rt msbc report - west of england msbc report.pdffinal report introduction - 4 support for the scheme...

West of England Rapid Transit Ashton Vale to Temple Meads and Bristol City Centre

Major Scheme Business Case

Introduction

an overview of the Major Scheme Business Case submission, initial application form

and checklist

Final Report Introduction - 2

Introduction This Application

This document is the Major Scheme Business Case (MSBC) submission to the Department for Transport (DfT) seeking Programme Entry for the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads and Bristol City Centre Rapid Transit Scheme (“the Rapid Transit Scheme”). It is the culmination of two years development work since the scheme was identified in the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS) in 2005 and prioritised in the South West Regional Funding Allocation in 2006 (RFA1).

The Rapid Transit Scheme is part of an integrated suite of improvements planned for the West of England sub-region, and the second line1 of a network of rapid transit routes that are needed to ensure the ongoing economic development and sustainability of the West of England. As the economic hub of the South West, the performance of the West of England sub-region is vital to the wider region.

The Rapid Transit Scheme is planned to provide a new sustainable transport alternative for people living and working in the North Somerset and Bristol areas and is intrinsically linked to the planning and delivery of development in a sustainable way.

Promoters

The West of England sub-region is made up of Bath and North East Somerset, the City of Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire. An all-purpose unitary council governs each of these four areas. The four councils are working together as the West of England Partnership to tackle transport and other major strategic issues. Figure 1 shows the geographical area of the West of England sub-region.

The Rapid Transit Scheme is located within the boundaries of Bristol City Council and North Somerset Council. It is supported jointly through the West of England Partnership with Bristol City Council as the lead delivery Authority. Our delivery plan is set out in Section 4.

Contact details are as follows:

Bob Fowler Group Manager Major Transport Projects

(Senior Responsible Owner)

Colin Medus Head of Transport Policy and Programmes

Barbara Davies Head of Joint Transport Team

Bristol City Council

2nd Floor, Wilder House

Wilder Street

Bristol

BS2 8PH

[email protected]

Tel: 0117 903 6579

North Somerset Council

Somerset House

Oxford Street

Weston-super-Mare

BS23 1TG

[email protected]

Tel: 01934 426 498

West of England Partnership Office

1st Floor, Wilder House

Wilder Street

Bristol

BS2 8PH

[email protected]

Tel: 0117 922 4923

1 The first RT line in the West of England sub-region will be delivered as part of the Bath Package.


Figure 1 West of England Sub-Region


Support for the Scheme

The Rapid Transit Scheme has a high level of support from a wide range of stakeholders.

Delivery of the Rapid Transit Scheme is a priority for the South West Region. The South West Regional Development Agency is a strong supporter of the Rapid Transit Scheme both through the regional funding process but also through working together to ensure integrated planning of this scheme with the delivery of identified developments in the area.

The Rapid Transit Scheme has broad support from the business community. GWE Business West represents over 2,300 businesses in the West of England and is the principal business organisation for the sub-region.

Active engagement with neighbourhood and community groups, the business community and environmental consultees is maintained. Formal public consultation undertaken at the end of 2008 showed overwhelming support for the proposals. Section 4 sets out full details of the stakeholder assessment and consultation.

Through the development of the Rapid Transit Scheme the Authorities have engaged with public transport operators. Both the current Park and Ride operator and the main bus operator in the sub-region support the scheme.

Letters of support for the Rapid Transit Scheme are included in this MSBC as follows:

• South West Regional Assembly Appendix 2D

• South West Regional Development Agency Appendix 2D

• GWE Business West Appendix 4E

• Bristol International Airport Appendix 4E

• First Bus, Bristol Appendix 5A

• Wessex Connect Appendix 5A


Structure of our Major Scheme Business Case

This document is structured to conform to the DfT guidance on the preparation of Major Scheme Business Case. The analysis presented within this document has been undertaken in line with the guidance on WebTAG (www.webtag.org.uk).

This document has an executive summary, six sections (to which this forms the introduction) and supporting appendices.

• Section 1 – Scheme Description.

• Section 2 – Strategic Case.

• Section 3 – Value for Money Case.

• Section 4 – Delivery Case.

• Section 5 – Commercial Case.

• Section 6 – Financial Case.

The appendices contain further detail to the sections, provide supporting information and comprise:

• 1A Overview Plan: Ashton Vale to Temple Meads and Bristol City Centre

• 1B Overview Plan: Bristol City Centre Route

• 1C Major Scheme Bid Drawings

• 1D Related Developments

• 1E Low Cost Alternative Scheme Plan

• 2A Transport Problems and Needs

• 2A (i) JLTP 2008 Progress Review

• 2B Scheme Development & Alternatives Considered

• 2B (i) PT Corridor Options Report

• 2B (ii) Options Short Listing Report

• 2B (iii) Technology Options Report, 2007

• 2B (iv) Technology Review, Final Report, September 2008

• 2B (v) Lower Cost Alternatives Report

• 2C Policy and Planning

• 2D Written Endorsement from Regional Bodies

• 3A Capital and Operating Costs

• 3B GBATS-3 v2.3 Highway Model Validation Report


• 3C GBATS-3 v2.3 Public Transport Model Validation Report

• 3D GBATS-3 v2.3 Demand Model Development Report

• 3E West of England Forecasting Report

• 3E (i) Passenger Demand Forecasting and Analysis

• 3F Environmental Assessment Scoping Report

• 3F (i) Consultation Responses from Statutory Bodies

• 3F (ii) Environmental Assessment

• 3G Safety and Economic Analysis Including NATA Worksheets

• 3H Accessibility Analysis

• 3I Integration Analysis

• 4A Project Plan

• 4B Risk Register

• 4C Quantified Risk Analysis

• 4D West of England Transport Branding

• 4E Consultation Report

• 4F BCC Statement of Community Involvement

• 4G Stakeholder Summary

• 5A Support from PT Operators

• 6A Independent Surveyor's Report

• 6B Capital Cost Estimates Detail


Local Authority Major Schemes: Initial Application for Funding Approval

Lead Scheme Promoter: West of England Region: South West

Bristol City Council Other Scheme Promoters: North Somerset Council

Scheme Name: Ashton Vale to Temple Meads and Bristol City Centre Rapid Transit Scheme

Has an application for DfT funding been previously submitted for this scheme or any variant of it?

No

Type of Funding (e.g. LTP Major, TIF, CIF etc.) LTP Major

Scheme Type: Public Transport

Subtype: Rapid Transit

Scheme Description (no more than 100 words):

The Scheme will provide fast, frequent and reliable public transport. Services will run on a largely segregated route, separate from car traffic, and will be given priority over other road users at traffic signals. There will be a set of core services running frequently from Long Ashton Park and Ride to Bristol City Centre. Additional services will serve destinations in North Somerset. The scheme integrates and improves links to the existing transport network. The Scheme will provide high quality passenger facilities and a parallel cycling/ pedestrian route linking in to existing networks. Services will use accessible, comfortable, low-emission vehicles. Access to the system will be governed through quality standards.

Has an Economic Impact Report been included (Y/N)? No

Approval Sought: Programme Entry

Name and contact details of LA officer responsible for submitting bid:

Barbara Davies Head of Joint Transport Team, West of England Partnership Office 1st Floor, Wilder House Wilder Street, Bristol, BS2 8PH [email protected] Tel: 0117 922 4923

Name and contact details of the Senior Responsible Officer:

Bob Fowler Group Manager Major Transport Projects, Bristol City Council 2nd Floor, Wilder House, Wilder Street, Bristol, BS2 8PH [email protected] Tel: 0117 903 6579


Year Preparatory Costs (£m)

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14

Total

£m £m £m £m £m £m £m

DfT Contribution

requested 0.942 - - 6.966 20.185 16.021

43.172

LA Contribution / Developer Contribution / Others

2.864 - 0.059 1.992 1.735 0.832 4.619

Total Funding 3.806 - 0.059 8.958 21.920 16.853 47.798

Inflation assumption(s) used:

Inflation include in QRA assessment (see Section 6.3)

The DfT contribution excludes VAT and optimism bias but includes costs estimated from a QRA and inflation.

Please provide estimated timescale in months (giving a range if necessary).

Between Programme Entry being granted and all necessary powers being in place (as necessary for Conditional approval):

20 months

Between Conditional Approval being granted and Contractor prices being known (as necessary for Full approval):

2 months

Between Full Approval and completion of scheme: 24 months


Major Scheme Guidance Checklist Scheme Description – Section 1 Item Section/Page A detailed physical description of the scheme, and the other appraised option(s), including maps, scale diagrams and a written commentary.

Section 1

Strategic Case – Section 2 Item Section/Page The objectives of the scheme Section 2.3 A description of the process by which the scheme came to be identified as the preferred option for meeting those objectives

Section 2.3

How the objectives of the scheme align with wider local objectives, particularly those of the relevant Local Transport Plan.

Sections 2.4 to 2.6

How the objectives of the scheme align with sub-regional and regional objectives, (except for schemes of predominantly local significance)

Sections 2.4 to 2.6

Written endorsement from regional bodies Appendix 2D

Value for Money – Section 3 Cost Benefit Analysis Item Section/Page A clear explanation of the underlying assumptions used in the Cost Benefit Analysis.

Section 3.2, Section3.8, Appendix 3A and 3G

Information on local factors used. For example the derivation of growth factors, M factors in COBA and annualisation factors in TUBA (to include full details of any calculations).

Appendix 3G

A diagram of the network (if COBA used). Not applicable Information on the number of junctions modelled (if COBA used), for both the do-minimum and the do-something.

Not applicable

Details of assumptions about operating costs and commercial viability (e.g. public transport, park and ride, etc.).

Section 3.2, Appendix 3A

Full appraisal inputs/outputs (when used, COBA and/or TUBA input and output files should be supplied).

Appendix 3G

Details of the maintenance delay costs/savings. Not applicable Details of the delays during construction. Not applicable

NATA Assessment Item Section/Page Evidence of consultation with key stakeholders (including any NGOs consulted and responses).

Section 4.5, Appendix 3F(i), Appendix 4E

Assessment of Environmental impacts, to include an environmental constraints map.

Section 3.7.1, Appendices 3F, 3F(i)

and 3F (ii) Assessment of Safety impacts and the assumed accident rates presented (COBA output should be provided if an accident only COBA has been run).

Section 3.7.2, Appendix 3G


Assessment of Economic impacts. Section 3.7.3, Appendix 3G

Assessment of Accessibility impacts. Section 3.7.4, Appendix 3H

Assessment of Integration impacts. Section 3.7.5, Appendix 3I

A comprehensive Appraisal Summary Table. Table 3.10 The following supporting analyses:

Distribution and Equity. Section 3.10 Affordability and Financial Sustainability. Section 3.11 Practicality and Public Acceptability (Evidence of public consultation supplied).

Section 3.12 Public consultation in

Appendix 4E

Contribution to 10 year plan targets. Section 3.13 NATA worksheets. Appendix 3G

Modelling

Item Section/Page

An Existing Data and Traffic Surveys Report to include: Highway - Appendix 3B PT – Appendix 3C

Details of the sources, locations (illustrated on a map), methods of collection, dates, days of week, durations, sample factors, estimation of accuracy, etc.

H – App 3B Sect 3 PT – App 3C Sect 2

Details of any specialist surveys (e.g. stated preference). Not applicable

Traffic and passenger flows; including daily, hourly and seasonal profiles, including details by vehicle class where appropriate.


Journey times by mode, including variability if appropriate. H – App 3B Sect 3 PT – App 3C Sect 4

Details of the pattern and scale of traffic delays and queues. H – App 3B Sect 3&5 PT – App 3C Sect 4

Desire line diagrams for important parts of the network. H – App 3B Sect 6&8 PT – App 3C Sect 5

Diagrams of existing traffic flows, both in the immediate corridor and other relevant corridors.


An Assignment Model Validation Report to include: Highway - Appendix 3B PT – Appendix 3C

Description of the road traffic and public transport passenger assignment model development, including model network and zone plans, details of treatment of congestion on the road system and crowding on the public transport system.

H – App 3B Sect 4,5&6 PT – App 3C Sect 2, 4 &

5


Item Section/Page

Description of the data used in model building and validation with a clear distinction made for any independent validation data.

H – App 3B Sect 3&8 PT – App 3C Sect 3 & 6

Evidence of the validity of the networks employed, including range checks, link length checks, and route choice evidence.

H – App 3B Sect 5&8 PT – App 3C Sect 4 & 6

Details of the segmentation used, including the rationale for that chosen. H – App 3B Sect 6 PT – App 3C Sect 5

Validation of the trip matrices, including estimation of measurement and sample errors.

H – App 3B Sect 8 PT – App 3C Sect 5 & 6

Details of any 'matrix estimation' techniques used and evidence of the effect of the estimation process on the scale and pattern of the base travel matrices.

H – App 3B Sect 6 PT – App 3C Sect 5 & 6

Validation of the trip assignment, including comparisons of flows (on links and across screenlines/cordons) and, for road traffic models, turning movements at key junctions.

H – App 3B Sect 7, 8&9 PT – App 3C Sect 6

Journey time validation, including, for road traffic models, checks on queue pattern and magnitudes of delays/queues.


Detail of the assignment convergence. H – App 3B Sect 7 PT – App 3C Sect 6

Present year validation if the model is more than 5 years old. H – App 3B Sect 8&9 PT – App 3C Sect 6

A diagram of modelled traffic flows, both in the immediate corridor and other relevant corridors.


A Demand Model Report to include: Appendix 3D

Where no Variable Demand Model has been developed evidence should be provided to support this decision (e.g. follow guidance in WebTAG Unit 3.10.1 Variable Demand Modelling - Preliminary Assessment Procedures).

Not applicable – Variable Demand Model

developed

Description of the demand model. Appendix 3D Section 2

Description of the data used in the model building and validation. Appendix 3D Section 3

Details of the segmentation used, including the rationale for that chosen. This should include justification for any segments remaining fixed.

Appendix 3D Section 2

Evidence of model calibration and validation and details of any sensitivity tests.


Details of any imported model components and rationale for their use. Appendix 3D Section 3

Validation of the supply model sensitivity in cases where the detailed assignment models do not iterate directly with the demand model.


Details of the realism testing, including outturn elasticities of demand with respect to fuel cost and public transport fares.


Details of the demand/supply convergence. Appendix 3D Section 4


Item Section/Page

A Forecasting Report to include: Appendix 3E

Description of the methods used in forecasting future traffic demand. Appendix 3E Section 2

Description of the future year demand assumptions (e.g. land use and economic growth - for the do minimum, core and variant scenarios).

Appendix 3E Section 2

Description of the future year transport supply assumptions (i.e. networks examined for the do minimum, core scenario and variant scenarios).


Description of the travel cost assumptions (e.g. fuel costs, PT fares, parking). Appendix 3E Section 4

Comparison of the local forecast results to national forecasts, at an overall and sectoral level.


Presentation of the forecast travel demand and conditions for the core scenario and variant scenarios including a diagram of forecast flows for the do-minimum and the scheme options for affected corridors.

Appendix 3E Section 5&6

If the model includes very slow speeds or high junction delays evidence of their plausibility.


An explanation of any forecasts of flows above capacity, especially for the do-minimum, and an explanation of how these are accounted for in the modelling/appraisal.


Presentation of the sensitivity tests carried out (to include optimistic and pessimistic tests).

Appendix 3E Section 5&6

Delivery – Section 4

Item Section/Page

Governance

Named Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) Section 4.2

Proposed Governance Structure Section 4.2

Composition of Project Board Section 4.2

Details of resourcing level for the scheme Section 4.2

Project Planning

Project Plan (e.g. in GANNT chart form) Section 4.3

List of key milestones and dates Section 4.3

Clear critical path and dependencies Section 4.3

Risk Management

Risk Register with likelihood, probability and mitigation measures, including Quantified Risk Assessment.

Section 4.4

Description of proposed Risk Management process and escalation procedures. Section 4.4

Stakeholder Management


Identification and analysis of key stakeholders and their interests. Section 4.5

Description of public consultation already carried out. Section 4.5

Plans for future consultation and stakeholder management. Section 4.5

Evidence of consultation with Statutory Bodies (Natural England, English Heritage and Environment Agency) and their responses.

Section 4.5 Appendix 3F(i)

Evaluation

Statement of core evaluation objectives Section 4.6

Assurance (schemes with gross cost of £50m or more)

Confirmation of date Gateway Review carried out (or planned). Section 4.6

Commercial Item Section/Page Preferred procurement route with rationale for choice Sections 5.2 to 5.4 Details of proposed risk sharing approach (for other than traditional procurement) Section 5.5

Financial Item Section/Page Detailed cost breakdown Section 6.2 Evidence of how cost estimates have been derived Section 6.2 Independent surveyor's report verifying cost estimates Appendix 6B Details of and justification for inflation assumption used. Section 6.3 Costing for risk based on QRA Section 6.3 Estimate of eligible preparatory costs Section 6.4 Details of measures to secure necessary third party contributions, if applicable Section 6.5 Description and estimate of any ongoing revenue liability (other than routine maintenance) and proposals to meet it

Section 6.5

Section 151 Officer sign-off for cost estimates Section 6.6



1 Scheme Description

a description of the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads

and Bristol City Centre Rapid Transit Scheme

Final Report Scheme Description - 16

Scheme Description 1.1 Appraisal and Value for Money

This section provides a description of the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads and Bristol City Centre rapid transit scheme (“the Rapid Transit Scheme”). It includes:

• Overall Rapid Transit Network – a description of the wider proposed network and the network wide system characteristics established to govern design of individual corridors.

• Rapid Transit Scheme – a description of the specific details of the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads and Bristol City Centre scheme including route, facilities and services.

• Low Cost Alternative – a description of the Low Cost Alternative scheme.

Our work on a Next Best Alternative (NBA) scheme is discussed as part of scheme development work in Section 2.

1.2 The Proposed Rapid Transit Network

Our vision for rapid transit is a network of sustainable transport corridors across the sub-region connecting the key areas of employment, leisure and housing that offer fast, reliable and comfortable journeys which provide a real alternative to the use of private cars.

Rapid transit services will be fast, frequent and reliable with new, low-emission vehicles, high quality passenger facilities, information and interchanges and safe and secure access to stops. Services will run on largely segregated routes, separate from car traffic, and will be given priority over other road users at traffic signals when running on the public highway.

The proposed Rapid Transit Network identified in our Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP) consists of four cross sub-regional corridors running via Bristol City Centre from:

• Ashton Vale to Emerson’s Green.

• Hengrove to North Fringe.

• Bath to Cribbs Causeway.

• Whitchurch to Avonmouth/Portishead.

In addition to this are our aspirations for routes to:

• Bristol International Airport.

• Kingswood.

• North/South route through Bath.


The Rapid Transit Network as part of a wider integrated transport vision is shown in Figure 1.1

Figure 1.1 Public Transport Network Vision - Joint Local Transport Plan

Network Characteristics

To offer an attractive, competitive choice to the private car the Rapid Transit Network must:

• provide stops within a reasonable walk distance from key origins and destinations;

• provide a high quality and DDA compliant system (vehicles and infrastructure);

• be reasonably affordable compared with the real costs of other journey options;

• offer fast journey times and journey time reliability when compared with car;

• have services that are frequent and easy to remember – ‘turn up and go’;

• be simple to understand including interchange opportunities so that users know where to find information on routes, service frequencies, first/last services and fares;

• provide high quality waiting areas;

• be designed to maximise safety and perception of safety;

• offer high quality information, particularly on service performance.


The Rapid Transit Network needs to complement the wider transport network in the major schemes programme for the West of England and other measures in the Joint Local Transport plan (JLTP). Key considerations in this context include:

• Good integration with other modes, improvement of cross sub-regional linkages.

• Good penetration of Bristol City Centre – linking key destinations e.g. shops, railway stations and hospitals and ability to achieve predictable journey times through priority at road junctions and a largely segregated right of way.

• Provision of sufficient network capacity for other modes including buses, cars, cyclists and pedestrians.

• The system needs to serve the major new development areas providing a high-quality, fast, public transport link between these locations and central Bristol.

Rapid Transit Network Design

A set of network wide system characteristics have been established to ensure the design of individual corridors within the network is consistent.

Infrastructure

The Rapid Transit Network consists of segregated corridors and an on-street section within the central area of Bristol with services extending out to the wider sub-region.

The segregated corridor section consists of guided and non-guided sections (“the busway”). Guided sections are two concrete tracks (one in each direction) which the rapid transit vehicles are ‘guided’ along. Non-guided sections are effectively a bus-only road. The variation in the amount of guidance directly relates to the geometry, need for accuracy and constructability considerations. Guidance will be provided as a minimum at entrances/exits to the busway and at stops to ensure level boarding.

A pedestrian and cycleway will run parallel to the busway along the entire length of the segregated corridor sections. This will be at least three metres wide and four metres where possible. The busway will be clearly segregated from cyclists and pedestrians. This will take the form of level changes, fencing, landscaping or a combination of these measures as appropriate along the length of the section. Typically the alignment is 10 to 12 metres wide although this varies along the length of the corridor. A typical cross-section is shown in Figure 1.2.

In the city centre vehicles will use new and existing bus lanes within the highway with some changes to road widths or pavements to provide adequate space for additional bus lanes and new rapid transit stops.


Figure 1.2 Rapid Transit Infrastructure: Typical Cross-Section

Stops and Interchanges

Good design of stops, interchanges and passenger facilities is fundamental given it is the first interaction many passengers will have with the Rapid Transit Network. The design needs to support the quality image of the Rapid Transit Network providing good levels of accessibility, safety, information and convenience. Stops and interchanges also need to be designed to support the smooth operation of services. The key priorities are:

• Fully accessible stops for mobility and visually impaired passengers.

• Good access to stops including dedicated crossing facilities convenient, well-lit and safe pedestrian and cyclist links.

• Real time passenger information.

• High quality shelters and passenger seating with sufficient waiting space.

• Off-board ticketing and rapid payment facilities.

• High standard of lighting and security measures.

• Accommodation of up to two articulated vehicles with multiple boarding and alighting points.

• Distinctive branding to clearly identify services as part of the Rapid Transit Network.

The design of stops and interchanges will have a level of consistency across the Rapid Transit Network but will also consider the nature of the local setting and vary accordingly.

The design of interchanges will ensure good connectivity of the Rapid Transit Network with the adjoining mode through proximity and information provision. Example stop designs are shown in Figure 1.3.


Figure 1.3 Rapid Transit Infrastructure: Stops Examples


Vehicles

Vehicles are also important to passenger perception of the quality of a service and therefore vehicles need to support the image of the Rapid Transit Network providing good levels of accessibility, security, information and comfort. The key priorities are:

• Compliance with all relevant UK and European regulations.

• Sufficient capacity to carry the level of passengers using the service.

• Low or zero emissions (use of alternative, environmentally efficient fuel sources to be encouraged).

• High levels of passenger comfort and security.

• High levels of performance and reliability (and therefore easily maintainable by operators).

• Vehicles provide a high quality image and are recognisable as part of the Rapid Transit Network.

1.3 The Ashton Vale to Temple Meads Rapid Transit Scheme

The Rapid Transit Scheme will provide a fast, frequent and reliable public transport service. Services will run on a largely segregated route, separate from car traffic, and will be given priority over other road users at traffic signals.

There will be a set of core services running frequently from Long Ashton Park and Ride to Bristol Temple Meads and on to Cabot Circus, Broadmead and the Centre (running in an anti-clockwise loop around the city). Additional services will make use of the Rapid Transit Scheme to provide faster journey times and improved reliability for services to North Somerset (Weston-super-Mare, Clevedon and Nailsea).

The Rapid Transit Scheme will provide a high quality passenger experience – ticket machines at stops, user-friendly electronic information displays, high quality stop design, safe and secure access to stops. The route between the Museum of Bristol and Long Ashton Park and Ride will include a parallel cycling and pedestrian route linking in to existing networks thereby providing a further sustainable transport option.

Service will be run using accessible, comfortable, low-emission vehicles that combine the quality and feel of a high quality metro-style system. The Authorities are committed to exploring the range of alternative fuel sources with potential operators. These would offer considerable environmental improvements with lower noise levels, fewer greenhouse gas emissions and less harmful local pollutants. Access to the Rapid Transit Scheme will be open to operators meeting quality thresholds which will govern vehicle and service standards.

Works in Bristol City Centre include a new interchange at Bristol Temple Meads. These works are part of wider regeneration and development proposals for the area including Network Rail’s station enhancement programme. The Authorities will work with the South West Regional Development Agency, Network Rail, First Great Western, bus operators and developers to realise the significant benefits of this site.


There is potential for an early extension of the Rapid Transit Scheme to serve Bristol International Airport and the draft RSS proposed development at Ashton Park of at least 10,000 dwellings and associated mixed-use development.

The Rapid Transit Scheme will serve:

• Bristol Temple Meads Railway Station.

• New and planned development at Redcliffe and Temple Quay.

• Retail and employment areas of the new Cabot Circus development and Broadmead.

• Retail and employment areas around The Centre and interchange with bus services.

• The refurbished Museum of Bristol and planned Wapping Wharf development.

• Spike Island and the SS Great Britain.

• New development at Ashton Gate.

• Possible new station on railway line to Portishead (if re-opened to passenger services).

• The potential new stadium and development of Bristol City Football Club.

• Long Ashton Park and Ride.

• Weston-super-Mare, towns and villages in North Somerset.

An overview plan of the Rapid Transit Scheme is provided in Appendix 1A. Major Scheme Business Case scheme drawings are provided in Appendix 1C.

1.3.1 Detailed Route Description

Long Ashton Park and Ride to the Museum of Bristol

Starting from the west, the infrastructure starts at the existing Long Ashton Park and Ride. The fields south of the park and ride are the proposed site for a new stadium and mixed-use development for Bristol City Football Club. The alignment would run around the stadium site with a stop at the tope of Silbury Road to serve Ashton Vale. The busway runs south of the Colliter’s Brook and crosses the Portbury Freight Line on a new bridge located at the current public right of way crossing.

The busway then runs on the eastern side of the Portbury Freight line. A stop is planned for Ashton Gate with passive provision made within the design for possible future railway platforms should passenger services to Portishead be re-introduced. The Ashton Junction Level Crossing (Ashton Vale Road) and the adjacent signal-controlled road junction would be reconfigured to accommodate the busway. The busway continues on the railway alignment passing under Brunel Way twice emerging to cross the River Avon on the disused railway bridge (Ashton Avenue Bridge).


The route then runs along the railway alignment on the north bank of the River Avon (Avon New Cut) on the southern side of Cumberland Road. A stop is planned at Spike Island where there is an existing pedestrian bridge to the south side of the Avon New Cut and is in reasonable walking distance to the SS Great Britain. Passing under Cumberland Road at the existing skew bridge the route heads east at a busway-only junction to run as a two-lane busway along the southern edge of the current Museum of Bristol building on the edge of the planned Wapping Wharf development. Some, infrequent, vehicular access to the Museum of Bristol and Wapping Wharf development in this section will be maintained. The Museum of Bristol stop will be integrated in to the public space on the western side of the redeveloped Museum area.

The route between the Ashton Avenue Bridge and the Museum of Bristol follows the alignment of the existing Harbour Extension of the Bristol Harbour Railway. The tracks for the heritage railway will be retained to provide for seasonal Sunday services and events such as the Harbourside Festival. When these infrequent events occur, services will run on Cumberland Road.

Stops on this route would be provided at:

• Long Ashton Park & Ride.

• Ashton Vale.

• Ashton Gate.

• Spike Island.

• Museum of Bristol.

Bristol City Centre

An overview plan of this section is provided in Appendix 1B. Major Scheme Business Case scheme drawings are provided in Appendix 1C.

After crossing the Floating Harbour over Prince Street Bridge, northbound, passengers would be able to alight at the Arnolfini Stop to access the harbour-side area of the City and The Centre. The alignment then turns right and commences an anticlockwise loop of the City Centre following The Grove in an easterly direction. Priority for rapid transit would be ensured by the provision of a new bus lane along the Grove and new traffic signals at the junction of The Grove with Welsh Back.

The route re-crosses the Floating Harbour via the Redcliffe bascule bridge and follows Redcliffe Way towards a new transport interchange at Temple Meads. The proposed redevelopment of Redcliffe Way incorporates through provision for public transport but only for access for other traffic. Should the redevelopment not occur services would run on the existing alignment of Redcliffe Way.

The new interchange at Temple Meads will allow the rapid transit route to stay to the west of Temple Way and avoid the time delay and disruption to general traffic of crossing this major through route.

The alignment follows Temple Way northwards along a new bus lane up to and around the Old Market Street signalised roundabout that would ensure priority was given over general


traffic. To the north of Old Market Street there would be a stop to serve the new Cabot Circus retail centre and then the alignment would follow existing bus priority provision along Bond Street up to the James Barton Roundabout.

To the west of the James Barton Roundabout, there would be a stop to serve the Broadmead area and provide access to hospitals, etc. The alignment would then continue along a new bus lane provided along The Haymarket and Rupert Street that would allow the rapid transit to pass existing bus stops. General traffic would be restricted to a single lane.

In Colston Avenue to the east of the Cenotaph, there would be a new bus lane to allow the rapid transit vehicle to pass existing bus stops. This bus lane would be continued through to Broad Quay that is already reserved for public transport vehicles. There would be a southbound stop at Broad Quay to pick up passengers from the harbour-side and the Centre. Finally the loop would be completed by the provision of a new bus lane along Prince Street, towards Prince Street Bridge.

Stops on this route would be provided at:

• Arnolfini.

• Bristol Temple Meads Railway Station.

• Cabot Circus.

• Broadmead.

• The Centre.

1.3.2 Detailed Services Description

The services operating on the rapid transit infrastructure will be a combination of specific rapid transit services and bus services that continue beyond Long Ashton Park and Ride to serve a wider area in North Somerset.

Rapid Transit Services

The 903 Park & Ride service between Broadmead and Long Ashton Park & Ride will be replaced by a core Rapid Transit service. Services in the peak will run up to every six minutes (ten vehicles per hour) and every twelve minutes in the off peak (five vehicles per hour).

Bus Services

The Rapid Transit Scheme will provide a segregated route for Rapid Transit services and for services to Nailsea, Clevedon and Weston-super-Mare. The following levels of service of bus services using the Rapid Transit Scheme have been appraised:

• The limited stop X1 service between Bristol Bus Station and Weston-super-Mare operating half-hourly (two buses per hour).

• The limited stop X7 service between Bristol Bus Station and Clevedon via Nailsea operating half-hourly (two buses per hour). The existing X7 service between Bristol Bus Station and Clevedon via Nailsea operates hourly only after 09.00hrs.


• The 354 between Bristol Bus Station and Nailsea operating half-hourly (two buses per hour). With the X7, this would then provide a service every 20 minutes between Nailsea and Bristol (three buses per hour).

The X1, X7 and 354 currently run along the A4 Hotwells Road (to the north of the River Avon). It is assumed that the hourly 350 service continues to operate via Hotwells to maintain accessibility between the Centre, Hotwells, Long Ashton and stops to and from Weston-super-Mare.

The total level of service on the segregated corridor of the Rapid Transit Scheme would be 15 services per hour in the peak, one every four minutes and ten services per hour in the off-peak, one every six minutes.

The service pattern is shown in Figure 1.4 and service frequencies given in Table 1.1.


Figure 1.4 Rapid Transit Service Map

RT Rapid Transit service terminus point

Interchange with Rapid Transit services

Rapid Transit Corridor

RT Rapid Transit service terminus pointRT Rapid Transit service terminus point



Rapid Transit CorridorRapid Transit Corridor

Bristol Bus Station

X7X1354 X7X1354Interchange withcounty bus services andlong distance coach services Bristol Temple Meads

Railway StationBristol Temple Meads Railway Station

Centre

Museum of Bristol

Long AshtonPark & Ride P+

Ashton Gate

RT

X1X7RT354

ClevedonX7 X7

Weston-super-Mare CongresburyX1 X1

354354 Nailsea Long Ashton

RT

330/331Interchange withlocal bus services

Interchange with BIA service

Cabot Circus

Arnolfini

Broadmead

Spike Island

Bristol International Airport

Ashton Vale

2 mins2 mins

City Centre


Table 1.1 Rapid Transit Service Frequencies

Services per Hour (Peak)

Route Centre ↔

Long Ashton

Long Ashton

↔ Nailsea

Long Ashton ↔

Weston-super-

Mare

X1 Bristol Bus Station – Weston-super-Mare 2 - 2

X7 Bristol Bus Station – Nailsea - Clevedon 1 1 -

354 Bristol Bus Station – Nailsea 2 2 -

Rapid Transit 10 - -

Total services per hour 15 3 2

Average headway, minutes 4 20 30

Services per Hour (Interpeak)

Route Centre ↔

Long Ashton

Long Ashton

↔ Nailsea

Long Ashton ↔

Weston-super-

Mare

X1 Bristol Bus Station – Weston-super-Mare 2 - 2

X7 Bristol Bus Station – Nailsea - Clevedon 1 1 -

354 Bristol Bus Station – Nailsea 2 2 -

Rapid Transit 5 - -

Total services per hour 10 2 2

Average headway, minutes 6 30 30

1.3.3 Journey Times

Table 1.2 shows the existing and future forecast existing Park and Ride journey times and the forecast journey times of Rapid Transit Services from Ashton Vale to Bristol Temple Meads station and to Broadmead. The Rapid Transit Scheme reduces travelling times by half.

