North East Combined Authority Local Growth Fund LSTF Capital and Non-major Transport Schemes Business Case Template

Guidance Notes

1.1 The North East Local Enterprise Partnership (NELEP) and Combined Authority (NECA) secured a £7.52 million Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) Capital Package for 2015/16 and 2016/17 as part of the Local Growth Fund. The LSTF Capital package encompasses a range of scheme families namely Urban Traffic Management & Control, Transport Gateway Improvements, Strategic Cycle Schemes and a ‘Green Light to Work’ Scooter scheme.

1.2 The NECA Transport Assurance Framework sets out the responsibility of NECA to ensure that schemes within the LSFT Capital Package support the objectives of the Strategic Economic Plan, offer a high value for money and are deliverable within funding timeframes. The presentation of a business case is therefore required for each individual scheme within the package. This note and business case proforma guidance should be read in conjunction with the NECA Transport Assurance Framework and the Transport & Digital Connectivity Chapter of the Strategic Economic Plan. It is expected that business cases are developed in proportion to scheme costs, which vary between £50,000 and £3 Million in the LSTF Capital Package.

1.3 The Local Growth Fund budget for each scheme family in the LSTF Capital package is:- • UTMC £2,781,000 • Strategic Cycle Schemes £4,190,000 • Gateways Improvements £ 450,000 • Green Light to Work £ 100,000 • Total LSTF Capital £7,521,000

1.4 A budget has been allocated to individual schemes within each LSTF Capital scheme family, as shown in the table on Page 3 of this document.

1.5 The NECA will undertake programme management and assurance of the approved LSTF Capital Package on behalf of the wider North East LEP / LA7 partnership. Scheme promoters are responsible for the design and implementation of schemes, development of scheme business case and scheme reporting. The NECA will review and ratify scheme business cases and issue funding offer letters and Grant Funding Agreements to scheme promoters.

1.6 The following procedure applies for review and approval of non-major scheme business case:- a) Scheme promoter completes business case proforma and submits to the NECA Regional Transport Team (RTT). b) Business case is checked by NECA appointed independent reviewers. c) Any proposed adjustments to business case issued back to scheme promoter. d) Final business case submitted by scheme promoter to NECA. e) Report submitted to NE Leadership Board or other delegated authority for approval. f) Grant Funding Agreement issued by NECA to scheme promoter. g) Scheme promoter implements scheme in accordance with final business case and Grant Funding Agreement.

1

1.7 This guidance note and business case proforma that follow are arranged around the ‘Five Cases’ approach set out by the Government (Green Book for Public Sector Business Cases), namely Strategic, Economic, Management, Financial and Commercial cases. The proforma provides guidance on the details to be completed by scheme promoters.

1.8 It is not necessary to develop a full scheme business case with a modelled evidence base for LSTF Capital and other non-major (sub £2.5M) transport schemes. The level of detail required for each scheme business case will vary and promoters should exercise their judgement in consultation with Regional Transport Team. A proportionate business case is expected: determined by overall cost, delivery timeframe, capacity of the promoter to undertake assessment of scheme components, and sectional relevance.

1.9 Further assistance on the level of detail required for a particular scheme business case can be obtained from the NECA Regional Transport Team [[email protected]].

1.10 The delivery progress of all approved schemes will be reported through and monitored by the Project Vision project management system.

1.11 Completed business case proformas (from Page 5 of this document onwards) should be no more than 20 pages long excluding appendices, and comply with sectional word limits.

2

NECA LSTF Capital Scheme Spend Profiles (latest March 2016)

Lead Partner Scheme Element Total UTMC 2015/16 Gateway Strategic Cycle Strategic Cycle Green £7.519m (£2.781m) Improvements Scheme Package Scheme Package Lights 2015-/17 (~£450K) 2015/16 (£570K) 2016/17 (£3.620m) (Scooters) 2015/16 (£100k) NECA (NCC to £2.781m £100k £2.881m project manage) (split of £2.3m (delivered Tyne & Wear; through Go £481k Durham) Smarter) Durham £83k £150k £450k £683k (RTPI = £70k) Gateshead £180k (design of joint £710k – GC and NCC £535k NCC/ GC route) to agree split of this Newcastle £69.5k £425k (RTPI = £15k) North Tyneside £65k £585k £650k

Northumberland £107.4k £10k £590k £707.4k (RTPI = £72k) South Tyneside £51.2k £65k £585k £701.2k (Newcastle Airport) (RTPI = £15.3k) £136k £100k £700k £936k (RTPI = £24k) RTPI Project (RTPI £65k)# costs Total £2.781m £447.1k £570k £3.620m £100k £7.519m (RTPI = £261.4k)*

3

*Note: The RTPI elements of the Gateway Improvements will be drawn together in a separate project to be delivered by Nexus.

