integrated design project: leeds-bradford airport to huby relief road

Student I.D: 200-413-242 Tutor: Dr T Cousens

of 45

CIVE 3707 Integrated Design Project 2011-12

Part 1: Leeds-Bradford Airport to Huby Relief Road

Feasibility Study

By Ben Fadida


of 45

Acknowledgements

This work is dedicated to my beloved parents, Aharon & Jane Fadida, for their support during

University – which without I wouldn’t be where I am today,

Thankyou.


of 45

Abstract

A feasibility study was carried out to select a route to be designed between Yeadon & Harrogate to

relieve traffic congestion. The single-carriageway road designed was 7600m in length, 14.3m wide

(including embankments) and had a design speed of 100km/h. Construction of the route was planned

to commence in 2012 and be open to the public by 2014, with a design life of 20 years.

Before selecting the three alternative routes, information regarding the Geology, Flood warning zones,

historical & listed buildings and also sites of scientific interest were gathered in order to distinguish

(as displayed on map 2) where it wouldn’t be feasible to construct the route; then the three routes

could be designed around these areas.

In order to choose the most feasible route of the three, an Environmental Impact Assessment, Outline

Design (inc. Horizontal & Vertical alignments) & Cost Benefit Analysis was performed for each of

the three routes, comparing the results to give the best decision to be selected for the relief road.

These were then evaluated and Route B was chosen as the most constructional & environmentally

viable of the three; also being financially viable with anticipated savings of £73million over its design

life.


of 45

Contents

i. Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. 2

ii. Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 3

iii. List of appendices/figures/graphs/tables & maps ....................................................................... 5

Chaper 1:

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 6

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 6

1.2 Aims & objectives ....................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Brief-Road Specification ............................................................................................. 8

Chaper 2:

2 Discussion of Aspects ................................................................................................................. 9

2.1 Cost of Construction ............................................................................................................ 9

2.2 Environmental Impact .......................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Consequences for existing transport routes & traffic ............................................................. 9

2.4 Benefits & drawbacks for local residents & buisnesses ......................................................... 9

2.5 Construction Problems ....................................................................................................... 10

2.6 Topological & Geological features ..................................................................................... 10

Chapter 3:

3 Alternative Solutions ................................................................................................................ 11

3.1 Route A ............................................................................................................................. 11

3.2 Route B ............................................................................................................................. 11

3.3 Route C ............................................................................................................................. 11

Chaper 4:

4 Environmental Impact Assesment ............................................................................................. 13

Chapter 5:

5 Outline Design ........................................................................................................................ 15

Chapter 6:

6 Cost Benefit Analysis ............................................................................................................... 20


of 45

6.1 Cost of Project 2012-14 ..................................................................................................... 21

Chapter 7:

7 Evaluation of alternative solutions ............................................................................................ 24

Chosen route ............................................................................................................................... 25

Chapter 8:

8 Conclusion & Reccomendations ............................................................................................... 26

8.1 Mitigation .......................................................................................................................... 26

9 Bibliography............................................................................................................................. 28


of 45

List of appendices/charts/figures/graphs/maps/tables.

Appendix 1 .................................................................................................................................. 29

Appendix 2 .................................................................................................................................. 30

Appendix 3 .................................................................................................................................. 31

Appendix 4 .................................................................................................................................. 32

Appendix 5 .................................................................................................................................. 33

Appendix 6 .................................................................................................................................. 36

Appendix 7 .................................................................................................................................. 40

Appendix 8 .................................................................................................................................. 44

Chart 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 13

Chart 2 ........................................................................................................................................ 19

Chart 3 ........................................................................................................................................ 21

Chart 4 ........................................................................................................................................ 22

Chart 5 ........................................................................................................................................ 22

Chart 6 ........................................................................................................................................ 24

Drawing 1 ................................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 16

Graph 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 17

Graph 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 17

Graph 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 17

Map 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 7

Map 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 12

Table 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 8

Table 2 ........................................................................................................................................ 13

Table 3 ........................................................................................................................................ 27


of 45

Introduction

Background

The feasibility study was put forward by the local councils of Harrogate Borough, Leeds City &

Bradford Metropolitan District to suggest a method in which to reduce traffic congestion & improve

the road links, without affecting surrounding areas, in particularly the area surrounding the town Pool.

A relief road had been proposed between Leeds Bradford Airport & an area near Huby to allow traffic

to flow more smoothly.

Aims & Objectives

The aim of this study was to suggest 3 alternative routes that link the two locations mentioned above

(indicated by X and Y in map 1), whilst comparing the economic, environmental, topographical and

geological aspects to suggest the most suitable route. The route chosen was to have a design life of 20

years & the project to be completed by 2014.

An Environmental Impact Assesment, Cost Analysis & comparison of the feasibilty of constructing

each road have been conducted in the following pages, as a means of providing a reccomendation to

the most viable of the three routes.

Map 1: LBA to Huby [1]


of 45

Road Specification

The Relief road should connect point X at LBA, Yeadon to Point Y, near Huby with no other junctions along its

length. The junction at point Y will also need to be designed.

1. Road type : Standard all purpose road comprising one 7.3m wide carriageway with 1m wide

hardstrips along both edges of the carriageway and edge verges of 2.5m, giving a total carriageway

width of 14.3m. Note that the road construction width includes required side slopes.

2. Design Speed 96kph.

3. +/- 6.0% maximum gradient

+/- 0.5% minimum for drainage purposes

4. Earthwork slopes: assume 1 vertical to 2 horizontal.

5. Clearances: road and rail bridges 6.0m, road over river or canal flood level +4.0m.

6. Road construction 455mm total thickness, rolled asphalt.

7. Horizontal and vertical curve requirements:

*Not recommended for use in the design of single carriageways.

Design Speed, kph 120 100 85 70 60 50

Stopping distance, m

Desirable minimum 295 215 160 120 90 70

One step below desirable

minimum

215 160 120 90 70 50

Horizontal curvature, m

Minimum radius* without

elimination of adverse camber

and transitions

2880 2040 1440 1020 720 520

Minimum radius* with a

superelevation of 2.5%

2040 1440 1020 720 510 360

Minimum radius* with a

superelevation of 3.5%.

1440 1020 720 510 360 255

Desirable minimum radius

with a superelevation of 5%

1020 720 510 360 255 180

One step below desirable minimum radius with a

superelevation of 7%

720 510 360 255 180 127

Two steps below desirable

minimum radius with a

superelevation of 7%

510 360 255 180 127 90

Vertical curvature, m

Desirable minimum* overtaking

crest K value.

