Business Case for Conditional Approval

Hagley Road Sprint
Prepared for
Greater Birmingham & Solihull
Local Enterprise Partnership
September 2014

Centro House, 16 Summer Lane
Birmingham
B19 3SD

Lyndon House, 62 Hagley Road
Edgbaston, Birmingham
B16 8PE
Contents
Section Page
Executive Summary 0-1
0.1 The project 0-1
0.2 This submission 0-1
0.3 Value for money assessment 0-1
0.4 Scheme funding 0-2
Introduction 1-3
1.1 The Wider Sprint Concept 1-3
1.2 The Hagley Road Sprint Route 1-4
1.3 Background 1-6
1.4 This Submission 1-6
The Strategic Case 2-7
2.1 Problems to be addressed 2-7
2.2 Options considered 2-8
2.3 Expected benefits/outcomes 2-8
2.4 Project scope 2-9
2.5 Scheme objectives 2-9
2.6 Constraints 2-9
2.7 Interdependencies 2-10
2.7.1 Internal interdependencies 2-10
2.7.2 External interdependencies 2-10
2.8 Stakeholders 2-10
2.9 Consequences of project funding not being secured 2-11
2.10 Fit with strategic policy and objectives 2-11
2.10.1 Fit with overarching strategic transport objectives 2-11
2.11 Business strategy 2-12
2.11.1 The International Convention Centre 2-12
2.11.2 Hotels served by Hagley Road Sprint 2-13
The Economic Case 3-17
3.1 Introduction 3-17
3.1.1 Objectives for Sprint 3-17
3.1.2 The economic case in decision making 3-17
3.2 Options appraised 3-18
3.3 The approach to forecast demand and economic benefits for Sprint 3-19
3.3.1 Sprint demand forecasting 3-19
3.3.2 Economic Benefit Assumptions 3-22
3.4 Assessing the benefits of Sprint 3-23
3.4.1 Monetised impacts 3-23
3.4.2 Wider economic impacts 3-26
3.4.3 Non-monetised impacts 3-26
3.5 Assessing the costs of Sprint 3-28
3.5.1 Capital costs 3-28
3.5.2 Revenue costs 3-29
3.5.3 Optimism bias 3-30
3.6 Value for money assessment 3-31
3.6.1 TEE, PA, AMCB Tables and BCR 3-31
3.6.2 AST 3-34
3.6.3 VfM conclusions 3-34
The Financial Case 4-36
4.1 Introduction 4-36
4.2 Costs and revenues 4-36
4.2.1 Capital Investment 4-36
4.2.2 Operating Incomes 4-37
4.2.3 Operating Costs 4-38
4.3 Budgets / Funding cover 4-38
4.3.1 Funding 4-38
4.4 Accounting implications 4-39
The Commercial Case 5-40
5.1 Introduction 5-40
5.1.1 For the infrastructure works 5-40
5.1.2 For the vehicles 5-40
5.1.3 For the Sprint Operator 5-42
5.2 Output based specification 5-45
5.3 Procurement strategy 5-49
5.3.1 Vehicle Procurement 5-49
5.3.2 Operator Procurement 5-50
5.4 Sourcing options 5-54
5.5 Payment mechanisms 5-54
5.5.1 Infrastructure Works 5-54
5.5.2 Sprint Vehicles 5-54
5.5.3 Sprint Operator 5-54
5.6 Pricing framework and charging mechanisms 5-55
5.6.1 Infrastructure Works 5-55
5.6.2 Sprint Vehicles 5-55
5.6.3 Sprint Operator 5-55
5.7 Risk allocation and transfer 5-55
5.7.1 Infrastructure Works 5-55
5.7.2 Sprint Vehicles 5-55
5.7.3 Sprint Operator 5-55
5.8 Contract length 5-56
5.9 Human resource issues 5-56
5.10 Contract management 5-56
The Management Case 6-57
6.1 Introduction 6-57
6.2 Evidence of similar projects 6-57
6.3 Programme / project dependencies 6-57
6.4 Governance, organisational structure & roles 6-57
6.5 Programme / project plan 6-58
6.6 Assurance & approvals plan 6-58
6.7 Communications and stakeholder management 6-61
6.8 Programme / project reporting 6-62
6.9 Implementation of work streams 6-63
6.10 Key issues for implementation 6-64
6.11 Contract management 6-64
6.12 Risk management strategy 6-65
6.13 Benefits realisation plan 6-67
6.14 Monitoring and evaluation 6-68
6.15 Contingency plan 6-69
6.16 Options 6-69
Appendices
A List of hotels along Sprint route
B City centre additional patronage
C Modelling results assessment
D Crowding note
E Appraisal Summary Table
F Section 151 Officer declarations
G Scheme drawings
H Cost schedules
I Implementation plan
J Risk register
K Estimation of benefits for new public transport users
L Calculation of wider economic inputs
M Derivation of investment costs
Tables
Table 0.1 Central case Sprint economic appraisal 0-2
Table 0.2 Funding package breakdown 0-2
Table 2.1: ICC Total 2012 Delegate Numbers (by industry) 2-12
Table 3.1 An illustration of Value for Money category 3-17
Table 3.2 Scheme impacts considered at different stages of Value for Money assessment 3-18
Table 3.3 Forecast Sprint demand from existing PT users and approximate average time saving by time period 3-20
Table 3.4 Additional annual demand 3-21
Table 3.5 Distribution of non-monetised user benefits by size of time saving 3-23
Table 3.6 Distribution of monetised user benefits by size of time saving 3-23
Table 3.7 Forecast Sprint demand in 2021 for existing and new public transport users 3-24
Table 3.8 Forecasted Sprint demand in 2031 for existing and new public transport users 3-24
Table 3.9 Distribution of Sprint annual demand Increase across pairs of stops in 2021 (,000 passengers) 3-25
Table 3.10 Distribution of Sprint annual demand increase across pairs of stops in 2031 (,000 passengers) 3-25
Table 3.11 Wider economic impacts (£000s) in 2010 prices and 2010 values 3-26
Table 3.12 Sprint investment costs (£000s) 3-29
Table 3.13 Revenue costs paid for by public sector in 2010 prices (£000s) 3-30
Table 3.14 Revenue costs paid for by private sector in 2010 prices (£000s) 3-30
Table 3.15 Economic Efficiency of the Transport System (TEE) in £000s 3-31
Table 3.16 Public Accounts – scenarios A, B and C 3-32
Table 3.17 Initial BCR for all scenarios from AMCB 3-33
Table 3.18 Adjusted BCR taking on board wider economic impacts and benefits for new users 3-34
Table 4.1 Sprint Hagley Road costs 4-37
Table 4.2 Funding sources 4-38
Table 4.3 LTB stages for accessing delivery funds 4-39
Table 5.1 Sprint vehicle end specification 5-41
Table 5.2 Sprint operator tender elements 5-43
Table 5.3 Sprint vehicle procurement timetable 5-50
Table 5.4 Sprint operator procurement timetable 5-53
Figures
Figure 1.1 Hagley Road Sprint route (city centre) 1-5
Figure 1.2: Hagley Road Sprint route (Hagley Road) 1-5
Figure 1.3 Diagram of proposed route and priority/infrastructure investments 1-6
Figure 3.1 Modelled Sprint passenger loading profile in 2021 PM 3-20
Figure 6.1 Centro Gateway process, key assurance and approval milestones 6-60
Figure 6.2 Project overview structure 6-61

Executive Summary
The Hagley Road Sprint scheme is promoted by Centro and Birmingham City Council (BCC). It will provide a high quality rapid transit service, linking west Birmingham to the Enterprise Zone sites and wider transport links in the city centre (including potentially to HS2). It will provide a major uplift in public transport provision and launches the first route of an envisaged Bus Rapid Transit network along key corridors across the region.
Informed by the business case set out in this document, Centro and BCC request that the Local Transport Body confirm their support for the scheme and its inclusion in the 2015-19 major scheme transport capital programme.

0.1 The project
This initial Sprint scheme will operate from Birmingham city centre towards the west of the city, along the Hagley Road to Quinton. The scheme will provide a major upgrade to public transport in this corridor and link key areas of Birmingham city centre such as Broad Street, Paradise Circus, New Street and Moor Street stations and in the longer term Curzon Street HS2.
In doing the above the scheme will help to support key local and national policies such as reducing congestion, lowering carbon levels and supporting economic growth by provision of high quality public transport linking key sites with residential areas, improving travel opportunities for employees and visitors.
The wider Sprint scheme objectives are to:
• Support regeneration objectives in the city centre, and the economic prosperity of the West Midlands
• Provide a public transport system which has a significant step up in both reliability and quality, to open up new opportunities for travel and actively encourage modal shift.

0.2 This submission
This business case submission provides a more detailed assessment of Sprint than provided in the original LTB submission, and encompasses all aspects of the Five Case Business Case model, including:
• Strategic Case;
• Economic Case;
• Financial Case;
• Commercial Case; and
• Management Case.

0.3 Value for money assessment
Since the original funding submission, Centro and BCC have undertaken work to review the scheme to deliver enhanced Value for Money. Cooperative working during the development of scheme details has produced a value engineered set of interventions which still support the scheme’s objectives.
As can be seen from Table 0.1, the Sprint central case economic appraisal offers high Value for Money. The demand forecasting and appraisal has been undertaken based on WebTAG guidance and a range of scenario and sensitivity tests have also been undertaken which demonstrate that the proposals are robust.
Table 0.1 Central case Sprint economic appraisal
Discounted 2010 Prices and Values £m
Present Value of Benefits PVB £49.5
Present Value of Costs to Government PVC £17.4 – £24.7
Net Present Value NPV £24.9 – £32.1
Benefit Cost Ratio BCR 2.01 – 2.85

0.4 Scheme funding
The full funding package for the project comes from a mix of Centro, Private and Government funding, details of which are as follows in Table 0.2
Table 0.2 Funding package breakdown
Source Notes £m
Centro Capital Funding £0.257 has been allocated from the current Capital Programmes of which £0.127 remained unspent as at 31st March 2014
The remaining £0.484 will need to be identified throughout the duration of the project. 0.74
Private Sector Investment This Private Sector funding represents a payment towards the Sprint vehicles to be used on the route and is based on a 50% contribution towards the Sprint vehicles. Exact contribution to be determined once tender procedure has been undertaken. 3.41
Local Growth Fund (LGF) Funding confirmed from the source, as part of the August 2014 LGF deal announced for Greater Birmingham and Solihull as a part of the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) process.
It is understood that an element of the costs incurred between June 2014 and April 2015 can be retrospectively claimed from the LGF fund. 8.09
TOTAL FUNDING 12.24
COST ESTIMATE 12.24
0.5
Introduction
The Hagley Road Sprint scheme is promoted by Centro and Birmingham City Council (the Promoters). The scheme is a Bus Rapid Transit proposal linking Birmingham city centre with the west of the City along the A456 Hagley Road. The scheme will provide a major uplift in public transport provision and link key destinations including Snow Hill Station, Enterprise Zone sites and, in the future, the Curzon Street HS2 station.
Informed by the full business case set out in this document, the Promoters request that the Local Transport Body confirms inclusion of the Hagley Road Sprint scheme in the 2015-19 major scheme transport capital programme. This business case comprises:
• Strong local support – the scheme is fully supported by GBS LEP, Centro and Birmingham City Council.
• Strong economic case – the scheme has a benefit to cost ratio (BCR) of 2.01-2.85.
• Strong strategic case – supporting economic growth and the carbon agenda.
• Deliverability – a scheme that can be delivered within anticipated timescales, and has political and business support to see the scheme delivered.
• Strong commercial and management controls from an organisation with a proven track record in the delivery of large public transport schemes.
1.1 The Wider Sprint Concept
The Sprint concept is a new network of bus rapid transit corridors to support the development of a world class public transport system and meet regeneration objectives. It will be branded the same throughout the West Midlands with high quality infrastructure and vehicles. Sprint will be recognised as offering a high standard of service. The vehicles have been branded internally as “Metro’s Little Sister”.
Rapid Transit is a key component of the Integrated Public Transport Prospectus, which includes a rail and rapid transit network. This outlines new Rapid Transit stops and routes to provide a “backbone” for rapid, high capacity public transport, which provides high quality connectivity across the Metropolitan Area.
In order to be successful, Sprint will incorporate the following features:
• High quality
• An attractive frequency
• Reliability and regularity
• Safety
• Accessibility to the public transport system itself and to/from other modes
• Environmentally beneficial
• Sufficient capacity to meet demand
• A modern and attractive fares and payment system
• Economically viable
Birmingham’s proposed Sprint network follows a number of key arterial roads which form what are currently the routes of the most frequent bus services. The Birmingham Mobility Action Plan also recommends that a number of Sprint lines traverse the city centre to provide further cross-city connectivity and to provide a number of different destinations to board/alight within the city centre. BMAP highlights the need to provide much improved cross-city and internal city centre connectivity by public transport.
In addition to the Sprint corridors promoted in BMAP, the network extends into the rest of the West Midlands to provide links between key centres along established demand corridors. Centro’s 2013 document Towards a World Class Integrated Transport Network sets out aspirations as to how the public transport network will develop, and promotes the most efficient mode for each corridor. Ten corridors are suggested as BRT routes, with a further five identified as Rapid Transit corridors but with mode yet to be determined (could either be Bus or Light Rail).
A comparison sifting exercise was undertaken on all fifteen corridors, examining a range of factors to determine the suitability of investment in either the short, medium or long term. In addition three high-volume bus corridors were included in the sifting as a benchmarking exercise. Each corridor was assessed with low and high levels of intervention; high typically included Park & Ride sites and more extensive priority measures.
The assessment was made under seven broad headings:
• Deliverability
• Economic development potential
• Transport integration
• Passenger appeal
• Demand and viability
• Environmental impact
• Costs and financial implications
Readily-available data was used and reference was made to any previous scheme proposals such as low-cost alternative options for Metro, although any interventions requiring significant third-party land-take were not adopted. The outputs for each corridor under each heading were then scored and ranked, with an overall ranking then being produced for both the low and high levels of intervention on each corridor.
Of the 36 schemes assessed (18 corridors with two levels of intervention), seven corridors had both their low and high intervention schemes in the top third. These seven corridors were classified as being suitable for short term investment, with the Hagley Road scheme deemed to be the most deliverable and already having strong political support for the implementation of Sprint.

