Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report

Transcription

1 Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report January 2015

2 Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Cambridgeshire County Council January 2015 This document has 52 pages (not including Appendices). This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for Cambridgeshire County Council s information and use in relation to Kings Dyke Level Crossing Document history Job number: Document ref: Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date Rev 1.0 Draft JB RJ DB DB 28/11/14 Rev 2.0 Final Draft JB RJ DB DB 05/12/14 Rev 3.0 Final Report JB SB DB DB 21/01/15 Client sign off Client Project Cambridgeshire County Council Kings Dyke Level Crossing Document title Option Assessment Report Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 2

3 Table of Contents Page 1. Introduction Transport challenges and the need for intervention Potential Options Document Structure and Overall Approach Current and Future Situation Transport Characteristics, Issues and Challenges - Road Transport Characteristics, Issues and Challenges - Rail Sustainable Transport Characteristics Geographical Context Land use and Environmental Characteristics Socio-economic and demographic characteristics Potential opportunities and development proposals Summary of Challenges Intervention Objectives and High Level Goals Introduction Intervention objectives and high level goals Priorities for assessing options Policy Fit Options Considered Introduction Option Generation to Date Long-list of Options Summary of Option Appraisal Assessment of Short-listed Options Introduction Evidence and Data Sources Strategic Case Value for Money Financial Case Delivery Case Commercial Case Overall Summary 41 Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 3

4 Figures Page Figure 1.1 Kings Dyke Level Crossing Location 12 Figure 3.1 Relationship between intervention objectives and high level goals 22 Figure 3.2 Policy fit with wider transport policy objectives 23 Figure 3.3 Policy fit with wider planning policies 24 Figure 4.1 Original alignment for improvement scheme from LTP1 26 Figure 4.2 Plan of Option 2 28 Figure 4.3 Plan of Option 3a 29 Figure 4.4 Plan of Option 3b 30 Figure 4.5 Plan of Option 4 31 Figure 4.6 Plan of Option 5 32 Tables Table 3.1 Relationship between challenges and intervention objectives 21 Table 3.2 Impact of the scheme on LTP3 objectives 24 Table 4.1 Cambridgeshire LTP1 Preliminary Assessment of Kings Dyke Level 26 Crossing Table 4.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Option 2 28 Table 4.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Option 3a 29 Table 4.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Option 3b 30 Table 4.5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Option 4 31 Table 4.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Option 5 32 Table 5.1 Description of the Five Cases Model 34 Table 5.2 Comparison of journey time benefits for each option 36 Table 5.3 Benefit Cost Rations for each Option 39 Table 5.4 Capital Investment Cost of Options 40 Table 5.5 Outturn cost spend profile (with inflation) 40 Table 5A Assessment of Strategic Case 42 Table 5B Assessment of Value for Money 44 Table 5C Assessment of Financial Case 48 Table 5D Assessment of Delivery Case 48 Table 5E Assessment of Commercial Case 49 Table 5F Summary of Assessment against Five cases Business Case Model 50 Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 4

5 Executive Summary This document presents an assessment of options improve the Kings Dyke Level Crossing on the A605 between Whittlesey and Peterborough. Kings Dyke Level Crossing is an at-grade level crossing located on the A605 between Whittlesey and Peterborough, and crosses the railway line between Ely and Peterborough. The level crossing has long been a local issue due to downtime of the barriers, and the subsequent delay caused to traffic travelling between Whittlesey and Peterborough. Figure A shows the location of the Kings Dyke Level Crossing, and the importance of the connectivity of the A605 between Whittlesey and Peterborough. Figure A: Kings Dyke Level Crossing Location Need for intervention and associated challenges The need for intervention and associated challenges can be summarised as follows: The A605 carries 11,000 vehicles on an average weekday between Whittlesey and Peterborough There are approximately 120 train movements across Kings Dyke level Crossing per day, resulting in an overall barrier downtime of between 8 and 20 minutes per hour The level crossing creates a pinch point on the network resulting in traffic congestion and delays, particularly in peak periods for traffic travelling between Whittlesey and Peterborough. The typical average delay is 7 minutes per vehicle The alternative route of North Bank is often closed for long periods in winter months due to flooding. Therefore this exacerbate the congestion and delays on the A605, with an additional 5,000 vehicles using the A605 when North Bank is closed Congestion at the crossing will increase in the absence of intervention due to Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 5

6 o o o o Network Rail is planning substantial growth in passenger and freight services which will increase barrier down time The Fenland Core Strategy identified Whittlesey as a Market Town and a focus for housing and employment growth Employment growth identified for Peterborough, as part of its Core Strategy, may increase the number of residents from Whittlesey commuting to Peterborough A potential Regional Freight Interchange Proposals for more train paths and longer trains, means that the time and cost implication of level crossing failures will become increasingly significant for network rail, the Train Operating Companies and rail passengers unless mitigation measures are implemented Kings Dyke Level Crossing is classified as being within a featureless landscape of industrial estates including brickworks with clay pits and stacks, sewage works and wind turbines dominating the landscape. The area surrounding the level crossing has a long history as an industrial area within the landscape. There are a number of environmental sensitivities with regard to the natural and historic environment, including the presence of the flood plain and visual intrusion of any scheme on local residences, therefore any transport intervention needs to recognise the environmental context. Option Generation and Assessment The need for a scheme to replace Kings Dyke Level Crossing has been identified for over 20 years within Cambridgeshire County Council s TPP (Transport Policies and Programmes) and subsequent Local Transport Plan (LTP) documents. Cambridgeshire County Council s LTP (2001 to 2006) refers to the need for the replacement of the Kings Dyke Level Crossing. It was identified as a Major Scheme and was considered an essential element in delivering the LTP1 strategy and meeting its objectives. The LTP3 (adopted 2014) identifies Kings Dyke Level Crossing replacement as a committed scheme to be delivered by The LTP3 identifies the Kings Dyke Level Crossing replacements as Phase 1 of the Whittlesey Access Strategy. The three phases of this strategy are A605 Kings Dyke Level Crossing Replacement Stanground Access Whittlesea Station Improvements The document states that the A605 Kings Dyke level crossing scheme will deliver the following benefits: Reductions in journey times and congestion on the A605 will reduce costs for travellers and businesses in and around Whittlesey. The accessibility of Whittlesey from the west will be improved, increasing its attractiveness as a place to live, work and do business. Accessibility to employment premises to the north and south of the railway on Funtham s Lane will be significantly improved. The reliability of rail services on the route between Ely and Peterborough will be improved with the removal of incidents of level crossing strikes. The safety of both the road and rail networks will be improved with the removal of the level crossing. An Engineering Options Feasibility Report (dated June 2014) prepared by Mott McDonald identified seven potential options to improve the Kings Dyke Level Crossing, they are: Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 6

