RFA Seminar PackageOptions051205

Developing Regional Transport Funding Priorities for the East Midlands Region: 

Developing Regional Transport Funding Priorities for the East Midlands Region

Overview of the Method  Neil Chadwick Steer Davies Gleave: 

Overview of the Method Neil Chadwick Steer Davies Gleave

The Staged Approach to Prioritisation: 

The Staged Approach to Prioritisation Develop an Assessment Method Apply the Assessment Method to a long list of schemes Then, prioritise schemes for RFA funding

Process: 

Process Project Management Group (PMG) Local Transport Authorities Highway Agency GOEM EMRA EMTAR

Development of the Method: 

Development of the Method Informed by Best Practice Tailored to the specifics of the East Midlands Integrated Regional Strategy Regional Transport Strategy Regional Economic Strategy Regional Spatial Strategy PMG reviewed work at each stage

Key Issues: 

Key Issues Approach needs to consider many different types of schemes Local roads Trunk roads Bus schemes Rail schemes Behavioural change Approach needs to consider schemes of different stages of development Need to develop a process, not a one-off Total cost of all schemes considered as greater than available funding

Prioritisation Process: 

Prioritisation Process We have considered how well each scheme fits regional policy Based on pre-defined criteria, we have developed a number of potential packages But, selection of preferred packages remains a political decision

Review of existing methods : 

Review of existing methods East of England North West Yorkshire & Humber South East of England Surface Infrastructure of National Economic Importance (SINEI)

Overview of Existing Method: 

Overview of Existing Method Policy Fit Policy Fit, VfM and Deliverability EERA NWRA York & Humber RA SEERA National Economic / Spatial Objectives SINEI

Our method influenced by SINEI 2: 

Our method influenced by SINEI 2 SINEI Framework translates need for national economic growth into assessment criteria Allowed national scheme comparison SINEI 2 Environmental, social and economic policy fit Staged approach Second stage assessed deliverability and value for money

Long List of Transport Schemes in the East Midlands: 

Long List of Transport Schemes in the East Midlands List of 84 schemes provided by GOEM Includes LTA major schemes PT, roads and local rail improvements schemes not to be funded by the RFA but which might be a regional priority schemes identified in MMSs

Schemes split into 2 categories : 

Schemes split into 2 categories Category 1 Well developed schemes with costs and appraisal complete Funding bid prepared From a multi-modal strategy Otherwise well developed Only Category 1 schemes prioritised but periodic update gives scope for later inclusion Category 2 Schemes yet to progress beyond pre-feasibility/concept stage

Technical Assessment split into 2 Stages: 

Technical Assessment split into 2 Stages Stage 1 – Policy Fit All schemes (from Categories 1 & 2) assessed for their strategic policy fit Stage 2 - Deliverability Only Category 1 schemes assessed for deliverability Includes value for money assessment

Assessment Process: 

Assessment Process Scheme Category Assessment Stage 1 2

Application of the methodology : 

Application of the methodology Face to face meetings with scheme promoters Pro-forma questionnaire to gather information Pilot to demonstrate the method

Technical Assessment : 

Technical Assessment Stage 1 - Strategic policy fit assessed: scored against a series of policy tests core regional objectives T1 to T6 secondary and sub-regional policies Stage 2 - Deliverability assessed: range of risks value for money categorised as poor, low, medium or high Scores from the Technical Assessment presented In tables In graphs Scores not totalled

Stage 1 Strategic Policy Fit : 

Stage 1 Strategic Policy Fit Fit with core objectives Core objectives (RTS T1 to T6) Fit with supporting policies Secondary policies (other RTS policies) Sub-regional policies (from RTS)

RTS Policies T1 to T6: 

RTS Policies T1 to T6 Support sustainable development in the Region’s Principal Urban Areas and Sub-Regional Centres Promote accessibility and overcome peripherality in the Region’s rural areas Support the Region’s regeneration priorities Promote improvements to inter-regional and international linkages that will support sustainable development within the Region; Improve safety across the Region and reduce congestion, particularly within the Region’s Principal Urban Areas and on major inter-urban corridors; Promote opportunities for modal shift away from the private car and road based freight transport across the Region.