1.2 The Hagley Road Sprint Route
The Hagley Road Sprint scheme will link hotels along the Hagley Road and at Five Ways with conference venues in the city centre such as the International Conference Centre.

Figure 1.1 Hagley Road Sprint route (city centre)

Figure 1.2: Hagley Road Sprint route (Hagley Road)

Figure 1.3 Diagram of proposed route and priority/infrastructure investments

1.3 Background
A Local Major Scheme Outline Business Case (LMSOBC) for the Hagley Road Sprint scheme was submitted to the Greater Birmingham and Solihull Local Transport Board (GBS LTB) in June 2013. The LTB undertook a sifting exercise of all schemes received from scheme promoters which focussed on identifying schemes which passed the criteria for ‘Strategic Fit’ and ‘Deliverability’, followed by a more detailed scrutiny.
Subsequently in 2013, the GBS LTB shortlisted the Hagley Road Sprint project for funding and consequently the Promoters began work on the development of this full business case.
Centro will act as recipient for funding received and also as Delivery Agent for the scheme.
1.4 This Submission
This full business case submission provides an assessment of the Hagley Road Sprint scheme and encompasses all aspects of the Five Case Business Case model, including:
• Strategic Case;
• Economic Case;
• Financial Case;
• Commercial Case; and
• Management Case.

The Strategic Case
The city centre of Birmingham is set to see huge changes and potential growth in the short and medium term. This includes new skyscraper developments on the edge of the city centre (e.g. Paradise Circus, Arena Central), New Street gateway, Eastside redevelopment, city centre Metro Extension and Curzon Street station linking to the new HS2 route. Improving accessibility to these locations through improved transport networks will increase the attractiveness and viability of the growth agenda.
This project will have a positive effect on this job creation and growth within Birmingham, increasing the mobility of labour markets and helping people access jobs through sustainable travel. Hagley Road Sprint will link hotels along the Hagley Road and at Five Ways with conference venues in the city centre such as the International Conference Centre.
The Sprint concept is a new network of bus rapid transit corridors to support the development and delivery of a world class public transport system and meet local and national regeneration objectives. Clear and consistent branding of Sprint will be delivered throughout the West Midlands with high quality infrastructure and vehicles. Sprint will be recognised as offering a high standard of service. The product has been branded as “Midland Metro’s Little Sister”.
The Hagley Road Sprint is proposed as a new, high quality, Bus Rapid Transit route providing links between major destinations in west Birmingham. It will improve mobility by connecting major areas of employment, education and leisure, serving the city centre Enterprise Zone and the city’s major rail stations.
The infrastructure standards of a Sprint route include significant improvements to highways, stops and passenger information provision.
Rapid Transit is a key component of the Integrated Public Transport Prospectus , which includes outlined aspirations for a rail and rapid transit network. This outlines new Rapid Transit stops and routes to provide a “backbone” for rapid, high capacity public transport, which provides high quality connectivity across the Metropolitan Area. The Hagley Road to Birmingham city centre corridor is identified in the Prospectus as a future rapid transit corridor.

2.1 Problems to be addressed
Connectivity within the city centre has been raised as an issue by several of the Business Improvement Districts, particularly to/from New Street station and longer-term to HS2. This project seeks to address this issue and support the development of new opportunities across the BID areas and the Enterprise Zone.
Hagley Road Sprint will provide additional, high quality, frequent public transport access to areas of Birmingham city centre such as the Convention Quarter and Brindley Place. Hotels along the Hagley Road and at Five Ways will be linked to conference venues.

(Data from Marketing Birmingham, The ICC, Brindley Place and Broad Street BID)
Redevelopments within Birmingham city centre, for example at Eastside and HS2, are set to create new jobs. The Hagley Road Sprint scheme will ensure that these new jobs and transport opportunities can be accessed by public transport.
Hagley Road, Broad Street, Five Ways and the surrounding areas suffer from a considerable amount of congestion, particularly during peak times. This project will encourage modal shift to public transport, and reduce the reliance on taxis within the city. Through the delivery of bus priority measures, journey time reliability will be improved on public transport along a key congested route into Birmingham city centre.
Public transport along the Hagley Road and within the city centre is often overcrowded, particularly at peak times. This project will ensure that additional capacity operates along the route and therefore reduce overcrowding.

2.2 Options considered
This corridor was identified as a high volume corridor in 1998 . Various options have been considered and developed including Midland Metro and lower cost bus options in 2004. Due to funding constraints and focus on delivery of Birmingham City centre Metro extension this development work was halted. More recent work has focused on development and delivery of a more affordable Sprint option.
The Hagley Road has been identified as being suitable for investment to improve the quality of the public transport service. Bus is the only public transport mode along the corridor, there being no parallel heavy rail or Metro service.
Previously options have been extensively examined for introducing light rail, however these have not been progressed beyond initial concept stage due to cost and deliverability issues. It is therefore considered that a BRT scheme would provide a deliverable step-change.
During the initial corridor sifting process two options were considered for the Hagley Road scheme; one including a Park and Ride site (higher cost option) and one without a Park and Ride site (lower cost option).
The Park and Ride site for this scheme would be situated somewhere close to the M5 Junction 3 in order to attract motorists from the motorway exit and help to alleviate congestion on the Hagley Road. A Park and Ride site is not included within this application, predominantly due to delivery and land acquisition issues. However this may form a later business case submission.
2.3 Expected benefits/outcomes
The scheme will improve the quality of public transport services in the city centre and contribute to enhanced connectivity in the city centre, the Enterprise Zone, HS2 and Eastside.
Access to jobs will be improved through the increased accessibility opportunities offered by Sprint. Regeneration within the city centre, for example at Eastside will create additional jobs in the short and medium term. The implementation of Sprint will ensure that these jobs are accessible by public transport.
Longer-term, providing a high quality public transport link to HS2 at Curzon Street will provide access to a wide network of jobs within the south east region, and encourage growth along the corridor.
Hotels along the Hagley Road and at Five Ways will be connected to conference venues within the city centre. There is currently a high use of taxis for this type of journey.
Service delivery and quality will be improved, and there will be a step-change in passenger experience. This will encourage modal shift along the Hagley Road (a congested route) and within the city centre.
Reliability of services along the route will be enhanced in sharing some of the Sprint infrastructure (bus lanes), and journey times will be reduced and more reliable.
Selected highway improvements at key junctions, also use of telematics will afford additional priority to Sprint, and have knock-on effects for other services using the route.
Removal of general traffic from Broad Street will afford benefits to a number of bus services, increasing the wider network gains and hence supporting Sprint viability. Although this element is being delivered by the Metro extension from Stephenson Street to Centenary Square, BRT and bus services along Broad Street will see significant benefits.
Delivery of the first Sprint corridor will prove its concept with all stakeholders, demonstrating the level and types of benefits that can be realised elsewhere. This will provide part of the evidence base to help justify and promote a wider network of Sprint routes across the conurbation.
2.4 Project scope
The scheme consists of high quality vehicles operating from high profile metro style stops with highway improvements aimed at reducing journey times and increasing reliability. The payment/ticketing system will reduce dwell times at stops.
As the scheme is developed all aspects of the proposed offer will be reviewed to ensure that each aspect of the scheme provides value for money with adjustments made to the specification if this is not the case.
2.5 Scheme objectives
This initial Sprint scheme will operate from Birmingham city centre towards the west of the city, along the Hagley Road to Quinton. The scheme will provide a major upgrade to public transport in this corridor and link key areas of Birmingham city centre such as Broad Street, Paradise Circus, New Street and Moor Street stations and in the longer term Curzon Street HS2.
In doing the above the scheme will help to support key local and national policies such as reducing congestion, lowering carbon levels and supporting economic growth by provision of high quality public transport linking key sites with residential areas, improving travel opportunities for employees and visitors.
The wider Sprint scheme objectives are to:
• Support regeneration objectives in the city centre, and the economic prosperity of the West Midlands.
• Provide a public transport system which has a significant step up in both reliability and quality, to open up new opportunities for travel and actively encourage modal shift.
The scheme objectives for the Hagley Road Sprint route in particular are:
• For Sprint passenger satisfaction to be 2% higher than regular bus satisfaction
• To increase regular bus patronage (non-Sprint services) on the Hagley Road corridor by 100,000 passengers per annum by 2018
• To improve access to new developments and growth areas in the corridor by sustainable transport modes with Sprint journey times 7% less than existing bus
• To support modal shift with 8% of Sprint passengers changing from car by 2017.
2.6 Constraints
Land availability restrictions mean that a fully segregated route will be very difficult to achieve, so the proposals envisage a mix of Sprint running with general traffic and bus lanes to provide segregation where deliverable and appropriate.
Much of the corridor still has Highway Improvement Line orders in place, which could allow for localised highway widening if deemed necessary. However, much of this land is used as car parking for the various buildings along the corridor and therefore any requirement for the taking of significant strips of land are likely to be met with resistance. These land availability issues (principally associated with the cost of securing the necessary alignment) were identified as barriers to the development of Metro proposals along the whole corridor.
Politically there is an appetite for the Sprint programme to utilise vehicles that have a visual appearance close to that of a tram. Double articulated vehicles of 24m length currently operating in various European cities have been reviewed, and these are seen to be the preferred length/style for the Sprint programme. The 24m vehicle has significant local political support and the Deputy Leader of Birmingham City Council has requested that efforts be continued in order to deliver the service using these vehicles.
The maximum length of any vehicle currently permitted within the UK is 18.75m. It will therefore be necessary to seek derogation from the DfT in order for the 24m vehicles to be utilised. However, an alternative option for the vehicle is therefore to utilise an 18m single articulated vehicle instead, also with a tram-like appearance. These vehicles will not require a derogation.
2.7 Interdependencies
2.7.1 Internal interdependencies
Section 6.10 in the Management Case sets out the key issues for implementation, which can also be viewed as internal interdependencies. In summary, these include items such as:
• Vehicle procurement, manufacture, delivery and commissioning
• Operator procurement
• Infrastructure provision (stops, priority measures, wayfinding, vehicle depot)
• Approval of governing legal agreement (potentially a Statutory Quality Partnership Scheme)
2.7.2 External interdependencies
The key external interdependency is the redevelopment of Paradise Circus. In particular, the extension of Metro from New Street station to Centenary Square, which is facilitated by the Paradise Circus developer, will require significant highway works at the time the Sprint service is preparing for launch. Therefore it is essential that the Sprint and Metro teams coordinate the programme of works to reduce any impact on Sprint.
Providing a new standard of service along the Hagley Road corridor, Sprint is supportive of the bus services along the route, which provide further journey opportunities. It is recognised that the interaction of the two types of service will require careful management, in order to deliver the highest levels of benefits to all public transport users.
2.8 Stakeholders
Again outlined in greater detail in the Management Case (Section 6.7), key stakeholders have been identified as including:
• Birmingham City Council
• Bus operators
• Business Improvement Districts
• Public transport users along the corridor
Section 6.7 outlines the proposed communications and stakeholder management plan
2.9 Consequences of project funding not being secured
Without the Sprint scheme, jobs created within the city centre of Birmingham will not be as accessible by public transport, leading to a reliance on other modes such as taxis. Without potential employees being able to access the city centre, job creation may be stunted as there will be a real need for access to a labour market from across the city.
Without providing good quality access to HS2 at Curzon Street, Birmingham’s competitive edge may be lost, and a prime opportunity to connect with the south east region to encourage growth may be lost.
The use of conference centres within the city centre is not currently exploited due to poor and unreliable public transport access, particularly from hotels along the Hagley Road to the west of the city.
Implementing this project will ensure that access is improved and allow an opportunity for both the hotel and conference market within the UK’s second city to expand.
BID’s have raised within-centre connectivity as an issue. Without implementing a scheme to improve this, growth will be inhibited and the BID’s may lose faith in their issues being heard and resolved.
Deferring the delivery of the scheme may result in the scheme not being operational before the launch of other schemes, such as the Metro Extension and the Eastside redevelopment.
Missing an opportunity to showcase the benefits of the Sprint concept may reduce support for public transport improvements in the future.
Modal shift is important within Birmingham as a congested city, as outlined in BMAP. Implementing Sprint will provide an opportunity to encourage modal shift onto a high quality, reliable service amongst people who would otherwise not consider using a bus service.
Without improvements to public transport being implemented along the corridor, congestion will increase along the Hagley Road corridor leading to increased emissions along the corridor.
2.10 Fit with strategic policy and objectives
2.10.1 Fit with overarching strategic transport objectives
2.10.1.1 Access to International Gateways & HS2
The project will connect West Birmingham to Snow Hill, with Moor Street, New Street, Eastside and the proposed HS2 Birmingham City Centre station at Curzon Street as part of the longer term extension of the core scheme implemented as part of this submission. The extension is deliverable within the timescale of the commencement of HS2 services.
2.10.1.2 Freight & Business Efficiency
Improving access to / egress across Birmingham this will generate journey time savings which will benefit all users and encourage investment in the GBS LEP area. Cross centre connectivity has been cited as a problem within Birmingham and with Sprint, access to Colmore Quarter BID will be improved.
2.10.1.3 Access to Growth
The scheme will improve mobility by connecting major areas of employment, education and leisure, serving the city centre Enterprise Zone and the city’s major rail stations.
HS2 at Curzon Street will provide a direct, fast link to London and is anticipated to create significant levels of economic growth by enhancing connectivity. The redevelopment of Eastside is forecast to create 12,000 jobs, with an additional 8,000 jobs expected to be created during the construction period.
Access to the new Birmingham City University campus at Eastside will be improved.
2.10.1.4 Access to Labour and Skills
Birmingham is the UK’s second most populous metropolitan district with 1,073,000 residents based upon 2011 census data. HS2 will give a fast speed connection from Birmingham to London, improving access to jobs in the south east.
The scheme will increase connectivity to emerging economic centres such as Broad Street and Brindley Place and to the wider labour market.
2.10.1.5 Local Transport Plan
Rapid Transit corridors have been identified as high volume corridors which cannot be served by rail and, subsequently, provide an integrated rail and Rapid Transit network. The fast, reliable and highly accessible attributes of Rapid Transit encourage more sustainable travel patterns, whilst Rapid Transit carbon emissions per kilometre are lower than private car travel.
The West Midlands Local Transport Plan identifies the economy and carbon reduction as 2 key objectives. This project will make a positive contribution to delivering these through its ability to increase the mobility of labour markets and help people access jobs through sustainable travel.
The LTP includes a policy to develop Rapid Transit across the West Midlands with a clear focus on providing excellent access to Birmingham City Centre in recognition of Birmingham’s leading role in providing employment, retail and leisure opportunities.
2.10.1.6 LEP Strategy for Growth/Strategic Spatial Planning Framework
The project supports the Strategy for Growth as it improves connectivity within and to the Birmingham City Centre Enterprise Zone and associated development and employment opportunities including Paradise Circus.
2.10.1.7 UDP/Local Plan/Core Strategy
The proposal is supported as a listed scheme within Policy TP 40 of the emerging Birmingham Development Plan and the Birmingham Mobility Action Plan (BMAP). The scheme is a component of the Birmingham City Centre Vision for Movement, which is a supporting component of the Big City Plan.
2.10.1.8 Other relevant adopted plans/strategies
Rapid Transit is a key component of the Integrated Transport Prospectus, which includes outline aspirations for a rail and rapid transit network. This outlines new Rapid Transit stops and routes to provide a “backbone” for rapid, high capacity public transport, which provides high quality connectivity across the Metropolitan Area.
2.11 Business strategy
2.11.1 The International Convention Centre
The International Convention Centre (ICC) in Birmingham is located on Broad Street, central Birmingham. The ICC incorporates the Symphony Hall and backs onto Brindley Place. The centre is owned and operated by the NEC Group, who are also responsible for the nearby National Indoor Arena, just to the west of the complex.
Comprising a mixture of large and small exhibition halls, along with the two theatre-style halls and Symphony Hall itself (as Hall 2), in total the complex has a total of 5,328m2 floor area and a maximum capacity of up to 9,422 seated delegates.
In 2012, the ICC welcomed 177,422 delegates. The top ten industries are listed below, representing a range of disciplines and styles of conference activity.
Table 2.1: ICC Total 2012 Delegate Numbers (by industry)
Industry (top ten) Delegate Numbers
Education 26,781
Medical 24,361
Finance 14,118
Veterinary 9,315
Business 8,249
Charity 7,270
Government 6,734
Technology 6,560
Public 6,530
IT 6,201

