Public Document Pack
22nd December 2020
To: Members of the SCR - Transport and the Environment Board and Appropriate Officers
You are hereby invited to a meeting of the Sheffield City Regional Mayoral Combined Authority to be held at Virtual Meeting, on: Thursday, 7 January 2021 at 10.00 am for the purpose of transacting the business set out in the agenda.
Dr Dave Smith Chief Executive
You can view the agenda and papers at www.sheffieldcityregion.org.uk or use a smart phone camera and scan the QR code
Member Distribution
Councillor Chris Read (Co-Chair) Rotherham MBC Peter Kennan (Co-Chair) Private Sector LEP Board Member Councillor Joe Blackham Doncaster MBC Councillor Bob Johnson Sheffield City Council Councillor Denise Lelliott Rotherham MBC Councillor Chris Lamb Barnsley MBC Karen Beardsley Private Sector LEP Board Member Sarah Norman Barnsley MBC Mark Lynam MCA Executive Team
SCR - Transport and the Environment Board
Thursday, 7 January 2021 at 10.00 am
Venue: Virtual Meeting
Agenda
Agenda Subject Lead Page Ref No 1. Welcome and Apologies Co-Chair
2. Declarations of Interest by individual Members in Co-Chair relation to any item of business on the agenda. 3. Urgent items / Announcements Co-Chair
4. Public Questions of Key Decisions Co-Chair
5. Minutes of the last meeting Co-Chair 5 - 12
6. Terms of Reference & Meeting Arrangements Mr Mark 13 - 26 Lynam 7. Draft 2021/22 South Yorkshire Transport Revenue Sutton 27 - 48 Budget & Capital Programme 8. Transformation: Responding to the Bus Review Mr Mark 49 - 54 Lynam 9. Recovery: Covid Funding Exit Risks And Light Rail P Beijer 55 - 60 Recovery Plan 10. Stabilisation: Bus Parterships - Future Approach P Beijer 61 - 66
11. Transforming Cities Funds Tranche 2 ('TCF T2') Ms Sue 67 - 70 Programme Update Sykes 12. Transforming Cities Fund - Benefits Realisation and Whitley 71 - 154 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 13. Programme Approvals Ms Sue 155 - 172 Sykes 14. Local Transport 2021/22 Programme Setting Mr Mark 173 - 178 Lynam 15. Restoring Your Railway Fund - Update Mr Mark 179 - 182 Lynam FOR INFORMATION 16.1 MCA / LEP Performance Report Ms Sue 183 - 220 Sykes 16.2 SYPTE Performance Dashboard Mr S 221 - 240 Edwards 17. Any Other Business Co-Chair
Date of next meeting: Monday, 8 February 2021 at 3.00 pm At:Virtual Meeting
Agenda Item 5
SCR - TRANSPORT BOARD
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON:
FRIDAY, 4 SEPTEMBER 2020 AT 10.00 AM
11 BROAD STREET WEST, SHEFFIELD S1 2BQ
Present:
Mayor Dan Jarvis MBE (Chair) SCR Mayoral Combined Authority Peter Kennan Private Sector LEP Board Member Councillor Dave Leech Barnsley MBC Councillor Chris Furness Non-Constituent Authorities Councillor Abdul Khayum Sheffield City Council Matthew Gladstone (Reserve) Barnsley MBC
In Attendance:
Steve Davenport Principal Solicitor & Monitoring SCR/SYPTE Officer Jenny Holmes Interim Assistant Director for SCR Executive Team Strategic Transport Stephen Edwards Executive Director SYPTE Emily Hickey Governance and Compliance SCR Executive Team Officer Felix Kumi-Ampofo Assistant Director Policy and SCR Executive Team Assurance Chloe Shepherd Senior Programme Manager SCR Executive Team Sue Sykes Assistant Director - Programme SCR Executive Team and Performance Unit David Whitley Senior Programme Manager Sheffield City Region
Apologies:
Councillor Chris Read Rotherham MBC Councillor Joe Blackham Doncaster MBC Alison Kinna Co-opted LEP Board Member Mark Lynam SCR Executive Team Charli Taylor SCR Executive
1 Welcome and Apologies
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Apologies were noted as above.
Page 5 2 Declarations of Interest by individual Members in relation to any item of business on the agenda
None.
3 Urgent items / Announcements
None.
4 Public Questions of Key Decisions
None.
5 Minutes of the Previous Meeting
RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 3rd July 2020 be agreed as a true record.
6 Bus Review Response Work
A report was submitted to update the Board on the Bus Review Response workstream and outline the proposed next steps.
Following consideration of the Bus Review, a proposed set of principles to shape the regions response along with a 7-point work programme was presented and agreed at the July MCA meeting.
The 7-point plan covered:
Governance Route Analysis Quality Analysis Pricing Analysis Environmental Analysis Model Evaluation Cost Model
The Board was informed that work had taken place to package and sequence the different components of the Plan. It was proposed that the four analysis work strands were prioritised as the outputs would shape the remainder of the work programme. The Route, Quality and Environment Analysis workstreams would be progressed as a package first.
The brief for work package 1 was under development and, once completed, would produce a set of recommendations for Leaders to consider.
To ensure value for money was obtained from the Commission a Resourcing Plan was also being developed.
Members noted that within the July MCA meeting it had been agreed that a Bus Improvement Board would be established to guide the development and delivery of the 7-point plan. Work had begun on the Terms of Reference for this
Page 6 group and to identify the membership required to effectively govern this work. Once the Terms of Reference had been drafted they would be brought for sign off at the October Transport Board meeting.
The procurement of external support and identification of funding for the analysis commission was being worked through. As the scope and size of the brief would influence the procurement route taken, the timescales proposed at the July MCA meeting were being reviewed to ensure full compliance with Contract Procedure Rules and procurement regulations. A proposed revised timescale was detailed within the report.
RESOLVED – That the Board approve the approach to delivering the Bus Review Response work programme through the work packages outlined within the report and note the timescales for delivery.
7 Integrated Rail Plan For The Midlands And The North
The Board considered a report which updated Members on the MCA’s input into the Government’s emerging Integrated Rail Plan for the Midlands and the North (IRPMN).
Members were reminded that the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) had been tasked with undertaking an initial Rail Needs Assessment for the Midlands and the North. The NIC published an Interim Report in mid-July which confirmed the intention to publish the final IRPMN in November. Details of the NIC’s suggestions as to the scope of the IRPMN were detailed within the report.
The MCA’s response to the Rail Needs Assessment addressed each of the eleven questions using the SCR Integrated Rail Plan as an agreed policy position, supplemented by more recent work.
The Board was informed that it was argued that the IRPMN should include both the eastern and western legs of HS2 Phase 2b and the whole NPR network, plus other strategic rail investments that facilitate of complement these projects.
The IRPMN should take account of rail schemes with committed programmes, particularly improvements to the Hope Valley Line, as well as line speed and capacity improvements between Doncaster and Leeds.
Members noted that there were five schemes in the City Region that merited early delivery in the Plan, these were detailed within the report.
The response also recognised that rail freight must form a part of the needs assessment, addressing the capacity needed to meet growing demand. In answer to a question from Cllr Furness, P Kennan confirmed there were no plans to upgrade the Hope Valley Line to enable container freight to use the Line.
To build on the City Region’s response to the Rail Needs Assessment it was proposed to submit a Rail Needs Prospectus (attached at Appendix A and B to the report) setting out in more detail the requirements for a better deal on the
Page 7 Sheffield to Leeds and Manchester corridor as well as from HS2 and the remaining services.
RESOLVED – That the Board approve the Rail Needs Prospectus, attached to the report, for submission to the Department for Transport and the National Infrastructure Commission.
8 Transport For The North Integrated And Smart Travel Update
This item was exempt by virtue of Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
A report was submitted to provide the Board with an update on the latest progress within Transport for the North’s Integrated and Smart Travel Programme.
RESOLVED – That the Board endorse SYPTE’s engagement in the four phases of TfN’s programme as detailed within the report.
9 Roads Implementation Plan And Approach To The Key Route Network
The Board considered a report which gave an update on the status of the Roads Implementation Plan which had been developed in partnership with Local Authority Transport Leads and SYPTE.
The Board was informed that the Roads Implementation Plan had been paused to enable the ATIP and the Bus Review response to progress as both relied on efficient use of the regions road network to meet their objectives.
The Roads Plan proposed a rethink of how and what was invested in on the network to improve the range of options for all road users. The response to the pandemic had shown that re-allocating the road space enabled people to use more sustainable modes of transport. The flexible use of roads during recent months indicated that an appropriate balance needed to be struck between the creation of new road infrastructure and making better use of the existing network.
To ensure decisions reflect the Road Plan commitments (which were detailed within the report) and the ‘all users’ approach to the network, it was proposed that a set of core principles would be developed to guide investment in the road network.
Members noted that in developing the Roads Plan, a Key Route Network (KRN) had been defined. The KRN reflected the important role that the road network played in supporting the economic recovery of the SCR and the interplay between the operation of the road and the public transport system. The criteria for the inclusion of a route on the KRN were detailed within the report.
Members agreed that the Plan offered the opportunity to collaborate in areas where this seems sensible, for example, on utilisation of technology for traffic management.
Page 8
RESOLVED – That the Board:
1. Note the work undertaken to date with the Local Authorities to develop the SCR Roads Implementation Plan.
2. Note the ‘all users’ approach which focused on a balanced and efficient use of road space.
3. Confirm the proposed Key Route Network of regionally significant roads set out in the Plan.
4. Note the benefits and any disadvantages to further development and utilisation of the KRN approach for planning, investment, collaboration or co-ordination.
10 Dearne Valley Regeneration Route
The Board considered a report which set out the background to the current work for the Dearne Valley Regeneration Route, which for the purpose of the report, included the whole length of route along the A635 from Cathill roundabout to the A1(M) at Marr.
Members noted that route was included on the Department for Transport’s Major Route Network and Transport for the North’s investment programme (part of its Strategic Transport Plan).
Following a tendering exercise, Doncaster MBC appointed Amey to develop a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) for improvements along the route. The commission was jointly funded with Barnsley MBC and the MCA.
The SOBC was being developed in line with The Government Transport Appraisal Guidance, based on Treasury ‘Green Book’ principles.
Initial work on the strategic case had shown that it was robust, but early modelling outputs show a low ‘value for money’ assessment.
RESOLVED – That the Board:
1. Note the progress made to date in developing the Strategic Outline Business Case.
2. Support the ongoing development of the project as part of a wider economic solution which improved connectivity between the A1 and M1, enabled growth in the City Region and sought to improve the existing safety and environmental challenges at Hickleton and Marr.
3. Requested that a final SOBC be received by the Transport Board at a future meeting to enable a decision to be taken on future work and how this could be funded.
Page 9 11 SCR Renewal Action Plan Implementation
A report was submitted which presented the SCR Renewal Action Plan and set out the actions being undertaken to implement the Plan in terms of the Transport elements of the Plan.
Members noted that the development of the Renewal Action Plan (RAP) had been endorsed by the LEP Board on the 16th July and approved by the MCA on the 27th July 2020.
The RAP included a commitment to supporting sustainable, affordable and safe means for people and goods to move efficiently in line with Covid-19 regulations and beyond. The Plan focused on accelerating investment plans to enable and promote cycling and walking and a commitment to support local development plans which enabled more low traffic neighbourhoods through a £53m active travel investment programme. There was also a commitment to improve local bus services.
In recent months the Government had announced a number of active travel support packages. Considerable time in Local Authorities and the MCA Executive had been redirected to submitting proposals to the Emergency Active Travel funding rounds. Additionally, some existing funding was likely to be reprogrammed and subject to change controls, for example, the Transforming Cities Fund (£166m to 2023). The national funding available so far to support active travel was not of the scale envisaged in the SCR RAP. The call would be for longer term devolved funding settlements for active travel investment, both capital and revenue.
The prospective schemes had been identified based on local need. The schemes identified were also predominantly capital infrastructure, the revenue activities required to support these still needed to be identified.
Board members agreed that existing and new funds already provided to the SCR should be the primary focus of attention for the coming months. Board members welcomed the additional support that would be provided by Sustrans.
RESOLVED – That the Transport elements of the SCR Renewal Action plan are noted.
12 Delivering The Transforming Cities Fund Programme - Update
A report was submitted which provided an update on how the MCA Executive intended to continue to work with scheme sponsors to deliver the Transforming Cities Fund by March 2023.
Members noted that there were concerns that scheme promoters were increasingly seeking to move project spend to the end of the programme. The latest profile was included within the report but was expected to change further as additional information became available from partners.
Covd-19 has had a significant impact on the TCF programme delivery and planning. Issues included delays to data collection and the need to reconsider
Page 10 how consultation was undertaken.
As there were a number of risks to the current TCF programme, both in terms of the backdated spend profile, the lack of up to date scheme information from promoters and capacity constraints, there was a need for the MCA Executive to review the current programme and put in place mitigations and ensure a deliverable profile was in place.
As a result of those issues it was recommended that the MCA Executive worked with projects displaying slower than anticipated progress and request that they submit a remedial plan to help inform an overall programme review.
In parallel with these remedial plans, it was recommended that the MCA Executive undertake an assessment of project deliverability based on currently available data; this work would produce a new overall programme. Any projects deemed undeliverable by the programme end date would be considered either for removal or revision at the Transport Board in October and escalated where required to the MCA Board.
RESOLVED – That the Board:
1. Note the current programme delivery issues and approaches being made to mitigate them.
2. Agree to undertake a review of the current programme with a view to receiving a revised programme at the October Transport Board meeting.
13 SCR Performance Reports
A report and accompanying programme summaries and performance dashboards were submitted to provide the Board with current performance information on transport programmes delivered by the SCR Executive on behalf of the LEP and MCA.
The following programme summaries and performance dashboards were attached for information:
Transforming Cities Fund (Tranche 1) Transforming Cities Fund (Tranche 2) Emergency Active Travel Fund (Phase 1) Access Fund for Sustainable Travel 2017-2020 Access Fund for Sustainable Travel 2020-2021 Local Growth Fund SCR Borrowing Transport Activity
It was noted that the main area of concern was the Transforming Cities Fund as discussed in the previous item.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
Page 11 14 PTE All Modes Report
S Edwards presented the All Modes Transport Report which updated the Board on the transport operations of the bus, rail and tram networks.
It was noted that there was still concerns regarding funding. The core bus network funding was currently on an 8-week rolling cycle and funding for light rail was in place until 20th October 2020.
With regard to passenger numbers the bus network was 50% of pre-Covid 19, trams were at 35% and rail at 35%.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
15 Local Transport Capital Programmes Quarterly Update
A report was submitted which provided an update on current activity in the South Yorkshire local transport and capital programmes.
The report covered the Integrate Transport Block and the Highways Capital Maintenance Programmes.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
16 Any Other Business
P Kennan informed the Board that there had recently been some good news in these challenging times with the announcement that an airline was basing another aircraft at Doncaster Sheffield Airport and also launching six new routes.
In accordance with Combined Authority’s Constitution/Terms of Reference for the Board, Board decisions need to be ratified by the Head of Paid Services (or their nominee) in consultation with the Chair of the Board. Accordingly, the undersigned has consulted with the Chair and hereby ratifies the decisions set out in the above minutes.
Signed
Name
Position
Date
Page 12 Agenda Item 6
TRANSPORT & ENVIRONMENT BOARD
7th January 2021
Terms of Reference & Meeting Arrangements
Purpose of Report
This report summarises the governance arrangements for the Transport and Environment Board, approved by the Mayoral Combined Authority on 21st September 2020 and the Local Enterprise Partnership on 10th September 2020. The paper also confirms the schedule of meetings.
Freedom of Information
Thematic Board Papers and any appendices will be made available under the Combined Authority Publication Scheme. This scheme commits the Authority to make information about how decisions are made available to the public as part of its normal business activities.
Recommendations
Board members are asked to:
1. note the approved governance arrangements and identify any issues, 2. note the schedule of Transport and Environment Board meetings
1. Introduction
1.1 Thematic Boards were first established by the MCA in early 2019 with the rationale of: • achieving an efficient, effective and transparent model for decision making; • collaborating to build collective and combined decisions to deliver the outcomes identified in the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP); • providing strong and accountable leadership in setting the agenda, and delivering a defined programme of activity, to rigorously realise the outcomes of the SEP; and • scrutinising planned and ongoing activity to deliver the best outcomes for the region and value for money
A review of the Boards has been undertaken to ensure that they are well placed to fulfil the duties and responsibilities secured through the recent devolution agreement and are aligned to the priorities of the new Strategic Economic Plan (2020-2040). Proposed changes were considered by the LEP Board on the 10th September 2020 and approved by the MCA on the 21st September 2020.
1.2 This paper provides the Terms of Reference for the Transport and Environment Board (appendix 1), summarises the key changes and clarifies arrangements.
Page 13
2. Proposal and justification
2.1 The Transport and Environment Board is one of four new thematic boards established within the MCA. The role of each Board is to take a city region wide strategic perspective on issues relevant to the thematic area, to support the delivery of the Strategic Economic Plan and the Recovery Action Plan. The principle role of the Transport and Environment Board is to:
• Oversee the implementation of the Transport Strategy • Lead the implementation of the Climate Emergency Response Framework • Shape future policy development and priorities on issues related to transport and the environment • Develop new transport programmes and environmental programmes • Monitor programme delivery and performance on transport and on the environment • Oversee the performance of SYPTE in delivering operational transport services and its capital programme and providing SYPTE with political direction.
2.2 Other matters to note are:
Delegations (section 3 of the Terms of Reference)
Each Board has a delegation to: • agree investments up to £2m • recommend investments over £2m to the MCA • accept grants up to £2m • award contracts for the supply of goods/services up to £200,000
These delegations remain unchanged from previous arrangements.
2.3 Transparency (section 13 of the Terms of Reference)
To ensure an appropriate level of transparency it has been agreed that for each Board: • papers will be made available to the public 5 clear working days before the meeting • the public can submit questions and receive a written response • meetings will be held in private and minutes made available to the public within 10 working days of the meeting taking place
These arrangements remain unchanged from those previously in place.
2.4 Advisory Boards (section 12 of the terms of reference)
It has been agreed that the Transport and Environment Board is permitted to form Task and Finish groups of key stakeholders and advisors to assist in the management and monitoring of individual programmes or projects. Any such groups are purely advisory and must submit reports to the Transport and Environment Board.
2.5 Frequency of Meetings (section 5 the Terms of Reference)
It has been agreed that the Board continues to meet on (at least) an 8-week cycle aligned to the 8-week MCA meeting schedule. This remains unchanged from the arrangements previously in place. Additional meetings, dependent on business need, can be agreed with co-Chairs and will observe publication requirements for papers, minutes and key
Page 14
decisions. The Board may also determine to have informal intermediate meetings where discussion is required mid-cycle
2.6 Meeting Schedule
Meetings have been scheduled to ensure the Transport and Environment Board meets around the 4th week of the MCA 8-week cycle. This allows any decisions requiring escalation to the MCA, for example, due to the value exceeding delegations, to progress through the decision-making process in a timely manner. More dates are in the process of being identified.
3. Consideration of alternative approaches
3.1 There is no discretion to change governance arrangements, as these have been approved by both the MCA and the LEP however, each Board is empowered to determine an appropriate work plan to ensure thematic priorities are met.
4. Implications
4.1 Financial Thematic Boards have the authority to approve projects and schemes with a value of less than £2m. The Thematic Boards are also able to accept tenders and quotations for the supply of goods, materials and services up to a limit of £200,000.
4.2 Legal The changes to the Terms of Reference have been captured in the MCAs Constitution.
4.3 Risk Management Strong governance arrangements are an important mechanism in managing a number of corporate risks. These arrangements reflect the commitment of both the MCA and LEP to transparency, and the clear delineation of responsibilities between different elements of the decision-making system.
4.4 Equality, Diversity and Social Inclusion There are no equality, diversity and social inclusion issues arising from this report.
5. Communications
5.1 The roles and responsibilities of the new Thematic Boards are explained in the Assurance Framework and the MCA Constitution which is published on the website. All meeting papers, minutes and membership of the Thematic Boards are also published on the website. In addition, members of the public can submit questions to the Thematic Board and receive a written response.
6. Appendices/Annexes
6.1 Appendix 1- Terms of Reference
REPORT AUTHOR Claire James POST Senior Governance & Compliance Manager Officer responsible Dave Smith Organisation Sheffield City Region Email [email protected] Telephone 0114 2203000 Background papers used in the preparation of this report are available for inspection at: 11 Broad Street West, Sheffield S1 2BQ
Page 15
Other sources and references: • MCA Meeting September 2020 & LEP Board Meeting September 2020
Page 16
APPENDIX 4
TERMS OF REFERENCES FOR THE TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT BOARD
Page 17
Transport and Environment Board
Terms of Reference
Page 18 1. Purpose and Role
1.1 The purpose of the Transport and Environment Board is to provide leadership, development of policy and the delivery of a programme of activity aligned to the priorities of the Strategic Economic Plan and the Recovery Action Plan and other approved strategies associated with transport and the environment as well as to provide direction for and oversee the performance of South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE).
1.2 The role of the Transport and Environment Board is to:
Oversee the implementation of the Transport Strategy Lead the implementation of the Climate Emergency Response Framework Shape future policy development and priorities on issues related to transport and the environment Develop new transport programmes and environmental programmes Make investment decisions within the agreed budget and policy on transport, as delegated by the Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA) Accept grants with a value of less than £2 million Monitor programme delivery and performance on transport and on the environment Oversee the performance of SYPTE in delivering operational transport services and its capital programme and providing SYPTE with political direction.
2. Responsibilities
2.1 The Transport and Environment Board is responsible for:
Funding
Approving, deferring or rejecting funding applications for transport and environmental projects that fall within the financial limit of delegated authority, and which are within the budgets agreed by the MCA and, where appropriate, Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Making recommendations to the MCA to approve, defer or reject applications for projects that exceed the financial limit of delegated authority, and which are within the transport and environment budgets Making recommendations to the LEP to approve, defer or reject applications for transport and environment projects to form a project pipeline where relevant Recommending for approval to the MCA the capital programme of SYPTE Recommending for approval to the MCA the revenue budget of SYPTE
Page 19 Strategy and Policy
Ensuring that transport and environment policies developed by the Board and agreed by the MCA and LEP are enacted effectively through appropriate investments and by SYPTE Reviewing economic intelligence and evidence of regional economic performance on transport and on environmental issues Developing and managing relationships with key stakeholders and partners
Programme Delivery
Commissioning of activity to deliver and implement transport and the environmental priorities Monitoring the transport capital programme and project delivery.
Performance and Risk Management
Reviewing project performance, outputs and outcomes Identifying and recommending mitigations for any programme risks or poor performance Escalating any strategic, policy or programme risks to the MCA and LEP Boards
2.2 The Transport and Environment Board will be consulted on commercial and residential development projects which incorporate link roads or junction improvements and on developments that promote low carbon and biodiversity net gain requirements (in the context of Modern Methods of Construction) however, decisions on such projects will be taken by the Housing and Infrastructure Board.
3. Delegated Authority
3.1 In order to enact its responsibilities, the Transport and Environment Board will have delegated authority from the MCA to approve investment decisions for agreed pipeline projects up to £2 million.
3.2 The Transport and Environment Board will have delegated authority to accept grants with a value of less than £2 million.
3.3 The Transport and Environment Board may refer a matter or decision within their delegated authority to the MCA or LEP.
Page 20 3.4 The Transport and Environment Board will have delegated authority to accept a tender or quotation for the supply of goods, materials or services for which financial provision has been made in the Authority’s Revenue Budget up to a limit of £200,000.00 in value for any one transaction.
3.5 The Transport and Environment Board has delegated responsibility for the specific transport functions of the MCA listed in Annex 1.
4. Membership
4.1 The Transport and Environment Board will be co-Chaired by the MCA portfolio lead for Transport and the Environment and a private sector LEP Board member.
4.2 Membership of the Transport and Environment Board will comprise:
One Leader, who is portfolio lead, from a constituent Local Authority who will co-Chair the Board A nominated elected member representative for each of the constituent Local Authorities A lead Chief Executive from a Local Authority Two private sector LEP Board members, one of whom will co-Chair the Board; The Director General of the SYPTE The SCR MCA Head of Paid Service (or their nominated representative)
4.3 Elected Members can nominate a deputy to attend meetings of the Board in their absence. All deputies must be named, elected members and must complete a Register of Interests Form. 4.4 Each of the non-constituent Local Authorities can nominate an elected member to attend and participate in the meetings but not vote.
5. Frequency
5.1 The Transport and Environment Board will meet at least on an eight-weekly cycle.
6. Secretariat
6.1 The Sheffield City Region Executive Team will provide the secretariat for the Transport and Environment Board.
6.2 Papers and presentations for Board meetings will be circulated to Board members five clear working days in advance of the meeting.
Page 21 7. Attendance
7.1 Consistent attendance at the Transport and Environment Board meetings is essential, and attendance will be recorded.
8. Quorum
8.1 Meetings of the Transport and Environment Board will be quorate when six members are present and provided that there are at least 2 constituent Local Authority elected member representatives and one LEP member present. A member who is obliged to withdraw under the Code of Conduct for Members shall not be counted towards the quorum.
8.2 A Board member may be counted in the quorum if they are able to participate in the meeting by remote means e.g. telephone, video or electronic link and remain available for the discussion and decision items on the agenda.
9. Decision Making
9.1 Board decisions are legally taken as follows:
i. Matters at the Board relating to the functions of the MCA, by the Head of Paid Service (or their nominated representative) in consultation with the co-Chairs ii. Matters at the Board relating to the functions of SYPTE, the Director General of SYPTE.
By protocol, decisions will not be taken in accordance with i above unless there is Board consensus for the decision. Where consensus cannot be reached the issue will be escalated to the MCA and/or the LEP as appropriate for final decision.
9.2 Decisions made by the Transport and Environment Board will be presented to the MCA Board in a written Delegated Decisions Report at the next meeting. As the delegating body, the MCA will, for decisions taken under 9.1(i) above, have the right to review or amend decisions made by the Transport and Environment Board where such decision has not been acted upon subject to giving due reason for doing so.
10. Conflicts of Interest
Register of Interests
10.1 All Board Members and deputies must complete a Register of Interests Form within 28 days of being appointed to the Transport and Environment Board. This must disclose any disclosable pecuniary interests (as defined in The Relevant Authorities (Disclosable
Page 22 Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012) for the Member, their spouse, their civil partner or partner. Completed Register of Interests Forms for all Board Members are published on the SCR website.
10.2 It is the responsibility of every Transport and Environment Board Member to ensure that their Register of Interests Form is up-to-date and declare any new interests within 28 days of this being known.
10.3 Interests declared by Transport and Environment Board Members will be listed on the Register of Members’ Interests and published on the website.
Declarations of Interest at Board Meetings
10.4 It is the responsibility of Board members to declare any disclosable pecuniary interest (as defined in The Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012) and any other personal interests whether financial or non-financial in specific agenda items at the start of each Transport and Environment Board meeting.
11. Urgent decisions between meetings
11.1 This procedure is to be used only by exception.
11.2 When an urgent matter or decision falls outside the parameters of the meeting cycle, the Transport and Environment Board will be permitted to make decisions through this procedure. If the matter is a Key Decision the procedure in Part 5B (Access to Information Procedure Rules) of the Constitution also needs to be complied with.
11.3 The Head of Paid Service (or their nominated representative), in consultation with the Chair of the Transport and Environment Board, will contact Board Members by email to notify them of the following:
Details of the matter requiring comment and/or decision; The name of the person or persons making or putting forward the proposal/decision; The reason why the matter cannot wait until the next Board; and The date responses are required by.
Two working days after the close of responses, the following will be circulated to all Board Members:
The outcome of the decision taken (including responses received in agreement and responses received in disagreement);
Page 23 The date when any decision comes into effect; and Any mitigating action taken to address stated views or concerns.
11.4 Decisions and actions taken will be retrospectively reported to the next meeting of the Transport and Environment Board and MCA in accordance with paragraph 9.2 above.
12. Advisory Groups
12.1 The Transport and Environment Board will be supported in making investment decisions by an independent Appraisal Panel. The Appraisal Panel will assess all applications for funding and will present their findings and recommendations to the Board on whether the application should be approved, deferred or rejected.
12.2 The Transport and Environment Board is permitted to form Task and Finish groups of key stakeholders and advisors to assist in the management and monitoring of individual programmes or projects. Any such groups are purely advisory and must submit reports to the Transport and Environment Board.
13. Transparency
Key Decisions
13.1 Key decisions to be taken by the Transport and Environment Board will be published in the Forward Plan of Key Decisions on the website 28 days in advance of the decision being made.
13.2 Questions and comments submitted by the public on the pending decisions will be notified to the Transport and Environment Board and will be responded to in writing.
Meeting Papers
13.3 Agendas and papers for the Transport and Environment Board will be published on the website at least five clear working days before the meeting date.
Exemptions
13.4 Where reports or information for Board meetings is exempt from disclosure under Section 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 or the Freedom of Information Act 2000, these papers will either be reserved or specific information in the paper will be redacted.
Page 24 13.5 Reserved papers and reports can still be requested under the Freedom of Information Act. Requests will be considered on a case by case basis (taking into consideration such factors as timing, any applicable exemptions and the public interest test).
Meeting Record
13.6 Draft minutes will be published on the website within ten clear working days of the Transport and Environment Board meeting taking place. The meeting record (approved minutes) will be published on the website within ten clear working days of the subsequent Transport and Environment Board meeting.
14. Amendments to Terms of Reference
14.1 These Terms of Reference will be reviewed annually. Any changes will be approved by the MCA and LEP.
Page 25 Annex 1 – Specific Transport Functions of the MCA
1. Granting approval to SYPTE to promote or oppose any Bill in Parliament pursuant to section 10(1)(xxix), Transport Act 1968;
2. Making a written request to the Minister to authorise SYPTE to purchase compulsorily any land which SYPTE require for the purposes of their business pursuant to section 10(3), Transport Act 1968;
3. Approving the permanent or long term disposal of land not required by SYPTE for operational purposes.
4. Making appointments to the Board of SYPTE;
5. Formulating general policies with respect to the availability and convenience of public passenger services pursuant to sections 9A(5)- (7), Transport Act 1968;
6. Ensuring that SYPTE secures the provision of appropriate public passenger transport services pursuant to Section 9A (3), Transport Act 1968;
7. Considering and approving the creation and development of:-
A. Quality Partnership Schemes or Advanced Quality Partnership Scheme pursuant to sections 113(c)-123, Transport Act 2000;
B. Concessionary Travel Schemes pursuant to sections 93-104, Transport Act 1985;
8. Ensuring that SYPTE implements those actions which may be delegated to it from time to time for promoting the economic, social and environmental well-being of the Combined Area and its residents pursuant to section 99, Local Transport Act 2008;
9. Approving releases for capital schemes within the agreed capital programme and the agreed budget for the scheme concerned (including approving capital payments for the purpose of the provision, improvement or development of facilities for public passenger transport, pursuant to section 56(2), Transport Act 1968);
10. Determining variations in charges for transport services or facilities provided by SYPTE, pursuant to section 15(2), Transport Act 1968;
11. Approving the level of support of local rail services over and above that in the baseline franchise specification;
12. Determining the operation, performance and development of accessible transport provision pursuant to sections 106(1) and 106(2), Transport Act 1985;
13. Monitoring the operation and performance of bus, tram and local rail services and influencing accordingly;
14. Determining issues arising from the rail franchising process.
Page 26 Agenda Item 7
SCR MCA TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT BOARD
8th January 2021
DRAFT 2021/22 SOUTH YORKSHIRE TRANSPORT REVENUE BUDGET & CAPITAL PROGRAMME
Purpose of Report
To provide members of the Transport and Environment Board with an update on the development of the draft 2021/22 South Yorkshire Transport Revenue Budget and Capital Programme.
Thematic Priority
Secure investment in infrastructure where it will do most to support growth.
Recommendations
That members of the Transport and Environment Board endorse the draft 2021/22 Financial Strategy and Revenue Budget and Capital Programme proposals for onward submission to the MCA Board on 25th January 2021.
1. Introduction
1.1 This report presents the draft 2021/22 South Yorkshire Transport Revenue Budget – comprising the net expenditure of SYPTE and the transport related costs managed directly by the Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA) – and the Capital Programme.
1.2 In terms of the Revenue Budget, the main body of this report sets out the proposed Financial Strategy for the year, whilst detailed budget reporting and variance analysis is provided in Appendix 1.
1.3 The principal funding source for this budget is the annually agreed transport levy on the four South Yorkshire Local Authorities. This report sets out proposals for the levy in the new year.
1.4 For most of the last decade the financial strategy for the levy has been one of managed reductions to support partner pressures. Since 2010 the annual levy has fallen by £40.3m (42.5%) from £94.7m to £54.4m for financial year 2020/21. Adjusting for inflation, this represents a cumulative reduction of over 50%.
1.5 At the last budget round Leaders indicated their desire to pivot towards investment in public transport, agreeing to hold the levy at the current level. That decision represented a significant shift in emphasis.
1.6 This report also outlines the aims of the Capital Programme, the capital budget setting process, and the 2021/22 Capital Programme proposals. It then summarises the outstanding
Page 27 issues arising from the proposed Capital Programme, the revenue and resource implications, and the outcomes which the programme is intended to deliver.
2. Proposal and justification
Current Year Financial Strategy
2.1 The current year’s budgeted net expenditure for South Yorkshire transport activity is £59.6m which, in addition to the levy of £54.4m, is funded by a contribution of £5.2m from the MCA levy reduction reserve. This reserve is the fulcrum of the medium-term financial strategy, as it will sustain existing levels of investment until a significant amount of debt is repaid in 2024.
2.2 Expenditure can be broadly broken down into four categories: • Activities prescribed by statute where the costs cannot be controlled (42%) • Expenditure resulting from past investment decisions (21%) • Day-to-day running costs (19%) • Resource deployed to local priorities (18%)
2.3 These four categories are illustrated further in the pie chart below. Figures are expressed in £’000:
2.4 As with other areas of life, the pandemic has had a significant impact on the public transport network. Initial restrictions followed by wider social-distancing measures have deeply affected public transport patronage, leading to a dramatic collapse in farebox income. To-date, patronage on bus has not risen above 60% of pre-Covid levels, and not above 40% on tram.
2.5 This level of patronage reduction would, if left unmitigated, likely lead to the systemic withdrawal of commercially unviable services, and potentially the collapse of operators.
2.6 In response to this concern, two layers of public support were extended to the transport network: • Government provided direct support to bus operators through grant (CBSSG) • Government provided grant awards for tram to LTAs (LRRRG) • Government provided grant awards for bus tendered services to LTAs (LA CBSSG) • The MCA via SYPTE budgets provided concessionary support payments to bus and tram operators at pre-Covid levels.
2.7 In total, it is expected that the level of public support to the network may reach £60m by the end of the current financial year. This level of funding has sustained the network throughout
Page 28 the pandemic and resultant restrictions and protected a level of service that has allowed for the ongoing movement of key workers, commuters, students, and other users.
2.8 These interventions have allowed for an equilibrium of sorts to emerge. The status-quo sees operators insulated from commercial risk, services maintained (albeit with capacity restrictions) for passengers, and an acceptable interim financial compromise for the MCA where current levels of support are affordable in the context of overall pressures.
2.9 To-date, the intervention into the market has been a success with limited service withdrawals and a relatively stable financial outturn forecast for the LTA functions of the MCA. Planning for Uncertainty in Financial Year 2021/22 2.10 Financial planning for the new year is beset by uncertainty. Planning requires us to predict the behaviour of the three key actors in the current environment: • Will Operators continue to run services where they are at best breaking-even? • Will Users return to the network, or have travel patterns permanently changed? • Will Government sustain its support, for how long, and to what level?
2.11 Of most immediate concern are the intentions of government beyond March. Whilst government has committed to a support package to January 2021, with an expectation of an extension of that support to March, there is little concrete support beyond that point.
2.12 A withdrawal of government support, in full or in part, before patronage returns to sustainable levels will disturb the sensitive equilibrium that currently exists, and likely precipitate a request from operators for greater local subsidy or risk service withdrawals.
2.13 The MCA does not have the resource to backfill a withdrawal of government support on a sustainable basis and recognises that a call on additional levy contributions at this time would be difficult.
2.14 Accordingly, a financial strategy is proposed that will allow the MCA to plan against a base- case scenario, whilst leaving sufficient resilience to manage disruption should government funding be withdrawn before patronage recovers.
The Central Hypothesis
2.15 The base-scenario for planning assumes that government support for the South Yorkshire passenger transport network continues, in some form, until restrictions are lifted.
2.16 To maintain the current status-quo, it is proposed that MCA will continue to play its part in subsidising the network through pre-Covid volume concessionary fare payments whilst so ever government maintains its contributions at current levels.
2.17 Upon the lifting of restrictions, we assume that government support is withdrawn either in full or in part. At this stage the MCA ceases to pay concessionary fares at pre-Covid volume levels, and instead reverts to payment based on actuals.
2.18 The central hypothesis assumes that once restrictions are lifted patronage will begin to recover, but not reach 80% of pre-Covid levels before the end of the financial year.
2.19 In this scenario, modelling suggests that the removal of public support packages and the shortfall in fare paying patronage will create a significant revenue shortfall for operators. Modelling suggests that over a full year, at the forecast patronage levels, the transport network would have a funding deficit of c. £22m.
Page 29 2.20 Set against this, modelling suggests that should the MCA revert to paying concessionary fares on actuals, and with patronage not rising beyond 80%, concessionary payments would, over a full year, fall by c. £5m.
Sensitivity
2.21 The financial implications of this hypothesis are largely dependent on two major variables: • When government withdraws support; and, • To what extent government withdraws support
2.22 These sensitivities will significantly impact upon the reaction of both operators and passengers to events. A cliff-edge withdrawal of funding before passenger confidence returns would have a significant effect on the network, whereas a tapered reduction that eases the network into a transitionary phase may be more manageable.
Financial Strategy
2.23 The proposed financial strategy for the new financial year is predicated on three main objectives: • Sustaining the current level of service provision wherever possible to support communities and the economic recovery; • Facilitating the transition to the post-pandemic phase; and, • Supporting partner financial pressures.
2.24 Recognising the significant uncertainty, it is proposed that the levy is held at current levels. Holding the levy will support the maintenance of the status-quo whilst government maintain their funding, and support mitigating actions should that funding be withdrawn. Holding the levy also avoids further calls on partner budgets.
2.25 Budget challenge has been undertaken to support the mitigation of cost inflation, particularly around inflationary increases in the cost of operations and tendered services.
2.26 Pressures arising from activity which we don’t expect to repeat will be met from reserves. This includes the forecast costs of Bus Review work (£0.40m), and income shortfalls from commercial and investing activity (£0.95m).
2.27 A short-term approach is proposed to the macro risk of the systemic withdrawal of services from the network in the event of a government funding withdrawal.
2.28 In the event of government support being withdrawn or reduced to unviable levels it is proposed that the MCA cease to pay its pre-Covid levels of support to operators and instead revert to paying on actuals. Assuming patronage recovers to no more than 80%, this will generate a £5m full-year surplus on current budget levels.
2.29 This budget headroom will be supplemented by a Covid resilience reserve of c. £7m, generated from the pooling of reserves from across the Group. Taken together, this resource would be available for deployment in support of the interim protection of priority routes and services.