182 100 55 30 17 10

One step below desirable

minimum Crest K Value

100 55 30 17 10 6.5

Absolute minimum sag K

value

37 26 20 20 13 9

Overtaking sight distance, m

Full overtaking sight

distance

- 580 490 410 345 290

FOSD overtaking crest K

value

- 400 285 200 142 100

Table 1: Horizontal &

vertical curving

requirements [2]


of 45

Discussion of Aspects

Cost of Construction

The economic aspect of designing the road is one of the most important factors the client would take

into consideration; therefore it was critical to design the relief road to take the least expensive route,

which would minimise the number of bridges needed to be built and take the shortest path, avoiding

diversions around flood planes, hills or conservation areas.

Purchasing privately owned land was to be an expensive & time-consuming task and thus the route

was carefully designed to circumvent existing country manors, houses & farms. Proximity to

residential areas such as Old Bramhope, Pool, Bramhope, Pool in Wharfedale, St. Helena’s caravan

park, Castley were also avoided to steer clear of the increasing cost of construction.

Environmental Impact

During construction - Local residents may suffer from, temporarily increased traffic delays; as a result

of materials and plant equipment being transported on site; noise and minor air pollution from use of

plant equipment in construction; the site of construction being an eyesore to the public and migration

of wildlife. There is a risk of spill from potentially harmful road laying chemicals, for example fly

ash which has a toxic effect. [3] Fly ash is commonly used for embankments and structural fills in road

construction. [4]

The project will also open up job opportunities & increase the local economy due to

material demand on-site.

After Construction – Noise pollution may become a problem for current residents due to the increased

traffic flow; the route could attract new residents to the area, increasing housing value, as it offers a

direct route to both LBA & Huby; this being a convenience for commuters. Areas of environmental

protection and conservation were avoided, although where the new road passed through current

woodland area, this aspect was carefully dealt with, to avoid disruption to flora & fauna as much as

possible.

Consequences for existing transport routes & traffic

Reduction in traffic congestion & noise pollution on the A658 - less vehicles means less noise

pollution, which will have reduced impacts for residents in built up areas like Pool. Existing

transport routes will have less road degradation as 90% of traffic on the A658 is expected to transfer

onto the new route; and a lower accident rate is also expected.

Benefits & drawbacks for local residents & businesses

Residents from Pool will benefit from a reduced number of road users passing through via the A658.

This will reduce noise, as-well as air & environmental pollution. However, for local businesses on the

A658 the new road may be a setback as fewer commuters will be using this road over time, which in

turn will open opportunities for new businesses, such as new petrol stations/garages, along the new

road.


of 45

Construction Problems

The major construction difficulty faced was crossing the road over existing routes. In almost all cases,

expensive bridges had to be designed, such as flyovers which had a significant effect on the ease of

construction. Designing the road with a bridge over the River Wharfedale, would be difficult

challenge as there is a presence of flood warning zones, indicated by the environmental agency (see

appendix 1).

Topographical & Geological features

The terrain upon which the relief road was built, takes into account the changing topography. At LBA

the terrain is at 180-190m above sea level and increases to 220m at the crossing over Otley road, and

then steeply declines to 70m around Pool. This steep decline posed a difficulty in designing the road,

therefore it was suggested the best method to cross this area would be (when looking at the map from

a plan view), to cross the contoured area at a sharp angle, instead of head-on, thus reducing the

‘steepness’ of the road when passing over this area. The topography remains fairly constant all the

way to Huby; there is not any major geological features en-route just past Pool & Huby. East of Pool

there is a landslide warning zone, as indicated in appendix 4. The ground over which the route has

been designed predominantly consists of Millstone Grit as well Sandstone & Superficial deposits of

Alluvium, (also see appendix 4) which are completely safe to build upon. A geological survey along

the length of the route should also be performed prior to construction, in order to ensure and limit any

geological difficulties from arising.


of 45

Alternative Solutions

Map 2 below, is a combination of flood warning areas (appendix 1), locations of historical/heritage

sites & listed buildings (appendix 2), locations of archaeological milestones (appendix 3), and a map

highlighting important geological features between LBA & Huby (appendix 4), which shows where

the route to be designed is viable to be built. Once the areas where the route could not be built were

indicated, it made it far easier to see where it was feasible to construct the road. The three routes that

were decided upon were also traced onto the map, showing where, if at all, the road for each route

passed through any of the areas in red which should be avoided.

Route A

The route starts by heading directly over where the A658 (green route) & Otley Old road (yellow

route) meet. It then passes to the East of Fells Plantation & thus avoids cutting through woodland

area; then passes to the East of the quarry (as shown on map 2). The route bridges over the A660 and

banks in a westerly direction around the River Wharfedale weir (approximately where the river forks

in two). It then bridges over both the River Wharfedale & the A659 (pink route), circumvents the

large flood warning area and passes by just south of Riffa Wood, over the A658 until finally joining a

roundabout with Harrogate Road, Castley Lane & West Coe Lane.

Route B

Route B follows an almost parallel track to the A658 until the point where the A658 heads North-

West through Pool. Route B continues in the North-East direction, heading at a sharp angle over the

closely spaced contour lines (as shown on map 2), thus reducing the decline. The route then bridges

over the A659 & heads in a more Easterly direction over the Railway tracks and then bridges also,

over the River Wharfedale.

This route totally avoids the landslide deposit zone, which is a difficult area to avoid completely –

whereas the previous route, Route A passes through this area.

The route then passes between Castley Village & the River Wharfedale, until it again bridges over the

railway tracks and finally connects at a roundabout with Harrogate Road, Castley Lane & West Coe

Lane.

Route C

Route C follows the same path as Route B up till the point where the A658 junctions with the A660.

The route heads in the North-Westerly direction, over the A658 – through a very small woodland

area, and then passes between the residential and commercial areas of Pool, before then bridging over

both the A659 and River Wharfedale. The route bridges over the B6161 (yellow route) and alike

Route A, circumvents the large flood warning area until it finally reaches its destination, connecting at

a roundabout with Harrogate Road, Castley Lane & West Coe Lane.

This route passes though the landslide deposit zone, however at a shorter length of this zone than

Route A.


of 45

Map 2 [6]

Scale 1:40000


of 45

Environmental Impact Assessment

To choose the best of the three routes previously selected, the environmental impacts of each route

were compared. The Leopold Matrix method was selected as it is the best known matrix methodology

available for predicting the impact of a project on the environment. The principle of this method is to provide a framework to users of EIA, so that all important aspects are considered.

[7]

The Leopold method uses a two dimensional matrix cross-referencing system. The activities linked to the project are listed one axis and the existing environmental and social conditions that could possibly

be affected by the project on the other axis.