Total 2012 delegates 177,422

2.11.2 Hotels served by Hagley Road Sprint
A number of hotels along the Hagley Road, Broad Street and in Birmingham city centre will be served by the Hagley Road Sprint service. Figure 2.1 shows the 61 hotels identified, both existing and proposed, which have a combined total of 8,520 bedrooms. Of this total, 7,029 rooms are within 400m of a proposed Sprint stop, and so can be considered within scope of the service’s catchment.
The full list of hotels and sizes are listed in Appendix A.

The Economic Case
3.1 Introduction
This chapter constitutes the economic case for Sprint and considers whether all of the collective impacts delivered by the proposed scheme represent good value for taxpayers’ money. Findings from this process are set out in subsequent sections.
3.1.1 Objectives for Sprint
The Hagley Road Sprint is proposed as a new, high quality, Bus Rapid Transit route including significant improvements to highways, stops and information provision. Its primary aims are to support economic growth in Birmingham city centre, and in particular the Enterprise Zone, and also to support the carbon agenda through modal shift and increasing public transport patronage. It also aims to enhance connectivity across the city centre, the Enterprise Zone, HS2 and Eastside. Access to jobs will be improved and connections enhanced between Hagley Road hotels and conference venues within the city centre. Service delivery, quality and reliability will be enhanced resulting in reduced journey times and improved service reliability.
Although the primary objective is to support job creation and growth within Birmingham and increase the mobility of labour markets by improving the quality of public transport along the corridor, Centro is clear that in appraising options, a full range of their potential impacts should be considered. These include:
• Impact on highway and public transport network performance – including both journey times and reliability;
• Environmental impacts – including carbon emissions as well as influence on local environment such as air quality, noise, and landscape;
• Wider impacts – including main elements recommended by WebTAG, such as the effect on agglomeration and imperfect competition; and
• Financial costs – including the costs of constructing as well as operating the proposed Sprint service.
3.1.2 The economic case in decision making
Information in this chapter sets out the overall methodology and findings from the economic assessment of Sprint considered against the full range of factors described above. It answers the question “What value for money does the proposed Sprint service represent?”
If all the aforementioned impacts (in 3.1.1) can be represented in monetary terms, the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) would then account for all the economic costs and benefits and therefore can be used as the sole indicator of the value for money of Sprint. This would also enable a value for money category to be allocated to Sprint directly, as illustrated in Table 3.1 below.
Table 3.1 An illustration of Value for Money category
Value for Money Category Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
Poor Less than 1.0
Low Between 1.0 and 1.5
Medium Between 1.5 and 2.0
High Between 2.0 and 4.0
Very High Greater than 4.0

However, not all impacts can be expressed in monetary terms and the robustness / availability of evidence for the monetisation of impacts also varies from one impact to another. Following Department for Transport’s (DfT) advice , a three-stage approach was adopted as set out below:
• At first, an ‘initial’ BCR is established based on those impacts where the evidence for the monetisation is available and robust;
• Secondly, an ‘adjusted’ BCR is produced taking on board those impacts where monetisation is possible, but where the evidence for doing so is less robust;
• Thirdly, a value for money category is allocated after considering possible alteration resulting from qualitative assessments of impacts for which it is not possible to give monetary values or no reliable evidence is available to undertake such analysis at the current stage of the study.
Table 3.2 below summarises the different impacts considered appropriate at different stages of the assessment following the aforementioned approach, following a review of transport modelling tools and evidence available at the current stage of the study.
Table 3.2 Scheme impacts considered at different stages of Value for Money assessment
Initial BCR
(robust, monetisable impacts) Adjusted BCR
(less robust, but monetisable impacts) Judgement
(whether non-monetised impacts could shift VfM)
User Economic Efficiency (existing and new public transport users) Wider Economic Impacts Accidents
Cost to Broad Transport Budget Reliability
Other Environmental and Social Impacts*
User Economic Efficiency (for other modes including private car) with Associated Indirect Tax Revenue
* including Physical Activity, Noise, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, Landscape, Journey Quality, Townscape, Heritage, Biodiversity, Water Environment, Security, Access to Services, Affordability, Severance and Option Value
As discussed in Section 3.3.2, the highway mode was excluded from the initial analysis as it was expected to receive neutral or only slightly beneficial impacts from Sprint. It was therefore decided not to assess these impacts in PRISM for proportionality reasons, given the scale of the change is likely to be difficult to confidently differentiate from background ‘noise’ in the model results.

3.2 Options appraised
The core scheme comprises the following elements:
• A ten-minute frequency service between Birmingham city centre and Quinton Church;
• Use of tram-like articulated vehicles, with a minimum total capacity each of 120 passengers (seated and standing);
• A total of 29 stops, with high quality passenger infrastructure and information. Stops are at increased spacing over non-Sprint services, in order to improve journey times;
• Fourteen highway interventions affording bus priority;
• Bus priority at traffic signals, through the installation of enhanced vehicle detection systems; and
• Off-vehicle ticketing systems and multi-door boarding, in order to reduce stop dwell times.
Full details of the scheme are given in Section 5.2 in the Commercial Case.
3.3 The approach to forecast demand and economic benefits for Sprint
This section sets out the approach to forecasting Sprint demand and economic benefits for this submission.
3.3.1 Sprint demand forecasting
Modelling Tools
The forecasting of Sprint demand was undertaken using the public transport assignment component of the Policy Responsive Integrated Strategy Model (PRISM), which is a strategic multimodal model covering the local and strategic road network within the geographical coverage of seven district authorities as well as the Trunk Road Network falling within the area. The modelling approach has been presented and agreed with the LTB assurance advisor during the formulation of business case development methodology .
The modelling work undertaken has benefited from a recent PRISM refresh with new data based on DfT WebTAG guideline criteria. Improvements to the modelling tool include:
• Changes that have occurred between 2001 and 2011, on the roads as well as public transport routes and services;
• Current travel demand patterns derived from surveys;
• Updated calibration for the highway and public transport assignment models;
• Better reflection of trip making behaviours observed in 2011; and
• Updated planning assumptions on housing, population and employment growth.
Further detail on the latest PRISM model is available from a series of modelling reports as and when they are approved by the PRISM Management Group.
Passenger Demand Forecast
Sprint has been represented in the model as a new mode of public transport, operating on highway along with conventional bus services. To represent the quality aspects in PRISM both waiting environment at Sprint stops and in-vehicle time on Sprint has been weighted.
Journey times for Sprint have been estimated based on the current bus journey times, with enhancements associated with the project delivering savings e.g. bus lane, junction priority. The model has been run for three time periods, AM, IP and PM in 2021 and 2031 forecast years, respectively, using the PRISM reference case growth forecasts. A fixed matrix was used in both the do-minimum (reference case) and do-something scenarios. The results from the assignments therefore forecast the transfer to Sprint from other public transport modes only.
Stop to stop journey time savings for the Sprint service were considered in the model following the assumptions set out below. Taking these on board with the forecasted Sprint demand in 2021 and 2031, as shown in Table 3.3, these assumptions lead to average journey time savings in the range of one to three minutes per trip. The journey time saving assumptions are:
• Off peak journey times can be achieved in the peak where priority is delivered – i.e. where new bus lane is installed;
• Multiple door boarding 5 seconds per stop;
• 8 seconds on average where signal priority is provided at junctions;
• 20 seconds where stops are skipped; and
• 5 seconds per stop for off board ticketing.
Table 3.3 Forecast Sprint demand from existing PT users and approximate average time saving by time period
Time Period \ Stats 2021 2031
Average Saving (min) Demand (period) Average Saving (min) Demand (period)
AM (2 hour) 3.3 717 3.3 704
IP (2 hour) 1.4 271 1.5 327
PM (2 hour) 3.0 993 2.9 928
Average weekday 1.5 2,993 1.6 3,183
Annual 1.5 907,005 1.6 964,610

Figure 3.1Table 3.4 illustrates where passengers board and alight and shows total loading throughout the modelled two hour PM period in both directions. As would be expected the major flow is outbound with Colmore Row stop being the location of highest boardings. Inbound there is a low demand, but due to faster journey times, Sprint is still attracting passengers from other buses.
Figure 3.1 Modelled Sprint passenger loading profile in 2021 PM

Estimate New Demand
A supplementary demand forecasting analysis was therefore undertaken to estimate new demand that would transfer from transport modes other than public transport as a result of Sprint and journeys that would not otherwise have been made without Sprint. The forecast of new demand from other transport modes was based on an elasticity analysis that requires the following key input:
• Journey time / travel cost between any relevant pairs of stops with and without Sprint – varying levels of journey time savings were taken on board depending on appropriate Sprint improvements relevant to each pair of stops as well as different traffic congestion in the highway network at different times of day; and
• An elasticity value of -0.64 that describes changes in bus patronage in accordance with variations in travel cost (Grayling and Glaister , p35).
The volume of new demand was estimated to be approximately 20% of its counterpart derived from existing public transport users (Table 3.3). Further detail on the distribution of such demand is presented in Section 3.4.1.
In addition to this new demand, there is a further category of latent demand due to the current disparate pattern of public transport services in place along the Hagley Road and across the city centre. With the provision of a branded, identifiable service, Sprint will tap into this latent demand for public transport services along the Hagley Road corridor.
Public transport along the Hagley Road and within the city centre is often overcrowded, particularly at peak times. Additional services and capacity operating along the route as part of Sprint will reduce overcrowding issues.
Sprint will offer an easily identifiable, high quality and frequent service from some of the main hotels on the corridor to the city centre and Convention Quarter including the ICC. Much of this demand is currently unmet. The removal of general traffic from Broad Street will also afford benefits to a number of other services, increasing wider network gains, although these benefits are included as part of the Do Minimum scenario due to this change being delivered by the Metro extension to Centenary Square.
Analysis of data relating to pedestrian movements along the corridor, and key significant attractors on the Sprint corridor between the City Centre and Brindley Place indicates that a significant volume of movements are made within the city centre and Broad Street zones. This demand is currently catered for largely by walking and taxis.
The alignment of Sprint in the City Centre and specifically along Broad Street appears to offer significant potential for additional ridership on a concept such as Sprint. Without a more detailed understanding of travel patterns, it is difficult to determine precise figures. A summary of possible additional demand is provided below by attractor source.
Table 3.4 Additional annual demand Additional Annual Demand
Demand from hotels 174,000
Broad Street pedestrians 280,000
Brindley Place employees 220,000

