NOTTINGHAM EXPRESS TRANSIT ANNUAL REPORT 2004/2005 CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary 2.0 NET Line One – Progress Report 3.0 Land Acquisition and Compensation 4.0 Project Budget 5.0 Retained Costs and Risks 6.0 Network Development 7.0 Public Relations 8.0 Project Audit and Inspection APPENDICES 1. NET Line One Budget 2. NET Line One Joint Surplus Grant Fund 3. NET Phase Two Budget 4. Retained Costs and Risks 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 The first year of operation of NET Line 1 has been successful with patronage of 8.4 million trips, exceeding forecasts. Daily patronage is now 25,000 to 30,000, with around 5,000 per day using the Park & Ride sites. Overall public transport use in the corridor NET runs along is up by about 20% in the peaks. Around 40% of passengers use a multi mode ticket, demonstrating a high level of integration, boosted by Trent Barton’s decision to reduce competing Hucknall-City services and provide tram feeders at Hucknall. Overall, 30% of tram users have transferred from car directly or use Park & Ride. The combination of the tram and other local transport plan measures has reduced congestion in the corridor, in some parts by as much as 8% or 9%. 1.2 Operating performance continues to be generally at a high level, although during a short period in March/April tram braking software problems resulted in some units being withdrawn and services from Phoenix running a reduced frequency. Overall, performance has met 98% and 97% of reliability and punctuality targets, with the full PMS measure, including reliability, punctuality, cleaning, repair, availability, etc, resulting in payments being consistently over 99% of the full contract amount. The PMS system has been audited by City Audit Services with a satisfactory report. In the first annual survey of customer views of the service, 96% of those questioned were either very satisfied or satisfied and only 1% expressed dissatisfaction. 1.3 Although final completing works (Snagging and Retention items) have taken longer than expected, these are now complete except for outstanding compliance approvals related to ride quality, noise and vibration. Although a satisfactory situation has been reached on ride quality, the noise and vibration issues remain a concern and further investigation and assessment is ongoing. A large number of claims, under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act, have been made by householders, mainly via a couple of Agents. The numbers significantly exceed predictions but, as yet, none of the claims have been substantiated. 1.4 On the highway the tram has operated without the problems that have been associated with the start on other systems for either the tram or other highway users. With only minor changes to the highway works being needed in response to experience, the maintenance responsibility has now been transferred to the Highway Authority. 1.5 Financial management of the project continues at a high level. Budget contingency at financial year end was £243,000 which is available to meet outstanding land payments and to retain specialist staff dealing with claims. 2 1.6 The quarterly review by the NET Project Board of project risks (Appendix 4) indicates the main areas of concern being outstanding land costs, where final costs cannot be verified until all matters have been finalised, and a contractual claim by Arrow (effectively the Contractor, Carillion). The claim from the Contractor was for a Promoters Variation to cover costs and extension of time due to alleged change in scope and Highway Authority and Planning Authority requirements. An adjudication concerning part of the claim was held in December 2004 and found in favour of the Promoters but it is unclear if the Contractor will wish to pursue the claim to further adjudication or court proceedings. This would be a lengthy and costly process. The Promoters maintain that such claims cannot be substantiated and currently await confirmation of the Contractor’s proposed course of action. 1.7 Building on the success of Line One, NET Phase 2 is fundamental to the transport strategy for the Greater Nottingham conurbation. The Chilwell via Beeston and QMC route will bring very significant benefits by serving a number of important destinations including the ng2 development site, University of Nottingham, Queens Medical Centre, Beeston town centre and Chilwell. The Clifton via Wilford route serves a number of densely populated residential areas including the Meadows, Wilford and Clifton. Both routes terminate at park and ride sites serving the M1. Work on developing these routes has continued, concentrating on mitigation measures to meet localised public concerns, finalisation of the environmental assessments and preparation of the Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) documentation. 