Table 1.2 Rapid Transit Journey Times

2006 2016 Services to Bristol Temple Meads

AM Peak Inter Peak AM Peak Inter Peak

Existing Park and Ride Service 21 19 26 20

Rapid Transit Service n/a n/a 12 12

2006 2016

Services to Broadmead AM Peak Inter Peak AM Peak Inter Peak

Existing Park and Ride Service 28 25 34 28

Rapid Transit Service n/a n/a 17 17


1.3.4 Rapid Transit Vehicles

Vehicles will follow the overall Rapid Transit Network design principles. Vehicles for the Rapid Transit Scheme will be bus based. Vehicles will be low floor, with high levels of passenger comfort and security. Boarding at stops will ensure gap free access from platform to vehicle.

Vehicles will ideally use hybrid technology with the bus vehicle market monitored over the coming years to capitalise on the most efficient and low impact environmental vehicle options available. Vehicles will be articulated with a capacity in the order of 110 to 120 passengers and will have multiple boarding and alighting doors.

The quality of the wider bus services using the rapid transit infrastructure will be controlled through quality standards with the Authorities setting vehicle and service quality standards for operators to gain access to the Rapid Transit Scheme.

Guide wheels will be attached to all vehicles using the Rapid Transit Scheme to make use of the guidance particularly at stops and entrances/exits to the segregated infrastructure.

All Rapid Transit services will have distinctive branding to ensure passengers identify with the system. Vehicles operated for bus services to North Somerset will have a means of being identified that they use the Rapid Transit Scheme but may not necessarily have the full system branding.

The types of potential vehicles for the system are shown in Figure 1.5.

Figure 1.5 Rapid Transit: Vehicle Examples


1.3.5 Supporting Measures

Fares and Ticketing

To ensure that the Rapid Transit Scheme is competitive and attractive, fares will be comparable with other bus fares for the same journeys.

Ticket machines at stops will facilitate off-board purchasing to deliver faster and more reliable journey times as well as other benefits including increased driver safety. Multiple doors on vehicles will also minimise stop waiting times.

Information

Real time information will be provided at stops with electronic visual and audio information on board vehicles, such as next stop announcements. There is already an established real time information system in Bristol using GPS and a Private Mobile Radio (PMR) communication system. Buses will be fitted with an on-board computer linked to the ticket machine, providing ‘real-time’ departure times at electronic bus stop displays and via www.nextbusbristol.co.uk. The current system will soon expand as part of the Greater Bristol Bus Network (GBBN). The technical specification will allow for additional expansion, over and above GBBN, so that the Rapid Transit Scheme can be linked into the system.

The Rapid Transit Scheme will use a simplified operating pattern map, similar to that use for the London Underground system, which will identify opportunities for interchange with other modes. The West of England Authorities are working on a common branding for the transport network in the area, this is discussed further in Section 4. Rapid Transit will fit in with this wider integrated package.

1.3.6 Related Development

There are a series of proposed and planned development along the length of the Rapid Transit Scheme. These developments are set out in Table 1.3.

Table 1.3 Developments along the Rapid Transit Scheme

Development Type / Size Planning Status Timescales

Ashton Park Mixed Use. At least 10,000 houses

Planned. Planning application due Summer 2009

Development delivered over a 15 year period from 2010/2011.

Bristol International Airport

Airport expansion Planning application due Summer 2009

BCFC Stadium and development

Football stadium, hotel, residential

Planned. Planning application due Summer 2009

Operational by Summer 2012.

Existing Ashton Gate stadium

Redevelopment of existing stadium site

Feasibility Unknown.

SS Great Britain area Residential and major Pre-application Unknown.


Development Type / Size Planning Status Timescales

office development discussion discussions

Wapping Wharf Mixed use with 700 residential units and other uses.

Outline permission with reserved matters

Unknown.

Bristol Industrial Museum

Refurbished Museum and public realm improvements

Under construction. 2009

Harbourside Very large office and residential.

Mostly constructed. Current.

Cabot Circus £500 million investment in new retail space

Completed Opened end 2008.

Dove Lane 70,000 sqm development just NE of Cabot Circus

Planning application due this summer

Unknown.

Temple Quay 2 Major offices on waterfront with residential behind.

About half complete. Most has permission.

Underway.

Temple Quay 3 Large mixed use site Feasibility Unknown.

Temple Meads Station

Enhancement project of Network Rail

Feasibility Unknown.

Redcliffe

New Civil Justice Centre on Redcliffe St.

Under construction. 2009/10

Redcliffe

Major application in for Redcliff St. (large office + residential + hotel + students

Application under consideration

2011

Courage Brewery Former brewery site. Counterslip. Large development including substantial residential.

Partly built 2010

Island site, Temple Meads

Potential office development

At pre-application stage Unknown.

Further details on the Ashton Park, Bristol International Airport and the Bristol City Football Club developments are included at Appendix 1D.


1.4 Low Cost Alternative

As part of the scheme development, a number of alternative alignments were assessed in order to identify a Lower Cost Alternative (LCA) for the Rapid Transit Scheme. The preferred LCA was selected following a multi-criteria appraisal covering a wide range of characteristics including the standard elements of a NATA appraisal and the degree to which the wider objectives of the rapid transit concept were satisfied. This assessment by which the LCA was identified is set out in more detail in Section 2.

The selected LCA broadly follows the alignment used by the existing Long Ashton Park and Ride service, starting from the Park and Ride site and following Long Ashton Bypass, Brunel Way, Hotwell Road, Anchor Road and St Augustine’s Parade to the Centre, where it would join the anti-clockwise loop around the city centre. An overall plan of the LCA scheme is provided in Appendix 1E, which compares the route with the Rapid Transit Scheme. A key element of the LCA route is the avoidance of the main bridge structures at Ashton Avenue and Prince Street within the Rapid Transit Scheme in order to reduce the construction costs.

The LCA includes the wider generic attributes of the rapid transit concept, including:

• new high quality distinctive vehicles;

• new stops with high-quality designs and passenger facilities; and

• real-time passenger information on vehicles and at stops.

A detailed description of the assessment of the alternative LCA schemes is included in Section 3.9


Appendices 1A Overview Plan: Ashton Vale to Temple Meads and

Bristol City Centre 1B Overview Plan: Bristol City Centre Route 1C Major Scheme Bid Drawings 1D Related Developments 1E Low Cost Alternative Scheme Plan



2 Strategic Case

how the scheme is consistent with

and will contribute to local and regional objectives in transport and other relevant areas

Final Report Strategic Case - 34

Strategic Case 2.1 Introduction

This section sets out the strategic case for the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads and Bristol City Centre rapid transit scheme (“the Rapid Transit Scheme”). It includes:

• The Need for Rapid Transit: - why investment is needed in this intervention.

• Identification of the Scheme and Scheme Objectives: - what we are trying to achieve as a basis for the development of the scheme.

• Fit with Central Government Objectives: - how the Rapid Transit Scheme assists to deliver the Department for Transport and wider policy objectives.

• Fit with Wider Regional Strategies: - how the Rapid Transit Scheme assists to deliver the priorities in the South West region.

• Relationship with our Joint Local Transport Plan and Local Plans: - how the Rapid Transit Scheme assists to deliver the Joint Local Transport Plan Strategy and wider development in the sub-region.

The West of England sub-region (“the West of England”) is made up of Bath and North East Somerset, the City of Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire, as shown in Figure 2.1. An all-purpose unitary council governs each of these four areas. The four councils are working together as the West of England Partnership to tackle transport and other major strategic issues.

Figure 2.1: The West of England Sub-Region


2.2 Why is Rapid Transit Needed?

The West of England is a prosperous area with an excellent quality of life and a growing national and international profile. The travel demands that accompany this prosperity and growth are increasing pressure on infrastructure, particularly transport. Large scale housing growth and economic development over a number of years has not been accompanied by sufficient investment in transport infrastructure, and this low level of investment, compounded by an unreliable public transport system, has resulted in high levels of car use.

About a million people live in the West of England and it provides around 500,000 jobs. Most of these people live in the major urban areas of Bristol, Bath and Weston-super-Mare and the in the area’s seven towns. One in six lives in villages and the wider countryside.

The economy of the South West contributes nearly 8% towards National Gross Value Added with the West of England contributing one quarter of this. Forecasts show that by 2026 our successful economy will support an additional 138,000 jobs, an increase of 28%. The area’s population could grow by over 200,000 people.

The area has a unique heritage and character, including Bristol’s industrial and maritime past, Bath’s status as a world heritage site. The West of England has a wealth of natural environmental assets spread across the urban and rural areas including parkland, landscapes and natural resources.

2.2.1 Transport Problems and Issues

An analysis of the current transport problems and issues is set out in Appendix 2A. This is summarised below.

Congestion

The urban areas of Bristol and Bath suffer from severe traffic congestion, with traffic growth higher than the national average and in 2006 average peak hour speeds in Bristol were 16mph (the lowest of the eight Core Cities outside London). The main areas of traffic congestion are focused on central Bristol, the Bristol North Fringe, Bath, and the radial and orbital corridors that serve them. Congestion is frequently highlighted as a major issue by stakeholders and the wider public.

Time lost due to traffic congestion is estimated to cost the local economy £0.6bn per annum. It is estimated that 21% of peak period travel in Bristol is spent stationary in traffic queues. Bus services are often held up in congestion such that bus journeys in peak periods are often considerably longer than at other times.

The number of motor vehicle kilometres travelled in the West of England grew by 18% between 1997 and 2007, with Bristol experiencing a 9% growth. This sub-regional growth is larger than both the national (14%) and South West (16%) averages. In some areas, such as the North Fringe, where there has been large-scale growth in employment, traffic levels have grown as much as 30%.

Without intervention this congestion is forecast to get worse. In the Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP) it has been estimated that, by 2016, there will be another 12% growth in traffic and the cost of congestion will increase by 70%. These levels of traffic congestion result in large variations in journey time on the highway network affecting service reliability and dependability of public transport.


This congestion has resulted in poor air quality, delays, unreliable journey times and unsustainable pressure on existing infrastructure and services. The continued growth of congestion, with its undesirable effects, threatens the quality of the environment and the quality of life for people who live within it.

The Rapid Transit Network, as part of the wider integrated JLTP and major schemes programme, is directly related to the most congested routes in the sub-region.

The Rapid Transit Scheme will provide a system that is almost 85% segregated from general traffic, greatly increasing the reliability of services. Journey times from Long Ashton Park and Ride to Bristol Temple Meads will be reduced by half compared with the forecasts for existing services. By 2016, 12,000 trips would be made on an average weekday (12 hours) on the Rapid Transit Scheme. This would reduce car trips by 0.2% and a total journey time savings of £286 million over the scheme appraisal period. 7,000 existing bus users will have improved service reliability between Long Ashton P&R and the City Centre each day.

Accessibility/ Integration

There are wide variations in people’s ability to access services in the West of England. Influential factors are geographic location, car ownership, income, age, and mobility.

Up to 30% of residents in Ashton Vale do not have access to a car. Their public transport access is limited to two narrow road access points which are restricted to one way shuttle working due to narrow railway bridges. The area is poorly linked to the rail network and is without a direct bus service to any of the local railway stations or Bristol Temple Meads.

Access from neighbouring urban settlements in North Somerset including Clevedon, Nailsea and Weston-super-Mare into Bristol is via the A370. While household car ownership is higher in these settlements, extended journey times exasperated by traffic congestion results in poor accessibility for trips into Bristol by car, bus and cycle modes. Accessibility by bus is a function of service frequency and journey time. While bus service frequencies from these settlements are relatively good, journey times are relatively poor. Accessibility by car has been improved by the Ashton Vale (Long Ashton) Park & Ride which is ideally located to serve these settlements, being situated on the south west fringe of Bristol on the A370. The Park & Ride has achieved steady year on year patronage growth, however, the existing journey times do not provide sufficient time savings to attract the wider public.

The Rapid Transit Network, as part of the wider integrated JLTP and major schemes programme, significantly promotes and improves the links between the key activity centres of employment, education and health with homes.

The Rapid Transit Scheme will improve accessibility by both bus and car through improved journey times and journey time reliability into the city centre. The Rapid Transit Scheme improves access to job and other opportunities in Bristol City Centre from Weston-super-Mare, Nailsea and Clevedon by improving bus service reliability and reducing journey times into the city centre. 20,400 people live within 600 metres walking distance of a Rapid Transit stop (on the route between Long Ashton Park and Ride and Bristol City Centre).

The Rapid Transit Scheme also provides a new transport interchange at Temple Meads which will significantly promote and increase the ease of interchange between public transport modes and improve cross sub-region journeys.


Climate Change and Air Quality

There are two Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) in the West of England - central Bath and central Bristol including the main strategic roads (M32, A38 (north and south), A4 and A37). Ashton Vale is on the edge of the AQMA just south of the A370. Over 100,000 people live within the AQMAs and the Bristol AQMAs cover 25% of the Bristol city area

Transport is estimated to account for over 20% of CO2 emissions nationally and 36% at the local level. Motorway and trunk road traffic is the major source of emissions, accounting for about 55% of total CO2 emissions in the West of England, with urban roads responsible for around 30%. Within Bristol’s central AQMA, 97% of NOx emissions are from road traffic. CO2 emissions are expected to rise 19% by 2011, compared to 2004 levels.

The Rapid Transit Network is forecast to reduce the number of vehicle trips by 2% (GBSTS), with car mode share falling from 80% to 76% and total vehicle delay on the network falling by 4%, which is expected to significantly improve air quality conditions in the Bristol AQMA, particularly along the M32, A38 (South Bristol) andA370/A4 corridors.

The Rapid Transit Scheme is forecast to move 4,000 car trips per day from highway to rapid transit. Rapid Transit Scheme will use more environmentally friendly vehicles with low emissions. Details of the types of vehicles the scheme could use are provided in Section 1.

Safety

Around 400 people are killed or seriously injured on the West of England’s roads every year. Accidents involving cars accounted for around 60% of casualties (killed, seriously or slightly injured) in 2007. Public transport is significantly lower at 12%. Built-up areas account for the greatest proportion of road casualties. Traffic flows are high, there are more turning movements, and the greatest potential for conflict between motor vehicles and other, vulnerable road users occurs here. Many people continue to drive at inappropriately high speeds.

Inner-city suburbs in particular suffer from high levels of intrusive through traffic. Conditions for pedestrians and cyclists are often poor. It can be difficult to cross the road safely, and cyclists often have to share space with vehicles. Both groups may feel intimidated by the high volumes of traffic. Evidence also shows there to be a strong link between social deprivation (common in inner city areas east of Bristol city centre), and road casualty numbers.

The Rapid Transit Network, as part of the wider integrated JLTP and major schemes programme, moves journeys made to safer public transport modes. The wider network has the potential to reduce casualties at a range of current cluster sites including in the city centre, Junctions 2 and 3 on the M32, the A38 (north) and south into Hengrove and South Bristol.

The Rapid Transit Scheme contributes a benefit through reduction in car traffic and 0.13% reduction in personal injury accidents per annum by 2016, equivalent to a monetised benefit of £14.8 million over the scheme appraisal period. Additional benefits will also be experienced by pedestrians as a result of priority measures and improved crossing facilities and by cyclists as a result of the cycle route along the segregated alignment.


Housing and Economic Growth

The West of England is already undergoing an unprecedented level of development in terms of major regeneration schemes. In particular, the rejuvenation of Broadmead shopping centre in central Bristol (Cabot Circus) along with other city centre schemes at Harbourside, Temple Quay North and Courage Brewery as well as Western Riverside and Southgate in Bath.

Forecasts also show that by 2026 the economy will support an additional 138,000 jobs, an increase of 28%. The area’s population could grow by over 200,000 people. The draft South West Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) consequently proposes large-scale housing development in the sub-region, with construction of 138,500 new dwellings. Overall there are £3 billion of potential development sites identified. Land use and development changes will continue to have a significant impact on travel behaviour, use of the car and increasing congestion.

The first two corridors in the Rapid Transit Network and their relationship with the forecast residential and employment developments are shown in Figure 2.1. The Rapid Transit Network is directly related to the draft RSS proposals and is an essential part of delivering the proposed development sustainably. The Rapid Transit Scheme will link the potential growth in the south west of the sub-region with Bristol City Centre, Cabot Circus and Bristol Temple Meads Railway Station. By 2031 the Rapid Transit Scheme will provide additional 87% public transport capacity of for peak hour trips (comparing spaces on existing buses with bus and rapid transit services on the Rapid Transit Scheme).

Quality of Life

One of the biggest problems faced in our urban areas is traffic congestion on busy radial routes adding to community severance. Traffic creates barriers for more vulnerable travellers, such as cyclists, pedestrians and disabled people. High vehicle flows accentuate this severance and detract from the quality of life for local people by creating noise, pollution, road safety and health problems.

Work carried out in Bristol on the Showcase Bus Corridors illustrates how transport schemes can contribute to the improvement of the communities they pass through. Rather than concentrating solely on improvements to the buses and bus stops, the Showcase scheme along the A420 also included significant improvements to the streetscape and walking environment

Encouraging active lifestyles is one of the ways that healthy communities can be promoted. Using methods such as Personalised Travel Planning, individuals and households are encouraged to walk and cycle more as part of their everyday routines – for work, education, shopping and leisure purposes.

The Rapid Transit Network, as part of the wider integrated JLTP and major schemes programme, will provide a more sustainable transport option and assist to shift travel away from private cars. The Rapid Network is based on the provision of sustainable transport corridors, providing public transport and cycling/walking options thereby promoting increased use of this community space.

15,500 people live within 600 metres walking distance of the pedestrian and cycle path. The Rapid Transit Scheme will bring positive impact by improving access to health facilities through walking and cycling facilities.

Figure 2.1 Major Scheme Programme to 2018/2019 and Key Development Locations proposed by the draft RSS


2.3 Identification of the Scheme and Scheme Objectives

The importance of the West of England sub-region to the South West and our current and forecast transport issues have long been recognised. A comprehensive transport study to assess the current and future strategic transport needs of the West of England region up to 2031 was completed in 2006. Known as the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS), this was commissioned by the Government Office for the South West (GOSW) in partnership with the Highways Agency (HA) and the West of England authorities.

GBSTS went on to develop a series of transport strategies for the sub-region for the period up to 2031. The study forecast a 34% rise in the number of vehicle trips on the road system in the morning peak. This was forecast to result in a 35% drop in average speeds from 44km/hour to 28 km/hour and an increase in delay of 230%. These figures indicate an unsustainable growth in congestion.

A wide range of potential measures was identified and each was assessed against how well it addressed the problems in the study area, fit with objectives, timescales, characteristics of the area and the availability of resources. The range of potential measures was extensive and included:

• Land use measures.

• Infrastructure measures.

• Management measures.

• Information provision.

• Pricing measures.

GBSTS recommended a package of measures to support the sustainable growth of the sub-region. This resulted in the identification of an integrated programme of major transport improvements which includes:

• The Greater Bristol Bus Network: The Greater Bristol Bus Network (GBBN) includes bus priority and other improvements on ten sub-regional corridors. These bus corridors will support a much wider bus network, with up to 70 different services benefiting from the proposed improvements. Implementation of the GBBN began in late spring 2008.

• The Bath Package: A range of measures aimed at improving alternatives to the car by providing a modern, integrated and easy-to-use public transport system. The scheme received first-stage approval from the DfT in early October 2007 and planning applications for the scheme have recently been submitted.

• Weston-super-Mare Package Phase 1: A range of measures aimed at supporting sustainable development, including improved interchange facilities, car parking and improvements at Worle Station and improvements to town centre bus routes.

• South Bristol Link: Proposals will support regeneration, address projected traffic growth and improve orbital access in South Bristol and to Bristol International Airport.

• Rapid Transit Network: The basis of a Rapid Transit Network.


The Rapid Transit Network, as part of this integrated programme, aims “to provide high quality alternatives to the private car”. GBSTS identified that the Rapid Transit Network should:

• Extend choice of transport modes for all, in particular for private car drivers, to encourage a shift to public transport.

• Promote sustainable development by providing high quality public transport links.

• Improve access to public transport for areas that currently have poor provision.

• Improve integration of the public transport network.

• Promote social inclusion by improving access to employment, retail, community, leisure and educational facilities.

• Improve safety along the corridors by reducing use of private cars.

GBSTS set out the plan for the development of a Rapid Transit Network. It identified corridors in the network that would serve many of the new residential and employment developments. There are four cross sub-regional corridors running via Bristol City Centre from:

• Ashton Vale to Emerson’s Green.

• Hengrove to North Fringe.

• Bath to Cribbs Causeway.

• Whitchurch to Avonmouth/Portishead.

These corridors are embedded in the Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP) within the major schemes programme and the first three corridors are identified in the current Regional Funding Allocation (2006).

In 2006 the West of England Authorities commissioned work towards submission of a Major Scheme Business Case to the Department for Transport. A series of detailed studies were undertaken which included:

• A feasibility assessment of rapid transit for the West of England area and a priority order for potential routes to come forward. This generated a short list of corridor options, January 2007.

• Further assessment of the short-listed corridor options, June 2007.

• Assessment of rapid transit technology options, August 2007.

• Further assessment of rapid transit technology options including a review of wider (non-bus) technology options (largely based on capacities and costs) and more detailed, route specific assessment of bus-based, Tram Train and Ultra Light Rail technologies, Summer 2008.


Further option assessment work has also been undertaken which looked at:

• Alignment alternatives within the corridor.

• Lower Cost Alternative.

• Next Best Alternative.

A more detailed description of the assessment of alternatives and the reports on these studies are included at Appendix 2B.

2.4 The Rapid Transit Scheme and National Policy

The next three sections demonstrate how the Rapid Transit Scheme assists in the delivery of policy and plans at the National, Regional and Local levels.

A simplification of the transport policy framework for the Rapid Transit Scheme is set out in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2 Simplified Transport Policy Framework for the Rapid Transit Scheme

JOINT LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN

(incl. Major Schemes Programme)

GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT STRATEGY

Towards a Sustainable Transport Strategy

Integrated Regional Strategy for the

South West

Greater Bristol Strategic Transport

Study (GBSTS)

SOUTH WESTREGIONAL SPATIAL

STRATEGYincorporating

RegionalTransport Strategy

West of England Spatial Strategy

Local Plans/Local Development Framework

Local Strategic Partnerships

Local Policy

National Policy

Regional Policy


This section provides a summary of the scheme’s contribution to national policy. A full description of is set out in Appendix 2C.

2.4.1 Towards a Sustainable Transport System, 2007

In response to the Eddington Study and the Stern Review in 2007 the Department for Transport published “Towards a Sustainable Transport System” (TaSTS). TaSTS describes how the Government is “responding to improve transport’s contribution to economic growth and productivity, how it is ensuring that transport will play its part in delivering the overall level of reductions in carbon emissions, sets out the Department for Transport’s policy and investment plans for the period to 2013-14…[and] proposes a new approach to longer term transport strategy”.

TaSTS outlines five goals for transport, the key components of the national infrastructure, the difficulties of planning over the long term in the context of uncertain future demand and describes the investments needed in transport networks.

The five goals identified are:

1. Maximising the overall competitiveness and productivity of the national economy, so as to achieve a sustained high level of GDP growth.

Eddington identified that a comprehensive and high-performing transport system is a key enabler of sustained economic prosperity. He recommended that the focus should be on travel for work in the urban areas, on the inter-urban corridors between these cities and on the principal international gateways through which freight and business travellers pass. Key principles within this goal are reliability, connectivity and resilience.

At the sub-regional level this goal is particularly relevant in terms of the West of England area and its role as the economic hub of the South West Region. Central to regional and local planning policy is a well-functioning Bristol urban area and Bath (as Strategically Significant Cities), sub-regional transport hubs such as Bristol Temple Meads and Bristol Parkway and their role in connecting the South West to the rest of the UK, and international connections through our Ports and Airports.

2. Reducing transport’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, with the desired outcome of avoiding dangerous climate change.

TaSTS stresses the need to reduce the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and other greenhouse gases through the way transport is planned and provided in the UK. The UK Climate Change Bill will set ambitious targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions across the economy looking at least for a 26% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020.

Planning at the sub-regional and local level is critical to achieving this target with the contribution that trips made within urban areas make. At a local level there is a need to change travel behaviour and/or reduce the need to travel in urban areas which could bring significant benefits both locally and to the overall national aims. Critical to this is the shift of trips from private cars to public transport through provision of a high quality system that competes with the private car.


3. Contributing to better health and longer life-expectancy through reducing the risk of death, injury or illness arising from transport, and promoting travel modes that are beneficial to health.

TaSTS aims not only to reduce the risks of accidents to transport systems to users, workers and third parties from transport but further looks to ensure that transport has a positive impact on life expectancy and physical well-being across the community.

At the sub-regional and local level we need to address the negative impacts of transport on public health and promote the health benefits of cycling and walking. These are central to regional and local policy and interwoven through the major schemes programme and the Rapid Transit Scheme.

4. Improving quality of life for transport users and non-transport users, including through a healthy natural environment, with the desired outcome of improved well-being for all.

TaSTS looks to ensure that transport contributes to improving the quality of our communities and environments. Transport can improve the quality of life through improved accessibility to the things people need, improved connectivity to the community, increased community empowerment and involvement in the transport network, particularly through use of public transport and reducing the harmful side effects of travelling and constructing transport schemes.

“A Rising Quality of Life for all” is the vision for the West of England sub-region. This translates into a series of objectives and, more importantly, delivery of an integrated transport system that will retain and improve the natural and social environment, ensure that alternatives to the car are a realistic first choice and offers an affordable, safe reliable and simple system to use.

5. Promoting greater equality of transport opportunity for all citizens, with the desired outcome of achieving a fairer society.

Tackling disadvantage in local areas is a Government priority. TaSTS identifies that this is delivered primarily by local authorities, who best understand the needs of neighborhoods and of sections of their community. Transport can contribute to achieving wider aims, which will need to be considered as authorities prepare their Sustainable Community Strategies, Local Area Agreements and Local Development Frameworks.

The West of England sub-region is relatively prosperous but there are still areas where social inclusion and deprivation are significant issues. This goal relates to the South West and West of England objectives of achieving more balanced and sustainable communities.

2.4.2 Update to TaSTS: Challenges Matrix: Cities & Regional Networks

In July 2008, the DfT issued an update note for TaSTS which outlines progress on the design of the TaSTS process going forward, and also for the carbon reduction strategy for transport which the Government has committed to produce. It provides further clarification of the specific challenges relating to each of the five goals.

The TaSTS update note sets out the purpose of the challenges as being “to give those tasked with generating options a clear steer on the improvements that they need to deliver and those who have commissioned the options a means of identifying the most promising ones”.

Table 2.1 summarises the TaSTS goals and challenges and relates this to the Rapid Transit Scheme.


The benefits and contribution to these goals of the wider Rapid Transit Network is considerably greater, not simply due to the additional routes, but also as a result of the synergies and additional connectivity created for the Rapid Transit Scheme.

2. 1 TaSTS and The Rapid Transit Scheme Goal Challenge The Rapid Transit Scheme…

Climate Change Deliver quantifiable reductions in CO2 emissions on urban, regional and local networks consistent with supporting delivery of DfT strategic objectives and other wider Government goals

… provides an alternative to the private car by providing a fast, reliable network, encouraging mode shift and providing travel on low emission vehicles.

…provides direct links to Temple Meads and Bristol Bus Station improving attractiveness and ease of the public transport network.

… promotes/encourages cycling and walking trips.

Reduce lost productive time including by maintaining and/or improving the reliability and predictability of journey times on key local routes for business, commuting and freight.

… improved journey times and reliability from the south west of the sub-region to Bristol City Centre.

…contributes to a more reliable and effective transport network to improve business efficiency and connections to national networks.

Support regional economic growth by increasing size of local workforce within [30] minutes of key business centres, and improving connectivity between business centres and with national / international networks.

Support the delivery of housing, and in particular the PSA target of increasing supply to 240,000 net additional dwellings per annum by 2016 by facilitating the conditions for the housing to be delivered while limiting increased congestion

…is an integral part of West of England Strategy to deliver draft RSS proposals (138,500 dwellings, 138,000 jobs, increase in population of 200,000).

…improves accessibility of through directly serving key existing hubs of employment in the City Centre and at Temple Quay, Redcliffe and links with residential areas.

… facilitates development and employment at Ashton Park and Bristol International Airport.

…facilitates business investment, viability and attractiveness of new development sites.

Competitiveness and Productivity

Ensure local transport networks continue to operate effectively because assets / infrastructure are properly planned, designed and maintained including to be resilient to shocks and impacts such as adverse weather, accidents, terrorist attacks and impacts of climate change.

…segregates the routes as far as possible thereby minimising impacts on the road network, retaining road network capacity as far as possible and improving resilience of the network.

.…is designed to current standards and guidelines to ensure longevity and resilience of the scheme.

…provides new, additional choice of mode in the transport network.

Enhance social inclusion and the regeneration of deprived areas by enabling disadvantaged people to connect with employment opportunities, key local services, social networks and goods through improving accessibility, availability, affordability and acceptability.

…provides direct links to Temple Meads and Bristol Bus Station.

…directly serves key existing hubs of employment in the City Centre and at Temple Quay, Redcliffe and links with residential areas.


…provides potential link to future passenger services on Portishead Line.

Equality of Opportunity

Contribute to the reduction in the gap between economic growth rates for different regions.

…improves access for Ashton Vale to the rail network and Bristol City Centre.

…promotes social inclusion by improving this access.

Health, Safety and Security

Reduce the risk of death or injury to the public due to transport accidents.

…removes trips from the road network and on to a safer mode.

.… will be designed to current standards and guidelines to ensure a safe, secure and accessible scheme.

… provides safer off street cycling and walking route.


Goal Challenge The Rapid Transit Scheme…

Reduce the risk of death or injury for transport industry employees and those driving for work

.… will be designed to current standards and guidelines to ensure a safe scheme to construct and operate.

Reduce social and economic costs of transport to public health, including air quality impacts


… promotes/encourages cycling and walking trips and associated health benefits.

Reduce vulnerability of transport networks to terrorist attack.


Improve health outcomes for individuals through encouraging and enabling more physically active travel


… promotes sustainable transport as part of lifestyle.

Reduce crime, fear of crime and anti-social behaviour on urban, regional and local transport networks.


… promotes/encourages cycling and walking trips and associated benefits with increased use of the corridor and public space.

Bear down on noise … provides high volume mass transit with fewer vehicles to reduce comparative noise levels.

… will be designed to current standards and guidelines to reduce any noise impacts of the scheme.

Minimise the impacts of transport on the natural environment and seek solutions which deliver long-term environmental benefits.


… provides high volume mass transit with fewer vehicles to reduce comparative noise levels.

.… will be designed to current standards and guidelines to reduce the impact on the natural environment as far as possible.

Minimise the impacts of transport on heritage, landscape and communities



.… will be designed to current standards and guidelines to reduce the impact on the natural environment as far as possible.

…retains existing Harbourside Heritage railway whilst making better use of this corridor overall.

Quality of Life

Improve the quality of transport integration into streetscapes and the urban environment.

…is Integral part of West of England Strategy to deliver Regional Spatial Strategy proposals sustainably.

…directly related to proposed development sites in the sub-region.

…facilitates and promotes integrated land use and transport planning.

… will be designed to current standards and guidelines to reduce the impact on the built environment and enhance streetscape as far as possible.


Goal Challenge The Rapid Transit Scheme…

Improve the journey experience of transport users of urban, regional and local networks including at the interfaces with national networks and international networks.