There is a need to be wary of double counting when looking at the figures provided in Table 3.4. Therefore, it is conservatively estimated that there will be at least an additional 100,000 passengers using the Sprint service annually. To put that into context, this is the equivalent of 150 additional passengers, each way, every day or approximately 2 extra passengers per service. The related fare revenue with such passengers would be £100,000 using currently assumed farebox yields. A more detailed explanation of the calculation of this additional demand is given in Appendix B.
This additional annual demand is estimated using data not included in the PRISM and Public Transport models and therefore the movements are not captured within the demand growth elasticity calculations. The analysis undertaken is not disaggregated sufficiently to give a breakdown of benefits due to modal shift and generated demand. The addition of these 100,000 c trips takes the annual Sprint patronage to 1.3m in 2021.
3.3.2 Economic Benefit Assumptions
Economic benefits from Sprint were quantified over a 60-year appraisal period from the scheme opening year in 2016, by comparing outputs from two modelling scenarios in two forecasting years (2021 and 2031), with and without Sprint, respectively. All usual assumptions for estimating economic benefits, such as discount rate, price base year, inflation and deflation, value of time and its growth, are in line with the latest WebTAG guidelines.
As mentioned in Section 3.1.2, a staged approach was undertaken for the benefit cost appraisal with different elements of benefits taken on board at different stages of the process.
Firstly, estimation of the initial BCR values was undertaken using TUBA 1.9.3 with its default economics file. This initial assessment mainly captures transport economic efficiency savings for existing and new public transport users and costs of the proposed scheme. Both elements are deemed to be based on outputs from a robust transport model or actual design and risk analyses.
Secondly, findings from the initial BCR analysis were then strengthened by further consideration of benefits associated with the wider economic impacts of the proposed service. This benefit stream was estimated based on a combination of model output and demographic information for the study area following the latest WebTAG.
Finally, a qualitative assessment of a range of potential impacts was also undertaken. These impacts were omitted from the two aforementioned stages of quantitative analyses as they were deemed to be either neutral or only slight beneficial.
Key considerations throughout different stages of the appraisal process are highlighted below:
• Highway mode was excluded from the initial benefit cost analysis as it was expected to receive neutral or only slight beneficial impacts from Sprint;
• Local political and business support is for the use of longer, 24m, vehicles. In this assessment the same mode factor has been used for both the 18m and 24m vehicle options, however it is expected that a patronage benefit would be gained from the 24m vehicles. In order to produce a robust assessment, this patronage benefit has been excluded from the calculations;
• In the TUBA analysis, public transport is treated as a single combined rail/metro/bus/Sprint mode, in which Sprint provides an alternative to travel demand served by existing public transport services. This approach therefore removes the need to address the ‘new mode’ problem in TUBA;
• PRISM model journey time outputs were ‘sense checked’ to minimise modelling noise and ensure that the journey time saving derived is in proportion to the scale and nature of the proposed Sprint. Details of the check and its impact is documented in Appendix C;
• The expansion of model output to average weekday and annual values has been calculated using standard factors used by Centro. The data source is a full set of bus passenger boarding data for the 2011 calendar year. In using these factors a good fit to independently calculated annual passenger figures has been achieved, comparing to those figures published in Centro’s Annual Travel Trends report. While the aforementioned flow expansion factors were used for deriving annual transport user benefits, correction was applied to account for the fact that the average saving per passenger varies in different time periods to avoid overestimating consumer surplus;
• Fare revenue and operating costs such as fuel and staff salaries were omitted from the benefit cost analysis as they were assumed to offset each other. Revenue investments such as maintenance and replacement of bus shelters and fleet still remain in the analysis;
• Part of the scheme investment and operating cost was assumed to be offset by a contribution from the private sector;
• Optimism Bias of 44% was assumed for both capital investment and on-going capital costs (such as maintenance and renewals), excluding costs for new bus fleet or its subsequent renewal; and
• Variation in the annual benefits attributed to new public transport users and agglomeration impact is assumed to follow the growth rate of value of time.
3.4 Assessing the benefits of Sprint
3.4.1 Monetised impacts
In order to conduct cost benefit analysis of all impacts on a comparable basis, monetary valuations are applied wherever possible to bring different types of impacts to the same units for comparison purposes. Appraisal techniques and assumptions applied during the monetisation process are consistent with WebTAG.
Existing Public Transport Users
Total benefit from time savings for existing public transport users, obtained using TUBA, is approximately £46m (2010 values, 2010 prices). Table 3.6 shows the breakdown of benefits to different transport users by size of time savings. All figures presented in these two tables are generalised travel time with weightings applied to different legs of public transport journeys in accordance with the values used in PRISM.
Table 3.5 Distribution of non-monetised user benefits by size of time saving
Users \ Time saving in 000 person*hrs < -5 minutes -5 to -2 minutes -2 to 0 minutes 0 to 2 minutes 2 to 5 minutes >5 minutes Total
Business -48 -16 -97 322 47 107 315
Commuting -9 -81 -9 84 41 36 62
Other -9 -78 -9 92 33 36 65
Total -519 -4,733 -520 5,408 2,061 2,174 3,871

Table 3.6 Distribution of monetised user benefits by size of time saving
Users \ Time saving in £000s < -5 minutes -5 to -2 minutes -2 to 0 minutes 0 to 2 minutes 2 to 5 minutes >5 minutes Total
Business -479 -159 -965 3,192 463 1,054 3,106
Commuting -2,116 -19,255 -2,117 21,819 8,498 8,814 15,643
Other -3,687 -33,554 -3,689 38,021 14,808 15,358 27,257
Total -6,282 -52,968 -6,771 63,032 23,769 25,226 46,006

The tables above show that there are both benefits and dis-benefits when comparing the DM to the DS scenario. Some of this can be explained by noise within the model, but most is due to the scenario being tested. The do minimum supply is predominantly the 9 service running every 7/8 minutes between Stourbridge and Birmingham city centre. In the DS this is replaced by an X9 Stourbridge to Birmingham service every 15 minutes, an X9 between Stourbridge and Quinton only at the same frequency, and Sprint every 10 minutes between Quinton and Birmingham. This means that for those passengers with a trip end beyond Quinton a lower frequency stopping service (compared to the DM), or an interchange at Quinton which has a penalty of 10 minutes within the model. Overall the benefits of the network changes outweigh these negative impacts.
In addition to modelling noise, the presence of disbenefits can be attributed to the discrepancy in the weighting of different legs of a public transport journey between the transport assignment model and economic assessment. PRISM applies a set of weighting factors to different components of journey time (e.g. walking, waiting, in-vehicle and transfer time) for behavioural modelling purposes. However, a different set of factors were adopted for economic assessment in accordance with advice in WebTAG (unit A1.3). The application of different weighting factors may lead to small disbenefits from the economic perspective for a change in trip making pattern that is rational from a behavioural modelling point of view.
The estimated benefits for existing users are conservative as the benefits associated with other modes, particularly road users, are not included. In reality, it is expected that the new Sprint service would attract users from other modes including private car, which would then in turn lead to small decongestion benefits for highway users through journey time savings and vehicle operating cost savings.
New Public Transport Users
In addition to bringing journey time savings to existing public transport users, the Sprint service would also induce new demand by attracting users from other modes or generate trips that would not otherwise have been made. Total benefit for these new public transport users attracted from other modes and generated demand is approximately £3.5m (2010 values, 2010 prices). Further information on the estimation of this benefit is presented in Appendix K.
Table 3.7 and Table 3.8 summarise the forecasted increase in Sprint demand attributed to users switched from other modes. Information in both tables suggests that higher increase is expected for the AM and PM peak periods where Sprint is able to deliver higher journey time savings due to traffic congestion in the highway network. Lower demand increase is forecasted for the IP period when impacts from some key features of Sprint (e.g. planned signal priority and dedicated bus lanes) are less significant due to low congestion for the general traffic.
Table 3.7 Forecast Sprint demand in 2021 for existing and new public transport users
Time Period \ Demand Existing PT Users New PT Users Total % of Increase
AM (2 hour) 717 244 962 34%
IP (2 hour) 271 31 302 12%
PM (2 hour) 993 276 1,268 28%
Day 2,993 669 3,662 22%
Annual 907,005 202,730 1,109,735 22%
Table 3.8 Forecasted Sprint demand in 2031 for existing and new public transport users
Time Period \ Demand Existing PT Users New PT Users Total % of Increase
AM (2 hour) 704 241 946 34%
IP (2 hour) 327 38 366 12%
PM (2 hour) 928 259 1,188 28%
Day 3,183 683 3,866 21%
Annual 964,610 207,004 1,171,614 21%

Distribution of the new demand from other modes across different pairs of Sprint stops is shown in Table 3.9 and Table 3.10.
Table 3.9 Distribution of Sprint annual demand Increase across pairs of stops in 2021 (,000 passengers)
Colmore Row Edmund Street Centenary Square Sheepcote Street Plough and Harrow Chad Road Strathallen Hotel Rotton Park Sandon Road Bearwood Cross Galton Road Wolverhampton Rd Quinton Island Quinton Church Ridgeway Avenue
Colmore Row 0.0 0.0 3.1 15.6 4.6 0.0 12.0 0.9 6.0 4.3 1.5 6.8 1.1 3.7 1.3
Edmund Street 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 1.3 0.0 3.2 0.2 2.1 1.8 0.4 2.3 0.6 2.8 1.2
Centenary Square 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.2
Sheepcote Street 3.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.0 0.2 1.1 1.9 0.7 1.2 0.3 1.8 0.6
Plough and Harrow 2.1 0.0 1.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
Chad Road 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
Strathallen Hotel 3.5 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1
Rotton Park 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
Sandon Road 6.1 0.0 2.6 1.8 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.6 0.0 6.7 0.2 0.7 0.1 1.2 0.2
Bearwood Cross 9.0 0.0 1.9 1.6 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.4 8.5 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.8 0.2
Galton Road 1.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0
Wolverhampton Rd 3.8 0.0 1.5 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 2.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1
Quinton Island 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Quinton Church 4.6 0.0 2.4 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.9 1.7 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ridgeway Avenue 3.8 0.0 1.2 1.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.0