1.8 With a background of reductions in government transport funding availability, initial (Programme entry) funding approval has yet to be received from the Department for Transport (DfT). Constant dialogue is being maintained with DfT officials who have continued to confirm that the scheme appraisal meets DfT funding criteria and during meetings during the 2 nd quarter of 2005 have indicated that Ministerial approval would be sought during summer 2005. Subject to this, and to final approval by both Councils, the TWAO could be submitted in the Autumn leading to a Public Inquiry in Summer 2006. This would give the possibility of contracts being let and works commencing on site in Autumn 2008 and the combined Line 1 and Phase 2 services commencing operation in Autumn 2011 1.9 Work on the project continues to be developed in co-ordination with other projects, including in the City the Clearzone, Broadmarsh centre redevelopment, Nottingham Station Masterplan and Southside redevelopment and in the County the regeneration of Chilwell and development proposals in Beeston. 1.10 Funding for the Phase 2 development is being met from a combination of external grants, including ERDF, EMDA and S106 developer 3 payments, the use of both councils’ Local Transport Plan capital resources and additional Government supported borrowing approvals. During the period following submission of the TWAO the councils could be required to advance purchase a number of properties under the statutory blight and compensation provisions. Funding for this will need to be managed by the councils. 1.11 Public Relations for the project has been overwhelmingly favourable with much praise for Line 1. However, concerns over localised noise problems and the worries of some residents and businesses along the routes for Phase 2 continue to be reported or feature in the Evening Post letters page. The project team continue to work to promote the overall benefits of the system and seek to build public consensus. More widely, the project has hosted many visitors from across the world and Line One won the Municipal Journal Public Private Partnership Achievement of the Year Award and Labour Party PPP award and also played a part in Nottingham being highly commended in the National Transport Awards Transport Authority of the Year category. 1.12 The NET Project Board, which normally meets on a monthly basis, and the NET Phase Two Development Group, which meets on a fortnightly basis, have continued to oversee the overall management of the project. Progress on both of these aspects is reported to the NET Development Board and, for Line One, the GNLRT (Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit) Advisory Committee, whilst major policy issues are referred to both the City Council's Executive Board and the County Council's Cabinet. If necessary, both authorities consider major decisions at their main Council Meetings. 1.13 In addition to the formal reporting procedures, monthly meetings are held between key members and officers of both authorities to monitor progress and to discuss important issues with a view to exchanging information and to obtaining political guidance on the way forward. Pat Armstrong Head of Transport Projects Nottingham City Council August 2005 4 2.0 NET LINE ONE – PROGRESS REPORT 2.1 Outstanding Works/Snagging 2.1.1 At Operating Commencement Date (OCD), having completed all of the outstanding works considered critical for the safe operation of the system, lists were agreed for remaining items for inclusion as Retention Items and Snagging Works. These are required under the Concession Agreement to be completed within the two year period following OCD. The agreed Retention Items comprised two lists; ‘List 1’ for outstanding physical works (which included 240 items), and ‘List 2’ for outstanding approval conditions (which included 320 items). The Snagging Works list included 60 issues relating to the vehicle and testing and commissioning, including Promoter non-compliance issues such as ride quality and noise and vibration. 2.1.2 The contractor, Bombardier Carillion Consortium (BCC), failed to meet their initial target of completing the outstanding issues by summer 2004, and by quite a wide margin in respect of the outstanding approval conditions. However, BCC’s desire to affect handback of maintenance responsibility to the Highway Authority focussed their attention in respect of the incomplete Retention items and by the end of March 2005 only a handful of items were remaining. As at July 2005, all of the items included on ‘List 1’ have been completed and only 4 remain open on ‘List 2’. The closure of these 4 outstanding approval conditions is linked to the resolution of the outstanding compliance issues described below. 2.1.3 Of the issues identified at OCD on the Snagging Works list, the majority have now been closed, and for the testing and commissioning issues that remain open, progress has been made in most areas. This includes ride quality where agreement has been reached in terms of specification compliance. Subject to the satisfactory resolution of all other outstanding project completion issues, the Promoters have accepted BCC’s justification that the system has been optimised and that the ride quality achieved is capable of being maintained through the application of the routine maintenance recommendations provided by BCC.