... your village ... your voice ...

The A65 Working Group - Bypass Study

NORTH YORKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

 CRAVEN AREA COMMITTEE

 7 APRIL 2005

 A65(T) VILLAGE BYPASS STUDY

1.0        PURPOSE OF REPORT 

1.1       To update Members on the current position regarding the recently completed A65(T) Village Bypass Study. To seek Members' views on the recommendation that should be made to the Council's Executive regarding the County Council's position on Draft Revocation Orders recently published by the Highways Agency (relating to the A65 bypass schemes and linked to the Highways Agency's programme of de-trunking).

2.0        BACKGROUND 

2.1       North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) holds records of bypass proposals relating to settlements along the A65 dating back to the mid 1970's. By the early 1990's, bypass schemes for Gargrave and Hellifield/Long Preston had bean well advanced by the Highways Agency (HA) with public consultation exercise/inquiries being undertaken in the latter part of 1992. Following the completion of these processes, Orders were made by the Highways Agency in 1993 relating to the A65 Gargrave & Hellifeld/Long Preston Bypass proposals. Statutory Orders were not produced for Coniston Cold.

 2.2       In 1996, as part of the Government's Roads Review programme and, following the publication of the White Paper 'A New Deal for Trunk Roads',  proposals for de-trunking some 34% of the existing national road network in North Yorkshire were announced by the HA. As part of this review, it was proposed that the A65 be removed from the core trunk road route network and schemes on that route including the above bypass proposals be removed from the HA's road building programme. 

2.3       At the former Highways and Transportation Sub-Committee on 11 December 1996, Members were informed that the A55 Gargrave & Hellifield/Long Preston Bypass proposals were included in the 15 improvement schemes on non-core routes withdrawn from the national programme during the Roads Review.  Members subsequently resolved that 'representations be made to the Local Government Association that North Yorkshire County Council will object to the de-trunking proposals in the County unless there is a firm and binding commitment from Government to the transfer of sufficient funds to the County Council for future liabilities'. 

3.0       ORIGINAL A65 STUDY 

3.1       The 2001-2006 local Transport Plan (LTP) included a commitment to undertake a A65 Village bypass study, which would be expanded to include Coniston Cold, and would be funded jointly by the HA and County Council. In february 2001, the Babtie Group was commissioned by NYCC to undertake a study addressing a range of options into improving the A65 from theeast of Gargrave to the west of Long Preston. 

3.2       The Consultants' report concluded that the original HA schemes could not be considered as favoured bypass options. In addition, minimum length bypass schemes whilst a realistic alternative were also not found to provide value for money in economic terms. However, potential relief to the communities was acknowledged through the reduction of noise, air pollution and vibration as well as relief from severances of those communities resulting from bypass construction. 

3.3       The report also stated that, whilst the only way to remove traffic and the associated problems from the settlements was to introduce bypass schemes, these were unlikely to attract Government funding. It was recommended that the only way forward would be to propose a package of measures that would also address public transport, vulnerable road users and road safety issues. The report stated these measures should be taken forward along with the minimum length schemes that could be developed as lower standard, low cost routes for bypasses.  

4.0       VILLAGE(S) BYPASS STUDY 

4.1       Following a Supplementary Credit Approval of £10,000 to progress this work Babtie (now Jacobs Babtie) mere commissioned by NYCC in October 2004 to investigate whether a series of minimum length relief roads and a 'package of measures' was feasible. Advice was sought from the Regional Government Office during the course of the study to determine the most advantageous way of presenting the 'Package Approach' to secure future funding. The Government Office advised that any proposal would need to demonstrate good economic rates of return in order to compete successfully for funding. The study, whilst identifying 'Packages' of measures, assessed the economic returns on alternative bypass routes. 

4.2       This latest study looked at a number of scenarios, including close in bypasses of Gargrave, Hellifield, Long Preston and Coniston Cold with associated measures in the villages. 

4.3       The following table identifies the estimated costs, Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) for the close in bypasses with associated package of measures compared with the HA bypass proposals. The Package of measures include traffic calming and improvements to public transport infrastructure, pedestrian and cycle facilities within the villages.

4,4       On the understanding that economic returns are a key criteria for scheme selection, it can be seen that, for Long Preston, the minimum length scheme would deliver the most favourable return in economic terms, whilst for Gargrave the original HA scheme resulted in the best economic return. The minimum length scheme for Hellifield demonstrated anet positive economic return. However, the scheme is not as robust as the Long Preston, or Gargrave schemes. The combined HA scheme for Hellifield and Long Preston produced an even lower BCR than the minimum length scheme for Hellifield. Neither of the Coniston Cold options performed well in economic terms with negative Net

Present Values and hence low BCRs. 

