Public Document Pack
Thursday, 17 October 2019
To: Members of the SCR - Transport Board and Appropriate Officers
You are invited to a meeting of the Sheffield City Regional Mayoral Combined Authority to be held at 11 Broad Street West, Sheffield S1 2BQ, on: Friday, 25 October 2019 at 10.00 am for the purpose of transacting the business set out in the agenda.
Dr Dave Smith Chief Executive
Member Distribution
Mayor Dan Jarvis (Chair) SCR Mayoral Combined Authority Councillor Chris Read (Vice-Chair) Rotherham MBC Councillor Dave Leech Barnsley MBC Councillor Joe Blackham Doncaster MBC Councillor Bob Johnson Sheffield City Council Stephen Edwards SYPTE Peter Kennan Private Sector LEP Board Member Alison Kinna Private Sector LEP Board Member Mark Lynam SCR Executive Team Sarah Norman Barnsley MBC
SCR - Transport Board
Friday, 25 October 2019 at 10.00 am
Venue: 11 Broad Street West, Sheffield S1 2BQ
Agenda
Agenda Subject Lead Page Ref No 1. Welcome and Apologies Mayor Dan Jarvis 2. Declarations of Interest by individual Members in Mayor Dan relation to any item of business on the agenda Jarvis
Declarations of Interest by individual Members in relation to any item of business on the agenda.
3. Urgent items / Announcements Mayor Dan Jarvis 4. Public Questions of Key Decisions Mayor Dan Jarvis 5. Minutes of the Previous Meeting Mayor Dan 5 - 12 Jarvis 6. Strategic Economic Plan Mr Felix 13 - 40 Kumi- Ampofo 7. Transforming Cities Fund D Whitley 41 - 120 8. Future Mobility Mr P White 121 - 132 (Arup) 9. Overview of Bus Services in South Yorkshire Mr S 133 - 144 Edwards 10. SCR Transport Strategy Implementation Plans J Holmes 145 - 148 11. Local Highway Maintenance Challenge Fund D Whitley 149 - 152 12. Integrated Transport Block A Linton 153 - 156 13. STAF Funding A Linton 157 - 162 14. Transport for the North update Mayor Dan 163 - 204 Jarvis 15. Dashboard (SYPTE) Mr S 205 - 216 Edwards 16. Dashboard (SCR) Ms Sue 217 - 242 Sykes 17. LGF Programme Update Ms Sue 243 - 248 Sykes 18. Any Other Business Mayor Dan Jarvis Date of next meeting: Friday, 10 January 2020 at 10.00 am At:11 Broad Street West, Sheffield S1 2BQ
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5
SCR - TRANSPORT BOARD
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON:
FRIDAY, 30 AUGUST 2019 AT 10.00 AM
11 BROAD STREET WEST, SHEFFIELD S1 2BQ
Present:
Mayor Dan Jarvis (Chair) SCR Mayoral Combined Authority Councillor Chris Read (Vice-Chair) Rotherham MBC Councillor Dave Leech Barnsley MBC Councillor Joe Blackham Doncaster MBC Steve Davenport SCR/SYPTE Stephen Edwards SYPTE Mark Lynam SCR Executive Team Sarah Norman Barnsley MBC
Officers in Attendance:
Jenny Holmes Assistant Director for SCR Executive Team Strategic Transport Jonathan Guest Sheffield City Region
Apologies:
Councillor Bob Johnson Sheffield City Council Peter Kennan Private Sector LEP Board Member Alison Kinna Private Sector LEP Board Member
1 Welcome and Apologies
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Apologies were noted as above.
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
Page 5 None.
5 Minutes of the Previous Meeting
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 19 July 2019 be agreed as a true record.
6 SEP/LIS update
A paper and accompanying presentation was submitted to provide an overview of the current economic landscape in Sheffield City Region and the emerging evidence to structure future priorities/activities in the SCR in relation to transport, to be included within the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) and Local Industrial Strategy (LIS).
Information was received to explain the process and timescales for development. It was noted that the SEP and LIS were scheduled for publication in December 2019, but acknowledged there were a number of factors that may affect this intention.
Regarding sign-off, it was noted the SCR effectively owned the SEP and could sign this off when considered appropriate. However, the LIS was co-owned with government and subject to other procedures and expectations (to be agreed with government).
Further information and evidence was presented with specific relevance to transport interventions such as connectivity to Doncaster Sheffield airport and the expansion of the tram/train network.
Members felt it was important that the SEP didn’t deviate from the already agreed Transport Strategy.
Members were presented with the proposed ‘people-focused’ vision for the SCR’s SEP and LIS and its proposed supporting policies and outcomes. The Board welcomed the people focus and looked forward to it being developed further.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
7 Transforming Cities Fund
A report was presented which provided an update on the progress in developing the final strategic outline business case (SOBC) for Sheffield City Region’s Transforming Cities Fund (TCF) submission.
Members were reminded that SCR was confirmed as one of 10 places across the country to be shortlisted for the next phase of TCF. The requirement was to submit a draft SOBC to the Department of Transport (DfT) by the 20th June 2019 (before submission of the final business case in November 2019) for consideration as part of a £1.22bn funding pot.
The SCR bid included three types of schemes:
Page 6
Public Transport Active Travel Rail
The draft SOBC submitted in June included three funding scenarios for the four-year programme as requested by DfT – these were labelled ‘Low’ (£183m), ‘Medium’ (£204m) and ‘High’ (£227m). All of the values allowed for 5% inflation across the funding period and 10% for risk.
Written feedback on the draft SOBC had now been received from the DfT which would shape the work required for the submission of the final SOBC on 28th November 2019.
The written feedback had been positive and the report listed particular points of note.
The main issue was the need to enhance the Economic Case for the final SOBC with clear evidence of programme benefits. This would require additional data collection, discussions with the DfT on the assumptions for how the active travel schemes are to be appraised and more details of the public transport schemes to be modelled using the SCR Transport Model. In addition, the submission would require an enhanced management case illustrating a strong governance proposition for the implementation of the programme.
The TCG Project Board had agreed a work programme through to the submission of the final SOBC, this was detailed within the report.
Members were informed that the SCR was continuing to speak to other shortlisted bidders to share good practice and ensure consistency in any discussions with the DfT.
RESOLVED – That the Board:
i) Note the feedback from the DfT on the work undertaken to date on the Strategic Outline Business Case.
ii) Note the required tasks and key deadlines in advance of the November submission of the Full Business Case.
8 East Coast Main Line
A report was submitted which updated the Board on issues concerning the East Coast Mainline (ECML), one of the two key inter-city rail lines linking Sheffield City Region to London, and a key link to Leeds, York, the North East and Scotland.
Members noted that the ECML had suffered from a lack of investment in recent years; significant investment was now required to enhance performance and maintain the key role it played in the UK’s transport network and economy.
Network Rail had recently undertaken a route study of the ECML. The study
Page 7 identified the key issues, constraints and areas requiring investment over the period up to the 2040’s, these were detailed within the report.
The report also included suggested solutions and enhancements such as additional platforms, operational flexibility, improved track layouts and line speeds at Doncaster station.
It was noted that alongside all the enhancements detailed in the report, SCR along with Doncaster MBC, had an aspiration for a new rail link and station to serve Doncaster Sheffield Airport. A feasibility study had been carried out and further work was currently being undertaken to decide on the best way to progress the scheme which would likely involve a phased approach.
The Board were informed that SCR had recently become a paying member of the East Coast Mainline Authorities consortium which acted as a co-ordinating and lobbying body for authorities along the whole of the ECML. The body did some valuable work to raise the profile of the ECML in parliament and within the rail industry and it was thought important that SCR continued to engage with this group.
RESOLVED: That the Board:
i) Agree that the Combined Authority and LEP should continue to engage with the rail industry processes and groups lobbying for improvements on the East Coast Mainline, recognising its vital importance to the economy of Doncaster, SCR and the wider east coast corridor.
ii) Agree to the formation of a Doncaster Station Project Board to assist with engagement on those issues.
iii) Agree to nominate a LEP member to the East coast Mainline Authorities consortium, if a political representative was required this would be a Doncaster MBC member.
9 Future Mobility
A report was submitted that informed the Board of a piece of work that had been commissioned by SCR in relation to Future Mobility.
Members were informed that in March 2019 the DfT produced a strategy called Future for Mobility: Urban Strategy. The document recognised the impact that technological advances would have and highlighted nine principles that underpinned Government’s approach to future mobility.
The Board was informed that SCR had submitted an Expression of Interest to the DfT’s Future Mobility Zone Fund in May 2019. The fund had been established to support the trial of new mobility services, modes and models through the creation of globally significant demonstrators. Unfortunately the Expression of Interest had been unsuccessful.
ARUP had been appointed by SCR to produce a think piece on Future Mobility to take a national steer presented by DfT’s Urban Strategy and o apply this to a
Page 8 SCR Context. The outcomes of the work would be used to strengthen any applications to future rounds of Government funding.
The first stage of work was underway and a workshop with stakeholders would take place in early September to gather evidence of work and projects that were being undertaken by (mainly) private sector partners in the field of future mobility. Findings and recommendations would be presented to the next Transport Board for members to recommend next steps.
RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
10 Transport for the North Integrated and Smart Travel Update
The Board considered a report which gave an update on the latest progress within Transport for the North (TfN) Integrated and Smart Travel (IST) Programme.
The IST comprised of three phases:
1. Smart on rail – allowing customers to travel on the rail network in the North using ITSO smart cards.
2. Customer information – fares data, disruption information in real time and standardised data for ease of sharing.
3. Account-based travel – would provide a fair-price capping system of transport fares across the North.
The Board were informed that smart on rail went live across the North in January 2019. Around 60% of all season tickets were now being issued onto a smart card and as at the end of June 2019 3,874,000 journeys had been loaded to smart cards.
With regard to customer information, the Fares Build Data Tool was still in procurement. The tool was expected to be available by September 2020.
The disruption messaging tool had been through a number of design phases and, after testing, was expected to go live in February 2020.
The Account-based travel solution had proved problematical and the project had encountered a number of challenges with progressing the business case given the scale and complexity of the programme required to make it work.
Furthermore, as the business case had progressed so had alternative technological solutions. Bus operators across the region were now delivering contactless payment for travel and First South Yorkshire were proposing to pilot daily and weekly fare capping in the region from October.
As a result, levels of support from the large bus operators had diminished as they were finding their own solutions either as individual operators or as part of a regional ticketing scheme.
Page 9 TfN were now considering alternative options to take the programme forward, maintaining the same vision but with different delivery strategies. The Board would be kept up to date with developments.
RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
11 SCR Mass Transit Programme Progress Update
A report was submitted to provide the Board with an update on progress and issues associated with the SCR Mass Transit and related projects.
Members were reminded that at the Board meeting on 19th July they were provided with a summary of the need for renewal works to ensure the existing Supertram network could continue to be used safely beyond the end of the current concession agreement in 2024.
The report provided an update on the latest progress made on the production of the Outline Business Case, submission for funding and local contribution and capital costs.
Members were informed that, to date, sources for approximately £14m of funding had been found, which was 50% of what was required if a local contribution of 7% was needed. The report gave details of further potential sources that had been identified.
Work on proposing that previous expenditure could be used as a match, or as part of a case to reduce the percentage of local contribution continued. Not having an agreed position on local contribution meant that it was no longer possible to seek full approval for submission for the Outline Business Case to DfT in October 2019. An update on the position regarding DfT funding and the plan to resolve the local contribution challenge would be given at a future meeting.
Members noted that other issues, such as patronage and costs, continued to affect progress. The delays to date and any future delays to Programme Entry or full approval would reduce the ability to deal with problems that arise between now and the end of the concession. This was a significant risk; the Project’s Risk Log had been amended accordingly.
Members noted that a submission for funding from DfT was required to secure the necessary capital funding to renew the asset. DfT had already indicated that the Large Local Majors fund was no longer considered suitable, therefore SCR and SYPTE had been in discussions with DfT about the suitability of a direct funding approach to Treasury as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review process.
A conference call with the DfT on 20 August was positive in how DfT see the need for asset renewal and recognition that there was a need for it to be included in a three-year CSR agreed in 2020.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
Page 10 12 Roads Implementation Plan
The Board considered a report which provided an update on the development of the Roads Implementation Plan to support delivery of the SCR Transport Strategy.
The Roads Implementation Plan was being developed following the same template as the recently adopted Integrated Rail Plan and would show the interactions between the different hierarchies of road networks within the region.
The plan would also set out the top ten challenges with the existing road network in the SCR and the future opportunities and needs to accommodate planned economic growth. From these challenges and opportunities a series of objectives would be set along with interventions for delivery.
The interventions would be mapped out to clearly show the location of each of the proposed activities.
The development of the interventions and the shaping of the document was being undertaken in partnership with stakeholders on the strategic Transport Group.
Whilst focusing on roads the plan would also have an increased focus on how to meet zero carbon targets and the accommodation of active travel. The timeframe for completing the plan was included within the report.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
13 Forward Work Plan 2019/2020
The Board’s Forward Plan was presented for information.
It was noted that the SYPTE budget may need to be presented earlier than the February meeting, although meeting the December meeting deadline may be a challenge.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
14 Any Other Business
Members discussed the independent review of HS2 and the varying views on the subject across the SCR; it was noted that the TfN Chair was on the panel.
Cllr Read informed the Board that Rotherham MBC had a major scheme business case submission for £45m to widen the Rotherham end of the Parkway. It was agreed that a letter of support for the scheme would be submitted.
S Edwards informed the Board that Northern had announced that the Pacer trains were to be retained for longer than planned (mainly across South and West Yorkshire). Timescales were as yet unclear but it was thought it would be
Page 11 until the middle of 2020.
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 BOARD
25TH OCTOBER 2019
STRATEGIC ECONOMIC PLAN
Purpose of Report
This paper provides Board members with an update following the discussion at the last LEP Board which provided a steer on the vision and objectives for the emerging Strategic Economic Plan.
Members will be provided with an update on the vision, objectives and draft outcomes and emerging broad policy areas. The appendix provides an early view of the draft and informs a discussion of priorities for the economic plan.
Thematic Priority
This paper links to all thematic priorities and the eventual outputs will shape the thematic priorities in the future.
Freedom of Information
This paper will be made available under the MCA transparency scheme
Recommendations
That Board members:
• Note the revised vision and objectives agreed by the LEP (9th September 2019) • Discuss the draft outcomes and emerging broad policies, and provide their input for the development of these in the draft SEP.
1. Introduction
1.1 The City Region is developing a new Economic Strategy for the region. The Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) will be a single overarching strategy which will set out the wider socio-economic aspirations and inclusive priorities for SCR over the medium to long term. This paper provides an update on the process and discussion of the vision, objectives and action areas proposed.
2. Proposal and justification
2.1 Following a presentation of the economic evidence base, the strategy development process has revised vision, objectives and broad policy areas following feedback from the LEP and thematic boards. The work to date will be presented to get further feedback and stimulate discussion on the future policy direction and priority areas for SCR and where the LEP/MCA can add most value and impact.
Page 13
2.2 Board Members are invited to note the revised vision, objectives, discuss the draft outcomes and emerging broad policies, and provide their input for the development of these in the draft SEP.
2.3 An early draft economic strategy at attached to this paper and will to facilitate discussion. Members will receive a presentation at the Board to explain the elements.
2.4 The emerging vision is focused on our “People” (all who live, work or visit SCR) and as such has been agreed as:
A growing, inclusive, & sustainable economy playing an ever-increasing role in future UK prosperity.
2.5 Innovation and creativity underpin the strategy and will drive how SCR design policy and what is delivered. Innovation is a process that that delivers added value and change. However, the field of innovation is very broad. The ability to develop, commercialise and adopt new ideas is a priority for all high-performing organizations and places. Intense global competition and technological development have made innovation a source of competitive advantage. It is a primary reason economic growth may occur in one area and not another.
2.6 The strategic objectives in the SEP are framed around “Inclusion”, "Growth” and “Sustainability”: - Inclusion reflects the realisation that economic growth is not beneficial unless all people have a fair opportunity to contribute and benefit from it. - Growth reflects the need to drive up prosperity by lifting productivity to improve the wellbeing of our people and businesses. - Sustainability (or rather environmental sustainability) reflects the urgent need to address concerning climatic and environmental challenges and create sustainable and attractive places for our people and businesses to thrive.
The draft business objectives link the above to our thematic areas, reflecting the current structure of the LEP boards. The work to date has highlighted a systemic approach and as such, the objectives link across to the vision and thus the strategic objectives.
2.6 Draft policies are proposed as ways in which the LEP and partners can make interventions to drive economic prosperity. The intervention areas reflect a need for focus but also to take account of the broadening agenda for LEPs.
2.7 A set of policies are proposed as ways in which the LEP and partners can make interventions to drive economic prosperity. The policy areas reflect a need for focused intervention but also to take account of the broadening agenda for LEPs.
3. Consideration of alternative approaches
3.1 There are no viable alternative propositions as the LEP/MCA has empowered the Thematic Boards to:
• Contribute to future policy development and priorities • Develop new programmes;
4. Implications
4.1 Financial There are no financial implications to this paper.
Page 14
4.2 Legal There are no legal implications to this paper.
4.3 Risk Management Through the development of programmes, appropriate risk measures will be put in place in line with the SCR Risk Management Programme.
4.4 Equality, Diversity and Social Inclusion Inclusive growth is central to the agenda and the strategy considers all aspects of society to understand where opportunities are not available or where particular barriers are preventing residents from accessing opportunities. Further consideration of inclusion will occur through review from Sheffield Hallam’s Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research.
5. Communications
5.1 All propositions developed by Thematic Boards to support the SEP / LIS will be communicated to and subject to agreement by the LEP / MCA to adopt the new policy. A communications plan underpins the work to develop the SEP and the LIS and specific work resulting from this. The SCR Corporate Communications plan will reflect agreed LEP, Mayoral and MCA priorities.
6. Appendices/Annexes
6.1 Appendix 1 – SEP Draft
REPORT AUTHOR Jonathan Guest POST Senior Economic Policy Manager Officer responsible Felix Kumi-Ampofo Organisation Sheffield City Region Email [email protected] Telephone T: 0114 220 3416
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: • Strategic Economic Plan Evidence Base – 2019 (Summary Evidence Pack) and other relevant documents available on the website: https://sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/explore/resources/
Page 15 This page is intentionally left blank Page 17 Page STRATEGIC ECONOMIC PLAN CONTENTS
1. Vision 2. Successes 3. Lessons
Page 18 Page 4. Challenges and opportunities 5. Strategic Ambitions: 2040 6. Focus upon people 7. Delivering transformational change 8. Priorities: • Business growth, • Skills and employment, • Connectivity and infrastructure, • Quality of place Page 19 Page VISION 1. VISION
A growing, inclusive, and sustainable economy playing an ever-increasing role in future UK prosperity
⎻ Focus on inclusion and people ⎻ Whilst productivity has increased through the delivery of the first SEP, not everyone has benefited with pockets of deprivation, high unemployment and low skills/pay. This SEP needs to bring Page 20 Page everyone along together and avoid leaving any individuals or communities behind ⎻ Growth ⎻ SCR is on track to meet many of the ambitions in the first SEP, but is performing less well then most other LEPs and the UK in economic performance. This SEP aims to achieve a step change in growth punching above its weight both nationally and globally through an innovation furnace that builds on its legacy and capitalises upon current and future opportunities ⎻ Sustainability ⎻ Climate change is happening and requires a major change in how we live, work and play. This SEP will help SCR transform to a low carbon economy, build its resilience to climate change and create sustainable places that improve the quality of place whilst maintaining local distinctiveness Page 21 Page PROGRESS TO DATE 2. SUCCESSES ⎻ Exceeding performance anticipated in previous SEP ⎻ GVA growth has been twice as fast as planned, hitting the target of £35bn six years ahead of schedule, progress towards the job creation target is four years ahead of schedule, number of new businesses created has almost hit its 2024 target already ⎻ Strong manufacturing industry and growing business base ⎻ More businesses since 2011 and a higher proportion of high growth businesses in SCR compared to other areas. ⎻ Manufacturing makes up a bigger proportion of the economy (12.1% of employment base) and is growing at a faster rate than the UK average ⎻ Global reputation for high precision engineering and high quality design - world-leading manufacturing and engineering companies: Rolls-Royce, Tata Steel, Siemens VAI, MCLaren Page 22 Page ⎻ Academic research and R&D strengths ⎻ Several areas of academic specialisation (e.g. health, metal and materials-related, engineering) ⎻ Industry-leading examples of technical education delivery (e.g. UTCs); and private sector engagement with universities driving innovation. ⎻ Strengths in nationally supported sectors including digital ⎻ High growth sectors (e.g. professional services, scientific & technical activities) becoming more embedded with almost 1,5000 more firms in professional, scientific and technical sub-sector between 2011-2017. ⎻ The digital sector contains a group of high productivity, relatively high growth businesses with growth in productivity of 150% between 1997 and 2015 ⎻ Local, national and international connectivity ⎻ Geographically well-connected with recent local upgrades ⎻ Doncaster Sheffield airport integrated logistics hub ⎻ Availability of affordable housing and valuable natural capital ⎻ Standard of living higher for middle-high earners than other northern cities 3. LESSONS
⎻ Absolute GVA has increased since the first SEP was launched but UK gap remains the same. Productivity gap has widened. ⎻ SCR needs economic not just productivity growth i.e. more jobs and more high skilled jobs Page 23 Page ⎻ Skills requirements of Industry 4.0 – need to respond, quickly; ⎻ Mismatch in workforce supply and demand exacerbated by decreasing levels of age population participating in learning and training, and lack of progress in addressing education progression ⎻ Levels of digital exclusion exceed the UK averages with Barnsley, Doncaster and Bolsover amongst the worst in the country ⎻ Increasing recognition of the importance of places ⎻ Access to skilled workers, supply chain networks and supporting institutions crucial for investment. SCR’s strength of place and its locational economic advantages can be packaged into a compelling proposition. 4. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Challenges Opportunities • Low levels of productivity, innovation, entrepreneurship and R&D • Move into emerging industries (e.g. investment compared to other areas. digital) • Several low productivity sectors are strong and dominating • Better locally embed some sectors e.g. industries are predicted to decline. construction, transport, professional • Higher proportion than England average with no qualifications, services and health lower proportion with higher skills and lower educational • Build on academic excellence and links Page 24 Page attainment between academia and industry • Low wage/skills industry dominates (1/3 of all employees, • Opportunities for new international average wage 11% lower than England average) with the markets potential for employment to be replaced by automation • Potential for integrated logistics hub • Hotspots of deprivation with poor health outcomes and high • Potential to build a higher standard of unemployment living for middle earners • Certain population groups remain disengaged from the labour • Climate change and potential market, for example ethnic minorities and female employees. opportunities from transforming to a low • International trade and challenges with existing markets carbon economy • Graduate retention issues. • Varied quality of living environment with polarised housing market • Digital and transport connectivity issues. • Poor air quality. • Climate change and potential for more frequent extreme weather events Page 25 Page STRATEGIC AMBITIONS 5. STRATEGIC AMBITIONS - 2040 ⎻ GROWTH ⎻ GVA and productivity growth will have increased to exceed the UK average with SCR’s strengths achieving global excellence and recognition providing improved prosperity for people. ⎻ INCLUSION
Page 26 Page ⎻ All of SCR’s people will have the opportunity to benefit from economic growth and access to education, training, jobs and services. ⎻ SUSTAINABILITY ⎻ SCR will be recognised and celebrated for its high quality, low carbon environment and distinctive quality places including access to green space, connectivity, housing and resilience to current and future climate threats 6. FOCUS UPON PEOPLE
⎻ People start businesses, make decisions, research, up-skill, innovate, care and create opportunities. ⎻ An increasing number of economic strategies are focused on “People”,
Page 27 Page showing a recognition of the most important driver of economic transformation: ⎻ Medellin in Colombia - Participation ⎻ Greater Manchester - GM’s public services. ⎻ People will be able to access more opportunities, be more prosperous, and enjoy the places they live, work and play in and interact with. 7. DELIVERING TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE Innovation ⎻ A shared pervading ethos: all stakeholders working together to identify and exploit opportunities to innovate across SCR’s economy, places and communities ⎻ Combined with disciplined approaches: using, refining and continuously improving best practice for driving forward innovation, so innovation becomes
Page 28 Page our ‘first nature’ Creativity ⎻ Daring to be different: effective creative relationships generating new and novel opportunities via knowledge ‘fusion’ and cross-agency/sector/place collaboration, creating a broad and powerful culture ⎻ Active cross-overs: increased creativity will create pervasive benefits both for innovation by business and social enterprises/non-profit activities contributing to a powerful local ecosystem 7.1 SPATIAL CONTEXT (CURRENTLY BEING WORKED UP WITH LAs)
Doncaster: Barnsley: Doncaster is a metropolitan borough located in the Barnsley’s local distinctiveness stems from its historical heart of England. We have innovative businesses character and culture, including its settlements and across a range of sectors, hard-working employees, architecture. Barnsley's location means it is ideally placed to an expanding skills sector, world class connectivity support sustainable economic growth and the sectors which and a growing cultural scene. We have a great will drive forward the regional economy. Barnsley future platform of success to build upon, and we are ready economy is evolving from the industrial past, adapting to to go further and faster. economic change and meeting future needs. Page 29 Page
Sheffield: Rotherham: Sheffield is the core city at the heart of the Sheffield City Rotherham is one of the most enterprising places in Region and is a creative, inventive and energetic city. It is Britain and we will make Rotherham the go to place to one of the UK’s major city economies with internationally start or grow a business, where entrepreneurs will recognised, leading edge talents in manufacturing, flourish. world class businesses are already located in engineering and design. The city will be known for its Rotherham alongside many home grown firms with distinctive and high performing sectors. world class reputations. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR Page 30 Page DELIVERY 8. PRIORITIES FOR DELIVERY Priority areas through which the identified challenges and opportunities will be address to achieve the overall vision: ⎻Business Growth ⎻ Driving innovation and creativity to create the enabling conditions which will grow productivity, R&D investment, scale-ups, trade and exports to grow the economy and improve the well being of people. Page 31 Page ⎻Skills and Employment ⎻ Transforming the skills base at all levels, increasing employment particularly skilled, well-paid employment to deliver prosperity ⎻Connectivity and Infrastructure ⎻ Digital and sustainable transport infrastructure and clean energy to transform to a low carbon economy ⎻Quality of place ⎻ Quality built and natural environments in distinctive places, local culture and sport, access to green space and services supporting positive health and wellbeing outcomes 8.1 BUSINESS GROWTH
⎻ Objective ⎻ Business-driven investment in innovation, combined with academic-business R&D partnerships and open innovation consortia for key supply chains, will significantly increase R&D investment - assisting the transition to a highly productive economy by 2030 ⎻ Outcomes
Page 32 Page ⎻ Economic and productivity growth ⎻ Increased investment in R&D ⎻ Skilled worker retention ⎻ Increased exports ⎻ Improved business and employment density 8.2 SKILLS AND EMPLOYMENT
⎻ Objective ⎻ By 2030 education and skill levels will lead to increased and higher paid employment, through focused interventions from school age through to adult education, leading to an increase in economic activity at all skill levels across SCR ⎻ Outcomes
Page 33 Page ⎻ Improvement in qualification levels in population ⎻ Improved wage levels ⎻ Higher share of higher-level occupations in labour market ⎻ Better education progression and attainment rates ⎻ Reduction in benefit claimant rates 8.3 CONNECTIVITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE ⎻ Objective ⎻ Transform connectivity and transition to a low carbon economy by improving sustainable transport, digital coverage and sustainable energy ensuring that everyone can access education, employment, leisure, health and other services and amenities within a clean energy environment by 2030 ⎻ Outcomes Page 34 Page ⎻ Reduction in car travel ⎻ Increase active and public travel ⎻ 5G and full fibre coverage ⎻ Reduction in emissions 8.4 QUALITY OF PLACE
⎻ Objective ⎻ By 2030 SCR’s cities, towns and rural areas will be recognised for their quality built and natural environments in distinctive places, with access to local culture and sport, green space and services supporting positive health and wellbeing outcomes ⎻ Outcomes
Page 35 Page ⎻ Reduced fuel poverty and homelessness rates ⎻ Improved housing energy efficiency ⎻ Improved urban centre vitality ⎻ Improved air quality ⎻ Enhanced natural capital ⎻ Higher cultural and sport participation ⎻ Improved visitor numbers HOW OUR PRIORITIES INTERRELATE
Inputs Outputs Business growth Skills and employment Connectivity and Quality of place Infrastructure Business Growing businesses employ more Business growth in these Increases local buying people and provide demand for areas enhances power that helps to sustain growth skills connectivity local places
Skills and Improved skills enable Improved skills enable Increases local buying business growth growth in digital, energy power that helps to sustain Page 36 Page employment and transport sectors local places
Connectivity Digital and transport Connectivity provides opportunities Improved connectivity connectivity and to access skills and employment and enhances local places and transformation to low growth in this area provides skills facilitates more balanced carbon economy supports and employment opportunities housing markets business growth
Quality of Quality places provide Growth in this area provides skills Low carbon energy business advantage and and employment opportunities, developments facilitate place attract high skilled resilient skills institutions new transport workers, resilient business employment premises sustain skills opportunities, green premises support growth and employment growth infrastructure contributes to active travel, resilient infrastructure keeps SCR running Page 37 Page METRICS METRICS (1/2)
Theme Indicator / aim Data source
Productivity & GVA Growth ONS GVA & Productivity Estimates Earnings Growth ONS ASHE
Overall Carbon Emissions TBC (ONS) Public transport usage Annual cordon counts
Car usage is falling DfT car miles data Page 38 Page Active travel mode share Census
5g and FF Broadband coverage DCMS & Ofcom
Connectivity and Connectivity Infrastructure Employment growth ONS
Proportion of employees on low earnings Annual Population Survey
Proportion of employees in managerial professional occupations Annual Population Survey
Proportion of working-age population at NVQ3 and above DfE admin data
‘Attainment 8’ scores DfE admin data
Skills Skills employment & Proportion of workless households Annual Population Survey
Out-of-work benefits claimant rate DWP Longitudinal Study METRICS (2/2)
Theme Indicator / aim Data source Domestic energy efficiency: proportion of EPC C rated homes MHCLG domestic EPC register Air quality: no. designated Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) Defra Participation in cultural activity Active Lives Survey CO2 emissions (tbc) Neighbourhood deprivation Index of Multiple Deprivation Page 39 Page Fuel poverty rate BEIS sub-regional fuel poverty statistics Quality ofplaceQuality Index of private rental costs VOA admin data House price to earnings ratio ONS combined data Statutory homelessness Local Authority admin data Labour productivity ONS GVA growth per capita ONS National Accounts Business birth and survival HMRC admin data Highly Skilled People in Labour Market (& Graduate retention) Annual Population Survey (& DLHE survey)
Business Growth R&D investment BERD Survey (tbc) [email protected] Page 40 Page
Sheffield City Region 11 Broad Street West Sheffield United Kingdom S1 2BQ Agenda Item 7
TRANSPORT THEMATIC BOARD
25th October 2019
TRANSFORMING CITIES FUND BID SUBMISSION
Purpose of Report
This report provides an update on the progress of the Transforming Cities Fund bid for the City Region and sets out the process for the submission of the bid itself.
Thematic Priority
Secure investment in infrastructure where it will do most to support growth.
Recommendations
That members of the Transport Board:
• Note the update on the progress of the Transforming Cities Fund bid for the City Region • Provide comment on the content of the bid • Confirm support for Officers to proceed to finalisation of the bid document for submission to the MCA and Department for Transport, sharing the final draft with Transport Board members in advance when available.
1. Introduction
1.1 In September 2018, Sheffield City Region (SCR) were confirmed as one the areas across the country to have been shortlisted for the next phase of the Transforming Cities Fund (TCF). The requirement was to submit a draft business case to the Department for Transport (DfT) by the 20th June 2019, followed by submission of a final business case by 28th November 2019, for consideration as part of a £1.22bn funding pot.
1.2 The draft business case developed and submitted by the SCR bid was focused around three types intervention:
• Public Transport – a series of infrastructure improvements across the strategic transit corridors aimed at improving the performance of the public transport network, principally journey time, punctuality and reliability, within and between the main urban centres and the identified growth locations • Active Travel – drawing on the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) and the recent appointment of an Active Travel Commissioner to start developing a network of active travel routes, taking advantage of the relatively low commuting distances across the SCR at present • Rail – enhancing accessibility to/from and at rail stations within the SCR and interventions that support connectivity to HS2/ Northern Powerhouse Rail
Page 41 touchpoints so that the rail network can become a viable alternative to the private car for those taking advantage of the significant economic growth opportunities.
These types of intervention were themselves based around three broad economic corridors set out in the original TCF Prospectus approved in July 2018:
• River Don • Dearne Valley • AMID.
1.3 The draft business case included three funding scenarios as requested by DfT – labelled ‘Low’, ‘Medium’ and ‘High’ – comprising the following levels of DfT funding over the four year programme up to 2022/23:
• Low - £183 million • Medium - £204 million • High - £227 million.
1.4 Feedback on the draft business case was received from the DfT in July and August 2019, and through a process of co-development with DfT Officials, a final business case is currently being prepared in preparation for the submission in November.
2. Proposal and justification
2.1 The formal feedback on the draft business case was generally positive, including:
• There is a clear thread running from the bid to SCR’s strategic transport priorities, the Local Industrial Strategy, the Transport for the North Strategic Transport Plan and the Industrial Strategy. • The focus on transport poverty is very interesting and has a positive link to MHCLG’s developing ‘Stronger Towns’ agenda. • The objectives of the programme are clearly set out, along with the context behind the strategic case – the evidence presented is strong and well used. • A clear prioritisation and sifting process has been followed with evidence provided. • All three packages appear to offer ‘High’ VfM at present, although there is uncertainty around both baseline and demand uplift for active travel schemes. • A good range of impacts have been identified at this stage, although for non-active travel schemes these are qualitative.
2.2 However, areas for the final business case to concentrate on included:
• The schemes are clearly defined at the South Yorkshire level and some data is provided on issues in the specific corridors – further detail is required at the corridor level. • The benefits of individual interventions are not clear and a summary of individual bus schemes, costs, and benefits would be helpful, as well as evidence of support for the package by operators. • There is no direct evidence of stakeholder support apart from references to previous public consultations and earlier workshops. • Further work should explore the interdependencies between modes to avoid double counting impacts. • The overall appraisal should be improved by use of fully validated multi-modal model. • Further work on the financial case is to be completed on third party contributions, quantified risk and long term sustainability.
Page 42 • Further work is required to establish the detailed programme management arrangements. • Each local authority should have a clear plan for how each of their interventions will be procured.
2.3 This feedback has been used, along with a period of co-development with DfT Officials, to develop the final business case. There has also been significant input from the four Local Authorities and SYPTE, collectively developing the components of the bid through a Task & Finish Group that has met regularly over the last four months. SCR Officers have also provided external review of the benefits and costs of the bid’s components.
2.4 The updated TCF programme has been designed to be cohesive as well as aligning to wider activity (including Future High Streets, National Productivity Investment Fund, Local Growth Fund and Housing Infrastructure Fund bids), supporting transformational uplift to facilitate sustainable economic growth and housing delivery. The significant schemes that are included within the current bid are set out for each corridor in Appendix 1.
2.5 The latest draft of the Strategic, Commercial and Management Cases are provided in Appendices 2, 3 and 4 respectively. The significant changes made to the Strategic Case from the previous submission are highlighted in red text, addressing the first three bullet points in paragraph 2.2. The Commercial and Management Cases are substantially new documents and address the last three bullet points.
2.6 The new SCR Transport Model has been used to model the impacts of individual bus schemes and to reflect interdependencies between modes, with bus operators involved in the refinement of the proposed schemes themselves. Additional baseline surveys have been undertaken to improve the robustness of the appraisal of active travel schemes.
2.7 Both of these processes are allowing revised Economic and Financial Cases for the three funding scenarios to be developed, addressing the final two bullet points in paragraph 2.2. A verbal update on the latest position will be provided at the meeting, however, the latest work on further appraisal indicates the following revised bid over the four years:
• Low - £190 million • Medium - £200 million • High - £230 million.
These values include for 5% inflation across the funding period and an allowance for risk drawn from a quantified assessment of the risks identified in the risk register.
2.8 It should be noted that the interventions listed in Appendix 1 represent the ‘High’ value TCF package and so is the SCR’s ambition for this funding pot. Depending on the actual award, some of the above interventions may not progress at this stage, and each one will need to pass a value for money assessment prior to implementation.
2.9 The Board’s views on the content of the bid would be welcomed. Board members are invited to confirm that they are content with the development of the bid to date and that Officers can now prepare the final business case ready for approval at the MCA meeting on 18th November 2019. Transport Board members will receive a final draft copy for comment in advance of the MCA meeting.
3. Consideration of alternative approaches
3.1 Option 1: Increase the total value of the business case submission The submission already contains a ‘Low’, ‘Medium’ and ‘High’ funding scenario. It is possible to increase the total value in all three scenarios, however following discussions
Page 43 with DfT this is not recommended based upon the highly competitive process expected, and the formal feedback on the draft business case highlighted a need to prioritise further, if possible, which has been done. The figures presented are therefore seen as a pragmatic but ambitious range of schemes.
3.2 Option 2: Decrease the total value of the business case submission As above, reducing the total amount requested may also have the impact of negatively affecting the chances of success i.e. due to the competitiveness of the process, DfT may use it as an opportunity award less funding if presented with a viable opportunity to do so.
4. Implications
4.1 Financial The costs of developing the outline business case have been managed from within existing resources, including a £50k revenue grant from the Department for Transport.
In advance of submission of the SOBC to the MCA, work will continue on the financial case – which will include confirmation of the level of the local contribution to the programme from project sponsors as well as their commitment to any ongoing revenue support.
4.2 Legal No specific legal implications at this stage of the process.
4.3 Risk Management Consistent with the development of a five-case business case, a programme-level risk register has been produced by the Project Board and individual project risks have also been identified through this process. The bid values include a quantified allowance for these risks.
4.4 Equality, Diversity and Social Inclusion The SCR Transport Strategy includes an Equalities Impact Assessment as part of the Integrated Assessment. It is expected that equalities and diversity issues will be considered in the delivery of schemes in each package.
5. Communications
5.1 A communications plan has been developed as part of the final business case, demonstrating a proactive approach to communications in this case. A media statement will be issued following the MCA meeting, and updates shared online and on social media.
6. Appendices/Annexes
6.1 Appendix 1 – SCR TCF Programme – ‘High’ Funding Scenario Appendix 2 – Revised Draft TCF Strategic Case Appendix 3 – Revised Draft TCF Commercial Case Appendix 4 – Revised Draft TCF Management Case
Report Author Mark Lynam Post Director of Transport, Infrastructure and Housing Officer responsible Mark Lynam Organisation Sheffield City Region Email [email protected] Telephone 0114 2203445
Page 44 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 45 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 1 – SCR TCF Programme – ‘High’ Funding Scenario
The following is an indication of the significant schemes being developed within each corridor:
• River Don Corridor o Improved access between Mexborough town centre and the rail station and Doncaster college and the rail station. o Rail station (and station access) improvements across the district (including Adwick, Bentley, Kirk Sandall, Conisborough, Hatfield and Stainforth), including the access to/from the stations by active travel modes and improvements to facilities improved signing and information, accessible bench seating, CCTV and lighting enhancements. o Addressing locations of existing public transport delays between Doncaster urban centre and the iPort site and DSA. o Connecting outlying settlements to the growing economic opportunity by providing a new connection into the iPort site from Rossington for buses and active travel modes and Thorne and Moorends to Unity by active travel modes. o Improving accessibility and connectivity by providing better walking and cycling routes in a number of local communities including Armthorpe, Balby, Wheatley, Long Sandall and Edlington. o Interventions at key junctions on the A18 corridor between Doncaster urban centre and the Unity growth area. o Addressing locations of existing public transport delays within the Doncaster urban centre by providing bus priority measures at key junctions and improving on-street facilities. o Improving accessibility and connectivity by providing better walking and cycling routes through Doncaster town centre, including St Mary’s Gyratory, North Bridge Road, Cleveland Street and Bennetthorpe. o Connecting Maltby to the main urban centre of Rotherham and addressing a location of existing public transport delays through bus lanes and junction improvements, along with localised enhanced active travel routes within the corridor.
• Dearne Valley Corridor o Addressing a location of existing public transport delays on the A61 Wakefield Road, Barnsley by a combination of bus lanes and junction improvements, linked to complementary corridor proposals in the Leeds City Region, along with active travel improvements along the corridor. o Bus Rapid Transit between Barnsley and Doncaster – connecting the only remaining two main urban centres in the SCR which do not have a high quality
Page 47 public transport link, via the housing and employment growth area in the Dearne Valley. o New cycling route linking Barnsley town centre to the housing growth area in Darfield and on to the housing and employment growth area in Goldthorpe and the wider Dearne Valley. o Rail station (and station access) improvements across the corridor, including the access to/from the stations and improvements to facilities improved signing and information, accessible bench seating, CCTV and lighting enhancements. o Contributing to the new fully accessible bridge (including cycle use) linking Barnsley rail station and the town centre. o Connecting the housing growth areas in Staincross and Royston to the urban centre of Barnsley by providing improvements for active travel modes. o Improving walking routes into Barnsley town centre from the Hospital, including along Huddersfield Road. o Providing better active travel routes to enable more walking and cycling into local town centres within the Dearne Valley. o Addressing locations of existing public transport delays on the A630 corridor. o Connecting the housing and employment growth area in the Dearne Valley to the local centre in Wath for active travel modes. o Addressing locations of existing public transport delays around the A633 corridor – the main intervention being the provision of a new second access to Parkgate Retail Park, as well as a new 300 space park and ride site for the tram-train terminus.
• AMID Corridor o Promoting active travel use for accessing employment opportunities at the AMID and AMP from Rotherham town centre. o Providing better active travel routes to enable more walking and/or cycling through Rotherham town centre, including links to Forge Island – this will complement the current TCF Tranche 1 scheme. o A new tram-train stop at Magna, facilitating a new 150 space park and ride site – this will help transform strategic connectivity to the Magna area and provide growth opportunities in the Templeborough/Sheffield Road area. o A new high quality segregated cycle route along the A6178 Sheffield Road to help support active travel links between Rotherham, Meadowhall and Sheffield. o Addressing locations where existing public transport delays limit access to employment opportunities from south west, Kelham/Neepsend and the east end of Sheffield to Sheffield City Centre, and across the City Centre onto the AMID and Rotherham. o Promoting active travel for accessing employment opportunities in Sheffield City Centre, AMID and Rotherham, to improve access to opportunities in particular from areas of deprivation, and constrain car trips (and so congestion and emissions) in the City Centre and on some of the busier roads o Improving public transport journey times and reliability within Sheffield City Centre. o A trial of low emission buses to reduce emissions within the Clean Air Zone, providing the groundwork for future roll-out of electric buses.
Page 48
2. STRATEGIC CASE
INTRODUCTION
This section defines the policy alignment, particularly the core objectives of the TCF:
• Invest in new local transport infrastructure to boost productivity • Improve public transport and sustainable transport connectivity • Improve access to employment sites, Enterprise Zones, development sites, or an urban centre that offers particular growth/employment opportunities.
Specifically, this section examines the existing characteristics of the SCR and the targeted corridors, sets out the transport barriers identified (both current and future), identifies the objectives and summarises the options that have been considered. It therefore demonstrates the case for change – that is, the rationale for investment.
It has been prepared with particular reference to the DfT’s Strategic Case Supplementary Guidance: Rebalancing Toolkit (December 2017), which is designed to help authors of strategic cases assess how a programme or project fits with the objective of spreading growth across the country, and also introduces a framework for presenting the rebalancing case more consistently.
The key points from the Strategic Case are as follows:
• The SCR is polycentric city region, not a classic mono-centric conurbation in the manner of Greater Manchester, Bristol or Glasgow.
• The SCR LEP area is home to 1.8 million people, with 68,000 businesses, providing 847,000 jobs and an annual Gross Value Added (GVA) of around £34 billion.
• By 2040, the SCR could be a £55 billion economy with the right infrastructure, however, at a number of key locations, economic growth is constrained by a lack of appropriate infrastructure, particularly for public transport and active modes.
• Without future intervention, congestion and delays will increase, and journey time reliability will deteriorate, presenting further barriers to economic growth and potentially damaging the existing economy, as well as having a severe detrimental impact on the SCR’s air quality and hence the health of its residents.
• There is a clear need to take action now to improve the opportunities for people to use public transport and active modes and to make these modes the preferred choice of travel for increasing numbers of people across the SCR, linked to the identified growth and employment opportunities..
• The biggest opportunity for return on future transport investment, including this TCF bid, is to better connect the areas of transport poverty with those areas of opportunity by public transport and active modes, allied to achieving significant mode shift away from the private car on key corridors that could stifle future growth ambitions.
1 Page 49
SETTING THE CONTEXT
The SCR is polycentric city region, including the city of Sheffield, the fourth largest in England, and the surrounding towns of Barnsley, Rotherham and Doncaster (the largest metropolitan authority in the country). It is not a classic mono-centric conurbation in the manner of Greater Manchester, Bristol or Glasgow – this reflects the economic history and the dominance of industries such as coal mining which led to very strong local economies. The wider SCR Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) area also includes Bassetlaw, Bolsover, Chesterfield, Derbyshire Dales, North East Derbyshire.
The SCR LEP area is home to 1.8 million people, with 68,000 businesses, providing 847,000 jobs and an annual Gross Value Added (GVA) of around £34 billion. With world-class specialisms in advanced manufacturing, the City Region is at the forefront of innovation and a major driver of economic growth as it develops its advanced manufacturing and engineering capabilities.
The nine SCR districts form a coherent and well defined functional economic area, and all of the places and districts, be they urban or rural, make an important and different contribution to the City Region’s performance. The different economic roles of places in the SCR are illustrated in Figure 2.1, with the following paragraphs providing more detail on the roles of the four urban centres in South Yorkshire.
Barnsley: A well-established town with strong economic links to both Sheffield and Leeds City Region. Barnsley has a strong vision coupled with an ambitious adopted Local Plan. It is committed to focusing investment to achieve a thriving and vibrant economy, that people achieve their potential and that strong and resilient communities are created. Significant new land supply in strategic growth areas has helped to improve the recent economic performance of the Borough. The town centre is undergoing significant transformation via the £180m Glassworks investment programme, and there are a number of economic and housing regeneration projects are well underway, including major investment in the strategic development sites around M1 Junction 36 to the south west of the town centre, and significant business and housing growth plans in the Dearne Valley to the east of the Borough.
Doncaster: A high quality urban centre with attractive retail opportunities and excellent rail links. To the south east of Doncaster is the SCR’s international airport and the rapidly developing logistics centre, iPort, which is expected to create 5,800 jobs when fully developed. Doncaster also has several key regeneration and development opportunities, including Unity to the north east of the town centre (which includes Don Valley power station and potential low carbon business parks).
Rotherham: Closely linked to Sheffield, with a strong economic and employment base, and benefiting from a large employment boost in the last growth period, Rotherham is divided into three major economic areas – the town centre, with an economic corridor running through the Don Valley toward Sheffield, which is a key employment centre; the Dearne Valley to the north, which has seen the growth and development of a new business community; and the rural hinterland to the south east.
Sheffield: The UK’s fourth largest city, home to two Universities with over 60,000 students, is the only major city in the UK with a national park within the city boundary. It is the City Region's hub for Knowledge, Creative and Digital Industries, Leisure, Higher Education, Culture, and Financial & Professional Services sectors. Heart of the City II is a key regeneration project underway in the City Centre – the 7 hectare development will provide further Grade A office space, two 4 or 5-star hotels, residential developments, restaurants
2 Page 50
and cafés, leisure destinations, parking and stunning public realm. The Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District connects Sheffield, Rotherham and the Lower Don Valley and is a 2,000 acre centre of excellence in metals and materials manufacturing and home to two of the UK Government’s High Value Manufacturing Catapult centres.
Figure 2.1 – Sheffield City Region
3 Page 51
Other significant economic strengths in the SCR include:
• Strategic central location – at the heart of the UK with connectivity via the M1 and A1(M) motorways and mainline stations on the East Coast and Midland Mainlines to regional and national markets, and international markets from Doncaster Sheffield Airport (DSA) • Two Universities with world class research capabilities and the country’s largest engineering department and a state-of-the-art High Speed Rail College in Doncaster • Home to the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District (AMID) in Rotherham and Sheffield, a 2,000 acre centre of excellence for innovation-led research and industrial collaboration, boasting exemplar models of university and industry collaboration in metals, materials, health technology and wellness • A potential workforce of 950,000, with more than 120,000 jobs in the knowledge and data driven economy • A flexible and adaptable base of SME companies focused on business to business supply chain • A proposed HS2/Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) station, with two others proposed on the NPR corridor between Sheffield and Leeds (at Rotherham and Barnsley Dearne Valley) • A significant visitor economy including the Peak District National Park, Chatsworth, Wentworth Woodhouse and several acclaimed cultural venues including the Crucible Theatre • Capacity for additional development of employment and housing land.