4

#RTPI project costs of £65k include the following items: interactive software development costs (£20k); network design (£10k); network changes (£15k) plus contingency (£20k) based on the experience of delivering recent similar projects. Software changes are required to drive the interactive displays and network costs will be incurred during design and implementation works.

5

LSTF Capital and non-major transport schemes business case proforma

Scheme Promoter Information

Local transport authority name(s):

Nexus (lead authority for Real Time Information implementation) Durham County Council Newcastle City Council County Council South Tyneside Council Sunderland City Council

If the project is a joint venture, please enter the names of all participating local transport authorities and specify the lead authority.

Project Manager Name and position:

William L Barker; Technical Bus Systems Manager, Nexus

Name and position of the official with day to day responsibility for delivering and reporting on the proposed project.

Contact telephone number: 0191 203 3282

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: Nexus House St James Boulevard Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4AX

Website address for public communications on the project:

Nexus.org.uk

6

SECTION A - Project description and funding profile

A1. Project name: Gateway Improvements 2015-17

A2. Headline description:

Facilities at key transport gateways are important factors in creating the right first- time impression for the increasing number of visitors to our region.

At each regional gateway, real-time information (RTI) about local public transport will be introduced, providing accurate and timely information about onward travel options. These locations are major entry points into the NECA area with a high proportion of visitors for whom travel guidance is especially important.

RTI displays form the kernel of the improvements, which will be supplemented as required by facilities such as cycle stands and lockers and way-finding improvements - these funded from other budgets.

A3. Geographical area:

The bid covers the provision of improvements at the following key Regional Gateways – the designation of locations as such is covered by the North East Local Enterprise Partnership’s Strategic Economic Plan:

Airport Metro station and Newcastle International Airport Newcastle Central railway station - in bus shelters in surrounding streets Sunderland city centre

Real-time information will also be provided within Sunderland railway station at a later date, as part of the forthcoming comprehensive modernisation project co- funded by , Sunderland City Council and Nexus.

A4. Total project cost (£000s):

£261.4k (capital) £50k (revenue) - not funded via LSTF capital budget, available from 2015/16 LSTF revenue and must be claimed against costs incurred, by 31 March 2016.) Justification for this has been provided separately to the Tyne and Wear LSTF core team, and relates to the extensive staff time which has been incurred in researching, designing and developing the scheme to its current state of readiness.

A5. Total LSTF Capital funding (£000s):

£261.4k

7

This is to be capped at the identified funding dedicated to the project in the LSTF Capital North East Strategic Economic Plan submission (see attached).

A6. Local contribution (£000s):

Nil.

Please provide details of the source of any local contribution to the overall cost of the project package. Where a contribution is from external sources, a letter confirming their commitment to contribute to the cost of a specific package element(s) should be attached.

A7. Equality Analysis

Has any Equality Analysis been undertaken in line with the Equality Duty?

Nexus Corporate Management Team approved the progression of the scheme as part of the 2015/16 Non-Metro Capital Programme. The report was approved on 12 May 2015 (Minute 15/49 refers).

A8. Partnership bodies:

RTI displays and other supporting measures will be provided through partnership working as follows:

Nexus will lead on the delivery of the RTI project, sourcing the hardware and co- ordinating the necessary software and data links. The majority of the sites are not Nexus assets hence partnership working will be essential to the delivery of the project as follows:

Airport Metro – Newcastle International Airport Limited; South Tyneside Council (as lead NECA local authority for airport issues

Sunderland station – Network Rail (asset owner); (lessee)

Durham station – Network Rail (asset owner); (lessee)

Morpeth station – Network Rail (asset owner); Northern Rail (lessee)

Bus stops adjacent to Newcastle Central Station – bus shelters are Nexus assets..

As the majority of assets will be located on third party property, the location and siting of facilities will be dependent on the agreement of property owners.

Details of the partnership bodies (if any) you plan to work with in the design and construction of the proposed project This should include a description of the role and responsibilities of the partnership bodies such as Private Sector bodies and Transport Operators, with confirmatory evidence of their willingness to participate in delivering the project where possible.