7 Option 1 - Online within existing highway boundary Option 2 - Online within existing highway boundary allowing for temporary works or traffic management on land outside the highway during construction Option 3 - Part online contiguous to the existing highway keeping one or more main line traffic flowing under traffic management control during construction Option 4 - Off line alignment to the north Option 5 -Off line alignment to the south Option 6 - Tunnel Solution Option 7 - Wider area bypass The report assessed the construction methodology along with the feasibility to identify which options should be taken forward to the short-list, in which options will undergo a more detailed assessment on a number of different factors. The short-listed options are Option 3a - Part online to north Option 4 - Off line alignment to the north Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 7

8 Option 5 - Off line alignment to the south Each of these options has been assessed against criteria relating to Strategic, Value for Money, Financial Delivery and Commercial themes, in line with the Government s Five Cases Model, and reflecting the Government s Transport Appraisal Guidance (WebTAG) and local priorities. The assessment draws on evidence available from a range of sources, including Wider policy documents, including Fenland District Council Local Plan, Cambridgeshire s Third Local Transport Plan and the Whittlesey Market Town Transport Strategy Environmental assessments Economic assessments Previous and supporting studies, including the Kings Dyke level Crossing Improvement Initial Investigation, and the Engineering Options Feasibility Report Performance of Options The relative performance of each of the options is summarised below, along with trade-offs which need to be considered in the identification of a preferred option. Strategic Case All 3 options perform strongly on the strategic case, with moderate or large beneficial impact in terms of transport-related intervention objectives and high level goals of the Kings Dyke Level Crossing Improvement scheme. The three options also support the proposed housing and economic growth in Whittlesey. With respect to the environmental intervention objective, Option 3a and 4 have an adverse impact on the landscape character, historic environment and biodiversity, whilst Option 5 also has adverse impacts on the water environment due to the proximity of the flood plain to the proposed alignment of the route. Value for Money Case Table A demonstrates that in the North Bank Closed scenario, all three options represent high value for money. Option 4 represents the highest value for money in BCR terms for both North Bank Open and North Bank Closed Scenarios. Option 5 does not perform as well in the BCR calculations as Option 3a and 4 due to the presence of the roundabouts at either end of the scheme. This is because all vehicles must slow to negotiate roundabouts, which in turn increases journey times. In addition, the least cost effective solution would be Option 5 in the North Bank Open Scenario. Under the average scenario, all three options offer high value for money, although Option 4 represents the highest value for money. Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 8

9 Table A Benefit Cost Ratios for each option North Bank Open North Bank Closed Average Option 3a 1.76 (Medium VfM*) (High VfM*) 3.86 (High VfM*) Option (High VfM*) (High VfM*) 4.54 (High VfM*) Option (does not represent VfM*) (High VfM*) 2.43 (High VfM*) *The Department for Transport uses the following categories in relation to Benefit Cost Ratios: Low Value for Money if BCR = 1.0 to 1.5; Medium Value for Money if BCR = 1.5 to 2.0; High Value for Money if BCR = 2.0 to 4.0. Option 3a performs strongly on economic and social impacts, but moderate environmental impacts and slight impacts on local businesses: Performs strongly on journey time savings and reliability, particularly when North Bank is closed. Environmentally there is a neutral impact with regards to noise, greenhouse gases and the water environment, but adverse impacts with regards to the Landscape character, historic environment, and biodiversity. The land take required for this option is the smallest of the three options Beneficial or neutral impact on the majority of social impacts This option has the least land take as part of the scheme is within the existing highway boundary, however there may be some minor land take to the north, where the existing industrial units/business park operate and this may have some minor adverse impacts on the operation of the businesses. Access to Funtham s Lane and the brickworks would remain as per the existing arrangements, however there is some concerns from local businesses that the removal of the crossing will make a right turn manoeuvre from Funtham s Lane difficult, as the level crossing provides breaks in the traffic at present. There is minimal, if any impact to businesses on the southern side of the existing A605. Option 4 performs strongly on economic and social impacts, but moderate environmental impacts and major adverse impact on businesses: Performs strongly on journey time savings and reliability, particularly when North Bank is closed. Environmentally there is a neutral impact with regards to greenhouse gases and the water environment, but adverse impacts with regards to noise, landscape character, historic environment, and biodiversity. Beneficial or neutral impact on the majority of social impacts. This option has major adverse impact on the operation of the Abbey site with the abutment requiring land take from the yard and also the smaller warehouse to the east of the site, and it is unlikely they would be able to continue to operate at this location. The loss of the yard would impact on the flexibility to store products from their group of businesses at peak times as well as reduce the area for vehicles to park, and be loaded and unloaded. Relocation could be considered, but this business requires close proximity to its core agricultural products as these can be bulky and expensive to transport. Relocation could also result in loss of workforce who may not be willing to travel to new premises. Access to Funtham s Lane and the brickworks would remain as per the existing arrangements, however there is some concerns from local businesses that the removal of the crossing will make a right turn manoeuvre from Funtham s Lane difficult, as the level crossing provides breaks in the traffic at present. There is minimal, if any impact to businesses on the southern side of the existing A605. Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 9