2.30 This approach to managing the macro risks facing the MCA is necessarily short-term. The MCA cannot backfill the loss of both government support and fare-paying patronage beyond the immediate term. Ultimately, the sustainability of the network is dependent on the recovery of patronage.
2.31 However, this approach does provide a bridge to an opportunity to consider the post pandemic phase travel patterns that emerge as the vaccine is rolled out, and new funding realities as the
Page 30 government pivots away from emergency support.
2.32 As the demand and funding landscape becomes clearer, the MCA will be required to re-set its financial strategy to realign to more sustainable financial support to its LTA objectives.
Levy Proposals
2.33 Legislation requires that the cost of the levy is apportioned on a per capita basis. Accordingly, whilst the total quantum of the levy will be held at current levels, the apportionment will marginally change:
Levy Levy Authority Population % Share Population % Share Variance 2020/21 2021/22 2018 £'000 2019 £'000 £'000 Barnsley 245,199 17.50% £9,494 246,866 17.52% £9,525 £31 Doncaster 310,542 22.10% £12,053 311,890 22.14% £12,034 -£19 Rotherham 264,671 18.90% £10,275 265,411 18.84% £10,240 -£35 Sheffield 582,506 41.50% £22,542 584,853 41.51% £22,565 £23 1,402,918 £54,364 1,409,020 £54,364 £0
Supporting Actions
2.34 In support of this Financial Strategy work will continue on the Covid funding exit strategy, and work to set a decision framework around how resource will be deployed to priorities in the event of services being withdrawn.
2.35 Recognising the central importance of government to the existing stage of the pandemic, and the transition to a sustainable post-pandemic phase, the MCA will also continue to work with government to emphasise the importance of the public transport network to the recovery.
Next Steps
2.36 After consideration at the Transport & Environment Board, this report will be presented to the Mayoral Combined Authority for approval on 25th January 2021.
2.37 As the 2021/22 business planning process evolves and emerging pressures and savings are identified, as well as existing pressures and savings reviewed, the draft budget figures will be revised accordingly.
2.38 From the initial budget engagement session with Cllr Read, it is assumed that Leaders will be content to adhere to the plan of presenting the final budget proposals for approval at the MCA on 22 March 2021.
2.39 This will allow officers to assess the latest available information following the Spending Review and Government’s plans for continuation of emergency funding packages such as CBSSG and LRRRG.
2.40 The MCA will also undertake further investigative work into the pressures and savings proposed in the Operational & Support Departments and apply greater challenge to estimates and assumptions where required.
Capital Programme - Aims
2.41 The purpose of the Capital Programme is to deliver outcomes that contribute to the delivery of the MCA’s public transport goals, and support SYPTE’s statutory and contractual
Page 31 compliance requirements such as health and safety legislation and obligations under leases.
The MCA’s strategies relevant to SYPTE’s activities include the:
MCA Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) – The Plan sets out how the Region will build and sustain a competitive economy. In relation to transport there are three main objectives, collectively aimed at connecting main population centres to each other and to employment sites.
MCA Transport Strategy – The Transport Strategy sits beneath the SEP and sets out the wider aims and objectives for the MCA transport network, beyond its function to enable economic stability and growth. The Strategy has four overarching goals. The first is to support economic growth, and the three policies relating to this are those set out in the SEP. The remaining three goals and associated policies are as follows:
• To create healthy streets where people feel safe. • To improve the quality of our outdoors • To promote, enable and adapt different technologies
The objectives of the capital programme will also support the Renewal Action Plan proposals, and it is noted at this stage that, subject to member agreement, capital resource may be allocated to support bus investment from the year 1 and 2 gainshare funding.
Paragraph 2.47 in this report summarises how the 2021/22 Capital Programme contributes to the goals and policies set out above.
Summary of Process to Date
2.42 During September and early October 2020, the initial list of possible projects for inclusion in next year’s capital programme was circulated within SYPTE, the Local Authorities and MCA. The long list this generated was sifted (see below) by SYPTE Management Board in November.
A further round of engagement is being undertaken with local authority partners and operators with comments requested prior to the report going to the MCA meeting. The ITB element of the capital programme was considered by SYTDG at their December meeting and is progressing through the MCA approval process.
Proposed 2021/22 Capital Budget
2.43 The long list of potential schemes arising from the above was reviewed on the basis of:
i) “Committed” schemes first: these include TCF schemes. ii) Contribution to SYPTE’s and the MCA’s goals. iii) Contribution to SYPTE’s business priorities. iv) Degree of support and other comments from partners. v) Availability of funding. vi) Availability of resources to deliver.
Based on the above, the priorities for non-committed schemes can be summarised as:
• Schemes to improve the financial sustainability of the public transport network as part of the post Covid recovery. These include preparatory work and early wins for the Bus Review and tram related work. • Preparing a pipeline of schemes to assist with the above and improving readiness for future bidding opportunities.
Page 32 • Life cycle renewals.
The proposals for next year’s capital programme were endorsed by SYPTE’s Transport Officers Board on 21 December 2020 and are shown in Appendix 2.
In summary this shows a total Capital Programme next year of £23.87m funded as below:
Source Amount Comments £’000 ITB assumed 2021/22 Allocation £2,049 ITB assumed 2020/21 Allocation c/d £318 Mass Transit ITB Other £70 ‘topslice’ – Wheels to Work TCF £19,085 Capital Grants Unapplied £1,207 Better Bus Area grant £65 DfT ring-fenced grant c/d £1,000 Mass Transit Previously Approved Borrowing £80 Rail Replacement
The total proposed spend broken down by area and mode is given below:
ITB Overall
£’000 % £’000 %
BMBC £292 14.2% £7,294 30.6%
DMBC £292 14.2% £7,290 30.5%
RMBC £392 19.1% £4,802 20.1%
SCC £1,074 52.4% £4,488 18.8%
Mode £’000 %
Bus £16,936 70.9%
Rail £1,487 6.2%
Tram £5,275 22.1%
Other/Non-mode Specific £176 0.7%
Longer-term Investment Profile
2.44 Based on the schemes included in the 2021/22 budget and the information currently available about their longer-term impacts and future projects, a 5 year spend forecast is given in Appendix 3.
Page 33 Longer-term investment profiles will also be influenced by a number of issues still in development. These include: i) Funding for the Tram Bridging Strategy – Work is underway on the potential requirements for investment in tram infrastructure ahead of the end of the current concession in 2024. Work is currently underway on this issue, and a report will be brought to the MCA.
ii) Funding for the Mass Transit OBC/FBC – This will be the subject of a separate paper to the MCA.
iii) Asset Management Plan- The intention to refresh a Group wider asset management plan may change the shape of the current lifecycle renewal programme and/or identify opportunities for investments or disposals.
iv) The volume of underspend this year that could be carried forward into next year - An updated forecast is being prepared but the actual figure will not be formalised until towards the end of the financial year.
v) Outcome of the TCF review – A further MCA-wide review of the TCF programme will be undertaken in the new year, where deliverability of existing schemes will be tested and opportunities for new schemes will be considered. SYPTE is contributing to this review to ensure an equitable share of its schemes across the region.
vi) ITB Funding – This budget has been prepared on the basis that ITB, or similar replacement, will be available. At the time of writing it is understood that ITB grant will flow in the new financial year, but should it not, or at lower than forecast levels, a priorities led rationing exercise will be required to pare investment back to affordable levels.
vii) SYPTE Business Plans - Links between the capital programme and SYPTE’s business plans are being developed. The MCA Group’s composite business plan will be submitted to the March MCA meeting.
viii) There are also some project related tasks that need to be completed before work starts next year, for example the review of the Retail and Information Strategy programme.
Revenue and Resource Implications of the Capital Budget
2.45 Revenue Impacts
Where known, the revenue impacts of the schemes in the budget are shown in Appendix 4. Work is ongoing to determine the revenue implications for all schemes in the Capital Programme. These costs are factored into the revenue budget.
2.46 Resources
Provision has been made in SYPTE’s Business Plan for 2021/22 for the resources necessary to deliver this budget.
The resources required for schemes where the funding is uncertain at present (e.g. Bus Review, Tram Bridging Strategy) will be dealt with in parallel with the project’s overall development.
Overall Contribution to the MCA’s Goals
Page 34
2.47 The proposed 2021/22 Capital Programme has been assessed to ensure that each project contributes to one or more of the goals and/or policies as set out in paragraph 2.41 of this report. It is usual for any single project to contribute to more than one policy, particularly larger projects such as MCA Mass Transit, which will impact directly or indirectly on each of the goals to varying degrees. For details on each schemes contribution to each of the 12 Transport Policies please see Appendix 5.
3. Consideration of alternative approaches
3.1 Under law a balanced budget must be set by the start of the new financial year. This report outlines a proposal to achieve that position whilst delivering on the MCA’s priorities and mitigating the significant risk detailed.
Should the MCA wish to undertake a different body of activity over the course of the year, or adopt a different approach to managing the risk inherent in the current operating environment the budget can be recast.
4. Implications
4.1 Financial This is a financial report. The financial implications of proposals are detailed in the body of the document.
4.2 Legal In setting the South Yorkshire Transport Revenue Budget for 2021/22, the MCA must have regard to the Transport Levying Bodies Regulations 1992. In particular, it must ensure that the transport levy for the forthcoming financial year is agreed by 15th February 2021 in order to allow enough time for the constituent authorities to set their council tax levels by early March.
4.3 Risk Management Given the current climate of uncertainty, the MCA Board on 16 November 2020 approved in principle the proposal that the levy be held at existing levels to support the current level of service provision.
Many of the risks for next year’s Capital Programme are as for previous years, but there are also some specific to this budget. The main risks to these include: i) Resolution of funding where source not yet agreed (e.g. Tram Bridging Strategy); ii) The longer-term impacts of covid 19 on services and available funding; iii) Confirmation of ITB funding; iv) Projects at varying degrees of development, hence risk that costs, benefits and programmes will change as they develop; v) Resources needed to deliver related activities not clear at present; vi) SYPTE is dependent on third parties for delivery of many schemes, particularly Local Authorities where issues with resources and Public Transport schemes’ priority compared to other work could impact on delivery.
4.4 Equality, Diversity and Social Inclusion The principles of equality, diversity and social inclusion are built into the annual budget-setting process and are taken into consideration when assessing budget pressures and savings proposals. Any equality implications to which members must have regard under s.149
Page 35 Equality Act 2010 will be set out in detail in the report that accompanies any recommendation about specific proposals.
5. Communications
5.1 Consultation and engagement with the Leaders, Chief Executives and Finance Directors of all four levy-paying authorities with regard to the proposed 2021/22 financial strategy was undertaken in December 2020.
6. Appendices/Annexes
6.1 Appendix 1 - Detailed revenue budget reporting and variance analysis Appendix 2 – Breakdown of draft 2021/22 capital programme Appendix 3 – 5-year capital expenditure forecast Appendix 4 – breakdown of capital programme funding sources Appendix 5 – capital programme’s contribution to each of the 12 Transport Policies
Report Author Mike Thomas Post Senior Finance Manager Officer responsible Gareth Sutton Organisation Sheffield City Region Mayoral Combined Authority Email [email protected]
Background papers used in the preparation of this report are available for inspection at: 11 Broad Street West, Sheffield S1 2BQ
Other sources and references: n/a
Page 36 APPENDIX 1 1. The tables presented in this appendix represent the forecast budget based upon a scenario in which there is no disruption to the current funding environment, and no requirement for budget reorganisation in support of the protection of priority services.
2. Presenting the detailed budget on this basis allows for transparency around underlying trends and pressures, without distorting the picture with macro risk which cannot at this stage be accurately forecast. 2020/21 2021/22 Budget Pressures Savings Budget Variance £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 Mandatory & Discretionary Expenditure ENCTS/Mobility Concessions 24,916 0 -1,455 23,461 -1,455 Financial Obligations Capital Financing 7,202 0 -1,184 6,018 -1,184 Tram Access 1,500 0 0 1,500 0 Depreciation 6,475 294 0 6,769 294 Contribution from reserves to cover -6,475 0 -294 -6,769 -294 depreciation Pensions 1,256 0 -516 740 -516 Discretionary Expenditure Child Concessions 2,136 300 0 2,436 300 Departure Charges -946 0 0 -946 0 Tendered Bus Services 5,821 0 0 5,821 0 Community Transport 1,657 0 0 1,657 0 Operational Departments Customer Services 2,209 161 -53 2,317 108 New establishment posts - assume fully 0 51 -51 0 0 funded Commission on ticket sales -460 260 0 -200 260 Public Transport 8,643 277 -16 8,904 261 New establishment posts - assume fully 0 151 -151 0 0 funded Rents -479 0 -5 -484 -5 Service Charges -1,764 0 -326 -2,090 -326 Car Parking (Inc P&R) -328 280 0 -48 280 Other (vending, Photo Kiosks etc) -69 15 0 -54 15 Support Departments 2,592 646 -451 2,787 195 New establishment posts - assume fully 0 194 -194 0 0 funded Sub-Total 53,886 2,629 -4,695 51,820 -2,066 In-Year Investment Fund 1,087 0 0 1,087 0 SYPTE Total 54,973 2,629 -4,695 52,907 -2,066 MCA Transport operational expenditure 466 400 0 866 400 MRP 4,022 0 -163 3,859 -163 External interest 1,388 0 0 1,388 0 Investment income -1,274 404 0 -870 404 MCA Transport Total 4,602 804 -163 5,243 641 Overall Transport Total 59,575 3,433 -4,858 58,150 -1,425 Funded by: Transport levy 54,364 0 0 54,364 0 Levy reduction reserve 5,211 0 0 3,786 1,425 Total 59,575 0 0 58,150 1,425
Page 37 Formulation of the 2021/22 Budget 3. As shown in Table 2 above, the net movement in expenditure is a reduction of £1.43m (2.4%). In gross terms overall, the LTA will absorb £3.43m of pressures and deliver £4.86m savings. This is analysed further in Table 3 below.
Table 3
£'000 £'000 Pressures: Bus Review work 400 Increase in depreciation charge 294 Loss of external funding tbc Reduction in zero fare pass income 150 VfM sale reimbursement 150 Increase in interchange running costs 277 Reduction in investment income 404 Reduction in commission on ticket sales 260 Reduction in sales, fees and charges 295 Other - Customer Services 161 Other - Support Depts 646 New establishment posts 396 Total pressures 3,433
Savings: Reduction in concessions payments -1,455 Reduction in capital financing costs -1,184 Increase in contribution from depreciation reserve -294 Reduction in pension costs -516 Re-profiling of MRP -163 Step-up in bus shelter advertising contract income -326 Newly let space at interchanges, net of closures -5 Other - Customer Services -53 Other - Public Transport -16 Other - Support Depts -451 External funding to cover new establishment posts -396 Total savings -4,858
Net movement in SY Transport revenue budget -1,425
Pressures 4. In value terms, the most significant category of pressure is income loss stemming from the impact of Covid. The latest indications are that the LTA will suffer gross losses of £1.1m on sales, fees and charges in 2021/22, when compared to the approved 2020/21 budget. It may be possible to mitigate some of these losses by claiming from MHCLG’s SFC income loss compensation scheme, which has now been extended till July 2021. However, not all types of income are eligible for the scheme, for instance investment income (i.e. interest receivable) the loss on which is forecast at £404k.
5. Amongst new and emerging pressures for 2021/22, two items of note are VfM sale reimbursement and interchange running costs.
6. SYPTE reimburses TravelMaster for the sale of GetAbout tickets as they fall outside the scope of the 4-week average concessionary payments. At the start of the year (periods 1-6), sales were minimal,
Page 38 and the reimbursement was c.£20k in total. However, Periods 7 and 8 have shown a significant increase with reimbursement being £19k to £25k per period depending on the number of school days. Extrapolating this forward and assuming no school closures, the full year cost including the remaining school days would be c.£150k.
7. Interchange running costs are expected to step up due primarily to increased utilities, rates and cleaning costs. This partly reflects new ways of working as a result of the pandemic.
8. There is further work to do in investigating Head of Service budget proposals in Customer Services and Support Depts where the combined gross pressure totals £807k. There are mitigating savings of £467k which reduce this pressure to £340k net.
9. This figure excludes the forecast full-year effect of new posts on the establishment of £396k, as well as pressures listed separately elsewhere.
10. Other pressures, such as the aforementioned new establishment posts to support capital projects within the Transforming Cities Fund programme, and increased depreciation charges, have net nil impact on the revenue budget because the costs can be recovered from capital grants.
11. Pay inflation has been assumed as 0% due to the Chancellor’s announcement on 25 November 2020 as part of SR20 that there will be a public sector pay freeze in 2021/22. Resource will be held over in reserves to manage any deviation from this following the national pay award negotiations.
Savings 12. For 2021/22, interest payments are forecast to reduce by £1.2m due to the repayment of loans in line with the MTFS. Opportunities for early repayment to yield further interest savings will continue to be assessed, but none have presently been included in the draft budget on the basis that the cost of implementing such measures (i.e. early redemption penalties) will outweigh the benefits.
13. As well as the step down of £1.5m in concessionary costs (assuming that government intervention continues), the other main saving is from pension costs where – due to the Actuary’s conclusion in the recent triennial valuation that SYPTE is no longer required to pay a deficit recovery contribution - £516k is being released. The LTA is still responsible for contributing to several closed pension funds, hence the residual annual budget for pensions. Employer’s pension contributions for current staff is shown under staffing costs for the Operations and Support Department budgets.
14. The amount which the LTA is required to set aside for the repayment of debt (‘MRP’, or Minimum Revenue Provision) will decrease in 2021/22 as a result of the re-profiling of MRP charges over a longer timeframe than previously set. This reprofiling reduces the MRP charge by £163k in 2021/22.
15. Although most other sources of income are expected to decline in the short term, certain income streams remain intact, for instance advertising income derived from the bus shelter advertising contract which steps up by £326k in 2021/22. Although advertising income has been adversely affected nationwide by the pandemic, the contractor has continued to invest in new digital displays across the region, and a schedule of deferred payments has been re-negotiated which mitigates the bad debt risk.
Page 39 This page is intentionally left blank Proposed 2021/22 Capital Budget APPENDIX 1 Spend Profile by Quarter 15/12/20
EFC 2021/22 Budget Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Comments Committed SCR Mass Transit £426,000,000 £2,600,000 Based on current OBC. To be reviewed when outcome of Phase 1 - Completion of OBC £80,000 £20,000 report to Jan MCA known Phase 2 - OBC to Programme Entry £280,000 £820,000 £1,400,000 Tram Train £55,974,000 £0 Staff time and revenue costs only SCR Borrowing. Retention etc - end of works inspections Oct Supertram Rail Replacement £15,239,131 £80,000 £0 £0 £80,000 £0 2021 Smart Ticketing / R&I Strategy £1,342,929 £150,000 £37,500 £37,500 £37,500 £37,500 Project under review To be reviewed and allocated to projects when programme Programme Wide Costs £373,837 £373,837 £93,459 £93,459 £93,459 £93,459 approved. LRT Signal Head Replacement £359,464 £75,348 £0 £35,000 £0 £40,348 Awaiting programme from AMEY TCF Schemes - All awaiting outcome of SCR Review Cash flow based on initial programme and high level costs. Revised A61 Wakefield Road Bus Corridor £13,831,476 £5,549,263 £297,415 £397,415 £1,899,469 £2,954,964 programme and more robust cost plan is currently being developed. Spend profile to be reviewed based upon BMBC revised option designs Barnsley - Doncaster Quality Bus Corridor £10,500,904 £300,000 £350,000 £361,845 £1,261,134 £2,272,979 once completed A630 Bus Improvements £1,600,000 £500,000 £50,000 £75,000 £75,000 £300,000 Assumes construction starting in August 2021. Includes a large risk pot Iport Bridge £5,648,291 £4,206,783 £70,000 £1,525,678 £1,077,509 £1,533,596 which may or may not be used. Spend profile to be reviewed following details of appointed contractor cost. Magna Tram Train Stop and P&R £5,443,906 £985,422 £10,000 £50,000 £150,000 £775,422 Parkgate P&R £3,415,000 £300,000 £50,000 £50,000 £50,000 £150,000 Assume tendered with TCF Link Road Parkgate Link Road £6,965,386 £1,451,040 £100,000 £151,000 £50,000 £1,150,040 Programme review indicates site start March 2021 Assumes TCF FBC approval Spring / Summer 2021 - includes Taylors Lane Roundabout £1,741,900 £1,789,650 £50,000 £39,650 £50,000 £1,650,000 £600,000 risk South Yorkshire Rail Improvements Hatfield and Stainforth Station £425,866 Kirk Sandall Station £408,682 Bolton Station £182,121 Goldthorpe Station £128,196 Thurnscoe Station £88,598 Wombwell Station £126,100 £1,248,417 £10,000 £70,000 £95,000 £1,073,417 Barnsley Station £394,370 Mexborough Station £710,261 Conisborough Station £475,500 Bentley Station £217,888 Adwick Station £294,377 Short Listed Uncommitted Schemes Bus Related Schemes Bus Review Schemes (Quick Wins and prep costs) £150,000 £20,000 £30,000 £50,000 £50,000 BBA Completion of works started in 2020/21; This work is totally Bus Stop Improvements in Northern General Hospital £65,000 £0 £0 £20,000 £45,000 dependant upon Covid-19 restrictions being lifted. C/F only. Spend profile totally dependant on the findings of the Mexborough Market Gateway £300,000 £250,000 £5,000 £15,000 £80,000 £150,000 feasibility/ option selection report. Tram Related Schemes Tram Bridging Strategy Preparatory Costs/ Quick Wins £20,000,000 £1,000,000 £40,000 £80,000 £250,000 £630,000 Programme funding under discussion. Feasibility of Tram / Tram-Train Extensions ----Staff time only at present, to be discussed with SCR Rail Related Schemes Rail Feasibility Work £50,000 £10,000 £10,000 £10,000 £20,000 Life Cycle Works Shelter Programme £100,000 £5,000 £20,000 £20,000 £55,000 Wind Turbines £5,000 £5,000 Completion of works started in 2021/22 Car Park Equipment £205,000 £90,000 £10,000 £60,000 £10,000 £10,000 Resurface Sheffield Interchange Runways £45,000 £10,000 £35,000 Resurface Meadowhall Interchange Runways £45,000 £10,000 £35,000 Park & Ride - Refurbishment £45,000 £10,000 £10,000 £25,000 Scope to be agreed Others Design Work for Future Years/ Projects "Pipeline" £100,000 £10,000 £20,000 £30,000 £40,000 "Pipeline" schemes. Expansion of Meadowhall Park & Ride £4,996,177 £25,000 £5,000 £20,000 Part of "Pipeline" and a possible TCF additional scheme CT Vehicle Replacement £150,000 £0 £0 £0 £150,000 Subject to review of CT provision PB Wheels to Work £70,000 £70,000 Funded from ITB top slice not PTE's allocation Programme / Project Management Software £5,000 £0 £0 £5,000 £0 Completion of works started in 2020/21 IT Spend (Laptop Refresh Programme) £28,750 £28,750 Spend profile unknown IT - Monitor Refresh Programme £17,700 £17,700 Spend profile unknown IT - Network Switch Replacement Programme £50,000 £50,000 Spend profile unknown IT - Meeting Room Upgrades Awaiting estimated costs IT - Voice Provision Awaiting estimated costs IT - Corporate Wireless Network Upgrade Awaiting estimated costs
£577,389,360 £23,874,189 £1,288,374 £3,606,152 £5,339,782 £13,639,880
Funded by ITB £2,048,837 ITB C/F £318,365 TCF £19,085,189 CGU £1,206,798 BBA £65,000 Grant c/f £1,000,000 Borrowing £80,000 Other £70,000 Total £23,874,189
Notes Figures in RED are an indication of the possible scale of costs where there is no agreed scope of work or estimated costs
Page 41 This page is intentionally left blank 2021/22 Capital Budget - Draft APPENDIX 2 5 Year Spend Profile
5 Year Spend Profile 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 EFC 2021/22 Budget TOTAL TCF ITB CGU TBC TOTAL TCF ITB CGU DfT TBC TOTAL ITB CGU DfT TBC TOTAL ITB DfT TBC Committed SCR Mass Transit £426,000,000 £2,600,000 £5,300,000 £3,094,801 £2,205,199 £39,500,000 £30,595,477 £8,904,523 £90,300,000 £84,711,320 £5,588,680 £67,900,000 £65,489,000 £2,411,000 Phase 1 - Completion of OBC Phase 2 - OBC to Programme Entry Phase 3 - Programme Entry to FBC Phase 4 - Implementation Tram Train £55,974,000 £0 Supertram Rail Replacement £15,239,131 £80,000 £0 £0 £0 £0 Smart Ticketing / R&I Strategy £1,342,929 £150,000 Programme Wide Costs £373,837 £394,000 £394,000 £394,000 £394,000 £394,000 £394,000 £394,000 £394,000 LRT Signal Head Replacement £359,464 £75,348 £62,633 £62,633 £100,378 £100,378 £70,870 £70,870 TCF Schemes A61 Wakefield Road Bus Corridor £13,831,476 £5,549,263 £7,677,872 £7,627,872 £50,000 £185,000 £185,000 Barnsley - Doncaster Quality Bus Corridor £10,500,904 £2,272,979 £6,546,071 £6,496,071 £50,000 £75,000 £75,000 A630 Bus Improvements £1,600,000 £500,000 Iport Bridge £5,648,291 £4,206,783 £1,000,000 £950,000 £50,000 Magna Tram Train Stop and P&R £5,443,906 £985,422 £4,175,896 £4,125,896 £50,000 Parkgate P&R £3,415,000 £300,000 £2,900,000 £2,850,000 £50,000 £130,000 £130,000 Parkgate Link Road £6,965,386 £1,451,040 £3,243,000 £3,243,000 £159,727 £159,727 Taylors Lane Roundabout £1,741,900 £1,789,650 £199,000 £199,000 South Yorkshire Rail Station Improvements Hatfield and Stainforth Station £425,866 Kirk Sandall Station £408,682 Bolton Station £182,121 Goldthorpe Station £128,196 Thurnscoe Station £88,598 £1,248,417 £2,134,504 £2,134,504 Wombwell Station £126,100 Barnsley Station £394,370 Mexborough Station £710,261 Conisborough Station £475,500 Bentley Station £217,888 Adwick Station £294,377 Short Listed Uncommitted Schemes Bus Related Schemes Bus Review Schemes (Quick Wins and prep costs) £150,000 Bus Stop Improvements in Northern General Hospital £65,000 Mexborough Market Gateway £300,000 £250,000 Tram Related Schemes Tram Bridging Strategy Preparatory Costs/ Quick Wins £20,000,000 £1,000,000 £10,000,000 £10,000,000 £9,000,000 £9,000,000
Page 43 Page Feasibility of Tram / Tram-Train Extensions Rail Related Schemes Rail Feasibility Work £50,000 Life Cycle Works Shelter Programme £100,000 Wind Turbines £5,000 Car Park Equipment £205,000 £90,000 £105,000 £105,000 £0 £0 £0 Resurface Sheffield Interchange Runways £45,000 Resurface Meadowhall Interchange Runways £45,000 Park & Ride - Refurbishment £45,000 Others Design Work for Future Years/ Projects "Pipeline" £100,000 Expansion of Meadowhall Park & Ride £4,996,177 £25,000 CT Vehicle Replacement £150,000 Wheels to Work £70,000 Programme / Project Management Software £5,000 IT Spend (Laptop Refresh Programme) £28,750 IT - Monitor Refresh Programme £17,700 IT - Network Switch Replacement Programme £50,000 IT - Meeting Room Upgrades IT - Voice Provision IT - Corporate Wireless Network Upgrade
£577,015,523 £23,874,189 £43,737,976 £30,721,144 £749,000 £62,633 £12,205,199 £49,544,105 £549,727 £394,000 £100,378 £30,595,477 £17,904,523 £90,764,870 £394,000 £70,870 £84,711,320 £5,588,680 £68,294,000 £394,000 £65,489,000 £2,411,000 This page is intentionally left blank 2021/22 Capital Budget - Draft APPENDIX 3 Funding & Revenue Implications TOB December 2020 15/12/20 Funding Source Revenue Revenue Completion Budget for Resource Provision EFC 2021/22 Budget TCF ITB ITB C/F CGU BBA Other funding Confirmed Year First Full Confirmed Year Committed SCR Mass Transit £426,000,000 £2,600,000 £1,031,635 £250,000 £318,365 £1,000,000 2029 tbc N Y Phase 1 - Completion of OBC Phase 2 - OBC to Programme Entry Tram Train £55,974,000 £0 2020 £65,000 N Supertram Rail Replacement £15,239,131 £80,000 £80,000 2021 £0 n/a Y Smart Ticketing / R&I Strategy £1,342,929 £150,000 £150,000 tbc tbc tbc tbc Programme Wide Costs £394,000 £373,837 £373,837 2022 Y LRT Signal Head Replacement £359,464 £75,348 £75,348 TCF Schemes A61 Wakefield Road Bus Corridor £13,831,476 £5,549,263 £5,549,263 Y Barnsley - Doncaster Quality Bus Corridor £10,500,904 £2,272,979 £2,172,979 £100,000 2023 £32,000 Y A630 Bus Improvements £1,600,000 £500,000 £500,000 2021 tbc Y Iport Bridge £5,648,291 £4,206,783 £4,206,783 £12,000 Y Magna Tram Train Stop and P&R £5,443,906 £985,422 £935,422 £50,000 2023 £25,000 Y Parkgate P&R £3,415,000 £300,000 £200,000 £100,000 2023 £60,000 N Y Parkgate Link Road £6,965,386 £1,451,040 £1,451,040 2023 £0 n/a Y Taylors Lane Roundabout £1,741,900 £1,789,650 £1,789,650 2022 £0 n/a Y South Yorkshire Rail Improvements Hatfield and Stainforth Station £425,866 2022 £0 n/a Y Kirk Sandall Station £408,682 2022 £0 n/a Y Bolton Station £182,121 2022 £0 n/a Y Goldthorpe Station £128,196 2022 £0 n/a Y Thurnscoe Station £88,598 2022 £0 n/a Y Wombwell Station £126,100 £1,248,417 £1,248,417 2022 £0 n/a Y Barnsley Station £394,370 2022 £0 n/a Y Mexborough Station £710,261 2022 £0 n/a Y Conisborough Station £475,500 2022 £0 n/a Y Bentley Station £217,888 2022 £0 n/a Y
Page 45 Page Adwick Station £294,377 2022 £0 n/a Y Short Listed Uncommitted Schemes Bus Related Schemes Bus Review Schemes (Quick Wins and prep costs) £150,000 £150,000 Bus Stop Improvements in Northern General Hospital £65,000 £0 £65,000 2022 Mexborough Market Gateway £300,000 £250,000 £250,000 Tram Related Schemes Tram Bridging Strategy Preparatory Costs/ Quick Wins £20,000,000 £1,000,000 £225,000 £775,000 tbc Feasibility of Tram / Tram-Train Extensions Rail Related Schemes Rail Feasibility Work £50,000 £50,000 Life Cycle Works Shelter Programme Annual Programme 2021/22 £100,000 £100,000 2022 Y Wind Turbines £5,000 £5,000 tbc Car Park Equipment £205,000 £90,000 £90,000 2021 £10,000 Y Y Resurface Sheffield Interchange Runways £45,000 £45,000 Resurface Meadowhall Interchange Runways £45,000 £45,000 Park & Ride - Refurbishment £45,000 £45,000 Others Design Work for Future Years/ Projects "Pipeline" £100,000 £100,000 2022 Y Expansion of Meadowhall Park & Ride £4,996,177 £25,000 £25,000 £70,000 Y CT Vehicle Replacement Annual Programme £150,000 £150,000 2022 Wheels to Work £70,000 £70,000 2022 Programme / Project Management Software £5,000 £5,000 £0 IT Spend (Laptop Refresh Programme) £28,750 £0 £28,750 IT - Monitor Refresh Programme £17,700 £0 £17,700 IT - Network Switch Replacement Programme £50,000 £0 £50,000 IT - Meeting Room Upgrades IT - Voice Provision IT - Corporate Wireless Network Upgrade
£577,409,523 £23,874,189 £19,085,189 £2,048,837 £318,365 £1,206,798 £65,000 £1,150,000
Notes Figures in RED are an indication of the possible scale of costs where there is no agreed scope of work or estimated costs Revenue Provision Y = Provision made in relevant budgets, N = no provision yet made in revenue budgets , NR = no reply from budget holder yet Resource confirmed, for resources outside Project Section , Y = resources confirmed, N= No resources to deliver this project, NR = No reply from senior reps This page is intentionally left blank APPENDIX 4
2021/22 Capital Budget Contributions to Regional Strategies V1.2 As submitted to Nov. MB meeting 16/10/20 Policy Key SCR Transport Policy Alignment Transport Strategy TS1 Improve access to jobs, markets, skills and supply chains
Transport Strategy TS2 Enhance productivity by making our transport system faster, more Committed TS1 TS2 TS3 TS4 TS5 TS6 TS7 TS8 TS9 TS10 TS11 TS12 reliable and more resilient TS3 Invest in integrated packages of infrastructure to unlock growth and SCR Mass Transit (Includes Strategy Led Growth work) support Local Plans Tram Train TS4 Make our streets healthy places where people feel safe TS5 Enhance our multi-modal transport system which encourages Supertram Rail Replacement sustainable travel choices and is embedded in the assessment of transport requirements for new development, particularly for active travel
Smart Ticketing / R&I Strategy TS6 Improve sustainable and inclusive access to our green and recreational TS7 Actively improve air quality, especially in designated AQMAs Programme Wide Costs
TS8 Deliver a low carbon transport network, including a zero carbon public LRT Signal Head Replacement transport network TS9 Work in tandem with the planning and development community to create TCF Schemes - All awaiting outcome of SCR Review attractive places A61 Wakefield Road Bus Corridor TS10 Be at the forefront of transport innovation Barnsley - Doncaster Quality Bus Corridor TS11 Enable different solutions to create a fully integrated and inclusive A630 Bus Improvements TS12 Adopt technology solutions to stimulate change Iport Bridge Magna Tram Train Stop and P&R Policy fit Key Parkgate P&R High Parkgate Link Road Medium Taylors Lane Roundabout Low Hatfield and Stainforth Station Kirk Sandall Station Bolton Station
Page 47 Page Goldthorpe Station Thurnscoe Station Wombwell Station Barnsley Station Mexborough Station Conisborough Station Bentley Station Adwick Station Short Listed Uncommitted Schemes Bus Related Schemes Bus Review Schemes (Quick Wins and prep costs) Bus Stop Improvements in Northern General Hospital Mexborough Market Gateway Tram Related Schemes Tram Bridging Strategy Preparatory Costs/ Quick Wins Feasibility of Tram / Tram-Train Extensions Rail Related Schemes Rail Feasibility Work Life Cycle Works Shelter Programme Wind Turbines Car Park Equipment Resurface Sheffield Interchange Runways Resurface Meadowhall Interchange Runways Park & Ride - Refurbishment Others Design Work for Future Years/ Projects "Pipeline" Expansion of Meadowhall Park & Ride CT Vehicle Replacement Wheels to Work Programme / Project Management Software IT Spend (Laptop Refresh Programme) IT - Monitor Refresh Programme IT - Network Switch Replacement Programme IT - Meeting Room Upgrades IT - Voice Provision IT - Corporate Wireless Network Upgrade This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8
TRANSPORT & ENVIRONMENT BOARD
08/01/2021
RECASTING THE BUS REVIEW RESPONSE
Purpose of Report To set out the proposed changes to the Bus Review response work programme, the context behind those changes and plans to support the short-term recovery of the region’s bus network.
Freedom of Information
This paper may be released under a Freedom of Information request.
Recommendations
That the Board; 1. Support the revised approach to the Bus Review response work programme and proposal to commission support to deliver a revised WP1
2. Support the development of a pilot programme to deliver short term recovery projects and support policy development
1. Introduction
1.1 The Bus Review examined the challenges facing the bus system in South Yorkshire and the causes of passenger decline. A series of recommendations were made that required further work to understand how they could be implemented and the associated costs. A 7-point plan was developed and agreed by the Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA) in July, with the first three strands of the Plan forming work package 1 (WP1). WP1 is intended to set out ‘what a good bus system looks like’ for the region, identifying service enhancements and measures to increase patronage, along with the costs of delivery for the consideration of Leaders.
1.2 Whilst WP1 has been under development the region’s public transport system has become reliant on Government subsidy, which we expect to continue in its existing form until at least March 2021. SYPTE are developing a COVID Funding Exit Strategy to stabilise the network following the withdrawal of this support and once stabilised, the focus will shift to short-term recovery of the bus system and then onto service transformation. Changes to national bus funding are also anticipated in 2021 but the details are not currently available. The Bus Improvement Board (BIB), established to shape the delivery of the Bus Review response work programme, recently considered the impact of these issues on WP1 and how a
Page 49
revised approach could support the COVID Exit Strategy and short-term recovery of the region’ bus system.
2. Proposal and justification
2.1 The Bus Review identified the reasons behind the long-standing challenges facing the bus system in South Yorkshire and underpinning the passenger decline of recent years. A series of recommendations were made which required further work to understand how they could be implemented, and the costs involved. The MCA adopted 6 principles in response to the Bus Review, which led to the development of a 7-point plan that was designed to deliver upon those principles.
2.2 The first three strands of the Plan became work package 1 (WP1) and comprise:
1. Route Analysis: To identify the level of service and network required, to better connect the region and grow patronage 2. Quality Analysis: To develop a consistent quality standard for passengers and outline where quality can be improved across the whole bus system 3. Environmental Analysis: To calculate the investment required to deliver the MCAs net zero commitments and the timeline for delivery
WP1 was programmed for delivery first, as it would set out what a good bus system looks like for the region and quantify the level of response that was affordable to the MCA. The programme of work was planned for concurrent delivery using consultancy support combined with MCA Executive and SYPTE staff time. This blended delivery approach aimed to embed the outputs of WP1 quickly and effectively.
2.3 In parallel to the development of WP1, the pandemic has continued to impact public transport with the operation of the region’s bus system now reliant on Government subsidy. We expect this funding to continue in its current form until at least March 2021 but there is less certainty regarding Government’s intentions for support in the new financial year. We do expect however, some level of support to remain in place until social distancing restrictions are lifted. In addition, Government are proposing alterations to the way funding for buses is managed nationally but at present, we do not know the amount of money that will be available to the region or the framework that will be used for its distribution.
2.4 Due to the challenges facing the bus network that have emerged following publication of the Review, a new phased approach is recommended to the improvement of the region’s bus system:
Stabilisation Phase - To ensure the region retains a level of service during this period of instability, SYPTE are working on a COVID Exit Strategy that will focus on stabilising the network between now and the end of 2021, as the current subsidy is withdrawn Recovery Phase - As the bus system begins to stabilise, projects that will support the short-term recovery of the network will be required, to carefully drive demand for the service, which has fallen away during the pandemic. Transformation Phase - As the bus system recovers the transformation of the network can begin, focussing on delivering significant improvements and expanding the network.
Page 50
The stabilisation of the bus network following the withdrawal of Government subsidy is anticipated to last throughout 2022, therefore planning large scale improvements during this time would be likely to result in abortive work.
