Bus Rapid Transit Northern Route

Transcription

1 South SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route Volume 1 Supporting Information ROTHERHAM SHEFFIELD 1 ROTHERHAM - SHEFFIELD BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route 1

2 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Introduction This document contains information supporting the for the BRT ern Route submitted to the Department for Transport in September It follows the format of the five case model for the Transport Business Cases promoted by DfT but is specifically intended to support the answers to the sections of the Best and Final Bid Form and is not intended to be a fully developed Business Case. The Major Scheme Business Case for BRT was submitted to DfT in March 2010 and all relevant information contained in that document is now included in the current bid for funding in the appropriate section of the Bid documentation. Contents Introduction 1. Strategic Case 2. Economic Case 3. Management Case 4. Commercial Case 5. Financial Case The submitted for BRT ern route comprises the following individual documents. The location of additional information provided to support the responses to each section of the BAFB Form is referenced as appropriate in the BAFB Form. submission for the BRT ern Route Form Value for Money Summary Annex Volume 1 - Supporting Information (this document) Volume 2 Appendices to Volume 1 2

3 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route 1 Strategic Case 3

4 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route 1 Strategic Case 1.1 Business Strategy Since the submission of the business case in 2010, the strategic transport framework for the partnership promoting BRT Scheme has evolved. The creation of the SCR Transport Strategy, including the Local Transport Plan 3, has recast the priorities for delivering transport interventions. The new SCR Transport Strategy has four high-level goals which are based on a robust assessment of the problems that need to be overcome. Our first and primary goal is for the transport system to support the economic growth of SCR. We see SCR becoming a magnet for investment and business relocation; this requires improved connectivity by reducing congestion, delay and widening access to the labour market. Alongside the primary goal to support economic growth, the Transport Strategy identifies three further goals which have been established in Partnership with business and local authorities. Figure 1.1 summarises all four of the goals. Figure 1.1 SCR Transport Strategy Goals Further to the creation of the SCR Transport Strategy, The SCR Local Enterprise Partnership has been established to drive forward a vision for growth. The vision is for the Sheffield City Region to make a greater contribution to the UK economy by having a local economy less dependent on the public sector, providing conditions for businesses to grow and by giving the nation its prime centre for advanced manufacturing and materials, and low carbon industries. The introduction of BRT is fundamental to the growth aspirations of the joint economy of Sheffield and Rotherham. The scheme is targeted to serve the spine for development between Sheffield and Rotherham. In addition, the need for the proposed scheme is strengthened by the new Local Enterprise Zone in this area, which has been established to promote growth in our advanced engineering and manufacturing industries. In submitting this proposal the partnership of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, Sheffield City Council and South Passenger Transport Executive have established a robust rationale for investment. This proposal is fundamental to the growth aspirations of the area, and a catalyst to drive forward the sustainable transport ambitions. Without this intervention, investment from the private sector could be lost or delayed, at a time when the areas effort to reshape the economic base have begun to show signs of success. 1.2 Scheme Description BRT The Bus Rapid Transit route proposed between Rotherham and Sheffield, designed to provide a fast, efficient and sustainable 1 1

5 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route public transport link through the key development sites at Templeborough and the Lower Don Valley is shown on Figure 1.2. The location of specific development sites along the route, both existing and those at the planning stage are described in detail in section 1.5 of this chapter. The key elements of the BRT scheme are:- Provision of a step change in the quality of public transport through the Lower Don Valley between the centres of Rotherham and Sheffield, providing improved accessibility and competitive journey times for public transport to strategic employment and redevelopment sites, together with existing commercial, retail and leisure sites; Construction of the Tinsley Link, a new highway between Sheffield Road and Meadowhall Way passing underneath the M1 motorway, providing essential additional capacity for the use of all road vehicles (with priority measures for public transport) and reducing traffic flows at Junction 34 South; High quality vehicles and passenger waiting environment including real time service information; BRT ern Route To achieve the aims for BRT stated above, a limited stop route has been developed with individually tailored improvements to the highway infrastructure to reduce delays due to congestion and achieve the bus priority required to ensure an efficient and effective service to make BRT a success.the location of each proposed stop on the BRT route is identified in Table 1, together with the type of shelter to be provided at the stop and the key developments served in the area. The final optimisation of the location of these stops will take place between programme entry and full approval to ensure that they take account of the latest information available and the input of the selected operator. Table 1 also includes a description of the measures along the BRT route designed to give appropriate bus priority and improve journey times between the stops, whilst being sympathetic to the needs of all road users. Details of these measures are shown on the drawings referred to in the table, which are included in Appendix A1. Reduced journey times in comparison to current services through limited stops and provision of appropriate bus priority measures along the route, including signal detection, with a frequency of service up to 10 minutes. The Strategic Case for BRT sets out the importance of the scheme to the future development of key employment and regeneration sites along the route. 1 2

6 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Figure 1.2 BRT ern Route Map 1 3

7 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Table 1.1 BRT stop locations and description of measures along the route STOP - ROTHERHAM INTERCHANGE A specific bay within the Interchange will be allocated for BRT, with appropriate branding to reflect the importance of the BRT service. Route measures Drg No 122/U444/WP26/4 STOP - WESTGATE The stop will comprise Connect style shelters with flag incorporating real time information. Route Measures Drg No 122/U444/WP26/4 Existing bus priority at Corporation Street/ Bridgegate junction Existing westbound bus lane on Corporation Street Existing bus priority at junction with High Street/Ship Hill Bus priority at Westgate/Main Street junction The stop is located to serve key areas in the Rotherham Renaissance Masterplan Civic Quarter Council Offices Community Stadium development Commercial Quarter Business Quarter Improvements at Ickles roundabout to provide bus priority measures eastbound and westbound STOP - BRADMARSH WAY The stop will comprise Principle 2, 3 bay shelters including real time information. The stop is located to serve Bradmarsh Business Park, the Phoenix Riverside development and existing commercial sites on Fullerton Road Route Measures Drg No 122/U444/WP26/4 Bus lane on Sheffield Road eastbound Drg No 122/U444/WP26/3 STOP - GRANGE LANE, TEMPLEBOROUGH The stop will comprise Principle 2, 3 bay The stop is located to serve existing and shelters including real time information. proposed development sites in Templeborough including Magna 34, Bessemer Way/Centurion Business Park, Brinsworth Strip Mills and the Magna Science Adventure Centre 1 4

8 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Route Measures Drg No 122/U444/WP26/3 STOP - LOCK LANE, TINSLEY The stop will comprise Principle 2, 3 bay shelters including real time information. STOP - MEADOWHALL SOUTH Connect style shelters with flag incorporating real time information. Route measures Drg No HD/BN729/5/P2 Drg No HD/BN729/P7 STOP CARBROOK The stop will comprise Principle 2, 3 bay shelters including real time information. Route measures Drg No HD/BN729/P3 Dunlop Street Drg No HD/BN729/P4 Carbrook Street Drg No. HD/BN729/P5 Attercliffe Road There are no measures required to give BRT priority on Sheffield Road between the Grange Lane and Lock Lane stops. The stop is located to serve the Vantage Park development site and the residential area of Tinsley the centre of which is being redeveloped through Housing Market Renewal funding. The stop is located to serve Meadowhall Shopping Centre, the Source conference and training centre and is in close proximity to the Meadowhall South Supertram stop. Traffic management on Meadowhall Way to provide priority for BRT by utilising signal detection at existing traffic signals. New signalised junctions at Weedon Street/ Meadowhall Drive and Weedon Street/ Dunlop Street giving BRT priority The location of the stop is assumed to be on Dunlop Street to serve the existing commercial and retail area. The stop is located in close proximity to the significant River Don District development proposal, which is a large scale mixed use development comprising business and residential uses. The exact location of the stop may be altered slightly to optimise access in this key regeneration area. Re-aligned junction at Dunlop Street/Carbrook Street giving BRT route priority, including closure of Webster Street Provision of signalised Bus Gate at Carbrook Street/Attercliffe Common junction giving priority for BRT westbound Westbound bus lane on Attercliffe Road terminating in a signalised Bus Gate in advance of Newhall Road junction to give BRT priority through a constrained district centre; with pedestrian crossing facilities 1 5

9 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route STOP - ATTERCLIFFE NORTH Connect style shelters with flag incorporating real time information. Route Measures Drg No HD/BN729/P6 STOP - ATTERCLIFFE SOUTH The stop will comprise Principle 2, 3 bay shelters including real time information. Route measures STOP WICKER Connect style shelters with flag incorporating real time information. SHEFFIELD CITY CENTRE LOOP Stops at Castle Square, Arundel Gate Furnival Square, Sheaf Square and Sheffield Interchange, with Connect style shelters with flag incorporating real time information. The stop is located to serve the existing commercial/retail area and world class sporting and leisure facilities including Don Valley International Sports Stadium, the English Institute of Sport, Sheffield Arena, the Don Valley Bowl and Ice Sheffield No specific BRT priority through Attercliffe centre as the advance pre-signals provide priority on approach to the district centre. Bus priority through signal detection at traffic signals at Newhall Road and Worksop Road junctions. The stop is located to serve the existing commercial and retail premises in Attercliffe district centre Existing eastbound bus lane between Staniforth Road and Baldwin Street Bus priority at Stevenson Road westbound Existing bus lane between Leveson Street and the Wicker Existing bus lane and signalised bus gate at Derek Dooley Way (Inner Ring Road) The stop is located to serve the existing commercial and retail services on the Wicker Existing signalised bus gates at Lady s Bridge with Blonk Street and Castlegate. A one way loop serving key locations in the City Centre including Sheffield Hallam University, the new Retail Quarter, the redeveloped markets, the Digital Campus and existing retail and commercial premises. An alternative loop will be considered during detailed development of the project, subject to patronage and run time considerations 1 6

10 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route 1.3 Option Development, Selection and Definition In July 2006, SYPTE, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC) and Sheffield City Council (SCC) started to investigate busbased alternatives to the previous Supertram Extensions scheme. In discussions with the DfT in October 2006, it was agreed that the partners would not confine consideration to the same alignment and specific objectives of the Supertram extensions. Options were reviewed in the context of the issues in the wider corridor particularly economic developments which have progressed significantly since the tram extension scheme was submitted. A Project Team comprising of officers from SYPTE, RMBC and SCC was assembled in October 2006 to develop these proposals. A Scoping and Optioneering report was produced in February 2007 which developed a set of objectives and design principles (based on existing policies and studies), reviewed possible BRT routes connecting Rotherham and Sheffield, and considered technology options. Further optioneering work has continued since the production of this report to ensure the scheme meets its objectives. 1.4 Alternative Options Throughout the scheme development process the Project Team has considered a range of options evaluated against the scheme objectives and in response to the findings of stakeholder and public consultation. In all cases, the choices of preferred options have been driven by meeting the overall objectives whilst achieving best value at affordable cost. The process has followed the approach advocated by the DfT in the WebTAG Unit currently available in draft for consultation, which describes a number of logical and auditable steps towards defining the Preferred Scheme: Understand the current and future context; Establish the need for intervention; Identify clear objectives and define the geographic scope; Generate options for a range of modes, approaches and scale of intervention; Undertake initial sift against objectives, viability and acceptability; Develop and assess options. The first three steps have involved extensive consultation with stakeholders who remain integral to the scheme development through design team and technical meetings. This process was expressed initially in the work undertaken for the Scoping and Optioneering Study in 2007 and has since been reflected in the Stated Preference surveys, deliverability workshops, consultation and management of key stakeholders, all of which have influenced the development and design of the current scheme. Option development considered both operational aspects, including vehicles, and infrastructure, including routes, alignments and passenger facilities. In general the decisions regarding alignment were made on the basis of efficiency, optimum delivery of benefits and value engineering. Aspects affecting passengers have sought to find an optimum balance between the achievement of benefits and considerations of affordability. 1 7