Table 3.10 Distribution of Sprint annual demand increase across pairs of stops in 2031 (,000 passengers)
Colmore Row Edmund Street Centenary Square Sheepcote Street Plough and Harrow Chad Road Strathallen Hotel Rotton Park Sandon Road Bearwood Cross Galton Road Wolverhampton Rd Quinton Island Quinton Church Ridgeway Avenue
Colmore Row 0.0 0.0 3.8 18.3 4.7 0.0 12.1 0.8 6.1 4.4 1.6 6.8 1.1 3.2 1.8
Edmund Street 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.9 1.3 0.0 3.2 0.2 2.1 1.8 0.4 2.0 0.6 2.6 1.3
Centenary Square 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2
Sheepcote Street 2.8 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.9 0.2 1.1 1.9 0.6 1.2 0.3 1.6 0.6
Plough and Harrow 1.9 0.0 1.2 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1
Chad Road 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
Strathallen Hotel 3.4 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1
Rotton Park 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
Sandon Road 5.8 0.0 2.6 1.7 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.6 0.0 6.5 0.2 0.7 0.1 1.3 0.2
Bearwood Cross 9.3 0.0 2.1 1.7 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.4 8.4 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.2
Galton Road 1.7 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0
Wolverhampton Rd 3.8 0.0 1.5 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 2.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1
Quinton Island 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Quinton Church 4.6 0.0 2.6 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.9 1.6 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ridgeway Avenue 4.3 0.0 1.5 1.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.8 1.0 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0
As mentioned in Section 1.3.1, in addition to the trips identified above (calculated from demand elasticities) it is estimated that there are a further 100,000 trips from pedestrian movements within the corridor that will be attracted to Sprint. These come from two catchments, the first is pedestrian trips within the city centre and to Broad Street/Brindley Place and the second is taxi movements related to conferences at the ICC to and from hotels and railway stations. Neither of these catchments are included within the PRISM model and so any Sprint trips are not captured by other modelling methods. Appendix B provides a more detailed note on the calculation of these additional 100,000 trips. It was assumed that travellers in these generated demand would experience the same average benefits as those switched to Sprint from other modes.
3.4.2 Wider economic impacts
The monetised value of wider economic impacts generated by Sprint is also estimated. Two types of wider economic impacts, agglomeration and imperfect competition impacts, were calculated in line with WebTAG guidance.
The agglomeration impact is defined as the changes in productivity enjoyed as a consequence of improved accessibility. Such changes were estimated following the relationship between productivity and population mass underpinned by UK based research. The agglomeration effects from Sprint are identified to relate to improvements to urban bus services, mainly the Hagley Road corridor. It is found to be the most significant part of the wider economic impacts of Sprint.
Imperfect competition impacts relate to the benefits that are obtained from increased output by business as a result of a reduction in transport costs. Following WebTAG guidance, imperfect competition benefits are estimated as a 10% uplift to business user benefits.
The estimated values of wider economic impacts of Sprint are presented in Table 3.11 below. Further detail of the calculation is given in Appendix L.
Table 3.11 Wider economic impacts (£000s) in 2010 prices and 2010 values
Time Period \ Demand 2021 (discounted) 2031 (discounted) 2016 to 2075 (discounted)
Agglomeration Impacts 689 962 23,887
Imperfect Competition Benefits 6.7 6 311
3.4.3 Non-monetised impacts
Highway user benefits
Sprint will encourage modal shift from car to public transport, which will then lead to small decongestion benefits for highway users through journey time savings and vehicle operating cost savings.
On the other hand, the implementation of Sprint, particularly the traffic signal priority measures, will also impact the general traffic. Considering the implementation of these measures is in such a way that the overall green time proportion for private cars, particularly those on the Hagley Road corridor, would remain the same, it is assumed that generally Sprint has neutral impacts on private motoring in terms of green time loss at signalised junctions.
Mott MacDonald, as PRISM model experts were consulted and they agreed that the scale of the scheme would not require a full PRISM run to assess its impact. Instead a corridor highway model was cordoned from the PRISM model. This being a tight cordon around the Hagley Road corridor and Sprint route and used to assess the overall impacts of the interventions. This work was conducted to present a “worst case” scenario in terms of impact on highway users, with all potential interventions incorporated, traffic growth up to 2021 and 3 seconds additional green time on signals to simulate the telematics associated with the Sprint vehicles and signal control. The modelling did not allow for route choice in order to maintain this worst case assessment. Although the results of this suggested both positive and negative impacts (depending on direction and time period) this was not incorporated into the business case for a number of reasons. A limitation of the modelling is that on-demand bus priority calls for signal junctions cannot be modelled. The 3 second allocation to through trips on the Hagley Road had an impact on traffic on the side roads, increasing the delays to these vehicles in the model.
The modelled situation is, however, not what is expected to occur in practice, as the benefit of the use of telematics and the installed SCOOT/MOVA systems on the Hagley Road junctions means that any extended green time to afford Sprint priority can then be returned to the side road traffic in the next cycle. Therefore it is expected that the modelled disbenefit to side road traffic will be less than that shown in the model.
It is expected that a Sprint vehicle will pass through a junction in any direction at worst every second cycle (assuming a maximum 120 second cycle time), although not all of these vehicles will require any priority. It is therefore expected that that the introduction of priority through telematics will not significantly affect general traffic on the Hagley Road.
The four proposed new sections of bus lane were also modelled , and within the limitations of the model these showed no or low disbenefit to general traffic. It had been proposed to make a change to the eastbound approach to the Wolverhampton Road junction, however the modelling showed this to produce a major disbenefit to general traffic and so the proposals have been dropped from the final scheme design.
It is expected that bus priority through telematics will be limited to only a few services; Sprint being the main service every 8-10 minutes and possibly an express service from Birmingham to Stourbridge with limited stops between Halesowen and the city centre. This would total approximately 10-12 buses per hour per direction (bphpd), out of a current total of approximately 24bphpd at the Norfolk Road junction and 30bphpd at the Portland Road junction.
In light of the above considerations, it is deemed that Sprint would have a slight beneficial impact on highway users which has not been monetised.
Accidents
Accident rates per person are significantly higher for car based modes than public transport based modes. As explained in the above section, Sprint will encourage modal shift from car to public transport and therefore make a positive contribution to reducing car accidents. As the absolute volume of modal shift from car to public transport is very small, the relevant impact is deemed slight beneficial and not monetised.
Reliability
The scheme improves journey reliability for public transport users travelling between Brindley Place, New St and Colmore Row as well as other origins and destinations along Hagley Road through a number of bus priority measures including dedicated bus lanes and priority at signalised junctions. The Sprint services will be afforded an enhanced level of priority along the corridor with the use of Selective Vehicle Detection, and so it is expected that the reliability of the service will be greater than the comparable current service. Other services along the Hagley Road corridor will benefit from the physical priority measures provided, again thereby improving their reliability.
The degree of reliability improvement has not been calculated for this business case. It is considered that the benefits will be comparatively small when compared to other journey time and passenger benefits. Omitting such benefits will result in a conservative approach being taken to estimate the monetised benefits of the project.
Other Environmental and Social Impacts
A range of environmental and social impacts were also considered during the appraisal process as summarised below.
• Physical Activity – slight beneficial. Sprint will encourage modal shift from car to public transport increasing the distances people walk. It may also contribute to increasing cycling through the provision of bus priority measures that will be available for use by cyclists.
• Noise – slight beneficial. No quantitative assessment has been undertaken as the change in traffic levels on individual road links is far less than 20%. However, some noise benefits would be anticipated due to reduced traffic levels and newer buses.
• Air Quality – slight beneficial. No quantitative assessment has been undertaken as the change in traffic levels on individual road links is far less than 10%. However, some benefits would be expected due to reduced traffic levels and newer buses with higher emission standards. The majority of the corridor falls within the Birmingham Air Quality Management Area and therefore Sprint is expected to contribute to improving air quality in this area, particularly along the Hagley Road corridor.
• Greenhouse Gases – slight beneficial. Similar to the air quality impact, Sprint will result in a small reduction in traffic levels thereby contributing to reducing CO2 emissions.
• Landscape – neutral.
• Journey Quality – large beneficial. A step change in journey quality will be provided by Sprint with services more akin to trams rather than conventional on-street buses. This improvement covers both in-vehicle and waiting environments.
• Townscape – slight beneficial. The significantly enhanced design of the Sprint stops will improve the townscape within the environment within which they are situated. Stops are planned throughout the corridor.
• Heritage – neutral.
• Biodiversity – neutral.
• Water Environment – neutral.
• Security – slight beneficial. Sprint features better lighting and CCTV at stops with help points where passengers can speak to staff. Overall improvements in visibility and communication would have positive impacts on passenger journeys.
• Access to Services – Sprint improves access to the transport system and key services for non-car owning households along Hagley Road. In particular it will enhance access to facilities in Bearwood, Quinton and the City Centre.
• Affordability – neutral.
• Severance – Sprint slightly reduces traffic on Hagley Road and Broad Street, plus associated feeder routes. This will reduce severance for people crossing the links. Improved crossings are also planned at Bearwood and along Broad Street.
• Option Value – Sprint offers an additional transport mode along the corridor. It is specifically expected to attract users from the City Centre to Brindley Place and the conference facilities who wouldn’t previously have considered the bus based public transport options on offer.
3.5 Assessing the costs of Sprint
Three different scenarios regarding the costs of Sprint were considered depending on the type / cost of vehicles and how the total costs will be funded by public and private bodies. These are set out in the rest of this section.
3.5.1 Capital costs
The three different cost scenarios were established based on the following assumptions:
• Scenario A – 24-metre vehicles with 50% contribution from a private operator on the entire fleet ;
• Scenario B – 24-metre vehicles with a £250,000 per bus contribution from a private operator on the entire fleet and reduced number of ticket machines at stops; and
• Scenario C – 18-metre vehicles with 50% contribution from a private operator on the entire fleet.
The exact investment costs for different scenarios are outlined in Table 3.12 below. Appendix M presents the derivation of the following figures in more detail with further information regarding scheme cost risk assessment given in Section 6.12 of this report.
Table 3.12 Sprint investment costs (£000s)
Type of Cost Discounted Units of Account Breakdown Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Base cost in 2014 price No Factor cost Total £11,150 £10,712 £8,505
Public Sector £7,560 £8,462 £6,238
Private Sector £3,590 £2,250 £2,267
Risk-adjusted cost in 2014 price No Factor cost Total £11,483 £11,045 £8,837
Public Sector £7,893 £8,795 £6,570
Private Sector £3,590 £2,250 £2,267
Risk-adjusted cost in 2010 price No Factor cost Total £10,616 £10,212 £8,171
Public Sector £7,297 £8,132 £6,075
Private Sector £3,319 £2,080 £2,096
Risk and OB adjusted cost in 2010 price No Factor cost Total £12,367 £11,784 £9,921
Public Sector £9,048 £9,704 £7,825
Private Sector £3,319 £2,080 £2,096
Risk and OB adjusted cost in 2010 market prices and 2010 values Yes Market prices* Total £12,391 £11,807 £9,941
Public Sector £9,066 £9,723 £7,840
Private Sector £3,325 £2,084 £2,100
* Market prices represent those prices paid by consumers for goods and services and can be converted from factor cost by an indirect taxation correction factor of 1.19.

3.5.2 Revenue costs
The basic operating costs that cover the daily operation of Sprint, such as fuel and staff salaries, were assumed to be offset by fare revenue from the service. For simplification purposes, such costs and the fare revenue of Sprint were excluded from the benefit cost analysis as their collective impact is considered to be neutral. However, a number of other costs still remain and need to be considered during the 60-year appraisal period. These are termed revenue costs of Sprint, which are set out as follows:
• Annual maintenance – Stop cleaning and general maintenance;
• 3 year maintenance – Real-time traffic information equipment renewal / maintenance;
• 6 year maintenance – Real-time traffic information equipment upgrade; and
• 10 year maintenance – Bus shelter replacement and other refurbishments/upgrades.
Table 3.13 and Table 3.14 set out the revenue costs of Sprint considered in the cost benefit analysis. Information in both tables summarises the cost for each occurrence of the aforementioned activities and how much they would cost over the 60-year appraisal period for the public and private sectors, respectively. Standard discounting and conversion of units of account was undertaken when estimating the total cost. Further information on the derivation of these figures is given in Appendix M.
Table 3.13 Revenue costs paid for by public sector in 2010 prices (£000s)
Type of Cost Discounted Units of Account Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Annual maintenance No Factor cost £18 £18 £18
3 year maintenance No Factor cost £111 £111 £111
6 year maintenance No Factor cost £370 £370 £370
10 year maintenance No Factor cost £3,804 £5,043 £2,582
OB adjusted total maintenance cost over appraisal period in market prices and 2010 values Yes Market price* £12,227 £14,934 £9,554
* Market prices represent those prices paid by consumers for goods and services and can be converted from factor cost by an indirect taxation correction factor of 1.19.

Table 3.14 Revenue costs paid for by private sector in 2010 prices (£000s)
Type of Cost Discounted Units of Account Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
10 year maintenance No Factor cost £3,319 £2,080 £2,096
OB adjusted total maintenance cost over appraisal period in market prices and 2010 values Yes Market price* £7,255 £4,547 £4,582
* Market prices represent those prices paid by consumers for goods and services and can be converted from factor cost by an indirect taxation correction factor of 1.19.

3.5.3 Optimism bias
After reviewing advice in WebTAG and benchmarking similar assumptions in comparable rapid bus schemes, 44% optimism bias was applied to all investment and revenue costs except the costs for the new bus fleet and its subsequent mid-life refurbishment. This approach takes on board the fact that the price of the bus fleet is relatively transparent.

3.6 Value for money assessment
3.6.1 TEE, PA, AMCB Tables and BCR
Benefits for existing and new public transport users

Table 3.15 Economic Efficiency of the Transport System (TEE) in £000s
Non-business: Commuting ALL MODES
User benefits TOTAL
Travel time 16,840
Vehicle operating costs 0
User charges 0
During Construction & Maintenance 0
NET NON-BUSINESS BENEFITS: COMMUTING 16,840 (1a)
Non-business: Other ALL MODES
User benefits TOTAL
Travel time 29,345
Vehicle operating costs 0
User charges 0
During Construction & Maintenance 0
NET NON-BUSINESS BENEFITS: OTHER 29,345 (1b)
Business
User benefits
Travel time 3,343
Vehicle operating costs 0
User charges 0
During Construction & Maintenance 0
Subtotal 3,343 (2)
Private sector provider impacts
Revenue 0
Operating costs 0
Investment costs 0
Grant/subsidy 0
Subtotal 0 (3)
Other business impacts
Developer contributions 0 (4)
NET BUSINESS IMPACT 3,343 (5)=(2)+(3)+(4)
TOTAL
Present Value of Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits (TEE) 49,528 (6)=(1a)+(1b)+(5)
Notes: Benefits appear as positive numbers, while costs appear as negative numbers. All entries are discounted present values, in 2010 prices and values

Costs of Sprint in 3 different scenarios
Sprint costs related to public accounts are presented in Table 3.16 for the different cost scenarios considered.
Table 3.16 Public Accounts – scenarios A, B and C
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Local Government Funding
Operating Costs 0 0 0
Investment Costs 0 0 0
Developer and Other Contributions 0 0 0
NET IMPACT 0 0 0 (7)

Central Government Funding: Transport
Operating Costs 12,227 14,934 9,554
Investment Costs 9,066 9,723 7,840
Developer and Other Contributions 0 0 0
NET IMPACT 21,292 24,657 17,394 (8)

Central Government Funding: Non-Transport
Indirect Tax Revenues 0 0 0 (9)

TOTALS

Broad Transport Budget 21,292 24,657 17,394 (10)=(7)+(8)
Wider Public Finances 0 0 0 (11)=(9)

Scenario B has the highest cost due to a reduced contribution from the private sector on vehicle costs. Scenario C gives the lowest cost due to lower vehicle costs in comparison to Scenarios A and B.
Stage 1 – Initial BCRs from AMCB
Initial BCRs for Sprint are presented in Table 3.17. The AMCB calculation only covers the cost of Sprint and economic benefits from public transport users only. This is equivalent to Stage 1 analysis in the value for money assessment, as illustrated in Table 3.2. The initial analysis indicates that return from the proposed Sprint service is in the value for money category of ‘High’ for all cost scenarios.

Table 3.17 Initial BCR for all scenarios from AMCB
Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Noise – – – (12)
Local Air Quality – – – (13)
Greenhouse Gases – – – (14)
Journey Ambience – – – (15)
Accidents – – – (16)
Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Commuting) 16,840 16,840 16,840 (1a)
Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Other) 29,345 29,345 29,345 (1b)
Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers 3,343 3,343 3,343 (5)
Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues) – – – -(11) – sign changed from PA table, as PA table represents costs, not benefits.
Option Values – – – (17)

Present Value of Benefits (see notes) (PVB) 49,528 49,528 49,528 (PVB)=(12)+(13)+(14)+(15)+(16)+(1a)+(1b)+(5)+(17)-(11)

Broad Transport Budget 21,292 24,657 17,394 (10)

Present Value of Costs (see notes) (PVC) 21,292 24,657 17,394 (PVC)=(10)

Overall Impacts
Net Present Value (NPV) 28,236 24,871 32,134 (NPV)=PVB-PVC
Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 2.33 2.01 2.85 (BCR)=PVB/PVC

Note: This table includes costs and benefits which are regularly or occasionally presented in monetised form in transport appraisals, together with some where monetisation is in prospect. There may also be other significant costs and benefits, some of which cannot be presented in monetised form. Where this is the case, the analysis presented above does NOT provide a good measure of value for money and should not be used as the sole basis for decisions.