2.5 Whilst making long-term plans to deliver a good bus system may not be suitable during the stabilisation phase, the development of a Bus Improvement Plan containing objectives and setting out ‘what good looks like’ for the medium term, would support case making to Government as part of the anticipated National Bus Strategy and to support the short-term renewal of the bus system. It is therefore recommended that WP1 evolves to focus on what we must deliver to support service provision post COVID, what we could deliver with additional subsidy to meet our policy aims and what we would like to deliver with further support from Government. This Plan would dovetail the COVID Exit Strategy and will ensure that investment made in the recovery of the region’s bus system, is aligned with the MCA’s objectives for bus. A recast WP1 is shown in Appendix I, which once delivered would form our Bus Improvement Plan. It is proposed we commission support to deliver this work in 2021.
2.6 The short-term recovery phase also presents an opportunity to implement some of the Bus Review recommendations and to demonstrate what a better bus system could look like. An option for the consideration of the Board is the creation of a programme of pilot schemes that aim to tackle some of the challenges identified in the Bus Review. For example, a zero emission bus pilot could represent our net zero commitments, a demand responsive service could explore how technology could be used to better serve the needs of rural communities and a reassurance campaign could help to restore public confidence in our public transport system following the pandemic.
2.7 This work programme could help to carefully drive up demand for the system as part of the short-term recovery phase, as well as ‘modelling the future’ for the region’s bus services and providing a method of collecting data to support future project development. Pilot schemes could be sought from communities and the private sector, with the programme of Future Bus Pilot Projects used to bridge the gap between the current post-pandemic stabilisation phase and the outputs of WP1. A pilot programme could also be used to explore improvements in service quality as part of the ‘recovery’ activity, including the creation of an offer for our disabled passengers and those who require additional support to complete their journey.
3. Consideration of alternative approaches
3.1 The MCA could continue to progress a large and expansive improvement programme aimed at delivery of the original Bus Review recommendations. This is not recommended due to the uncertainty presented by the withdrawal of COVID funding and the anticipated changes to national bus funding in 2021. To continue with an expansive work programme would lead to abortive work being undertaken and would also detract resources from the COVID Exit Strategy work, which is required to stabilise the system.
Page 51
4. Implications
4.1 Financial The three work packages proposed in this paper are forecast to cost not more than £285k cumulatively and the costs for any bus pilot programme have not yet been assessed. Noting that the revenue budget for 2020/21 was not set with resource for this activity, MCA Leaders have approved the costs of the activity being underwritten from South Yorkshire Transport revenue reserves in the first instance, with underspends accruing mid-year being redeployed where possible.
4.2 Legal The procurement approach has been developed alongside our PPU and legal teams and to ensure the process complies with regulations
4.3 Risk Management There is a risk that the baseline information required to undertake the Analysis Workstreams will continue to change throughout stabilisation. To mitigate this risk, WP1 has been developed in partnership with SYPTE to ensure the COVID Exit Strategy forms the starting point of this work and the forecasting used by SYPTE is reflected in the plan.
4.4 Equality, Diversity and Social Inclusion The delivery of this work will outline improvements to the bus network that will benefit the residents of South Yorkshire and aim to improve social inclusion.
5. Communications
5.1 The MCA and SYPTE communications teams will work together to ensure passengers and stakeholders are kept well-informed of the plan for reform, its vision and that improvements are communicated to demonstrate how progress is being made. We will work with the Board to discuss and agree its role in communications around the Bus Review.
6. Appendices/Annexes
6.1 Appendix I – Recast WP1
REPORT AUTHOR Chloe Shepherd POST Senior Programme Manager - Transport Officer responsible Mark Lynam Organisation Mayoral Combined Authority Executive Team Email [email protected] Telephone 07500 051012
Background papers used in the preparation of this report are available for inspection at: 11 Broad Street West, Sheffield S1 2BQ
Other sources and references:
Page 52 Appendix I – Recast WP1 Outputs
Route Analysis Quality Analysis Environment Analysis
Elements to progress – Elements to progress – Elements to progress –
1. Identify the service level 1. Light touch data mining of 1. Identification of the barriers required based upon place existing information, to identify to delivery and the characteristics and develop customer needs re: service conditions required for criteria to inform MCA quality success investment in services 2. Develop a Universal standard - 2. Assessment of the different
2. Identify the role of bus in our derived from customer insights delivery options and provide public transport system and its work intelligence about how we integration with other modes 3. Create a ‘travel commitment’ could work towards net zero. 3. Set realistic patronage growth targets for 5, 10 and 15 year offer for our disabled 3. Produce a limited time periods passengers and those who functionality model to 4. Outline the impact and efficacy require additional support to indicate costs of transition of different policies on complete their journey 4. Set out trajectory to net zero patronage, to support sustained 4. Establish a process for and associated investment market growth over 5, 10, communicating service changes required 15yrs? and monitoring continual 5. Consider where strategic capital service improvement investments could support the growth of our network and where innovative/alternative methods could be used to deliver services and improve VfM Rationale – Rationale – Rationale –
Prioritisation of investment will become A universal quality standard and DfT’s National Bus Strategy due vital during the stabilisation and short- making a commitment to our for release in Spring 2021 is term recovery phases post COVID disabled passengers would expected to carry (competitive) funding. Understanding the region’s demonstrate commitment to funding for zero emission buses. priorities and improvement plan over improving the bus system, as we We require the outputs of the the medium term, will shape our post move to short-term recovery. Environment Analysis to make COVID recovery and target investment the case for investment in our in services. region.
Page 53 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9 By virtue of paragraph(s) 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 55 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10
SCR TRANSPORT & THE ENVIRONMENT BOARD
07 JANUARY 2021
STABILISATION: BUS PARTERSHIPS - FUTURE APPROACH
Purpose of Report
The impending progression of the Bus Review recommendations and the requirement for close partnership working between operators, LAs and SYPTE, could be supported by a revamp of the Bus Partnerships, in particular considering the level of engagement from the partners has been declining in recent years.
This paper recommends a refreshed approach to the Bus Partnerships, which is subject to agreement by all parties in the Partnerships.
The Transport & The Environment Board are asked to consider and endorse the revised approach.
Thematic Priority – Secure investment in infrastructure where it will do most to support growth.
Freedom of Information
This paper may be released under a Freedom of Information request.
Recommendations
That the Transport & The Environment Board endorse the proposed change in approach to the Bus Partnerships and for SYPTE to seek agreement on the revised approach from the Partnerships, in particular the communications link with the Bus Improvement Board and through that the TOB governance process.
1. Introduction
1.1 The Bus Partnerships have been established for many years. In more recent years, it has become increasingly challenging to maintain levels of engagement from all parties (see Section 2.5.2.
1.2 With the recent publication of the Bus Review and the impending progression of its recommendations, the increased need for partnership working to support the recovery from COVID has been an opportune moment to take a fresh look at the Bus Partnerships and find a route to reinvigorating them. This paper recommends a refreshed approach, which is subject to agreement by all parties in the Partnerships.
Page 61
2. Proposal and justification
2.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Bus Review was published in June 2020 with its recommendations, principles and next steps endorsed by the July 2020 MCA. To progress the recommendations, a 7-point plan was developed with the first four elements being prioritised for work to start in 2020/21:
• Governance • Route Analysis • Quality Analysis • Environment Analysis • Pricing Analysis • Model Analysis • Cost Model
Recognising the current Covid related challenges, a phased approach will be taken, with the Bus Review analysis work packages forming part of the renewals phase:
• Stabilisation: Stabilising the Bus Network • Recovery: Covid Funding Exit Strategy • Transformation: Responding to the Bus Review
2.2 The Bus Review envisages improvements across a range of service aspects and the 7-point plan will develop more detailed delivery plans based on more in-depth analysis of the current position.
2.3 However, the 7-point plan has to be structured around the main aspects over what we can control (direct or otherwise) and cannot cover all areas highlighted in the Bus Review. There is the potential to achieve some early wins and to make improvements to processes, with the requirement for this accelerated by the impacts of COVID on the sustainability of the bus network in South Yorkshire. This will be of even greater importance when levels of central government subsidy are tapered or removed.
2.4 BUS REVIEW – POTENTIAL AREAS FOR EARLY IMPROVEMENTS
A more detailed review of the Bus Review documentation, highlights that there are process improvements that could be started now, because:
• they sit outside of the scope of the 7-point plan;
• they prepare the SYPTE/SCR organisation for the recommendations of the 7-point plan, and;
• they will facilitate the COVID Funding Exit Strategy, which is likely to require action prior to the conclusion of the 7-point plan work.
Having undertaken a line-by-line review of the Bus Review and the key themes of concern that might be mitigated through process improvements, the main improvement areas identified are:
i) Consultation of service changes;
Influence and leverage over the service provision (commercial network) via, for example, investment in the right projects (invest to create a more sustainable network.
Page 62
ii) Operator expert inputs into Bus Review 7-point plan to support deliverability and Local Authority engagements in the Bus Review work
The Bus Partnerships would form an excellent mechanism to support these areas and a refocus would be a good opportunity to reinvigorate the Bus Partnerships.
2.5 BUS PARTNERSHIPS CURRENT STATE
2.5.1 Governance structure
• The MCA has four Bus Partnerships, one in each of the districts.
• They are “voluntary” partnerships in the format required by the Transport Act 2000.
• The only Partnership formally endorsed by the MCA is the Sheffield Partnership, however, all Partnerships have been established over time and meetings have been held: o Sheffield established 2012 o Rotherham established 2015 o Doncaster established 2016 o Barnsley established 2017
• The governance meetings for Bus Partnerships are typically: o Quarterly Steering Groups (SYPTE Director Chair) o Monthly Operations Groups (Bus Services Manager Chair)
• Meeting attendees comprise: o Operators o Local authority Senior Officers o SYPTE Senior Officers
• The Bus Partnerships are governed under clear terms of reference
2.5.2 Challenges
• Over time, the shared interests of the three parties involved in the partnerships has somewhat eroded, as most “low hanging fruit” was dealt with early on.
• Mutual benefits (win-wins) are now more complex to achieve owing to conflicting policy decisions, greater investment levels needed, greater risks and lower risk appetite owing to downward pressure on customer demand
• Poor record of attendance from lead Officers, owing to conflicting demands on time
• A route to greater engagement and accountability would be for the Bus Partnerships to link through into formal governance forums, such as the Transport & Environment Board (e.g. via the Bus Improvement Board)
Page 63
2.6 BUS PARTNERSHIPS PROPOSED RENEWED APPROACH
The Partnerships need to be reinvigorated by creating a new shared purpose, which each party will support.
Opportunities for shared focus areas going forward are:
• Engagement on Bus Review developments
• Strategies that support the long-term sustainability of the bus service provision (link to COVID recovery)
• Greater engagement on service design, maximising leverage over network design (e.g. trade bus lanes for service retention), facilitate true consultation
• Support prioritisation of capital programmes
• Support pricing strategies
• Create a single Steering Group meeting across all four LAs, although maintain separate Operations Group meetings for each of the four districts, to recognise time availability constraints from attendees, with a more strategic remit that is clearly distinct from the Operations Groups.
• Encourage closer engagement by linking it into the Transport & Environment Board, via the Bus Improvement Board
• Two-way feed into the Bus Improvement Board (feed out: data support, feed in: Bus Review progress updates)
2.7 NEXT STEPS
19 Oct 2020 SMT review of approach (COMPLETE) 11 Nov 2020 Socialise approach with SCR Bus Review team (COMPLETE) Nov/Dec 2020 Socialise new approach with key stakeholders (STARTED) Jan 2021 Relaunch Partnerships
3. Consideration of alternative approaches
If of interest to the Board, the next the next ‘evolution’ of the new arrangements is an enhanced partnership, in line with DfT’s National Bus Strategy once further details are available and arrangements can be implemented.
Consideration has been given to not making any changes to the current Bus Partnership meetings. However, it was concluded that changing our approach now does not preclude us from making further changes to the Bus Partnerships in the future. Changing the way we work now, considering the challenging times in which we are working, could aid the recovery from Covid.
4. Implications
4.1 Financial None
4.2 Legal None
Page 64
4.3 Risk Management None
4.4 Equality, Diversity and Social Inclusion None
5. Communications
5.1 This paper will be taken forward to the 25 January 2021 MCA meeting.
6. Appendices/Annexes
None.
REPORT AUTHOR Pat Beijer POST Director of Transport Operations Officer responsible Pat Beijer, Director of Transport Operations Organisation SYPTE Email [email protected] Telephone
Page 65 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11
8th January 2021
Transforming Cities Funds Tranche 2 (‘TCF T2’) Programme Update
Purpose of Report
This report provides a progress update on the TCF T2 programme.
Thematic Priority
Secure investment in infrastructure where it will do most to support growth.
Freedom of Information
This paper will be available under the Combined Authority Publication Scheme
Recommendations
• To discuss the current status of the programme and approaches being used to mitigate. • Agree the recommendations detailed in 2.2 of the report
1. Introduction
1.1 In March 2020 the Department for Transport (‘DfT’) approved a grant award of £166.3m for the MCA’s TCF aspirations. This grant was allocated from April 2019 to March 2023 resourcing a programme of transformational public transport, active travel and rail initiatives. The award fell short of the £185m the region had bid for.
1.2 Following initial concerns on the pace of the programme’s initial delivery, the Transport Board approved a proposal to commence a programme review
1.3 The outcome of this review and subsequent risk adjustment identified that against a baseline expenditure target of £29.3m c. £3.8m of expenditure is forecast, leading to an adverse variance of 87%.
1.4 To deliver the programme within the funding timeline, the MCA and partners will now be required to deploy £162m of resource over the two years running from April ’21 to March ‘23 (£81m p/a).
1.5 Without remedy there is a growing risk that the delivery of the programme will become increasingly difficult to achieve within the terms of the funding. This will impact on the delivery objectives of the programme and reduce investment in the South Yorkshire economy.
1.6 This report details the changes in forecast expenditure and outlines a number of proposed steps to increase oversight on performance and mitigate some of the delivery risk.
Page 67
2. Proposal and justification
2.1 Financial Position
The baseline expenditure target for 2020/21, as determined by the DfT funding agreement, is £29.3m. Prior to the review, the forecast expenditure provided by partners was £19.8m which would have led to an in-year underspend of £9.5m.
The initial review returns from scheme promoters reduced forecast expenditure to £7.2m and, following analysis during the review meetings this has further been reduced to £6m. Following further analysis this figure is considered challenging, and £3.8m is a more prudent estimate consisting solely of OBC development activity. At this level of expenditure an underspend of £25.2m will accrue.
The review has further identified that 17% of projects totalling £83.5m (50% of the programme) will now complete beyond the deadline for which all TCF resource must be used.
Set against these forecasts, however, the review has also identified a request for £9.4m of additional resource to be drawn from the programme’s unallocated contingency and be allocated to schemes that now forecast higher resource requirement. These asks will need to be tested against ability to deliver within the required timescales.
Actual claims this year total £900k. 1 OBC has been submitted and approved for progression to FBC and a further 2 schemes are being presented today at Agenda item 13.
A summary of this overview is detailed below
SCR TCF Programme 19/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 £m £m £m £m DfT Grant letter £8m £21m £65m £72m Pre-Review Profile - £19m £72m £78m Post Review Profile - £6.7m £59m £92.5m
Variance -£8m -£14.4m -£6m +20.5m
Outcome (Outputs/Outcomes) No changes were noted for outputs/outcomes during the programme review. However, scheme promoters have advised that they do expect changes which they will be in a position to confirm when the OBC is submitted.
2.2 Management Action
Given the outcome of the programme review, several management actions have already been put in place to enable further scrutiny of the current programme status to inform the mitigation plan.
Page 68
The additional activity felt necessary to conclude appropriate remedial action, were predominantly –
• reissue of revised Grant Letters in accordance with agreed change control • a second review to commence in Q4 2020/21 to focus on contractual progress and delivery forecasts • review current project scope enhancements, with risk to be included within projects and any changes following full approval managed via change control, thereby removing the £16.5m ring fenced risk pot • To increase the resilience, and therefore likely performance, of the programme a level of over-programming could be more actively developed, the review process has indicated that the current pipeline for eligible schemes is weak • Review project phasing options for those projects forecasting end dates significantly beyond the programme end, to inform deliverability by March 2023 • A more phased delivery on larger projects could be considered. This would enable elements of larger schemes to be delivered in advance of others. This would help sequencing works on the highway and potentially produce greater spend however could result in reduced, fragmented or delayed benefits. This would require additional programme management support in both Local Authorities and the MCA Executive in particular for additional FBCs. Appropriate risk sharing models between parties would need to be agreed.
The outcome of this phase included an overview of progress against agreed milestones, adjusted programme and proposed pipeline.
Further recommended Management Actions
Focus on the progression of options for a remedial plan, this may include - • triggers/tolerances to align with agreed milestones and approval gateways to incentivise scheme promoters to maintain strong and timely progress • Repurposing existing resources working on the programme or related sustainable transport programmes should be considered. • Consideration could be given to changing the scope of the programme, this could include eligible activities. This might result in a small number of additional schemes coming into the programme; however, these will also be subject to the same delivery constraints and timelines as those schemes that are currently included. This would be subject to agreement with the Department for Transport. • Although external resources are now being brought into Local Authorities, there are still capacity contracts within the system. Augmenting LA capacity project development capacity could be considered. This could focus on business case development of existing projects, developing a pipeline of projects and/or to bringing new projects into the programme if the scope changes. Additional Programme Management capacity within Local Authorities to orchestrate the programme given the significant scale, number and variety of projects could be considered • Local Authority partners have raised that the MCA approval process can slow down delivery. However, this is only likely to be by a few weeks and the indications at this stage are that business cases are being delayed in the development phase. Members had previously suggested they weren’t keen on these proposals. • The DfT could be approached to extend the programme, or consider financial interventions to evidence transactions, however, there currently is no indication that
Page 69
this would be fruitful particularly given government financial pressures resulting from Covid19. • An alternative approach might therefore be to forgo the funding
The outcome of this phase would be an agreed reconfiguration of the programme to enable achievable targets to be set and control mechanisms to be embedded
3. Consideration of alternative approaches
3.1 A do-nothing approach would result in significant under performance of the programme targets and inability to deliver the objectives of the SOBC.
4. Implications
4.1 Financial This report notes significant slippage against the expenditure profile agreed with government. Slippage at this level will impact upon the level of delivery activity required in the new financial year, placing further strain on capacity. Continued underperformance on the programme may also lead to unilateral intervention from the DfT which could impact on the level of resource made available to us in future years.
Consideration could be given to whether this resource could be re-purposed to other unfunded MCA transport priorities.
4.2 Legal Revised contracts have been required for the stage 1 development costs. A Grant Determination Letter is in place between the MCA and DfT for the TCF T2 programme with annual reporting a requirement to review progression against annual targets
4.3 Risk Management Significant underperformance across the TCF T2 programme resulting in loss of funding, inability to deliver investment objectives and reputational damage.
4.4 Equality, Diversity and Social Inclusion N/A
5. Communications
5.1 No communications are proposed in relation to this report.
6. Appendices/Annexes
6.1 None
REPORT AUTHOR Sue Sykes POST Assistant Director – Programme and Performance Unit Officer responsible Gareth Sutton Organisation MCA Executive Team Email [email protected] Telephone 0114 220 3400
Background papers used in the preparation of this report are available for inspection at:
Other sources and references:
Page 70 Agenda Item 12
TRANSPORT & ENVIRONMENT BOARD
08/01/2021
Transforming Cities Fund - Benefits Realisation and Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
Purpose of Report
To endorse the Transforming Cities Fund - Benefits Realisation and Monitoring and Evaluation Plans.
Thematic Priority
Secure investment in infrastructure where it will do most to support growth.
Recommendations
That members of the Transport Board:
• Approve the current TCF Monitoring and Evaluation and Benefits Realisation Plans as the frameworks for assessing the performance and learning from the TCF programme.
1. Introduction
1.1 The Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) for the Transforming Cities Fund (TCF) programme was submitted to the Department for Transport (DfT) on 27th November 2019. The subsequent acceptance of the £166m grant from DfT was reported at the MCA meeting on 1st June 2020.
1.2 The following objectives were defined for the TCF programme:
• To better connect the areas of transport poverty with areas of opportunity in a safe and sustainable way • To affect a mode shift away from the private car on those corridors where new opportunities are likely to see an increase in demand or where growth could be stifled • To create a cultural shift towards making cycling and walking the natural choice for shorter journeys • To achieve the above in ways that address current health issues and improve air quality across the SCR
1.3. As part of the TCF guidance from the DfT, there was an expectation that bidders would monitor and evaluate programme interventions as both the Department and city regions have a shared interest in evaluating the effectiveness of the fund over time. This requirement is in line with the MCA’s current agreed Assurance Framework.
Page 67
1.4 The shape for the national TCF programme evaluation is still being developed by the DfT, but guidance was provided for the bid submission and suggested a general outline for monitoring and evaluation based around five elements:
• Establish a ‘theory of change’ for interventions • Develop a counterfactual (usually a before and after study) • Collect baseline data • Plan what monitoring is needed • Plan for data
1.5 The basis of the TCF Benefits Realisation and associated Monitoring and Evaluation plans were included in the November 2019 submission to DfT and have since been developed in partnership with Local Authority and PTE scheme promoters.
2. Proposal and justification
2.1 Monitoring and evaluation of the TCF programme helps to ensure the benefits of the investment are fully realised and the programme is value for money in terms of delivering economic growth and quality of life outcomes that can be demonstrated.
2.2 The TCF Benefits Realisation and Monitoring and Evaluation Plans are ‘live’ documents that will change over time to respond to programme or policy changes. For example, there will be a need to reaffirm links into the wider Active Travel Implementation Plan monitoring and evaluation plan currently under development. Therefore, the MCA Exec will review and, where required, update the monitoring and evaluation plan to ensure it remains in accordance with other relevant plans and objectives.
2.3 The programme of monitoring and evaluation needs to demonstrate the extent to which the TCF objectives were met, monitor performance of the individual elements of the programme and ensure that any potential issues post implementation are identified and addressed. The plans also seek to enable an assessment of the entire TCF programme whilst providing flexibility to define more bespoke monitoring and evaluation plans for the individual packages that will be delivered. The process will also enable the MCA to:
• Provide transferable evidence that may be used to inform future decision making on similar investment programmes • Improve the efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of future investment programmes based on the lessons learnt from the programme
2.4 The following sections consider the two documents in more detail.
Benefits Realisation Plan
2.5 A Benefits Realisation Plan (BRP) has been developed to identify, track and compare the various benefits expected to be delivered. This document follows the ‘DfT’s Theory of Change’ approach which sets out long term goals and then seeks to identify all the interventions, outputs, outcomes and impacts that support achieving those goals. A “benefit” is an outcome of change that is measurably positive and “benefits realisation” is the process for the identification, definition, measurement and realisation of benefits from a project.
2.6 The TCF objectives shown in section 1.2 have been used to develop the ‘desired outputs, outcomes and impacts’ for the programme and the individual projects within it. These
Page 68
desired outputs, outcomes and impacts are the actual benefits that are expected to be derived from the programme:
• Desired outputs – tangible effects that are funded and result from the programme • Desired outcomes – what happens as a result of the outputs • Desired impacts – the final impacts brought about by the scheme in the short, medium and long term as a result of the outputs and outcomes.
The ‘desired outputs, outcomes and impacts’ for the TCF programme are summarised in Appendix One and will provide the basis for the project specific BRPs that will be developed further as the TCF programme progresses through delivery. The full BRP is included as Appendix Two.
Monitoring and Evaluation Plans
2.6 There is overlap between the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (M&EP) and BRP. The BRP logs and tracks the benefits (e.g. outcomes and impacts), whilst the M&EP details the mechanisms to determine if the effects of the project have occurred and an appreciation of the attribution between the projects and effects.
2.7 Based on the desired outputs, outcomes and impacts of the programme a M&EP has been developed. The document covers all schemes within the TCF programme and was commissioned from consultants AECOM. The M&EP will be used during the implementation period to manage delivery, and (post-implementation of the programme), to evaluate its impact. The key outcome and impact metrics used in the M&EP (and who has the responsibility for monitoring them) are included in Appendix Three, with the full document being included as Appendix Four.
Evaluation 2.8 The package, project and programme evaluation will be undertaken by the MCA Executive team and will be funded through the allocation from the programme for programme management and assurance. It will cover:
• Process: The process evaluation will seek to understand whether the programme was delivered effectively and efficiently. Understanding what has been delivered, how efficiently delivery has been achieved and the outturn standard / design of the scheme, will all feed into the assessment of outcomes and impacts.
• Impact: The impact evaluation considers what difference the project and programme has made by gaining an understanding of the changes in measurable outcomes (intended and unintended) and the extent to which outcomes can be attributed to the delivered project. This also explores whether, and why, particular groups have been impacted in different ways, as well as how contextual changes may have influenced the observed changes. This includes the use of control areas to understand what may have happened without the TCF investment 2.9 Once a particular intervention is completed and open, the expected benefits should be realised, however, as with many large-scale transport schemes, the full realisation of the benefits (particularly the intended impacts) will take place over an extended period of time.
Monitoring
2.10 Monitoring of outputs will be undertaken at a project level and will focus on evidencing that outputs are successfully delivered and cost targets and programme milestones met.
Page 69
The monitoring of outcomes will be undertaken quarterly at both a project and programme level, as appropriate, as part of the reporting process, in accordance with MCAs standard governance process. Quarterly returns are required to continue until delivery of the outcomes are complete, this will require funding by the scheme promoter beyond March 2023.
2.11 The proposed outcome and impact metrics in Appendix Three primarily utilise data that is already collected but will be supplemented by new surveys – especially qualitative - where necessary. In addition, the MCA Executive will also be using data collected to monitor the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) for contextual background for the TCF programme. This will include skills attained, proportion on low earnings and other sets from the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) data.
2.12 The MCA Exec team will report to Transport and Environment Board on progress towards the ambitions set out in the plans.
3. Consideration of alternative approaches
3.1 The Board may not support the proposed approach that seeks to get a better understanding of the qualitative effects (such as people perceptions and attitudes) to the investment within the programme as these elements are more costly to undertake. However, this work will increase the quality of the approach as well as provide transferable evidence that may be used to inform future decision making on similar investment programmes
4. Implications
4.1 Financial There is a indictive cost of around £700k of adopting a more robust monitoring plan/ evidence base through the MCA leading on perceptions and attitudes surveys referred to in this report. This would be over and above the indicative £200k-£300k that evaluation is anticipated to cost. Spending on the additional monitoring tasks – and the programme evaluation – will be incurred beyond the current programme end date of March 2023, but it is still expected that the costs could be funded through the MCAs TCF management and assurance allocation.
4.2 Legal The MCA enter into legal agreements to facilitate release of grant, these include monitoring and evaluation provisions as standard
4.3 Risk Management The development of the BRP and M&EP reduces the risk of a lack of co-ordination or monitoring and evaluation processes across SCR, as well as reducing the risk of investment in future programmes through ‘lessons learned’ through evaluation.
It is intended that the documents will remain ‘live’ in order to reflect changes in the programme or broader policy. The MCA Executive will seek to review and, where required, update the M&E and BRP plans annually to ensure they remain in accordance with the investment objectives
4.4 Equality, Diversity and Social Inclusion No specific equality, diversity and social inclusion issues are considered at this stage, but one of the aims of the TCF programme included n section 1.2 is to better connect the areas of transport poverty with areas of opportunity in a safe and sustainable way.
Page 70
5. Communications
5.1 None as a consequence of this report.
6. Appendices/Annexes
6.1 Appendix 1 – Benefits Realisation Plan: Objectives, Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts Appendix 2 – Benefits Realisation Plan: Full document Appendix 3 – Monitoring and Evaluation plan: Key outcome and impact metrics Appendix 4 – Monitoring and Evaluation plan: Full document
Report Author David Whitley Post Senior Programme Manager (Transport) Officer responsible Mark Lynam Organisation Sheffield City Region Email [email protected] Telephone 0114 220 3445
Background papers used in the preparation of this report are available for inspection at: 11 Broad Street West, Sheffield S1 2BQ
Other sources and references: n/a
Page 71 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix One: Benefits Realisation Plan Objectives, Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts
TCF Programme Objective Desired Outputs Desired Outcomes Desired Impacts
To better connect the areas of transport poverty with Over 25km of improved More walking and cycling Support inclusive growth areas of opportunity in a safe and sustainable way walking and cycling journeys across the SCR infrastructure Enhanced opportunities to To affect a mode shift away from the private car on Reduced bus journey times access new employment those corridors where new opportunities are likely to Over 90km of new walking and sites see an increase in demand or where growth could be cycling infrastructure Improved bus journey time stifled 10km of new bus lanes reliability Create healthy streets where To create a cultural shift towards making cycling and people feel safe walking the natural choice for shorter journeys 11 junction improvements to Increased bus patronage benefit non-car modes, with 7 Improve the quality of our To achieve the above in ways that address current bus gates Increased tram patronage outdoors health issues and improve air quality across the SCR Page 73 Page 100 bus stop improvements Increased rail patronage More people being physical activity New tram-train stop at Magna Reduced car commuting
Two new tram-train park and Improved air quality ride sites, offering 450 spaces More active people Improvements to the facilities at 11 local rail stations
This page is intentionally left blank
Appendix Two: Benefits realisation Plan BENEFITS REALISATION PLAN
INTRODUCTION
The Mayoral Combined Authority (“MCA”) and scheme promoters are committed to ensuring the benefits of the TCF programme (“Programme”) investment are fully realised and the Programme’s value for money in terms of delivering economic growth and quality of life outcomes for the Sheffield City Region (“SCR”) can be demonstrated. This document sets out the Benefits Realisation Plan (“BRP”) for the Programme.
This BRP has been developed to support the implementation of the Programme and provides a framework for development of more detailed monitoring and evaluation plans for each of the packages of interventions. The plan therefore seeks to enable the assessment of benefits realisation for the entire Programme whilst providing flexibility to define more bespoke benefits realisation and monitoring for the individual projects to be delivered by scheme promotors as defined in the funding agreement between the MCA and the scheme promoters. DEFINITIONS
Benefits Realisation is a method of ensuring the intended benefits identified for the Programme are delivered. A benefit is an outcome of change that is measurably positive. The BRP provides an overview of the benefits expected to be delivered by the Programme, how and when they will be realised, how they will be monitored and reported on and who has responsibility for them.
The BRP is closely linked with the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. Monitoring and evaluation are key mechanisms for generating evidence to assess benefits realisation, in line with best practice for programme and project management. However, the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (M&EP) can also has a wider remit than the BRP. BENEFITS REALISATION STRATEGY
Overall Approach
Department for Transport (“DfT”) guidance sets out a five-stage cycle for the evolution of benefits, their maintenance and monitoring during the lifecycle of a programme, as highlighted in the diagram overleaf.
This is known as the benefits management cycle and has been utilised to inform the development of the BRP.
1
Page 75
Roles and Responsibilities
The BRP is owned by the MCA through the Senior Responsible Owner (“SRO”), with responsibility to ensure the delivery of the project level benefits that feed into the programme benefits are held by scheme promoters for individual projects.
The SCR Executive Team, on behalf of the MCA and SRO, is responsible for tracking the benefits being realised with exceptions being reported as appropriate. Early identification of underperformance will result in the SCR Executive Team working with the scheme promoter to initiate remedial action to bring benefits back in line with expectations.
TCF Programme Objectives
The following objectives have been defined for the Programme:
To better connect the areas of transport poverty with areas of opportunity in a safe and sustainable way To affect a mode shift away from the private car on those corridors where new opportunities are likely to see an increase in demand or where growth could be stifled To create a cultural shift towards making cycling and walking the natural choice for shorter journeys To achieve the above in ways that address current health issues and improve air quality across the SCR.
Further detail on the Programme can be found in Strategic Case of the Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC). BENEFITS REALISATION PLAN
Identify
A Theory of Change (“ToC”) has been developed to identify the process of how and why change is expected to occur. This ToC articulates the mechanisms by which change will be brought about, identifies the assumptions that underpin the proposed TCF programme, and pinpoints any potential challenges.
2
Page 76
The ToC and the Programme objectives have been used to develop the initial ‘desired outputs, outcomes and impacts’ for the programme and the individual elements. These desired outputs, outcomes and impacts are the actual benefits that are expected to be derived from the programme:
Desired outputs – tangible effects that are funded and result from the programme Desired outcomes – what happens as a result of the outputs Desired impacts – the final impacts brought about by the scheme in the short, medium and long term as a result of the outputs and outcomes.
The Programme objectives and desired outputs/outcomes/impacts are summarised in Table One.
Analyse and Plan
The anticipated benefits have been further analysed and defined in terms of how and when (associated with specific milestones) they will be achieved, the main beneficiaries, the measurement metrics, data requirements and frequency of assessment, the baseline to be utilised, anticipated performance (targets) and the main risks associated with achieving the specific benefit.
The definition of the benefits in this way is summarised in Tables Two, Three and Four according to their categorisation as outputs, outcomes and impacts as follows:
Table Two – the definition seeks to check progress against planned targets and will focus on evidencing that spend and outputs are successfully delivered and milestones met Table Three – the definition seeks to illustrate how outcomes will be delivered, measured, tracked and controlled. The baseline year is 2019. Table Four – the definition seeks to illustrated how impacts will be delivered, measured, tracked and controlled.
Tables Two, Three and Four are included below – with additional monitoring metrics (providing more detail behind outputs, outcomes and impacts) included in the monitoring and evaluation plan.
Where benefits are difficult to measure directly, proxy indicators have been defined. The way in which the indicators are defined will allow for the extent of benefits realisation to be understood and inform the change control process as actual versus anticipated performance is tracked over time.
The definition of benefits in Tables Two, Three and Four relates to the Programme as a whole. However, bespoke BRP’s (based on the programme level BRP) for individual projects will be approved as part of the SCR Assurance Framework. Each project will define the metrics in more detail in accordance with the objectives of the project and its geographical scope.
3
Page 77
Table One – Desired Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts
TCF Programme Objective Desired Outputs Desired Outcomes Desired Impacts
To better connect the areas of transport poverty with Over 25km of improved More walking and cycling Support inclusive growth areas of opportunity in a safe and sustainable way walking and cycling journeys across the SCR infrastructure Enhanced opportunities to To affect a mode shift away from the private car on Reduced bus journey times access new employment those corridors where new opportunities are likely to Over 90km of new walking and sites see an increase in demand or where growth could be cycling infrastructure Improved bus journey time stifled 10km of new bus lanes reliability Create healthy streets where To create a cultural shift towards making cycling and people feel safe walking the natural choice for shorter journeys 11 junction improvements to Increased bus patronage
Page 78 Page benefit non-car modes, with 7 Improve the quality of our To achieve the above in ways that address current bus gates Increased tram patronage outdoors health issues and improve air quality across the SCR 100 bus stop improvements Increased rail patronage More people being physical activity New tram-train stop at Magna Reduced car commuting
Two new tram-train park and Improved air quality ride sites, offering 450 spaces More active people Improvements to the facilities at 11 local rail stations
4
Table Two - Programme Outputs Definition
Desired Output Owner Metrics Data Target Risks Dependencies Outputs PROJECT LEVEL Project Scope TCF Scheme Quantified Scheme As agreed project Key risks identified in Specification of Promoter changes in reports baseline scope in individual scheme risk interdependencies with other project (including funding agreement for registers TCF or other schemes deliverables milestones) each project Project TCF Scheme Quantified Scheme As agreed project Key risks identified in Specification of Timescales Promoter changes in reports baseline milestones in individual scheme risk interdependencies with other project delivery (including funding agreement for registers TCF or other schemes schedule and milestones) each project key milestones Project Costs TCF Scheme Quantified Scheme As agreed project Key risks identified in Specification of Promoter changes in reports baseline cost in individual scheme risk interdependencies with other
Page 79 Page project costs (including funding agreement for registers TCF or other schemes and spend milestones) each project profile (£) PROGRAMME LEVEL Programme SCR Executive Quantified TCF As agreed scope in Key risks identified in Interdependencies with other Scope and Programme changes in Programme TCF Programme Grant the TCF risk register SCR investment programmes and Performance programme Quarterly Agreement Unit deliverables Report (Table One Desired Outputs)
Programme SCR Executive Quantified TCF As agreed programme Key risks identified in Interdependencies with other Timescales and Programme changes in Programme and milestones in TCF the TCF risk register SCR investment programmes and Performance programme Quarterly Programme Grant Unit delivery Reporting Agreement schedule and key milestones
5
Desired Output Owner Metrics Data Target Risks Dependencies Outputs Programme SCR Executive Quantified TCF As agreed budget in Key risks identified in Interdependencies with other Costs and Programme changes in Programme TCF Grant Agreement the TCF risk register SCR investment programmes and Performance programme Quarterly Unit costs and Report spend profile (£)
Page 80 Page
6
Table Three – Programme Outcome definitions
Additional TCF Desired Key Benefit Metric Data Enablers/ Beneficiaries Objectives Outcomes Stakeholders Owner Requirements Standard deviation from planned Improved bus SYPTE journey time SCR MCA/ reliability and ongoing (for journey SYPTE punctuality datasets and at stops) at Local Authority level Alignment with SCR Bus To better Bus operators,
Page 81 Page Passenger Implementation Bus users, connect the local highway Improved perception of SYPTE Plan residents areas of authorities, SCR MCA/ perception of bus reliability, ongoing (particularly transport residents in SYPTE bus punctuality, surveys Bus Partnership those in areas poverty with areas of satisfaction agreements of transport areas of transport poverty), opportunity in poverty, % of people Bus operators businesses, a safe and employers/educ living in the capitalising on and visitors to sustainable ational most deprived improvements to SCR way establishments areas brought enhance Utilisation of within a 30 connectivity Improved bus data within the minute journey SCR MCA/ accessibility/ TRACC time by public SYPTE connectivity software transport of an package urban centre, SCR growth area or university
7
Additional TCF Desired Key Benefit Metric Data Enablers/ Beneficiaries Objectives Outcomes Stakeholders Owner Requirements SYPTE modified datasets - bus Bus journey stop to bus times in the stop or other Reduced bus AM Peak, SCR MCA/ timing point journey times Interpeak and SYPTE data to be PM peak by used with real service time bus journey time data set
Page 82 Page Walking and Alignment with ONS Survey or SCR MCA/ cycling SCR Active Mode Local highway utilisation of Active accessibility Implementation Residents authorities, TRACC Travel assessment to Plan (particularly employers/ software Commissio specific those in areas educational More walking package ner location/area Effective marketing of transport establishments, and/or Manual/ video campaigns to poverty), residents in cycling cycle/ encourage active pedestrians areas of journeys pedestrian travel amongst and cyclists, transport SCR across the counts residents and businesses, poverty, MCA/Active SCR Pedestrian and businesses visitors to SCR cycling/pedestri Travel cycle flows Fully and local an Commissio functioning Effective health services campaign/lobbyi ner automatic integration of new ng groups cycle counts infrastructure into
8
Additional TCF Desired Key Benefit Metric Data Enablers/ Beneficiaries Objectives Outcomes Stakeholders Owner Requirements existing networks e.g. signage SCR MCA/ Active Lives Frequency of strategies, cycle Active Survey/ walking/cycling maps etc Travel primary trip stages Commissio research ner
Route user SCR MCA/ Increase in intercept Active active mode surveys Travel usage by Commissio route/area Household/non ner -user survey Page 83 Page
Alignment with Public To affect a SCR Bus transport mode shift Public transport Morning peak Traffic Implementation users, away from the operators, local traffic flow (car master data Plan and residents, private car on highway SCR MCA, miles) along (or mobile Integrated Rail future those corridors authorities, SYPTE, Reduced car key corridors phone data) Plan residents/empl where new employers, Local commuting oyees, opportunities developers/inve Highway Bus Partnership investors, are likely to stors, Authorities Mode split of agreements developers, see an Cordon counts residents/emplo peak flows businesses increase in (weekday, yees along key Bus/tram/tram- and visitors to demand or 0700-1900_ corridors train/train operators SCR
9
Additional TCF Desired Key Benefit Metric Data Enablers/ Beneficiaries Objectives Outcomes Stakeholders Owner Requirements where growth i) Bus ‘user’ capitalising on could be stifled (SYPTE improvements to household enhance survey and connectivity Passenger Focus onboard Effective marketing Satisfaction survey) campaigns to with public ii) Rail ‘user’ encourage public transport (Passenger transport use Focus onboard amongst residents survey) and businesses
Page 84 Page iii) Tram ‘user’ (Passenger Further integration SCR MCA, Focus onboard of public transport SYPTE survey ticketing and fares SYPTE Increased Total bus ongoing bus patronage (LA datasets - bus patronage and SY) operator statistics SYPTE Total ongoing Increased tram/tram-train datasets - tram patronage Stagecoach patronage (Route and Supertram SY) statistics
10
Additional TCF Desired Key Benefit Metric Data Enablers/ Beneficiaries Objectives Outcomes Stakeholders Owner Requirements SYPTE ongoing datasets - Total rail Increased rail Northern Rail patronage (LA patronage SY statistics or and SY) ORR Annual station entries / exits
Route user Alignment with Attitudes to intercept SCR Active Mode Local highway To create a cycling/ surveys – Implementation authorities, cultural shift Residents, walking perception and Plan employers/educ towards More walking pedestrians SCR MCA/
Page 85 Page including awareness of ational making cycling and cycling and cyclists, Active perceptions of infrastructure Effective marketing establishments, and walking journeys businesses, Travel safety and campaigns to residents, the natural across the visitors to SCR Commissio awareness of Household/non encourage active cycling/pedestri choice for SCR and local ner the quality of user surveys travel amongst an shorter health services walking (programme residents and campaign/lobbyi journeys infrastructure and large businesses ng groups schemes)
11
Additional TCF Desired Key Benefit Metric Data Enablers/ Beneficiaries Objectives Outcomes Stakeholders Owner Requirements Effective integration of new infrastructure into Manual/ video existing networks cycle/ e.g. signage Morning peak pedestrian strategies, cycle cycle flows counts maps etc along the key Fully corridors functioning automatic cycle counts Page 86 Page
Further NOx and enhancements in PM10 levels in fuel efficiency and Local Authority AQMAs increased take up Improved air air quality Local highway Address (Number of of electric vehicles authorities, quality monitoring Residents, current health days when (car and others) residents, road data businesses, SCR MCA/ issues and threshold Industry safety campaign visitors to Local improve air exceeded) improvements to groups, air SCR, and local Authorities quality across minimise emissions quality health services the SCR campaign Road safety KSI accidents groups Improved STATS 19 education (5 year road safety data programmes average) Police enforcement
12
Table Four – Programme Impact definitions
TCF Desired Benefit Metric Data Baseline Benefit Risks Objectives Impacts Owner More working-age people Wider external influences can find suitable Annual SCR: 5.2% (political, economic, social, employment: population (2019) environmental) could have Unemployment levels (% survey TCF Area: much greater impact on employed 16-64) desired impacts and their Skills attained (NVQ3+ or associated metrics than the To better equivalent): A higher TCF programme. connect the proportion of working-age Annual SCR: 54.2% areas of population gain education population (2018) The level of change may be transport and training qualifications, survey TCF Area: difficult to attribute poverty with indicating a reduction of SCR specifically to the TCF Support areas of those not in education, MCA programme given other inclusive Page 87 Page opportunity in employment, or training ongoing investment in other growth a safe and Standard projects/programmes to
sustainable Occupation deliver similar objectives e.g. Enhanced way Classifications Strategic Economic Plan opportunities Higher proportion of 1-3 represent projects, Clean Air Zone, UK to access employees in managerial, SCR: 43.4% higher-level government programmes or new technical, professional (2019) occupations. interventions employment occupations. Annual sites Population The level of change may be Survey. small compared to the background variability To affect a MHCLG Index mode shift of Multiple Datasets to track benefit may BMBC – 22%, away from the Deprivation – not be sufficiently DMBC – 24%, private car on Lower overall levels of a composite SCR disggregated to track RMBC – 22%, those corridors multiple deprivation of indicators MCA changes resulting from solely SCC – 22% where new including TCF Programme requiring (2019) opportunities income, local level proxies to be are likely to employment, derived.