11 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route A key area for consideration is that of the choice of vehicle. There is no definitive specification for a BRT vehicle, fleets adopted for existing schemes range from standard buses already in service to new, guided, bespoke vehicles similar to light rail vehicles. A number of different technology options were examined for South BRT, ranging from standard buses and diesel ftr Streetcar vehicles to an electric trolleybus. Stated preference techniques were used to assess public perceptions of the different vehicle technologies and to establish the factors liable to deliver robust benefits to the appraisal, that will be most likely to achieve sustainable demand and prospects for growth. The outcome of this work showed that high quality services were very important to users but that some aspects of vehicle design did not warrant there addition cost, for example the provision of electric propulsion did not attract a value from the users that came any where its costs. The work showed that a high quality (e.g. comfortable seating, ability to communicate to driver and good information) but otherwise normal bus offered the best balance between cost and patronage. Most of what the passengers wanted form the system came not from the vehicles but how they would be operated. For example journey time, frequency and reliability were very important and these are heavy influenced by the infrastructure provided and the method of operation. To be sustainable the system needs to operate without ongoing subsidy, the modelling work showed that this was feasible and therefore the services should be operated by the private sector to allow use of their skills and experience. More details of now this will done are given in questions on procurement. The choices for passenger facilities were considered in much the same way, establishing if particular components were warranted when compared to attitudinal surveys and delivered value for money. In order to meet regional and national advice on making best use of assets and resources in an affordable, low risk and easy to deliver way, alternative alignment and route option development involved a value engineering approach designed to reduce cost. This was important for integrating the scheme with existing highways, establishing the benefit from new infrastructure and providing input into possible lower-cost alternatives. A number of alternative options were appraised to assess their impact on financial and operational outcomes. These included route length, vehicle types, priority measures, alternative alignments and passenger facilities, which all affect the costs and benefits of the scheme. Summary information on the options are shown in Table

12 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Table 1.2 Alternative Options considered for BRT ern Route Options Route connecting the centres of Sheffield and Rotherham Rotherham-Meadowhall only (approximately half of full route) Meadowhall-Sheffield only (approximately half of full route) Restrict priorities to the most congested sections, not all sections where delays occur One lane in each direction on the Tinsley Link Two lanes in each direction on the Tinsley Link Exclude BRT priorities on the Tinsley Link Extend to Rotherham Parkgate (terminus of proposed tram/train extension) Carbrook alignment via Vulcan Road/Sheffield Road Carbrook alignment via Weedon Street/Dunlop Street Standard specification bus vehicles With dedicated, high quality BRT vehicles Enhanced passenger facilities at branded stops No additional facilities or branding at stops Inclusion of off-vehicle ticketing arrangements Preferred Scheme Low Cost Alternative Comments Essential for meeting objectives, addressing problems and ensuring stakeholder support Doesn t sufficiently meet objectives Doesn t sufficiently meet objectives Dilution of scheme benefits, may exclude some affordable measures with good value for money Sufficient for forecast demand Increases cost, not justified for scheme focus on public transport accessibility Objectives supported by priorities favouring BRT Cost and delivery issues reduce value for money case Alignment does not provide optimum access to local demand Route alignment optimised for accessibility benefits and cost Easier procurement of vehicles at lower cost, excludes some benefits valued by SP survey respondents Supports step change in provision of high quality services, meets passenger aspirations Consistent with high quality image and supported by SP survey results Lower cost but at the expense of benefits valued by passengers Significant journey time benefits from reduced boarding times 1 9

13 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Options Assume existing ticketing and fare collection arrangements Use of conductors Hybrid diesel/electric vehicles Diesel vehicles Preferred Low Cost Scheme Alternative Comments Reduced costs with some dilution of journey time benefits Not warranted on cost grounds, improved passenger facilities offer better value for money. Additional costs not supported by results of SP survey Ease of procurement and cost effectiveness assuming clean engine technology (Euro VI) Summary of the BRT Scheme BRT has been developed following instruction from the DfT to investigate bus-based alternatives to tram extensions As a result of looking at alternatives, the objectives changed with a new focus on supporting growth in the Lower Don Valley The options development process identified that alternatives to the proposed scheme would not achieve the objectives Customer feedback has enabled the service to be designed using the aspects that have high importance to the public. The customer feedback also allowed high cost elements to be removed that were shown to be less important 1.5 Economic Challenges Strategic Overview The economy of South is evolving to capitalise on the area s expertise in a number of specific sectors. These industries are emerging as economic drivers for change in SCR and attracting investment into the area. Supporting these key growth sectors will be important for ensuring future prosperity. Supporting economic growth is recognised as an important priority for SCR. Transport has a key role in supporting economic growth as a facilitating measure which improves access to labour markets and allows the movement of people and goods. Amongst businesses, transport in general is perceived as unsatisfactory. Only 17% of businesses agree that the current transport provision meets all their business needs, with 64% disagreeing. During workshops used to inform the Transport Strategy, poor connectivity and increasing traffic congestion were highlighted as critical problems in SCR. 1 10

14 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route GVA as an indicator of City Region productivity Figure 1.4 Sheffield City Region Relationships The Sheffield City Region economy in terms of GVA is estimated to be worth 25.23bn. The share of GVA per local authority is shown in Figure 1.3. Sheffield accounts for 8.45bn (33.5%), Doncaster 3.99bn and Rotherham 3.70bn, together making up almost two-thirds of the city region economy. As the economic centre of the city region this demonstrates how important Sheffield city is to the local economy. Figure 1.3 Share of GVA in the Sheffield City Region (2009) Derbyshire Dales 5% NE Derbyshire 4% Chesterfield 7% Doncaster 16% Barnsley 9% Bolsover 4% Bassetlaw 7% Rotherham 15% Sheffield 33% As can be seen in Figure 1.4, the report suggests that Sheffield and Rotherham are seen as a single economic entity. The report presents the two areas as having the closest economic relationship in SCR with a history of working together. Economic Relationships A report produced by ern Way and Work Foundation, examines the linkages between the settlements that define SCR. It focuses on the transport linkages between settlements, but also institutional, business and social networks. It concludes that Sheffield is a relative self-contained city with weaker economic links into its hinterland when compared to other large northern cities. Figure 1.4 shows the study s assessment of the links between Sheffield and the other towns in SCR. The research showed that the economies of Rotherham and Sheffield link to form a distinct economic entity within both the broader South sub-region and Sheffield City Region. Pervious research undertaken for Rotherham and Sheffield councils showed that the joint economy has been very successful in recent years. Over the period 2000 to 2005 the joint economy increased its share of regional employment from 14.8% to 15.9% (dropping to 15.6% in 2008) and increased its share of regional output from 14.7% in 2000 to 15.2% in

15 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Patterns of Travel Patterns of labour market interaction within the joint Rotherham-Sheffield economy are strong and distinctly more intense than cross-boundary interaction between other neighbouring Districts in South, resulting in a unified travel-to-work area. Almost 10% of all jobs in Sheffield and Rotherham involve a cross-border commute between the two Districts. This degree of integration is roughly three times that of Sheffield s other adjoining Districts and markedly higher than between any other neighbouring South Districts. Analysis of travel-to-work trends from census data between 1981 and 2001 has shown an increase in cross-boundary commuting between Rotherham and Sheffield; with an even more rapid increase in people who live outside both Rotherham and Sheffield but commute in to either District to work. Figure 1.5 shows the commuting patterns within SCR based on Census 2001 data. This shows the importance of the link, given the high level of commuting trips, when compared to other areas. Supporting Economic Growth The ability of businesses to operate efficiently depends upon a transport network being able to provide reliable and reasonably fast travel for those who need to use it. Transport also plays a role in unlocking economic opportunities, by providing access to suitable land for development. At either end of the proposed BRT Route are the core centres of Sheffield and Rotherham, where the main employment opportunities currently exist. Sheffield is a Core City with a population of over 500,000. Figure 1.5 Travel Characteristics Barnsley 2 2 Doncaster Sheffield 4 2 Rotherham Bassetlaw Derbyshire Dales Chesterfield 9 4 NE Derbyshire 3 1 Bolsover Kilometres W Crown copyright. All rights reserved SYPTE

16 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route It retains a significant and competitive productive sector, two major universities and a thriving commercial sector which has contributed to a period of sustained high growth over the last decade. The city is combining the renewal of the commercial centre with massive redevelopment of its historical eastern manufacturing quarter. Sheffield s mixture of metropolitan working, leisure and commerce is stretching out along the Lower Don Valley towards Rotherham on sustainable brownfield sites. Rotherham has a population of over 250,000 and has one of the faster growing economies in England. Between 2000 and 2007, employment increased from 86,000 to 116,000, a growth rate almost 5 times the national average over the same period, helped by significant investment in the Dearne Valley. Rotherham will maintain and enhance its distinct identity through the Town Centre Renaissance creative regeneration programme, which seeks to re-establish it as a residential as well as commercial centre. proposed catchment of BRT (based on a 800m buffer) and the associated development sites for residential and employment uses. Figure 1.6 shows an overview of the development plans, based on Local Development Plan schedules. Figures 1.7 and 1.8 show a focus on Sheffield and Rotherham respectively. Figure 1.9 show development schemes that are directly linked to the BRT scheme and the jobs that would be brought forward. Figure 1.10 shows the existing and vacant premises along the route, outside of the main centres. BRT ern Route provides the spine for development between Sheffield and Rotherham, in the one of the largest clusters of advanced engineering and manufacturing firms in the UK. In addition, the proposed scheme is set to unlock a number of key Brownfield sites and will support the ambitions of the Local Enterprise Zone in this area. The entire BRT catchment area currently encompasses an estimated 105,223 jobs and 11,247 dwellings relating to 26,993 people (2001 Census, and Humber). The future growth within the BRT catchment area during the LDF plan period is anticipated to deliver an increase of approximately 45,000 jobs and 20,000 homes (48,000 new residents). Figures 1.4 to 1.8 show the 1 13

17 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Figure 1.6 Future Allocations - Full Route SHEFFIELD ROTHERHAM Future Site Allocations within Sheffield to Rotherham Corridor Housing Sites (Dwellings) selection Employment Sites (jobs) selection BRT Stops BRT BRT Catchment Area M1 Motorway 1 14

18 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Figure 1.7 Future allocations - Sheffield focus 18 SHEFFIELD J J ROTHERHAM Future Site Allocations within Sheffield to Rotherham Corridor Housing Sites (Dwellings) Employment Sites (jobs) BRT Catchment Area BRT Stops BRT M1 Motorway 1 15

19 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Figure 1.8 Future Allocations - Rotherham Focus J SHEFFIELD J ROTHERHAM Future Site Allocations within Sheffield to Rotherham Corridor Housing Sites (Dwellings) Employment Sites (jobs) BRT Catchment Area BRT Stops BRT M1 Motorway 1 16

20 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Figure 1.9 Dependant allocations Site Name: Allvac Staybrite Works, Weedon Street Site Ref: P00127 LDF Allocation: Yes Site Area (Ha): 25 Estimated Direct Jobs: 2,350 Site Name: Betafence, Sheffield Road Site Ref: P00138 LDF Allocation: Yes Site Area (Ha): 5.15 Estimated Direct Jobs: 438 Site Name: Outokumpu Site Ref: P00182 LDF Allocation: Yes Site Area (Ha): Estimated Direct Jobs: 1600 Future Site Allocations within Sheffield to Rotherham Corridor Employment Sites (jobs) BRT Stops BRT M1 Motorway 1 17