8

A9. Known LSTF Revenue project / initiative connections:

Region-wide bus real-time information provided through regional data broker and third party fleet management systems, and also scheduled Metro service information at Newcastle Airport.

There are no dependencies upon the delivery of the LSTF Revenue elements, as these are in place and are being commissioned. This process will be completed prior to the installation of the measures at Gateways which are the subject of this bid.

The exception to this is the refurbishment of where a joint scheme between Nexus, Network Rail and Sunderland Council has been agreed in principle, but there is no date for the commencement of works. Delivery of real time information is expected to be delivered via the main works programme undertaken by Galliford Try under contract to Network Rail. Total expenditure is expected to be in the region of £60k, funded and delivered at an appropriate point from the station refurbishment programme.

Following the completion of the tender process, the project is expected to be completed in March 2017.

Please list all LSTF Revenue-funded projects that have a direct relationship to the proposed Capital project and state any delivery dependencies.

9

SECTION B – The Business Case

B1. The Scheme – Summary

Please give a detailed description of the project, including its objectives, as aligned to those of LSTF and North East SEP.

------

The project will provide better onward travel information and related facilities that will make integrated transport trips easier, safer and more accessible by equipping identified regional gateways with these measures proposed. The measures focus on the provision of accurate, constantly updated local transport information targeted particularly towards first-time visitors and occasional users.

The key objectives are:

1. To increase the amount of travel through regional public transport gateways. 2. To strengthen the regional economy by helping to provide improved accessibility. 3. To reduce the proportion of trips made by car by promoting mode shift through the provision of improved passenger facilities, particularly real time information. 4. To improve the customer experience of public transport through improvements in public transport information.

The main elements of the project are:

RTI displays at all of the five regional gateways showing onward public transport options for arriving passengers (displays at Newcastle Airport will display real time data for buses only; information for Metro services will be shown as scheduled departures from a terminus station)

Infrastructure at Durham railway station will reflect its role as a strategic transport gateway for much of and the wider Sunderland area, as well as serving the city’s population.

Please use a maximum of 200 words.

B2. The Strategic Case

This section should set out the rationale for making the investment and evidence on the strategic fit of the project with a particular emphasis on Sustainable Economic Growth & Job creation, Access to Opportunity and Quality of Life, and to ensure the alignment of the project to:-

• The Themes and Challenges in the North East Strategic Economic Plan; • The Objectives of the Local Sustainable Transport Fund set out in the Government’s White Paper (2011), Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon; • The Department for Transport’s Door-to-Door Strategy.

10

It is desirable that schemes will have an impact on a wide area however this does not preclude localised issues being addressed, given the knock-on improvements to the local economy in improving the regional economy.

For LSTF Capital Package projects, the Strategic Case was largely demonstrated within the Strategic Economic Plan submission, therefore a light touch approach only is required for these projects, by answering the following six questions (in 900 words total) on how the project:-

 LSC1: Supports or facilitates access to sites of employment, training, education, tourism and health facilities in the North East area by providing greater travel choice and/or reducing peak period car demand on links serving these sites? The proposal satisfies both of these requirements. Each of the gateways is located close to areas of private and public sector activity and the measures proposed will help to reduce peak period car demand by stimulating increased use of public transport. All gateways are located close to the primary road network and an increased throughput of passengers will contribute towards modal shift. Two specific examples – Newcastle Airport is a key point of origin for inward investors, and the measures proposed will have perceptual as well as practical benefits by publicising integrated travel options within the main airport concourse. The Airport is served by up to five Metro services an hour to Newcastle city centre, and local bus 353. Buses to Ponteland operate along Ponteland Road 200 metres away. At Durham station, local air quality management issues exist and any proposals which seek to increase use of the public transport network will have societal as well as economic benefits.

 LSC2: Provides sustainable and smarter access solutions to existing and growing development corridors, centres and sectors, and/or supports new housing? The introduction of RTI facilities will help to achieve all of these aims. Growth areas can be identified in the vicinity of all five gateway location as follows:

Newcastle Airport – the NECA region as a whole

Sunderland – the International Advanced Manufacturing Park and the city centre redevelopment programme co-ordinated by Siglion.