The Leopold matrix proposes a three-step process to estimate the impact:

1. For all the interactions considered significant, the first step is to mark the corresponding

boxes in the matrix with a diagonal line.

2. Once the boxes with supposed significant interactions are slashed, each box is evaluated and a number from 1 to 10 (1 is the minimum and 10 the maximum) is applied to the top left hand

corner, to register the magnitude of the interaction. It represents the scale of the action and its

theoretical extent. 3. The final step for this method is to mark (from 1 to 10), in the lower right hand corner, the

real importance of the phenomenon for the project. It then gives an evaluation of the extent of

the environmental impact according to the assessor's judgement.

An environmental impact assessment is an assessment of the possible impact that a proposed project

may have on the environment, including its physical social & economic effects. The assessment is designed to ensure project managers, engineers, consultants and clients consider the ensuing

environmental impacts when deciding whether it is feasible to proceed with a project. The

International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) defines an environmental impact assessment as "the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other

relevant effects of development proposals prior to major decisions being taken and commitments

made."[8]

The results of the comparison are illustrated in chart 1 below, for full details see appendix 5.

Route A Route B Route C

Magnitude 245 218 235

Importance 246 221 243

Table 2 & Chart 1:

Comparison of EIA for

Routes A-C


of 45

Chart 1 show that Route B has the lowest environmental impact of the three selected routes.

It is important to recognise that the Leopold Matrix method used for the EIA is very subjective and

dependent upon the assessor’s judgement - as it requires the careful weighing up of how significant

each factor is. Nevertheless it is a more comprehensive method, than most other methods. The

question as to what is or is not a significant impact is one of the most difficult areas to define. [9]

The

EIA took place with the following criteria in mind when judging the score to give for the importance

of each action (bottom right hand corner): magnitude and likelihood, spatial and temporal extent,

degree of recovery, value of affected area, level of public concern & political repercussions.[10]


of 45

Outline Design

Horizontal and vertical alignments establish the general character of a rural highway, perhaps more than any other design consideration. The configuration of line and grade affects safe operating speeds,

sight distances, and opportunities for passing and highway capacity. Decisions on alignment have a

significant impact on construction costs. The continuous line of a highway is formed longitudinally by

its "alignment" in the horizontal and vertical planes. In combination with the cross-sectional element, the highway then – in three dimensions -- becomes functional and operative. The elements for

purposes of geometric design are first treated separately and finally combined and coordinated to form

the whole facility. The assembly of these units into a continuous whole establishes the alignment of the road. The components of the horizontal alignment include tangents (segments of straight lines),

circular curves. The manner in which these components are assembled into a horizontal alignment

will significantly affect the safety, operational efficiency, and aesthetics of the highway. [12]

The horizontal alignments for each route can be found in Appendix 6. I had initially drawn straight

sections of road linking one another & then joined the points at which the straight lines intersected

with a smooth curve. The designed curve linking the two straights was drawn using a compass, the

radius was measured with a ruler and scaled to size and the angle of the segment between the two

tangent points measured with a protractor, and then converted from degrees into radians.

The Arc length (length of the curve), x (distance between the intersection of the straight lines and

curve) & tangent length (distance between the tangent point and the intersection of the straight lines)

were calculated & can be found at the end of appendix 6.

The length of straight and curved sections was then measured to scale and the cumulative distances

along the length of the route were taken (appendix 6) in order to later match the vertical alignments

with the horizontal alignments.

No transitional curves or compositional curves were used to design the bends.

To accurately take measurements for the vertical alignments, the program Google Earth 6.1 was used.

One of its features, namely, the Elevation profile enables the user to draw the route onto the 3D

satellite image and take recordings of vertical height of the ground relative to sea level at any position.

See figures 1-4 (next page) for the Google Earth route & elevation profile for each route.


of 45

Figure 1[13]

Figure 2[13]

Figure 3 [13]

Figure 4[13]


of 45

As opposed to estimating the vertical height of the ground, as would be performed using the

traditional method by digital maps (i.e. estimating the vertical height from between contour lines), at

increments of 250m (0.25km) the vertical height along the length of the route was recorded using

Google Earth. For each route a vertical elevation profile was created. This profile had showed that the

route needed to be altered in areas where the steepness exceeded ±6.0%. Thus the vertical heights

were amended, predominantly by cut and filling method - but kept to a minimum for cost and

environment reasons, minimising extra unnecessary ground works to give an amended route.

Graphs 1-3 below illustrate the vertical alignments profile for the original route and the amended

route for each of the three routes.

Graph 1

Graph 2

Graph 3


of 45

For each route it has been stated in the Cost benefit analysis (CBA) how much earth needed to be

excavated (cut) from the original route and how much fill was (if any) needed to imported on site.

Most of the Earth excavated was re-used as fill in other locations that needed filling, along the route.

The volume was estimated from the graphs.

The horizontal and vertical alignments needed to be in phase i.e. the tangent points of the horizontal

and vertical curves should coincide, or vertical curves should be within the horizontal. Once the

vertical alignments profile was combined with the horizontal alignments, the vertical alignments were

tweaked accordingly to meet this condition. See graphs 4-6 below, calculations for the vertical

alignments & graphs showing the horizontal alignments can be found in appendix 8.

Graph 4

Graph 5


of 45

Lastly, for cut and filling, graphs 1-3 were used to determine how much earth soil needed to be

excavated (cut) verses the volume that needed to be added (fill). For routes A & B the volume of earth

that was cut exceeded the volume that needed to be filled. Excess Earth was disposed of off-site.

Route C, however, showed that when comparing the current vertical elevation profile with the volume

of earth that needed to be cut & filled, for the proposed designed route – it was necessary to import

fill. See chart 3 below for a comparison of the ease of construction for each route.

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Vo

lum

e -

m3

Comparison of ease of construction

Disposal off site

Use on Site

Fill Import

Graph 6

Chart 2

A B C


of 45

Cost Benefit Analysis

A cost benefit analysis was performed for each route to determine its net present value (NPV) in order

to compare the financial expenditure & capital return for each route; which would serve as a deciding

factor in choosing the most viable of the three routes. The cost benefit analysis relies on the addition

of positive factors and the subtraction of negative ones, to determine a net result –the difference

between the two indicates whether the planned action is advisable and gives a decision whether a

project is worth undertaking. [14]

Google Earth 6.1 was used as an aid in accurately assessing the cost benefit analysis; the three routes

were copied from the maps in appendix 6 into Google Earth, as shown in figures 1-4. The latest

version of the program enabled the creation of an elevation profile, as mentioned previously for the

use in determining the vertical alignments – however this also came in useful at this stage of the

project too. Using this tool, it enabled one to measure clearly the length of the road that would be

passing through agricultural/industrial/residential land; as well as the retaining wall/river bank,

highway bridges and tunnels that need to be built.