21 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Figure 1.10 Existing and vacant premises SHEFFIELD J 34 J 34 ROTHERHAM Future Site Allocations within Sheffield to Rotherham Corridor BRT Stops BRT Route BRT Catchment Area M1 Motorway Vacant Employment Space Potential Job Estimates Existing Employment Employees

22 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route All of the 105,223 existing jobs and 26,993 people within the catchment area will benefit from a new BRT network with increased access to the labour market and an increase in available employment opportunities. The introduction of BRT will create access to a total of 4,072 existing jobs that would otherwise not be located near a public transport route. BRT will also create new accessibility to a total of 1,080 people who already live in the area and do not have access to public transport within 800m. Along this spine for development a proportion of the consented development can be delivered in the short term, supported by a range of local highway improvements and demand management tools. However, it is clear from the constraints attached to the River Don District (RDD) Masterplan planning permission, in the form of conditions and S106 Obligations, that the delivery of the BRT ern route scheme is crucial to the delivery of the full economic and social benefits and the wider environmental transformation of the area. housing as a result of delivering the BRT scheme. The development numbers are split by those that are directly linked to the scheme, those that are outside of centre of Sheffield or Rotherham, and those that have allocations in the Local Development Framework. This is also split by associated employment and housing numbers. Table 1.3 Employment and Housing Numbers Description Directly linked to BRT Outside of City or Town Centre Employment no s Housing no s 4, ,850 1,572 Entire BRT route 45,000 20,000 The economic impacts of the RDD Planning permission if fully constructed would be c. 500 construction jobs and in excess of 5,400 net additional operational jobs alongside a consequential increase in Regional GVA of 200m per annum. Conversely, the development that can be achieved without the BRT scheme for this area alone would deliver around half these benefits at c. 2,600 net additional jobs and 97m additional GVA per annum. It is clear that the benefit of the BRT scheme amongst other matters would include a boost to regional GVA of around 100m per annum. The following table provides a summary of the potential growth in employment and 1 19

23 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Enhancing Social Inclusion An important consideration for the delivery of public transport interventions is the impact on the customer. The current public transport provision serving the corridor is an artefact of historic travel patterns and fails to adequately meet existing travel demand. The scheme will provide a catalyst for recasting the public transport network, to better serve the demands of employers in accessing a skilled labour market and widen the access to opportunities for residents. The location of the public transport service will improve access for vulnerable communities in this core development area. As can be seen in Figure 1.11, all of the communities along the route are within the bottom third of the Indices of Multiple Deprivation. Figure 1.11 Indices of Multiple Deprivation and Employment Sites Rotherham Southey Green Firth Park Tinsley Brinsworth Catcliffe Sheffield Park Hill Darnall Index of multiple deprivation Most Deprived (lowest 1/3 score) Mid-range Least Deprived (highest 1/3 score) Employment sites Medium ( employees) Large (250+ employees) BRT Route BRT Stops Acceptable walking distance 1 20

24 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route When looking at unemployment rates it is clear to see that BRT will connect areas with high levels of unemployment to the employment areas. Figure 1.12 shows the route in relation to areas of unemployment. There are particularly high levels of unemployment in areas of Rotherham which will benefit from this scheme along with communities on the outskirts of Sheffield. Figure 1.12 Unemployment Rates Rotherham Southey Green Firth Park Tinsley Brinsworth Catcliffe Sheffield Park Hill Darnall Key Unemployment rate up to 5% 5-10% 10-15% 15-20% BRT Route BRT Stops Acceptable walking distance The new service is also set to provide access to communities where there is a low level of car ownership, therefore a high reliance of public transport to access opportunities. Figure 1.13 shows that the BRT route will serve a significant proportion of the areas where between 50% and 75% of the households do not have access to a car. 1 21

25 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Figure 1.13 Car Ownership Rotherham Southey Green Firth Park Tinsley Brinsworth Catcliffe Areas of high dependance on public transport Sheffield Park Hill Darnall Households without cars 1-25% 25-50% 50-75% % Employment sites Medium ( employees) Large (250+ employees) BRT Route BRT Stops Acceptable walking distance Summary of Economic Challenges Businesses are not satisfied with current transport provision Public transport provision has lagged behind the economic growth experienced in the combined economies of Sheffield and Rotherham, boosted by objective one status. The Local Enterprise Zone will deliver significant growth in jobs and demand for transport. Intervention is required to ensure this growth can be sustainably accommodated and that growth is not stunted by a lack of capacity in the network There are significant development plans in the area, both linked directly to the scheme and potentially benefiting indirectly from it Some employment sites that are vital to achieve economic growth cannot be delivered without the scheme Public transport access for employers located along the route to the labour market is limited and unattractive There is limited public transport connections for communities with low car ownership, high deprivation and high unemployment. 1 22

26 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route 1.6 Network Challenges To facilitate the creation of employment opportunities there is an urgent need to create new links to major regeneration areas and improve network capacity. However, opening up opportunities for economic growth through road schemes alone results in additional car trips and increased levels of congestion. Enhanced activity on our transport networks is a welcome sign of economic vitality but is likely to give rise to levels of congestion that would damage the efforts to transform the environment and economy. Therefore, this intervention is required to provide a choice between car and other modes of travel in order to tackle any further increase in congestion, loss of productive time, increase in air pollution and higher carbon emissions. The evidence provided in the Transport Strategy shows that we are already experiencing severe delay on our highway network and without intervention this is set to worsen. Our Strategic Transport Model identifies that highway demand across SCR could grow by up to 495,000 trips per day by 2026, with the highest growth in Sheffield and Rotherham. Without intervention, the result of this will be damaging to the economy of South, due to the issues identified above. This point is further explained in section 1.7 where the future projections are outlined by identifying the impact of growth in travel demand on all comparable modes of transport. At present SYPTE tendered services, combined with the existing Section 106 commitments will ensure that the current level of public transport provision continues in the medium term. However, as the redevelopment grows it is vital to maintain an adequate service level that represents genuine mode choice. The evidence from the Strategic Transport Model shows that failure to do so will have a negative impact on economic growth and the opportunities for people to access jobs in South. Rotherham to Sheffield transport corridor The success of the Rotherham and Sheffield joint economy is dependent on effective connectivity. However, the quality and availability of the transport links between the two urban centres and into employment areas has not kept pace with economic development. The limited options for travel have resulted in a high reliance on car travel to a point where capacity is being constrained. Highways There are three main highway links between Rotherham and Sheffield; the A630 (Sheffield Parkway), the A6178 (Attercliffe Common) and the A6109 (Brightside Lane). It is necessary to cross the M1 when travelling between the two centres and all of the main routes cross at motorway junctions 33 or 34. Highway congestion at these junctions and on key adjacent routes leads to severe delays on the junction approaches and queuing on offslip roads, impeding both local and regional traffic. A Memorandum of Understanding agreed between the Highways Agency and the South Local Authorities in 2002 allowed development contributing to the Objective 1 programme to proceed in advance of the provision of the necessary transportation improvements required to mitigate the impact of such development. The consequence has been increased travel, longer journeys and a higher proportion of journeys by car. 1 23

27 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route The Highways Agency has advised that due to the severity of the situation in the peaks, Article 14 Directions will apply if further development has a material impact on the Strategic Highway Network. This will restrict further economic development in areas viewed as strategic employment locations, thus increasing the importance of delivering effective public transport solutions. Action to change behaviour amongst existing users is now essential to release headroom capacity in the network to enable further development and new users need sustainable travel choices from the first day of their commute. The proposed BRT scheme will provide an attractive public transport offer for existing commuters, thereby encouraging modal shift, and provide additional capacity at constrained locations. It will also facilitate continued economic development in the urban centres and at other key sites by providing high quality links to these sites. The level of congestion creates problems with the air quality in the vicinity of the motorway corridor. There are Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) in the centre of Rotherham, immediately north of M1 junction 34 (within 1 km of the proposed BRT route) and across the whole of the Sheffield urban area where EU limit values are regularly exceeded. Figure 1.14 illustrates the location of the AQMAs. Figure 1.14 Sheffield and Rotherham AQMAs affected by the M1 corridor Rotherham Southey Green Firth Park Tinsley Brinsworth Catcliffe Sheffield Park Hill Darnall Road Transport Emissions (1km sq CO2 emissions in 2007) BRT Route BRT Stops AQMAs 1 24

28 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Despite the levels of congestion and the issues previously described, the majority of travel takes place using private motor vehicles (including motorcycle, cars and taxis). Figures 1.15 and 1.16 illustrate the modal split in 2009 along the two Rotherham to Sheffield corridors that run along the Lower Don Valley. Figure 1.15 Brightside Lane (A6109) Modal split of Person Trips in % 0.5% 71% 13% Figure 1.16 Attercliffe Common (A6178) Modal split of Person Trips in % 0.2% 61% 25% 15% 12% Private Motor Vehicle Goods Vehicle Public Transport Pedal Cycle Walk Private Motor Vehicle Goods Vehicle Public Transport Pedal Cycle Walk Public Transport Whilst the public transport modal share between Rotherham and Sheffield is lower than the private motor car, there is still substantial demand across bus, train and tram services. The railway link between Sheffield and Rotherham has a service level of 3 trains per hour, all of which call at Meadowhall, providing connections in to the Lower Don Valley. Evidence shows that this level of service is currently suffering from overcrowding and future predictions suggest this is likely to get worse. Aspirations to increase the frequency of train services are constrained by the single track Holmes Chord which limits the number of train paths available. Some of this could be helped by the introduction of Tram-Train, but the overall problems would remain. Sheffield Supertram provides access to the Lower Don Valley between Meadowhall and Sheffield. Whilst it does not provide a direct link to Rotherham, the interchange facilities at Meadowhall station present an opportunity for connecting with trains to and from Rotherham. The Supertram route runs parallel with the A6178 Attercliffe Common corridor and serves many of the employment and leisure opportunities located there. The Supertram route is also suffering from increasing overcrowding and we are making a separate MSBC submission for additional vehicles. The success of the Supertram system demonstrates that the provision of high quality public transport will attract passengers and the increased modal share for public transport on the Attercliffe Common corridor (see Figures 1.15 and 1.16) is a result of the 1 25

29 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route presence of Supertram. The proposed BRT system will improve the quality of the bus product and provide a service which will both complement Supertram whilst providing some relief to the overcrowding. Bus services also operate on the corridor between Rotherham and Sheffield, via the Lower Don Valley, along both the A6109, Brightside Lane route and the A6178, Attercliffe Common route. These bus services suffer from the same congestion which affects the highway network, resulting in slower journey times and the risk of poor punctuality. Despite the best efforts of the operators, the need to cross the M1 junctions by using the congested approach roads has an adverse effect on the operation and, therefore, attractiveness of the services. Recent analysis of actual bus journey times has been used to validate previous observations from surveys and other data to identify the key stop to stop route sections where journey delays are most pronounced. Delay information was calculated by comparing the scheduled timetable time with the actual observed journey time. The analyses indicate that the congested sections of the route most prone to variable delay arising from congestion are: Templeborough (Magna) to Rotherham Interchange (AM, Rotherham bound); Attercliffe Rd junction with Worksop Road to junction 34 of the M1 (AM, Rotherham bound); Attercliffe Rd junction with Saville Street to the A61 inner ring road junction at the Wicker (PM, Sheffield bound). the service, increased operating costs and increased, uneven wait times for passengers. Based on the above, the introduction of BRT is vital to secure a level of mode shift that will complement the alternative options in the area and result in an overall reduction in congestion. Failure to achieve mode shift along the Sheffield to Rotherham corridor will have a significant impact on the aspirations to growth the economy in the area, including the Local Enterprise Zone. So far the we have examined the problems the existing situation. The following section looks at the future projections, based on the work used to develop the SCR Transport Strategy to examine the impact of no intervention. 1.7 Future Projections Without the interventions provided by the BRT scheme, the congestion and transport problems on the Rotherham to Sheffield corridor are likely to get significantly worse. Figure 1.17 illustrates the change in delay due to highway congestion at key junctions between 2007 and 2026 without intervention and the predicted level of train and tram crowding in 2026 (the period of the Transport Strategy). Average stop delay in excess of 30 seconds can lead to significant cumulative delay for bus services. This leads to unreliability of 1 26

