BUILDING ECONOMICS BRANCH REPORT

Preston Bus Station and Multi Storey Car Park

To: Report No: Prepared by: Distribution: Date: 22 February 2013 Henry Owen-John Canada House, Manchester
39999/3/1

Jonathan Kiely

01737 356645

I visited the bus station on the 12th February and inspected the building in the company of EH Structural Engineer Keith Weston and Dr David Farrell from Rowan Technologies Limited. The purpose of the visit was to review the reported scope of repairs and validate the budgets for the proposed works. The weather was dry and cold and we inspected by starting at the top Level 9 and progressively walking around the car park decks to Level 1. The ground floor level is the bus station concourse. We did not go into the various rooms and offices at ground level to inspect the mezzanine construction. VEHICULAR ACCESS RAMPS A detailed survey report was prepared in 1999 by Thomas & Partners. That indicated significant defects in the access ramps with an anticipated substantial financial liability, non compliance with edge restraint requirements for pedestrian safety, inadequate width for current vehicle access requirements, Armco edge barriers that are in poor condition and require major overhaul if not substantive replacement. The Jacobs Options Report proposes replacement of the ramps to suit the new layout in part due to the repairs necessary and the financial liability for repairs and upgrades. The budget costs included in the detailed structural cost table in Appendix G (1,800,000 including removal of footbridge) appear reasonable given the extremely limited information currently available. The addition of Preliminaries and Optimism Allowance to these figures is questionable as it increases the value by 1,098,000.

CAR PARK Levels 8 and 9 are the exposed to levels and blocked from vehicular access by barriers across the ramps. The stair wells and lifts are open to these levels. On the day of inspection, Level 7 was vacant; Level 6 approximately 25% occupied; Levels 2-5 90% occupied; Level 1, with the reserved bays for the hotel and other users, was approximately 35% occupied. Deck finish Level 8 and 9 decks are surfaced with single coat asphalt coating with studded roller finish. This finish appears currently serviceable, although it has been patched at the vehicle turning points at the entry and egress points of the ramps. A specialist report would be required to assess the durability of the finish at this level and whether it would be preferable to replace it to achieve an acceptable life span. Levels 3 to 7 have a tamped concrete finish. The surface has suffered superficial degradation in various patches largely of 5mm depth but up to 12mm in some isolated areas as one progresses down through the decks. This was assessed as resulting from chloride attack largely from de-icing salts being carried in during the winter months on vehicles combined with the torsion effect of low speed vehicle manoeuvring at the entry and egress of the ramps and in turning into the individual bays. It has been patched with a variety of compounds in the past with varying degrees of success. The deck should have surface repairs to an acceptable standard and an asphalt finish applied as proposed which would remove the long term liability of concrete repair. It was noted that the primary expansion joints are in poor condition and these would have to be repaired on all levels, possibly by insertion of a board filler with a hot applied bitumen sealer on top or an appropriate deck slip joint rather than the poor plates currently fitted that are failing.. Levels 1 and 2 have a similar asphalt finish to the top decks. It would be preferable to replace this wearing course as part of the major refurbishment in order to achieve longevity and avoid any deleterious effect to the concrete deck on this heavily trafficked circulation route. The cost included in the Jacobs Report is 1,480,000 plus Preliminaries and Optimism Allowance. Given the areas involved, a more realistic current cost under a separate specialist contract would be in the order of 1,200,000 for full replacement of existing and lining of unprotected concrete areas with no further additions. Structural Repairs A detailed survey report was prepared in 1999 by Thomas & Partners. That report included a recommendation for anti-carbonation application to the precast edge units,

deck soffits and columns and that presumably was undertaken given the clean decorative finish observed. The current level of concrete damage noted on site was significantly less than implied from the Preston reports. Messrs Weston and Farrell concurred that the significant factor in most cases was lack of concrete cover to the reinforcement, especially the stirrups. Some significant degradation had occurred at the end on a small number of precast deck units and it was considered that could have been in part due to careless handing during construction exacerbated by lack of cover. The type of defects and location were consistent throughout the decks. Remedial work would best be undertaken by a specialist concrete repair company who have access to the technology for diagnosis; treatment of the exposed reinforcement; cleaning, preparation of exposed surfaces and repair of areas of spalling. A detailed survey at 40,000 in the Jacobs Report November 2012 Appendix G is necessary to inform the scope of repair and treatment necessary. I would not challenge that allowance. The repair budget included in the report is 550,000. Based on experience on recent experience on other projects, that appears overly pessimistic for the scope of damage noted on site hence the need for a specialist survey to establish the true scope of repair required. The repair of current damage noted, including failing previous repairs, could possibly be achieved for a ball park figure of less than 200,000 but a priced survey by a specialist concrete repair company is essential to obtain an accurate budget. Barriers A significant value has been included for barriers in the car park. It is noted in the Jacobs Report that the precast curved eaves units are below the required 1100mm height and the report Appendix G includes 344,000 plus Preliminaries and Optimism Allowance for an Armco barrier on stub columns with a tubular frame infilled with mesh panels above, to be installed full length of all decks of the car park. The budget of 344,000without further enhancement is reasonable for a specialist fabrication and installation but I would question the validity and practicality of this proposal. The curved surface of the edge unit projects some considerable distance from the vehicle bodywork (1.2m) and is not easy to climb due to the curvature and it is debatable in normal use whether there is a risk of users falling over the edge. Placing a barrier of the type noted will not prevent someone intent on suicide from climbing over the barrier, up the curved concrete surface and jumping. We noted that a number of larger cars parked in the bays had bodywork projecting beyond the line of the proposed barrier installation. That would result in either damage to vehicles, damage to the barrier and the bolt fixings into the concrete deck with a long term maintenance liability. The alternative, with the trend for increasing vehicle size particularly medium estates, is that the vehicle would not fit in the designated bay and