10 Option 5 has good performance on economic and social impacts but moderate environment impacts and a moderate impact on local businesses: Performs well on journey time savings and reliability, however it is the lowest performing of the three options, this is due to the provision of roundabouts at either end of the route (vehicle must slow to negotiate roundabouts which in turn increases journey time). Environmentally there is a large beneficial impact with regards to noise and a neutral impact on greenhouse gases. However there are moderate adverse impacts on landscape, historic environment, bio-diversity and water environment. Beneficial or neutral impact on the majority of social impacts This option has a moderate adverse impact on Church Field Farm Stables as the proposed scheme would result in the loss of car parking for events, which in turn could impacts on the number and size of events the business could run, and therefore impact on the income of the business. In addition, the proposed scheme would split the site, with the paddocks and gallops located on the other side of the road to the stables, however this can be mitigated by providing a track and underpass between the stables and the paddocks to ensure access is maintained. The remaining businesses to the north and south of the A605 have minimal, if any impact. The businesses to the north may have a benefit with regards to access/egress from Funtham s Lane, as the provision of roundabouts at either end of the scheme providing a break in the traffic. Financial Case The outturn cost to implement each of the options is detailed in Table B. Option 5 is the most expensive option to implement, whilst Option 4 is the least expensive option to implement. Table B: Outturn Cost for each option Option 3a Option 4 Option M 12.6M 16.9M *There are many assumptions used to inform these outturn costs, which as further work and detailed design is progressed may result in these costs to increase or decrease. Delivery Case Option 3a has some delivery challenges and little support from stakeholders and the general public: No viability or delivery issues expected Buildability issues include requirement to build over existing Network Rail Signal Box Disruption during construction would be significant with traffic management required for 68% of the duration of construction This option was the least favoured solution in the consultation response, with 17% of people preferring this solution This option has a slight impact in terms on local businesses Option 4 has minimal challenges with regards to construction but major opposition from local businesses and little support from the public: No significant buildability, construction or operational viability issues. This option was moderately favourable in the consultation response with 23% of people preferring this solution. This option has a major adverse impact on local businesses, particularly those to the north of the existing A605. If this option was implemented, it would have a major adverse impact on one business to the north of the A605 in particular and it is unlikely that the business would be able to continue operating in its current location. Option 5 has some challenges with regards to construction and a moderate adverse impact on a local business but has significant support from stakeholders, businesses and the public: Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 10

11 No significant construction or operational viability issues. Buildability issues include potentially very poor ground conditions, close proximity to existing open clay pit to the east and filled in clay pit to the west, and presence of flood plain. This option was the most favoured in the consultation response, with 58% of respondents choosing Option 5 as their preferred option. All stakeholders responding to the consultation stated a preference for Option 5 in their responses. This option has a moderate impact on local businesses, particularly for the operation of the stables at Church Field Farm to the south of the existing A605 Commercial Case Option 3a, 4 and 5 all have no significant issues at this stage. The Improvement Scheme would be funded through funding from Local Transport Board and Local Growth Fund alongside prudential borrowing and financial support from Network Rail and developers Whichever options is taken forward, it would be procured through OJEU tendering process and procured with standard ICE contract Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 11

12 1 Introduction 1.1 Transport challenges and need for intervention The Kings Dyke level crossing scheme involves provision of infrastructure to enable the closure of the Kings Dyke level crossing on the A605 between Whittlesey and Peterborough. The level crossing on the A605 at King s Dyke to the west of Whittlesey has long been a local issue due to the downtime of the barriers, and the subsequent delay caused to traffic travelling between Whittlesey and Peterborough. Kings Dyke Level Crossing is an at-grade level crossing located on the A605 between Whittlesey and Peterborough, and crosses the railway line between Ely and Peterborough. The level crossing is a full barrier type locally controlled by an on-site Network Rail employee. Figure 1.1 shows the location of the Kings Dyke Level Crossing, and the importance of the connectivity of the A605 between Whittlesey and Peterborough. Figure 1.1 Kings Dyke Level Crossing Location At present, there are between train movements across the level crossing each day. In peak periods the barrier can be down for between minutes each hour. This causes significant delays to traffic. The A605 between Whittlesey and Peterborough carries an average of 11,000 vehicles per day. North Bank provides an alternative route to Peterborough from Whittlesey, and often drivers use this route to avoid the traffic delays and congestion on the A605, particularly those cause by the level crossing. However the North Bank is within the Nene Washes flood plain, and is often closed to traffic in winter months, with consequential increase in delays on the A605 due to an additional 5,000 vehicles travelling through Kings Dyke Level Crossing per day. Rail industry plans suggest that train movements on the Peterborough to Ely line will increase significantly in the future. The number of passenger trains is likely to increase to around 130 per day. Improvements to the Felixstowe to Nuneaton freight route will also raise capacity for freight trains on the line to 112 each day. Consequently, by 2031 there could be 242 trains using the crossing each day an increase of 150%. Additional trains will result in more frequent and longer level crossing closures, increasing congestion and Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 12

13 delays. The implications for the road traffic congestion of an increase in barrier down time to between minutes in each hour would severely hamper economic growth in the area. 1.2 Potential Options The need for a scheme to replace Kings Dyke Level Crossing has been identified for over 20 years within Cambridgeshire County Council s policy and strategy documents. An Engineering Options Feasibility Report (June 2014) was prepared by Mott McDonald, and detailed seven potential options for improving the Kings Dyke Level Crossing, they were: Option 1 - Online within existing highway boundary Option 2 - Online within existing highway boundary allowing for temporary works or traffic management on land outside the highway during construction Option 3 - Part online contiguous to the existing highway keeping one or more main line traffic flowing under traffic management control during construction Option 4 - Off line alignment to the north Option 5 - Off line alignment to the south Option 6 - Tunnel Solution Option 7 - Wider area bypass The Engineering Options Report assessed the seven options in terms of construction and feasibility and short-listed three options to undergo a detailed assessment within this Options Assessment Report. The three short-listed options are: Option 3 - Part online contiguous to the existing highway keeping one or more main line traffic flowing under traffic management control during construction Option 4 - Off line alignment to the north Option 5 - Off line alignment to the south Each of the short-listed options is assessed in further detail later in the report, and further details about each of the options can be found in the Engineering Options Feasibility Report, (dated June 2014) prepared by Mott McDonald. 1.3 Document Structure and Overall Approach The Option Assessment Report (OAR) has been written in line with Department for Transport s TAG Unit 2.1.2, which was adopted in January It provides an auditable trail of how a number of potential options for intervention have been identified, assessed and subsequently discounted, in order to help inform decisions on a preferred option. The Option Assessment Report lays out the information from each of the assessments but does not provide recommendations on a preferred option. Chapter 2 summarises the current and future situation for the area under study, in respect of land use, environmental, socio-economic, local transport network and market characteristics. This provides the context for problems and constraints in the area, and establishes the need for intervention. Potential local opportunities on which proposed transport interventions could draw upon are also highlighted. Chapter 3 summarises the key objectives which any proposed transport intervention must meet. Chapter 4 describes the option generation; assessment and sifting process, which has taken place to date and describes the four options, which have been identified for further consideration. Chapter 5 presents an assessment of the five shortlisted options against the Five Cases Model Criteria Strategic, Value for Money, Financial, Delivery and Commercial in line with the Government s Transport Appraisal Guidance (WebTAG) on preparing an Option Assessment Report; and local objectives including priorities. It also presents supporting commentary and highlights the discriminatory factors across the options. The following supporting technical evidence is provided in appendices: Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 13