These strengths provide solid foundations for further growth. The current Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) identifies that by 2040, the SCR could be a £55 billion economy with the right infrastructure, driven by the creation of 70,000 new private sector jobs and 6,000 new businesses. The SCR has shown a gain of 37,000 jobs between 2014 and 2017, and by 2017, activity led by the SCR LEP and the Combined Authority had already contributed 16,000 new jobs to the economy and leveraged approximately £318 million of private sector investment. Therefore, the targets within the SEP are seen as robust and realistic.
However, despite the strengths and progress made, the SCR Independent Economic Review, produced in 2013, highlighted the stark nature of the challenges the City Region faces due to its industrial legacy and the ongoing transition from an economic base previously dominated by coal and steel. During the growth cycle of 1998 to 2008, the SCR was the only City Region to experience a net decrease in private sector employment. The recession and relatively flat performance of the UK economy since 2008 have not helped the SCR achieve the transformation that it needs.
The City Region needs an outward looking and restructured inclusive economy which contains a greater number of businesses and which generates more exports and better employment opportunities. The SEP identified that the SCR needs a bigger and stronger private sector, which will lead to a growth in the number of jobs in City Region, a higher level of GVA and a restructured economy. Realising these ambitions will transform performance and thus the contribution of the SCR to the UK economy.
Overall, each of the local economies and the identified growth areas has a role to play within the City Region and each will make an important contribution to future growth. Making further progress in addressing the challenges and issues which are specific to local areas will help to boost the overall economic resilience of the City Region and its attractiveness as a place to live, work, play and visit. The following paragraphs explore some of the key economic and connectivity challenges for the SCR, with a focus on the four South Yorkshire Districts that form the basis of this TCF bid.
4 Page 52
The SCR has low productivity despite a sizeable economy ...
Despite being the 10th largest LEP area by population and 16th largest LEP economy, in 2016 SCR ranked 34th out of 38 LEP areas in England for GVA per head and GVA per filled job. GVA per head in the SCR is currently £18,370, which is well below the UK average (£26,580) and £5,000 lower than the UK average even when excluding London (£23,774). SCR’s productivity is lower than comparator Northern LEPs such as Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, Liverpool City Region and Tees Valley, as shown in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2 – GVA per Head for Comparator City Regions
GVA per employee and mean earnings are 18% and 17% below the national average respectively.
The UK-wide productivity challenge affects all SCR sectors and reflects the low proportion of people employed in higher skilled occupations in the City Region and the need for a wider range of people to access such jobs.
This shows that there is still much to do to address the failures of our current transport system that limits the flow of ideas, people and business between the urban areas and major employment sites, and which acts as a drag on productivity, competitiveness and skills utilisation.
There is a high economic inactivity, unemployment and NEET rate in the SCR …
The overall employment rate in the SCR is 1.8% below the national average. There are 47,900 residents in the SCR who are unemployed. Of more concern than the absolute employment figure is economic inactivity – the SCR has the 11th highest economic inactivity rates across all LEPs. This is, and has been, a persistent and pernicious challenge for the City Region since de-industrialisation in the 1980s. By September 2018, SCR had 260,200 economically inactive residents. Of this total, 82,600 people (31.7 compared to 21.4%
5 Page 53
nationally) want a job, an indication of the opportunity available if the economic conditions can be improved.
Within this, the most immediate concern for the City Region is the emergence of youth unemployment – approximately 16,300 16-24 year olds in the SCR are unemployed, which is 40.1% of the total working age unemployment. Not only is the cost to the local economy significant, but the cost to the individual young person can be considerable with long periods of unemployment in the early years of adulthood correlating to a pattern of ‘wage scarring’ (reduced lifetime earnings), further periods of worklessness and reduced life chances as represented by almost all key social and health indicators.
In part, the origins of youth unemployment can be found in the high level of 16-18 year olds in the SCR who are Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET) – at present this is some 3,700 people. 44% of young people leave school without five good GCSEs (including English and Maths). The NEET level for the SCR continues to exceed the national average.
This converts into unacceptably high levels of unemployment for 18-24 year olds. Since 2008, youth unemployment has more than doubled and 18-24 year olds are more than twice as likely to be unemployed than their older counterparts. However, since its peak in September 2012, the number of long term benefits claimants in that age bracket has decreased.
For young people, a lack of affordable transport options can act as a significant barrier to finding employment, and our transport system needs to ensure that we provide real and affordable choices for all of our residents, especially given the SCR’s local sectoral/industry specialisms in transport that provide the opportunity for greater innovation and should appeal directly to young people.
There are pockets of high deprivation across the SCR …
There are significant areas of deprivation across the SCR and also significant disparities between the levels of deprivation in different parts of the City Region, as illustrated in Figure 2.3. Too many of the SCR’s citizens are distant from the labour market and everyday services, given the dispersed settlement pattern across the SCR, not in employment or training, are experiencing poor physical or mental health, or have low or no skills to help them get better jobs. Low productivity, health and deprivation are related.
Deprivation is also compounded by:
• The disproportionate number of low skilled residents in low paid, fragile and often part-time work • Levels of economic inactivity above the national average • A growing problem of long term unemployment • A cycle of intergenerational unemployment and poverty and poor health.
A Resolution Foundation study has found that SCR has the highest proportion of people in low paid work and below the recommended living wage (24%).
Again, we need to ensure that nobody is preventing from becoming economically active as a result of our transport network, with a focus on improving those connections between the areas of greatest need and those of new opportunities across the SCR.
6 Page 54
Figure 2.3 – Current Levels of Deprivation across the SCR
Population growth is expected to see an ageing population profile …
The population of the SCR is forecast to grow by 136,600 between 2018 and 2041. The following table provides a breakdown of population by South Yorkshire districts and the total, combined, population of districts outside of South Yorkshire.
2018 2021 2031 2041 Barnsley 245,500 250,900 264,700 275,400 Doncaster 308,700 310,800 314,600 317,300 Rotherham 263,800 266,400 272,700 277,800 Sheffield 581,900 590,600 620,500 643,800 Bassetlaw 115,900 117,100 120,000 121,800 Bolsover 79,000 80,100 83,200 85,400 Chesterfield 104,800 105,300 107,000 108,300 Derbyshire Dales 71,500 71,700 72,700 73,300 North East Derbyshire 100,900 101,700 104,000 105,500 South Yorkshire 1,399,900 1,418,700 1,472,500 1,514,300 Non-South Yorkshire districts 472,100 475,900 486,900 494,300 SCR LEP area 1,872,000 1,894,600 1,959,400 2,008,600
7 Page 55
Along with an overall growth in population, the City Region, like the rest of the UK, is forecast to experience an ageing population, as shown in Figure 2.4. Over the next 25 years, the old age dependency ratio (people of pensionable age per thousand people of working age) will increase by 19%. Between 2018 and 2041 the number of young people aged 0-15 is forecast to grow slightly by around 2,600 (0.8%) in the City Region, but the population aged 65+ will increase by 146,860 (41.9%).
Figure 2.4 – Forecast Population Changes
These demographic changes will have implications for transport, particularly as older people tend to have different travel patterns and travel needs to younger generations and are generally less digitally connected, but at the same time older residents may continue to work longer and more flexibly in the future, altering current travel patterns.
Health is an issue in the SCR too …
The majority of SCR Local Authorities have physical inactivity levels higher than the national average for the adult population (aged 16 and above), as shown in Figure 2.5.
Figure 2.5 – Proportion of Physically Inactive Adults
8 Page 56
The way that we travel and the transport we use impacts on our health, our environment and our societal wellbeing and our health and wellbeing have a huge impact on our everyday lives – if we are unwell it can affect our ability to work and work productively, to study and learn and to care for others.
The national obesity survey shows that although the obesity levels in the SCR of 10-11 year olds have decreased to meet the national average (19%), there are a number of areas within the City Region that have higher than average, and growing, obesity levels. Being overweight or obese can lead to serious health consequences such as cardiovascular disease (mainly heart disease and stroke), type 2 diabetes, musculoskeletal disorders like osteoarthritis, and some cancers (endometrial, breast and colon).
However, the issues with obesity are largely preventable. The key to success is to achieve an energy balance between calories consumed on one hand, and calories used on the other hand. To reach this goal, people can limit energy intake and to increase calories used, people can boost their levels of physical activity, to at least 30 minutes of regular, moderate- intensity activity on most days. This could easily be built into a daily commute.
Although health is affected by many different factors, being physically active can have a huge positive impact on both our physical and mental health. Not only does being active help contribute to maintaining a healthy weight for children and adults, there is good evidence that it also significantly reduces the risk of several different diseases. The outcomes of such an increase in physical activity will include a reduced call on health services locally and nationally, as well as contributing to an increase in workforce productivity.
Creating environments and transport networks systems which promote active travel as part of normal everyday life can not only help create, active, healthier and more liveable communities but can also have significant economic benefits and should be a fundamental part of our future transport plans.
The SCR labour market is fairly self-contained …
Three quarters of the SCR’s residents live in the four main urban areas and this figure has been steadily growing. Between 2007 and 2017 the population of these areas grew by almost 87,000 (6.67%). Planned housing growth in the immediate term will likely see this trend continue, but over time, more residents may live away from the main urban centres in line with growth plans within the Dearne Valley, for example.
However, as Figures 2.6 and 2.7 show, regardless of where they live, people travel throughout the SCR to access jobs, putting pressure on the existing transport system. The latest census Journey to Work data shows that the majority of SCR’s residents (85.3%) commute within the City Region boundaries and around 70% travel within their own Local Authority area – 56% of SCR commuters travel less than 10km to get to their place of work and 36% travel less than 5km. Sheffield is a net provider of jobs with the other districts being net providers of labour.
Whilst it is recognised that there may be changes in commuting patterns in the long term, the locations of planned growth in the SCR and the types of growth envisaged at these locations is likely to mean that this situation will continue in the near term.
9 Page 57
Figure 2.6 – Current Travel to Work Patterns within the SCR
Figure 2.7 – Current Travel to Work Patterns Within and Outside the SCR (thousands of trips)
10 Page 58
The levels of commuting between Rotherham and Sheffield are particularly high and coupled with additional demand generated by further development at AMID, would indicate that this is an important area for future transport investment. The lack of existing commuting between Barnsley and Doncaster is also evident and is likely to be related to the lack of effective connections between these two centres, by both public and private transport.
Yet in the SCR there is a reliance on cars when travelling to work …
A high proportion of residents (71%) of SCR residents travel to work by car, and this trend has increased since 2001, which is contrary to the general UK trend of decreasing car use and has resulted in increased congestion, longer journey times and has impacted detrimentally on health and air quality.
Despite this apparent reliance on cars, 29.5% of households in SCR do not have access to a car – the national average is around 26% – meaning these residents are reliant on public and sustainable transport modes to meet their transport needs, and with relatively short commuting distances, this would seem a realistic aim, assuming the right quality of transport infrastructure, facilities and services are provided to meet their needs.
Not having reasonable access to the transport system is a key factor in social exclusion and has a detrimental impact on people’s day to day lives and future opportunities through a reduced participation in the wider economy of an area.
A low proportion (12%) of commuters travel to work by public transport in the SCR, and bus usage in particular has been falling since 2008. Funding for bus services has reduced, which particularly impacts on areas where commercial services are not viable, potentially isolating communities, especially rural communities, even further and can impact on the rural and visitor economies. Analysis has shown that a little over half of the fall can be explained by changing customer needs such as home working, internet shopping, home entertainment and competitive taxi fares. The remainder can be explained by increases in bus fares and service quality as congestion reduces the reliability and thus attractiveness of buses.
The numbers of people travelling in the City Region by rail has increased between 2005 and 2016 and seven out of the top ten stations in the SCR have recorded more than 50% growth over this time. The busiest stations within the SCR are Sheffield and Doncaster – in 2017/18 Sheffield had around 9,700,000 entries and exits, the second highest in the Yorkshire & Humber region, whilst Doncaster had around 3,900,000 entries and exits. Many of the main and local rail stations have park and ride facilities, which are often full on weekdays.
The Passengers in Excess of Capacity standard, which shows the proportion of standard class passengers that is above an accepted capacity level (allowing for both seated and standing passengers) on services at their busiest point, indicates trains arriving and departing from Sheffield station in the morning peak period were crowded over capacity by 1.2% in 2017, while in the afternoon peak the figure was 0.8%.
11 Page 59
The current mode share breakdown for travel to work trips is shown in Figure 2.8.
Figure 2.8 – Current Mode Share across the SCR
Cycle mode share remained fairly constant between 2001 and 2011 at 1.5% but counts taken around the four main urban centres indicate that there was an overall increase by 7% between 2016 and 2017. Cycle mode share for trips less than 5km (considered to be the average commuting trip length for cycle trips) is between 2-3%, with car use dominating this commuting distance. Although walking is the predominant mode for trips less than 1km in length, the reliance on car travel for short trips is still high, especially as 36% of SCR commuting trips are less than 5km in length.
The low mode share for walking and cycling is predominantly as a result of a lack of infrastructure, but also through a perception of a lack of safety resulting from large volumes of traffic and high speeds.
The continued reliance on the private car cannot continue – if the plans for significant economic growth within the City Region are to be realised, then it is forecast that there will be up to half a million extra highway trips per day across our transport network if current trends continue. There is a clear need to make more of our public transport networks and develop our active travel network to give people a real choice in how they travel around the SCR whilst improving air quality, reducing our carbon footprint and cutting congestion.
OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES, INCLUDING TRANSPORT BARRIERS
A summary of SCR’s key challenges and opportunities was presented in the TCF Prospectus and a number of these have been evidenced in the preceding sub-section. Transport has a key role to play in supporting economic growth, ensuring businesses can function and local people can access employment opportunities in the SCR.
Economic growth in the City Region is dependent on attracting and retaining high value businesses, and therefore jobs, ensuring people have the skills and education needed to fill
12 Page 60
them, and then ensuring all parts of the SCR are connected effectively to the areas of opportunity. Figure 2.9 shows the location of the growth areas across the SCR and the main urban centres.
Figure 2.9 – SCR Growth Areas
External connectivity to the SCR is relatively good. The M1 and A1(M) motorways provide North and South connectivity, with connectivity to the East via the M18 to the Humber. The A628 ‘Woodhead Pass’ and the Hope Valley rail line providing connectivity to the West towards Liverpool and Greater Manchester City Regions, with ongoing investigations into improved strategic links by TfN and Highway England being welcomed. The East Coast and Midland Mainlines rail routes connect the SCR to London and the rest of the North and DSA gives the City Region an international reach.
The SCR’s connectivity is currently emphasised by the clustering of employment centres, not only in urban areas, but along the strategic road network. In particular, the M1 and M18 corridors are home to a large number of major employers. There is evidence of clustering along the Supertram network in Sheffield and towards Meadowhall, however a number of the growth areas are starting from a very low base in terms of public transport and active mode connectivity.
All of the major centres have well developed economic and spatial plans to support growth and regeneration, although all have been affected by the economic downturn. The majority of the plans highlight strategic locations based on strong transport linkages. For example, Chesterfield Waterside at Junction 29 of the M1, development sites at Junctions 36 and 37 of the M1 in Barnsley and the Aero Centre Yorkshire proposals in Doncaster, building on the newly opened Great Yorkshire Way road link.
13 Page 61
However, with the changing nature of employment and company preference for certain locations, this is likely to mean that more people will have to travel further to work, compared to the past. This will particularly be the case for higher skilled and higher paid jobs.
At a number of key locations across the SCR, economic growth is constrained by a lack of appropriate infrastructure, which makes development not viable both physically and financially.
The key transport infrastructure challenge is therefore to ensure that the good national connectivity is matched by peerless connectivity within the City Region itself. A quantum leap in transport infrastructure investment is required to remove constraints to development and connect all people across the SCR efficiently and sustainably to the high quality, attractive sites that will support new and inward investment.
Based on the contextual description included previously, the target of this investment should be to address the existing areas of “transport poverty” across the SCR. Around 146,000 people within the SCR are currently living in areas of transport poverty – this is defined as an area of high deprivation where both public transport uptake and car ownership are low. Some 108,000 residents that experience transport poverty currently live in the areas defined by the three priority corridors included in the TCF Prospectus and Figure 2.10 shows the identified areas of transport poverty across the three corridors.
Figure 2.10 – Areas of Transport Poverty in the TCF Priority Corridors
Put simply, the biggest opportunity for future transport investment, including TCF, is to better connect the areas of transport poverty, with those areas of opportunity by public transport and active travel modes, allied to achieving significant mode shift away from the private car on key corridors that could stifle future growth ambitions, thereby achieving growth in a sustainable way that addresses current health issues and improves air quality.
14 Page 62
The Sheffield City Region Integrated Investment Plan (SCRIIP) identified the top 20 highway corridors forecast to experience increased delay resulting from population and economic growth by 2025, as shown in Figure 2.11. Analysis shows that travel times at peak periods can be over 30% greater than at off-peak periods on these corridors, meaning that such unreliable journey times also have an adverse impact on the key bus services using these routes. This requires both short term and longer term interventions so as to avoid continuing and additional delays that adversely affect the attractiveness and viability of our bus network.
Figure 2.11 – Top 20 Corridors Forecast to Experience Delay by 2025
A number of these routes overlap with the priority corridors identified in the TCF Prospectus, most notably the link between Barnsley and Doncaster, where there is currently no direct rail connection alternative. The analysis also shows the forecast congestion on radial routes around Sheffield City Centre and the City’s Inner Ring Road, recognising the ongoing importance of the core city within the SCR where there is also significant opportunity to alleviate congestion and support economic and housing growth through modal shift to public and sustainable transport modes.
15 Page 63
Without future intervention, particularly in terms of public transport and active modes, congestion and delays will increase, and journey time reliability will deteriorate, presenting further barriers to economic growth and potentially damaging the existing economy.
Increasing congestion means that the City Region faces significant air quality issues, with 28 Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) across the SCR, including 6 in Barnsley, 7 in Doncaster and 8 in Rotherham and high levels of carbon emissions around the centre of Sheffield, which has a city-wide action plan, including the motorways and A Roads (see Figure 2.12).
Figure 2.12 – AQMAs in the SCR
Across Sheffield alone, there are 51 locations where the European Union’s annual average limit value for NO2 has been exceeded in one or more of the three year periods (2010-2012). Analysis indicates that road transport is the single most significant contributor to Sheffield’s NO2 emissions at these locations.
Sheffield City Council (SCC) and Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC) are have undertaken a Clean Air Zone (CAZ) Feasibility Study, to ensure compliance with legal thresholds. To address the particular challenges in Sheffield, which needs to bring NO2 emissions within legal limits as quickly as possible, a range of options have been considered with the preferred solution to introduce a ‘Category C’ CAZ covering the Inner Ring Road and the City Centre. The proposed zone is not final and may be subject to minor changes through feedback from the current consultation process
The current proposal means that buses, taxis, vans and lorries that do not meet necessary emissions standards will have to pay to drive in and around the zone. The zone will discourage the use of high polluting vehicles from the City Centre and encourage upgrades to cleaner, low or no emission vehicles. The impact of the zone will be much broader than the City Centre and it should reduce pollution across adjacent neighbourhoods and communities.
16 Page 64
Congestion and air quality are clearly linked, and the SCR’s public transport system and infrastructure for walking and cycling need to offer a real and affordable alternative to the private car if mode shift is to be achieved. This is particularly true for shorter distance trips that could be undertaken by sustainable modes and for short distance connections to longer trips. The public transport system itself also needs to deliver reductions in emissions over time, either through new investment or by interventions to reduce emissions from existing public transport vehicles and rolling stock.
As economic opportunities increase within the SCR, it is likely that commuting distances themselves may well also increase, both within the City Region and to neighbouring city regions. This means that the rail network will play an increasingly important role in the future transport system. Figure 2.13 shows the existing rail network in the SCR and the surrounding area.
Figure 2.13 – Existing SCR Rail Network
The opportunity for the rail network to support the planned growth of the SCR is illustrated in Figure 2.14, showing the existing network against the larger housing and employment growth sites and the catchment areas of each of the existing rail stations.
17 Page 65
Figure 2.14 – SCR Rail Network and Planned Growth Sites
The quality of the rail stations across the SCR varies considerably. Whilst investment has been made in the rail stations in the main centres and at the principal park and ride stations, many of the SCR’s rail stations are either inaccessible for some residents, or are not perceived as safe, particularly during hours of darkness, or both.
The SCR is seeking to define a consistent set of standards at each of the City Region’s rail stations that provides customers with safe and secure facilities that are accessible, gives readily available service information, and offers a pleasant waiting environment with appropriate amenities. This approach is aimed at acknowledging the role of many stations as a community facility, and not just a node on the transport network, and also move towards the situation where nobody is excluded from using the SCR’s rail stations.
As the recently completed refurbishment of Rotherham Central station has demonstrated, patronage growth at improved stations typically outstrips that where on investment has taken place, supporting the case for more widespread improvements at local stations across the SCR.
18 Page 66
The role that the rail network can play in joining up areas of transport poverty with areas of opportunity can be seen, but it is only an effective option for travel if the facilities are suitable for all to use. Effective and safe connections to rail stations, principally by active travel modes, will also be critical to support new economic opportunities, especially given the relatively low commuting distances across the SCR and the areas of transport poverty that have been identified.
Drawing all of this together, the key aims of this TCF Tranche 2 bid are:
• 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 and described below. These aims are designed to underpin the overall TCF objectives of supporting the local economy and boosting productivity whilst reducing emissions and improving air quality. The SCR’s new housing locations will be boosted by a range of transport choices and the inclusion of a significant active travel element will have social inclusion and health benefits.
River Don Corridor
This corridor connects two of the City Region’s key growth areas running from Sheffield City Centre to the Unity site to the north east of Doncaster.
Sheffield City Centre is a regional hub and home to 20,000 jobs in the digital industry, whilst Unity is set to deliver 3,100 houses and 8,000 jobs. In between lies Doncaster Sheffield Airport (DSA) and the proposals that include a vision for a 1,600 acre employment site at Aero Centre Yorkshire, which has the potential to add £3.2 billion in GVA per annum, connecting with deprived areas on the outskirts of Rotherham, Sheffield and Doncaster. In addition, the Aero Centre site has the capacity for a further 8,500 new homes, confirming the importance of improving intra-regional connectivity.
Adjacent to the Aero Centre site is iPort, a £400 million inland port project and one of UK’s largest logistics developments, which is delivering more than 570,000 sq m logistics warehousing linked with a high specification rail freight intermodal container facility
The A6109 and A6178 routes connect Sheffield and Rotherham via Junction 34 of the M1, one of the main points of congestion on both the strategic and local road networks. The A630 corridor connects Rotherham and Doncaster and on to the Unity site via the A18.
There is a two year tram-train trial underway connecting Sheffield, Rotherham and further to the Parkgate retail park, and there are existing local rail and bus connections along this corridor, with bus connections onwards to the north east of Doncaster.
Much of this corridor is located within AQMAs, including the city-wide AQMA in Sheffield, and the corridor is affected by congestion issues around Sheffield city centre, Meadowhall, Parkgate, Warmsworth and Armthorpe. The A6178 corridor between Sheffield and Rotherham showed year-on-year increases in delays of between 7% and 16.5% (depending
19 Page 67
on the section measured) in 2018. Delays on the section of the A6109 within Rotherham increased by 26% between 2017 and 2018. In Doncaster, delays on the A6182 (linking the town centre to the M18 at Junction 13) showed an increase of 5% and the A630 in Rotherham showed an increase in delays of 6.3% over the same period.
These delays particularly impact bus services on the approaches to the centres of Sheffield and Doncaster, as well as in the Meadowhall area.
Figures 2.15 and 2.16 show information provided by Prospective on behalf of one of the two major bus operators in the SCR to illustrate these delays – the former showing morning peak hour passenger weighted delays and the latter congestion-related delays in the evening peak period.
Figure 2.15 – Existing Bus Passenger Delays in Sheffield, Rotherham and Doncaster
Figure 2.16 – Existing Bus Vehicle Delays in Sheffield, Rotherham and Doncaster
20 Page 68
Figure 2.17 shows the hotpots identified in Sheffield City Centre in more detail.
Figure 2.17 – Existing Bus Hotspots in Sheffield
Dearne Valley Corridor
The Dearne Valley Economic Corridor permeates through the Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham borough boundaries, providing significant employment and housing growth opportunities.
The area has undergone recent major transformation, providing jobs, particularly in logistics and distribution through key employers such as XPO Logistics (ASOS) and the Aldi Regional Distribution Centre. The Barnsley Dearne Valley area alone is earmarked for further local investment, which will lead to the unlocking of 2,000 new jobs together with 6,000 new homes by 2024. However, the corridor still suffers from poor connectivity driven by a dispersed settlement pattern.
21 Page 69
The A635 provides the main east-west connection on the northern part of this corridor between the M1 motorway and the A1(M), although this route is of variable standard and reliability. The A635 connects Barnsley and Doncaster via Darfield, Goldthorpe and Thurnscoe, and is one of the main bus corridors. Whilst the A635 corridor has some free- flowing rural sections, between the dispersed settlements there are a number of locations where buses are delayed, including within the settlements themselves. Delays on the section of the A635 within Barnsley increased by 25% between 2017 and 2018.
The A633 also provides an east-west link between Barnsley and Doncaster to the south of the corridor, as well as a north-south link towards Rotherham through the deprived communities of Wombwell, Wath upon Dearne, Mexborough, Denaby and Conisbrough. The A633 corridor is more built-up than the A635 route, and buses experience significant delays at a number of locations. This poor connectivity limits the ability of existing and future residents to access a number of the planned employment sites. Delays on the section of the A633 within Barnsley increased by 7.1% between 2017 and 2018.
Both routes connect to the A6195 Dearne Valley Parkway, which links to the major employment site at M1 Junction 36, and merge to continue along the A6133 into Barnsley town centre. Delays on the section of the A6195 within Barnsley increased by 6.2% between 2017 and 2018. The A61 corridor connects Barnsley north towards the neighbouring boroughs in the Leeds City Region.
To illustrate some of the issue facing public transport services in this corridor, Figures 2.18 and 2.19 illustrate recent trends in the reliability and punctuality of services within the existing Barnsley Bus Partnership. For example, Service 1, which uses the A61 corridor, has experienced a decrease in punctuality from 89% in January 2017 to 81% in April 2019, whilst Services 218 and 219, both of which use the A635 corridor, have experienced reductions in punctuality from 85% and 84% respectively to 80% in both cases over the same time period.
Whilst the Dearne Valley corridor has good north-south rail connectivity (Sheffield – Rotherham – Barnsley Dearne Valley – onwards towards the neighbouring boroughs contained within the Leeds City Region), bus services provide the main form of public transport in the absence of a direct heavy rail link east-west between Barnsley, the Barnsley Dearne Valley and Doncaster. The increasing delays noted above on those routes used by the main bus services will increase further without interventions given the growth plans, further undermining the attractiveness of public transport and highlighting the need to improve east-west connections.
Figure 2.18 – Reliability of Barnsley Bus Partnership Services
22 Page 70
Figure 2.19 – Punctuality of Barnsley Bus Partnership Services
Advanced Manufacturing and Innovation District (AMID) Corridor
This corridor connects Sheffield and Rotherham and is an employment growth area which is now home to high profile employers such as Boeing, McLaren, Rolls Royce, Aloca, Tata, Outokumpu and Forgemasters. AMID is home to the University of Sheffield’s world-leading Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (AMRC), its sister centre, the Nuclear AMRC and its award-winning apprentice training centre. Sheffield Hallam University’s Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre (AWRC), also within AMID, is set to become the most advanced research and development centre for physical activity in the world. The corridor also includes the Olympic Legacy Park (OLP) – delivering a tangible legacy from the London 2012 Olympic Games through a combination of world class sports facilities, education, new skills, research and innovation, environmental improvements and opportunities for the local community.
Growth in the AMID is estimated to provide 6,330 jobs and be worth £351 million in GVA uplift. The AMID is located adjacent to several areas of deprivation on the outskirts of Rotherham and Sheffield, but those communities are poorly connected to the employment, training and apprenticeship opportunities on their doorstep. Many of the key facilities within the AMID are also heavily car-dependent at present, which not only presents environmental and congestion problems, but, left unchecked, could present a further barrier to local people taking advantage of the huge opportunities in the future in an area that is already serving as a national example of industrial transformation.
The area is also estimated to deliver 3,900 new houses at Waverley, which is Yorkshire’s largest-ever mixed-use brownfield redevelopment. However, much of the AMID is within the CAZ covering Rotherham and Sheffield and there is regular congestion on the network around the M1 and along the A630 Sheffield Parkway route, with delays on the section of the A630 within Sheffield showing an increase of 22% between 2017 and 2018. This is partly a result of the lack of effective public transport connections to the new areas of employment within the AMID.
Congestion is also notable around the Inner Ring Road in Sheffield, and on the radial routes to the west and south of the City, where bus services are often delayed on these corridors at peak times, as shown in Figures 2.15, 2.16 and 2.17 previously.
23 Page 71
EXPLORING OPTIONS AND STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVES
Based on these more specific opportunities and challenges, the three principal components of this TCF Tranche 2 bid are as follows:
• Public Transport – infrastructure improvements on corridors identified in the SCRIPT study and the TCF Prospectus aimed at improving the performance of the public transport network, principally journey time, punctuality and reliability, within and between the main urban centres and the identified growth locations. • Active Travel – drawing on the draft Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) and the appointment of an Active Travel Commissioner to develop further a coherent network of active travel routes across the SCR, but focusing initially between the areas of transport poverty and the areas of opportunity, the main urban centres and those corridors with the greatest opportunity for mode shift, taking advantage of the relatively low commuting distances across the SCR at present. • Rail – enhancing accessibility to/from and at rail stations within the SCR and interventions that support connectivity to HS2/NPR touchpoints so that the rail network can become a viable alternative to the private car for those taking advantage of the significant economic growth opportunities.
Options for the bid have been identified and prioritised by considering the challenges and opportunities for each of the three priority corridors and by utilising the evidence and findings of the SCRIPT study and the draft LCWIP.
Both the SCRIPT and the LCWIP work have used a robust evidence led, multi-criteria analysis approach, as well as collaborative workshops with Local Authority Partners, transport providers and interested parties.
In the SCRIPT work, an initial list of 255 options was generated from local transport studies and infrastructure plans, feedback from stakeholder sessions and bespoke options to address specific issues or connectivity gaps. 217 localised options were then grouped into 38 policy or strategy-led interventions that:
• Contribute to managing or reducing demand for travel • Improve overall efficiency and operation of public transport services • Enhance sustainable travel connectivity across the SCR and beyond.
These illustrative interventions have formed the starting point for the development of the public transport infrastructure options within this TCF bid. However, mindful of the objectives of the TCF and the timescales, any interventions that involve major rail investment, or new rail facilities, were not taken forward at this stage given the relatively long lead-in times.
The LCWIP work developed an indicative programme of cycling and walking improvements across the SCR by identifying key cycle desire lines and two corridor level maps per local authority area, highlighting the preferred route and feeder areas for further development. This work was used to develop the initial options for the active travel elements of this bid where they overlap with the three priority corridors and/or provide connections to the rail network.
South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) has an audit of existing facilities at all of South Yorkshire’s rail stations and this audit has been used to prepare the initial options for the rail elements of this bid, based on a ‘gap’ analysis of the facilities that would
24 Page 72
be needed at each station to increase the perception of safety and encourage greater usage of the local rail network.
Once these initial lists of options had been developed, an initial two stage sifting exercise was undertaken to provide greater focus for this TCF bid:
• A high level sift, primarily around geographical fit and deliverability within the TCF timeframe • A more detailed sift, using the Department for Transport’s Early Assessment Sifting Tool (EAST).
This approach was felt to provide transparency within the assessment of options.
The outcome of the second stage of the sifting exercise was then reviewed to ensure that the individual elements of the proposed programme provided a coherent package and linked back to the objectives of the TCF itself and the particular aims of this bid described previously.
Further development work was then undertaken on each of the components of the package, allowing a more refined assessment of the benefits of each element (described later in this section and also in the Economic Case), but also the identification of key delivery issues such as land requirements and stakeholder acceptability.
The latter process involved working with bus operators to develop the public transport elements of the bid, providing them with visibility of the aims of individual schemes and the reasoning behind the proposal from an early stage. Input from the two principal operators has further refined the schemes included within this TCF bid.
The Active Travel Commissioner has set out their aspirations for all of our active travel infrastructure to meet or exceed minimum standards and be fully accessible. The Active Travel Project Director has worked with the Local Authorities to review how each of the elements of this bid meet these aspirations to ensure that the highest quality facilities will result from any TCF and complementary investment. This has prioritised those elements that clearly meet the suggested standards and provide significant elements of a coherent active travel network for the SCR.
The further development work also allowed the components of the bid to be divided between the three funding scenarios described in the Financial Case – in some instances, schemes with a higher level of perceived risk of deliverability were identified and allocated to the ‘High’ funding scenario, whereas on some corridors, the proposed improvements have been scaled across the different funding scenarios to accommodate the response to this TCF bid. This approach ensures that, whatever the outcome of the bid, some improvements on a particular corridor can be delivered, recognising the clear need for intervention to support future plans.
All of the further option development has taken place alongside the development of a series of implementation plans that support the SCR Transport Strategy. Each of these implementation plans sets out a 10-15 year investment programme across rail, active travel, public transport and major roads, and the components of this TCF bid form an essential element of the first four year period of investment across each of these plans.
25 Page 73
INTERDEPENDENCIES
There are independencies between the package of schemes identified within this bid and those included within the £10 million Tranche 1 bid submitted in January 2019. The Tranche 1 schemes are summarised below:
• Don Active Travel Package – improving cycle routes and pedestrian areas along key routes including the area between Ten Pound Walk and Doncaster rail station, between Thorne and Moorends and between Conisbrough, iPort, Rossington and Doncaster town centre • Transforming Active Travel to Rotherham Town Centre – a direct cycle route linking Greasbrough, Kimberworth and Wingfield to Rotherham town centre, as well as providing an early phase of a sustainable transport link to the planned Bassingthorpe Farm housing development, which comprises around 2,400 houses • Sheffield Active Travel Package – a City Centre West cycle route extending existing facilities on Charter Row through to Hanover Way, new crossings on the Portobello cycle route at Mappin Street and Holly Street and the purchase of 200 e-bikes and accessories which will be made available to employers for their staff to use • Barnsley Active Travel Link – an off-road direct cycle route along the A635, linking Ardsley and Darfield to employment opportunities in the Dearne Valley • Emissions Reduction Package – retrofitting buses with reduction systems to make them cleaner and greener • Public Transport Information Package – a city region-wide scheme to install real time information at 45 bus stops to provide passengers with up to date public transport information
Confirmation was received in March 2019 that only the first three of these packages had been selected for funding under Tranche 1, with a total value of around £4.2 million. These interventions are therefore considered as part of the baseline transport network.
There is also a range of other transport schemes that link to the proposals within this business case, including:
• STEP Local Transport Provision – this £19 million investment delivers a series of transport interventions developed to provide enabling infrastructure to support SCR’s growth ambitions and enhance the quality of life of residents, employees and employers, whilst also adding to the attraction for potential movement and investment into the area; the primary focus of STEP is active travel, delivered by new or improved dedicated walking and cycling routes and enhanced public transport provision • Supertram Rail Replacement Phase II – this project is to replace life expired sections of rail within street running sections of the Supertram network; the scheme covers 9.0 route km and prevented full network closure on safety grounds in 2018/19, allowing Supertram to continue to contribute to the SCR’s economic growth and regeneration. • M1 Junction 37 Phases 1 and 2 Claycliffe – the project aims to provide capacity to unlock additional development near Capital Park, improving access to/from the M1 from Barnsley, relieving congestion in the immediate area and on the southbound exit from the M1 and alleviating air pollution; Phase 2 of the project will deliver a significant mixed-use development on 122 hectares of land, comprising 43 hectares of employment land and 1,700 new homes • M1 Junction 36 Economic Growth Corridor – this £7.34 million road improvement scheme in Goldthorpe, will facilitate 73 hectares of new employment land; highway Improvement works will take place on three existing roundabouts, at
26 Page 74
Cathill, Broomhill and Wath Road, while a new roundabout will also be created off the A635 to provide access into the employment site • DN7 Unity Hatfield Link Road – this project delivers a 2.9km road from M18 Junction 5 to unlock the Unity mixed use development, comprising 3,100 houses, commercial floor space and local centre, retail and educational facilities; the road will also provide better connectivity for existing settlements.
The SCR is currently developing OBCs for two Large Local Major Transport Schemes that have some interaction with the schemes within this bid as follows:
• The Sheffield City Region Innovation Corridor project is seeking to reduce pressure on Junctions 33 and 34 of the M1 by exploring options to provide alternatives to the M1 for local traffic, and potentially provide additional routes between Sheffield and Rotherham without the need for drivers to pass through existing motorway junctions; the scheme is aimed at reducing congestion and improving connectivity between Sheffield and Rotherham to maximise the potential for growth of the AMID • The SCR Mass Transit project is developing the business case for the renewal of track and vehicle infrastructure on the Supertram network so as to ensure the continuation and expansion of a high quality mass transit system across the SCR; a consultation on the scope of the project in late 2018 identified that respondents are overwhelmingly in support of renewing and modernising the Supertram network, with 88% in favour of this option and also found that if the tram was no longer available the majority of respondents would use the bus or their car to travel, indicating that a potential shift of existing public transport users to the private car.
Working with bus operators and SYPTE, SCC was awarded £1.947 million from the Government’s Clean Bus Technology Fund (CBTF) in Spring 2018. 117 non-Euro 6 diesel buses operating in Sheffield (93 First buses and 24 Stagecoach buses) are being retrofitted with technology which will improve their engine performance and reduce emissions to a compliant Euro VI standard. The operators are delivering the retrofits to their buses, with SCC providing the grants to pay for them from the CBTF.
Reference has been made to the CAZ proposals promoted by SCC and RMBC, and this bid is aimed firmly at supporting the mode shift required to deliver the required reductions in emissions in the shortest possible time. Additional funding is being sought by SCC and RMBC to implement the CAZ and this would be complementary to this TCF bid, providing the opportunity to go further in some areas in delivering infrastructure to support mode shift. The CAZ proposals include changes to the current controlled parking zones in Sheffield which are likely to provide the most cost effective reduction in emissions within the areas at most risk of having non-compliant air quality, but will also help support the mode shift envisaged by the interventions in this TCF bid.
SCC is working towards Sheffield becoming a zero-carbon city in short order to make their full contribution to the Paris Climate Change agreements and a dedicated piece of analysis has been produced by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research that establishes a carbon ‘budget’ for Sheffield. The report recommends that, for Sheffield to make its fair contribution to global climate goals, the City must not exceed a ‘budget’ of 16 million tonnes of carbon emissions over the next 80 years. At current rates of energy consumption, Sheffield would use this entire budget in less than six years, and so to meet this ‘budget’ requires annual reductions in CO2 emissions of 14% per annum – broadly equivalent to becoming nominally ‘carbon neutral’ by 2038. The TCF schemes within Sheffield (and Rotherham) will help contribute to this reduction, in line with the overall objectives of TCF.
27 Page 75
The SCR is currently undertaking a Bus Review to understand the complex challenges behind declining bus patronage – outside London, annual bus journeys in cities have fallen per person by 40% over the last 25 years and this patronage decline is replicated in the SCR.
In February 2019, the Mayor announced Clive Betts MP as the independent chair of a commission, who in turn appointed a panel of commissioners to support him, that will review bus services in South Yorkshire and put forward recommendations for improvements – including how to best make use of the new powers in the Bus Services Act 2017.
The review will provide the Mayor with an independent assessment on:
• The current condition of the commercial bus and community transport sector in South Yorkshire, including the reasons for the decline in both registered bus services and bus passenger numbers • The social, environmental and economic impacts of this decline in bus services and passenger numbers • The steps which should be taken to ensure commercial bus and community transport services meet the needs of South Yorkshire residents.
The latest part of the review was a call for evidence that ran until September 2019, based around the following key lines of enquiry:
• Trends in bus use and factors contributing to these trends • How to increase bus patronage – generally as well as in relation to different demographic groups including young people, the elderly, minority ethnic groups; key workers; those on low incomes, those with mobility issues • How to improve accessibility – including provision for potentially isolated residents and communities • How to improve ‘quality’ of services with an emphasis on the bus user experience • The relationship between the bus system and other modes of transport and travel such as the tram network and active travel • The implementation of bus priority measures by local leaders in South Yorkshire • The environmental impact that buses can have on congestion, pollution and air quality • The commercial operation of the bus sector including the responsibilities of bus operators, strategic planning and regulatory matters • Adequacy of funding and best approaches to securing future investment in the sector and ensuring sustainability • What can be learnt from other towns, cities and/or city regions about any of the review’s key lines of enquiry.
Final business case to include any key outcomes from the call for evidence that will support the TCF programme.
The outcome of the Bus Review will help to maximise the value gained from any future public transport investment across the City Region, by addressing the issues that are currently contributing to patronage decline and identify areas for improvement to attract non- bus users. The aim of this TCF bid, in connecting areas of transport poverty to areas of opportunity by public transport and active modes is entirely consistent with the aims of the Bus Review.
28 Page 76
SCR has recently commissioned a review of future mobility services across the City Region to help develop the implementation plans that will support the SCR Transport Strategy, reflecting that technology is constantly advancing and this is driving an unprecedented pace of change that will impact our cities, environment and way of life.
This review has considered these changes by analysing global transport trends and emerging technologies (grouped into key themes), interpreting the principles set out in the DfT’s Future Mobility: Urban Strategy (2019) and benchmarking where the SCR is now in relation to these principles, and providing a set of recommendations and actions which the SCR should seek to implement to help propel the City Region to the forefront of future mobility.
A spatial portrait of existing SCR Future Mobility assets and capabilities has been developed in collaboration with stakeholders within the region, to understand where the City Region is currently with regards to future mobility technologies and capabilities. From this review, it is apparent that there is already lots going on in SCR, both in terms of physical assets and intellectual effort, which can be built upon, as shown in Figure 2.20.
Figure 2.20 – Existing Future Mobility Assets and Capabilities in the SCR
The review identifies that the opening up of data has significant potential for the development of new services and solutions and that the SCR has the opportunity to explore how data can be made more open. Working with the Open Data Institute and local digital companies should be a key step in exploring the potential, learning from others and helping to ensure the opportunities are developed to comply with GDPR. The unlocking of data can also support better city region-wide planning, not just from a mobility perspective, but also to look at the whole system of planning to support better and more predictable outcomes.
SCR’s participation in Transport for the North’s (TfN’s) Integrated and Smart Ticketing (IST) programme is a first step in understanding and harnessing the power of data to achieve a range of policy objectives. Phase 2 of the IST programme, currently being implemented, will deliver improved customer information, collaboration and innovation meaning that the same
29 Page 77
kind of information currently enjoyed by most rail passengers will be made available to bus and light rail passengers across the North.
There is an important role for the SCR to mitigate against any risks of new mobility models. It must take this responsibility pro-actively and boldly, specifying up front what the Combined Authority and the Local Authorities want from service providers and ensuring these parameters are operated within. This is reflected in the Government’s Urban Mobility Strategy principles, for example the emphasis on safety and integration.
The review concludes with a series of five ‘key moves’ and a number of more detailed recommendations over the short, medium and long term. A number of the short and medium term recommendations, such as:
• Ensure all new cycle routes are designed so that they are inclusive for all • Explore provision of more feeder services to public transport hubs to create a more integrated system • Improve integration of active travel modes with public transport, for example by creating cycle routes and providing safe and secure cycle parking which are well integrated with tram and bus stops • Progress further work on zero emission buses • Identify opportunities for trialling the TfN IST programme in the SCR and simplify the existing ticketing and payment offer • Encourage greater uptake of e-bikes, are all fully aligned with this TCF bid and the schemes described previously as being delivered in TCF Tranche 1.
As noted previously, the known locations of growth and the known locations of deprivation are unlikely to change considerably over the lifetime of the TCF programme and so, whilst mindful that there will be some changes in future trends, this is unlikely to have a significant impact in the SCR in the next four years.
Therefore, the aim of this TCF bid about providing more choice in transport options to drive mode shift and improved productivity, but future investment programmes across all transport modes will take account of uncertainty and will reflect the review’s assertion that the SCR takes a pro-active role in driving the future mobility offer.
EXPLORING IMPACTS OF INTERVENTIONS
The proposed package of interventions within the SCR’s TCF programme in each of the three priority areas are described below.
River Don Corridor
The significant schemes promoted in this corridor include:
• Improved access between Mexborough town centre and the rail station and Doncaster college and the rail station • Rail station (and station access) improvements across the district (including Adwick, Bentley, Kirk Sandall, Conisborough, Hatfield and Stainforth), including the access
30 Page 78
to/from the stations by active travel modes and improvements to facilities improved signing and information, accessible bench seating, CCTV and lighting enhancements • Addressing locations of existing public transport delays between Doncaster urban centre and the iPort site and DSA • Connecting outlying settlements to the growing economic opportunity by providing a new connection into the iPort site from Rossington for buses and active travel modes and Thorne and Moorends to Unity by active travel modes • Improving accessibility and connectivity by providing better walking and cycling routes in a number of local communities including Armthorpe, Balby, Wheatley, Long Sandall and Edlington • Interventions at key junctions on the A18 corridor between Doncaster urban centre and the Unity growth area • Addressing locations of existing public transport delays within the Doncaster urban centre by providing bus priority measures at key junctions and improving on-street facilities • Improving accessibility and connectivity by providing better walking and cycling routes through Doncaster town centre, including St Mary’s Gyratory, North Bridge Road, Cleveland Street and Bennetthorpe • Connecting Maltby to the main urban centre of Rotherham and addressing a location of existing public transport delays through bus lanes and junction improvements, along with localised enhanced active travel routes within the corridor.
In particular, the proposed interventions around Mexborough will provide active travel connectivity from the employment hub at Manvers to Mexborough town centre and then onto the rail station – Mexborough is among the most deprived communities in Doncaster. The interventions will also provide a high quality active travel connection linking the deprived community of Balby with employment opportunities within the town centre.
Improvements at M18 Junction 3 will resolve one of the most significant locations of delay and unreliability for bus services in Doncaster, enhancing the attractiveness of the public transport connections between the strategic growth hubs of the urban centre, iPort and DSA. This will be complemented by new bridge for public transport and active modes that allows the deprived community of Rossington more direct accessibility to employment and education opportunities.
Improvements to the public transport and active travel networks within the core of Doncaster’s urban centre will allow complete connectivity from the rail station gateway to employment hubs within the town, whilst the North Bridge Road to Bennetthorpe interventions will see a cross-town connection of a high standard active travel corridor, that completes the missing link in the current network, enabling a continuous route to be provided from east to west of the urban centre.
Dearne Valley Corridor
The significant schemes promoted in this corridor include:
• Addressing a location of existing public transport delays on the A61 Wakefield Road, Barnsley by a combination of bus lanes and junction improvements, linked to complementary corridor proposals in the Leeds City Region, along with active travel improvements along the corridor • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) between Barnsley and Doncaster – connecting the only remaining two main urban centres in the SCR which do not have a high quality public transport link, via the housing and employment growth area in the Dearne Valley
31 Page 79
• New cycling route linking Barnsley town centre to the housing growth area in Darfield and on to the housing and employment growth area in Goldthorpe and the wider Dearne Valley • Rail station (and station access) improvements across the corridor, including the access to/from the stations and improvements to facilities improved signing and information, accessible bench seating, CCTV and lighting enhancements • Contributing to the new fully accessible bridge (including cycle use) linking Barnsley rail station and the town centre • Connecting the housing growth areas in Staincross and Royston to the urban centre of Barnsley by providing improvements for active travel modes • Improving walking routes into Barnsley town centre from the Hospital, including along Huddersfield Road • Providing better active travel routes to enable more walking and cycling into local town centres within the Dearne Valley • Addressing locations of existing public transport delays on the A630 corridor • Connecting the housing and employment growth area in the Dearne Valley to the local centre in Wath for active travel modes • Addressing locations of existing public transport delays around the A633 corridor – the main intervention being the provision of a new second access to Parkgate Retail Park, as well as a new 300 space park and ride site for the tram-train terminus.
The A61 is an important cross-boundary corridor and the proposed bus priority measures are intended to deliver journey time savings that will improve the financial viability of the bus market as a whole and in particular for services along the corridor, allowing the opportunity to examine to unlock additional investment from the principal bus operator.
A number of the active travel interventions are interlinked so as to result in a continuous active travel route stretching from Royston to Goldthorpe via the town centre. The particular section of this continuous route from Stairfoot to Goldthorpe also runs adjacent the existing settlements of Ardsley and Darfield and will be within close proximity to some of the housing growth in the Local Plan. This active travel route will run past sites which are allocated for 630 new dwellings and at the end of the route lies another proposed housing site which has been allocated for 194 dwellings.