13
TCF Desired Benefit Metric Data Baseline Benefit Risks Objectives Impacts Owner see an education, increase in health, crime, demand or barriers to where growth housings and could be stifled services, living environment deprivation The proportion of Annual SCR: £8.92 per employees on low Survey of hour earnings (defined as 20th Hours and 3% below UK percentile of earnings Earnings level
Page 88 Page distribution)
To create a Perceptions of walking Primary cultural shift TBC: TCF area towards and cycling infrastructure research making cycling SCR and walking Create healthy MCA TBC the natural Primary streets Perceptions of safety SCR: choice for research shorter where TCF Area: journeys people feel safe
To be Address Improve the developed current health quality of our based on TBC issues and outdoors SCR Improvement in air quality public health SCR: improve air MCA agreements TCF Area: quality across and available the SCR data.
14
TCF Desired Benefit Metric Data Baseline Benefit Risks Objectives Impacts Owner Reduction in carbon Marginal emissions in line with External targets for the UK and Greenhouse Sheffield City Region Gases costs related to Car km reduction
Total carbon TBC Delivery of a zero-carbon emissions SCR: public transport network from the TCF Area: transport system (kT CO2) Days exercise jn the last ONS Page 89 Page week with 30 minutes SCR wellbeing exercise where heart rate MCA survey has increased
15
Deliver
Projects will follow the SCR Assurance Framework and following approval of the Full Business Case, will be subject to contractual terms that include bespoke BRP’s based on the programme level BRP. As standard, scheme promoters are required to complete an interim project learning review (“PLR”) following completion of the works (“Outputs”) and a final PLR following delivery of the outcomes (“Outcomes”). The PLR feeds into the MCA’s wider evaluation strategy.
Once the Programme has been completed in its entirety the expected impacts of the benefits (“Impacts”) will begin to be realised in full. However, as with many large scale transport programmes, the full realisation of the benefits will take place over an extended period of time, partly as individual elements of the programme will be completed at different times and also because there is a lag between completion and full realisation. To confirm whether wider realisation of the benefits has occurred it is proposed that following completion of the Programme, the impact of benefits will be monitored after one and five years and compared against the Programme baseline.
Given the extended timescales over which the Programme will realise benefits it may be necessary to adapt the metrics and their measurement overtime. The SCR Assurance Framework includes change control that will enable appraisal of any proposed changes. Approved changes will be formalised between the MCA and scheme promoters and reflected in reporting to DfT.
Review
Each intervention taken forward through the Programme will be required to track benefits realisation during and following completion of that intervention. As such each project will be subject to contractual terms that include reporting quarterly as a minimum, and more frequently if requested by the SCR Executive Team. An annual report will be shared with DfT, with additional ad hoc reports provided if requested. RESOURCING AND GOVERNANCE
The BRP implementation costs are accounted for within each package allocation for each project within the full programme.
The SRO acts on behalf of the MCA and owns the Programme BRP. The SCR Executive Team manage the Programme on behalf of the MCA (and SRO).
The content of the individual project BRP is as approved within the Full Business Case and forms part of the funding agreement between the MCA and the scheme promoter. The scheme promoters are to facilitate delivery of the approved project level BRPs.
Decision-making on the Programme ultimately rests with the MCA and the Transport and Environment Board in line with the SCR Assurance Framework and scheme of delegation outlined in the MCA Constitution.
16
Page 90 Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Table 5.1: Outcome Metrics – Data Required Outcome Objective Data to be Used Data Source Collated / Collected by
Real and perceived Project Sponsor Perception of safety amongst pedestrians Pedestrian and Cyclist Intercept Survey active travel safety 1 2 3 4 (larger schemes) and cyclists improved Survey with Non-Users SCR Reduction in no. and Accident and casualty numbers severity of accidents 1 2 3 4 (pedestrians and cyclists) and cause of STATS19 data Project Sponsor and casualties (involving accidents pedestrians / cyclists)
Project Sponsor Improved perceived Perception of walking and cycling provision Pedestrian and Cyclist Intercept Survey quality of active travel 1 2 3 4 in the area (e.g. desire lines, quality, (larger schemes) infrastructure signage) Survey with Non-Users SCR
Page 91 Page Mapped isochrones of before and after TRACC SYPTE connectivity Address severance 1 2 3 4 Project Sponsor barrier for active travel Pedestrian and Cyclist Intercept Survey Perception of severance barrier (larger schemes) Survey with Non-Users SCR Mapped isochrones of before and after Improved local active 1 2 3 4 connectivity, number of people within TRACC SYPTE travel connectivity defined travel time Passenger / public perception regarding Rail Passenger Survey SYPTE ease of getting to station Enhanced active travel 1 2 3 4 accessibility to stations Mapped isochrones of before and after connectivity, number of people within TRACC SYPTE defined walking time of station Project Sponsor Improved perception of Perceptions of active travel improved (e.g. Pedestrian and Cyclist Intercept Survey 1 2 3 4 (larger schemes) active travel willing to consider walking and cycling) Survey with Non-Users SCR
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM 26
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Outcome Objective Data to be Used Data Source Collated / Collected by Number of people walking or cycling Pedestrian and Cycle Counts Project Sponsor Increased uptake of 1 2 3 4 Perceptions of amount walking / cycling Project Sponsor active travel Pedestrian and Cyclist Intercept Survey (i.e. stated behaviours) (larger schemes) Improved quality of 1 2 3 4 Facilities at station Station Audit (see Table 4.1) SYPTE station environment Greater availability of 1 2 3 4 Cycle parking occupancy Cycle Parking Count Project Sponsor secure cycle parking Access for all at rail Compliance with accessibility requirements Station Audit (see Table 4.1) SYPTE stations 1 2 3 4 Perceptions of rail passengers Rail Passenger Survey SYPTE Improved perception of Perceptions of rail passengers of quality of Page 92 Page rail station 1 2 3 4 station (e.g. information, safety / security, Rail Passenger Survey SYPTE accessibility) Increased rail patronage Office of Rail and Road (ORR) Annual station entries / exits SYPTE 1 2 3 4 Estimates of Station Usage Stated behaviours of rail passengers Rail Passenger Survey SYPTE Mapped isochrones of before and after Widened catchment for SYPTE 1 2 3 4 connectivity, number of people within TRACC tram-train services defined travel time Alternative mode for Perception amongst employees at key those accessing key 1 2 3 4 Employee Survey SYPTE destinations in the corridors destinations Transport Focus Tram Passenger Perception of tram-train service SYPTE Improved perception of Survey 1 2 3 4 tram-train Perception of the new Magna stop and Magna Stop Passenger Survey SYPTE service available Improved access to P&R Count Data (Magna and Parkgate 1 2 3 4 Use of P&R facility SYPTE tram-train services Stops)
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM 27
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Outcome Objective Data to be Used Data Source Collated / Collected by Tram-train boarding and alighting data Operator Records SYPTE Increased tram-train 1 2 3 4 Perceptions of amount of travel by tram- patronage Magna Stop Passenger Survey SYPTE train and any change in the stop used Reduced bus journey Bus journey times along defined routes / Operator Records / SYPTE Transport 1 2 3 4 SYPTE times services Corridor Data Improved bus journey Standard deviation from planned journey Operator Records / SYPTE Transport time reliability and 1 2 3 4 SYPTE time (for journey and at stops) Corridor Data punctuality Number of services operating along route / Operator Records / SYPTE Timetable Greater bus frequency 1 2 3 4 SYPTE corridor Database Passenger perception of bus reliability, Bus Passenger Survey SYPTE punctuality, satisfaction etc
Page 93 Page Improved perception of 1 2 3 4 SYPTE Customer Relationship bus Number of complaints regarding the Management (CRM) System SYPTE services along the corridor Complaints
Increased bus 1 2 3 4 Bus patronage data Operator Records SYPTE patronage 1 2 3 4 Perceptions of amount travel by the bus Bus Passenger Survey SYPTE Mapped isochrones of before and after Broaden public transport 1 2 3 4 connectivity, number of people within TRACC SYPTE connectivity defined travel time Reduced emissions per 1 2 3 4 Bus fleet composition Operator Records SYPTE bus Reduced emissions 1 2 3 4 Bus fleet composition Operator Records SYPTE associated with buses Re-routing of highway Change in traffic volume through links - 1 2 3 4 Highway Data Project Sponsor / SCR traffic traffic counts
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM 28
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Outcome Objective Data to be Used Data Source Collated / Collected by Bus, Rail and Magna Stop Passenger Stated mode of travel SYPTE Survey Household Travel Survey SYPTE Project Sponsor or SYPTE (depending on Increased proportion of Stated mode to work the outcomes of 1 2 3 4 Employee Survey sustainable journeys Sustainable Transport Access Fund (STAF) investment)
Active Lives Adult Survey (to provide Frequency of walking and cycling per Project Sponsor person overall understanding and complement scheme- Page 94 Page specific data collected above) Bus, Rail and Magna Stop Passenger Stated mode of travel SYPTE Survey Household Travel Survey SYPTE
Modal shift from private Project Sponsor or 1 2 3 4 Stated mode to work SYPTE (depending on car Employee Survey the outcomes of STAF investment) Project Sponsor / SCR Cordon counts Cordon Count data / SYPTE Public transport journey time between key Greater connectivity Public Transport Timetable Information SYPTE 1 2 3 4 settlements between settlements Perceptions of stakeholders Interview SYPTE
Access to opportunities / Perceptions of stakeholders Interview SYPTE 1 2 3 4 key destinations Perceived change in accessibility Employee Survey Project Sponsor or
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM 29
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Outcome Objective Data to be Used Data Source Collated / Collected by SYPTE (depending on the outcomes of STAF investment) Mapped isochrones of before and after connectivity contrasted with deprivation, TRACC SYPTE employment and business growth data from Office of National Statistics (ONS) Project Sponsor or SYPTE (depending on Perceptions of stakeholders Interview the outcome of STAF investment) Enhanced perception of 1 2 3 4 Perceptions of those walking and cycling in Project Sponsor ‘place’ Pedestrian and Cyclist Intercept Survey the area (larger schemes) Page 95 Page Household Travel Survey SYPTE Perceptions of local residents Telephone Survey SCR Improved highway journey time reliability 1 2 3 4 Standard deviation to average journey time Data sources being investigated Project Sponsor / SCR (all vehicles) Reduced highway journey times (all 1 2 3 4 Average journey times for defined routes Data sources being investigated Project Sponsor / SCR vehicles) Traffic volumes through links Highway Data Project Sponsor Enhanced traffic flow 1 2 3 4 Highway Data Project Sponsor characteristics Average speed through links DfT Congestion Statistics Project Sponsor
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM 30
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Table 5.2: Impact Metrics – Data Required Impact Objective Data to be Used Data Collection Collated / Collected by Perceptions amongst Project Sponsor 1 2 3 4 Pedestrian and Cyclist Intercept Survey Greater levels of physical pedestrians and cyclists (larger schemes) activity 1 2 3 4 Perceptions of stakeholders Interviews SYPTE Physical health and wellbeing 1 2 3 4 Perceptions of stakeholders Interviews SYPTE benefits Mitigate congestion 1 2 3 4 Levels of delay along corridors Data sources begin investigated SCR Diffusion Tubes or Modelling Improved local air quality 1 2 3 4 Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels Project Sponsor (to be determined) Proportion of Lower-layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs) Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) SCR Page 96 Page Reduced deprivation levels and 1 2 3 4 improved social inclusion within 20% most deprived Perceptions of stakeholders Interviews SYPTE Reduced unemployment 1 2 3 4 Claimant Count numbers Claimant Count data SCR Support realisation of housing 1 2 3 4 Perceptions of stakeholders Interviews SYPTE developments Support realisation of economic 1 2 3 4 Perceptions of stakeholders Interviews SYPTE developments Perceptions of stakeholders Interviews SYPTE Business Register and Employment Support retention / growth 1 2 3 4 Number of employees SCR Survey (BRES) Business counts ONS – UK Business Counts SCR
Sites more attractive to investors Perceptions of stakeholders Interviews SYPTE 1 2 3 4 / business Business counts ONS – UK Business Counts SCR
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM 31
Sheffield City Region Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive Sheffield City Region
December 2020
Page 97
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Quality Information
Prepared by Checked by Verified by Approved by Katrina Keddie / Tom Marsden Neil Macdonald Tom Marsden Edward Holden Senior Consultant Associate Director Regional Director Associate Director
Revision History
Revision Revision date Details Authorised Name Position V1.0 09/07/20 Draft for Comments TCM Tom Marsden Associate Director Draft for Comments V1.1 09/07/20 TCM Tom Marsden Associate Director – Minor amends Initial Plan V2.0 17/12/20 TCM Tom Marsden Associate Director (December 2020)
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive Sheffield City Region
Prepared by:
AECOM Limited 1 New York Street Manchester M1 4HD United Kingdom aecom.com
© 2020 AECOM Limited. All Rights Reserved.
This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited (“AECOM”) for sole use of our client (the “Client”) in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 98
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...... 4 1.1 Background ...... 4 1.2 Transforming Cities Fund ...... 4 1.3 MEP Structure ...... 5 2. SCR TCF Programme Overview ...... 6 2.1 Rationale ...... 6 2.2 Programme Objectives ...... 6 2.3 Schemes ...... 6 2.4 Intended Beneficiaries ...... 9 2.5 Cost ...... 9 2.6 Timeframe ...... 9 4. Evaluation Approach ...... 11 4.1 Definitions ...... 11 4.2 Scope of Evaluation ...... 11 4.3 Attribution ...... 12 4.4 Logic Mapping ...... 12 4.5 Evaluation Objectives and Research Questions ...... 13 5. Process Evaluation ...... 19 5.1 Introduction ...... 19 5.1.1 Delivered Scheme ...... 19 5.1.2 Programme Milestones ...... 19 5.1.3 Finances ...... 19 5.1.4 Risk ...... 20 5.1.5 Resources ...... 20 5.1.6 Stakeholder Engagement ...... 21 5.1.7 Context ...... 21 5.1.8 Causal Pathway Review ...... 22 5.1.9 Summary ...... 22 6. Impact Evaluation ...... 24 6.1 Introduction ...... 24 6.2 Methodology ...... 24 6.3 Data Requirements ...... 25 6.4 Data Collection Methods ...... 32 6.5 Summary ...... 40 7. Economic Evaluation ...... 42 7.1 Introduction ...... 42 7.2 Methodology ...... 42 8. Resourcing and Governance ...... 43 8.1 Governance ...... 43 8.2 Resources ...... 44 8.3 Delivery Plan ...... 44 8.4 Risks ...... 45 8.5 Dissemination of Findings ...... 45 9. MEP Next Steps ...... 48 10. Annex A: Scheme Summary ...... 50
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 99
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
1. Introduction
1.1 Background In November 2019, the Sheffield City Region (SCR) submitted a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC)1 to Department for Transport (DfT) for Tranche 2 of the Transforming Cities Fund (TCF). The TCF aims to improve productivity and spread prosperity through investment in public and sustainable transport in some of the largest English city regions. In the Spring 2020 Budget, Government confirmed the SCR had been allocated £166m of the TCF, which would also be supplemented with local and private contributions.
It is a requirement of receiving funding to monitor and evaluate the interventions delivered. DfT will lead the overall evaluation of the TCF, but city regions are also expected to develop evaluation processes alongside scheme development. This Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (MEP) presents the indicative approach for the SCR TCF programme based on the current level of scheme design and understanding of the national evaluation2. It is a ‘live’ document that will be updated as the SCR TCF programme progresses, and the full requirements of the national / overall evaluation are understood. This will ensure the activity undertaken locally effectively complements the national evaluation and mitigates duplication. The Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA) will review, and where required, update the MEP to ensure it remains in accordance with other relevant plans and objectives.
The SCR Assurance Framework (2018) highlights the importance of measuring success as this provides “important lessons which are used to further improve the decision-making processes” and can increase the likelihood of successfully delivering future projects. The Assurance Framework also notes that it is important to understand the outcomes achieved by the funds available to the SCR. This reiterates a role evaluation has in the feedback of lessons learnt in delivery to maximise efficiency and effectiveness of future investment.
The MEP has synergy with a Benefits Realisation Plan (BRP) produced by the SCR Executive Team.
1.2 Transforming Cities Fund In March 2018, DfT made a Call for Proposals for the TCF with funding to be allocated via two tranches: (i) Tranche 1 focused on early-delivery schemes in that financial year and (ii) Tranche 2 which supports longer-term programmes to be developed and agreed in 2019/20.
Guidance for the TCF made it clear that it is seeking “coherent programmes of interlinking interventions which will transform connectivity in key commuter routes in city regions”3. Encouraging an increase in journeys made by low carbon, sustainable modes is, therefore, a key objective of the TCF. Support for wider cross-cutting priorities is also an aspiration of the TCF, such as:
▪ Improving access to work and delivering growth;
▪ Encouraging the use of new mobility systems and technology as part of the Future of Mobility Grand Challenge4;
▪ Tackling air pollution and reducing carbon emissions;
▪ Delivering more homes; and
▪ Delivering apprenticeships and improving skills.
1 Sheffield City Region Transforming Cities Fund Tranche 2 Business Case 2 Transforming Cities Fund: Evaluation Guidance 3 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/786857/transforming-cities- tranche-2-applications.pdf 4 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/industrial-strategy-the-grand-challenges/industrial-strategy-the-grand-challenges
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 100 4
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
This has informed the development of the SCR TCF programme with the following objectives identified for the SCR TCF programme:
▪ To better connect the areas of transport poverty with areas of opportunity in a safe and sustainable way;
▪ To affect a mode shift away from the private car on those corridors where new opportunities are likely to see an increase in demand or where growth could be stifled;
▪ To create a cultural shift towards making cycling and walking the natural choice for shorter journeys; and
▪ To achieve the above in ways that address current health issues and improve air quality across the SCR, all focused on the three priority areas identified in the TCF prospectus.
1.3 MEP Structure Following this introduction, the MEP is structured as follows:
▪ Section 2 provides an overview of the SCR TCF programme;
▪ Section 3 presents the evaluation approach;
▪ Section 4 describes the process evaluation methodology and information requirements;
▪ Section 5 details the data requirements for the impact evaluation;
▪ Section 6 summarises the economic evaluation considerations;
▪ Section 7 outlines the resourcing and governance for monitoring and evaluation activity; and
▪ Section 8 identifies the next steps for this MEP.
This MEP identifies an initial approach which will need to be updated with additional detail on data collection approaches in due course as the understanding of the National Evaluator requirements are confirmed and the scheme design is finalised.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 101 5
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
2. SCR TCF Programme Overview
2.1 Rationale The SOBC identifies a number of key issues driving the need for the SCR TCF investment in order to unlock opportunities for the economy, environment and society. These are summarised in Figure 2.1, with the colour-coding demonstrating the synergy to the objectives, subsequently presented in section 2.2.
Figure 2.1: Key Transport Issues in SCR
2.2 Programme Objectives Four objectives have been identified for the SCR TCF programme, as shown in Figure 2.2, which seek to address the key transport issues identified in the region.
Figure 2.2: SCR TCF Objectives
2.3 Schemes The SCR TCF programme is focused on three priority corridors within South Yorkshire, which were prioritised through the Sheffield City Region Integrated Public Transport (SCRIPT) study and subsequent TCF Prospectus5. The corridors are listed below and form the study area for the MEP:
▪ Advanced Manufacturing and Innovation District (AMID) Corridor;
▪ Dearne Valley Corridor; and
▪ River Don Corridor.
As shown in Figure 2.3, these corridors extend across the four South Yorkshire local authority areas i.e. Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield.
5 Transforming Cities Prospectus: Global Innovation Corridor, Sheffield City Region, June 2018
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 102 6
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Figure 2.3: SCR TCF Priority Corridors
Source: SCR Transforming Cities Prospectus, 2019. The SCR TCF programme is currently comprised of 58 schemes to be delivered across the three priority corridors. The location of the schemes is shown in Figure 2.4, with a summary of schemes provided in Annex A.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 103 7
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Figure 2.4: SCR TCF Schemes Page 104 Page
N.B. Schemes mapped as a ‘point’ using latitude and longitude information within scheme information provided.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM 8
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
2.4 Intended Beneficiaries The SCR TCF programme will primarily benefit the following:
▪ Pedestrians: The additional routes and improved quality of provision seek to encourage an uptake of walking as a result of the enhanced journey quality and addressing severance barriers. A number of the schemes specifically seek to improve walking access to rail stations to support the uptake of rail. ▪ Cyclists: Creating new and improved cycle provision to SCR aspirational standards encourages existing cyclists to do so more often, whilst also enabling others to start cycling. This is due to the improved journey quality with dedicated provision that can address severance and perceived safety barriers to cycling. A number of the schemes specifically seek to improve cycling access to rail stations to support the uptake of rail. ▪ Public Transport Users: The schemes will benefit bus, rail and tram-train users. Bus users will primarily benefit from improved journey times and greater journey time reliability, whilst rail users will generally benefit from an improved environment at the rail station (as well as the walking and cycling access discussed above). Establishing a new stop at Magna on the tram-train Black Line will open up the catchment of the tram-train network, supported by P&R facilities at the new stop and existing Parkgate stop. ▪ Highway Users: Several of the schemes identified as bus improvements include junction improvements, which will likely benefit all highway users. The enhanced connectivity provided for these users will support wider objectives regarding air quality, health, and support the local and regional economy by improving access to opportunities and encouraging modal shift from private car to sustainable transport modes.
2.5 Cost The estimated cost6 of the SCR TCF programme is £202m, with the TCF contribution of £166m forming 82.2% of this cost alongside the local authorities contribution and private contributions. Table 2.1 summarises the scheme cost by corridor and mode, as well as the programme ‘headroom’ value and SCR programme management. The breakdown highlights the majority of the scheme cost is for active travel and bus schemes and therefore the emphasis is on local connectivity within the priority corridors.
Table 2.1: SCR TCF Cost Breakdown, by Corridor and Mode
Active Active Corridor Travel and Bus Rail Tram-Train Total Travel Bus AMID £20,493,621 £52,293,461 £7,446,633 - £5,410,000 £85,643,715 Dearne £20,647,211 - £36,409,666 £2,105,666 £3,580,000 £62,742,023 Valley River Don £21,434,913 £3,950,000 £8,450,000 £1,352,397 - £35,187,310 Sub-Total £62,575,745 £56,243,461 £52,306,299 £3,457,543 £8,990,000 £183,573,048 Programme ‘Headroom’ Value £16,544,915 SCR Programme Management £2,296,136 Total £202,414,099
2.6 Timeframe The anticipated timeframe for delivery is imminent with construction expected to start in March 2021 for the first scheme, with construction due to be completed for all schemes by October 2024. Figure
6 As of October 2020.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 105 9
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
2.5 shows the estimated construction start and completion, by quarter, and highlights the benefits for the majority of schemes will start to be realised from 2022.
Figure 2.5: Estimated Start and Completion of Scheme Construction, by Quarter
N.B. The estimated dates for two schemes are unknown.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 106 10
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
4. Evaluation Approach
4.1 Definitions Monitoring and evaluation are important components within the life cycle of any project, as illustrated in the Green Book7 ROAMEF cycle, which stands for Rationale, Objectives, Appraisal, Monitoring, Evaluation and Feedback. While monitoring and evaluation are identified towards the end of the cycle, it should have a role throughout project delivery to ensure the objectives are met and this is reiterated in the Magenta Book8 which states “evaluation is useful at all stages” and should inform thinking throughout the ROAMEF cycle (i.e. before, during and after projects are implemented). Section 7.5 refers to the dissemination of monitoring and evaluation findings and supports the Feedback component of the project lifecycle.
From the outset, it is important to consider the definition of, and distinction between, monitoring and evaluation:
▪ Monitoring seeks to check progress against planned targets in order to consider whether the scheme has achieved what it intended to do and how success metrics have changed over time.
▪ Evaluation is the assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of the project during and after implementation. This enables an understanding of whether the project worked as expected, was it cost-effective and what was the impact of the project, on who, and why.
The Magenta Book highlights learning and accountability are the two primary reasons for undertaking evaluation and this has been considered throughout the preparation of this MEP.
DfT guidance refers to inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts within the monitoring and evaluation approach. The relationship between these is shown in Figure 3.1 and these aspects are further elaborated in section 3.4 for the SCR TCF programme specifically. This also highlights the importance of understanding contextual factors influencing the inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts.
Figure 3.1: Defining Inputs, Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts
4.2 Scope of Evaluation The Magenta Book identifies three core strands of evaluation: (i) process, (ii) impact and (iii) economic (value for money). This three-strand approach provides a full understanding of whether an intervention worked, how, why and for whom, and at what cost.
A process evaluation reviews the activities involved in the delivery of a project to understand what lessons can be learnt. A process evaluation is multi-faceted and typically utilises both qualitative and quantitative approaches to understand objective issues (e.g. the costs and programme), as well as subjective issues (e.g. perception of the implementation).
The impact evaluation considers what difference the project has made by gaining an understanding of the changes in measurable outcomes (intended and unintended) and the extent to which outcomes
7 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/685903/The_Green_Book.pd f 8 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/879438/HMT_Magenta_Boo k.pdf
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 107 11
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
can be attributed to the delivered project. This also explores whether, and why, particular groups have been impacted in different ways, as well as how contextual changes may have influenced the observed changes.
An economic evaluation reflects on the outturn costs and benefits to review the value for money assessment made in the Full Business Case.
There is overlap between the MEP and BRP. The BRP logs and tracks the benefits (e.g. outcomes and impacts), while the MEP details the mechanisms to determine if the effects of the project have occurred and an appreciation of the attribution between the projects and effects.
4.3 Attribution An understanding of the project and how it is expected to achieve the outcomes is important for establishing an effective approach to monitoring and evaluation. The TCF Evaluation Guidance identifies the need to develop a ‘Theory of Change’ (ToC) to articulate how projects will lead to the expected changes by presenting the assumed causal links between the outputs, outcomes and impacts. Logic mapping has been utilised for this MEP to set out the anticipated ToC and further detail is provided in section 3.4.
Attribution considers the extent to which an outcome or impact occurred due to the delivered scheme. With numerous aspects often influencing medium-term outcomes and impacts, this can be complex so it is important to identify how this will be undertaken. For the SCR TCF, a ‘before’ and ‘after’ comparison of the outcomes and impacts will be undertaken in order to evaluate the assumed connections between the outputs, outcomes and impacts (as shown in the ToC). Discussions with key stakeholders will supplement this understanding of the attribution and the assessment of causality.
With 58 schemes, it is likely many of the schemes will work alongside other schemes to deliver the step-change in sustainable transport connectivity within the three priority corridors. Consequently, the medium-term outcomes and impacts are more likely to be attributable to the programme rather than specific schemes.
Finally, an alternative approach is the use of an experimental or quasi-experimental approach. However, as the priority corridors consider broad areas, identifying a comparison area with similar characteristics would complicate attribution, particularly for the transportation outcomes. In addition, a comparison area is likely to be outside of the SCR and this provides challenges for primary research and data collection methods. A light-touch quasi-experimental approach could be utilised for some of the medium-term outcomes which use readily available secondary data sources. This could consider the performance by district (Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield), as well as across the SCR to provide a comparative understanding of the changes experienced.
4.4 Logic Mapping Logic mapping has been used to map the scheme outputs (i.e. the deliverables of a scheme), outcomes (i.e. the immediate results) and anticipated impacts (i.e. long-term results) and trace them back to the scheme’s objectives. Logic mapping is an established technique and provides a useful evaluation framework where:
▪ Interventions are complex (e.g. multi-layers, multiple interventions);
▪ The causal logic is not straightforward;
▪ The timescale from intervention to impacts is long (and potentially variable); and
▪ There is a need to track progress through time and explain variance.
Figure 3.2 presents the overall logic map for the SCR TCF programme and shows the relationship between the scheme objectives, outputs and anticipated outcomes and impacts. Owing to the number of schemes (n=58) and synergy between schemes to deliver medium-term outcomes and impacts, it was considered appropriate to consider packages of schemes, by mode, within the logic map. The subsequent sections of this MEP consider the data requirements to monitor the outputs, outcomes and impacts.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 108 12
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
The overall SCR TCF programme logic map is accompanied by three logic maps to provide more detailed understanding of the assumed changes along the three priority corridors (Figure 3.3 to 3.5). Recognising the unique conditions and characteristics of the three corridors, and potential for external factors to affect outcomes and impacts in these distinct geographies, the evaluation seeks to consider the distinct priority corridors, as well as the cumulative impact for the SCR. For example, the AMID Corridor is characterised by the 2,000-acre centre of excellence for innovation-led research and industrial collaboration with the schemes focused on connectivity to Sheffield City Centre to support access to the opportunities in the AMID. Meanwhile, the Dearne Valley Corridor permeates through Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham with the schemes seeking to improve sustainable transport connectivity across the corridor by rail, bus and active travel. The River Don Corridor extends between two of the city region’s key growth areas (Sheffield City Centre to the Unity site to the north east of Doncaster) and the proposed schemes seek to support uptake of sustainable travel within this area by addressing barriers to public transport and active travel.
4.5 Evaluation Objectives and Research Questions The SCR TCF programme objectives and logic mapping help to define the scope of the monitoring and evaluation required. The following evaluation objectives have been identified for the SCR TCF monitoring and evaluation activity:
▪ To understand if the SCR TCF schemes were delivered effectively and efficiently;
▪ To ascertain the causal effect of the scheme on the anticipated outcomes and whether these have contributed to intended impacts in the priority corridors; and
▪ To determine whether there have been any unintended positive or adverse effects.
These evaluation objectives are accompanied by series of research which are posed to determine if the evaluation objectives have been met. Table 3.1 illustrates the alignment between the evaluation objectives, research questions and logic map components.
Table 3.1: SCR TCF M&E Summary
SCR TCF Evaluation Logic Map SCR TCF Research Question Objective Component To understand if the ▪ Were the SCR TCF schemes delivered on time SCR TCF schemes and to budget? Inputs were delivered ▪ What lessons have been learnt during delivery & effectively and of the SCR TCF schemes? Outputs efficiently ▪ What has the effect on public transport journey times been? ▪ How has the perception, and use, of active travel facilities changed? To ascertain the ▪ Who uses the new provision and how were causal effect of the they travelling previously for these journeys (if SCR TCF schemes at all)? on the anticipated ▪ How has connectivity between settlements and Outcomes outcomes and areas of opportunity changed? & whether these have ▪ How have levels of transport poverty changed Impacts contributed to within the priority corridors? intended impacts in ▪ To what extent has the scheme had a positive the priority corridors impact on the priority corridors in the SCR and are these likely to occur on other schemes? ▪ What negative effects have there been (if any) and are these likely to occur on other schemes?
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 109 13
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
SCR TCF Evaluation Logic Map SCR TCF Research Question Objective Component
To determine whether ▪ What are the unintended effects and are they Outcomes there have been any likely to occur on other schemes? & unintended positive or adverse effects Impacts
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 110 14
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Figure 3.2: SCR TCF Programme Logic Map Page 111 Page
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM 15
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Figure 3.3: AMID Corridor Logic Map Page 112 Page
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM 16
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Figure 3.4: Dearne Valley Corridor Logic Map Page 113 Page
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM 17
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Figure 3.5: River Don Corridor Logic Map Page 114 Page
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM 18
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
5. Process Evaluation
5.1 Introduction The process evaluation will seek to answer the first evaluation objective about whether the SCR TCF programme schemes were delivered effectively and efficiently. Understanding what has been delivered, how efficiently delivery has been achieved and the outturn standard / design of the scheme, will all feed into the assessment of outcomes and impacts. The process evaluation will consider a number of themes, as detailed in this section.
5.1.1 Delivered Scheme Following construction and opening of the schemes, an in-depth discussion with the Project Manager (and any other relevant members of the project team) regarding the outturn scheme design, standard and quality will be undertaken. The evaluation will, therefore, assess any changes in scheme design or key assumptions, the reasons for such changes and the possible impacts generated.
It is expected that audits will be undertaken before the scheme construction, particularly for the active travel and rail station improvements, to provide a Baseline assessment of the facilities available. Repeating these audits following construction will provide a mechanism for assessing the change in provision.
Evaluation Questions
▪ How does the outturn scheme design compare with the approved funding design?
▪ What were the main causes of change?
▪ What were the consequences (costs and benefits) of changes to the scheme?
5.1.2 Programme Milestones A review of the planned and actual milestones in the delivery of SCR TCF programme schemes will be undertaken. Section 2.6 highlighted construction is due to start in 2021 and be completed in 2024 with a phased delivery of the schemes during this period.
Quantifiable metrics on the duration for delivering schemes will explore the level of slippage by scheme and the overall programme. Discussions with the Project Manager will discuss programme slippage, changes in phasing and the consequences on dependent delivery activities. The mitigation measures to be implemented to manage programme changes will be identified and reviewed with the Project Manager.
Evaluation Questions
▪ What were the changes in programme delivery and milestones and how were they mitigated?
▪ What were the causes of programme slippage or change, and how were the risks manged?
▪ How could programme slippage have been forecast and managed to minimise impacts on dependent activities?
5.1.3 Finances The SCR TCF programme has been costed as £202m (Table 2.1). The process evaluation will assess the validity and accuracy of these cost forecasts and, importantly, any changes that occur during the scheme construction. This evaluation will, therefore, consider the following:
▪ Barriers to delivering the programme, and individual schemes, to budget;
▪ Causes of any variance (savings and increases) in costs incurred;
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 115 19
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
▪ Critical success factors in managing the cost of the schemes and overall programme; and
▪ Financial risks associated with schemes and their manifestation / mitigation.
Monitoring the budget for delivery of the SCR TCF programme will utilise cost spreadsheets / project dashboard reporting (or similar) to demonstrate how costs have tracked over time with depth discussions with pertinent members of the project team to fully ascertain the management of the budget, including the cause, risks and mitigating actions for any variance in the costs.
Evaluation Questions
▪ What were the main challenges in costing the schemes and overall programme?
▪ Which schemes generated greatest variance from budget costs and why?
▪ Which financial risks manifested? When and with what consequences?
▪ What were the outturn ongoing costs of the schemes? How does this compare with the forecast costs?
▪ What were the outturn maintenance costs of the schemes? How does this compare with the forecast costs?
5.1.4 Risk A copy of the Risk Register was presented with the SOBC. The Risk Register is the primary means for recording risk information and monitoring risk exposure throughout the life of the programme. The latest version (November 2020) of the programme level Risk Register identifies 23 risks.
The SOBC noted that a Risk Management Plan will be produced in subsequent iterations of the business case which will set out the overall strategy for actively managing risk to a level that is ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ and ensure that risk management is part of the development of the programme.