14 Appendix A: Kings Dyke Level Crossing Replacement Initial Investigation Appendix B: Policy Context assessment of options in the context of planning policies, including the National Policy Framework, Fenland District Council Local Plan, and the Cambridgeshire third Local Transport Plan. Appendix C: Environmental Assessment completed environmental assessment worksheets and supporting commentary for the short-listed options Appendix D: Economic Assessment completed economic assessment worksheets and supporting commentary for the short-listed options Appendix E: Impact on Local Businesses completed assessment and supporting commetary for each of the options Appendix F: Stakeholder and Public Engagement details of public and stakeholder engagement and responses received Appendix G: Social and Distributional Impacts Analysis this describes characteristics of residents living near proposed options; identified concentrations of vulnerable groups and presents the findings for a social and distributional impacts screening assessment (Step 0) Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 14

15 2. Current and Future Situation This chapter summarises the current and future situation for the area under study, in respect of socioeconomic characteristics; land use and environmental characteristics and local transport network and market characteristics. This provides the context for problems and constraints in the area and establishes the need for intervention. Potential local opportunities on which proposed transport interventions could draw upon are also highlighted. 2.1 Transport Characteristics, Issues and Challenges - Road Existing Situation The A605 is an important east-west route between The Fens and Peterborough, and is identified as a strategic route for HCV traffic on the Cambridgeshire Strategic Advisory Freight Route. The A605 provides connections to the A1(M) and the A47 via the Peterborough Parkway Network. The A605 between Whittlesey and Peterborough carries over 11,000 vehicles per day. It carries local traffic between Whittlesey and Peterborough as well as strategic traffic between the Fens and the strategic highway network. North Bank provides an alternative route between Whittlesey and Peterborough, and carries approximately 5,000 vehicles per day. Drivers often choose this route to avoid the congestion and delays on the A605 at Kings Dyke Level Crossing. However this route is on the Nene Washes, which can flood throughout the year but especially in the winter months, which results in the road being closed and traffic forced onto the A605, which can exacerbate the queues and congestion at the crossing. North Bank was completely closed to traffic for 11 separate occasions and for 55 days over the 12 month period between 1 st April 2012 and 1 st April 2013 representing 15% of overall time. The majority of closures were between October and February. The A605 can suffer from unreliable journey times due to the uncertainty/variability of queue length and barrier down time, resulting in driver frustration. The Kings Dyke Level Crossing Replacement Initial Investigation Report prepared in June 2013 by Atkins (see Appendix A) calculated the average delay per vehicle at both Kings Dyke Level Crossing and Funtham s Lane Level Crossing. The average delay per vehicle at Kings Dyke Level Crossing is 41 seconds per vehicle and 38 seconds per vehicle at Funtham s Lane Level Crossing. This translates to a 2-hour total vehicle delay per closure at Kings Dyke Level Crossing and a 6 minute total vehicle delay at Funtham s Lane. If North Bank is closed, the average delay per vehicle can increase by 3-4 minutes in the peak period and the total vehicle delay can increase to over 6 vehicle hours. Future Scenario Traffic is forecast to grow based on a number of factors: increased population; increased jobs; and the increasing propensity to use cars. Using the Governments TEMPRO forecasting tool, it is expected that there will be a 5% increase in traffic in Whittlesey between 2013 and 2017 (potential opening year for solution), and 16% increase in traffic between 2013 and 2027 due to anticipated growth in housing and jobs in both Whittlesey and Peterborough. The impact of traffic growth has an escalating increase in total vehicle delay per closure from 2 vehicle hours in 2013 to potentially 30 vehicle hours by 2037, if the housing and employment growth takes place as forecasted together with continued North Bank closures. 2.2 Transport Characteristics, Issues and Challenges - Rail Existing Situation Kings Dyke and Funtham s Lane level crossing are on the rail line running between Ely and Peterborough. The following train services pass through the level crossing: Birmingham to Stansted Airport one service per hour on weekdays Liverpool to Norwich one service per hour Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 15

16 Peterborough to Ipswich one service every 2 hours Various freight trains The Kings Dyke Level Crossing has between train movements each day, of which 80 are passenger trains and 20 are freight trains. During peak periods the barrier is down for between minutes each hour. This causes significant delay to traffic travelling to and from Peterborough, as highlighted in the previous section. Future Scenario Rail industry plans suggest that train movements on the Peterborough to Ely line will increase significantly in the future. The number of passenger trains is expected to increase to around 130 each day. The Felixstowe to Nuneaton freight route improvements will raise capacity for freight trains on the route to approximately 112 each day. Consequently, by 2031 there could be 242 trains using the crossing each day, an increase of 150% compared to current usage levels. The delivery of an increased number of passenger trains and an increase in freight movements on the Felixstowe-Nuneaton Corridor will result in longer barrier downtimes, and further delays to traffic using the A605. The implications for road traffic congestion of an increase in barrier down time to between minutes per hour would severely hamper economic growth. In addition, the proposed Regional Freight Interchange, located close to the crossing, will also have an impact on the number of trains on the line. Other Considerations Safety to rail and road users is a prime consideration. The current crossing is monitored and operated by a signaller on site in the Signal Box, it is considered the safest form of level crossing. There is a national campaign to improve the safety of level crossings or promote closures where alternatives exist. Benefits include a reduction in ongoing maintenance costs and a reduction in delays caused by failures or incidents at the level crossing. Network Rail and the Train Operating Companies would therefore support the closure of the crossing. There are environmental benefits to be realised if there is an increase in freight trains. Each freight train takes about 60 HGV s off the road, and rail freight generates 6 times less CO2 than road freight, per tonne moved. 2.3 Sustainable Transport Characteristics A footway is present along the northern edge of the A605 from Whittlesey to the level crossing. To the east of the level crossing, a footway is also present on the southern edge of the A605 and continues to the Car Sales Garage. From this point there is no footway until the Park Farm residential estate in Peterborough. At certain places along the route, there are also short sections of footway on the northern edge of the A605. The footways vary in width. There is an alternative route for pedestrians and cyclists between Peterborough and Whittlesey, which forms part of National Cycle Network Route 63. Route 63 links Stonald Road in Whittlesey to the Eastern Industrial Area in Peterborough. There is a bus stop to the east of the level crossing; this is served by Service 33 and Service 701. Service 33 operates on a 30 minute frequency whilst Service 701 operates on an hourly frequency between 0900 and Any improvement scheme taken forward will need to ensure that there is no detriment to the sustainable infrastructure currently in place, or even make improvements as part of the scheme. The bus stops may need to be relocated depending on the option taken forward, however any relocation will need to ensure it does not disadvantage any potential passengers wishing to board or alight the bus. Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 16

