Archived decisions

Agenda Item 8

Report to the

Transport for South Hampshire Joint Committee

Date: 17 October 2008

Report by: Keith Willcox

tel: 01962 846997 email: [email protected]

Subject: South East Hampshire Bus Rapid Transit

Purpose of the Report

1. To set out details of the development of the South East Hampshire Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project.

2. To seek approval to submit a Full Business Case to the Department for Transport/Department for Communities and Local Government (DfT/DCLG) by 31 October for the first phase of the proposed BRT scheme between Fareham and Gosport.

3. To seek approval for Transport for South Hampshire (TfSH) appointing the County Council as `Lead Authority' on all aspects relating to Phase 1 of the BRT Scheme.

Recommendations

1. That Transport for South Hampshire appoint Hampshire County Council as `Lead Authority' on all aspects relating to the first phase (as described in the report) of the Bus Rapid Transit Scheme.

2. That approval be given to submit a Full Business Case to the Department for Transport/Department for Communities and Local Government by 31 October 2008 for the first phase of the proposed bus rapid transit scheme along the disused railway corridor between Fareham and Gosport and recommends final approval by Hampshire County Council as `Lead Authority'.

3. That in accordance with Government guidance, Transport for South Hampshire agree that any funding awarded will be paid to Hampshire County Council as `Lead Authority' for the first phase of the Bus Rapid Transit Scheme.

Introduction to South East Hampshire Bus Rapid Transit

1. The proposed BRT scheme is a major priority in South East Hampshire. This report highlights its development and the relevant funding issues leading to the preparation of a Full Business Case for submission to the DfT/DCLG by 31 October 2008.

South East Hampshire Bus Rapid Transit Scheme:

2. Following the decision of the Government not to fund the proposed South Hampshire Rapid Transit (SHRT) scheme, on 27 November 2006 the Cabinet agreed: -

(i) that the promoters of SHRT formally abandon the scheme following the Secretary of State's decision not to provide funding;

(ii) that the former railway alignment and connecting route between Gosport and Fareham be safeguarded for use as a transport corridor;

(iii) that the County Council completes the purchase by agreement of the former railway line between Fareham and Holbrook to protect it for its future use as a public transport link; and

(iv) that work proceeds on developing options for an affordable transit system for South East Hampshire including Fareham, Gosport and Portsmouth.

Following this decision all elements of the decision have been actioned.

3. The partnership TfSH was established in October 2007 as a delivery agency for South Hampshire to promote the sub-regional transport agenda, implement transport schemes of a sub-regional nature and lobby and/or influence on all other associated aspects within the TfSH Area.

4. In order to formalise the governance arrangements of TfSH the County Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council entered into a Joint Management Agreement dated 3June 2008 with the intention of codifying the governance arrangements for TfSH. The Agreement records the intentions of the three parties to work together as partners within local government legislation in a common way to achieve shared objectives. The Agreement does not form nor infer any legal partnership of the three authorities for the purposes of the Partnership Act 1890.

5. Following the consideration and validation of those schemes deemed as having the greatest prospect of attracting public funding, an indicative investment programme for South Hampshire for the period 2009-26 was established. This was approved by the TfSH Joint Committee on 14 April 2008 as part of the 'Towards Delivery' Statement, and sets out those packages and schemes which may be suitable for regional support.

6. Eight packages of interventions were assembled for submission to the 2008 Regional Funding Allocation refresh for prioritisation at a regional level for funding:

(i) Access to the sub-region;

(ii) Eastern access to Southampton (including the North/North East Hedge End SDA);

(iii) Access in South East Hampshire including the North Fareham SDA (this package includes the BRT scheme);

(iv) Access to the South Hampshire Strategic Employment Zone and associated rail improvement;

(v) Access to Tipner;

(vi) Strategic Traffic Management;

(vii) Developing the Evidence Base;

(viii) Schemes identified through the LDF process.