The process evaluation will explore the issues during delivery (i.e. risks realised) with regards to three core strands of enquiry: (i) implications of the risk, particularly on cost and programme, (ii) mitigation actions and their effectiveness and (iii) escalation of risks and the effectiveness of additional mitigation measures. This will be undertaken by reviewing the Risk Register and discussions with the individual responsible for managing risks.
Evaluation Questions
▪ What were the main risks encountered during the scheme delivery?
▪ Which measures were successful in mitigating issues and opportunities?
▪ Which risks required escalation?
▪ How effective were risk transfer procedures?
5.1.5 Resources The size and multi-modal nature of the SCR TCF programme will require a blend of staff resources and skills. The process evaluation will assist in understanding the extent to which there was sufficient and suitable staff resource for delivery of the programme. This could support the understanding of the skills and resources required to deliver similar schemes.
An in-depth discussion with the Project Manager and members of the project team will help to determine the key resource and skill requirements. Discussions with any suppliers and contractors utilised could also identify opportunities to evaluate the resources used to deliver the programme including the procurement and management processes.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 116 20
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Key aspects to consider will be the level of resources applied to scheme delivery and for any shortfall in requirements, the cause and potential impacts, performance of internal teams, suppliers and contractors, range of bid costs and quality received for those aspects procured, and an understanding of staff turnover alongside the impacts this can have on delivery costs and efficiency.
Evaluation Questions
▪ What were the gaps in the level and quality of human resources during the course of scheme development and construction?
▪ How could these gaps be mitigated and planned for in the scheme development procedures?
▪ What were the key risks associated with accessing materials and professional services?
▪ Which areas of scheme delivery had the greatest elements of risk regarding resourcing?
5.1.6 Stakeholder Engagement The SOBC identifies a number of stakeholders that have been involved in the development of public transport and active travel schemes. The type and frequency of information to be provided to stakeholder during scheme development and construction of schemes under the SCR TCF programme is unclear, but the process evaluation will seek to understand the frequency and method(s) of engagement, as well as the effectiveness of this engagement.
Depth discussions with pertinent members of the project team and key stakeholders will help to shape this understanding.
Evaluation Questions
▪ Which stakeholder management and engagement mechanisms were most effective and why?
▪ What lessons can be learnt regarding the timing and extent of stakeholder management?
5.1.7 Context It is recognised that changes in contextual factors should be considered in order to attribute any observed changes to the SCR TCF schemes and understanding the likelihood of similar results being achieved in other areas. This will need to include contextual changes throughout the ex-ante, construction and post opening at a local (priority corridors), regional (South Yorkshire and SCR) and national level. Key contextual factors to consider will be:
▪ Additional transport investment in the area;
▪ Activities influencing development or employment activity;
▪ Changes to the wider economy (e.g. fuel prices, rental prices, employment characteristics, socio-demographics); and
▪ The impact of the Covid-19 outbreak, as well as the recovery.
Contextual factors will be determined using available datasets and during engagement with stakeholders. This will help to understand the extent to which contextual factors influenced the delivery of the scheme and the scheme outcomes. The evaluation will also consider how transferable the outcomes / impacts are as a result of the influence of the observed contextual factors.
Evaluation Questions
▪ What are the changes in scheme context? (between Baseline, scheme completion and ex- post periods)
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 117 21
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
▪ Have any contextual factors influenced the delivery of the scheme? If so, how?
▪ Which contextual factors influenced the observed short-term outcomes of the TCF programme in the SCR? How?
▪ How transferable are the impacts of contextual factors to other schemes and locations?
5.1.8 Causal Pathway Review As a result of the changes in the delivered scheme and scheme context, the logic maps presented will be updated to understand the interrelationships between scheme components and the anticipated outcomes and impacts. This will help to inform whether the scheme is on track to deliver the anticipated benefits in the longer term.
The audits of schemes delivered, and user-related quality, will be able to highlight the potential changes in short-term outcomes, particularly those that are expected to trigger modal shift.
Evaluation Questions
▪ Which causal pathways have changed since the Baseline logic mapping? Why?
▪ What short-term outcomes are expected to be realised?
5.1.9 Summary A summary of the SCR TCF programme process evaluation metrics is provided in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: SCR TCF Programme Process Evaluation Metrics Metric Purpose Data Collection Project reporting To understand any changes in schemes Delivered Scheme Audit (active travel and delivered and the implications for cost, scheme rail station improvements) programme and anticipated benefits. Interview with Project Manager To identify any variance in costs associated Costs / Planned and Actual Expenditure investment in each scheme, and the overall investment SCR TCF programme. Interview with Project Manager To track slippage and delays in delivery and Programme Planned and Actual Milestones to understand the reasons, risks and milestones mitigation measures. Interview with Project Manager
To assess emerging risks, their ownership, Risk Register Risk Register mitigation and effectiveness of management procedures. Interview with Risk Lead To assess the allocation of resource levels, Staffing and skill set requirements and gaps, staff Interview with Project Manager resources turnover and capacity. Stakeholder To assess the effectiveness of stakeholder Interview with Stakeholder Lead Engagement communications and engagement.
The logic maps identify a number of outputs and Table 4.2 identifies the key metrics to monitor the extent to which these have been delivered. These outputs will need to be expanded upon with greater detail as greater detail regarding the schemes is provided through the business case process.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 118 22
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Table 4.2: SCR TCF Programme Outputs
Output Metric(s) Data Collection Length of new cycleways, by type of provision (e.g. off-road segregated, on-road segregated, etc) Change in Scheme Plans quantity and Length of improved cycleways, by type of Scheme Audit (larger schemes) quality of cycle provision infrastructure Number of crossings upgraded for cyclists Project Manager knowledge Number of new / improved and type of cycle parking spaces provided Change in Length of new walkways Scheme Plans quantity and Length of improved walkways quality of Scheme Audit (larger schemes) Number and type of crossings upgraded for pedestrian pedestrians Project Manager knowledge infrastructure Change in Audit of new and improved facilities at rail quality of rail station Scheme Audit (larger schemes) station Project Manager knowledge environment New park and ride spaces provided Change in tram- Scheme Plans train services Service frequency and journey time from Timetable and facilities new stop Length of new / improved bus priority Change in Number of new / improved bus stops quantity and Scheme Plans quality of bus Bus priority violations infrastructure Number of junctions upgraded with traffic signal priority
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 119 23
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
6. Impact Evaluation
6.1 Introduction The scheme objectives and logic mapping outlined in sections 2 and 3, help to define the scope of the monitoring and evaluation required. This section details the proposed data requirements for the outcomes and impacts anticipated for the programme, as well as the proposed data collection methods for the metrics identified.
6.2 Methodology As outlined in section 3, this is a combined evaluation approach which will use a ‘before’ and ‘after’ comparison of the outcomes and impacts alongside stakeholder depth discussions to consider the changes. This will test the assumed ToC to understand causality and the contribution of the scheme(s) to observed changes, as well as an assessment of any unintended impacts.
The logic mapping will be used to track progress following construction for key indicators of change, using available datasets to consider the impacts of the scheme and alternative explanations. This will include quantitative monitoring data and discussions with key stakeholders will supplement this understanding.
Figure 5.1 summarises the impact evaluation approach and highlights the synergy with the process evaluation with regards to the delivered scheme and contextual changes.
Figure 5.1: Impact Evaluation Overview
The timescales associated with the data collection requirements are assumed to be as follows:
▪ Baseline data should be collected / collated for each metric before the scheme construction;
▪ Initial analysis of monitoring data conducted 1-2 years after scheme opening; and
▪ Further data collection approximately 3-5 years after scheme opening.
Construction is anticipated to begin in 2021, so the Baseline period should be prior to this. With the Covid-19 outbreak in 2020 and significant implications on travel behaviours, it is anticipated the Baseline will be defined as 2019 to provide a consistent base across the programme and because data from 2020 will be affected by the travel restrictions associated with the outbreak. Consequently, this places an emphasis on the use of existing data for the Baseline period and the use of retrospective research to understand the change in perceptions once the schemes are built.
Activity post-implementation is currently anticipated to take place 1-2 years and 3-5 years after opening with the specific timeframe to be confirmed following the receipt of TCF evaluation guidance from DfT.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 120 24
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Evaluation Questions
▪ What changes in outcome and impact indicators have been observed?
▪ How do the changes in outcome and impact indicators vary by priority corridor?
▪ What contribution did the SCR TCF programme make to any observed changes?
▪ What unintended outcomes have been observed and what was the cause?
▪ To what extent has the SCR TCF programme met its objectives?
6.3 Data Requirements This section details the data requirements for the impact evaluation, namely the metrics associated with the outcomes and impacts identified in the logic maps. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 describe the data requirements for the outcomes and impacts, including the alignment with the scheme objectives (as detailed in section 2.2). Further detail is subsequently provided in section 5.4 for the data sources identified in the tables.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 121 25
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Table 5.1: Outcome Metrics – Data Required Outcome Objective Data to be Used Data Source Collated / Collected by
Real and perceived Project Sponsor Perception of safety amongst pedestrians Pedestrian and Cyclist Intercept Survey active travel safety 1 2 3 4 (larger schemes) and cyclists improved Survey with Non-Users SCR Reduction in no. and Accident and casualty numbers severity of accidents 1 2 3 4 (pedestrians and cyclists) and cause of STATS19 data Project Sponsor and casualties (involving accidents pedestrians / cyclists)
Project Sponsor Improved perceived Perception of walking and cycling provision Pedestrian and Cyclist Intercept Survey quality of active travel 1 2 3 4 in the area (e.g. desire lines, quality, (larger schemes) Page 122 Page infrastructure signage) Survey with Non-Users SCR Mapped isochrones of before and after TRACC SYPTE connectivity Address severance 1 2 3 4 Project Sponsor barrier for active travel Pedestrian and Cyclist Intercept Survey Perception of severance barrier (larger schemes) Survey with Non-Users SCR Mapped isochrones of before and after Improved local active 1 2 3 4 connectivity, number of people within TRACC SYPTE travel connectivity defined travel time Passenger / public perception regarding Rail Passenger Survey SYPTE ease of getting to station Enhanced active travel 1 2 3 4 accessibility to stations Mapped isochrones of before and after connectivity, number of people within TRACC SYPTE defined walking time of station Project Sponsor Improved perception of Perceptions of active travel improved (e.g. Pedestrian and Cyclist Intercept Survey 1 2 3 4 (larger schemes) active travel willing to consider walking and cycling) Survey with Non-Users SCR
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM 26
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Outcome Objective Data to be Used Data Source Collated / Collected by Number of people walking or cycling Pedestrian and Cycle Counts Project Sponsor Increased uptake of 1 2 3 4 Perceptions of amount walking / cycling Project Sponsor active travel Pedestrian and Cyclist Intercept Survey (i.e. stated behaviours) (larger schemes) Improved quality of 1 2 3 4 Facilities at station Station Audit (see Table 4.1) SYPTE station environment Greater availability of 1 2 3 4 Cycle parking occupancy Cycle Parking Count Project Sponsor secure cycle parking Access for all at rail Compliance with accessibility requirements Station Audit (see Table 4.1) SYPTE stations 1 2 3 4 Perceptions of rail passengers Rail Passenger Survey SYPTE Improved perception of Perceptions of rail passengers of quality of rail station 1 2 3 4 station (e.g. information, safety / security, Rail Passenger Survey SYPTE accessibility) Page 123 Page Increased rail patronage Office of Rail and Road (ORR) Annual station entries / exits SYPTE 1 2 3 4 Estimates of Station Usage Stated behaviours of rail passengers Rail Passenger Survey SYPTE Mapped isochrones of before and after Widened catchment for SYPTE 1 2 3 4 connectivity, number of people within TRACC tram-train services defined travel time Alternative mode for Perception amongst employees at key those accessing key 1 2 3 4 Employee Survey SYPTE destinations in the corridors destinations Transport Focus Tram Passenger Perception of tram-train service SYPTE Improved perception of Survey 1 2 3 4 tram-train Perception of the new Magna stop and Magna Stop Passenger Survey SYPTE service available Improved access to P&R Count Data (Magna and Parkgate 1 2 3 4 Use of P&R facility SYPTE tram-train services Stops)
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM 27
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Outcome Objective Data to be Used Data Source Collated / Collected by Tram-train boarding and alighting data Operator Records SYPTE Increased tram-train 1 2 3 4 Perceptions of amount of travel by tram- patronage Magna Stop Passenger Survey SYPTE train and any change in the stop used Reduced bus journey Bus journey times along defined routes / Operator Records / SYPTE Transport 1 2 3 4 SYPTE times services Corridor Data Improved bus journey Standard deviation from planned journey Operator Records / SYPTE Transport time reliability and 1 2 3 4 SYPTE time (for journey and at stops) Corridor Data punctuality Number of services operating along route / Operator Records / SYPTE Timetable Greater bus frequency 1 2 3 4 SYPTE corridor Database Page 124 Page Passenger perception of bus reliability, Bus Passenger Survey SYPTE punctuality, satisfaction etc Improved perception of 1 2 3 4 SYPTE Customer Relationship bus Number of complaints regarding the Management (CRM) System SYPTE services along the corridor Complaints
Increased bus 1 2 3 4 Bus patronage data Operator Records SYPTE patronage 1 2 3 4 Perceptions of amount travel by the bus Bus Passenger Survey SYPTE Mapped isochrones of before and after Broaden public transport 1 2 3 4 connectivity, number of people within TRACC SYPTE connectivity defined travel time Reduced emissions per 1 2 3 4 Bus fleet composition Operator Records SYPTE bus Reduced emissions 1 2 3 4 Bus fleet composition Operator Records SYPTE associated with buses Re-routing of highway Change in traffic volume through links - 1 2 3 4 Highway Data Project Sponsor / SCR traffic traffic counts
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM 28
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Outcome Objective Data to be Used Data Source Collated / Collected by Bus, Rail and Magna Stop Passenger Stated mode of travel SYPTE Survey Household Travel Survey SYPTE Project Sponsor or SYPTE (depending on Increased proportion of Stated mode to work the outcomes of 1 2 3 4 Employee Survey sustainable journeys Sustainable Transport Access Fund (STAF) investment)
Active Lives Adult Survey (to provide Frequency of walking and cycling per Project Sponsor person overall understanding and complement scheme- specific data collected above) Bus, Rail and Magna Stop Passenger Page 125 Page Stated mode of travel SYPTE Survey Household Travel Survey SYPTE
Modal shift from private Project Sponsor or 1 2 3 4 Stated mode to work SYPTE (depending on car Employee Survey the outcomes of STAF investment) Project Sponsor / SCR Cordon counts Cordon Count data / SYPTE Public transport journey time between key Greater connectivity Public Transport Timetable Information SYPTE 1 2 3 4 settlements between settlements Perceptions of stakeholders Interview SYPTE
Access to opportunities / Perceptions of stakeholders Interview SYPTE 1 2 3 4 key destinations Perceived change in accessibility Employee Survey Project Sponsor or
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM 29
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Outcome Objective Data to be Used Data Source Collated / Collected by SYPTE (depending on the outcomes of STAF investment) Mapped isochrones of before and after connectivity contrasted with deprivation, TRACC SYPTE employment and business growth data from Office of National Statistics (ONS) Project Sponsor or SYPTE (depending on Perceptions of stakeholders Interview the outcome of STAF investment)
Page 126 Page Enhanced perception of 1 2 3 4 Perceptions of those walking and cycling in Project Sponsor ‘place’ Pedestrian and Cyclist Intercept Survey the area (larger schemes) Household Travel Survey SYPTE Perceptions of local residents Telephone Survey SCR Improved highway journey time reliability 1 2 3 4 Standard deviation to average journey time Data sources being investigated Project Sponsor / SCR (all vehicles) Reduced highway journey times (all 1 2 3 4 Average journey times for defined routes Data sources being investigated Project Sponsor / SCR vehicles) Traffic volumes through links Highway Data Project Sponsor Enhanced traffic flow 1 2 3 4 Highway Data Project Sponsor characteristics Average speed through links DfT Congestion Statistics Project Sponsor
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM 30
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Table 5.2: Impact Metrics – Data Required Impact Objective Data to be Used Data Collection Collated / Collected by Perceptions amongst Project Sponsor 1 2 3 4 Pedestrian and Cyclist Intercept Survey Greater levels of physical pedestrians and cyclists (larger schemes) activity 1 2 3 4 Perceptions of stakeholders Interviews SYPTE Physical health and wellbeing 1 2 3 4 Perceptions of stakeholders Interviews SYPTE benefits Mitigate congestion 1 2 3 4 Levels of delay along corridors Data sources begin investigated SCR Diffusion Tubes or Modelling Improved local air quality 1 2 3 4 Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels Project Sponsor (to be determined) Proportion of Lower-layer Reduced deprivation levels and Super Output Areas (LSOAs) Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) SCR 1 2 3 4 improved social inclusion within 20% most deprived
Page 127 Page Perceptions of stakeholders Interviews SYPTE Reduced unemployment 1 2 3 4 Claimant Count numbers Claimant Count data SCR Support realisation of housing 1 2 3 4 Perceptions of stakeholders Interviews SYPTE developments Support realisation of economic 1 2 3 4 Perceptions of stakeholders Interviews SYPTE developments Perceptions of stakeholders Interviews SYPTE Business Register and Employment Support retention / growth 1 2 3 4 Number of employees SCR Survey (BRES) Business counts ONS – UK Business Counts SCR
Sites more attractive to investors Perceptions of stakeholders Interviews SYPTE 1 2 3 4 / business Business counts ONS – UK Business Counts SCR
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM 31
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
6.4 Data Collection Methods This section provides an overview of the data collection approaches identified in section 5.2. As the scheme design develops and the MEP is refined, additional detail will be included, for example, maps to show the spatial coverage of proposed data collection.
Pedestrian and Cyclist Intercept Survey Existing or New Data New data collection. Data Collection Pedestrian and cyclist intercept surveys will be undertaken at key Methodology locations to determine changes in the perception of active travel. This survey will seek to understand the characteristics of walking / cycling journeys made, the perception of the walking / cycling facilities, any change in the frequency with which people walk / cycle and perceived changes in health and wellbeing. Survey distribution and content for relevant schemes will be developed in due course. Survey design should be cognisant of existing surveys, which could provide regional / national results to complement the local findings, for example, the Active Lives Survey and ONS Wellbeing Survey (see secondary data sources). Sample Size The sample size will be dependent on the number of pedestrians / cyclists Assumptions along each surveyed route. Frequency of Data 1-2 years and 3-5 years after opening. Collection / Collation Limitations Subject to when the Baseline period is defined, there may not be ‘before’ survey data. A retrospective approach would then need to be used within the survey. An intercept survey will capture the perceptions of those walking and cycling in the area, but would not consider those who do not use the new or improved facilities. This would be captured by a local resident survey with non-users.
Local Resident Survey with Non-Users Existing or New Data New data collection. Data Collection Surveys with local residents will seek to understand the perceptions of Methodology non-users and, therefore, complement the pedestrian and cyclist intercept surveys. This survey will seek to understand the characteristics of walking / cycling journeys made, the perception of the walking / cycling facilities and any change in the frequency with which people walk / cycle. Survey content will be developed in due course for the relevant schemes. The approach to survey distribution will need to be identified for each scheme, but options include online, telephone and face-to-face. Sample Size The sample size will need to be determined following a review of each Assumptions scheme. Frequency of Data 1-2 years and 3-5 years after opening. Collection / Collation Limitations Subject to when the Baseline period is defined, there may not be ‘before’ survey data. A retrospective approach would then need to be used within the survey. The survey captures the perceptions of local residents but do not necessarily reflect users of the new infrastructure, which would be captured by the intercept survey.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 128 32
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Pedestrian and Cyclist Counts Existing or New Data The extent of existing count data will need to be reviewed for each scheme, but it is likely new count sites would be required. Data Collection Pedestrian and cyclist counts conducted at key sites via Automatic Cycle Methodology Counters (ACC) or manual / video cycle counts. Baseline counts will provide an indication of the ‘before’ level of walking and cycling. Repeating these counts in the ex-post period will determine the ‘after’ level of walking and cycling. It is anticipated that counts would be taken between 07:00 and 19:00, in both directions of travel, at each site. Sample Size For any new count data: one weekday survey data for each site in a Assumptions neutral month. Frequency of Data Baseline, 1-2 years and 3-5 years after opening. Collection / Collation Limitations An understanding of the existing Baseline data available is needed. The reliance on ‘one day’ snapshot results in a vulnerability to conditions on the survey day. Greater reliability would be ascertained from a longer survey period, such as one week or multiple counts.
Cycle Parking Count Existing or New Data New data collection. Data Collection Number of cycles parked in the cycle storage facility on a typical weekday. Methodology In locations where there is no cycle parking provision prior to the scheme being implemented, this will need to consider the cycle parking in the vicinity. The cycle parking counts should consider those in the new facility and those in the immediate vicinity. Sample Size Stations with new or improved cycle parking provision. Assumptions Counts should be undertaken in a neutral month to mitigate the effect of seasonality. Frequency of Data 1-2 years and 3-5 years after opening. Collection / Collation Limitations Manual process as no reliable automatic counter for Sheffield Stand cycle parking. Depending on the frequency with which counts are undertaken, may be vulnerable to the conditions on the survey day. A note will also need to be made about any ‘abandoned’ bikes within the provision.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 129 33
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
TRACC Existing or New Data No new data collection required – subject to whether SYPTE has a licence. Public transport National Public Transport Access Node (NaPTAN) data and Trafficmaster data is free to use by local authorities. Accessibility mapping would use Urban Paths network data to capture all travel modes. Data Collection TRACC software can be utilised to understand levels of accessibility by Methodology generating isochrones to represent journey time bands. This can demonstrate the change in accessibility; distinction would be made between public transport and active travel modes. This can also be used alongside socio-demographic data to strengthen the interpretation and analysis of the findings, for example, to understand the change in accessibility in more deprived areas. Sample Size Accessibility plots for each of the priority corridors, by mode. Assumptions Frequency of Data Baseline, 1-2 years and 3-5 years after opening. Collection / Collation Limitations Provides an understanding of the change in accessibility, but does not necessarily reflect the perceived change in accessibility amongst those travelling in the area.
Rail Station Passenger Survey Existing or New Data New data collection. Data Collection Survey designed to conduct with passengers at rail stations with (i) Methodology upgrades at the station and/or (ii) improved access to the station. Surveys in the ex-post period could capture these perceptions and behaviours, but will also need to consider retrospective questions to understand the changes as a result of the improvements (i.e. comparison to Baseline conditions). Survey distribution and content will be developed in due course. It is likely this will complement the findings of Transport Focus Rail Passenger Survey, but will enable scheme and station-specific questions to be included. Sample Size The sample size will be dependent on the number of passengers at each Assumptions surveyed station. Frequency of Data 1-2 years and 3-5 years after opening. Collection / Collation Limitations Need for sufficient respondents to complete the survey to provide a large enough sample.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 130 34
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Public Transport Data Existing or New Data Existing data collated by public transport operators. Data Collection Public transport operator data for bus and tram-train services will be Methodology important for understanding the following: ▪ Frequency of Services Operating; ▪ Journey Times; ▪ Reliability; ▪ Punctuality; and ▪ Patronage. The requirements for specific public transport services are detailed in the SCR TCF Public Transport Data Request document9. Sample Size Specific services are identified in the SCR TCF Public Transport Data Assumptions Request document. Frequency of Data Baseline, 1-2 years and 3-5 years after opening. Collection / Collation Limitations The consistency between data is not known at this time. This is important for being able to determine a cumulative understanding across the SCR. Changes to bus services are likely over the evaluation period; maintaining this understanding is imperative for effective evaluation.
Bus Passenger Survey Existing or New Data New data collection. Data Collection Survey designed to conduct with bus passengers to understand their Methodology change in attitudes and behaviours. Pertinent aspects will be the change in bus journey time, reliability, frequency, connectivity and overall perception and use of the bus. The absence of a Baseline survey results in the need for a retrospective research approach in the ex-post period to understand how attitudes and behaviours have changed. Survey distribution and content will be developed in due course. Sample Size The sample size will be dependent on the number of passengers along Assumptions surveyed routes / stops. Frequency of Data 1-2 years and 3-5 years after opening. Collection / Collation Limitations Need for sufficient respondents to complete the survey to provide a large enough sample.
9 TCF Monitoring and Evaluation – Public Transport Data Breakdown of Requests for Public Transport Data for TCF Projects
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 131 35
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Magna Tram-Train Stop Passenger Survey Existing or New Data New data collection. Data Collection Survey designed to conduct with passengers using the new Magna tram- Methodology train stop would seek to explore the following: ▪ Journey purpose (i.e. what journey they are making); ▪ Modal shift (i.e. how they made their journey before the stop opened); and ▪ Created journeys (i.e. are people making trips they would not have made). Survey distribution and content will be developed in due course. Sample Size The sample size will be dependent on the estimated number of Assumptions passengers at the new stop. Frequency of Data 1-2 years and 3-5 years after opening. Collection / Collation Limitations Perceptions of those using the new stop captured does not consider those on the wider network and those not travelling by tram-train.
P&R Count Data (Magna and Parkgate Stops) Existing or New Data It will need to be reviewed whether this data is readily available from the car park (e.g. barrier entry) or if new data collection is required. Data Collection Count of the vehicles parked at the new P&R facility. Methodology Discussions will identify whether this data will be readily available from the car park (e.g. barrier entry) or if this will need to be a manual count. If the data is readily available, then this will provide time-series trends to strengthen the occupancy analysis. Sample Size To be determined once the data collection methodology is identified. Assumptions Frequency of Data 1-2 years and 3-5 years after opening. Collection / Collation Limitations Depending on the data collection method, there may be limitations with regards to understanding the profile of usage during the day / week. If data is collected on one day, there may be vulnerability to the conditions on the survey day.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 132 36
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Highways Data Existing or New Data The extent of existing count data will need to be reviewed for each scheme, but it is likely new count sites would be required. Data Collection Traffic Flows / Speeds Methodology Traffic count data provides an understanding of the traffic flows, speeds and composition along a defined link. Comparisons between the Baseline and ex-post period will identify changes in traffic flows. Following a review of existing ATC coverage, the need for additional data collection will be identified. New data collection is likely to be undertaken for a two-week period during neutral months, but this will need to reviewed for each scheme. Journey Times Data will be used to understand average journey times along defined routes within the priority corridors. These routes will be defined in subsequent iterations of the MEP. Comparing the average journey time between the Baseline and the ex-post periods will determine the change in journey time. Trafficmaster data could be used but other data sources are also being investigated. Sample Size To be determined in due course. Assumptions Frequency of Data Baseline, 1-2 years and 3-5 years after opening. Collection / Collation Limitations The Baseline period will be limited to the available data for 2019 owing to the Covid-19 outbreak and associated travel restrictions. Causality is not identified via this method of data collection, so the findings will need to be considered alongside other data sources to aid the attribution evaluation.
Cordon Count Data Existing or New Data Existing data collection. Data Collection The existing cordon count data for selected cities within the SCR will Methodology provide an understanding of modal splits to aid the understanding of changes in travel behaviours. It is understood that this is a manual count undertaken annually. Sample Size A review of the existing approach will enable detail to be added to this Assumptions section in due course. Frequency of Data Baseline, 1-2 years and 3-5 years after opening. Collection / Collation Limitations Prior to the use in this evaluation, additional detail on the coverage and extent of this data will need to be sought to understand the limitations.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 133 37
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Employee Survey Existing or New Data New data collection.
Data Collection A survey with employees will seek to explore changes in travel attitudes Methodology and behaviours as a result of the improvements to sustainable travel. With several employment growth areas, the schemes seek to support improved accessibility to these opportunities, so a survey with employees can gain their perspective. This will provide greater understanding of the changes in commuter behaviour as a result of TCF schemes. Survey distribution and content will be developed in due course. Sample Size To be determined in due course. Assumptions
Frequency of Data 1-2 years and 3-5 years after opening. Collection / Collation
Limitations Willingness of businesses to promote the survey amongst their employees. Stated behaviour change should be considered along observed changes in usage to strengthen the evaluation. This considers employees in the area only and does not include residents in the priority corridor.
Household Travel Survey Existing or New Data Existing data collection. Data Collection The existing SYPTE household travel survey will provide an Methodology understanding of travel behaviours. This annual survey will enable time- series trends to be understood; however, it will be important to understand the scope and sampling to understand whether this data will be able to be utilised on a scheme, corridor or programme wide basis. Sample Size A review of the existing sampling will need to be undertaken to understand Assumptions any limitations for this monitoring and evaluation activity. Frequency of Data Baseline, 1-2 years and 3-5 years after opening. Collection / Collation Limitations Use of existing data collection limits the opportunity to include scheme- specific questions.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 134 38
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Depth Interviews Existing or New Data New data collection. Data Collection Depth interviews with stakeholders will provide a wider understanding of Methodology the impact of the improvements on the scheme objectives. These discussions provide an opportunity to explore topics in greater detail to understand the perceptions, motivations and decision-making associated with the SCR TCF programme. Topic guides will be prepared in advance of the sessions to provide a semi-structured approach to the discussion. Stakeholders will be identified for each priority corridor. This is likely to include: ▪ Local authorities; ▪ Economic / regeneration agencies; ▪ Key businesses; ▪ Commercial property agents; and ▪ Transport groups (e.g. Sustrans). Sample Size The number of stakeholder interviews to be conducted will be identified in Assumptions subsequent iterations of the MEP. Frequency of Data Baseline, 1-2 years and 3-5 years after opening. Collection / Collation Limitations The availability and willingness of stakeholders to engage. Depth interviews conducted 1-2 years after opening may be “too early” for the longer-term impacts to have been observed so this may be anticipated impacts perceived by the stakeholders. With the Baseline anticipated to be in 2019, these will need to be undertaken retrospectively, but preferably prior to scheme construction.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 135 39
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Secondary Data Sources Existing or New Data Existing data collection, but analysis required to identify pertinent findings for the SCR TCF programme. Data Collection Numerous secondary data sources can support the monitoring and Methodology evaluation of various metrics, including: ▪ Active Lives Adult Survey; ▪ Transport Focus Tram Passenger Survey; ▪ ORR Estimates of Station Usage (i.e. Entries and Exits data); ▪ STATS19 data; ▪ IMD; ▪ UK Business Counts; ▪ BRES; ▪ DfT Congestion Statistics; and ▪ Claimant Count data. Sheffield City Council has a number of diffusion tubes across the city10, which could provide an indication of the change in air quality. The coverage in the SCR will also need to be explored to determine if there is a need for additional diffusion tubes. Sample Size n/a Assumptions Frequency of Data Baseline, 1-2 years and 3-5 years after opening. Collection / Collation Limitations The ongoing availability of secondary data sources. Changes in the methodology utilised for secondary data sources. The coverage of secondary data sources may constrain the ability to evaluate at a local, priority corridor or district level.
6.5 Summary This section has identified the data requirements and proposed data sources for the impact evaluation. As the scheme design develops, this will be developed and refined further to ensure the approach is effective and proportionate.
A summary of the proposed data sources is provided in Figure 5.2, with these colour-coded as follows:
▪ Existing Data Sources: Data source is readily available.
▪ New Data Sources: New data collection is required.
▪ Existing / New Data Sources: There is some existing data, but this may need to be supplemented with additional data e.g. ATCs.
10 https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/home/pollution-nuisance/air-quality
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 136 40
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Figure 5.2: SCR TCF Programme Logic Map with Data Sources Page 137 Page
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM 41
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
7. Economic Evaluation
7.1 Introduction The economic evaluation considers whether the scheme benefits justified the costs and, therefore, reviews the economic appraisal previously undertaken. The Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) indicates how much benefit is obtained from one unit of cost, with a BCR greater than one demonstrating benefits outweigh the costs. This informs the initial Value for Money (VfM) category, as shown in the DfT Value for Money Framework (2017); for example, a BCR between 2 and 4 is considered High VfM.
7.2 Methodology The business case will detail the anticipated VfM – and approach to economic appraisal - for the SCR TCF schemes, which can inform the overall SCR TCF programme VfM assessment. This section will, therefore, be populated in due course once the business case has been advanced. However, this is expected to build upon the findings of the process and impact evaluation, particularly with costs and observed changes informing the expected monetised benefits. This will enable the VfM assessment to be updated, alongside non-monetised impacts and the understanding of any unintended effects of the schemes (and programme) following the monitoring and evaluation activity.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 138 42
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
8. Resourcing and Governance
8.1 Governance A successful monitoring and evaluation programme is reliant on effective management of people and data to ensure the collection, analysis and reporting of findings is undertaken in a timely and robust manner.
The MEP is owned by the SCR Executive Team, but specific monitoring and evaluation activity will be delegated to suitably skilled individuals. Given the scale of the SCR TCF programme, this will require coordination by a nominated individual to ensure all data is being collected and that this is being done consistently.
Figure 7.1: M&E Governance
The SOBC outlines the proposed governance for the SCR TCF programme and specific responsibility for monitoring and evaluation is also expected to be identified. At this stage, it is expected that the following will have a key role in the delivery of the MEP:
▪ National Evaluation Team: The National Evaluation Team will review and approve this MEP to ensure the approach is consistent with the national TCF evaluation. The SCR TCF programme team will support the National Evaluation Team with the timely provision of information. ▪ Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) (Mark Lynam): Mark is the Director of Transport, Housing and Infrastructure at the SCR. He is responsible to the Transport Executive Board (TEB) and the MCA. The SRO, and/or their nominated Officer(s), are also responsible for reporting progress to DfT. His role on the SCR TCF Project is the successful delivery of the project and its outcomes. With regards to monitoring and evaluation, Mark will oversee the approach and overall reporting. ▪ Programme Manager (PM): The Programme Manager will be responsible for the day-to-day management of the project, including the monitoring and evaluation activity. He / she will provide updates and coordinate with the Project Sponsors. It is anticipated that they will delegate the responsibility for discrete tasks identified in this MEP to specific staff members. The nominated individual for this role needs to be identified.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 139 43
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
8.2 Resources The scheme cost breakdown does not specify an allocation for monitoring and evaluation activity. Once this is identified at a scheme level as the business cases are progressed, the proposed evaluation approach can be reviewed to ensure it is deliverable within the available budget. This will also need to be considered alongside the requirements of the National Evaluation Team and the extent of reporting required.
Table 7.1: SCR TCF Monitoring and Evaluation Costing
Data Data Analysis Project Deliverable Total Collection & Reporting Management Baseline Report n/a £50k - £90k# £TBC £50k – £90k+ 1-2 Year Post Opening Report (incl. process £ £ £ £ evaluation) 3-5 Year Post Opening £ £ £ £ Report Ad-hoc Requests from the National Evaluation £ £ £ £ Team # Indicative cost range estimate, subject to review following the production of a final MEP.
Following a review of internal resources, SCR will confirm the need for a dedicated Evaluation resource for the SCR TCF programme, as well as the extent to which external support will need to be procured.
Once further detail is known regarding the existing data sources, particularly any sharing of data between authorities and external support, this MEP will be updated to detail the data protection agreements. The MEP proposes primary research activity and this will be undertaken in line with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
8.3 Delivery Plan Ensuring the necessary data is collected at the appropriate time from the required people / organisations is essential when developing a high-quality monitoring and evaluation programme. Sections 4 and 5 identified the approach to the process and impact evaluation with a data source identified for each metric.
As shown in Figure 7.2, an initial monitoring and evaluation schedule has been developed. This will be developed further as the schemes are finalised and the monitoring and evaluation approach is agreed.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 140 44
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Figure 7.2: Monitoring and Evaluation Schedule
8.4 Risks An initial Risk Register for the monitoring and evaluation activity identified in this MEP has been produced (Table 7.2). This will be updated as and when risks are identified and regularly reviewed throughout the evaluation activity periods. In addition to these risks, it is also imperative to be mindful of the potential for data synergy with other projects and activity in the SCR.
8.5 Dissemination of Findings The ROAMEF cycle highlights the importance of Feedback within the project lifecycle and the dissemination of findings should also be considered when prepared a MEP. Sharing findings, including lessons learnt and evidence, amongst partners can aid the design and delivery of future schemes, inform future decision-making and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of future investment. This could benefit those delivering schemes programmed to occur later in the TCF programme, as well as a number of other stakeholders.
National Evaluation Team
Liaison with the National Evaluation Team will be critical and once the national guidance and requirements have been detailed, this will be reflected in the SCR TCF monitoring and evaluation activity and schedule to ensure this is provided in a timely manner and in a suitable format.
Sheffield City Region
The findings will be shared with the SCR to provide an update on this transformational project within the MCA area. This may also include dissemination of specific findings to particular teams / boards, for example, the Active Travel Commissioner and Active Travel Advisory Board.
Districts
Whilst the districts will contribute to the monitoring and evaluation activity, it will also be important to disseminate the SCR TCF findings back to the districts. This can provide evidence for the progression of future schemes and highlight opportunities to enhance the provision within their district.
Public
The SCR TCF programme seeks to encourage an uptake of sustainable modes. Sharing the results of the programme can help to encourage more people to change their behaviours as well as re- enforcing positive behaviour changes already undertaken.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 141 45
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Table 7.2: SCR TCF Monitoring and Evaluation Risk Register
Risk Pre-Mitigation Post-Mitigation Risk Description Risk Owner Mitigation Measure ID Risk Category Risk Category 1 List of TCF schemes not finalised – potential Iteration of the MEP once scheme design is complete. Medium SCR Low for reserve schemes to be included. 2 Monitoring data not collected to defined SCR / Adopt rigorous quality assurance procedures Medium Low specifications. Partners throughout data collection. 3 Wider investment influencing transport Monitor contextual factors throughout the ex-ante, movements within the priority corridors. construction and post opening periods. Medium SCR Low Monitoring undertaken on a local corridor level, as well as cumulatively for the SCR. 4 Attribution of changes in outcomes and SCR / Application of the ‘before’ and ‘after’ comparisons Page 142 Page impacts to the schemes / programme can be National alongside the ToC to understand causation. Medium Low particularly challenging. Evaluation Preparation of a Baseline Report. Team 5 Secondary data sources may not be A mixed-methods approach to the evaluation provides available in the ex-post periods. helps to mitigate this by not being solely reliant on one Medium SCR data source. Low Identification of alternative data sources. 6 The methodology for secondary data sources Maintaining an understanding of the changes in may change resulting in them not being a secondary data sources helps to identify the effect this comparable data source. Medium SCR may have on monitoring which in turn can enable a Low mitigation measure to be identified (if possible). Identification of alternative data sources. 7 The coverage of existing data sources in the SCR / This understanding should be sought and utilised to Medium Low SCR is not known. Partners inform subsequent iterations of the MEP. 8 The availability of resources to manage and The preparation of the MEP helps to define the undertake the monitoring and evaluation SCR / approach and level of resource that is required which High Medium activity necessary, particularly with the scale Partners can support decision-making at SCR of the SCR TCF programme.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM 46
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Risk Pre-Mitigation Post-Mitigation Risk Description Risk Owner Mitigation Measure ID Risk Category Risk Category 9 The approach does not provide the data SCR / Liaison with the National Evaluation Team, including the needed (or in the required format) by the National MEP, will help to ensure the approach fulfils the Medium Low National Evaluation Team for the TCF. Evaluation requirements of SCR and DfT. Team 10 Monitoring data is not collected at the ‘right’ Development of a monitoring and evaluation schedule SCR / time. Medium to define when data collection / collation and analysis Low Partners should occur. 11 The impact of Covid-19 on the monitoring SCR / Ongoing review of the effect of Covid-19 on travel and evaluation activity, including timescales, National behaviours and attitudes. High Medium must be considered. Evaluation Team 12 Available budget for monitoring and Isolate the assumed monitoring and evaluation costs evaluation is unknown. SCR / from the programme budget. High Low Page 143 Page Partners Preparation of an itemised budget of monitoring and evaluation activity.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM 47
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
9. MEP Next Steps
Owing to the stage of development of component schemes and timescales for completion, this MEP was prepared with a limited understanding of the schemes, so it was recognised this would be an initial MEP to be developed in due course. The recommended next steps to develop this MEP are summarised in Table 8.1. Whilst the tasks are numbered, they do not necessarily need to be undertaken sequentially and it may be possible to develop some tasks concurrently.