Although not assessed in this appraisal, an additional benefit of approximately £1.5m is anticipated to be generated for the 24m vehicles due to the reduced crowding on the longer vehicles. This benefit is calculated from Centro’s Facility Evaluation Model, from the ‘Onboard’ service improvement assessment. A benefit of £0.02 per passenger journey is assumed for the 24m vehicle. Appendix D provides details on crowding assumptions for the different vehicle lengths.
Stage 2 – Adjusted BCRs
Following the stages set out in Table 3.2, further consideration was given to benefit streams from wider economic impacts as a result of the proposed Sprint. Table 3.18 presents how the revised total benefits were built up and their consequent impacts on BCRs.
Generally the additional impacts push the BCRs up by approximately 1.0 to 1.4, with the highest increase occurring on Scenario C due to it having the lowest cost.
Table 3.18 Adjusted BCR taking on board wider economic impacts and benefits for new users
Time Period \ Demand Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Transport Economic Efficiency for Existing and New Public Transport Users (£000s) £49,528 £49,528 £49,528
Agglomeration Impacts (£000s) £23,887 £23,887 £23,887
Imperfect Competition Benefits (£000s) £311 £311 £311
Present Value of Benefits (£000s) £73,726 £73,726 £73,726
Present Value of Costs (£000s) £21,292 £24,657 £17,394
Net Present Value (£000s) £52,433 £49,069 £56,331
Benefit Cost Ratios 3.46 2.99 4.24

3.6.2 AST
Stage 3 of the Value for Money assessment considers findings from the previous two stages as well as other aspects of the economic assessment where the proposed Sprint service may have material impacts.
Assessment in this stage is in particular focused on possible alteration to the value of Sprint resulting from qualitative assessments of impacts for which it is not possible to give monetary values or no reliable evidence is available to undertake such analysis at the current stage of the study. Findings from this assessment are outlined in an Appraisal Summary Table in Appendix E, which are generally positive as summarised below:
Economic perspective – in addition to the beneficial impacts on business users and wider impacts as found in the stage 1 and 2 analyses, Sprint is also found to be slight beneficial to journey reliability and moderate beneficial to regeneration;
Environmental perspective – it is anticipated that the proposed Sprint service will be slight beneficial in terms of noise, air quality, greenhouse gases and townscape. There is limited relevance to landscape, heritage, biodiversity and water environment so these impacts were deemed neutral; and
Social – benefits for commuting and other users account for a significant part of the social impact. Impacts on journey quality and option values are next to transport user impacts in terms of significance, as Sprint offers a step change in quality and a complete new model. In addition to these, Sprint is also slight beneficial in other aspects such as journey reliability, physical activity, accidents, security, accessibility and severance. The affordability impact is neutral as the new service is not going to be more expensive than existing public transport options.
3.6.3 VfM conclusions
The Value for Money category for the appraised options of Sprint based on findings from the stage 1 assessment is ‘high’ for all scenarios.
Consideration of benefits from wider impacts in stage 2 pushes Scenario A to the upper half of category ‘High’, Scenario B well into the same Value for Money category and Scenario C into the ‘very high’ category due to its lowest cost.
Taking on board findings from the stage 3 Value for Money assessment, where the non-monetised impacts are mostly slight beneficial with a few moderate and large beneficial, it is concluded that the Value for Money category for the proposed Sprint comfortably falls into the ‘high’ category.
The Value for Money assessment has been undertaken with a proportionate and conservative methodology. As such there are expected to be additional benefits arising from the use of the larger 24-metre vehicles (Scenarios A and B) which have not been explored due to constraints on the availability of data or published research. Such factors including reduced vehicle crowding, and its associated improvement in perception of passengers’ travelling environment, would be expected to lead to increased patronage. However such factors have not been included in this business case at this stage.
3.7
The Financial Case
4.1 Introduction
This chapter sets out the approach taken to determining the funding requirements for delivering the Sprint scheme, along with any budgetary and accounting implications.

4.2 Costs and revenues
4.2.1 Capital Investment
Following the initial scheme development activities, which included stop location identification and potential scope of works for each of the interventions which were undertaken in conjunction with National Express West Midlands and other expert advisors, the feasibility of a number of interventions were proposed to improve the reliability and speed of the service. Thirteen outbound and fourteen inbound stops are proposed, excluding the termini stops. The list of interventions is given in Chapter 5. Drawings and schedules for proposed bus stop locations are provided in Appendices C and D respectively.
Outline costs have been produced for the new / relocated bus stops and intervention schemes. Estimates are based on a pragmatic amount of work required to provide the facility and do not take any account of any betterment or improvement which may be required by the highway authority or other body (e.g. resurfacing of existing carriageways).
Estimates are based on an estimating certainty of -10% to +40% and include a 20% contingency. Estimates include design fees, management fees and commissioning fees where applicable. Design, management and commissioning have been included at 9%, 5% and 5% respectively of construction costs. All rates used are benchmarked rates using data from similar types of work.
C3 utility costs generally carry a contingency element included by the utility company and no further contingency has therefore been added to the utility costs for the Five Ways to Highfield Road proposal. All other interventions have been assumed to have zero utility costs due to their nature and location. This will be revisited during the design development phase.
The current overall pre-tender estimate totals £12.237m including design, delivery and vehicle procurement which is in line with the original strategic outline business case. An analysis of the project cost is as follows:
Table 4.1 Sprint Hagley Road costs

It should be noted that the exact vehicle payment profile will not be confirmed until after the procurement process is concluded.
The majority of the costs in Table 4.1 (with the exception of the £0.257m of development costs) are pre-tender estimates at this point and will be refined as the project progresses. It should be noted, however, that the most significant cost (vehicle procurement) is based on the list price for 9 vehicles with a supplier who can provide vehicles in line with Centro and Operator expectations. This cost will be reduced however by around £3m, if the derogation order is not granted by DfT to operate the 24m long vehicles and 18m length vehicles are utilised.
The other significant costs such shelters, stops and interventions will largely be influenced by (and refined during) the detailed design stage of the project.
4.2.2 Operating Incomes
Centro are working to determine the commercial viability of the scheme. This will include an analysis of any benefits arising from journey time savings, specialist vehicles and increased patronage to determine the commercial viability of the route. This work is ongoing, and finalised details regarding the commerciality of the project are not currently available.
Whilst these initial assessments will give an indication of the possibilities for Centro, the project will be required to be competitively tendered and any such share in the commercial benefit for Centro may need to be refined and agreed as a part of that process.
The commercial viability is being determined using the expertise of a number of partners. These include specialist external consultancies who have provided support throughout the development of the scheme, along with discussions with other public bodies promoting similar schemes elsewhere in the UK. In particular the Belfast BRT scheme has many parallels with Sprint, and so dialogue is ongoing with the Belfast scheme’s promoters.
Typically for a bus service, revenue build-up is over a relatively short period. However recognising that Sprint is a new mode in the West Midlands, it is assumed a slightly longer build-up profile may occur. This will be discussed with operators during the relevant procurement exercise.
Our work at the moment assumes that in the first full year of operation, after a period of demand build-up, it is projected that the scheme will as a minimum be revenue neutral. The exact revenue position will be a function of the shape and form of the operating concession, which is still being defined.
4.2.3 Operating Costs
The operating costs for the scheme, with the exception of those associated with vehicle operation, will consist of cleaning and maintenance of shelters and the provision of digital passenger information.
The route is currently well served by public transport, meaning much of the required infrastructure already exists in some form. As such, it is likely that there will only be marginal increases in operating costs on existing contracts for where the coverage of the passenger information is increased, or standards of maintenance are enhanced to compliment the overall offer to the customer.
The precise additional operating costs have not yet been quantified as they will be informed by the next stages of the design. This piece of work will be undertaken with Asset Management and included in the Project Brief together with the Whole Life Costing which will also incorporate any share of the commercial benefits for Centro and also detail any links between and commercial gains and operating costs.

4.3 Budgets / Funding cover
4.3.1 Funding
The full funding package for the project comes from a mix of Centro, Private and Government funding, details of which are as follows:
Table 4.2 Funding sources
Source Notes £m
Centro Capital Funding £0.257 has been allocated from the current Capital Programmes of which £0.127 remained unspent as at 31st March 2014
The remaining £0.484 will need to be identified throughout the duration of the project. 0.74
Private Sector Investment This Private Sector funding represents a payment towards the Sprint vehicles to be used on the route and is based on a 50% contribution towards the Sprint vehicles. Exact contribution to be determined once tender procedure has been undertaken. 3.41
Local Growth Fund (LGF) Funding confirmed from the source, as part of the August 2014 LGF deal announced for Greater Birmingham and Solihull as a part of the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) process.
It is understood that an element of the costs incurred between June 2014 and April 2015 can be retrospectively claimed from the LGF fund. 8.09
TOTAL FUNDING 12.24
COST ESTIMATE 12.24

The only budgeted element of the £0.74m Centro contribution at this point is the £0.257m detailed in Table 4.1 for development. These funds will be exhausted by July 2014 as the intention was to align the budget allocation to the previous Local Transport Board (LTB) funding process, where the stages for accessing the delivery funds were as follows:
Table 4.3 LTB stages for accessing delivery funds

Despite the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) process now superseding the LTB process for accessing Local Growth Funds (LGF), Centro are still aiming to submit an outline business case during July 2014 for funding in April 2015.
With the existing development budget allocation expected to be fully utilised by July 2014, there is an opportunity between July and April 2015 for Centro to continue to develop the scheme to facilitate the early delivery of the project.
It is possible that any costs incurred during this period (initially estimated at around c.£0.6m) will be recoverable from the overall Local Growth Fund allocation but there are no specific guidelines or conditions at present concerning this funding. It has been advised that 50% of development costs incurred between the confirmation of programme entry on 30th September 2013 and the award of funding can be recovered.
Assuming qualifying LGF costs can only be incurred after April 2015, there are opportunities within the 2014/15 Capital Programme to cover this funding requirement and bridge the gap between June / July 2014 and April 2015 but more work needs to be undertaken to refine the precise funding requirement for this stage using, where possible, quotations from suppliers. Once this is known, a more robust proposal for funding the continuation of the design stage can be put forward to the Gateway Panel and / or Operating Board.
For information, the Private Sector contribution of £3.41m included within the overall funding package is based upon an assumed 50% vehicle contribution. The incremental increase to upgrade to a Sprint Vehicle (at approximately double the cost (c €0.950m)) is afforded from within the LGF, assuming Centro’s bid is successful.
The exact third party contribution will not be finalised until the operator tendering procedure (refer to Procurement section).
The €0.950m is based upon a 24m Sprint vehicle and the use of these vehicles will require a derogation order from DfT as the current maximum length of vehicles (freight / buses) is 18.75m. Should derogation not be forthcoming from The DfT, an alternative 18m Sprint vehicle could be procured for approximately €0.600m.

4.4 Accounting implications
The patronage and operating cost forecasts indicate there should not be an ongoing revenue implication for Centro. Any infrastructure maintenance and replacement costs will be covered by existing maintenance and replacement cycles, and so no exceptional accounting implications are expected.
Section 151 Officer declarations were signed as part of the LTB Submission process and are available in Appendix F

The Commercial Case
5.1 Introduction
There are three commercial deals to be considered:

5.1.1 For the infrastructure works
With regard to the infrastructure works, Centro has a Procurement Strategy in place that is legally compliant and likely to achieve best value for money. Centro will procure the works for the scheme using specialist contractors on Centro’s Framework Contract and subject to an OJEU compliant tender process. Separate contracts may need to be selected from the framework to incorporate the following infrastructure elements:
• Minor civils (bus priority interventions such as bus lanes, bus lane extensions, ducting for increased ITS at junctions, bus shelter platforms)
• ITS (signalling hardware for bus priority at junctions, real time information at Sprint stops)
• Sprint shelters and stops
• Wayfinding

5.1.2 For the vehicles
The proposed procurement mechanism is compliant Utilities Contract Regulations. Internal and external legal and procurement advice has been sought with regard to the Sprint vehicle procurement. The proposed procurement method will consist of a negotiated tender (in accordance with the regulations) against a vehicle end specification.
Any eventual operator will be requested through open tender to contribute to the capital costs of the selected Sprint vehicles at the time of procuring an operator. In order to avoid non-compliance with State Aid rules, internal legal and external advice has been sought (including Queen’s Counsel).
To meet State Aid Laws
Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) prohibits state aid – this means any transfer of state resources that selectively confers an advantage on an undertaking and which distorts (or threatens to distort) competition and affects trade between Member States. Commission decisions indicate that State funding of local projects is generally considered to distort competition and affect trade between Member States as it can reduce the opportunity for providers in other Member States to provide services in the State in question. The provision of vehicles or infrastructure through State resources (which would include Centro/LTB funding) for the exclusive use of an operator would very likely constitute state aid.
The de minimis exceptions are unlikely to apply to Sprint given the values being discussed and other subsidies/grants available to operators over recent years.
However, if the compensation is paid to the operator under Regulation No 1370/2007 the prohibition on state aid would not apply.
The vehicle end specification will incorporate items as described below; whilst the items below will not be individually evaluated at tender stage, it is the intention that these items will be discussed at the negotiation stage of the vehicle tender.

Table 5.1 Sprint vehicle end specification
Ref Specification Elements Type
1 Modern external stylish appearance setting them apart from regular buses Aesthetics
2 External appearance to be more akin to “tram” with rounded fronts and rears Aesthetics
3 Internal layout more akin to tram with feeling of space inside. Aesthetics

4 Euro 6 emissions Engine Specification
5 Tested fuel efficient drive trains using latest technologies Engine Specification
6 Quiet and vibration free engines Engine Specification
7 Extra over energy saving technologies including kinetic energy recovery system (KERS) Engine Specification
8 Potential ease of adaptation to full electric should technologies advance appropriately within life span of vehicle. Engine Specification

9 Multi number of doors to enable quick boarding and disembarking Vehicle Specification
10 Capacity for 100+ passengers Vehicle Specification
11 Manoeuvre-ability to travel around Birmingham City Centre Vehicle Specification
12 18m single deck articulated vehicles or potentially longer (subject to DfT derogation) Vehicle Specification
13 Vehicle to be compliant with UK legislation (subject to possible DfT vehicle length derogation) Vehicle Specification
14 Finished and equipped to high standards Vehicle Specification
15 Rattle free interior and exterior Vehicle Specification
16 Automated maximum acceleration allowing greater passenger comfort. Vehicle Specification
17 “Kneel” down suspension for reducing boarding height. Vehicle Specification
18 Flat floor throughout vehicle Vehicle Specification

19 Wifi Passenger Amenities
20 Artificial leather seat coverings Passenger Amenities
21 Baggage racks Passenger Amenities
22 Push chair and wheel chair areas Passenger Amenities
23 On ticket validation (swipe points) Passenger Amenities
24 Infotainment screens showing next stop, and associated audible message Passenger Amenities
25 Perch seats to supplement main seating Passenger Amenities
26 Innovative proposals for additional passenger amenities Passenger Amenities
27 Ramps for access for disabled passengers Passenger Amenities
28 Air conditioning/heating Passenger Amenities
29 Internal CCTV for additional passenger security Passenger Amenities
30 Charging points for phones/laptops/ipods etc. Passenger Amenities

31 External CCTV linked to driver for greater 360 degree visibility Driver Amenities
32 Details of driver aids Driver Amenities