7. Work has taken place to identify initial feasibility options for a viable, integrated public transport system in South East Hampshire. A range of public transport options have been considered taking into account compliance with the South East Plan, value for money, deliverability, ability to unlock housing growth, the potential to improve economic competitiveness and the need to address the accessibility issues in Gosport and Portsmouth. The transport options were considered in the context of the need to achieve the following key objectives:

(i) to provide a high specification, innovative, frequent, reliable, rapid bus service as an alternative form of transport to the private car in South East Hampshire; and

(ii) to connect key towns and existing key destinations and transport interchanges in the area, including Gosport, Fareham, Portsmouth, the Queen Alexandra Hospital, Port Solent, Havant, Waterlooville, Segensworth and Whiteley, with proposed new development sites including North Fareham Strategic Development Area and Tipner and the existing transport asset, namely the A3 Zip Priority Corridor.

8. The BRT scheme has been identified as the scheme most likely to meet the criteria identified above as part of the wider investment programme. Feasibility studies have been targeted at providing a BRT system involving an extensive network of high quality routes and services which will offer local residents substantially improved public transport services and provide easier access to employment, shopping, education, healthcare and other major destinations.

9. Figure 1 attached to this report identifies a broad route network for the whole BRT scheme covering South East Hampshire. Being a bus-based scheme it has the advantage of being able to combine on-street and off-street running. Figure 2 also attached to this report details the first phase of the scheme which will connect Gosport to Fareham via the disused railway corridor, providing passengers with the ability to avoid the adverse effects of traffic congestion and delays along the A32 and Quay Street Roundabout. It is anticipated that the majority of the remainder of the overall scheme will be on-street taking advantage of priority measures where appropriate and potentially a section of hard shoulder running along the motorway, subject to further evaluation and the necessary approvals with the Highways Agency.

Funding and Delivering BRT:

10. The BRT scheme has the benefit of being able to be progressed incrementally and therefore development and delivery will be phased to maximise the availability of both public and private sector funding and other opportunities as they arise. Initial outline cost estimates for an overall scheme indicate that at least £175 million will be required to deliver this major transport project in its entirety.

11. An Expression of Interest (supported by GOSE, DfT, SEEDA and SEERA) was submitted in April 2008 by TfSH, for £20 million of Community Infrastructure Funding (CIF) to deliver the first phase of the scheme. This first phase focuses on the Fareham Gosport section of the network comprising the delivery of an off-road bus way along the section of the disused railway line between Redland Lane in Fareham and Tichborne Way in Gosport and as such will begin to address existing problems related to accessibility and congestion. This bid was short-listed by the Government in July 2008 and subsequently TfSH was invited to submit a Full Business Case proposal by 31 October 2008.

12. Further key milestones can be summarised as follows:

Submission of Full Business Case 31 October 2008

Government decision on CIF award February 2009

Pre-application public consultation March 2009

Planning Application submission May 2009

Planning Application decision Sept 2009

Tender process Jun 2009-Feb 2010

13. In accordance with DCLG guidance, the award of CIF funding will be paid to the County Council as the `Lead Authority' for the first phase of the BRT, TfSH has also submitted a separate funding bid of £72 million to the South East Regional Funding Allocation for the period 2016-18 to support the development and delivery of further phases of this major scheme.

South East Hampshire Bus Rapid Transit Full Business Case

14. The Business Case has been prepared in a format so that it complies with CIF Round 2 Full Business Case Guidance issued by the DfT in August 2008. It makes a good case for the development of a bus rapid transit scheme and that the award of £20 million of CIF funding is essential to enable the first phase of the scheme to proceed.

15. This requires that the scheme is described in terms of how it fits within the overall public transport strategy for the South East Hampshire area, details of the strategic setting and content of the scheme and the problems and issues it is seeking to address and what alternatives were considered.

16. The Business Case also describes the governance arrangements for the scheme, the structure for delivering it and details the partnership arrangements.

17. Of particular importance is the section dealing with monetised costs and Benefits to Cost Ratio (BCR). The calculated BCR is considered to represent good value for a public transport scheme of this type. This monetary value assessment has been carried out for this first phase of the scheme in isolation. It is important to recognise that this is part of a much wider BRT network which as it is developed will contribute to even greater benefits for the South East Hampshire area.