There is a large employment site proposed off the A635 which incorporates 73 hectares of employment land, the largest employment allocation within the Local Plan – this site lies adjacent to the planned BRT route between Barnsley and Doncaster.
Many of the station access improvements are also aimed at developing coherent active travel networks. The proposed interventions will link Bolton upon Dearne station to the existing Trans Pennine Trail, providing a continuous link to the Manvers Way Industrial Estate. Elsecar station is the closest to the Hoyland Masterplan area, a substantial employment and housing growth site totalling an additional 1,881 new dwellings and over 107 hectares of new employment use by 2033 – the aim is to link the station to the Trans Pennine Trail (which crosses the masterplan area) to provide easier access to this growth site, resulting in fewer journeys into Hoyland itself and encouraging more rail-based park and ride journeys.
Goldthorpe is another area with significant planned housing growth – the Local Plan envisages just under 1,000 additional dwellings to be built by 2033. The proposals include another spur into the wider east-west active travel route connecting Royston to Goldthorpe, allied to a similar proposal at Thurnscoe station, thereby linking Thurnscoe and Goldthorpe to Barnsley town centre and nearby industrial estates.
32 Page 80
The proposed scheme to improve access to Wombwell station will improve active travel links between the station and Cortonwood and Manvers Way Industrial Park. The existing park and ride facility is well used and often over capacity during the week, therefore improved active travel links to the station could potentially reduce levels of parking demand. In the longer term, this is important due to an additional 150 dwellings coming forward within the Local Plan with 18.2 hectares of safeguarded land coming forward beyond the Plan period that will envelop the proposed active travel route.
A package of complementary measures is proposed in the Parkgate area of Rotherham to address significant congestion in the area particularly along the A633 which is a key bus route linking major employment and retail opportunities in Rotherham town centre, Parkgate, Rawmarsh and the Dearne Valley. The congestion is mainly due to the large retail park at Parkgate which generates large volumes of traffic, has only one entrance and exit from the A633 and is in close proximity to the major A633/ A6123 roundabout. This has a major affect on bus journey times and reliability and has been raised as a major concern by bus operators. It is proposed to transform this corridor by introducing a new link road into the retail park which will form an alternative entrance and exiting from the A6123. This will relieve traffic on the A633. A complementary park and ride site will also be introduced in the retail park to serve the successful tram-train service between Parkgate, Rotherham and Sheffield and to further reduce the number of vehicles travelling along the A633 through Parkgate. These measures will also enable amendments to the major A633/A6123 roundabout to benefit public transport. The package of measures will result in much more reliable bus services along the key A633 corridor and improved bus journey times during peak periods. The measures will also encourage economic growth at Parkgate and provide improved access to the tram-train and major urban centres of Rotherham and Sheffield.
AMID Corridor
The significant schemes promoted in this corridor include:
• Promoting active travel use for accessing employment opportunities at the AMID and AMP from Rotherham town centre • Providing better active travel routes to enable more walking and/or cycling through Rotherham town centre, including links to Forge Island – this will complement the current TCF Tranche 1 scheme • A new tram-train stop at Magna, facilitating a new 150 space park and ride site – this will help transform strategic connectivity to the Magna area and provide growth opportunities in the Templeborough/Sheffield Road area • A new high quality segregated cycle route along the A6178 Sheffield Road to help support active travel links between Rotherham, Meadowhall and Sheffield • Addressing locations where existing public transport delays limit access to employment opportunities from south west, Kelham/Neepsend and the east end of Sheffield to Sheffield City Centre, and across the City Centre onto the AMID and Rotherham • Promoting active travel for accessing employment opportunities in Sheffield City Centre, AMID and Rotherham, to improve access to opportunities in particular from areas of deprivation, and constrain car trips (and so congestion and emissions) in the City Centre and on some of the busier roads • Improving public transport journey times and reliability within Sheffield City Centre • A trial of low emission buses to reduce emissions within the CAZ, providing the groundwork for future roll-out of electric buses.
It is proposed to introduce a new tram-train stop at Magna on the Parkgate/Rotherham to Sheffield line with a new park and ride site. The tram-train has been very successful and has
33 Page 81
proved that there is a high demand for this service – this ambitious project will help to relieve congestion and poor air quality within the Lower Don Valley and A6178 corridor by encouraging drivers to park at the new tram train stop and travel on the tram-train service into Sheffield. This will help to address major congestion between Rotherham and Sheffield particularly at the Junction 34 of the M1 and also help to improve air quality. The project will also link with the proposed A6178 segregated cycle route and encourage cyclists traveling longer distances to use the tram-train service.
The high quality segregated cycle route along the A6178 will provide a direct route for all between Rotherham town centre and Tinsley/Meadowhall in Sheffield linking large residential areas in Rotherham and Tinsley to major employment and retail in the Lower Don Valley and the AMID. The largest traffic flows in South Yorkshire are between Rotherham and Sheffield resulting in major congestion in the Lower Don Valley between these major urban centres particularly at Junction 34 of the M1 which is affecting economic growth. There is also poor air quality in the area due to the large volumes of traffic and a high proportion of HGVs using the A6178. Despite this, there is demand to use this route from cyclists and so a high quality, segregated cycle route will help to address these issues by encouraging modal shift and by providing a comfortable environment for new and existing cyclists.
The aim of the proposals within Sheffield is to enable existing trips into the City Centre to be shifted towards more space-efficient modes, to enable trips to be ‘banked’ to allow for future expansion of activity in the City Centre. The ‘Nether Edge Wedge’ in the south west has been prioritised on the basis of the DfT Propensity to Cycle tool indicating that interventions in this part of the City affords the greatest opportunity for abstraction from car trips, and has been also identified in the draft LCWIP as a priority on this basis. The South West Sheffield bus corridors have similarly been identified, working with bus operators, as areas where buses suffer significant delays on corridors experiencing high levels of car use for trips into the City Centre.
The interventions should also ensure that the City Centre provides a safe, attractive hub to facilitate cross-city movements by public transport and active modes, including improvements to cross-city public transport speed and reliability as well as improving the ease of interchange between radial services, thereby creating an attractive environment to support economic growth and housing delivery. The proposals in the City Centre have been aligned to SCC’s emerging Future High Streets Fund bid and to wider development opportunities, to deliver a City Centre that facilitates public transport and active modes use in preference to private car use.
Improving public transport journey times and reliability, and the active travel experience, within and between areas of housing growth and employment areas, to encourage residents of new homes to be delivered in and around the City Centre to take up sustainable modes as the default option has influenced the option development process.
This is the principal driver for the Sheffield Housing Zone North works (which are aligned to the Housing Infrastructure Fund bid in this area), as well as works on the City to AMID corridor which align with identified housing sites around Attercliffe. The scope of these projects have been set out to improve social inclusion, in areas amongst 10% most deprived in the country, by ensuring access to employment opportunities in the City Centre and AMID, and also to existing public transport services (in particular Supertram) is improved for existing communities, and by improving the safety and attractiveness of local communities for active travel more generally.
34 Page 82
Proposals have also been identified to support connectivity to the AMID, given that the area is poorly served by public transport and active modes at present, as well as to support interurban bus services between Sheffield, AMID, Rotherham, Doncaster and the iPort – in particular improvements in the City Centre, at Attercliffe and at Meadowhall supporting the X1 Sheffield – Rotherham service. The improvements in Attercliffe and Darnall are also anticipated to provide an alternative for long distance services presently delayed by significant peak hour congestion on A630 Sheffield Parkway (notably the X6 connecting Sheffield with the AMRC, the iPort and Doncaster), improving public transport reliability between key regional hubs and employment centres.
Overall, the three packages of work within this TCF bid will a provide range of wider economic, environmental and social benefits.
In economic terms, without investment, the existing levels of congestion will worsen and constrain the growth potential of the SCR’s development assets. By creating public transport and active travel networks that work for users, the SCR can begin to accommodate the significantly increased demand for travel between key urban centres and unlock new housing and employment sites in the City Region (as well as boost existing sites that are poorly connected).
Unlocking these sites and connecting people to the economic opportunities, particularly high value jobs, will help improve productivity, reduce deprivation, increase public transport mode share, reduce emissions and improve health outcomes.
The packages will better connect homes, transport interchanges, employment, education and recreational opportunities using safer, direct and convenient routes. This investment will be particularly important for those existing and new workers and apprentices with jobs that have shift patterns that do not align with public transport timetables. There will be a particular focus on ensuring new journeys stimulated by investment in the SCR are targeted to reduce the reliance on private transport and offer users affordable, sustainable and healthy travel choices. Business will also benefit as their employees will be better able to commute to work in a way that can increase productivity through a reduction in lateness as well as absenteeism due to ill-health.
The active travel packages in this TCF bid will target existing as well as prospective workers, apprentices and students and those wishing to access vital local services. The cycling and walking infrastructure improvements will enable people to access jobs, education/training opportunities and local services through choosing affordable, greener and healthier forms of travel.
In terms of environmental benefits, a move towards a zero carbon public transport network not only has direct benefits in terms of reducing emissions, but will also allow the SCR public transport network to be a trailblazer, shed its image of being highly polluting and be a key part of the AQMA/CAZ measures that will reduce emissions from a variety of sources. The three priority corridors include 19 AQMAs, amounting to 63% of all AQMAs within the City Region as well as the CAZ in Rotherham and Sheffield. Investment in active travel will also assist in enhancing the attractiveness of the built environment where people live and work.
Ultimately, attractive places that show joined up thinking between town and transport planning will help to retain graduates, attract new investment, and improve its outdoors to the advantage of the SCR. The SCR’s future transport proposals will also seek to protect and enhance green spaces (including parks) and public rights of way, such as riverside footpaths where they provide alternative opportunities for active travel and in this way will have benefits for the water environment and biodiversity.
35 Page 83
In terms of social benefits, investment in the priority corridors through the TCF will benefit around 108,000 people living in the identified areas of transport poverty. Investment in cycling and walking infrastructure will provide affordable and inclusive transport options, allowing people to access employment and services easily and cheaply whilst encouraging more active lifestyles, offering health benefits. It will also assist in reducing pedestrian and cycle related accidents (particularly amongst high risk groups). The provision of coherent and continuous cycling and walking infrastructure will also address security and severance issues where these exist. Improved public transport connectivity will also encourage modal shift from private vehicles, leading to a number of decongestion benefits.
There are disbenefits from a loss of indirect taxation due to trips being made by sustainable modes at the expense of car trips, but these are more than outweighed by the value of the health and social benefits associated with this.
ALIGNING WITH WIDER LOCAL PLANS AND OBJECTIVES
The Mayor’s Vision for Transport and the SCR Transport Strategy contains a series of goals, Mayoral commitments and policies as set out in the following table.
These goals, commitments and policies were developed to guide future investment in transport across the SCR, and so the TCF proposals have been developed with these in mind.
Transport Mayoral Commitments Transport Strategy Strategy Goals Policies
1. Improve the existing Residents and I will invest in tram, tram-train, bus transport network to enhance businesses connected rapid transit, bus networks, active access to jobs, markets, to economic travel and tackle our congestion skills and supply chains opportunity hotspots. adopting technology
solutions to support this I will develop a plan for road investment that takes a co- 2. Enhance productivity by ordinated long-term perspective making our transport system faster, more reliable and I will ensure that local, regional more resilient, considering and national road and rail the role of new technologies investment delivers for this region to achieve this
3. Invest in integrated I will ensure that new technology improves the customer experience packages of infrastructure of travelling in and around the to unlock future economic growth and support Local Sheffield City Region Plans, including new
housing provision I will actively support improved public transport connections to Doncaster Sheffield Airport and ensure that regional rail investment delivers fast and efficient rail links to major airports
4. Improve air quality across our A cleaner and greener I will work with partners to deliver City Region to meet legal Sheffield City Region a zero-emissions public transport
36 Page 84
Transport Mayoral Commitments Transport Strategy Strategy Goals Policies network and we will eliminate the thresholds, supporting need for AQMAs improved health and activity for all, especially in I will undertake a review of the bus designated AQMAs and network in South Yorkshire, to look CAZs at all options for improving local 5. Lead the way towards a low bus service carbon transport network,
including a zero-carbon public transport network 6. Work in tandem with the planning and development community to create attractive places
7. Ensure people feel safe Safe, reliable and I will invest in services to ensure when they travel and invest accessible transport that residents with disabilities, in our streets to make them network young people, the elderly and more attractive places those who are isolated economically and geographically 8. Enhance our multi-modal are able to travel easily, transport system which confidently and affordably encourages sustainable travel choices and is I will put pedestrians and cyclists embedded in the at the centre of our transport plans assessment of transport requirements for new I will ensure that safety is planned development, particularly into all future transport investment for active travel and that road safety education 9. Ensure our transport network initiatives are prioritised offers sustainable and
inclusive access for all to
local services, employment opportunities and our green and recreational spaces
The Mayoral commitments that “I will invest in tram, tram-train, bus rapid transit, bus networks, active travel and tackle our congestion hotspots” and “I will put pedestrians and cyclists at the centre of our transport plans” are of particular relevance to this TCF bid.
There is close alignment between the goals and policies and the specific proposals in this bid as set out in the following table.
Goal Policy Link to TCF Proposals
1 Policy 1 Enabling people to access opportunities through choosing greener and healthier forms of transport by sustained investment in high quality public transport, cycling and walking infrastructure both for existing journeys and new journeys stemming from investment in the City Region.
1 Policy 2 Targeted investment, including new technology, in public transport infrastructure on key corridors will make journeys on faster and more reliable.
37 Page 85
Goal Policy Link to TCF Proposals
1 Policy 3 The priority corridors identified for investment and the existing rail network are intended to connect areas of housing growth, eg in the Dearne Valley, to areas of economic opportunity.
2 Policy 4 Encouraging people to adopt sustainable travel modes over private cars to reduce the number of vehicles that use the SCR road network and hence reduce the negative effects of congestion.
2 Policy 5 Delivering a zero-carbon public transport network requires investment the bus fleet.
3 Policy 7 Ensuring that public transport stops and interchanges are perceived as safe, alongside the principle routes connecting them to housing and job opportunities.
3 Policy 8 Reducing the reliance on private transport, encouraging people to choose greener and healthier forms of transport both for existing journeys and new journeys stemming from investment in the City Region. Investing over a sustained period in high quality public transport, cycling and walking infrastructure that better connects homes, transport interchanges, education, employment and recreational opportunities using safer, direct and convenient routes. Developing an investment plan from the LCWIP that removes barriers to walking and cycling and identifies the infrastructure required to encourage more trips by bike or on foot.
3 Policy 9 Investing in clearer wayfinding, travel planning for residents and visitors, and the maintenance of walking and cycle paths.
This confirms that the TCF programme is a vital element of the SCR Transport Strategy and key to its successful delivery. The TCF also aligns to the policies of the South Yorkshire Local Authorities, particularly the Sheffield Transport Strategy.
All the interventions will focus closely on improving public and sustainable transport modes in preference to private cars, to make these fit for the 21st Century and to meet the SCR’s economic growth ambitions.
Within the three priority corridors, there are internationally significant assets including the National High Speed Rail College, AMID, Sheffield City Centre, the Digital Campus at Barnsley and DSA. Improving connectivity between these assets will improve productivity and competitiveness and move towards the Mayoral ambition to significantly increasing the number of economically active people living within 30 minutes of key employment locations and universities by public transport and active modes.
The packages will also directly tackle air pollution and reduce the level of carbon emissions in line with UK targets by driving forward the desire to deliver a zero carbon public transport system in the longer term and eliminate AQMAs in the City Region, aligned with the emerging CAZ proposals.
The SCR Transport Strategy also states that any schemes brought forward, including through the TCF programme, will also be judged against these three goals and the success criteria that flow from them. These are set out in the following table.
38 Page 86
Goal Success Criteria (by 2040)
Residents and a) Contribute towards increasing GVA in SCR through businesses connected to increasing the number of economically active people living economic opportunity within 30 minutes of key employment locations and universities by public transport
b) Better frequency of rail service between Sheffield and Manchester/Leeds - at least four fast trains per hour, with a A cleaner and greener target 30 minute journey time to/from both and a local rail Sheffield City Region network that meets the agreed minimum standards c) Increase productivity through reducing delays on our transport network d) Increase trips by 18% bus, 100% rail , 47% tram, 21% walking and 350% cycling and manage the increase in private car/van/goods trips to 8%
e) 95% public opinion that our local transport choices feel safe
f) Reduction in reported casualties of 4% per year Safe, reliable and g) Eliminate AQMAs in our City Region and comply with legal accessible transport thresholds to achieve compliance in the shortest possible network time h) Reduce tailpipe carbon emissions in line with targets for the UK and have a zero-carbon public transport network by 2040
SCR’s SEP articulates a clear vision for economic growth, which is to create a bigger and stronger private sector. Strong economic performance in recent years has meant that the SCR is ahead of the growth targets set in 2014, but there is a clear desire to go further, by unlocking the potential to grow faster.
The LEP is more than half way through the delivery of its six year transformative Local Growth Fund (LGF) programme – this includes £283 million spent on transport and infrastructure, prioritised to deliver economic growth, which in turn is leveraging £553 million in wider investment, helping to unlock 71,846 jobs and 6,835 homes.
More broadly than LGF, the SCR Combined Authority is investing a further £178 million in transport between 2015/16 and 2020/21 through a range of initiatives. This will be aligned with funding through the TCF programme to deliver the plan for growth and to achieve the SCR Transport Strategy goals.
The TCF programme therefore directly supports the objectives of SCR’s ongoing refresh of the SEP, where transforming internal connectivity is central to the vision for growth.
The packages of interventions that have been developed for this Tranche 2 bid also align directly with the objectives of the overall TCF programme and wider regional and national plans and policies.
The SCR Transport Strategy sets out a need to develop a series of implementation plans and this process is underway. The Integrated Rail Plan, which aims to ensure that the SCR fully benefits from transformational national projects such as HS2 and NPR, was published in July 2019.
39 Page 87
The draft LCWIP is being developed into an Active Travel Implementation Plan and a Roads Implementation Plan is also being prepared that focuses on the roads that we have rather than building new ones, recognising that almost all journeys start and finish on local roads and they play a major part in everyone’s life, whether as a pedestrian, cyclist, bus passenger, freight operator, driver or passenger, and that our plans for the road network need to help the public transport services that use it and help support active travel where possible, whilst not severing communities or wildlife habitats. There will also be an implementation plan focuses on public transport timed to coincide with the completion of the SCR Bus Review.
The SCR also is positioned within three of the Strategic Development Corridors identified in TfN’s Strategic Transport Plan, where investment in multi-modal connectivity is required to support planned economic growth.
Finally, the TCF Tranche 2 proposals within this bid also align closely with the ambitions and objectives of the Northern Powerhouse, the Stronger Towns agenda and the Government’s Industrial Strategy, particularly the Infrastructure, Place and People pillars of the latter.
CONSIDERING WIDER EVIDENCE AND STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
A public consultation on the Draft SCR Transport Strategy was undertaken in the first three months of 2018. An online survey was conducted, consisting of nine questions that combined open and closed formats. The survey was completed 286 times online and five hard copies were also received via post. Written submissions were received from 22 organisations via a dedicated inbox and two handwritten responses submitted by post from members of the public.
The consultation generated a large amount of data and suggestions for refining the Strategy. Overarching support was expressed for the proposed goals and policies in the Strategy and the issues drawing the greatest attention involved local bus services, the environment and cycling. This feedback has helped shape this Tranche 2 bid.
Consultation in relation to individual elements of the packages themselves has been considered since an early stage in the SCRIPT work. Through interactive workshops, interviews and questionnaires, key challenges were identified affecting the network and the same stakeholders were then involved in the development of the interventions that address these challenges.
Stakeholders involved in the SCRIPT work included:
• South Yorkshire District Authorities • Other SCR District Authorities • South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive • SCR LEP • West Yorkshire Combined Authority • TfN • Delivery partners – including Network Rail, HS2 Ltd and Highways England • Rail operators – including East Midlands Trains, Northern Rail, First TransPennine Express, Stagecoach Supertram • Bus operators – including Stagecoach Yorkshire, First South Yorkshire, TM Travel, Powells
40 Page 88
• Other interested parties – including Living Streets, Cycle Sheffield, Sheffield Community Transport, Age UK
The development of the draft LCWIP involved significant input from the South Yorkshire Local Authorities and is the basis for further development work under the remit of the SCR’s Active Travel Commissioner. There is a high degree of community involvement in developing detailed plans for active travel infrastructure through the TCF programme.
In Sheffield, SCC’s production of a local Transport Strategy involved a public consultation exercise in 2018 which informed SCC’s priorities within this TCF bid and demonstrates a high level of political buy-in at this early stage in the programme’s development.
In Barnsley, Council Officers are discussing active travel issues with the Health & Wellbeing Board and hospital clinical forums to inform the development of the walking and cycling implementation plans.
Discussions have also been held with the Leeds City Region around inter-regional connectivity between Sheffield and Leeds, via Barnsley and Wakefield.
This bid is fully supported by the LEP, having been presented to the LEP Board meeting on 20 May 2019, and key private sector partners across SCR, including public transport operators.
Further details are provided in the Management Case, along with a Stakeholder Management Plan which summarises the high level of engagement already undertaken, as well as planned in the future. There has therefore been strong and widespread stakeholder input to the development of the principles of this TCF bid and also of the individual elements include within it, as well as a high level of support.
SUMMARY OF THE RATIONALE FOR INVESTMENT
The SCR is polycentric city region, not a classic mono-centric conurbation in the manner of Greater Manchester, Bristol or Glasgow. The SCR LEP area is home to 1.8 million people, with 68,000 businesses, providing 847,000 jobs and an annual GVA of around £34 billion.
However:
• The SCR has low productivity despite a sizeable economy • There is a high economic inactivity, unemployment and NEET rate in the SCR • There are pockets of high deprivation across the SCR • Population growth is expected to see an ageing population profile • Health is an issue in the SCR too, with the majority of districts having physical inactivity levels higher than the national average for the adult population • At a number of key locations across the SCR, economic growth is constrained by a lack of appropriate infrastructure, which makes development not viable both physically and financially • The SCR labour market is fairly self-contained, with 36% of SCR commuting trips being less than 5km in length • There is a reliance on cars when travelling to work in the SCR and there could be up to half a million extra journeys on our network every day by 2026
41 Page 89
• Not having reasonable access to the transport system is a key factor in social exclusion and has a detrimental impact on people’s day to day lives and future opportunities • Air quality is poor in a number of areas, with 28 AQMAs identified across the SCR and a CAZ has been mandated in Rotherham and Sheffield.
Each of the local economies and the identified growth areas has a role to play within the City Region and each will make an important contribution to future growth. Making further progress in addressing the challenges and issues which are specific to local areas will help to boost the overall economic resilience of the City Region and its attractiveness as a place to live, work, play and visit.
But the SCR’s transport system and its supporting infrastructure is not fit for the 21st century – there is existing and future trend of car commuting meaning that some major employment sites and land available for development is constrained by congestion.
If left unchecked, congestion and delays will increase, and journey time reliability will deteriorate, presenting further barriers to economic growth and potentially damaging the existing economy, resulting in a drag on productivity, competitiveness and a great underutilisation of talent and skills. Increased congestion will also have a severe detrimental impact on the SCR’s air quality and hence the health of its residents.
Therefore, there is a clear need to take action now to improve the opportunities for people to use public transport and active modes and to make these modes the preferred choice of travel for increasing numbers of people across the SCR, linked to the identified growth and employment opportunities.
Drawing together the stated objectives of the TCF and the wider social and economic objectives of the SCR, there is a number of areas across the SCR where the economic opportunities that have been identified could have the greatest impact on existing deprivation – these are the areas that currently experience transport poverty.
Put simply, the biggest opportunity for future transport investment, including TCF, is to better connect the areas of transport poverty, with those areas of opportunity by public transport and active travel modes, allied to achieving significant mode shift away from the private car on key corridors that could stifle future growth ambitions, thereby achieving growth in a sustainable way that addresses current health issues and improves air quality.
Therefore, the overall aim of this TCF bid is to promote a series of interventions that contribute towards the SCR’s local aim to improve intra-city region connections that either:
• Connect areas of deprivation/transport poverty to areas of economic opportunity by public and sustainable transport modes; or • Seek to achieve significant mode shift away from the private car on key corridors that could stifle future growth ambitions.
These aims are entirely in line with the overall TCF objectives of supporting the local economy and boosting productivity whilst reducing emissions and improving air quality. They are also in line with the Mayor’s Vision for Transport, the SCR Transport Strategy and the policies of the South Yorkshire Local Authorities. Improving these intra-city region public transport and active travel connections will allow the SCR to realise its potential but to do this in a sustainable way that addresses current health issues and improves air quality.
42 Page 90
5. COMMERCIAL CASE
INTRODUCTION
This section provides evidence on the commercial viability of the proposed package of interventions, the requirement in terms of outputs and the procurement strategy that will be used to engage the market.
The key points from the Commercial Case are as follows:
• All aspects of the TCF programme are commercially viable.
• The elements of the TCF programme have a clear set of outputs, all of which will help accelerate planned economic growth and improve productivity across the SCR through targeted investment in public transport and active travel connectivity, particularly in areas of transport poverty.
• A range of alternative approaches to procurement have been considered but is thought preferable that the majority of the interventions within the TCF programme will be delivered by the South Yorkshire Local Authorities and SYPTE, with Northern Rail procuring the improvements at local rail stations.
• Each procuring authority has identified a preferred procurement route, with an alternative if needed, making use of existing arrangements where possible.
COMMERCIAL VIABILITY
The schemes within this TCF programme are all commercially viable as the SCR, SYPTE and the South Yorkshire Local Authorities have considered whole life costs during the development of the programme and the production of scheme costs. The scope of the individual schemes included within the programme have been tailored to ensure that it is entirely deliverable within the timescales within which funding is available.
Approval has been sought from each of the individual authorities to the stated local contributions and each has also confirmed an acceptance of responsibility for meeting any ongoing revenue and capital requirements for the elements of the programme.
The TCF programme predominantly comprises new or upgraded transport infrastructure that will be maintained by the relevant local highway authority once constructed. There are no other ongoing costs that will affect the commercial viability of these improvements.
There is planned investment in new and expanded park and ride facilities at Parkgate and Magna. The work done to support this SOBC by SYPTE that indicates the improvements can be commercially viable given existing latent demand and likely attraction of additional users to the tram-train service.
Some of the bus priority measures within the TCF programme will benefit commercial bus operators in terms of reduced journey times and improved reliability of services. This should have the effect of reducing bus operating costs for services using the facilities, as well as increasing passenger numbers and revenue. Previous investment in such facilities has
1 Page 91
shown this to be the case, but it is often difficult to attribute specific commercial returns in isolation.
The main commercial bus operators have been involved in the preparation of this SOBC and their input will continue as the design process moves forward. At the appropriate time, SCR and SYPTE will discuss with bus operators to determine whether and how commitments to complementary improvements, such as new vehicles, improved service levels and reduced fares, could be delivered. This will be done through the existing bus partnership arrangements, which requires any savings made by the bus operators as a result of public sector investment to be re-invested in services within the SCR.
A separate assessment is being undertaken to confirm the commercial viability of the low emissions bus trial that is part of the TCF programme, but as this is a trial, should the return on investment envisaged not materialise, then there will be no ongoing liability.
Northern Rail as Station Facility Owner (SFO) is responsible for operation and maintenance of the rail stations across the SCR. It is party to various existing contracts to execute these obligations and the expectation is that the station enhancements planned in the TCF programme would be added to this portfolio, offset by the increased revenue from an uplift in patronage. The improved facilities would then become part of the baseline asset register for the next Northern Rail franchisee and SFO.
No specific market engagement has yet taken place on the SCR TCF programme, but given the nature of the works involved, there is expected to be a good level of market interest given previous experience of schemes of the type included within the programme.
OUTPUT-BASED SPECIFICATION
The anticipated outputs from each of the interventions within the preferred TCF programme are set out in Appendix D, and these will be refined and updated as more design work is undertaken. At a high level across the SCR, the consolidated outputs of this programme are:
• XXkm of improved walking and cycling infrastructure • XXkm of new walking and cycling infrastructure • XXkm of new infrastructure to benefit buses • XXkm of new bus lanes • XX junction improvements to benefit non-car modes • Improvements to the facilities at 13 local rail stations • Deployment of XX low emission buses for the period of the TCF programme.
As noted in the Strategic Case, the overall aim of the TCF programme is to promote a series of interventions that contribute towards the SCR’s objective to improve intra-city region connections that either:
• Connect areas of deprivation/transport poverty to areas of economic opportunity by public and sustainable transport modes; or • Seek to achieve significant mode shift away from the private car on key corridors that could stifle future growth ambitions.
The planned economic growth in the SCR can be accelerated through targeted investment in public and sustainable transport connectivity. The TCF programme will improve the speed and reliability of existing journeys on sustainable transport modes, encourage journeys to
2 Page 92
switch from the private car to sustainable modes and encourage new journeys to be made using those modes.
The overall outcomes of the TCF programme are described in the Economic Case and are aligned to the Measures for Success set out in the SCR Transport Strategy.
PROCUREMENT STRATEGY
The preferred TCF programme involves seven partners – SCR, SYPTE, the four South Yorkshire Local Authorities and Northern Rail, where there are works at local rail stations. Bearing in mind that each of these partners has their own existing procurement procedures, the establishment of a robust procurement strategy for the TCF programme was the subject of a discussion at the TCF Programme Board in September 2019.
To inform the discussion, each procuring authority (except for Northern Rail) outlined their current position, and it was evident that there is a variety of existing arrangements in place. Although there was considered some merit in exploring ways to let joint framework contracts to help deliver projects across the SCR in the future, such contracts are unlikely to be operational in time for the TCF programme, hence the need to establish a strategy that takes account of the existing arrangements, but sought to provide clarity and certainty within the delivery process and minimise the identified risks.
SYPTE will be responsible for procuring the rail elements of the TCF programme including the number and scope of individual contracts, budget, cost control, programme and relationship management with Northern Rail as SFO. Since the station improvements are largely similar to works undertaken across the network it has been agreed that it would be more efficient to procure individual work packages utilising Northern Rail’s existing framework-type arrangements.
SYPTE will also managed the interface between the works at the station and the works undertaken by each Local Authority on the approach to the station.
Therefore, the remainder of the procurement strategy covers the active travel and (non-rail) public transport interventions only.
Establishing a common procurement strategy also needs to be mindful of SCC’s current PFI contract with Amey Hallam Highways. Depending on the scope and scale of the works, this could preclude other contractors working within the City without a separate procurement procedure (adding time and cost to any contract), and it is unclear whether the existing arrangement could varied efficiently to allow Amey Hallam Highways to work within other South Yorkshire Local Authorities.
On this basis, the six remaining partners first discussed the options for procuring the necessary design work to progress the interventions within the TCF programme. Given the experiences to date in progressing the designs of individual schemes within the procuring authority responsible, and also with regard to the ability of each authority to call on external support and resources, it was agreed to retain the existing approach for the procurement of the design services through the detailed design and contract preparation stage. This will see the use of both in-house and external resources, the latter being either retained through a framework or procured on a needs basis, as has been done by SCC for the design work to date.
3 Page 93
In terms of scheme delivery, the review of procurement options was first discussed in relation to two dimensions in particular:
• Who would be the ‘client’? and • What is the contract scope/length?
It was felt that by exploring these issues, a preferred procurement strategy could be developed.
The options for the ‘client’ were identified as:
• Each procuring authority individually • Groups of authorities on a route/corridor basis, or by geographical connections • All procuring authorities collectively, with a single accountable body • SCR, on behalf of all procuring authorities.
Although it was acknowledged that either of the latter two would be the most simple, and likely to be preferable to the DfT, current legislation would require various Section 278 Agreements to be in place where other authorities (or SCR) were letting and managing contracts in locations where they were not the local highway authority.
Such a restriction would apply to all but the first option, with the added complication of SCC’s existing PFI contract, and was felt to result in an unnecessary layer of administration and agreements that could offset the planned delivery of the scheme. Hence, the agreement from the TCF Programme Board was to pursue the first option, but with the possibility of retaining the second where an overall joint procurement exercise would be better value for money.
In terms of the scope and length of the contract, the following elements were discussed to determine which option best suited the needs of the TCF programme and with a mind to the contracting arrangements with the SCR that would be needed:
• On a corridor basis • On a geographical basis (by each local highway authority area) • On a theme basis (by active travel/public transport) • On a time basis (Year 1, Year 2, Year 3 and Year 4) • On a value basis (relating to each individual intervention) • On a whole programme basis.
The advantages and disadvantages of each were discussed, with the key factor being the need to balance the timely delivery of the TCF programme with the drive to maximise efficiency, whilst mindful of existing arrangements. It was agreed, however, that there was an advantage in streamlining the management of the programme delivery and providing the opportunity to reduce the number of contracts and contractors involved.
As a result, the preferred procurement strategy is based on division by a balance of a theme and geographical basis. This mirrors the approach taken on other funding bids with the DfT and other Government departments and will be underpinned by back-to-back agreements between the SCR and the South Yorkshire Local Authorities.
All contracts will be let in line with SCR’s, SYPTE’s and the South Yorkshire Local Authorities’ standing orders to ensure that best value for money is delivered. Evaluation and award of contract will most likely be made on the most economically advantageous tender received by the procuring authority. Every attempt will be made to co-ordinate evaluation
4 Page 94
criteria across different authorities by sharing such criteria (and adapting if necessary) before any contracts are awarded.
All tendered contract packages will be let in accord with the contract procedure of the authority letting the contract or the procurement route for any schemes over the OJEU threshold (if this still applies after the UK leaves the EU) will be via the YORCivils framework. As in many cases the design of an individual scheme will be straightforward, a more typical client/designer and contractor/constructor relationship will be deployed. Procurement of larger schemes could be on a design and build basis using the NEC form of contract.
The NEC suite of contracts are well understood and are a tried and tested set of contracts used on large scale construction schemes. In addition, the implementation of NEC contracts has resulted in major benefits for projects both nationally and internationally in terms of time, cost savings and improved quality. The recent update to the NEC4 suite of contracts from NEC3 reflects procurement and project management developments and emerging best practice, with improvements in flexibility, clarity and the ease of administration.
Further details on the approach to procurement are provided in the following paragraphs.
Active Travel Schemes
Delivery of the works in Barnsley will be considered under the terms of the Council’s contract procedure rules to ensure best value for money in terms of cost, quality of work and actual delivery timescales to maximise expenditure.
This will include a combination of the following (depending on the nature of the works and the availability of resources):
• The procurement of the works via the YORCivils framework contract which has already been established and complies with OJEU regulations, allowing the Council to minimise the procurement timescales once approval for a scheme is granted – appointment will be on the most economically advantageous bid • The delivery of the works being provided in-house by Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (BMBC), subject to approval by the Executive Director of Place, and if so, subject to value for money considerations, progress all works.
In Doncaster, the majority of the work is likely to be carried out by Doncaster Council Officers – this includes design, feasibility and delivery of the works. If required, contractors will be procured via framework community partnering arrangements for the works, initially in an ECI role (for design development/buildability input and to maximise value engineering opportunity and help develop robust baseline programme and cost data).
In Rotherham, the majority of the works will be also undertaken by RMBC’s in-house Highway Delivery Team. The costs associated with the Highway Delivery Team have been commercially tested and offer value for money compared to other similar organisations. However, the Council is a member of the Midlands Highway Alliance Framework which enables the appointment of design and construction contracts. If there are any issues with design or delivery, the Council can utilise this framework to procure services. This framework builds on previous experience and includes a series of KPIs to ensure that the contractor performance is constantly revised and fed back into contractor selection models. Contractors are therefore incentivised to continue to deliver schemes on time and within budget. Membership also gives access to a professional services framework contract for design services.
5 Page 95
In Sheffield, SCC has an existing competitively tendered highways PFI contract with Amey Hallam Highways that contains two different types of service ‘core’ and ‘non-core’. ‘Core’ works cover the investment and maintenance in highway infrastructure. ‘Non-core’ works cover the design and construction of capital works for both highway and off-highway schemes. Amey will be engaged under the ‘non-core’ element of the contract for schemes that are below OJEU threshold as this is the fastest route to delivery as the need to tender the works is negated. For works over the OJEU threshold, works will be tendered through existing framework arrangements, such as the YORCivils framework.
Public Transport Schemes
The public transport schemes will be delivered in a similar way to the recent successful Better Bus Area (BBA) Fund schemes, where design has been undertaken ‘in house’ and construction awarded to Amey under the (non-core) PFI contract and integrated into ongoing work with the South Yorkshire bus partnership arrangements. The details for delivery will vary depending on the type, size and location of the scheme. For larger schemes this will include:
• The use of consultants for design from existing frameworks where there is no in- house capacity • Competitively procured works contractors or as noted above in Sheffield, the current PFI contractor Amey Hallam Highways where schemes are classed as ‘non-core’ elements of the existing PFI contract.
For smaller schemes the current process for dealing with South Yorkshire Bus Partnership works will be used (for example, hotspot groups in each Local Authority area).
The relevant bus and train operators will be involved in the Project Teams, as set out in the Management Case.
The low emission bus trial element of the TCF programme will require more bespoke contractual arrangements – these are being designed in discussion with SYPTE’s Legal Department.
Consequences
As a result of the preferred procurement strategy, it is currently envisaged that there will be around 30 separate contracts to deliver the interventions within the TCF programme over the four year period. As this TCF Tranche 2 bid is being submitted by SCR, there will be back-to- back funding arrangements and contracts put in place with each of the relevant procuring authorities. This is similar to the process for the LGF programme and so is already well understood.
Whilst it is acknowledged that this is not a particularly straightforward procurement strategy (such as one contract for the whole of the programme), it is hoped that the DfT appreciate that the TCF programme is significantly different to a single road or public transport scheme, and hence the procurement strategy has been developed to suit the particulars of the programme and the local circumstances in the SCR.
There is a need for time, cost and quality issues to be managed and their inevitable tensions balanced as part of the implementation of the preferred procurement strategy. The strong governance arrangements that are set out in the Management Case have been designed to address this potential issue.
6 Page 96
RISK ALLOCATION AND TRANSFER
The construction contracts will include clauses to facilitate the transfer of appropriate risks from the procuring authority to the contractor, such as risks associated with construction costs increasing above those predicted in the Financial Case.
The scheme costs currently include a level contingency associated with risk, following the Quantified Risk Assessment, the outcome of which is described in the Management Case. At this stage of the development of the TCF programme and prior to the appointment of contractors, the cost estimate contains a greater proportion of risk borne by the SCR and its partners than will remain after the contractor appointment. The risk of the final scheme costs being higher than currently predicted remains until the tendering process is complete, at which point this risk can be transferred to the relevant contractor.
HUMAN RESOURCES ISSUES
No significant human resources issues have been identified that could affect the deliverability of the SCR TCF programme, although it is recognised that it has a considerable human resources requirement, across the SCR, SYPTE, South Yorkshire Local Authorities, the design teams and the contractor teams. At this time, resources have been identified to deliver the TCF programme, but the resource requirement will be kept under review by the TCF Programme Board and, if necessary, additional resources brought in, particularly in the area of programme and project management.
It should be noted, however, that the SCR retains an in-house programme and project assurance capabilities to guide the process centrally and ensure that the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) will be in control of delivery and risks throughout the delivery process.
7 Page 97 This page is intentionally left blank
6. MANAGEMENT CASE
INTRODUCTION
This section describes how the scheme will be managed and delivered. The methodology used to define the process and procedures necessary to manage this project are based on the PRINCE2 methodology promoted by the Office of Government Commerce (OGC).
The key points from the Management Case are as follows:
• The South Yorkshire Local Authorities and SYPTE have collective experience in delivering a diverse range of similar projects and have a strong track record in the procurement and delivery of such schemes on time and to the agreed budget.
• Effective governance structures have already been established through a TCF Project Board and it is intended to retain the fundamental elements of this structure for the implementation of the programme, underpinned by effective delivery mechanisms already in place across the SCR.
• An outline phasing plan for the implementation of the TCF programme has been developed.
• Beyond the approval of this bid, further approval of the interventions within the TCF programme will be made in accordance with the SCR’s agreed Assurance Framework.
• A stakeholder management plan has been developed to ensure clear and consistent communications about the TCF programme.
• A risk register has been developed and is maintained by the Project Board, with the key programme-level risks scored and their impacts quantified.
• The TCF programme will be subject to a programme of before and after monitoring and evaluation, in line with the SCR’s Assurance Framework and the framework for the overall TCF programme evaluation that is being developed by the DfT.
The scope of the individual schemes included within the preferred TCF programme has been tailored to ensure that it is entirely deliverable within the timescales within which funding is available.
During the development of the programme, challenges around risk, costs and deliverability have all been undertaken, as well as a value for money assessment, to ensure as far as practicable that the TCF programme is deliverable and robust.
EVIDENCE OF SIMILAR PROJECTS
The South Yorkshire Local Authorities and SYPTE have collective experience in delivering a diverse range of similar projects, and have a strong track record in the procurement and
1 Page 99
delivery of such schemes, with some examples of recent projects delivered on time and to the agreed budget including:
• Barnsley Quality Bus Corridor Improvements (A61 Phase 3 Burton Road - £7 million) • A61 Birdwell Highway Improvements (£9.7 million) • Dearne Towns Link Road (£30 million) • Cudworth & West Green Bypass (£23 million) • M1 Junction 37 signalisation (DfT pinch point scheme – £1.567 million) • Dodworth Bypass (£5.7 million) • A638 Quality Bus Corridor (£12 million) • Great Yorkshire Way Phases 1 and 2 (£66 million combined) • Doncaster Southern Gateway White Rose Way (£32 million) • DN7 Unity Link Road (£15.8 million) • Doncaster Station improvements (£7 million) • Rotherham Sheffield BRT North (£29.8 million) • Tram-Train Trial (in conjunction with DfT, Network Rail and South Yorkshire Supertram - £75 million) • Rotherham Central Station improvements (£8.5 million) • Rotherham Interchange improvements (£12 million) • A61 Penistone Road Pinch Point / Better Buses scheme (£5 million, including a £1 million contribution to a major junction improvement from a large retailer) • Sustainable Transport Access Fund in Sheffield and Rotherham (including Cycleboost, Independent Travel Training, Busboost and EcoStars – £7.5 million) • Clean Bus Technology Fund (covering 117 buses in Sheffield).
Collectively, the SCR has successfully delivered various DfT-funded programmes (including Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) and BBA). The BBA programme probably represents the most directly applicable example of delivery for the TCF programme and has provided a number of ‘lessons learnt’ for other programmes across the SCR.
In 2013 SYPTE, SCC and local bus operators worked with DfT on the development of the BBA grant proposals. These involved the use of Bus Service Operator Grants (BSOG) to fund capital and revenue investment in bus service improvements. The result of this for Sheffield was the award of £18.3 million grant over the period 2013 to 2018 – this funding and local match was used to successfully deliver a variety of public transport schemes across the City.
Many of the BBA schemes and the environment in which they were delivered are similar to the public transport schemes included in this TCF bid including:
• Working closely with bus operators to ensure their requirements are met • Working with the Local Highway Authority and other local stakeholders • Managing change and risk over a five year programme.
The longer term impact of the BBA programme is being reported to the DfT as part of the agreed Monitoring Plan, but highlights to date include the following.
• The Penistone Road bus lane opened in March 2015 – early findings since implementation showed a 32% reduction in average bus journey times along this key section of route • The Chesterfield Road bus priority improvements were completed in the Autumn 2018 and are now fully operational, with the final scheme enhanced by the completion of core highway maintenance works by SCC prior to completion – the scheme has delivered a more consistent and reliable inbound journey time by bus
2 Page 100
(particularly in the morning peak) and a total journey time over the new section of bus lane of approximately 3 minutes compared to a baseline of approximately 4 minutes • The co-location of bus operator and SCC staff at the Urban Traffic Control centre has been rewarded with many positive outcomes, and the sharing of information is benefitting all parties, both in terms of minimising the disruption when incidents occur and reducing the time taken to return services to normal following an incident.
PROGRAMME DEPENDENCIES
The TCF programme forms a key element of the implementation of the SCR Transport Strategy, but cuts across the implementation plans being developed to underpin the strategy as shown by the diagram below.
SCR TCF Programme
The Active Travel elements of the TCF programme will form the first four years of the Active Travel Implementation Plan and set the benchmark for the standards and delivery of the remainder of the ambitious active travel interventions that the SCR is progressing. Some of the active travel interventions within the TCF programme are focused on improving access to the South Yorkshire rail network and others will involve works on the Key Route Network (KRN) that has been defined within the emerging Roads Implementation Plan.
There is also a significant overlap between the Public Transport elements of the TCF programme and both the Roads and Public Transport Implementation Plans, although the latter will be developed in detail following the conclusion of the Bus Review described in the Strategic Case. All of the planned bus priority interventions within the TCF programme lie on the defined KRN and are aimed at improving journey times and reliability for buses along these routes, one of the key objectives of the Roads Implementation Plan.
The planned improvements to rail station facilities are entirely in accord with the recently published Integrated Rail Plan and are aligned to the minimum standards envisaged for all of the North’s rail stations within the TfN Long Term Rail Strategy.
3 Page 101
GOVERNANCE
Effective governance structures have already been established and it is intended to retain the fundamental elements of this structure for the implementation of the programme. The governance arrangements are illustrated in the diagram overleaf.
The Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) for the package is Mark Lynam, Director of Transport, Housing and Infrastructure at the SCR. The SRO is responsible to the Transport Executive Board (TEB), the Transport Thematic Board and ultimately the SCR Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA). The SRO and/or their nominated Officer(s) are also responsible for reporting progress to the DfT.
Ultimate financial accountability for the TCF programme lies with the MCA, who have approved the content of the TCF programme and this TCF bid.
A TCF Project Board, chaired by the SRO and with representatives of all key partners, has been established since January 2019, and it is intended to retain the essence of the structure for the implementation of the TCF programme, although with a recognition that it should now become a TCF Programme Board. DfT has been represented at the (current) Project Board meetings that have overseen the development of the SOBC and it is intended that this arrangement will continue into the delivery phase as part of the Programme Board.
The Programme Board meets on a monthly basis and its principal responsibilities are as follows:
• Agree and own the SOBC • Confirm projects and resources within the TCF programme • Accountable for the success of the TCF programme in terms of user and supplier requirements • Receive TCF programme updates and take decisions on issues raised by the Project Boards by exception, with escalation points clearly agreed at the start of the programme • Provide leadership, direction and challenge to the Project Boards, Project Teams and the Project Manager • Approve (either into or continuation within) of schemes into (and through) the capital programme gateways • Agree tolerances for time, quality and cost – this will include reviewing delegations and meeting frequency within SCR to facilitate programme delivery • Monitor spend on the programme and delivery of outcomes • Agree the purpose and content of project reports to be escalated through the governance structure, including both scheduled and ad hoc reports • Maintain an overview of the programme-level risk register and own the programme- level risk pot • Ensure effective communication with stakeholders, owning the Stakeholder Management Plan and Communications Plan • Set up and oversee the implementation of the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan.
The SRO is supported by a Project Manager and a Bid Manager. The nominated Project Manager at this time is Peter Elliott, Principal Programme Delivery Manager at SYPTE. Peter has been responsible for the option assessment work done to date. The nominated Bid Manager is David Whitley, Senior Programme Manager (Transport) in the SCR Executive Team. It is anticipated that the TCF programme once approved will be managed by a Programme Manager supported by a Programme Office function, most likely to be serviced using internal SCR resources.
4 Page 102
Page 103 Page
5
Below the TCF Programme Board is a series of individual Project Boards, covering the three key elements of the TCF programme. Given the relationship between the active travel elements of the TCF programme and the overall SCR Active Travel Implementation Plan, the Active Travel Project Board leads on delivery/co-ordination of all active travel schemes across SCR, not just those within the TCF programme (and so has a wider remit). This Project Board is also related to the SCR Active Travel Advisory Board, ensuring a strong link to the Mayor’s Active Travel Commissioner.
The Public Transport and Rail Project Boards are more autonomous and have a dedicated focus (at this point) on the interventions within the TCF programme, although it is recognised that there will be some relationship between the proposed improvements to rail stations and the North of England Programme Board established by the DfT. These Project Boards will also deal with the interface with other the active travel schemes and other public transport programmes across the SCR. Both Boards are chaired by SYPTE and include operator and industry representation as required. The format and chairing of these meetings will be designed to ensure the interests of operators are dealt with in line with SYPTE’s duties regarding the unbiased treatment of all operators and the resolution of conflicts of interest.
The key responsibilities of the three Project Boards are as follows:
• Recommend the approval of schemes in capital programmes (either into or continuation within) – this would include ensuring that schemes met any minima quality criteria • Receive monthly reports from Project Teams (and/or programme management office) and make clear recommendations to address delivery issues when they occur • Settle any matters that may arise within workstreams across Local Authorities – matters to be brought could include: o How under/overspends are managed within the relevant programme; o Change control processes within programmes; o Matters relating to project priorities; o Matters relating to the use of resources, both internal and external; and o Escalation of risks • Escalation point for decisions relating to the programme where consensus cannot be reached at a Project Team level • Agree, as appropriate, what goes forward as recommendations/advice to the Programme Board for advice or approval (for example, priorities or use of the risk pot) • Refer issues to the Programme Board when matters of conflict cannot be resolved within the Project Board.