Table 8.1: MEP Next Steps
Task Description Scheme Understanding 1 Review and refine logic maps as the schemes are developed to ensure they reflect the anticipated outputs, outcomes and impacts. This should include considering the consequences of any ‘over programming’ schemes in the committed programme. 2 Once the final list of schemes is confirmed, a study area for the evaluation should be defined. Process Evaluation 3 Establish a Document Log to ensure the pertinent scheme documentation is shared with the evaluation team. 4 Identify the specific roles within the project team (not necessarily named individuals) for whom it will be important to engage with. Impact Evaluation 5 Detailed review of existing data sources for their coverage and content, as well as an understanding of how this data can be accessed. 6 Identify a data owner for each data source, for each scheme. 7 Complete the sample size assumptions for each data source. 8 Updated methodology for each data source (e.g. identify the sites for Pedestrian and Cyclist Counts and outline survey content for the Pedestrian and Cyclist Intercept Survey). 9 Prepare a Baseline Report detailing the conditions and characteristics prior to the scheme construction. 10 Confirm and define the Baseline and ex-post periods. Economic Evaluation 11 Review and update the approach as the schemes are progressed through business case stages and the economic appraisal mechanisms are known. MEP 12 Updates to the MEP in line with those identified for the process, impact and economic evaluation. 13 Ongoing liaison with the National Evaluation Team to ensure that there is an understanding of the data required (including the format). 14 Prepare an itemised budget for the monitoring and evaluation activity. 15 Develop the schedule for the monitoring and evaluation activity. 16 Identify resource to manage the monitoring and evaluation activity to ensure it is undertaken. 17 Update the risk register for monitoring and evaluation activity to reflect the latest risks and opportunities, as well as the indictive timescale and likelihood / impact of them occurring.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 144 48
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Task Description 18 Identify the mechanisms for data access, where required. 19 Agreement regarding the frequency and content of reporting.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 145 49
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
10. Annex A: Scheme Summary
Ref Scheme Mode AMID Corridor 12 Segregated Cycle Route along A6178 A fully segregated route along the A6178 between Meadowhall, Tinsley and Rotherham. 18 Waverley Advanced Manufacturing Park (AMP) to Town Centre via Brinsworth and Tinsley A fully segregated route along the A631 Bawtry Road between Brinsworth and Tinsley / Active Meadowhall. Travel 84 Bawtry Road (Brinsworth to Tinsley) Waverley AMP Active Travel Scheme Development of core active travel route linking Meadowhall with Scheme 18 proposals on A631 Bawtry Road and Sheffield Road (envisaged to consist of segregated cycle tracks). Likely to include feeder routes from adjacent residential areas, notably Tinsley. 322 AMID via Darnall Development of core route connecting city centre to AMP Corridor, including spur to Olympic Legacy Park. Includes feeder routes from adjacent residential areas. Measures likely to include traffic calming and/or separating cyclists from it. 68 Sheffield City Centre Cycling and Cross City Bus and A city centre bus priority route to enable cross city services and better bus penetration Active 81 in the city centre. Development of a core cycle route for cross-city movements between Travel Nether Edge, Kelham-Burngreave and AMID-Darnall Corridors. Measures to calm traffic and Bus and/or separate cyclists from it. 372 Sheffield to Burngreave via Kelham Island and Pitsmoor Revision of one-way system in Neepsend to provide prioritised route through area for buses, separate from motorised traffic. Includes supporting active travel proposals and complementary works to enhance stops and pedestrian access to them. 370 Abbeydale Road / Ecclesall Road Bus Corridors Implementation of the bus lane review recommendations and additional bus priority measures. 371 Sheffield to AMID Bus Corridor via Attercliffe and Darnall Bus priority measures on X1 and 52 Corridor through Attercliffe and Darnall, likely to Bus include restrictions on access to bus route by through traffic, with facilitating works on diversion routes, as well as better bus stops and routes to them. Bus priority around Meadowhall Interchange also included. 91 Zero Emissions Bus Trial A trial of electric buses on one of the TCF Priority Corridors. Magna Tram-Train Stop and Park & Ride (P&R) Tram- 237 A new stop on the Tram-Train Line at Magna with associated P&R facility. Train Dearne Valley Corridor 157 A61 Active Travel - Barnsley - Smithies – Royston Provision of a safe and attractive walking and cycling route to the town centre (circa 5km). Likely to use quiet streets, new crossings and short sections of cycle path. 380 Barnsley Town Centre Rail Bridge Contribution to bridge over railway in town centre to reduce severance associated with the loss of the Jumble Lane rail crossing. Key link from the station to the walking Active triangle. Travel 173 Bolton Station Access Provision of improved walking and cycling route to the station. 181 Goldthorpe Station Access No description available.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 146 50
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Ref Scheme Mode 184 Thurnscoe Station Access No description available. 165 Doncaster Road, Goldthorpe A 3m wide, 2.1km cycleway on Doncaster Road in Goldthorpe. 169 Stairfoot – Ardsley – Goldthorpe A 3m wide, 6.5km shared-use cycleway along the A635. 335 Balby – Kirk Sandall Part of Local Cycling Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) cycling route linking Balby to Kirk Sandall through the town centre. New cycle route and improvement work along A630 from Balby to Clay Lane Roundabout. Scheme to include resurfacing, new crossing facilities, junction improvements, traffic calming measures and signage. 341 Edlington Walking Provision of safe and attractive walking and cycle route to local shops and facilities within Edlington. 104 Mexborough Gateway to Wath Manvers Provision of a safe and attractive walking and cycling route to the station (improvements to the station included as Scheme 179), including reduced severance through the narrowing of sections of a dual carriageway to single carriageway. 177 Conisborough Station Access No description available. 38 Manvers Way to Wath Provision of a safe, direct and attractive walking and cycling route (approximately 0.5km) between Manvers Way and Wath Town Centre. 11 Footbridge from Forge Island to Riverside Replacement of the existing tunnel footbridge between Forge Island and Riverside Corporation Street. 1 Frederick Street East-West Cycle Route Measures to make the cycle route more legible along Frederick Street and Nottingham Street, including widening of the existing footway. 227 A61 Wakefield Road Bus Corridor Widening Old Mill Lane to five lanes including a bus lane. Junction improvements at Carlton Road / Smithies Lane, Laithes Lane and the A61 gyratory. A bus lane at Scorah’s Roundabout. 229 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) (N) Improvements along the north and south Dearne Valley routes between Barnsley and Doncaster (the A635 and A633) including major improvements at the Alhambra and Stairfoot Roundabouts. 269 A630 Bus Improvements Widening of the existing carriageway between the traffic signals at Warmsworth and the Bus A1(M) junction to provide improved bus priority or a similar alternative along the A630 Corridor in Doncaster. 230 Parkgate Link Road A new access into the Parkgate Shopping Centre from the A6123 Aldwarke Lane. 29 Taylors Lane Roundabout Widening the southern entry and exit to the five-arm roundabout to improve capacity. 55 Doncaster Road, Dalton Widening of the A630 inbound at Dalton to help ease congestion and improve bus priority. Parkgate P&R Tram- 233 Train
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 147 51
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Ref Scheme Mode A 300 space P&R facility for the tram-train stop at Parkgate. 180 Bolton Station Improvements to the station including improved signage and information, accessible bench seating, directional signage, Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) and lighting enhancements. 181 Goldthorpe Station Improvements to the station including CCTV, cycle storage, directional signage, platform signage, lighting enhancement and contrasting bands on columns. 184 Thurnscoe Station Improvements to the station including stair/step enhancements, directional signage, CCTV, reduce the large gap at the side of shelters, platform signage and lighting enhancements. 224 Wombwell Station Improvements to the station including improved access ramps, improved access lifts, new ticket office, car park enhancement, platform edge tactile paving, cycle storage, Rail public Wi-Fi, street signage, accessible bench seating, lighting enhancements and CCTV. 204 Barnsley Station Improvements to the station including street directional signage, CCTV, platform signage and lighting enhancement. 179 Mexborough Station Improvements to the station including accessibility enhancements, cycle storage improvements, public Wi-Fi access, street directional signage, taxi rank / drop-off enhancement, platform access improvements and “kiss and ride” drop-off. 177 Conisborough Station Improvements to the station including shelter improvements, lighting enhancements, dual-height hand railing, platform access improvements, street directional signage, CCTV enhancements and crash barrier. River Don Corridor 182 Hatfield and Stainforth Station Access Provision of a safe and attractive walking and cycling route to the station. 183 Kirk Sandall Station Access Provision of a safe and attractive walking and cycling route to the station. 375 Thorne Station Access (North and South) Provision of a safe and attractive walking and cycling route to the station. 342 Bentley Walking and Cycling
Provision of a safe and attractive walking and cycling route to local shops and facilities within Bentley, including the rail station. 343 Adwick Walking and Cycling Provision of a safe and attractive walking and cycling route to local shops and facilities Active within Adwick, including the rail station. Travel 129 Doncaster Station to College Provision of an improved walking and cycling link between Doncaster Train Station and Doncaster College Hub. 337 North Bridge Road to Bennethorpe Cycle Connector Provision of a safe and attractive walking and cycling route across the town centre, including improved link to cross the A630 Inner Ring Road between the North Bridge and High Street. 252 iPort Bridge
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 148 52
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
Ref Scheme Mode A new sustainable transport bridge into the iPort from Rossington providing an active travel link into the employment site. 344 Armthorpe Providing connectivity to Catesby employment hub and retail and community hub from residential areas. 115 Town Moor to Thorne Road Improved walking and cycling facility on the A18 Corridor. 150 West Moor Link / A18 Walking and Cycling Provide and enhance active travel facilities on existing National Productivity Investment Fund (NPIF) / Local Growth Fund (LGF) project. 376 Thorne and Moorends Employment Connector Cycle Routes Walking and cycling improvements to increase connectivity to key local destinations, services and employment and increase active travel opportunities. 111 Cleveland Street Cycling, Wood Street / Cleveland Street Complementing existing Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (DMBC) and LGF Active funded town centre schemes with provision of improvements in the town centre which Travel are planned to include: bus priority and active travel measures on Wood Street and and Bus Cleveland Street, active travel measures on Duke Street and St Sepulchre Gate. 8 A631 Rotherham to Maltby Bus Corridor Bus lane and priority at Hellaby. 99 M18 Junction 3 Bus Improvements to circulatory carriageway on the motorway junction to aid flow and relieve congestion. 182 Hatfield and Stainforth Station Improvements at the station. 183 Kirk Sandall Station Improvements at the station. 206 Bentley Station Improvements to the station including CCTV enhancements, cycle storage Rail improvements, improved signage and information, public Wi-Fi access, accessible bench seating, platform access improvements, street directional signage and lighting enhancements. 176 Adwick Station Improvements to the station including lighting enhancements, cycle storage improvements, improved signage and information, public Wi-Fi access, platform access improvements and street directional signage. N.B. Scheme reference numbers link to those in the SOBC Appendix D.
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 149 53
Transforming Cities Fund Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
aecom.com
Prepared for: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive AECOM Page 150 54
Agenda Item 13
08th January 2021 TRANSFORMING CITIES FUND (TCF) CAPITAL PROGRAMME APPROVALS
Purpose of Report
This paper seeks:
1. Approval of progression of one Transforming Cities Fund Tranche 2 (TCF2) Outline Business Case to Full Business Case and early release of up to £1.24m business case development cost funding and, 2. Progression of one Transforming Cities Fund Tranche 2 (TCF2) scheme to MCA for approval with a total value of £2m 3. Approval of one change request for an existing Transforming Cities Trance 1 (TCF1) project
4. Delegated authority be given to the Head of Paid Service in consultation with the Section 73 and Monitoring Officer to enter into legal agreements for the scheme covered at point 1 above.
Freedom of Information and Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972
The paper will be available under the Combined Authority Publication Scheme.
Recommendations
The Board consider and approve: 1. Progression of Rotherham Town Centre Active Travel Project Outline Business Case to Full Business Case and release of up to £1,240,690 business case development cost funding to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council subject to the conditions set out in the Appraisal Panel Summary Table attached at Appendix A 2. Progression of Project ‘Sheffield Heart of the City Breathing Spaces’ to MCA for award of £2m grant from the Transforming Cities Fund subject to the conditions set out in the Appraisal Panel Summary Table attached at Appendix B 3. Project change request from “Sheffield Package of Cycling Infrastructure” to agree an extension to the completion date, 4. Delegated authority be given to the Head of Paid Service in consultation with the Section 73 and Monitoring Officer to enter into a legal agreement for the early release of business case development funding for the Rotherham Town Centre scheme and the Sheffield
Package of Cycling Infrastructure change request covered above.
1. Introduction
1.1 In March 2020 the MCA was awarded £166.3m funding for the MCA’s TCF aspirations. This grant was allocated from April 2019 to March 2023 resourcing a programme of transformational public transport, active travel and rail initiatives.
1.2 In March 2020 the MCA approved the early release of scheme development costs:
• release up to 2% of the total scheme cost (as included in the bid/SOBC) to facilitate the development of the OBC.
Page 151
• release costs (based on a costed fee plan) following approval of the OBC to enable the schemes to progress to FBC
This paper requests approval of progression of one scheme to Full Business Case (FBC) and early release of up to £1.24m development costs subject to any conditions to be set out in the Appraisal Panel Summary Table, with a total scheme value of £10.9m and progression to the MCA for full approval for one scheme subject to any conditions to be set out in the Appraisal Panel Summary Table with a value of £2m.
1.3 In recognition of unforeseen circumstances that can arise during the project delivery phase, the approved Assurance Framework establishes a formal process for the acceptance of change requests. These change requests could be financial requiring reprofiling of funds or could be to amend deliverables or timescales.
The Assurance Framework established that some change requests will be presented for approval to the relevant Executive Board, in line with their agreed delegation levels whilst others will require the approval of the MCA Board. In line with the agreed Assurance Framework there is one change requests proposed through this report which require Executive approval. This are detailed in sections 2.7 below.
2. Proposal and justification
2.1 Rotherham Town Centre Active Travel
Appendix A provides a summary of the scheme appraisal and the suggested conditions of award.
2.2 The Project - This investment is for £9.3m from TCF towards a total scheme cost of £10.9m
Rotherham Town Centre Active Travel is a package of measures to facilitate walking and cycling to, from and within Rotherham Town Centre, comprising three schemes:
Contribution to Fredrick Street walking and cycling route Public realm improvements on Frederick Street incorporating cycling infrastructure in the core town centre with amendments to the traffic regulation order to allow cycling (currently prohibited) along this street. Currently the layout of the street and public realm is unattractive and would not adequately accommodate cyclists. The improvements will in particular improve the environment for pedestrians accessing Rotherham Bus Interchange.
Contribution to Forge Island Footbridge Replacing the existing footbridge across the River Don between the core town centre and Forge Island with a high-quality pedestrian bridge. This is part of the works to regenerate Forge Island and will provide an improved environment for pedestrian movements between the town centre, Forge Island and Rotherham Central Station. Should the private sector funds not come forward within the TCF programme delivery dates, there will be an additional £290k ask from the TCF programme. Either way, the intention is to deliver the bridge by March 2023.
Sheffield Road Walking and Cycling improvements Comprising walking and cycling routes, supporting housing delivery in the Westgate Riverside area. Pedestrian improvements are to be focused on enabling journeys to the town centre and onward via public transport and making this more attractive so as to support both housing delivery and the vitality of the town centre. The scheme on Westgate will also reduce traffic volumes and so improve the local environment for existing and
Page 152
future residents. For cyclists, the scheme will include cycle lanes designed with reference to LTN 1/20 to support onward connectivity by bicycle. Additional cycle tracks will be constructed along the remainder of Sheffield Road to the Borough boundary, to provide access to employment areas in Ickles and Templeborough, and with proposals in development by Sheffield City Council and SYPTE providing further connectivity to Meadowhall and to tram-train services respectively.
Parts of this scheme in the Templeborough area are proposed to be co-delivered with highways and drainage maintenance works delivered through the Department for Transport’s Local Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund.
The MCA funds will be used to fund:
• the preparation of costs associated with the design development of the preferred options. This will include both preliminary design, detailed design and associated scheme promotion and consultation material; and,
• the construction of the package of schemes (including proof of concept on the Sheffield Road cycle scheme).
2.3 The Benefits and Outcomes
The output of the schemes amounts to 2.9km of route for non-motorised users. The Strategic Case sets out the need for a scheme, and the strategic rationale for the delivery of the preferred option which can be accepted based on this being a high quality scheme that will improve local permeability, with subsequent impacts on generating new pedestrian and cycle trips with wider positive traffic, environment and economic outcomes
2.4 Sheffield Heart of the City Breathing Spaces Project
Appendix B provides a summary of the scheme appraisal and the suggested conditions of award.
2.5 The Project – This investment is for a £2m grant.
The scheme is to enhance the city centre by creating three new spaces including a pocket park, a vibrant small square on Carver Street and expansion of the Peace Gardens between the Town Hall and the proposed new hotel on Pinstone Street.
The new spaces adjoin developments in the £480m Heart of the City2 (HoC2) project which aims to increase attractiveness to occupiers and visitors
Total costs are £12m with £2m TCF grant alongside Sheffield City Council investing £6m and a further £4m has been approved through the Getting Better Building Fund (GBF).
The TCF proposal will provide a permanent solution on Rockingham Street to improve the reliability of public transport and provide safer routes to promote active travel but provide limited green infrastructure. This project will make walking and cycling more enjoyment attractive and help boost public transport use. The pocket park is adjacent to a proposed new bus mini-interchange on Rockingham Street and a recently installed cycle route into/out of the city centre to western suburbs.
Works will improve accessibility around the town centre and address existing DDA compliance issues.
Page 153
2.6 The Benefits and Outcomes
Based on the assessment of the business case the scheme would provide Low value for money. The value for money of the scheme is enhanced when considered alongside the wider Breathing Places scheme approved through GBF, overall representing Good value for money.
The project aligns closely to SCRMCA SEP and Renewal Action Plan objectives and the scheme objectives are directly aligned to the need to respond to the impacts of COVID-19. The project seeks to achieve four main objectives:
• Recovery from Covid19 by providing safe outdoor spaces for play, events and leisure (footfall counts etc.) • Addressing climate change through investment in new green infrastructure, including cycling and pedestrian routes (space m2 and length of new routes; cycle counts) • Catalysing economic growth and investment with a high-quality environment and place making (measure investment £; floor space built/let; job numbers) • Place Making, attracting more people to live/work in the City Centre (residential units built and occupied; area m2 of adjoining plots sold for development)
The business case describes the complementary nature of the office development, public realm investment and improvement to the transport network as part of a holistic approach to support regeneration in the city centre and increase footfall.
2.7 Sheffield Package of Cycling Infrastructure – TCF1 Change Request
The TCF1 programme was due to complete in Mar-20, 2 extensions have since been agreed. Since the last change control in July 2020 Sheffield City Council have encountered additional issues and delays with Portobello, Mappin Street. This impacted the ability to commence works on Broomspring Lane.
A change is therefore requested to extend the programme end date from Jan-21 to Mar-21.
Claims paid to date and forecast spend to the current end date of Jan-21 is £1.6m, an underspend of £370k. Forecast spend to the requested end date of Mar-21 is full grant value.
5 change requests have been considered from SCC in 12 months; this includes Broomspring Lane as additional activity to the original bid. Written assurance has been provided to confirm works will be complete by Mar-21, overruns covered by SCC and that mobilisation has commenced on Broomspring Lane.
The recommendation is to approve subject to all costs defrayed by Mar-21 with all overruns being met by SCC and any underspend returned to DfT.
Consideration of alternative approaches
3.1 Do nothing TCF2: – The report proposes the TCF2 projects presented today are recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in the Appraisal Panel Summary Table. To be eligible for grant, expenditure will have to have been defrayed by 31 March 2023.
Do nothing TCF1 Change Request - If the scheme change request is not approved, then the scheme would become undeliverable and underspend of £370k returned to DfT.
Page 154
4. Implications
4.1 Financial The projects presented for approval today are profiled to drawdown £11.3m from the TCF allocation of £166.3m.
4.2 Legal The legal implications of the projects have been fully considered by a representative of the Monitoring Officer and included in the recommendations agreed by the Appraisal Panel as presented in the supporting information.
4.3 Risk Management Risk management is a key requirement for each of the submissions and is incorporated into the FBC submissions. Where weaknesses have been identified in the OBCs and FBCs in terms of risk management, further work to capture and mitigate these risks is included as a condition of award in the appraisal panel summary sheets. Risks and Issues management is reported quarterly to the MCA Executive as part of contract monitoring.
High risk schemes will continue to be monitored and any changes will be reported back to the Transport and Environment Board and MCA.
4.4 Equality, Diversity and Social Inclusion Appropriate equality and diversity considerations are taken into account as part of the assessment of the project business case.
5. Communications
5.1 The business cases for all schemes presents opportunities for positive communications; officers from the MCA Executive Team will work with the relevant officers on joint communications activity at the appropriate.
6. Appendices/Annexes
6.1 Appendix A: Rotherham Town Centre Active Travel Appraisal Panel Summary Appendix B: Sheffield Heart of the City Breathing Spaces Appraisal Panel Summary
Report Author Sue Sykes Post Assistant Director – Programme and Performance Unit Officer responsible Gareth Sutton Organisation Sheffield City Region Email [email protected] Telephone 0114 220
Background papers used in the preparation of this report are available for inspection at: 11 Broad Street West, Sheffield S1 2BQ
Page 155 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix A Appraisal Panel Summary Scheme Details
Project Name Rotherham Town Centre Active Travel (TCF) Grant Recipient Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council SCR Executive Transport and MCA Funding £ 9,306,108 Board Environment % SCR Allocation 85% Total Scheme Cost £ 10,934,626
Appraisal Summary
Project Description
Rotherham Town Centre Active Travel is a package of measures to facilitate walking and cycling to, from and within Rotherham Town Centre, comprising three schemes:
Contribution to Fredrick Street walking and cycling route Public realm improvements on Frederick Street incorporating cycling infrastructure in the core town centre with amendments to the traffic regulation order to allow cycling (currently prohibited) along this street. Currently the layout of the street and public realm is unattractive and would not adequately accommodate cyclists. The improvements will in particular improve the environment for pedestrians accessing Rotherham Bus Interchange.
Contribution to Forge Island Footbridge Replacing the existing footbridge across the River Don between the core town centre and Forge Island with a high-quality pedestrian bridge. This is part of the works to regenerate Forge Island and will provide an improved environment for pedestrian movements between the town centre, Forge Island and Rotherham Central Station. Should the private sector funds not come forward within the TCF programme delivery dates, there will be an additional £290k ask from the TCF programme. Either way, the intention is to deliver the bridge by March 2023.
Sheffield Road Walking and Cycling improvements Comprising walking and cycling routes, supporting housing delivery in the Westgate Riverside area. Pedestrian improvements are to be focused on enabling journeys to the town centre and onward via public transport, and making this more attractive so as to support both housing delivery and the vitality of the town centre. The scheme on Westgate will also reduce traffic volumes and so improve the local environment for existing and future residents. For cyclists, the scheme will include cycle lanes designed with reference to LTN 1/20 to support onward connectivity by bicycle. Additional cycle tracks will be constructed along the remainder of Sheffield Road to the Borough boundary, to provide access to employment areas in Ickles and Templeborough, and with proposals in development by Sheffield City Council and SYPTE providing further connectivity to Meadowhall and to tram-train services respectively.
Parts of this scheme in the Templeborough area are proposed to be co-delivered with highways and drainage maintenance works delivered through the Department for Transport’s Local Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund.
The plan below illustrates the proposed schemes in context.
Page 157
The MCA funds will be used to fund:
the preparation of costs associated with the design development of the preferred options. This will include both preliminary design, detailed design and associated scheme promotion and consultation material; and,
the construction of the package of schemes (including proof of concept on the Sheffield Road cycle scheme) outlined in section 2.2 above.
The output of the schemes amounts to 2.9km of route for non-motorised users.
Strategic Case
The Strategic Case sets out the need for a scheme, and the strategic rationale for the delivery of the preferred option which can be accepted based on this being a high quality scheme that will improve local permeability, with subsequent impacts on generating new pedestrian and cycle trips with wider positive traffic, environment and economic outcomes
The Strategic Case underplays the strategic opportunities of the package with a single objective to enable more travel by active modes. A stronger Strategic Case would reflect the four TCF programme objectives to set out what the scheme is looking to achieve and identifying the impacts and outcomes of this. By developing the objectives in this way, impacts and outcomes across a number of economic, environmental and social dimensions can be defined more clearly and utilised to enhance all sections of the Strategic Case. It is proposed that these improvements are undertaken as part of the FBC given that one element of the scheme, the Sheffield Road corridor has a BCR just below 1 (0.9).
It is also recommended that the promoter revisits the option development and assessment to confirm that Option D is the most appropriate preferred option in strategic terms. This is essential in being able to further demonstrate the need for the Sheffield Road element of the scheme given that the majority of the economic benefits are achieved without delivering this scheme component.
The commentary on Sheffield Road should be resolved at FBC. Further investigation of value for money, alongside an improved strategic case would strengthen the overall package and the respective components. Page 158
Value for Money
The Economic Case uses the correct approach (DfT’s AMAT) to appraise the benefits and costs of the scheme and uses the tool and accompanying qualitative detail to link the scheme’s benefits to the problems identified to the Strategic Case. As the FBC is revised to account for Strategic Case comments detailed above, it is recommended that the Economic Case should also be updated to ensure that the necessary links are made to the identified outcomes and impacts.
RMBC provided an addendum to the AMAT to account for issues with robustness raised in response to clarification questions. The addendum has addressed these issues and shown that whilst the BCR has fallen slightly to 2.94, it is not significantly different to the 3.1 initially reported and therefore the broad Economic Case reported still applies.
In preparing the FBC the Economic Case should be fully updated to account for revised assumptions incorporated in the Addendum. This should include updating all sensitivity tests.
Risk Risk registers are provided for each of the scheme elements within the appendices of the OBC. Presently only the Sheffield Road scheme has a QRA and at FBC, it would be expected that all scheme elements have a QRA.
The Risk Registers for Sheffield Road and the Forge Island footbridge are comprehensive and cover a variety of design, planning and delivery risks. Given that it is a key risk identified within the OBC, the provision of developer funding or the developer not delivering the bridge should be included as a key risk as risk registers are further developed to FBC.
The Risk Register for Frederick Street would require further development at FBC to capture all risks relating to the planning and delivery of the scheme.
It is anticipated that a further risk workshop would also be required prior to finalising the current risk registers at FBC stage in order to demonstrate that the risks have been fully reviewed and signed off by RMBC.
Delivery The Management Case has broadly demonstrated RMBC’s ability to deliver the project, key milestones are appropriate and realistic and on the whole, a comprehensive approach has been undertaken towards identifying project risks.
It is expected that notable additional detail setting out the procurement routes, and timescales for each element of the scheme will be set out in FBC. This should detail any ongoing procurement activity ongoing at time of writing and provide more detail on timescales and responsibility for cost risk.
It is likely that RMBC identify different workstream packages that would separately go out to market. This would enable the early works commence at Fredrick Street to commence while further develop of the Forge Island Bridge and Sheffield Road schemes are complete.
Legal There are no State Aid concerns regarding this application, with all works set to be undertaken by Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, with contractors appointed through identified frameworks. All works are to take place on land or highway owned by the Council.
Page 159 Recommendation and Conditions
Recommendation Progress to Full Business Case subject to conditions Payment Basis Payment on defrayal Conditions of Award (including clawback clauses) The following conditions must be satisfied before contract execution. Submission of an acceptable FBC for the scheme The following conditions must be satisfied before drawdown of funding. The following conditions must be included in the contract RMBC to work with the MCA to ensure suitable Monitoring and Evaluation is undertaken.
Page 160 Record of Recommendation, Endorsement and Approval
Barnsley Digital Innovation Hub
Appraisal Panel Recommendation Board Endorsement MCA Approval
Date of Meeting Date of Meeting Date of Meeting
Head of Paid Service Endorsing Officer Approving Officer Ruth Adams or Delegate (Board Chair) (Chair) Deputy CEX Signature Signature Signature
Page 161 Page Date Date Date
S73 Officer or Simon Tompkins Delegate Statutory Finance Officer Approval Finance Manager Signature Name: Date Monitoring Officer or Steve Davenport Delegate Signature: SCR CA Solicitor Signature
Date Date:
This page is intentionally left blank Appendix C Appraisal Panel Summary Scheme Details
Project Name Sheffield Heart of the City Breathing Spaces Grant Recipient Sheffield City Council SCR Executive Transport and MCA Funding £2m (This approval from TCF) Board Environment £4m (already approved from GBF) £6m (Total) % SCR Allocation 50% (of the total Total Scheme Cost £ 12,000,000 MCA funding)
Appraisal Summary
Project Description
Since 2010, Sheffield City Centre Breathing Spaces Strategy has created award winning open spaces using S106 to match ERDF, Environment Agency and SCR funding. These spaces enrich the wellbeing of residents/ visitors, attracting investment, improve air quality, bio diversity and reduce flood risk. This project will enhance the Rockingham Street element of the City Centre TCF proposals and approved SCC capital funding within the Heart of the City budget. The project stands alone from the wider TCF scheme in the City Centre. This scheme is closely linked to the Heart of the City Breathing Spaces GBF scheme which was approved by the MCA in November 2020.
Across the overall Breathing Spaces project, up to three new spaces will be created: a landscaped pocket park on Block G including a cycle hub; a vibrant small square on Carver Street with seating terraces for adjoining cafes and civic space and expanding the Peace Gardens between the Town Hall and proposed Radisson Blu hotel on Pinstone Street. The Pinstone Street element will be primarily delivered through the TCF City centre scheme, and as such, will be subject to a separate TCF business case.
The transformation/renewal of Sheffield City Centre has been underpinned by high quality new public spaces and connectivity between them. This has driven demand for commercial and residential development, attracted new businesses and is a key element of Sheffield's distinctiveness. The new spaces adjoin developments within the £480m HOC2 project and will increase attractiveness to occupiers and visitors.
The TCF proposal will provide a permanent solution on Rockingham Street to improve the reliability of public transport and provide safer routes to promote active travel but provide limited green infrastructure. This project will make walking and cycling more enjoyment attractive and help boost public transport use. The pocket park is adjacent to a proposed new bus mini-interchange on Rockingham Street and a recently installed cycle route into/out of the city centre to western suburbs.
Immediately adjoining the new square on Carver Street the Council will simultaneously be developing a striking new 71,421sqft office building. The building is being designed to exemplary environmental standards.
The new pocket park on Site G is part of a larger site which will be marketed by the Council for delivery by the private sector. In addition to creating a new space for city centre residents, workers and visitors to rest and relax the works will provide an attractive setting for the future development as well as well as providing connectivity across the site and subdividing the plots. The new park replaces a previous proposal to build a multi-storey car park on the site and is a direct response by the Council to both the Climate Emergency and the need to build back better from Covid19.
The site is currently a surface car park having previously been the headquarters and central station of South Yorkshire Fire Brigade prior to its demolition. The site of the new park therefore needs to be reclaimed and reshaped to provide fully accessible open space and routes through. The funds will also cover landscaping and, depending on budget costs, new splash and play facilities to attract families to use the park and relieve some pressure on overcrowding of the fountains in the Peace Gardens. Page 163
Adjoining the new park on Block G is this TCF proposal on Rockingham St to provide new bus stops, new public realm and restrict private vehicles as a permanent solution to improve reliability of bus movements. These works require a strip of Block G to be taken and so it is proposed to seek approval of £2m TCF funding and deliver the works in a single project as this will ensure more seamless delivery of both elements.
Strategic Case
The applicant sets out a clear strategic rationale, linking the direct contributions that will be made to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and national Plan for Growth, government aims to Rebalance the Economy1 and reinvigorate high streets, the SCR Transport Strategy, the SCC Breathing Spaces Strategy, SCC Local Plan and wider plans for development of Sheffield City Centre, tackling the climate emergency and requirement for reductions in carbon emissions.
The project aligns closely to SCRMCA SEP and Renewal Action Plan objectives and the scheme objectives are directly aligned to the need to respond to the impacts of COVID-19. The project seeks to achieve four main objectives:
• Recovery from Covid19 by providing safe outdoor spaces for play, events and leisure (footfall counts etc.) • Addressing climate change through investment in new green infrastructure, including cycling and pedestrian routes (space m2 and length of new routes; cycle counts) • Catalysing economic growth and investment with a high quality environment and place making (measure investment £; floor space built/let; job numbers) • Place Making, attracting more people to live/work in the City Centre (residential units built and occupied; area m2 of adjoining plots sold for development)
The business case describes the complementary nature of the office development, public realm investment and improvement to the transport network as part of a holistic approach to support regeneration in the city centre and increase footfall.
Value for Money
When initially presented to the MCA Executive only the user benefits of improved public transport journeys were included in the assessment of the benefits. This was due to the Rockingham Street scheme coming forward ahead of the wider TCF Cross City Bus scheme. The initial business case presented a transport related BCR of 2.7. However, the modelling and appraisal which had been undertaken for the SOBC was not sufficient to support a decision. The benefit for the Rockingham Street scheme had not been apportioned out nor had there been an estimate of the disbenefits to pedestrians as a result of the change to the location of bus stops. These gaps meant that the benefits would be inflated along with the associated BCR.
By applying the apportionment of the Public Transport benefits with the disbenefits to pedestrians the BCR for the scheme falls from 2.7 to 1.3. Compared to the initial approach adopted by the promoter, this assessment now provides a clearer indication of the impact of the scheme on existing users.
Based on the assessment of the business case the scheme would provide Low value for money. The value for money of the scheme is enhanced when consider alongside the wider Breathing Places scheme approved through GBF, overall representing Good value for money.
Risk
1 BIS (2016). ‘Rebalancing the Economy’ Page 164 The risks for overall Breathing Spaces project, which includes GBF, TCF and SCC funding, are relevant to this business case. There is however greater emphasis on the transport related outcomes and costs for the specific intervention on Rockingham Street. The key risks to the project in terms of the economic case are:
User benefits from public transport and active modes are not realised as the number of people traveling to the city centre by these modes are reduced as a result of COVID-19 That active mode and public transport routes/services facilitated through the scheme do not link with the wider transport network and that residents do not engage in mode shift. This appears to be mitigated through the scheme design, which join important pedestrian, cycling and public transport routes. Cost overruns: SCC has committed to funding any cost overrun and so the risk to the SCRMCA are minimised.
The promoter also identifies that COVID-19 has brought a new degree of risk to secure a contractor to undertake the works. The business case highlights that SCC are engaging with several major contractors to reduce this risk and secure a provider.
There will be some disruption to city centre transport routes, along Rockingham and Carver Street, while the project is delivered. As stated above this is seen as necessary to deliver the benefits associated with the scheme. The applicant has listed mitigating actions under the Management Dimension, highlighting “good quality stakeholder engagement with highways department and neighbours to properly plan and communicate work”.
Delivery
With this part of the TCF scheme separated from the wider TCF City Centre Project there is clarity on the deliverability of this investment. The milestones to achieve planning and Traffic Regulation Orders can be achieved in tandem with the wider GBF investment to deliver a coherent scheme. The timescales and milestones are clear and reasonable for the scale of works to be undertaken. The promoter does however need to update these dates to reflect the time for decision making and confirm the final programme once the contractor is appointed. This final programme would be captured in the contract for the scheme.
The Governance, control and management of the project is clearly described as part of the wider Heart of the City Programme. The arrangement is already established, and key individuals are named. This existing structure and governance provide confidence that the scheme will be effectively managed as part of a package of works in this part of the city.
The benefit of delivering the TCF and GBF schemes as one programme of works is also acknowledged. This join-up approach will be more efficient and be less disruptive for people and businesses in this part of the city.
Legal The proposed scheme will invest in public goods on publicly owned land. Although it will complement wider Heart of the City 2 commercial developments, it will not support them directly. As such the scheme is in line with State aid requirements.
Page 165 Recommendation and Conditions
Recommendation Progress to Full Business Case subject to conditions Payment Basis Payment on defrayal Conditions of Award (including clawback clauses) The following conditions must be satisfied before contract execution. Following the procurement of a contractor, SCC to confirm the final tender price is in line with the FBC Financial Case. The following conditions must be satisfied before drawdown of funding.
The following conditions must be included in the contract SCC to work with the MCA to ensure suitable Monitoring and Evaluation is undertaken.
Page 166 Record of Recommendation, Endorsement and Approval
Heart of the City Breathing Spaces
Appraisal Panel Recommendation Board Endorsement MCA Approval
Date of Meeting Date of Meeting Date of Meeting
Head of Paid Service Endorsing Officer Approving Officer Ruth Adams or Delegate (Board Chair) (Chair) Deputy CEX Signature Signature Signature
Page 167 Page Date Date Date
S73 Officer or Simon Tompkins Delegate Statutory Finance Officer Approval Finance Manager Signature Name: Date Monitoring Officer or Steve Davenport Delegate Signature: SCR CA Solicitor Signature
Date Date:
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 14
Transport and Environment Board
Local Transport 2021/22 Programme Setting
Purpose of Report
To present Board with a proposed process for setting the draft 2021/22 Integrated Transport Block and Highways Capital Maintenance Fund programmes and request advice on programme priorities.
Thematic Priority
Secure investment in infrastructure where it will do most to support growth.
Recommendations
That members of the Board:
• Agree to the proposed process for establishing the draft programmes and;
• Advise on thematic priorities for the investment through the draft programmes
1. Introduction
1.1 Currently the region receives an annual Local Transport Capital Block allocation from the DfT. This consists of two streams of funding, the Integrated Transport Block (ITB) and Highways Capital Maintenance Fund (HCM). These allocations have been received in the current format as a regional award since 2008 and provide a primary source of funding for delivering improvements in the local transport network.
1.2 The allocations for ITB are defined by DfT using thematic data specific to each region. The exact data values used are not published by the Department but the themes are public transport (passenger journeys originating within the area), accessibility (car ownership and the Index of Multiple Deprivation), air quality (number of Air Quality Management Areas), road safety (casualty statistics), congestion (based on workday population) and carbon (transport based carbon dioxide emissions).
1.3 HCM is defined by the department using criteria specific to each individual authority within the region. This looks as the scale of highways assets including road length, number of structures, number of lighting columns and also uses a self-assessment process, known as the Incentive Element, where each authority reviews asset condition and the governance in place to deliver their asset management programme.
1.4 The funding is not ring-fenced by DfT and the grant conditions are light, the only two that need to be met are that the expenditure is capital and the accountable body provides an annual declaration to confirm that this has been adhered to. This enables recipient authorities to identify the most appropriate use in line with local policies.