…provides direct links to Temple Meads and Bristol Bus Station improving integration with national rail and coach networks.

… facilitates sustainable development at Bristol International Airport.


Improve access to leisure activity and social contact which enhances people’s personal wellbeing and sense of community

… improves access to facilities.




2.4.3 Delivering a Sustainable Transport System and Draft Guidance to Regions

Delivering a Sustainable Transport System (DaSTS), published in November 2008, sets out the Department’s plans for putting TaSTS “into action in a way that both tackles our immediate problems and also shapes our transport system to meet the longer term challenges”.

At a national level, the Bristol, or West of England, area is specifically referenced in its role as the eighth largest urban area in the UK and tenth busiest Port with important international connections.

Whilst the Rapid Transit Scheme is within a wider integrated transport plan that looks at the importance and needs of the national and international connections, it is the focus on Regional Funding Allocations (RFAs) to support targeted investment in public transport schemes and investment in urban areas that is of most relevance to this major scheme bid.

2.4.4 Local Transport Act 2008

The Local Transport Act is a key part of the Government's strategy to empower local authorities to take appropriate steps to meet local transport needs. The Local Transport Bill received Royal Assent at the end of 2008.

It is intended that the Act will give local authorities the powers to improve the quality of local bus services. The West of England Authorities intend to use the new powers afforded by the Local Transport Act, particularly the measures that look to improve partnership working between local authorities and bus operators, including voluntary partnership agreements and quality partnership schemes.


2.5 The Rapid Transit Scheme and the Wider Regional Policy

This section provides a summary of the scheme’s contribution to regional policy. A full description is set out in Appendix 2C.

2.5.1 Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West

Adopted regional guidance at this time remains RPG10, Regional Planning Guidance for the South West. The vision of RPG10 is:

“developing the region, in a sustainable way, as a national and European region of quality and diversity, where the quality of life for residents, the business community and visitors will be maintained and enhanced.”

The draft RSS is currently in an advanced draft form; the draft document was approved by the Regional Assembly in March 2006 for submission to Government. Subsequent to that, the draft RSS was subject to public consultation in the summer of 2006 and has since been through Examination in Public, with the Independent Panel’s report published in January 2008.

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, published the Proposed Changes with consultation on the changes running until October 2008. After considering any further views received as a result of the consultation on the Proposed Changes, the final RSS is expected to be published in the Summer 2009.

The draft RSS recognises the diverse needs and potential for change of different places and parts of the region. It notes that development will be planned to meet the needs of all the communities in the region and to realise their potential within environmental limits. It incorporates the Regional Transport Strategy, which sets out how proper planning of transport, and strategic and local investment in services and facilities will assist the achievement of the draft RSS.

The draft RSS contains four main policies. The parts of these relevant to the Rapid Transit Scheme are:

• Stabilising and reducing the region’s ecological footprint.

• Reducing the region’s contribution to climate change.

• Protecting and enhancing the region’s environment and natural resources.

• Planning and managing growth and development positively to create and maintain sustainable communities throughout the region.

The broad proposals for the West of England Area are set out in policies SR1, SR2 and SR4 as shown in Figure 2.3. These provide for over 138,500 new dwellings to sustain the level of economic growth. New housing and development has been identified within the existing urban area (through intensification) and specific sites.


Figure 2.3 Draft Regional Spatial Strategy (Extract - Diagram 4.1)

Appendix 2C sets out the relationship between the forecast employment and planned housing growth and the Rapid Transit Scheme.

Regional Transport Strategy

The draft RSS sets out a series of transport objectives for the South West. Objective 11, Intra-Regional Public Transport applies to the Rapid Transit Scheme. TR11 states:

“Improved rail, bus and coach services will be sought to facilitate sustainable travel between settlements within the region. This will be achieved through the removal of infrastructure constraints; better quality trains and buses/coaches; enhanced station and interchange facilities, station parking and passenger information”.

The Regional Transport Strategy identifies that a strategic rapid transit network will be a vital part of the infrastructure required to support the spatial strategy, particularly in Bristol and Bath. The draft RSS Implementation Plan sets out the major infrastructure investment required in the sub-region to implement the draft RSS specifically includes:

“…strategic rapid transit network (Hengrove/North Fringe, Ashton Vale/Emerson’s Green, Bath/Cribbs Causeway)”.


2.5.2 Integrated Regional Strategy

The draft RSS has been developed in the context of the Integrated Regional Strategy (IRS). The IRS provides a broad set of aims and objectives and seeks to encourage better integrated regional working. The IRS has informed the development of the draft RSS and the draft RSS incorporates the IRS objectives.

2.5.3 Regional Economic Strategy

The Regional Economic Strategy (RES) aims to help ensure stronger and more sustainable communities in the region, as well as communities that connect and work better with each other. It also looks to facilitate growth in places that can make a significant contribution to achieving regional objectives and the need to reduce the region’s eco-footprint and enhance its special environment.

The RES recognises that the West of England, and in particular Bristol, “has a lead role as a city-region of international, national and regional significance, and can use its status as a national Science City to strengthen the region’s economic base”.

The vision for the RES is:

“South West England will have an economy where the aspirations and skills of our people combine with the quality of our physical and cultural environment to provide a high quality of life and sustainable prosperity for everyone”.

The RES objectives to support this vision are:

• Successful and competitive businesses.

• Strong and inclusive communities.

• An effective and confident region.

The RES supports public transport investment in the sub-region. Its states:

“To support the economic development and regeneration opportunities in these areas, and particularly in the West of England, we must address the problem of congestion through sustainable transport measures”.

2.5.4 Regional Funding Allocation

The current approved regional funding programme for the South West sets out Central Government investment in the West of England’s major transport schemes to 2016.

GBSTS identified a total funding requirement for the four identified rapid transit routes of £152.4 million at 2005 prices (the first three schemes totalling £121.9 million). This was submitted to the South West Regional Assembly for inclusion in the first round of Regional Funding (RFA1).

Regional Funding Allocation advice on transport (RFA1) submitted to the Government included the first three rapid transit routes for the West of England. Ministers accepted these regional transport priorities in July 2006 and included a total of £71 million (2006 prices) for rapid transit.


In 2006 the West of England Authorities commissioned work towards submission of a Major Scheme Bid to the Department for Transport for rapid transit. This work has included the assessment of route priorities, in terms of which routes in the network should come forward first and the choice of rapid transit technology. The initial feasibility work and subsequent more detailed work has identified that in order to meet the aim of providing a choice for cars users, and thus achieving a high mode shift from car, it was necessary to ensure that the Rapid Transit Network had a high level of journey time reliability with fast and frequent services. To achieve this journey time reliability the consultants recommended that the system be segregated from general traffic as far as possible and for much improved bus lanes and prioritised signal junctions where full segregation was not possible.

The West of England Authorities reviewed the scheme and determined that the first major scheme bid should be for Ashton Vale to Temple Meads and Bristol City Centre (the Rapid Transit Scheme). The revised estimates for the regional funding allocation update (RFA2) were provided in October 2008. These are shown in Table 2.3.

The cost estimate for this level of segregation for the Rapid Transit Scheme is £47.8 million (outturn prices) with a funding request from the South West region for £43.2 million.

Table 2.3 Extract of the RFA2 response from the West of England Authorities

£ millions (outturn prices Rapid Transit Scheme

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 TOTAL

Capital Funding - - 6.966 20.185 16.021 43.172

The Regional Assembly and Regional Development Agency fully support the Rapid Transit Scheme and submission of this MSBC in accordance with the table above which has been incorporated in to the South West Region’s advice to Government (RFA2). Letters of support from the Regional Assembly and Regional Development Agency are included at Appendix 2D.

Table 2.4 summarises the Rapid Transit Scheme’s contribution to Regional Policy. The benefits and contribution to these strategies of the wider Rapid Transit Network is considerably greater, not simply due to the additional routes, but also as a result of the synergies and additional connectivity created for the Rapid Transit Scheme.


Table 2.4 Regional Policy Fit Policy Objectives Rapid Transit Scheme…

Reducing the Region’s ecological footprint

• ensuring development respects environmental limits

• improved public transport

• shift towards the more sustainable modes of transport


…provides direct links to Temple Meads and Bristol Bus Station improving attractiveness and ease of the public transport network.


.… will be designed to current standards and guidelines to reduce the impact on the natural and built environment as far as possible.

Reducing the Region’s contribution to climate change

reducing greenhouse gas emissions at least in line with current national targets


.… will be designed to current standards and guidelines to reduce the impact on the natural environment as far as possible

Protecting and enhancing Environment and Natural Resources

reducing the environmental impact of transport

planning and design of development to reduce pollution and contamination and to maintain tranquillity

set development within, and to enhance, local character


… facilitates sustainable development through integration with proposed development sites.

…is designed to current standards and guidelines to ensure longevity and resilience of the scheme.

Draft Regional Spatial Strategy

Planning and managing growth and development to create and maintain Sustainable Communities

linking the provision of homes, jobs and services so that places become more self contained and the need to travel is reduced

promoting a step change in public transport

promoting public transport ‘hubs’ and access to them

making the best use of existing infrastructure and ensuring that supporting infrastructure is delivered in step with development

providing networks of accessible green space

…is an integral part of West of England Strategy to deliver Regional Spatial Strategy proposals (138,500 dwellings, 138,000 jobs and increase in population of 200,000).


…improves accessibility of through directly serving key existing hubs of employment in the City Centre and at Temple Quay, Redcliffe and links with residential areas.



…directly links the key interchanges of Temple Meads and Bristol Bus Station.

…segregates the routes as far as possible thereby minimising impacts on the road network, retaining road network capacity as far as possible and improving resilience of the network

… promotes/encourages cycling and walking trips and associated benefits with increased use of the corridor and public space

Integrated Regional Strategy

Harness the benefits of population growth and manage the implications of population change.

…is an integral part of West of England Strategy to deliver Regional Spatial Strategy proposals (138,500 dwellings, 138,000 jobs, increase in population of 200,000)


Policy Objectives Rapid Transit Scheme…

Enhance our distinctive environments and the quality and diversity of our cultural life





Enhance our economic prosperity and quality of employment opportunity

… is directly related to the most congested routes in the sub-region and seeks to remove trips from the road network thereby increasing business efficiency, through time savings and improved reliability for business travellers, freight and logistics operations.

…improves accessibility of jobs increasing labour market flexibility, expand labour market catchments, improve job matching.


…improves accessibility through directly serving key existing hubs of employment in the City Centre and at Temple Quay, Redcliffe and links with residential areas.


Address deprivation and disadvantage to reduce significant intra-regional inequalities




Make sure that people are treated fairly and can participate fully in society




Regional Economic Strategy

Successful and competitive businesses … is directly related to the most congested routes in the sub-region and seeks to remove trips from the road network thereby increasing business efficiency through time savings and improved reliability for business travellers, freight and logistics operations.

…improves accessibility of jobs thereby increasing labour market flexibility, expand labour market catchments, improve job matching.






Strong and inclusive communities …directly links the key interchanges of Temple Meads and Bristol Bus Station.




An effective and confident region …is an integral part of West of England Strategy to deliver draft RSS proposals (138,500 dwellings, 138,000 jobs, increase in population of 200,000)


Promoting more sustainable patterns of transport.




Supporting strategically significant towns and cities through improved public transport


…facilitates business investment, viability and attractiveness of new development sites

Improving the reliability and resilience of inter and intra-regional connectivity through a second strategic road route into the region from London (along the A303/A358), on regionally significant transport corridors and on other transport corridors.


…contributes to a more reliable and efficient transport network.

Tackling access to jobs and delivery of services in rural areas.

…provides improved accessibility between villages in North Somerset, Bristol City Centre and national transport network links.

… directly serves key existing and proposed hubs of employment at Temple Quay, Redcliffe, Ashton Park

Regional Funding Allocation – Investment Priorities

Delivering against DFT/ Regional "shared priorities"

As set out above and Table 2.1.


2.6 The Rapid Transit Scheme, Joint Local Transport Plan and Local Planning Frameworks

This section provides a summary of the scheme’s contribution to local policy and plans. A full description is set out in Appendix 2C.

The West of England Authorities are working together as the West of England Partnership to tackle transport and other major strategic issues. As part of this we have established an overall vision for the area which guides the setting of objectives, policies and implementation. This vision is:

• A rising quality of life for all.

• Easier local, national and international travel.

• Cultural attractions that make the West of England a place of choice.

• Approach to delivery that is energy efficient, protects air quality, minimises waste and protects and enhances the natural and built environment.

• Makes positive use of the mix of urban and rural areas.

2.6.1 Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study

The Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS) was discussed in Section 2.3 above in relation to setting the strategic background and initial option assessment work underpinning the Rapid Transit Network.

GBSTS assessed the Rapid Transit Network and the individual corridors. It noted the aim of the study in relation to rapid transit as “to explore the requirements of the rapid transit system for the study area and the corridors with the greatest potential for its operation”. It noted:

The study has been exploring the potential for a rapid transit system that:

• serves the major new development areas e.g. Ashton Park, Whitchurch and Emerson’s Green/Pucklechurch providing a high-quality, high-speed, public transport link between these locations and central Bristol;

• offers new and improved links between south Bristol and central Bristol;

• provides new public transport links to Portishead;

• creates new cross-Bristol linkages; and

• builds on the network of Showcase bus corridors.

With regards to corridor selection it noted:

“In the development of particular corridors for inclusion in the potential rapid transit network, the aim was to build on the series of improved bus corridors within the Showcase bus schemes in the Greater Bristol Bus Network major scheme bid. An assessment was made of the expected demand levels for each corridor using the Greater Bristol Model. Often, a key factor in the assessment was


the ability to identify routes with the potential for significant improvements in journey times through segregated operation or high levels of priority measures”

In relation to technology choice it noted:

There is a fairly wide range of systems that fall within the definition of rapid transit, including both bus and rail based systems. The specification of the eventual system is likely to be the subject for further examination. One of the factors in this will be the costs of implementation and operation, an initial review of which has been undertaken during the study. An example of the form that the rapid transit operation might follow is demonstrated by the public transport measures included in the Bath package.

The overall assessment of rapid transit and key findings were:

• A high level of demand for rapid transit, with up to 20,000 trips per hour on the system in the morning peak period in 2031.

• 20% of rapid transit passengers would have previously made the journey by car.

• The rapid transit system delivers considerable time savings on routes currently served by bus.

• Journey time savings are modest for routes already served by rail.

• The rapid transit system would reduce the number of vehicle trips across the Greater Bristol area by 2% thereby reducing the car mode share from 80% to 76%.

• A 4% reduction in total highway delay, which compares favourably with most road schemes considered as part of the study.

• Rapid transit would relieve pressure on the rail network, reducing crowding levels by around a third.

2.6.2 Joint Local Transport Plan

The Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP) for the West of England sets out plans for improving transport in the sub-region for the five years from 2006 and set out a vision for transport over twenty to thirty years.

The JLTP highlighted that transport is critical and that in the long term the transport system should:

• strengthen the local economy;

• support the rising quality of life and more effective social inclusion of disadvantaged groups;

• improve access and links;

• ensure that alternatives to the car are a realistic first choice for the majority of trips;

• offer a real choice – affordable, safe, secure, reliable, simple to use and available to all; and

• meet both rural and urban needs.


The draft JLTP described three incremental funding scenarios:

• Option A: maintenance of existing levels of funding.

• Option B: Option A plus increase funding to develop the GBBN and the ‘Bath Package’ of major schemes.

• Option C: Option B plus seek additional funding from the Transport Innovation Fund and a significant investment in a major scheme programme.

Extensive consultation was undertaken during the spring and winter of 2005 with views expressed on the options via written submissions, stakeholder forums, public exhibitions, the website and the consultation questionnaire. Of the 1553 questionnaires returned options B and C were “strongly supported” or “supported” by 54% and 62% respectively whilst option A received only 24%. In contrast 41% were against Option A whilst only 15% were against Options B or C.

Joint Local Transport Plan Objectives

The objectives of our JLTP are to:

Tackle congestion by:

• Promoting use of alternatives to the private car;

• Encouraging more sustainable patterns of travel behaviour;

• Managing the demand for travel by the private car.

Improve road safety for all road users by:

• Ensuring significant reductions in the number of the most serious road casualties;

• Achieving improvements for road safety for the most vulnerable sections of the community.

Improve air quality by:

• Improving air quality in the Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs);

• Ensuring air quality in all other areas remains better than the national standards.

Improve accessibility by:

• Improving accessibility for all residents to educational services;

• Improving accessibility for all residents to health services;

• Improving accessibility for all residents to employment.

Improve quality of life by:

• Ensuring quality of life is improved through the other Shared Priority objectives, contributing towards the enhancement of public spaces and of community safety, neighbourhood renewal


and regeneration, healthier communities, tackling noise and protecting landscape and diversity;

• Achieving balanced and sustainable communities

2.6.3 Local and Multi Area Agreements

The West of England Authorities have agreed a Multi Area Agreement (MAA) to achieve collective outcome based targets aiming to improve economic prosperity. The MAA is designed to be a cross-boundary Local Area Agreement (LAA) that brings together key players in flexible ways to tackle issues that are best addressed in partnership, at a sub-regional level. The MAA provides the means to drive economic prosperity at the sub-regional level by focussing on key policies related to economic growth such as managing homes and jobs growth, enhancing the transport offering, improving skills and competitiveness. Targets for transport agreed in the MAA include:

• Congestion – average journey time per mile during morning peak.

• Bus passenger journeys originating in the area.

The Rapid Transit Scheme will contribute to both of these.

2.6.4 Community and Corporate Priorities

Since the JLTP was completed each Authority has been working with their Local Strategic Partnerships on preparing new Sustainable Community Strategies. These broadly follow the general themes that we identified in 2006. The main contribution of transport to these community and corporate priorities has been:

• Well-being and Communities.

• Health.

• Environmental Sustainability.

• Safer Communities.

• Children and Young People.

• Economy and Regeneration.

2.6.5 Local Planning Framework Bristol City Council

The current development plan for Bristol City Council (BCC) is the 1997 Bristol Local Plan. In accordance with changes introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, BCC is currently in the early stages of formulating a Local Development Framework for the City, which is being termed the Bristol Development Framework (BDF). Upon adoption, this will replace the Local Plan as the principal document to guide development across the City.


At present, the BDF is in its formative stages, with progression extending to the publication of a Preferred Options Paper in January 2008, supported by a Sustainability Appraisal, which together provide some general strategic level objectives indicating the overall direction that policy formulation is likely to take in the medium to longer term.

The objectives relevant to the Rapid Transit Scheme are:

• Ensuring a sustainable future for Bristol.

• Mixed, balanced and sustainable communities.

• Ambitious and sustainable economic growth.

• Better health and wellbeing.

• High quality built environment.

• High quality natural environment.

• Improved accessibility and connectivity.

• Adapting to climate change and promotion of renewable energy.

• Community involvement and engagement.

The development and implementation of a comprehensive Rapid Transit Network offers the potential to provide a modern and sustainable transport solution. This underpins the aspiration to deliver a sustainable and green capital.

In general terms, the principle of delivering a rapid public transport system to connect Ashton Vale to the City Centre has been established in policy for over 10 years. Policies M12 and M13 of the 1997 Bristol Local Plan safeguard the proposed route from the city centre through to the point at which the Rapid Transit Scheme crosses the Portbury Freight Line. The Rapid Transit Scheme follows the safeguarded alignment as far as is practicable.

North Somerset Council Replacement Local Plan (RLP)

The North Somerset Replacement Local Plan (RLP) was adopted in 2007. The RLP is part of North Somerset's development framework until 2011. The RLP comprises a Written Statement and a Proposals Map, which together include policies for regulating development across North Somerset.

The RLP plays a key role in the Council’s corporate commitment to making North Somerset a more prosperous place in which to live and work, and in meeting local needs, particularly in terms of housing, jobs, leisure, community provision, and transport requirements, while at the same time safeguarding environmental assets.

The RLP looks to both reduce the need to travel and to expand travel choice and has a range of objectives of which most relevant are:


• to make the best use of existing resources and infrastructure.

• to locate and design development to reduce the need to travel, especially by car.

• to improve provision of effective interchanges.

• to recognise the role of Bristol International Airport as [a] major gateway for North Somerset and the South West, and promote access to them by more sustainable modes of transport.

• to ensure that proposals are well related to public transport and non car modes of transport, community facilities and services and the availability of infrastructure.

• to develop an integrated approach to improving the main corridors of movement within North Somerset.

• to promote and provide opportunities for safe travel, the use of public transport and more sustainable and healthy forms of travel such as walking, cycling and horse-riding.

• to contribute to achieving national targets on reduction of greenhouse gases, reduce noise and improve air quality.

• to support the provision of high quality infrastructure as the key to attracting and retaining new investment.

• to continue to work towards an integrated transport package – rail, road/motorway, airport and dock in a sustainable approach to meeting businesses’ transport needs.

• to enable people with disabilities to live in their communities as independently as possible.

• to ensure the provision of a wide range of quality recreational and cultural opportunities, including rights of way and other forms of public access and outdoor recreation facilities.

Table 2.5 summarises the Rapid Transit Scheme’s contribution to Local Policy. The benefits and contribution to these policies of the wider Rapid Transit Network is considerably greater, not simply due to the additional routes, but also as a result of the synergies and additional connectivity created for the Rapid Transit Scheme.


Table 2.5 Local Policy Fit Policy Objectives Rapid Transit Scheme…

Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study

Study objectives:

• to investigate the potential for transferring to local transport means, trips that start or end within the study area and use national strategic routes

• having identified the potential for change, to look into the more detailed needs of the national and local strategic networks to deal with the residual problems on these routes

• to support, validate and inform development of the Regional Transport Strategy and future development scenarios reflecting the Principal Urban Area (PUA) status as defined by Regional Planning Guidance (RPG10).

…was identified by the Study as a key part of the integrated solution to current and forecast transport issues.

… is an integral part of West of England Strategy to deliver Regional Spatial Strategy proposals (138,500 dwellings, 138,000 jobs, increase in population of 200,000)

Tackle congestion

• Promote use of alternatives to the private car;

• Encourage more sustainable patterns of travel behaviour;

• Manage the demand for travel by the private car.




Improve road safety for all road users

• Ensure significant reductions in the number of the most serious road casualties;

• Achieve improvements for road safety for the most vulnerable sections of the community.



… provides safer off street cycling and walking route.

Improve air quality

• Improve air quality in the Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs);

• Ensure air quality in all other areas remains better than the national standards.


Joint Local Transport Plan

Improve accessibility

• Improve accessibility for all residents to educational services;

• Improve accessibility for all residents to health services;

• Improve accessibility for all residents to employment.

…direct links to the key interchanges of Temple Meads and Bristol Bus Station.

…improves accessibility of jobs increasing labour market flexibility, expand labour market catchments, improve job matching

… improves access to facilities

…provides improved accessibility to villages in north Somerset in to Bristol City Centre.



Improve quality of life

• Ensure quality of life is improved through the other Shared Priority objectives, contributing towards the enhancement of public spaces and of community safety, neighbourhood renewal and regeneration, healthier communities, tackling noise and protecting landscape and diversity;

• Achieve balanced and sustainable communities




… promotes/encourages cycling and walking trips with increased use of the corridor and public space.

… provides high volume mass transit with fewer vehicles to reduce comparative noise levels

.… will be designed to current standards and guidelines to reduce the impact on the built and natural environment as far as possible

Well-being and Communities … improved journey times and reliability from the south west of the sub-region to Bristol City Centre.


Health … provides an alternative to the private car by providing a fast, reliable network, encouraging mode shift and providing travel on low emission vehicles.


Environmental Sustainability …is an integral part of West of England Strategy to deliver draft RSS proposals (138,500 dwellings, 138,000 jobs, increase in population of 200,000).



.… will be designed to current standards and guidelines to reduce the impact on the built and natural environment as far as possible.

…direct links to the key interchanges of Temple Meads and Bristol Bus Station improving attractiveness and ease of the public transport system.

Safer Communities …removes trips from the road network and on to a safer mode.


Sustainable Community Strategies

Children and Young People … provides an alternative to the private car by providing a fast, reliable network, encouraging mode shift and providing travel on low emission vehicles.


… safe, secure system offer opportunity for more independent travel.



Economy and Regeneration … improved journey times and reliability from the south west of the sub-region to Bristol City Centre.





Ensuring a sustainable future for Bristol. … provides an alternative to the private car by providing a fast, reliable network, encouraging mode shift and providing travel on low emission vehicles.






Mixed, balanced and sustainable communities. …improves accessibility of through directly serving key existing hubs of employment in the City Centre and at Temple Quay, Redcliffe and links with residential areas.



Emerging Bristol Development Framework

Ambitious and sustainable economic growth. … provides an alternative to the private car by providing a fast, reliable network, encouraging mode shift and providing travel on low emission vehicles.






Better health and wellbeing. … provides an alternative to the private car by providing a fast, reliable network, encouraging mode shift and providing travel on low emission vehicles.

… promotes/encourages cycling and walking trips and associated health benefits



High quality built environment. … provides an alternative to the private car by providing a fast, reliable network, encouraging mode shift and providing travel on low emission vehicles

.… will be designed to current standards and guidelines to reduce the impact on the built environment as far as possible

High quality natural environment. … provides an alternative to the private car by providing a fast, reliable network, encouraging mode shift and providing travel on low emission vehicles.


.… will be designed to current standards and guidelines to reduce the impact on the natural environment as far as possible

Improved accessibility and connectivity. …improves accessibility through directly serving key existing hubs of employment in the City Centre and at Temple Quay, Redcliffe and links with residential areas.



Adapting to climate change and promotion of renewable energy.


Community involvement and engagement. …is being developed with the engagement of stakeholders and the community.

to make the best use of existing resources and infrastructure

…segregates the routes as far as possible thereby minimising impacts on the road network, retaining road network capacity as far as possible and improving resilience of the network.

.…is designed to current standards and guidelines to ensure longevity and resilience of the scheme.

to locate and design development to reduce the need to travel

… is an integral part of West of England Strategy to deliver draft RSS proposals (138,500 dwellings, 138,000 jobs, increase in population of 200,000)

North Somerset Council Local Plan

to improve provision of effective interchanges; …provides direct links to Temple Meads and Bristol Bus Station.

…directly serves key existing hubs of employment in the City Centre and at Temple Quay, Redcliffe and links with residential areas.





to recognise the role of Bristol International Airport as major gateways for North Somerset and the South West, and promote access to them by more sustainable modes of transport;


… facilitates development of Bristol International Airport and sustainable access.


to ensure that proposals are well related to public transport

… is an integral part of West of England Strategy to deliver draft RSS proposals (138,500 dwellings, 138,000 jobs, increase in population of 200,000)

to develop an integrated approach to improving the main corridors of movement within North Somerset;


…contributes to a more reliable and effective transport network to improve business efficiency and connections to national networks

promote and provide opportunities for safe travel, the use of public transport and more sustainable and healthy forms of travel



to contribute to achieving national targets on reduction of greenhouse gases, reduce noise and improve air quality;


to ensure that development proposals contribute to the provision and conservation of a clean, pleasant and safe environment, while using energy, water and other resources efficiently;

… provides an alternative to the private car by providing a fast, reliable network, encouraging mode shift and providing travel on low emission vehicles


to support the provision of high quality infrastructure as the key to attracting and retaining new investment;






to continue to work towards an integrated transport package to meeting businesses’ transport needs;



to enable people with disabilities to reach their full potential and live in their communities as independently as possible;

…will provide fully DDA compliant system to improve accessibility for mobility impaired persons.



to promote and increase the health, welfare, cultural and leisure opportunities of all sectors of the local population;



to ensure the provision of quality recreational and cultural opportunities, including rights of way and other forms of public access, and outdoor recreation facilities



…improves access to facilities.

2.7 Summary

In summary:

• The West of England is a congested and growing area and economically important to the South West Region.

• The need for a Rapid Transit Network has been strategically identified and supported in regional and local policy.

• The Rapid Transit Network is closely aligned, and will be progressively implemented, as part of the delivery of the draft RSS proposals. It is central to delivering sustainable development identified in the draft RSS in the key areas of South Bristol, south west urban extension; Emerson’s Green and the North Fringe and is being considered as a core measure in the delivery of mixed-use developments.

• The Rapid Transit Scheme is programmed to be delivered in accordance with the regional funding allocation programme, which in turn is closely aligned to sustainable development requirements.

• The Rapid Transit Scheme makes a significant contribution to DfT’s Towards a Sustainable Transport System through delivery of regional policy and addressing the issues of the Strategically Significant City of Bristol. It also ensures the local public transport network is well integrated with the intra-regional connection of Bristol Temple Meads and Bristol Bus Station and facilitates better, more sustainable access to Bristol International Airport.

• The Rapid Transit Scheme underpins Bristol City Council’s aspiration to deliver a sustainable and green capital and is consistent with the sustainability objectives for the City. The Rapid Transit Scheme makes us of the designated safeguarded rapid transit route in the Bristol Local Plan.

• The Rapid Transit Scheme supports the North Somerset Local Plan by contributing to improving the accessibility of more rural areas in the sub-region and establishing sustainable mixed communities as extensions to the Bristol urban area.


Appendices 2A Transport Problems and Needs 2A (i) JLTP 2008 Progress Review 2B Scheme Development & Alternatives Considered 2B (i) PT Corridor Options Report 2B (ii) Options Short Listing Report 2B (iii) Technology Options Report, 2007 2B (iv) Technology Review, Final Report, September 2008 2B (v) Lower Cost Alternatives Report 2C Policy and Planning 2D Written Endorsement from Regional Bodies

Issue 1, 24 March 2009



3 Appraisal and Value for Money

the benefits of the scheme against its costs

Final Report Value for Money - 70

Appraisal and Value for Money 3.1 Introduction

This section presents a summary of the appraisal and value for money assessment for the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads and Bristol City Centre rapid transit scheme (the ‘Rapid Transit Scheme’)

The appraisal demonstrates the strength of the case for the Rapid Transit Scheme with a Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) that meets the Department for Transport’s (DfT) criteria for high value for money schemes (BCR>2:1).

In line with the DfT’s Guidance, the scheme appraisal is presented under standard headings. The following headings are used:

• Scheme Summary Description: - outline of the scheme which forms the basis for the appraisal and value for money assessment.

• Capital Costs: - summary of the principal elements comprising the capital costs of the Rapid Transit Scheme.

• Operating Costs: - the anticipated operating costs for the Rapid Transit Scheme.

• Risk Assessment and Optimism Bias: - the outcome of the Quantified Risk Assessment and the assumptions about Optimism Bias used in the appraisal.

• Traffic and Passenger Demand Modelling for the Preferred Scheme: - the approach adopted in the forecasting of the demand for the Rapid Transit Scheme and the implications for the operation of the highway network.

• Summary of Benefits, including the Appraisal Summary Table (AST): - summary of the overall benefits and costs of the scheme, identifying in turn the impacts on each of the criteria within the standard AST format.

• Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) Data: - providing further details on the economic impact of the scheme within the standard TEE format.

• Sensitivity and Scenario Analysis: - description of the range of sensitivity tests which have been undertaken to explore the robustness of the appraisal of the core Rapid Transit Scheme and the outcome of the assessment.

• Distribution and Equity Analysis: - summary of the distribution of the costs and benefits associated with the Rapid Transit Scheme.

• Affordability and Financial Sustainability: - summary of the profile of costs and revenues for the Rapid Transit Scheme.

• Assessment of Lower Cost Alternative (LCA): - assessment of the performance of the LCA formed by improvements to existing services linking the Long Ashton Park and Ride site with the city centre.


• Practicality and Public Acceptability: - identification of the implications for the implementation of the RT scheme.

• Programme: - the anticipated timetable for the implementation of the RT scheme.

• Monitoring and Evaluation: - the proposed approach for the continued monitoring of the performance of the Rapid Transit Scheme following its implementation.

• Overall Value for Money Conclusions: - summary of the conclusions from the appraisal of the scheme.

As appropriate, detailed descriptions and analyses are presented in Appendices which are listed at the end of this section.

3.2 Scheme Summary Description

The Rapid Transit Scheme will provide significantly enhanced bus rapid transit services on the core travel corridor in south-west Bristol between Ashton Vale and the city centre.

A full description of the scheme is provided in Section 1 and the appendices to it. The Rapid Transit scheme is an integral part of the Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP) and its wider strategic context has been set out in Section 2.

3.3 Capital Costs for Appraisal 3.3.1 Public Accounts

The costs of the Rapid Transit Scheme have been assessed and critically reviewed as part of the development of the scheme towards programme entry.

