VERSION 3.1 Status : Approved for submission by SRO.

Local Pinch Point Fund Application Form

Guidance on the Application Process is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport/series/local-pinch-point-fund Please include the Checklist with your completed application form. The level of information provided should be proportionate to the size and complexity of the scheme proposed. As a guide, for a small scheme we would suggest around 25-35 pages including annexes would be appropriate. One application form should be completed per project. Applicant Information Local authority name(s)*: South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive *If the bid is a joint proposal, please enter the names of all participating local authorities and specify the lead authority Bid Manager Name and position: Steve Mullett, Principal Project Manager Contact telephone number: 0114 221 1347 Email address: steve.mullett@sypte.co.uk Postal address: 11 Broad Street West Sheffield S1 2BQ

When authorities submit a bid for funding to the Department, as part of the Government’s commitment to greater openness in the public sector under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, they must also publish a version excluding any commercially sensitive information on their own website within two working days of submitting the final bid to the Department. The Department reserves the right to deem the business case as non-compliant if this is not adhered to. Please specify the weblink where this bid will be published: http://www.sypte.co.uk/corporate.aspx?id=3317

2

SECTION A - Project description and funding profile A1. Project name: Sheffield Supertram – Rail Replacement A2. Headline description: Please enter a brief description of the proposed scheme (in no more than 100 words) This scheme is to replace life expired sections of rail within street running elements of the Sheffield Supertram system. This will prevent the closure of the network and allow Supertram to continue to make its current contribution to the local economy and fulfil its growing role in the regeneration of key areas of the Sheffield City Region. A3. Geographical area: Please provide a short description of area covered by the bid (in no more than 100 words) The Supertram network has three routes which serve the major employment and residential areas of Sheffield. The blue route operates from Halfway and south-east Sheffield to Malin Bridge and the yellow route runs from Meadowhall and the Lower Don Valley to Middlewood, both routes operating via the City Centre and Hillsborough. The purple route connects Herdings Park with the city centre, extending to Meadowhall off-peak. Large sections of the Halfway and Hillsborough routes operate on street track and it is on these sections where this intervention is required. OS Grid Reference: SK 35994 87464 Postcode: n/a Please append a map showing the location (and route) of the proposed scheme, existing transport infrastructure and other points of particular interest to the bid e.g. development sites, areas of existing employment, constraints etc. Appendix 1 Map showing location, route and scope of works Appendix 2 Map showing other points of interest A4. Type of bid (please tick relevant box): Small project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £1m and £5m) Scheme Bid Structure Maintenance Bid Large project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £5m and £20m) Scheme Bid Structure Maintenance Bid Note: Scheme and Structure Maintenance bids will be assessed using the same criteria. A5. Equality Analysis Has any Equality Analysis been undertaken in line with the Equality Duty? Yes No

3

An equality analysis has been undertaken and no major implications were found. All supply chain contracts will include a clause that means all companies working on this project will need to comply with the Equality Act 2010. A6. Partnership bodies Please provide details of the partnership bodies (if any) you plan to work within the design and delivery of the proposed scheme. This should include a short description of the role and responsibilities of the partnership bodies (which may include Development Corporations, National Parks Authorities, private sector bodies and transport operators) with confirmatory evidence of their willingness to participate in delivering the bid proposals. This project will be delivered by SYPTE in partnership with Stagecoach (the operators) and Sheffield City Council (SCC). The tram is operated by South Yorkshire Supertram Limited, a Stagecoach Group Company, known locally as Stagecoach Supertram but referred to in the bid as ‘SYSL’. The partnership between SYPTE and SYSL is governed by the existing concession agreement and new agreements specific to this project. SYPTE and SCC will work together as part of the existing Local Transport Plan partnership. Summaries of the agreements and evidence of partners’ willingness to participate are given in Appendices 3, 4 and 6. The main roles of the partners are summarised below: Design, specification and quality inspection Jointly by SYPTE and SYSL Works contract award, control and supervision SYPTE Management of replacement bus services SYSL Customer information SYSL Consultation, information, contact with frontages etc. SYPTE Post Implementation monitoring SYPTE

A7. Local Enterprise Partnership / Local Transport Body Involvement It would be beneficial (though not essential) if the relevant LEP or LTB (or shadow(s)) have considered the bid and, if necessary, prioritised it against other bids from the same area. If possible, please include a letter from the LEP / LTB confirming their support and, if more than one bid is being submitted from the area, the priority ranking in order of growth significance. Have you appended a letter from the LEP / LTB to support this case? Yes No Please see Appendix 5. SECTION B – The Business Case You may find the following DfT tools useful in preparing your business case: Transport Business Cases Behavioural Insights Toolkit Logic Mapping Hints and Tips

4

B1. The Scheme - Summary Please select what the scheme is trying to achieve (this will need to be supported by evidence in the Business Case). Please select all categories that apply.

Improve access to a development site that has the potential to create housing Improve access to a development site that has the potential to create jobs Improve access to urban employment centres Improve access to Enterprise Zones Maintain accessibility by addressing the condition of structures Ease congestion / bottlenecks Other(s), Please specify - Securing of current and future decongestion benefits and future

growth. The Sheffield Supertram opened in phases between March 1994 and October 1995 as one of the first group of modern tram systems to be built in the UK. The franchise for its operation up to 2024 was awarded to SYSL in 1997, this also covered maintenance (fair wear and tear excepted) but the asset remains in the ownership of SYPTE. At the time of construction and based on the limited information then available, the life of the street running rails was forecast to be 30 years. Therefore, its renewal was to be part of the re-franchising process in 2024. In 2012 the rate of wear problems and the limited impact of the short term measures became apparent. By September 2012 the scale of the problem and initial costs were developed and it became clear that the costs could not be covered by the provision in existing budgets. (SYPTE does not receive the equivalent of highway maintenance block grant). It also became clear that in some areas the problem would become critical during 2013. This bid refers to the renewal of “embedded track” on the system. This embedded track is made up of a grooved rail held in a slot in a reinforced concrete track slab by a polymer. The grooved rails have worn vertically on the rail head and horizontally on the rail head and keeper. As a result of wear, cracks have started to appear in some areas. If left unattended this would at some point lead to the derailment of a tram. A cross section of this form of track construction is shown below. Embedded track makes up 56% of the current network. This bid does not include any planned or routine maintenance which is covered by the Concession Agreement and is the responsibility of SYSL.

A cross section of an embedded rail.