project into the line of traffic or pedestrian walkway area. This would represent a greater risk to the average user than the current edge detail. A full risk assessment is necessary to establish the danger to users created by the gaps in the spine panels between the deck levels. Although new car parks would not have a void in this location, the gap is constrained and it would be difficult to climb through and unlikely to present a hazard of falling through. Installation of mesh panels (Jacobs budget of 100,000 is probably adequate without further enhancement) would probably be the most economic solution if the risk assessment indicated the necessity to infill the gap. There are painted steel barriers at the end of each deck and adjacent the vehicle ramps, to infill the gaps created by the curved precast edge detail. These barriers could easily be climbed, do not present an adequate restraint for children due to the member centres and have been clad in plywood that is a poor temporary solution. The existing steel components could be retained, cleaned and redecorated with a suitable paint system and the plywood linings replaced with an appropriate galvanised or powder coated framed mesh panel securely fixed to the existing framing. An alternative would be to fabricate a complete new infill panel but that would be more costly and require changing the fixings into the concrete deck and concrete edge panels. Pedestrian barriers at the access cores should be replaced as those currently installed appear inadequate to provide sufficient separation between pedestrians and vehicles at the core entrances. The budget allowance is 10,000 plus Preliminaries and Optimism Allowance that is somewhat optimistic for these items and I would be inclined to allow a total of 25,000 for a separate specialist installation of all these barriers. Signage, Walkways; DDA and H&S Issues There is very limited location information, inadequate vehicle circulation instruction signage, no pedestrian walkway markings and no obvious parent child or disabled bay markings. All are noted in the Jacobs Report There is no cost breakdown stating the budgets (2,035,000 plus Preliminaries and Optimism Allowance, total 3,276,350) prepared for the various items included in the respective lists on page 5 of the Jacobs Options Report. Some have been addressed within the Structural Aspects Appendix G cost summary. Nothing contained within the lists appears contentious or unnecessary, other than the barriers included in the previous paragraphs. This appears significantly overpriced from alternative cost analysis date. Based upon unit floor area rates adjusted to current index values, with substantially similar specification including lift replacement, gives a budget ranging between 1,200.000 and 1,754,000 inclusive of Preliminaries and Contingencies. I would stress that the Optimism Allowance of 40% would not apply to this value.

BUS STATION Subway Ramps The Jacobs Report Appendix G includes 155,000 plus Preliminaries and Optimism Allowance for removal of subway ramps. It is not clear whether these proposals would be fully implemented in the final scheme. Removal of Mezzanine Appendix G (250,000) for demolition; strengthen existing columns (160,000). The costs are reasonable, assuming it would include for appropriate making good. A structural analysis would be necessary to determine whether the internal columns do require strengthening due their slenderness ratio. A significant part of the mezzanine area is utilised for bus operations and crew facilities. The remainder is relatively old poor quality accommodation occupied by kiosks, caf, or appears empty as evidenced by the PCC to let boards. The external appearance is of a poorly maintained and dirty 1960s structure. If the mezzanine is to be removed the existing crew and passenger facilities would need replacement and that would fall within the fit-out budget Removal of central column (95,000) to facilitate passenger flow does not appear appropriate either in terms of necessity or budget. Refurbishment/Fit-Out Costs The Option 1 Cost Summary includes 3,570,000 for the refurbishment plus Preliminaries 535,500 plus Optimism Costs 1,642,200 totalling 5,747,700 (2,817.50/m2). This contrasts with reported cost analysis values of 635.00-954.00/m2 for those elements. Even allowing for an enhanced specification at 1,200/m2 the value is only 2,448,000. The budget allowance appears unjustified and exceeds the total project cost excluding fees for all other schemes examined. NEW COACH STATION The budget at 2,350/m2 for a complete project is acceptable. As the facility is attached to the main bus station savings may be accrued as duplication of passenger facilities (toilets, caf, shops) would not necessarily be required. No Optimism Allowance should be added. BUS AND COACH INFRASTRUCTURE

A budget of 1,335,000 plus Preliminaries 200,250 plus Optimism Allowance 614,100 (total 2,149,350) is included. The Options Report does not include a statement regarding the items in this budget. If it relates to replacement of bus bays and forecourt paving the budget is extremely high. HIGHWAY WORKS AND LANDSCAPING The budget (1,006,000 including preliminaries) for landscaping, highway works, temporary bus station and covered walkway are reasonable allowances. There is no reasonable justification for the Optimism Allowance at 40%; a contingency of 15% would be more appropriate. JACOBS OPTIONS REPORT NOVEMBER 2012 I have undertaken a cursory examination of the two alternative options included in the report for new build bus station and surface car parking facilities. Cost summaries for both Options 2 and 3 are based upon unit rates /m2, taken from Spons pricing books (Appendix F, page 2-5, Section 3.3). The unit price for the bus and coach station and the landscaped surface car park are at the top of the published price range. These are indicative prices, inclusive of Preliminaries and contractors overheads and profit. In conjunction with Option 1 Retention of the existing structure Preliminaries have been added at 15%. This constitutes a significant level of over pricing on all three schemes. Given the indicative outline nature of Options 2 and 3, the inclusion of the Optimism Bias at 40% may be appropriate given the extremely limited design information available together with the constrained city centre location. I do not consider the addition of an Optimism Bias of 40% as instructed by Preston City Council justified on Option 1 as it is based upon reuse of the existing structure, a reasonably detailed survey has been undertaken and should be updated for risk comfort and the scope of works can be reasonably accurately determined. A more appropriate risk contingency would be in the order of 15% at this stage.

Jon Kiely