Morpeth – the corridor of the A1 to SE Northumberland link road

Newcastle Central station area – the Stephenson Quarter and the wider city centre and Gateshead Quays and town centre

Durham – the Mount Oswald Science Park and the continuing expansion of Durham University

Major new housing development is also planned close to the gateways as follows:

Newcastle Airport – Callerton development area (c.3,000 homes)

Sunderland – South Sunderland development zone (c.1,500 homes)

Morpeth – north of the town centre (c. 2,100 homes)

11

Newcastle Central station – Scotswood Expo (c. 2,000 homes)

Durham – major housing plans (4,000) pending County Durham Plan resolution

(Responses to LSC3 to LSC6 below will be replaced by generic business case wording common to all schemes, to be provided by a consultant. The wording below is that previously written by Nexus)

 LSC3: Ensures the capacity and speed of transport links are maintained and enhanced, increasing the attractiveness of the North East as a place to do business? The main benefits of the gateway proposals in this context will be in terms of making individuals’ transport trips quicker, by being proactive in the supply of journey information such that they do not have to resort to consulting paper or online timetables. And, as suggested above, any degree of mode shift achieved by RTI will help to diminish peak-time traffic loadings (perhaps specifically in terms of reduced numbers of taxi trips from gateway locations) with resultant link speed and air quality benefits.

 LSC4: Contributes to a reduction in transport-based carbon emissions? Short-distance urban car trips are acknowledged to generate disproportionately high emissions per passenger kilometre travelled, as a function of the stop-start nature of urban traffic conditions and the likelihood of petrol and diesel engines operating at below their optimum temperature. The RTI envisaged by this proposal aims to reduce transport-based carbon emissions by promoting the availability of public transport alternatives to the use of cars or taxis for the last leg of a journey.

 LSC5: Contributes to an overall improvement in local environmental quality, including improving local air quality or reducing the noise impact of transport? Two of the gateway proposal locations are within formally designated Air Quality Management Areas – Newcastle Central Station, and Durham Station. Any initiative at these locations to increase mode shift away from cars and towards the use of public transport can only help to alleviate the problem, even if the overall impact of the measures is relatively small. The same philosophy applies to noise; the more journeys that are made by bus or Metro relative to cars, the lesser the overall quantum of noise generated. This is in the spirit of the guiding principles of the Local Sustainable Transport Fund, where the aggregate impact of a number of small interventions becomes measurable at a wider scale.

 LSC6: Provides the opportunity to improve health through active travel – including reducing levels of obesity – and/or improve road safety? The potential health benefits of walking are well known. The use of public transport as opposed to cars goes some way towards achieving the objectives of the active travel agenda by delivering minor but measurable health benefits. Fewer cars used for the last leg of a journey will also result in better air quality for those walking and cycling in the neighbourhood.

Please provide any further information about the project that you feel is relevant that is not covered in your answers to the six questions above (maximum of 200 words):

12

B3. The Economic Case – Value for Money

This section should set out the range of impacts – both beneficial and adverse – in relation to the project’s economic, environmental, social and distributional impacts. It is suggested that for LSTF Capital projects, the benefits and costs should be considered over a 10-year appraisal period, although an alternative appraisal period can be used if supported. Costs over the appraisal period should be accounted for. In determining scheme benefits/ BCRs, comparator scheme business cases can be used to demonstrate estimated values. It is NOT expected that scheme-specific modelling exercises are undertaken to derive new user demands and traffic impacts. Whilst a ‘light touch’ approach is generally required here, a more in-depth economic analysis (including estimation of new users) is expected for each Strategic Cycle Scheme due to a more relaxed delivery timeframe and well-developed assessment framework (see DfT TAG Unit A5.1 for Active Travel modes) for these schemes.

Please indicate the project’s overall Value for Money (benefit-cost ratio):

(Responses to B3 will be replaced by generic business case wording common to all schemes, to be provided by a consultant. The wording below is that previously written by Nexus)

The overall BCR of the Tyne and Wear LSTF Go Smarter to Work programme was calculated as 16.52. The overall BCR of the 2011 LSTF proposals was 13.81. A specific BCR for County Durham or Northumberland is not available but can be expected to be comparable.

The measures included within this bid are similar to those contained within the LSTF programmes above and are considered a valid proxy.

