accounts table documents the costs to Central Government of thescheme, specifically the investment costs, operating costs and changes to indirect taxrevenue.

2.2.8 The values for each section have been derived using the following formulation:

=

= ,

2.2.9 The construction cost estimates and the cost estimates for the individual elements ofthe Public Accounts table for the Whole Scheme have been taken from Appendix Dand Table 16 respectively of the A303 A358 A30: Corridor Improvement Programme– Economic Impact Study (December 2012) report.

2.2.10 As an example, the discounted Construction Cost of Section 1 and the WholeScheme is £400m and £809m respectively. The total discounted investment cost asreported in the Public Accounts table under Investment Costs is £815m. Therefore,the equivalent cost of Section 1 for the Public Accounts table is [400/809]*815 or£403m. For Section 2 the Construction Cost is £13m and therefore the figure in thePublic Accounts table for Section 2 has been assumed to be £13m.

Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits

2.2.11 This table is a summary of the key results from the TEE and Public Accounts tables.Information from these tables has been transferred across without the need for furthermodification.

2.2.12 The results for accident savings have been taken directly from the COBA model. Themodel has a representation of each Section and figures for each Section can beextracted for the Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits table.

1 The figures here have been rounded to the nearest £ million for clarity.


Analysis


- 5 -

2.2.13 The results for Greenhouse gases have been disaggregated on the basis of themagnitude of benefits reported for in the TEE tables.

=

2.2.14 For example, the TEE Benefits for Section 1 and the Whole Scheme are £335m and£1,757m respectively. The cost in Greenhouse Gas emissions of the Whole Schemeis £30m. Therefore, the cost in Greenhouse Gas emissions is [335/1,757]*30 or £6m.

2.3 Summary Results

2.3.1 The following table summarises the results, in terms of PVCs and PVBs for eachSection and the Whole Scheme. The values are taken directly from the Analysis ofMonetised Costs and Benefits table.

Table 1 – TEE Summary TableNote:a. The Do Minimum scheme is the existing layout and has not been adjusted to represent the

pinch point junction improvement scheme at Cartgate roundabout which was not confirmedwhilst the Phase 2 work was being completed.

b. PVB, PVC and NPV values are at 2002 prices.

2.3.2 In terms of which schemes represent the best value for money, represented asbenefit:cost ratio (BCR), it can clearly be seen that the junction improvement schemesat Podimore Roundabout and Cartgate Roundabout return the greatest BCRs at 8.06and 7.30 respectively. The table also shows that there are large benefits associatedwith the Sparkford to Ilchester and South Petherton to Southfields schemes.

Section2011 Q2 (169)Scheme Costs

(£'000)PVB (£'000) PVC (£'000) NPV (£'000) BCR

#1 536,090 389,082 404,817 -15,735 0.96#2 31,690 1,957 13,115 -11,158 0.15#3 146,190 234,395 69,440 164,955 3.38#4 46,860 167,188 28,496 138,692 5.87#5 23,760 120,497 14,946 105,551 8.06#6 66,610 190,314 36,039 154,275 5.28#7 28,340 130,326 17,848 112,478 7.30#8 275,240 589,454 148,910 440,544 3.96#9 157,700 66,044 84,476 -18,432 0.78

1,312,480 1,889,256 818,087 1,071,169 2.31

A303 Podimore Rbt

Description

A303 Amesbury to Berwick DownA303 Wylye to Stockton WoodA303 Chicklade Bottom to MereA303 Sparkford to Ilchester

A303 South Petherton to SouthfieldsA303 Cartgate RbtA358 Southfields to M5 Jn 25A303 Southfields to Honiton

Whole Scheme


Analysis


- 6 -

3 WIDER ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESMENT

3.1 General

3.1.1 Considerable thought has been given by the project team to determine an appropriateand robust methodology for assessing the WEIs of sectional improvements utilisingthe economic model used in the EIS (Phase 2) which assessed the WEIs of aprogramme wide improvement.

3.1.2 A number of potential quantitative methodologies were worked through but theoutputs were considered to be spurious. For this reason a qualitative assessmentwas considered to be more appropriate.

3.2 Qualitative Assessment

3.2.1 The Phase 2 WEI model quantified the wider economic impacts of dualling the A303from Amesbury to Honiton and the A358 from Southfields to Junction 25 of the M5.The methodology used was based on survey results whereby respondents wereasked their views of the potential benefits of an end to end dual carriageway. Due tothe nature of the questions asked, it has proved almost impossible to generatetangible disaggregated outputs by section. Although quantitative methodologies havebeen applied, the outputs lacked tangibility.