None of the three routes passed through any existing buildings, which significantly saved on cost for

all three routes. The company had strong beliefs against knocking over existing buildings, some of

which could be people’s homes.

The site investigation & site clearance took place along the entire length of the route. Electricity

power lines would also run parallel to all three routes. Electricity would be essential along the route,

to light up the road, illuminate road-signs at night and for traffic lights at the roundabout where the

route meets up with Harrogate Road, Castley Lane & West Coe Lane. This would ensure the safety of

commuters. However main gas & water lines would not be essential, thus they were not included

along the length of the route. In cases where the route would pass nearby a residential/industrial area,

existing gas lines would be re-routed to accompany & make-way for the new road to be built.

Small Culverts were constructed where the road passed over a stream. The culvert would enable the

water to flow beneath the road/embankment.

Fencing was constructed along the entire length of all three routes, as a safety factor to protect both

the road users & also humans/fauna that may inadvertently step into the road. Where the road passes

nearby residential areas this would be particularly important, nevertheless between LBA & Huby

there are many farmland areas with animals roaming the fields which could also be at risk.

There were two locations on route B which passed over minor roads where tunnels that dipped

beneath the existing road needed to be excavated, as opposed to bridging the route over these roads–

which would be considerably more expensive. This had helped reduce the final estimation of the cost

for this route.

Where the route passed beneath existing roads, piped drainage was used. Open ditch road drainage

was exploited along the rest of the route. This also had an impact on reducing the final estimation.


of 45

Cost of Project 2012-14

East aspect of the 2011 Unit Cost values was then multiplied by its quantity, and the sum was totalled

for each route. The final cost was then divided into two, to give an estimation of the cost in years 1 &

2 of the project. The total outflow of the project from 2012-14 for each route is shown in chart 3

below.

The vehicle-km per year was then calculated for each route, starting with the year 2014-15 (the 1st

year in which the road would be open to the public) through to the end of its design life in 2034-35.

Savings were then calculated for accident operating & journey costs, per year.

The values for the existing (A658) and proposed road were included within the calculation for the

savings made. To give the value for the accident, operating & journey savings per year, the

calculation was performed as follows: [15]

Accident Savings = (accident rate on existing road – accidents rate on proposed road) x accident cost

x flow.

Operating cost savings = (operating cost on existing road – operating cost on proposed road) x flow.

Journey time savings = (difference in journey times on the proposed and existing roads) x value of

saved time x flow

The total savings were then summed up for each route, and can be found on Chart 4 overleaf.

A B C Chart 3


of 45

The Net Present Value was calculated, to indicate which of three routes was most viable.

The Net benefit/cost discounted was calculated using the following formula: [16]

NPV is the sum of all terms,

where

t - the time of the cash flow

i - the discount rate

Rt - the net cash flow (the amount of cash, inflow minus outflow) at time t.

The NPV is the difference between the discounted benefits and costs over the life of the project. Thus,

the Net benefit/ cost discount was calculated for the entire design life of the road (20 years) starting at

2012. The difference for each year were then added together to give the net present value.

The net present value for each route is shown below in chart 5.

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

18,000,000

20,000,000 Total Savings per year - £

A B C Chart 4

0

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

80,000,000

100,000,000

120,000,000

140,000,000 Net Present Value over Design Life of the

road - £

A B C Chart 5


of 45

The chart shows routes A & C have a difference of £6M; Route C returning the greatest revenue.

Route has a much lower NPV value of £73M over its lifetime. Thus, economically Route C is the

most viable. To see full calculations for the cost benefit analysis, please refer to appendix 8.

Between 2012-14, during the construction of the road – there is no inflow, only outflow on the cost of

the project. Once the road is opened to the public, there is a return which is reduced yearly by the

discount rate and an outflow of £350,000 on road maintenance which increases yearly due to rising

inflation (Although inflation will change each year, it has been taken at 2.5% -2011 value).

The inflow each year from savings will cover the initial cost of the project, for Route A by 2019 (after

5 years from opening); Route B 2021 (after 7 years from opening) & Route C by 2019 (after 5 years

of opening); beyond the years stated above, the road will then make a return each year until the end of

its design life.


of 45

Evaluation of alternative solutions

The three routes initially selected were compared on three main aspects, environmental impact, ease

of construction and the financial cost, to come to a clear decision on selecting which route was the

most viable.

Chart 6 below compares the three routes to show the strengths and weaknesses of each route.

The units were altered to scale for each of three aspects by which the routes were measured, in order

to make it easier to make a comparison as shown in chart 6.

The Environmental Assessment Impact comparison showed that Route B had the least impact upon

the environment; whereas Routes A & B were very similar in terms of their environmental impact.

The Alignments comparison showed that Route B had the least impact and was the least complicated

in terms of build ability. Route C, came very close to Route B, however showed much greater

difficulty in terms of constructing the route.

The Cost Benefit Analysis comparison showed Route A having the greatest Net Present Value,

followed closely by Route A. Route B, on the other hand, had a significantly lower NPV.

Through comparison of these three aspects, although Route B showed a lower NPV than Routes A &

C; its impact upon the environment was significantly less than Routes A & C and was also less

difficult in terms of the complications involved in constructing the route – thus, when considered in

the context of the location of the route, i.e. predominantly passing through greenbelt land, Route B

seemed the most appropriate Route to be selected of the three proposed routes.

Chart 6

Comparison of Routes A/B/C in terms of the three aspects investigated


of 45

Chosen Route

Route B was selected as the most viable route for the project. Of the three initially proposed, Route B

is the most direct linking points X to Y; it avoids the landslide deposit zones, flood warning areas,

listed buildings & historical sites (as illustrated in map 2) and also does not cross into any woodland

area - Compared with routes A & C, which cross through woodland area and into the landslide deposit

zones.

From an environmental perspective, comparing routes A & B, Route A crosses through Chevin forest

Park – which through the action of clearing woodland area, would certainly upset flora/fauna in that

region; whereas Route B does not cross through any woodland area and was designed to circumvent

around Chapel Hill.

Although a landslide deposit is not necessarily a map of locations of all past landslides, it does

provide information for identifying areas of higher and lower risk and thus help risk reduction, [17]

in

which case the company did not want to accept any liability as a result of any future flood disasters

that could arise and affect the area, which would certainly result in great financial consequences.