17 2.4 Geographical Context Kings Dyke Level Crossing is in the administrative district of Fenland District Council. Kings Dyke level crossing sits on the A605 between Whittlesey and Peterborough, whilst Funtham s Lane Level Crossing is to the north west of the Kings Dyke Level Crossing, which provides access between the A605 and a light industrial business area. Whittlesey has experienced significant housing growth in recent years, coupled with the growth in jobs in Peterborough, has resulted in a significant amount of out-commuting from Whittlesey to Peterborough, which has impacted the level of delay experienced at the crossing. Whittlesey Rail Station is located to the south of the town on Station Road, which provides connections to March, Ely, Peterborough and destinations further afield. The area around the two level crossings is industrial in nature with light industry and warehousing close by, including a McCain s factory. There is also a small number residential dwellings to the east and west of Kings Dyke Level Crossing. The A605 is a single carriageway road, with a width of 7.3m in the vicinity of the level crossings. There is a narrow footpath on the northern verge of the A605 to the west of Kings Dyke Level Crossing and to the east of the level crossing there is a footway on both sides of the carriageway. There are no bus stops within the immediate vicinity of the level crossing and no formal pedestrian crossings. 2.5 Land Use and Environmental Characteristics Whittlesey is identified as a market town in the Fenland Core Strategy where the majority of the district s new housing, employment and retail growth and wider service provision will be focussed. Within the Core Strategy, Whittlesey is identified to deliver 1,000 new homes and 5ha of employment growth by In addition, Peterborough is identified to deliver 25,000 homes and 20,000 jobs by 2026 in the Peterborough City Council Core Strategy. Peterborough is a significant service centre for residents of Whittlesey and the key focus for employment. Relevant environmental characteristics are summarised below: Landscape Character - Kings Dyke Level Crossing and its surroundings fall within the Whittlesey Industrial Area LCA identified as being degraded sensitivity due to featureless landscape of industrial estates including brickworks with clay pits and stacks, sewage works and wind turbines dominating the landscape. The area surrounding the existing Level Crossing, has a long history of being an area focussed around industrial activities. Rights of Way - There are a number of Rights of Way footpaths, bridleways and byways in and around Whittlesey. Footpath 29 runs to the north of the A605 and to the west of the Kings Dyke Level Crossing. Although it crosses the railway line, the Right of Way is unlikely to be impacted by the proposed scheme. Biodiversity There are no statutory or non-statutory landscape designations within the study area. However the Nene Washes Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA), RAMSAR Site and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is located approximately 1 km north of the site and has a very high importance. Archaeological potential The archaeological potential of the study area is described as high, particularly for remains from the prehistoric and Roman periods. The waterlogged conditions in the fenlands have led to some exceptional preservation as in the case of the Bronze Age boats found at Must Farm. Intrusive activities such as piling, topsoil stripping and movement of heavy plant have the potential to risk impacting on previously unrecorded archaeology. Water Environment The water environment near to the existing crossing is defined by agricultural drainage ditches, water filled clay pits and Kings Dyke. Kings Dyke is referred to as the Old River Nene on the Environment Agency Water Framework Directive (WFD) interactive maps (GB ). Although the crossing of Kings Dyke itself is not at flood risk parts of the adjacent land are located within Flood Zone 3, which may not be defended and has a high importance in terms of floodplain conveyance and capacity. Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 17

18 Air Quality There is one Air Quality Management Area in Whittlesey, which is related to a nearby industrial source. The pollutant declared is Sulphur Dioxide. The area is along roads and cycle routes to the west and northwest of Whittlesey brickworks and an area covering roads, footpaths, dwellings, schools and public open spaces to the east of Whittlesey brickworks. The expected changes in traffic flows between options are likely to be very small. 2.6 Socio-economic and demographic characteristics Relevant socio-economic and demographic characteristics are summarised below: Significant increase in population since 1991 there has been a 25% increase in the population of Whittlesey between 1991 and In 1991, the population of Whittlesey was 10,275, and in 2011, the population was 12,745. The population is expected to continue growing with housing and employment land allocated as part of the Fenland Local Plan. Imbalance between workforce and jobs the growth in employment has not matched the population growth in Whittlesey and a significant number of residents out-commute to other nearby towns, particularly Peterborough. High levels of car ownership - evidence from the 2011 census shows that around 85% of households own, or have access to, a car. Car ownership levels are comparable to those in Fenland as a whole and the east of England (80% and 85% respectively. The Census 2011 also shows that 52% of people use the car/van to travel to work. Low levels of deprivation and moderate levels of employment there are no areas (Local Super Output Areas) in the immediate vicinity of the scheme, which are within the 20% most deprived in the UK. Data from the 2011 Census shows that 67.4% of people living in Whittlesey are currently in employment. 2.7 Potential opportunities and development proposals The Fenland Local Plan (adopted May 2014) identified Whittlesey as a key service centre in the district as one of the four market towns in Fenland. However Peterborough has a role as a major sub-regional centre, which has seen Whittlesey emerge as an increasingly popular location for out-commuters. Local employment opportunities do exist in Whittlesey with Hanson Brick and McCain foods located close to Whittlesey on the A605. The Fenland Local Plan makes provisions for the following growth strategy in Whittlesey: New urban extensions north and south of Eastrea Road. The area to the north of the A605 will be predominantly residential whilst the area to the south, will be a mix of land uses, including residential. New businesses will be supported adjacent to the existing in the Station Road/Benwick Road Industrial Areas and to the west along the A605 and north of Kings Dyke as far as Fields End Bridge. To the west of Whittlesey, there is also a proposal for a Regional Freight Interchange of around 135 hectares. The greater proportion (102 hectares) lies within the Peterborough administrative area, with about 33 hectares in Fenland. The site is located alongside the Peterborough March Ely rail line, which is part of the nationally designated freight route between Felixstowe and Nuneaton. Policy LP11: Whittlesey states that when considering any planning application at this location, or in making comments to Ministers via the Major Infrastructure Planning Unit, the following specific issues will need to be addressed: strategic transport issues (rail and road) including potential impacts on the A605 and A47 and the railway level crossing closures at Whittlesea Railway Station and Kings Dyke; local transport issues, particularly with regard to Whittlesey (including access, congestion, junctions, cycling, walking and work travel plans); Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 18