18. The Government's "New Approach to Appraisal" (NATA) sets out the principles which are to be used in the assessment of all transport schemes which in broad terms requires an assessment against the five core Government objectives for transport, eg:

(i) environment;

(ii) safety;

(iii) economy;

(iv) accessibility;

(v) integration.

19. The Business Case demonstrates that the first phase of the BRT scheme contributes to a greater or lesser extent to each of these objectives resulting in an overall beneficial impact.

20. A significant part of the Business Case relates to Risk Assessment. A comprehensive Risk Review Assessment has been undertaken and a Risk Register prepared. The principle risks identified relate to:

(i) meeting the programme;

(ii) design and information requirements;

(iii) construction arrangements and impacts;

(iv) costings;

(v) impact on the existing highway network;

(vi) objections to the scheme.

21. Tasks to be undertaken as part of a Response Plan to address and mitigate the identified risks are identified in the Risk Register. The key response tasks involve:

(i) early and effective communication and liaison with the Client, Statutory Undertakers and other key stakeholders;

(ii) early more detailed site investigations as part of detailed design;

(iii) an effective consultation strategy;

(iv) clear methods for addressing statutory processes;

(v) adequate construction supervision and management.

The risks and costings will be regularly reviewed and updated during detailed design and construction, with formal reviews at key stages.

22. A quantitative risk assessment (QRA) has been undertaken in accordance with CIF guidance. This has identified mean risk costs as £1.64 million, which is included in the overall scheme cost estimates, again as required by the CIF guidance.

23. The outcome of this Business Case submission will be reported to a future meeting of this Joint Committee.

Key Issues:

24. Scheme Benefits

(i) Due to the nature of the BRT scheme and the deliverables identified below the key advantage of this scheme is that it will enable TfSH on behalf of the County Council to tap into a significant source of funding which otherwise would not be available. If successful the bid for CIF funding will secure £20 million additional grant funding to the existing capital programme.

(ii) Improvements to the public transport network remain essential in South East Hampshire. The highway network is constrained by geographical location, existing infrastructure, restricted access and egress, peak hour capacity problems and lack of viable opportunities to improve the situation. In addition it is recognised that improvements are urgently required in order for planned growth to take place and also to adequately cater for existing and additional travel demand. BRT will help reduce traffic flows on routes into and out of the capacity restrained Gosport Peninsula and Portsea Island.

(iii) The BRT scheme will assist in increasing the economic competitiveness in South Hampshire. The scheme will improve access to existing and proposed employment sites particularly at North Fareham, Gosport Waterfront as well as town and city centre areas.

(iv) Ultimately the BRT scheme will directly benefit 100,000 households (230,000 people) who currently live within 1km of the proposed wider scheme, by providing a viable, alternative means of transport to the car. A further 28,000 dwellings are planned to have been built along the route by 2026 (including 10,000 dwellings at the North of Fareham Strategic Development Area), bringing over 250,000 people within a 10 minute walk distance to the route.

(v) South Hampshire Bus Operators Association (SHBOA) are offering support from an operational side for the project in terms of both the early phases and the wider scheme and are keen to help deliver a high specification service to meet the existing and predicted demand from the local market. TfSH will set a quality standards threshold for subsequent use by operators.

(vi) The BRT scheme will improve public transport access to tertiary education and health services in particular it will provide direct access to the Queen Alexandra Hospital.

(vii) The BRT scheme can be developed and implemented in a phased manner as and when funding opportunities arise which is important for the visibility of scheme progress being made on the ground.

(viii) The BRT scheme will provide public transport access to both proposed employment and housing development and is significant in transport infrastructure terms on a sub-regional scale hence it has the ability to attract money from different funding sources eg CIF (Community Infrastructure Fund) directly related to unlocking housing growth, NGP (New Growth Point) funding from DCLG to growth areas and RFA (Regional Funding Allocation) via approval from the Regional Transport Board.