33 Details of warranties – general, body, drive train, batteries Maintenance
34 Maintenance and support arrangements (inc spare parts) Maintenance
35 Reliability – references and case studies Maintenance
36 History of any recalls Maintenance
37 Manufacturer vehicle lifespan Maintenance
38 Manufacturer service intervals Maintenance
39 Manufacturer operational costs (fuel, proactive maintenance, batteries) Maintenance

40 Manufacturing time from order including commissioning and delivery Programme

41 Innovative funding proposals including costs savings against numbers Costs
42 General Vehicle Costs Costs

5.1.3 For the Sprint Operator
Centro’s Legal and Procurement teams have been heavily involved with discussions pertaining to this procurement exercise, as have external lawyers Bircham Dyson Bell, supported by Queen’s Counsel advice.
The procurement of an operator is quite complex, due to competition and state aid laws. In summary, advice received to date suggests that an open competition can be undertaken to obtain an operator to run Sprint. The competition will need to be open and transparent, so as not to favour any particular bidders. However, Centro will be seeking a sizeable donation from any operator towards the purchase of the Sprint vehicles, so minor transport operators will undoubtedly be discouraged.
Advice received suggests that advantages associated with the introduction of Sprint should outweigh any disbenefits to the existing network to avoid challenge. There are certain “tests” that must be considered in order to protect the introduction of Sprint from later challenges. These tests are incorporated within Part 1 of Schedule 10 of the Transport Act 2000 (“TA2000”).
To meet the TA2000 Schedule 10 competition test:
1. the tender and award must be “objectively justifiable” as being proposed for the purpose of and as contributing to securing improvements in the quality of vehicles or facilities used for or in connection with the provision of local services, securing other improvements in local services of benefit to users, and reducing or limiting traffic congestion, noise or air pollution (“the bus improvement objectives”);
2. the effect of the proposal on competition must be proportionate to the achieving of that purpose; and
3. Centro must not impose on the successful operator restrictions which are indispensable to the attainment of the bus improvement objectives or afford the operator the prospect of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the services in question.
Following legal advice, Centro are confident that the procurement proposals do not contravene the competition test above, and any potential challenge in the future can be adequately defended.
The tender for an operator will need to include numerous clauses to ensure that there is a clear “step change” in the transport offer to the public. Clauses will be derived from various previous contracts, plus new bespoke clauses including:
• Existing bus operator contracts (EBC)
• Existing Metro operator contracts (EMC)
• Existing Statutory Quality Partnership Scheme (SQPS) (Birmingham City Centre)
Whilst the tender is still currently being worked upon, it is considered that clauses will include items described below:
Table 5.2 Sprint operator tender elements
Ref Sprint Key Operator Tender Elements Derived
1 Description of Sprint service required including route and number of Sprint Infrastructure (stops) and interventions. Sprint stops for Sprint vehicles only except where stated. NEW
Map of scheme area X-ref SQPS
2 Specification of running times – 05.00 – 23.30 Monday to Saturday and 06.00 – 23.30 on Sundays NEW
X-ref SQPS
X-ref EBC
3 Operator to operate Sprint vehicles with a defined specification and associated operational costs derived from the vehicle tender responses NEW
X-Ref SQPS, X-ref Vehicle tender
4 Sprint stop specification X-ref Drawings
X-Ref SQPS
5 Sprint Stop Maintenance Contractor SQPS
6 Centro RTI Maintenance Team SQPS
7 CCTV in shelters – Maintenance SQPS
8 Electrical supplies to infrastructure SQPS
9 Sprint stop stands and clearways – maintenance of highway markings SQPS
10 Road Infrastructure maintenance SQPS
11 Communications Protocol SQPS
12 Operator to possess a depot within the vicinity of the proposed route NEW
13 Operator to locate depot at a location such that a Sprint vehicle can readily gain access to and from the route of operation. NEW
14 Not Used
15 Minimum duration of operations contract to be X years NEW
x-Ref SQPS
16 Contribution from operator for capital purchase of vehicles to be provided NEW
17 Operational costs to be provided and annual subsidy/return to be advised. NEW
18 Operator to sign up to SQPS NEW
X-Ref SQPS
19 Passenger Information Requirements Existing Bus Contract
20 Route & Destination Displays SQPS
21 Bus Passenger Surveys SQPS
22 Monitoring, Enforcement and Maintenance SQPS
23 Passenger safety Existing Bus Contract
24 Fares Existing Bus Contract
25 Quality of Service Existing Bus Contract
26 Targets Existing Bus Contract
27 Driving Staff Standards
• Training & Development (public interface)
• Physical Driving Standards Existing Bus Contract
X-Ref SQPS
28 Customer Care Standards SQPS
29 Complaints Existing Bus Contract
30 Christmas & New Year Arrangements Existing Bus Contract
31 Vehicle Requirements
• Cleanliness
• Destination & Route Number
• Smoking prohibited
• Exhaust emissions
• Room for collapsible push chairs
• Notices & signs
• Temperature regulation Existing Bus Contract
32 Subsidisation/Concessionary Fares Existing Bus Contract
33 Reimbursement for Special Tickets and Passes Existing Bus Contract
34 State of repair of bus Existing Bus Contract
35 Changes to Fares Existing Bus Contract
36 Health & Safety (General Obligations) Metro Contract
37 Environment (Operator to achieve ISO 14001) Metro Contract
38 Overall Operation and Maintenance Arrangements Metro Contract
39 Operations and Maintenance Resources & Facilities Metro Contract
40 General Maintenance Obligations Metro Contract
41 Hazardous Materials Metro Contract
42 Disaster Recovery Metro Contract
43 Seasonal Preparedness Metro Contract
44 Advertising Metro Contract
45 Fault & Deficiency Reporting Metro Contract
46 Awareness and Vigilance Metro Contract
47 Staff Travel Plan Metro Contract
48 Objectives & Security & Revenue Management Plan Metro Contract
49 General Security and Policing Arrangements Metro Contract
50 General Requirements for Revenue Collection Activity Metro Contract
51 Management Arrangements Metro Contract
52 Revenue Management Working Group Metro Contract
53 Revenue Protection Officers Deployment Metro Contract
54 Enforcement & Court Action Metro Contract
55 Portable Ticket Vending Machines Metro Contract
56 Ticket Selling & General Obligations Metro Contract
57 Travel Surveys Metro Contract
58 Sprint Visual Identity Metro Contract
59 General Timetable Definitions, Requirements, Conditions & Interpretations
• Periods of Operation
• Sprint vehicle availability
• Recording of Data
• Planning Assumptions Applicable to All Timetables
• Maximum Journey Times
• Minimum Service Hours
• Headways Metro Contract
60 Special Events Metro Contract
61 Passenger Related Services
• Provision of Information at Stops
• Public Address System at Stops
• Passenger Emergency Help Points at Stops
• Provision of On Sprint Information on Passenger Services
• CCTV Monitoring, Management & Use
• Passenger Comments & Complaints
• Passenger Service & Information Enquiries
• Lost Property
• Media Relations Metro Contract
62 Presentation
• Cleaning Management
• Stop Inspection/Cleaning
• Sprint cleaning – Exterior
• Sprint cleaning – Interior
Maintenance of Maintained Assets
• KPIs
• Overall Scope of Works
• Management Arrangements
• Maintenance Planning
• Performance of Maintained Assets
• Technical Incident Investigation
• Short Term Service Disruption
• Mutual Training
• General Maintenance Obligations
• Inspections
• Reactive Maintenance & Fault Management Plan Metro Contract
63 Asset Management System
• Obligations
• Access by Centro
• Civil Infrastructure
• Electrical
• Electrical Technical Reports from the Asset Management System
• Signaling & Telecoms Metro Contract
64 Information Provision & Record Keeping
• Keeping of Operating & Patronage Figures
• Submission of Information relating to Particular Incidents & Ad hoc Reporting
• Submission of Revenue Reports & Monthly Reports
• Executive summary – Reporting Requirements Metro Contract

5.2 Output based specification
Project deliverables are given below:
• Procurement of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) vehicles, delivering a 10 minute frequency
• Procurement of an Operator to operate the BRT vehicles
• Highways Improvements along the Hagley Road between Quinton and Birmingham City Centre to improve journey times for the BRT vehicles
• Provision of Sprint stops, more akin to Metro stops including 13 outbound stops and 14 inbound stops, excluding the termini.
• Provision of off-vehicle ticketing
• Provision of appropriate wayfinding including shelter timetable totems and local directional wayfinding
• ITS including bus priority at signals
• Fixed CCTV at bespoke locations

To facilitate modal change (attract passengers to Sprint who may have previously used cars):
• Improved RTI
• Improved journey times (including non cash payment ticketing)
• Reliable service (use of bus priority measures) – Journey Time Reliability
• Streetscape improvements
• Increased wayfinding
• Improved access at Sprint stops (kerb heights in accordance with Quality bus network to enable swifter getting on and off
• Improved bus aesthetics (Sprint “branded” look)
• Improved passenger comfort supported by a “Statutory Quality Partnership Scheme” entered into by the bus operators, highway authority and Centro to ensure standards for passengers are contractually binding to include:
o Vehicle Cleanliness
o Vehicle emissions
o Driver training
o Highway maintenance
o Ticketing ease
o Wifi availability

The interventions (or bus priority measures) will be bespoke to each Sprint route that is developed. However, the interventions proposed for the Hagley Road Sprint programme include the following, also shown in Appendix G and costings provided in Appendix H:
Intervention 1 Hagley Road West / Ridgeway Avenue Junction
The left turn for the Sprint vehicle approaching the terminus stop in Ridgeway Avenue would currently require the vehicle to manoeuvre into the outside lane of the dual carriageway before making the turn. A larger radius would allow the vehicle to make the turn from the inside lane.
This intervention is feasible subject to there being no land ownership considerations. It has been assumed currently that any utilities can be accommodated without diversion. This will need further consideration as the design is developed.
Intervention 2 Ridgeway Avenue Layby for Layover
There is currently sufficient length and width in Ridgeway Avenue to provide layover facilities for the Sprint vehicle within the existing carriageway. The width of the carriageway, however (approx. 6.5 metres), would limit passing opportunities for other vehicles and buses. The introduction of a layby in the existing footway would provide additional space for passing vehicles. It should be noted that if it is proposed to use the layover location as a stop, it will not be feasible to dock the complete length of the vehicle against the kerb.
It has currently been assumed that no land acquisition is required and no service diversions are necessary. This will need further consideration as the design is developed.
Intervention 3 Ridgeway Avenue / Spies Lane Junction
The left turn from Ridgeway Avenue into Spies Lane will require Sprint vehicles to manoeuvre into the opposing carriageway in either Ridgeway Avenue or Spies Lane. Increasing the radius and realigning the immediate approach would ease this situation.
This intervention is feasible subject to there being no land ownership considerations and the abutments to the motorway overbridge not being affected. It has been assumed currently that any utilities can be accommodated without diversion. This will need further consideration as the design is developed.
Intervention 4 Hagley Road West east of Kingsway
The carriageway adjacent to the existing bus stop to the east of Kingsway is approximately 8.2m wide. When a service is docked at the stop the passing width is therefore limited. This situation is exacerbated by a length of limited waiting on the opposite carriageway to the west of the stop.
Relocating the existing stop to the west of the Kingsway junction (adjacent to the new Sprint stop) will improve traffic flow through this area.
Intervention 5 Hagley Road West eastbound slip road
As the eastbound slip road joins the Quinton Expressway there is a short length of bus lane which provides access to an existing bus stop. West of the bus lane there is a length of unrestricted parking which requires buses to queue in a single lane with general traffic. Extending the bus lane to the west or restricting parking would reduce delays to buses.
This would require a Traffic Regulation Order and the approval of Sandwell MBC. It should be noted that this area is used as frontage parking for local residents so there is likely to be significant opposition to the proposal.
Intervention 6 Parking Area opposite Innkeepers PH
The introduction of inbound Sprint stop I3 requires the relocation of the existing stop and removal of approximately 24 metres of existing limited off-peak parking.
Consideration has been given to increasing parking provision by including echelon rather than parallel parking within the adjacent access road. The existing access road width is approximately 6.3 metres which is inadequate for echelon parking. The width could be increased by approximately 0.6m by removing the adjacent boundary wall but level differences suggest this is unlikely to be feasible.
Intervention 7 Hagley Road West / Wolverhampton Road Junction
The existing inside lanes on the A456 approaches to the junction are signed ahead and left. Restricting the inside lanes to left turning traffic and buses only would reduce delays for buses at the junction. This would require signing and lining modifications and the extent of the bus lanes either side of the junction would need to be reviewed.
This intervention has been simulated using junction modelling, and is deemed to be detrimental to the general traffic in terms of delay; therefore, this intervention will not be taken forward due to the impact of delays on general traffic.
Intervention 8 Westbound Bus Lane Galton Road to Balden Road
A westbound bus lane was originally proposed between Galton Road and Balden Road by widening the existing carriageway.
Using the southern verge would provide an overall width of approximately 10.5 metres which would allow two 3.5 metre running lanes and a 3.5m bus lane. Services in this verge, however, may be costly to relocate / protect.
The option of widening into the central reservation is not considered to be feasible due to level differences unless retaining structures are incorporated and the pedestrian crossing adjacent to Beechwood Road removed.
Modelling has since shown that a cheaper solution to incorporate the proposed bus lane within the existing highway will not cause disruption/delays to general traffic and hence this intervention will be taken forward on this basis.
Intervention 9 Eastbound Bus Lane extension on approach to Lordswood Road junction
This bus lane is currently being extended as part of the Birmingham City Council Hagley Road / Bearwood Road Junction Improvement scheme. No further improvement is feasible.
Intervention 10 and 11 Westbound Bus Lane Highfield Road to Vicarage Road / Inbound Bus Lane Wyndam Road to Plough and Harrow Road
These were originally two separate proposals which have been combined into a single proposal by reallocating road space between Vicarage Road and a point east of Highfield Road. This allows sections of inbound and outbound bus lane to be introduced with limited effect on general traffic movement.
Intervention 12 Westbound Bus Lane Five-Ways to Highfield Road
This bus lane is provided by widening the existing westbound carriageway into the southern verge. As the existing carriageway narrows on the approach to the Highfield Road junction it is necessary to acquire a tract of private land to allow three lanes of adequate width. (Note: Calthorpe Estates own the land required to implement this intervention. They are supportive of Sprint and have indicated that they would be willing to transfer this land at little cost to the programme).
An option to provide the bus lane without the acquisition of private land has been considered but this would reduce the bus lane length by approximately 140 metres unless general traffic lanes were reduced from two to one.
Intervention 13 Westbound Bus Lane Fiveways Underpass
This option provides a westbound bus lane through Fiveways Underpass by converting the existing inside lane into a bus lane. Physical works are limited to signing and lining.
Intervention 14 Broad Street to Regency Wharf Bus Gate
This option removes general traffic from the eastern end of Broad Street approaching Paradise Circus. This option is un-necessary if the Centenary Square Metro Extension proceeds which provides a bus gate between Bridge Street and Centenary Square.
If the Metro scheme does not proceed, further consideration will need to be given to restricting general traffic in this area.