19 the impact of freight movements from businesses using the freight interchange, and of employees accessing work there 2.8 Summary of challenges The following section summarises the problems, issues and opportunities identified within this section and establishes the need for intervention. These challenges provide the framework for the intervention objectives presented in Chapter 3, which in turn inform the assessment process. The challenges can be summarised as follows: The A605 carries 11,000 vehicles on an average weekday between Whittlesey and Peterborough There are approximately 120 train movements across Kings Dyke Level Crossing per day, resulting in an overall barrier down time of between 8 and 20 minutes per hour. The level crossing creates a pinch point on the network resulting in traffic congestion and delays, particularly in peak periods for traffic travelling between Whittlesey and Peterborough. The typical average delay is 45 seconds per vehicle and the typical maximum delay is 7 minutes per vehicle. The alternative route of North Bank is often closed for long periods in winter months due to flooding. Therefore this exacerbates the congestion and delays, with an additional 5,000 vehicles using the A605 when North Bank is closed. Congestion at the crossing will increase in the absence of intervention: o Network Rail is planning substantial growth in passenger and freight services which will increase barrier down time o The Fenland Core Strategy identified Whittlesey as Market Town and a focus for housing and employment growth o Employment growth identified for Peterborough, as part of its Core Strategy, may increase the number of residents from Whittlesey commuting to Peterborough o A potential Regional Freight Interchange is proposed for the area Proposals for more train paths and longer trains, means that the time and cost implications of level crossing failures will become increasingly significant for Network Rail, the Train Operating Companies, and rail passengers unless mitigation measures are implemented. Kings Dyke Level Crossing is classified as being within a featureless landscape of industrial estates including brickworks with clay pits and stacks, sewage works and wind turbines dominating the landscape. However there are environmental sensitivities with regard to the natural and historic environment, including the presence of the flood plain and visual intrusion of any scheme on local residences, therefore any transport intervention needs to recognise and mitigate any environmental sensitivities within the scheme design. Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 19

20 3. Intervention Objectives and High Level Goals 3.1 Introduction The previous chapter summarises the challenges, which establish the need for intervention, and describes how these challenges may perpetuate in the absence of any intervention. This section identifies a set of intervention objectives, which form a key element of the appraisal process and the basis for demonstrating the strategic case. It also identifies how these objectives address the challenges identified and demonstrate that the objectives are consistent with the wider policy framework. 3.2 Intervention objectives and high level goals Objectives for intervention are set out in a number of policy documents including Cambridgeshire s third Local Transport Plan (LTP3) ( ), the Cambridgeshire Long-term Transport Strategy, the Whittlesey Market Town Transport Strategy, and Fenland Local Plan (2014) The following objectives represent the transport outcomes required by any option Improve journey time and congestion on the A605 Improve accessibility to Whittlesey from the west, increasing its attractiveness as a place to live, work and do business Improve accessibility to employment premises to the north and south of the railway on Funtham s Lane Improve the reliability of rail services on the route between Ely and Peterborough by removing the incidents of level crossing strikes Improve the safety of both the road and rail networks with the removal of the level crossing Table 3.1 shows that these objectives address the challenges identified in Chapter 2 in a comprehensive manner. In general, the objectives are therefore considered appropriate for the appraisal of a range of interventions to address capacity issues at Kings Dyke Level Crossing. However it is important that the environment, visual landscape and setting are also considered, as the nearby brick pits will form a country park in the future. Therefore an additional intervention objective has also been included Minimise the impacts of transport on the natural environment A number of high-level goals can be identified in association for these objectives (see Figure 3.1) reflecting policies and outcomes identified within the Cambridgeshire LTP3, LTTS and Whittlesey Market Town Transport strategy alongside the Fenland Core Strategy. These can be summarised as follows: Enable proposed housing and economic growth to be accommodated in Whittlesey and beyond Support the delivery of increased levels of freight and passenger rail services Minimise the impact on the natural environment and views from the surrounding landscape Improve the resilience of the route and address the existing and long standing congestion issues. Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 20

21 Table 3.1 Relationship between challenges and intervention objectives Improve journey time and congestion on the A605 Improve accessibility to Whittlesey from the west, increasing its attractiveness as a place to live work and do business Improve accessibility to employment premises to the north and south of the railway on Funtham s Lane Improve the reliability of rail services on the route between Ely and Peterborough by removing the incidents of level crossing strikes Improve the safety of both road and rail networks with the removal of the level crossing Minimise the impacts of transport on the natural environment Challenges The level crossing creates a pinch point on the network resulting in traffic congestion and delays, particularly in peak periods for traffic travelling between Whittlesey and Peterborough. The typical average delay is 45 seconds per vehicle and the typical maximum delay is 7 minutes per vehicle. The alternative route of North Bank is often closed for long periods in winter months due to flooding. Therefore this exacerbates the congestion and delays, with an additional 5,000 vehicles using the A605 when North Bank is closed. Congestion at the crossing will increase in the absence of intervention: - Network Rail is planning substantial growth in passenger and freight services which will increase barrier down time - The Fenland Core Strategy identified Whittlesey as Market Town and a focus for housing and employment growth - Employment growth identified for Peterborough, as part of its Core Strategy, may increase the number of residents from Whittlesey commuting to Peterborough - Potential Regional Freight Interchange Proposals for more train paths and longer trains, means that the time and cost implications of level crossing failures will become increasingly significant for Network Rail, the Train Operating Companies, and rail passengers unless mitigation measures are implemented. Environmental concerns with regard to the natural and historic environment, including the presence of the flood plain and visual intrusion of any scheme on the local residences Intervention Objectives x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 21