5

Similar problems have also been encountered on other systems in the UK. Manchester saw several derailments due to keeper wear which led to the re-railing of their city centre section. This bid is linked to the Tram Train project led by DfT. To allow the Tram Train vehicles to operate on both the light and heavy rail networks modifications to the track on one or the other of the networks are required to suit the Tram Train wheel profiles. In light of the residual life of the light rail track the Tram Train project has decided to modify the tram system. This means the learning output from the Tram Train project will be more relevant and it releases funding from that projects budget. It also allows future extensions on the heavy rail network without incurring rail modification costs. The replacement of worn rail with a profile suitable for Tram Train means both problems can be solved at once, reducing overall costs. The Tram Train funding is only available for areas used by that project. To future proof the network the Tram Train rail profile will be used for replacement rails in all areas of the network. If no works are carried out a substantial part of the system will close in the summer of 2013 when the wear reaches a point where derailments are possible. There will be a need for the replacement of other areas of rail in 2017/18 and as part of the franchise process in 2024. B2. The Strategic Case This section should set out the rationale for making the investment and evidence on the strategic fit of the proposal. It should also contain an analysis of the existing transport problems, identify the barriers that are preventing growth, explain how the preferred scheme was selected and explain what the predicted impacts will be. The impact of the scheme on releasing growth potential in Enterprise Zones, key development sites and urban employment centres will be an important factor in the assessment process. In particular please provide evidence on the following questions (where applicable): Strategic Overview This section sets out the rationale for making the investment in Supertram asset renewal and demonstrates the strategic fit of our proposal. It includes an analysis of the existing transport problems, identifies the barriers that are preventing growth, explains how our preferred scheme was selected and describes what the predicted impacts will be. The investment will have a positive impact on releasing growth potential in key development sites, urban employment centres and Enterprise Zone. The Supertram network significantly contributes to the growth of the local economy as it provides reliable and frequent links to many of the key employment, regeneration and development areas in Sheffield. The network has a catchment area that encompasses approximately half of the total planned development in Sheffield. This means that the tram provides important connectivity not only to current employment but also key future employment locations. The Supertram also has an important role in providing access to opportunities for some of the most deprived communities in Sheffield. As the economy recovers and new jobs become available, it is seen as vital that these deprived communities can access these opportunities. This is an important consideration as people living in these areas are less likely to have access

6

to a car, so there is a risk that their access to the labour market could be limited without suitable public transport. By contributing to economic growth, Supertram is helping to deliver the SCR Transport Strategy. Whilst supporting economic growth is the primary goal of the Transport Strategy, this is underpinned by 26 policies. In particular, this essential asset renewal will help deliver the following policies: Policy Objective G - To deliver interventions required for development and regeneration The ability of the Supertram to share the burden of increased travel demand related to planned growth, including the plans in the Local Enterprise Zone, will have a significant impact on the areas ability to realise its economic potential. It should be noted that the Tram Train / Supertram Additional Vehicles project will provide additional network capacity to accommodate growth. More details on this are given below. Policy Objective K – To develop public transport that connects people to jobs and training in both urban and rural areas The network serves many of the key employment sites in Sheffield, maintaining provision to allow people to access the service will improve access to opportunities. Policy Objective M – To ensure our networks are well maintained There are sections of the Supertram rail that are becoming life expired and need replacing to enable the system to continue. To illustrate the importance Supertram has on our economic growth aspirations, we have produced a series of maps which shows how significant the network is to areas of development, high unemployment, car ownership and deprivation. These are shown in the Appendices 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. a) What is the problem that is being addressed, making specific reference to barriers to growth

and why this has not been addressed previously? As described in section B1, there is a need to carry out rail replacement on the Supertram route earlier than originally planned to prevent substantial sections of the system closing. Closure would have a significant impact on the local economy as well as reducing local transport options. Supertram forms a significant part of Sheffield’s transport network. There are currently around 14.6 million passengers annually on the Supertram network, representing over 20% of the 70 million passengers using the bus and tram in Sheffield. Supertram’s share of the overall public transport demand is continuing to grow and our forecasting and analysis suggests that passenger numbers could be higher but are constrained by the tramway operating at capacity at peak times. Supertram is also popular across a variety of journey purposes, including 33% of trips being for shopping and 31% for commuting. It is because there is a wide range of different journey purposes that has resulted in limited room for growth. Whilst the busiest journeys are at commuting times, the popularity for shopping and leisure trips ensures that trams are busy throughout the day. There is also a higher proportion of concessionary tram passengers (35%) on Supertram compared to other UK tram systems. It is for this reason that we have recently submitted a successful bid to acquire additional trams, which will relieve overcrowding and provide opportunity for further growth. Simultaneously, we have been working with the Department for Transport to introduce a Tram Train project between Sheffield and Rotherham, which will combine running on the Supertram network with operation

7

on the national rail network. As well as creating new links to Rotherham, the tram-train trial will provide additional capacity to cater for the passenger growth. The case for the additional Supertram vehicles demonstrates that they represent a high value for money investment and that without them; Sheffield would not be able to cater for planned growth and would suffer from increased congestion. Both of these schemes demonstrate the importance of the existing Supertram network to the local economy and if the system had to close because of the problems identified, it would have a substantial negative impact on the economy. Since the tramway opened, the local bus network has seen many substantial changes and the popularity of the tramway quickly saw competing bus routes withdrawn or re-routed. This means that the closure of the tramway would leave many households without access to suitable public transport. Where alternative bus routes exist, these are generally either already very busy or operate at a low frequency. This means that the bus network would not be able to transport all of the Supertram passengers unless the commercial operators provide substantial new investment, which may not be possible at short notice. Whilst most of the 33,000 households within the catchment area of the tram have access to some form of alternative public transport, there are over 2,000 households that are not within reasonable walking distance of an alternative bus service. Without an alternative public transport network, many of the existing Supertram passengers would make their journeys using a car and this would significantly worsen congestion on the highway network, as well as increasing levels of pollution. However, the Supertram operates through areas of Sheffield where a high percentage of households do not have access to a car, as shown in the map in Appendix 10, with the result that many people would have no suitable alternative. There would also be an adverse impact on all bus users, as increased congestion would lead to longer journey times as well as affecting punctuality, reliability and passenger satisfaction. b) What options have been considered and why have alternatives have been rejected? Partners have investigated several options as part of the development of this project, to date, these are summarised below:

1. Measures to extend rail life Several measures to extend rail life (summarised below) have been investigated. Where appropriate these have been adopted and this has reduced the scope of the works required in 2013 and 2014. However, for most of the track under consideration they are not practical or economic. Measures considered: a) Gauge corner welding. This has been used to combat side wear but does not overcome

the problems with vertical wear; b) Rail head welding. This has not been very successful to date and is only considered as

a very short term measure; c) Groove grinding. This can be used to extend life on straight sections of track but cannot

be used where there is side wear due to a lack of material left in the rail. 2. Replace rail using a lower cost specification Lower cost specification rails could be used but the small savings in initial cost (5% of rail cost is approximately 0.5% of the overall Estimated Final Cost) are outweighed by the extra cost and