When comparing Route B with Route C; map 2 clearly shows Route C passes through a build-up area

in Pool whereas Route B avoids any built-up areas. Although this may be an asset to local businesses;

passing roads near residential areas does badly affect the residents, primarily by noise pollution.

Financially Route B’s NPV is not as high as Route A or Route C’s, however it’s environmental

impact was significantly less, according to the EIA performed. The UK government is very cautious

of sustainability and in order to comply with future demands the environment was considered to be a

greater priority. Thus the environmental aspect of the project took precedent over the financial aspect.

The route forms a junction at its starting point X and follows the red route as shown in appendix 6.

Five Highway bridges were designed, and two tunnels would be excavated; in order to pass over or

under existing routes. The new road had to be constructed so that the maximum slope gradient did not

exceed 6%. The volume of Earth that was excavated on site was almost entirely used for the 1m

embankments that were built either side of the road; fill was not imported on site. Where excavations

were deep, for example to build the new road beneath an existing road, retaining walls were used to

hold the Earth from collapsing into the road. Culverts were constructed at two separate locations,

where the new road passed over a stream. A 3m river bank was built near to where the road passed by

River Wharfedale, to prevent overflow into the road. At point Y a roundabout would be built

connecting the three existing roads: Harrogate Road, Castley Lane & West Coe Lane. These routes

would need to be shut down temporarily to allow the connection to be built, whilst a diversion route

would allow traffic to continue flowing.

The new road would transfer 90% of commuters that use the A658, which as a consequence would

help local businesses prosper, increase job creation (both during and after construction) and over time,

possibly increase housing value as demand increases.


of 45


of 45

Conclusion & Recommendations

The single-carriageway route designed is approximately 7600m in length, 14.3m wide (including

embankments) with a design speed of 100km/h. Construction of the route is planned to commence in

2012, open by 2014 and have a design life of 20 years.

Before selecting the three alternative routes linking points X and Y between LBA & Huby,

information regarding the Geology, Flood warning zones, historical & listed buildings and also sites

of scientific interest were gathered in order to see (as displayed on map 2) where it wouldn’t be

possible to built the road. Based on this the three routes were selected between the two locations.

In order to narrow the choice to the most feasible of the three, an Environmental Impact Assessment,

Outline Design & Cost Benefit Analysis was performed for each of the routes, comparing the results

to give the best decision to select the most suitable route for the relief road. These were then evaluated

and Route B was chosen as the most constructional & environmentally viable of routes A, B & C; as-

well as being financially viable, with anticipated savings of £73 million over its 20 year design life.

Mitigation

Mitigation refers to measures envisaged avoiding, reducing and if possible remedying significant

adverse effects. [16a]

It is highly recommended to carry out guided mitigation procedures to minimise

the environmental impact and compensate local residents and wildlife in the area that will be affected

during and after construction.

A list of mitigations has been provided below, in table 3 to compensate for the environmental impacts

as a consequence of building the new road.

Environmental Impact Mitigation

Increased noise pollution Plant bushes along the side of the road where the route

passes through residential neighbourhoods.

Increased exhaust emissions & pollutants from

vehicles

Build recreational facilities

Chemical spills during road construction leaching

into fields

Design drainage to collect waste by diverting it offsite to

a treatment facility

New road could potentially becoming an eyesore to the public

Create wildlife areas to compensate

Rerouting existing gas systems where road passes

nearby residential homes or industrial zones.

Monetary compensation

Table 3


of 45

Bibliography

A . Leiferman, M. (2011) Road Design Manual of the South Dakota Department of Transportation,

Chapter 5, horizontal alignment, introduction: South Dakota Department of Transportation. [12]

About.com (2011) Cost Benefit Analysis, [online] Available at:

http://management.about.com/cs/money/a/costbenefit.htm [Accessed: 1st Nov 2011]. [14]

Bradley, J. (2011) World of coal ash, Denver, CO: Aecom. [3]

Council Directive of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private

projects on the environment, Article 5 (1985), p.40-48. [16a]

Cousens, T. (2011) Digimap Edina , University of Leeds: Ordnance Survey. [1]

Cousens, T. (2011) CIVE3707 Integrated Design Project. Cost – Benefit Analysis., University of

Leeds: p.1-2. [15]

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 6, (2002), Table 3. [2]

DETR & The National Assembly for Wales, D. (2000) Environmental Impact Assessment: A

guide to procedures, Thomas Telford Publishing, [5]

Digimap Edina (2011), [online] Available at: http://digimap.edina.ac.uk/ [Accessed: 6th Nov

2011].[6][19][21][22]

Environmental Agency (2011) River & Sea Levels, [online] Available at: http://www.environment-

agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/riverlevels/default.aspx [Accessed: 6th Nov 2011].[18]

FAO Corporate Document Repository (2011) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and

Environmental Auditing (EA), [online] Available at:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/V9933E/V9933E02.htm [Accessed: 6th Nov 2011]. [7]

Fletcher , D. (2006) Environmental Impact Assessment , University of Leeds. [9]

Glasson, J. et al. (2005) 10. Introduction to environmental impact assessment,3rd ed. Routledge.

[10]

Google Earth 6.1[13]

Introduction to Environmental impact assessment: guide to procedures,International Association

for Impact Assessment . (1999) [8]

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, O. (2010) Understanding Lanslide

Deposit Maps, Portland, OR : Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries , p.1-2. [17]

The Milestone Society (2011) Our Collections, [online] Available at: http://www.milestone-

society.co.uk/database.html [Accessed: 6th Nov 2011].[20]

Wikipedia (2011) Net Present Value, [online] Available at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value [Accessed: 6th Nov 2011]. [16]

Wikipedia (2011) Fly Ash, [online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash [Accessed: 6th

Nov 2011]. [4]


of 45

Appendix 1: [18]

The purple area highlighted on the map

displays flooding warning areas by the

River Wharfedale.

Routes were designed to divert around

this area.

Flood & coastal risk management

schemes have not been identified by the

environmental agency in the region.


of 45

Appendix 2:[19]

The smaller maps are parts of a map from the

year 1850, showing many Manor Houses &

Halls. Their locations are circled on the present

day map displayed in the centre.

All of the Historical sites from the 1850’s map

indicated are registered today as either listed

buildings or Archaeological sites.

It was important, when designing the three

routes, to stay clear of these sites, so as to avoid

any future conflict with England- Heritage [who

could potentially take control over the site at

their will at any point]; therefore I had identified

these on a map from the 1850’s onto the present

day map, to ensure area’s which could pose

future problems were avoided in the design of

the road.