22 Figure 3.1 Relationship between intervention objectives and high level goals 3.3 Priorities for assessing options The majority of the criteria included are covered by the Department for Transport s Appraisal Summary Table which forms the basis for the assessment of options presented in Chapter 5, however the visual impact, and the impact of proposed options on local businesses are of particular significance and these criteria are also considered in Chapter Policy Fit Figure 3.2 shows the intervention objectives and associated high-level goals fit well with LTP3 objectives and the department for transport objectives for transport. Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 22

23 Figure 3.2 Policy fit with wider transport policy objectives Figure 3.3 shows that there is also a strong fit with planning policy documents including the National Policy Planning Framework, The Fenland Local Plan and the Cambridgeshire LTP3 and Long Term Transport Strategy. Table 3.2 shows the impact of the scheme on the LTP3 objectives. Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 23

24 Figure 3.3 Policy fit with wider planning policies Table 3.2 Impact of the scheme on LTP3 objectives (taken from Cambridgeshire LTP3) LTP Objective Impact Description Managing and delivering growth Positive 1000 new homes are planned for Whittlesey. This scheme will help ensure that congestion is not seen as a disincentive for investment in jobs and employment growth in the town Promoting improved skill levels and economic prosperity across the county, helping people into jobs and encouraging enterprise Meeting the challenges of climate change and enhancing the natural environment Enabling people to thrive, achieve their potential and improve their quality of life Positive Whittlesey s economy is intrinsically linked with that of Peterborough and population growth in the town supports new jobs growth on the city including at planned Regional Freight Interchange on the east of the city, around two and a half miles from Whittlesey Positive The scheme supports greater use of retail for freight and by passengers The scheme will ensure that negative environmental impacts of congestion at the level crossing due to increased train movement will be avoided Negative Potential for visual intrusion on properties closest to the bridge or underpass, particularly if a bridge solution is chosen Positive The scheme will enhance accessibility to and from Whittlesey both road and rails, broadening options for residents Supporting and protecting vulnerable people Positive The scheme will markedly improve safety of the road and rail users, and pedestrians and cyclists who use the crossing and will improve the accessibility to and from the town for all residents. Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 24

25 4. Options Considered 4.1 Introduction This chapter describes the option generation; assessment and sifting process, which has taken place to date and describes the five options which have been identified for further consideration. 4.2 Option Generation to date The need for a scheme to replace Kings Dyke Level Crossing has been identified for over 20 years within Cambridgeshire County Council s TPP (Transport Policies and Programmes) and subsequent Local Transport Plan (LTP) documents. When the scheme was first devised in the early nineties, it lay wholly within Cambridgeshire, with Cambridgeshire County Council as Local Highway Authority. However, in 1998 Peterborough became a unitary authority and became responsible for local roads within its district. At that time the crossing replacement was part of a four-phase scheme to improve the A605 between Peterborough and Whittlesey, which included: Replacement of Kings Dyke Level Crossing A605 Horsey Toll to Funtham s Lane Improvement Horsey Toll junction improvement Stanground Bypass The latter two phases subsequently fell in to the Peterborough unitary area. The Stanground Bypass was completed and opened to traffic in October 2011 and was privately funded as a planning obligation to enable access to the Cardea housing development. Cambridgeshire County Council s LTP1 (2001 to 2006) Cambridgeshire County Council s LTP (2001 to 2006) refers to the need for the replacement of the Kings Dyke Level Crossing. It was identified as a Major Scheme and was considered an essential element in delivering the LTP1 strategy and meeting its objectives. The LTP1 proposed a bridge as a replacement of the Kings Dyke Level Crossing, at an estimated cost for the scheme of 8.2million at 2002 prices. The LTP1 described the scheme as The construction of a 7m high bridge to take traffic over the Peterborough to Ely railway line and the removal of the current level crossing. The road construction will consist of a 7.3m wide all-purpose single carriageway 1km in length. Funtham's Lane priority junction at the western end of the scheme will be converted in to a four-arm roundabout. The A605 will be re-aligned to cross the railway to the north of the existing level crossing. The existing A605 will remain open to serve the industrial premises to the south of the road and west of the railway, which will be accessed from the roundabout. East of the railway, the road will also be realigned to the south, taking it away from the residential properties on Peterborough Road, which currently have direct access on to the A605. A priority junction will be provided to access these properties. Figure 4.1 extracted from LTP shows the original indicative alignment of this scheme. Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 25

26 Figure 4.1 Original alignment for improvement scheme from LTP1 Table 4.1 is an extract of the 2001 LTP document and shows a preliminary assessment of the Kings Dyke Level Crossing Table 4.1 Cambridgeshire LTP1 Preliminary Assessment of Kings Dyke Level Crossing Objective Overall Impact Description Environment Negative Impact on properties closest to the bridge in terms of visual intrusion Benefit to air quality due to reduced traffic queues Safety Neutral Scheme will have no impact on safety, although removing direct access on to the A605 for properties on Peterborough Road will remove risk of accidents Economy Positive Reduced journey times on the A605 Accessibility Positive Improved access for industrial premises on Funtham s Lane Integration Positive Scheme will help enhance rail services The LTP1 also listed the following benefits of the potential Kings Dyke enhancement scheme: Reduce conflict between rail and road traffic; and hence o Enhance provision of rail services o Improved safety o Reduce accidents Reduce journey time on the A605 and hence o Reduce congestion o Improve air quality o Improve public transport reliability, and thus increase bus use Improve access to industrial premises on Funtham s Lane and consequently reduce the impact of HGV traffic Cater for increased housing provision within Whittlesey The key change since 2001 publication of Cambridgeshire s LTP is the development of the McCain s chip factory, and other industrial units, on the alignment of the 2001 scheme which would appear to prejudice the implementation of this scheme on land to the north of the A605. Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 26