Page 169
1.5 2020/21 is the final year of the current six-year settlement period for the Local Transport Capital Block Allocation. Following the Spending Review published in November there has been some clarity on future funding provided by DfT however to date they have not confirmed exact processes or allocations. This delay in advising on funding could impact on the ability to deliver local transport projects from the start of the new financial year so this report provides a proposal for progressing programme development and minimising the risk from this delay.
2. Proposal and justification
2.1 The proposal is that the programme setting process is undertaken now, based on the information that DfT have provided to date, and then if necessary the programmes are adapted in line with any changes to allocations or grant conditions once confirmed. This will enable an agile response if DfT have any new expectations and a swift implementation of activities at the start of the new year
2.2 ITB has been used by the four South Yorkshire Local Authorities and SYPTE (the partners) to deliver high volume, low cost projects and interventions to address operational management priorities and developing needs on the local transport network. These are smaller scale interventions which would not meet the criteria for funding through any other sources, for example junction improvements, crossing upgrades, installation of cycle parking facilities and electric vehicle charging points, public transport priority measures, bus bay relocation and safety improvements at road casualty locations.
2.3 This fund also delivers the schemes that help Highway Authorities meet their statutory duties, provide the solutions to community requirements and address the issues that are most relevant to local stakeholders. The aggregated value of all these project gains is substantial and the importance of having a well-managed network to underpin the region’s strategic investments is significant. This is the only discretionary fund which is available and so the only option for delivery of these ‘everyday’ actions required to manage the efficient operation of the network
2.4 In previous years the following process has been applied to programme setting:
• Partners are advised of an indicative allocation from the annual settlement • Each partner proposes projects which meet their individual organisational needs • These projects are assessed centrally to ensure that they align with the agreed Sheffield City Region Transport Strategy goals and policies • Projects are also now assessed for contribution to the four transport implementation plan themes: Active Travel, Rail, Road and Public Transport • Further peer review of proposals is undertaken through Strategic Transport Group whose membership consists Heads of Service or equivalent officers from the partners and Sheffield City Region MCA Executive • The draft programme is escalated to Transport Officers Board, comprising Executive Directors from the four Local Authorities, the PTE and the MCA Executive team for approval • The draft programme enters the MCA Governance process and is passed to SCRCA Finance for inclusion in the annual Capital Programme Reporting • Final Member scrutiny and approval or challenge is provided through the full Mayoral Combined Authority • Partners take the respective parts of the programme through their own internal cabinet approvals process, or equivalent, ahead of implementation
2.5 The ITB output from this has been a programme which meets the local priorities and also provides a range of contributions to the current regional thematic priorities. For
Page 170 example, the total programme spend in 2019/20, including funding brought forward, was £9.165m across 48 projects, all within the categories used by DfT. Of this spend £2.208m contributed to the Active Travel implementation theme, £2.079m the Strategic Transit Network and £4.878m Roads.
2.6 The range of schemes was broad, examples included reconstruction and upgrade of Laithes Lane junction in Barnsley, scheme design and match funding for the Bennethorpe TCF cycling infrastructure in Doncaster, traffic signal amendments at the A57 Anston crossroads in Rotherham, installation of 20mph zones in Wincobank and Hurlfield in Sheffield and the PTE led refurbishment of Rotherham Interchange.
2.7 The expected settlement for 2021/22 is a continuation of the levels allocated for the duration of the current settlement period, £8.428m. This has been estimated based on the national ITB allocation referenced in the Spending Review of £260m which is £2m more than the current period’s national allocation.
2.8 Board members are asked to approve the process as identified in paragraph 2.4 and are also asked to advise at this stage on the thematic or other priorities which should be applied to this programme.
2.9 HCM is the core funding source used to maintain all of the highway assets in Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham. During 2012/13 Sheffield City Council implemented the PFI Highways scheme, since this date all SCC’s highways maintenance requirements have been met through this and they therefore have not been eligible for HCM funding.
2.10 The allocation is used by the recipient authorities to carry out maintenance activities primarily under five main categories of work, carriageway re-surfacing, footway improvements, bridges/structures, street lighting, and pothole repairs. The authorities develop and prioritise their work through an ongoing programme of asset condition assessment. This enables them to identify emerging issues and flexibly deploy their resources to address the most important issues.
2.11 This flexibility of activity is particularly important in times of extreme weather as this can have a significant, immediate effect on asset conditions as has been most notably seen with flooding in recent years.
2.12 In 2019/20 the total HCM programme spend including carry forward was £14.791m. This included £1.198m of principal road resurfacing in Barnsley, £978k of bridge repairs in Doncaster and repair of winter damage to three roundabouts in Rotherham at a cost of £233k plus a further £523k spent on essential bridge repairs.
2.13 The well managed highways approach and best practice applied to HCM activities has maximised the capital allocations received from DfT. The top grading awarded to the region through the Incentive Element in 2020/21 added an extra £1.474m to the settlement compared to the next grade.
2.14 Information on the 2021/22 allocation is limited so for the purposes of programme setting it is suggested that a continuation of last years total allocation is used, this was £12.219m. As with ITB the DfT don’t provide the base data used to calculate HCM but they have broken the regional award down into specific local authority amounts, these would be £3.69m for BMBC, £4.91m for DMBC and £3.619m for RMBC. Against these the authorities would plan their forward work programmes to then be taken through the same assessment and escalation process as ITB, leading to inclusion in the MCA approval process.
2.15 The importance of HCM investment has been demonstrated by the allocation of additional funding from government as part of the Covid response activities during
Page 171 2020. This additional funding was a significant amount however the regional backlog of maintenance requirements on the network exceeds this many times over and is calculated in terms of hundreds of millions so the extra funding does not diminish the need for continued maintenance resource.
2.16 Board are asked to approve the suggested process for developing the HCM programme and for the detail of how this is deployed to continue to be defined based on the authority led, ongoing network evaluation activities.
2.17 Actions have already been undertaken to enable swift implementation if granted and enable completion of these processes in time for the MCA reporting cycle.
3. Consideration of alternative approaches
3.1 A competitive process could be applied whereby each individual project proposal was assessed and entered into the programme individually. This approach is not recommended as the local priorities of partner organisations are best determined locally. The subsequent process of assessing the programmes for strategic fit ensures compliance with the regional goals and policies whilst allowing each respective authority to retain ownership of often small, local interventions.
4. Implications
4.1 Financial There are no implications directly arising from this report. Development of draft programmes in preparation would not require any further financial commitment and if the programmes are adopted they would not obligate any additional regional funding.
4.2 Legal None directly arising. All activities will be conducted in accordance with the grant conditions and this will be ensured through the annual declaration process which requires all recipient organisations to provide a statement back to MCA.
4.3 Risk Management The process identified concludes with a submission to MCA so all approval processes will be adhered to. Once in implementation progress would be reported back to Board and through this regime risks identified and managed.
4.4 Equality, Diversity and Social Inclusion Equality, Diversity and Social Inclusion is actively considered in the design of all local authority transport projects.
5. Communications
5.1 None directly arising from this report.
6. Appendices/Annexes
6.1 None
Report Author Alex Linton Post LTP Programme Manager Officer responsible Mark Lynam Organisation Sheffield City Region Email [email protected] Telephone 0114 220 3445
Page 172 Background papers used in the preparation of this report are available for inspection at: 11 Broad Street West, Sheffield S1 2BQ
Other sources and references: n/a
Page 173 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 15
Transport and Environment Board
7 January 2021
Restoring Your Railway Fund - Update
Purpose of Report
To provide an update on bids to the Department for Transport’s: Restoring Your Railway Fund
Thematic Priority
Secure investment in infrastructure where it will do most to support growth.
Recommendations
That members of the Transport and Environment Board:
• Note that Local Authorities and the MCA have committed resources to support the sponsoring Members of Parliament to submit bids to the Ideas Fund for the schemes named in section 2.2. • Agree to the re-submission of the revised unsuccessful bids in the third round, expected to be in early 2021.
1. Introduction
1.1 In early February 2020 the Government launched its Restoring Your Railways Fund (sometimes referred to as the ‘Beeching Reversal Fund’) and invited expressions of interest for rail re-opening schemes. This opportunity would be for a share of the initial £500m made available to develop the business cases for successful schemes.
1.2 Current situation
First Tranche Outcome
The MCA worked with local MPs and authorities to submit bids to the first round of the Ideas Fund in March 2020 for the following lines:
- Sheffield to Stocksbridge via Deepcar
- Sheffield to Chesterfield via Barrow Hill
- Barnsley to Wakefield via Royston
- Doncaster to Knottingley / Leeds via Askern
Page 175
At the end of May the Department for Transport announced the first shortlist of ten schemes across England to take forward out of the sixty bids received, following assessment by a panel of experts chaired by the Rail Minister. The MCA was successful in securing support to progress the Sheffield to Chesterfield via Barrow Hill line.
Work is now being undertaken by the MCA team, in support of the Sponsoring MP Lee Rowley and the Local Authority Partners to develop a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) for the Barrow Hill Line. The aim of the project team is to submit the SOBC for Barrow Hill to the Department for Transport (DfT) in early 2021. The appropriate budget and resources are agreed and in place to achieve this.
1.3 Second Tranche and Government’s Spending Review Announcement
A second tranche of bids were invited by the DfT in June 2020. For the MCA the only scheme supported for this submission window was the Waverley New Station which was submitted to the Ideas Fund. The Waverley scheme was included in the Government’s National Infrastructure Strategy, published alongside Spending Review announcements in November 2020, as being selected to progress to the next stage of Restoring Your Railway. A work and resource plan will be prepared to develop the station at Waverley to the next stage.
The Waverley and Barrow Hill schemes share a common route into Sheffield and potentially could be joined to form a single project. At this stage the business case for Waverley will be developed independently of the Barrow Hill scheme as both can be developed on their own merits. There could be benefits in joining the schemes together at a later stage, particularly in terms of procurement and construction planning. This point of combining the projects will be revisited as the business cases are developed.
A number of other submissions have also been made by local MPs or community groups to support schemes not included in the Integrated Rail Plan or endorsed by the MCA. The MCA Executive team is monitoring the progress of these schemes but does not intend to engage in the bids or commit resources to support them at this stage.
2. Proposal and justification
2.1 Proposal
The DfT has held generic feedback webinar sessions for all unsuccessful proposals from the first tranche and provided written feedback on areas for improvement. The MCA and each of the scheme MP sponsors have considered the feedback and met to develop an agreed way forward. A third round of bids was expected to be announced by the DfT for November, but this has been delayed. The schemes are still supported by the MCA, it is therefore proposed to re-submit the three unsuccessful bids into the next round when a deadline is confirmed by the DfT. The position for each scheme promoted by the MCA in tranche one is summarised as follows:
- Sheffield Victoria to Stocksbridge via Deepcar – Miriam Cates MP, with support from the Chair of the Don Valley Railway group, is working to address the DfT feedback and are planning to resubmit. The MCA Executive are providing further support and technical resources to respond to rail operation aspects of the feedback. The key aspects to address are the implications, mainly financial, of re- opening Sheffield Victoria station. The scheme also needs to establish the impact on existing freight services and why rail is the best solution for the problems identified.
- Barnsley to Wakefield via Royston – Dan Jarvis MP has been working with officers at Barnsley MBC to address the feedback. BMBC and the MCA
Page 176
Executive have sought further advice from Network Rail on the feedback provided and are looking to address the points raised to re-submit. The key aspects to address are the implication for the existing services (including freight services), the re-instatement of the missing section of line and the clear justification for why rail is the solution for the problems identified. Some specialist advice is needed to establish the technical requirements and respond to the feedback on deliverability.
- Doncaster to Knottingley / Leeds via Askern – Ed Miliband MP and Doncaster MBC have received the feedback from DfT and are working with the MCA Executive to resubmit the bid. The areas of concern are similar to the Stocksbridge and Royston schemes. This includes demonstrating why rail is the best solution, the potential socio-economic benefits and more information on the deliverability of the scheme, including interaction with existing lines and services.
2.3 At the July Transport Board, it was indicated that the MCA Executive team would prioritise resources on the development of the Sheffield to Chesterfield via Barrow Hill scheme. The team have started to provide more proactive support for the lead authorities for all schemes described in section 2.2. This additional activity includes focused consultancy support to provide the resource and expertise to resolve the comments received on the initial submissions.
2.4 Justification
The SCR Integrated Rail Plan provides a strategic basis for the development of rail schemes in Sheffield City Region. To put the MCA in a strong position to attract funding a SCR Rail Reinstatement study was commissioned in 2019. This reinstatement study provides a good starting point to take forward the submissions, with some additional technical support needed to develop a high-quality submission and respond to the comments raised.
2.5 The submission of each of the bids to the Restoring Your Railway Fund will provide the opportunity to deliver the SCR Integrated Rail Plan. There is strong support for the projects from officers and MPs to make the submissions and to continue to support the business cases for the successful schemes.
2.6 Next Steps
The next steps for the resubmission of schemes to the third round are: - Confirm with DfT the deadline for re-submissions. - Undertake work to submit bids by the DfT deadline. - Develop a project a resource plan to undertake the Waverley station SOBC.
3. Consideration of alternative approaches
3.1 Do more: There were a number of submissions made by sponsoring MPs and community groups which the MCA is not proactively engaged with or supporting. The MCA could provide support to these bids. This option has been rejected as the resources have been prioritised to schemes which align with the SCR Integrated Rail Plan.
3.2 Do less: To date the position of the MCA has been to prioritise the Barrow Hill scheme and provide advice only to local authority partners on the unsuccessful schemes. This option has been rejected as partners have identified that additional support is needed if robust submissions are to be made to the third round in time. If the support is not provided
Page 177
there is a risk of failure to submit bids, or bids not resolving the issues raised from the first tranche.
4. Implications
4.1 Financial The technical support needed will be resourced from existing budgets.
4.2 Legal The recommendation of this paper does not have Legal implications.
4.3 Risk Management The recommendation of this paper is low risk and describes an established Government funding approach.
4.4 Equality, Diversity and Social Inclusion The recommendation of this paper does not have an equality, diversity and social inclusion impact.
5. Communications
5.1 Outward communication by the MCA is not required at this stage. The sponsoring MP for each scheme is expected to issue communication if a scheme is successful. The MCA will work with the relevant MP’s office to issue complementary communication. There has already been considerable media interest in the four bids and they have attracted significant coverage already. The sponsoring MPs have also done their own publicity.
6. Appendices/Annexes
6.1 None
Report Author Neal Byers Post Strategic Transport Officer responsible Mark Lynam Organisation Sheffield City Region Email [email protected] Telephone 0114 220 3445
Background papers used in the preparation of this report are available for inspection at: 11 Broad Street West, Sheffield S1 2BQ
Other sources and references: n/a
Page 178 Agenda Item 16a
TRANSPORT & ENVIRONMENT BOARD
8th January 2021
FOR INFORMATION – MCA / LEP Performance Report
Purpose of Report
This paper and accompanying programme summaries and performance dashboards provide Board members with current performance information on transport programmes delivered by the MCA Executive on behalf of the LEP and MCA
Thematic Priority
Secure investment in infrastructure where it will do most to support growth
Freedom of Information
This paper may be released under a Freedom of Information request. In this section, it must be clear if the paper has any exemption under Part II of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Recommendations
That Board members: 1. Scrutinise the performance information provided in order to identify future performance deep- dives or significant areas of risk; and 2. Review the format and detail of information to inform future iterations of the dashboard.
1. Introduction
1.1 Programme summaries and performance dashboards for the transport programmes of the LEP and MCA are attached for members to review - • Transforming Cities Fund (Tranche 1) - Appendix 1(a) and (b) • Transforming Cities Fund (Tranche 2) – Appendix 2(a) and (b) • Emergency Active Travel Fund (Phase 1) – Appendix 3(a) and (b) • Access Fund for Sustainable Travel 2017-2020 – Appendix 4(a) and (b) • Access Fund for Sustainable Travel 2020/21 – Appendix 5(a) and (b) • Local Growth Fund - Appendix 6(a) and (b) • SCR Borrowing – Appendix 7(a) and (b) • Transport Activity – Appendix 8(a) and (b)
2. Proposal and justification
2.1 The following is a summary of performance by programme -
Page 179
2.1.1 Transforming Cities Fund (Tranche 1) In 2018 the Department for Transport (‘DfT’) awarded £4.2m for a capital programme focused on active travel initiatives to strengthen connectivity of key digital and manufacturing assets along the innovation district.
Outputs and Outcomes The agreed programme targets are – • Number of active travel projects – 14, to be complete by 31st December 2020 • Number of walking journeys – 3421, to be complete by 31st March 2022 • Number of cycling journeys – 2023, to be complete by 31st March 2022
Performance Summary 11 projects are now complete, and the programme was extended to December 2020 to enable completion of the remaining 3 projects however a further change request has been submitted to extend to March 2021. Claims of £1.66m have been received against a forecast spend of £3.59m by Q2.
Management Action Change control is underway to review a request to extend completion to March 2021 for 3 projects. 1 claim remains outstanding from Q1 which will be escalated again with the scheme promoter, evidence checks on another claim is ongoing.
2.1.2 Transforming Cities Fund (Tranche 2) In March 2020 the DfT awarded £164m for capital works focused on active travel and public transport initiatives.
Outputs and Outcomes The deliverables will include bus infrastructure and active travel works; further detail will be highlighted as business cases progress through the SCR Assurance Framework.
Performance Summary There is significant concern regarding deliverability of the programme not least due to the impact of the pandemic, alongside resourcing issues. Q2 forecasts indicate an under spend of £13.5m this year. Also during this quarter; 1 package was withdrawn, 2 packages merged and 1 declined development costs. Therefore, of the remaining 25 contracts; 15 have been signed and 10 are due to be signed in Q3. 1 Outline Business Case (‘OBC’) was submitted during Q2.
Management Action The initial programme review commenced in Q2 with the MCA approved recommendations now being implemented. A second review will commence during Q4 which will inform a remedial plan for the programme, requiring formal approval. Change control is underway to address revised OBC submission dates, with 13 OBC’s now due to be submitted in Q3.
2.1.3 Emergency Active Travel Fund (Phase 1) In June 2020 the DfT awarded £1.4m for revenue and capital activity focused on temporary active travel provisions across South Yorkshire as a response to the pandemic.
Outputs and Outcomes The activity includes road closures, reduced speed limits, segregated cycle lanes, widening pathways and temporary cycle parking along 24.79km of routes.
Page 180
Performance Summary Programme works completed in Q2 and spend in full is forecast, however 1 of the 4 contracts is yet to be signed. Works were adjusted during delivery to reflect the emergency nature of the funding.
Management Action Change control is underway to reconcile final performance data and enable release of revised contracts. Following this, all claims will be processed for payment.
2.1.4 Access Fund for Sustainable Travel; 2017-2020 and2020/21 In 2017 the DfT allocated £7.4m revenue funding that aims to support access to employment, education and training, and increasing provision of walking/cycling services. In 2020 a further £2.4m was secured to continue activity for 1 year.
Outputs and Outcomes The programme has a multitude of outcomes categorised across 10 work packages. A selection has been summarised to reflect performance to date -
Outcome Baseline Actual Individuals receiving cycle training 5,975 17,658 Cycle loans (regular or electric) 2,080 2,621 Schools engaged in Active Travel sessions 426 395 Cycles checked/serviced 8,679 6,175 Wheels to Work scooter loans 450 523 Passengers on Job Connector bus services (per week) 36,300 9,890 Number of vehicles receiving ECO Stars rating 500 1,958 Disabled individuals receiving independent travel training 240 392 Number of individuals engaged at cycle safety event 9,850 15,501 Walking Boosts participants 2,274 3,067
Performance Summary • 2017-2020 programme - Claims totalling £7.19m have been paid, with a further £228k overdue against accruals. An underspend of £509 is being rolled into the 2020/21 programme. Performance has been strong with a proportion of the 2019/20 targets to be confirmed during 2020/21, though no issues are anticipated. • 2020/21 programme - 5 contracts were released in Q1 and remain outstanding as at Q2. Delivery in Q2 was severely curtailed due to the pandemic.
Management Action Scheme promoters have been asked to submit outstanding documentation to enable the payment of claims, and updated performance data, by the end of December 2020. As at Q2, this information is yet to be received and a reminder regarding the deadline has been issued. A review of the 2020/21 programme is underway and change control will be followed if required.
2.1.5 Local Growth Fund (‘LGF’) From a LGF programme of £360m, £40.1m is ring fenced for a retained major’s scheme. £31.6m is also committed for 7 projects focused on enabling transport infrastructure.
Outputs and Outcomes The project targets for LGF transport schemes are - • Length of road resurface – 2.39km, to be complete by March 2022 • New cycles ways – 44km, delivered March 2018 • Commercial floorspace created – 940,000sqm, to be complete by March 2022
Page 181
Performance Summary Of the 7 projects; 4 are complete, 2 are in delivery and 1 is pending contract. At the end of Q2 funding is 84% claimed with the remaining 3 projects forecasting spend of £3.7m this financial year.
Management Action The project approved during Q2 commenced change control in advance of contract to slip £1.05m into 2021/22. No issues have been raised on the 2 projects in delivery nevertheless, quarterly monitoring continues.
2.1.6 SCR Borrowing and Transport Activity Borrowing of £19.79m, capital resources of £6.91m and DfT funding of £2.5m was secured for investment in transport infrastructure and improving local air quality.
Outputs and Outcomes Collectively, 5 projects were approved to deliver - • Fully operational interchange and car park – 1, complete March 2020 • New rail track – 10km, to be complete by March 2021 • New low and ultra-low emission buses – 69, complete March 2020 • Production of Outline Business Case – 1, to be complete by December 2020
Performance Summary • SCR Borrowing - 1 project is significantly complete, and 1 project is due to complete this year. The 2 projects have £4.6m left to claim in 2020/21. • Transport Activity - 2 projects are complete. The remaining project is due to complete this year.
Management Action The trajectory indicates that spend and outputs will be achieved this year on both programmes, nevertheless quarterly monitoring continues to ensure that targets are met.
3. Consideration of alternative approaches
3.1 Members can shape how the projects are grouped for presentation within the dashboards, and the information included, to fulfil their remit for performance management.
4. Implications
4.1 Financial LGF allocations are annual, therefore all contracted projects are monitored closely to ensure any potential underclaims are mitigated to prevent loss of funding. DfT allocations are awarded for a set deliverable, therefore all contracted projects are monitored closely in accordance with the SCR’s and DfT’s governance requirements.
4.2 Legal Contracts are in place for all projects where the MCA is the accountable body.
4.3 Risk Management Risks on all projects are recorded, discussed during review meetings and remedial plans agreed and escalated as appropriate.
4.4 Equality, Diversity and Social Inclusion All projects promote inclusivity to ensure residents across SCR can access support/opportunities regardless of where they live.
Page 182
5. Communications
5.1 All existing projects form part of the organisation’s communication plans.
6. Appendices/Annexes
6.1 Appendix 1 - 8 (a) and (b) as detailed in 1.1.
REPORT AUTHOR Charli Taylor POST Programme and Performance Unit Officer responsible Gareth Sutton Organisation Sheffield City Region Executive Team Email [email protected] Telephone 0114 2203442
Background papers used in the preparation of this report are available for inspection at: N/A Other sources and references: N/A
Page 183 This page is intentionally left blank SCR TRANSPORT PROGRAMME GLOSSARY Appendix 1a
Scheme Name: Transforming Cities Fund Tranche 1 Funder: Department for Transport Programme value: £4.244m Deliverers and Contract Promoter Projects Funding Status Values: Sheffield City Council Sheffield Package of Cycling Infrastructure Improvements £2m In Delivery Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council River Don Corridor Active Travel Package £1.264m In Delivery Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Rotherham Town Centre Active Travel Package £980K In Delivery
Timescale: 2018-2022 Geography covered: South Yorkshire Description: The programme involves three priority corridors within the Growth Innovation Corridor which were specifically identified to form the intervention area for this fund – River Don Corridor; Dearne Valley Corridor; and AMID.
The programme has three objectives – Measures to support an increase in active travel usage aimed at encouraging cycling and walking for shorter journeys and drawing of
Page 185 Page the exiting work through the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan; Enhanced public transport information; and Building on the current Clean Air Zone proposals. Target Beneficiaries: Cyclists Pedestrians Public transport users Outcomes: Project Outcomes Baseline % Progress Number of walking journeys 3421 0% Number of cycling journeys 2023 0%
This page is intentionally left blank Executive Board: Transport - Transforming Cities Fund (Tranche 1)
This Quarter: Q2 2020/21
Financial Progress
Pending Transforming Cities Fund (Tranche 1) - Funding Profile £2,500,000 £4,500,000 Department for Transport Funding In Contract Contract Total Complete In delivery Pending Contract Pipeline Projects (No.) 30300 £4,244,000 £4,000,000 £4,244,000 £4,244,000 £0 DfT Funding (£) £4,244,000 £0 £4,244,000 £0 £0 £2,000,000 £3,500,000
£3,000,000 Financial Year Claimed to Date Total £1,500,000 Department for Transport Funding 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30 £2,500,000 Baseline £0 £0 £0 £0 £1,981,301 £2,262,699 £0 £0 £4,244,000 Actual to Date £1,662,415 £0 £0 £0 £0 £1,421,976 £63,001 £0 £0 £1,484,977 £2,000,000 £1,000,000 Forecast £0 £0 £0 £0 £559,325 £2,199,698 £0 £0 £2,759,023 Variance £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £1,500,000 % Progress - - - - 72% 3% - - 35% £1,000,000 £500,000
Financial Progress Comments: £500,000 'Rotherham Town Centre Active Travel Package', 'River Don Corridor Active Travel Package', and 'Sheffield Package of Cycling Infrastructure Improvements' form the programme. 11 of the 14 projects have completed works with the remainder contracted to complete by December 2020 however another change is under review to reprofile to March 2021. Claims of £1.66m have been received at Q2, £1.48m has been paid with evidence pending submission on the £0 £0 remainder. Forecast expenditure remains profiled in 2019-20 as 1 claim is outstanding for March 2020, and 1 claim is pending submission of evidence. 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30
Baseline Actual to Date Cumulative (B) Cumulative (A)
Outputs / Outcomes
Number of Walking Journeys (per day) Number of Cycling Journeys (per day) 4,000 2,500 Financial Year This Quarter Total 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30 3,500 2,000 Number of Walking Journeys (per day) 3,000 Baseline -0000003,421 0 3,421 Actual to Date 0000000000 2,500 1,500 Forecast -0000003,421 0 3,421 Variance -000000000 2,000 % Progress ------0%-0% 3,421 1,000 2,032 Number of Cycling Journeys (per day) 1,500 Baseline -0000002,032 0 2,032 Actual to Date 0000000000 1,000 Forecast -0000002,032 0 2,032 500 Variance -000000000 500 Page 187 Page % Progress ------0%-0% 0 0 0 0 Actual to Date Remaining Total Actual to Date Remaining Total
Outputs / Outcomes Comments: Outcomes are now forecast to be achieved later than anticipated due to delays to delivery and issues caused by covid-19. A review is underway by scheme promoters, the outcome of the review and any resultant remedial plans may Project Stages result in the profile being adjusted again in consultation with DfT. 4 £4,500,000
£4,244,000
Risk Log 3 £4,000,000 3
Likelihood Impact Score £3,500,000 Risk No. Risk Event Consequence Mitigation (1-5) (1-5) (1-25) 3 Extension to Dec20 approved by DfT, Programme fails to spend full grant Funding returned to DfT, reputational review underway to consider a recent £3,000,000 1 3412 allocation of £4.244m damage additional change request to extend again to March 2021 2 £2,500,000 Review underway to consider recent Programme fails to deliver within additional change request. Following Ongoing impact of covid-19 on 2 timeframe and/or achieve the forecast completion of works, review to 339 delivery and outcomes £2,000,000 outcomes commence to consider impacts on 2 outcomes, in consultation with DfT
£1,500,000 Change review ongoing. Outcomes 1 Under performance against DfT bid review to commence to inform Any proposed changes are not 3 due to potential underspend and remedial plan (and justification to DfT 3412 approved £1,000,000 reduced outcomes should any further changes to the forecast outcomes profile be required) 1 £0 £500,000 £0 Risk Assessment Risk Assessment Comments: £0 0 0 0 3 of the 14 projects requested an extension to December 2020 which was approved, however an additional change has now been received to reprofile again to March 2021 0 £0 which is being reviewed. Following completion of the works, a review of the outcomes profile is to commence to consider the impact of covid-19, this will inform a remedial plan Complete In delivery Pending Contract Pipeline AR (if required) which will require approval by DfT. 1 claim remains outstanding and 1 claim is pending submission of evidence for March 2020. Given the ongoing challenges to delivery, including further change control, an Amber/Red rating has been applied. This page is intentionally left blank SCR TRANSPORT PROGRAMME GLOSSARY Appendix 2a
Scheme Name: Transforming Cities Fund Tranche 2 Funder: Department for Transport Programme value: £164,008,716 Deliverers and Contract Promoter Work Package Projected Status Values: Funding South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive A61 (PT) £13.47m Pipeline Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council A61 Active Travel £4.64m Pipeline Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council A631 (PT) £2.25m Pipeline Sheffield City Council Abbeydale / Ecclesall £1.4m Pipeline Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council AMID (RMBC) (AT) £1.5m Pipeline Sheffield City Council AMID (SCC) £19.91m Pipeline Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Barnsley Town Centre £2.5m Pipeline Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council BMBC Station Access £0.55m Pipeline South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive BRT (N) £8.92m Pipeline Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council A635 (AT) £2.14m Pipeline South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive A630 Bus Improvements £1.6m Pipeline Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Barnsley - Doncaster Quality Bus Corridor South £3.89m Pipeline
Page 189 Page Sheffield City Council City Centre Cycling / Cross City Bus £15.53m Pipeline Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council DMBC Station Access £5.88m Pipeline Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Doncaster Urban Centre £5.66m Pipeline South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive Don-DSA / Iport £5.46m Pipeline Sheffield City Council Kelham £11.31m Pipeline Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council M18 J3 £4.95m Pipeline South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive Magna Tram Train £5.4m Pipeline Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Manvers Way £0.4m Pipeline Sheffield City Council Nether Edge Wedge £8.71m Pipeline South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive Parkgate (PT) £11.55m Pipeline Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Doncaster Road, Dalton £1.2m Pipeline Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Rotherham Town Centre (AT) £9.31m Pipeline South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive Rail Station Improvements £3.45m Pipeline Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Unity (AT) £3.55m Pipeline
Timescale: 2020-2023 Geography covered: South Yorkshire Description: Deliver a series of interventions that contribute towards the SCR’s objective to improve intra-city region connections that either - (i) connect areas of deprivation/transport poverty to areas of economic opportunity by public transport and active travel modes; or (ii) seek to achieve significant mode shift away from the private car on key corridors and in areas where future growth ambitions and improved health and air quality would otherwise be compromised Target Beneficiaries: Cyclists Pedestrians Public transport users Outcomes: All projects are currently in pipeline. However, contracts have been issued to enable release of development costs with the sole output being the submission of an Outline Business Case. The outputs and outcomes will be updated as the projects progress through the SCR Assurance Framework.