8

disruption caused by more frequent renewals. This is supported by recent European research from the “Innotrack” project. 3. Partial closure of network The closure of the southern part of the blue route to reduce the cost of repairs has been considered. However the cost of abandonment or mothballing are high and the viability of the remaining network would be reduced. This option was rejected because of its poor VfM and because it did not meet the projects objectives. 4. Full closure As with the partial closure, this option was rejected because it did not meet the projects objectives. The estimated cost of closure is approximately £116m. This is based on several large assumptions which could vary this estimate either way. c) What are the expected benefits / outcomes? For example, job creation, housing numbers

and GVA and the basis on which these have been estimated. The existing Supertram network already serves the main employment areas in Sheffield and also has connections to areas where planned development is set to have a major impact on the economic success of the City. In addition, the scheme has the potential to support the ambitions of the Local Enterprise Zone which is located in close proximity to the Supertram route. Future growth within the Supertram catchment area during the LDF plan period is anticipated to deliver approximately 50,000 new jobs and 17,000 homes (i.e. 41,000 new residents). In order to fully deliver the potential growth described in the LDF, we have developed a number of transport schemes, including BRT North, Tram Train Project and Supertram additional vehicles. The schemes are required because the Highways Agency and planning authorities will not allow any further development in the Lower Don Valley that affects the operation of the M1 at junction 34 due to the high volumes of traffic and queuing at these locations. This means that there is effectively a hold on delivering our growth aspirations unless the impact of this growth is mitigated. The closure of Supertram would add significantly to the volumes of traffic passing through the Lower Don Valley, creating a situation whereby the implementation of our planned schemes, will still be insufficient to mitigate traffic growth and unlock economic potential. The modelling we have undertaken, as described in section B6, shows that the monetised benefits of carrying out this rail replacement scheme amount to £220m in 2010 prices and values. The majority of these benefits are to Highway and Public Transport users in terms of saved time, cash costs and improved safety compared to closing the system and diverting passengers to alternative modes. The additional highway traffic would cause congestion at key junctions in the City Centre and Lower Don Valley, which would prevent further planned development. Without the Supertram, we will not be able to deliver the expected 50,000 jobs (worth £772m GVA to the local economy in a full year) during the LDF period and will worsen accessibility to existing employment and training opportunities.

9

d) What is the project’s scope and is there potential to reduce costs and still achieve the desired outcomes? For example, using value engineering.

The scope of the project is:

1) Replacement of 13.5km’s of life expired rail. (Please see Appendix 1). 2) Minor repairs to concrete track slab and road surface in areas of rail replacement. 3) Associated traffic management and replacement bus services.

4) Deliver stakeholder engagement and communications to all parties involved, including the customer.

In addition to the options considered in section b above the project has been through a value engineering process to ensure costs are minimised while still meeting the technical requirements of the system and the project objectives. The only remaining area that offers scope for reduction in estimates is the completion of the optimisation between the cost of the works (driven in part by programme duration) and the cost and impact of the disruption. To date, this has been based on the current estimates for costs and programme, some refining of this may be possible as more details emerge as the project progresses. This opportunity is currently captured as a negative cost in the risk analysis; see Appendices 18 and 20 for more details. e) Are there are any related activities, that if not successfully concluded would mean the full

economic benefits of the scheme may not be realised. For example, this could relate to land acquisition, other transport interventions being required or a need for additional consents?

There are no consents, other transport interventions or land required to implement this project. As noted in section B1, part of the funding from this proposal comes from the Tram / Train project. On 05/02/2013 DfT’s Rail Investment Board approved entering into the DfT/SYPTE contract to implement this project. At the time of submission this had not been signed. f) What will happen if funding for this scheme is not secured - would an alternative (lower cost)

solution be implemented (if yes, please describe this alternative and how it differs from the proposed scheme)?

There have already been trials of low-cost options to extend the life of the assets (as noted in section B2b), however, these have only provided short term solutions. Further deterioration means that there is no practicable alternative solution that would allow the Supertram network to remain fully open. If no funding was available for these works the network could close, making good after closure would cost more than the repairs (this is the do nothing option in the Economic Case). If some funding was available the current most likely option would be closure of part of the network, with the southern half of the blue route mothballed until funding for repair or closure could be funded. The impact on Tram Train and SYSL’s willingness to contribute funding to these reduced works is not yet clear. Similarly it is not fully clear that the reduced network would be viable, works on this are on-going. Both these alternative options will stifle economic growth, limit accessibility, increase congestion and have a negative impact on the environment.

10

g) What is the impact of the scheme – and any associated mitigation works – on any statutory environmental constraints? For example, Local Air Quality Management Zones.

There are no statutory environmental constraints on the scheme, however, there are Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) across the whole of the Sheffield urban area where EU limit values are regularly exceeded (please see Appendix 11 for a map showing the location of the AQMAs). The level of highway congestion in the vicinity of the motorway corridor around Meadowhall and the centre of the city creates particular problems with the air quality. Supertram has a positive impact on the local environment as the emissions of the tram compared to car travel are much lower – a person travelling 1km by tram uses up to 50% less energy than travelling 1km by car and trams have no emissions at point of use. Failure to secure funding for this scheme will have a severe negative impact on the local environment. This intervention is required to maintain a choice between car and other modes of travel in order to tackle any further increase in congestion, loss of productive time, increase in air pollution and higher carbon emissions. B3. The Financial Case – Project Costs Before preparing a scheme proposal for submission, bid promoters should ensure they understand the financial implications of developing the scheme (including any implications for future resource spend and ongoing costs relating to maintaining and operating the asset), and the need to secure and underwrite any necessary funding outside the Department’s maximum contribution. Please complete the following tables. Figures should be entered in £000s (i.e. £10,000 = 10). Table A: Funding profile (Nominal terms)

£000s 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total

DfT funding sought 2,500 2,500 5,000

Local Authority contribution xxxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxx

Third Party contribution – Tram Train xxxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxx

Third Party contribution – Stagecoach xxxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxx

TOTAL 8,721 10,057 158 18,937

There is scope to modify the local and third party spend profiles to accommodate a different spend profile for DfT funding.

Table B: Cost estimates (Nominal terms)

Cost heading Cost (£000s) Date estimated Status (e.g. target price)

Works 14,539 January 2013 Part estimate / part tender returns

Fees and Related Costs 698 January 2013 Estimate based on SYPTE’s existing Framework Rates

11

Replacement Services 2,566 January 2013 Estimated by SYSL (benchmarked by SYPTE against other tenders)

Inflation (330) January 2013 Estimate (included in figures above)

Risk Allowance 1,134 January 2013 Based on risk analysis. See Appendix 12.

TOTAL (eligible costs only) 18,937

A more detailed cost plan (including non-eligible costs) is attached as Appendix 12 and a funding plan is shown in Appendix 13. The overall cost of the project, including non-eligible costs, is £23.64m.

The future operation and maintenance costs and risks will be borne by SYSL upto 2024. SYPTE will be responsible for arranging the re-franchising and any funding required for this.

Notes: 1) Department for Transport funding must not go beyond 2014-15 financial year. 2) A minimum local contribution of 30% (local authority and/or third party) of the project costs is required. 3) Costs in Table B should be presented in outturn prices and must match the total amount of funding indicated in Table A. B4. The Financial Case - Local Contribution / Third Party Funding Please provide information on the following points (where applicable): a) The non-DfT contribution may include funding from organisations other than the scheme

promoter. If the scheme improves transport links to a new development, we would expect to see a significant contribution from the developer. Please provide details of all non-DfT funding contributions to the scheme costs. This should include evidence to show how any third party contributions are being secured, the level of commitment and when they will become available.