Arthington Hall

Kiskhall Hall

Bramhope Church, Manor House & Bramhope

Hall.

Crag House

Carlton Hall

Manor House

B&W current day map of LBU to Huby.


of 45

Appendix 3: [20][21]

The yellow pins between LBA & Huby represent milestones, which are

listed as sites of Archaeological Importance. This gave an awareness

area’s that the route needed to steer clear from. Milestones in this area

date back as far the period of the Byzantine Empire and Roman Empire.


of 45

Appendix 4: [22]

The area shaded with brown stripes should be avoided, as indicated by the key shown to the left of the map, as this region is prone to landslide deposits.


of 45

Route A –

Including Long

term effects

Actions that are part of the proposed development

*Key – a/b ; a = magnitude, b = local/regional importance

Environment

Components

Cut & filling Road

Construction

Clearing

vegetation

Excavation for

drainage &

small culverts

Bridge

Construction

Soil

Investigation

Rerouting

gas supply

near houses

Constructing

gas/electricity

/water supply

On-site Plant

equipment

Socio-economic

Economic Base-

Direct/ Indirect

6/2 6/2 3/3 6/2 7/7 4/2 3/4 6/2 6/2

Demography N/A N/A N/A N/A 4/3 N/A 4/4 N/A 1/1

Housing 3/3 3/3 N/A 3/3 5/3 N/A 3/3 3/3 1/1

Local Services 3/4 3/4 N/A 3/4 2/1 N/A 2/2 3/4 1/1

Social-Cultural N/A N/A 4/3 N/A 5/4 2/2 2/2 N/A N/A

Physical

Air and

Atmosphere

N/A N/A 5/6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3/5

Water Resources N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Soil and Geology N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3/3 N/A N/A N/A

Flora and Fauna 5/5 5/5 6/7 5/5 8/6 4/4 1/1 5/5 4/5

Human Beings 3/4 3/4 3/2 3/4 N/A 2/2 2/2 3/4 1/1

Landscape 4/7 4/7 5/5 4/7 6/7 3/3 N/A 4/7 1/1

Cultural Heritage N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1/1 N/A N/A N/A

Climate N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Energy 6/7 6/7 N/A 6/7 4/4 N/A N/A 6/7 4/5

Total 30 32 30 32 26 26 30 32 41 35 19 17 17 18 30 32 22 22

Mag.

Import.

Appendix 5

The following three tables show the Environmental

Impact Assessment for each route.

The magnitude and importance for each have been

summed and are given below. The higher the

magnitude/importance – the less environmentally

friendly that route is.

Route A

ΣMagnitude =245

ΣImportance = 246

Route B

ΣMagnitude = 218

ΣImportance = 221

Route C

ΣMagnitude = 235

ΣImportance = 243


of 45

Route B -

Including Long

term effects



Environment

Components

Cut & filling –

inc.

embankments

Road

Construction

Clearing

vegetation

Excavation for

drainage &

small culverts

Bridge

Construction

Soil

Investigation

Rerouting

gas supply

Constructing

gas/electricity

/water supply

On-site Plant

equipment

Socio-economic

Economic Base-

Direct/ Indirect

5/2 5/2 2/3 5/3 9/7 2/2 5/4 5/3 4/3


Housing 2/2 2/2 N/A 3/3 6/4 N/A 4/4 3/3 1/1



Physical

Air and

Atmosphere




Flora and Fauna 4/4 4/4 3/5 4/3 8/8 4/4 1/1 4/4 4/5

Human Beings 3/4 3/4 2/1 2/3 N/A 2/2 2/2 3/3 1/1

Landscape 3/6 3/6 3/3

3/5 6/6 3/3 N/A 4/4 1/1



Energy 5/6 6/6 N/A 5/6 5/5 N/A N/A 5/6 4/5

Total 25 28 26 28 14 17 25 27 45 38 17 17 19 18 27 26 20 22

Mag.

Import.


of 45

Route C -

Including Long

term effects



Environment

Components

Cut & filling –

inc.

embankments

Road

Construction

Clearing

vegetation

Excavation for

drainage &

small culverts

Bridge

Construction

Soil

Investigation

Rerouting

gas supply

Constructing

gas/electricity

/water supply

On-site Plant

equipment

Socio-economic

Economic Base-

Direct/ Indirect

6/2 6/2 2/2 6/3 9/7 2/2 6/4 6/2 6/3


Housing 4/4 4/4 N/A 3/3 5/4 N/A 4/4 3/3 1/1



Physical

Air and

Atmosphere




Flora and Fauna 5/5 5/5 6/6 5/5 7/6 3/3 2/2 5/5 3/4

Human Beings 3/4 3/4 3/1 3/4 N/A 2/2 2/3 3/4 1/1

Landscape 5/5 5/5 4/3 4/7 7/7 2/3 N/A 4/7 1/1



Energy 7/7 7/7 N/A 6/7 3/3 N/A N/A 6/7 3/4

Total 34 31 34 31 23 20 30 33 43 38 13 14 25 24 30 32 20 20

Mag.

Import.


of 45

Appendix 6

The Horizontal alignments for Routes A-C


of 45


of 45

Route A

Circular Horizontal Curves θ (angle) - °

θ (angle) -

Radians

R (radius)-

m

Arc Length -

m

Tangent length -

m x - m Curve # 1 29 0.51 1333.33 674.86 344.82 43.87

Curve # 2 45 0.79 708.33 556.32 293.40 58.36

Curve # 3 38 0.66 708.33 469.78 243.90 40.81

Curve # 4 30 0.52 1291.67 676.32 346.10 45.57

Curve # 5 26 0.45 583.33 264.71 134.67 15.34

Straight Curve Straight Curve Straight Curve Straight Curve Straight Curve Straight Distance - m 2917 675 250 556 208 470 1167 676 625 265 333 Σ 2917 3592 3842 4398 4606 5076 6243 6919 7544 7809 8142

Route B

Circular Horizontal Curves θ (angle) - °

θ (angle) -

Radians

R (radius)-

m

Arc Length -

m

Tangent length -

m x - m

Curve # 1 15 0.26 1750.00 458.15 230.39 15.10

Curve # 2 23 0.40 1000.00 401.43 203.45 20.49 Curve # 3 16 0.28 958.33 267.62 134.68 9.42

Curve # 4 34 0.59 958.33 568.69 292.99 43.79

Curve # 5 26 0.45 958.33 434.88 221.25 25.21 Curve # 6 30 0.52 916.67 479.97 245.62 32.34