The scheme capital costs as used in this appraisal comprise:

• Bus priority measures - the costs associated with the provision of the Rapid Transit segregated alignment and other priority infrastructure;

• Land costs;

• Construction of new structures over the Portbury Freight Line and renewal of existing structures at Ashton Avenue Bridge and Prince Street Bridge;

• Significant new public transport interchange at Temple Meads; and

• Provision of new and improved bus stops and shelters and the installation of Real Time Passenger Information (RPTI) at bus stops.

The estimated capital cost for each of the above items is summarised in Table 3.1, with details provided in Appendix 3A.


Table 3.1 Summary of Preferred Scheme Capital Costs to Public Accounts

Item Full Approval Scheme Costs (£)

Engineering Works £28,210,610

Land Costs £1,684,900

Other (Environment etc.) £1,853,094

Sub-total (A) £31,748,604

Preparation (B) £3,554,000

Risk Budget (C) £6,906,000

TOTAL (A+B+C) £42,208,604 All costs in £, 2008 prices and exclude impact of real cost increases over implementation period All costs exclude allowance for optimism bias

3.3.2 Private Operator Investment Costs

The scheme costs for appraisal also include the provision of new buses for the Rapid Transit service. This is equivalent to a cost of £0.28 million in the opening year (2008 prices, without allowance for real cost increases or optimism bias), with subsequent replacement costs over the appraisal period. It is assumed at this stage that these costs will be borne by the private operators. See Appendix 3A for details of the costs.

The discussion on service procurement is discussed in Section 5.

3.4 Maintenance and Operating Costs

The Rapid Transit Scheme will impose additional maintenance costs of £0.39 million p.a. (in the opening year, 2008 prices, without allowance for real cost increases or optimism bias) on the local authorities, related to the upkeep of the alignment, ITS and RTPI systems, bus stops and bridges.

The Rapid Transit operating costs will be borne by the private operator/s, serving the Rapid Transit corridor (details of the operating costs are provided in Appendix 3A). These have been calculated and included in the appraisal of the scheme and comprise:

• Bus operating cost savings on existing services rerouting to use the Rapid Transit alignment as a result of reduced journey times and improved service reliability; and

• Bus operating cost increases arising from the new Rapid Transit service.

These costs would fall predominantly on the bus operator. The estimated changes in operating costs (relative to a Do-Minimum reference scenario) amount to an annual cost increase of £0.28 million (in 2008 prices, without allowance for real cost increases or optimism bias).

Bus operating costs have been forecast to increase at a rate greater than inflation over the appraisal period based on current operating cost trends.


3.5 Risk Assessment and Optimism Bias

3.5.1 Quantified Risk Assessment

A Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) has been undertaken. The output of the analysis details a construction risk value for given confidence limits. For the preferred Rapid Transit Scheme, the following risk exposure(s) was calculated:

• 50% Confidence Level (without Inflation) - £37.3m

• 80% Confidence Level (without Inflation) - £38.7m

The 80% Confidence Risk exposure has been included within the total scheme costs for this Programme Entry MSBC. Further details of the QRA exercise are provided in Section 4, Appendix 4C and Section 6.

The economic appraisal cost (Table 3.2), including an allowance for cost risks and real cost increases but excluding optimism bias adjustments, is estimated at £47m (2008 prices).

Table 3.2 Summary of Preferred Scheme Costs to Public Accounts: Undiscounted ‘Base’ Scheme Costs for Appraisal (£’000, 2008 Prices)

Item 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total

Investment Costs excluding Risk Costs (without Inflation)

-

-

11,734

10,021

9,994

- 31,749

Investment Costs (Including Risk Costs but without Inflation) - A

-

55

7,759

17,911

12,930

- 38,654

Preparation Costs (including contingencies without Inflation) – B

2,354

950

-

-

-

250

3,554

Total Investment Costs without Inflation (A+B)

2,354

1,005

7,759

17,911

12,930

250

42,208

Assumed Annual CCI (Construction Cost Inflation) – D

3.0% 5.75% 6.0% 6.0% 6.5% 6.5% -

Assumed Annual GI (General Inflation) – E

2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% -

Annual RI (Real Increase) (D/E) 0.49% 3.17% 3.41% 3.41% 3.90% 3.90% -

Cumulative RI - F 1.00 1.04 1.07 1.11 1.15 1.20 -

Total Investment Costs (Contribution due to real cost increases) – (A+B) x F

2,365

1,041

8,319

19,858

14,896

299

46,779


3.5.2 Optimism Bias

Optimism bias is the tendency of appraisers to underestimate costs and implementation programmes. The DfT has therefore established the necessary uplifts to apply to cost estimates to ensure that the risk of cost overrun is below certain pre-defined levels.

In earlier versions of the appraisal for the MSBC, optimism bias has been calculated according to the default rates set out in WebTAG Unit 3.5.9 for a Programme Entry scheme. However, the guidance suggests that uplifts should be adjusted downwards as risk assessment and management for a scheme improves over time. This means that, if an advanced risk analysis has already been applied to assess likely risks and their costs, a downward adjustment of optimism bias uplifts is warranted in order to avoid double counting.

For the Rapid Transit MSBC, a full Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) has been conducted for the Preferred Scheme based on a risk register put together at a risk workshop, held in Bristol on 12th November 2008 (see Section 6). At a subsequent workshop, held on 16 February 2009, adjustments to the optimism bias uplifts were made in light of the risks captured in the risk assessment.

The results of the optimism bias uplift adjustment are shown in Table 3.3 and Table 3.4. The impact of the resultant reduced capital expenditure optimism bias allowances is to increase standard civil engineering costs by 40% and non-standard civil engineering (Bridge) costs by 60%. A weighted average uplift of 44% was then applied to capital (construction plus land) costs. In addition to this, 22% uplift was applied to fleet costs and 44% uplift was applied to maintenance costs. No uplift was applied to operating costs. However maintenance costs, fleet costs and operating costs were all adjusted by real cost inflation for up to 30 years after the scheme opening year. Appendix 3A sets out the costs employed in scheme appraisal incorporating an allowance for risk and optimism bias.

Table 3.3 Optimism Bias for Standard Civil Engineering Construction Costs

Contributory Factors to Upper Bound

Optimism Bias

Standard Civil Engineering (%)

Mitigation Factor Optimism Bias Reduction Due to Risk Allowance (%)

Late Contractor Involvement in Design

3 0 0 Procurement

Dispute and Claims Occurred

21 0.1 2.1

Environmental Impact 22 0.1 2.2 Project Specific

Other 18 0.1 1.8

Inadequacy of the Business Case

10 0.15 1.5 Client Specific

Poor Project Intelligence 7 0.1 0.7

Public Relations 9 0.1 0.9 Environment

Site Characteristics 3 0.1 0.3

External Influences Economic 7 0.1 0.7

Total 100% - 10%

Upper Bound Optimism Bias 44%

Reduction in Optimism Bias 10%

Resultant Capital Expenditure Optimism Bias 40%

Source: Uplifts adjustment workshop, WebTAG 3.5.9, Review of Large Public Procurement in the UK (HM Treasury, 2002)


Table 3.4 Optimism Bias for Non Standard Civil Engineering Construction Costs

Contributory Factors to Upper Bound

Optimism Bias

Non Standard Civil Engineering (%)

Mitigation Factor Optimism Bias Reduction Due to Risk Allowance (%)

Procurement Other (Specify) 2 0 0

Design Complexity 8 0.1 0.8

Degree of Innovation 9 0.1 0.9

Project Specific

Environmental Impact 5 0.1 0.5

Inadequacy of the Business Case

35 0.15 5.25

Funding Availability 5 0 0

Project Management Team

2 0 0

Client Specific

Poor Project Intelligence 9 0.1 0.9

Environment Site Characteristics 5 0.1 0.5

Economic 3 0.1 0.3

Legislation / Regulations 8 0 0

Technology 8 0 0

External Influences

Other (Specify) 1 0 0

Total 100% - 9.2%

Upper Bound Optimism Bias 66%

Reduction in Optimism Bias 9.2%

Resultant Capital Expenditure Optimism Bias 60%

Source: Uplifts adjustment workshop, WebTAG 3.5.9, Review of Large Public Procurement in the UK (HM Treasury, 2002)

3.6 Traffic and Passenger Demand Modelling for the Preferred Scheme

The modelling and appraisal for the Programme Entry bid used a detailed area-wide multi-modal model of the Bristol area – the G-BATS3 model.

The Model Validation Reports for the highway, public transport and demand models are included in Appendices 3B, 3C and 3D respectively.

In order to accurately represent future passengers for the Rapid Transit Scheme, 2008 on-board passenger bus surveys were undertaken in November on bus routes along the A370 corridor (from Weston-super-Mare, Clevedon, Nailsea), as well as routes within south-west Bristol, including the park and ride service 903, which are likely to be affected by the Rapid Transit Scheme.

These surveys were then used to create a base year matrix which validated well to counts provided by Bristol City Council. The validation process is explained in more detail in Appendix 3C.

This set of well validated base year matrices provides confidence that the forecasts the model provides are an accurate picture of the additional demand the Rapid Transit Scheme would create.

To represent the fact that the Rapid Transit service is perceived more attractive than a conventional bus, a 9 minute mode constant has been modelled. This figure is based on research into similar schemes and the attractiveness of the mode identified by passengers (see ‘Demand for Public Transport: A Practical Guide’ TRL Report 593, TRL Ltd 2004).


3.6.1 Forecast years and scenarios

For Programme Entry, the appraisal of the Major Scheme – defined as the Do Something case – has been undertaken relative to an appropriate Do Minimum case. The modelling framework has been developed to represent a 2006 base year and then employed in forecast mode to represent the following scenarios:

• 2016 forecast year;

• 2031 forecast year

Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios were defined and employed for forecasting at 2016 and 2031. The Rapid Transit Scheme Do Something network was created by adding to the 2006 base year network all schemes and planned network alterations that had been supplied by the West of England Partnership for the forecast years 2016 and 2031 respectively. The Do Minimum scenario was derived by removing the Rapid Transit Scheme from the Do Something network.

Details of the definition of the Do Minimum and Do Something forecasting assumptions employed are presented in Appendix 3E. The forecast passenger demand on the rapid transit services in each forecast year are presented in Appendix 3E(i).

3.6.2 Projected Scheme Impacts

The forecast impact of the preferred Rapid Transit Scheme for an average weekday 12 hours (07:00 – 19:00) is summarised in Table 3.5. More detailed results are presented in Appendix 3E(i). Table 3.5 presents the change in person trips by mode in 2016 and 2031 following the introduction of the Rapid Transit Scheme.

Table 3.5 Summary of Projected Demand Impacts for the Rapid Transit Scheme

12 Hour Passenger Trips 2016 Forecast Year 2031 Forecast Year

Bus & Rail

Do-Minimum 220,300 269,500 Do-Something 212,400 260,200 % change -3.6% -3.4% Rapid Transit

Do-Minimum - - Do-Something 12,100 15,800 % change Car

Do-Minimum 1,712,100 1,938,200 Do-Something 1,708,300 1,932,200 % change -0.2% -0.3% Total

Do-Minimum 1,932,400 2,207,700 Do-Something 1,932,800 2,208,200 % change +0.002% +0.002%


Table 3.5 indicates that, in 2016, of the 12,100 RT passengers 3,800 switch from car, 7,900 transfer from bus/rail; with around 400 generated trips. The picture changes in 2031 with, of the 15,800 RT passengers, 6,000 switch from car, 9,300 transfer from bus/rail with around 500 generated trips.

3.7 Summary of Benefits

Major schemes are required to be assessed against the government’s overarching objectives for transport, as embodied in the NATA assessment framework, namely:

• Environment;

• Safety;

• Economy;

• Accessibility; and

• Integration.

A commentary on the extent to which the preferred scheme achieves the above objectives and associated sub-objectives is provided in the following sections and summarised in the Appraisal Summary Table (AST) presented in Table 3.10.

3.7.1 Environment

The environmental assessment involved the preparation of a scoping study to identify the main considerations within the Rapid Transit corridor. This was then updated following the responses of the main statutory bodies. The results from the scoping report and the responses from the consultation are included in Appendices 3F and 3F(i) respectively while the assessment is described in Appendix 3F(ii). The AST table contains the summary of the assessed impacts.

The Rapid Transit Scheme provides environmental benefits by providing a sustainable public transport option and encouraging a move away from car travel but also potentially has some impacts through construction and operation of the scheme. These impacts will be offset to some extent by mitigating measures.

3.7.2 Safety

Security

Particular attention and importance is attributed to the security of Rapid Transit passengers while making their way to and from the stops, waiting for services and travelling on the vehicle.

The location of the stops has been selected to enable safe and secure access to stops including dedicated crossing facilities with convenient, well-lit and safe pedestrian links.

Good design of stops, interchanges and passenger facilities is fundamental to the scheme, given these are the first interaction many passengers will have with the Rapid Transit system. Figure 1.3 shows examples of the planned stop designs. With quality facilities such as CCTV, real time passenger


information, and high standard of lighting, security is central to the design of the stops.

The vehicles themselves will be planned to support the image of the Rapid Transit system, providing good levels of accessibility, security, information and comfort. They will be equipped with CCTV throughout the vehicle such that the driver can see CCTV images of all passenger areas.

Overall assessment of security impact – Moderate Positive

Safety

The preferred scheme is expected to result in a transfer of trips from private car to public transport giving a reduction in vehicle trips on the road network.

Using the WebTAG methodology to calculate the expected reduction in accidents gives, for the Revised Preferred Scheme, a 0.13% reduction in Personal Injury Accidents (PIAs) across the WEPO area per annum by 2016 and 0.16% by 2031. This reduction is equivalent to a monetised benefit of £14.8 million over the scheme appraisal period (see Appendix 3G for detailed assessment).

Additionally, the scheme is expected to contribute to improved safety for pedestrians as a result of the priority measures and provision of improved access to bus stops and new and improved pedestrian crossing facilities. Cyclists will also benefit from greater segregation from general traffic by being able to use cycle lanes alongside the segregated alignment.

Overall assessment of security impact – Moderate Positive

3.7.3 Economy

Public Accounts, TEE Business Users & Transport Providers and Consumes

The scheme has been subjected to a detailed economic assessment according to the requirements set out in the DfT’s WebTAG guidance using the Transport User Benefit Appraisal (TUBA) software.

The SATURN highway and the EMME/2 PT model output data was input into TUBA for the two forecast years of 2016 and 2031 for each of the following hours:

• One peak hour (0800-0900) of the morning peak (AM) period (0700-1000);

• Average of six hours of the inter-peak (IP) period (1000-1600); and

• One peak hour (1700-1800) of the evening peak (PM) period (1600-1900)

An annualisation factor is used to convert hourly/daily benefits to annual benefits. To convert AM/PM peak hourly modelled benefits to average weekday AM/PM benefits, a factor of 2 was used. This is in line with an assumption used in the demand modelling, wherein a flat profile was assumed for AM/PM peak in 2016. Assuming 253 working days a year, an annualisation factor of 506 was thus estimated for the modelled AM and PM peak hours. A factor of 6 was used to convert IP peak hourly benefits to daily benefits since the modelled output for this peak was reported for the average of six hours. Assuming 253 working days a year, an annualisation factor of 1,518 was therefore estimated for the modelled inter-peak hours. By applying these annualisation factors, the TUBA appraisal represents the benefits that would be obtained for weekdays between 0700 and 1900; no benefits outside this period are included.


The detailed Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE), Public Accounts and Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) tables are presented for the Preferred Scheme in Appendix 3G whilst Table 3.6 provides a summary of the key economic evaluation indicators. It shows that the preferred scheme has a positive Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 3.95 (excluding safety benefits) or 4.12 (including safety benefits). This categorises the scheme as “High Value for Money” according to the DfT’s Value for Money (VfM) guidance2.

Table 3.6 Summary of Cost Benefit Statistics for Preferred Rapid Transit Scheme

Item Benefits/Costs (£m) Users and Providers Benefits (Consumers)

Travel Time Users Benefits 179.1 Vehicle Operating Costs -2.2 Users Charges 0.4 Sub-Total –A 177.3 Users and Providers Benefits (Business) Travel Time Users Benefits 112.6 Vehicle Operating Costs (Consumer plus Business) -3.2 Users Charges (Consumer plus Business) 0.1 Sub-Total –B 109.5 Private Sector Provider Impacts

Providers Revenue 68.9 Providers Operating Costs -8.8 Providers Fleet Investment Cost -1.2 Sub-Total -C 58.8 Carbon Benefits -D -0.1 Present Value of TEE Benefits (PVB = A+B+C+D) 345.5* Public Accounts

Local Government Funding –E 38.6

Central Government Funding-F 48.8

Total Present Value of Costs (PVC= E+F) 87.5

TEE Indicators

Net Present Value (NPV= PVB-PVC) 258.0*

Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR=PVB/PVC) 3.95*

Note: Scheme Costs (in 2002 prices) .All entries are discounted present values, in 2002 prices and values. Numbers might not add-up due to rounding. * Excluding safety benefits – when safety benefits are added, PVB = £360.3m, NPV = £272.8m and BCR=4.12.

Reliability

The provision of the off line rapid transit route section and on-line bus priority will substantially improve the journey time reliability of bus services operating in the rapid transit corridor, improving journey time reliability between the south west of the sub-region and Bristol City Centre. For the services affected the improvement relative to the Do Minimum scenario will be significant

A qualitative assessment of the impact of the scheme has been undertaken as the local bus operator

2 Guidance on Value for Money, DfT (2004)


was not able to provide the information necessary to carry out a quantitative assessment of reliability impacts in line with WebTAG guidance.

Overall assessment of reliability impact – Moderate Positive

Wider Economic Impacts

The improvement in journey times and reliability generated by the Rapid Transit Scheme will also contribute to delivering wider economic impacts in the Greater Bristol area. In particular, the scheme will improve accessibility by directly serving key existing hubs of employment in the City Centre and at Temple Quay, Redcliffe and providing links with residential areas. It will also facilitate development and employment at Ashton Park and Bristol International Airport.

Whilst these impacts will benefit deprived areas within Bristol, it is considered that the additional monetary value of the impacts on regeneration areas will be minor in comparison to the main economic benefits assessed under the Economic Efficiency sub objective. Consequently a formal Economic Impact Report has not been prepared and additional monetised benefits have not been included in the economic assessment to represent this effect. This represents a conservative approach.

Overall assessment of wider economic impacts – Slight Positive

3.7.4 Accessibility

Option Values

Option values refer to the benefits people experience from the knowledge that an additional transport option is available to them even though they do not intend to use it on a regular basis. The Rapid Transit Scheme provides additional travel options, particularly to those living in the south west of the city. Overall assessment of option value impact – Slight Positive

Severance

This sub objective is concerned with severance as it affects those using non-motorised modes, especially pedestrians. Severance changes are important where the transport scheme either creates barriers to pedestrians (a negative affect) or removes barriers (a positive affect). Provision of a parallel cycling and pedestrian alternative should improve severance.

Overall assessment of option value impact – Slight Positive

Access to the Transport System

Figure 3.1 shows the accessibility within the West of England Partnership area to Bristol City Centre in 2016. The colours represent the journey time in minutes from that origin point to Bristol centre, using public transport. The lighter greens and yellows represent shorter journey times (up to 60 minutes), the darker reds and blues show longer journey times (60 to 120 minutes), while dark grey indicates areas that cannot access Bristol centre by public transport. Figure 3.2 shows the accessibility within the West of England Partnership area to the major employment areas in 2016 respectively. The colours represent the journey time in minutes from that origin point to the nearest of the employment areas, using public transport.


The introduction of the Rapid Transit scheme and the associated journey time reductions to the X1, X7 and 354 bus services has the effect of increasing the proportion of the West of England Partnership area that is within 60 minutes of Bristol centre and the major employment areas (see Appendix 3H for further details). As a consequence of this, the proportion of the study area that is further than 60 minutes away has been reduced. The impact of the RT scheme is small when measured across the whole sub-region, but is more significant when viewed locally within the areas directly served by the scheme.

Overall assessment of option value impact – Moderate Positive

Figure 3.1 Journey time by public transport on weekdays between 0700 and 0900 to Bristol City Centre, with the proposed RT scheme in 2016


Figure 3.2 Journey time by public transport on weekdays between 0700 and 0900 to the nearest major employment area, with the proposed RT scheme in 2016

3.7.5 Integration

The examination of the impacts of the scheme on the integration issues in the study area, considers the following three aspects:

• transport interchange;

• integration with local, regional and national land use policy; and

• integration with other government policies.

Further details are provided in Appendix 3I.

Transport Interchange Sub-objective

The main benefits to interchange which will be provided by the preferred Rapid Transit Scheme include significant improvements to the facilities and environment at the transit stops, better information for passengers at stops and on vehicles, improved reliability of operation and better interchange with other public transport services, particularly Temple Meads railway station but also local bus and ferry services. Table 3.7 summarises the principal impacts.


Table 3.7 Assessment of Integration – Passenger Interchange

Passenger Interchange Indicator

Without Rapid Transit Scheme With Rapid Transit Scheme

Waiting environment Moderate High – significant improvement to waiting environment with high quality stops and real-time passenger information.

Level of facilities Moderate High – significant improvement facilities with high quality stops and vehicles and real-time passenger information.

Level of Information Moderate High – significant improvement with real-time passenger information at stops and on vehicles.

Visible staff presence Moderate Moderate – no change.

Physical linkage for next stage of journey

Moderate High – local improvements at Temple Meads railway station and Long Ashton P&R site and access to Bristol Bus Station.

Connection time and risk of missing a connection

Poor

High – improved reliability of operation for Rapid Transit and other routes along the Rapid Transit corridor together with on vehicle RTPI will reduce risk of missed connection. Interchange at Temple Meads

Rapid Transit passengers and those travelling on bus routes along the Rapid Transit corridor will benefit from the better waiting environment and other facilities – 12,000 passengers per day in 2016 and 16,000 passengers per day in 2031, as indicated in Table 3.5. Smaller volumes will receive benefits from integration improvements at Temple Meads railway station.

Overall assessment of passenger interchange impact – Significant Positive

Land Use Policy Sub-objective

In line with guidance in WebTAG Unit 3.7.2, this section contains an assessment of the extent to which the scheme is integrated with the land use policies and proposals at the three different levels:

• Local (concentrating on the policies of Bristol City Council, North Somerset Council and the West of England Partnership);

• Regional; and

• National.

The analysis examines the range of policy documents and reviews the characteristics of the preferred Rapid Transit Scheme against the objectives in the policy documents. It builds on the assessment in Section 2 (Strategic Case) and Appendix 2C (Policy and Planning). Table 3.8 contains a summary of the main trends in the Land Use Policy Sub-objective worksheet.


Table 3.8 Assessment of Integration – Land Use Policy

Level Policies Helped Policies Hindered

Local Wide range of policies helped to varying extents including sustainable growth and development, better health and well-being, safer travel, improved accessibility and connectivity, climate change, greenhouse gas emission reductions, assistance to disabled, tackling congestion, modal split, and better quality of life.

Localised impacts possible through changes in travel patterns, mainly on road network, e.g. congestion, parking provision, noise and air quality. Individual environmental designations may be affected (heritage, landscape and ecology) but extent will depend remedial measures.

Regional Likely to make a positive contribution to planning and managing growth (especially Ashton Park development of 10,000 dwellings in RSS). Also benefits through reducing contribution to climate change, enhancing economic prosperity, addressing deprivation, social inclusion, aiding successful and competitive business, promoting sustainable transport, supporting strategically significant towns and cities through improved public transport, improving reliability and resilience.


National Contributes to policies including tacking climate change, improving competitiveness and productivity, raising equality of opportunity, providing gains in health and, safety and improvements to the overall quality of life.


Overall assessment score: Slight beneficial

Other Government Policies Sub-objective

In line with WebTAG Unit 3.7.3, an assessment has been made for the likely impact of the Rapid Transit Scheme proposals on the policies of other Government departments. Table 3.9 summarises the principal impacts.


Table 3.9 Assessment of Integration – Other Government Policies

Government Department Policies Helped Policies Hindered

Transport Reducing congestion

Reducing pollution

Reducing carbon consumption

Increasing accessibility

Improving quality of life

Reducing social exclusion

No direct impact

Communities and Local Government

Protection and enhancement of the environment (with respect to noise, air quality, climate change and carbon depletion) and sustainable economic development.

Possible localised negative impacts on protection of the environment (with respect to landscape, heritage, biodiversity)

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Protection and enhancement of the environment (with respect to noise, air quality, climate change and carbon depletion).

Possible localised negative impacts on protection of the environment (with respect to landscape, heritage, biodiversity)

Health Positive impact on reduction in accidents. Improved access to health facilities. Potential for contribution to increased physical activity through improved walking and cycling facilities.

No direct impact

Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

Positive impact of transport priority. No direct impact

Children, Schools and Families

Increasing opportunities for access to education

No direct impact

Innovation, Universities and Skills

Increasing opportunities for access to education

No direct impact

Overall assessment score: Moderate beneficial


Table 3. 10 Appraisal Summary Table – Preferred Rapid Transit Scheme Option : Preferred Scheme Ashton Vale to Temple Meads and Bristol City Centre

Description: Implementation of Rapid Transit line in south-west Bristol between Ashton Vale and Bristol City Centre comprising segregated alignment, priority measures, improved stops, real-time passenger information and new modern vehicles

Problems: Congestion on major transport corridors, with resulting problems of pollution, safety, quality of life, unreliable bus operations.

Present Value of Costs to Public Accounts (£87.5m)

OBJECTIVE SUB-OBJECTIVE

QUALITATIVE IMPACTS QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT

ASSESSMENT

Noise The introduction of vehicles will cause a slight increase in noise at specific locations along the route together with the impact of .rerouted general traffic, especially in the City Centre.

Slight Adverse

Local Air Quality

The scheme will cause a reduction in vehicle kilometres and associated emissions by encouraging mode switch to public transport. There may be localised impacts due to the diversion of general traffic.

Slight Beneficial

Greenhouse Gases

The scheme will cause a reduction in vehicle kilometres and associated emissions by encouraging mode switch to public transport.

Slight Beneficial

Landscape The route will be likely to have an adverse impact on land use, land cover and visual amenity. However the baseline environmental capital along the route is low and opportunities for mitigation exist (particularly through minimising highways infrastructure, enhancing pedestrian and cycling routes and maintaining and enhancing vegetation).

Moderate Adverse (without mitigation) potentially

Slight Adverse (with mitigation)

ENVI

RON

MEN

T

Townscape Whilst the scheme could potentially increase street clutter, careful design will provide the opportunity for mitigation and the potential to introduce positive impacts

Slight Adverse (without mitigation) potentially

Slight Beneficial (with mitigation)


Option : Preferred Scheme Ashton Vale to Temple Meads and Bristol City Centre






ASSESSMENT

Heritage of Historic Resources

The scheme could potentially impact on the setting of Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments and Conservation areas through the introduction of guide ways, lighting columns, kerbing and fencing, alteration to signals and bus stops, the realignment of kerbs and pavements and marking of bus lanes. It also involves reintroducing vehicular traffic to the Grade II listed Ashton Swing Bridge and the potential exists for uncovering archaeological remains particularly to the South of the route. However many of the effects could potentially be mitigated through careful design

Slight Adverse

Biodiversity The route between Ashton Vale and the City Centre would have a negative impact on the Bower Ashton Mineral Railway SNCI through land take causing the direct loss of a large part of the site and land severance leading to a reduction in the sites value as a wildlife corridor. Although partial mitigation is possible (through for instance tree and hedgerow planting), the scheme will result in a devaluation of the site’s integrity and value. It would have a slight adverse impact on the Avon Gorge SAC, NNR and SSSI, Ashton Vale Fields SNCI, Colliter’s Brook, Longmoor Brook and Butterfly Junction.

Moderate Adverse

Water Environment

Potential impact on Longmoor Brook, Colliter’s Brook and River Avon, including the Floating Harbour. Mitigation measures to limit the impact and amount of additional hard standing through SUDS, SEMP, etc.

Moderate Adverse

Physical Fitness

The scheme would encourage additional walking and cycling journeys as a result of the segregated route along the alignment and increased public transport trips (potentially accessed by foot or cycle).

Slight Beneficial








ASSESSMENT

Journey Ambience

The high quality facilities, surrounding environment and passenger information provided with the new route will reduce traveller care and stress and improve views and therefore improve journey ambience for those passengers using the route (1550 in the morning peak in 2016)

Moderate Beneficial

Accidents Mode switch to the new route will cause a reduction in road traffic and associated reduction in road accidents.

Additional benefits will also be experienced by pedestrians as a result of priority measures and improved crossing facilities and by cyclists through the construction of the cycle route along the segregated alignment.

PVB: £14.8 million

SAFE

TY

Security Increased use of CCTV and high standard of lighting at bus shelters and CCTV on the vehicles will provide high levels of security for Rapid Transit passengers.

Slight beneficial

Public Accounts

The public sector experiences costs associated with scheme construction, ongoing maintenance and loss in indirect tax revenue

Local Gov PVC:£38.6 million

Central Gov PVC:£48.8 million

PVC: £87.5 million

NPV: £272.8 million

BCR: 4.12 (incl safety benefits)

TEE: Business Users & Transport Providers

Users experience travel time benefits resulting from the reduced journey times provided by the new route.

Providers experience ongoing operating costs which are more than offset by increased revenue resulting from additional trips generated by the new route

Users PVB: £109.5 million

Transport Providers PVB: £58.8 million

Other PVB: £0

PVB: £168.3 mill

TEE Consumers

Users experience travel time benefits resulting from the reduced journey times provided by the new route.

Users PVB: £177.3million

PVB: £177.3 million

ECO

NO

MY Reliability The priority measures and segregated

section will provide improved reliability for bus/Rapid Transit journeys along the route

Moderate Beneficial








ASSESSMENT


Improved journey times and reliability will promote regeneration particularly by improving accessibility by directly serving key existing hubs of employment in the City Centre and at Temple Quay, Redcliffe and facilitating development and employment at Ashton Park and BIA

Slight Beneficial

Option values

The scheme will increase the transport options available in the south west of Bristol

Slight Beneficial

Severance The provision of walking and cycling routes along the alignment will offset any increase in severance caused by the route itself

Slight Beneficial

ACCE

SSIB

ILIT

Y Access to the Transport System

The impact of the RT scheme is small when measured across the whole sub-region, but is more significant when viewed locally within the areas directly served by the scheme.

Moderate Beneficial

Transport Interchange

Passengers will benefit from the better waiting environment and other improved levels of facilities. Temple Meads Interchange provides significant improvement for passenger interchange.

- Significant Beneficial

Land Use Policy

Integration with land use policies includes both moderate beneficial and slight adverse impacts

- Slight Beneficial

INTE

GRA

TIO

N

Other Government Policies

The scheme will bring a positive impact on health, environment, local communities and transport policies

- Moderate Beneficial

3.8 Sensitivity and Scenario Analysis

In order to support the appraisal of the main scheme for the preferred Rapid Transit Scheme, a series of sensitivity tests was developed in order to understand the robustness of the core appraisal to details of the scheme and key assumptions in its appraisal. The sensitivity tests covered variations to the following aspects:

• scheme specification – changes to the frequency, journey time and stops for the Rapid Transit


Scheme;

• planning assumptions – changes to the population and employment forecasts and their distribution;

• modelling parameters – changes to the mode choice parameters; and

• appraisal assumptions – changes to the annualisation factor, level of operating and maintenance costs.

The main tests and sensitivity tests (Table 3.11) show that there is a robust economic case for the rapid transit scheme. It should be noted that the DfT also advised to conduct an additional sensitivity test, delay in opening year of the scheme by 1 year, to understand any uncertainties attached with the scheme opening year delays. However, in line with the central case, the test returned with a very high value for money outcome.