Stage 1 Policy Fit – Regional framework: 

Stage 1 Policy Fit – Regional framework

Stage 1 Strategic Policy Fit – Treatment of scores (core): 

Stage 1 Strategic Policy Fit – Treatment of scores (core)

Stage 1 Strategic Policy Fit – Presenting core results: 

Stage 1 Strategic Policy Fit – Presenting core results

Stage 1 Strategic Policy Fit – Chart of the Core results: 

Stage 1 Strategic Policy Fit – Chart of the Core results

Stage 2 Deliverability assessment: 

Stage 2 Deliverability assessment

Stage 2 Deliverability assessment – presenting the results: 

Stage 2 Deliverability assessment – presenting the results

Outputs: 

Outputs Outputs provide information for the decision making process retains room for weighting priorities, e.g. concentrate on a priority/sub-area explicit trade-offs necessary affordability a key constraint various affordable packages possible commentary necessary to explain the proposed prioritisation Our work is not recommending a single preferred package

Questions: 

Questions

Results of the Assessment  Hilary Crowther Steer Davies Gleave: 

Results of the Assessment Hilary Crowther Steer Davies Gleave

We have completed : 

We have completed Stage 1 assessment: strategic policy fit using policy tests core regional objectives T1 to T6 secondary policies sub-regional policies Stage 2 assessment: Range of risks assessed including value for money Primary Summary Assessment Table Summarises Stage 1 core policy fit and Stage 2 deliverability Supporting Summary Assessment Table Summarises Stage 1 secondary and sub-regional policy fit

And: 

And Graphs showing Stage 1 core policy fit Area maps showing the location of each scheme Pro-formas for each scheme Maps used to inform our assessments Affordability spreadsheet Tool to explore alternative affordable packages Converts all costs to Outturn Can change assumed Year 1 Can include/exclude from package

Categorising & Prioritising Schemes : 

Categorising & Prioritising Schemes

Status of Prioritisation: 

Status of Prioritisation First draft has been presented to PMG Comments received Prioritisation amended At this stage, remains draft

Top, medium and low priority schemes (first five years) – Results of Stage 1 core assessment: 

Top, medium and low priority schemes (first five years) – Results of Stage 1 core assessment

Top Priority Schemes (first five years) (draft): 

Top Priority Schemes (first five years) (draft) 1 Connecting Derby Phases 2 & 3 17 Upperton Road Viaduct 41 Hucknall Town Centre Improvements 42 Mansfield Bus Station 62 A453 Widening (M1 J24 to A52 Nottingham)

Medium Priority Schemes (first five years) (draft): 

Medium Priority Schemes (first five years) (draft) 5 London Road Rail Bridge 8 Markham Employment Growth Zone (MEGZ) 9 Ilkeston-Awsworth Link Road 20 Loughborough Integrated Transport Scheme 34 A509 Isham Bypass 37 A43 Corby Link Road 38 Nottingham Ring Road 43 A612 Gedling Integrated Transport Scheme

Low Priority Schemes (first five years) (draft): 

Low Priority Schemes (first five years) (draft) 19 Earl Shilton Bypass 27 A1073 Spalding to Eye Improvement 28 Coastal Access Imp Pt 2 - A158 Burgh Le Marsh Bypass 30 Lincoln Eastern Bypass 33 A509 Isham to Wellingborough Improvement 46 Pleasley Bypass 53 A45 Stanwick to Thrapston Dualling

Top, medium and low priority schemes (second five years) – Results of Stage 1 core assessment: 

Top, medium and low priority schemes (second five years) – Results of Stage 1 core assessment

Top Priority Schemes (second five years) (draft) : 

Top Priority Schemes (second five years) (draft) 59 A38 Derby Junctions

Medium Priority Schemes (second five years) (draft) : 

Medium Priority Schemes (second five years) (draft) 11 A617 Glapwell Bypass & Shirebrook Link 21 Melton Mowbray Bypass 22 A6 Kibworth Bypass 23 Syston Eastern Bypass 51 A6003 Caldecott Bypass 56 A52 East of Nottingham Improvements 60 A42 (M42-M1) 24 Completion of Lutterworth Western Relief Road