30 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Figure 1.17 Sheffield to Rotherham Corridor Future crowding and congestion on transport corridors in 2026 without intervention 1 27

31 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Analysis of congestion on the strategic highways in South, as illustrated in Figure 1.17, indicates the relative congestion on Attercliffe Common and Brightside Lane leading from the M1 at Junction 34 and on approaches to Rotherham town centre. This highlights the impact on journey time reliability for buses and the importance of providing priority for BRT as part of the proposals to improve accessibility and reduce journey times. Without investment in public transport improvements, transport between Rotherham, the Low Don Valley and Sheffield will remain inadequate. This will lead to a number of problems affecting the wider area, these are summarised below: Summary of Network Challenges Continuing inaccessibility to employment for those without access to a car or a suitable public transport service; Lack of a viable alternative to enable mode shift Worsening traffic congestion and slower bus journey times; Worsening congestion on Sheffield to Meadowhall tram services; Increased crowding on Sheffield to Rotherham train services; Car use, congestion and the need for long-stay car parking capping the development potential of this corridor; Slower progress towards air quality targets in the AQMA and the exceeding of EU limit values, relevant to the areas in the vicinity of the M

32 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route 1.8 Strategy-based Objectives The policies contained within the SCR Transport Strategy provide a strong basis for the delivery of this intervention. These policies also establish the objectives of the scheme at a strategic level. The specific polices that this intervention will contribute to are set out below. Primary Policy Objectives F To improve connectivity between major settlements G To deliver interventions required for development and regeneration K To develop public transport that connects people to jobs and training in both urban and rural areas Secondary Policy Objectives I To focus new development along key public transport corridors and in places adjacent to existing shops and services L To reduce the amount of productive time lost on the strategic road network and improve its resilience and reliability N To develop user-friendly public transport, covering all parts of SCR, with high quality of integration between different modes R To work to improve the efficiency of all vehicles and reduce their carbon emissions V To improve air quality, especially in designated AQMA areas Z To improve safety and the perception of safety on public transport 1.9 Scheme Objectives From the outset, the scheme has the following objectives: To support existing developments and enable future economic growth in the centres of Rotherham and Sheffield and at former industrialised sites in the Lower Don Valley; Provide an alternative to car access to major housing, employment and retail development proposals where their potential may be limited because of the risk of objections on the basis of additional road traffic generated; Promote partnership between the public and private sectors to share risks and encourage investment; Produce a transport scheme that offers value for money and is affordable; To provide a step change in the quality, capacity, reliability and availability of public transport in the Rotherham - Sheffield corridor to address existing transport problems; To contribute to an integrated package of solutions to address rising congestion and poor connectivity within and between Rotherham and Sheffield; Improve local air quality, contribute to lower carbon emissions from transport and preserve (and where possible enhance) the built and natural environment. It is clear that the focus of the SCR Transport Strategy on supporting economic growth creates a stronger strategic fit for delivering BRT. The scheme objectives and policy objectives can be aligned to delivering the transport strategy polices and contribute to achieving our goals. 1 29

33 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route 1.10 Fit with Local Policy and National Policy As part of the MSBC the fit of the scheme to national and local was described in detail. Table 1.4 below provides a refresh of the information previously submitted to reflect the recent policy changes. This table also acts to reaffirm the substantial synergy between the policies and local plans that support the introduction of the BRT scheme. Table 1.4 Summary of Local and National Policy Title Rotherham Local Development Framework and Core Strategy Key points from policy Policy CS 4 Key Routes and the Strategic Road Network The Key Route and Motorway network will provide efficient access between the main Rotherham Urban Area, Principal Settlements and the regional and national road network. This will be achieved by: a. Concentrating through traffic on Motorways and A Roads with best use being made of the existing road capacity to enable this. b. Improving specific Key Routes to manage congestion including traffic management measures, bus priority and facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. c. Integrating Park and Ride projects into bus priority schemes where they create a demonstrable reduction in vehicle mileage and are proven to be self financing. Policy CS 13 Accessible Places and Managing Demand for Travel The Council will work with partners and stakeholders to focus transport investment on making places more accessible and on changing travel behaviour. Accessibility will be promoted through the proximity of people to employment, leisure, retail, health and public services by: a. Locating new development in highly accessible locations such as town and district centres or on key bus corridors which are well served by a variety of modes of travel, including public transport, and through supporting high density development near to public transport interchanges or near to relevant frequent public transport links. h. The safeguarding of suitable land for the provision of transport infrastructure. 1 30

34 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Title Key points from policy Policy CS31 New Roads There will be no significant increase in the physical capacity of the highway network. Project that include increasing physical capacity are set out in below: Waverley Link Road A57 Todwick to M1 Sheffield/Rotherham Bus Rapid Transit ern Orbital (A6123/B6089) Dearne Towns Links to Employment A57 Todwick to Borough Boundary Rotherham Strategic Development Framework (which is being updated to form an Interim Planning Statement) Sheffield Development Framework (SDF) This framework is backed by Forward, under its regional Renaissance Towns programme and provides a 25 year plan for the regeneration of Rotherham. Two of the main goals of the framework include: To improve community access to health, education and promote social well being; To put Rotherham at the centre of a public transport network that connects Rotherham s satellite communities into the town and joins the town to the rest of the subregion. The proposed Supertram Extension scheme, which had a broadly similar alignment and overall objectives to the BRT scheme, is mentioned within the framework as a measure that would provide a high quality, high capacity public transport link between the urban centres of Sheffield and Rotherham and would also link the centres with economic activity along the Lower Don Valley. CS 51 Transport Priorities The strategic transport priorities are: a. promoting choice by developing alternatives to the car; b. maximising accessibility; c. containing congestion levels; d. improving air quality; e. improving road safety; f. supporting economic objectives through demand management measures and sustainable travel initiatives. CS 56 Priority Routes for Bus and Bus Rapid Transit Bus priority measures on Key Routes will be developed to reduce the impact of congestion on buses and improve speed, reliability, frequency and accessibility in the main 1 31

35 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Title Key points from policy urban area and on links to economic regeneration areas. Measures will include traffic management schemes (including bus lanes), park and ride sites, new transport interchanges, traffic signal technology, improved information and waiting areas for users, and bus/light rail rapid transit where appropriate. Routes will be identified for Bus/Tram Rapid Transit between Sheffield and Rotherham. CS59 New Road New through-roads will only be built, and existing roads improved, in a limited number of circumstances, to: a) improve the movement of public transport, cyclists or pedestrians; or b) enable regeneration; or c) reduce serious traffic impacts on the local environment where there is no sustainable alternative option. The following road schemes are proposed 1) Improvements to M1 Junctions 34 and South; 2) M1 Junction 34 relief road (Tinsley Link). The Sheffield Core Strategy also has a number of areabased spatial policies, one of which refers to the area in the Lower Don Valley around the Meadowhall shopping centre. CS 7 Meadowhall A wide range of transport measures will be employed to mitigate the transport impact of new development including: a) improved public transport for workers and visitors, including new Bus Rapid Transit; b) provision of the M1 Junction 34 Relief Road (Tinsley Link). 1 32

36 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Title Key points from policy Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder Strategy Sheffield City Region Development Programme The scheme links the Housing Market Renewal areas of Sheffield East and Rotherham Centre with employment opportunities in the centres and the Lower Don Valley corridor, thus increasing accessibility to work opportunities for those living in these housing market renewal areas. The Sheffield CRDP outlines how the Sheffield City Region will contribute to closing this gap and sets out the actions partners are committed to taking, and the support sought from government and regional agencies. There are four elements of the Sheffield City Region Development Programme. These are: 1. Capitalising on the City Region s pivotal position in relation to the economic hubs of Leeds and Manchester, and the south through East Midlands to London, and Hull and the Humber Ports; 2. Accelerating sustainable economic growth through a number of key economic drivers; 3. Re-establishing the main cities and towns as retail, commercial and business centres; 4. Addressing the underlying weaknesses with regard to enterprise, skills, participation, connectivity and the provision of housing for growth. Sheffield Economic Masterplan The masterplan seeks to help develop sustainable approaches to transport and infrastructure development which support the use of public transport; reduce the need to make trips by private car; and help to reduce the contribution of transport to carbon emissions. The Masterplan emphasises improved connectivity to Rotherham to reinforce the close spatial relationship between the two economies and to maximise the impact of the Sheffield-Rotherham Economic Zone. 1 33

37 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Title Key points from policy Sheffield City Centre Masterplan River Don District Masterplan The Masterplan for the city centre was launched in February 2001 to guide the revitalisation of the city centre over a year period. The Masterplan places great importance on tackling the access system in and around the city centre to create a user-friendly, efficient, integrated public and private transport network creating the foundations for sustainable investment and growth. The BRT scheme will directly serve several of the development projects being undertaken as part of the Masterplan including the station gateway, Digital Campus commercial quarter and the New Retail Quarter. The River Don District Masterplan secured planning approval in May This large scale proposal is a mixed use development, consisting or residential and commercial premises. It is underpinned by the need for a high level of public transport access, of which provision of the BRT ern route is an integral part. Full implementation of the Masterplan remains conditional upon a satisfactory solution to the transport issues, and more specifically the construction of the Tinsley Link. The proposed level of development will require a mix of measures including the proposed BRT scheme as well as improved pedestrian and cycling facilities. Strict planning controls on car parking form part of the approval, placing a reliance on intensive Travel Planning Sheffield to Rotherham Masterplan IIn 2011, a multi-disciplinary team led by Sheffield City Council began to scope out a visioning project for the Sheffield to Rotherham Lower Don Valley. Working closely with the business community the intention is to produce a cross-sector infrastructure delivery plan which enables the economic aspirations for the Valley to be realised The key headlines of this piece of work are to develop a clear vision and programme of works, for which investment in transport infrastructure is essential. 1 34

38 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Title Key points from policy Attercliffe Action Plan Objective 1 and ERDF Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon: making sustainable local transport happen In March 2011, Sheffield City Council formally endorsed the Attercliffe Action Plan. Developed in consultation with local businesses and stakeholders, the Action Plan is a 10-year strategy for the Attercliffe Local centre. The Action Plan will be used to promote economic regeneration and the renewal of Attercliffe Centre and will provide a clear framework for development and investment. The BRT scheme penetrates the heart of Attercliffe centre along the A6178 and will provide much greater access to opportunities which will help to underpin the desired economic investment. Accordingly the BRT scheme is featured in the Attercliffe Action Plan as a key transport objective The area in which the scheme is located has been a priority regeneration area since the early 1990s and has benefited significantly from investment of European Structural Funds, during the Objective One programme, for which the period has now past. However, as indicated in Section 1.6, under a Memorandum of Understanding between the Highways Agency (HA) and the South Local Authorities, development was permitted to proceed in advance of the necessary transportation improvements required to mitigate the impact of such development. As a result, transport investment has now fallen behind the pace of development, resulting in more travel, longer journeys and a higher proportion of journeys by car. Due to the lack of headroom in the strategic highway network, the HA has indicated that Article 14 Notices may be issued to limit future development in the area, unless significant investment is made in public transport. The DfT white paper identifies that rapid transit systems can play a significant part in improving the attractiveness and quality of public transport in major conurbations. Importantly the paper identifies that this mode of transport is good for passengers and for the local economy. This supports the objective of the scheme and show the fit between national and local policy, and BRT 1 35