Key Scheme Risks

25. Whilst there are many benefits relating to such a project, and mitigation can be employed to minimise risks it is important to highlight key areas as follows:

Legal, Planning and Governance -

(i) a Planning Application will be made in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 Act (as amended). A Transport and Works Act Order is not appropriate for an unguided bus scheme. This approach has been discussed with and is supported by Gosport Borough Council and Fareham Borough Council as the respective local planning authorities.

(ii) in the absence of a confirmed Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) the ability to acquire all third party interests, including any possessory titles, by agreement and within project timescales cannot be guaranteed. Furthermore until the full extent of the scheme is identified and the route is cleared of vegetation and growth it is impossible to definitely state whether a CPO Order will have to obtained. To avoid any delays and to minimise any potential risks the CPO process will therefore be commenced at the same time as the Planning Application is submitted to the County Council. However even if land can be acquired by way of legal agreement it is highly probable that a CPO will still be applied for to secure the land. In the event any negotiations proved unsuccessful and agreement not reached, then the County Council would still be able to secure ownership of the land as secured in the CPO and time would have not been lost.

(iii) it would appear that some land to be acquired may be open space, and if that is indeed the case that will have additional legal time consequences.

(iv) if objections are raised in respect of any of the above matters then this would represent a major risk to the delivery programme being constructed and completed within the required timescale

Financial - There are a number of financial risks relating to the early phases in particular:

(i) current advice specifies that the CIF funding if awarded will only be available until March 2011. If the delivery programme runs over this deadline there maybe a potential liability. Work is currently progressing to identify how any potential financial shortfall and therefore liability as a result of not completing the project by March 2011 can be resolved by being able to access additional public funding sources, such as RFA underspend and the possible realignment of PUSH NGP capital funds.

(ii) in addition if the scheme costs were to escalate and exceed the award value of £20 million, then again there may be a potential financial liability in meeting any shortfall.

(iii) it is essential that further preparatory legal and development works continue following the submission of the Full Business Case in October and the planned announcement of successful bids in February 2009. It should be recognised that the cost of such work will be at risk until the planned announcement of successful bids which is due in February 2009. 50% of scheme development costs incurred can be reclaimed from Government.

(iv) it is highly likely that there may be compensatory claims pursuant to Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 arising from the use (but not the construction) of the BRT scheme works. These claims may be in respect of the noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, artificial lightning and/or the discharge of any solid or liquid substance. However no claim can be made until one year after the BRT scheme has been opened but claims may be received for up to seven years from completion of the works. This aspect potentially has significant financial implications but cannot be included as part of, the CIF 2 allocation

(v) if a CPO is obtained there may be additional compensation claims from owners of property subject to the CPO seeking the loss in value of their homes and additionally, any reasonable expenses or losses to a trade or business incurred as a direct result of the CPO.

(vi) In addition to the above it is possible that there may be compensation claims in respect of planning blight.

Programming and Resource Management Ongoing work is taking place to finalise a delivery programme which is achievable and is in accordance with DCLG requirements. This again will be informed by the ongoing discussions with DCLG and DfT as referred to earlier in this report. In order that the BRT scheme can be progressed it is essential that adequate resources are in place to ensure all work streams are progressed in accordance with scheme timetables.

Progress:

26. Design - Engineering design is being progressed for the first phase of the BRT scheme along the disused railway corridor, concentrating upon the interfaces with the existing highway network, services, public utilities and drainage aspects. The scheme will commence at the junction with Redlands Lane and continue south along the disused railway corridor as far as Tichborne Way. Design work and cost estimates are underway to define these issues. Site clearance is required to enable topographical and geotechnical surveys to be undertaken to inform the design process, this work cannot be undertaken until the completion of ecological surveys in the autumn and timing will need to be agreed to fit in with track removal.

27. Traffic - The necessary traffic appraisal process requires robust traffic modelling to enable forecasting and option testing to be undertaken. This work informed the Traffic Appraisal for the Full Business Case and also provided the data required for cost benefit analysis and noise calculations. The work was required for the submission of the Full Business Case on 31 October, however further modelling and traffic appraisal work will be required to support the Planning Application in spring 2009.