Non Pinch Point Bid funding is coming from SYPTE, SYSL and the Tram Train project. More details of contributions are given in Appendix 13. A summary is given below: SYSL xxxxxx SYPTE xxxxxx Tram Train xxxxxx Evidence of commitments and availability of these contributions are given in Appendices 4 and 14 and section D2. b) Where the contribution is from external sources, please provide a letter confirming the

body’s commitment to contribute to the cost of the scheme. The Department is unlikely to fund any scheme where significant financial contributions from other sources have not been secured or appear to be at risk.

12

Have you appended a letter(s) to support this case? Yes No N/A Please see Appendix 4 for Stagecoach’s letter of commitment. Please see Appendix 14 for the Tram Train project’s letter of commitment. Please see Appendix 6 for Sheffield City Council’s Letter of Support c) The Department may accept the provision of land in the local contribution towards scheme

costs. Please provide evidence in the form of a letter from an independent valuer to verify the true market value of the land. Have you appended a letter to support this case? Yes No N/A

d) Please list any other funding applications you have made for this scheme or variants thereof and the outcome of these applications, including any reasons for rejection.

Part of the overall cost of these works will be funded by the Tram Train project; details of this are shown in the funding plan in Appendix 13. No other applications have been made for these works. B5. The Financial Case – Affordability and Financial Risk This section should provide a narrative setting out how you will mitigate any financial risks associated with the scheme (you should refer to the Risk Register / QRA – see Section B11). Please ensure that in the risk / QRA cost that you have not included any risks associated with ongoing operational costs and have used the P50 value. To mitigate the financial impact of any risks the partners: i) Identified risks as early as possible in projects development, allocated risks owners

based on ability to control and agreed a mitigation plan; ii) Have a clear system of monitoring risks. Higher impact risks are updated and reported to

Project Board each month; iii) The SRO (or delegate for smaller risks) use the outcome of the risk analysis to inform

decisions made in relation to risks. A summary of the risk management process is given in Appendix 19 and the latest version of the risk log is given in Appendix 20. Please provide evidence on the following points (where applicable): a) What risk allowance has been applied to the project cost? An allowance of £1.13m (6% of works costs) has been included in the cost plan for this project. See Appendix 18 for more details. b) How will cost overruns be dealt with? The project will be managed by the SRO and Project Board to ensure, as far as possible, there are no cost overruns. Where they do occur and they have not been passed to the contractor they will be borne by the Partners as laid out in section B5d below.

13

c) What are the main risks to project delivery timescales and what impact this will have on

cost? The main risks to project delivery timescales are: 1. Traffic Management Arrangements: The details of traffic management have the potential to have a large impact on programme and hence costs, both to the works contract and on the cost of replacement services and ultimately on Supertram revenue. The proposals for traffic management are better developed for Contract 1 than Contract 2. This risk of problems with the traffic management will be passed to the contractor upon award. However, as the contractors prices will be based on their view of the problem the risk remains with SYPTE as a risk regarding the overall cost of the project. The financial cost of any delays on the replacement service is up to approximately £90,000 per week. This risk has been mitigated to date by examination of the tender returns for Contract 1, discussions with SCC and SYSL’s experience to date on minor repairs feeding into the programme and cost estimates for the works.

2. Unforeseen Track Slab Issues: The removal of rail could expose problems with the track slab not visible at present. This could lead to an extended programme and additional costs. Provision for this has been made in the programme, tender specification and cost plan but there remains the risk that it is not sufficient. 3. Weather: The works are sensitive to cold and wet weather, for this reason no works are planned during the winter. The risk associated with the weather outside of this period will be passed to the contractor but could extend the contract period. There are no foreseen major risks between now and contract award. d) How will cost overruns be shared between non-DfT funding partners (DfT funding will be

capped and will not be able to fund any overruns)? The partners are sharing responsibility for risk impacts as below: Works Contract SYPTE Replacement Services SYSL Staff Costs – SYPTE SYPTE Staff Costs – SYSL SYSL B6. The Economic Case – Value for Money This section should set out the full range of impacts – both beneficial and adverse – of the scheme. The scope of information requested (and in the supporting annexes) will vary according to whether the application is for a small or large project. Small project bids (i.e. DfT contribution of less than £5m)

14

a) Please provide a description of your assessment of the impact of the scheme to include: - Significant positive and negative impacts (quantified where possible); The appraisal of the scheme took a 30 year horizon from 2013. This encompasses the re-railing of 30-year old plain track and 25 life-expired vehicles in 2024 and another cycle of replacement of 20 year old grooved rail in 2033. Residual values are input in 2043 using written down values. The “Do Minimum” against which the scheme has been compared is the closure and de-commissioning of the whole system including selling off of redundant vehicles in 2013-2015, since this would be the necessary consequence of not maintaining the system in a safe condition. Full details of the cash flows of both options are given in the appendices. Benefits were calculated from the output matrices from the multi-modal model described below. The following costs and benefits were calculated:

Benefits

£million in 2010 market prices and values

Share of PVB

Noise 1.69 1%

Carbon 7.98 4%

Local Air Quality 0.09 0%

Time - tram-> car (existing car users) 176.71

Time - tram->bus (switchers) 147.07

Time - tram->car (switchers) -296.60

Fare - tram->bus 147.07

Fare - tram->car -47.41

VOCs - tram->car (switchers) 51.29 23%

Fares revenue -> tram operators 241.52

Fares revenue -> bus operators -256.27

Accident Benefits 27.11 12%

Wider Impacts 19.85 9%

Total (PVB) 220.07

CostsLocal funding 68.29

National Govt funding -65.43

Supertram Operating costs 280.25

Supertram revenue -241.52

Total (PVC) 41.60

Wider Govt Finances 2.98

BCR 5.29

12%

45%

-7%

The main impact of the scheme is on accessibility; with costs (cash and time) per trip reduced for previous bus users by more (in total) than they are increased for previous car users (the incremental model does not include a mode constant value). Bus operators lose revenue whilst tram operators gain revenue. Accident benefits take account of the accident history of

15

Supertram and average casualty rates per DMRB Vol13. Wider impacts are estimated as 10% of all other benefits. In addition to re-railing costs described in the cost plan (with 44% optimism bias) costs of the scheme include continued payment by SYPTE of concessionary fare reimbursement at current rates to the tram operator, less such payments to bus operators. (The Do Minimum capital costs of de-commissioning have been subtracted from scheme costs.) Tram operating, maintenance and management costs less farebox (i.e. excluding concessions) revenue are added to capital costs. Costs are apportioned to local (LG) and national Government (CG) according to the cost plan. The DM de-commissioning costs are allocated 100% to CG (hence the negative sign on “National Govt” funding in the above table- the share is immaterial to the result) and in the case of DS replacement costs in 2024, on an assumed 25:75 split (LG:CG). The franchise is assumed to be re-let in 2024 with all risks of operating loss/profit reflected in the terms of the franchise and therefore borne by LG. - A description of the key risks and uncertainties; 1. Underlying trip rate growth has been forecast on the basis of the “core scenario” growth rates calculated for recent Major scheme business case submissions. These were based on conservative estimates of build-out in the regeneration area through which the “yellow” route runs capped to latest Tempro forecasts for the modelled area as whole. 2.The mode shift to car in the DM (which was the option for which mode switch was modelled) is not known with certainty, and the output trip matrices have not been re-input to the Highway Model to assess congestion impacts (see below) but a small speed adjustment has been made to reflect the calculated “first-round” mode switch to car. 3. To reflect the political will to discourage car use, as well as the finite capacity of car parks, city centre parking charges are set at a high level (i.e. free parking is eliminated) and the modal share of car (diversion) has been factored to reflect survey results and a likely supply response from bus operators (to tram closure). 4. Public transport fares are held constant in real terms. 5. Capital costs include quantified risks and an allowance for optimism bias (44%). - A short description of the modelling approach used to forecast the impact of the scheme and