Low Priority Schemes (second five years) (draft) : 

Low Priority Schemes (second five years) (draft) 25 Wymeswold Bypass 26 Sharnford Bypass 52 A46/A1 Winthorpe Junction improvement 64 A46 Newark to Widmerpool Improvement

Third five years (draft): 

Third five years (draft) 63 A46 Hobbyhorse GSJ, Leicester

Other schemes performing well in Stage 1 : 

Other schemes performing well in Stage 1 Not sufficiently developed: 7 Derby Integrated Park & Ride Sites & bus priority schemes Not seeking RFA: o 36 MKSM Area TIF Bid o 40 Greater Nottingham TIF Bid (WPL, Smartcard, smart choices, bus/NET phase 2 interface)

Questions: 

Questions

Alternative, Affordable Packages  Neil Chadwick Steer Davies Gleave: 

Alternative, Affordable Packages Neil Chadwick Steer Davies Gleave

£871m of RFA funding available: 

£871m of RFA funding available

Committed RFA Funding in Early Years: 

Committed RFA Funding in Early Years Packages take account of spend on the following committed schemes Full Approval: Derby Inner Ring Road Major Maintenance Turning Point, Nottingham Oakham Bypass Getting Northampton to Work Partney Bypass (spend only) North West Funded Glossop Spur (Provisional Approval) Highways Agency Targeted Programme of Improvements A1 Peterborough to Blyth Grade Separated Junctions A628 MHT Bypass

Five Packages: 

Five Packages Package A – Schemes that have already been “Provisionally Approved” by Government prioritised first Package B - Schemes that are considered ‘low risk’ in terms of delivery prioritised first (which may turn out to be similar to Package A) Package C - A geographically ‘equitable’ package of schemes Package D - Prioritising ‘high’ and ‘medium’ scoring schemes in the first five years ahead of those in the second and third five years Package E - As ‘Package D’ but without the A46 Newark-Widmerpool improvement which is the most expensive single scheme in first five years

Summary of Packages : 

Summary of Packages

Package A – Provisionally Approved schemes prioritised first: 

Package A – Provisionally Approved schemes prioritised first

Package B – Low risk: 

Package B – Low risk

Package C – Geographical Equity: 

Package C – Geographical Equity

Package D – Prioritised “high” and “medium”: 

Package D – Prioritised “high” and “medium”

Package E – Prioritised “high” and “medium” but without A46 -Newark-Widmerpool : 

Package E – Prioritised “high” and “medium” but without A46 -Newark-Widmerpool

Common Threads: 

Common Threads For schemes that promoters say can be started in the next five years: Each of the 5 top priority schemes can be started In all but Package C, each of the 8 medium priority schemes can be started Only some of the low priority schemes can be started Between five and ten years hence In each package, roll over from first five tranche takes most of the budget Only half of medium priority schemes and none of low priority schemes can be started Except in Package E, where not starting A46 scheme allows for all medium priority schemes to be started In all packages No funds available for any scheme that has not been developed to a sufficient degree for a Stage 2 Assessment

Reserve List of Schemes: 

Reserve List of Schemes +/-10% on RFA Allocation Government wants to know what the impact of +/-10% will be To be identified

Reserve list of schemes: 

Reserve list of schemes A need for over programming Schemes can be delayed Schemes can go over-budget Schemes can be cancelled by Government Therefore need to over-programme to ensure all of the RFA is spent Reserve list of schemes for each package will be developed Some small, medium, large schemes to plug gaps

Five ways forward for schemes not in the priority package: 

Five ways forward for schemes not in the priority package Amend the scheme – lower cost solution, better policy ft Defer delivery Cancel Investigate other funding sources – TIF, PFI For schemes at an early stage of development, continue to develop and hope it displaces another scheme in the next round of prioritisation Not for this study to determine way ahead for schemes not in the packages

Next Steps: 

Next Steps 8th December – EMRA Joint Board 12th December – Finalise report 19th December – Final PMG Meeting Region gives its advice to Government at the end of January

Questions: 

Questions