39 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Title Stern Review Eddington Review Climate Change Act Key points from policy Calls for mode shift from the private car to more sustainable modes of transport as well as improving conditions for the flow of general traffic as part of a balanced strategy. The recommendations are that resources should be increasingly focussed on urban transport projects, as these can achieve economic, environmental and social goals, all of which are crucial to modal shift. The UK Climate Change Act 2008 set a fundamental challenge to transport planning and investment processes. Five-year carbon budgets will set binding limits on CO2, ensuring that every year of progress in reducing levels is important. Schemes that reduce transports contribution to carbon reduction will be vital in reducing carbon emissions. 1 36

40 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route 1.11 Wider benefits By providing a fast, clean and efficient link between Rotherham town centre and Sheffield city centre via a number of key strategic development sites in the Lower Don Valley, BRT will help to address many of the problems identified in sections 1.5 and 1.6. BRT will increase the strength of the public transport offer in the area, thus helping to growth the economy, widen access to opportunities, reduce congestion and improve local air quality. The scheme will also: Support the emerging Local Enterprise Zones, by reducing the demand for car travel on the surrounding network and providing the enabling transport infrastructure. Serve the Sheffield Digital Campus close to Sheffield Hallam University, which will act as a focal point for the Creative and Digital industries in the City; Serve Rotherham College of Arts and Technology in the town centre, currently providing further education for a population of 6,000 students daily. The College is planning to construct new facilities on and around the existing site to replace the existing buildings, and Outline Planning Consent was granted in 2008; Link the Housing Market Renewal areas of Sheffield East and Rotherham town centre many of which currently have low car ownership, to areas of economic development, thereby increasing accessibility to employment and increasing the labour pool; Contribute to urban renaissance programmes in Rotherham and Sheffield, by improving the quality, capacity, reliability and availability of public transport serving: Sheffield city centre, rail station gateway, digital campus (formerly e-campus), riverside and Sheffield Hallam University; Rotherham town centre masterplan sites, town centre housing; Reduce crime, disorder and fear of crime by including secure waiting environments in the design of the scheme; and by equipping vehicles with on-vehicle CCTV which has proved useful in combating crime on South s tram and bus networks, as well as reducing the fear of crime. Provide the foundation to introduce future proposals in a low-cost way. Specifically, it will facilitate incremental improvements to the transport network that will complement this intervention and support the ongoing regeneration of this key corridor. Each of these wider benefits adds further support to the case for investment. The diversification of our economy, including the success of the activities listed here, will be pivotal to the future prosperity of the area. BRT is set to contribute to the overall success of the economy in the area by help to overcome the problems identified earlier by enhancing the performance of our transport network and creating vital new links Relationship with Other Schemes It is important to distinguish the different relationships between the BRT ern proposal and other schemes in the local area and across South and the Sheffield City Region. The details provided in this section fall into two categories: 1 37

41 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Those schemes with some direct relevance to the proposed measures in the corridor (including but not restricted to dependency); Those initiatives at a wider level for which there is consistency but no direct interaction (mostly Sheffield-wide, City Region-wide or South -wide initiatives). The scheme is independent of other schemes and does not rely on the success or otherwise of other infrastructure works. It does have some relationship with other initiatives being developed in South, both in terms of local schemes and wider policies and programmes. There are two schemes within South currently which have support and separate Major Scheme Business Cases for these schemes have been previously submitted and remain priorities. Those with significant public transport elements to which this scheme relates include: In addition, there is a further initiative that provides a wider context for the impacts of the BRT scheme, this is: Key Routes Bus Priority linked to Punctuality Improvement Plans this is a South wide initiative to improve reliability, punctuality and journey times along the key high frequency bus routes and at congestion hotspots on the whole network. Delivered in the main through the LTP IT block, the programme includes the Sheffield to Woodhouse corridor which integrates with the BRT route. The public transport priorities provided by the BRT project will benefit other bus services that use parts of the route and eventually form part of an improved county wide network. Rotherham Sheffield BRT Southern route - a BRT route linking Rotherham and Sheffield to a strategic park and ride and significant employment and residential sites at Waverley (currently unfunded but still an aspiration of the partners); Supertram Additional Vehicles - procurement of 4 additional units to operate on the most congested segments of the existing network improving capacity, frequency and service attractiveness. 1 38

42 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route Summary of Strategic Fit and Related Benefits The SCR Transport Strategy and Scheme objectives are closely aligned. The focus of the Transport Strategy on economic growth has strengthened the alignment, compared to the LTP2. The local policy fit has also strengthened as Local Development Frameworks have evolved and masterplans have progressed. The importance of supporting growth in this key development area has long been a priority, that needs to be supported by high-quality public transport. National policy retains a strong link to delivering BRT, with the White Paper, Creating Growth Cutting Carbon, identifying rapid transit schemes is good for passengers and the economy. BRT will support the regeneration and development in the area with a number of key sites, included those in the recently announced Local Enterprise Zones, benefiting from the delivery of this scheme. There are number of complementary schemes that are identified to be important for the area. The delivery of BRT will support, and be supported by, all of the schemes we have identified. The result of delivering all schemes identified will provide a step-change in transport provision to overcome the lag between economic growth and investment in transport. 1 39

43 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route 2 Economic Case 1 40

44 SOUTH YORKSHIRE BUS RAPID TRANSIT ern Route 2 1

45 Volume 1 Economic Case South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route Report for South Passenger Transport Executive September 2011

46 Document Control Project Title: MVA Project Number: Document Type: Directory & File Name: South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route C3a556 Report M:\Tp\C3A556 BRT ern BAFB\Word\Vfm Chapter\C3a556 BAFB Value For Money Chapter V0.5.Doc Document Approval Primary Author: Other Author(s): John Allan Tony Barker Sophie O'Connor Helen O'Mara Reviewer(s): Formatted by: Jma jma Distribution Issue Date Distribution Comments /09/11 David Andrews 1 st Draft /09/11 Tony Barker /09/11 SYPTE, SCC, RMBC, DfT Final /09/11 SYPTE, SCC, RMBC, DfT Re-issue, minor typing mistake This report, and information or advice which it contains, is provided by MVA Consultancy Ltd solely for internal use and reliance by its Client in performance of MVA Consultancy Ltd s duties and liabilities under its contract with the Client. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this report should be read and relied upon only in the context of the report as a whole. The advice and opinions in this report are based upon the information made available to MVA Consultancy Ltd at the date of this report and on current UK standards, codes, technology and construction practices as at the date of this report. Following final delivery of this report to the Client, MVA Consultancy Ltd will have no further obligations or duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice provided in this report. This report has been prepared by MVA Consultancy Ltd in their professional capacity as Consultants. The contents of the report do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion. This report is prepared in accordance with the terms and conditions of MVA Consultancy Ltd s contract with the Client. Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance on this report. Should the Client wish to release this report to a Third Party for that party's reliance, MVA Consultancy Ltd may, at its discretion, agree to such release provided that: (a) MVA Consultancy Ltd's written agreement is obtained prior to such release, and (b) by release of the report to the Third Party, that Third Party does not acquire any rights, contractual or otherwise, whatsoever against MVA Consultancy Ltd and MVA Consultancy Ltd, accordingly, assume no duties, liabilities or obligations to that Third Party, and (c) MVA Consultancy Ltd accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage incurred by the Client or for any conflict of MVA Consultancy Ltd's interests arising out of the Client's release of this report to the Third Party.

47 Contents 1 Introduction Background Structure of the Document Supporting Documentation Modelling and Forecasting Approach Introduction Modelling Overview Representing the Scheme in the Model The BAFB Appraisal Framework Changes to WebTAG Changes to DfT Software Economic Impacts to Business Introduction Business Users and Transport Providers Reliability Impacts on Business Users Regeneration Wider Impacts Environmental Impacts Introduction Noise Air Quality Greenhouse Gases Landscape Townscape Heritage of Historic Resources Biodiversity Water Environment Social Impacts Introduction Commuting and Other Users Reliability Impact on Commuting and Other Users Physical Activity Journey Quality Accidents Security 7.5 South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 1

48 Contents 7.8 Access to Services Affordability Severance Option Values Public Accounts Impacts Introduction Cost to Broad Transport Budget Supporting Analyses Affordability and Financial Sustainability Social and Distributional Impacts Practicality and Public Acceptability Analysis of All Monetised Costs and Benefits Introduction Impact of Other Monetised Costs and Benefits on the Appraisal of BRT Sensitivity Testing Introduction TEE Summary All Tests Patronage, Revenue and Financial Sustainability All Tests 11.5 Tables Table 3.1 Elasticities in the realism tests 3.4 Table 3.2 BRT Run-times from Rotherham to Sheffield 3.8 Table 5.1 Benefits to Business Users and Transport Providers 5.2 Table 5.2 Value of Journey Time Savings to Business Users 5.3 Table 5.3 Value of Journey Time Savings to Business Users by Mode 5.3 Table 5.4 Quality Element of the Travel Time Saving Benefits 5.4 Table 5.5 Present Value of Highway Reliability to Business Users 5.4 Table 5.6 Accessibility of the Workforce to Jobs in the Regeneration Area 5.6 Table 5.7 Summary of the Wider Impacts 5.7 Table 5.8 Present Value of Output Change in Imperfectly Competitive Markets 5.7 Table 6.1 Appraisal of Air Quality 6.3 Table 7.1 Benefits to Commuting and Other Users 7.1 Table 7.2 Value of Journey Time Savings to Business Users 7.2 Table 7.3 Value of Journey Time Savings to Business Users by Mode 7.2 Table 7.4 Contribution of Quality Assumptions to Travel Time Savings Benefits 7.3 Table 7.5 Present Value of Highway Reliability to Business Users 7.3 Table 7.6 Access to Services 7.6 Table 8.1 Summary of Public Accounts Table 8.1 Table 9.1 Distributional Analysis of Benefits by Mode 9.2 South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 2

49 Contents Table 10.1 Change in Benefits with All Monetised Costs and Benefits Included 10.1 Table 10.2 Monetisation of All Costs and Benefits 10.2 Table 11.1 Economic Appraisal Results for the Sensitivity Tests 11.4 Table 11.2 Patronage and Revenue in the Sensitivity Tests in South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 3

50 Executive Summary Following the submission of a Major Scheme Business Case in 2010, Rotherham to Sheffield Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) has been reappraised for a Best and Final Bid (BAFB) in September The new appraisal has used all the latest guidance to ensure it is consistent with all the other schemes in the BAFB process Through this appraisal BRT has been shown to: offer good value for money improve travel conditions for business and non-business users alike encourage regeneration by improving accessibility to key employment sites by public transport provide the strongest benefits to the poorest travellers reduce greenhouse gas emissions BRT provides good value for money, with a benefit to cost (BCR) ratio of 3.15, well above the threshold of 2.0 used to define good value. If all the monetised costs and benefits are included in the appraisal, the BCR rises to Sensitivity testing has shown that these benefits are robust to different assumptions about the economy, with the BCR remaining above 2.0, even under conditions of poor economic growth. BRT provides benefits to business users and non-business users alike. Benefits to business users total 32m and benefits to non-business users total 68 million. BRT will provide disproportionately strong benefits to lower income travellers, by improving public transport accessibility in particular, with 41% of the benefits accruing the poorest 32% of travellers BRT will make the Lower Don Valley area accessible by public transport for 13,000 extra workers, increasing the catchment of this important employment area by 9%. BRT will encourage about 650 people a day to switch from car to public transport use, which will benefit their health. By encouraging mode shift away from car, it will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality, providing benefits valued at around 1.5million. It will however have an adverse impact on noise on two local roads but there is scope to traffic calm these roads to avoid the problem. In summary, BRT is good for businesses, good for jobs and good for reducing greenhouse gases. South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route i