Schemes must have a BCR of 2:1 or higher to be approved under the LSTF Capital Package

Please provide a description of your assessment of the impact of the project under the following headings to include (max 1000 words in total):

- Significant monetised and non-monetised costs, benefits and disbenefits (note, an account of non-monetised benefits could include job starts and jobs retained):

Quantification of the benefits of the measures contained within the gateways bid is difficult, given that there is no proven causal link between the provision of public transport information and propensity to use public transport. The closest financial quantification available is that contained within TRL Report 593 ‘The Demand for Public Transport: a practical guide’ which ascribes 9 pence per passenger trip i.e. the added value per trip which the user perceives; however it is not possible to derive the extent to which this could result in mode shift towards the use of public transport.

- A description of key risks and uncertainties in realising benefits: Key risks and uncertainties identified are: 13

Failure to receive LSTF funding

The effectiveness of stakeholder and partnership agreements, especially with partners in the rail industry

Physical space within third-party premises to locate the infrastructure proposed.

- Any sensitivity tests conducted, including :

- Key assumptions including (but not limited to) appraisal period, forecast years, level of optimism bias applied in the economic analysis:

- A description of the approach used to forecast the impact of the project and the checks that have been undertaken to determine that it is fit-for-purpose:

As stated above, the impact of the provision of RTI is difficult to forecast accurately – the choice of interventions has been based on the thinking that the identified gateway locations require the best available facilities to encourage people to use onward public transport, as well as to impart a sense of positivity and sustainability across the region as a whole as gauged by ‘first impressions’.

As a guide, the list below provides an indication of the likely Benefit areas under each scheme family. This list however is not exhaustive or conclusive:-

UTMC • Journey time savings • Decongestion • Journey quality/ ambience/ reliability • Business reliability benefits • Carbon savings • Air quality • Other environmental (e.g. noise, townscape)

Gateways • Journey time savings • Journey quality/ ambience/ reliability • Public transport uptake/ mode shift • Carbon savings • Air quality • Secure existing patronage • Improve the public transport experience

Strategic Cycle Routes • Journey time savings • Decongestion • Journey quality/ ambience/ reliability • Road accidents 14

• Carbon savings • Air quality • Absenteeism • Other environmental (e.g. noise, townscape)

Scooter (Green Lights to Work) Scheme • Accessibility • Journey quality/ ambience/ reliability • Other environmental (e.g. noise, townscape)

B4. The Financial Case – Project Costs

Total project cost should be inclusive of project risk/contingency funding but not of optimism bias included at scheme appraisal stage.

Please complete the following tables. Figures should be entered in £000s. A quarterly spend breakdown is required for 15/16 and 16/17 (estimate if required).

Further details are provided in the attached spreadsheet

Annual funding profile

£000s 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Total LSTF Capital (LGF) funding £261.4k £261.4k

Local Authority contribution Third Party contribution TOTAL £261.4k

2015-16, quarterly breakdown

£000s Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 15-16 Total LSTF (LGF) Capital funding Local Authority contribution Third Party contribution TOTAL NIL

2016-17, quarterly breakdown

£000s Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 16-17 Total LSTF (LGF) Capital funding NIL £101.1k £135.8k £24.5k £261.4k 15

Local Authority contribution Third Party contribution TOTAL NIL £101.1k £135.8k £24.5k £261.4k

Notes: 1) LSTF Capital funding must not go beyond 2016-17 financial year and outside of the identified budget years for a particular scheme. 2) Ideally, the local contribution should be at least 10% of the total project funding.

B5. Management Case – Delivery

Deliverability is the most essential criteria for LSTF Capital projects and future pipeline projects and as such this section should set out the solid grounds for management of resources and risk, project governance arrangements, and any statutory procedures that are needed before it can be constructed. a) A project plan (typically in Gantt chart form) with milestones should be included, covering the period from submission of the business case to project completion. The definition of the key milestones should be clear and explained. The critical path should be identifiable and any key dependencies (internal or external) and interfaces should also be explained. Resource requirements, task durations and contingency should be detailed and easily identifiable.

Attached.

Please attach a project Gantt chart and supporting documents covering the requisites outlined above. b) Where relevant, if delivery of the project is dependent on land acquisition, please include details of the respective land owner(s) agreement(s) to make available land or to demonstrate that arrangements are in place in order to secure the land to enable the scheme promoter to meet its construction milestones. Attached. c) Please provide summary details of the delivery milestones (no more than 10) between start and completion of the project:-

Project Delivery Milestones Estimated completion date Feasibility/ preliminary design April 2015 Consultation June 2015 Detail design October 2015

16

Start of implementation works July 2016

Opening date (publicly usable) March 2017 Completion of works (if different)

B6. Management Case – Statutory Powers and Consents a) Please list separately each power / consent obtained, details of date acquired, challenge period (if applicable) and date of expiry of powers and conditions attached to them. Any key dates should be referenced in your project plan and above if corresponding to implementation milestones.