the checks that have been undertaken to determine that it is fit-for-purpose. The basis of the modelling was the “SRTM3” model used for the Bus Rapid Transit (North) (BRT N) and SAV/TT schemes, both of which have recently given Programme Entry. This is multi-modal assignment and demand model using SATURN and CUBE/VOYAGER that achieved good validation in 2009/10 and was accepted by the Department as fit for the purpose of forecasting the demand for BRT and SAV/TT major/rail schemes. The BRT model used the full scope of the models, including 12 timeslices, 3 income segments for commuters and journey tours and iterated to near-equilibrium between the highway and public transport models. The SAV/TT model used a simplified “static” version of this, calculated in a spreadsheet, based on 510 zones within walking distance of the tram network. Car, bus and tram passenger trips, time, distance and cost skims were extracted from the final run of the full base year model for the am peak of peak hour, an inter-peak hour and a pm peak hour for all journey purposes together. This meant that the Highway congestion relief of any “DS” could not be modelled, so webTAG de-congestion (and environmental) values in Unit 3.9.5 were applied to the forecasted DS vehicle kms removed from the highway.

16

In view of the magnitude of the maintenance costs required to keep Supertram operational, it was considered desirable to appraise the tram system as it stands in terms of “value for money” compared to closing it. Using the SAV/TT version of the model, the operating tram system was taken to be the “DM”, with closure as the “DS”. (This nomenclature – and the signs on values- were reversed in the appraisal and therefore in the table above). The three hourly passenger trip matrices for each mode in the DM were factored to recently surveyed tram boarding and alighting data by period, including off-peaks (1900:0700) and weekends. The incremental logit equations (of the form Y=e-a.GT) were applied to each mode’s demand to forecast mode trips and these were factored down to ensure no overall growth in total demand between the modelled DM and DS. As stated, for appraisal purposes, signs on trips and impacts were reversed to calculate benefits of “non-closure” in the appraisal “DS”.

* Small projects bids are not required to produce a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) but may want to include this here if they have estimated this. b) Small project bidders should provide the following as annexes as supporting material: - A completed Scheme Impacts Pro Forma which summarises the impact of proposals against

a number of metrics relevant to the scheme objectives. It is important that bidders complete as much of this table as possible as this will be used by DfT – along with other centrally sourced data – to form an estimate of the BCR of the scheme. Not all sections of the pro forma are relevant for all types of scheme (this is indicated in the pro forma).

- A description of the sources of data and forecasts used to complete the Scheme Impacts

Pro Forma. This should include descriptions of the checks that have been undertaken to verify the accuracy of data or forecasts relied upon. Further details on the minimum supporting information required are presented against each entry within the pro forma.

Has a Scheme Impacts Pro Forma been appended? Yes No N/A

Has a description of data sources / forecasts been appended? Yes No N/A

- A completed Appraisal Summary Table. Bidders are required to provide their assessment of

all the impacts included within the table and highlight any significant Social or Distributional Impacts (SDIs). Quantitative and monetary estimates should be provided where available but are not mandatory. The level of detail provided in the table should be proportionate to the scale of expected impact with particular emphasis placed on the assessment of carbon, air quality, bus usage, sustainable modes, accessibility and road safety. The source of evidence used to assess impacts should be clearly stated within the table and (where appropriate) further details on the methods or data used to inform the assessment should be attached as notes to the table.

Has an Appraisal Summary Table been appended? Yes No N/A

- Other material supporting the assessment of the scheme described in this section should be

appended to your bid. * This list is not necessarily exhaustive and it is the responsibility of bidders to provide sufficient information to demonstrate the analysis supporting the economic case is fit-for-purpose. Large project bids (i.e. DfT contribution of more than £5m) –

17

c) Please provide a short description of your assessment of the value for money of the scheme

including your estimate of the BCR. This should include: - Significant monetised and non-monetised costs and benefits; - A description of the key risks and uncertainties and the impact these have on the BCR; - Key assumptions including (but not limited to): appraisal period, forecast years, level of

optimism bias applied; and - A description of the modelling approach used to forecast the impact of the scheme and the

checks that have been undertaken to determine that it is fit-for-purpose.

d) Detailed evidence supporting your assessment – including a completed Appraisal Summary

Table – should be attached as annexes to this bid. A checklist of material to be submitted in support of large project bids has been provided.

Has an Appraisal Summary Table been appended? Yes No N/A

- Please append any additional supporting information (as set out in the Checklist). *It is the responsibility of bidders to provide sufficient information for DfT to undertake a full review of the analysis. B7. The Commercial Case This section should set out the procurement strategy that will be used to select a contractor and, importantly for this fund, set out the timescales involved in the procurement process to show that delivery can proceed quickly. The proposed procurement strategy is summarised below, Works Competitive tenders Replacement tram services Procured by SYSL as they carry risk associated with this work

package Consultants PTE’s existing framework agreements will be used to meet

programme restraints. More details of this are given in response to questions below. a) Please provide evidence to show the risk allocation and transfer between the promoter and

contractor, contract timescales and implementation timescales (this can be cross-referenced to your Risk Management Strategy).

The main risk, post award of contracts is that works take longer than forecast, leading to additional costs. To minimise this, the risks associated with Traffic Management, a pre-determined level of foreseen work and the overall works duration will be passed to the contractor as they will be best placed to manage this. The risks associated with the replacement bus service provision will lie with SYSL as they are best placed to manage these and will bear any consequences associated with future revenue.

18

b) What is the preferred procurement route for the scheme and how and why was this identified as the preferred procurement route? For example, if it is proposed to use existing framework agreements or contracts, the contract must be appropriate in terms of scale and scope.