51 1 Introduction 1.1 Background The Sheffield to Rotherham Bus Rapid Transit ern Route scheme is the subject of a Best and Final Bid (BAFB) submission due 9 September This document supplies information about the economic case for the scheme. 1.2 Structure of the Document Following this introduction, Chapter 2 provides a reference to all the supporting documentation Chapter 3 presents information about the form of the model and the representation of the scheme within it Chapter 4 presents information about the elements of the appraisal methodology guidance that have changed since the major scheme business case was submitted Chapters 5 to 7 present the analysis of impacts following the order set out in the DfT s Appraisal Summary Table: Economic (note that the welfare benefits elements of the appraisal are treated in the section on social impacts) Environmental Social Public Accounts Chapter 9 covers supporting analyses: Affordability and Financial Sustainability Social and Distributional Impacts Practicality and Public Acceptability Chapter 10 provides a summary of all the monetised costs and benefits in the core scenario Chapter 11 provides a summary of the costs and benefits in the sensitivity tests that the DfT has requested. South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 1.1

52 2 Supporting Documentation Volume 2 of the BAFB Submission contains a series of Appendices. Appendix B concerns the economic case for the scheme, it covers: Appendix B1 Checklist of appraisal and modelling Supporting Material; Appendix B2 AST Worksheets for the Core Scenario and sensitivity tests. Each test has one spreadsheet in MS Excel Format including all the relevant worksheets. So the TEE, AMCB, PA, and AFS worksheets all appear as individual tabs within the spreadsheet for a test; Appendix B3 - The calibration and validation of the entire SATURN highway model was reported in Sheffield and Rotherham District SATURN Model Model Development Report (August 2009); Appendix B4 - The calibration and validation of the highway model in the area around the scheme was reported in South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route: Local Model Validation Report highway Model (September 2009); Appendix B5 - The calibration and validation of the Public Transport model was reported in Sheffield and Rotherham Public Transport Model (August 2009); Appendix B6 - The calibration and validation of the Public Transport model focussing on the scheme was reported in South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route: Public Transport Model Validation Report (September 2009); Appendix B7 - The Development of the Base Year Demand Model Matrices Report (July 2009) presents the detail of how the demand model tour matrices were built; Appendix B8 - The Demand Model Development Report (July 2009) contains details of the calibration and validation of the demand model; Appendix B9 - Forecasting Report (July 2009) sets out the outcomes of applying TEMPRO growth to produce a 2013 forecast model. This has been superseded by a forecasting report that covers the production of the core scenario for the business case; Appendix B10 - The Sheffield and Rotherham Bus Rapid Transit - Stated Preference Research Report (February 2008) covers the estimation of mode constants and invehicle time factors for bus, tram, and Bus Rapid Transit; Appendix B11 - The Model Data Collection Report (March 2009) contains details of surveys and other data collection undertaken; Appendix B12 - The Forecasting Report (March 2010) contains details of the approach applied to demand forecasting, covering the development of the core scenario, the growth forecasts from TEMPRO and NTM, and the future year assumptions about elements that the underpin the model such as values of time and vehicle operating costs; Appendix B13 MVA Responses to the queries from the DfT on the highway model, public transport model and demand model reports; Appendix B14 - contains Technical Note TN51, which details the approach and assumptions for Economic Appraisal using TUBA; South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 2.1

53 2 Supporting Documentation Appendix B15 - contains Technical Note TN50, which details the methodology for calculating Highway Reliability Benefits; Appendix B16 - provides graphs of BRT patronage by stop for the Core Scenario and all sensitivity tests for the three key time periods and for both forecast years; Appendix B17 provides highway network plots for the do minimum reference case, the Core Scenario and all sensitivity tests for the three key time periods and for both forecast years; Appendix B18 - shows the COBA link types used for the network accident benefit calculations; Appendix B19 - provides the TUBA input scheme files and output files for the Preferred Scheme and Low Cost Alternative; Appendix B20 - provides COBA output files for both the Preferred Scheme and Low Cost Alternative by time period and for each forecast year; Appendix B21 includes an analysis of TUBA warnings; Appendix B22 - included sectoral analysis of benefits; Appendix B23 - WITA Inputs and Outputs; Appendix B24 - Delays during construction and maintenance; Appendix B25 - SDI Analysis; Appendix B26 - Run-time model validation reports; Appendix B27 - Weekend and off-peak Benefits; and Appendix B28 Specific modelling queries. South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 2.2

54 3 Modelling and Forecasting Approach 3.1 Introduction The scheme has been modelled in the Sheffield and Rotherham Transport Model Version 3 (SRTM3). The model remains broadly the same as the one used to support the major scheme bid for the scheme. It has been updated with the latest values of time and vehicle operating costs from TAG The appraisal has been undertaken using demand forecasts driven by background growth in TEMPRO 6.2, using TUBA version 1.8 and COBA This chapter outline only the key features of the model. However, a wealth of supporting documentation has been provided in the appendices to this document. 3.2 Modelling Overview Study and Modelled Areas The extent of the model can be seen in Figure 4.1, which presents the links used in the highway model on a geographic background. The scheme itself can be seen in pink, the area of detailed junction based modelling (simulation) is shown with green links, which cover the districts of Sheffield and Rotherham in their entirety. Within this area, the model includes every motorway, A Road, B Road and C Road, with a selection of unclassified roads included to ensure that every road used by buses is modelled. Outside the study area, the network representation includes only the main roads, and they are represented with link based buffer coding, which is shown in orange in the figure. South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 3.1

55 3 Modelling and Forecasting Approach Figure 4.1 Modelled Highway Network Demand Model The SRTM3 model comprises a multi-modal demand model linked to a Citilabs CUBE Voyager public transport model and a SATURN highway model. The public transport model uses identical highway links to the highway model and all three models use the same zone system The form of the demand model is summarised below. Modes The demand model represents three main modes: Car - The SATURN highway model also represents light goods vehicles and other goods vehicles; PT The Voyager assignment model deals with sub-mode choice (bus, heavy rail and light rail are included in the base model); and Walk / Cycle Additionally, the demand model considers park and ride as a sub-mode of public transport. Journey Purposes The demand model represents seven journey purposes, exceeding the minimum segmentation set out in DfT Transport Appraisal Guidance (web-based TAG or WebTAG): Home-based Work; Home-based Employer s Business; Home-based Education; Home-based Shopping; Home-based Other; Non-Home-based Employers Business; and Non-home-based Other. Hierarchy The demand model uses a hierarchical logit model running in incremental form, using the standard hierarchy recommended in WebTAG, presented below in order of increasing sensitivity to travel change costs: Macro time of day; Mode choice; Destination choice; and Micro time of day. South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 3.2

56 3 Modelling and Forecasting Approach The model does not need to include trip frequency in the logit model hierarchy because it includes walk/cycle as a main mode choice. The route choice demand response is considered separately for highway and public transport (PT) within the highway model and PT models and is effectively a higher level of sensitivity to cost changes than the choices considered in the demand model. Time Periods The model considers all weekday travel between 0700 and 2300 in nine distinct travel time periods (TPs) which cover over 93% of all journeys made in a day: TP1: pre morning peak hour ( ); TP2: morning peak hour ( ); TP3: post morning peak hour ( ); TP4: inter peak period 1 (1000 to 1300); TP5: inter peak period 2 (1300 to 1600); TP6: pre evening peak hour ( ); TP7: evening peak hour ( ); TP8: post evening peak hour ( ); and TP9: off-peak period ( ) The model represents all home-based demand as tours, which link the outbound and return legs of the journeys. The nine time periods yield forty-five allowable combinations of outbound and return time period (trips must return home later in the day than they leave home). Income Levels The demand model segments travellers according to three levels of household income for each journey purpose except employer s business: Low (less than 25k in 2002 prices, and 2008 values); Medium ( 25k- 48k); and High (more than 48k). Car Ownership Levels The demand model considers levels of household car ownership: Car owning; and Non-car-owning. Realism Tests The demand model parameters are defined to produce fuel price and PT fare elasticities from the WebTAG realism tests within the specified range. The parameters used in the demand model produced the elasticities listed in Table 3.1 in the realism tests. WebTAG does not South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 3.3

57 3 Modelling and Forecasting Approach specify recommended ranges for each journey purpose, only the ranges across journey purposes set out in the table s footnotes): Table 3.1 Elasticities in the realism tests Journey Purpose Fuel Price Elasticity PT Fare Elasticity Home-based Work Home-based Employer s business Home-based Education Home-based Shopping Home-based Other Non-homebased Employer s Business Non-homebased Other Notes: Overall Elasticities reported for journeys to/from/within the study area; WebTAG suggests that the overall fuel prices elasticity should lie in the range to -0.35, with individual purposes having elasticity values between -0.1 and -0.4 with the lower end of the range being appropriate for commute, employer s business and education; WebTAG suggests that the overall fare elasticity should lie in the range -0.4 to -0.6, with individual purposes having elasticity values between -0.2 and To achieve the target elasticities the model has used some parameters drawn from outside the illustrative range presented in WebTAG. The DfT has asked for a sensitivity test on the impact of adjusting the parameters to within the illustrative range and the outputs from this are presented in Chapter 11. Values from outside the illustrative range were needed to South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 3.4

58 3 Modelling and Forecasting Approach reproduce a minimum PT fare elasticity of -0.4, but the Department has subsequently advised that an elasticity in the range -0.2 to -0.9 would be acceptable. PT Sub-Model The public transport sub-model was built from transport surveys undertaken between Spring and Autumn 2007 in Sheffield city centre, Rotherham town centre and at Meadowhall. Surveys were undertaken at the rail stations and bus interchanges in all three locations. In Sheffield city centre, additional surveys were undertaken at tram stops and at all the bus stops in the central area The PT model validates well against the criteria provided in the WebTAG and is therefore considered a robust tool for testing public transport schemes. The validation of the model has been carried out following the guidance given in WebTAG and is reported in the PT Local Model Validation Report (LMVR) for the whole model and the focused LMVR for the Rotherham-Sheffield corridor. A summary of the findings of this report are set out as follows: The network and lines files have been validated to show that they reflect the public transport supply, modelled bus journey times replicate observed times, modelled bus vehicle flows match observed flows and modelled route choice is reasonable; Matrix validation checks suggest that demand matrices are of the right order of magnitude; Model validation, following matrix estimation, satisfies the criteria for public transport model validation laid out in WebTAG. The model validates well in terms of bus occupancies, Supertram occupancies and the number of passengers entering and leaving rail stations and the matrix estimation process has resulted in only relatively minor changes to the distribution of demand Guidelines in WebTAG suggest that modelled flows on screenlines should be within 15% of the observed counts. The model achieves this guideline for 100% of bus, train, and tram screenlines for every time period. The guidelines suggest individual flows should be within 25% of the observed flow, if the flow is above 250. The model achieves this for every tram and train count in every time period and achieves it for between 92% and 96% of bus counts, depending on the time period. A model is considered to validate adequately if the percentage of modelled flows within 15% of observed values exceeds 85% The model includes in-vehicle time factors split by public transport sub-mode estimated from a stated preference (SP) experiment. The SP exercise calibrated values relative to bus (ie bus set to 1.0) and for implementation in the model they have been rebased to tram (ie tram set to 1.0), yielding factors of 1.28 for bus and 1.18 for the Bus Rapid Transit being proposed. These values are very similar to values produced independently in a similar SP exercise in Birmingham. Highway Sub-Model The highway sub-model has been built from surveys carried out between 2005 and It includes data from 106 roadside interview surveys sites and approximately 2,200 traffic counts. It has been built following the WebTAG guidance and the robustness of the model is demonstrated through: South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 3.5