3.2.2 Despite not being able to demonstrate tangible quantitative sectional outputs, thewider economic benefits of a programme wide improvement are likely to besignificantly greater than the sum of the benefits from sectional improvements. Thesebenefits would primarily accrue due to the increased reliability and resilience of theroute. This would help to generate economic growth through efficiencies in gettinggoods to market and people to destinations. The consequential growth of localbusinesses and the expansion of the tourism sector would generate further economicgrowth through the down trickle of wealth.

3.2.3 The stakeholder consultation and the surveys undertaken to inform the WEIassessment for the Phase 2 work helped to confirm the common perception amongstlocal businesses and the wider community that improving the whole A303 would bebeneficial to business therefore helping to spark economic growth.


Analysis


- 7 -

4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 General

4.1.1 This report is a technical addendum to the Economic Impact Study (Phase 2) anddocuments the disaggregated findings of the Phase 2 TEE impact assessment andWEI assessment.

4.2 TEE

4.2.1 The best value schemes in terms of benefit:cost ratio are Podimore Roundabout andCartgate Roundabout with BCRs of 8.06 and 7.30 respectively. There are also largebenefits associated with the Sparkford to Ilchester and South Petherton to Southfieldsschemes but lesser benefits associated with the Amesbury to Berwick Down scheme,the Wylye to Stockton Wood scheme and the Southfields to Honiton scheme.

4.2.2 It should be noted that at this initial stage, the transport benefits have assumed thatthe whole route is provided and results reported reflect the benefits of each sectionwhen providing the route as a whole. The assessment does not consider the impacton traffic patterns as a result of providing a single (or a combination of) section(s) asthis will be different to the traffic patterns resulting from providing the whole route.

4.3 WEI

4.3.1 Despite not being able to demonstrate tangible quantitative sectional outputs, thequalitative findings of the Phase 2 study demonstrate that the wider economicbenefits of a programme wide improvement would be significantly greater than thesum of the benefits from sectional improvements.

4.4 Next Steps

4.4.1 Following a Steering Group meeting on the 3rd January 2013, it was decided that thenext step should be to consolidate the findings of the work undertaken to date into akey messages document. The key messages document will succinctly present thefindings of the study to date for the purposes of lobbying government. The documentmust therefore clearly set out the following:

the proposal;

the background to the proposal;

the economic benefits of the proposal;

how the proposal can be delivered; and

a programme for delivery.


Analysis


- 8 -

FIGURES

Figure 1 – Plan showing Improvement Schemes

4.A303 Sparkford to

Ilchester

3.A303 Chicklade Bottom

to Mere

1.A303 Amesbury to

Berwick Down(Stonehenge)

6.A303 South Petherton to

Southfields

8.A358 Southfields to M5

Junction 25

Ilminster

DATE

January 2013SCALE

NTS

PRODUCED BY

ASNWCHECKED

ASAPPROVED

DC

Client

Somerset County Council

County HallTaunton

Project Title

A303 A358 A30: Corridor Improvement Scheme Phase 3 -Sectional Economic Analysis

Riverside Chambers, Castle Street, Taunton, Somerset, TA1 4AP,Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd FigureTitle

9.A303 Southfields to

Honiton Improvement

5.Podimore Roundabout

7.Cartgate Roundabout

2.A303 Wylye to Stockton

Wood

PROJECT NUMBER

285333CP-HLT/P3-1/3 DC

© Copyright Parsons Brinckerhoff LimitedFigure 1

Riverside Chambers, Castle Street, Taunton, Somerset, TA1 4AP,Tel: (01823) 281190 Improvement Sections

285333CP-HLT/P3-1/3


Analysis


- i -

APPENDIX

Appendix 1 – TEE Outputs by Section

Appendix 1 - TEE Outputs by Section January 2013

WHOLE SCHEME

Comparable to Table 15 in the EIS: TEE TableAll units £'000 discounted to 2002 prices

Impact Total Cars/LGVs OGVs PSVs

User BenefitsTravel Time 1 897,285 882,714 0 14,571Vehicle operating costs 2 -109,606 -109,606 0 0Travel time and vehicle operating costs:During construction 3 -144 0 0 0During maintenance 4 0 0 0 0NET CONSUMER USER BENEFITS 787,535 773,108 0 14,571

User BenefitsTravel Time 5 1,043,577 610,434 427,555 5,588Vehicle operating costs 6 -73,507 -14,949 -58,558 0Travel time and vehicle operating costs:During construction 7 -167 0 0 0During maintenance 8 0 0 0 0Subtotal 969,903 595,485 368,997 5,588Private Sector Provider ImpactsOperating Costs -310 0 0 -310Other Business ImpactsDeveloper and other contributions 0 0 0 0NET BUSINESS IMPACT 969,593 595,485 368,997 5,278