Curve # 7 31 0.54 958.33 518.51 265.77 36.17

Straight Curve Straight Curve Straight Curve Curve Curve Straight Curve Curve Straight Distance - m 2208 458 1166 401 83 268 569 435 1042 480 519 375 Σ 2208 2666 3832 4233 4316 4584 5153 5588 6630 7110 7629 8004

Route C

Circular Horizontal Curves θ (angle) - ° θ (angle) - Radians

R (radius)- m

Arc Length - m

Tangent length - m x - m

Curve # 1 20 0.35 1708.33 596.32 301.23 26.35

Curve # 2 33 0.58 666.67 383.97 197.48 28.63 Curve # 3 18 0.31 1458.33 458.15 230.98 18.18

Curve # 4 17 0.30 1458.33 432.70 217.95 16.20 Curve # 5 32 0.56 1208.33 674.86 346.48 48.70

Curve # 6 29 0.51 1166.67 590.50 301.72 38.38

Curve # 7 15 0.26 875.00 229.07 115.20 7.55

Straight Curve Straight Curve Curve Straight Curve Straight Curve Straight Curve Straight Curve Straight

Distance - m 2208 597 83 384 458 458 434 83 675 542 591 833 229 417

Σ 2208 2805 2888 3272 3730 4188 4622 4705 5380 5922 6513 7346 7575 7992


of 45

Distance-

m

Original Route (Height) -

m

Elevation -

%

Ammended Route (Height) -

m

New Elevation -

%

Lv,min –

m

ΔHmax

m

0 189 -0.6 189 0.0 0.0 0.0

250 189 1.1 189 0.0 0.0 250.0

500 193 -1.5 189 0.0 0.0 500.0

750 187 3.8 189 0.0 0.0 500.0

1000 205 5.8 200 -4.4 -4.4 500.0

1250 217 -10.0 200 0.0 4.4 500.2

1500 205 0.6 200 0.0 0.0 500.0

1750 221 6.9 200 0.0 0.0 500.0

2000 231 0.5 200 0.0 0.0 500.0

2250 217 -10.0 190 4.0 4.0 500.0

2500 197 -2.0 175 6.0 2.0 500.2

2750 170 -25.0 160 6.0 0.0 500.4

3000 101 -18.5 145 6.0 0.0 500.4

3250 71 -6.2 130 6.0 0.0 500.4

3500 66 0.8 115 6.0 0.0 500.4

3750 62 -4.6 100 6.0 0.0 500.4

4000 50 -5.2 85 6.0 0.0 500.4

4250 47 0.0 70 6.0 0.0 500.4

4500 48 0.7 55 6.0 0.0 500.4

4750 50 0.6 55 6.0 0.0 500.4

5000 51 1.7 55 6.0 0.0 500.0

5250 58 4.1 55 0.0 -6.0 500.0

5500 53 -0.5 60 -2.0 -2.0 500.0

5750 63 2.0 62 -0.8 1.2 500.1

6000 67 0.0 60 0.8 1.6 500.0

6250 66 -0.8 55 2.0 1.2 500.0

6500 62 -1.7 55 0.0 -2.0 500.0

6750 54 -1.0 55 0.0 0.0 500.0

7000 59 1.3 55 0.0 0.0 500.0

7250 53 -1.9 55 0.0 0.0 500.0

7500 51 0.0 55 0.0 0.0 500.0

7750 55 1.7 55 0.0 0.0 500.0

8000 62 3.5 55 0.0 0.0 500.0

8250 76 4.6 65 -4.0 -4.0 500.0

8500 75 4.2 75 -4.0 0.0 500.2

8660 85 1.0 81.4 -4.0 0.0 500.2

53.6

Appendix 7

Tables showing

calculations for the

Vertical Alignments for

Routes A-C & graphs

displaying the

Horizontal alignments


of 45

Distance-

m

Original Route (Height) -

m

Elevation –

%


m

New Elevation -

%

Lv,min -

m

ΔHmax –

m

0 187 -0.6 187 0.0 0.0 0.0

250 187 -0.6 187 0.0 0.6 250.0

500 187 1.3 187 0.0 -1.3 500.0

750 189 -2.4 187 0.0 2.4 500.0

1000 183 5.6 187 0.0 -5.6 500.0

1250 201 5.9 200 5.2 -0.7 500.0

1500 208 5.5 207.5 3.0 -2.5 500.4

1750 217 2.9 210 1.0 -1.9 500.1

2000 217 -4.5 207.5 -1.0 3.5 500.0

2250 207 -6.8 195 -5.0 1.8 500.0

2500 187 -9.3 180 -6.0 3.3 500.3

2750 165 -10.1 165 -6.0 4.1 500.4

3000 144 -3.1 150 -6.0 -2.9 500.4

3250 130 -10.9 135 -6.0 4.9 500.4

3500 107 -4.7 120 -6.0 -1.3 500.4

3750 77 -12.2 105 -6.0 6.2 500.4

4000 67 -1.8 90 -6.0 -4.2 500.4

4250 58 -4.8 75 -6.0 -1.2 500.4

4500 56 -1.3 60 -6.0 -4.7 500.4

4750 55 5.1 45 -6.0 -11.1 500.4

5000 47 -3.0 45 0.0 3.0 500.4

5250 43 -2.6 45 0.0 2.6 500.0

5500 43 1.5 45 0.0 -1.5 500.0

5750 48 0.9 45 0.0 -0.9 500.0

6000 47 -1.0 45 0.0 1.0 500.0

6250 44 0.9 45 0.0 -0.9 500.0

6500 45 1.1 45 0.0 -1.1 500.0

6750 59 4.2 55 4.0 -0.2 500.0

7000 63 5.8 65 4.0 -1.8 500.2

7250 79 3.8 75 4.0 0.2 500.2

7500 88 1.6 85 4.0 2.4 500.2

7600 86 -5.9 89 4.0 9.9 500.2

-36.8


of 45

Distance-

m

Original Route (Height)