Table 3.11 Sensitivity Analysis Impact on TEE values for Main Option Scenario Consumer

User Benefits (£m)

Business User Benefits (£m)

Private Sector Benefits (£m)

Total Present Value Benefits (PVB- £m)*

Public Sector Costs (PVC -£m)**

Net Present Value (NPV-£m)

Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR)

Central Scenario 177.3 109.5 58.8 345.5 87.5 258.0 3.95

AM and PM Peak frequency reduced to 6 per hour (as current P&R service), IP reduced to 3 per hour

127.8 66.3 -49.3 144.8 70.0 74.8 2.07

Rapid Transit mode constant changed from 9 minutes to 4.5 minutes

131.2 39.9 -12.3 158.8 76.6 82.1 2.07

Annualisation Factor for AM (253) and PM

(253)

122.6 86.2 38.1 246.8 84.3 162.6 2.93

20% Increase in Operating and Maintenance Cost

177.3 109.5 57.0 343.7 93.6 250.1 3.67

Rapid Transit journey times increased by 25%

168.8 106.7 53.3 328.8 87.2 241.6 3.77

Stop prior to starting the anti clockwise loop removed

175.6 103.9 56.7 336.5 87.3 249.2 3.86

Additional Rapid Transit link added from P&R site to the area of the SW Urban Extension development

464.6 306.3 120.4 891.9 140.9 751.0 6.33

* Includes Carbon disbenefits but excludes safety benefits; ** Includes risk adjustment, optimism bias, adjustment to real cost increase, local government and indirect tax revenues; Note: All entries, except BCR, are present values discounted to 2002, in 2002 prices;

3.9 Assessment of Lower Cost Alternative

The identification of the Lower Cost Alternative (LCA) option is summarised in Section 1, with an outline description of the process in Appendix 1B and with a detailed description in Appendix 2B(v) including a comparison and appraisal of the different options that were considered in the selection of the preferred LCA. The content of the appraisal of the preferred LCA forms an input into the current appraisal for comparison with the Rapid Transit Scheme. An AST for the LCA is provided in Table 3.12, summarising its performance against the main criteria.

The selected LCA broadly follows the alignment used by the existing Long Ashton Park and Ride bus service, starting from the Park and Ride site and following Long Ashton Bypass, Brunel Way, Hotwell Road, Anchor Road and St Augustine’s Parade to the Centre, where it would join the anti-clockwise loop around the city centre. A key element of the LCA route is the avoidance of the main bridge structures at Ashton Avenue and Prince Street within the core Rapid Transit Scheme in order to reduce the construction costs.


The LCA would benefit from the wider generic attributes of the Rapid Transit concept i.e.:

• new high quality distinctive vehicles;

• new stops with high-quality designs and passenger facilities; and

• real-time passenger information on vehicles and at stops.

The Appraisal Summary Table (See Table 3.12) provides a mainly qualitative summary of the main impact of the LCA. The quantitative element of the analysis highlights the poor BCR for the scheme which only reaches 0.73 due in the main to the low levels of benefits due to the absence of the segregated alignment for the LCA services. This therefore demonstrates that the LCA does not represent an attractive alternative to the main Rapid Transit Scheme.


Table: 3. 12 Appraisal Summary Table – Lower Cost Alternative Scheme Option : LCA Scheme Ashton Vale to City Centre

Description: Implementation of LCA measures in south-west Bristol between Ashton Vale and Bristol City Centre comprising improved stops, real-time passenger information and new modern vehicles



OBJECTIVE SUB-OBJECTIVE QUALITATIVE IMPACTS QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT

ASSESSMENT

Noise Increase in noise from general traffic on Hotwell Road but buses quieter

- Neutral

Local Air Quality

Lower speeds for general traffic on Hotwell Road to increase emissions

- Slight adverse

Greenhouse Gases

Lower speeds for general traffic on Hotwell Road to increase emissions

- Slight adverse

Landscape No change - Neutral

Townscape No change - Neutral

Heritage of Historic Resources

No change -

Neutral

Biodiversity No change - Neutral

Water Environment

No change -

Neutral

Physical Fitness No change - Neutral

ENVIRONMENT

Journey Ambience

New attractive, comfortable, secure vehicles

- Slight beneficial

Accidents Increase in accidents to general traffic due to on-street running

- Slight adverse

SAFETY

Security New vehicles with CCTV, new stops with CCTV and lighting

- Slight beneficial

ECONOMY Public Accounts

The public sector experiences costs associated with ongoing maintenance and loss in indirect tax revenue

Local Gov PVC:£6.3 million

Central Gov PVC:£14.0 million

PVC: £20.3 million

NPV: -£5.4 million

BCR: 0.73


Option : LCA Scheme Ashton Vale to City Centre

Description: Implementation of LCA measures in south-west Bristol between Ashton Vale and Bristol City Centre comprising improved stops, real-time passenger information and new modern vehicles



OBJECTIVE SUB-OBJECTIVE QUALITATIVE IMPACTS QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT

ASSESSMENT

TEE: Business Users & Transport Providers

Users experience perceived travel time benefits resulting from the improved vehicles operating on the route.

Providers experience ongoing operating costs and increased fleet replacement costs.


Transport Providers PVB: £-8.9 million

Other PVB: £0

PVB: £-6.2 mill

TEE Consumers Users experience perceived travel time benefits resulting from the improved vehicles operating on the route.


PVB: £21.0 million

Reliability No significant change - Neutral ECONOMY


No significant change -

Neutral

Option values No change - Neutral

Severance No change - Neutral

ACCESSIBILITY

Access to the Transport System

No change -

Neutral

Transport Interchange

New stops equipped with RTPI, CCTV, etc

- Slight beneficial

Land Use Policy Serves new Ashton Park RSS development, local benefits from safer passenger travel, assistance to disabled

-

Slight beneficial

INTEGRATION

Other Government Policies

General benefits to health, carbon depletion, climate change

- Slight beneficial


3.10 Distribution and Equity Analysis

The assessment of the distribution and equity of the cost and benefits of the Rapid Transit Scheme applies the guidance in WebTAG units 2.5 and 2.7.

The scheme adds new infrastructure and public transport services along one corridor (Cumberland Road) providing a more direct access to the city centre from Long Ashton Park and Ride site and the proposed new development at Ashton Park. At the same time, the reduction in traffic on the highway network benefits the parallel corridors to the north (Hotwell Road) and to the south (Coronation Road). The distribution of the impacts therefore reflects the changing patterns of movements between the three corridors. The reductions in traffic levels on the Hotwell Road and Coronation Road corridors produces benefits in terms of noise reductions, air quality improvements and lower accident risks for the residents and users of these corridors; in both cases, there is a continuous band of housing with a frontage onto the corridor and hence the improvements could be noticeable. The Cumberland Road corridor, which will experience an increase in traffic through the introduction of the Rapid Transit Scheme and the diversion of other bus services will experience some increase in noise and air quality emissions, although tempered by the use of higher quality vehicles. However, there are few properties along Cumberland Road which will experience the change and hence the number of residents experiencing the slightly worse situation will be small.

The length of the Rapid Transit Scheme is relatively short and hence the scope for other significant variations in the distribution of potential costs and benefits is reduced. To the extent that the scheme increases the volume of traffic using the Park and Ride site at Long Ashton, there will be an increase in the associated traffic impacts in the immediate area of the site (where there are few frontages), although the benefits would be spread across a wider area and hence would probably not be perceived.

By improving the public transport provision within the south-west sector of the city, the Rapid Transit Scheme will enhance the social inclusion of the residents of this area. Because the scheme includes not only the Rapid Transit service itself but also the diversion of longer distance bus services onto the segregated infrastructure, the benefits are extended into the rural communities including not only the towns of Nailsea, Clevedon and Weston-super-Mare but also the smaller villages in between. Hence, by improving the public transport services to these communities, the overall scheme will benefit those residents with greater dependence on public transport, i.e. children and young people and the elderly.

The operation of the Rapid Transit service will be based around the use of new higher quality vehicles and the construction of stops with a significantly improvement to the quality of the waiting facilities. In both cases, the improvements to vehicles and stops will be designed to benefit the disabled and hence to create a better journey environment for them.

3.11 Affordability and Financial Sustainability The Affordability and Financial Sustainability (AFS) tables have been prepared in accordance with WebTAG unit 3.8.1 and associated references, making use of the following data:

• investment and operating costs from the cost spreadsheets used to collate scheme cost data for use in the TUBA calculations; and

• revenue and indirect taxation figures from TUBA output.

In line with the WebTAG guidance the figures used are:


• net of indirect taxation;

• net of QRA and optimism bias allowances;

• in outturn cash prices, calculated using the following inflation assumptions:

o General inflation of 2.5% p.a. between 2002 and 2044,

o Construction inflation of 0% in 2008, 3% in 2009, 5.75% in 2010, 6% in 2011 and 2012, 6.5% in from 2013 to 2044,

o Operating cost inflation of 4% from 2008 to 2044.

Tables 3.13 to 3.15 below show the AFS tables for the Local Government, Central Government and Private Sector respectively and the following key points can be made in relation to each table.

• Local government : shows the local contribution to preparation and construction costs in the years up to opening and the ongoing local commitment to the maintenance of the elements of the scheme such as the alignment, structures (bridges), bus stops and ITS.

• Central government: shows the RFA funding for the scheme in the years before opening and the loss of indirect taxation (over the full 60 year appraisal period) occurring as a result of the increase in expenditure on public transport fares (which does not incur taxation) and, to a lesser extent, the reduction in car use and associated fuel duty receipt by the government

• Private sector: shows the investment costs required to renew the Rapid Transit fleet every 15 years throughout the appraisal timescale. The operating cost section shows that the ongoing costs to the bus sector of operating the scheme are comfortably offset by the increase revenue received. The rail sector shows a loss in revenue as a result of passengers switching to the Rapid Transit Scheme.


Table 3.13 Affordability and Financial Sustainability Table - Local Government (Sheet 1) Costs TOTAL

(undiscounted)Investment Costs Local highways Bus Rail

2010 0.6 0 0.6 0

2011 1.0 0 1.0 0

2012 2.5 0 2.5 0

2013 1.9 0 1.9 0

2014 0.2 0 0.2 0

2015 0.0 0 0.0 0

TOTAL 6.2 -1 0 6.2 0

Developer and Other Contributions 0.0 -2 0 0.0 0

Grant from Central Government 0.0 -3 0 0.0 0

Grant to Private Sector 0.0 -4 0 0.0 0

Cost to Local Government net of contributions

6.2 (5)=(1)+(4)-(2)-(3)

0 6.2 0

Public Sector Operations

2016 Local highways Bus Rail

Change in operator costs* 0.72 -6 0 0.7 0

Change in operator revenue** - 0.00 -7 0.00 0 0

NET IMPACT - 0.73 (8)=(7)-(6) 0.00 -0.7 0

2021

Change in operator costs* 1.01 -9 0.0 1.0 0

Change in operator revenue** - 0.00 -10 0.0 0.0 0

NET IMPACT - 1.01 (11)=(10)-(9) 0.0 -1.0 0

2031

Change in operator costs* 1.57 -12 0.0 1.6 0

Change in operator revenue** - 0.00 -13 0.0 0 0

NET IMPACT - 1.57 (14)=(13)-(12) 0.0 -1.6 0

* operator costs = maintenance for BRT

** operator revenue = toll roads

Breakdown by organisation/budget

Breakdown by organisation/budget


Table 3.14 Affordability and Financial Sustainability Table - Central Government (Sheet 2)

Costs

Investment Costs

2010 1

2011 9

2012 22

2013 17

2014 0

2015 0

TOTAL 49 -15

Developer and Other Contributions 0 -16

Grant to Local Government 0 -17

Grant to Private Sector 0 -18

Indirect Tax Revenues -79 -19

Cost to Central Government of contributions

129 (20)=(15)+(17)+(18)-(16)-(19)

Operations

2016

Change in operator costs 0 -21

Change in operator revenue 0 -22

NET IMPACT 0

2021



NET IMPACT 0

2031



NET IMPACT 0

TOTAL (undiscounted)

(23)=(21)-(20)

(29)=(28)-(27)

(26)=(24)-(23)

Source: TUBA outputs


Table 3.15 Affordability and Financial Sustainability Table - Private Sector (Sheet 3)

Private Sector Investment Costs and Grants

TOTAL (undiscounted)

Investment Costs (Fleet) Bus Rail

2014 0.5 0.5 0

2029 1.0 1.0 0

2044 1.6 1.6 0

2059 1.6 1.6 0

2060 0.0 0.0 0

2061 0.0 0.0 0

TOTAL 4.6 -30 4.6 0

Grants from Central and Local Government

0.0 -31 0.0 0

Private Sector Operators TOTAL (undiscounted)

2016 Bus Rail

Change in operator costs 0.4 -32 0.44 0

Change in operator revenue 1.9 -33 3.09 -1.21

NET IMPACT 1.4 (34)=(33)-(32) 2.66 -1.21

Subsidy 0.0 -35

2021

Change in operator costs 0.5 -36 0.51 0.00


NET IMPACT 2.9 (38)=(37)-(36) 4.83 -1.94

Subsidy 0.0 -39

2031

Change in operator costs 0.7 -40 0.66 0.00


NET IMPACT 6.1 (42)=(41)-(40) 9.71 -3.56

Subsidy 0.0 -43

Private Sector NET IMPACT

Investment net of capital grant 4.6 (30)-(31) 4.55 0.00

Operations net of subsidy

2016 1.4 (34)-(35) 2.66 -1.2

2021 2.9 (38)-(39) 4.83 -1.9

2031 6.1 (42)-(43) 9.71 -3.6

Breakdown by organisation

Breakdown by organisation

Source: TUBA outputs


3.12 Practicality and Public Acceptability

This section sets out the practicability and public acceptability assessment.

The assessment of practicability and public acceptability considerations has been undertaken through the various stages of scheme development and option assessment. Appendix 2B sets out the scheme development work in more detail and discusses the alternatives considered which include:

• a feasibility assessment of rapid transit for the West of England area and a priority order for potential routes to come forward – this generated a short list of corridor options in January 2007;

• further assessment of the short-listed corridor options in June 2007;

• alternative alignments within the corridor;

• Lower Cost Alternative; and

• Next Best Alternative – an incremental examination of different scheme elements through the process of ‘optimising’ the scheme.

These assessments compared options against three sets of multi-criteria:

• Scheme Objectives – how well the option assists in the delivery of the scheme objectives – extending transport choice, promoting sustainable development, improving access to public transport, improving integration, promoting social inclusion and improving safety;

• NATA criteria – environment, accessibility, safety, integration and economy; and

• Deliverability/ Viability – how deliverable the option is in terms of construction and operation and its acceptability to the public, policy makers and funders and how attractive the option is in terms of commercial attractiveness and its requirement for ongoing financial support.

Deliverability was considered to be the ease with which the options could be implemented, the involvement of external parties, particularly landowners, interaction with national rail network infrastructure (both the complexities of delivery on the operational network and processes involved), public acceptability and political acceptability.

Viability was considered to be the ongoing sustainability of the rapid transit system, forecast demand and revenue, the potential for market growth and operational efficiency.

A summary of the practicability and public acceptability considerations is provided in Table 3.16.

The practicability and public acceptability assessment indicates that the scheme is deliverable, has been developed to a level of detail sufficient to allow for the preparation of a Transport & Works Act Order (subject to Government approval of funding eligibility and availability) and has high public acceptability.


Table 3.16 Practicability and Public Acceptability Assessment

Element Preferred Scheme Lower Cost Alternative

Feasibility Initial feasibility work in 2006 supported

selection of segregated rapid transit mode

(see Appendix 2B for further details).

Significant engineering feasibility and design

work has established the technical feasibility

of the scheme.

Scheme has been phased to ensure

deliverability (see Appendix 2B.2 for further

details).

Feasibility and design work has broadly

established the technical feasibility of the

scheme.

Enforcement The segregated corridor is effectively self-

enforcing through the provision of guidance

into and out of the corridor. In the city

centre section, services will use on-street

bus lanes with priority at traffic signals.

Enforcement of bus lanes would be through

monitoring.

The Authorities will have the ability to

control access to the corridor and set vehicle

and service standards. This is discussed in

detail in Section 5.

The entire alignment uses on-street bus lanes

with priority at traffic signals. Enforcement of

bus lanes would be through monitoring.

The Authorities will have less control with

regards to setting vehicle and service

standards. This is discussed in detail in

Section 5.

Area of interest

(“breadth” of the

decision)

The Rapid Transit scheme has broad support

from the range of transport bodies in the

sub-region including all four Authorities,

SWRDA, GOSW, Highways Agency and bus

operators. Ongoing work with Network Rail

continues regarding the freight line crossing

and ORR has advised on heritage railway line

issues.

The Rapid Transit scheme can be delivered

by Bristol City Council and North Somerset

Council.

The LCA could be delivered by Bristol City

Council and North Somerset Council.



Complexity The Rapid Transit scheme is relatively

simple. The 4 km segregated corridor

section and Temple Meads interchange

requires a design and build contract but

works are relatively standard. City Centre

measures consist of standard Local Authority

works (bus lanes, traffic signals etc.). Some

land acquisition is required but this is a

relatively small element in the scheme

size/cost. A TWA Order is being pursued to

simplify the process.

The Authorities will have more

powers/options to secure operator

investment in vehicles and services to a

standard desired by the Authorities.

The LCA scheme is simpler in concept than

the Rapid Transit Scheme. It requires

standard Traffic Regulations Orders, highway

works, upgraded stop facilities and new

vehicle investment.

The ability to secure operator investment in

vehicles and services to a standard desired by

the Authorities will be subject to agreement

with operators.

Implementation

time-scale

The Rapid Transit Scheme could be

implemented by 2013 subject to the

availability of funding and TWA progress.

The LCA could be implemented by 2013

subject to the availability of funding and

planning progress. The LCA could be

delivered sooner than the Rapid Transit

scheme as a result of not requiring TWA

Order.

Phasing Scheme has already been phased to ensure

deliverability (see Appendix 2B.2 for further

detail).

The LCA could be phased

Complementarity The Rapid Transit Scheme is part of the

wider integrated major scheme programme

and therefore complements the other major

schemes proposed, specially the Greater

Bristol Bus Network (GBBN) works, South

Bristol Link and upgrading of the Portishead

Rail Line.

The Rapid Transit scheme sits within the

major schemes programme as an alternative

mode to bus services.

The LCA scheme would effectively be another

GBBN corridor and does not complement

GBBN in the same way as the Rapid Transit

Scheme.

Conflicts No conflicts identified. The Rapid Transit

Scheme passively provides for a future

passenger platform at Ashton Gate for rail

services to Portishead and is integrated with

planned development and a potential rapid

transit route for South Bristol Link.

The Rapid Transit Scheme is consistent with

JLTP wider integrated major schemes

programmes.

As per complementarity.



Public

acceptability

There is widespread public support for the

Rapid Transit scheme (see Section 4.5).

Scheme was good political support. The

MSBC was endorsed by Bristol City Council

Cabinet, cross-party Bristol City Council

Scrutiny and North Somerset Executive.

There is widespread public support for the

Rapid Transit scheme (see Section 4.5). LCA is

unlikely to be as supported by stakeholders

and general public. “Separate route and

priority measures” was the top priority

identified by the public at consultation.

The LCA could be delivered by Bristol City

Council and North Somerset Council but

would not fit within the wider integrated

programme and therefore would be less

supported.

3.13 Treatment of 10 Year Plan Targets

To a large extent, the ten year transport plan published by the Government in 2000 (Transport 2010, The Ten Year Plan, DETR 2000) has been superseded by more recent policy initiatives, including the Eddington study, Stern review and the recent paper, Delivering a Sustainable Transport System. Nevertheless, the NATA guidance requires a consideration of the contribution to the ten year plan targets offered by any major scheme. An assessment of the contribution from the proposed scheme is given in Table 3.17 below.

Table 3.17 Practicability and Public Acceptability Assessment

10 Year Plan Target Assessment

Reducing congestion on the inter-urban network and in large urban areas

The proposed scheme will have modest effect in reducing congestion on the

existing road network across the Greater Bristol area although with moderate

impacts along the Rapid Transit corridor.

Increase rail use Not Applicable

Increase bus use The provision of the off line rapid transit route section and on-line bus priority will

substantially improve the journey time reliability of bus services operating in the

rapid transit corridor, improving journey time reliability between the south west of

the sub-region and Bristol City Centre. The proposed scheme represents an

excellent value for money investment.

Double light rail use Not Applicable

Improving Air Quality The scheme will cause a reduction in vehicle kilometres and associated emissions by encouraging mode switch to public transport.

Reducing Greenhouse gases The scheme will cause a reduction in vehicle kilometres and associated emissions by encouraging mode switch to public transport.

Reducing accidents Mode switch to the new route will cause a reduction in road traffic and associated

reduction in road accidents.

No of PIAs in forecast year in do-minimum (2016) Scenario = 3890;

No of PIAs in forecast year in Do-Something(2016) Scenario = 3885;

The overall decrease in accidents equates to savings estimated at £14.8m


3.14 Programme

The detailed project programme shows activities and durations from submission of the MSBC to completion of works contracts. This is provided in Appendix 4A. A summarised form of the project’s development and phasing is provided as Figure 3.2

The activities listed, and their durations and dependencies, have been based on inputs from, and consultations with, our advisors with expertise in funding, procurement processes and construction.

Figure 3.2 Summarised Project Programme

Key Dependencies

Key programme dependencies include:

• DfT Programme Entry and submission of a draft Transport and Works Act Order;

• TWAO granted by Secretary of State and Conditional Approval;

• Conditional Approval and release of tenders for construction and operation;

• Final agreements with service providers and Final Approval submission;

• Final DfT approval and commencement of works; and

• Completion of works and start of operational data collection for scheme evaluation.

Tasks on the Critical Path

Significant tasks on the critical path include:

• Achievement of Programme Entry from the DfT;

• Granting of necessary TWA Powers by the Secretary of State;

• Achievement of Conditional Approval from the DfT including successfully completing OGC Gateway 2; and

• Achievement of Full Approval from the DfT including successful completing OGC Gateway 3.


Milestones

The project key milestones are set out in Table 3.18.

Table 3.18 Key Project Milestones

Milestone Date

DfT Programme Entry Bid March 2009

DfT Programme Entry approval September 2009

Submission draft TWAO End 2009

TWAO approval May 2011

Conditional Approval Bid to DfT June 2011

Issue of Invitations to Tender Beginning 2011

Preferred bidder and other term arrangements in place Summer 2011

DfT Final Approval Autumn 2011

Signing of Design & Build Contract Autumn 2011

Start of works End 2011

Completion of works / System Opening 2013

3.15 Monitoring and Evaluation

3.15.1 Monitoring

Monitoring of the scheme will involve a combination of existing procedures currently undertaken by the local authorities, supplemented by specific additional monitoring, designed especially for the scheme.

The current JLTP contains focussed and locally relevant indicators and targets for the West of England which have been through a robust consultation process to ensure they tackle key issues and are realistic yet stretching.

The current JLTP contains six indicators and targets that the authorities are monitoring during the JLTP lifetime. Whilst the Rapid Transit scheme will not become operational until beyond the lifetime of the current JLTP, a number of the key indicators currently in place have relevance for the project as they, or their successor indicators, will be used for evaluation of the project once it is in the operational phase. Current indicators include:

• public transport patronage;

• passenger transport user satisfaction;

• changes in area wide traffic mileage;

• changes in peak period traffic flows;

• highway congestion; and

• changes in area wide traffic mileage.


The single set of National Indicators (NI) published as part of the New Performance Framework for Local Authorities will also be reviewed to establish which of these are most appropriate to act as potential proxy measures against the scheme objectives. These NIs will be utilised within the next Local Transport Plan (LTP3); as such, this work will be undertaken once Programme Entry for the project is granted to ensure the timely identification of appropriate indicators.

Scheme Specific Monitoring

Due to the long lead in time for projects of this nature, it is premature to establish a fully detailed management plan at this stage. We therefore set out an outline proposed management methodology at this stage, with a detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Plan to be developed during subsequent stages of project implementation. This will include an assessment of what the project has added against what might have happened if it had not been implemented. The base case parameters, against which the scheme will be assessed, will be determined prior to construction and operation so that the validity of the before and after case is ensured.

An amount equivalent to 0.5% of the capital cost estimate has been set aside to ensure the scheme can be monitored effectively. Use of existing data from operators and local authorities, as part of the regular data gathering process, will be utilised where possible to ensure the best use of resources.

It is likely that the baseline data will comprise the following:

• environmental data;

• existing patronage on routes that are likely to be affected by the introduction of the scheme;

• traffic levels on key highways;

• junction performance including queues at critical junctions;

• mode choice surveys; and

• safety and accident records.

3.15.2 Outline Evaluation Plan

The Evaluation Plan will present the key stages and timescales covering the range of monitoring and evaluation processes. The Evaluation Plan will follow the guidance contained in “The Evaluation of Major Local Transport Schemes (December 2006)” in terms of the purpose and scope of the evaluation process. The Evaluation Plan will represent the framework for monitoring and evaluation of the Rapid Transit Scheme and, as part of the process, seeks to:

• identify the elements of the Rapid Transit Scheme to be evaluated;

• clearly set out the methodology for evaluation including inter-relationships with existing monitoring activities and contribution to JLTP targets;

• ensure a timely and cost effective process; and

• ensure a process consistent with existing and developing requirements, i.e. taking into account development of emerging assessment frameworks and targets (such as the further development of targets for the delivery of Towards a Sustainable Transport System (TaSTS).


Table 3.19 summarises the key stages of the Evaluation Plan.

Table 3.19 Key Stages of the Evaluation Plan

Stage Description

Identify Scheme Objectives As set out in Section 2.

Evaluation Scoping Process/methodology, programme and funding identified.

Identify and Appraise Baseline Data Baseline data identified. Gap analysis undertaken to ensure that scheme objectives and indicators are fully represented by the available data.

Collect Required data Timescales and data sources identified.

Analysis and Reporting Timescales for analysis and evaluation.

The objectives of the Evaluation Plan will be a combination of the scheme objectives (set out in this MSB) and key relevant NATA objectives. Other impacts of significance which will be included in the Evaluation Plan are less suited to quantitative assessment and will therefore be considered qualitatively.

3.16 Overall Value for Money Conclusions

The overall scheme Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) compares the monetised present value benefits with the present value cost of the scheme. The Overall BCR for the scheme at 4.1, (i.e. Present Value Benefits are four times the scheme Present Value Costs) represent high value for money according to the DfT guidance (Table 3.19). Moreover, the Appraisal Summary Table (Table 3.10) showed that the scheme contributes strongly to other non quantified objectives and does not have any severe adverse environmental impacts.

Table 3.19 Overall Scheme BCR for the Rapid Transit Preferred Scheme

Item Benefits/Costs (£m)

Accidents 14.8

Consumer Users Benefits 177.3

Business Users Benefits 109.5

Private Sector Provider Impacts 58.8

Carbon Benefits -0.1

Regeneration Benefits -

Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 360.3

Local Government Funding 38.6

Central Government Funding 48.8

Present Value of Costs (PVC) 87.5

Net Present Value (NPV) 272.8

Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 4.12 All entries are discounted present values, in 2002 prices and values. Numbers might not add-up due to rounding.


Appendices

3A Capital and Operating Costs

3B GBATS-3 V2.3 Highway Model Validation Report

3C GBATS-3 V2.3 Public Transport Model Validation Report

3D GBATS-3 V2.3 Demand Model Development Report

3E West of England Forecasting Report

3E(i) Passenger Demand Forecasting and Analysis

3F Environmental Assessment Scoping Report

3F(i) Consultation Responses from Statutory Bodies

3F(ii) Environmental Assessment

3G Safety and Economic Analysis Including NATA Worksheets

3H Accessibility Analysis

3I Interchange Analysis



4 Delivery

how the scheme will be delivered to time and budget,

and how successful implementation will be ensured

Final Report Delivery - 110

Delivery 4.1 Introduction

This section sets out how the West of England Authorities (“the Authorities”) propose to deliver the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads and Bristol City Centre rapid transit scheme (“the Rapid Transit Scheme”). It includes:

• Governance: - roles and responsibilities for delivering the scheme and key decision-making structures.

• Project Planning: - project plan with timescales and key dependencies.

• Risk Management: - risk management plan, risk register and quantified risk assessment.

• Stakeholder Management: - communications strategy and report on consultation undertaken to date.

• Evaluation/Benefits Realisation: - evaluation plan and reporting.

The Rapid Transit Scheme is part of an integrated programme of major schemes and which are essential to delivering the wider Joint Local Transport Plan vision for the West of England.

The Rapid Transit Scheme provides a high quality and effective public transport solution which will be a major step forward in the quality and attractiveness of the public transport provision in the West of England. It has been designed to enable construction, operation and maintenance to be delivered using established and proven procedures and techniques wherever possible.

Costs have been prepared based on widespread experience of similar works, supported by agreed schedules of rates with term contractors. Where the Rapid Transit Scheme involves more bespoke or innovative technology, such as guideway construction, the Authorities have established relationships with other scheme promoters to share best practice and learn from their experience. This includes Cambridgeshire County Council and First Group, the latter having been involved in busways in Leeds, York and Bradford. It is our intention to continue to develop these relationships and work with other rapid transit scheme promoters as the project progresses. The Authorities have also secured advisors with experience in designing and procuring successful rapid transit schemes across the UK – namely Atkins, Halcrow, Mott MacDonald and Steer Davies Gleave.

A quantified risk assessment has been undertaken and has transparently taken into account costs and programming risk. Programmes for delivery have been carefully developed allowing timescales for completion of statutory processes and construction but seeking to ensure delivery as soon as practicable to realise the benefits of the Rapid Transit Scheme. The Authorities are confident that the entire scheme can be delivered on time and within budget.

It is recognised that, with the increased levels of funding coming through this bid, the Authorities will have to ensure that adequate technical capacity and wider resources are available to ensure that the major scheme is delivered on time and within budget. These measures are already being put in place with the creation of a Project Delivery Team. The Authorities also have in place term contracts with major multi-disciplinary consultants to ensure that the necessary support is available for this work.


4.1.1 Experience from other Major Transport Schemes

The Authorities have a proven track record in the delivery of transport schemes, particularly bus-based improvements. Through the practical experience of delivering ‘showcase’ routes we have an excellent understanding of the implementation issues that can occur, and through risk management, have mitigated these. Examples of projects delivered include:

A4174 Avon Ring Road

The A4174 Avon Ring Road Stage II was opened to traffic in September 2001. The road completed the strategic link between the M32 and the A4. The overall cost of the scheme was £33.2 million. Monitoring data has demonstrated that the link successfully removed through traffic movements, particularly heavy good vehicles, from inappropriate routes and provided opportunities to enhance facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport.

Bus Showcase Routes

The A38 Showcase Bus Route was Bristol’s first showcase bus route the A38 corridor between Cribbs Causeway and Henbury in the North and Hartcliffe in the South. The route was launched in December 2003. The project was delivered in partnership with First Bristol, local residents along the route, local business groups, trader organisations and the emergency services, closely co-ordinated between Bristol and South Gloucestershire Councils. Total cost of the investment was £6 million spent on delivering re-designed junctions, bus lanes, raised kerbs, improved shelters and passenger information as well as a dedicated fleet of low-floor modern vehicles by First. The scheme resulted in 12% increase in bus patronage on the corridor with 1,200 vehicle journeys per week removed from the route.

The A420/A341 Showcase Bus Route was launched in 2008 and runs between Bristol City Centre and Kingswood Town Centre (in the East). In the first three months of opening, bus patronage increased 9.4%. Total cost of the investment was £13.1 million spent on delivering bus stop improvement, 2,200 metres of bus lanes, improvements to pedestrian and cycling links, enhancements in Kingswood Town Centre as well as 42 new low-floor, Euro 4 modern vehicles provided by First.

Portway Park and Ride

Phase 1 of the Portway Park and Ride was opened in April 2002. Services run every 10 minutes in the peak and incorporate several intermediate stops on route to Bristol City Centre. Phase 1 included 280 car parking spaces, CCTV surveillance and security patrols. In 2007 new high profile vehicles were delivered to operate the services and in September 2008 a further 250 car parking spaces were added to the site.

The Authorities individually have considerable expertise and track records in delivering high profile projects. Together, through the West of England Partnership, the Authorities are making considerable progress in jointly delivering the transport major schemes programme. The Authorities have secured £53 million DfT funding (total investment of £93 million) for major schemes. This consists of:


Greater Bristol Bus Network

The Greater Bristol Bus Network (GBBN) achieved Full Approval with DfT in May 2008. This scheme comprises major investment in ten Bus Showcase corridors across the sub-region to deliver improvements in the quality and reliability of the strategic bus network. Total value of the scheme is £69.8 million

Cycling City

In June 2008 the Department for Transport appointed Greater Bristol as the UK’s first official Cycling City, awarding £11.4 million investment package (excluding match funding to take the total investment to almost £23 million). Bristol City and South Gloucestershire Councils are working together to deliver significant benefits of this investment and pioneer innovative ways to increase cycling in the city.