28. Environment - Environmental issues have been covered as part of the Full Business Case work. A Full EIA is unlikely to be required for the early phases of BRT and Screening is underway to identify with statutory bodies what aspects should be covered to accompany the Planning Application. Current guidance suggests that an Appropriate Assessment will be required with reference to the Portsmouth Harbour Special Protection Area; however this is unlikely to be an issue due to the limited impact on the reasons for designation. Ecological surveys have been completed.

29. Operational - South Hampshire Bus Operators Association are providing impartial advice throughout the project development and design process and fully support the scheme. Operational Design work on the wider scheme is also underway. The remit includes linking BRT in with numerous strategic development projects including Tipner, QA hospital, Fareham SDA etc. Close liaison with Borough and City Councils will form part of this study.

30. Marketing and Consultation - Public consultation on the scheme was held on 16/17/18 October 2008 to gauge public support and to identify any specific issues that may need addressing. The feedback from this initial consultation will be orally reported at this meeting. Marketing and branding work has been commissioned for the wider BRT project and the development of a premium image is seen as a priority. This work informed the public consultation that took place in October and also included e-consultation and web-communication.

31. Programme - detailed work has been undertaken in order to compress the construction period as much as possible whilst taking full notice of due processes (planning, CPO, procurement etc) and potential risks.

32. An estimate of October 2011 to complete construction has been the basis of the full business core work. However, if an early decision form DCLG happened and early contractor engagement was possible, then the construction end date would be earlier in 2011.

Outline of Options for the First Phase of the BRT Scheme:

33. A full range of scheme options has been considered over recent years including: heavy rail, trams or light rapid transit, trolley buses; guided buses, off-street bus corridors; on-street bus priority; improved conventional bus services and do nothing.

34. The viability of heavy rail, trams or light rapid transit, trolley buses and guided buses have been discounted in terms of deliverability due to significant cost and risk issues and also the fact that proposals for SHRT were formally abandoned in November 2006, following the Secretary of State's decision not to provide funding. Off-street bus corridors are also discounted in terms of the wider network due to limited opportunities however are put forward for the disused railway corridor from Gosport to Fareham.

35. On the basis of a consideration of possible options for an integrated public transport system for South East Hampshire, a rapid bus transit scheme, primarily based on-street together with an off-street bus priority corridor in the Gosport Peninsula along the disused railway corridor, has been identified as the preferred way forward.

Option 1:

Proposals for a high specification BRT scheme are now being progressed as the preferred solution to improve access to and from the Gosport and Portsmouth Peninsulas.

Option 2:

Quality Bus Partnership proposals for access to the Peninsulas will be progressed in tandem with the BRT proposal where appropriate but are not being progressed as the priority option as these measures will not secure the journey time savings or potential benefits of the proposed off and on-road BRT.

Conclusions

The availability of the Community Infrastructure Funding has allowed for an opportunistic submission of a Business Case for £20 million of additional external funding. Although the overall scheme will need to be developed incrementally as funding opportunities arise and there are inevitably risks associated with developing such a major scheme these need to be countered against the potential regional benefits that can be accrued from investment at this scale. If successful the bid will provide the ability for significant capital investment over and above that which can be secured via more traditional funding sources. This report seeks approval to submit the Full Business Case for the first phase of the proposed wider BR and seeks approval for TfSH appointing the County Council as `Lead Authority' on all aspects relating to Phase 1.

Summary Recommendations:

1. That Transport for South Hampshire appoint Hampshire County Council as `Lead Authority' on all aspects relating to the first phase (as described in the report) of the Bus Rapid Transit Scheme.

2. That approval be given to submit a Full Business Case to the Department of Transport/Department for Communities and Local Government by 31 October 2008 for the first phase of the proposed bus rapid transit scheme along the disused railway corridor between Fareham and Gosport and recommends final approval by Hampshire County Council as `Lead Authority'.


Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:

1. Published	works.

2.	Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

TITLE LOCATION

None

1803Rpt/KW

This content is archived

Agenda Item 8