Following discussions between the Partners and advice from Turner and Townsend and EC Harris (Quantity Surveyors) the procurement route below has been developed to deliver the best match with the programme constraints, the need to deliver VfM and comply with the relevant legislation. It is proposed to award two works contracts for the rail replacement. Contract 1 Urgent works (replacement needed in Summer 2013) Estimated Value: £3.9m This contract will be awarded by competitive tender to the most economically advantageous. Tender documentation was issued to 5 shortlisted contractors in November 2012. Initial tender returns are being evaluated, as some contractors offered different installation methods and programmes a further round of tendering and/or negotiation is being considered to allow comparison on an equal basis. The form of tender will be NEC option A - priced contract with activity schedule. For contract 1 the permits necessary to allow works to be carried out on the highway need to be submitted by SYPTE before award due to the length of the approval process. This form of contract was chosen as it is outcome driven, transfers the risk to the contractor and enables us to divide the sites into contract activities making the permit process easier to manage. Contract 2 Balance of works Estimated Value: £10.5m This contract will be procured by competitive tender in line with EU regulation using the restricted route. A PIN has been issued and appointment will be on the basis of the most economically advantageous. The form of tender will be NEC target cost (option C or D). This form of contract has been chosen as there will be more time available to define the scope of works in contract 2 meaning changes are less likely. This enables SYPTE to pass the financial effect of overruns to the contractor, SYPTE will retain the risk associated with client changes. As there is more time for the contractor to plan for these works the partners are considering requiring the contractor to apply for the highway permits. The form of tender is expected to be agreed by the partners in April. Tram Replacement Services These will be managed by SYSL. They will draw on internal group resources (assets, people and knowledge) to minimise costs. Consultants These will be appointed using SYPTE’s existing framework contracts. These frameworks were procured using EU compliant processes. To date Turner & Townsend and Arup have been advising SYPTE. Confirmation of which consultants will carry out these roles (NEC equivalent of Resident Engineer/QS etc.) during the next stage of implementation will be made in March.

19

c) A procurement strategy will not need to form part of the bid documentation submitted to DfT. Instead, the Department will require the bid to include a joint letter from the local authority’s Section 151 Officer and Head of Procurement confirming that a strategy is in place that is legally compliant and is likely to achieve the best value for money outcome.

Has a joint letter been appended to your bid? Yes No *It is the promoting authority’s responsibility to decide whether or not their scheme proposal is lawful; and the extent of any new legal powers that need to be sought. Scheme promoters should ensure that any project complies with the Public Contracts Regulations as well as European Union State Aid rules, and should be prepared to provide the Department with confirmation of this, if required. B8. Management Case - Delivery Deliverability is one of the essential criteria for this Fund and as such any bid should set out any necessary statutory procedures that are needed before it can be constructed. a) A detailed project plan (typically in Gantt chart form) with milestones should be included,

covering the period from submission of the bid to scheme completion. The definition of the key milestones should be clear and explained. The critical path should be identifiable and any key dependencies (internal or external) should be explained. Resource requirements, task durations, contingency and float should be detailed and easily identifiable. Dependencies and interfaces should be clearly outlined and plans for management detailed.

Has a project plan been appended to your bid? Yes No

Please refer to the Sheffield Supertram Rail Replacement Summary Programme and Detailed Works Programmes in Appendices 16 and 17 respectively. The critical path is highlighted in red within the Summary Programme and demonstrated on a site level basis within the Detailed Works Programme. Both programmes show all dependencies and interfaces. The ideal conditions for installing new rails are dry weather with a temperature above 4 degrees. To accommodate this, the Detailed Works Programme includes two non-working periods between October 2013 to March 2014 and October 2014 to March 2015. This is highlighted in the Detailed Works Programme as the grey shaded areas. There are two key areas of contingency within the site works; firstly 3 weeks available for works in September 2013 and September 2014. Secondly, although October is categorised as non-working time we have kept this as contingency. Based on Met Office data, the average minimum temperate for Sheffield in October is between 6 and 10 degrees with an average rainfall of 63mm over 15 days. It is therefore possible for works to be undertaken throughout October. The project has therefore allowed for up to 14 weeks of contingency in total. Resource has been clearly outlined in the Summary Programme but the Detailed Works Programme will be Contractor led and include time from all members of the project team. 1 day of float has been allocated between each site except for on large sites where we have allowed for 3 days of float between site works. This is highlighted in the Predecessors column in the Detailed Works Programme.

20

b) If delivery of the project is dependent on land acquisition, please include a letter from the

respective land owner(s) to demonstrate that arrangements are in place in order to secure the land to enable the authority to meet its construction milestones.

Has a letter relating to land acquisition been appended? Yes No N/A

c) Please provide summary details of your construction milestones (at least one but no more

than 5 or 6) between start and completion of works: Table C: Construction milestones

Estimated Date

Contract 1 Site Start July/2013

Contract 1 Site Completion September/2013

Contract 2 Site Start August/2013

Contract 2 Site Completion April/2015

Opening date Phased closing/opening will be managed on a site basis

Completion of works (if different)

d) Please list any major transport schemes costing over £5m in the last 5 years which the

authority has delivered, including details of whether these were completed to time and budget (and if not, whether there were any mitigating circumstances)

Projects completed in the last 5 years Rotherham Central Railway Station: The redevelopment of Rotherham Central Station was completed in May 2012. The project was delayed by 17 months and incurred additional costs above the targets set at full approval. The reasons for this are summarised below: - Unforeseen condition of an adjacent retaining wall which required demolition and re-

instatement, - Significant delays associated with the contractor gaining design and construction approval

from Network Rail, - Sub-contractor interface issues. Previous projects Doncaster Interchange: (£200m PFI contract) This project was completed within the original budget and programme set at the equivalent of Full Approval. Barnsley Interchange: (£25.5m) Completed on time and on budget. A638 (In partnership with DMBC): This project was opened in April 2009 on programme. Total scheme costs out-turned at £17.04m, 4% above the original Annex E submission (2005) for the DfT Major Scheme Funding.

21

Sheffield Railway Station £15.9m including £12.8m Railway Passenger Partnership funding. This project was delivered on time and within budget as part of a wider £50m scheme to create a station gateway which was an early stage in the redevelopment of Sheffield City Centre. Partners included Network Rail, Midland Mainline and Sheffield City Council. Current projects BRT North SYPTE are working in partnership with Sheffield City Council and Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to deliver the BRT North Project which connects the two urban centres via the Lower Don Valley. The project includes the construction of the Tinsley Link Road providing much needed additional capacity for J34S of the M1. This will bridge the River Don Valley and heavy rail line before passing under the M1 Tinsley Viaduct. Tram Train – SAV SYPTE is working in partnership with Stagecoach, Network Rail and Northern Rail to deliver the UK’s first Tram Train project. This project is unique to the Rail Industry and requires innovation and collaborative working between the organisations. The project team were “highly commended” for their work to date on this project at the UK Tram Awards 2012. B9. Management Case – Statutory Powers and Consents a) Please list separately each power / consents etc obtained, details of date acquired,

challenge period (if applicable) and date of expiry of powers and conditions attached to them. Any key dates should be referenced in your project plan.