Bath Transportation Package

Bath Transportation Package has also now secured Programme Entry with DfT a further total investment of £54 million. Four planning applications for the individual elements of the package including the RT scheme have been submitted to the Planning Authority.

4.1.2 Project Phases

The successful delivery of the Rapid Transit Scheme over the next five years will require an evolving set of project resources that is best able to respond to the specific challenges and tasks faced at any moment in time. The responsibilities and organisational arrangements for development and delivery will necessarily switch to suit the following six phases:

• Phase 0, Option Development: identification of scheme objectives, potential options and options assessment.

• Phase 1, Preferred Scheme: development of the business case and proposals to a level where it achieves Programme Entry.

• Phase 2, Powers and Planning: further development of the project and its preparation, submission and engagement with appropriate planning processes and inquiries necessary to achieve the required powers for delivery and operation.

• Phase 3, Final Design: following grant of appropriate powers, this phase will include detailed technical design sufficient to enable successful procurement of the necessary contractors to construct and operate the Rapid Transit Scheme.

• Phase 4, Construction: the mobilisation of contactors, construction and testing of the Rapid Transit Scheme and service agreements.

• Phase 5, Operation: operation of services and post-implementation review for lessons learned from its delivery and evaluation of the final scheme with final approval appraisal.

These phases are shown in the Implementation Process Map, Figure 4.1 which draws together the main workstreams and required funding streams to deliver the Rapid Transit Scheme.


Figure 4.1 Implementation Process Map

Time ->Workstreams / Processes

REGIONAL TRANSPORT PRIORITY

Confirmed as a priority within South West Region’s 5 year forward programme in advice to Government February 2009

PROJECT PHASES

Phase1: Preferred Scheme

Mar 2009

Phase 2: Powers and Planning

Phase 3: Final Design

Phase 4: Construction

Phase5: Operation

DFT FUNDING PROCESS

Programme Entry

Programme Entry

Sep 2009

Conditional Approval

Conditional Approval

Mar 2010 Sep 2010 Sep 2011 -> Dec 2013

Full Approval

Full Approval

FUNDING STREAMS

Preparatory Costs – UAs, SWRDA

Preparatory Costs – 50% UAs

Preparatory Costs – 50% DfT

Capital Grant Funding –DfT

Capital UAs Contribution

Capital Third Party Contribution

TECHNICAL WORKSTREAMS

PRO

JEC

T G

OVER

NAN

CE

Design / Operations / Procurement

Detail Design

Planning / Legal / Commercial / Land

STAKEHOLDER AND

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

ONGOING ENGAGEMENTFormal Consul tation

Formal Consultation Formal

Consultation

Formal Consultation Information

Provision

Information Provision

Marketing / PTP /


Marketing / PTP /


Corr idor Construction

City Centre Works

Service Procurement

WEP

BCC / NS

Project Management

Gateways

Joint Executive Transport Committee – BANES, BCC,NS, SG

Project Board

SRO (BCC)

BCC / NS Joint Promoter

Scheme Development, Planning and Procurement

Project Board / Delivery Organisation

Construction

Stage 1

Stage 1 Stage

2

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 3 Stage

4

Stage 4 Stage

5

Stage 5

Evaluation

Project Board

SRO (BCC)

Design/ Environment Tenders


4.2 Governance 4.2.1 The West of England Joint Governance Arrangements

Over the last two years, and building upon our successful Joint Local Transport Plan submitted in 2006, the West of England Authorities have been progressing our joint working arrangements. Our joint governance structure has been strengthened significantly in 2008/2009.

West of England Strategic Partnership Board

West of England Strategic Partnership Board (“the Partnership”) is a cross-party member and strategic partner board. The purpose of the Partnership is to:

• Realise the potential of the West of England and improvements in its economy, public infrastructure, environment and quality of life for all its residents.

• Set clear long-term direction to support the development and delivery of key strategies for the West of England

• Promote the interests of the West of England regionally, nationally and in Europe.

• Add to the confidence that attracts and retains public and private investment.

• Work holistically involving local authorities, public agencies and social, economic and environmental partners.

• Provide the leadership and strategic capacity to secure the well-being of the West of England.

• Ensure appropriate delivery arrangements and vehicles, and a performance management framework.

Joint Executive Transport Committee

In 2008 a Joint Transport Executive was established comprising the four Executive Members of the Unitary Authorities with responsibility for transport. In March 2009 this arrangement was legally constituted to form the Joint Executive Transport Committee (JETC) for the West of England via a Joint Working Agreement.

The JETC develops and recommends to the Partnership Board and to Cabinets/Councils the sub-regional policy, financial frameworks and strategic investment proposals to secure increased investment and powers for the sub-region and to deliver Vision 2026.

The JETC Members exercise their executive powers collectively, within the relevant sub-regional policy and financial frameworks determined by individual Cabinets/Councils, subject to any decisions Cabinets reserve to themselves.

The Joint Executive Transport Committee is responsible for:

• Developing and recommending sub-regional policy, investment and financial frameworks;

• the specific and continuing political decision-making and oversight essential to the successful implementation of major transport strategies and investment programmes.

• seeking authority from Cabinets where any variation to a policy and financial framework is recommended;


• producing periodic progress reports and receiving monitoring reports on major contractors;

• working with cross-party members and strategic partners serving on the relevant Joint Scrutiny Board of the Partnership;

• overseeing relationships with the DfT, bus and rail operators, the Highways Agency and Network Rail; and

• ensuring the delivery of the transport elements of the Multi-Area Agreement.

Joint Scrutiny Board

The Joint Scrutiny Board provides advice to the JETC on the development of policy and investment frameworks, and reviews their implementation using their scrutiny powers. The Joint Scrutiny Board supplements the cross-party member and strategic partner engagement and contribution made at the Partnership.

The role of the Joint Scrutiny Board is to:

• provide specialist advice and recommendations to the Partnership; and

• scrutinise proposals under consideration, and the implementation of proposals approved.

Delivery Structure

A detailed review of the activities and responsibilities required to deliver the project has been undertaken including review of delivery structures for other schemes including those in pace for delivery of the Bath Transportation Package. The Authorities have reviewed the options for the governance of the scheme delivery (project phases 2 to 5) to ensure there are appropriate and sufficient resources in place throughout the development of the scheme and robust, ongoing and integrated processes. The preferred option for the governance for delivery of the Rapid Transit Scheme is set out in Section 4.2.2 which can be resourced and empowered to deliver the Rapid Transit Scheme.

In the longer term, with the JETC now in place it is the West of England’s intention to establish a Joint Delivery Vehicle (JDV). The proposed JDV would provide advice and project management expertise and commission consultants to support the delivery of major infrastructure projects across the West of England sub-region on behalf of the JETC. Independent legal and financial advisers have been appointed to advise on the formation of this vehicle and it is expected that these arrangements will be in place by the end of 2009.

The purpose of the JDV is:

• to provide consultancy services to the West of England Partnership on the best means of specifying individual major infrastructure projects - transport, municipal waste management and homes and communities – to seek funding and approval;

• once specified, ensure the delivery of major infrastructure projects within the agreed timescales, specification and budget, by effective commissioning of consultants; and

• ensure high quality project management.

The move to a JDV is a significant step in the evolving shared governance arrangements in the West


of England.

Summary

These new joint arrangements significantly strengthen the governance in the West of England and our ability to successfully deliver major transport schemes in the sub-region.

The new Joint Working Agreement formally constitutes the joint working arrangements and legally binds the Authorities with appropriate assurances and indemnifications. A copy of the Joint Working Agreement can be provided to the Department for Transport (DfT) when finalised.

4.2.2 Project Management and Procurement

The governance and programme management arrangements for the Rapid Transit Scheme are shown in Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3. At the highest level governance rests with Full Councils supported by the challenge and advisory roles provided by the Joint Scrutiny Board and the West of England Partnership. The Councils set the framework for policy and scheme development. This framework is enacted by the Joint Executive Transport Committee.

Figure 4.2 West of England Governance and Delivery Arrangements for Rapid Transit

WEST OF ENGLAND PARTNERSHIP

JOINT SCRUTINY ARRANGEMENTS

JOINT EXECUTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

4 Executive Members with responsibility for transport

BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET

COUNCIL

SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE

COUNCIL

BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL

NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL

Executive and Delivery Arrangements

Overview and Scrutiny

Strategic Co-ordination, Liaison and Monitoring

Overview and Scrutiny

RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT BOARD

The governance and programme management structure is endorsed by the Joint Executive Transport Committee and is therefore subject to scrutiny by the Joint Scrutiny Board and the West of England Partnership both of which have cross-party political representation.


Figure 4.3 West of England Project Management Structure for Rapid Transit

Project Board

The Project Board is the group which guides and steers the direction of the Rapid Transit Scheme and is responsible for its delivery. The Project Board is responsible for authorising the programme plan (and any agreed variations) and will authorise strategic decisions, or seek authority for strategic decisions from the JETC which will be approved by the Council Executives.

The Project Board consists of representatives of the Authorities at sufficiently senior level to have the authority to act on behalf of their organisation. In addition membership of the Project Board includes a Finance Officer who represents the sub-region and provides advice and input on the financial aspects of the project. The Project Board also has representatives of the Government Office for the South West (GOSW), South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) and the West of England Partnership Office (WEPO). The Project Board was formed at the start of the project in January 2007.

The Project Board nominates the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) who is responsible for chairing Project Board meetings and providing guidance and direction to the Project Manager. The Project Board supports the SRO in the delivery of the Rapid Transit Scheme and endorses the Project Plan

PROJECT BOARD

Bristol City Council – Bob Fowler (Senior Responsible Owner)Bath and North East Somerset Council – Peter Dawson

North Somerset Council – Colin MedusSouth Gloucestershire Council – Chris Sane

North Somerset Council (s151 officer)– Pete SlomanBristol City Council (Legal Officer) – Dru Brooke TaylorGovernment Office of the South West – Peter BartlettSouth West Regional Development Agency – Ian MillerWest of England Partnership Office – Barbara Davies

GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK (see Figure 4.2)

PROJECT MANAGER Sharon Daly

Bath and North East SomersetColin Rees

BristolColin Walker

North SomersetJames Willcock

South GloucestershireBethan Morris

PROJECT TEAM

WEPO SUPPORT OFFICER Bill Davies


(also described as the Project Initiation Document).

Meetings of the Project Board are linked to key milestones (usually every two months). The Project Board considers highlight and exception reports, changes to the risk log and other key deliverables as defined in the Project Plan.

The Project Board is responsible for:

• Approving the Project Initiation Document (Project Plan).

• Agreeing and overseeing the implementation of the necessary actions to secure submission of the required MSBC processes.

• Supporting and taking part in, where appropriate, the necessary Gateway Reviews.

• Reviewing the Project Plan and approving any changes necessary.

• Approving any changes to the risk log and any additional mitigating actions.

• Providing advice and input on the financial aspects of the project

• Approving periodic Progress Reports for the JETC, Joint Scrutiny, Directors, the Department for Transport, and the West of England Partnership.

• Approving the budget plan and any changes to this plan via regular highlight reports from the Project Manager.

• Approving any changes to the Project Plan recommended by the Project Manager via highlight reports.

• Considering any exception reports that may arise during the life of the project and requesting exception plans where appropriate.

• Approving any exception plans that may arise.

Senior Responsible Owner

The Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) is responsible for ensuring that the Rapid Transit Scheme meets its objectives and delivers the projected benefits within the time, cost and quality parameters. The SRO represents the sub-region and is the Chair of the Project Board.

The responsibilities of the SRO include:

• Strategic fit of the Rapid Transit Scheme of its objectives and benefits and delivery of these benefits. A key part of this is the ownership of the appraisal of the scheme.

• Ownership of the Gateway Review process and ensuring any recommendations are included in the work programme.

• Stakeholder engagement in the identification of the objectives, realisation of the benefits and delivery mechanism and programme.


• Ensuring the appropriate project management structures are in place with deliverable and milestones that fit with review and decision making against the objectives and benefits of the Rapid Transit Scheme. The SRO is accountable for the management of the overall project to deliver the required products within the constraints agreed with the Project Board and to approve changes to programme, tasks and work packages within the agreed tolerances set by the JETC.

• Problem resolution and referral. The SRO is empowered by the Project Board to make decisions and approve changes within the Project Plan and to seek authorisation from the Project Board, or the JETC if required, for changes outside the Project plan that would affect the time, cost or quality (including objectives) of the Rapid Transit Scheme.

• Monitoring and evaluating project progress and change control for alterations that may affect the objectives or benefits of the Rapid Transit Scheme. Final assessment of the outcomes of the project once the Rapid Transit Scheme is delivered. The SRO is responsible for commissioning and chairing these reviews and ensuring the relevant personnel are consulted and involved in the review process

For the Rapid Transit Scheme project the SRO is Bob Fowler from of Bristol City Council.

Project Manager

The Project Manager (PM) is responsible for delivering the project in line with the agreed controls and procedures set out in the Project Plan. The PM reports and is accountable to the SRO and Project Board. The PM is responsible for the highest possible level of compliance with the relevant investment and project management approaches including third parties processes, for example Guidance to Railway Investment Projects in relation to the freight line crossing.

The primary focus of the PM will be to define the Project Plan and to ensure that the project is delivered on time and within specification and budget, seeking additional authorities as necessary. This will involve development, monitoring, progress chasing and co-ordination of the project as a whole and ensuring that all elements of the project are delivered with the appropriate technical competency. In particular the role will be:

• To obtain approval from the Project Board for the Project Plan.

• To recommend to the Project Board and then implement the necessary actions to secure the required MSBC processes.

• To plan for and co-ordinate the necessary Gateway Reviews.

• To account for the delivery of the project, on time and within specification and budget.

• To lead a Project Team including representatives from the four authorities to ensure adherence to the Project Plan.

• To produce periodic Progress Reports for the JETC, Joint Scrutiny, Directors, the Department for Transport, and the West of England Partnership.

• To carry out day to day communication role between the DfT and the four authorities.


Project Team

The Project Team includes a nominated representative from the Authorities and WEPO. The Project Team is the point of contact for information and liaison with colleagues within each particular organisation and members are responsible for communications about the project within their organisations. The Project Team is a source of experience and expertise and connection to expertise within their organisations.

Advisors

It is recognised that the Authorities will require extra capacity and a wider set of specialised skills to deliver the Rapid Transit Scheme. To ensure that resources are in place the Authorities term consultancy arrangements for engineering design, modelling and appraisal have been utilised, and similar arrangements established to provide additional resources for consultation, legal support, land, financial and marketing/communications. This is discussed further under ‘Delivery Team’.

Delivery Team

On completion of Phase 1 the project will move in to delivery phases: powers/planning, procurement of contractors and service providers and operation and evaluation.

Phases 2 and £ consist of two main strands of work: further detailed and iterative design of the scheme in the understanding of its impacts and benefits delivery and procuring the required powers and planning authorisations. Legal advice to the Authorities is that a parliamentary order would be required to make amendments to the Harbourside Railway Act and therefore seeking a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) is advised. The Delivery Team for Phase 2 is shown in Figure 4.4.

The design aspects of the work include:

• Further engagement and consultation with local communities and stakeholders to inform the detailed design.

• Detailed design of city centre in consideration of operational, townscape, public space, heritage and traffic requirements.

• Detailed design of Temple Meads interchange in consideration of operational, townscape, public space, ecological, archaeological, heritage and traffic requirements and interface with surrounding developments.

• Working with Network Rail to design the alignment alongside the Portbury Freight Line and the new bridge crossing of the line.

• Detailed design of interfaces with other developments along the route.

• Detailed design of the segregated corridor in consideration of operational, townscape, rights of way, landscape, ecological, water and flooding, air and noise, heritage, traffic and the Harbourside Railway. Items include structures, busway, interface with the Park and Ride and any changes to public rights of way.

• Detailed financial modelling and refinement of the commercial strategy including detailed design of service specifications.


The TWA works include preparation of the necessary documents and potentially a public inquiry. The key areas of work are:

• Legal (draft TWA Order, planning conditions and associated documents).

• Engineering works and land plans.

• Environmental Statement (assessment work will be linked with scheme design).

• Statutory consultation.

• Public Inquiry (if required).

Figure 4.4 Phases 2 and 3 Delivery Team: Design and Powers/Planning Authorisation

Phase 4 will require a different set of specialised skills and level of support. The work will focus on procurement of the elements of the scheme and contract management. There are four main work strands: services procurement, design and build contract management, city centre works management and scheme-wide systems management. This will be reviewed as further scheme development work is undertaken and exact contractual arrangements are confirmed. The Delivery Team for Phase 4 is shown in Figure 4.5.

Independent Project Manager

City Centre Works

Environment Land

SROBob Fowler

UA Resource

External Resource

link with sub-regional major scheme governance(Figure 4.2)

Legal / Planning

ConsultationDesign Appraisal Finance

Supported by financial

advisors

Supported by

framework consultants

Supported by legal advisors

in-house / operational expertise

Corridor

WEPO Support Officer

Project Team(Figure 4.3)

Supported by framework consultants


Figure 4.5 Phase 4 Delivery Team: Construction and Service Agreements

Independent Programme

Manager

SROBob Fowler

link with sub-regional major scheme governance(Figure 4.2)

Project Manager

System-Wide

Project Manager

Evaluation

Project Manager Services

Project Manager

City Centre

in-house / operational expertise

WEPO Support Officer

Project Team(Figure 4.3)

Project Manager Design

Contract

Marketing and Communications

It is envisaged that procurement of additional resources will be required in the following areas:

Powers and Planning

Construction and operation of the Rapid Transit Scheme will require numerous legal consents and approvals (e.g. the Act of Parliament governing the use of the Bristol Harbour Railway). A draft TWAO will be pursued to obtain these powers and the required planning conditions. Specialist resources will be required to support the Delivery Team. These resources will be both specific specialist appointments, such as parliamentary agents and barrister and expert witnesses from our consultant team of term advisors. Costs directly related to acquiring powers and planning consents have been treated as ineligible preparatory costs in terms of DfT funding. This is explained in Section 6.

Project Management, Design and Tendering

Additional staff resources will be secured externally to ensure delivery of the major scheme. The Authorities existing partnership arrangements with term consultants will be utilised for design, consultation and implementation, and similar arrangements established to provide legal support through the tendering process. The costs in this bid have assumed the costs of both internal and external staff working on the bid.

Consultation Packages

During the detailed design of the scheme there will be further robust and full consultation with interest groups including residents, traders, businesses, emergency services and utilities, together with the general public. To ensure that this process is effectively managed, existing partnership arrangements with term consultants will be utilised. These resources will work with the Delivery Team to coordinate the programme of consultation.

Continuing to undertake robust consultation in advance of the TWAO, and construction phases, will reduce the risk of objection and potential cost and programme impacts resulting from further scheme


changes from the statutory consultation processes.

Construction Packages

Tendering will be undertaken for individual construction elements of The Scheme. This is further discussed in Section 5. The main packages of works are:

• Tenders will be invited through the OJEU process for the segregated route and park and ride access amendments and major bridge works including the new bridge over the Portbury freight line.

• Highway works to deliver bus priority improvements and city centre works will generally be procured using an established schedule of rates for highway improvement works in Bristol.

• Traffic signal works will be secured through the schedule of rates or through other existing contracts where the Councils have guaranteed prices for purchase of traffic signal equipment.

• Systems works such as CCTV and real time passenger information (RTPI) will be procured using existing arrangements in place for these city-wide systems. The contract to be established for the RTPI system and information displays for GBBN will be used to extend the system for the Rapid Transit Scheme. The GBBN contracts have been agreed to allow for items for the Rapid Transit Scheme.

Existing arrangements have been through a competitive process and therefore tested for value for money but this will be reviewed at the next stage of work.

Service Provision

Section 5 sets out our proposed approach to the procurement of operators to run the rapid transit and other bus services which will use The Scheme.

These arrangements have to be comprehensively detailed to ensure the scheme objectives are met. The Authorities have considerable in-house expertise across the sub-region given the different legal and contractual arrangements in place for different bus services. However additional legal assistance is likely to be required to ensure the appropriate agreements or contracts are in place with operators prior to opening of the scheme.

Evaluation and Monitoring

A combination of internal and external resources will be utilised to establish the monitoring programme and undertake the required survey and assessment work. Again it is envisaged that existing partnership arrangements with term consultants will be utilised for this including independent arrangements (such as advisors for s151 officers).


4.2.3 Promotion and Delivery Agreements Grant Agreement for Major Scheme

This will be the standard grant agreement that DfT requires funding recipients to sign for major schemes. In the case of the Rapid Transit Scheme, Bristol City Council will act as the recipient of funding on behalf of the Authorities. It is considered appropriate however, that all four Authorities are co-signatories to the agreement with DfT to reflect the sub-regional nature of the scheme and recognise the importance and support from all the Authorities in developing and delivering the Rapid Transit Scheme.

West of England Joint Working Agreement

As discussed at Section 4.2.1, the Joint Working Agreement formally constitutes the West of England sub-region joint working arrangements.

Agreements with Service Providers

Agreements will be required with operators to run both the rapid transit services and services in North Somerset on the rapid transit infrastructure. The form of these agreements is discussed in Section 5.

It is the authorities’ intention that access to the rapid transit infrastructure will be governed by specifying service standards in exchange for use of the infrastructure. These standards will cover issues such as vehicle and service quality. Further details regarding the preferred procurement strategy for the provision of the rapid transit service and corridor bus services are set out in Section 5.5.

Both First Bristol and Wessex Connect are supportive of the proposals and have indicated a desire to run rapid transit services on this scheme. Letters of support are included at Appendix 5A.

Agreements with Third Parties including Utility Companies and Land Owners

The Authorities will require agreements with utility companies and land owners where the assets of these parties are affected by the Rapid Transit Scheme. By using the existing rail corridor and running on the highway in Bristol City Centre means that areas where these assets are affected are relatively small. Nevertheless, the Authorities will seek agreement with utility companies and land owners and utilise the provision of the Transport and Works Act to support this where necessary.


4.3 Project Planning 4.3.1 Project Plan

The project is managed through the Project Plan which is updated regularly and includes:

• Scheme description / project scope and deliverables.

• Scheme plans.

• Project programme – overview and detailed.

• Team structure / work breakdown structure.

• Issues/assumptions register.

• Risk register.

• Budget and funding.

• Communications strategy.

• Team management and project controls.

4.3.2 Project Programme

The detailed Project Programme shows activities and durations from submission of the MSBC to completion of works contracts. This is provided in Appendix 4A. A summarised form of the project’s development and phasing is provided as Figure 4.6.

The activities listed, and their durations and dependencies, have been based on inputs from and consultations with our advisors with expertise in funding, procurement processes and construction.

Figure 4.6 Summarised Project Programme


Key Dependencies

Key programme dependencies include:

• DfT Programme Entry and submission of a draft TWAO.

• TWAO granted by Secretary of State and Conditional Approval.

• Conditional Approval and release of tenders for construction and operation.

• Final agreements with service providers and Final Approval submission to DfT.

• Final Approval and start of works.

• Completion of works and start of operational data collection for scheme evaluation.

Tasks on the Critical Path

Significant tasks on the critical path include:

• Submission of MSBC and achievement of Programme Entry from DfT.

• Submission of draft TWAO and granting of TWAO by the Secretary of State.

• Achievement of Conditional Approval from DfT including successfully completing Office of Government Commerce (OGC) Gateway 2.

• Tender contracts and Full Approval from DfT including successful completing OGC Gateway 3.

• Design and delivery of Temple Meads Interchange.

Milestones

The project key milestones are set out in Table 4.1:

Table 4.1 Key Project Milestones

Milestone Date

DfT Programme Entry Bid March 2009

DfT Programme Entry approval September 2009

Submission draft TWAO End 2009

TWAO approval May 2011

Conditional Approval Bid to DfT June 2011

Issue of Invitations to Tender Beginning 2011

Preferred bidder and other term arrangements in place Summer 2011

DfT Final Approval Autumn 2011

Signing of Design & Build Contract Autumn 2011

Start of works End 2011

Completion of works / System Opening 2013


4.4 Risk Management

The risk management strategy sets out the processes for identifying and managing project risks. A number of risk workshops have been conducted for the Rapid Transit Scheme – January 2008, November 2008 and January 2009. The first two workshops produced a risk schedule or register which was used to manage the project. The third workshop was to take the risk identification and management through to a Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA).

Although these workshops have formed the main reviews of the risk register, it is a live document. Regular updating and reporting of the risk register is undertaken through the process of reporting to the Project Board. This continual review is important to ensure that the most appropriate risk managers are allocated to specific risks, that new risks are identified and that existing risks are monitored or actioned as appropriate.

4.4.1 Risk Register

The risk register will continue to be regularly reviewed by the Project Team and it is formally reviewed for changes to risk profile at alternate Project Board meetings. The implementation and management of project risk controls will be a standard agenda item for each meeting of the Project Board. Table 4.2 identifies the current top five risks. The full risk register is provided in Appendix 4B.

Table 4.2 Top Five Key Risks

No. Description Status Updated Rating

Action

67 Technical problems with structural / civil works come to light during design

Slightly reduced by QRA

H

Ensure appropriate provision made in scheme cost estimate (QRA) Increase level of detailed design for high risk elements. Ensure appropriate contractual structure.

70 Technical problems with Temple Meads Interchange

No change

H

Ensure appropriate provision made in scheme cost estimate (QRA) Advance level of design work. Engagement and working with third parties (NR, SWRDA) Ensure appropriate contractual structure. Phased delivery to prioritise rapid transit route.

12 Capital costs escalate resulting in failure to secure funding (DfT)

No change

H Robust major scheme bid Strict change control processes Ensure appropriate contractual structure

21 Delay in DfT Approval No

change M

Involvement of GOSW with view on RFA programme deadlines Regular engagement with DfT High quality MSBC submission

65 Project requirements are not protected through development control and negotiations with developers

Reduced M Close engagement with developers and development control within UAs


4.4.2 Quantified Risk Assessment

The Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) has been determined using Monte Carlo risk simulation methods and the @RISK software. This risk exposure has been estimated with due regard for the Optimism Bias factors, based on Department guidance. The risk exposure has been included in the economic analysis, to determine an appropriate benefit-to-cost ratio (BCR).

The QRA has also been used to determine the appropriate level of risk to include with regard to cost inflation. This is explained further in Section 6. A report on the process of the QRA is provided in Appendix 4C.

The key results of the QRA in relation to programme are:

• The expected critical path runs through the City Centre work which mainly consists of the works to the proposed Temple Meads Interchange. These works are complex and have the greatest uncertainty for its planned duration at this stage of design, particularly in respect to other developments likely to be taking place in the area.

• Although there are risks on the Segregated Corridor, which is still the major part of the project in terms of expenditure, it is unlikely to influence the completion date, providing its start is not over-delayed.

• The delay to reaching contract award is a factor in the overall delay. Initial effort should be focussed on the activities leading up to contract award. However, whenever the contract award is made there is a high risk that the City Centre work, having the longest duration of the construction elements and a high degree of uncertainty, will extend the completion date further. These works should be the area of focus and detailed design brought forward to reduce this risk.

The key results of the QRA in relation to costs are described in Section 6.

4.4.3 Mitigation Plans

An initial assessment of potential mitigation measures is included on the risk register. The Project Team will continue developing mitigation actions for all identified risks, and detailed action plans for major risks, including the identification of individual risk owners. These plans will be reviewed regularly to ensure the most appropriate course of action is being taken. Mitigation plans will be comprehensive for all risks but more focus will be placed on the highest risks and this will be adjusted as these are reduced/resolved.

With regards to the risks associated with the Temple Meads interchange works identified by the QRA the following actions were added to the risk register and project programme:

• Detailed design work on the city centre and Temple Meads interchange is programmed for 2009.

• A working group of stakeholders for the Temple Meads Interchange is being established which includes Network Rail, South West Regional Development Agency, transport operators and developers.

• The plans will incorporate phasing to deliver the rapid transit requirements up-front in the


delivery programme to ensure rapid transit services could run independently of the wider development.

4.5 Stakeholder Management

Good communications have formed an important part of the development of the Rapid Transit scheme. Public consultation was first carried out in 2005 as part of the JLTP consultation programme at the concept level. Stakeholder engagement has continued since then. Public consultation consisting of advertised public exhibitions and stakeholder presentations was undertaken in November 2008.

Communications and stakeholder management is set out in our Communications Strategy and Framework which sits within the Project Plan.

4.5.1 Communications Framework

The Communications Framework for the Rapid Transit Scheme is based on the following principles:

• Specific communication activities are focussed at the right level for particular consultees. Different types of consultees will have different concerns and require either a different level of information or have different interests in the project (e.g. landowners versus statutory authorities).

• The project team seeks an appropriate level of feedback from consultees and that this is incorporated into the iterative design process.

• Concerns of potential objectors are addressed as far as possible.

• An appropriate statutory consultation is undertaken in compliance with the TWAO application process.

Government guidance on consultation includes the “Guide to TWA Procedures, 2001” and “Code of Practice on the Dissemination of Information during Major Infrastructure Developments, 1999”. These guidance notes are not prescriptive of what should be undertaken to consult thoroughly, but advise that adequate consultation reduces the risk of objection to the scheme and therefore the likelihood of the TWA application not succeeding. In addition the project has adhered to local consultation best practice guides such as Bristol City Council’s “Statement of Community Involvement”, included in Appendix 4F.

Stakeholders or consultees can generally be grouped depending on their level of involvement or interest in the Rapid Transit Scheme. Grouping stakeholders/consultees assists in a framework for the consultation required for the different types of consultees. Broadly, the categories of consultees consist of:

• Land owners or affected parties – those individuals and groups that will be directly affected in some way by the scheme. Consultation with this group is very important in terms of minimising negative impacts and ensuring clear, understandable process they can be involved in.

• Decision Makers – Elected members, funders and officers who are all involved in decision making on the scheme or preparatory work for decision making.

• Statutory Bodies – Those organisations with whom the Authorities will have a statutory obligation to consult. These include utility companies, emergency services and environmental


groups.

• Sub-regional stakeholders – Those organisations and groups which have an interest in the economic, social well-being and development of the sub-region and the impacts rapid transit may have.

• Special interest groups – identified groups who have particular interest related to the scheme such as transport or the environment and who are not statutory consultees.

• Industry groups – organisations which have an interest in transport in the sub-region.

• Potential Users – future users of rapid transit including residents within the catchment and employers, shops, health and leisure facilities along the alignments.

• Public – Members of the public in general.

The type and frequency of communication needs to relate to the level of involvement of consultees in the scheme and their need for information and/or involvement. Figure 4.7 sets out the type of communication channels available and potential suitability to different stakeholders/consultees.

Figure 4.7 Communications Framework

Public

Potential Users

Industry Groups

Special Interest Groups

Sub-Regional Stakeholders

Statutory Bodies

Decision Makers

Land Owners/ Affected Parties

Meetings Working Groups

Presentations Website Exhibitions Media

Stakeholder Consultation Public Consultation

4.5.2 Establishing a ‘brand’ for transport in the West of England

The Authorities have developed “Travel+” to represent the four Authorities working together providing added value and a change in approach to delivering sustainable transport improvements for the future as detailed in our Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP) and Our Future Transport (the Authorities’ 20 year transport vision).

The theme approach allows promotion of a vision whilst identifying all parts of the package as building towards the vision of the JLTP (mode specific improvements within an integrated transport vision). It quickly, easily and simply explains the reason for the works and allows various schemes to be separate but linked, identifying all schemes as part of the joint working (unity of purpose).


Certain key messages are linked to the Travel+ identification and are repeated at every possibility. These are:

• Travel+ projects sit at the core of the local authorities’ vision for change.

• Together these projects will deliver realistic, integrated, sustainable and equitable travel choices for all our communities across the area.

• Travel+ offers real alternatives to the private car for local journeys and should help encourage us to change our travel behaviour.

• Travel+ projects will help manage congestion and maintain our quality of life, delivering real choice and supporting future economic growth.

An example of the branding work is included in Appendix 4D.

4.5.3 Stakeholder Consultation

Stakeholder consultation has been ongoing through the scheme development particularly with parties potentially affected by the proposals.

The approach to Stakeholders takes various forms and consists of:

• Individual meetings and interaction with parties concerned about the proposals with specific interests in certain elements of the scheme, such as transport organisations, developers, emergency services etc particularly to obtain input in to the design of the scheme at an early stage.

• Establishment of working groups for specific areas where a specific type of consultation is needed from a group of people with similar interests. These work well for example in consulting with statutory environmental groups at stages of the project when their input is valuable (drafting the Environmental Statement or planning conditions for example).