Benefits 1,757,128

Comparable to Table 16 in the EIS: Public Accounts - assuming 100% Central Government Funding

Present Value of Transport Economic Efficiency

CONSUMER USER BENEFITS

BUSINESS USERS

TOTAL

A303 A358 A30: Corridor Improvement Programme Phase 3 - Sectional Economic Analysis

Operating Costs 3,443Investment Costs 814,644Developer and Other Contributions 0NET IMPACT 818,087

Indirect Tax Revenues -135,144

Broad Transport Budget 818,087Wider Public Finances -135,144

Comparable to Table 17 in the EIS: AMCB

Noise -Local Air Quality -Greenhouse Gases -29,730Journey Ambience -Accidents 161,858Consumer Users 787,535Business Users and Providers 969,593Reliability Not assessedOption Values -Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 1,889,256Public Accounts 818,087Present Value of Costs (PVC) 818,087OVERALL IMPACTSNet Present Value (NPV) 1,071,169Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 2.31

Central Government Funding: Transport

Central Government Funding: Non-Transport

TOTALS




SECTION 1: A303 AMESBURY TO BERWICK DOWN 1



User BenefitsTravel Time 1 176,835 173,963 0 2,872Vehicle operating costs 2 -28,098 -28,098 0 0Travel time and vehicle operating costs:During construction 3 -28During maintenance 4 0 0 0 0NET CONSUMER USER BENEFITS 148,709 145,865 0 2,872

User BenefitsTravel Time 5 205,666 120,303 84,262 1,101Vehicle operating costs 6 -18,844 -3,832 -15,012 0Travel time and vehicle operating costs:During construction 7 -33During maintenance 8 0 0 0 0Subtotal 186,789 116,471 69,250 1,101Private Sector Provider ImpactsOperating Costs -61 -61Other Business ImpactsDeveloper and other contributions 0NET BUSINESS IMPACT 186,729 116,471 69,250 1,041

Benefits 335,437




BUSINESS USERS

TOTAL


Operating Costs 1,704Investment Costs 403,113Developer and Other Contributions 0NET IMPACT 404,817




Noise -Local Air Quality -Greenhouse Gases -5,675Journey Ambience -Accidents 59,320Consumer Users 148,709Business Users and Providers 186,729Reliability Not assessedOption Values -Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 389,082Public Accounts 404,817Present Value of Costs (PVC) 404,817OVERALL IMPACTSNet Present Value (NPV) -15,735Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 0.96




TOTALS



SECTION 2: A303 WYLYE TO STOCKTON WOOD 2



User BenefitsTravel Time 1 3,353 3,298 0 54Vehicle operating costs 2 -1,808 -1,808 0 0Travel time and vehicle operating costs:During construction 3 0During maintenance 4 0 0 0 0NET CONSUMER USER BENEFITS 1,544 1,490 0 54

User BenefitsTravel Time 5 3,900 2,281 1,598 21Vehicle operating costs 6 -1,213 -247 -966 0Travel time and vehicle operating costs:During construction 7 -1During maintenance 8 0 0 0 0Subtotal 2,686 2,034 632 21Private Sector Provider ImpactsOperating Costs -1 -1Other Business ImpactsDeveloper and other contributions 0NET BUSINESS IMPACT 2,685 2,034 632 20

Benefits 4,230




BUSINESS USERS

TOTAL


Operating Costs 55Investment Costs 13,060Developer and Other Contributions 0NET IMPACT 13,115




Noise -Local Air Quality -Greenhouse Gases -72Journey Ambience -Accidents -2,201Consumer Users 1,544Business Users and Providers 2,685Reliability Not assessedOption Values -Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 1,957Public Accounts 13,115Present Value of Costs (PVC) 13,115OVERALL IMPACTSNet Present Value (NPV) -11,158Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 0.15



TOTALS




SECTION 3: CHICKLADE BOTTOM TO MERE 3




User BenefitsTravel Time 5 121,260 70,930 49,680 649Vehicle operating costs 6 -5,617 -1,142 -4,475 0Travel time and vehicle operating costs:During construction 7 -20During maintenance 8 0 0 0 0Subtotal 115,623 69,788 45,205 649Private Sector Provider ImpactsOperating Costs -36 -36Other Business ImpactsDeveloper and other contributions 0NET BUSINESS IMPACT 115,586 69,788 45,205 613