The South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Acts 1988-1993 authorise SYPTE to maintain the system. No other statutory powers are required to undertake the work (in effect SYPTE are a statutory undertaker in respect of the tram system). SYPTE will liaise with the highway authority (SCC) to arrange for any road closures required for the works. b) Please list separately any outstanding statutory powers / consents etc, including the

timetable for obtaining them. There are no outstanding statutory powers or consents needed to implement this project. B10. Management Case – Governance Please name who is responsible for delivering the scheme, the roles (Project Manager, SRO etc.) and responsibilities of those involved, and how key decisions are/will be made. An organogram may be useful here. Details around the organisation of the project including Board accountabilities, contract management arrangements, tolerances, and decision making authorities should be clearly documented and fully agreed. The governance structure is based on the PRINCE2 methodology, the main elements of this are summarised below: Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) David Young, Director of Customer Experience Mr Young is Director of Customer Experience and is responsible for the maintenance of assets and provision of public transport services for the SYPTE. He is a member of SYPTE’s

22

Management and Executive Boards. As SRO he will have ultimate responsibility for the delivery of the project. Senior Supplier Margaret Kay, Managing Director, Stagecoach Supertram (SYSL) Ms Kay will represent the interests of Supertram and those supplying the public transport services to users. She will also act as SRO within Stagecoach and will be responsible for representing Stagecoach and delivering their approvals as required. Senior User Roy Mitchell, Principal Public Transport Manager (SYPTE) Mr Mitchell will represent the needs of those using the services and others affected by the construction. Sheffield City Council will also have a representative on the Project Board; the current proposal is John Bann, Head of Transport and Highways. The Project Board will draw upon other project team members as required. Project Manager Steve Mullett, Principal Project Manager (SYPTE) The Project Manager is responsible for the day to day management of the project and delivery of the targets set by the SRO. Project Team The Project Manager will lead the wider project team. The project team is made up of Work Package leaders for individual tasks. These tasks and Work Package leaders are detailed in Appendix 21. The overall structure of the Project Governance is shown in the diagram below:

23

The Project Board meets regularly (monthly) in the projects life and as required. In addition to the individual duties, the collective responsibility of the Project Board includes: (i) Managing identified risks; (ii) Providing overall direction and guidance; (iii) Making decisions on exceptional situations; (iv) Ensuring the project remains consistent with business plans and the external

environment; (v) Notifying the Project Manager of changes “outside” the project that could/will affect it; (vi) Ensuring projects remain on target for time, cost, quality and outcomes; (vii) Making decisions on changes (via the Request for Change (RFC) process). Contract Management The two works contracts will be awarded by SYPTE. A team of consultants, led by SYPTE’s Project Manager will be appointed by SYPTE from its current frameworks to carry out the various roles associated with management of the contracts (for NEC contract Project Manager and supervisor). Overall responsibility for contract management will be with SYPTE’s Project Manager. Tolerances At the highest level tolerances for approvals and change are set by SYPTE’s standing orders, it is the SRO’s responsibility to ensure that the necessary approvals at this level are delivered to programme. Below this all approvals are the responsibility of the SRO and Project Board except where delegated as below.

24

Project Manager: (i) Approval of costs up to the level of the risk allowance for specific issues; (ii) Changes to scope that do not effect project outputs or impact on others not represented

on the project team, subject complying with (i) and (iii); (iii) Changes to programme that do not affect the overall end date, except where they would

impact on cost or others not represented on the project team. Work Package Leaders: (i) Approval of costs up to the delegated level of the risk allowance (set by the Project

Manager as part of the Work Package Brief); (ii) Changes to scope that do not affect other Work Packages and that comply with (i) and

(iii); (iii) Changes to programme that do not affect other Work Packages and comply with (i) and

(iii). The full details of the tolerances have not yet been agreed by the SRO, below is a generic table used as a starting point for projects managed by SYPTE.

Decision Making The Project Board’s aim will be to reach consensus on all decisions required of it. However, should this not be possible the SRO will be responsible for ensuring proper decisions are made in a timely manner. The partnership agreement contains a dispute resolution process. B11. Management Case - Risk Management All schemes will be expected to undertake a thorough Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) and a detailed risk register should be included in the bid. The QRA should be proportionate to the nature and complexity of the scheme. A Risk Management Strategy should be developed and should outline on how risks will be managed. The partners have assessed the risks associated with the project and these have been updated as the project has developed. This assessment has involved identification, impact assessment and forecasting the chance of the risk occurring. For larger risks the impact has been assessed across a range of possible outcomes. The expected financial impact of risk and its overall distribution has been assessed using a risk modelling tool, the outcome of this is shown in Appendix 18.

Factor Threshold Approval LevelFinancial Up to level of provision in the risk allowance for

specific issues

Project Manager

Items above that included in risk allowance up to levels required by SYPTE’s Standing Orders

Project Board

Change in contract value > 10% Management and Executive Board dependent on value

Change to funding Any change to Management Board Programme ± one month Project Manager ± three months Project Board “Significant” changes Management Board Specification Changes that would not affect acceptance criteria Project Manager Changes to acceptance criteria Project Board “Significant” changes Management Board

25

Risk Management The partners will manage risks in line with PRINCE2 guidelines, all risks have an owner and the financial responsibility for risks and cost overruns are covered in the agreement between the partners. More details on risk management are given in Appendix 19. In addition to the risk allowance in the cost plan optimum bias of 44% has been used in the economic case. This is based on the work being normal practice for operators rather than the introduction of new light rail systems. Please ensure that in the risk / QRA cost that you have not included any risks associated with ongoing operational costs and have used the P50 value The financial impact of all identified risks has been forecast and the accumulative impact of these modelled. This has led to the inclusion of £1.13m for risk in the cost plan. The risk log showing these risks and their owners is given in Appendix 20 and the risk modeling is shown in Appendix 18. (The modeling and risk allowance does not include risks relevant to the project but not the bid, e.g. risks during the operational phase). Has a QRA been appended to your bid? Yes No Please see Appendix 18 Has a Risk Management Strategy been appended to your bid? Yes No Please see Appendix 19 B12. Management Case - Stakeholder Management The bid should demonstrate that the key stakeholders and their interests have been identified and considered as appropriate. These could include other local authorities, the Highways Agency, statutory consultees, landowners, transport operators, local residents, utilities companies etc. This is particularly important in respect of any bids related to structures that may require support of Network Rail and, possibly, train operating company(ies). a) Please provide a summary of your strategy for managing stakeholders, with details of the

key stakeholders together with a brief analysis of their influences and interests. The project partners have worked together to prepare a Stakeholder Management Strategy. This has enabled us to identify key influential stakeholders to solicit input for project planning and gain support as the project progresses. This will benefit the project by minimising the likelihood of encountering competing objectives and maximising the resources required to complete the project. Early identification and communication with stakeholders is imperative to ensure the success of the Project by gaining support and input for the project. By initiating early and frequent communication and stakeholder management, we will more effectively manage and balance stakeholder’s interests while accomplishing all project tasks. There are four teams working across the two partner organisations to deliver the Customer and Stakeholder Management plan consultation. SYSL’s Customer Service Department will be responsible for ensuring the customers are informed and SYPTE’s External Relations, Marketing and Communications teams will be responsible for ensuring Stakeholders are managed and informed.