• Presentations to groups of people with similar interests, such as resident groups, industry groups or special interest groups. This can be a valuable way of disseminating information (and negating incorrect rumours about the scheme) as well as getting feedback and identifying appropriate mitigation measures where necessary.

• Appropriate, formal statutory consultation with relevant planning authorities, environmental authorities etc at all levels and stages throughout development of the scheme.

• Regular and formal communication with decision makers and funders. These processes are already in place through project governance structures.

The wider set of West of England stakeholders were invited to the annual Joint Transport Forum, a one-day seminar on progress and updates on transport issues in the West of England. A specific presentation was provided on the Rapid Transit Scheme followed by questions and answers.

Stakeholders are kept generally informed about the scheme development through the West of England quarterly transport newsletter which is widely distributed. A copy of the newsletter is included as part of the consultation report in Appendix 4E. All stakeholders were sent an invitation to the public exhibitions programme in November as part of the wider public consultation.


A summary of the stakeholder views is provided below. Our stakeholder analysis is provided in detail in Appendix 4G.

Environmental Organisations

The following groups have been consulted through the provision of an Environmental Scoping report:

• Avon Wildlife Trust.

• Environment Agency.

• Natural England.

• Bristol Environmental Records Centre.

• English Heritage.

No adverse comments have been received. English Heritage has expressed concerns about potential impacts on Prince Street Bridge and the area around the Cenotaph.

Utility Companies

Bristol City Council chairs the New Roads and Street Works Act Co-ordination Group which is an existing group of utility companies, service providers and emergency service groups who meet quarterly to co-ordinate works affecting the public highway. This group has been used to provide information about the proposals including provision of overarching plans, programme and discussion on technology choice. Further consultation with individual utility companies will be undertaken at detailed design stage. Some concerns were raised that a fixed track option would have an impact on future access to services. The bus based option avoids utility diversion costs.

The project separately met with Avon and Somerset Police to discuss issues that may arise from the Rapid Transit Scheme. Particular concerns were with safe access and crossing for pedestrians and cyclists, road closures and any severance of local police patrol routes. Further consultation will be undertaken at detailed design stage.

Business Community

GWE Business West, Broadmead Board and Bristol Alliance are all supportive. GWE Business West, representing over 2,300 businesses in the West of England, has stated that “improving transport systems across the west of England is the top priority for business.” The Broadmead Board and Alliance are keen to see significant traffic management in the city centre to remove general traffic from the heart of the city.

Developers

A number of developers have been contacted and are supportive in principle. Their issues relate to specific areas and interfaces with the Rapid Transit Scheme. The project has been actively engaged with the related developments t ensure an integrated design between the developments and the Rapid Transit Scheme.


Transport Groups

Transport operators First Group and Wessex Connect have confirmed their support for the Rapid Transit Scheme in letters accompanying this submission (Appendix 5A). Liaison with Network Rail and Office of the Rail Regulator has been ongoing over the last two years. They have yet to confirm their position but have been providing advice on issues mainly related to the crossing of the Portbury Freight Line. The proposed bridge instead of an at-grade crossing is the direct result of this advice. Whilst Sustrans have some concerns regarding the impact on existing cycling facilities, there has been constructive dialogue in relation to the provision of new and enhanced walking and cycling facilities as part of the project. Groups promoting rail-based solutions are generally opposed to the scheme on the basis of their view that the existing rail sections should either be converted to tramways or included as part of the suburban rail network.

Bristol International Airport is supportive of the Rapid Transit Scheme. Their letter of support is appended at Appendix 4E.

Community Interest Groups

A Neighbourhood Planning Network along with Neighbourhood Partnership Groups have been established in the Bristol City Council area. These are important for stakeholder engagement. A steering group has been established with the Neighbourhood Planning Network which will be used through further stages of the project.

Figure 4.8 sets out the relationship between the scheme development process and community engagement activities. This diagram is used to explain the level communications and ability for communities to influence the scheme at different stages of development.

Responses from community interest groups vary depending on the specific issues, concerns and proximity to the proposed route. There is a general level of acceptance of the scheme, apart from one or two groups concerned about localised impacts or technology choice. These groups have detailed considerations which will be incorporated into the next stage of work.


Figure 4.8 Community Engagement and Scheme Development Processes

Phase 0Option

Development

Technical Workstreams

Phase 2Powers and

Planning

Phase 3Final Design

Phase 4Construction

Phase 5Operation

Communications

Project Milestones

ConditionalConditionalApprovalApproval

FullFullApprovalApproval

Programme Programme EntryEntry

Phase 1Preferred Scheme

Scheme Objectives

Initial Feasibility

Identification / Assessment Options

Major Scheme Business Case Submission

Value for Money- Deliverability

- Risk

Preferred SchemePreferred SchemeSelectionSelection

Subject

Legal Requirements or Guidance

Type

SchemeSchemeOpeningOpening


Marketing and Personalised

Travel Planning through website

- Principals- Options

Community Engagement

- Preferred Scheme

- Explanation Options

considered

Details of the Planning / TRO

applications

Process explained

Planning / TRO applications

Legal procedures

Procurement contractors and service providers

Environment Mitigation Works

Enabling Works

Main works contract

Service Operation

Infrastructure Maintenance

Evaluation / Monitoring

Demonstrate level of support

Statutory Consultation

(formal objection period)

Formal Public Consultation

Ongoing engagement

Statutory Consultation

Ongoing engagement

Ongoing engagement



Ongoing engagementAwareness

Raising


4.5.4 Public Consultation

Public consultation on the proposals was undertaken during October/November 2008. A report on the consultation undertaken is provided in Appendix 4E. 36,000 invitation flyers were sent out to all households within Council wards along the proposed corridor. A series of exhibitions was held and attended by approximately 900 people. Additional meetings have also been held with interested groups in response to the exhibitions. A copy of the consultation material is included within Appendix 4E.

In total, 112 paper questionnaires and 169 on-line responses were received. Of these 65% were in favour of the scheme, 20% against with 15% undecided. The most common concern is that the proposal is not rail based. However, when asked to choose and rank their top five features of the proposed system, the following were selected:

• Separate route and priority measures

• Integration with other modes

• Integrated with new and existing developments

• Walking and cycling

• Environmentally friendly vehicles.

In addition to the public consultation a Wrights RTV vehicle was exhibited around Bristol on Wednesday 3rd December. Members, the media and some stakeholders experienced a ride around Bristol and the opportunity was taken to get some views on the vehicle. More detail is provided in Appendix 4E.

4.6 Scheme Progress and Monitoring 4.6.1 Local Transport Plan Monitoring

Indicators and targets are the key to the success of our Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP), supporting policies and daughter documents. The current JLTP contains focussed and locally relevant indicators and targets for the West of England which have been through a robust consultation process to ensure they tackle key issues and are realistic yet stretching.

The current JLTP runs to 2010/11, and contains six indicators and targets that Authorities are monitoring during the JLTP lifetime. Whilst the Rapid Transit Scheme will not become operational until beyond the lifetime of the current JLTP, a number of the key indicators currently in place have relevance for the project as they or their successor indicators will be used for evaluation of the project once it is in the operational phase. Current indicators are:

• Public Transport Patronage.

• Passenger Transport User satisfaction.

• Changes in area wide traffic mileage.

• Changes in Peak Period traffic flows.


• Highway congestion.

• Changes in area wide traffic mileage.

The single set of National Indicators (NI) published as part of the New Performance Framework for Local Authorities will also be reviewed to establish which of these are most appropriate to act as potential proxy measures against the scheme objectives. These NIs will be utilised within the next Local Transport Plan (LTP3); as such this work will be undertaken once Programme Entry for the project is granted to ensure the timely identification of appropriate indicators.

4.6.2 Scheme Specific Monitoring

Due to the long lead in time for projects of this nature, it is premature to establish a fully detailed management plan at this stage. We therefore set out an outline proposed management methodology at this stage, with a detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Plan to be developed during subsequent stages of project implementation. This will include an assessment of what the project has added against what might have happened if it had not been implemented. The base case parameters against which the scheme will be assessed will be determined prior to construction and operations so that the validity of the before and after case is ensured.

0.5% of the capital cost estimate has been set aside to ensure the scheme can be monitored effectively. Use of existing data as part of the regular data gathering process from operators and local authorities will be utilised where possible to ensure best use of resources.

It is likely that the baseline data will comprise the following:

• environmental data;

• existing patronage on routes that are likely to be affected by the introduction of the scheme;

• traffic levels on key highways;

• junction performance including queues at critical junctions;

• mode choice surveys; and

• safety and accident records.

4.6.3 Outline Evaluation Plan

The Evaluation Plan will present the key stages and timescales covering the range of monitoring and evaluation processes. The Evaluation Plan will follow the guidance contained in “The Evaluation of Major Local Transport Schemes (December 2006)” in terms of the purpose and scope of the evaluation process. The Evaluation Plan will represent the framework for monitoring and evaluation of the Rapid Transit Scheme and, as part of the process, seeks to:

• Identify the elements of The Rapid Transit Scheme to be evaluated.

• Clearly set out the methodology for evaluation including inter-relationships with existing monitoring activities and contribution to JLTP targets.


• Ensure a timely and cost effective process.

• Ensure a process consistent with existing and developing requirements, i.e. taking in to account development of emerging assessment frameworks and targets (such as further development of targets for delivery of Towards a Sustainable Transport System (TaSTS)).

Table 4.3 summarises the key stage of the Evaluation Plan.

Table 4.3 Key Stages of the Evaluation Plan

Stage Description

Identify Scheme Objectives As set out in Section 2.

Evaluation Scoping Process/methodology, programme and funding identified.

Identify and Appraise Baseline Data Baseline data identified. Gap analysis undertaken to ensure that scheme objectives and indicators are fully represented by the available data.

Collect Required data Timescales and data sources identified.

Analysis and Reporting Timescales for analysis and evaluation.

The objectives of the Evaluation Plan will be a combination of the scheme objectives (set out in this MSBC) and key relevant NATA objectives as set out in the Value for Money Case (Section 3). Other impacts of significance which will be included in the evaluation plan are less suited to quantitative assessment and will therefore be considered qualitatively. These include the sub-objectives set out in the Appraisal Summary Table in Section 3.

4.6.4 Assurance

Independent process approval will be obtained through the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) Gateway Review process. This process will appraise the scheme at critical stages of development to provide assurance that it can progress successfully to the next stage. It will add value to the project by ensuring that appropriate skills are utilised and realistic timescales and cost targets are set and achieved.

Gateway Review 1 is programmed for Spring 2009. Gateway Review 2 will be undertaken in advance of conditional approval. Gateway review 3 will take place following receipt of tenders but in advance of obtaining Full Approval for the proposals from DfT.


4.7 Summary

In summary:

• The Authorities have a proven track record in the delivery of transport schemes, particularly bus-based improvements.

• Where the Rapid Transit Scheme involves more bespoke or innovative technology the Authorities have already established relationships with other scheme promoters to share best practice and learn from experience and it is our intention to continue to develop these relationships and work with other rapid transit scheme promoters as the project progresses. The Authorities have also procured advisors with experience in designing and procuring rapid transit schemes across the UK.

• In March 2009 the Joint Executive Transport Committee for the West of England was established through the agreement of all four Authorities to a Joint Working Agreement. The Joint Executive Transport Committee comprises the four Executive Members of the Unitary Authorities with responsibility for transport.

• These new joint arrangements significantly strengthen the governance in the West of England and our ability to successfully deliver major transport schemes in the sub-region. The new Joint Working Agreement formally constitutes the joint working arrangements and legally binds the Authorities with appropriate assurances and indemnifications.

• Bristol City Council will be the lead Authority for delivery of the scheme.

• Robust and proven project management structures are well established.

• Risk management is an important and integral part of the scheme development and project governance. The risk register was established in January 2008, is updated and reported to the Project Board regularly. Quantified Risk Assessment has been undertaken with results transparently incorporated in to the MSBC and key issues raised included in ongoing risk management plans.

• Good communications have formed an important part of the development of the Rapid Transit scheme from inception. The scheme has a high level of stakeholder support. Public consultation results also show strong support for the scheme. Relationships with community groups and stakeholders have been established and will continue through the delivery of the project.

• The Evaluation Plan at this stage is in outline. It will be formalised as the revised performance framework emerges as part of development of TaSTS and development of the next Local Transport Plan period (LTP3). Objectives of the evaluation plan will be formed from a combination of the scheme objectives (set out in Section 2) and key relevant DfT objectives.

• Gateway Review 1 is programmed for Spring 2009.


Appendices 4A Project Plan 4B Risk Register 4C Quantified Risk Analysis 4D Statement of Community Involvement, Bristol City Council 4E West of England Transport Branding 4F BCC Statement of Community Involvement 4G Stakeholder Summary



5 Commercial Case

the procurement strategy and

management of commercial risks

Final Report Commercial Case - 142

Commercial Case 5.1 Introduction

This section sets out how the West of England Authorities (“the Authorities”) propose to procure the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads and Bristol City Centre rapid transit scheme (“the Rapid Transit Scheme”) and manage the associated risks. It includes:

• Procurement Strategy: - discussion of the review of procurement options and identifies the preferred procurement routes for the scheme.

• Commercial Risk Management: - discussion of the main potential commercial risks, mitigation and management measures.

Major Scheme Business Cases for Programme Entry stage are required to indicate what the preferred procurement route is for the scheme and an explanation of how and why this was identified as the preferred procurement route. The Authorities at this stage have identified a number of potential procurement routes with regard to service provision and this will require further detailed work in preparation for the Conditional Approval stage.

The Rapid Transit Scheme has been designed to enable construction, operation and maintenance to be undertaken using established and well known procedures and techniques wherever possible. Where the Rapid Transit Scheme involves more bespoke or innovative approaches, such as open access arrangements to infrastructure and the need to set standards, the Authorities have already established relationships with other scheme promoters to share best practice and learn from experience, thus developing an informed approach to the procurement strategy and commercial risk management.

It is recognised that, with the increased levels of funding coming through this bid, the Authorities will have to ensure that adequate technical capacity, wider resources and risk management processes are available to ensure that the delivery of the commercial aspects of the scheme. The discussion of resources is set out in Section 4.

5.2 Outline Procurement Strategy

In assessing procurement options and identifying a preferred approach(s) the following steps have been taken:

• Identifying objectives of the procurement process.

• Analysis of strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of different procurement options and the ability to meet the procurement objectives.

• Assessment of the likelihood or risk of meeting the scheme objectives.

• Consideration of the financial implications of different options.

Final Report Commercial - 143

Procurement Objectives

The objectives of the procurement strategy are to ensure:

• all scheme elements that require procuring are identified;

• timely and cost effective procurement consistent with the overall delivery programme;

• the process is consistent with all legal requirements; and

• contract requirements can be delivered over the length of the programme.

The Rapid Transit Vision

The vision is to provide a new mode for the sub-region that has the characteristics, levels of service and operational performance of a tram, but without the constraints of fixed rail infrastructure. This will be delivered through the design and specification of service attributes, which meet the scheme objectives. In considering the procurement options available the Authorities will need to have confidence that the key scheme objectives will be realised and that the scheme will also meet the expectations of service users, the wider public and stakeholders.

Scheme Objectives

The key objectives of the scheme are

• Extend choice of transport modes for all, in particular for private car drivers to encourage a shift to public transport.

• Promote sustainable development by providing high quality public transport links.

• Improve access to public transport areas that currently have poor provision.

• Improve integration of the public transport network.

• Promote social inclusion by improving access to employment, retail, community, leisure and educational facilities.

• Improve safety along the corridor by reducing use of private cars.

System Characteristics

In order for rapid transit to offer an attractive, competitive choice to car the characteristics of rapid transit services must be:

• Stops must be in a reasonable walk distance form key origins and destinations.

• The system (vehicles and infrastructure) must be high quality and DDA compliant.

• Services must be reasonably affordable compared with the real costs of other journey options.

• Services must offer fast journey times and journey time reliability when compared with car.

• Services must be frequent and easy to remember – ‘turn up and go’ or clock-face timing.

• The system must offer simple to understand routing, including interchange opportunities. Users should know where to find information on routes, service frequencies, first/last services and fares.

• The system must have high quality waiting areas.


• The system must be designed to maximise safety and perception of safety.

• The system must offer high quality information, particularly when things are not running to schedule.

As set out in Section 1.2 these objectives and system characteristics have resulted in a set of design parameters for the scheme which include:

• A high quality service where vehicle, service frequencies and fares are consistent with the vision described by the authority;

• Fast journey times through investment in busway infrastructure and priorities measures en route. The measures include bus segregation, bus only roads and signalling priorities that cover over [90%] of the planned network;

• A process that is scalable so that over time services can be added incrementally and efficiently to create the core of a strategic network;

• Affordability – by maximising the investment made by the private sector (developers and transport operators);

• Interoperable ticketing – to facilitate ease of use and interchange; and

• Integration – to facilitate the use of extended/connecting services feeding into and from the core network.

The design characteristics, scheme objectives and procurement objectives underpin the procurement option assessment process.

5.3 Infrastructure Elements of the Scheme Construction – Off-Street

The types of work for the segregated corridor section of the Rapid Transit Scheme are:

Busway

• Between the Long Ashton Park and Ride Site and Ashton Avenue Bridge (southside) a two way busway, pedestrian/cycleway and stop platforms.

• Between the Ashton Avenue Bridge (northside) and the Avon Crescent Junction a two way busway and pedestrian/cycleway.

• Between Avon Crescent Junction and a Cumberland Road Bridge one way (outbound) dedicated bus lane on the existing Cumberland Road of coloured pavement inlay construction.

• Between Cumberland Road Bridge and Wapping Road a two way unguided busway, pedestrian/cycleway and stop platforms.

Combined Busway /Railway


• Between Avon Crescent Junction and Cumberland Road Bridge a one way unguided bus lane (inbound) of tram type slipform construction without earth bonding detail incorporating rails for use by heritage steam engine and carriages, with an in line stop platform arrangement required to accommodate the carriageway levels. The existing offline pedestrian/cycleway will not be affected by the proposals due to level differences.

• Beneath Cumberland Road Bridge a 2 way unguided bus lane (inbound) of unbonded slip form tram type construction incorporating rails for use by heritage steam engine and carriages, retaining existing segregated pedestrian/cycleway.

Major Structures

• The existing redundant Ashton Avenue rail bridge refurbished to accommodate two way busway.

• A new pedestrian and cyclist bridge of concrete and steel construction over the River Avon.

• A new bridge of concrete and steel construction over the Portbury Freight Line.

• The existing Prince Street Bridge strengthened and width restraints removed.

Construction – On-Street

The types of work for the on-street section of the Rapid Transit Scheme are:

Bus Lanes and Stop Platforms

• The Grove to Redcliffe Way new one way dedicated bus lane.

• Temple Meads to Old Market Street Junction, new one way dedicated bus lane for the majority of its length.

• St James Barton Junction to Baldwin Street, new one way dedicated bus lane.

• Prince Street, new one way dedicated bus lane.

• New stop platforms at Prince Street to serve the Arnolfini stop, Temple Way to serve the Cabot Circus stop, The Haymarket to serve the Broadmead stop and Broad Quay to serve The Centre stop.

Traffic Signal Works

• The Grove to Redcliffe Way new signalised junctions.

• New signalised junction at Temple Circus.

• Modifications to the Ashton Gate traffic signals.

• Traffic signals at the Ashton Avenue Bridge.

• New junction at the Avon Crescent Junction.


• Shuttle signals at the Ashton Avenue Rail bridge

Temple Meads Interchange

• New rapid transit/rail/bus interchange at the location of the current Temple Circus gyratory.

Construction - System Wide Elements

In addition to the above works there are a number of system wide elements required. These are:

• Intelligent Transport Systems.

• Real Time Public Transport Information (RTPI).

• Stop furniture and ticketing.

5.3.2 Procurement Options

A review of options has been undertaken for the construction of the segregated corridor, on-street section and system wide elements.

System Wide Elements

For the system wide elements there are already existing contracts in place which have been through a competitive procurement process and therefore assessed to be value for money. Use of existing or extensions to existing contracts will be used to deliver these works where possible.

Real time information will be provided at stops and electronic visual and audio information on board vehicles, such as next stop announcements. There is already an established real time information system in Bristol using GPS and a Private Mobile Radio (PMR) communication system. Buses will be fitted with an on-board computer linked to the ticket machine, providing ‘real-time’ departure times at electronic bus stop displays and via www.nextbusbristol.co.uk.

Bristol City Council (BCC) has an existing RTPI system, provided by ACIS. The current system will soon expand as part of the Greater Bristol Bus Network (GBBN). The technical specification will allow for additional expansion, over and above GBBN, so that the Rapid Transit Scheme can be linked into the system. The provision of ITS equipment comprising CCTV cameras, fibre cabling and cabinets, are included within the contract provision of the main works contract as access to the works areas and power provision will be dependant on the main construction works timescales. This will include the communications to link all of the systems together. All of the Power supplies will be provided in this manner including street lighting, shelters, ticket machines, CCTV and traffic signals.

The provision of the electronic equipment, cabling and street furniture for traffic signals is contracted with Siemens until 2013. BCC believes these existing arrangements offer value for money and would seek to continue the arrangement with Siemens or an equivalent after a competitive tendering procurement process. It is suggested that the specialist contractor would be included in the construction contract as a novated sub-contractor. This will be reviewed at conditional approval stage however is likely to be retained given the increased flexibility it will offer.

It is proposed to let a specific, traditional contract for stop furniture and ticketing. BCC has


established relationships with providers of shelters and ticket machine providers.

Segregated corridor / On-Street

Construction of the segregated route and on street works is additional to the ‘regular’ works delivered though existing tendered contracts. Therefore a review of options has been undertaken. The options considered are:

• Build only contract.

• Design and build contract.

• Early contractor involvement.

• PPP/PFI.

A summary of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats are provided in Table 5.1.


Table 5.1 SWOT Analysis of Procurement Options – Infrastructure Option Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

Build Only Contract

A competitive price through tendering Extended programme to allow for detailed design prior to tender. No input from Contractor – “buildability” Incentive to bid low and claim. Increased risk of failure at public inquiry due to lack of contractor involvement. No linkage between service provision and operation No linkage between construction costs and income streams.

Long experience of contract type. Opportunity to divide works into packages and support emerging local contractors.

History of claims associated with this procurement method.

Early Contractor Involvement

Co-operation between designer and contractor leading to optimum design Best value achieved through early contractor input

Early pricing by the contractor leading to improved cost certainty Robust Orders improving probability of success at Planning and Public Inquiries Incentivisation through pain/gain mechanism Continuity through design and construction Improved CDM through input on buildability Reduced programme through reduced delay between decision making and construction start.

Difficulty in demonstrating value for money Lack of price certainty in practice –difficulty in compiling an accurate Employer’s Budget and impact of construction and actual costs. Higher costs during the planning stage (should be offset by later savings).

Design and Build Contract

Greater cost certainty using pain/gain Shorter delivery programme

The lowest tendered price might exceed budget Risk of confrontation should risks not be correctly allocated or priced Opportunities for the contractor to manipulate the target Cost through the exclusion of risk Little Opportunity for Contractor to influence construction methodology during the design stage. Greater risk of failure at public inquiry due to lack of early involvement. Contractor will only provide level of quality defined in the Specification

PPP/PFI Improved efficiency owing to the integration of design, finance and operation. Improved risk management over the life of the project. Stability in service delivery due to length of contract.

A complex and time-consuming process.

Very high initial cost of delivery. Most previous local authority schemes procured through PPP/PFI are still in early stages of service development.

The Contractor arranges for finance for project assets.

Availability of credit may be restricted.


A procurement options risk assessment has been undertaken and acts as a sifting process to eliminate options that will not deliver the project objectives and to shortlist options that warrant further consideration. The following scores were used: None = 0, Low = 1, Medium = 2 and High = 3.

The highest possible score was 9 and the risk rating was spread uniformly as follows:

• Low Risk 0 to 3

• Moderate Risk 4 to 6

• High Risk 7 to 9

Table 5.2 shows that the procurement option with the highest likelihood of meeting the procurement objectives is a Design and Build Contract. At this stage a design and build procurement strategy is favoured with a single or possibly two contracts let. This will be reviewed in detail at the next stage of scheme development.

Table 5.2 Procurement Options Risk Assessment

Criteria Build Only Design and Build

Contract

Early Contractor

Involvement

PPP/PFI

Ensure timely and cost effective procurement High Low Medium High

Consistent with legal requirements Medium Low Low Medium

Ensure contract requirements delivered over the length of the programme

Medium Low Low Medium

Aggregate Score 7 3 4 7

Risk Rating High Low Moderate High

5.4 Provision of the Rapid Transit Service and corridor Bus Services

The Rapid Transit Service will replace the existing conventional park & ride bus service. The park & ride service is operated under contract by Wessex Connect for Bristol City Council. There are also a number of major commercial bus services serving the main corridors between Bristol and North Somerset that could benefit using the Rapid Transit Scheme.

In assessing procurement the steps undertaken are as set out in Section 5.2.

5.4.1 Procurement Options

In the deregulated environment for bus provision the ability of a local transport authority to procure and operate bus services is governed by the Competition Acts, the provisions of the Transport Acts 1985 and 2000, as well as a duty to provide best value. However, the minimum requirement for a private sector transport operator to run a bus service is to register the particulars (route, timetable etc) with the Traffic Commissioner at least 56 days before the start of operation. There is no automatic


obligation for a bus operator to adhere to a network or service standard prescribed by the local transport authority, unless specified by a contract or where an authority has been successful in invoking legislative provisions controlling the use of specific transport infrastructure.

Clearly for the authorities to have confidence that the scheme objectives will be met it will be necessary for the bus operator/s to adhere to prescribed service standards and that the whole procurement approach is fit for purpose. A range of procurement powers and regulatory mechanisms have been considered individually and in combination, including;

• a voluntary quality partnership agreement (VPA) between one or more operators;

• a Statutory Quality Partnership scheme (QPS);

• a Quality Contract Scheme;

• service operation under licence through the TWA powers used to construct the busway; and

• contracting the service via a competitive tender under Transport Act 1985.

Voluntary Partnership Agreements (formerly often known as Quality Bus Partnerships)

Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) allow a transport authority and bus operator/s to align their transport objectives and added value from investment in the quality of service along a corridor. VPAs typically involve transport authority investment in road infrastructure (bus priorities, segregated lanes, travel information, signalling and improvements to bus shelters/ bus stops) and bus operators in return committing to investment to improve the quality of vehicles, driver training and the reliability of the services.

Agreements would be subject to the Part Two Competition Test in Schedule 10 to the Transport Act 2000 (as amended by the Bill), which is interpreted by the Office of Fair Trading, who has issued guidance on its application. Broadly, an agreement may specify minimum frequencies and maximum fares. Any significant restriction of competition must be justified in terms of (a) securing improvements in the quality of vehicles or facilities, (b) securing other improvements in local services of benefit to the users, or (c) reducing or limiting traffic congestion, noise or air pollution. Restrictions on competition must be proportionate to achieving those objectives.

In the context of the Rapid Transit, a VPA alone would not be sufficient to provide the authorities with the confidence needed to meet the scheme objectives. However, a combination of a VPA with another procurement option could be possible. For example a Transport and Works Act (TWA) order could be used whereby the operator agrees to provide certain services / standards beyond the Rapid Transit infrastructure via a VPA and that the TWA order is conditional upon adherence to the VPA. This approach would have to be defensible under the Section 10 criteria. A key issue here is that a both VPA and TWA order is non exclusive, therefore bus operators could compete along any or all sections of the route to provide services subject to meeting the required service standards.

Statutory Quality Partnership Schemes (QPS)

In a QPS an Authority undertakes to provide specific facilities and imposes standards for those operators who wish to use the infrastructure. It is not an agreement. The new Transport Bill proposals would provide more flexibility for a QPS to be made based on plans for new infrastructure so that improvements by local authorities and operators could be phased in over a period of time. The


minimum duration for a scheme is five years - there is no upper limit but it is advised that an end-date should be specified. A scheme would require operators to provide vehicles to a certain standard and in particular could specify DDA compliant vehicles with high emissions standards. Any operator able and willing to meet those standards would need to give an undertaking to that effect to the traffic commissioner and be subject to financial or licence penalties if they failed to meet the standards.3 Operators not willing to participate would be prohibited from using the facilities and would be subject to penalties if they used them without authorisation. QPS schemes are subject to the Part 1 Competition Test in Schedule 10 to the Transport Act 2000, broadly similar to Part 2 described above.

A QPS scheme places operators with the responsibility of providing the required standard of vehicles and of operating the service on a commercial basis, however they are not obliged individually to provide all the prescribed services (e.g. an individual may “volunteer” to provide 4 buses per hour on a QPS where 6 are specified as the minimum – if no other operator is willing to provide the other 2 commercially, the Authority must either amend the scheme or procure the remaining 2 as a tendered service to satisfy the scheme. The financial burden falling on the Authority therefore is the cost of providing and maintaining the infrastructure as well as any tendered services.

A QPS could be used in conjunction with an order under the TWA. A QPS scheme could apply to the whole of the system (or separate schemes for each corridor if preferred) covering the area through which services to and from the Rapid Transit would run, as long as they benefited from some improvement in infrastructure (say, real time information at stops). This could ensure an evenness of standards on and around the Rapid Transit scheme, and may possibly be used to ensure that the appropriate services were provided distributing to and from the infrastructure provided they were considered to be in the “corridor”. The general spirit of the draft guidance issued by the DfT and OfT is that QPSs are best used within a broader VPA arrangement to strengthen that agreement.

Quality Contracts Scheme

This option could provide greater control over the operation of buses in the area of the Rapid Transit scheme. The contract would replace an incumbent operator’s right to compete in an open market with a system whereby bidders compete for the right to be the only operator of specific services within a closed market. However, no schemes have been implemented since the Act came into force and the Government has concluded that the current powers need to be reformed, in order to:

• make this alternative form of competition a realistic option;

• ensure that the revised powers place appropriate obligations on local authorities (for example in relation to financial support and the provision of bus priority measures on the road network);

• ensure that the way contracts are procured makes use of the skills and experience of the private sector, and promotes continued competition.

Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA) / Licensing

A Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA) Order, used to provide the powers to construct busway infrastructure could also make provision for the operation of services along the busway. A TWA order may give the Authorities the exclusive right to operate the busway and to permit others to do so

3 For the financial penalty, see section 155 of the Transport Act 2000, for the licensing sanctions; see

section 26 of the Transport Act 1985 (as amended by Schedule 11 to the Transport Act 2000).


on such terms as it sees fit4, through the use of licences. Authorities may specify amongst other things service frequency and fares. An order would be made under the same primary legislation as tramway orders, and so far as relevant, could cover the same issues.

The TWA approach only allows specification of services along the segregated sections of busway. However this is not considered to be a large issue as if the majority of benefits comes from using the busway then controlling access to the busway is sufficient to influence services off the busway.

The use of a TWA order and the associated licences to procure services, is an unusual option but is to be used by Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) for their guided busway due to open in 2009. Services will be provided by means of a licence to operate certain services for a period of five years. Operators responded to advertisements by the County Council for specific service specifications which set out minimum services frequencies to key destinations. The services will operate in a “slot system” whereby they have “slots” to run on the guideway. The licence also stipulates quality standards in terms of vehicles, inter-operator ticketing requirements and fares.

One of the key reasons CCC adopted this approach was the objective of having some certainty over service levels using the guide way which was important in demonstrating the value of the investment to officers, Members and the public. With a number of operators running services in the corridor, it was also felt that the objectives of integrated ticketing and control over service frequency were essential in delivering the system.

Contracted Services via Competitive Tender

The 1985 Transport Act (as amended by the 2000 Transport Act) introduced the provisions which govern the duties of local passenger transport authorities to secure local bus services where these would not otherwise be met by commercial services. In the majority of cases these services have to be secured through competitive tender and can fully specify the route, schedule, fare and quality standards of the service.

The 1985 Transport Act also provided a requirement for authorities contracting services to demonstrate that there are no adverse effects on competition, and this has been interpreted that new services should not (as far as possible) duplicate existing commercial services.

The proposed Rapid Transit service will replace an existing contracted park & ride service and therefore cannot be considered in terms of bus network planning as a new route. The route of the Rapid Transit service overlaps the route of several sections of commercial bus service, on the approach to the city centre which is common place in most urban bus networks. The route also extends to areas of industrial/ leisure developments where there is no currently no public transport provision.