Thereafter, there is a series of design and delivery teams that align to the preferred procurement strategy outlined in the Commercial Case, broadly arranged on a South Yorkshire Local Authority basis. The roles of these Project Teams include:
• Delivery of the agreed project and its outputs • Working with users to establish and meet business needs • Advising the Project and/or Programme Board of any risks that may arise that are likely to affect delivery of programme objectives and to be part of the risk reduction process • Providing information for project documentation • Producing project reports as planned to the required level of quality and to agreed timescales • Delivery of the project specific elements of the Stakeholder Management Plan and Communications Plan
6 Page 104
• Management of the project-level risk register – escalating issues that may require a draw down on the programme level risk pot • Providing monthly update reports to the Project Board (and/or programme management office), requesting decisions based on clear recommendations to address issues when they occur • Responsible for seeing a project through local political processes.
These teams, although receiving direction from the TCF Programme Board, already have their own effective delivery mechanisms in place for the types of intervention within the TCF programme.
PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
An outline plan for the implementation of the TCF programme has been developed to inform the Financial Case, but more detailed delivery plans for each of the interventions will be developed in due course. The outline plan developed is shown in the table below.
Delivery Stage Key Dates
Preliminary Design May 2019 – December 2020
Consultation October 2019 – April 2021
Detailed Design April 2020 – April 2022
Start on Site April 2020
Completion on Site March 2023
The outline phasing plan has the design and development of the interventions front-loaded within the timeframe so as to minimise risk in terms of cost and deliverability and identify any issues at an early stage – this includes any necessary consultation.
A small number of schemes require land and/or statutory approvals, but again the early and properly planned design and development of all of the interventions within the TCF programme is intended to minimise any risk associated with these schemes.
ASSURANCE AND APPROVALS
As noted previously, beyond the approval of this SOBC, further approval of the interventions within the TCF programme will be made in accordance with the SCR’s agreed Assurance Framework.
All schemes and projects seeking investment in the SCR undergo a proportionate appraisal to assess the merits of the application, its strategic fit and value for money. The first stage in the process is the production of a Strategic Business Case (SBC), which provides a first view of the ‘how, what and when’ the project will deliver and its strategic fit with the SEP.
7 Page 105
An SBC is assessed in line with the five-case model in the HM Treasury Green Book guidance, and so this SOBC will address this requirement of the SCR’s Assurance Framework, once approved by the DfT, given that it has also been approved by the MCA prior to submission.
Beyond the SBC stage, a project applicant or scheme promoter is required to develop the business case further. The requirements at this stage are dependent on the nature, scale, risk and complexity of the project, but would generally require an Outline Business Case (OBC) and thereafter a Full Business Case (FBC).
As set out in the Commercial Case, the individual interventions within preferred TCF programme have been grouped into a series of packages on a theme and geographic basis, and it is intended that the following OBCs (and the FBCs) will be progressed through these packages.
The required OBCs and FBCs build on the foundations of this SOBC in that they will provide more detail on each of the five cases outlined in the HM Treasury Green Book guidance but particularly that all impacts of a scheme (monetised and non-monetised) are presented in the OBC and FBC for consideration.
Once an OBC and FBC is fully developed it is then submitted to the SCR Appraisal Panel for review. An independent assessment is undertaken of all OBCs and FBCs to quality assure and scrutinise the project as well as undertaking all necessary due diligence checks. Transport projects are subjected to a WebTAG compliant appraisal at this stage, and an Appraisal Scoping Report template is used to assess such schemes.
The SCR Assurance Team completes a Value for Money (VfM) Statement and submits the appraisal report and VfM Statement to the SCR Appraisal Panel for their assessment. The Panel reviews the technical analysis undertaken by the SCR Executive Team, along with the VfM Statement. The Appraisal Panel then agrees what recommendation they will make to the relevant SCR Thematic Board – either to fully approve the project or defer the project for further work. In this case of the TCF programme, the Panel’s recommendation will be made to the MCA Transport Board.
The Appraisal Panel does have delegated authority to approve projects with a grant value of £100,000 or less directly, however, it is not expected that this will be relevant for any of the packages within the TCF programme.
The MCA Transport Board can then approve a package if it is within their delegated limit (currently those with a grant value of less than £2 million), with a Delegated Decisions paper then presented to the MCA.
Packages which exceed the delegation limit would be endorsed by the MCA Transport Board and submitted to the MCA for approval.
Once packages are approved, the SCR Executive Team drafts a Grant Agreement which is based on the details in the FBC and includes any required conditions. If the package is not approved, promoters are provided with written feedback on the reasons why and invited to re-submit the application in the future.
If a significant change is required post-FBC, the promoter would submit a Change Request Form with supporting documentation to the SCR Contract Lead, who would then complete a review and submit the request to the Appraisal Panel for consideration. Depending on the impact of the change request, and the value of the initial grant, the changes would then
8 Page 106
require the approval of either the Appraisal Panel, the MCA Transport Board or, ultimately, the MCA.
COMMUNICATIONS AND STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT
A Stakeholder Management Plan has been prepared to seek views, communicate progress and create consensus during the further development of the TCF programme, based on an initial mapping of the relevant stakeholders and their categorisation into the following three groups to allow a more focussed approach to each:
• Informed: those stakeholders who are kept up to date on progress or outcomes • Consulted: those stakeholders whose opinions and solutions are sought throughout or at particular points • Actively Involved: those stakeholders who will responsible or accountable for achieving the outcome.
The stakeholder management plan is designed to ensure existing communication processes are captured, rather than just adding new ones. This includes the integration of the four bus partnerships and Countywide governance into the TCF plan, thereby allowing for feedback on both the TCF development and the input of the wider environment in which the bus companies operate.
The current stakeholder management plan is shown on the following pages and this plan has already started to be implemented.
To supplement the stakeholder management plan, a wider Communications Plan is being developed across the SCR. The aim of the Communication Plan is to ensure the consistent and structured delivery of messages to all key stakeholders throughout the lifecycle of the TCF programme. This is to ensure that:
• Customers and stakeholders feel informed about the scheme and how it may impact them • Customers and stakeholders feel they have had the opportunity to share their views about the scheme • Customers are informed of the benefits the scheme will have on the local area.
This communications plan will be aligned with the communications around the overall TCF programme being developed by the DfT and also with the agreed TCF programmes of neighbouring authorities, particularly West Yorkshire.
Both the stakeholder management plan and the communications plan are to be updated at key points during the programme delivery stage, being treated as a ‘live’ document and additional information added when applicable.
The Project Boards are responsible for ensuring the agreed plans are implemented.
9 Page 107
Grouping Sub-Group Stakeholder Key Needs Interest Influence Key Actions/Activity (Actively (H/M/L) (H/M/L) Involved/ Consulted/ Informed)
Actively Involved Funder DfT Delivery of the projects in TCF will H H Will continue to communicate with contribute towards Government DfT on development of the bid to objectives for increasing the number of ensure alignment with the fund cyclists and easing congestion. Bid is objectives. being co-developed with DfT to meet DfT to continue to sit on TCF fund objectives. Programme Board. Page 108 Page Actively Involved Approver/ Local Authorities New infrastructure will increase the H H Work with Local Authority Officers to Funder capacity on the existing network and will ensure that proposals meet the help to ease congestion and help deliver needs of the authorities. quality of life improvements Co-ordinate through TCF Programme Board, Strategic Transport Group and Network Managers Group.
Actively Involved Bus Operators South Yorkshire Journey time savings will reduce costs H H Involve operators in design and Bus Operators which can be reinvested in the network development work. to improve customer offer and increase Will manage through existing Bus patronage Partnerships.
Actively Involved Operator South Yorkshire Increased patronage on the tram will H H Involve SYSL in design work of Supertram support investment in the network. relevant elements. Limited (SYSL) Congestion will also be eased further downstream from the use of the P&R.
Actively Involved Operator Northern Rail Improved station access will lead to H H Work with Northern to progress the increased patronage and greater detail design for schemes, then their revenue returns that can be reinvested in implementation. the network.
10
Grouping Sub-Group Stakeholder Key Needs Interest Influence Key Actions/Activity (Actively (H/M/L) (H/M/L) Involved/ Consulted/ Informed)
Actively Involved Owner Network Rail Improved access to rail stations will H H Network Rail to be involved through increase customer satisfaction with the discussions Northern Rail. Network Rail owned facilities.
Actively involved Deliverer Amey TCF projects in Sheffield that impact on H H Work with Amey on the design of the highway will impact on the existing TCF interventions in Sheffield to Amey PFI contract. ensure they are delivered in a coordinated manner within their existing programme and to understand the cost implications for the PFI contract.
Consulted User Group Sustrans Increase in cycling will potential shift H M Contact Sustrans and consider their some shorter journeys from car, improve involvement in the design stage.
Page 109 Page health and have a positive impact on air Identify whether there are overlaps quality. Could lead to increased use of with the NCN. the NCN.
Consulted Landowner Verdian and Sustainable site access will be improved M H Work with landowners to ensure site Harworth (iPort to enable mode shift from car to active access issues are addressed Bridge scheme) travel modes. collaboratively.
Consulted Landowner Magna Provision of a new tram-train facility at M H Involve Magna in the design stage Magna will increase the available labour of the project. market and improve sustainable access Encourage supporting measures to to the site for employees and visitors. promote use of the new tram-train stop and park and ride facilities.
Consulted Landowner Parkgate Retail Delivery of the link road scheme will M H Work with landowners on scheme improve site access, ease congestion design.
and unlock land for development enabling the delivery of a park and ride site.
11
Grouping Sub-Group Stakeholder Key Needs Interest Influence Key Actions/Activity (Actively (H/M/L) (H/M/L) Involved/ Consulted/ Informed)
Consulted Government Highways Some elements of the TCF programme M M Highways England to be involved in Agency England will ease congestion and improve traffic the design work of relevant circulation assisting smooth running of elements. the strategic road network.
Consulted Government Canals and Construction of infrastructure will M M Include CRT in design phase to Agency Rivers Trust contribute to enhanced public realm. ensure compliance with regulations.
Consulted Government Environment Construction of infrastructure will M M Include EA in design phase to Page 110 Page Agency Agency contribute to enhanced public realm ensure compliance with regulations. including improved biodiversity.
Consulted Employer DSA Improved connectivity will widen the M L Align with refreshed Surface Access labour pool available to DSA and ease Strategy being developed by DSA. the flow of people and goods to the Airport.
Consulted Employer AMID/AMRC Improving reliability of existing transport M M Work with AMID and AMRC to links to the AMID and AMRC will help identify how connectivity is employers to access a wider labour pool restricting access to labour markets as public transport becomes a viable and to encourage supporting travel choice. measures to increase active travel. By improving sustainable travel access alongside PT reliability, congestion around the site could be eased as people travel to AMID using sustainable modes.
Consulted Employer AWRC/OLP Providing active travel links between the M M Involve AWRC and OLP in scheme City Centre and OLP will increase the design. Encourage provision of presence of OLP. supporting measures to ensure infrastructure is promoted.
12
Grouping Sub-Group Stakeholder Key Needs Interest Influence Key Actions/Activity (Actively (H/M/L) (H/M/L) Involved/ Consulted/ Informed) Enabling sustainable access to the site will help to manage congestion from car traffic as the site develops.
Consulted Businesses Frontages within The benefits delivered by TCF will help M M Work with the Chamber of XXm to ease congestion which will enable Commerce to communicate the employees to access employment and benefits of this project. speed up the delivery of goods across the network.
Consulted Residents Residents within TCF will improve the active travel M M Work with our communications team XXm infrastructure available across the region to promote the benefits of the TCF and ease congestion on the network. bid through our communications channels. Page 111 Page Consulted Safety Police/ The creation of improved waiting M L Inform police / community safety community facilities, improved station access and teams of the station access safety teams introduction of new active travel improvement works and consider infrastructure, will promote feelings of sharing designs to ensure they safety. incorporate best practice.
Consulted Utility Provider National Grid New waiting facilities and station M H Installation of infrastructure both on infrastructure will create a safe and street and at stop requires comfortable waiting environment. connection to/accommodation on National Grid asset register. The low emissions bus project will lead to the reduction of emissions from diesel Work with National Grid and DNO to buses. ascertain capabilities to support introduction of EV charging at various locations.
Informed Utility Provider Telecomms Provision of real time information at L H Inform of TCF plans for real time provider stops will improve the customer information provision and the experience by increasing the confidence affected locations.
13
Grouping Sub-Group Stakeholder Key Needs Interest Influence Key Actions/Activity (Actively (H/M/L) (H/M/L) Involved/ Consulted/ Informed) in public transport and lead to increased patronage.
Informed User Group Rail passengers At the stations that are subject to M L Work with Northern to develop accessibility improvements, communication materials to inform commuters/passengers will experience passengers the benefits to the station environment however there will possibly be disruption during construction. Page 112 Page Informed User Group Public transport Delivery of the TCF programme will see H M Contact user groups to test facility passengers improvements to journey time reliability designs to ensure they are fully that will benefit end users. accessible and meet customer needs. Station access improvements will improve the customer experience of Co-ordinate through SYPTE. using regional rail services.
Informed User Group Cycle Sheffield Improving cycling infrastructure provision H L Inform of plans for provision of cycle (and any across the region will enable more infrastructure on TCF routes in the equivalent for people to travel sustainably – this could groups’ areas of interest. Invite input other Districts) lead to higher numbers of people cycling at the design stage to overcome and could encourage more people to known local issues. switch from car to cycle for short journeys.
Informed Landowner Universities Improving reliability of transport links to H M Work with university to identify how the AMID and AMRC will help students connectivity is restricting access to to connect with employment and training opportunities. opportunities.
Informed Government Public Health Increasing the provision of cycling and H L Inform directors of public health of Agency England walking infrastructure will enable the the improvements to active travel uptake of active travel modes and infrastructure. increase the number of people achieving 14
Grouping Sub-Group Stakeholder Key Needs Interest Influence Key Actions/Activity (Actively (H/M/L) (H/M/L) Involved/ Consulted/ Informed) the recommended levels of daily exercise – this will improve the health of residents and visitors to the City Region and reduce the call on future resources.
Page 113 Page
15
RISK IDENTIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT
A programme-level Risk Register has been developed and is maintained by the Programme Board. This is the primary means of recording risk information and monitoring risk exposure throughout the life of the programme. It not only records all identified risks, but also includes suggested mitigation measures and responsibilities.
This risk register focuses on programme-level risks and the key risks have been scored and their impacts quantified. This has been used to provide the QRA value that has been included within the Economic and Financial Cases.
The most immediate risks at this time are summarised in the following table. Reporting of key risks is undertaken at Programme Board meetings each month as necessary.
Risk Type Description of Risk / Planned Mitigation Owner Strategic A collection of smaller schemes is not transformational where these are not aligned to other corridor interventions/packages of works, and the Draft SOBC is rejected or significantly reduced in scope.
Mitigations: SRO
1) Co-development of the bid with the DfT 2) Sifting process designed to help mitigate this 3) Overall programme to be discussed/reviewed at Programme Board. Management/ Resources insufficient to deliver a large scale bid, and a lack of Resources resources may impact on the quality of the bid and/or delivery of the programme post-submission.
Mitigations:
Programme 1) Resources to be standing item at Programme Board Board 2) Programme to be monitored by SRO, Programme Board and Project Boards 3) Effective resource planning to be implemented 4) Making use of frameworks – early engagement 5) Other 2019/20 funding being used to progress schemes before the outcome of the bid is known. Economic/ Forecast outcomes are not correct, or some schemes cannot Appraisal progress as planned leading to reduced outcomes and a lower BCR/VfM.
Mitigations:
1) Sifting process to test robustness of scheme VfM/BCR 2) Appraisal process to be scoped and agreed with DfT 3) Business case(s) to be tested with appropriate level of SRO optimism bias 4) Outcome delivery (forecast and actual) to be managed by Programme Board 5) Contingency plan to be prepared to make up any shortfall in outcomes 6) Appraisal workshop by SCR TCF Task & Finish Group to ensure consistent approach by partners with standard approach and consistent assumptions.
16 Page 114
Risk Type Description of Risk / Planned Mitigation Owner Financial Clarity of level of Local Contributions required, both the source and whether it is sufficient, particularly in the latter years of the programme, which would undermine strength of SOBC.
Programme Mitigations: Board
1) Discussion with DfT and Partners at Programme Board 2) Indicative provision to be agreed by all partners prior to submission. Economic/ Appraisal New SCR multi-modal model not validated in time for use in preparation of SOBC, with an inability to model some larger scale TCF schemes, particularly in Barnsley and Doncaster.
Mitigations: SRO
1) SCR Modelling team to include provision in Modelling Programme 2) Ongoing discussions with DfT regarding approach to appraisal. Financial Inability to deliver within the allocated annual funding profiles means that some schemes may have to be curtailed or removed from programme.
Mitigations: Project Manager 1) Project Teams to be realistic about delivery of schemes in (s) preparation of SOBC 2) Programme management processes to maintain some flexibility in funding years 3) Flexibility of profile to be discussed with DfT. Financial Some schemes being designed at risk before confirmation of funding – if TCF bid is not successful, costs may need to be covered by revenue funding, with a lack of capacity within existing funding streams eg Integrated Transport block.
Mitigations: SRO
1) Discussion with DfT regarding early confirmation of some funding post-submission. 2) Confirmation that costs incurred after SOBC submission can be included in cost estimates. Inflation (In)accuracy of inflation forecasts may lead to final outturn costs being higher than agreed programme budget
Programme Mitigations: Board
1) Provision to be made in QRA/risk adjusted price 2) To be monitored/managed by Programme Board.
One of the key risks relating to the delivery phase of the programme identified within the risk register is that regarding the need to secure the necessary powers/consents for individual schemes. It is clear that most of the interventions will require some form of consent, but it is difficult to understand at this stage the level or likelihood of this risk as schemes are at an early stage of development.
17 Page 115
The front-loading of the preliminary design of all of the interventions within the TCF programme described previously is intended to minimise this risk. As well as this approach, the risk register also includes the mitigation measure of developing some alternative and/or replacement schemes that can address this issue in the delivery phase.
A further risk identified is that around communications, particularly as consultation on a small some interventions is intended in Autumn 2019 to ensure delivery in early 2020. Inconsistent messages can undermine scheme development and/or delivery, and this is particularly important given the alignment of SCR’s TCF programme with the work of the Active Travel Commissioner. To address this, the stakeholder management plan and communications plan described previously have been developed and the former is being implemented.
Project-level risks have been identified and are owned by individual Project Teams, with separate risk registers being developed at the appropriate time.
BENEFITS, MONITORING AND EVALUATION
The TCF programme will be subject to a programme of before and after monitoring and evaluation, in line with the SCR’s agreed Assurance Framework and the framework for the overall TCF programme evaluation that is being developed by the DfT. The latter is expected in Autumn 2019, but some guidance on evaluation has been provided for this SOBC. This guidance suggests 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.
The SCR and its partners are committed to the monitoring and evaluation of the TCF programme to ensure the benefits of the investment are fully realised and the programmes value for money in terms of delivering economic growth and quality of life outcomes for the SCR can be demonstrated.
Any 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 proposed programme of monitoring and evaluation for the TCF programme needs to support this SOBC, but also to provide a framework for development of more detailed monitoring and evaluation plans for each of the packages of interventions. It should therefore seek to enable to 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.
As a starting point, and to pick up on the ‘theory of change’ approach advocated, an outline Benefits Realisation Plan (BRP) has been to identify, track and compare the various benefits expected to be delivered. In this case, 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.
18 Page 116
The TCF 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 suggested ‘desired outputs, outcomes and impacts’ for the TCF programme are summarised overleaf and provide the basis for the outline BRP that will be developed further as the TCF programme progresses.
Based on the outline BRP, an outline Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (MEP) has also been developed for the TCF programme. It is intended that the outline MEP is refined in collaboration with the contractor commissioned by the DfT to undertake the national evaluation of the overall TCF programme. The updated MEP will be used during the implementation period to manage delivery, and post-implementation of the TCF programme, to evaluate its impact.
Through the monitoring and evaluation of the TCF programme, the SCR, alongside the national evaluation contractor will seek to:
• Understand whether and how the programmes main objectives have been achieved, exceeded or not reached • 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.
As well as the specific TCF evaluation guidance issued, the suggested draws upon the guidance set out in the document “Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for Local Authority Major Schemes” (2012) as well as MEPs used for recent similar programmes, for example BBA and LSTF.
19 Page 117
TCF Programme Objective Desired Outputs Desired Outcomes Desired Impacts
To better connect the areas of transport poverty with XXkm of improved walking and More walking and cycling Support inclusive growth areas of opportunity in a safe and sustainable way cycling infrastructure journeys across the SCR Enhanced opportunities to To affect a mode shift away from the private car on XXkm of new walking and Reduced bus journey times access new employment those corridors where new opportunities are likely to cycling infrastructure sites see an increase in demand or where growth could be Improved bus journey time stifled XXkm of new infrastructure to benefit buses reliability Create healthy streets where people feel safe
Page 118 Page To create a cultural shift towards making cycling and walking the natural choice for shorter journeys XXkm of new bus lanes Increased bus patronage Improve the quality of our To achieve the above in ways that address current XX junction improvements to Increased tram patronage outdoors health issues and improve air quality across the SCR benefit non-car modes Increased rail patronage Improvements to the facilities at 13 local rail stations Reduced car commuting
Deployment of XX low Improved air quality emission buses for the period of the TCF programme
20
It is initially proposed that the monitoring and evaluation will be undertaken at the level of the packages of interventions that have been defined as part of the proposed governance and assurance arrangements within this SOBC.
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, and so this has been recognised in the development of the MEP.
Assessing the impact of the packages as a whole (whether it achieved its objectives; how well it was planned and delivered; whether it represented value for money etc) will mean a focus on accountability based research questions, seeking to assess the overall level and direction of change in defined metrics, and less on issues of attribution (mechanisms through which change occurred). However, this proposed approach will be reviewed in collaboration with the national evaluator at the appropriate point to ensure it is reflective of the needs of both the local and national evaluation programmes.
Indicators for measuring the outputs, outcomes and impacts of the programme are defined in the outline MEP so as to identify whether or not the objectives of the scheme have been achieved. The MEP also identifies when and how the indicators will be tracked. Where benefits are difficult to measure, directly proxy indicators have been defined. They way in which the indicators are defined should also allow for the extent of benefits realisation to be understood and inform the change management process.
Monitoring of the outputs are to be at both a programme and a project level and will focus on evidencing outputs are successfully delivered and cost targets and programme milestones met. The monitoring of these metrics will be a requirement of the governance and assurance processes detailed previously for the individual packages of interventions. The metrics set out in the table below are therefore proposed.
Outputs Measure Data to be used
Project/Programme Programme/project plan Programme/ project management assessment reporting Risk management effectiveness
Cost Outturn investment costs Financial monitoring of project/programme Identification of cost savings Analysis of cost overruns
Based on the outcomes and impacts in the outline BRP, the metrics set out in the following two tables are currently proposed for the TCF programme across the SCR. In accordance with the guidance issued to date, a predominantly counterfactual approach will be adopted so as to understand the outcomes and impacts by comparing what has happened with what would have happened in the absence of any intervention.
21 Page 119
Outcome Measure Data to be used
To better connect the % of people living in the most DfT methodology of assessing areas of transport deprived areas brought within a 30 accessibility using the Accession poverty with areas of minute journey time by public software opportunity in a safe transport of an urban centre, SCR and sustainable way growth area or university
Walking and cycling accessibility Local Transport Plan and DfT assessment to an urban centre, methodology of assessing SCR growth area or university accessibility using the Accession software
To affect a mode shift Total bus patronage Bus operator statistics away from the private car on those corridors Total rail patronage SYPTE surveys where new opportunities are likely to see an Total tram patronage Stagecoach Supertram statistics increase in demand or where growth could be Morning peak traffic flow (car miles) Trafficmaster data stifled along key corridors
Mode split of peak flows along key Traffic surveys corridors
Satisfaction with public transport (i) Bus ‘user’ from SYPTE household survey ii) Bus ‘user’ from Passenger Focus onboard survey iii) Rail ‘user’ from Passenger Focus onboard survey iv) Tram ‘user’ from Passenger Focus onboard survey
To create a cultural shift Morning peak cycle flows along the Cycle surveys towards making cycling key corridors and walking the natural choice for shorter Attitudes to cycling User/Non-user surveys journeys Attitudes to walking
Address current health Total carbon emissions from the Latest data from UK local authority issues and improve air transport system (kT CO2) and regional carbon dioxide quality across the SCR emissions national statistics
Nitrogen dioxide (NOx) and Days where threshold exceeded in particulate matter (PM10) levels in AQMAs (NOx/PM10) AQMAs
KSI accidents (5 year average) STATS19 data
22 Page 120
Desired Impacts Measure Data to be used
Support inclusive growth Increase in jobs - employment TBC levels (% employed 16-64)
Skills attained (NVQ4+ or
equivalent)
Increase in GVA (South Yorkshire)
Enhanced opportunities TBC TBC to access new employment sites
Create healthy streets Life expectancy (M/F) TBC where people feel safe Perceptions of safety TBC
Improve the quality of TBC TBC our outdoors
The SCR will work with the national evaluators to ensure there is consistency in data collection processes and absence of bias in the data collected as required for the needs of both the local and national evaluation programme.
Although the suggested metrics apply to the overall TCF programme across the SCR, they are also considered suitable for evaluating the individual packages of interventions that sit within it. Each package will develop their own MEP and define the metrics in more detail in accordance with the objectives of the package and its geographical scope.
As a starting point, it is considered that the following metrics should be considered by the Project Teams for inclusion within the package-specific MEP as the OBCs are prepared. This approach uses existing data sources as well as some programme-specific sources. SCR will aim to ensure that a consistent approach to measurement is adopted across different packages where similar metrics are proposed across a range of work packages.
• Active Travel Interventions o Number of people using new and improved walking and cycle facilities o Attitudes to walking and cycling • Public Transport Interventions o Bus Punctuality (% of services ‘on time’) and Reliability (standard deviation of wait times mins/trip) by route o Average Bus Journey Times (by service) o Bus Patronage (by service) o Passenger Satisfaction (with infrastructure and services) o Number of people using park and ride facilities o Tram Patronage (on services using new and improved park and ride facilities) • Rail Interventions o Rail Patronage (on services using stations with improved facilities o Passenger Satisfaction (with infrastructure and services • All Interventions o Accessibility to Workplace and Jobs
23 Page 121
SCR recognises the importance of setting specific indicators and targets and accepts that this outline MEP does not yet include these. The MEP will be updated with targets following collaboration with the national evaluator and in relation to the Measures for Success included within the SCR Transport Strategy.
Costs associated with monitoring and evaluation are included within the overall TCF programme cost estimates but will need to be confirmed once further collaboration has been undertaken with the national evaluation contractor. Monitoring and evaluation will be coordinated by the SCR, who will also oversee the monitoring and evaluation of the overall TCF programme whilst the Project Boards and Project Teams for the individual packages of interventions will be required to manage the monitoring and evaluation of their projects in accordance with the agreed governance and assurance processes (for example, in line with agreed MEPs produced as part of the OBCs and FBCs required for the progression of the individual packages).
Under these arrangements, the collection and analysis of the monitoring and evaluation data will be the responsibility of the Project Teams and will be reported to the relevant Project Board. The Programme Board will set up systems to monitor the effectiveness of the TCF programme, be responsible for ensuring the agreed measures have been monitored and will consider the results of the evaluation. This approach builds upon and is in line with, the agreed SCR Assurance Framework, and means that the Programme Board can work with the Project Boards/Teams to agree corrective action if required and as a final resort secure the desired outcomes via alternative measures if necessary.
In terms of reporting on monitoring and evaluation, the following timescales are considered appropriate at this time:
• Baseline data collection will take place between September 2019 and the beginning of implementation of specific work packages • Regular monitoring reports from individual work packages will be provided to the Project Boards and Programme Board on a monthly basis • Individual work packages will deliver monitoring and evaluation reports as stipulated in their agreed MEPs • An annual monitoring summary for the overall TCF programme will be produced by SCR • On completion of the TCF programme a ‘1 year after’ and ‘5 year after’ evaluation report will be produced which contains the results of a meta-analysis of all evaluations carried out, although recognising that the preferred TCF programme of interventions is such that some benefits (particularly impacts) will only occur over a much longer timescale.
The findings from proposed monitoring and evaluation process will be communicated to key stakeholders and all reports publicised via the SCR website. However, as with the remainder of the outline MEP, this proposal is subject to revision following consultation with the national evaluation contractor.
24 Page 122 Agenda Item 8
TRANSPORT BOARD
25th October 2019
Future Mobility
Purpose of Report
This report provides an overview of the key findings of research into Future Mobility Services across the Sheffield City Region.
Freedom of Information
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 Transport Board will receive a presentation on the draft final Report and are asked to:
• Consider the findings of recent research into Future Mobility in the Sheffield City Region • Identify priorities within the recommended areas for action to be taken forward as part of a Transport Strategy Technology and Innovation Implementation Plan.
1. Introduction
1.1 The SCR Transport Strategy published in early 2019 included technology and innovation as a cross cutting theme. In July 2019 the SCR Executive commissioned Arup to undertake a review of Future Mobility Services across the Sheffield City Region to consider the opportunities related to future mobility trends and to identify unique transport technology assets in the city region that could support the delivery of the SCR Transport Strategy.
1.2 The Review of Future Mobility Services report identifies recommendations for the SCRCA as well the opportunities to engage the business community through partnership, procurement and collaboration.
1.3 The UK’s Industrial Strategy identifies the potential for the UK to lead the world in innovation in how people, goods and services move. The Government published the Future Mobility: Urban Strategy report in 2019 which sets out the principles the government will adopt to usher in an era of transformation in the transport sector.
2. Proposal and justification
2.1 The SCR Transport Strategy will be delivered through a series of Implementation Plans concerning Rail, Roads, Active Travel and Mass Transit. Two cross cutting themes are Page 123 identified in the Strategy – Technology and Innovation and Environment and Quality of Life which will require additional implementation or action plans.
2.2 In 2019 the Government published Future Mobility: Urban Strategy which sets out its response to transport trends and innovation as well as nine principles that will be adopted to secure benefits and reduce risks.
2.3 As part of the Budget 2018, £90m of funding was announced as part of the Transforming Cities Fund to create Future Mobility Zones. In May 2019 the SCR Executive submitted an Expression of Interest and unfortunately this was unsuccessful, however the bidding process highlighted the need for further work to develop our approach to technology and innovation in the transport sector.
2.4 The SCR Executive commissioned Arup to provide an overview of the drivers of change and key future mobility trends, a mapping of the work currently underway in the city region and recommendations to support the development of a work programme relating to transport technology and innovation in line with the Government’s Principles. A draft Executive Summary of the research and recommendations is provided at Appendix 1. Arup will present an overview of key findings at the meeting.
2.5 The research identifies innovative mobility solutions that have already been delivered in the region including tram-train, clean bus technology, electric bus feasibility, integrated TravelMasters and ebike trials. It also identified key companies operating in this sector such as CPH2, the Floow, ITM power and 3squared. The report also identifies research and development assets such as Sheffield Robotics and Lab4Living.
2.6 A workshop with industry specialists provided information on the most significant disruptions and the timeframes in which these are likely to occur and industry suggestions for where Sheffield City Region and partners might focus attention.
2.7 The key trends that the report focuses on include data and digital lifestyles, integrated ticketing and mobility as a service, active travel and micro mobility, the future of the bus, mass transit, low emission vehicles, connected and autonomous vehicles and logistics.
2.8 The draft Report recommends five key moves for the SCR and 45 specific actions. The five key moves are: 1. Publicise the great work already underway in the future mobility space in the SCR 2. Create a transport data platform for the SCR 3. Identify and realise opportunities to test future mobility technologies 4. Foster an ecosystem of mobility technology companies 5. Review changes to the governance and regulation of SCR’s transport system to deliver future mobility solutions.
2.9 The draft Report notes that the successful adoption of future mobility technologies and services in SCR is reliant not only on technological advancement, but also on the governance and regulatory regime within which they operate. Innovation can be encouraged through a more outcome-based approach to procurement of goods and services. It is recommended that the SCR Combined Authority is clear on its role in regulation and shaping the market to secure the outcomes it wants for example safety, integration and carbon emission reductions. The opening-up of data also provides opportunities for the development of new services and solutions.
2.10 The Board is invited to consider the findings of the research, the proposed five key moves and recommendations. Feedback will be incorporated into the final report.
2.11 It is proposed that in the coming months an implementation plan is developed and further work is undertaken to develop the specific activities that can be undertaken in the short term. Page 124 2.12 The SCR Executive will examine sources of funding and the outcomes of the research will be used to strengthen any applications to future rounds of Government funding.
3. Consideration of alternative approaches
3.1 In place of an implementation plan it would be possible to develop a number of projects with a view to developing a wider plan at a later date. However, this would limit the ability to provide a framework for partners to engage with and might limit scope for responding proactively to new funding opportunities.
3.2 Given the lack of resources available to allocate specifically to this activity it would be possible to this delay work however the experience with the Future Mobility Zone bid suggests that we would need to be active in developing partnerships and proposals to secure resources.
4. Implications
4.1 Financial There are no financial implications arising from this report.
4.2 Legal There are no legal implications arising from this report.
4.3 Risk Management This work is developmental and therefore a risk assessment has not been conducted at this stage.
4.4 Equality, Diversity and Social Inclusion The research specifically reviewed how SCR might ensure that the benefits of innovation in mobility would be available to all parts of the city region and all segments of society.
5. Communications
5.1 No communications are planned at this stage.
6. Appendices/Annexes
6.1 Appendix 1 – Executive Summary of Review of Future Mobility Services Across the SCR
REPORT AUTHOR Jenny Holmes POST Assistant Director, Strategic Transport (Interim) Officer responsible Mark Lynam Organisation Sheffield City Region Email [email protected] Telephone 0114 220 3411
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: Future Mobility: Urban Strategy (2019) DfT
Page 125 This page is intentionally left blank Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Review of Future Mobility Services Across the SCR Executive Summary 270742-00 | Issue | 11 October 2019
Page 127
11
Sheffield City Region Combined Authority | Review of Future Mobility Services Across the SCR
Executive Summary
Future mobility is a broad and rapidly evolving area. Technology is constantly advancing, and this is driving an unprecedented pace of change that will impact our cities, environment and way of life. This report considers these changes by analysing global transport trends and emerging technologies (grouped into key themes), interpreting the principles set out in the DfT’s Future Mobility: Urban Strategy (2019) report and benchmarking where the SCR is now in relation to these principles, and providing a set of recommendations and actions which the SCR should seek to implement to help propel the City Region to the forefront of future mobility. A summary of the report findings is presented below.
Key Themes • Data and Digital Lifestyles - The ubiquity of the Internet and smart phones have changed the way we go about our lives and will continue to do so. This has led to the rise of on-demand mobility services including, for example, Uber, Lyft, Deliveroo and Ofo which, in turn, has resulted in a trend towards people increasingly viewing mobility as a service rather than an asset to be owned.
• Integrated Ticketing and MaaS - a high quality and seamless integrated ticketing system which enables seamless travel across different modes and simple payments is increasingly what customers expect. London and TfL have been successful in this regard, underpinned by the fact that they control three modes of travel. With the onset of new disruptive technologies (bike share, ride share, demand-responsive transport) controlled by private operators, the challenge is now how these new mobility models can be integrated into a more holistic offering. There are significant challenges to the implementation of MaaS as it requires data sharing and transparency between the users, public and private operators. Transport Authorities have an important role to play in setting open data policies and frameworks and creating the right ecosystem and conditions to attract business and users to use and share data.
• Active Travel and Micromobility – Trends indicate that there will be an increase in sustainable transport usage over time, with an increasing number of people opting to travel via public transport and active modes. A number of factors are driving this change, including environmental concerns, and an increased awareness of health issues and the benefits that cycling and walking can bring in addressing these problems. E-bike sales are increasing year on year, offering particular advantages in areas with hilly terrain and for those with limited mobility. E-scooters are the latest entrants to the micromobility sector, gaining massive popularity in many European and American cities because of inexpensive costs, however their use remains illegal in the UK to date.
• The Future of the Bus – Trends show that bus passenger numbers are decreasing. It is likely that many factors are accounting for this change – reductions in Government subsidy have resulted in a reduced network, and smart phones have been a game-changer in terms of on-demand mobility and travel choice. These trends have altered people’s expectations regarding travel meaning, over time, traditional bus services are becoming less attractive. However, ride-hailing services do not address wider issues, such as congestion and air quality, and while these issues remain, a public transport system involving the bus will always be needed, but perhaps in a different form such as demand-responsive transit.
• Mass Transit - Despite rapid technological developments in mobility and changing consumer behaviours, the role of mass transit in future mobility is unlikely to diminish. In urban areas where population density is high, moving large numbers of people will be vital to success. Furthermore, mass transit is key to addressing wider issues such as congestion, air quality, carbon and parking, particularly in mitigating against the risks of increased vehicle trips posed by autonomous vehicles and new mobility models.
• Low Emission Vehicles - Reducing carbon emissions from transport is a key part of the UK’s strategy to reduce overall CO2 emissions. Finding ways to reduce the car mode share, and to encourage use of low and ultra-low emission vehicles, is important. Trends suggest that electric vehicle uptake is set to increase
Page 128 Arup | Executive Summary | 270742-00 | | 11 October 2019 1 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\SHEFFIELD\JOBS\270000\270742-00\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-08 REPORTS\02 REPORT\2019-10-11 SCR FUTURE MOBILITY REVIEW EXECUTIVE SUMMARY_ISSUE.DOCX
Sheffield City Region Combined Authority | Review of Future Mobility Services Across the SCR
significantly over the coming years, whilst taxi fleets are increasingly decarbonising and electric buses are starting to gather pace. The use of hydrogen as an energy vector has also been increasingly viewed as a credible option for decarbonisation, and cities including London, Liverpool, Belfast, Brighton, Aberdeen and Birmingham currently have hydrogen bus projects underway or in the planning phase.
• Connected & Autonomous Vehicles - CAVs refers to a wide range of vehicle types including cars, public transport, autonomous trucks, and autonomous aerial ridesharing vehicles (air taxis). Whilst still in their infancy, CAVs are due to increase significantly, with forecasts suggesting that all vehicles produced in the UK by 2027 will have at least Level 3 technologies (where drivers do not have to monitor the driving but must always be in a position to resume control), and that there will be a 25% market penetration of fully autonomous vehicles by 2030. Autonomy is also beginning to emerge in public transport, with trials of autonomous buses taking place in cities including Manchester, Edinburgh to Fife, and Singapore. In logistics, Volvo have developed and trialled the Volvo Vera - a fully autonomous truck without a passenger cabin.
‘Air Taxis’ are also starting to gather pace, with Uber developing its aerial ridesharing capabilities through Uber Air which, by 2023, plans to give riders in Los Angeles, Dallas and Melbourne the option of an affordable shared flight in an electric vertical take-off and landing (e-VTOL). Whilst the aircraft will be manned at first, it is anticipated that these will transition to become fully autonomous over time as technologies develop.
• Logistics – new technologies are emerging in logistics as companies look to automate processes, increase efficiencies and reduce costs. The use of drones for deliveries is one example which could have a transformative impact on logistics operations, however, legislative changes, coupled with technological advances, will be required to permit this. Robots are also being developed to deliver goods such as groceries to customers. Another example is truck platooning, which is the linking of two or more trucks in convoy using connectivity technology and automated driving support systems.
Sheffield City Region Context A review of the SCR Transport Strategy has been undertaken to understand existing transport priorities and travel demands within the region. A spatial portrait of existing SCR Future Mobility assets and capabilities has also been developed in collaboration with stakeholders within the region, to understand where the City Region is currently with regards to future mobility technologies and capabilities. In undertaking this future mobility review, we have engaged with the Local Enterprise Partnership to help identify the existing assets and capabilities within the SCR and to shape the recommendations set out in this report in the context of the emerging Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) and Local Industrial Strategy (LIS). Having undertaken this review, it is apparent that there is already lots going on in SCR, both in terms of physical assets and intellectual effort, which can be built upon.
Page Arup129 | Executive Summary | 270742-00 | | 11 October 2019 2 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\SHEFFIELD\JOBS\270000\270742-00\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-08 REPORTS\02 REPORT\2019-10-11 SCR FUTURE MOBILITY REVIEW EXECUTIVE SUMMARY_ISSUE.DOCX
Existing Assets & Capabilities in the SCR
Barnsley e-bike trials ITM Hydrogen Refuelling Station (AMID) Encouraging uptake of The furthest north (until Aberdeen) ¯ micromobility through hydrogen refuelling station. Renewably sourced hydrogen free loans of e-bikes Cycle Penistone e-bike trials ITM Power UK’s leading hydrogen electrolyser Hydrogen combustion engine and storage Encouraging uptake of micromobility CPH2 manufacturer/operator based in Sheffield. manufacturer through free loans of e-bikes Building the world’s largest electrolyser factory next to Meadowhall. Barnsley Doncaster e-bike trials Electric bin lorries trial AWRC, Sports Science, OLP Encouraging uptake of New electric bin lorries powered by collected World-renowned centre for research micromobility through free and innovation into physical activity loans of e-bikes waste are being trialled in Sheffield Doncaster Penistone Sheffield Robotics Hitachi Rail Azuma Trains Maintenance National College for High Speed Rail
Interdisciplinary 130 Page In2Change e-bike trials Depot Providing specialist skills in high speed rail Robotics Research Encouraging uptake of Manufacturers of electric vehicle components Centre micromobility through Magtec in Sheffield free loans of e-bikes. Unipart Rail Developing the Digital Railway
Integrated TravelMasters Rotherham e-bike trials Smart card travel through the Encouraging uptake of AMRC eCommerce platform. micromobility through free loans of e-bikes. A network of world-leading research Sheffield e-bike trials and innovation centres working with advanced manufacturing companies Encouraging uptake of Rotherham around the globe. micromobility through free loans of e-bikes. Leading automobile data and telematics South Yorkshire The Floow company Hydrogen Network Arup An emerging coalition of Global transport planning & SYPTE Centre of knowledge for tram-train technology the willing to develop Sheffield Russel's Bicycle Shed e-bike trials hydrogen projects in the engineering consultancy Encouraging uptake of micromobility 3Squared region. through free loans of e-bikes. Innovative and technically Tram Train Network imaginative software Clean bus technology Lab4Living solutions for transportation First and only tram-train system Retrofit of existing bus fleet with Sheffield Hallam Trans-disciplinary research group, based on a & construction operating in the UK offering inter- exhaust gas scrubbing systems University collaborative community of researchers in urban connectivity. to reduce air pollution. design, healthcare and creative practices
Sheffield City Region Combined Authority | Review of Future Mobility Services Across the SCR
Governance Successful adoption of future mobility technologies and services in SCR is reliant not only on technological advancement, but also on the governance and regulatory regime within which they operate. A progressive and adaptable approach to governance and regulation is required to readily accommodate rapid and at times disruptive change.
An outcome-based approach Unlocking competition and commercial opportunities for innovators to test and expand new services and delivery approaches is a key role for the City Region. The City Region, with its partners, should examine how their approach to procurement can evolve to focus on outcomes and not be too prescriptive by specifying how this is achieved. An important step is the trialling of an outcomes-oriented approach to procurement. This new approach can provide space for the market to dictate the most effective means of achieving the Combined Authority’s desired outcomes. SCR can further this approach of shaping the market by examining different business models. This means that the Combined Authority needs to consider opportunities to charge more for the mobility solutions that do not support their outcomes, and to subsidise the ones that do. This is not just about the frequency or service or number of vehicles, it goes beyond this to include the social and environmental outcomes which the City Region is aspiring to achieve. Key to making this shift is the Combined Authority’s role in regulation. The review of how existing services are performing against changing customer expectations will help to inform if and how the governance and delivery of public services might change to deliver an overall solution and transport mobility, social mobility and environmental improvements at the same time.
In the public interest There is an important role for the City Region to mitigate against any risks of new mobility models. It must take this responsibility pro-actively and boldly, specifying up-front what the Combined Authority and the Local Authorities want from service providers and ensuring these parameters are operated within. This is reflected in the Government’s Urban Mobility Strategy principles, for example the emphasis on safety and integration. This balance of risk and reward can be difficult to judge, which is why piloting of new mobility solutions is a key tool. These pilots should not only be about whether the solutions work for the users, but also to understand what wider impacts it might have.
Unlocking Data The opening up of data has significant potential for the development of new services and solutions. This needs to be set against the importance of data security and privacy, but the City Region has the opportunity to explore how data can be made more open. Working with the Open Data Institute and local digital companies should be a key step in exploring the potential, learning from others and helping to ensure the opportunities are developed to comply with GDPR. The un-locking of data can also support better city planning, not just from a mobility perspective, but also to look at the whole system of planning to support better and more predictable outcomes.
Focus Areas & Recommendations The global future mobility trends research and SCR assets and capabilities spatial portrait has been used to assess and benchmark where the SCR is now in relation to the DfT’s Future Mobility: Urban Strategy principles, which has formed the basis for the recommendations set out in this report. In addition to the recommendations, we have also identified five key moves that we think SCR could take now, to drive change and propel the City Region to the forefront of future mobility. These are summarised below:
Page Arup131 | Executive Summary | 270742-00 | | 11 October 2019 4 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\SHEFFIELD\JOBS\270000\270742-00\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-08 REPORTS\02 REPORT\2019-10-11 SCR FUTURE MOBILITY REVIEW EXECUTIVE SUMMARY_ISSUE.DOCX
Sheffield City Region Combined Authority | Review of Future Mobility Services Across the SCR
Key Moves 1. Publicise the great work already underway in the future mobility space in Sheffield City Region.
2. Create a transport data platform for Sheffield City Region.
3. Identify and realise opportunities to test future mobility technologies.
4. Foster a network of mobility technology companies and service providers.
5. Review changes to the governance and regulation of SCR’s transport system to deliver future mobility solutions.
The full list of recommendations and indicative timescales is provided below. SCR should consider and progress these recommendations over time to ensure alignment with the principles.
1. Work with experts from the digital community, for example .shf and Sheffield Digital, to engage with the issues from their perspective.* 2. Ensure the SCRCA and partners understand what industry standard specifications are for new technological/data developments and ensure they are applied in the design of physical and digital infrastructure undertaken.* 3. Teach people digital skills, by identifying target groups and designing and implementing a programme to achieve this. 4. Ensure designers understand cultural aspects so that our transport network is inclusive for all.* 5. Ensure all new cycle routes are designed so that they are inclusive for all, for example by ensuring they are wide enough for tricycles.* 6. Provide bicycle hubs with safe and secure cycle parking and provision for e-bikes throughout the region, which are linked in to the wider cycling and public transport network.* 7. Investigate and formulate a view on the use of e-scooters in the region. 8. Explore provision of more feeder services to public transport hubs to create a more integrated system.* 9. Improve integration of active travel modes with public transport, for example by creating cycle routes and providing safe and secure cycle parking which are well-integrated with tram and bus stops.* 10. Explore options for alternative rolling stock and infrastructure combinations to reduce renewal and maintenance activities (e.g. catenary free systems, battery and hydrogen powered trams, etc.). 11. Explore options for autonomous running of the tram network in the future. 12. Progress further work on zero emission buses to deliver on this ambition. This should include reconfiguring the network to achieve this, if necessary. The existing network should also be reconfigured to accommodate measures including 24 hour bus lanes and bus priority* 13. Explore and trial the use of hydrogen as an alternative fuel for freight at key regional hubs in Doncaster and Barnsley, and identify opportunities for trialling hydrogen for public transport and bin lorries. 14. Set higher standards for vehicle engine cleanliness through bus partnerships, with Euro VI diesel as the minimum expected across South Yorkshire, until the fleet is eventually replaced by electric buses. 15. Ensure alignment between energy strategy and transport projects. 16. Align the SCR roads Implementation Plan with RIS2 and encourage data sharing between Highways England and local authority’s systems to better integrate data relating to traffic flows, congestion and collisions and provide integrated journey and routing information.*
Page 132 Arup | Executive Summary | 270742-00 | | 11 October 2019 5 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\SHEFFIELD\JOBS\270000\270742-00\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-08 REPORTS\02 REPORT\2019-10-11 SCR FUTURE MOBILITY REVIEW EXECUTIVE SUMMARY_ISSUE.DOCX
Sheffield City Region Combined Authority | Review of Future Mobility Services Across the SCR
17. Investigate the use of intelligent ‘flex kerbs’, which enable dynamic uses throughout the day to prioritise space based on demand. 18. Investigate mobility pricing, with charges for vehicles based on occupancy* 19. Develop the future mobility capability of the City Region’s technology and logistics sectors by trialling drones and delivery robots.* 20. Trial demand-responsive transport. Possible locations include rural areas of Barnsley, an urban area, and the AMID.* 21. Consider the outcomes of the Bus Review in the context of future mobility and creation of a more open and competitive marketplace, balanced against the need to provide an integrated and efficient public transport network. 22. Host a workshop with attendees from different parts of corporate services and the private sector to understand how best to procure new mobility which can still demonstrate value for money for the public purse. 23. Identify opportunities for trialling the TfN Integrated and Smart Travel Programme in SCR. 24. Work with transport operators to make the Integrated and Smart Travel Programme happen as soon as possible. 25. Undertake an open data survey, measuring levels of integration and identifying challenges/opportunities. Involve the Open Data Institute in this process. 26. Investigate how data from the future concession of the tram can be shared.* * To be progressed in the short-term and continue through the medium-to-long term
27. Make public transport cheaper for those who cannot afford it (structured tariff based on means to pay). 28. Encourage greater uptake of e-bikes, for example through CycleBoost and provision for e-bike charging stations at key pubic transport interchanges and cycle hubs.* 29. Be proactive in trialling new technologies in public transport, such as autonomous buses.* 30. Simplify the existing ticketing and payment offer through the TfN Integrated and Smart Travel Programme. It is important that ticketing reflects current lifestyle trends, for example, prepaid tickets which can be used as and when required, to the meet the needs of people who work from home or do not work fixed hours. 31. Develop a strategy for adoption of zero emissions fuels by the City Region’s logistics businesses. 32. Develop the future mobility capability of the City Region’s technology and logistics sectors by trialling autonomous goods vehicles and truck platooning on the City Region’s motorways and major road network.* 33. Structure regulation and procurement processes to gain access to data generated through contracts let by the City Region and through services using the assets owned and maintained by the City Region. 34. Establish a data platform to encourage development of new mobility services and solutions. * To be progressed over the medium-to-long term
35. Ensure that a mix of payment methods are maintained for all transport modes throughout the city region, and do not transition to a fully cashless system until society is ready for this change to ensure the transport system is inclusive to all members of society. Contactless is only suitable for those who have cash cards, and some people will want / need to use cash. As part of this explore the introduction of a ‘Mobility Credits' scheme to support those who prefer to pay by cash through a ‘top-up’ system. 36. Rationalise buses and trams on arterial routes, aligned with the renewal of the Supertram concession in 2024. 37. Move to a more outcomes focused procurement process to encourage innovation and broaden the marketplace.