27 Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan 3 The LTP3 (adopted 2014) identifies Kings Dyke Level Crossing replacement as a committed scheme to be delivered by The LTP3 identifies the Kings Dyke Level Crossing replacements as Phase 1 of the Whittlesey Access Strategy. The three phases of this strategy are A605 Kings Dyke Level Crossing Replacement Stanground Access Whittlesea Station Improvements The document states that the A605 Kings Dyke level crossing scheme will deliver the following benefits: Reductions in journey times and congestion on the A605 will reduce costs for travellers and businesses in and around Whittlesey. The accessibility of Whittlesey from the west will be improved, increasing its attractiveness as a place to live, work and do business. Accessibility to employment premises to the north and south of the railway on Funtham s Lane will be significantly improved. The reliability of rail services on the route between Ely and Peterborough will be improved with the removal of incidents of level crossing strikes. The safety of both the road and rail networks will be improved with the removal of the level crossing. In addition, the Whittlesey Market Town Transport Strategy adopted in 2013, identified the need to look at the feasibility for options to close the level crossing as part of its action plan. The Cambridgeshire Long Term identifies the Kings Dyke Level Crossing replacement as a key strategic scheme that will support growth across the sub-region. 4.3 Long List of Options The Engineering Options Feasibility Report (dated June 2014) prepared by Mott McDonald identified seven potential options to improve the Kings Dyke Level Crossing, they are: 1. Online within existing highway boundary 2. Online within existing highway boundary allowing for temporary works or traffic management on land outside the highway during construction 3. Part online contiguous to the existing highway keeping one or more main line traffic flowing under traffic management control during construction 4. Off line alignment to the north 5. Off line alignment to the south 6. Tunnel Solution 7. Wider area bypass The report assessed the construction methodology along with the feasibility to identify which options should be taken forward to the short-list, in which options will undergo a more detailed assessment on a number of different factors. Online within existing highway boundary (Option 1) This option comprises an online bridge within the existing highway boundary to replace the existing level crossing. Following an initial inspection of this option, it is considered that there is not enough room within the highway boundary to physically fit the required works cross-section for the temporary works and permanent solution and a number of concerns were raised, including: A605 would be required to be closed for 10 months to construct the bridge Diversion route, via North Bank, has a history of flooding and accidents and is a 50km round trip All existing statutory utilities would need diverting Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 27

28 Access to properties immediately to the south west of the level crossing does not appear to be possible due to height of the railway bridge and lack of space between existing road alignment and property entrances removal or relocation of these properties would be required. Based on the issues associated with this option, CCC has agreed that the feasibility of the option is not to be pursued in further detail at this time. Online within Highway Boundary, with temporary works outside (Option 2) This option is a bridge within the existing highway boundary, allowing for temporary working or traffic management on land outside the highway during construction, as outlined in Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2 Plan of Option 2 The advantages and disadvantages of the proposed improvement are outlined in Table 4.2. Table 4.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Option 2 Advantages Minimal land take for permanent works Disadvantages Existing A605 would have been closed for vast majority of construction period OR costly temporary works for traffic management and possible need for a temporary level crossing Access to Funtham s Lane and the brickworks would be as per the existing access Not building over existing NR signal box Compulsory purchase and removal of properties to the south west required as access from within the highway boundary is not possible Vertical embankments required throughout - increased cost compared to sloped earth embankments. Also may have lower aesthetics value. All existing SU s under proposed footprint would require diversion Difficult to provide access to the level crossing track to the south of the railway and signal box Following discussions with CCC it has been agreed that this option is not favoured based on the information within the Engineering Options Feasibility Report and therefore no buildability, costing or programme information was produced. Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 28

29 Part On-line (Option3) This option comprises a part on-line solution contiguous to the existing highway, with traffic flowing under traffic management control during construction. The part on-line solution could be to the north (option 3a) and outlined in Figure 4.3 or to the south (option 3b) of the existing highway as shown in Figure 4.4. Option 3a Part On-line North Figure 4.3 Plan of Option 3a The advantages and disadvantages of the proposed improvement are outlined in Table 4.3. Table 4.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Option 3a Advantages Disadvantages Less land take for the permanent works compared to other options. Works not as close to Nene Lodge compared to option 3b Access to existing properties to the south (R&R) and existing Network Rail track to the south of the railway remain unchanged Access to Funtham s Lane and the brickworks would be as the per the existing access Access to the electrical substation is a per existing Constructing the jointing of the proposed highway to the existing highway at both the east and west approaches present no engineering difficulties and minimum diversion works. Considerable temporary works. Traffic control will be required for 68% of the time during construction programme. Vertical embankments required throughout - increased cost compared to sloped earth embankments. Also may have lower aesthetics value. Existing utilities in the northern footpath would require diversion Building over existing NR signal box additional Network Rail approvals are likely to be required which in turn is likely to require increases in cost and programme duration. One weekend A605 road closure is required for installation of bridge concrete beams due to close proximity to the existing road. The construction methodology report (including site access, statutory utilities work, contractors compound, traffic management and construction methods), construction cost estimate and construction programme have been produced and are included in the Engineering Options Feasibility Report. The construction cost estimate for this option is 6,055,417 and the construction programme is estimated to be 11 months in duration. The total outturn cost estimate is 14,853m. Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 29

30 Option 3b Part On-Line South Figure 4.4 Plan of Option 3b This option will require the closure of the existing access to the properties to the south west. The proposed layout drawing includes a proposed service road to the back of properties to the south west of the crossing to provide access, this would be in Flood Zone 3. There are options to provide alternatives but these are not without difficulties. The advantages and disadvantages of the proposed improvement are outlined in Table 4.4. Table 4.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Option 3b Advantages Less land take for the permanent works compared to other options. Works not as close to Nene Lodge compared to option 3b Access to Funtham s Lane and the brickworks would be as the per the existing access Constructing the jointing of the proposed highway to the existing highway at both the east and west approaches present no engineering difficulties and no diversion problems. Disadvantages Considerable temporary works. Traffic control will be required for 100% of the time during construction programme. Single lane traffic control would be required throughout the construction programme. This option will almost certainly require significant land take at the frontage of the properties to the south west; considerable permanent works would be required to overcome access difficulties. Other disadvantages may result, such as access in EA Flood Zone 3 (possible planning difficulties) Vertical embankments required throughout increased cost compared to sloped embankments Vertical embankments required throughout may be perceived by members of the public to have lower aesthetic value than sloped earth embankments Existing utility services in the southern footpath (and northern alignment is as per Option 3a east of LC) would require diversion. Following the assessment of both part on-line options, Option 3a to the north and Option 3b to the south, Option 3a has been taken forward as the more practicable option of the two based on the information presented in the Engineering Options Feasibility Report. Kings Dyke Level Crossing Option Assessment Report Page 30