- m

Elevation -

%


m

New Elevation -

%

Lv,min -

m

ΔHmax

- m

0 187 -0.6 187 0.0 0.0 0.0

250 187 1.3 187 0.0 -1.3 250.0

500 189 -2.3 187 0.0 2.3 500.0

750 183 5.6 187 0.0 -5.6 500.0

1000 202 5.8 195 -3.2 -9.0 500.0

1250 209 5.5 210 -6.0 -11.5 500.2

1500 216 0.0 212 -0.8 -0.8 500.5

1750 218 3.7 212 0.0 -3.7 500.0

2000 216 -4.7 210 0.8 5.5 500.0

2250 208 -6.6 195 6.0 12.6 500.0

2500 188 -8.6 180 6.0 14.6 500.4

2750 167 -9.1 165 6.0 15.1 500.4

3000 149 -3.1 150 6.0 9.1 500.4

3250 135 -13.6 135 6.0 19.6 500.4

3500 127 7.8 120 6.0 -1.8 500.4

3750 120 -15.7 105 6.0 21.7 500.4

4000 72 -12.6 90 6.0 18.6 500.4

4250 61 -1.0 75 6.0 7.0 500.4

4500 59 -1.4 60 6.0 7.4 500.4

4750 51 -1.4 60 0.0 1.4 500.4

5000 48 1.3 60 0.0 -1.3 500.0

5250 47 -0.7 60 0.0 0.7 500.0

5500 47 0.7 60 0.0 -0.7 500.0

5750 57 7.2 60 0.0 -7.2 500.0

6000 62 2.9 60 0.0 -2.9 500.0

6250 71 0.2 60 0.0 -0.2 500.0

6500 68 -3.0 60 0.0 3.0 500.0

6750 62 -4.2 60 0.0 4.2 500.0

7000 57 3.7 60 0.0 -3.7 500.0

7250 61 -7.5 60 0.0 7.5 500.0

7500 52 -0.5 60 0.0 0.5 500.0

7750 52 -0.3 60 0.0 0.3 500.0

8000 60 0.3 60 0.0 -0.3 500.0

8250 68 8.2 60 0.0 -8.2 500.0

8500 76 -4.7 75 -6.0 -1.3 500.0

8790 83 3.0 92.5 -6.0 -9.0 500.5

38.8


of 45

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Distance - m

Route A - Horizontal Allignments

Tangent Points

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Distance - m

Route C - Horizontal Allignments

Tangent …


of 45

Road Length: Route A Road Length Route B Road Length Route c

8660 7600 8790

£ / unit # of units Cost Number of units Cost Number of units Cost

Land: Agricultural 6,900/ha 6900 10 67,688 9 60,939 9 62,123

Residential 175,000/ha 175000 1 147,648 1 216,216 1 208,709

Industrial 295,000/ha 295000 2 510,439 1 236,236 2 700,271

Existing buildings Typical 3 bedroom 110,000 110,000 0 0 0 0 0 0

semi-detached

house. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Detached house 250,000 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0

Site investigation 1.15/m2 1.15 123,838 142,414 108,680 124,982 125,697 144,552

Site clearance 3.45/m2 3.45 123,838 427,241 108,680 374,946 125,697 433,655

Cuttings – disposal off site 24/m3 24 213,785 5,130,840 182,325 4,375,800 0 0

-- use on site 11.5/m3 11.5 641,355 7,375,583 182,325 2,096,738 386,100 4,440,150

Embankments Rockfill - imported 69/m3 69 0 0 0 0 14,300 986,700

Drainage Open ditch 85/m 85 8,100 688,500 7,440 632,400 8,070 685,950

Piped drain 135/m 135 560 75,600 160 21,600 720 97,200

Tunnels / Large culverts 345/m3 345 0 0 19,734 6,808,230 0 0

Highway bridge 3,500/m2 3500 9,724 34,034,000 11,011 38,538,500 11,297 39,539,500

Road works Flexible construction 86/m2 86 123,838 10,650,068 108,680 9,346,480 125,697 10,809,942

Culvert (small < 1m2) 450/m 450 45 20,250 30 13,500 45 20,250

Standard railway bridge 6,900/m2 6900 0 0 0 0 0 0

Standard railway viaduct 4,100/m2 4100 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fencing 36/m 36 8,660 311,760 7,600 273,600 8,790 316,440

Main services Gas 750,000/km 750000 0 0 0 0 0 0

Water 750,000/km 750000 0 0 0 0 0 0

Electricity 750,000/km 750000 8,660 6,495,000 7,600 5,700,000 8,790 6,592,500

Retaining wall / River

bank 2m high 1,500/m 1500 170 255,000 120 180,000 170 255,000

3m high 2,400/m 2400 0 0 40 96,000 0 0

5m high 5,100/m 5100 0 0 0 0 0 0

Width of road (m) 14.3m 14.3 Total : 66,332,029 Total : 69,096,166 Total : 65,292,940

Year 1 33,166,014 Year 1 34,548,083 Year 1 32,646,470

Year 2 33,166,014 Year 2 34,548,083 Year 2 32,646,470

Appendix 8

Cost-Benefit Analysis

for Routes A-C


of 45

Number of vehicles per day: Route A Route B Route C

Year Year - Number Route A Route B Route C

22000

Vehicle-km per year (2014-15) 62,585,820 54,925,200 63,525,330

(2012-13) 0 -33,166,014 -34,548,083 -32,646,470


(2013-14) 1 -31,288,693 -32,592,531 -30,798,557


(2014-15) 2 14,778,273 11,487,311 15,209,609


(2015-16) 3 13,941,767 10,837,086 14,348,688


(2016-17) 4 13,152,610 10,223,666 13,536,498


(2017-18) 5 12,408,123 9,644,968 12,770,281


(2018-19) 6 11,705,776 9,099,026 12,047,435


(2019-20) 7 11,043,185 8,583,987 11,365,505


(2020-21) 8 10,418,099 8,098,101 10,722,174


(2021-22) 9 9,828,395 7,639,718 10,115,259


(2022-23) 10 9,272,071 7,207,281 9,542,697


(2023-24) 11 8,747,237 6,799,322 9,002,544


(2024-25) 12 8,252,110 6,414,455 8,492,966


(2025-26) 13 7,785,010 6,051,372 8,012,232


(2026-27) 14 7,344,349 5,708,842 7,558,710


(2027-28) 15 6,928,631 5,385,700 7,130,858


(2028-29) 16 6,536,444 5,080,849 6,727,225


(2029-30) 17 6,166,457 4,793,254 6,346,439


(2030-31) 18 5,817,412 4,521,937 5,987,206


(2031-32) 19 5,488,125 4,265,979 5,648,308

Accident Savings (£) 438,101 384,476 444,677

(2032-33) 20 5,177,476 4,024,508 5,328,592

Operating Cost Savings (£) 1,413,223 1,240,242 1,434,437

(2033-34) 21 4,884,411 3,796,706 5,026,974

Journey Time Savings (£) 15,103,544 11,632,425 15,560,403

Total (£) : 115,221,254 72,523,454 121,475,176

Total Savings per year (£) 16,954,867 13,257,143 17,439,517

integrated design project: leeds-bradford airport to huby relief road

Documents