Page Arup133 | Executive Summary | 270742-00 | | 11 October 2019 6 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\SHEFFIELD\JOBS\270000\270742-00\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-08 REPORTS\02 REPORT\2019-10-11 SCR FUTURE MOBILITY REVIEW EXECUTIVE SUMMARY_ISSUE.DOCX
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9
TRANSPORT BOARD
25 OCTOBER 2019
BUS SERVICES IN SOUTH YORKSHIRE
Purpose of Report
To provide Members with an overview of the funding of bus services in South Yorkshire and background to the current Bus Partnership model and the alternative options provided under the Bus Services Act.
Freedom of Information
The paper will be available under the Combined Authority Publication Scheme
Recommendations
Members note the content of the report and provide feedback on any areas of interest they would like covered at future Board meetings.
1. Introduction
1.1 Bus travel makes up the majority of public transport journeys that are made in South Yorkshire. It also accounts for over 60% of SYPTE’s revenue expenditure.
1.2 The current position with regard to funding and governance has developed over a number of years and an understanding of the background is useful to help inform discussion on the future shape of bus services in South Yorkshire.
2. Proposal and justification
2.1 SYPTE has pursued a policy of Bus Partnerships as the mechanism for overseeing the delivery of bus services in South Yorkshire, following a decision taken by the (then) Integrated Transport Authority (ITA) in 2012.
2.2 Appendix 1 provides a summary of the background to the decision to pursue Bus Partnerships, the current structure, activities which are undertaken, and additional opportunities offered through the Bus Services Act.
2.3 Appendix 2 provides an overview of SYPTE’s current budget, the key areas of expenditure, along with background on the principles that are used to allocate funding.
Page 135
3. Consideration of alternative approaches
3.1 The summary briefings are intended to provide Members with an introduction to SYPTE’s role in the provision of bus services and help provide background to support discussions on the future shape of services. Members’ views on other topics for discussion at future meetings would be welcome.
4. Implications
4.1 Financial
No direct Financial implications from this report.
4.2 Legal
No direct Legal implications from this report.
4.3 Risk Management
Risks associated with the topics discussed are captured in SYPTE’s Risk Management system.
4.4 Equality, Diversity and Social Inclusion
None from this report.
5. Communications
5.1 No communications activities are required as a result of this paper.
6. Appendices/Annexes
6.1 Appendix 1 – Bus Services Briefing
Appendix 2 – SYPTE Funding Briefing
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 136
BUS SERVICES OCTOBER 2019
APPENDIX 1 LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2019
1. BACKGROUND
Bus services have been deregulated since 1986 which means that they are operated with the commercial risk sitting with operators. In some cases, Local Authorities have been unable to exercise any influence over changes, resulting in timetable changes being implemented without notice. In recent years, this has not been an issue in South Yorkshire.
In 2012 the (then) Integrated Transport Authority made the decision to choose to follow the path of using Bus Partnerships as the means of improving the bus offer for customers. This approach was continued through approvals given by the Transport Committee to continue the roll-out of Partnerships in Rotherham, and more recently Doncaster and Barnsley. Prior to 2012, a twin-track approach was adopted, where the option of “Quality Contracts” (essentially bus franchising) was followed in parallel with the Partnership negotiations. In 2012 Members favoured the Partnership route based on:
• the customer offers were significantly the same across the two delivery models; • the risk that operators damage the bus market when moving from the existing (de-regulated) market to the franchised model; • the cost of professional fees and associated risks of moving to the franchise market through an unsettled process; • timescales; the Partnership option could be delivered in months, not years (due to the statutory and procurement process); and • risks to the public sector in terms of ongoing budgets and costs.
The Bus Services Act 2017 brought about new powers for Local Authorities that potentially allow them to change the model of bus operation, in order to unlock growth potential. In addition to this, open data provisions and ticketing powers should improve access to information.
2. PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURE
The Partnerships are voluntary agreements between commercial operators, SYPTE and Local Authorities. All parties are signatories to the agreements and are equally represented in the governance arrangements. Jul 2014 Oct 2017 Rotherham VBPA Sheffield VBPA Roll Forward Jan 2012 May 2016 ITA Adopt Partnership Policy Doncaster VBPA
2012 2019
Nov 2015 Oct 2012 Sheffield Network Review Jan 2017 Sheffield VBPA Barnsley VBPA
1 Page 137
Each partnership has a Steering Group made up of a senior representative from each stakeholder. Under each steering group there are sub groups responsible for network design; investment; ticketing; promtions.Current policy is to pursue Partnerships, and all districts currently have one in place. The Sheffield Bus Partnership was established in 2012 and ran for an intial 5 year period to 2017. Rotherham’s Agreement runs until 2019 and Doncaster’s until 2020 and the Barnsley Agreement commenced in 2017.
Partnership Objectives
Providing higher quality, reliable, punctual services Providing a more stable, clear to understand network that is promoted as a whole Providing a more affordable, cost competitive value for money fares and ticket products Providing a higher quality customer experience, both on and off bus Promoting and marketing the services Optimising combined total resources to achieve efficiency Minimising the impact of travel on the environment
3. CURRENT POSITION
The initial five year period of Sheffield’s Agreement was completed in October 2017 and is currently on a rolling 12 month agreement. Discussions to refresh the Partnership are well advanced and there is a desire by all partners to update the agreements with commitments on both sides. Ahead of this, a joint ‘Buses for Sheffield’ brand has been launched which brings about a common look and feel to the marketing and promotion of the network and ticketing offer. This identity is being rolled out across the bus fleet, bus stops, network maps and online.
The Sheffield Bus Partnership has formed the model for DfT’s work on Enhanced Partnerships and all parties agree that it has delivered significant successes in addressing some of the key issues that were relevant prior to the initial commencement of the Optio routes in 2010. Consultation on changes is now an embedded process, the network is more stable, investment on all sides has been forthcoming and fares are lower. Below is a summary of some of the key developments:
Annually 1.3M more fare paying journeys 2012-2018; 11%-23% reduction in fares 2012 -2018; 152 new buses (£30M investments); £18M Better Bus Area scheme; 8 key corridors operating high frequency services with multi-operator ticketing; Co-ordinated network promotion.
It is acknowledged that full control does not sit with the local authority. Despite this, significant influence has been exerted over the network during the life of the Partnership; for instance, in September 2017 where SYPTE were able to argue for the retention of a number of early morning and late evening journeys that would have been deregistered. This was at no cost to the public purse and retained the commercial risk with the bus operators, rather than requiring tendered support.
A key challenge for the future is that the profitability of South Yorkshire’s bus operators is very small which restricts the extent to which they can invest in their networks at present. Patronage across the UK is declining and South Yorkshire is not immune to this. Undoubtedly, this impacts on decision making for the operators and may result in future changes to the network. Clearly the economics of the operating model are a factor to evaluate in any decision regarding exercising the powers in the Bus Services Act.
E:\Moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\0\4\AI00001406\$r245vtju.docxPage 138
4. CURRENT POSITION
Although the introduction of Partnerships saw growth initially, they have not reversed the national trend of decline; It is difficult to quantify but the improvements in resource efficiency have probably resulted in less dramatic network reductions than would otherwise be the case; This is linked to the relative low levels of profitability in South Yorkshire and the specific financial challenges faced by operators; Communication of the benefits of the Partnership, and the good aspects of the South Yorkshire model (eg multi-operator ticketing offer) has not been as good as it could have been; Local members are seen as responsible (in the public’s eyes) but, in reality, have little influence on decision- making; Commercial imperatives are often at the forefront of operator decision-making; Reductions in Local Authority contributions to investment (and to budgets through tenders/concessions) have also played a part.
5. BUS SERVICES ACT
Three new operating models are now available in addition to existing measures such as Voluntary Partnerships, Statutory Quality Partnerships and no agreements at all. Key features of these are:
KEY FEATURES OF EACH OPERATING MODEL Voluntary Partnership Enhanced Partnership
Operators not compelled to be a party to the Commercial risk remains with bus operators agreement Requires majority support from operators and Success is driven by relationships protocols around voting rights Operators free to charge own fares Operators may continue to sell their own tickets and Where relationships are good, improvements can be set fares delivered quickly May require certain payment methods to be accepted No link to infrastructure and highways other than by and provisions around multi-operator ticketing mutual agreement Framework for vehicle standards (emissions, age, branding) may be included Allows centralised network planning Advanced Quality Partnership Franchising
Updates existing quality partnerships to focus on Commercial risk transfers to public sector “measures” i.e. policy rather than hard infrastructure Local authority designs and procures the network Can specify the type of marketing and promotion that which will be delivered by third party commercial operators must introduce operators Tickets and fares set centrally with the franchising authority dictating the price and validity of products Vehicle specification dictated by the franchising authority Process of developing a business case and undertaking consultation to be followed ahead of implementation Requirement to consider impact on small and medium sized operators ahead of implementation
E:\Moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\0\4\AI00001406\$r245vtju.docx Page 139
VOLUNTARY ENHANCED ADVANCED QUALITY FRANCHISING PARTNERSHIP PARTNERSHIP PARTNERSHIP Control bus network design X X X
Specify service frequency X Specify and control fares and X * * ticketing Specify vehicle standards X *Multi-operator tickets only
E:\Moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\0\4\AI00001406\$r245vtju.docxPage 140
SYPTE FUNDING OCTOBER 2019
APPENDIX 2
LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2019
1. SYPTE REVENUE BUDGET CHANGES
SYPTE is primarily funded by the four South Yorkshire Local Authorities (LAs) through the Transport Levy. The costs of the levy are split based on the relative size of each LA’s population.
The PTE’s budget is approved and the levy set each year by the Combined Authority (CA). In line with the four South Yorkshire Local Authorities, SYPTE has seen significant reductions in its revenue budget.
Between 2010 and 2019 SYPTE’s annual costs have reduced by £42m (41%)
ENCTS Concessions and Capital Financing by £22.2m (35%) Child and Other Discretionary Policy £10.1m (55%) Customer Group, Infrastructure and Support departments of £9.1m (49%) Removed 233 posts (58% ) Cumulative Saving of £244.9m
These cost savings have been achieved by a combination of internal efficiencies and reductions in the services provided, such as tendered bus services, cleaning of bus shelters and removal of free rail travel for pensioners.
2. SYPTE 2018/19 REVENUE BUDGET
In preparation for the 2017/18 budget, SYPTE agreed a 4 year profile of budget reductions with a 5% saving in 2017/18 and 2.5% saving for the 3 subsequent years.
The 2019/20 budget was been set with a 3% reduction, slightly ahead of this profile. This (along with 2017/18 savings) has been achieved without the need to make any further significant reductions to the services provided by SYPTE. This is primarily due to continued decline in the cost of supporting concessionary payments, and a reduction in debt financing costs as historic loans with high internal rates are repaid.
E:\Moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\0\4\AI00001406\$gfb0dmsl.docx Page 141
In 2019/20, SYPTE’s revenue budget will be split as shown in the following chart:
There has been continued patronage decline over a number of years on bus and tram services across South Yorkshire. There has been a significant reduction in the number of journeys made by those eligible for the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme (ENCTS), in particular elderly travel. As the number of journeys declines, the cost of reimbursing operators and hence the cost of providing this concession to SYPTE reduces.
Whilst, on one hand, this is beneficial in budget terms, it does mean that there is less support going into the South Yorkshire public transport system, particularly in support of bus services which would otherwise have limited commercial viability. Income for concessionary travel represents around a third of the income for bus operators and the impact disproportionally affects low frequency services which tend to rely more on travel from this group of customers.
Take up of the ENCTS concession continues to reduce due to a number of factors. Equalisation of the state pension age is having an impact on the number of people who are eligible for the concession. This impact is likely to continue until 2020/21 when the equalisation programme reaches an end. Various societal changes are also having an impact including improved health of older people, greater car ownership in the age group (particularly among women) and an increase in online shopping.
This trend has proved challenging to forecast and has led to significant monetary differences in SYPTE’s budget. As this represents SYPTE’s biggest single area of expenditure, small changes in actual volumes versus forecast result in a large financial variance.
3. MANDATORY VS DISCRETIONARY EXPENDITURE
Much of SYPTE’s budget is committed through statutory and financial obligations or through agreed policy decisions. Non-discretionary areas are made up of ENCTS Concessionary Travel and financial obligations and represent 70% of SYPTE’s revenue budget. Of the reminder 15% supports the delivery of MCA policy areas (tendered services, community transport and child concessions) with the balance funding SYPTE’s operational activities including on-street facilities, interchanges, customer services, ticketing andinformation services.
4. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS
Financial obligations relate primarily to loans SYPTE has taken out to support investment in capital assets, including the tram system and transport interchanges.
E:\Moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\0\4\AI00001406\$gfb0dmsl.docx Page 142
SYPTE currently has circa £170m of loans relating to past borrowings which fall due at various stages over the next 40 years. The CA holds an investment portfolio of a similar amount, the majority of which relates to cash SYPTE has accumulated to pay down these loans.
SYPTE covers the interest costs from these loans through the levy. As the loans expire this leads to significant variations in the pressure on the levy, making it difficult for both SYPTE and LAs to budget effectively for future commitments. In order to help smooth the profile of the levy payments and support stable reductions in 2014/15, the CA granted SYPTE a capital grant which can be used to offset the impact of changes in SYPTE’s loan portfolio.
5. CONCESSIONS
A significant proportion of SYPTE’s annual budget goes to providing concessionary travel to the public in South Yorkshire. For financial year 2018/19, the budget is £25.1m. Mandatory Concessions The national ENCTS scheme mandates free local bus travel, anywhere in England, 0930-2300 weekdays, all day weekends and Bank Holidays for elderly and disabled travellers. Enhanced (Discretionary) Concessions We have a number of concession enhancements that the region has agreed to provide through discretionary funding. These include the extension of the child concession in 2017 to anyone between the age of 16 and 18, and is accessible to anyone in that age range, not just those in education as was previously the case. This allows the eligible customers access to single 80p fares and child discounted products from single operators and TravelMaster. We also provide free bus travel to and from school for children who live more than three miles from their nearest school by the most direct safe walking route under a Zero Fare Pass scheme.
In addition, SYPTE extends the concession to include:
Free tram travel, 0930-2300 weekdays, all day weekends and Bank Holidays for elderly travellers Free tram travel always for disabled travellers Half-fare train travel, 0930-2300 weekdays, all day weekends and Bank Holidays within South Yorkshire for elderly travellers Free train travel, always including travel between South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire on Northern Rail services for disabled travellers. Concessions Summary
Qualifying Group Mandatory Discretionary concessions in Notes concessions South Yorkshire
Older people – people Free local bus travel, Free tram travel, 0930-2300 Half-fare train travel over eligibility age anywhere in weekdays, all day weekends concession is open to (retirement age for a England, 0930-2300 and Bank Holidays SY residents only. woman) weekdays, all day Half-fare train travel, 0930- weekends and Bank 2300 weekdays, all day Holidays weekends and Bank Holidays
E:\Moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\0\4\AI00001406\$gfb0dmsl.docx Page 143 Disabled people – as Free local bus travel, Free tram travel always Free train travel defined in the Transport anywhere in Free train travel always in concession is open to Act 2000 England, 0930-2300 South Yorkshire SY residents only. weekdays, all day Free train travel always SY/WY free train travel weekends and Bank between South and West is Northern Rail only. Holidays Yorkshire Travelling companions – None Second person may travel In practice, this of severely disabled free at above times and on concession extends to people above modes if residents of other accompanying a person with areas if they use the a “+C” logo on their pass. same “+C” logo. Young people – up to age None Concessionary travel Half fare concession 18 (currently 80p fare) always on trains (not on local buses and trams subsidised by local 1 Subsidised day/week/4-week authorities). prepaid tickets available Young person’s (both single- and multi- concessions are for operator) residents only “Statutory children” – None Free travel to/from place of Not a mandatory young people entitled to education up to 1900 hours concession in free travel to/from school on days when schools are Transport Act terms under the Education Act. open but local authorities are obliged to provide free travel to/from school for this group. May be extended to fit circumstances (e.g. multiple sites of education or late evening courses) 1. Half fare concessions on trains are provided by train operating companies under the terms of the National Rail Conditions of Carriage. This is provided to all under 16s but is extended in South Yorkshire to holders of the 16-18 Travel Pass.
6. TENDERED SERVICES
SYPTE has a statutory obligation under the Transport Act 1985 Section 57, which imposes a duty on SYPTE to secure the provision of such passenger transport services it considers appropriate to meet public transport requirements in areas where none exist commercially. This obligation does not define the level to which SYPTE must fund services, but rather places this at local discretion. The decision to provide contracted services is, therefore, influenced by the priorities set out in the Sheffield City Region Transport Strategy, the Sheffield City Region Public Transport Action Plan and the available funding. SYPTE’s total expenditure in this area of discretionary spend, excluding the provision of statutory school services for 2019/20, is forecasted at £5.9m.
As funding for supported services is limited, SYPTE has put in place criteria for funding bus services, known as the ‘Tendered Services Criteria Model’ (TSCM) to ensure broad parity across communities not served by commercial bus services and to prioritise which services are funded. The TSCM works on two key considerations:
Accessibility - the distance to the nearest commercial service;
E:\Moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\0\4\AI00001406\$gfb0dmsl.docx Page 144 Cost - defined as Subsidy per Passenger Journey (SPPJ). This is calculated by simply dividing the cost of the service by the number of passenger journeys. This is used as a value for money (VFM) indicator.
Contracted bus services (excluding schools services) account for approximately 13% of the South Yorkshire bus market (expressed in miles operated). The remaining 87% is operated on a commercial basis. It is estimated that 4.4m passenger journeys were made on supported bus services in 2018/19 (excluding schools). These represent circa 5% of total journeys forecasted to be made in South Yorkshire with the balance (85m) being on commercial services. This shows that fewer passengers travel per operator per mile on funded services than on the commercial network.
SYPTE’s forecasted payments in 2019/20 for contracted services funds three key types of service:
Services which maintain and enhance social inclusion – These are typically early morning, evening and Sunday services and account for £4m of expenditure; Services which improve access to employment in support of economic growth – These have continued to be funded after an initial period of external grant funding. The cost of maintaining these accounts for £1m of expenditure; School Services – These account for £0.9m of expenditure. This funds services for pupils for which the local authorities have a statutory duty.
Contracts are let through a competitive tender process and are awarded to the most economically advantageous bidder that meets the specified service criteria. Minimum requirements for vehicle specification, service performance etc are set out as part of the requirements. Contracts are usually let for a period of three years with a rolling programme of renewals which ensures that not all contracts are up for tender each year.
Whilst the available budget has reduced from circa £10m in 2009/10 to £5.9m the level of expenditure has been broadly maintained over the last 3 years. However, as operating costs have increased and commercial services have reduced, it has not been possible to maintain the level of network coverage provided.
E:\Moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\0\4\AI00001406\$gfb0dmsl.docx Page 145 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10
TRANSPORT THEMATIC BOARD
25/10/2019
TRANSPORT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION
Purpose of Report
This report provides an update on the development of the SCR Transport Strategy Implementation Plans.
Freedom of Information
This paper will be available under the Combined Authority Publication Scheme
Recommendations
The Board are asked to note the approach taken to the development of the Implementation Plans.
The Board are asked to approve the proposed Roads Implementation Plan priorities.
1. Introduction
1.1 As reported at previous Transport Board meetings work is underway to develop the future work programmes to take forward the interventions identified within the Transport Strategy. This report provides an update on the progress in developing these implementation plans and the intended timescale for completion.
1.2 Following the adoption of the Integrated Rail Plan, work is progressing on the development of the Roads Implementation Plan, the Active Travel Implementation Plan (ATIP) and Mass Transit Implementation Plan. It is proposed that these are now developed at the same time in order to maximise an integrated approach.
1.3 The Implementation Plans will reflect the Government’s commitment to achieving a net zero greenhouse gas target by 2050 and the declaration of Climate Emergencies in Local Authorities through a clear articulation of a future where active travel is enabled, where mass transit is supported to be efficient and reliable and the focus of road investment is primarily to enable this.
2. Proposal and justification
2.1 Following the adoption of the Transport Strategy, SCR is working through the future work programmes to develop a pipeline of interventions in response to the vision, goals and policies described in the document. The Implementation Plans will provide this scheme level detail which will provide a comprehensive work programme for SCR and local authority partners over the next few years. The plans set out the top ten challenges with the existing rail network in the SCR and the future opportunities and needs. From these challenges and opportunities, a series of objectives have been set along with interventions for delivery that are grouped into the following timeframes; Page 147 • Interventions that are either committed for delivery, or which we need to see delivered, in the next five years • Interventions for which we aim to complete business cases in the next five years, with the aim of these interventions being delivered from the mid-2020s onwards • Interventions for which we will do more investigation work and develop options for, in the next five years, such that these interventions could be delivered from the late 2020s onwards.
2.4 Roads Implementation Plan
In light of rising concerns over climate change, the declaration of climate change emergencies and continued air quality challenges the emerging draft Roads Implementation Plan incorporates new transport priorities which are: - Fit it first - focus on existing roads rather than building new ones; - An integrated approach - redesigning roads to prioritise public transport, walking and cycling - Environmental leadership - and delivering carbon emission reductions, improved air quality and biodiversity. These are adopted from the Campaign for Better Transport’s priorities for improving road networks. The Roads Plan’s amended objectives have been fed back to Local Authority Transport leads for discussion.
Within the Roads Plan the Key Route Network for SCR is also being reviewed, and the scope of that network agreed. The Key Route Network will form an important part of delivering improved bus service outcomes and will be reflected in the Mass Transit Implementation Plan.
Stakeholder engagement is key to developing this document and partners have been asked to add detail regarding the local challenges and opportunities they are aware of, relating to the highway they are responsible for. Once the challenges and amended objectives have been finalised, work can commence on the development of the intervention mapping.
Board members are asked to approve the proposed Roads Implementation Plan priorities.
2.5 Active Travel Implementation Plan
In light of the Mayor’s commitment to enabling active travel this Plan will set out a clear route map to transform cycling and walking infrastructure and opportunity in the city region within a generation.
The challenges, opportunities and objectives sections of the ATIP have been drafted and shared with partners for discussion. The plan builds on the DfT’s Local Cycling and Walking Implementation Plan (LCWIP) work, which resulted in the identification of two corridors per authority area where investment should be prioritised in walking and cycling infrastructure. The ATIP will be broader than the LCWIP and will identify a region wide network of routes for investment. A series of infrastructure planning workshops have taken place with partners to identify the infrastructure needs across the region, which will form the basis of the intervention mapping.
The ATIP will also set out the supporting revenue activity required to achieve our goal of increasing active travel across the region and will articulate the design standards expected from new active travel infrastructure. The design standards will relate to plans in the Mass Transit and Roads implementation plans and joint implementation planning will enable
Page 148 scheme development that incorporates multiple users. The Plan will also identify best practice in area based initiatives such as ‘mini Holland’ schemes which point the way to future opportunities to invest in neighbourhood schemes as well as denser developments for example around mass transit infrastructure where active travel is front and centre in their conception.
Following the receipt of partner feedback on the draft plan challenges and objectives, work will progress on the intervention mapping incorporating the outputs of the infrastructure planning workshops.
2.6 Mass Transit Implementation Plan
Discussions have begun with partners in South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) regarding the approach to the Bus Implementation Plan. Having considered the work taking place on the Bus Review, it is felt that the Bus Implementation Plan sections on background and challenges can be developed in parallel with the development of recommendations drafted in light of the bus review. Discussions are in the early stages and SCR will continue to work with SYPTE on the development of this plan. Further details will be brought back to a subsequent Transport Board for discussion and agreement.
2.7 Each of the implementation plans has a degree of interaction with the other. The way that our roads are used can have a significant impact on people’s ability and willingness to cycle and / or walk. Similarly, the priority given to public transport on our roads can impact timetables and constrain service provision. The synergies between the plans therefore needs to be clearly reflected in the final documents. With each plan being developed in parallel we can reflect the interdependencies between them in the language we use and by finalising the intervention mapping concurrently, we can ensure all schemes are accurately represented in their respective plans. Taking this approach SCR believes the Implementation Plans will be completed by March 2020.
2.8 Alongside the four modal Implementation Plans, there are two cross cutting issues around air quality and future mobility (considered separately at this meeting). This piece of work considers how the key innovations made in urban mobility can be harnessed to deliver SCR’s Transport Strategy, Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) and Local Industrial Strategy (LIS) and identifies where SCR is uniquely placed to contribute to this agenda.
On a similar basis, SCR are seeking support to develop an air quality work programme. Air quality is currently monitored locally and reported on by our Local Authority partners. Consequently, SCR would like to understand how value can be added by taking a strategic approach air quality and carbon reduction. The application process is progressing with draft outputs expected 20/11/19 and the final report due 6/12/19.
The outputs from both these commissions will inform the content of a future mobility and air quality implementation plans respectively.
3. Consideration of alternative approaches
3.1 Following the adoption of the Transport Strategy in January 2019, there is a requirement to outline how the strategic ambitions of that document can be translated into a workplan for delivery. Consideration was given to alternative ways in which to develop such a programme, including having a single combined Implementation Plan. However, it was felt that this would result in a failure to adequately consider each of the modal issues thoroughly or give enough space to reflect on the impact of the two cross cutting topics.
4. Implications
4.1 Financial Page 149
There are no direct financial implications as a result of producing the Implementation Plans. However, once they are adopted consideration will need to be given to how the business cases for the interventions identified will be funded by SCR or individual partners.
4.2 Legal Section108 of the transport Act 2000 requires the MCA to develop policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport to, from and within their area, and carry out their functions so as to implement those policies.
4.3 Risk Management Individual projects will be subject to separate bespoke risk assessments during their development and implementation.
4.4 Equality, Diversity and Social Inclusion An Equalities Impact Assessment has been undertaken as part of the Integrated Assessment for the refreshed Transport Strategy. To ensure that the consultation process on the Transport Strategy was inclusive, the Transport Strategy documents were available in electronic, printed and accessible formats. Members of the public and transport users of all ages and socioeconomic groups were encouraged to view and comment on the draft Transport Strategy through a variety of ways.
5. Communications
5.1 As the MCA endorses each Implementation Plan, further work will be undertaken to communicate the key elements to communities across the region.
6. Appendices/Annexes
6.1 None.
REPORT AUTHOR Chloe Shepherd POST Senior Programme Manager - Transport Officer responsible Mark Lynam Organisation Sheffield City Region Email [email protected] Telephone 0114 2203445
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 150 Agenda Item 11
TRANSPORT BOARD
25th October 2019
LOCAL HIGHWAYS MAINTENANCE CHALLENGE FUND
Purpose of Report
The report concerns the submission of bids and Expressions of Interest from the Sheffield City Region to the Department for Transport’s Local Highways Challenge Maintenance Fund for 19/20 and 20/21.
Freedom of Information
Freedom of Information and Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972
‘The paper will be available under the Combined Authority Publication Scheme’
Recommendations
Board members are asked to:
• Endorse the submission of bids and Expressions of Interest to the Department for Transport’s Local Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund.
1. Introduction
1.1 In July 2019 the Department for Transport (DfT) launched the Local Highways Challenge Maintenance Fund. The Fund is open to local highways authorities in England to bid for major maintenance projects that it would otherwise be difficult to fund through the usual allocations received from government.
1.2 Local highways authorities are eligible to submit one bid for up to £5m of DfT funding for 2019 to 2020. The DfT is also seeking Expressions of Interest for larger projects for 2020 to 2021 with a minimum DfT contribution of £5m each. The Fund guidance indicates that where an authority falls within a Combined Authority (CA) bids will be submitted via the CA and that the CA should rank these bids to indicate their relative priority.
2. Proposal and justification
2.1 The Department for Transport’s Local Highways Challenge Maintenance Fund is intended to support maintenance activities that are otherwise difficult to fund through the usual allocations highways authorities receive from government. Previous rounds of funding have been awarded in 2015 and 2017. This challenge fund totals £198m and is available in 19/20 and 20/21. The deadline for bids and Expressions of Interest is 31st October 2019.
Page 151 2.2 Local highways authorities are invited to submit bids of up to £5m for 2019/2020 and Expressions of Interest for projects over £5m for 2020/21. Projects should improve the quality of roads and surrounding infrastructure, including bridges and viaducts, to benefit the local economy and make driving safer. The eligible types of project are:
- Structural maintenance, strengthening or renewal of bridges, viaducts, retaining walls or other key structures, footbridge or cycle bridge renewal - Major maintenance, full depth reconstruction of carriageways, and structural maintenance of tunnels - Resurfacing of carriageways including improvements to footways or cycleways that are within the highway boundary - Renewal of gullies and replacement of drainage assets
The Department for Transport has confirmed that for 2019/2020 schemes the funding is unlikely to be provided to the MCA as grant until February 2020. Therefore, there is no expectation that schemes would spend in 2019/2020 but that schemes should commence in Spring with completion by March 2021. For Expressions of Interest these schemes do not need to complete in one year so could be a longer programme.
2.3 For bids to the 19/20 funding Local Authorities are invited to prepare a Short Strategic Case and a data proforma to allow for an appraisal of costs and benefits. The DfT is requesting that these submissions are ranked by the Combined Authority to indicate the relative priority attached to each one. Successful bids will be notified by the end of 2019.
2.4 Local Authorities have proposed the following bids for 19/20:
Barnsley - Barnsley propose to submit a bid for the A635 Goldthorpe Bypass Structures Refurbishment at an estimated cost of £1.2m. this includes the refurbishment of the bridges at Highgate Railway Bridge and Nicholas Lane Road Bridge, together with associated carriageway resurfacing. The proposals include resurfacing 1.3km of the bypass.
Rotherham - Repairs to A6178 Sheffield Road, Templeborough. The scheme includes the renewal of a damaged highway drain and the resurfacing of the whole road from the boundary with Sheffield to the roundabout at Bessemer Way including the repair of the traffic calming features. Total estimated cost £920k, DfT ask £800k.
Doncaster -– a programme of structural renewal / replacement of flagged footways that are in poor condition with bituminous surfacing. The backlog of renewal requirements across the district is significant so the submission could be up to around £4m. 2.5 The assessment undertaken by the CA to determine prioritisation will be light touch and is not intended to be an appraisal, which will be undertaken by the Department. The SCR assessment will include: - Checking eligibility e.g. activity supported by the Fund, contribution to the scheme costs - A score for the Strategic Case in line with criteria set by the Department - A ranking based on Benefit Cost Ratios for each project.
2.6 Local Authorities have proposed the following Expressions of Interest for 20/21:
Sheffield City Council is considering a bid for strengthening the railway bridge at Rock Street. This is a major bus route and within the Transforming Cities Fund bid but is currently restricted to one-way working due to the strength issues. Strengthening of this bridge would enable two-way operation and facilitate improved movement through this corridor.
Page 152 Barnsley Council is Proposing to submit an expression of interest for the major reconstruction scheme on the A628 Hoylandswaine Bypass. The bypass was originally constructed using expansive fill, now resulting in constantly varying road levels, which requires an ongoing maintenance strategy to smooth the uneven surface.
Doncaster Council is developing options for a package of drainage-based interventions targeting flood risk areas including lifting a road out of a flood wash land area to sustain connectivity between east and west of borough just north of town. DMBC have proposed expanding this to a regional drainage bid and are working with the other local authorities to develop this as a potential alternative to separate expressions.
Rotherham Council is currently evaluating options for the Expression of Interest with additional interventions for the regional drainage bid being the primary option. 2.7 Each local authority will secure the requisite internal approvals as defined by their respective governance procedures prior to submission of funding bids and expressions of interest.
2.8 Successful schemes identified from the Expressions of Interest will be invited to complete a DfT Business Case assessment to provide confidence about value for money.
3. Consideration of alternative approaches
3.1 Local Authorities could choose not to apply to the Fund given the opportunity cost of completing applications for competitive processes. However Local Authorities have identified this is an opportunity to fund projects that might struggle to attract investment from other sources. Additionally, the Department’s process for this Fund is designed not to be onerous.
3.2 The SCR could choose not to prioritise projects given the short time frames involved, limited information available and lack of role in the Fund design. SCR will conduct a short assessment proportionate to the project size and complexity in order to ensure that we are compliant with DfT processes and able to maximise the opportunity to secure resources.
4. Implications
4.1 Financial There are no financial implications arising from submissions of bids and Expressions of Interest. It has been confirmed by the Department that funding for any successful bids would be managed by the Combined Authority.
4.2 Legal There are no legal implications arising from submissions of bids and Expressions of Interest. Any award granted to Sheffield City Region will require Funding Agreements completing with the recipient local authorities.
4.3 Risk Management There are no risk implications arising from submissions of bids and Expressions of Interest.
4.4 Equality, Diversity and Social Inclusion Equality, diversity and social inclusion will be considered in the design and delivery of projects as relevant should bids and Expressions of Interest be successful.
Page 153 5. Communications
5.1 It is not anticipated that there will be any communications related to the submission of bids and Expressions of Interest to this Fund.
6. Appendices/Annexes
6.1 Nil
REPORT AUTHOR Jennefer Holmes POST Assistant Director, Strategic Transport (Interim) Officer responsible Mark Lynam Organisation Sheffield City Region Email [email protected] Telephone
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 154 Agenda Item 12
TRANSPORT BOARD
25/10/19
INTEGRATED TRANSPORT BLOCK 2019/20 PROGRAMME REVIEW UPDATE
Purpose of Report
To present Board with the outcome of the Integrated Transport Block (ITB) 2019/20 programme review commissioned through Transport Executive Board (TEB), advise of the projected year-end financial position and present TEB’s recommendations for use of funding which is not expected to be spent within the financial year.
Thematic Priority
6. Secure investment in infrastructure where it will do most to support growth
Freedom of Information
This paper does not have any exemptions under Part II of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Recommendations
Board are recommended to agree the proposal from TEB for the deferral of ITB funding for five projects that require this to complete works in 2020/21 and for further work to be done to develop options for the other projected unspent allocations and future business case development funding.
1. Introduction
1.1 The ITB is an annual allocation paid by DfT for delivery of local transport capital interventions. The settlement is paid to SCR and then distributed to the four South Yorkshire local authorities and SYPTE for delivery.
1.2 In May 2019 SCR requested a review of the 2019/20 ITB allocation. This looked at four areas; strategic contribution, internal audit review findings, deliverability and capacity to re-allocate funding to alternative uses. The review was conducted by the LTP Central Team and presented to TEB in July.
1.3 The outcome from July’s report was an agreement that a follow up review should be completed providing further scrutiny to the higher risk projects, with this to be presented back to Board at the end of quarter two. Board agreed that any funding that is identified for re-allocation through this process should be placed in a central pot and options for use of it presented to this Board for consideration.
1.4 The full ITB programme has been reviewed again by the LTP Central Team in consultation with Strategic Transport Group and project sponsors. This has re-evaluated the projected spend and delivery profiles for the year and produced a revised year-end position for each individual project. Page 155 1.5 It is important to note that while every effort has been made to ensure the year-end projections are accurate it is not possible to guarantee these figures and they could be subject to change over the remainder of the year. Project conditions are continually evolving and factors outside the ITB programme delivery will influence the outturn position. For example, variations in the resource requirement for TCF; if the commitment required is lower than expected capacity to commit to ITB will increase, if the TCF requirements increase resources for ITB are likely to be reduced.
2. Proposal and justification
2.1 The latest position is that across the ITB programme there are eight projects where the full annual allocation is not expected to be spent within this financial year. Five of these projects have identified that planned works will complete but are going to be deferred into 2020/21. The other three projects have identified that the original planned works will no longer complete, resulting in an unused allocation which could be considered for alternative purposes.
2.2 The projects with deferred completion are listed below:
• BMBC Cycling Package – Projected unspent allocation £359k
The planned works are for interventions on the A61 corridor which is also within the TCF submission so ITB funded works have been added as match to the TCF package. Resources for 2019/20 are committed to TCF development so the sponsor’s preferred option would be to defer the ITB allocation for delivery in 2020/21.
• Rotherham Local Safety Schemes – Projected unspent allocation £80-100k
Commitment of resources to TCF development is expected to result in reduced spend against this allocation. The sponsor’s preferred option would be to defer this amount and add it to the 2020/21 ITB programme to be used for the delivery of two potential traffic light-controlled crossings, one on Great Eastern Way and one on A629 Wortley Road, the latter of which is at Detailed Design stage.
• SCC Network Management Programme – Projected Unspent allocation £100k
The allocation is the ITB contribution to the larger funding package for the Inner Ring Road. The other funding sources have time specific grant conditions whereas ITB can be carried forward. This means the ITB allocation will be the last funding source to be used on the Inner Ring Road scheme. If there is delay to the scheme it will not be used until 2020/21 but will still be required so SCC’s preferred option is to defer the allocation into next year and retain it for its current planned purpose.
• SYPTE Smart Ticketing – Projected unspent allocation up to £135k
The carry forward from activity from the previous will be delivered and the allocation spent, the remaining activity which has slipped as a consequence is being reviewed but may not be delivered within 2019/20. SYPTE’s preferred option would be to carry this forward into the next financial year for the full original planned works to continue.
• BRT Modelling – Projected unspent allocation £40k
This is a contractual requirement from DfT, however it requires modelling input from SCR and current priorities (e.g. TCF, Mass Transit) may mean this work slips into the next financial year. The SYPTE proposal is to retain the funding for defrayal in 2020/21.
Page 156 2.3 The original planned activities within the other allocations will now not be completed. The values attached to these, reasons for the spend forecast and the lead sponsor’s alternative proposal for use of this funding are listed below:
• SYPTE Design Work for Future Years – Projected unspent allocation £70k
Design resources have been committed to TCF resulting in the projected unspent figure. This amount could potentially be used as match for TCF schemes where the estimated final cost has increased, to keep the TCF external funding element within the parameters of original estimated costs.
• SYPTE Rails Schemes – Projected unspent allocation £70k
The ITB funded works that were originally planned as part of the AfA submission are also relevant to the station works within the TCF bid. SYPTE’s proposal would be to defer the allocation works and re-assign the works as additional TCF match in 2020/21.
• SYPTE Life Cycle Works – Projected unspent allocation £75k
SYPTE have identified £300k from the original Life Cycle Works for re-allocation to Transforming Cities Fund schemes. This would leave £75k unspent against Life Cycle Works, this is unallocated at moment but as work progresses on TCF it may be an option to cover further TCF requirements.
2.4 In addition to the proposals put forward by the current project sponsors there has also been an option generated to use the funding as a central resource for developing major scheme business cases. This, for example, could be for interventions identified through the Transport Strategy Implementation Plans.
2.5 The new Sheffield City Region Transport Strategy was adopted in early 2019 and the thematic Implementation Plans for this are being developed with a view to finalising these in early 2020. The plans will include identification of interventions required to deliver the strategic aims but these interventions will not be restricted by current known allocations. To achieve the ambitions of the plans will therefore require additional funding to be secured, sources for funding business case development are very limited so all opportunities for supporting this need to be investigated.
2.6 This alternative proposal is therefore that any retained ITB is applied as central resource to develop these business cases. Funding would be re-allocated to specific projects to either be delivered under the ownership of the lead delivery partner or by Sheffield City Region depending on the details of each project.
2.7 It was also proposed that in developing the draft 2020-21 ITB programme the allocations should be reviewed for alignment with the implementation plans and consideration given to utilising some of the settlement for the development of strategic schemes identified in the plans. The development of these business cases could further provide an opportunity to lever in additional external funding for the region. This deployment of the ITB would be subject to compliance with DfT grant conditions.
2.8 The recommendation made by Transport Executive Board was to support the deferral of the five allocations where the planned activity will now be completed in 2020/21. For all other projected unspent 2019-20 allocations Board have requested further specific information to be developed on the alternative proposals, the opportunities they provide and potential implications. This will be presented back to a future TEB for consideration. Options for use of the 2020-21 ITB settlement will also be presented to TEB for review.
Page 157 3. Consideration of alternative approaches
3.1 The deferral requests could be declined and the allocations added to the central resource considerations. This approach is not recommended as the original works will still need to be completed next year so alternative funding sources will have to be identified. If other funding is used to meet these commitments the capacity for that source to deliver other interventions will be reduced.
3.2 Another approach is to do nothing and not make any changes to the current programme. DfT grant conditions do not prohibit the carry forward of ITB from one year to another so there would be no external penalties resulting from an unspent allocation. The benefit of this would be that current sponsors would retain greater flexibility to respond to fluctuations in programme profiles, however it would also mean that an opportunity to create new programme outcomes could be missed.
3.2 The ‘do-nothing’ approach is not recommended as the review process has identified there is a proportion of available funding that is not expected to be used for its original purpose, investigating this option further will clarify if there is an opportunity for alternative use.
4. Implications
4.1 Financial Processes for administration of any central resource which may be established will need to be defined and DfT grant conditions for ITB adhered to.
4.2 Legal ITB is not governed by formal funding agreements and so there are no legal implications resulting from any deferral or re-allocation of funding.
4.3 Risk Management On an ongoing basis ITB programme and project risks are managed through the existing LTP governance regime. The outcome of this process will be incorporated into this regime.
4.4 Equality, Diversity and Social Inclusion (Equality Act - Public Sector Equality Duty) All relevant legislation has been considered in development of the current ITB projects and alternative proposals.
5. Communications
5.1 No external communications would be required as a result of this paper. Internal communication to the project sponsors of the decision following Transport Board will be the responsibility of the LTP Central Team.
6. Appendices/Annexes
6.1 None required
REPORT AUTHOR Alex Linton POST LTP Programme Manager Officer responsible Mark Lynam Organisation Sheffield City Region Email [email protected] Telephone 0114 2203453
Background papers used in the preparation of this report are available for inspection at: 11 Broad Street West, Sheffield S1 2BQ Page 158 Agenda Item 13
TRANSPORT BOARD
25/10/19
SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL ACCESS FUND PROGRAMME 2020-21 EXTENSION
Purpose of Report
To seek approval for continuation of current STAF activities for 2020-21, utilising extended funding from DfT.
Thematic Priority
5. Develop the SCR skills base, labour mobility and education performance.
Freedom of Information
This paper does not have any exemptions under Part II of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Recommendations
Transport Board are asked to approve the continuation of the current projects in the priority order as detailed in paragraph 2.6 subject to sufficient allocation being granted by DfT.
1. Introduction
1.1 At the May 22nd 2019 TEB a paper was presented outlining the implications of the current Sustainable Travel Access Fund (STAF) allocation coming to an end in March 2020. At this stage no successor funding opportunity had been offered by DfT and there were no other known sources of revenue funding to continue this scale of cycling, walking, communication, passenger transport and employment connection activity. This presented several issues for Active Travel within the City Region including, but not limited to; loss of skills and knowledge as staff contracts expired, compromising the strength of the Transforming Cities Fund Bid and contradicting the message on how important Active Travel is to the region.
1.2 The recommendation of May’s paper was that Executive Board agree the need for continuation of an active travel revenue-based programme, to support the escalation of this need and to support the sourcing of alternative funding. This issue was then included in the paper on Centrally Managed Local Programmes presented to Transport Board on July 19th.
1.3 In September and October the DfT Active Travel Programme Management Office have written to advise of their plans to extend the STAF programme for a further twelve months to cover 2020-21. The latest email sent on 1st October advises:
“Our proposal for the continuation of the Access Fund in 2020/21 was agreed at the Cycling & Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS) Programme Board yesterday. In short, we Page 159 intend to roll over your 2019/20 allocations on a pro-rata basis, subject to i) Ministerial approval and ii) receiving a suitably robust high-level business case. We aim to reduce burdens on you by only asking for additional detail where your programme of interventions will significantly change in comparison to your initial Access Fund proposals, to ensure value for money is no lower than the original bid”.
This paper is asking Board to approve a proposal to use this new allocation to continue Access Fund activities. This proposal has been presented to Transport Executive Board on Monday 14th and was recommended for approval.
1.4 The current STAF award for Sheffield City Region is £2.5m per year, if DfT are able to roll over the programme at current levels this figure should be continued for 2020-21.
2. Proposal and justification
2.1 The proposal is that, subject to confirmation of allocation levels and grant conditions, activities from within the current STAF programme are continued for another year, to the end of 2020-21. Each individual current project allocation has been categorised as either High, Medium or Low priority for continuation and these should be supported on an incremental scale dependent on the total allocation secured.
2.2 If there is enough funding awarded to support all the high priorities these should be committed to. Then if there is sufficient funding to support the medium priorities these should also be committed to. Any further funding awarded could then be considered for continuation of the lower priorities. However at this largest award level consideration could also be given to alternative allocations, either increasing support for existing projects or identifying new activity for addition into the programme.
2.3 The process to allocate priority levels has been led by the LTP Central Team in consultation with Strategic Transport Group and project leads. This has considered the impact of no further funding award, potential options for alternative funding and scalability to see how flexible the profile could be in response to a variation in any future settlement.
2.4 As part of the programme management regime a monitoring programme has been produced for STAF which is used to measure individual projects annually against the multiple targets set when developing the activities. Performance against these targets has also been used to inform the prioritisation process along with the narrative on expected activity for the remainder of this financial year. This collated information has been applied to define the priority level for each project.
2.5 The current allocations, including the over-programming element, have been used as a benchmark for proposing an indicative allocation programme continuation. All the details resulting from this review, including each project’s priority status and the rationale for this are listed in Appendix A.
2.6 The specific recommendation being made to Board is therefore that if SCRCA secures an award of at least £1.68m for 2020-21 the high priority allocations are continued, if a further £810k is secured the medium priority allocations are continued and if there is any funding above this the low priorities are reviewed and considered for continuation. At this time increased amounts for high or medium priorities and new programme activities can also be considered as alternative options for allocation.
2.7 If an award of less than £1.6m is granted the high priorities will all be assessed again and a new proposed programme will be defined in line with the settlement value. This will then be re-submitted to Transport Executive Board.
Page 160 2.8 Committing to the high priority schemes before considering other options will enable us to secure the continuation of the most important activities and mitigate the primary risks that termination of funding creates. Allocations which directly support existing staff are covered by the high priorities so this will help prevent the loss of experience and skills which have been established over the course of the regional sustainable travel programmes.
2.9 The proposal to only consider new activities as an alternative to the low priorities is driven by the timescales of the new funding offer and the DfT advice on submission processes. The funding extension is only for one year which significantly restricts the capacity to develop and establish new projects and the requirement to have a programme ready for delivery within less than six months further reduces the suitability of large-scale changes. The DfT email referenced in paragraph 1.3 also implies that the scale of their submission process will be smaller where there is less significant variation from current activity.
2.10 It should be noted that the allocations listed in Appendix A should only be considered indicative, specific project allocations may be subject to variation as the detailed profiles are finalised. Any proposed allocation changes that result from this will be presented back to Transport Executive Board prior to the programme period commencing.