4.5       In conclusion, based purely on the economic assessments of the options tested and using the Benefit to Cost Ratio as the criteria for ranking the performance of the schemes the results of the study indicate than the HA proposal for Gargrave is the strongest contender, with the minimum length scheme for Long Preston being second, the minimum length scheme for Hellifield being third and Coniston Cold fourth. It should, however, be noted that whilst the tine Government Office has indicated that the economics is a key criteria for any scheme, the environmental impact is also important. No environmental impact of the alternative routes has been carried out and as such it is not possible to give any indication as to which of the options would be preferable in environmental terms. 

5.0       CURRENT POSITION 

5.1       Revocation Orders for A65 Gargrave Bypass and Hellifield & Long Preston Bypass were published on 25 February 2005. Any comments will need to be sent to the HA by 22 April 2005. Any objections to these Orders could result in a Public Inquiry, which should be held within six months of the end of the objection period. If a Public Inquiry was not required (ie if no objections are received by 22 April 2005), the Revocation Orders would be sent by the HA to the Secretary of State for approval as soon as possible and the Orders would be subsequently revoked. It is also likely that the HA's proposal to de-trunk the A65 would follow soon after, transferring liability for all highway (and unresolved bypass) matters to the County Council. 

5.2       It is anticipated the residents of the communities covered by the A65 study will still be in favour of a scheme that provides relief to their villages. If the HA proceeds as intended, any responsibility to fund schemes that would provide relief to these villages would be the sole responsibility of the County Council through the LTP process. 

5.3       Included on the Agenda for your meeting is a report on the Local Transport Plan (LTP) 2006 - 2011 Consultation Draft. Within that report it is clear that the probability of the County Council being able to deliver any at the A65 Village Bypass Schemes through the LTP process in the foreseeable future is remote. When compared to other village bypass schemes included in the Council's Reserve List, based on the respective economic performance of the scheme, none of the options tested for the A65 Village Bypasses would be strong contenders for inclusion in the programme in the future. 

6.0       CONCLUSION 

6.1       The latest study into the A65 Village Bypass options has indicated that based on their relative economic performance of the option tested the schemes would be ranked in the following order 

1.   Long Preston (Minimum Length Scheme)            BCR 3.290

2.   Gargrave (HA scheme)                                           BCR 3.031

3.   Hellifield (Minimum Length Scheme)                    BCR 1.696

4.   Coniston Cold  (Minimum Length Scheme)          BCR 0.801

 6.2       It is noted that whilst the Government Office has indicated that good economic performance is a key criteria for Government when approving schemes for funding, the environmental impacts of bypass options also influence route choice when the County Council selects a preferred route. Hence the schemes listed above may not be the preferred option. It is therefore unclear whether the HA schemes or close in bypass options would be the most appropriate solutions 

6.3       The A65 is currently a Trunk Road. The HA are seeking to revoke the Orders for the A65 Village Bypass Schemes for Gargrave, Hellifield and Long Preston. Should the Orders be revoked, the HA will seek to de-trunk the A65 north of Skipton to the County boundary and the County Council will be requested to take responsibility for the route. During the current climate it is probable that the County Council would not be able to secure funding for bypasses of the A65 Villages through the LTP process for the foreseeable future.

6.4       Based on the above conclusion, and in particular the uncertainty over the most appropriate bypass solutions it is considered premature for the HA to proceed with the revocation orders for Gargrave, Hellifield and long Preston and should the HA wish to proceed they should be requested to identify the preferred option for providing traffic relief to the respective villages. In the interim period it is recommended that the County Council objects to the published revocation orders.
 

7.0       RECOMMENDATION 

7.1       It is recommended that Members request the Executive to object to the HA's proposed revocation of extant Bypass Orders for Gargrave and Hellifield & Long Preston. 

M 0 MOORE

Corporate Director, Environmental Services 

List of Background Papers 

No 3 Area Highways Sub-Committee an 6 March 1998,

Highways and Transportation Sub-Committee of 11 December 1998

Environmental Services Committee on 13 October 1998

No 3 Area Highways Sub-Committee on 14 May 1999,

Environmental Services Committee 22 June 1999
                                                                   (titled 'Local Transport Plan')

Craven Area Committee 10 January 2002

Craven Area Committee 23 May 2002

Highways Agency Notices dated 25 February 2005

NS/GF

24 March 2005