Project Outcomes Baseline % Progress Outline Business Cases Produced 25 4% Full Business Cases Produced 47 0%
Page 190 Page Executive Board: Transport - Transforming Cities Fund - Tranche 2
This Quarter: Q2 2020/21
Financial Progress
Pending £80,000,000 Transforming Cities Fund - Tranche 2 - Funding Profile £1 Department for Transport Funding In Contract Contract Total Complete In Delivery Pending Contract Pipeline Projects (No.) 26 0 0 0 26 £164,008,716 £0 £0 £70,000,000 TCF - Tranche 2 (£) £164,008,716 £0 £0 £0 £164,008,716 £1 £60,000,000 £1 Transforming Cities Fund - Tranche Financial Year Claimed to Date Total £50,000,000 2 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28+ Baseline £19,563,313 £69,720,260 £58,180,226 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £147,463,799 £40,000,000 £1 Actual to Date £694,386 £694,386 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £694,386 Forecast £5,291,677 £59,392,197 £89,733,660 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £154,417,534 £30,000,000 £0 Variance -£13,577,250 -£10,328,063 £31,553,434 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £7,648,121 % Progress 4%0%0%----- 0% £20,000,000 £0 £10,000,000 Financial Progress Comments: 28 contracts were drafted regarding Stage 1 development costs, totalling £2.9m. An initial programme review completed in Q2, as a result 1 package was withdrawn and another 2 merged therefore there are now 26 packages, 25 requiring £0 £0 stage 1 contracts; 15 are now signed, 10 are not yet signed. Q2 noted receipt of claims valuing £694k, with updated forecasts now noting underspend of £13.5m against the 2020/21 spend target. 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23
Baseline Actual to Date
Outputs / Outcomes
Outline Business Case Complete Full Business Case Complete Financial Year 30 50 This Quarter Total 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28+ 45 25 40 Outline Business Case Complete Baseline -196000000 25 35 20 Actual to Date 01000000 0 1 Forecast 186000000 24 30 Variance -0000000 0 0 15 25 % Progress - 5%0%------4% 47 24 20 Full Business Case Complete 10 Baseline -73460000 0 47 15 Actual to Date 00000000 0 0 Forecast 73460000 0 47 10 5 Variance -0000000 0 0 % Progress - 0%0%0%----- 0% 5 0 1
Page 191 Page 0 0 Actual to Date Remaining Total Actual to Date Remaining Total Outputs / Outcomes Comments: The sole output of the Stage 1 Grant Letters is submission of an Outline Business Case in line with the baseline date. The inclusion of the baselines regarding "Full Business Case Complete" is for information purposes only. Once the Project Stages projects begin to reach Full Approval the outputs/outcomes will reflect agreed delivery targets specific to the works. As at the end of Q2, 1 Outline Business Case (OBC) has been submitted. Following the initial programme review, change control was required regarding OBC submission dates, as a result 13 OBCs are now profiled to be submitted by the conclusion of Q3. 30 £180,000,000 £164,008,716
26 £160,000,000 Risk Log 25
£140,000,000 Likelihood Impact Score Risk No. Risk Event Consequence Mitigation (1-5) (1-5) (1-25)
Management action has commenced 20 £120,000,000 Delays to delivery of works and via an initial programme review, with a Impact of pandemic on ability to 1 thereby outcomes as a result of the second review pending in Q4. This 45 20 deliver the works by March 2023 issues caused will inform further remedial action to be outlined at a future date. £100,000,000 15 Ongoing communication with scheme promoters to understand risks/issues, Inadequate resources to enable Inability to meet DfT spend or £80,000,000 2 and where additional resources can 45 20 successful programme delivery outputs/outcomes targets be secured to facilitate programme delivery. 10 £60,000,000 Ongoing review of risks/subsequent changes required and the process to Inability to delivery programme, Changes required will not be able to formalise these. Strong relationships 3 reduction to outputs/outcomes, not 34 12 £40,000,000 be accomodated with scheme promoters and the DfT to meeting spend targets embed this and/or adjust the 5 programme. £0 £20,000,000
£0 Risk Assessment Risk Assessment Comments: 0 0 0 A programme review commenced in Q2 and resulted in significantly reduced forecast spend and changes to Outline Business Case submission dates. Current forecasts indicate an 0 £0 £0 Complete In Delivery Pending Contract Pipeline R inability to deliver the programme in full by March 2023 and management actions are ongoing to address this. A further review will be completed in Q4 to assess progress to inform a remedial plan. Although contracts have been released for the development costs, 10 are yet to be signed. Given the risk assessment, a Red rating has been applied. This page is intentionally left blank SCR TRANSPORT PROGRAMME GLOSSARY Appendix 3a
Scheme Name: Emergency Active Travel Fund (Phase 1) Funder: Department for Transport Programme value: £1.401m Deliverers and Contract Promoter Projects Funding Status Values: Sheffield City Council Emergency Active Travel Programme (SCC) £584k Pending Contract Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Emergency Active Travel Programme (DMBC) £311k In Delivery Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Emergency Active Travel Programme (RMBC) £265k In Delivery Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Emergency Active Travel Programme (BMBC) £241k In Delivery
Timescale: 2020/21 Geography covered: South Yorkshire Description: The programme is targeted on - (i) closing roads to through traffic (ii) installing segregated cycle lanes (iii) widening pavements (iv) engaging with employers with information and measures to support active travel (v) reducing speed limits (vi) creating pop-up features such as park and ride and temporary cycle parking
Page 193 Page Target Beneficiaries: Cyclists Pedestrians Public transport users Outcomes: Project Outcomes Baseline % Progress Route length (km) 24.79 0%
This page is intentionally left blank Executive Board: Transport - Emergency Active Travel Fund (Phase 1)
This Quarter: Q2 2020/21
Financial Progress
Indicative Local Growth Fund Pending Allocation In Contract Contract Total Complete In Delivery Pending Contract Pipeline Emergency Active Transport Fund ‐ Phase 1 ‐ Funding Profile Projects (No.) 403 1 0 £1,401,000 £817,000 £584,000 £1,600,000 EATF - Phase 1 (£) £1,401,000 £0 £817,000 £584,000 £0 £1,401,000 £1,400,000 Emergency Active Travel Fund - Financial Year Claimed to Date Total Capital 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28+ Capital - Baseline £603,000 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £603,000 £1,200,000 Capital - Actual to Date £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Capital - Forecast £603,000 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £603,000 Capital - Variance £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 % Progress 0%------0% £1,000,000 Emergency Active Travel Fund - Financial Year Claimed to Date Total Revenue 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28+ £798,000 Revenue - Baseline £798,000 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £798,000 £800,000 Revenue - Actual to Date £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Revenue - Forecast £798,000 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £798,000 £603,000 Revenue - Variance £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £600,000 % Progress 0%------0% Emergency Active Travel Fund - Financial Year Claimed to Date Total Total 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28+ £400,000 Capital + Revenue - Baseline £1,401,000 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £1,401,000 Capital + Revenue - Actual to Date £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Capital + Revenue - Forecast £1,401,000 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £1,401,000 £200,000 Capital + Revenue - Variance £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 % Progress 0%------0% £0 £0 £0 £0 Financial Progress Comments: 2020/21 4 Active Travel Programmes are included across Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield. Full grant spend is anticipated as works are now complete. The activity was adapted during delivery in line with it's emergency nature, therefore change control is underway to formalise reconciled performance data across the EATF Phase 1 programme. Once the change control is complete, 4 revised contracts will be issued for signature to enable payment of claims. Capital ‐ Baseline Capital ‐ Actual to Date Revenue ‐ Baseline Revenue ‐ Actual to Date Capital + Revenue ‐ Baseline Capital + Revenue ‐ Actual to Date
Outputs / Outcomes
Route Length (km) 30.00 Page 195 Page Financial Year This Quarter Total 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28+ 25.00 Route Length (km) Baseline - 24.79 000000 024.79 20.00 Actual to Date 0.00 0.00 000000 0 0.00 Forecast 24.79 000000 024.79 Variance - 0.00 000000 0 0.00 15.00 % Progress - 0%------0% 24.79 10.00
Outputs / Outcomes Comments: 5.00 All activity is now complete and it is forecast that the overall objectives of the investment will be met. Change control is underway to reflect adaptations made during delivery in line with the emergency nature of the funding. 0.00 0.00 Actual to Date Remaining Total
Project Stages Risk Log 4 £900,000
£817,000 Likelihood Impact Score 3 £800,000 3 Risk No. Risk Event Consequence Mitigation (1-5) (1-5) (1-25) Ongoing collaboration with scheme £700,000 Funding at risk, potential under promoters to ensure changes are in £584,000 1 Change control not approved performance against investment line with investment objectives. 13 33 objectives Robust review process due to £600,000 commence. Scheme promoters have confirmed that the programme has spent in full. 2 £500,000 Inability to meet spend target and Change control is underway to enable 2 Funding not claimed in full 13 3 funding to be returned to DfT revised contracts to be issued and claims paid in line with the adjustments 2 £400,000 made during delivery. Robust consultation ongoing to review The impact of the phase 1 Potential impact on phase 2 scope of impact of phase 1 and revise potential £300,000 3 programme works is minimal and not 23 6 1 activity/spend phase 2 works in line with lessons 1 in line with investment objectives learnt £200,000
1 Risk Assessment Risk Assessment Comments: £100,000 Programme works are complete and forecasts indicate spend in full. Change control is required across the programme to reconcile final performance data and enable submission of £0 AG claims. RAG rating Amber Green is to reflect that 1 of the initial contracts was not signed by the scheme promoter, as well as change control requirements. 0 £0 0 0 £0 Complete In Delivery Pending Contract Pipeline This page is intentionally left blank SCR TRANSPORT BOARD PROGRAMME GLOSSARY Appendix 4a
Scheme Name: Access Fund for Sustainable Travel 2017-2020 Funder: Department for Transport Programme value: £7,425,000 Deliverers and Contract Promoter Projects Funding Status Values: Sheffield City Council Access Fund for Sustainable Travel £2,205,146 In Delivery Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Access Fund for Sustainable Travel £1,223,659 In Delivery Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Access Fund for Sustainable Travel £780,189 In Delivery Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Access Fund for Sustainable Travel £712,477 In Delivery South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive Access Fund for Sustainable Travel £2,503,020 In Delivery
Timescale: 2017-2020 Geography covered: South Yorkshire Description: The aim of the Access Fund for Sustainable Travel is to - increase the level of active travel (walking and cycling), through various methods, including the provision of cycling training, cycle maintenance checks, cycle loans and Walking Boost events assist individuals in accessing work and training through the provision of Job Connector bus services and the loan of scooters through the Wheels 2 Work scheme
Page 197 Page increase the independence of young people and adults with learning disabilities through the provision of independent travel training reduce fleet vehicles emissions, by enrolling businesses in the ECO Stars programme Target Beneficiaries: Individuals engaging in, or interested in engaging in, active travel (walking and cycling), including via schools and workplaces Young people and adults with learning disabilities seeking greater independence via travel training Individuals seeking to access work or training via the loan of Wheels 2 Work scooters Individuals seeking to access work or via job connector bus services Businesses seeking to reduce emission via the ECO Stars scheme Outcomes: 3 Year Programme Targets Work Package Project Outcomes Baseline % Progress Cycle Boosts Individuals Receiving Cycle Training 5,975 296% Cycle Boosts Cycle Loans (Regular or Electric) 2,080 126% In School Active Travel Schools Engaged in Active Travel Sessions (Walking or Cycling) 426 93% Cycle Boosts Cycles Checked/Serviced 8,679 71% Wheels 2 Work Wheels to Work Scooter Loans 450 116% Job Connector Passengers on Job Connector Bus Services 36,300 27% ECO Stars Number of Vehicles Receiving an ECO Stars Rating 500 392% Independent Travel Training Learning Disabled Young People and Adults Receiving Independent Travel Training 240 163% Cycle Boosts Number of Individuals Engaged at Cycle Safety Event 9,850 157% Walking Boosts Walking Boost Participants 2,274 135%
This page is intentionally left blank Executive Board: Transport - Access Fund for Sustainable Travel 2017-2020 This Quarter: Q2 2020-21
Financial Progress
Access Fund for Sustainable Travel - Funding Profile Department for Transport (DfT) Pending Pending £3,000,000 £8,000,000 Funding In Contract Contract Total Complete In delivery Contract Pipeline Projects (No.) 5050 0 £7,425,000 £7,424,491 £0 £7,000,000 DfT Funding (£) £7,424,491 £0 £7,424,491 £0 £0 £2,500,000 £6,000,000 Claimed To £2,000,000 Financial Year Date Total £5,000,000 DfT Funding 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30 Baseline 0 0 2,475,000 2,475,000 2,475,000 0 0 0 7,425,000 £1,500,000 £4,000,000 Actual to Date £7,195,833 0 0 2,475,000 2,468,841 2,251,992 0 0 0 7,195,833 Forecast 0 0 0 0 228,658 0 0 0 228,658 £3,000,000 £1,000,000 Variance 0 0 0 -6,159 5,650 0 0 0 -509 % Progress - - 100% 100% 91% - - - 97% £2,000,000 £500,000 £1,000,000 Financial Progress Comments: Activity is complete and remaining grant is due to be claimed for activity that concluded in March 2020. Grant of £7.19m has been claimed to date and scheme promoters are due to submit claims against accruals totalling £228,658. £0 £0 Unspent grant of £509 against a target spend of £7.425m will be rolled into the 2020/21 Access Fund programme. Claims remain outstanding at Q2. 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30 Baseline Actual to Date Cumulative (B) Cumulative (A)
Outputs / Outcomes
Individuals Cycle Loans Schools Engaged in Cycles Wheels to Work Financial Year Receiving Cycle (Regular or Electric) Active Travel Checked/Serviced Scooter Loans This Quarter Total 18,000 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30 Training 2,750 Sessions (Walking 10,000 600 or Cycling) Individuals Receiving Cycle Training 450 Baseline - 0 0 2,125 2,925 925 0 0 0 5,975 16,000 2,500 9,000 Actual to Date - 0 0 3,697 7,979 5,982 0 0 0 17,658 31 500 Forecast 0 0000000 0 2,250 400 Variance g - 0 0 1,572 5,054 5,057 0 0 0 11,683 8,000 0 0 1 572 5 054 5 057 0 0 0 11 683 14,000 % Progress - - - 174% 273% 647% - - - 296% 2,504 2,000 Cycle Loans (Regular or Electric) 350 7,000 Baseline - 0 0 520 780 780 0 0 0 2,080 12,000 400 Actual to Date - 0 0 749 849 1,023 0 0 0 2,621 1,750 Forecast 0 0000000 0 300 6,000 Variance - 0 0 229 69 243 0 0 0 541 10,000 % Progress - - - 144% 109% 131% - - - 126% 1,500 250 5,000 300 Schools Engaged in Active Travel Sessions (Walking or Cycling) 17,658 2,621 Baseline - 0 0 130 142 154 0 0 0 426 8,000 1,250 523 Actual to Date - 0 0 146 215 34 0 0 0 395 200 395 4,000 Forecast 0 0 0 0 114 0 0 0 114 Variance 1,000 -0 0 1673 -6 000 836,000 200 % Progress - - - 112% 151% 22% - - - 93% 150 3,000 6,175 Cycles Checked/Serviced 750 Baseline - 0 0 2,143 2,893 3,643 0 0 0 8,679 4,000 Actual to Date - 0 0 1,686 3,249 1,240 0 0 0 6,175 100 2,000 Forecast 0 0 0 0 2,446 0 0 0 2,446 500 100 Variance - 0 0 -457 356 43 0 0 0 -58 % Progress - - - 79% 112% 34% - - - 71% 2,000 50 1,000 250 Wheels to Work Scooter Loans Baseline - 0 0 150 150 150 0 0 0 450 0 0 0 Actual to Date - 0 0 220 168 135 0 0 0 523 0 0 Remaining Total Remaining Total Remaining Total Remaining Total Forecast 0 0000000 0 Remaining Total Variance - 0 0 70 18 -15 000 73 Actual to Date Actual to Date Actual to Date Actual to Date Actual to Date % Progress - - - 147% 112% 90% - - - 116% Page 199 Page Passengers on Job Connector Bus Services (per week) Passengers on Job Number of Vehicles Learning Disabled Number of Walking Boost 40,000 Baseline - 0 0 11,550 12,100 12,650 0 0 0 36,300 Connector Bus Receiving an ECO Young People and Individuals Engaged Participants Forecast - 0 0 0 4,899 4,991 0 0 0 9,890 Services (per week) Stars Rating Adults Receiving at Cycle Safety 3,500 Actual to Date 0 0000000 0 Independent Travel Event Variance g - 0 0 -11,550 -7,201 -7,659 000-26,410 0 0 11 550 7 201 7 659 0 0 0 26 410 35,000 Training 16,000 % Progress - - - 0% 40% 39% - - - 27% 2,000 400 Number of Vehicles Receiving an ECO Stars Rating 3,000 Baseline - 0 0 500 00000500 14,000 30,000 Actual to Date - 0 0 1,053 905 00001,958 350 Forecast 0 0000000 0 Variance -0055390500001,458 2,500 % Progress - - - 211% -----392% 12,000 25,000 1,500 300 Learning Disabled Young People and Adults Receiving Independent Travel Training Baseline - 0 0 80 80 80 0 0 0 240 26,410 10,000 2,000 Actual to Date - 0 0 165 80 147 0 0 0 392 250 Forecast 0 0000000 020,000 Variance - 0 0 85 0 67 0 0 0 152 8,000 % Progress - - - 206% 100% 184% - - - 163% 15,501 1,000 1,958 200 392 1,500 3,067 Number of Individuals Engaged at Cycle Safety Event 15,000 Baseline - 0 0 2,600 3,250 4,000 0 0 0 9,850 Actual to Date - 0 0 1,783 7,624 6,094 0 0 0 15,501 150 6,000 Forecast 0 0000000 0 1,000 Variance - 0 0 -817 4,374 2,094 0 0 0 5,651 10,000 % Progress - - - 69% 235% 152% - - - 157% 500 100 4,000 Walking Boost Participants Baseline - 0 0 758 758 758 0 0 0 2,274 500 5,000 Actual to Date - 0 0 387 1,577 1,103 0 0 0 3,067 9,890 50 2,000 Forecast 0 0 0 0 150 0 0 0 150 Variance -0 0-371 819 495 0 0 0 943 % Progress - - - 51% 208% 146% - - - 135% 0 0 0 0 0 Remaining Total Remaining Total Remaining Total Remaining Total Remaining Total Outputs / Outcomes Comments: Actual to Date Actual to Date Actual to Date Actual to Date Actual to Date Additional outputs/outcomes also delivered or anticipated to be delivered by the programme, but ten have been selected for the purpose of brevity, and to demonstrate the diversity of interventions offered by the programme.. A small proportion of the performance data is due to be finalised during 2020/21 therefore the final outturn position for outputs/outcomes is pending conclusion. Performance to date indicates excellent performance overall. 6 Project Stages £8,000,000 £7,424,491
5 £7,000,000 Risk Log 5
£6,000,000 Likelihood Impact Score Risk No. Risk Event Consequence Mitigation (1-5) (1-5) (1-25) 4 Remedial plans were enacted to £5,000,000 enable partial activity to continue The impact of covid-19 affects the Underperformance against objectives within the government guidelines 1 ability to deliver the programme 22 4 and loss of funding to the region throughout March 2020. The activity 3 £4,000,000 objectives has now concluded and it is now a case of collating remaining outcomes £3,000,000 Scheme promoters have advised Loss of delivery staff result in delay in 2 reasons for delays and adjusted 2 claiming remaining programme Under performance against DfT bid 13 3 timeframes for submission of spend £2,000,000 outstanding claims. 1 £0 £1,000,000 Risk Assessment Risk Assessment Comments: £0 0 0 0 Risk assessment based on strong delivery performance and a timeframe agreed to finalise outturn on claims and outputs/outcomes. Liaisons with DfT reinforce that overall 0 £0 AG programme objectives have been met and the £509 underspend can be utilised against the 2020/21 Access Fund Programme. Risk rating increased to Amber Green given Complete In delivery Pending Contract Pipeline claims remain outstanding at Q2. This page is intentionally left blank SCR TRANSPORT BOARD PROGRAMME GLOSSARY Appendix 5a
Scheme Name: Access Fund for Sustainable Travel 2020/21 Funder: Department for Transport Programme value: £2,475,509 Deliverers and Contract Promoter Projects Funding Status Values: Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Access Fund for Sustainable Travel 2020/21 £205,863 Pending Contract Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Access Fund for Sustainable Travel 2020/21 £414,282 Pending Contract Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Access Fund for Sustainable Travel 2020/21 £288,879 Pending Contract Sheffield City Council Access Fund for Sustainable Travel 2020/21 £695,361 Pending Contract South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive Access Fund for Sustainable Travel 2020/21 £870,615 Pending Contract
Timescale: 2020-2021 Geography covered: South Yorkshire Description: The aim of the Access Fund for Sustainable Travel is to: Increase the level of active travel (walking and cycling), through various methods, including the provision of cycling training, cycle maintenance checks, cycle loans and Walking Boost events Assist individuals in accessing work and training through the provision of Job Connector bus services, the loan of scooters through the Wheels 2 Work scheme and the direct engagement of businesses with active travel support Increase the independence of young people and adults with learning disabilities through the provision of independent travel training
Page 201 Page Target Beneficiaries: Individuals engaging in, or interested in engaging in, active travel (walking and cycling), including via schools and workplaces Young people and adults with learning disabilities seeking greater independence via travel training Individuals seeking to access work or training via the loan of Wheels 2 Work scooters Individuals seeking to access work or via job connector bus services
Outcomes: 1 Year Programme Targets Work Package Project Outcomes Baseline % Progress Cycle Boost Individuals Receiving Cycle Training 3,375 0% Cycle Boost Cycle Loans 780 0% Cycle Boost Cycles Checked / Serviced 1,450 0% Cycle Boost Number of Individuals Engaged at Cycle Safety Events 3,750 0% Walk Boost Number of Walk Boost Participants 1,333 0% In School Active Travel Schools Engaged with Active Travel Promotion / Training 205 0% Wheels 2 Work Scooter Loans 250 0% Job Connector Average Weekly Passenger Number on Service 5,485 0% Business Engagement Number of Workplaces Engaged 300 0% Independent Travel Training Learning Disabled Young People and Adults Receiving Independent Travel Training 150 0%
This page is intentionally left blank b` Transport - Access Fund for Sustainable Travel 2020/21 This Quarter: Q2 2020/21
Financial Progress
Department for Transport (DfT) Pending Access Fund for Sustainable Travel - Funding Profile £3,000,000 £3,000,000 Funding In Contract Contract Total Complete In delivery Pending Contract Pipeline Projects (No.) 5005 0 £0 £2,475,000 £2,475,509 DfT Funding (£) £2,475,000 £0 £0 £2,475,000 £0 £2,500,000 £2,500,000
Claimed To Financial Year Date Total £2,000,000 £2,000,000 DfT Funding 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28+ Baseline 2,475,000 00000002,475,000 Actual to Date £0 00000000 0 £1,500,000 £1,500,000 Forecast 2,475,000 00000002,475,000 Variance 00000000 0 % Progress 0------0% £1,000,000 £1,000,000
Financial Progress Comments: £500,000 £500,000 Total DfT allocation includes £509 carried over from previous STAF programme, which will be allocated to a project as part of future change control. Under-performance in terms of spend and delivery is noted due to the impact of COVID-19. Reported spend during Q2 was lower than originally projected at £264,941, and given no contracts were signed during this period, has not been included in the Claimed/Actual to Date amount. 2 contracts have since been signed. Scheme promoters are currently completing a reprofiling exercise to confirm anticipated spend for the remainder of the year, highlighting any potential slippage into 2021/22. It is anticipated that change control may be required as a result of this exercise. £0 £0 DfT have provided initial indicative feedback that changes may be accomodated due to the impact of COVID-19 nationally. If agreed, revised contracts will be issued. 2020/21 2021/22 Baseline Actual to Date Cumulative (B) Cumulative (A)
Outputs / Outcomes
Cycle Boost - Individuals Cycle Boost - Cycle Cycle Boost - Cycles Cycle Boost - Number of Walk Boost - Number of Financial Year Receiving Cycle Training Loans Checked / Serviced Individuals Engaged at Walk Boost Participants This Quarter Total 4,000 900 1,600 Cycle Safety Events 1,400 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28+ 4,000 Cycle Boost - Individuals Receiving Cycle Training 800 Baseline - 3,375 00000003,375 3,500 1,400 Actual to Date 000000000 0 3,500 1,200 Forecast 3,375 00000003,375 Variance g - 0 0000000 0 3 375 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 375 700 % Progress - 0% ------0%3,000 1,200 3,000 1,000 Cycle Boost - Cycle Loans Baseline -7800000000780 600 Actual to Date 000000000 0 1,000 2,500 2,500 Forecast 7800000000780 800 Variance -00000000 0 500 % Progress - 0%------0% 2,000 800 Cycle Boost - Cycles Checked / Serviced 2,000 1,333 1,450 3,750 Baseline - 1,450 00000001,450 400 600 Actual to Date 000000000 0 3,375 780 Forecast 1,450 00000001,450 1,500 600 1,500 Variance -00000000 0 % Progress - 0%------0% 300 400 Cycle Boost - Number of Individuals Engaged at Cycle Safety Events 400 Baseline - 3,750 00000003,750 1,000 1,000 Actual to Date 000000000 0 200 Forecast 3,750 00000003,750 Variance 200 -00000000 0500 200 500 % Progress - 0%------0% 100 Walk Boost - Number of Walk Boost Participants Baseline - 1,333 00000001,333 0 0 0 0 0 0 Actual to Date 000000000 0 0 0 0 Remaining Total Remaining0 Total Forecast 1,333 00000001,333 Remaining Total Remaining Total Remaining Total Variance -00000000 0 Actual to Date Actual to Date Actual to Date Actual to Date Actual to Date % Progress - 0%------0% Wheels 2 Work - Scooter Job Connector - Average Business Engagement - In School Active Travel - Schools Engaged with Active Travel Promotion / Training In School Active Travel - Independent Travel 250 Schools Engaged with Loans Weekly Passenger Number of Workplaces Training - Learning Baseline -2050000000205 Number on Service Engaged Forecast 000000000 0 Active Travel Promotion / 300 Disabled Young People Actual to Date 2050000000205 Training 6,000 350 and Adults Receiving Independent Travel Variance g - 0 0000000 0 205 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 205 Training % Progress - 0%------0% 160 Wheels 2 Work - Scooter Loans 200 250 300 Baselin203 Page e -2500000000250 5,000 Actual to Date 000000000 0 140 Forecast 2500000000250 Variance -00000000 0 250 % Progress - 0%------0% 200 4,000 120 Job Connector - Average Weekly Passenger Number on Service 150 Baseline - 5,485 00000005,485 Actual to Date 000000000 0 200 100 Forecast 5,485 00000005,485 150 Variance - 0 0000000 0 3,000 % Progress - 0% ------0% 5,485 80 100 205 250 150 300 Business Engagement - Number of Workplaces Engaged 150 Baseline -3000000000300 Actual to Date 000000000 0 100 2,000 60 Forecast 3000000000300 100 Variance -00000000 0 % Progress - 0%------0% 40 50 Independent Travel Training - Learning Disabled Young People and Adults Receiving Independent Travel Training 50 1,000 Baseline -1500000000150 50 Actual to Date 000000000 0 20 Forecast 1500000000150 Variance -00000000 0 % Progress - 0%------0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Remaining Total Remaining Total Remaining Total Remaining Total Outputs / Outcomes Comments: Remaining Total Actual to Date Actual to Date Actual to Date Actual to Date Actual to Date Due to COVID-19, delivery of the programme has been severly curtailed during the first half of the year. Nevertheless, some activity has been delivered during this time, although promoters have not yet been able to confirm quantified outputs associated with this activity. It is anticipated this detail should become available in Q3, as part of a wider review of the programme, where the impact of COVID-19 on delivery is being further assessed. This may result in the need for formal change control and agreement by DfT. Project Stages 6 £3,000,000
£2,475,000 Risk Log
5 Likelihood Impact Score 5 £2,500,000 Risk No. Risk Event Consequence Mitigation (1-5) (1-5) (1-25)
Promoters monitoring impact of COVID- 19, and reprofiling projected delivery Programme unable to deliver during Q3. Change control will be anticipated outputs and outcomes due 1 Under performance against DfT bid. followed if required. DfT also actively 34 12 to the pandemic, including due to engaged to understand implications of 4 £2,000,000 reduced demand. slippage beyond current year and scope for programme level extension.
Promoters monitoring impact of COVID- 19, and reprofiling projected delivery 3 £1,500,000 during Q3. Change control will be Programme unable to spend and claim Under performance against DfT bid, 2 followed if required. DfT also actively 34 12 all funding in-year due to COVID-19. with potential for funding clawback. engaged to understand implications of slippage beyond current year and scope for programme level extension.
The 2020 Spending Review did confirm 2 £1,000,000 government has nationally provided Revenue-based funding is not yet £257 million for cycling and walking in confirmed beyond March 2021. 2021-22, part of the Prime Minister’s Therefore risk that it will not be possible £2 billion commitment to cycling and Inability to secure additional funding to continue projects beyond this date, walking. 3 33 9 beyond 2020/21. resulting in a potential break in service until funding can be secured. Any such MCA will work with promoters to ensure 1 £500,000 loss of momentum creates risk to any new opportunities are project delivery 'on the ground'. communicated quickly and efficiently, with a view to securing any available funding for the region. £0 £0 0 0 0 Risk Assessment Risk Assessment Comments: 0 £0 £0 The impact of the pandemic has already been significant on the programme, and due to delivery being required over only a one year timescale, there is limited scope for slippage and Complete In delivery Pending Contract Pipeline recovery. Consequently scheme promoters are currently reprofiling projections for delivery and spend during Q3 to confirm whether change control is required. DfT agreement will be AR required, though they have provided initial indicative feedback that changes may be accomodated due to the impact of COVID-19 nationally. No contracts were signed during Q2 or claims received, however 2 contracts have since been returned. An Amber/Red rating has therefore been applied. This page is intentionally left blank SCR TRANSPORT BOARD PROGRAMME GLOSSARY Appendix 6a
Scheme Name: Transport - Local Growth Fund Funder: Local Growth Fund Programme value: £71,774,835(includes ringfenced £40,161,000 for Retained Major Scheme) Deliverers and Contract Promoter Projects Funding Status Values: Sheffield City Council Sustainable Transport Exemplar Programme £10,507,017 Complete South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive Sustainable Transport Exemplar Programme £3,740,268 Complete South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive Supertram Renewals £3,000,000 Complete Sheffield City Region Market Harborough Line Speed Improvements £5,000,000 Complete Sheffield City Region Strategic Testing Tools £1,907,388 In Delivery Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council A630 Westmoor Link £5,000,000 In Delivery Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Greasbrough Corridor Improvements £2,459,163 Pending Contract Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Waverley Link Road A630 £40,161,000 Ringfenced (Pending Contract)
Timescale: 2015-2022 Geography covered: South Yorkshire Description: A series of transport interventions developed to provide the enabling infrastructure to support Sheffield City Region’s growth ambitions and to enhance the quality of life for existing residents, employees and employers whilst also adding to the attraction for potential movement
Page 205 Page and investment into the area. Target Beneficiaries: Public transport users Highway users Pedestrians Cyclists Outcomes: Project Outcomes Baseline % Progress Length of road resurfaced (km) 2.39 0% New cycle ways (km) 44 100% Commercial floorspace created (sqm) 720,000 0%
The programme also has outcomes outside of the LGF metric definitions, including –
Supertram rails replaced (km) 3.3 100% Enhanced Midlands Mainline 1 100% Land use modelling tool 1 100% Transport modelling tool 1 0%
This page is intentionally left blank Executive Board: Transport - Local Growth Fund
This Quarter: Q2 2020/21
Financial Progress
Indicative Local Growth Fund Pending £14,000,000 Local Growth Fund - Funding Profile £35,000,000 Allocation In Contract Contract Total Complete In Delivery Pending Contract Pipeline Projects (No.) 7421 0 £71,774,835 £29,154,672 £2,459,163 £31,613,835 Local Growth Fund (£) £31,613,835 £22,247,285 £6,907,388 £2,459,163 £0 £12,000,000 £30,000,000
£10,000,000 £26,717,561£25,000,000 Financial Year Claimed to Date Total Local Growth Fund 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30 Baseline £3,075,000 £7,934,114 £12,419,613 £535,760 £2,500,000 £5,149,349 £0 £0 £31,613,835 £8,000,000 £20,000,000 Actual to Date £26,717,561 £3,075,000 £7,934,114 £12,419,613 £535,760 £2,732,779 £20,296 £0 £0 £26,717,561 Forecast £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £3,706,384 £1,050,000 £0 £4,756,384 £6,000,000 £15,000,000 Variance £0 £0 £0 £0 £232,779 -£1,422,669 £1,050,000 £0 -£139,890 % Progress 100% 100% 100% 100% 109% 0% - - 85% £4,000,000 £10,000,000
Financial Progress Comments: The 'Indicative Local Growth Fund Allocation' includes £40.1m which is ringfenced for the retained majors scheme 'Waverley Link Road A630' and this has not been incorporated into the financial progress section. The remaining £2,000,000 £5,000,000 programme comprises of a further seven projects: 'Sustainable Transport Exemplar Programme (STEP) - SYPTE', 'Sustainable Transport Exemplar Programme (STEP) - SCC', 'Supertram Renewals', 'Market Harborough Line Speed Improvements', 'Strategic Testing Tools', 'Greasbrough Corridor Improvements', and 'A630 Westmoor Link'. The first four of these projects are now complete. 'Strategic Testing Tools' and 'A630 Westmoor Link' are due to complete in £0 £0 2020/21 with the latter noting accelerated spend in 2019/20. The scope and cost of 'Greasborough Corridor Improvements' has been reduced and was approved by the MCA during Q2, change control has since commenced which notes 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30 £1.05m spend rolled into 2021/22.
Baseline Actual to Date Cumulative (B) Cumulative (A)
Outputs / Outcomes
Length of Road Resurfaced (km) New Cycle Ways (km) Commercial floorspace created (sqm) Financial Year 50 800,000 This Quarter Total 3 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30 45 0 700,000 Length of Road Resurfaced (km) 3 Baseline -0000002.39 0 2.39 40 Actual to Date -00000000 0 600,000 Forecast 0000002.39 0 2.39 35 Variance -00000000 0 2 % Progress ------0%-0% 500,000 30 New Cycle Ways (km) Baseline -013310000044 2 25 400,000 Actual to Date -013310000044 720,000 Forecast 00000000 0 44 2.39 20 Variance207 Page -00000000 0 300,000 % Progress - - 100% 100% - - - - - 100% 1 15 Commercial floorspace created (sqm) 200,000 Baseline -000000720,000 0 720,000 10 Actual to Date -00000000 0 1 Forecast 000000720,000 0 720,000 100,000 Variance -00000000 0 5 % Progress ------0%-0% 0 0 0 0 0 Actual to Date Remaining Total Actual to Date Remaining Total Actual to Date Remaining Total Outputs / Outcomes Comments: The outputs/outcomes captured above are the metric definitions for the Local Growth Fund. Additional outcomes include 3.3km of Supertram rails replaced, enhanced Midland Mainline and the creation of new land use and transport Project Stages models. 5 £25,000,000
4 £22,247,285 Risk Log 4 £20,000,000 4 Likelihood Impact Score Risk No. Risk Event Consequence Mitigation (1-5) (1-5) (1-25) Robust cost analysis in place with 3 scheme promoters building in 1 Increased project costs Need to source additional match 33 9 contingency to deal with unforeseen £15,000,000 costs 3 Robust cost analysis in place with Inability to deliver works or outcomes 2 Impact of pandemic on ability to scheme promoters, regular reviews by 2 2 to profile leading to loss of 33 9 delivery works and outcomes the MCA Executive to consider funding/reduce project viability £10,000,000 change control, if required 2 Regular monitoring is in place, as well Inability to deliver Greasbrough £6,907,388 Under performance against spend and as change control, to address any 3 Corridor Improvements in line with 44 16 1 delivery targets, unsucccessful project performance issues and agree a 1 £2,459,163 approvals £5,000,000 suitable remedial plan
1 £0 Risk Assessment Risk Assessment Comments: 0 The majority of the projects are financially complete, however 3 projects still have activity and spend to deliver during 2020/21. The remaining project in the pipeline was approved 0 £0 A during Q2 and has since commenced change control. Additionally, at Q2 only £20k has been claimed for 2020/21. On that basis a RAG rating of Amber has been applied. Complete In Delivery Pending Contract Pipeline This page is intentionally left blank SCR TRANSPORT BOARD PROGRAMME GLOSSARY Appendix 7a
Scheme Name: SCR Borrowing Funder: Borrowing Programme value: £26,712,378 Deliverers and Contract Promoter Projects Funding Status Values: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive Rotherham Interchange Redevelopment £11,866,000 In Delivery South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive Supertram Rail Replacement (Phase 2) £14,846,378 In Delivery
Timescale: 2018 - 2021 Geography covered: South Yorkshire Description: A series of transport interventions developed to provide the enabling infrastructure to support Sheffield City Region’s growth ambitions and to enhance the quality of life for existing residents, employees and employers whilst also adding to the attraction for potential movement and investment into the area. Target Beneficiaries: Public transport users Highway users Pedestrians Outcomes: Project Outcomes Baseline % Progress Fully operational interchange and car park 1 100%
Page 209 Page New rail track (km) 10 0%
This page is intentionally left blank Executive Board: Transport - Sheffield City Region (SCR) Borrowing
This Quarter: Q2 2020/21
Financial Progress
Pending £20,000,000.00 SCR Borrowing - Funding Profile £30,000,000.00 SCR Borrowing In Contract Contract Total Complete In delivery Pending Contract Pipeline Projects (No.) 2020 0 £26,712,378 £26,712,378 £0 £18,000,000.00 £26,712,378 SCR Borrowing (£) £26,712,378 £0 £26,712,378 £0 £0 £25,000,000.00 £16,000,000.00
Claimed To £14,000,000.00 Financial Year £20,000,000.00 Date Total SCR Borrowing 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30 £12,000,000.00 Baseline £0 £0 £0 £17,146,004 £6,109,506 £3,456,868 £0 £0 £26,712,378 £10,000,000.00 £15,000,000.00 Actual to Date £22,036,247 £0 £0 £0 £17,036,247 £5,000,000 £0 £0 £0 £22,036,247 Forecast £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £4,676,131 £0 £0 £4,676,131 £8,000,000.00 Variance £0 £0 £0 -£109,757 -£1,109,506 £1,219,263 £0 £0 £0 £10,000,000.00 % Progress - - - 99% 82% 0% - - 82% £6,000,000.00 £4,000,000.00 £5,000,000.00 Financial Progress Comments: £2,000,000.00 The programme is comprised of two projects: 'Supertram Rail Replacement (Phase 2)' and 'Rotherham Interchange Redevelopment'. £1.1m spend profiled from 2019/20 to 2020/21. No claims received this quarter despite an annual spend target of £4.6m. Although 'Rotherham Interchange Redevelopment' is substantially complete, it remains classed as 'in delivery', pending remaining funding being claimed. £- £- 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30
Baseline Actual to Date Cumulative (B) Cumulative (A)
Outputs / Outcomes
New Rail Track (km) Fully Operational Interchange and Car Park Financial Year 10 1 This Quarter Total 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30 9
New Rail Track (km) 8 Baseline -00000100010 7 Actual to Date -00000000 0 Forecast 00000100010 6 Variance -00000000 0 5 % Progress ------0%--0% 10 1 Fully Operational Interchange and Car Park 4 Baseline -00001000 1 3 Actual to Date -00001000 1 Forecast 00000000 0 2 Variance -00000000 0 1
% 211 Page Progress - - - - - 100% - - - 100% 0 0 0 Actual to Date Remaining Total Actual to Date Outputs / Outcomes Comments: Fully operational interchange and car park is the outcomes of Rotherham Interchange Redevelopment, which is now complete. The new rail track is the outcome of Supertram Rail Replacement (Phase 2) which is currently due to be Project Stages delivered during 2020/21. 3 £30,000,000
£26,712,378 Risk Log 2 £25,000,000 2
Likelihood Impact Score Risk No. Risk Event Consequence Mitigation (1-5) (1-5) (1-25) £20,000,000 Delays caused by the pandemic 2 prevent 'Supertram Rail Replacement Continual review of impact of The pandemic causes inability to (Phase 2)' project from being able to 1 pandemic on project and change 33 9 £15,000,000 complete projects complete delivery by originally agreed control available, if required. deadline, or within originally agreed 1 budget. £10,000,000 Promoter fails to claim remaining Project reports an underspend, Promoter continues to be engaged to 2 funding for 'Rotherham Interchange representing 1.7% of overall funding 12 2 ensure remaining funding claimed. Redevelopment' project. allocation. 1 £5,000,000 £0 £0 0 £0 0 0 Risk Assessment Risk Assessment Comments: 0 £0 Overall risk assessment based on one of the two projects that comprises this programme being complete and the second having already made substantial progress, despite this, Complete In delivery Pending Contract Pipeline AG significant claims are yet to be submitted for payment. This page is intentionally left blank SCR TRANSPORT BOARD PROGRAMME GLOSSARY Appendix 8a
Scheme Name: Transport Activity Funder: Department for Transport Programme value: £2,528,569 Deliverers and Contract Promoter Projects Funding Status Values: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive Low Emission Bus Scheme £1,293,638 Complete South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive Mass Transit Outline Business Case £534,931 In Delivery* Sheffield City Region Mass Transit Outline Business Case £200,000 In Delivery* South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive Clean Buses Technology Fund £500,000 Complete
*Contracts are financially complete, but remain classified as 'in delivery', as final version of OBC, the output associated with this activity, now not scheduled to be submitted to DfT until end of Q3 2020/21.
Timescale: 2017-2021 Geography covered: South Yorkshire Description: A series of revenue activity to facilitate enhanced transport interventions to support Sheffield City Region’s growth ambitions and to enhance the quality of life for existing residents, employees and employers whilst also adding to the attraction for potential movement and investment into the area. Target Beneficiaries: Public transport users
Page 213 Page Highway users Pedestrians Outcomes: Project Outcomes Baseline % Progress Low emission buses purchased 69 100% Production of outline business case 1 0%
This page is intentionally left blank Executive Board: Transport - Transport Activity
This Quarter: Q2 2020/21
Financial Progress
Pending Transport Activity - Funding Profile £1,600,000 £3,000,000.00 Department for Transport Funding In Contract Contract Total Complete In delivery Pending Contract Pipeline Projects (No.) 3210 0 £2,528,569 £2,528,569 £0 £1,400,000 DfT Funding (£) £2,528,569 £1,793,638 £734,931 £0 £0 £2,500,000.00 £1,200,000 Claimed To Financial Year £2,000,000.00 Date Total £1,000,000 DfT Funding 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30 Baseline £0 £500,000 £1,293,638 £630,331 £104,600 £0 £0 £0 £2,528,569 £800,000 £1,500,000.00 Actual to Date £2,528,569 £0 £500,000 £0 £505,824 £1,522,745 £0 £0 £0 £2,528,569 Forecast £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £600,000 Variance £0 £0 -£1,293,638 -£124,507 £1,418,145 £0 £0 £0 £0 £1,000,000.00 % Progress - 100% 0% 80% 1456% - - - 100% £400,000 £500,000.00 £200,000 Financial Progress Comments: The programme is comprised of three projects: 'SCR Mass Transit Outline Business Case (OBC)', 'Low Emission Bus Scheme', and 'Clean Bus Technology Fund'. All three projects are financially complete, although 'SCR Mass Transit Outline Business Case (OBC)' remains classed as 'in delivery', as final version of OBC now not anticipated to be submitted to DfT until end of Q3 2020/21. £0 £- 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30
Baseline Actual to Date Cumulative (B) Cumulative (A)
Outputs / Outcomes
Production of Outline Business Case Number of Low Emission Buses Financial Year 1 80 This Quarter Total 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30 70 0 1 Production of Outline Business Case Baseline -00010000 1 60 Actual to Date -00000000 0 1 Forecast 00000100 1 50 Variance -0 0 0 -1 0100 0 % Progress - ---0%----0% 1 40 Number of Low Emission Buses 1 69 30 Baseline -025044000069 0 Actual to Date - 0 25 0 18 26 0 0 0 69 Forecast 00000000 0 20 Variance -0 0 0 -26 26000 0 0 % Progress - - 100% - 41% - - - - 100% 10 Page 215 Page
0 0 0 Actual to Date Remaining Total Actual to Date Remaining Total Outputs / Outcomes Comments: SCR Mass Transit OBC anticipates completion of the delayed output during the current financial year. The remaining projects have achieved 100% of their outputs, with some ongoing reporting due to DfT on the Low Emission Bus Scheme. 3 Project Stages £2,000,000 £1,793,638 £1,800,000 Risk Log 2 2 £1,600,000
Likelihood Impact Score £1,400,000 Risk No. Risk Event Consequence Mitigation (1-5) (1-5) (1-25) Feedback sought from DfT during draft 2 £1,200,000 OBC rejected, resulting in no DfT 1 OBC produced is of poor quality stage of OBC to ensure suitable 15 5 funding. quality. £1,000,000 Large Local Major funding no longer Without an alternative funding source, Discussions ongoing with DfT to 1 2 25 10 available to finance plans in OBC. the project cannot be delivered. identify suitable funding source. 1 £800,000 £734,931
Patronage estimates included in OBC £600,000 Impact of the pandemic on Updated patronage estimates to be 3 no longer valid due to COVID-19's 22 4 deliverability commissioned and included in FBC. impact on public transport usage. 1 £400,000 £0 £200,000 £0 Risk Assessment Comments: 0 0 Risk Assessment 0 £0 Risk assesessment based on delays to delivery for one project, despite scheme promoter anticipating that the under performance will be mitigated during the current financial year. AG Complete In delivery Pending Contract Pipeline This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 16b
TRANSPORT BOARD
7 JANUARY 2021
SYPTE PERFORMANCE DASHBOARD
Purpose of Report
The report provides an update on the performance of key areas of SYPTE activity.
Freedom of Information
Item 16b Appendix 1 SYPTE Performance Dashboard January 2021 is exempt from publication under paragraph 3, part 1, section 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as it contains commercially sensitive information relating to discussions with commercial Bus Operators.
Recommendations
Board are asked to note the contents of this report.
1 Introduction
1.1 The Performance Dashboard for the key areas of SYPTE activity is attached for Members to review.
2 Proposal and justification
2.1 The attached Dashboard provides a summary of key performance measures and operational issues within SYPTE’s areas of activity.
3 Consideration of alternative approaches
3.1 Comments from Members are welcomed regarding the content for future Board meetings.
4 Implications
4.1 Financial Financial implications of the issues presented are captured in SYPTE’s Budget Management system.
4.2 Legal There are no direct Legal implications from the report recommendations.
4.3 Risk Management Risks on SYPTE activity are logged and monitored in SYPTE’s Risk Management system.
Page 217
4.4 Equality, Diversity and Social Inclusion None.
5 Communications
5.1 The report contains commercially sensitive information regarding discussions with Bus Operators and is not for public distribution.
6 Appendices/Annexes
6.1 Performance Dashboard attached as Appendix 1.
REPORT AUTHOR Stephen Edwards POST Executive Director
Organisation South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive Email [email protected] Telephone 0114 2211201
Background papers used in the preparation of this report are available for inspection at: 11 Broad Street West, Sheffield S1 2BQ: N/A
Other sources and references: N/A
Page 218 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 219 This page is intentionally left blank