The OJEU procurement process is necessary and will be adhered to. b) Please list separately any outstanding statutory powers / consents, including the timetable and level of risk for obtaining them.

Morpeth (Grade II) and Durham (Grade II) are listed buildings therefore Listed Building Consent may be an issue, details will be requested of the respective scheme partners.

B7. Management Case – Governance

Please name who is responsible for delivering the scheme, the roles (Project Manager, SRO/ Executive, other Project Board and Project Assurance roles etc.) and responsibilities of those involved, and how key decisions will be made. An organogram should be provided here. Details around the organisation of the project including accountabilities, contract management arrangements and decision making authorities should be clearly documented.

Please attach a project organogram and described the project structure and governance arrangement below (maximum of 300 words). The internal Nexus project Board will comprise Bill Barker as Project Manager, Andy Bairstow (Head of Business Change) as Project Sponsor, David Bartlett (Corporate Business Manager, Business Change and Technology) as Executive Sponsor). Project assurance will be undertaken by the Nexus Programme Management Office; monthly progress is monitored by the Nexus Capital Steering Group and the Corporate Management Team. Updates will also be made to NECA Sustainable Transport Group using Project Vision.

Regional issues will be reported to the NE RTI Steering Group which is comprised of representatives of Durham CC, Northumberland CC, Tees Valley Connect and the major bus operators.

17

B8. Management Case – Risk Management

All schemes should undertake a thorough risk assessment and a Risk Register should be appended to this business case form. The risk assessment should be proportionate to the nature and complexity of the scheme. A Risk Management Strategy should outline how risks will be managed through mitigation, acceptance, avoidance and/or transfer. Residual risk management should also be documented.

Please attach a Risk Register, and either attach a Risk Management Strategy or describe the project’s risk management approach below (maximum of 200 words). Risk Management will be undertaken using an Issues Log following PRINCE2 methodology. The risk register will comprise two separate documents, pre contract award and post contract award.

Key risks identified to date;

• Failure to agree partnership agreements • Failure to secure a revenue budget to pay for ongoing maintenance liabilities • Failure to secure workable access agreements to maintain on-site assets • Insufficient resource available • Tender returns are over budget • Failure to meet pre-contract targeted dates • Slow start to the project due to the lack of clarity in stakeholder responsibilities

These risks will be mitigated and managed using established Nexus procedures and through effective partnership working.

B9. Management Case – Stakeholder Engagement

The section should demonstrate that key stakeholders and their interests have been identified and considered as appropriate. Stakeholders may include other local authorities, Highways England, statutory consultees, landowners, transport operators, voluntary sector, core users, local residents, utilities companies etc.. This is particularly important in respect of any projects with impacts on structures that may require the support of Network Rail and train operating companies. a) Please provide a summary of your strategy for engaging stakeholders, with details of the key stakeholders together with a brief analysis of their influences and interests. This should include the approach to consultation, as well as any consultation results so far (maximum 400 words). For larger schemes, OR those that are likely to generate substantially conflicting positions between stakeholders, a Stakeholder Engagement Strategy should be appended

Comprehensive stakeholder engagement has already taken place with a number of organisations whose participation is key to the success of the proposal. The most important stakeholders from a scheme delivery point of view are the relevant local authorities, Network Rail and Newcastle International Airport Limited - their co-

18 operation and consent are key to the success of the scheme and to date the liaison has been positive and constructive. b) Have there been any [known] external campaigns either supporting or opposing the scheme?

Yes √ No

If Yes, please provide a brief summary (maximum 100 words)

B9. Management Case – Quality Management

The delivery of the project’s outputs to quality should be controlled using an appropriate quality management procedure.

Please provide a summary of the procedure and/or strategy for managing the quality of the project’s outputs. Where available, a Quality Management Strategy document should be appended. A full and comprehensive testing procedure will be undertaken. It is proposed that the new equipment undergoes rigorous and comprehensive testing to include, Factory Acceptance Testing, Site Acceptance Testing and User Acceptance Testing; testing will also be undertaken on a site by site basis on commissioning. Quality will be managed using PRINCE2.