26

The following summarises the Stakeholder Management Strategy: Stakeholder How When By Who

The Customer South Yorkshire Travel

and Supertram Website Twitter Press Radio Tramstop posters/leaflets

March 2013 June 2013 August 2013 February 2014 April 2014 August 2014

SYSL SYPTE

Local and Community Media

Press Releases March 2013 June 2013 August 2013 February 2014 April 2014 August 2014

SYSL SYPTE

Local Elected Representatives

Letters Web Updates

February 2013 June 2013 August 2013 February 2014 April 2014 August 2014

SYPTE

Frontages Letters Web Updates

March 2013 February 2014 6 weeks before

works due on site specific basis

SYPTE

Businesses, Schools, Colleges and the 2 Universities

Letters Web Updates

March 2013 February 2014 6 weeks before

works due on site specific basis

SYPTE

Residential & Commercial Properties

Letters Web Updates

March 2013

February 2014

SYPTE

Sheffield City Council Letters to Highways & Transportation

Permit Process Monthly works co-

ordination meetings

February 2013 June 2013 August 2013 February 2014 Monthly basis for

works meetings

SYPTE

Sheffield MP’s Letters Web Updates Community Forums

February 2013 June 2013 August 2013 February 2014

SYPTE

Ward Members Letters Web Updates Community Forums

February 2013 June 2013 August 2013 February 2014

SYPTE

NHS Workers Letters Web Updates

March 2013 6 weeks before

works due on site specific basis

February 2014

SYPTE

Freedom of Information Requests

Individual Responses As per request

SYPTE

27

Below is an overview of each stakeholder’s influence and interest. Stakeholder Influence Interest

Action

The Customer High Changes to journey patterns

Manage Closely

Local and Community Media High Impact of the works on

the local area Manage Closely

Local Elected Representatives

High Impact of the works on the local area

Keep Informed

Frontages Medium Disruption to business and access changes

Manage Closely

Businesses, Schools, Colleges and the 2 Universities

Medium Changes to journey patterns

Keep Informed

Residential & Commercial Properties

Low Changes to journey patterns Changes to journey patterns and any changes to access

Keep Informed

Sheffield City Council High Impact of the works on the local area

Keep Satisfied

Sheffield MP’s Medium Impact of the works on

the local area Keep Informed

NHS Workers Low Changes to journey patterns Changes to journey patterns and any changes to access

Keep Informed

Ward Members Medium Impact of the works on the local area

Keep Informed

b) Can the scheme be considered as controversial in any way? Yes No

If yes, please provide a brief summary (in no more than 100 words)

The retention of Supertram is not controversial and has widespread support from Stakeholders and the public. However, the disruption caused will have a disproportionate impact on a small number of people. SYPTE has plans in place to ensure problems and queries raised are dealt with quickly and effectively.

c) Have there been any external campaigns either supporting or opposing the scheme?

Yes No

If yes, please provide a brief summary (in no more than 100 words)

d) For large schemes please also provide a Stakeholder Analysis and append this to your

application. Has a Stakeholder Analysis been appended? Yes No N/A e) For large schemes please provide a Communications Plan with details of the level of

engagement required (depending on their interests and influence), and a description of how and by what means they will be engaged with.

Has a Communications Plan been appended? Yes No N/A

28

B13. Management Case - Assurance We will require Section 151 Officer confirmation (Section D) that adequate assurance systems are in place. For large schemes please provide evidence of an integrated assurance and approval plan. This should include details around planned health checks or gateway reviews. SYPTE operate a system of gateway reviews to enable independent checking at regular stages in every project to ensure that the requirements, costs and timescales remain valid and aligned to the business objectives. This demonstrates effective use of funding and meets the needs of the projects partners. Please refer to Appendix 22 for a flowchart of the gateway assurance process. SECTION C – Monitoring, Evaluation and Benefits Realisation C1. Benefits Realisation Please provide details on the profile and baseline benefits and their ownership. This should be proportionate to the size of the proposed scheme. The appraisal has been based on the current and forecasted tram patronage, including commercial and concessionary passengers (before extension to Rotherham and additional vehicles schemes), which are dependent on a range of modelling assumptions: 2014 15.3m trips 2024 16.5m trips 2028 17.0m trips (capacity of current fleet) The responsibility for achieving lies with SYPTE and SYSL. If these trips eventuate, and other assumptions hold, then it is likely that the projected AST benefits will be achieved. C2. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation is an essential part of scheme development and should be considered and built into the planning of a scheme from the earliest stages. Evaluating the outcomes and impacts of schemes is important to show if a scheme has been successful. Please set out how you plan to measure and report on the benefits identified in Section C1, alongside any other outcomes and impacts of the scheme To ensure that the programme is progressing satisfactorily and will achieve its objectives, a monitoring framework has been developed to accompany implementation. This framework will examine the outputs, outcomes and impacts of the programme regularly during its implementation. The starting point for this is our existing evaluation programme, which has been amended to suit the requirements of this bid. Monitoring and evaluation of this bid is built around three key elements. The first is to look at the key impacts on wealth creation and emissions. The second is centred on the infrastructure delivery programme. The final element covers key operational performance indicators.

29

The measures included in our current LTP3 indicators cover the majority of the topics that need evaluation for this bid. We will use these as far as possible to avoid duplication. New indicators have been added where the detail required for this evaluation is finer than current datasets provide. Proposed monitoring and evaluation framework

Programme Indicators from LTP and SBP programme

New Bid Indicators

Entire Programme GVA Transport emissions

Track replacement programme

Investment delivery Post implementation impact assessment

Tram performance indicators

Passenger numbers Ticketing and affordability Punctuality Reliability Customer comments Investment delivery Passenger satisfaction

Annual re-modelling of passenger flows

A fuller evaluation for large schemes may also be required depending on their size and type. SECTION D: Declarations D1. Senior Responsible Owner Declaration As Senior Responsible Owner for the Supertram Rail Replacement scheme I hereby submit this request for approval to DfT on behalf of SYPTE and confirm that I have the necessary authority to do so. I confirm that SYPTE will have all the necessary statutory powers in place to ensure the planned timescales in the application can be realised. Name: David Young

Signed:

Position: Director of Customer Experience

D2. Section 151 Officer Declaration As Section 151 Officer for SYPTE declare that the scheme cost estimates quoted in this bid are accurate to the best of my knowledge and that SYPTE

30

- has allocated sufficient budget to deliver this scheme on the basis of its proposed funding

contribution - accepts responsibility for meeting any costs over and above the DfT contribution

requested, including potential cost overruns and the underwriting of any funding contributions expected from third parties

- accepts responsibility for meeting any ongoing revenue requirements in relation to the scheme

- accepts that no further increase in DfT funding will be considered beyond the maximum contribution requested and that no DfT funding will be provided after 2014/15

- confirms that the authority has the necessary governance / assurance arrangements in place and, for smaller scheme bids, the authority can provide, if required, evidence of a stakeholder analysis and communications plan in place

Name: John Smart

Signed:

Position: Chief Financial and Systems Officer

Submission of bids: For both small bids and large bids the deadline is 5pm, 21 February 2013 One hard copy and a CD version of each bid and supporting material should be submitted to: Steve Berry Local Transport Funding, Growth & Delivery Division Department for Transport Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR An electronic copy should also be submitted to steve.berry@dft.gsi.gov.uk