Benefits 211,455




BUSINESS USERS

TOTAL






Noise -Local Air Quality -Greenhouse Gases -3,578Journey Ambience -Accidents 26,518Consumer Users 95,868Business Users and Providers 115,586Reliability Not assessedOption Values -Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 234,395Public Accounts 69,440Present Value of Costs (PVC) 69,440OVERALL IMPACTSNet Present Value (NPV) 164,955Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 3.38



TOTALS




SECTION 4: A303 SPARKFORD TO ILCHESTER 4





Benefits 141,589




BUSINESS USERS

TOTAL









TOTALS




SECTION 5: A303 PODIMORE ROUNDABOUT 5



User BenefitsTravel Time 1 56,826 55,903 0 923Vehicle operating costs 2 -174 -174 0 0Travel time and vehicle operating costs:During construction 3 -9During maintenance 4 0 0 0 0NET CONSUMER USER BENEFITS 56,642 55,729 0 923

User BenefitsTravel Time 5 66,091 38,659 27,077 354Vehicle operating costs 6 -117 -24 -93 0Travel time and vehicle operating costs:During construction 7 -11During maintenance 8 0 0 0 0Subtotal 65,963 38,636 26,984 354Private Sector Provider ImpactsOperating Costs -20 -20Other Business ImpactsDeveloper and other contributions 0NET BUSINESS IMPACT 65,943 38,636 26,984 334

Benefits 122,585




BUSINESS USERS

TOTAL






Noise -Local Air Quality -Greenhouse Gases -2,074Journey Ambience -Accidents -14Consumer Users 56,642Business Users and Providers 65,943Reliability Not assessedOption Values -Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 120,497Public Accounts 14,946Present Value of Costs (PVC) 14,946OVERALL IMPACTSNet Present Value (NPV) 105,551Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 8.06



TOTALS




SECTION 6: A303 SOUTH PETHERTON TO SOUTHFIELDS 6





Benefits 163,742




BUSINESS USERS

TOTAL









TOTALS




SECTION 7: A303 CARTGATE ROUNDABOUT 7



User BenefitsTravel Time 1 54,625 53,738 0 887Vehicle operating costs 2 -238 -238 0 0Travel time and vehicle operating costs:During construction 3 -9During maintenance 4 0 0 0 0NET CONSUMER USER BENEFITS 54,378 53,500 0 887

User BenefitsTravel Time 5 63,531 37,162 26,029 340Vehicle operating costs 6 -160 -32 -127 0Travel time and vehicle operating costs:During construction 7 -10During maintenance 8 0 0 0 0Subtotal 63,361 37,129 25,901 340Private Sector Provider ImpactsOperating Costs -19 -19Other Business ImpactsDeveloper and other contributions 0NET BUSINESS IMPACT 63,341 37,129 25,901 321

Benefits 117,719




BUSINESS USERS

TOTAL








TOTALS





SECTION 8: A358 SOUTHFIELDS TO M5 J25 8




User BenefitsTravel Time 5 338,379 197,933 138,635 1,812Vehicle operating costs 6 -9,603 -1,953 -7,650 0Travel time and vehicle operating costs:During construction 7 -55During maintenance 8 0 0 0 0Subtotal 328,721 195,980 130,985 1,812Private Sector Provider ImpactsOperating Costs -102 -102Other Business ImpactsDeveloper and other contributions 0NET BUSINESS IMPACT 328,619 195,980 130,985 1,710

Benefits 605,197




BUSINESS USERS

TOTAL






Noise -Local Air Quality -Greenhouse Gases -10,240Journey Ambience -Accidents -5,503Consumer Users 276,578Business Users and Providers 328,619Reliability Not assessedOption Values -Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 589,454Public Accounts 148,910Present Value of Costs (PVC) 148,910OVERALL IMPACTSNet Present Value (NPV) 440,544Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 3.96


TOTALS





SECTION 9: A303 SOUTHFIELDS TO HONITON 9



User BenefitsTravel Time 1 32,787 32,255 0 532Vehicle operating costs 2 -9,411 -9,411 0 0Travel time and vehicle operating costs:During construction 3 -5During maintenance 4 0 0 0 0NET CONSUMER USER BENEFITS 23,371 22,844 0 532


Benefits 55,176




BUSINESS USERS

TOTAL






Noise -Local Air Quality -Greenhouse Gases -934Journey Ambience -Accidents 11,802Consumer Users 23,371Business Users and Providers 31,805Reliability Not assessedOption Values -Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 66,044Public Accounts 84,476Present Value of Costs (PVC) 84,476OVERALL IMPACTSNet Present Value (NPV) -18,432Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 0.78


TOTALS




Download - A303 A358 A30: CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMME

Top Related