B10. Maintenance of the New Asset

Please provide a summary of how the project’s outputs / created asset will be maintained, conformation of the promoting authority’s capacity to undertake this maintenance and any assumptions or constraints affecting the maintenance period. The project’s outputs will benefit from being taken into each of the respective authority’s assets and will be maintained through pre-existing arrangements under the maintenance contract of the successful tenderer.

500 display licences have been purchased using previous LSTF funding to cover system expansion which will be utilised in this project.

B11. The Commercial Case

Please provide evidence of the market viability of a project and, where relevant, the procurement strategy that will be used to engage the market OR that has led to a preferred or appointed supplier. This should confirm that you are able to mobilise and begin to deliver at the start of the grant funding period if the project is approved.

Nexus can demonstrate experience in procuring similar projects; since 2013 Nexus has co-ordinated a £0.766m scheme to procure and install a regional data broker which accepts positional information from every bus ticket issuing machine in the region and delivers the information to a range of portals including public information screens and terminals, the internet and mobile phones. A similar procurement strategy will be used in respect of this project. 19

The continuing increase in the provision of RTI across the transport industry suggests that there is a market for the provision of accurate in-journey information and that it is valued by those who have access to it.

Nexus has an existing arrangement with a supplier of RTI display screens.

(maximum of 250 words)

It is the promoting authority’s responsibility to decide whether or not their scheme proposal is lawful; and the extent of any new legal powers that need to be sought. Scheme promoters should ensure that any project complies with the Public Contracts Regulations as well as European Union State Aid rules, and should be prepared to provide the Department with confirmation of this, if required.

20

SECTION C – Monitoring and Evaluation

C1. Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation are an essential part of project development and should be considered and built into the planning of a project from the earliest stages. Evaluating the outcomes and impacts of schemes is important to show if a project has been successful and to guide the development of future projects. Scheme Outputs and Spend must be reported on a monthly basis using the Project Vision system throughout the project’s implementation phase.

Please set out how you plan to measure and report on the stated Outcomes and Benefits, including an account of external factors that will influence the scheme’s measurables, for at least a 5-year period from its public opening. The software which controls the displays known as the Display Management System reports on system performance and can be used to ensure optimum availability.

(maximum of 300 words)

The table below provides a guide of scheme outcome monitoring metrics only. It is expected that the type and scale of scheme will dictate specific monitoring plans, which should be discussed with the Regional Transport Team prior to finalisation.

Scheme Family Measurable outcome UTMC Gateways Cycle Green Light Schemes to Work Average & peak/ non-peak X X X traffic flows and/or impacted user counts (selected points) AM & PM peak journey times X X X (all relevant users including disbeneficiaries). Travel time variability (all X X X X affected users) CO2 emissions (estimated) X X X

NO2 emissions (estimated) X X X

Accident/ casualty rate X X

Average daily & peak hour X bus/ rail/ Metro boardings

User satisfaction ratings X X X X 21

SECTION D - Declarations

D1. Senior Responsible Owner Declaration As Senior Responsible Owner for Nexus I hereby submit this business case to the NECA on behalf of Nexus, and confirm that I have the necessary authority to do so.

I confirm that Nexus will have all the necessary statutory powers in place to ensure the planned timescales in the application can be realised. Name: Signed: John D Fenwick Position: Director of Finance and Resources, Nexus

D2. Section 151 Officer / Finance Office Declaration

THIS DECLARATION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR SUBMITTING THIS FORM

Please note however, the Grant Funding Agreement (to be issued following scheme business case approval) between NECA and the scheme promoting authority will need the appropriate Finance Officer sign-off in accordance with the authority’s Scheme of Delegation. [Where a scheme has multiple local authority partners, the lead banking authority should sign-off the Grant Funding Agreement, following consultation with the relevant Finance Officers in scheme partnering authorities]. This will include declaration that the authority:-

- has allocated sufficient budget to deliver this scheme on the basis of its proposed funding contribution; - accepts responsibility for meeting any costs over and above the LGF contribution requested, including potential cost overruns and the underwriting of any funding contributions expected from third parties; - accepts responsibility for meeting any ongoing revenue and capital requirements in relation to the scheme; - accepts that no further increase in LSTF Capital Local Growth Fund will be considered beyond the maximum contribution set out in the table on page 3 and that no funding from this source will be available beyond 2016/17; - confirms that the authority has the necessary governance and assurance arrangements in place.

Submission of completed Business Case proforma

An electronic copy in Microsoft Word, with any appendices, should be submitted to:- [email protected] and [email protected]

22