59 3 Modelling and Forecasting Approach Comparison of modelled and observed flows: The correlation between modelled and observed flows is good for all time periods and user classes, with the number of links with a GEH value less than 5 falling just short of the stringent 85% level noted in the guidance. The R-squared value, showing the match between modelled and observed counts, is greater than 0.97 in all time periods; Comparison of modelled and observed journey times: Journey-time validation is satisfactory in the morning and evening peaks, although the inter-peak is less satisfactory due to limitations with the data; Inspection of routes between key areas in the model: Analysis of origin-destination routes between key centres shows that the routes taken by traffic through the network are logical; Description of the processes used to build the model: A thorough description of the network and matrix building process is provided, highlighting the tasks that have been undertaken to ensure the underlying data behind the model is accurate and robust The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), and the new guidance, set out different criteria for comparison of modelled and observed flows depending on the magnitude of the flows. Its main guideline is that 85% or more flows pass the criteria. Against the set of 2,200 counts used in calibration, the model performs well, with flows in all time periods passing the guidelines. For the morning peak, inter-peak and evening peaks respectively 88%, 92% and 89% of flows pass the DMRB guidelines. Against the independent counts, the model performs less well with the percentage passing the DMRB guidelines in the three time periods being 51%, 68%, and 46% respectively For journey times the DMRB requires that 85% of modelled times be within 15% of observed times (or 1 minute if greater). The SRTM3 model performs adequately, falling just short of the preferred DMRB standard in the morning and evening peak periods. In both the morning and evening peak 81% of routes pass the DMRB criteria The validation is good along the BRT corridor. Both the count and journey time validation along the route is good, enabling us to confidently use the model to appraise future transport interventions. Forecasting Forecasts have been prepared for 2015, the projected opening year of the scheme, and 2030, a design year 15 years after opening. The forecasts have been developed following the guidance in WebTAG Unit Reflecting the current guidance, the appraisal has been carried out using a core scenario to represent what is most likely to happen. The core scenario includes all transport schemes and land use developments that are categorised as near certain or more than likely in the uncertainty log. The uncertainty logs for transport schemes and land-use developments are presented amongst the appendices of the Forecasting Report, which itself forms Appendix B10 of this document. The developments in 2015 amount to roughly 450,000 square metres of retail, office, and industrial floorspace and 10,000 dwellings; in 2030 they sum to 750,000 square metres and 17,000 dwellings. There is opportunity for a significant part of this growth to be located in the Lower Don Valley and surrounding Rotherham-Sheffield corridor. South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 3.6

60 3 Modelling and Forecasting Approach The core scenario forecasts have been controlled to match TEMPRO 6.2 growth by mode. Within Sheffield and Rotherham, growth has been applied by individual TEMPRO zone. In the rest of South (Barnsley and Doncaster), growth has been applied at district level. Beyond that growth has been applied at average UK level. In the study area, car growth to 2015 is about 5% and to 2030 it is about 17%. Public transport demand grows by about 3% and 5% over the same periods. This is rather less car growth than in TEMPRO version 5.4, which was used for the major scheme business case submission. It also represents a reversal of the trend for the public transport usage, which was previously forecast to decline by roughly the same percentage that it is now forecast to increase The appraisal includes a number of sensitivity tests, including both a low and high growth scenario, developed using the new guidance. 3.3 Representing the Scheme in the Model The proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) ern Route connects the centres of Rotherham and Sheffield with each other and to existing and proposed developments in the Lower Don Valley. It will provide residents of the region access to jobs in the corridor and the urban centres and provide the capacity to allow the next phase of developments in the Lower Don Valley to be completed, it is estimated that up to 5,900 jobs will be unlocked by the scheme. BRT will provide a fast, efficient and sustainable public transport link by means of a series of infrastructure improvements and a limited stop BRT service with high quality vehicles and passenger facilities. It also provides benefits for existing bus services along the route and highway improvements for all users, particularly at Junction 34 (South) of the M The main features of the scheme are as follows: A new highway link under the M1 (named Tinsley Link ) between Meadowhall Way and Sheffield Road incorporating high levels of priority for public transport. This will provide highway capacity to allow development with existing consents to be built out as well as for future developments. It also helps relieve congestion at Junction 34 (South) of the M1. BRT priorities at congested sections of the route (i.e. the approaches to Rotherham town centre; Ickles roundabout; Attercliffe Road; Arena Square); Revised junction layouts and traffic signal control with intelligent detection to provide BRT priority at junctions; Signal improvements and minor highway works to reduce delays and to support BRT priorities (Bow Bridge and Westgate, Rotherham; Carbrook; Attercliffe); Frequent and reliable BRT service; High quality, low emission vehicles with capacity to provide a high-volume rapid transit network; Purpose-built stops, providing a high quality waiting environment, coupled with realtime passenger information and off-vehicle ticketing. All the BRT priorities will be available to other bus services provided they meet certain standards. Most of the highway alterations give benefits to all road users. South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 3.7

61 3 Modelling and Forecasting Approach A more detailed description of the route for BRT is included in the Strategic Case The modelling and appraisal has been used to help develop and refine the Preferred Scheme so that the optimum value for money can be demonstrated from the proposals Journey times for the BRT scheme have been coded with run-times derived from a run-time model developed by Arup. The run-time model estimates run-time for BRT from the congested highway journey times and the boarding alighting time per passenger. To produce very accurate estimates of the effectiveness of bus priority measures it takes highway journey times from an AIMSUN micro-simulation model. The micro-simulation model covers the route from Sheffield City Centre to Meadowhall. From Meadowhall to Rotherham, run-time estimates are derived from and spreadsheet model which takes journey times directly from the SATURN model and other observed data sources to estimate BRT run times. The development of the run-time model and its forecasts are documented in Appendix B The run-time model and demand model cannot be batched together each takes many days to complete. But the two were run iteratively and very quickly produced stable results. The criterion for stopping the process was achieving successive run-times that vary by less than 1 minute since the public transport model uses journey times in whole number of minutes The BRT run-times set out in Table 3.2 used in the core scenario. Table 3.2 BRT Run-times from Rotherham to Sheffield Morning Peak Inter-Peak Evening Peak 2015 BRT Bus Rail Car BRT Bus Rail Car The components of the scheme were tested fully in the strategic model. The main elements of the scheme coded in to the model are as given in Table 2.1 and summarised as follows: South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 3.8

62 3 Modelling and Forecasting Approach BRT priorities at approaches to Rotherham town centre; Ickles roundabout; M1 Junction 34 south, Attercliffe Road; Arena Square; Signal improvements and minor highway works to support BRT priorities (which capture the disbenefits of the BRT priority measures to highway users) at Bow Bridge and Westgate, Rotherham; Carbrook; Attercliffe; New highway link (the Tinsley Link) between Meadowhall Way and Sheffield Road beneath the Tinsley Viaduct, incorporating priorities for BRT; Limited stop BRT service every ten minutes through all time periods Fares for the BRT service have been set to match current bus fares. The other potential comparator fare is Supertram but the Supertram fares are no more expensive than bus fares in fact the weekly tickets are cheaper than the bus equivalents BRT capacities have been set at 41 seating capacity and 75 crush capacity. These are the same as the capacities applied to single deck buses. The equivalent capacities for doubledeck buses are 74 and 88, and for Supertram they are 88 and 240. South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 3.9

63 4 The BAFB Appraisal Framework 4.1 Changes to WebTAG Since the major scheme business case bid document was submitted in March 2009 there have been a large number of TAG updates. The main changes in this update are: updated treatment of uncertainty in model forecasting. new guidance on variable demand. new 2011 budget forecasts observed and forecast changes in GDP. changes in values of carbon. changes to treatment of scheme costs. changed the treatment of indirect tax impacts so that an increase is an increase to benefits rather than reduction of costs. reporting changes: Commuting and other purposes to be disaggregated. Journey time impacts to be reported by size of impact. New social and distributional impacts of transport intervention guidance. 4.2 Changes to DfT Software New versions of TEMPRO (6.2) and TUBA (1.8) have been issued for the BAFB. South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 4.1

64 5 Economic Impacts to Business 5.1 Introduction Economic Impacts have been estimated using the DfT software TUBA version 1.8, taking inputs from the multi-modal model SRTM3. The assumptions used in TUBA are set out in Appendix B15, with weekends benefits calculated using the methodology in Appendix B27. A full set of worksheets for the appraisal are presented in Appendix B This chapter concerns only the elements of economic benefits that accrue to business. The overall welfare benefits to society are reported in Chapter 6, which covers social impacts. South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 5.1

65 5 Economic Impacts to Business 5.2 Business Users and Transport Providers Table 5.1 shows the Present Value of Benefits to Business users is 22.3m, made up from 36.5m benefits to travellers and 14.2m in operating costs and developer contributions. Table 5.1 Benefits to Business Users and Transport Providers Business Present Value ( in 2002 prices discounted to 2002) User benefits Travel time 32,180,956 Vehicle operating costs 4,626,350 User charges 0 During Construction & Maintenance -319,991 Subtotal 36,487,315 Private sector provider impacts Revenue 8,181,848 Operating costs -20,224,000 Investment costs -687,000 Grant/subsidy 0 Subtotal -12,729,152 Other business impacts Developer contributions -1,509,000 NET BUSINESS IMPACT 22,249, The travel time savings total 32.2m business users. Table 5.2 shows that around 75% of the benefits accrue to travellers saving less than 2 minutes of actual (ie unweighted) travel time. Around 95% of the benefits accrue to travellers saving less than 5 minutes. South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 5.2

66 5 Economic Impacts to Business Table 5.2 Value of Journey Time Savings to Business Users Value of Journey Time Changes Percentage ( m in 2002 prices) 0 to 2 mins mins to 5 mins More than 5 mins Total As can be seen in Table 5.3, about 7% of the benefits to business users accrue to public transport users, the rest accrues to highway users. Table 5.3 Value of Journey Time Savings to Business Users by Mode Value of Journey Time Changes Percentage ( m in 2002 prices) Public Transport Users Cars and LGV Goods Vehicles Total The DfT has asked us to report on what impact any assumptions about quality have on the appraisal. The quality of the BRT service is modelled through the use of an in-vehicle time penalty that has been estimated using a stated preference experiment. Quality is also represented by the crowding penalties applied to public transport services. To estimate the impacts of the quality elements we have re-run TUBA removing the in-vehicle time factors and crowding penalties As can be seen in Table 5.4, this analysis shows that only 1% of the business travel time benefits arise from the assumptions about quality. South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 5.3