The advantages of a contracted service are that the authorities would have the ability to specify and incentivise adherence to the whole range of service and quality standards that together deliver the desired service attributes.

The Authorities could seek to supplement the commercial sections of the network if necessary, by contracting for additional services and specify service and quality standards. The new Transport Bill contains provisions to extend the scope of supported services to include existing routes that are not

4 See Art 32 of SI 2005/1918,


operated to the standards required by the Authority5, and introduces two less stringent competition tests for Partnerships (the Schedule 10 Parts 1 and 2 tests described below).

5.4.2 Assessment of Options

Each of these options has been assessed in consideration of their strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities. The summary of this is shown in Table 5.3.

The weakness and threats of some of the procurement options cannot be mitigated sufficiently to provide the authorities with confidence that risks can and managed. Therefore a procurement options risk assessment has been undertaken and acts as a sifting process to eliminate options that will not deliver the project objectives and to shortlist options that warrant further consideration.

The following scores were used: None = 0, Low = 1, Medium = 2 and High = 3.

The highest possible score was 30 and the Risk Rating i.e. the risk of the associated procurement option ability to meet the scheme objectives was spread uniformly as follows:

• Very High Risk 1 to 6

• High Risk 7 to 12

• Moderate Risk 13 to 18

• Low Risk 19 to 24

• Very Low Risk 25 to 30

The procurement options with the highest ability to meet the project objectives are Quality Contract, TWA / Licensing or Contracted service. These three options have a considerably lower risk rating than the other options and therefore were shortlisted for further consideration. One major distinction between the three options is a contracted service approach would not encompass existing commercial bus services to North Somerset and therefore a mixed procurement approach using two procurement options would be needed to safe guard the successful delivery of the project objectives. For example a contracted approach could be utilised to procure the Rapid Transit service with a Licensing /TWA, Quality Contract, Statutory Quality Partnership or Voluntary Quality Partnership utilised to secure the continuation of existing commercial bus service to North Somerset. A Quality Contract approach, while rated as low risk is an untested procurement avenue and would be dependant upon reforms through the Local Transport Act. The costs, legal implications, and time to prepare and achieve a successful outcome are not well aligned with the delivery of this project.

5 These standards can include vehicles, operational standards, minimum frequencies and maximum fares

– but still subject to competition law


Table 5.3 SWOT Analysis of Procurement Options - Services Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Voluntary Partnership Agreements

Does not require statutory processes. Easiness to establish and implement.

Not sufficient to deliver the

Authorities scheme objectives. Lack

of certainty over quality of services.

Lack of control over fares and frequencies.

May be used together with TWA order. The scheme does not meet the needs and expectation of users, the wider public and stakeholders.

Statutory Quality Partnership Schemes

Ensures use of infrastructure is prioritised for operators providing high quality services.

Not sufficient to deliver the

Authorities scheme objectives.

Lack of control over fares and frequencies.

May be used together with TWA order. The scheme does not meet the needs and expectation of users, the wider public and stakeholders.

Quality Contract

Ability to specify all key aspects of bus

services that integrate seamlessly with

the RT network.

Manage out risks in bus tendering

process.

Greater control over fares and frequencies.

Risks (and associated costs) for bus

operations accrue to the public sector.

Lengthy, complicated and costly

process of introduction.

Starting the QC process may galvanise operators towards earlier achievement of a voluntary agreement.

The scheme is not delivered within the

desired timescale.

High levels of scrutiny and national political intervention as the Authorities could probably be the first in the country to apply for a Quality Contract.

Licensing / TWA

One, combined process for procuring

infrastructure and services.

Fares and frequencies can be specified as can interoperability of ticketing.

Only applicable to segregated sections of the busway.

Provision of rights to use busway could be linked to SQP contracts for services in the wider network.

TWA process potentially more high profile in terms of objections.

Contracted service

Competitive tender allows for the specification and incentivising of a comprehensive range of quality standards including route, frequency, fare and vehicle standards.

Contracted services should not (as far as possible) duplicate existing commercial services, although the Transport Bill proposes to give authorities greater flexibility.

The Transport Bill may provide opportunity to “top-up” services with supported services which the Authorities could have control over minimum frequencies, maximum fares etc.

The contract may involve the authority taking a revenue risk and the risk would need to be assessed in order to ascertain the financial implications.


Table 5.4 Rapid Transit Service Procurement Options Risk Assessment – Ability to meet system characterisitcs / Design Parameters

Criteria Commercial Service

Voluntary Partnership Agreements

Statutory Quality

Partnership Schemes

Quality Contract

Licensing / TWA

Contracted

Service

Ability to specify vehicle & service quality standards and ensure adherence

None

Low

High

High

High

High

Ability to specify operational Quality Standards and incentivise / penalise operator performance

None

Low

Low

Medium

Medium

High

Ability to specify minimum service patterns – service frequency

None

Low

High

High

High

High

Ability and flexibility to implement changes to service patterns

None

Low

Low

High

Medium

Medium

Ability to specify other bus services in the corridor

None

Low

Medium

High

High

None

Ability to specify inter-operable ticketing

None

Low

Low

High

High

Medium

Ability to specify fare structure and set fares

None

Low

Medium

Medium

Medium

High

Ability to integrate service into wider transport network

Low

Low

Medium

High

High

High

Certainty over continuity of service provision

Low

Low

Low

Medium

Low

High

Ability to apply or redeem an access charge

None

None

None

High

High

High

Aggregate Score 2 9 16 27 25 25

Risk Rating Very High Risk

High Risk Moderate Risk

Very Low Risk

Very Low Risk

Very Low Risk


5.5 Commercial Risks

The procurement strategy has been developed taking account of the commercial risks identified to date. During the next phase of project development for Conditional Approval, the strategy will be developed in further detail, including the process for managing commercial risk. Continued integration with the general risk management process will be maintained and reflected in the Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) to ensure that all risks are identified and managed and to ensure that no risks fall between the two processes.

The main commercial risks identified are:

• The need to secure the timely provision of the Rapid Transit service

• The need to ensure the continuation of existing bus services to North Somerset

• The financial implications for the authorities in respect of the continuity of service provision of the above services and the future development of the Rapid Transit Network in the sub-region.

Analysis of the local market for bus services

The Rapid Transit service will replace an existing conventional park & ride bus service. The park & ride service is operated under contract by Wessex Connect for Bristol City Council. The marketplace for bus services is moderately buoyant, there are two large bus operators First and Wessex Connect, with several smaller operators providing commercial and contracted bus services in the area. There is a good degree of competition for contracted bus services. In the most recent tender rounds for Park and Ride services (including the Long Ashton Park and Ride) an average of three tender bids were received. Commercial bus service competition is more limited and there is no route competition between bus operators for bus services along corridors between Bristol and North Somerset, except in the city centre on overlapping sections of bus routes.

Marketplace capacity, revenue risk and strategic considerations

There are limited concerns over the capacity and appetite of the marketplace to deliver the Rapid Transit service and corridor bus services. The underlying local factors and dynamics are such that there is an effective marketplace for contracted services while the extent of commercial bus service competition is more limited. Taking account of this local context in consideration of the procurement options has led us to conclude that the efficiency and effectiveness of the bus service marketplace would not be materially affected whether services are provided on a contracted or a commercial basis. The main difference between whether services are provided on a contracted or a commercial basis is which party takes the revenue risk (the authorities or the operator). This raises a strategic procurement consideration as the modelling work undertaken to date indicates that fare revenue is likely in time to exceed the operating costs of providing the Rapid Transit service, potentially yielding an operating surplus. Further work is needed to refine the assumptions and examine the revenue risks in more detail. This work will be undertaken during the next phase of project development for Conditional Approval.


The procurement options risk assessment has led to the short listing of three procurement options. A Quality Contract approach has been identified as having potential however it is an untested procurement avenue and would be dependent upon reforms through the Local Transport Act. These factors increase the risk of the Rapid Transit service not being ready in time for the completion of infrastructure construction. A TWA / Licensing approach or Contracted Service approach (or combination) are considered the most practical means for securing the provision of the Rapid Transit service and the operation of existing commercial bus services into North Somerset. The main differences between these two options, is:

• which party/ies takes the revenue risk,

• how the transition from the delivery of the existing Park & Ride service (contracted service) to the new Rapid Transit service is managed.

In the case of a TWA / licensing approach the service is operated on a commercial basis and the revenue risk is with the operator. In the case of a contracted service approach, the revenue risk will be specified in the contract and can be on the operator, the Authorities or can be shared. In terms of the transition from the existing contracted Park & Ride service to the new Rapid Transit service, there are a number of strategic procurement considerations. The delivery of the Rapid Transit service will require investment by the operator in a minimum of seven vehicles and a minimum investment of £2million just for vehicles as well as driver training, operational and maintenance items.

The Authorities have concluded that there would be no advantage in owning the vehicles, therefore the procurement strategy is being developed on the basis that the operator will provide the vehicles. For an operator to have confidence to commit to such an investment there needs to be a degree of certainty that the infrastructure will be in place when the vehicles are delivered and the assumptions regarding the operational environment and the potential for the operator to face competition for market share within the main segregated section of route. The Authorities equally need to have confidence that an operator will commit to timely investment in vehicles, so that vehicles are delivered in time for the completion of infrastructure. The Authorities also need to have certainty regarding the continuity of service provision.

The traditional approach to align the requirements of each party and to manage risk is to procure the service via competitive tender. A competitive tender instigated well before the planned completion of the infrastructure would have the advantage of reducing risks to both the operator and the authorities. The award of a contract to operate the Rapid Transit service would enable the operator to under-write investment in vehicles on the basis (£ value) of the contract, thereby resulting in reduced financial exposure compared with a commercially led investment. The award of a contract to operate the Rapid Transit service would give the authorities greater control over co-ordination between the two distinct procurement work streams; the delivery of infrastructure and the delivery of the service, in order to deliver the whole project. It would equally enable the authorities to have greater confidence that the operator will make timely investment in vehicles, providing a greater level of confidence for managing the transition from the existing park & ride service to the new Rapid Transit service. It would also provide greater certainty regarding the continuity of service provision, on the basis of a shared revenue risk.

In respect of the existing commercial bus services X1, X7 / 364 and 354 operating into North Somerset, the main procurement issues arising are a) the re-routing of these services into the rapid transit infrastructure and b) the quality standards of these and any other bus service using the rapid transit infrastructure.


The intention of the operator First is that services X1, X7/364 and 354 would be re-routed into the segregated route infrastructure from Long Ashton Park & Ride site. Decisions regarding the routing of commercial bus services are made by bus operators and are invariably commercially led decisions. The main attraction to First to re-route these services is the considerable journey time savings. This would translate to both reduced operating costs and improved journey time reliability for the bus operator. Consequently the risk that the operator would chose not to re-route these bus services into the rapid transit infrastructure is assessed as low.

In order to safeguard quality standards and the delivery of the scheme objectives, it will be necessary for the Authorities to have the ability to set certain service and quality thresholds, in respect of commercial bus services. This will avoid the possibility of low quality commercial bus services operating within the rapid transit infrastructure.

Provided that the quality threshold is set at realistic and practical levels (and considers issues of the commercial viability of bus operator investment) a TWA / licensing approach is considered the most practical means of safeguarding quality standards.

Given the close working between the Authorities and bus operators and discussions to date, it is felt that there is still the opportunity to investigate what could be delivered through partnership options if a partnership agreement could meet the scheme objectives. This will be in part informed by the commercial assessment of the scheme by operators and the ability to adjust the risk assessment accordingly. It is therefore proposed that close discussion with potential operators continue throughout the next phase of scheme development to ensure all potentially beneficial options are considered.

The risk assessment shows that a TWA/Licensing and or a Contracted Service approach where revenue risk is shared between the operator (determined via competitive tender) and the Authorities is most likely to best meet the scheme objectives, present value for money for the Authorities and a viable commercial prospect for the market. The main advantage of a Contracted Service where revenue risk is shared is that it gives the operator the incentive and motivation to ensure high service standards / performance and achieve passenger growth, while revenue returns on capital deployed are shared between the private and public sectors. Any operating surplus yielded by the authorities would be used to meet the costs of maintaining the route infrastructure (both segregated and on-street sections), maintaining the real time information system, back office ticketing system costs and scheme marketing costs. Any leftover operating surplus would be re-invested to enhance the level of service or to assist in the preparation and delivery of subsequent phases of the Rapid Transit Network.


5.6 Summary

In summary:

• The Authorities have established a framework for identifying and assessing procurement options which includes Procurement Strategy objectives.

• Where the Rapid Transit Scheme involves more bespoke or innovative approaches, such as open access arrangements to infrastructure and the need to set standards, the Authorities have already established relationships with other scheme promoters to share best practice and learn from experience.

• For system wide aspects existing contractual relationships exist which have already been assessed for value for money and deliverability. It is proposed that the service provider at the time will be novated to the contractor for the civil works. This will again be reviewed at Conditional Approval stage.

• Construction of the on street works and the segregated route are additional to the ‘regular’ works delivered though existing tendered contracts. Therefore a review of options has been undertaken. This shows that a design and build procurement strategy is favoured with a single or possibly two contracts let.

• The Authorities at this stage have identified a number of potential procurement routes with regard to service provision and this will require further detailed work in preparation for the Conditional Approval stage.

• It is recognised that, with the increased levels of funding coming through this bid, the Authorities will have to ensure that adequate technical capacity, wider resources and risk management processes are available to ensure that the delivery of the commercial aspects of the scheme. The costs for this are included in the submission.


Appendices 5A Letters of support from Public Transport Operators



6 Financial Case

scheme cost, financial risk and

funding sources

Final Report Financial Case - 162

Financial Case 6.1 Introduction

This section sets out how the West of England Authorities (“the Authorities”) propose to finance the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads and Bristol City Centre rapid transit scheme (“the Rapid Transit Scheme”). It includes:

• Capital Cost Estimate – estimation of the capital cost of the Rapid Transit Scheme.

• Treatment of Risk and Inflation – treatment of inflation and risk in the calculation of the outturn scheme cost estimate.

• Preparatory Costs Estimate – development costs for the Rapid Transit Scheme between Programme Entry and Full Approval stages.

• Ongoing Financial Sustainability, Maintenance and Operating Costs – ongoing cost and revenue implications of the Rapid Transit Scheme.

• Sources of Funding – associated payment profile and associated funding requirement for the Rapid Transit Scheme.

6.2 Capital Costs 6.2.1 Capital Cost Estimates

Costs have been prepared based on widespread experience of similar works, supported by agreed schedules of rates with term contractors. Where the Rapid Transit Scheme involves more bespoke or innovative technology, such as guideway construction, the Authorities have established relationships with other scheme promoters to share best practice and learn from their experience. This includes Cambridgeshire County Council and First Group, the latter having been involved in busways in Leeds, York and Bradford.

The capital cost estimate has been calculated in Q3 2008 prices. A quantified risk assessment has been undertaken which has included a provision for construction cost inflation. This is explained in Section 6.3.

The total capital cost estimate is £47.8 million in outturn prices. A breakdown of this is provided in Table 6.1.

The capital cost estimate has been independently reviewed. The report from our advisors is provided at Appendix 6A. The detailed breakdown of the capital cost estimates is provided in Appendix 6B.


Table 6.1 Total Scheme Costs – The Rapid Transit Scheme Works Cost: Preferred Scheme

Estimate Base: Q3 2008

£ millions

Series 100: Traffic Management 3.217 Series 200: Site Clearance 0.596 Series 300: Fencing 0.382 Series 500: Drainage 0.754 Series 600: Earthworks 3.392 Series 700: Pavements 3.797 Series 1100: Kerbing and Footways 0.289 Series 1200: Traffic Signs and Road Markings 1.443 Series 1300: Street Lighting and Electrical Works 0.206 Series 1700: Structures 6.852 Series 2400 : Brickwork, Blockwork and Stone Work 0.067 Series 2700: Statutory Undertakers 1.688 Rogues 3.776 ITS Costs 1.750 SUB-TOTAL ENGINEERING WORKS 28.211 Land 1.685 Environment 1.853 TOTAL SCHEME WORKS EXCLUDING RISK 31.749

Current Prices

50% confidence level 5.556 Quantified Risk Assessment (Section 6.3) 80% confidence level 6.906

TOTAL SCHEME COST (50% RISK EXPOSURE) 37.305


Outturn Prices (Section 6.3)

50% confidence level 13.219 Quantified Risk Assessment 80% confidence level 16.050




6.3 Treatment of Risk And Inflation

A Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) has been carried undertaken to support this Programme Entry submission. This assessment has predicted the likely level of confidence that funding will be sufficient to cover the construction of the system with due allowance made for risks. The QRA is confined to the capital cost elements of the project and the construction programme from the present day to the system becoming operational. Risks to operational revenues, costs or performance have not been quantified at this stage. The QRA report is provided in Appendix 4C.

The risk model uses @Risk for probabilistic modelling. Both cost and time risks have been integrated so in addition to producing predictions of outturn cost, the model gives a view of potential programme slippage. The model also generates risk-based predictions of cash flows.

The model aims to replicate the project being implemented several thousand times, potentially with a different result on each occasion. The distribution of these results is then plotted against the frequency of their occurrence. The principal inputs to the risk analysis are estimates of capital cost and project programme for the works (baseline estimate), the tolerance attached to elements within the estimates and discrete risks where appropriate.

Estimating tolerances are applied to the baseline cost estimate and to the activity durations to represent the combined effect of these uncertainties. Different estimating tolerances have been applied to different scheme elements. Some scheme elements, such as the utility diversions, have a greater potential for variance from the baseline. For these items the maximum value has been increased to 150% or higher. A summary of the range of tolerances used is provided in Table 6.2

Table 6.2 QRA Tolerances Estimating Tolerance from Baseline Scheme Element

Low Medium High

Segregated Corridor 80% - 90% 100% - 115% 135% - 150%

Utility Diversions 50% 115% 150%

Environmental / Land 70% 100% 130%

City Centre 100% 130% 160%

Cost Results

Figure 6.1 shows the distribution of iterative results from the risk model for the capital cost. The risk curve indicates the possible range of outcomes against confidence levels, and predicts confidence levels of 50% that project outturn cost is £37.3 million or below and 80% that it is £38.7 million or below (current prices).


Figure 6.1 QRA Costs at Current Prices Project Total Out-turn Cost £k

excluding inflation

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

30000 35000 40000 45000

project total baseline project total risked

As set out in Section 4.4.2 the QRA identified the key risk areas in achieving the project baseline programme. The QRA report (Appendix 4C) notes the City Centre works which mainly consists of the works to the proposed Temple Meads Interchange as a key determinant of programme risk. These works are complex and have the greatest uncertainty for its planned duration at this stage of design, particularly in respect to other developments likely to be taking place in the area. The QRA has quantified that risk including the potential inflationary impacts of delayed expenditure in the P80 estimate.

The QRA recommended that works in the City Centre and Temple Meads be a focus of the work to be undertaken and detailed design brought forward to reduce this risk. As a result the following actions have been identified and added to the risk register and project programme:

• Detailed design work on the city centre and Temple Mead interchange is programmed for 2009. With further design work through 2010.

• A working group of stakeholders for the Temple Meads Interchange is being established which includes Bristol City Council, Network Rail, the South West Regional Development Agency, transport operators and developers.

• The plans will incorporate phasing to deliver the rapid transit requirements up-front in the delivery programme to ensure rapid transit services could run independently of the wider development proposals.

With identified mitigation measures in place the Authorities believe that the risk to the programme of the works in the City Centre and Temple Meads can be significantly reduced. At this stage therefore to be prudent the cost risk is included in the P80 estimate to reflect the current level of detail design but the project programme (as set out in Appendix 4A) reflects delivery of the scheme by 2013 which


the project will be managed to.

Treatment of Inflation

DfT major scheme guidance states that:

“An allowance for inflation should be included in the Base Cost. Promoters should consider current and forecast inflation from industry sources appropriate to the scheme and present the assumptions and sources of evidence used. Realistic estimates for construction cost inflation will be crucial, and promoters are encouraged to discuss these with the Department at an early stage”.

For some time construction cost inflation has been above RPI, driven by high demand and global increases in commodity prices, including oil, steel and cement.

Current economic conditions are however far less certain. There is relatively little evidence available on potential construction cost inflation given this economic uncertainty. Building materials costs have started falling sharply, and could possibly collapse further in 2009. For example, steel and copper wholesale prices are more than 50% down on a year ago, although obviously this is unlikely to all be passed on to building materials prices and there are additional exchange rate issues to consider with the changing value of sterling. A general view appears to be that building material prices will stay low through 2009 and might pick up slightly in 2010. Longer term demand from China, India and the Middle East could mean commodity inflation remains relatively high. EC Harris Economic Forecast of October 20086 provided a view that:

"With input costs flat and contractors coming under some pressure on margins the expectation is that infrastructure tender prices will show no movement over the next year and, unless programmes of work are deferred or stalled, could then rise by around 2% - 3% over the year to the 3rd quarter of 2010. The next six months, however, could see this forecast further revised downward if the lack of confidence in future workload from other sectors starts to affect margins."

What is also uncertain is the strength of recovery. Public sector infrastructure projects are insulated to some extent from demand changes in the private sector, and an eventual recovery in the global economy would stimulate a recovery in commodity prices. One possible trend is for construction prices to match or fall behind RPI in the short term, then catch up and overtake it when recovery comes, but there is plenty of scope for wider variation.

The BCIS Civil Engineering Market Report (Q2 2008)7 states that:

“Raw materials and labour costs have risen by 12.2 percent over the past year and, with costs forecast to rise by a further 12 percent over the next two years, public sector project contingency plans will come under increasing pressure to stay out of the red. With infrastructure output rising by eight percent and new orders growing at a rate of 26 percent in Q1 2008, this sector is expected to be one of the few growth areas in UK construction over the next few years, offering some firms an antidote to the current downturn in the market. However, the rises in the costs of cement, steel piling and fuel are having a dramatic impact on civil engineering construction costs”.

6 Economic Survey – UK, EC Harris, 7 BCIS Civil Engineering Market report Q2 2008 - Forecast to Q4 2010, RICS


To reflect this potential uncertainty of construction cost inflation, a QRA approach has been taken to reflect the impact of potential cost inflation. The tolerances applied are shown in Table 6.3. It assumes a central trend climbing from parity up to 6% above RPI over a four year period. A tolerance of +/- 6% is then applied in any one full year i.e. from 2009-10.

Table 6.3 Construction Cost Inflation Tolerances used in QRA

Variation from RPI

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Low -3% -3.5% -2% -1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Mean 0% 2.5% 4% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6%

High 3% 8.5% 10% 11% 12% 12% 12% 12%

The results obtained for the total scheme cost using these inputs is shown in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4 QRA Outturn Prices

Estimate £m

Q3 2008 £m

Outturn Prices

baseline (net) 31.749 40.000

P20 35.985 42.273

P50 37.305 44.968

P80 38.654 47.798

Mean 37.324 45.059

6.4 Preparatory Costs

Preparatory costs have been prepared on the basis of known costs for existing arrangements, estimates from the project manager on likely costs and benchmarking with other major schemes to understand the relative level of investment in scheme development. A 20% contingency has been included in the estimates.

DfT guidance states that:

“Provided that the scheme passes through the necessary approval stages the Department will normally contribute 50% of the eligible preparatory costs incurred between Programme Entry and Full Approval.

Ineligible costs include:

• Early-stage option appraisal and feasibility;

• publication of draft orders and the submission of and publicity for applications;


• the preparation of cases for, and attendance at, public inquiries

The total preparatory costs for the scheme (split in to eligible and ineligible) in current prices and outturn prices are shown in Table 6.5 and Table 6.6 respectively.

Table 6.5 Preparatory Costs (Current Prices) Year Preparatory Costs

£ million

Outturn Prices

Local Contribution

£ million

Outturn Prices

DfT Contribution

£ million

Outturn Prices

Pre-Programme Entry Works 1.054 1.054

Detailed Design and Assessment 1.300 0.650 0.650

TWA Inquiry 0.450 0.450

Procurement/Tender 0.500 0.250 0.250

Evaluation and Monitoring 0.250 0.250 -

TOTAL 3.554 2.654 0.900

Table 6.6 Preparatory Costs (Outturn Prices)

Year Preparatory Costs£ million

Outturn Prices

Local Contribution

£ million

Outturn Prices

DfT Contribution

£ million

Outturn Prices

Pre-Programme Entry Works 1.086 1.086

Detailed Design and Assessment 1.339 0.670 0.670

TWA Inquiry 0.490 0.490

Procurement/Tender 0.545 0.272 0.272

Evaluation and Monitoring 0.347 0.347 -

TOTAL 3.807 2.865 0.942

Eligible Preparatory Costs 1.884 75% 25%

Non-Eligible Preparatory Costs 1.923

Preparatory costs ineligible from the 50% funding from DfT are the works up to Programme Entry, estimated at £1,086,000, works for the Transport and Works Act Order Inquiry estimated at £490,000 and costs after Full Approval stage which are evaluating the scheme estimated at £347,000 (in outturn prices).


Total Quantified Cost Estimate

DfT guidance states that:

“Provided that the scheme passes through the necessary approval stages the Department will normally contribute a maximum of 90% of the estimated total cost of the scheme (including preparatory costs), also known as the Quantified Cost Estimate (QCE), as estimated at Programme Entry. The maximum 90% of the QCE is inclusive of the Department’s 50% contribution to Preparatory Costs”.

The breakdown of the Quantified Cost Estimate (total capital cost and preparatory cost estimates) is provided in Table 6.7.

Table 6.7 Total Quantified Cost Estimate (outturn prices, £m) Outturn prices, £m

Total (All

Costs)

Total (Only

Eligible Costs)

Local Contribution

(Non-Eligible costs)

Local Contribution

(Eligible Costs)

DfT Contribution

Total Local Contribution (All Costs)

%

DfT Contribution

%

Preparatory Costs2

3.806

1.884

1.923

0.942 0.942 75% 25%

Capital Costs1

47.791

47.791 -

4.619 43.172 10% 90%

Total QCE 51.597

49.674 1.923 5.561 44.114 15% 85%

% QCE (Eligible Costs) 11% 89% % QCE (All Costs) 15% 85%

Notes:

1 – From Table 6.1

2 – From Table 6.6

3 – South West Regional Funding Allocation, see Appendix 2D.

Ongoing Financial Sustainability, Maintenance and Operating Costs

A number of options for service procurement remain available to the Authorities at this stage with different implications for revenue attribution and risk ownership as set out in Section 5. These are to be explored further between Programme Entry and Conditional Approval to ensure that the most appropriate procurement method is chosen.

At this stage assumptions about revenue and operating cost streams have been made for the purposes of the appraisal. These are set out in Section 3 and in summary are:

Rapid Transit Services

• Vehicle investment costs and service operating costs are borne by the operator. Revenue from the services accrues to the operator. Provision of new buses for the new service is equivalent


to a cost of £0.35 million in the opening year (2008 prices, without allowance for real inflation or optimism bias), with subsequent replacement costs over the appraisal period. It is assumed that the Raid Transit fleet is replaced every 15 years. Net annual additional operating costs for bus operators are calculated to be £328,081 per year (rapid transit and bus services).

• The Authorities pay for the infrastructure maintenance costs. Additional maintenance costs are £0.44 million per year. (in the opening year, 2008 prices, without allowance for real inflation or optimism bias). These are related to the upkeep of the track, ITS and RTPI systems, bus stops and bridges.

Bus Services

• Vehicle investment costs and service operating costs are borne by the operator. Revenue from the services accrues to the operator. Net annual additional operating costs for bus operators are calculated to be £328,081 per year (rapid transit and bus services).

The Affordability and Financial Sustainability (AFS) tables in Section 3 shows that shows that the ongoing cost to the bus sector of operating the scheme are comfortably offset by the increase revenue received with services commercially viable.

The revenue costs identified that could potentially fall upon the Authorities are maintenance costs for track and stop infrastructure. However subject to further work on the procurement of the Rapid Transit Service, these costs could be met either through an access charge payable by the service operators, or as part of a contract for the operation of the Rapid Transit service (if applicable).

An independent review of the financial aspects of the modelling and appraisal work has been undertaken by Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC). The areas of the appraisal the review focussed on were the treatment of Park and Ride modelling, the impact of the forecast land use assumptions, fares, cost assumptions and financial/procurement assumptions. The conclusions are:

• Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) for the overall scheme is high, and well above the DFT requirement of 2:1.

• An appraisal based on just a 2016 model run (with limited housing and employment growth) still provided a strong BCR.

• Issues raised through the review by either officers or PWC have received satisfactory answers at this stage. A programme of further work has been identified for the next stage of scheme development which includes:

o Financial modelling of the different procurement and delivery models and the effects on any financial return or liability to each of the Authorities.

o Financial modelling of the effect on the overall budget position of the Authorities (for example potential loss of car parking revenues).

o Iterative sensitivity modelling and appraisal regularly through scheme development.


6.5 Sources of Funding Regional Funding Allocation

The South West Region has approved £43.17 million funding contribution to the Rapid Transit Scheme. Notification of support and funding allocation for the Raid Transit Scheme from the South West Regional Assembly is included at Appendix 2D.

Developer Contributions

There are a number of developments along the route of the Rapid Transit Scheme and the Authorities are in discussion with relevant developers regarding the integration of the design of these developments with the Rapid Transit Scheme and potential contributions for infrastructure and /or services. At this programme entry stage there are no fixed agreements with regards to potential s.106 contributions to the Rapid Transit Scheme.

Local Contributions

The Rapid Transit Scheme is a significant investment for the West of England, not only in terms of the benefits it delivers, but as part of a programme of major schemes contained within the Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP).

Bristol City Council and North Somerset Council have agreed to underwrite the 10% funding required for the local contribution, a total of £4.71 million. Agreement to underwrite the local contribution was endorsed by Bristol City Council Cabinet on 2nd February 2009 and North Somerset Executive on 17th February 2009.

As the scheme development work continues, the opportunities for meeting this local contribution will be explored and agreed with possibilities including LTP capital, Council Non Earmarked Capital and / or future s.106 developer contribution which is the preferred approach.


Payment Profile

Table 6.7 shows the payment profile in outturn prices for the risk-adjusted programme cash flows.

Table 6.7 Payment Profile (Outturn prices and Risked Programme at P80) £’000 Outturn prices

Year

Preparatory Costs

Works TOTAL Local Contribution

DfT Contribution

2009/2010 2.425 -

2.425

1.755

0.670

2010/2011 1.035 0.059

1.094

0.822

0.272

2011/2012 - 8.958

8.958

1.992

6.966

2012/2013 - 21.920

21.920

1.735

20.185

2013/2014 - 16.853

16.853

0.832

16.021

2014/2015 0.347 -

0.347

0.347

-

2015/2016 - -

-

-

-

TOTAL 3.806 47.791 51.597 7.483 44.114

6.6 Section 151 Officer Involvement

The Chief Finance Officers (s151 officers) of the West of England Authorities meet regularly to discuss and manage issues in relation to the funding, risk and resources of the transport programme. In the case of this Rapid Transit Scheme, the Chief Finance Officers from Bristol City Council and North Somerset are members of the Project Board and have taken an active role in the scheme development including provision of independent advisors to review the Rapid Transit Scheme. The Project Board has endorsed the submission of the Major Scheme Business Case (MSBC).

The s151 officers also provide advice to the recommendations made to Bristol City Council Cabinet and North Somerset Council Executive. Submission of the MSBC was endorsed by both Councils.


6.7 Summary

In summary:

• The total capital cost estimate is £47.8 million in outturn prices.

• A full Quantified Risk Assessment has been undertaken and has provided for potential variation in cost, programme and inflation.

• The total preparatory cost estimate in current prices is £3.5 million. This estimate is based on known costs for existing arrangements, estimates from the project manager on likely costs and benchmarking with other major schemes. It also includes contingency. The eligible cost element of this in outturn prices is £1.8 million.

• The local contribution is £7.5 million (£4.6 million capital cost and £1.9 million preparatory costs). This has been endorsed by Bristol City Council Cabinet and North Somerset Executive.

• The s151 officers of Bristol City Council and North Somerset Council are members of the Project Board. Their independent advisors have reviewed the modelling work undertaken to date and continue to be involved and provide assurance that the financial modelling is robust. The s151 officers of Bristol City Council and North Somerset Council support the submission of the Major Scheme Business Case.


Appendices 6A Independent Surveyor’s Report 6B Capital Cost Estimates Detail

rt msbc report - west of england msbc report.pdffinal report introduction - 4 support for the scheme...

Documents