3. Consideration of alternative approaches
3.1 Instead of identifying activities for continuation a complete new programme could be developed. This would have the advantage of allowing the activities to be designed specifically to align with the Mayoral Commitments and updated SCR Transport Strategy which were not in existence when the current STAF programme was developed.
3.2 This approach however is not considered to be appropriate due to the limited funding extension period and the short time before the new programme will need to start. The paper presented to Transport Executive Board on May 22nd also identified the strong contribution the current programme already makes to the Mayoral Commitments and Transport Strategy.
3.3 Another option could be to not submit a response to the funding opportunity, this may suggest that there would then be resources available to commit to other activities. It is not recommended that this approach is taken as the STAF funding provides a considerable proportion of the resources required to deliver the programme, without future funding these resources will be lost so any capacity released would be minimal.
3.4 Not submitting a response would also contradict the importance that has been placed on Active Travel within the region, bring an end to the majority of benefits being realised through SAF and significantly compromise the added benefits through capital investments, e.g. Transforming Cities Fund.
4. Implications
4.1 Financial
SCRMCA will need to formally accept any funding award once notified by DfT.
4.2 Legal
The existing SCRCA Funding Agreements for each recipient of STAF will need to be reviewed and either extended or replaced with new agreements.
Page 161 4.3 Risk Management
The recommendation for continuation of activity is based on the DfT emails however to date there has been no formal confirmation of funding levels or grant conditions. The proposals in this paper will have to be reviewed if any subsequent confirmation identifies funding lower than the level stated in paragraph 2.6 or has conditions which may make some of the planned actions ineligible. In these circumstances an updated report will be brought back to Board.
4.4 Equality, Diversity and Social Inclusion
No direct impact relating to legislation, but some of the current programme activities do support and enhance equality and inclusion.
5. Communications
5.1 No current impact or requirement.
6. Appendices/Annexes
6.1 Appendix A – STAF Programme Future Funding Priority Options
REPORT AUTHOR Alex Linton POST LTP Programme Manager Officer responsible Mark Lynam Organisation Sheffield City Region Email [email protected] Telephone 0114 2203453
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:
*Thematic Priorities
1. Ensure new businesses receive the support they need to flourish. 2. Facilitate and proactively support growth amongst existing firms. 3. Attract investment from other parts of the UK and overseas, and improve our brand. 4. Increase sales of SCR’s goods and services to other parts of the UK and abroad. 5. Develop the SCR skills base, labour mobility and education performance. 6. Secure investment in infrastructure where it will do most to support growth.
Page 162 STAF Programme Continuation ‐ Impacts and Potential Allocations, by Priority Category
Potential Approximate 2020/21 Continuation Allocation ‐ 2019/20 Maximum By Prioritisation Category Allocation Lead Partner Project Consequences of funding not being continued Potential alternative funding Scalability Rationale for Priority Level (including over‐ programming) High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority
The hub is a high priority for BMBC and the centre for a number of their active travel services. BMBC Active Travel Hub Barnsley £74,621 £74,621 During the three year STAF period the Hub has expanded from a Cycle Hub into an Active Targets have been consistently met or exceeded. Travel Hub, broadening its reach into walking and other active travel modes. This expansion has been supported by a marketing and communications campaign to raise the profile. This Active Travel Hub The loan and hire schemes have been increasingly successful, with increasing demand for electric BMBC contributes to the wish for continuation of the Hub and it's associated services to be a priority £38,269 £38,269 Bike Loan/Hire bikes. This is also a priority for BMBC. for BMBC Transport. To support this BMBC officers have prepared a paper for their Strategic The range of services could be reduced, Dr Bike is the lowest priority service for BMBC officers The paper to Strategic Transport Board will propose BMBC revenue support is provided. If Transport Board outlining the value of the Hub and asking for their financial support to as outputs from the business events are becoming less productive. There are existing strong Board were supportive there will be a resulting opportunity cost for BMBC. Although this The Dr Bike service has exceeded targets in the first two years however year three data suggests the continue it. This paper is due to be considered at October's Board. relationships with businesses but these may have reached saturation point and are no longer Active Travel Hub funding would be secondary to any targeted grant, like Access Fund. service has reached saturation point and to continue growth would require committing to BMBC expanding. To continue to grow the programme would require a commitment to developing £16,962 £16,962 Dr Bike Barnsley development of new business relationships. If the scheme could not continue the impact would be BMBC officers are also very keen to continue the Beat the Street walking campaign delivered new business relationships, wheras concentrating on the core provision through the Hub BMBC have considered sponsorship opportunities for Beat the Street, e.g. local businsses less negative than it would be for other allocations. through the expanded Hub and in conjunction with Sport England. Public Health have would minimise the funding requirement. paying for one of the project 'stations' (points where participants tap in to confirm where they discussed this with their Senior Management Team who support the continuation but are not have been walking) to be housed at their site but there are potential conflicts and issues Considerable resource and promotion has been put into the expansion of the hub to include a wider able to offer any funding. The geographical scale of Beat the Street could be restricted to reduce the numbers of stations Expansion of the role from cycle hub to Active Travel around commercial equity with this approach. range of services and ensure that active travel in its entirety is promoted and supported. The most BMBC required and therefore reduce the cost of purchasing, installing and monitoring these. £50,042 £50,042 Hub important element of this to BMBC is the Beat the Street programme which has seen significant Recently one of the officers working in the Hub through the 3rd party contracted provider has growth in the last year, good local coverage and if further funding was available would be expanded. submitted their resignation with uncertainty about the future of their employment beyond March 31st being a factor. In the short term duties will be covered through other officers from The cycle training provides an important additional safety element to the hire schemes and is an the provider. BMBC Cycle Training Barnsley £12,721 £12,721 important part of attracting new cyclists. Targets have been achieved throughout the programme delivery period.
Scheme performance has been good and the contribution this scheme makes to the shared agendas Walk Leaders are volunteers so will still be able to deliver the guided walks however these will Whilst the project is supported in the BMBC's Strategic Transport Board paper (September of transport and public health is important. The scheme has been allocated a split medium/low The current allocation is only £21k and so doesn't leave scope for reduction. However, the BMBC Walking for Health Scheme ‐ Walk Well Barnsley no longer be coordinated which is likely to result in a steady decline of organisation and 2019), funding is not guaranteed and would be secondary to any targeted grant, like Access £21,202 £10,601 £10,601 priority though as there is capacity for it continue with little or minimal investment. A combination project could be expanded to offer more walks and to a wider audience, not just GP referrals. attendance. Fund. NHS funding for project is highly unlikely. of the medium priority allocation and a contribution from public health / NHS would enable continuation on the current scale and reinforce the joint purpose of the project.
Continuation of cycle training is a priority for DMBC. The Doncaster Active Travel Alliance is trying to identify alternative funding but as they have no revenue source of their own they're The allocation required is not huge, a basic training programme could be delivered from £10k / The project is a high priority for DMBC. Performance over the first two years has been strong and DMBC Cycle Training Doncaster Doncaster Active Travel Alliance looking for opportunities. £15,000 £15,000 unable to offer any commitment. The current supplier contract expires on March 31st and year. projections for year 3 continue to be so. DMBC will need to begin renewal by the start of November to avoid a break in service.
Without replacement funding on the scale of STAF this project will cease at the end of March. The Active Travel hubs funded through this allocation provide a key focus for the provision and Doncaster Culture & Leisure Trust (DCLT ‐ the service provider) are producing their own extit To maintain two sites the volume of services could be scaled back, alternatively LA support awareness of the services offered through DMBC's STAF allocation. Usage has been high and DMBC Doncaster Cycling Package strategy and succession plan, looking at options to continue services utilising the facilities at DCLT to continue delivery through the track. £110,000 £110,000 could be given to just one site, the track, in conjunction with DCLT's facilities there. enabling this to continue to grow is important to the authority. The establishment of the cycle track the new Doncaster Cycle Track. Geographically this would be a reduction though as currently provides an opportunity to further this which would be compromised without continued support. there are two hub locations.
The low status is because the impact of discontinuation would be less than that of other allocations Continuation of this project would be of lesser priority for DMBC. A small allocation could be It could be possible for the project to become self supporting by making it available for a token If a chargeable service wasn't pursued a small allocation of £1k per year could still be used to DMBC Dr Bike Doncaster £16,667 £16,667 and there may be an option to carry it on through a minimal chargeable service. Ad hoc Dr Bike retained to fund ad‐hoc services but DMBC wouldn't look to continue scheduled services. fee, e.g. £1/service alongside other ongoing activities such as the Hub or cycling events. keep the service available. services could also possibly be incorporated into events or business engagement allocations.
There are no plans to continue this as there is adequate stock of printed maps and the online DMBC have adequate stock of hard copy maps and there is increasing use being made of the online DMBC Doncaster Borough Cycle Maps interactive map was recently updated. At some stage in the future the online mapping will N/A As more people move to use the online map the need for printed copies reduces. £2,333 £2,333 interactive mapping. need a refresh but this is not an imminent consideration.
Without further funding Rotherham's Hub services will be ended. The Hub vehicle and bicycle fleet could be held in storage pending identification of a future funding source to continue it. The mobile hub is a vital part of delivering the range of active travel services in Rotherham, in The range of services delivered through the Hub could be reduced, as could the number of particular the cycling services where the hub is used as the anchor for training, hire and Dr Bike events (e.g. only provide basic training with the hires and reduce visits to employers). This The hire scheme would have to be terminated before the end of March to ensure all hire Officers have considered using developer contributions to deliver geographically specific schemes as well as providing a visible attraction for engagement activities. The projects have would require a reduction in the number of 3rd party staff actively working on the hub from 3 RMBC Cycle Hub Rotherham ‐ Hire / Dr Bike / Cycle Training agreements could be closed out and all cycles recovered by staff resources still available. This interventions, e.g. at new housing sites however there are multiple calls on this so limited £195,000 £160,000 £35,000 consistently achieved or exceeded targets. to 2. For a short extension of the service delivery period (e.g. 1 year) the current fleet of will reduce the outputs achieved within the year. opportunity and this wouldn't be able to replicate the current offering. cycles could be used withouth the need to replace any units, this would however increase the RMBC have looked at ways in which the service could be streamlined to produce the two scales of burden in future years if there was a further extension. The Hub is staffed through the 3rd party contractor who have committed to maintaining the priority allocation. service up to March 31st however the risk of staff moving on remains.
The scheme will be wound up with no plans for continuation beyond March 2020 if funding The walking scheme has performed well with the majority of targets met. RMBC would want to does expire. It is not expected that this would have a noticeable effect on the delivery within RMBC would like to continue the service and there could be scope to renegotiate the scale of RMBC Walk 2 Rotherham None identified £105,000 £105,000 continue if funding allowed but have recognised that proportionally it is a bit more resource intensive 19/20 as the service is delivered by a large organisation whose scale means we're a a relatively delivery in line with the funding available. than the Hub and that for them it is not as high a priority. minor customer and they are less sensitive to the changes in our funding.
Training services are key to encouraging new cyclists, the split priority allocation has been Pedal Ready (current service provider) would look to deliver a chargeable service. This would This would be determined by the commercial viability of the programme. If a chargeable determined on the basis that the service provider may be able to offset a reduction in STAF allocation Cycleboost SCC reduce the scale of provision, potential customer base and would also require the resultant Potential for a chargeable training service. service was developed this could be supported through a contribution from a reduced £68,000 £34,000 £34,000 through development of a commercial (chargeable) service. The full benefits would no longer be Cycle training service to remain commercially viable. allocation. attributable to STAF but it is more important that the benefits are being generated for cyclists in Sheffield irrespective of source.
The Schools Exemplar allocation has not performed particularly well in the first two years and would
Page 163 Page be a low priority for continuation based on past performance however SCC have changed their plans entirely for this year, reduced the allocation, stripped back the actions and are concentrating Scheme has been developed to deliver School Streets as part of Clean Air Day. There is now a SCC Member support is strong and officers have been advised that funding will be sought but Cycleboost specifically on school play streets which has strong member backing and is an activity that we want to SCC list of potential schools being developed following receipt of a number of requests. Without there is currently nothing confirmed and if this is found internally there will be an opportunity The number of locations and frequency of closures for School Streets can be reduced. £20,000 £20,000 Exemplar school support and encourage. These events are getting greater coverage across the country and provide a external funding the capacity to deliver this will be significantly reduced. cost to SCC. wide range of benefits in addition to developing children and parent's interest in changing their journey to school, e.g. creating a greater sense of positive space and community, getting children active just for the joy of it and through this promoting better health.
Cycleboost Bespoke events to support the CycleBoost allocation will cease at the end of the funding These events could be incorporated into the wider SCC events programme or managed within As a small allocation it is planned to absorb the activities into the wider events planning and SCC No alternative funding opportunities identified. £7,400 £7,400 Events period. any future allocation for individual CycleBoost lines. therefore the negative impact of losing this allocation would be minimal.
This allocation helps deliver the partnership with British Cycling which brings in a significant financial contribution. Currently SCC contribute £80k, £40k through STAF and £40k from the Physical Activity Team. As well as losing the external funding the BC partership provides Without continued central funding will have to renegotiate with British Cycling to see if the The partnership with British Cycling is highly influential to achievement of SCC's cycling ambitions and Cycleboost No alternative funding is identified. SCC would look to renegotiate scale of contribution with SCC support to the development of the satellite hubs and the Parkwood Springs development, contribution can be reduced. The Physical Activity contribution is still expected to be available. £40,000 £40,000 the partnership supports other projects within STAF. This also attracts a considerable financial Bike Hubs British Cycling and are also investigating further sponsorship opportunities. these in turn provide the Hire schemes which will all be at risk without continued funding. This also relates to the Hire Scheme allocation. investment from British Cycling. The City Centre Hub is well established and will continue without requiring any further direct support.
The Hire schemes are driven by the British Cycling Partnership through event referrals and Scalability is linked to the hubs. If overall active travel revenue allocation reduced it would in The hubs and hire schemes are linked and as the services are expanded around the district will Cycleboost SCC delivery of the satellite hubs. The future of the hire scheme is dependent on the continuation Match funding is already provided by SCC Physical Activity Team. turn reduce the number of satellite hubs that could be supported which has the knock on £50,000 £50,000 enable a stronger integration with communities and outlying areas, not just the city centre. Without Bike Hire of this partnership. effect of reducing the scale of the hire scheme. the full allocation the number of identified satellite hub sites would have to be reduced.
The loan scheme will end in November, programme targets can be achieved by this time and Targets for loans have been exceeded in both of the first two years of the programme. The split the winter period has traditionally seen a large drop off. Storage will need to be found for the A more ad‐hoc scheme based around individuals rather than businesses could be delivered. Cycelboost allocation has been identified as it is possible to scale the programme down and there is the SCC cycle fleet and the service provider may still issue some loans to individuals from an existing Currently no alternative funding identified. SCC are also looking to deploy bikes internally, e.g. Civil Enforcement officers, cargo bikes and £116,500 £40,000 £76,500 Loans potential alternative provision through deploying the cycles with SCC staff, thereby using the cycles waiting list, on the basis that this will all be concluded and cycles retuned before the end of providing an SCC pool. and ensuring cycle journeys are being undertaken. March. The projects has continually met or exceeded targets and provides an essential service to the users The scheme is delivered through SCC Children's and Young People (CYP) directorate who also Independent Travel Training and activities for adults Reduced funding means the team have less capacity to provide the training. The service could but has had to be considered for reduction from STAF as the number of beneficiaries of the project is SCC provide funding for this which would continue, however the scale of delivery would be Existing match funding through CYP. £100,000 £50,000 £50,000 and children with Learning Disabilities continue but fewer people would benefit. not high . Those that do receive the service do benefit significantly as individuals and it merits a level reduced by approximately 50%. of continued support.
PROW works would continue as this programme is also funded through SCC and ITB and is Annual targets have been successfully met but as this scheme has elements alternative funding the As a larger programme of activity there is capacity to flex the scale of the PROW scheme to SCC PROW Improvements currently part of a 'bundled' procurement exercise through Parks & Communities but loss of Already SCC and ITB funded. £53,333 £53,333 priority has been reduced. It remains important the delivery of walking ambitions though and SCC align with total funding package. the STAF allocation would result in a reduced scale of delivery. need to ensure an appropriate balance of cycling/walking within the programme. Potential Approximate 2020/21 Continuation Allocation ‐ 2019/20 Maximum By Prioritisation Category Allocation Lead Partner Project Consequences of funding not being continued Potential alternative funding Scalability Rationale for Priority Level (including over‐ programming) High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority
The festival is increasingly popular and doesn't require a large allocation however it is not significant SCC Walking Festival The Walking Festival may continue but this would be dependent on Cabinet support. No external funding identified, Cabinet support may influence the future funding. The scale of current allocation is too small to provide any opportunities for reduction. £5,000 £5,000 enough to be considered a high priority.
Walking for Life is also supported through SCC Physical Activity team and so the loss of STAF would not necessarily mean termination of the scheme, it would however reduce the scale Walking for Life has evolved over the period of the programme and has now established a strong significantly and prevent any expansion into new communities. The project has made Support already provided through SCC Physical Activity Team. Officers are looking for local The scale of the project could be reduced by targetting less areas and / or reducing the base. It provides diversity for the programme as it targets groups and communities and provides SCC Walking for Life significant progress over the STAF period and is reaching individuals and communities that sponsorship for the Walking for Life scheme. Increasing the number of community volunteers number of sessions delivered in each. The capacity for continuation would depend on an £130,000 £100,000 £30,000 services that stretch across multiple themes; inclusion and isolation, mental health, physical health previously were not benefitting from regional active travel investment and providing would also provide a financial benefit as it could lead to cost savings. increased level of volunteer support. and activity, wellbeing and employment skills. There is capacity to reduce the scale and so a additional benefits such as health, well‐being, social inclusion and aspiration. These benefits pragmatic approach has been taken to the priority allocations. would be compromised by a reduced allocation.
The Cycle Challenge is proving popular with users but due to the prioritisation of other activities over The allocation has been reduced in 19/20 from previous years, any further reduction would the last 12 months has gone form a countywide to a Sheffield only allocation. While SCC would want SCC Cycle Challenge and data collection The South Yorkshire involvement in the scheme will cease without continued funding. No alternative funding. £15,000 £15,000 leave the scheme too small to be continued. to continue the outcomes lead more to increasing miles for existing cyclist and not so much attracting new ones so in the context of STAF has been considered lower priority.
The online resource being produced will remain available and wouldn't require further The online resource produced by this allocation will continue to be available without the need for SCC Cycle Safety and Supertram No plans for continuation. No plans for continuation. £6,667 £6,667 support. ongoing funding.
Notice will need to be given to all the staff whose fixed term contracts expire on 31/3/20. The Business to Business and Marketing & Communications allocations support directly employed Business to Business Team Those affected are likely to be considering alternative opportunties already and we would SYPTE £244,629 £244,629 staff whose activities support projects across the whole STAF programme. This provides essential (previously Busboost and ITT) expect to lose staff ahead of March 31st, which'll impact on capacity to deliver services in year. promotion and lead generation and consistent branding for the programme. Page 164 Page If continued funding is identified there is limited scope to alter the allocation however the The knowledge and skillbase of experienced officers would be lost and the ability to work As things stand there is no alternative source of revenue funding although SYPTE have been focus of the service being delivered could be altered. For example if increasing walking was The skills, experience and knowledge base of the staff providing the services has been built up over effectively as a single region and not independent authorities would be significantly and continue to look into options for this. considered a higher priority team resources could be applied more heavily against this. the prolonged period of sustainable travel programmes starting with LSTF in 2011. Loss of this compromised. All of the schemes within the programme benefit from the support of these resource is one of the highest risks of the funding ending and so the retention of the allocation is a teams, either through lead generation or communication, even if the activities could continue high priority. This status is further support as the targets have been consistently exceeded over the SYPTE Marketing and Communication through alternative funding methods their capacity to deliver benefits would be reduced £162,139 £162,139 first two years. without the central support.
Options for scaling the programme down have been reviewed but this has already been stripped Without continued central funding the service provider will not be able to continue delivery The flexibile costs of this service lie within the capital allocation (ITB) used to purchase back. It provides an essential service generating employment and has been a successful part of the SYPTE Wheels to Work and the service will be wound up by March 31st. This will also impact 19/20 delivery as the No other sources identified and service will end. £212,000 £212,000 replacement vehicles so there is no scope within the revenue allocation. regional sustainable travel programmes. For the next year this is a priority for SYPTE, if longer term outputs will reduce as the service tapers down. funding becomes availability the delivery plan and requirements could be reviewed.
The initial plan was for the service to become self sustaining but to date this has not been The project provides an essential connection to an employments site that would be isolated without Patronage figures have been lower than projected and it is no longer perceived that the achieved yet. The scheme could be considered alongside all the other SYPTE tendered There is very limited scope to reduce the allocation as the current service has been scheduled this, however patronage figures are not as high as anticipated so the service is not yet commercially SYPTE Job Connector service could become self supporting at this time. The service is therefore at risk of £188,000 £188,000 services and it may continue if it was deemed to be one of the priorities from within all the to meet the working patterns of the work location served. viable. A year's extension would enable more time to establish the service and to identify alternative termination at the end of this funding period. services. The opportunity cost of this would need to be carefully considered however. provision options in the event that a longer term funding commitment is secured for the programme.
The Criterium is a high profile event attracting a substantial number of visitors however a review of the last two events has identified that there is very little resultant engagement with the Active Travel Hub. Those attending are existing cyclists/enthusiasts and so not the intended market for the Hub services. This has been allocated a low priority because although the targets have been met the subsequent Other local authority directorates in recognition of how the Barnsley area benefits from the Changing the scale of the event or LA contribution to it wouldn't impact on the type of people Cycling and Walking Events and Promotions BMBC £17,500 £17,500 benefits have been weighted more towards the town centre and not in increased cycle usage or event, e.g. Town Centre economy. attending and so there still wouldn't be a flow through of new customers. It is perceived within BMBC that although the event is not drawing in new cyclists or engagement. customers to the Hub it is a successful event for the town centre and so it is proposed that any future event is not funded through transport revenue and is instead supported through alternative directorates. Very keen to continue the Clean Air Events; the most recent road closure (streetplay) event delivered alongside Public Health produced very positive anecdotal feedback and strong The allocation has been split as there have been a number of stand‐alone events which have differing The size of allocation required is determined by the number of closure events hosted, if C/Wide Cycling and Walking Events and Promotions DMBC testimonies. In the long term they would like to produce 'kits' that wold enable schools to No other funding identified to date, DMBC internal discussions ongoing. £32,000 £21,000 £11,000 levels of importance to DMBC. Within the high priority allocation is the continuation of road closures funding was available additional events could be planned. deliver these events themselves but it will require continued support from DMBC to get to for Streetplay which is gaining increasing national importance. that stage. Would want to continue supporting the Rotherham Show although the event would still go Current investment level is low so limited oportunity to scale. Could limit support to just the Cycling and Walking Events and Promotions RMBC No alternative funding identified and no current action underway to source any. £20,000 £12,000 £8,000 The allocation has been split as the two key events have different levels of importance to RMBC. ahead without their involvement. Rotherham Show and exclude the Rother Valley event.
The Magnificent Seven event is an essential part of the partnership with British Cycling which The Magnificent Seven would be prioritised as part of the British Cycling Partnership calendar, The events are important to SCC and have attracted significant numbers of visitors and participants. brings in a significant financial contribution. Cycling and Walking Events and Promotions SCC Sheffield are investigating sponsorship opportunities. the other events could be considered on a case by case basis. £40,000 £7,500 £32,500 The decision to split the allocation is to commit to the most important event whilst accepting a level The other events delivered are an important part of the overall active travel offering in of compromise is required if the total programme allocation is reduced. Sheffield but are stand alone items and termination would have a limited direct impact
A possible future alternative delivery model would be for LA's to employ an officer directly to Two of the Active Travel Officers employed through the 3rd party service provider have fulfil the duties. While this would mean countywide consistency would be harder to achieve it already given notice. One is being replaced through to the end of the contract period, the The Active Travel Officers provide a critical resource in delivery of a number of the interventions. would give LA's more influence over what activities were delivered in their areas and early other is unlikely to be directly replaced with the service provider offering alternative backfill Although the officers involved are employed via a 3rd party there is a considerable level of rough estimates suggest this could be delivered for a much lower rate. The alternative method outlined in the potential alternative funding column would provide an support instead. knowledge and experience which would be a loss to the region if the project was discontinued. Countywide opportunity for cost reductions, depending on how many FTE's each authority wanted to DMBC £240,000 £240,000 Active Travel Officers While this could be a viable option for future provision it would require a longer‐term funding recruit. For a single year extenstion to the current provision there is no scope for reduction as The scale of this allocation at c£250k/year means that it would be very difficult to replicate If a longer term funding commitment was in place there would be scope to re‐evaluate the delivery commitment, e.g. 3 years as recruiting staff to a one year fixed‐term contract would the existing contract has already included cost savings. without a direct replacement funding source to follow STAF. If there was a will and a source to model but to try and force this change through for a the 12 month extension would have a negative significantly limit the available pool. Fully developing this alternative delivery method will extend this for another year the procurement process would need to be started almost impact on the delivery profile. require commitment across the authorities and a level of time invested, so a shorter funding immediately. period may not justify this effort.
There is no alternative funding however there may be an option to procure a license for the This is an 'all or nothing' allocation, there is little scope to reduce the allocation and retain the same Modeshift Stars scheme which would enable an officer to co‐ordinate the submission of local delivery method. This is a national scheme and so schools can still take part with minimal co‐ Countywide SCC The South Yorkshire involvement in the scheme will cease without continued funding. activity data on behalf of schools. There would not be any capacity to support or promote any Reduced style of service as outlined in the 'Potential Alternative Funding' column. £70,000 £5,000 £65,000 ordination of data from local authority officers, this would see a reduction in the numbers of schools Modeshift STARS Schools of the activities but the data could still be submitted to secure the accreditation for the and the level of commitment but this reduction in project performance is less severe than it would be schools. for other projects.
The Safer Roads Partnership (SRP) have also benefitted from use of this data and up until The Drakewell system being funded in 19/20 is used to collate data from various automated 2019/20 it was paid for by South Yorkshire Police. If no other funding was available SRP would The collection of data provided through Drakewell is essential but further investigations need to be LTP (via all four Countywide count devices and is the only system currently available that is able to accommodate all the have to include it in their considerations for 2020/21 funding. Considerable discounts have already been negotiated with Drakewell and there is no scope to £15,692 £15,692 conducted into alternative funding methods for this in conjunction with work to expand monitoring LA's) Programme evaluation different types of device currently deployed. Without this we would either lose the ability to reduce the price further. and data analysis capabilities regionally. collate the data regionally or would have to find a process and resource to collate it manually. This monitoring could be considered as part of the development of the strategy implementation plans.
The Safer Roads Partnership programme has seen a sizeable reduction in funding over the last 18 The STAF allocation complements the SRP funded education programme. Without future STAF SRP funding for the officer supported. Countywide As this allocation is part of a larger funding mix there is opportunity to scale it up or down by months (c50% cut) but as a reaction to this has re‐structured and established a new delivery SRP (via SCC) or equivalent funding the officer this pays for will need to be funded through SRP which will Sponsorship opportunities being investigated for the annual Be Bright Be Seen safety £60,000 £60,000 Cycle Safety Activity using more or less of the SRP funding. approach. While loss of STAF would be a further hit the opportunity for extended funding had not reduce the overall scale of SRP's education provision. campaign which the allocation currently supports. been known when the new structure was created.
The Cordon Counts have been carried out for a number of years and provide the longest continuous data set available locally. The data however does have recognised flaws and the The collection of cordon count data is considered very important amongst partners but further Countywide negative impact of losing the continuity of data is reduced by this. Changing technologies also To reduce the funding would require removal of some of the count categories or a reduction in SYPTE Could be considered as part of the development of the strategy implementation plans. £70,000 £70,000 investigations need to be conducted into alternative funding methods for this in conjunction with Cordon Counts provide an opportunity to improve the method and quality of data collected. This needs to be the number of count sites. work to expand monitoring and data analysis capabilities regionally. considered as part of the development of the implementation plans for the SCR Transport Strategy.
£1,681,921 £810,588 £149,168 Agenda Item 14
TRANSPORT BOARD
25h October 2019
TRANSPORT FOR THE NORTH UPDATE
Purpose of Report
This item will be a verbal update of key points from the Transport for the North (TfN) Board on 12th September 2019. The appendices provide Minutes of recent Transport for North Board meetings to provide SCR Transport Board members with an overview of recent discussions and decisions.
Freedom of Information
Freedom of Information and Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972
‘The paper will be available under the Combined Authority Publication Scheme’
Recommendations
Board members are asked to:
• Note the verbal update on the work of Transport for the North and minutes of recent Board meetings, and comment where there are issues of particular interest.
1. Introduction
1.1 Mayor Dan Jarvis and Peter Kennan, LEP representative, will provide a verbal update on the most recent Transport for the North (TfN) Board meeting which took place on 12th September 2019. Minutes of previous meetings are appended to this report. TfN Board meetings are now webcast live and available to view on their website. 2. Proposal and justification
2.1 Transport for the North is a partnership which brings together the North’s 20 local transport authorities and business leaders together with Network Rail, Highways England, and HS2 Ltd working with central government. The TfN Board is chaired by John Cridland and comprises representatives from the public and private sector, Rail North authorities from outside the TfN area and delivery partners. Mayor Dan Jarvis represents the SCR and Peter Kennan represents the SCR LEP.
The TfN Board met on 12th September. Agenda items at the meeting were the TransPennine Route Upgrade, Northern Powerhouse Rail update, HS2 review, Corporate Planning and Governance. A verbal update will be provided on these.
Page 165
The minutes of recent TfN Board meetings are appended for information. Partnership working with TfN is crucial to achieving our transport objectives as set out in the SCR Transport Strategy.
SCR Transport Board members might wish to receive specific reports on TfN work programmes such as Northern Powerhouse rail, Freight and logistics, Strategic Rail and Strategic Development Corridors. 3. Consideration of alternative approaches
3.1 Board members are invited to comment and advise how they would prefer to receive updates on the work of Transport for the North. Representatives of Transport for the North could for example be invited to the Transport Board to report on their work on an occasional basis.
4. Implications
4.1 Financial There are no financial implications arising from this report.
4.2 Legal There are no legal implications arising from this report.
4.3 Risk Management There are no risk management implications arising from this report.
4.4 Equality, Diversity and Social Inclusion There are no equality, diversity and social inclusion implications arising from this report.
5. Communications
5.1 N/A
6. Appendices/Annexes
6.1 14.i Wednesday 31 July 2019 – TfN Board Minutes 14.ii Thursday 20 June 2019 – TfN Board Minutes 14.iii Thursday 7 February 2019 – TfN Board Minutes 14.iv Thursday 6 December 2018 – TfN Board Minutes
REPORT AUTHOR Jenny Holmes POST Assistant Director, Strategic Transport (Interrim) 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:
Page 166
Transport for the North Board – Minutes
Meeting: Transport for the North Board Date: Wednesday 31 July 2019, 12.30 – 14.30 Location: Wellington House, 40-50 Wellington Street, Leeds, LS1 2DE
Chairman:
John Cridland Chairman
Constituent Authority Attendees:
Councillor Phil Riley Blackburn with Darwen Councillor Craig Browne Cheshire East Councillor Louise Gittins Cheshire West & Chester Councillor Michael Green Lancashire Mayor Andy Burnham Greater Manchester Cllr Darren Hale Hull Mayor Steve Rotheram Liverpool City Region Councillor Rob Waltham North Lincolnshire Councillor Don Mackenzie North Yorkshire Councillor Hans Mundry Warrington Councillor Judith Blake West Yorkshire Mayor Ben Houchen Tees Valley Councillor Keith Aspden York
Rail North Authority Attendees:
Councillor Trevor Ainsworth Derbyshire Councillor Chris Brewis Lincolnshire
Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Attendees:
Jim Jackson Cumbria Mark Rawstron Lancashire Lord Haskins Humber Mark Whitworth Liverpool City Region Mark Roberts Leeds City Region Matthew Lamb North Yorkshire Peter Kennan Sheffield City Region Jerry Hopkinson Tees Valley
Page 167
Delivery Partners:
Ben Smith Department of Transport Jim O’Sullivan Highways England Lorna Pimlott HS2 Tim Smith HS2 Graham Botham Network Rail
Transport for the North Officers in Attendance:
Barry White Chief Executive Gary Rich Democratic Services Officer Iain Craven Finance Director Dawn Madin Director of Business Capabilities Peter Molyneux Major Roads Director Tim Wood Northern Powerhouse Rail Director David Hoggarth Strategic Rail Director Julie Openshaw Head of Legal Deborah Dimock Solicitor David Innis Strategic & Programme Director Rosemary Lyon Legal and Democratic Services Officer Jim Bamford Head of Investment Planning, Rail North Lewis Jones Head of Stakeholder Engagement and Communication James Mills Corporate Engagement Lead Kevin Willans Head of IT and Information
Apologies:
Councillor Simon Blackburn Blackpool Christine Gaskell Cheshire and Warrington LEP Councillor Keith Little Cumbria Councillor Chris Matthews East Riding of Yorkshire Mike Blackburn Greater Manchester LEP Asif Hamid Liverpool City Region LEP Councillor Carl Marshall North East Combined Authority Councillor Graeme Miller North East Combined Authority Councillor Nick Forbes North of Tyne Combined Authority Councillor Peter Jackson North of Tyne Combined Authority Councillor Jon Collins Nottingham Councillor Daniel Jellyman Stoke-on-Trent
1.0 Welcome and Apologies Action
1.1 Members of the Board were welcomed to the meeting.
Page 168
1.2 The Chairman invited Members to take part in a photo opportunity relating to the Northern Budget campaign.
1.3 Apologies for absence were noted.
1.4 The Chairman reminded Members of the significant number of changes that had taken place in the membership of the Board in recent months.
1.5 The Chairman welcomed Mark Roberts, from Leeds City Region LEP, Tim Smart from HS2 and Cllr Adele Williams from Nottingham. Councillor Williams is new to the Board but was not in attendance. It was noted that this would be the last meeting attended by Jim Jackson from Cumbria LEP and he was thanked for his past contribution to Transport for the North. It was noted that from September Jim will be replaced by Steve Curl.
1.6 The Chairman informed the Board that he has written to the new Secretary of State for Transport congratulating him on his appointment and requesting a meeting.
1.7 The Chief Executive updated the Board following the recent visit of the new Prime Minister to the Science and Industry Museum in Manchester. The Chief Executive welcomed the Prime Minister’s commitment to accelerating the Leeds to Manchester new line but didn’t want to lose impetus around the connectivity to the other four city regions and Manchester International Airport.
1.8 Mayor Steve Rotheram expressed the view that it is important that the Board ensures that projects are not being done piecemeal.
1.9 Mayor Andy Burnham stated that now is not the time to lower our ambitions at the time when there is a focus on the North and that the Board needs to be looking for the best deal for Northern cities
1.10 Cllr Judith Blake emphasised that the focus of Transport for the North was the whole of the North and that integration of HS2 with NPR is crucial and that there is not a case of choosing one or the other. Councillor Blake invited the Board to reaffirm this.
1.11 Mayor Ben Houchen referred to the Prime Minister’s commitment to the Leeds Manchester new line part of NPR and felt this was a signal of his willingness to tackle the whole of NPR.
1.12 The Chairman confirmed the re-affirmation of the ambition of Transport for the North was coast to coast and the integration of NPR with HS2. The Board mandated the Chief Executive and the Executive of Transport for the North to pursue coast to coast and HS2 to the North in full. Responsibility for setting the work planning programme was also given to the Chief Executive and Executive of Transport for the North.
Page 169
2.0 Declarations of Interest
2.1 There were no declarations of interest.
3.0 Minutes
3.1 The minutes of the meeting of the Transport for the North Board held on 20 June 2019 were considered.
3.2 Cllr Stewart Swinburn confirmed that he had sent his apologies for the previous meeting and they had not been recorded in the minutes.
3.3 Cllr Craig Browne referred to Minute 3.3 and noted that he is still TW awaiting a response in relation to his query as to who had confirmed that Crewe North Junction would be part of the HS2 Phase 2B Hybrid Bill.
3.4 Mayor Andy Burnham referred to Minute 3.2 and questioned why this item had not been included on the agenda for this meeting.
3.5 The Chairman explained that the issue will be discussed at the Partnership Board, as a full update is unavailable because of changes in central Government, and because there was a relevant Network Rail Board meeting taking place today. The Chairman proposed that a full update would be provided to the September Board meeting. Mayor Andy Burnham reiterated his concerns which were noted by the Chairman.
3.6 Peter Kennan noted the need to set a direction for Rail North going forward to 2033
3.7 The Chairman suggested that the Rail Strategy should be circulated to the Board in order to raise awareness. Following the circulation, if Members would like an agenda item on this this can then be arranged.
3.8 Mayor Ben Houchen questioned why the press and public were excluded from the item on IST. The Chief Executive of Transport for the North explained that there is information contained within the report that is commercially confidential. Mayor Houchen questioned if there are any elements that could be discussed in public and it was explained that this would be difficult as it would mean that only a partial update could be provided.
The Chairman indicated that consideration would be given to the extent to which an agenda item for the September Board meeting, could be open to the press and public.
RESOLVED: 1.That the minutes of the Transport for the North Board held on 20 June 2019 be approved as a correct record.
Page 170
2. That the NPR Director would write to Councillor Brown to confirm that the Department for Transport had confirmed that Crewe North Junction was part of the HS2 Phase 2B Hybrid Bill.
4.0 Governance Report
4.1 Deborah Dimock presented the Governance Report. The purpose of the report was to appoint a Chair, a Majority Vice Chair and a Minority Vice Chair for the forthcoming year. The Board was also invited to note the membership of the Transport for the North Board and the various Committees of Transport for the North and to adopt the Constitution, which had been approved on 20 June and had now been amended accordingly, for the forthcoming year.
4.2 Cllr Judith Blake asked for the appointment of the Majority Vice Chairperson to the Board to be deferred until the next Board meeting due to a number of Members not being in attendance.
4.3 Nominations were invited from the minority parties for the position of minority Vice Chairperson for the forthcoming year. Councillor Rob Waltham proposed Mayor Ben Houchen and this was approved by members of the minority party.
4.4 Deborah Dimock proposed that Members approve the constitution. No changes have been made to the constitution other than those agreed by Members at the previous meeting.
RESOLVED: 1. That John Cridland be re-appointed Chairman of the Transport for the North Board. 2. That the appointment of the Majority Vice Chairperson be deferred until the September meeting. 3. That Mayor Ben Houchen be appointed Minority Vice Chairman of the board for the forthcoming year. 4. That the Constitution be adopted for the forthcoming year.
5.0 Approval of the Accounts and Annual Governance Statement 5.1 Deborah Dimock presented the Transport for the North’s Annual Governance Statement for approval.
The Board resolved to approve the Annual Governance Statement. 5.2 Chris Melling, the Independent Chairman of Transport for the North’s Audit and Governance Committee presented the Audit and Governance Committee annual report for approval.
5.3 Since its inception elected and independent members have been appointed to the Committee which has met formally five times. The Committee’s principal purpose is to provide independent review and assurance to Members on governance, risk management and control frameworks.
Page 171
5.4 During the year Mazars have been appointed via the Public Sector Audit Appointment process to conduct audit activity.
5.5 Chris Melling commended the Statement of Accounts to the Board and sought their approval.
5.6 The Board questioned Chris Melling on what was being done on the issue of cyber security which was the only area of the six being audited to have a reasonable assurance level. Chris explained this is something that will continued to be examined.
5.7 The Chairman thanked Chris and his colleagues in the Audit Committee for their hard work.
Approval of the Annual Statement of Accounts
Iain Craven presented Transport for the North’s first set of Annual accounts.
Iain thanked Gareth Sutton and the Finance Team for their work in helping to produce the report.
Iain also presented the Budget Revision 1 report, noting the following:
• Slightly behind budget at end of 1st quarter. • Underspend on IST Phase 3 which will be addressed later.
RESOLVED: 1. That the Board approved the Annual Governance Statement 2. The Board received the Audit and Governance Committee Annual Report 3. The Board approved the Annual Statement of Accounts 4. The Board noted and approved the Budget Revision 1.
6.0 Active Travel 6.1 Following a previous presentation by Chris Boardman, Peter Molyneux provided an update presentation on the current position on Active Travel. Peter talked the Board through aspects of his presentation which was noted.
6.2 Cllr Judith Blake suggested that active travel and sustainability should be woven through everything that the Board does she further commented that major engineering schemes are not needed in order to bring this into being and suggested that if sufficient imagination is used achievements can be made without massive financial input.
Page 172
6.3 It was suggested that an attempt should be made to standardise some PM of the processes and allow for best practice to be shared and exchanged. 6.4 The possible role that local businesses could play in this was discussed PM and the Chairman suggested that an additional column on entrepreneurial activity be added to the presentation.
6.5 Mayor Andy Burnham referred back to Chris Boardman’s presentation and stressed that it is crucial for there to be a design standard and separate segregated infrastructure, as painting white lines in the roads as segregation is not safe as it encouraged motorists to drive closer to them.
RESOLVED: 1. That the Active Travel presentation be noted. 2. That like sustainability, active travel, climate change and air quality should all be cross cutting issues to be considered in every report. 3. That Transport for the North look at the issue of bikes on trains and a standard for physical infrastructure that can be used by all Members of the Board. 4. That the Chief Executive should consider inviting the Climate Change Committee to speak to the Board.
7.0 Hull Paragon Interchange
7.1 Cllr Darren Hale provided background on the situation at Hull Paragon Interchange. The Interchange has three gates and currently a key access gate has been closed whilst TransPennine Express, who run the station undertake a 12 week trial in a bid to reduce Anti-Social Behaviour.
As a result of this gate being closed passengers no longer have easy access to private hire taxis which are stationed outside this gate, with a detour around the Interchange being necessary in order to access them. A bell has been installed which allows disabled passengers to use this gate but staff are questioning these passengers regarding their disability before allowing them through.
7.2 A petition has been put together that currently has 48,000 signatures on it and this number is rising.
7.3 The Chairman raised the point that TransPennine Express have been spoken to and they are acting on the advice of the British Transport Police
7.4 Members were supportive of Councillor Hale raising the matter on behalf of the public and some suggested that Network Rail and some partners who are operating railway stations are not listening to Local Authorities and not learning lessons and putting passengers first.
Page 173
RESOLVED: That Transport for the North writes a letter to TransPennine Express to express its disquiet with the current situation and to ask them to enter into proper consultation with Hull City Council on this issue.
8.0 Blake Jones Action Plan
8.1 Councillor Judith Blake updated the Board regarding the Blake Jones Action Plan.
8.2 Councillor Blake explained that she was pleased that the report is being taken seriously; however concern was expressed that companies were still not putting passengers at the heart of what they do when decision making.
8.3 The May 2018 timetable issues had demonstrated a lack of governance in the rail industry.
8.4 It was explained that the paper on governance to the Rail North Committee meeting was deferred as Members felt too many decisions were being made outside of Board and were only being referred to Board for approval after a decision had already been made elsewhere.
8.5 The Chairman thanked Councillor Blake for the work she has done and explained that more would be known in the autumn when the Williams review is published. It is hoped that this will allow Transport for the North to play a more extensive part in decision making within the industry.
8.6 The Chief Executive of Transport for the North thanked Councillor Blake and drew particular attention to the emphasis that was put on the resource element. The Chief Executive explained that the core budget is under challenge from Department for Transport and there is uncertainty as to what the settlement may be in the autumn.
8.7 Mayor Ben Houchen expressed his keenness to see the recommendations of the report implemented.
RESOLVED: That the report be noted and endorsed.
9.0 Exclusion of Press and Public
RESOLVED: that the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business because it is likely that, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, there will be disclosure of confidential information as defined in Section
Page 174
100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) and/or exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended)
The Chairman thanked the public and the press for their attendance.
10.0 IST Phase 3
10.1 The Chief Executive presented the report in which the current position was outlined for the programme and options presented for the way forward on phase 3 for the delivery of central, back-office ticketing. A number of options were presented to the Board for discussion.
10.2 The Chief executive explained that making public transport easier to use and pay for remained the ambition. Phases 1 and 2 are progressing well. After discussing the options to take phase 3 forward the Board requested that more work be done on the options and a report brought to the next Board.
RESOLVED: 1. That the report be noted. 2. That a further report be presented to Board at its meeting in September
11.0 Northern Powerhouse Rail: HS2 Phase 2b interfaces
11.1 The Chief Executive updated members on the development of Northern Powerhouse Rail, focusing on the outstanding design issues for HS2 Ltd at Piccadilly in Manchester and Stourton Junction to the south of Leeds.
RESOLVED: 1. That the report be noted. 2. To withdraw the recommendations set out in the paper 3. That Transport for the North continue to work with Greater Manchester Combined Authority and West Yorkshire Combined Authority in order to resolve the issues presented in the paper and discussed in the meeting.
Page 175
This page is intentionally left blank
Transport for the North Board – Minutes
Meeting: Transport for the North Board Date: Thursday 20 June 2019, 15.00 – 16.15 Location: Council Chamber, City Hall, Bradford, BD1 1HY
Chairman:
John Cridland Chairman
Constituent Authority Attendees:
Councillor Phil Riley Blackburn with Darwen Councillor Craig Browne Cheshire East Councillor Louise Gittins Cheshire West & Chester Councillor Keith Little Cumbria Councillor Michael Green Lancashire Mayor Andy Burnham Greater Manchester Councillor Liam Robinson Liverpool City Region Councillor Rob Waltham North Lincolnshire Councillor Don Mackenzie North Yorkshire Mayor Dan Jarvis Sheffield City Region Councillor Nick Forbes North East Combined Authority Councillor Judith Blake West Yorkshire Councillor Don Mackenzie North Yorkshire Councillor Keith Aspden York
Rail North Authority Attendees:
Councillor Trevor Ainsworth Derbyshire Councillor Chris Brewis Lincolnshire
Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Attendees:
Mark Rawstron Lancashire Jim Jackson Cumbria Mark Whitworth Liverpool City Region Ian Cherry Leeds City Region Matthew Lamb North Yorkshire Peter Kennan Sheffield City Region
Delivery Partners:
Ben Smith Department of Transport
Page 177
Jim O’Sullivan Highways England Michael Bradley HS2 Sir Peter Hendy Network Rail
Transport for the North Officers in Attendance:
Barry White Chief Executive Iain Craven Finance Director Dawn Madin Director of Business Capabilities Peter Molyneux Major Roads Director Tim Wood Northern Powerhouse Rail Director David Hoggarth Strategic Rail Director Sasha Wayne Head of Legal Deborah Dimock Solicitor Rosemary Lyon Legal and Democratic Services Officer Jim Bamford Head of Investment Planning, Rail North Lewis Jones Head of Stakeholder Engagement and Communication James Mills Corporate Engagement Lead Kevin Willans Head of IT and Information
Apologies:
Mayor Steve Rotheram Liverpool City Region Councillor Simon Blackburn Blackpool Councillor Daren Hale Hull Mayor Steve Rotheram Liverpool Asif Hamid Liverpool City Region LEP Mike Blackburn Greater Manchester LEP Councillor Michael Green Lancashire Councillor Carl Marshall North East Combined Authority Councillor Rob Waltham North Lincolnshire Councillor Jon Collins Nottingham Councillor Daniel Jellyman Stoke-on-Trent
1.0 Welcome and Apologies Action
1.1 Members of the Board were welcomed to the meeting.
1.2 The Chairman noted that the two Vice Chairmen, Ian Gillies from York and Samantha Dixon from Cheshire West, had both stepped down and the Chairman put on record his thanks to them for their service.
Page 178
1.3 The Chairman noted the recent changes to the membership of the Board:
Cllr Craig Browne (Cheshire East), Cllr Louise Gittins (Cheshire West), Cllr Richard Burton (East Riding) Cllr Stewart Swinburn (North East Lincolnshire) Cllr Keith Aspden (York)
1.4 Apologies for absence were noted.
2.0 Declarations of Interest
2.1 There were no declarations of interest.
3.0 Minutes
3.1 The minutes of the meeting of the Transport for the North Board held on 7 February 2019 were considered.
3.2 Mayor Andy Burnham raised the issue of the TransPennine Route Upgrade (TRU) and asked for another discussion about what is planned and the phasing of the project. It was agreed that TRU would be added to the July meeting agenda.
3.3 Cllr Craig Browne referred to Minute 8.4 and asked who had TW confirmed that Crewe North Junction would be part of the HS2 Phase 2B Hybrid Bill. It was agreed that Transport for the North would come back to Cllr Browne on that issue.
3.4 Cllr Brewis confirmed that he had attended the meeting of the Board on 7 February. RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Transport for the North Board held on 7 February 2019 be approved as a correct record subject to the amendment in 3.4
4.0 Governance Report
4.1 Deborah Dimock (DD) delivered the Governance Report. The purpose of the report was to notify Members on recent changes to the membership of the Board and Scrutiny Committee (as set out in 3.1 and 3.2) which had resulted from the May elections and other changes reported to Transport for the North by the Constituent Authorities.