67 5 Economic Impacts to Business Table 5.4 Quality Element of the Travel Time Saving Benefits Element of the Benefits Value of Journey Time Changes ( m in 2002 prices) Percentage Quality Element Total Reliability Impacts on Business Users The reliability sub-objective seeks to monetise benefits of a scheme that arise from reducing the journey time variability. The methods for appraising reliability are presented in TAG Unit (April 2009) TAG sets out different methods for appraising reliability benefits for public transport and private vehicle transport. For public transport, the method focuses on rail. So for BRT, the appraisal is necessarily qualitative. The scheme includes a number of components that would help to reduce journey time variability by avoiding traffic congestion. The route avoids the congested roundabouts at M1 Junction 34, taking a new route underneath the motorway. It includes segregated bus lanes and bus priority at traffic signals. Taken together these components will represent a noticeable improvement in travel time reliability for the 10,000 passengers forecast to use the service each day For private vehicle transport, TAG sets out a number of alternative methods for appraising reliability benefits. The most appropriate for BRT ern Route is set out in Annex B Highway Reliability in Urban Areas Approach. This method estimates benefits from the change in standard deviation of journey times expected to accompany a reduction in the mean journey time. Conveniently, it can be calculated in TUBA by supplying adjusted inputs, where the standard deviation of travel time is input in place of mean travel time. The method for achieving this is set out in Appendix B The results of the reliability impact assessment, indicating the value of benefits, are contained in Table 5.5. The reliability impacts are the equivalent of about 6% of the travel time benefits accruing to business users in the TEE table. Table 5.5 Present Value of Highway Reliability to Business Users Reliability Impacts ( million, 2002 prices, discounted to 2002) Business Users 1.9 South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 5.4

68 5 Economic Impacts to Business 5.4 Regeneration Regeneration impacts have been estimated using the guidance in TAG Unit (April 2011). Sheffield city council has designated the Lower Don Valley as a regeneration area. The analysis of regeneration impacts focuses on access to jobs in the area shown in Figure 5.1 Figure 5.1 Regeneration Area Boundary in the Lower Don Valley The method examines changes in the accessibility to jobs in the regeneration area, for workers in each zone. It employs a deterrence curve derived in the calibration of the gravity models developed to build the transport model matrices. It estimates the change in the number of workers able to access the employment area of the Lower Don Valley. As can be seen in Table 5.6, the scheme makes the regeneration area accessible by public transport for an additional 12,000 workers, an increase of 9%. It makes the regeneration accessible by road for an additional 1000 workers, an increase of about 0.5% South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 5.5

69 5 Economic Impacts to Business Table 5.6 Accessibility of the Workforce to Jobs in the Regeneration Area Mode Do-Min Do-Som Abs Diff %Diff Highway 224, , Public Transport 148, ,316 13, Wider Impacts The Wider Impacts sub-objective seeks to quantify economic impacts not fully captured in the cost-benefit analysis. The cost benefit analysis (CBA) fails to fully capture these impacts in two sets of circumstances. First, the CBA depends on the simplifying assumption of a perfectly competitive market, an assumption that is always violated in practice. Second, the impacts might not be evenly distributed across the population and even if there were no net gain at the national level it would be better to accrue gains in recognised regeneration areas It is the first set of circumstances that are considered in this section. The calculations have been carried out in accordance with the methodologies set out in TAG Units 2.8 and , using the WITA Software Version 1.1 Beta (released October 2009) with the parameters set out in the DfT s Wider Economic Impacts Data version 1.1 (released on 15 August 2011) The relevant impacts included in the appraisal are: Agglomeration - required for BRT as the scheme stands in one of the Functional Urban Regions defined in TAG 2.8 Annex B (the whole of Sheffield and Rotherham fall within a FUR); Imperfectly competitive markets required for BRT because the scheme costs are more than 20 million; Labour Supply Markets - required for BRT because the scheme costs are more than 20 million; and Move to more or less productive jobs not possible to calculate for BRT because the calculations require a full land-use transport interaction model The calculation of wider impacts has been undertaken using the latest version of the department s software WITA. The revised parameters take account of lower forecasts of employment following the current economic recession. The analysis has been restricted to Sheffield and Rotherham, an area with full coverage of supply and demand in the model. Within this area the calculation of effective density will be valid. Summary of Wider Impacts The overall contribution of wider impacts is estimated at 6.5m, as can be seen in Table 5.7. South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 5.6

70 5 Economic Impacts to Business Table 5.7 Summary of the Wider Impacts Wider Impact Present Value of Benefits ( million, in 2002 prices, discounted to 2002) Agglomeration 4.3 Imperfectly competitive markets 3.6 Impact on GDP of more people working -1.4 Total 6.5 Agglomeration Agglomeration measures the impact of clustering economic activity, where productivity gains arise because jobs and workers in an industry and related industries are brought closer together. Changes in transport costs can cluster or disperse economic activity even without a change in land use, and so an economic impact can occur that is not captured in the CBA As can be seen in Table 5.7, the agglomeration impacts raise the PVB of the Preferred Scheme by 4.3m, which represents an increase of 5% over the value of 92m in the standard Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) table Of the wider impacts, the Agglomeration benefits are the largest. Imperfectly Competitive Markets In TAG , the impact of imperfectly competitive markets is estimated at 10% of the impacts to businesses users. The business-user benefits were presented earlier in the Transport Economic Efficiency table. As can be seen in Table 4.7, the impact is to raise the PVB of the Preferred Scheme by 3.2 million, which represents an uplift of 2% on the overall PVB of the scheme. Table 5.8 Present Value of Output Change in Imperfectly Competitive Markets Characteristic Business User Benefits excluding freight ( million, 2002 prices, discounted to 2002) Output Change ( million, 2002 prices, discounted to 2002) Preferred Scheme Labour supply impact Transport costs will affect individuals decisions on whether to work and the calculation of labour supply impacts is concerned with estimating the additional value added to the South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 5.7

71 5 Economic Impacts to Business economy, resulting from transport improvements attracting people into work. calculation is done in three parts: The calculating how commuting costs change as a result of the scheme and how this will affect the benefit an individual obtains from working; calculating how the change in the benefit from working will impact on the overall amount of labour supplied; and calculating the additional national output produced by the new labour supplied As can be seen in Table 4.6 the impact is to reduce the PVB of the Preferred Scheme by 3.6 million, which represents 4% of the PVB. South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 5.8

72 6 Environmental Impacts 6.1 Introduction The appraisal reported in this section follows the guidance set out in web TAG. Assessments have been undertaken using a seven-point scale (strong beneficial to strong adverse) or a monetised value (for some economic impacts and accident savings). The Appraisal Summary Table is presented in Appendix B Environmental Constraints in the area are shown in Figure 6.1 Figure 6.1 Environmental Constraints Map 6.2 Noise In accordance with Tag Unit 3.3.2, noise has been estimated using the formulae in the Calculation of Road Traffic Noise report, using flows from the road traffic model. The method estimates the noise level at each postcode, classifies the noise level by 3dB bands and then estimate of the number of households in each noise level range is then into the Noise AST worksheet, which monetises the benefits (See Appendix B2) Although there is a net decrease in road traffic, re-routing causes flows on some roads to increase. This causes a slight increase in the number of people annoyed by traffic noise. The increases occur on two roads. One is St Lawrence Road, which runs through Tinsley joining Sheffield Road at the junction where the Tinsley Link joins Sheffield Road. The new arrangement improves travel conditions at this junction making St Lawrence a more South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 6.1

73 6 Environmental Impacts attractive route. The increase in annoyance arises because St Lawrence Road has more residents that the than the alternative route The other location where traffic noise increases is on Barrow Road in Wincobank, which lies on the opposite side of the Meadowhall shopping centre to the BRT route. This road provides a plausible route to the Tinsley Link from Sheffield City Centre The process forecasts around 110 people to be adversely affected by noise. For the most part these are small changes in sound levels that cause a location to shift from one of the 3db noise bands to the next higher. The net disbenefits arising from noise are 2.7m. South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 6.2

74 6 Environmental Impacts 6.3 Air Quality Air Quality has been estimated using the DMRB spreadsheet and the DfT worksheets. For both N0x and PM10 there are more winners than losers in In 2030 there are also more winners than losers and the gap is much wider. The result is a benefit of 0.4m in 2002 prices discounted to Table 6.1 Appraisal of Air Quality PM10 Winners Losers NOx Winners Losers Greenhouse Gases Greenhouse gas emissions have been modelled in TUBA Version 1.8. The forecast is for a reduction of 6320 tonnes of traded carbon over the 60 year appraisal with a reduction of 166 tonnes in the first year. This equates to a benefit of 1.0m in 2002 prices discounted to Landscape For most of the BRT s route it runs within the existing highway boundaries but a new road will be constructed to carry the BRT underneath the M1 motorway, avoiding the heavily congested roundabouts at M1 Junction The road will not worsen the landscape noticeably. It crosses the site of a former coal-fired power station, which had two 75m tall cooling towers until Even with the cooling towers removed, the landscape is dominated by the Tinsley viaduct, which carries the motorway for 1km, at a height of 20m above the valley floor. Adjacent to the power station site is the second largest sewage works in the UK The road will not worsen the tranquillity of the area significantly. It crosses underneath the M1, carrying less than one seventh of the flow on the motorway. It also runs close to the main passenger rail line connecting Sheffield to Barnsley, Doncaster, Leeds, and Rotherham The overall impact on landscape is considered to be neutral. South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 6.3

75 6 Environmental Impacts 6.6 Townscape Baseline conditions vary along the route, with a mix of uses and building styles. The works will have limited impact on the townscape as the scheme will not require the demolition or alteration of any existing buildings The overall impact on townscape is considered to be neutral. 6.7 Heritage of Historic Resources There are a range of historic resources within Sheffield and Rotherham, throughout the urban and semi-rural environment. Known historic resources within the vicinity of the scheme have been identified with assistance from SCC and RMBC Heritage Service and South Archaeology Service (SYAS) This shows that there are a number of listed buildings adjacent to the route. Much of the scheme will be located within existing highway boundaries and in areas where this is not the case there are not any significant buildings in the vicinity. There are no known archaeological remains in the area if any remains are discovered during construction, they will be conserved. Finds would delay construction only in the unlikely event that they are of major significance. Town Hall Conservation Area in Sheffield and Conservation Areas in Rotherham have been taken into consideration in developing the scheme. The main heritage and planning constraints in the area are shown in Figure 6.2. Figure 6.2 Heritage Resources The overall impact on heritage of historic resources is considered to be neutral South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 6.4

76 6 Environmental Impacts 6.8 Biodiversity The measure of biodiversity is an important indicator in sustainability and quality of life. Biodiversity within Sheffield and Rotherham varies greatly across the urban and adjacent rural environments The scheme is generally located within existing highway boundaries in an urban environment. In locations where this is not the case (the Tinsley Link) a separate species and biodiversity assessment will be completed as part of an Environmental Statement for the new highway and any required mitigation will be undertaken The overall impact on biodiversity is considered to be neutral. 6.9 Water Environment There are a number of watercourses in the Sheffield and Rotherham Districts and Sheffield is located at the confluence of five rivers: the Don, Sheaf, Rivelin, Loxley, and Porter. There are a number of tributaries to these as well as canals and natural and man made lakes. All of these, in addition to ground water form the water environment. Protection of these waters from pollution and uncontrolled alteration is an important environmental consideration for all new schemes Specific issues associated with flood risk and the impact on the water environment have been considered in relation to the Lower Don Valley. A separate assessment has already been undertaken in respect of the new highway link, the Tinsley Link as it cross the River Don close to the M1 motorway and Supertram alignment Some areas of Sheffield and Rotherham are located in flood plain and flooding is an issue in some areas. In June 2007 large areas of the Lower Don Valley were flooded when the River Don topped its banks. This flooding occurred in the vicinity of the scheme and the Meadowhall shopping centre suffered significant damage due to flooding. A map showing flood risk in the area of the Tinsley Link is shown as Figure 6.3. The design will take account of the water environment; however, no specific flood alleviation measures are proposed in the scheme design. The scheme is unlikely to increase levels of run off significantly as the addition of impermeable surfaces will be limited, this will mean that the scheme will not significantly increase flood risk in the area. South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 6.5

77 6 Environmental Impacts Figure 6.3 Flood Risk Map for Tinsley Link The overall impact on water environment is considered to be neutral. South Bus Rapid Transit ern Route 6.6