Page 179
4.2 DD recommended that the appointment of new Vice- Chairmen be deferred to the Annual Meeting of the Board on 31 July. The Chairman confirmed that he had written to both Cllr Gillies and Cllr Dixon thanking them for their service.
4.3 Members were asked to consent to the co-option of new LEP Members to the Board as set out in 3.4.
4.4 Following the resignation of Sasha Wayne as Head of Legal, Julie Openshaw had been appointed as the new Head of Legal. Members were asked to designate Julie Openshaw as the Monitoring Officer from the date of commencement of her employment and to designate Dawn Madin, Business Capabilities Director as Interim Monitoring Officer for the period from 4 July 2019 until Ms Openshaw takes up her appointment. The Chairman indicated that Ms Openshaw was present at the meeting.
4.5 Cllr Gittins queried the names of appointments to Scrutiny RAL Committee from Cheshire West and asked that these be checked.
RESOLVED: 1. To note the appointment of new Members to the Transport for the North Board. 2. To defer appointment of new Vice Chairmen of the Board to the Annual Meeting on 31 July. 3. To agree to co-opt Mark Rawstron and Michael Bradley to the Transport for the North board and Alison Kinna as a Substitute Member. 4. To designate Julie Openshaw as Monitoring Officer from the commencement of her employment and to designate Dawn Madin as the Interim Monitoring Officer for the period from 4 July until Ms Openshaw takes up her post.
5.0 Constitution Paper
5.1 DD delivered the Constitution Paper. It was proposed that Members should be able to give consent in principle to the co-option of LEP representatives as a class of co-optees without having to consent singularly.
5.2 Under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 attendance at decision-making meetings must be by a Member in person. It was proposed that provisions should be
Page 180
included in the Constitution for the Chief Executive or an appropriate Director to be able to consult with Members either by telephone or e-mail before taking delegated decisions.
5.3 It was proposed that the Constitution should be amended to provided that public speaking will not normally be allowed at Board Meetings but that provision for public meetings shall be made at Scrutiny Committee Meetings.
5.4 It was not proposed that the membership of the Audit and Governance Committee should be widened further.
5.5 A paper will be brought forward to a future meeting in DD respect of the development of the role of the Partnership Board.
5.6 It was proposed that the Constitution should be amended to make it clear that the Rail North Committee is a Committee of the Transport for the North Board and that only Transport for the North Board or Substitute Board members are eligible to be Members of the Committee.
5.7 DD referred to the issue of having a quorum at the meetings of the Rail North Committee, the Scrutiny Committee and the Audit and Governance Committee. It was proposed that the quorum should be reduced to 25% from 50% in respect of these Committees. Mayor Burnham (AB) disputed that there had been a problem with quorum at the Rail North Committee and stated that if the Rail North Committee was reduced to a quorum of 25% that a representative of at least one of the core cities of the North should be present. Judith Blake referred to going through a period when quorum had been waived at the Scrutiny Committee.
5.8 Mayor Dan Jarvis referred to the very large geographic area covered by Transport for the North and the need to ensure transparency at public meetings. He referred to webcasting. Dawn Madin (DB) indicated that webcasting was planned from September.
5.9 The Chairman referred to the first meeting of the Board in April 2018 when it had been agreed that the Constitution would be reviewed after 6 months. He also referred to the very good points raised by AB about the Rail North Committee. The Chairman suggested adopting a quorum of 25% in respect of the Audit and Governance and Scrutiny Committees but that the quorum in respect of the Rail North Committee should remain at 50%. RESOLVED: It is recommended that the Board approve the proposed amendments to the Constitution
Page 181
set out in the Schedule of amendments at Schedule 2, save that in respect of the quorum at Rail North Committee that should remain at 50%.
6.0 Williams Review & Blake Jones Action Plan DH
6.1 David Hoggarth(DH) stated that the Blake Jones Review was nearly complete and would be launched in the next few weeks. The Action Plan would be brought to the Board for endorsement at the next meeting.
6.2 The report provided an update on the Williams Review and Transport for the North’s input to the call for evidence. Appendices 1 and 2 set out the evidence in response to questions from the review team. Transport for the North now plan to develop this further into an Outline Business Case., including a scoping paper so that Transport for the North can respond to emerging conclusions from the Williams Review.
6.3 DH referred to the golden thread of accountability requiring national co-ordination with the sub-national transport body acting as a guiding mind with locally specified arrangements. Vertical and longer arrangements to drive investment and better partnerships, which includes flexibility on procurement for local powers.
6.4 Cllr Liam Robinson strongly endorsed the need to do the business case in respect of further devolution. He referred to the need to be wary of what comes out of the Williams Review and not wanting ‘to be done to’. AB referred to this work being critical for Transport for the North. He referred to there being potentially different views of devolution and mentioned the Greater Manchester Tram/Train and how did that fit with the sub-national body. There was scope for a workshop on these issues and that a business case should not be brought forward too early.
6.5 The Chairman referred to the principle of subsidiarity. Transport for the North has a strategic planning function. DH noted that the initial work being planned was scoping work that could lead to a business case.
6.6 Sir Peter Hendy indicated that it would be helpful if Transport for the North and the Constituent Authorities consider how they would deal with trade -offs when short of railway capacity. The Chairman referred to the report setting out key principles. Judith Blake stated that it was critical that the bodies the Members engage in this work and make a full contribution.
Page 182
RESOLVED: The Board noted the update provided on the Williams Review, and the Blake Jones Report and that a business case be brought forward at the appropriate time.
7.0 Outturn Report
7.1 Iain Craven(IC) presented his report noting slippage in respect of the IST project (£9 million). This related to slippage in Phase 3 of the project. The variance in respect of NPR (£4 million) the bulk of which variance related to HS2. The management accounts are on trek for approval by 31 July.
RESOLVED: The Board noted the report
8.0 Exclusion of Press and Public
RESOLVED: that the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business because it is likely that, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, there will be disclosure of confidential information as defined in Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) and/or exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended)
9.0 IST Update 9.1 The Chief Executive presented the report, as the IST Director was still on leave of absence. He explained that no decision was required by the Board today and that a further report would be presented to the July meeting. An update was given to the Board in respect of the procurement process in respect of Phase 3 of the IST project. The report highlighted the challenges faced in securing commitment from major bus operators to IST Phase 3 and that letters of commitment from them had been requested by 24 June. Following this the viability of ABBOT Phase 3 would be assessed.
RESOLVED: The Board noted the report
Page 183
This page is intentionally left blank
Transport for the North Board – Minutes
Meeting: Transport for the North Board Date: Thursday 7 February 2019, 11.50am – 2.00pm Location: Council Chamber, Chester Town Hall, 33 Northgate Street, Chester, CH1 2HQ
Chairman:
John Cridland Chairman
Attendees:
Andrew Jones MP Minister of State for Transport
Constituent Authority Attendees:
Councillor Phil Riley Blackburn with Darwen Councillor Fred Jackson Blackpool Councillor Rachel Bailey Cheshire East Councillor Samantha Dixon Cheshire West & Chester Councillor Keith Little Cumbria Mayor Andy Burnham Greater Manchester Councillor Daren Hale Hull Mayor Steve Rotheram Liverpool City Region Councillor Rob Waltham North Lincolnshire Councillor Don Mackenzie North Yorkshire Mayor Dan Jarvis Sheffield City Region Councillor Stephen Harker Tees Valley Councillor Hans Mundry Warrington Councillor Judith Blake West Yorkshire Councillor Ian Gillies York
Rail North Authority Attendees:
Councillor Trevor Ainsworth Derbyshire
Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Attendees:
Pete Waterman Cheshire and Warrington LEP Steve Curl Cumbria Kishor Tailor Hull and the Humber LEP Mark Whitworth Liverpool City Region Matthew Lamb North Yorkshire Peter Kennan Sheffield City Region LEP Jerry Hopkinson Tees Valley LEP
Page 185
Delivery Partners:
Tricia Hayes Department for Transport Elliot Shaw Highways England Lorna Pimlott HS2 Sir Peter Hendy Network Rail
In Attendance:
Chris Melling Chair of Audit & Governance Committee Richard George SNC Lavalin Nick Bisson Department for Transport Rob McIntosh Network Rail Anna-Jane Hunter Network Rail Leo Goodwin TPE David Brown Northern Rob Warnes Northern
Transport for the North Officers in Attendance:
Barry White Chief Executive Oyetona Raheem Democratic Services Officer (DSO) Iain Craven Finance Director Tim Foster Head of Economic Advice Jim Bamford Head of Investment Planning, RN Sasha Wayne Head of Legal Dawn Madin Director of Business Capabilities Alastair Richards IST Programme Director Peter Molyneux Major Roads Director Tim Wood Northern Powerhouse Rail Director Robin Miller-Stott Senior Policy Officer Deborah Dimock Solicitor David Hoggarth Strategic Rail Director Jonathan Spruce Strategy Director
Apologies:
Councillor Simon Blackburn Blackpool Jim Jackson Cumbria LEP Mike Blackburn Greater Manchester LEP Councillor Michael Green Lancashire Councillor Carl Marshall North East Combined Authority Councillor Mathew Patrick North East Lincolnshire Councillor Jon Collins Nottingham Councillor Daniel Jellyman Stoke-on-Trent
Page 186
1.0 Welcome and Apologies Action
1.1 Members of the Board were welcomed to the meeting.
1.2 Apologies for absence were noted.
1.3 Governance Updates
1.4 New appointments to the Board and Scrutiny Committee were noted as follows:
Cllr Mathew Slater as the Scrutiny Committee Member for Lancashire Cllr Andrew Snowden as the Substitute Scrutiny Committee Member for Lancashire County Council Cllr Carl Marshall as the Rail North Committee Member for the North East Cllr Nick Forbes as the Substitute Rail North Committee Member for the North East” Cllr Chris Read as the Substitute TfN Board Member for Sheffield City Region.
2.0 Declarations of Interest
2.1 There were no declarations of interest.
3.0 Minutes
3.1 The minutes of the meeting of the Transport for the North Board held on 6 December 2018 were considered.
3.2 At item 7.5, line 8, Sir Peter Hendy corrected the spelling of his name.
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Transport for the North Board held on 6 December 2018 be approved as a correct record, subject to the above amendment.
Matters Arising
3.3 All matters arising were discussed under the relevant agenda items.
4.0 Draft Business Plan 2019/20
4.1 Barry White presented the draft business plan during which he highlighted some of the tasks for the year ahead, one of which is to produce a Five-Year Strategic Plan. There was a projected increase in staff members by 30 posts. Additional
Page 187
space was needed in Manchester for NPR staff and co- delivery teams from HS2/Network Rail.
4.2 Mayor Andy Burnham queried if TfN had dedicated sufficient resources to the recommendations from the Williams’ Rail Review which had recently emerged. Barry White advised that there was a plan to make a submission to the Williams’ Review and he will be consulting with members ahead of the April 2019 Board in that regard.
Cllr Judith Blake noted that the Williams Rail Review will lead to more powers/responsibilities and that there was need to acknowledge that TfN will need more resources for that purpose. She suggested a more robust analysis of TfN’s role in that regard, in order to make a good case for additional resources.
4.3 The Chairman and Barry White expressed TfN’s pride with the introduction of the apprenticeship scheme.
Cllr Daren Hale commented positively on the apprenticeship scheme and suggested that these should be expanded to include more of those from the disadvantaged group.
4.4 Matthew Lamb suggested the adoption of flexi working arrangements to avoid getting locked into long term leases. Iain Craven advised that options for additional work space were being considered and that the additional space required was to accommodate the NPR Team which had grown significantly.
The Chairman noted that TfN already operated some form of agile and flexi working arrangements.
RESOLVED: To approve the TfN Business Plan for 2019/20 and delegate the Chief Executive to update the document, prior to publication of the final version, in relation to:
I. The final recommendations of the Joint Review of the Rail North Partnership; II. Agree with the Vice Chairs, final wording for their forewords as required; III. Final drafting amendments.
Page 188
5.0 TfN Budget and Reserves Strategy 2019/20
5.1 Iain Craven talked the meeting through aspects of the report which was taken as read.
RESOLVED: I. To note the changes to the budget structure, particularly the isolation of contingency resource from base forecasts.
II. To approve the TfN budget for 2019/20, including the proposed treatment of reserves.
6.0 Treasury Management Strategy 2019/20
6.1 Iain Craven talked the meeting through aspects of the report which was taken as read.
6.2 Cllr Sam Dixon suggested that ethical investment should be IC considered as part of the Strategy in the future.
RESOLVED: To approve the proposed Treasury Management Strategy for 2019/20.
7.0 TfN Budget Revision 3 and Year-to-Date Monitoring
7.1 Iain Craven talked the meeting through aspects of the report which was taken as read.
RESOLVED: I. To note the year-to-date underspend of £2.96m and the forecast full year underspend of £3.61m, against the Revision 2 budget.
II. To approve the proposed full-year Revision 2 budget of £38.54m.
III. To note the requirement to carry- forward grant to support slipped activity in the new financial year, as referenced at 1.6 and Appendix 1.
IV. To note the reporting of cost overruns on three professional services contracts detailed in Appendix 1.
Page 189
8.0 Final Strategic Transport Plan (STP) and Initial Investment Programme
8.1 Jonathan Spruce talked the meeting through the Final STP. He pointed out that correspondence had been received from Mr Rae, the previous day (6 February 2019) and hard copies of the letter were circulated to members at the meeting.
8.2 As previously detailed in the response to a prior correspondence from Mr Rae, Jonathan Spruce explained that aviation was a national issue and TfN looked forward to working with the government in that regard. He added that aviation was outside the scope of the STP. Jonathan Spruce said that TfN had taken a similar position to the Mayor for London in their strategy, which had specifically excluded aviation from its emissions target.
8.3 Mayor Andy Burnham expressed satisfaction that a number of his suggestions had been included in the plan. He suggested that more emphasis on cycling and walking could be included and that there should be a specific mention of tram-trains in the Plan due to its significance in the Greater Manchester area following a recent visit by the Secretary of State.
Mayor Andy Burnham commented positively on the comprehensive response that had been given to Mr Rae’s letter and expressed that the aviation emissions matter raised needed to be considered at some point with the relevant government department.
8.4 Cllr Rachel Bailey welcomed the strategic document and noted the challenges faced by TfN to accomplish the initiatives. Rachel Bailey noted the connection with HS2 in the document and would like clarification that HS2 will arrive at Crewe in 2027 and that TfN supported the preferred option for the connection at Crewe. It was confirmed that Crewe North Junction (CNJ) would be part of the HS2 Phase 2b Hybrid Bill and funding would be requested in SR19.
8.5 Cllr Rob Waltham acknowledged that the strategic document did not contain every detail, but it was important to continue to work together in order to see the document developed and to spread the benefits across the borders.
Page 190
8.6 Jonathan Spruce offered to take another look at the JS Investment Programme wording in answer to Cllr Rachel Bailey’s question. Suitable areas would be identified in the document where the issues of cycling/walking and tram- trains raised by Mayor Andy Burnham could be inserted. A new aviation framework was being developed by the government in 2019 so that would be the most appropriate time to revisit the issue of aviation emissions.
8.7 Peter Kennan offered to take interested members on a tram- PK train journey from Sheffield to Rotherham after the official launch of the STP on Monday 11 February 2019.
8.8 Tricia Hayes commended the professionalism that had gone JS/TH into the production of the document since it was last reviewed. She noted that the issue of aviation emissions was a very important matter for the government and offered to put TfN officers in contact with a member of the Government working on aviation matters so that they can work together to ensure that regional issues were taken into account when developing the new aviation framework.
8.9 Cllr Blake expressed the need to do more work around how TfN was dealing with communications strategy at local level. She suggested that the STP should be linked with the communication strategy and that an additional structure should be added to make responsibility for communications of the strategy a lot clearer.
Barry White gave some explanations on how the communications team had been working to ensure that TfN activities were widely publicised.
8.10 The Chairman noted that environmental matters had evolved significantly since the draft STP was published. He paid tribute to the environmental organisations that have made significant contributions to the final outcome. TfN was aware that aviation emission needed to be considered and Members will hear more from TfN in that regard when appropriate.
The Chairman also noted that the STP was a living document that was subject to reasonable adjustments from time to time.
RESOLVED: I. To approve the Final Strategic Transport Plan as the statutory plan
Page 191
under Section 102I of the Local Transport Act, subject to the addition of relevant text on active travel and tram-trains. II. To approve the Initial Investment programme. III. To submit the Strategic Transport Plan and the Initial Investment programme as advice to the Government as per TfN’s Regulations.
9.0 Rail Performance
9.1 Richard George made a presentation to the meeting on his work on performance improvement. That was followed by short presentations from Anna-Jane Hunter (NR) with support from representatives of the Train Operating Companies (Leo Goodwin, David Brown and Rob Warnes) on general update on rail franchise matters for Northern and TPE.
These were followed by a question and answer session on the implementation of the recommendations from Richard George’s work and key steps that had been taken to improve train services and customer experience.
9.2 The Chairman welcomed the news of the suspension of industrial action by the RMT and hoped that it would be the beginning of meaningful talks.
Mayor Steve Rotheram noted that industrial action had been called off to allow for a meaningful dialogue with the RMT and hoped that the talks that would follow will be truly meaningful to prevent a return to industrial action. Mayor Steve Rotheram would like to see key steps taken to tighten governance and improve mechanism for flagging up structural issues at the earliest point.
9.3 Cllr Daren Hale requested clarifications about specific actions that had taken place to ensure that disruption to rail services that happened in 2018 would not happen again.
9.4 Mayor Andy Burnham commended the work done by Richard George. He expressed concern that uncertainties about delivery of new trains could be echoing the service disruptions of 2018. Greater clarity on the current position
Page 192
would be very helpful. He thanked the Minister for help with RMT matters and asked that Brendan Barber be kept involved and not to lose the ground achieved once discussion got into the final stages. He would like to see a full restoration of Sunday services as soon as possible.
9.5 Richard George gave explanations on the three structural issues and a cultural issue that needed to be addressed to prevent a recurrence of train disruptions of May 2018.
Anna-Jane Hunter (NR) explained that there had been a huge change nationally and that it would not be right to start to contemplate another ‘May 2018’ because the situations were not comparable.
Leo Goodwin (TPE) updated that a lot of progress had been made in the testing of new trains. A technical issue that was holding up progress had been resolved and deliveries of new trains were expected in March 2019. The remaining element of testing have been completed. With regard to existing trains, there had been a technical fault due to cold weather. A small modification was being made to address the issue.
David Brown (Northern) advised that his company was accepting rolling stock, some of which was needed for May 2019, with driver training to be undertaken in advance.
Subject to Network Rail completing the Bolton electrification, the company will be operating electric trains from later in February.
9.6 Cllr Blake welcomed identification of the issue of ‘loss of local knowledge’ in Richard George’s report. She would like the recommendations on governance to include clear
identification of who was responsible for what and the
measure of performance. She considered it unacceptable that passenger experience was not currently measured even though there was available technology to do that.
The Chairman advised that the matters raised by Cllr Blake DH should be picked up as part of TfN’s work on the Williams’ Rail Review.
9.7 Pete Waterman noted that the issue of freight was more complex. He expressed that freight was not a subsidised part of the railway. He was satisfied with the bigger picture in terms of proposed investments in infrastructure. There
Page 193
were constraints in the industry itself such as very low margin of profit and the industry needed to reflect that in addressing freight issues.
9.8 Cllr Keith Little expressed that the industry needed to look at itself and where grave mistakes had been made to prevent a recurrence in the future including the identified cultural issues. He thanked the RMT for agreeing to come to the table and Northern for working hard to find a resolution of the dispute.
9.9 Richard George said that he had avoided making recommendations about things outside of his remit. He was satisfied with making his recommendations to the Board and to the Minister. He believed with the Williams’ Review, there would be an opportunity to reset the governance arrangements.
9.10 David Brown (Northern) advised that there had been a significant re-organisation and that passengers would see a more resilient timetable which will continue on a positive trajectory. He noted that there was still a lot of work to be done to reach a final deal with RMT.
Leo Goodwin echoed the points on stabilisation of the network. TPE performance had been raised to what it was before May 2018.
9.11 Mayor Andy Burnham expressed that getting a written position from the operators on their new rolling stock delivery plans would be helpful considering that promises
had been made previously that were not delivered.
The Chairman requested, and it was agreed that ToCs DH provide a written statement to be circulated to Board Members.
9.12 Mayor Andy Burnham asked for specific dates when the new rolling stock would be in service. The timeline given was two months’ time. Leo Goodwin (TPE) gave explanations on contingencies that have been put in place if needed. At the moment, the plan was to put new trains into service by spring 2019.
Page 194
9.13 The Chairman noted that all operators have got the message that the Board was not prepared to put up with poor service delivery.
9.14 The issue of layers of reporting lines in the rail industry was noted as an issue that needed to be addressed.
Cllr Sam Dixon echoed the issue with governance structure which was seen as vague and unclear and queried ‘when and who’ within the reporting line was responsible for publishing when service delivery ‘will be met’ or ‘will not be met’ as recommended in Richard George’s report.
9.15 Cllr Daren Hale expressed that though there have been improvements in TPE performance, short forming had remained.
RESOLVED: To note the update on performance and the work undertaken by Independent Industry Expert, Richard George.
10.0 Exclusion of Press and Public
RESOLVED: That the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business because it is likely that, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, there will be disclosure of confidential information as defined in s100A(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) and exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).
11.0 Northern Powerhouse Rail – Strategic Outline Business Case
11.1 Tim Wood presented his report which summarised the conclusions of the Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC), including the additional work undertaken following the December 2018 Board. He highlighted some of the life changing opportunities that the programme will bring to the more than 15 million people of the North of England and beyond. He therefore sought Board approval to submit the SOBC to the government.
Page 195
RESOLVED: I. To approve the Strategic Outline Business Case for submission to government, noting the significant progress made in the development of NPR and the further work undertaken since the December Board.
II. To agree the statutory advice to the Secretary of State that emphasised the need for full commitment to NPR, supported by funding to ensure that rapid progress can be made by the early 2020s.
Page 196
This document is Not for Publication - DRAFT - Report Intended for future publication
Transport for the North Board – Minutes
Meeting: Transport for the North Board Date: 6 December 2018
Chairman:
John Cridland Chairman
Constituent Authority Attendees:
Councillor Phil Riley Blackburn with Darwen Councillor Fred Jackson Blackpool Councillor Terry O'Neill Warrington Councillor Rachel Bailey Cheshire East Councillor Samantha Dixon Cheshire West & Chester Mayor Andy Burnham Greater Manchester Councillor Darren Hale Hull Councillor Michael Green Lancashire Mayor Steve Rotheram Liverpool City Region Councillor Carl Marshall North East Councillor Rob Waltham North Lincolnshire Councillor Carl Les North Yorkshire Mayor Dan Jarvis Sheffield City Region Councillor Judith Blake West Yorkshire Councillor Ian Gillies York
Rail North Authority Attendees:
Councillor Chris Brewis Lincolnshire Councillor John Ogle Nottinghamshire Councillor Mark Winnington Staffordshire
Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Attendees:
Pete Waterman Cheshire and Warrington LEP Jim Jackson Cumbria LEP Lord Haskins Hull and the Humber LEP Roger Marsh Leeds City Region LEP Peter Kennan Sheffield City Region LEP Paul Booth Tees Valley LEP
Page 1 of 10 Page 197 This document is Not for Publication - DRAFT - Report Intended for future publication This document is Not for Publication - DRAFT - Report Intended for future publication
Delivery Partners:
Sir Peter Hendy Network Rail Jim O’Sullivan Highways England
In attendance:
Andrew Jones MP Minister of State for Transport Tricia Hayes Department for Transport Richard George SNC Lavalin
Transport for the North Officers in Attendance:
Barry White Chief Executive Alastair Richards Integrated Smart Travel Programme Director Iain Craven Finance Director Sasha Wayne Head of Legal Dawn Madin HR and Mobilisation Director Tim Wood Northern Powerhouse Rail Director Adam Timewell Rail North Partnership - Franchise Commercial Manager James Syson Rail Strategy Liaison Manager Deborah Dimock Solicitor Jonathan Spruce Strategy Director David Hoggarth Strategic Rail Director Peter Molyneux Major Roads Director Dave Abdy Programme Director Mark Hardman Democratic Services Officer
Apologies:
Councillor Keith Little Cumbria Councillor Stephen Parnaby East Riding of Yorkshire Councillor Matthew Patrick North East Lincolnshire Councillor Nick Forbes North of Tyne Councillor Jon Collins Nottingham Councillor Daniel Jellyman Stoke-on-Trent Mike Blackburn Greater Manchester LEP Edwin Booth Lancashire LEP Asif Hamid Liverpool City Region LEP Christine Gaskell Cheshire and Warrington LEP Matthew Lamb North Yorkshire LEP
1.0 Welcome and Apologies
1.1 The Chairman welcomed Members of the Board to the meeting.
1.2 Apologies for absence were noted.
Page 2 of 10 Page 198 This document is Not for Publication - DRAFT - Report Intended for future publication This document is Not for Publication - DRAFT - Report Intended for future publication
1.3 The Chairman sought and gained the support of the Board for the deferral and withdrawal from the agenda of agenda item 9 (Northern Powerhouse Rail – Final Strategic Outline Business Case). The matter would now be considered at the meeting of the Board to be held on 7 February 2019. By effect, agenda item 8 (Exclusion of Press and Public) was withdrawn from the agenda.
1.4 The Chairman commented on the following matters of note that had occurred since the previous meeting of the Board:- (i) Following the recommendation of the Board that an individual be appointed to resolve rail timetabling issues in the North, Richard George had been appointed and was making good progress. The Chair thanked Mr George for his efforts; (ii) In the Budget an allocation of an additional £37m to proceed with the next stage of development of the Northern Powerhouse Rail project had been made; (iii) Transport for the North had made a significant intervention in the interests of rail passengers in making efforts to end the RMT and Arriva Rail North (ARN) industrial relations issue. ARN and RMT had met but had not been able to resolve the dispute.
1.5 The Chairman deferred to Mayor Andy Burnham who addressed the Board in respect of current performance by ARN and TransPennine Express (TPE). Mayor Burnham noted that both companies were delivering well below the levels of the previous year in respect of performance, timetabling, short forming etc and were providing a miserable experience for the travelling public. The Board had been promised by both companies a significant improvement in December which was not demonstrated by most recent data. The Chairman, while noting that the matter was included on the agenda for the meeting of the Rail North Committee (RNC) later in the day, considered that a discussion of this issue as a matter of concern to the Board should be held.
1.6 Councillor Judith Blake raised health and safety concerns related to shortforming, particularly highlighting difficulties for disabled passengers. Councillor Darren Hale referred to correspondence from TPE advising of delay in delivery of new trains but which did not address the implications of that delay. The treatment of the Board in this matter was queried in that the Board was partner to the franchise. Mayor Steve Rotheram queried the action that could be taken by Transport for the North and/or the Department for Transport, including a sanction for removing the franchise, or what would happen if an operator returned the franchise.
1.7 The Chairman invited the Strategic Rail Director to address issues raised by Board Members. It was confirmed that the Train Operating Companies (TOCs) and Network Rail had been invited to the RNC. Regarding issues raised, there were changes planned in the December timetable designed by the TOCs and Network Rail to deliver an uplift in
Page 3 of 10 Page 199 This document is Not for Publication - DRAFT - Report Intended for future publication This document is Not for Publication - DRAFT - Report Intended for future publication
performance and which would be considered at the RNC meeting. It was acknowledged that the contractual position over the period since May could be a lever that might be used. With regard to short forming and the autumn leaf fall, it was confirmed that approximately a 10% fall in performance had been seen and detailed information on this had been requested. The Rail North Partnership was continuing to go through the contractual levers and very specific targets, including on short forming and reliability, needed to be delivered. The Strategic DH Rail Director undertook to discuss issues of health and safety and of passengers with disabilities directly with the Board Member.
1.8 The Chairman invited Mr Richard George to comment on issues raised. Mr George indicated that, with regard to Network Rail, leaf fall had been a challenge and that this had exaggerated an unstable timetable position. The imminent timetable change in December should improve stability.
1.9 Mayor Rotheram, noting that franchise requirements were not being met, queried at what point a recommendation be made that a franchise be withdrawn, or whether it was likely a TOC would return a franchise. While noting the RNC consideration to be given later in the day, Mayor Burnham advised the neither Manager Director of ARN or TPE were to attend due to prior engagements; he expressed concern at this position given the current state of performance and the assurances given previously, considering that in the circumstances representation should be at the highest level.
1.10 The Chairman advised he had seen the replies and proposed that it be seen how successful the RNC was in gaining assurance as to the changes delivering improved performance. The concerns raised regarding the non-attendance of the Managing Directors was understood, particularly given their attendance at the Board meetings held in June and September. The Chairman indicated that the RNC should give their considerations to the matter as scheduled, after which a letter should be forwarded by the Strategic Rail Director to DH Board Members responding the questions raised by Mayor Rotheram and being specific about the position regarding breach of franchise. The Chairman concluded by noting that, as a Board, rail performance was considered unacceptable despite the best efforts of the Board, and that there needed to be some sign of sustained improvement.
2.0 Declarations of Interest
2.1 There were no declarations of interest.
3.0 Minutes
3.1 The Minutes of the meeting of the Transport for the North Board held on 13 September 2018 were considered.
Page 4 of 10 Page 200 This document is Not for Publication - DRAFT - Report Intended for future publication This document is Not for Publication - DRAFT - Report Intended for future publication
3.2 Further to Minute 4.10, Councillor Fred Jackson noted that the reference to “Rochdale North” should read “Blackpool North”.
RESOLVED: That, subject to the amendment of the reference to “Rochdale North” to read “Blackpool North” in Minute 4.10, the Minutes of the meeting of the Transport for the North Board held on 13 September 2018 be approved as a correct record.
4.0 Transport for the North Membership, Appointments to Transport for the North Board and Committees, and Amendments to the Transport for the North Constitution
4.1 The Head of Legal Services introduced a report advising on revised Combined Authority arrangements in the North East, seeking confirmation of several appointments to the Transport for the North Board and Committees that arise from these revised arrangements, further seeking a consideration of the membership of the Audit and Governance Committee, and addressing several further vacancies that have arisen.
4.2 Further to the submitted report, the Board was advised that the North East Combined Authority (NECA) had confirmed appointments to the Board and the Scrutiny Committee, subject to the call-in procedures of the Combined Authority. A request had been received such that the new regional group on the Rail North Committee be referenced as the ‘North East Regional Group’, and not ‘Tyneside’ as referenced within the report; nominations to the Committee were to be considered by the Joint Transport Committee in the near future.
4.3 The Board was asked to note that matters relating to the Combined Authorities in the North East and to the membership of the Audit and Governance Committee would require amendment to Transport for the North Constitution and recommendations were presented for the consideration of the Board.
4.4 In determining the recommendations to the Board no alternate options had been considered. Appointments to the Transport for the North Board and Committees are necessary for the effective conduct of Transport for the North business. As the governing document of Transport for the North, it is essential that the Constitution reflects accurately the governance arrangements of Transport for the North.
RESOLVED: That (1) the making of the Newcastle Upon Tyne, North Tyneside and Northumberland Combined Authority (Establishment and Functions) Order 2018 (‘the Order’), the renaming of the existing Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle Upon Tyne, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South of Tyne and Sunderland Combined Authority (the North East Combined Authority (NECA)) to that of the Durham, Gateshead, South of Tyne and Sunderland
Page 5 of 10 Page 201 This document is Not for Publication - DRAFT - Report Intended for future publication This document is Not for Publication - DRAFT - Report Intended for future publication
Combined Authority (retaining the ‘NECA’ designation), and the creation of the Newcastle Upon Tyne, North Tyneside and Northumberland Combined Authority (the ‘North of Tyne Combined Authority’ (NTCA)), be noted; (2) the status of membership of NECA and NTCA as Constituent Authorities of Transport for the North as provided for within the Order be noted and confirmed; (3) a variation in the membership of the Audit and Governance Committee to permit a total of five Members to be appointed from the membership of the Board be agreed; (4) the amendments to the Transport for the North SW Constitution arising from changes to Transport for the North’s Constituent Authorities and the composition of the Audit and Governance Committee as shown at Appendix 1 to this report, including changes to the Voting Matrix, be confirmed; (5) the Board co-opts Mr Peter Kennan, the representative of the Sheffield City Region LEP, as a co- opted Member of the Transport for the North Board; (6) the following appointments be agreed or otherwise confirmed –
Transport for the North Board NECA (member) Councillor Carl Marshall NECA (substitute member) Councillor Graham Miller NTCA (member) Councillor Nick Forbes NTCA (substitute member) Councillor Peter Jackson West Yorkshire (substitute Councillor Susan member) Hinchcliffe Hull (substitute member) Councillor Gary Wareing Sheffield Local Enterprise Peter Kennan Partnership (co-optee)
Scrutiny Committee NECA (member) Councillor Michael Mordey NECA (substitute member) Councillor John McElroy NTCA (member) Councillor Carl Johnson NTCA (substitute member) Councillor Bruce Pickard North Yorkshire (substitute Councillor Paul member) Haslam York (substitute member) Councillor Peter Dew
Page 6 of 10 Page 202 This document is Not for Publication - DRAFT - Report Intended for future publication This document is Not for Publication - DRAFT - Report Intended for future publication
Greater Manchester Councillor Rachel (member) Skillen
Rail North Committee West Yorkshire (substitute Councillor Susan member) Hinchcliffe Tees Valley (substitute Councillor Stephen member) Harker
Audit and Governance Committee Cllr Keith Little Cllr Liam Robinson Cllr Mark Winnington
(7) the regional grouping for the north east on the Rail North Committee be known as the ‘North East Regional Group’ and it be noted that nominations are to be made by the Joint Transport Committee in the near future;
5.0 Integrated Smart Travel Programme – Progress Update
5.1 The Board considered a report of the Chief Executive updating the Board on the progress made to date in respect of the Integrated Smart Travel (IST) Programme and next steps. Introduction of the item at the meeting was accompanied by a video and a presentation given by the IST Programme Director.
5.2 The key headlines advised to the Board were that Phase 1 of the Programme, ITSO Smart Cards on Rail, had commenced live operation in November 2018 with rail customers on Northern and Transpennine services. Also in November, the Phase 2 Full Business Case had been was approved at the Department for Transport’s (DfT) Investment Committee. With regard to Phase 3, ‘Pay As You Go’ Account Based Ticketing, the Invitation To Tender had been was issued to shortlisted suppliers: tender responses are due to be received back in January 2019 and will be used to develop the Phase 3 Full Business Case, scheduled for submission to DfT in late Summer 2019.
5.3 The Minister for Rail noted the very good progress made on this scheme which should provide for the greater encouragement of passengers to use the public transport network. In response to a query from Councillor Rachael Bailey, the IST Programme Director confirmed the interoperability of the system with those elsewhere and confirmed it could be scaled up to cover all the United Kingdom, with the exception of London.
RESOLVED: That the progress made with the IST Programme be noted, with specific acknowledgement of the following matters:-
Page 7 of 10 Page 203 This document is Not for Publication - DRAFT - Report Intended for future publication This document is Not for Publication - DRAFT - Report Intended for future publication
(a) the plans and associated expenditure for the Implementation Phase of the ITSO on Rail - Phase 1 project roll-out across the North; (b) the progress made with the approval of the Full Business Case for Phase 2 by DfT’s investment committee; (c) the progress with the procurements for Phase 3 and the reallocation of funding between financial years.
6.0 Transport for the North Budget Revision 2 and Year-to-Date Monitoring
6.1 The Board considered a report of the Finance Director providing an update on Transport for the North’s financial position after the first six months of financial year 2018/19 and, in taking account of that position and updated forecasts for the remaining six months of the financial year, presenting a revised budget (‘Budget Revision 2’) for consideration.
6.2 The submitted report was supported by two appendices. The first appendix provided an in-depth analysis of the Budget Revision 2 budget proposals. The second appendix comprised a six-month review of the Annual Treasury Management Statement that Transport for the North was statutorily obliged to maintain in order to demonstrate how the organisation would manage the risks inherent in its cash management activity.
6.3 The proposed ‘Revision 2’ budget, developed with budget holders across the organisation, would align to the latest programme delivery timetables. The recommendations were presented to the Board to allow financial monitoring and reporting as financial planning to be aligned to delivery activity.
RESOLVED: That (1) the full-year Revision 2 budget of £42.15m be adopted; (2) the forecast full-year underspend against the base budget of £37.88m be noted; (3) the requirement to carry forward grant to support slipped activity in the new financial year be noted; (4) it be noted that consideration is being given to change how contingency budgets are approved in the new financial year, and that there is an intention to bring forward proposals regarding how Transport for the North manages this through its budgeting process for approval in February 2019 as part of the 2019/20 budget paper; and (5) the mid-year Treasury Management Statement be noted.
Page 8 of 10 Page 204 This document is Not for Publication - DRAFT - Report Intended for future publication This document is Not for Publication - DRAFT - Report Intended for future publication
7.0 Williams’ Rail Review
7.1 The Chairman introduced Mr Keith Williams who had been appointed by the Department for Transport to undertake a national Rail Review.
7.2 Mr Williams addressed the Board in respect of the rail review that had been requested by the Secretary of State. The scope of the Review was not to include HS2 and other large scale infrastructure projects, but beyond that would comprise a full review of the railways. In this regard, four key areas were under consideration:- • Passenger experience – stressed as a key element of the review, and the current experiences of passengers had been heard at first–hand; • Commercial models – considering what were the best ways that rail can work for passengers, for the taxpayer etc; • Structures – seen as the next level of the review, it was acknowledged that any structure proposed should be based on the interests of the passengers; • Enablers for change – what should a 21st century rail system look like and how could IT and other opportunities contribute.
7.3 The Review Team had been gathering evidence for 5-6 weeks; a website call for evidence from the public and others had been made, and meetings held with individuals and passenger groups to seek inputs. It was intended to commence review of the evidence gathered by Christmas/early new year, with the Team reporting to participants in the spring as to how the Team saw the Review progressing. It was intended to submit the final report of the Secretary of State later in the year. The input of Transport for the North into the Review process was welcomed, Mr Williams noting that Roger Marsh, the Leeds City Region LEP representative on the Board, was also a member of the Review Team. For his part, Mr Marsh commented that the review needed to progress and not hide from difficult decisions in order to make changes for the future.
7.4 The Chairman welcomed the opportunities for Transport for the North to contribute to the Williams’ Rail Review, noting the contributions that Mr Marsh could make on behalf of both Transport for the North and Local Enterprise Partnerships. Councillor Judith Blake, advising on the review being undertaken jointly with the Minister for Rail on issues affecting the North, suggested that some of the emerging recommendations from that work could feed into the Review and proposed a meeting in the new year to consider common issues.
7.5 The Rail Review was welcomed by all parties to the Board. Mayor Andy Burnham supported the passenger experience being at the heart of the Review, noting that passengers’ confidence in the rail network needed to be rebuilt; commented on the difficulty of determining accountability and the need to develop performance indicators that reflected the passenger experience; and asked for a consideration of the extent of devolution in the system in light of the centralisation that
Page 9 of 10 Page 205 This document is Not for Publication - DRAFT - Report Intended for future publication This document is Not for Publication - DRAFT - Report Intended for future publication
appeared to have happened. Sir Peter Hendry reflected on the views of the rail industry in welcoming the review and an acknowledgement that it was hard to make the current system work. Paul Booth asked that the review also reflected on the economy. Councillor Rob Waltham further asked that in presentation of recommendations arising from the Review these not be presented as one solution for the whole country.
7.6 Mr Williams noted that the review would only succeed with the contributions and inputs from partners. He was conscious of the difference between data and insight and advised that contributions were needed to give insight into those areas needing change.
7.7 The Chairman thanked Mr Williams for his presentation to the Board and encouraged Board Members to ensure they and/or their organisations contributed to the Review.
8.0 Closing Remarks
8.1 The Chairman invited closing remarks - (a) Peter Kennan advised that the South Yorkshire tram/train system was now open between Sheffield and Rotherham and invited Board members to visit this transformational opportunity. (b) Jim O’ Sullivan advised that Highways England were considering issues around their investment plans and would welcome discussions and engagement on this issue. (c) Mayor Andy Burnham advised that the Metro areas were currently in the process of finalising clean air plans, noted that Highways England needed to be on board with these plans because of the contribution motorways made to air pollution, and suggested that Transport for the North might have a role in determining consistency across the North. The Chief Executive undertook to consider roles for Transport BW for the North regarding consistency and links with Highways England.
8.2 The Chair closed the meeting, thanking Members for their contributions.
Page 10 of 10 Page 206 This document is Not for Publication - DRAFT - Report Intended for future publication Agenda Item 15
TRANSPORT BOARD
25 OCTOBER 2019
SYPTE PERFORMANCE DASHBOARD
Purpose of Report
The report provides an update on the performance of key areas of SYPTE activity.
Freedom of Information
This paper 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.
N:\Policy_Development\Governance\Meetings\Transport Board\2019\20191025\15 - SYPTE Performance Dashboard.docx
Page 207
4.3 Risk Management
Risks on SYPTE activity are logged and monitored in SYPTE’s Risk Management system.
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
N:\Policy_Development\Governance\Meetings\Transport Board\2019\20191025\15 - SYPTE Performance Dashboard.docx
Page 208 SYPTE Transport Executive Board
Page 209 Page Dashboard Executive Summary Commentary Bus What next Significant service changes took place in September in Sheffield and Doncaster. SYPTE have received a number of complaints from 10,000,000 for Urban Transport? customers and elected members as a result. Smaller changes are 9,000,000 planned for October in response. Work has now started to review our Barnsley 8,000,000 area tendered contracts, which are scheduled to expire in September 2020. Tenders for these will be issued in January 2020. Discussions with both First and 7,000,000 Stagecoach in September have highlighted a sharp fall in patronage over the 6,000,000 summer months. 5,000,000 Northern will need to keep around 23 of its Pacer trains in passenger 4,000,000 service temporarily beyond the end of 2019. Northern are engaging P1 P3 P5 P7 P9 P11 P13 with their Accessibility User Group to test some mitigation proposals Tram to put in place to address the non-compliance for persons with 1,200,000 reduced mobility. These proposals will form the basis of an Page 210 Page MaaS application to the DfT for a temporary dispensation from the regulations. The 1,100,000 movement? Pacers will continue to temporarily operate on a number of routes in South Issues and Yorkshire in to spring 2020. 1,000,000 options on 900,000 Mobility as a Rotherham Interchange C platform and car park re-opened on 15 Service for July. We continue to work our way through the list of snagging items 800,000 city region in relation to electrical and IT infrastructure installed by Interserve. transport September saw a total of 23,700 calls to our contact centre, up 12% on August, 700,000 authorities though lower than September 2018 (24,300), despite the fact that the changes P1 P3 P5 P7 P9 P11 P13 this year were far more substantial than those made to the network last year. Rail 900,000 SYPTE have awarded the 10 year on street advertising contract (total value £9.1m) 800,000 to Alight Media and their contract commenced on 2 October. 700,000 Patronage on the Supertram network continues to be well below the 600,000 levels seen prior to rail replacement works which ran between April 500,000 and September 2019. Further cracked rail has been identified this 400,000 summer and we are currently working with Stagecoach Supertram P1 P3 P5 P7 P9 P11 P13 and VolkerRail to try and reach a conclusion on the cause and 2016/17 2017/18 therefore liability for these breaks. A lessons learned for this year’s works has 2018/19 2019/20 been held. Commentary Bus Major service changes came in to effect on 2 September. These were largely focussed on Sheffield and Doncaster and have attracted a significant number of customer and elected Bus Patronage by Period by Year member complaints and correspondence. Service changes were due to a combination of tendered service renewal and commercial operator changes in the market. 10,000,000 SYPTE awarded tenders on the basis of the budget being fixed (i.e. not reducing in line 9,000,000 with the MTFS) but this still meant that costs were higher than when previously awarded three years ago, and as a result, only a lower level of service provision could be afforded. 8,000,000 A small number of changes will be made to tendered and commercial services from the 26 October in response to customer feedback or address operational issues experienced 7,000,000 following the September changes. Work has now started to review our Barnsley area tendered contracts, which are scheduled to expire in September 2020. Tenders for these 6,000,000 will be issued in January 2020.
Page 211 Page Discussions with both First and Stagecoach in September have highlighted a sharp fall in 5,000,000 patronage over the summer months. As yet, these trends are not fully reflected in operator returns for ENCTS (due to a timing delay in submissions) but are consistent with 4,000,000 the emerging trend. Both operators have indicated that they are considering changes to P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 their networks as a result. In the case of First, these appear more extensive (although details have not yet been worked through) and are particularly acute in Rotherham; 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Stagecoach changes appear to be aimed at frequency changes and the timescales are less pressing. We continue to engage with First SY as to their potential sale of the business.
Punctuality Today Timeline May '19 Jun '19 Jul '19 Aug '19 Sep '19 Oct '19 Nov '19 Dec '19 Jan '20 Feb '20 Mar '20 Start Bus Lanes Review (Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster) Finish 83.4% Mon 01/04/19 Mon 01/04/19 - Mon 30/03/20 Mon 30/03/20 Electric Bus Feasibility Study Reliability Mon 01/04/19 - Thu 28/11/19 Transforming Cities Fund Final Bid Submission Thu 27/06/19 - Thu 28/11/19 98.5% September Service Change Mon 02/09/19 First South Yorkshire Update
The Executive Director attended a conference call with representatives from a number of areas which have First as one of their commercial operators. Whilst the local situation varies from area to area, common messages regarding the current position of the sale progress are consistent: sale progressing; no more than 3 or 4 packages; no firm timescales. West Yorkshire Combined Authority differ most in their approach and are considering options to purchase some or all of First's West Yorkshire business. This work is still in its early stages and there are a number of unresolved issues; political endorsement, funding, clarification of legal position etc. The Group has agreed to continue to share information and a separate discussion with West Yorkshire is being sought.
Page 212 Page Discussions are continuing with First South Yorkshire regarding concessionary reimbursement. Issues linked to the sale of the business are complicating current positions but work to reach a mutually agreeable outcome continues.
First Fare Capping Pilot in Doncaster
On 30 September, First South Yorkshire launched a fare capping pilot on its services in Doncaster. Branded as ‘Tap & Cap’, the customer will be charged a flat fare of £2 per journey with a daily cap of £4.70 and a weekly cap £16.50. Customers can still purchase other tickets from the driver by asking for a ticket before presenting their card and can continue to purchase mobile (MTickets) prior to boarding. Tram Commentary Patronage on the Supertram network continues to be well below the levels seen prior to rail replacement works. At present it is too early to see if patronage will recover after this year’s works which saw a protracted period of disruption on the Tram Patronage by Period by Year network out to Hillsborough, Middlewood and Malin Bridge. Tram punctuality is at 90.71% and Tram-Train is at 82.82%. Fleet performance is 1,200,000 still below target. Further discussions have been held with Stadler to understand when or if they expect the Citylink fleet to hit target. Stadler has advised that with 1,100,000 the modifications they are making they expect to hit target by December 2019. The Siemens fleet continues to suffer with reliability issues as a result of obsolescence and the general age of the vehicles. Due to rail replacement a 1,000,000 number of services terminated at Cathedral. The design of the Cathedral stop means that trams have to quickly turnaround leaving no recovery time, hence this impacted on reliability over the period. 900,000 Rail replacement works have been completed for 2019, as noted above much of the work concentrated on the leg out towards Hillsborough. In addition to the 3 800,000 cracks identified at Hillsborough corner a further rail crack was identified at
Page 213 Page University Curve during works over the August Bank Holiday. We are currently working with Stagecoach Supertram and VolkerRail to try and reach a conclusion 700,000 on the cause and therefore liability for these breaks. A lessons learned for this P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 year’s works has been held.
2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 The Executive Director and Tram Concession Manager had a productive meeting with the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) regarding delivery of the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) recommendations following the Croydon Tram overturning at Sandilands. The ORR has made it clear that by Christmas they need to see some demonstrable progress in the delivery of the recommendations. Tram Punctuality Some of the potential control measures such as speed control and driver vigilance 90.71% could have a significant implementation costs associated with them. Tram Reliability Timeline Today 99.31% May '19 Jun '19 Jul '19 Aug '19 Sep '19 Oct '19 Nov '19 Dec '19 Jan '20 Feb '20 Mar '20 Start Mass Transit OBC Submission Finish Tram-Train Punctuality Mon 01/04/19 Mon 01/04/19 - Mon 23/03/20 Mon 30/03/20 Tram Train - Magna Stop Feasibility Study 82.82% Mon 01/04/19 - Thu 28/11/19 Tram-Train Reliability Parkgate Park and Ride Mon 01/04/19 - Thu 28/11/19 ✔Supertram Rail Replacement Phase 2 Year 2 94.93% Fri 19/04/19 - Fri 30/08/19 Rail Commentary Due to delays to new train delivery and the subsequent cascade of existing trains to our region, it is now clear that Northern will need to keep around 23 of its Pacer Rail Patronage by Period by Year trains in passenger service temporarily beyond the end of 2019. Northern are engaging with their Accessibility User Group to test some mitigation proposals to 900,000 put in place to address the non-compliance for persons with reduced mobility. These proposals will form the basis of an application to the DfT for a temporary dispensation from the regulations. The Pacers will continue to temporarily 800,000 operate on the following routes in South Yorkshire: Sheffield to Adwick, Huddersfield and Gainsborough Central and Doncaster to Scunthorpe, Sheffield to York. Whilst this situation is clearly unwelcome, the alternative is a potentially 700,000 worse situation of having to cancel trains and / or reduce capacity. The SYPTE Rail Team are currently in discussions with Northern to develop proposals for 600,000 meaningful compensation for those passengers that will have to rely on Pacer trains beyond the end of the year.
Page 214 Page 500,000 Working in partnership with local councillors and charity Start a Heart 24/7, the Rail Team have secured and installed a defib and cabinet at Swinton Rail Station. This is the beginning of a wider project to roll defibs out to all South Yorkshire 400,000 stations that do not already have one within 600m, the next station to benefit will P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 be Dore & Totley. 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Rotherham Central, Barnsley and Meadowhall stations have all been successful in achieving reaccreditation in the Secure Stations scheme which is an opportunity for station operators to demonstrate how they are working with partners to reduce crime and play a greater role in safeguarding vulnerable people at stations. Having an accredited station provides reassurance to both passengers and staff On Time that the station is as safe and secure an environment as possible. 47.14% Today
PPM Timeline May '19 Jun '19 Jul '19 Aug '19 Sep '19 Oct '19 Nov '19 Dec '19 Jan '20 Feb '20 Mar '20 Start Dore and Totley Park and Ride Extension Finish 75.94% Mon 01/04/19 Mon 01/04/19 - Fri 20/03/20 Fri 27/03/20 Transforming Cities Fund Final Bid Submission Cancelled/Significantly Late Thu 27/06/19 - Thu 28/11/19
4.19% Northern Timetable Rail Fare Increase Change Thu 02/01/20 Sun 15/12/19 Infrastructure Commentary Rotherham Interchange C platform and car park re-opened on 15 July. We continue to work our way through the list of snagging items in relation to electrical Interchange Footfall and IT infrastructure installed by Interserve (ICL). ARUP will be instructing ICL 700000 shortly on our latest position. SYPTE have still not received a full set of O&M manuals from ICL, nor have they received a proposal on how ICL intend to resolve a recently identified cladding issue on the car park which was due to their 600000 installation method. There remain some issues with the installation and operation of the CCTV equipment which requires resolution. 500000 SYPTE have awarded the 10 year on street advertising contract (total value £9.1m) 400000 to Alight Media. Their contract commenced on 2 October but will see a period of transition through to December whilst Clear Channel remove their assets and 300000 Alight install their own. We have agreed to remove the 5-year break clause from the contract as this works in the best interests of both parties. Page 215 Page 200000 In preparation for Noonan contract expiry in March 2021, we have commenced the work required to understand what specification outputs are needed in a future 100000 contract to inform our procurement approach. It should be noted that pressures resulting from the requirement to provide the national living wage on this contract 0 is expected to see tender prices increase to cover this premium. Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2019 2019 2019 2019
Arundel Gate Barnsley Doncaster Dinnington
Hillsborough Meadowhall Rotherham Sheffield
Today
Timeline May '19 Jun '19 Jul '19 Aug '19 Sep '19 Oct '19 Nov '19 Dec '19 Jan '20 Feb '20 Mar '20 Start ✔Rotherham Interchange Finish Mon 01/04/19 Mon 01/04/19 - Mon 15/07/19 Fri 27/03/20 ✔Advertising Contract Renewal Mon 01/04/19 - Wed 02/10/19 Meadowhall Interchange Toilet Refurbishment Mon 01/04/19 - Fri 27/03/20 Transforming Cities Fund Final Bid Submission Thu 27/06/19 - Thu 28/11/19 Customer Services Commentary Summer contact centre call volumes have increased in line with usual seasonal Call Performance Pass Applications trends. Call demand driven has been driven by child travel pass application queries in advance of new school term time, school bus service queries, and information 25000 10000 requests regarding the September Service Changes (route changes, withdrawn 9000 services, new timetables). 20000 8000 Volumes regarding service changes increased dramatically as August and 7000 September progressed, with the last week of August seeing 5,900 calls offered to 15000 6000 the team (versus 4,200 in the first week of August). September saw a total of 5000 23,700 calls offered, up 12% on August, though lower than September 2018 10000 4000 (24,300), despite the fact that the changes this year were far more substantial than those made to the network last year. 3000 5000 2000 Handling times have also increased due to this change in call profile, due to Page 216 Page 1000 complexity and nature of these call types. 0 0 Call answer rate for the year to date (up to end September) is 81.5% against a
target of 82% but given that September is traditionally the busiest month of the
Jul-19
Jan-19
Jun-19
Oct-18
Apr-19
Feb-19 Sep-19
Dec-18
Aug-19
Nov-18 Mar-19 May-19 year we expect to get back ahead of target in the coming months. Offered Answered Paper Online Pass application volumes increased in advance of summer for school passes (11-16 and 16-18) peaking at 9,400 in August; an anticipated trend that is planned for, and pass application wait times have remained well inside SLA’s. Complaints 800 700 600 Today 500 Timeline May '19 Jun '19 Jul '19 Aug '19 Sep '19 Oct '19 Nov '19 Dec '19 Jan '20 Feb '20 Mar '20 400 Start Stagecoach Product Sales on TVM's Finish Mon 01/04/19 Mon 30/03/20 300 Mon 01/04/19 - Mon 04/11/19 200 ✔Re-launch sypte.co.uk Website Replacement Journey Planner Mon 01/04/19 - Mon 22/07/19 Thu 01/08/19 - Mon 30/03/20 100 Transforming Cities Fund Final Bid Submission
0 Thu 27/06/19 - Thu 28/11/19
Jul-19
Jan-19
Jun-19
Oct-18
Apr-19 Feb-19
Sep-18 National Customer Services Week
Dec-18
Aug-18
Nov-18 Mar-19 May-19 Mon 07/10/19 Finance Commentary The revenue budget outturn for Q1 was £15.261m against a budget of £15.169m resulting in a £92k (0.6%) adverse variance. Concessionary travel was over spent SYPTE 2019/20 Budget by £122k for Q1. 12 Month Out turn Variance to Variance Variance to Negotiations with First for their reimbursement rates for both child and ENCTS are Budget Forecast Budget to Budget prior period ongoing, although it should be noted that these are being calculated (£m) (£m) (£m) (%) (£m) independently for the purpose of the full year forecast. For the ENCTS rate we have re-forecast patronage for all operators in 2019/20 and updated reimbursement rates for all operators. As negotiations are not yet Q1 59.7 60.2 (0.5) -0.8% - complete and the current arrangements are due to run until 31 March 2020, the Q2 year-end forecast is presently based on there being no changes made to the First fixed rate deal. This give a forecast underspend of £90k for the full year. Q3 The patronage and reimbursement rates for all operators have also been updated Q4 and included in the full year forecast for Child (Notified & Zero fares). In addition,
Page 217 Page the model used for calculating the child reimbursement has been reviewed to provide a ‘realistic’ rate for the now expired First deal, this included updating Corporate Governance Actions several factors within the model. The total impact of these forecast changes is a projected full year overspend of £638k on Child concessions (all operators) and Actions Actions Actions £237k on departure charges. Due Completed Deferred At the end of Q1, there was an under spend of £13k. A full review of the current Q1 12 2 5 and planned contracts has been completed by the Bus Services team, with the resulting full year forecast position being an underspend of £28k. Q2 Q3 Q4 Risks 7.1%
36.5% High Medium Low
56.5% This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 16
TRANSPORT BOARD
25th October 2019
Performance Dashboard
Purpose of Report
This paper and accompanying performance dashboards provide board members with up to date performance information on transport programmes delivered by the SCR 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 Performance dashboards for the transport programmes of the LEP and MCA are attached for members to review - • Transforming Cities Fund (Tranche 1) - Appendix 1 • Access Fund for Sustainable Travel – Appendix 2 • Local Growth Fund - Appendix 3 • SCR Borrowing – Appendix 4 • Transport Activity – Appendix 5
2. Proposal and justification
2.1 The following is a summary of performance by programme -
Page 219
2.1.1 Transforming Cities Fund (Tranche 1) Further programme detail is provided in Appendix 1a A full performance dashboard is provided at Appendix 1b
In 2018 £4.224m was awarded for a programme of capital works focused on active travel initiatives to strengthen connectivity of key digital and manufacturing assets along the Growth Innovation Corridor (GIC). The programme forms the next stage of the economic growth strategy as articulated in SCR’s Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) by providing enhanced access to opportunities for residents and businesses alike.
Outputs and Outcomes The agreed outputs and outcomes for the programme are - • Active travel projects (works) - 11 • Number of walking journeys - 3421 • Number of cycling journeys - 2023
Performance Summary Two projects are contracted and delivering, with the third to be signed imminently, whilst delivery of works progresses alongside. The outcomes are due to be delivered in 2020/21.
Management Action Quarterly monitoring is in place, during which any appropriate remedial action will be agreed.
2.1.2 Access Fund for Sustainable Travel Further programme detail is provided in Appendix 2a A full performance dashboard is provided at Appendix 2b
The Department for Transport (DfT) allocated £7.5m revenue funding in 2017 for a 3-year programme. The activity continues to build upon the Sustainable Travel Transition Year programme and aims to assist local growth by supporting access to employment, education and training, and increasing levels of physical activity through walking and cycling.
Outputs and Outcomes The programme has 73 separate outcomes categorised across 10 work packages. A selection of outcomes has been summarised in the performance dashboard to show the nature of activity and provide a fair overview of progress to date - • Individuals receiving cycle training – 5,975 • Cycle loans (regular or electric) – 2,080 • Schools engaged in Active Travel sessions - 426 • Cycles checked/serviced – 8,679 • Wheels to Work scooter loans – 450 • Passengers on Job Connector bus services (per week) – 36,300 • Number of vehicles receiving ECO Stars rating – 500 • Learning disabled young people and adults receiving independent travel training – 240 • Number of individuals engaged at cycle safety event – 9,850 • Walking Boosts participants – 2,274
Performance summary An underspend of £4,382 has been rolled into the 2019/20 allocation, this figure may increase slightly pending receipt of the final outturn position by scheme promoters. Overall
Page 220
the programme is making strong progress in delivering the outcomes, with these currently being disaggregated for 2018/19 to align with contractual reporting requirements.
Management Action Monthly review meetings are being held for the final year of the programme to facilitate pro-active management of any risks. Risk is affected by funding availability beyond the end of the current programme, an update on this has been provided under a separate paper. The 2018/19 achievement targets will be updated upon receipt of disaggregated data.
2.1.3 Local Growth Fund Further programme detail is provided in Appendix 3a A full performance dashboard is provided at Appendix 3b
From a total Local Growth Fund (LGF) programme of £360m, £24.23m is committed for five projects developed to provide the enabling transport infrastructure to support SCR’s growth ambitions. Business cases for a further two projects are in development with potentially £8.51m of funding subject to approval.
Outputs and Outcomes The deliverables for transport schemes in the programme are – • Length of road resurface – 2km • New cycles ways – 44km • Commercial floorspace created – 940,000sqm
Performance Summary At the end of Q1 2019/20, funding is 99% claimed for contracted projects with the remaining grant due to be claimed by the end of 2021. The outcomes achieved to date include 100% of new cycle ways, as well as 3.3km of Supertram rails replaced and an enhanced Midland Mainline. The delivery of the remaining outcomes is subject to the approval and successful delivery of the projects in pipeline.
Management Action Projects in pipeline are to be considered as part of the LGF programme review, with updates provided in due course.
2.1.4 SCR Borrowing Further programme detail is provided in Appendix 4a A full performance dashboard is provided at Appendix 4b
Borrowing was sought in 2018 to support two key infrastructure refurbishment projects to facilitate enhancement of transport provision within South Yorkshire.
Outputs and Outcomes The projects were approved to deliver - • Fully operational interchange and car park - 1 • New rail track – 10km
Performance Summary One project has reported 100% achievement of spend and delivery of a fully operational interchange and car park. The second project notes 36% spend of the allocated funding
Page 221
to date and the outcome of 10km of new rail track forecast to be completed in full during 2020/21.
Management Action No remedial action has been put in place as the trajectory indicates all outcomes will be achieved on target.
2.1.5 Transport Activity Further programme detail is provided in Appendix 5a A full performance dashboard is provided at Appendix 5b
DfT funding of £2,028,569 is committed to deliver two projects that are focused on enabling investment in transport infrastructure and improving local air quality, to assist delivery of SCR’s commitment to attract investment to the UK.
Outputs and Outcomes The projects were approved to deliver - • New low and ultra-low emission buses - 44 • Production of Mass Transit Outline Business Case - 1
Performance Summary The delayed spend and outputs for both projects are due to be fully achieved this financial year.
Management Action Enhanced risk management will be implemented, and appropriate remedial action agreed.
3. Consideration of alternative approaches
3.1 The performance dashboards are the first iteration of data for the Executive Board. Members can shape how the projects are grouped for presentation within the dashboards, and the data and 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 governance requirements.
4.2 Legal Contracts are in place for all projects/programmes where the MCA is the accountable body.
4.3 Risk Management Risks on all projects are recorded, discussed during review meetings and mitigation actions are agreed and escalated as appropriate. The presentation of risks within the programme dashboards can be revised if members require further oversight of these matters.
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 222
5. Communications
5.1 All existing projects form part of the organisation’s communication plans.
6. Appendices/Annexes
6.1 Appendix 1(a) and (b) the Transforming Cities Fund (Tranche 1) Appendix 2(a) and (b) the Access Fund for Sustainable Travel Appendix 3(a) and (b) the Local Growth Fund Appendix 4(a) and (b) the SCR Borrowing Appendix 5(a) and (b) the Transport Activity
REPORT AUTHOR Charli Taylor POST Programme and Performance Unit Officer responsible Ruth Adams 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 223 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 Approved
Timescale: 2018-2021 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 the exiting work through the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan;
Page 225 Page Enhanced public transport information; and Building on the current Clean Air Zone proposals. Target Beneficiaries: Cyclists Pedestrians Public transport users Outcomes:h 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: Q1 2019/20
Financial Progress
Department for Transport (DfT) Pending £4,500,000 Transforming Cities Fund (Tranche 1) - Funding Profile £4,500,000 Funding In Contract Contract Total Complete In delivery Pending Contract Pipeline £4,244,000 Projects (No.) 3 0 2 1 0 £4,000,000 £4,000,000 £4,244,000 £3,264,000 £980,000 DfT Funding (£) £4,244,000 £0 £3,264,000 £980,000 £0 £3,500,000 £3,500,000
£3,000,000 £3,000,000 This Quarter Financial Year Total DfT Funding 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30 £2,500,000 £2,500,000 Baseline £0 £0 £0 £0 £4,244,000 £0 £0 £0 £4,244,000 Actual to Date £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £2,000,000 £2,000,000 Forecast £0 £0 £0 £0 £4,244,000 £0 £0 £0 £4,244,000 Variance £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £1,500,000 £1,500,000 % Progress - - - - 0% - - - 0% £1,000,000 £1,000,000
Financial Progress Comments: £500,000 £500,000 Three projects form this programme: 'Rotherham Town Centre Active Travel Package', 'River Don Corridor Active Travel Package', and 'Sheffield Package of Cycling Infrastructure Improvements'. The first of these is currently pending contract and the latter two are in delivery. Scheme promoters assert that all funding will be spent and claimed during the 2019/20 financial year, with claims commencing in Q2 2019/20. £0 £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
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 - 0 0 0 0 0 3,421 0 0 3,421 Actual to Date 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,500 1,500 Forecast - 0 0 0 0 0 3,421 0 0 3,421 Variance - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 % Progress ------0% - - 0% 3,421 1,000 2,032 Number of Cycling Journeys (per day) 1,500 Baseline - 0 0 0 0 0 2,032 0 0 2,032 Actual to Date 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 Forecast - 0 0 0 0 0 2,032 0 0 2,032 500 Variance - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 % Progress ------0% - - 0% 0 0 0 0 Actual to Date Remaining Total Actual to Date Remaining Total
Outputs / Outcomes Comments: Outcomes are currently on target to be delivered in 2020/21. Project Stages 3 £3,500,000 £3,264,000
£3,000,000 Risk Log 2 2
Likelihood Impact Score £2,500,000 Risk No. Risk Event Consequence Mitigation (1-5) (1-5) (1-25) 2 Majority of works by in house Highway £2,000,000 1 Project costs increase Additional funding to be sourced Delivery Team which enable more 1 3 3 flexibility on programme and costs 1 £1,500,000 1 £980,000 Majority of works by in house Highway 2 Project programme over run Additional resource and costs Delivery Team which enable more 1 3 3 flexibility on programme and costs £1,000,000
Thorough testing of forecasts prior to 3 Inability to deliver outcomes Under performance against DfT bid 1 2 2 1 bid submission £500,000 £0 0 £0 0 Risk Assessment Risk Assessment Comments: 0 £0 High confidence from scheme promoters that projects can be delivered to time and cost within original anticipated baselines, although one of three projects not yet being in Complete In delivery Pending Contract Pipeline AG contract does raise some concerns. Page 227 Page This page is intentionally left blank SCR TRANSPORT BOARD PROGRAMME GLOSSARY Appendix 2a
Scheme Name: Access Fund for Sustainable Travel Funder: Department for Transport Programme value: £7,500,000 Deliverers and Contract Promoter Projects Funding Status Values: Sheffield City Council Access Fund for Sustainable Travel £2,322,495 In Delivery Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Access Fund for Sustainable Travel £1,101,639 In Delivery Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Access Fund for Sustainable Travel £896,927 In Delivery Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Access Fund for Sustainable Travel £743,251 In Delivery South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive Access Fund for Sustainable Travel £2,360,688 In Delivery Programme management fee Access Fund for Sustainable Travel £75,000 In Delivery
Timescale: 2017-2021 (3-year programme) 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 increase the independence of young people and adults with learning disabilities through the provision of independent travel training
Page 229 Page 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: Work Package Project Outcomes Baseline % Progress Cycle Boosts Individuals Receiving Cycle Training 5,975 62% Cycle Boosts Cycle Loans (Regular or Electric) 2,080 36% In School Active Travel Schools Engaged in Active Travel Sessions (Walking or Cycling) 426 34% Cycle Boosts Cycles Checked/Serviced 8,679 19% Wheels 2 Work Wheels to Work Scooter Loans 450 49% Job Connector Passengers on Job Connector Bus Services 36,300 0% ECO Stars Number of Vehicles Receiving an ECO Stars Rating 500 211% Independent Travel Training Learning Disabled Young People and Adults Receiving Independent Travel Training 240 69% Cycle Boosts Number of Individuals Engaged at Cycle Safety Event 9,850 18% Walking Boosts Walking Boost Participants 2,274 17%
This page is intentionally left blank Executive Board: Transport - Access Fund for Sustainable Travel This Quarter: Q1 2019/20
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.) 5 0 5 0 0 £7,500,000 £7,500,000 £0 £7,000,000 DfT Funding (£) £7,500,000 £0 £7,500,000 £0 £0 £2,500,000 £6,000,000 This Quarter Financial Year £2,000,000 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 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 0 0 0 7,500,000 £1,500,000 £4,000,000 Actual to Date £0 0 0 2,500,000 2,495,618 0 0 0 0 4,995,618 Forecast 0 0 0 0 2,504,382 0 0 0 2,504,382 £3,000,000 Variance 0 0 0 -4,382 4,382 0 0 0 0 £1,000,000 % Progress - - 100% 100% 0% - - - 67% £2,000,000 £500,000 £1,000,000 Financial Progress Comments: The minor underspend within 2018/19 was approved by DfT to be added to the 2019/20 funding allocation. SCC and BMBC have submitted their first claims as part of the Q2 monitoring returns, with claims forms also expected from £0 £0 DMBC, RMBC and SYPTE. 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 7,000 2,500 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30 Training Sessions (Walking 10,000 500 or Cycling) Individuals Receiving Cycle Training 450 Baseline - 0 0 2,125 2,925 925 0 0 0 5,975 9,000 450 Actual to Date - 0 0 3,697 0 0 0 0 0 3,697 6,000 Forecast 0 0 0 2,925 925 0 0 0 3,850 2,000 400 RemainingVariance Total - 0 0 1,572 0 0 0 0 0 1,572 8,000 400 0 0 -1,572 2,925 925 0 0 0 2,278 % Progress - - - 174% 0% 0% - - - 62% 5,000 350 Cycle Loans (Regular or Electric) 2,278 7,000 350 Baseline - 0 0 520 780 780 0 0 0 2,080 230 Actual to Date - 0 0 749 0 0 0 0 0 749 Forecast 0 0 0 780 780 0 0 0 1,560 1,500 300 6,000 300 280 Variance - 0 0 229 0 0 0 0 0 229 4,000 1,331 % Progress - - - 144% 0% 0% - - - 36% 6,993 250 5,000 250 Schools Engaged in Active Travel Sessions (Walking or Cycling) Baseline - 0 0 130 142 154 0 0 0 426 3,000 Actual to Date - 0 0 146 0 0 0 0 0 146 200 4,000 200 Forecast 0 0 0 142 154 0 0 0 296 1,000 Variance - 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 % Progress - - - 112% 0% 0% - - - 34% 150 3,000 150 2,000 Cycles Checked/Serviced 3,697 Baseline - 0 0 2,143 2,893 3,643 0 0 0 8,679 220 Actual to Date - 0 0 1,686 0 0 0 0 0 1,686 100 2,000 100 500 Forecast 0 0 0 2,893 3,643 0 0 0 6,536 146 Variance - 0 0 -457 0 0 0 0 0 -457 1,000 749 50 1,000 % Progress - - - 79% 0% 0% - - - 19% 1,686 50 Wheels to Work Scooter Loans Baseline - 0 0 150 150 150 0 0 0 450 0 0 0 Actual to Date - 0 0 220 0 0 0 0 0 220 0 0 Remaining Total Remaining Total Remaining Total Remaining Total Forecast 0 0 0 150 150 0 0 0 300 Remaining Total Variance - 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 70 Actual to Date Actual to Date Actual to Date Actual to Date Actual to Date % Progress - - - 147% 0% 0% - - - 49%
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 Services (per week) Stars Rating Adults Receiving at Cycle Safety 2,500 Actual to Date 0 0 0 12,100 12,650 0 0 0 24,750 1,200 Independent Travel Event RemainingVariance Total - 0 0 -11,550 0 0 0 0 0 -11,550 0 0 11,550 12,100 12,650 0 0 0 36,300 35,000 Training 10,000 % Progress - - - 0% 0% 0% - - - 0% 250 Number of Vehicles Receiving an ECO Stars Rating 9,000 Baseline - 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 500 1,000 2,000 Actual to Date - 0 0 1,053 0 0 0 0 0 1,053 30,000 Forecast 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,000 Variance - 0 0 553 0 0 0 0 0 553 200 75 % Progress - - - 211% - - - - - 211% 25,000 7,000 Learning Disabled Young People and Adults Receiving Independent Travel Training 800 Baseline - 0 0 80 80 80 0 0 0 240 1,500 Actual to Date - 0 0 165 0 0 0 0 0 165 6,000 Forecast 0 0 0 80 80 0 0 0 160 20,000 150 8,067 1,887 Variance - 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 85 36,300 600 % Progress - - - 206% 0% 0% - - - 69% 5,000 1,053 Number of Individuals Engaged at Cycle Safety Event 15,000 1,000 4,000 Baseline - 0 0 2,600 3,250 4,000 0 0 0 9,850 100 Actual to Date - 0 0 1,783 0 0 0 0 0 1,783 400 Forecast 0 0 0 3,250 4,000 0 0 0 7,250 165 3,000 Variance - 0 0 -817 0 0 0 0 0 -817 10,000 % Progress - - - 69% 0% 0% - - - 18% 500 Walking Boost Participants 2,000 200 50 Baseline - 0 0 758 758 758 0 0 0 2,274 5,000 Actual to Date - 0 0 387 0 0 0 0 0 387 1,000 Forecast 0 0 0 758 758 0 0 0 1,516 1,783 387 Variance - 0 0 -371 0 0 0 0 0 -371 % Progress - - - 51% 0% 0% - - - 17% 0 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. Annual performance information reported to DfT as a programme of activity for 2018/19 - the disaggregation of the performance data between scheme promoters is due to be received in Q2 2019/20. 6 Project Stages £8,000,000 £7,500,000
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 £5,000,000 Activity robustly budgeted and 1 Project costs increase Additional funding to be sourced 1 3 3 managed 3 £4,000,000 Activity and spend within programme 2020/21 funding for activity (outside decreases due to resourcing issues Early negotiations with DfT to source 2 1 3 3 £3,000,000 of current programme) not confirmed and requirements to wind down ongoing funding of similar activity 2 activity Thorough testing of forecasts prior to £2,000,000 bid submission and under 3 Inability to deliver outcomes Under performance against DfT bid 1 2 2 performance managed via agreed 1 change control £0 £1,000,000 £0 0 £0 0 0 Risk Assessment Risk Assessment Comments: 0 £0 Risk assessment based on positive progress in terms of delivery and spend made by the programme to date, but with acknowledgement that performance data for 2018/19 is Complete In delivery Pending Contract Pipeline AG due to be disaggregated. Page 231 Page This page is intentionally left blank SCR TRANSPORT BOARD PROGRAMME GLOSSARY Appendix 3a
Scheme Name: Transport - Local Growth Fund Funder: Local Growth Fund Programme value: £32,751,280 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 £1,985,760 In Delivery Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Greasbrough Corridor Improvements £3,518,236 Pipeline Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council A630 Westmoor Link £5,000,000 Pipeline
Timescale: 2015-2021 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
Page 233 Page Pedestrians Cyclists Outcomes: Project Outcomes Baseline Progress (%) Length of road resurfaced (km) 2.34 0% New cycle ways (km) 44.41 100% Commercial floorspace created (sqm) 940,000 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 0% Transport modelling tool 1 0%
This page is intentionally left blank Executive Board: Transport - Local Growth Fund
This Quarter: Q1 2019/20
Financial Progress
Pending £14,000,000 Local Growth Fund - Funding Profile £35,000,000 Local Growth Fund In Contract Contract Total Complete In delivery Pending Contract Pipeline £32,751,280 Projects (No.) 7 4 1 0 2 £32,751,280 £24,233,044 £0 Local Growth Fund (£) £32,751,280 £22,247,285 £1,985,760 £0 £8,518,236 £12,000,000 £30,000,000
£10,000,000 £25,000,000 This Quarter Financial Year Total Local Growth Fund 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30 £23,964,486 Baseline £3,075,000 £7,934,114 £12,419,613 £535,760 £2,900,196 £5,786,598 £100,000 £0 £32,751,280 £8,000,000 £20,000,000 Actual to Date £0 £3,075,000 £7,934,114 £12,419,613 £535,760 £0 £0 £0 £0 £23,964,486 Forecast £0 £0 £0 £0 £2,815,378 £5,871,416 £100,000 £0 £8,786,794 £6,000,000 £15,000,000 Variance £0 £0 £0 £0 -£84,818 £84,818 £0 £0 £0 % Progress 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% - 73% £4,000,000 £10,000,000
Financial Progress Comments: £2,000,000 £5,000,000 The programme is comprised of 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 financially complete, with Strategic Testing Tools anticipating claiming its remaining funding during the current financial year. Of the two pipeline projects, it is anticipated that both financial profiles will require revision. £0 £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
Length of Road Resurfaced (km) New Cycle Ways (km) Commercial floorspace created (sqm) Financial Year 50 1,000,000 This Quarter Total 2.50 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30 45 0.00 900,000 Length of Road Resurfaced (km) Baseline - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 2.00 0.00 2.34 2.00 40 800,000 Actual to Date - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Forecast 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 2.00 0.00 2.34 35 700,000 Variance - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Progress ------0% 0% - 0% 1.50 30 600,000 New Cycle Ways (km) Baseline - 0 13 31 0 0 0 0 0 44 25 500,000 Actual to Date - 0 13 31 0 0 0 0 0 44 2.34 940,000 Forecast 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 1.00 20 400,000 Variance - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Progress - - 100% 100% - - - - - 100% 15 300,000 Commercial floorspace created (sqm) Baseline - 0 0 0 0 0 220,000 720,000 0 940,000 0.50 10 200,000 Actual to Date - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Forecast 0 0 0 0 0 220,000 720,000 0 940,000 100,000 Variance - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 % Progress ------0% 0% - 0% 0.00 0.00 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 4
Risk Log £20,000,000 4
Likelihood Impact Score Risk No. Risk Event Consequence Mitigation (1-5) (1-5) (1-25) 3 Funding unavailable for pipeline £15,000,000 Pipeline projects may not go ahead, or Programme and pipeline review 1 projects due to LGF programme 3 5 15 3 may require alternative funding currently ongoing being over-subscribed 2 Project costs are robust and 2 Funding requirement estimates for Additional funding to be sourced thoroughly checked, including £8,518,236 2 1 4 4 £10,000,000 pipeline projects inaccurate otherwise projects no longer viable estimates for inflation and contingency as appropriate 2
Robust assurance framework and 1 FBC submission not an acceptable Full approval and delivery not 1 3 strong support from SCR Executive on 2 4 8 £5,000,000 standard achievable project requirements 1 £0 £1,985,760 0 Risk Assessment Risk Assessment Comments: 0 £0 Risk assessment based on the majority of the projects being financially complete. However, the potential delays to the pipeline projects are causing concerns. Complete In delivery Pending Contract Pipeline AG Page 235 Page This page is intentionally left blank SCR TRANSPORT BOARD PROGRAMME GLOSSARY Appendix 4a
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% New rail track (km) 10 0%
Page 237 Page
This page is intentionally left blank Executive Board: Transport - Sheffield City Region (SCR) Borrowing
This Quarter: Q1 2019/20
Financial Progress
Pending £20,000,000.00 SCR Borrowing - Funding Profile SCR Borrowing In Contract Contract Total Complete In delivery Pending Contract Pipeline Projects (No.) 2 1 1 0 0 £26,712,378 £26,712,378 £0 £18,000,000.00 SCR Borrowing (£) £ 26,712,378.00 £11,866,000 £14,846,378 £0 £0 £16,000,000.00
This Quarter Financial Year £14,000,000.00 Total SCR Borrowing 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30 £12,000,000.00 CumulativeBaseline (B) £0 £0 £0 £17,146,004 £6,109,506 £3,456,868 £0 £0 £26,712,378 £0 £0 £0 £17,146,004 £23,255,510 £26,712,378 £26,712,378 £26,712,378 CumulativeActual to Date (A) £0 £0 £0 £17,036,247 £0 £0 £0 £0 £17,036,247 £10,000,000.00 £0 £0 £0 £17,036,247 £17,036,247 £17,036,247 £17,036,247 £17,036,247 CumulativeForecast (F) £0 £0 £0 £0 £6,219,263 £3,456,868 £0 £0 £9,676,131 £0 £0 £0 £0 £6,219,263 £9,676,131 £9,676,131 £9,676,131 £35,247,656 £8,000,000.00 Variance £0 £0 £0 -£109,757 £109,757 £0 £0 £0 £0 % Progress - - - 99% 0% 0% - - 64% £6,000,000.00
£4,000,000.00 Financial Progress Comments: The programme is comprised of two projects: 'Supertram Rail Replacement (Phase 2)' and 'Rotherham Interchange Redevelopment'. Some minor slippage of spend for Supertram Rail Replacement (Phase 2) from 2018/19 which is to be £2,000,000.00 claimed this financial year. £- 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20
Baseline Actual to Date Cumulative (B)
Outputs / Outcomes
New Rail Track (km) Financial Year 10 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 - 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 7 Actual to Date - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Forecast 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 6 Variance - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 % Progress ------0% - - 0% 10 Fully Operational Interchange and Car Park 4 Baseline - 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 Actual to Date - 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Forecast 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Variance - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Progress - - - - - 100% - - - 100% 1 0 0 Actual to Date Remaining Total 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 in 2020/21. 1 £14,846,378 1 1 Risk Log 1 £11,866,000
Likelihood Impact Score 1 Risk No. Risk Event Consequence Mitigation (1-5) (1-5) (1-25) The completion of the remaining Project extension and possible Robust management and mitigation of 1 1 3 3 1 works are delayed increased costs any risks
Robust management and mitigation of 2 Increase of projects costs Additional match funding to be sought 1 3 3 any risks 0 Early surveys to inform standard 3 Works not to required standard Project extension and cost increases 1 3 3 requirements 0
Risk Assessment Risk Assessment Comments: 0
Page 239 Page Overall risk assessment based on one of the two projects that comprises this programme being complete and the second having already made substantial progress. AG Complete In delivery Pending Contract Page 240 Page Financial Progress
Funding Profile £30,000,000.00
£26,712,378 £25,000,000.00
£20,000,000.00
£15,000,000.00
£10,000,000.00
£5,000,000.00
£- 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30
Cumulative (B) Cumulative (A)
Outputs / Outcomes
Fully Operational Interchange and Car Park 1
1
0 Actual to Date
Project Stages
£16,000,000
£14,000,000
£12,000,000
£10,000,000
£8,000,000
£6,000,000
£4,000,000
£0 £2,000,000 £0 0 0 £0 Pending Contract Pipeline SCR TRANSPORT BOARD PROGRAMME GLOSSARY Appendix 5a
Scheme Name: Transport Activity Funder: Department for Transport Programme value: £2,028,569 Deliverers and Contract Promoter Projects Funding Status Values: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive Low Emission Bus Scheme £1,293,638 In Delivery 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
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 Highway users Pedestrians Outcomes: Project Outcomes Baseline % Progress Low emission buses purchased 44 41%
Page 241 Page Production of outline business case 1 0%
This page is intentionally left blank Executive Board: Transport - Transport Activity
This Quarter: Q1 2019/20
Financial Progress
Department for Transport (DfT) Pending £1,400,000 Transport Activity - Funding Profile Funding In Contract Contract Total Complete In delivery Pending Contract Pipeline Projects (No.) 3 0 3 0 0 £2,028,569 £2,028,569 £0 DfT Funding (£) £2,028,569 £0 £2,028,569 £0 £0 £1,200,000
£1,000,000 This Quarter Financial Year Total DfT Funding 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30 £800,000 CumulativeBaseline (B) £0 £0 £1,293,638 £630,331 £104,600 £0 £0 £0 £2,028,569 £0 £0 £1,293,638 £1,923,969 £2,028,569 £2,028,569 £2,028,569 £2,028,569 CumulativeActual to Date (A) £499,500 £0 £0 £0 £505,824 £559,651 £0 £0 £0 £1,065,475 £0 £0 £0 £505,824 £1,065,475 £1,065,475 £1,065,475 £1,065,475 CumulativeForecast (F) £0 £0 £0 £0 £963,094 £0 £0 £0 £963,094 £600,000 £0 £0 £0 £0 £963,094 £963,094 £963,094 £963,094 Variance £0 £0 -£1,293,638 -£124,507 £1,418,145 £0 £0 £0 £0 % Progress - - 0% 80% 535% - - - 53% £400,000
£200,000 Financial Progress Comments: The programme is comprised of two projects: 'Sheffield City Region Mass Transit Outline Business Case ' and 'Low Emission Bus Scheme'. Both projects anticipate that previously delayed drawdown of funding will now be claimed during the current financial year, with a substantial claim received from the latter during Q1 2019/20. £0 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20
Baseline Actual to Date Cumulative (B)
Outputs / Outcomes
Production of Outline Business Case Financial Year 1 This Quarter Total 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30 1 Production of Outline Business Case Baseline - 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Actual to Date - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Forecast 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 RemainingVariance Total - 0 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 % Progress - - - - 0% - - - - 0% 1 Number of Low Emission Buses 1 Baseline - 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 44 0 Actual to Date - 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 18 Forecast 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 26 RemainingVariance Total - 0 0 0 -26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 26 0 % Progress - - - - 41% - - - - 41%
0 0 Actual to Date Remaining Total Outputs / Outcomes Comments: Both projects anticipate delivery of the delayed outputs/outcomes during the current financial year.
4 Project Stages
3 Risk Log 3 £2,028,569
Likelihood Impact Score 3 Risk No. Risk Event Consequence Mitigation (1-5) (1-5) (1-25)
1 Poor quality OBC submission No DfT funding Robust management 1 5 5 2
Delays in delivery of low emission bus 2 2 Staff Changes project due to recruitment or handover Succession plan in place. 1 1 1 requirements. 1 Technology on low emission buses Manufacturer estimates used until test 3 Project will not have desired impacts 1 1 1 under-performs certificates can be obtained. 1
Risk Assessment Risk Assessment Comments: 0 £0
Page 243 Page 0 Risk assesessment based on delays to delivery and spend for both projects, despite scheme promoters anticipating that the under performance will be mitigated during the current Complete In delivery Pending Contract A financial year. Page 244 Page Financial Progress
Funding Profile £2,500,000.00
£2,028,569 £2,000,000.00
£1,500,000.00
£1,065,475 £1,000,000.00
£500,000.00
£- 19-20 20-21 21-25 26-30
Cumulative (B) Cumulative (A)
Outputs / Outcomes
Number of Low Emission Buses 50
45
40
35
30 26
25
20
15
10 18 5
0 Actual to Date Remaining Total
Project Stages £2,500,000
£2,000,000
£1,500,000
£1,000,000
£500,000
£0 £0 0 0 £0 Pending Contract Pipeline Agenda Item 17
TRANSPORT BOARD
25TH OCTOBER 2019
LOCAL GROWTH FUNDING UPDATE
Purpose of Report
This paper provides members with an update relating to the current LFG programme commitments and the scale of projects in the over-programmed pipeline
Thematic Priority
Cross cutting theme
Freedom of Information
The paper will be available under the SCR Publication Scheme
Recommendations
Members are asked to
1. Consider and note the scale of the pipeline and actions in progress to address the over- programming position.
2. Note the need to maximise claims at Q2 ahead of the annual performance review.
1. Introduction
1.1 LGF is a 6 year, £360m funding programme secured through three rounds of Local Growth Fund bids. 2019/20 is the fifth and penultimate year of funding. Some investment made in the early years of the programme have now repaid loan funding back to the programme which has increased the total value of available programme funding to £378m
1.2 In the first four years of delivery £239m has been spent (defrayed). A further £49m is committed to projects currently in contract and a further £19m has been approved for projects which are in the process of satisfying contract conditions. The total combined value of approved projects and spend to date is therefore £307m.
1.3 The LGF grant allocation includes a ringfenced amount of £40.5m for a major transport project which is retained for separate approval by the DfT, this funding cannot be utilised for other projects 1.4 The level of funding remaining available for LGF projects across all thematic areas (the programme headroom) is now £30.2m. 1.5 All funding needs to be fully spent (defrayed) by 31st March 2021.
Page 245
2. Proposal and justification
2.1 When the 2019/20 budget was approved by the MCA in March 2019 the pipeline of projects indicated that there was potential over-programming of up to £24.4m.
As projects have developed some cost estimates have increased and a number of new projects have come forward seeking funding. As a result of these changes the current combined value of projects in the pipeline (including the retained major) has increased to £120.5m this equates to £80m excluding the retained major and therefore the potential over-programming has now increased to £49.8m.
This calculation includes a number of new inward investment projects.
2.2 The current profile of project approvals and the remaining pipeline is set out below by theme;
Executive Approved Pipeline Total Comments Board Business £46m £42.5m £88.5m This is £36.5m above the Growth notional allocation and it is unlikely that all projects will land in the region or be able to complete works by 31st March 2021. This also includes the latest inward investment schemes which have yet to be accepted to the programme. Housing £10.0m £1.35m £11.35m £4.05m of the £10m housing funding is currently committed to schemes, the remaining £6m is held in the housing fund for pipeline schemes. Infrastructure £199.3m £20.1m £219.4m This includes several highways schemes designed to unlock development space for employment and housing Skills and £18.3m £7.5m £25.8m This is £2.2m below the notional Employment allocation and it is unlike that all projects will be able to complete works by 31st March 2021. Transport £28.5m £49m £77.5m This includes the £40.5m retained major transport project. Total £302.1m £120.5m £422.6m
This shows that the total request for project funding is £423 m. There is a £5.1m corporate commitment which covers the costs associated with carrying out the accountable body functions for the LGF programme. The total spend requirement is therefore £428m.
2.3 It will not be possible to approve all the projects currently seeking funding based on the current programme, and continuing to approve schemes as they become ready, the programme could be fully committed by the January cycle, although this full commitment point has slipped throughout the year so far.
Page 246 2.4 The LEP Board in September considered a range of options to address the over programming position and agreed to 3 actions;
1. Scheme promoters to self-evaluate the deliverability of schemes within the funded window (to March 2021) and nominate schemes to defer or remove from the programme 2. SCR to seek opportunities to find additional resource (e.g. consider decommitting uncontracted elements from the programme, legacy Growing Places Funding, housing fund allocations etc) and 3. Undertake a LEP prioritisation process following the actions 1 and 2 if there remains an over programmed position
2.5 The outcomes of actions 1 and 2 have been requested to report back to the LEP Board in November in order to facilitate this the self-evaluation action was discussed with Directors of Finance and Economic Development Directors at their meeting on 18th September. Directors were asked to coordinate a response with their delivery teams and to nominate schemes to defer or remove from the LGF Programme.
This evaluation is to look at; • all projects in the pipeline but not yet approved • all projects approved but not yet in contract and • all projects in delivery but likely to underclaim.
A list of projects in the pipeline and not yet in contract has been shared with all Authorities along with a self-evaluation form. The Programme and performance unit have also contacted business project promoters and project promoters where there is a potential for the scheme to underclaim.
2.6 A deadline of 4th October for the self-evaluation to be completed was set as this aligns with the Q2 LGF project return deadline, early indications show 2 projects have already confirmed that they will defer to a later funding programme but the pipeline has increased from its previous position.
2.7 A copy of the current project list is attached at Appendix A.
2.8 LGF claims at Q1 were only £1.4m despite starting the year with £34.5m of committed spend, this equates to 3.9% of the minimum required in year spend (£35.5m) and 2% of the current expected in year spend (£68m).
The annual performance review takes place before the Q3 returns are received, hence it is important that Q2 claims are maximised otherwise the delivery rating for the region will again be impacted and monthly claims should also be considered for projects in delivery.
3. Consideration of alternative approaches
3.1 The LEP meeting in September also considered the following options which were discussed but not agreed
3.2 • If no further action is taken the programme will consider projects for funding approval as they are ready rather than based on any other priorities. • Pause the process of taking decisions on scheme approvals until SCR undertake a full review of all projects in the pipeline.
An independent full review of projects was undertaken in 2018/19 and was successful in speeding up the rate of projects progressing to delivery, however some projects missed their delivery milestones and are now in the competitive element of the programme. Page 247 Pausing the programme is likely to have a negative impact on the ability to achieve the required spend profiles.
4. Implications
4.1 Financial This paper explores the financial implications of the LGF programme in the approach to the final year of delivery.
£40.5m of the remaining pipeline is funded via the DfT retained majors programme which is ringfenced for this project only, hence this is not included in the calculation of remaining programme headroom of £30.2m.
The £5.1m corporate commitment which covers the costs associated with carrying out the accountable body functions for the LGF programme is a mandatory requirement and equates to 1.3% of the total programme.
4.2 Legal None as a result of this paper, however legal implications will need to be considered for any de-commitment scenarios.
4.3 Risk Management This paper presents the risk of over-programming of the Local Growth Funding
4.4 Equality, Diversity and Social Inclusion
5. Communications
5.1 Statutory Officers have temporarily closed the open call for new schemes until a decision has been reached on the process for resolving the over-programming. LEP Board may wish to reserve the right to accept schemes in the case of an exceptional inward investment application
6. Appendices/Annexes
6.1 Appendix A –Project lists
REPORT AUTHOR Sue Sykes POST AD – Programme and Performance Unit Officer responsible Ruth Adams Organisation Sheffield City Region Email [email protected] Telephone 0114 220 3476
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 248 APPENDIX A
Project Pipeline – Main Programme Thematic Total Spend all years District Project 19/20 £ later years Area (£M)
Waverley Lower Don RMBC 2,965,000 37,495,000 40,460,000 Valley A630 TRANSPORT DSA Capacity Expansion - DBC 5,000,000 0 5,000,000 INFRA Grant Barnsley College Digital BMBC 2,590,000 0 2,590,000 SKILLS Innovation Hub M1 Junction 37 Ph2 BMBC –Economic Growth 1,376,678 9,259,950 10,636,628 INFRA Corridor (Claycliffe) A630 Westmoor Link DBC 2,500,000 2,500,000 5,000,000 TRANSPORT Dualing Greasbrough Road RMBC 0 3,518,236 3,518,236 TRANSPORT Junctions
Doncaster Urban Centre DBC - Project Deferred 1,488,000 0 1,488,000 Markets Phase 2 INFRA
INFRA RMBC Forge Island Phase 2 2,800,000 0 2,800,000 DBC Doncaster UTC Ltd 100,000 200,000 300,000 SKILLS Doncaster Urban Centre - DBC - Project Deferred St Sepulchre West / 0 1,600,000 1,600,000 INFRA Station Forecourt Phase 3 Digital Innovation SCC 0 2,000,000 2,000,000 SKILLS Partnership
SKILLS CBC DRIIVE 200,000 2,396,782 2,596,782 INFRA RMBC Century BIC Phase II 600,000 1,000,000 1,600,000 Total 19,619,678 59,969,968 79,589,646
Project Pipeline – BIF Thematic Total Spend all years Type Project 19/20 later years Area (£M) BUSINESS Inward Invest Project Merthyr 0 £5,000,000 £5,000,000 BUSINESS Inward Invest Project Chorus 0 £8,000,000 £8,000,000 BUSINESS Inward Invest Project Switzerland 0 £15,000,000 £15,000,000 BUSINESS Inward Invest Project Ebbwvale 0 £9,000,000 £9,000,000 BUSINESS Inward Invest Project Robotics 0 £1,000,000 £1,000,000 BUSINESS Inward Invest Project Underground 0 £2,000,000 £2,000,000 BUSINESS BIF (Sub £2m) Project Hot Air £500,000 £0 £500,000 BUSINESS BIF (Sub £2m) Project Illinois £400,000 £0 £400,000 BUSINESS BIF (Sub £2m) Project Bannana £350,000 £0 £350,000 BUSINESS BIF (Sub £2m) Project Sheep £500,000 £0 £500,000 BUSINESS £0
Made Smarter and Productivity Various £796,397 £0 £796,397 BUSINESS Total £2,546,397 £40,000,000 £42,546,397
Project Pipeline – Housing Fund Thematic Total Spend all years District Project 19/20 later years Area (£M) HOUSING RMBC Rotherham Town Centre 0 3,916,915 3,916,915 HOUSING BMBC Nanny Marr Road 0 367,500 367,500 HOUSING SCC Foxhill crescent 1,250,000 1,250,000 2,500,000
HOUSING Derbyshire Dales Bradwell CLT 270,000 0 270,000 HOUSING SCC Claywood* 0 300,000 300,000 Total £1,520,000 £5,834,415 £7,354,415 Page 249
Projects with Full approval but not yet in contract – Main Programme Total Spend Approval District Project 19/20 later years all years (£M) Date Infra - M1 J37 Phase 1 – BMBC 1,171,374 0 £1,171,374 29/01/2018 Claycliffe
RMBC Infra - Waverley Local Centre 2,583,561 £4,416,439 £7,000,000 03/06/2019
Skills - Digital Engineering Skills SCC 583,546 £3,129,109 £3,712,655 29/07/2019 Development Network
DMBC 360 VFX 906,000 0 £906,000 03/06/2019
SCC Skills - teenager to employee 494,900 0 £494,900 06/08/2019
Total 5,739,381 7,545,548 13,284,929
Projects with Full approval but not yet in contract – BIF Total Spend Approval District Project 19/20 later years all years (£M) Date SCC ITM Power 400,000 0 400,000 Feb-18 DMBC Abbey Glen 0 100,000 100,000 Oct-18 DMBC 360 Media 1,400,000 2,700,000 4,100,000 Jun-18 First Group Contact (First SCC 643,964 1,106,036 1,750,000 Nov-18 Group) SCC Nprime 92,910 2,090 95,000 Feb-19 RMBC Ricardo 284,402 1,695,598 1,980,000 Mar-19 SCC Fernite 135,000 0 135,000 Mar-19 BMBC Reliance High-Tech Ltd 121,000 0 121,000 Jul-19 SCC Skyline 0 619,000 619,000 Aug-19 Total 3,077,276 6,222,724 9,300,000
Projects with Full approval but not yet in contract – Housing Fund Total Spend Approval District Project 19/20 later years all years (£M) Date Modern Methods of RMBC 663,880 0 663,880 14.02.19 Construction Pilot
SCC Little Kelham 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 14.02.19
Total 3,181,024 0 3,181,024
Page 250