In terms of interventions, ITS proposals include the following:
Intervention 15 Bus Priority at Traffic Signals
There are currently 30 sets of traffic or controlled pedestrian traffic signals between the proposed terminations of the Sprint Route.
This option would require modifications to traffic signal controllers along the route together with a method of communication between the traffic signals and the Sprint vehicles.
The method of operation of the bus priority has not been investigated as part of the outline business case. However, Birmingham City Council is currently undertaking trials at 3 sets of traffic lights on the Walsall Road, investigating both SCOOT and MOVA options, and also a “hybrid” from both. Recommendations from the trials suggest that this type of bus priority technology using loops will be an appropriate and cost effective solution for Sprint.
Intervention 16 Scoot Revalidation
A number of the existing junctions along Hagley Road currently operate on SCOOT. Revalidation of SCOOT is taking place by Birmingham City Council independently of the Sprint project.

The ITS interventions above will be accompanied by additional ITS related to the Sprint stops, including Real Time Information on stop totems, ticketing (Swift etc), remote fulfilment. The selection of the optimum ticketing regime will follow discussions with operators, and will form part of the detailed design.

5.3 Procurement strategy
The procurement of the vehicles and the operator has been one of the most challenging aspects of the programme. Extensive liaison with Centro’s Legal and Procurement officers has been undertaken. Additionally, external legal advice has been obtained from Bircham Dyson Bell Solicitors (BDB), supported by opinion from James Goudie QC.
5.3.1 Vehicle Procurement
The procurement of the correct style of vehicles is key to the success of the proposed Sprint programme. The vehicles need to provide a step change up from traditional buses. The vehicles are intended to encourage modal shift due to their style, comfort and appearance. The vehicles should be perceived as a “premium” product, attracting the interest of the public. It is the intention that the vehicles will possess the appearance of trams on wheels.
Sprint vehicles will present an image similar to that of a tram, both externally and internally. They will offer a superior standard of passenger accommodation including, potentially, such features as wifi and enhanced location/stop information.
Centro Legal and Procurement officers have been heavily involved with defining the most appropriate procurement process for the vehicles. External lawyers BDB have also provided their legal views with regard to the most appropriate procurement option, supported by opinion from QC. The recommendation is that due to the potential value of spend the vehicles will be procured via an open competition and advertised through the OJEU.
Key advice received from BDB states that: “Whilst it is possible to stipulate relevant criteria relating to the nature and quality of the bus bearing in mind the nature of the service envisaged (e.g. special characteristics, size, emissions standards etc) such criteria would have properly to relate to the contract sought and could not have the effect of discriminating in favour of or against certain suppliers. In other words the award of the contract would have to be transparent, objective and non-discriminatory based on the most economically advantageous offering as assessed against the published tender evaluation criteria.
It has been decided that the OJEU process that will offer Centro the most flexible options to identify the preferred bidder for the vehicles is to undertake the procurement via the Utilities Regulations. This will give Centro the ability to negotiate with suppliers in terms of determining appropriate extras, decor, branding and specific fit out of the vehicles. The proposed procurement timetable is as below:
Table 5.3 Sprint vehicle procurement timetable
Event Estimated Date
Issue PIN 1st August 2014
Deadline for Expressions of Interest 1st September 2014
Invitation to Participate in Dialogue 22nd September 2014
Deadline for Initial Tenders 13th October 2014
Negotiation Period 15th October – 14th November 2014
Invitation for Best and Final offers 17th November 2014
Deadline for Final Tenders 17th November 2014
Award of Contract 5th December 2014
Standstill Period 20th – 29th December 2014
Award of Contract 30th December 2014
It is proposed that the vehicles are procured on the basis of establishing a single supplier framework agreement with price breaks based on the number of vehicles ordered. Whilst there can be no guarantee of overall volumes associated with the framework, the initial commitment will be for the vehicles required for the Hagley Road works. The framework will be for a period of 4-5 years and will include options for both 18m & 24m vehicles (the ability to procure 24m vehicles will be dependent on obtaining derogation from the DfT).
5.3.2 Operator Procurement
Again, Centro’s Legal and Procurement teams have been heavily involved with discussions pertaining to this procurement exercise, as have external lawyers BDB and QC. The procurement of an operator is quite complex, due to competition and state aid laws. In summary, advice received to date suggests that an open competition can be undertaken to obtain an operator to run Sprint. The competition would need to be open and transparent, so as not to favour any particular bidders. However, Centro will be seeking a sizeable donation from any operator towards the purchase of the Sprint vehicles, so minor transport operators will undoubtedly be discouraged.
Advice received suggests that advantages associated with the introduction of Sprint should outweigh any disbenefits to the existing network to avoid challenge. There are certain “tests” that must be considered in order to protect the introduction of Sprint from later challenges.
Dovetailing the Procurement Procedures
The following is proposed as a way of undertaking the procurement exercises, taking into consideration logistics and chronology:
Sprint Procurement Proposal

Step 1
Comments:
• Usual caveats stating that vehicles will not necessarily be purchased during the framework. The ceiling for the number of vehicles within the framework to be 50, to allow for the Hagley Road Sprint programme and potentially three other routes to be developed during the course of the framework.
• Framework to run for maximum number of 8 years so that should additional Sprint routes be progressed then further vehicles of the same specification can be procured.
• Tender to incorporate operational characteristics and whole life costs, so that running costs can be ascertained as well.
• Utilise “Sprint vehicle end specification” above as starting point for tender end specification.

Step 2

Step 3
Comments:
• Will need to show that the effect on competition is or is likely to be proportionate to the achievement of the proposals
• Proposals will show that the proposals are (a) securing improvements in the quality of vehicles, securing other improvements in local services, and reducing or limiting congestion, noise or air pollution.
• Show that proposals are compliant with competition and procurement law including State Aid.
Step 4

Comments:
• Seek capital contribution for vehicles within tender
• Seek annual operational contribution (+/-) within tender (i.e. this will flag whether operational subsidies are sought by any operator, prior to negotiation).
• Duration to be half life of vehicles (say 8 years).
• Tender to confirm that Operator contract will be re-let at year 8, with a capital contribution sought again at that time. Should the operator change at “re-let”, then any capital contribution will be pro-rated between Centro and initial operator. If same operator wins, then capital contribution will be to Centro only.
• Re-let operator will be responsible for vehicle mid life refurbishment
• Vehicles to be given free of charge to re-let operator at end of 2nd term (15 years)
• Need to cross reference against proposed SQPS contents (i.e. driver training, hours of operation, possibly fare structure) and duration.
• Any operator will need to provide an appropriate depot with maintenance facilities.
• Utilise “Sprint key operator tender elements” clauses.
• Align commencement of operator contract with vehicle delivery timescales allowing for commissioning and training/depot availability/highway infrastructure completion/Sprint stop completion/ITS implementation.
• Caveat that an operator appointment may not ultimately happen.

Step 5
Step 6
Step 7

A proposed timetable for the procurement of a suitable operator for the vehicles, via the OJEU Public Sector Directives is as follows:
Table 5.4 Sprint operator procurement timetable
Event Estimated Date
Advertising of contract inviting expressions of interest in trade press and BravoSolution: October 2014
Pre Qualification Process (including publication of award criteria): Open from October till 31st December 2014
Publish Tender Documents on BravoSolution: 20th January 2015
Submission of initial Offers: 13th February 2015
Negotiation process: 16th February 2015 till 16th March 2015
Receipt of Final Offers: 27th March 2015
Contract Award: 10th April 2015

With regard to other potential procurement requirements, the following has been ascertained:
• Civils procurement: Centro Procurement will run a suitable mini competition through Lot 3 of the West Midlands civils and highways framework agreement and invite the 4 contractors qualified to submit a response via BravoSolution, timescales for submission of responses can be around 4 weeks.
• Bus stop procurement: Centro’s Strategy and Planning are currently developing a new EU framework agreement which will be for the design, supply and installation of a suite or family of enhanced BCCI type infrastructure and associated equipment. We are anticipating that we should be in a position to issue the ITT in summer 2014 and it is the current expectation that this multi supplier framework agreement will be utilized for this work stream, following award in Autumn 2014. If, however, a specialist tender would be required for Sprint stops then a specific design will need to be produced either ahead of tendering or during the tender process to identify a preferred bidder.
• Wayfinding procurement: the above enhanced stop framework can consist of several Lots, as well as the enhanced stops themselves, such as information totems, wayfinding signage etc. if bespoke designs are required. Alternatively Centro has an existing Strategic RTI framework agreement in place that may be able to be utilised for the provision of information totems, providing they meet the scope of the framework.
• ITS Procurement – this can be procured through Centro’s Strategic RTI framework agreement by running a suitable mini competition through the appropriate Lot and give qualified suppliers 3 – 4 weeks to respond.
• Priority signalling – Siemens currently provide this service for Birmingham City Council as a subcontractor to Amey PFI. It is proposed that Amey can be approached to quote for the bus priority works.

5.4 Sourcing options
Wherever possible, existing frameworks compliant with European legislation will be used. The use of these frameworks will de-risk the programme, will provide best value for money as they have been tendered previously, and will increase surety of expeditious delivery.

5.5 Payment mechanisms
5.5.1 Infrastructure Works
As these works will be procured under existing frameworks the payment mechanisms under those contracts will be applied. The infrastructure is likely to provide Centro with a revenue stream from the display of advertising at the shelters, this revenue is to be retained by Centro, in line with its existing shelter arrangements, in order to fund the cleaning and maintenance of stops and shelters.
5.5.2 Sprint Vehicles
The payment mechanisms will be the subject of negotiation, Centro’s default position will be to make payments on the delivery of vehicles following a complete quality check and handover period with variations from this only made where there is a demonstrable benefit to Centro in doing so, for example through lower prices. In any event Centro will look to retain a percentage of the fee until the end of the warranty period to ensure the warranties are honoured.
Given the desire to keep branding and appearance consistent with trams there is likely to be no traditional poster advertising on the vehicles. However, advertising generated by internal “infotainment” means may be a distinct possibility, subject to discussions with vehicle manufacturers and operators.
5.5.3 Sprint Operator
Again the mechanisms will be the subject of negotiation during the tender and the outcome will be decided by whether or not the tenderers believe the route is commercially viable; the likely outcome is that payment will be made either by Centro or the operator to the other party based upon the performance in that quarter with any profit or losses shared.
In order to ensure a consistent high quality service is provided the release of some form of payment to the operator will be subject to performance incentives related to punctuality, cleanliness and other factors impacting customer experience. Centro will carry out audits of both the operator’s books and operations to validate the information provided in this regard.
In addition Centro will be seeking a payment from the operator at the start of the contract as a contribution to the purchase cost of the vehicles.

5.6 Pricing framework and charging mechanisms
5.6.1 Infrastructure Works
As these works will be procured under existing frameworks the capped/fixed pricing and mechanisms under those Frameworks will apply. In general for civils and shelters work this will involve monthly applications for work done and for ITS a fixed percentage paid on order, upon FAT, SAT with a 5% retention for 12 months.
Note: FAT: Factory Acceptance Test; SAT: Site Acceptance Test
5.6.2 Sprint Vehicles
The pricing and charging mechanisms of the vehicles will be negotiated during the procurement process. Centro’s default position will be payments made upon delivery with penalties for late delivery.
Following the initial 9 vehicles Centro will seek fixed pricing for the lifetime of the Framework with allowances for prices to vary in line with the number of vehicles ordered. There will be allowances made for prices to be increased or decreased in line with any changes in the cost base of the manufacturer. This will allow the order for additional vehicles if required as well as the procurement of vehicles for future routes.
5.6.3 Sprint Operator
The pricing and charging mechanisms will be decided upon through negotiation during the tender process and will depend on whether or not the operators view the route as commercially viable. Regardless Centro will ensure it receives a percentage of any profit made by the operator, in the best case scenario the operator will guarantee Centro a minimum set income and in the worst case Centro will agree to provide a subsidy to the operator. This will be in addition to the contribution to the purchase cost of the vehicles.
The operator may also be provided with incentives to hit performance targets related to punctuality, cleanliness and other factors impacting customer experience or a penalty for failing to hit the targets, again the exact mechanism will be decided upon during the tender process.

5.7 Risk allocation and transfer
5.7.1 Infrastructure Works
As these works will be procured under existing frameworks the risk allocation under those Frameworks will apply, in general these place the bulk of the risks onto the contractors with risk transferring with ownership.
5.7.2 Sprint Vehicles
All the risk associated with the vehicles will be borne by the manufacturer until the vehicles are officially accepted by Centro, this will include the manufacturer holding the risk throughout transportation of the vehicles. Once handed over the operator would assume the risk until the end of the contract.
5.7.3 Sprint Operator
The allocation of risk will largely depend on the outcome of negotiations which will in turn depend on how successful operators believe the route will be.
From a financial point of view Centro will likely be looking for an operator who has enough confidence to guarantee a level of income to Centro with profits above a set threshold shared; in such a scenario the risk is entirely borne by the operator. In a worst case scenario Centro would have to guarantee to cover the costs of the operator, in which case Centro would assume all the risk relating to the performance of the franchise. A middle case would see the operator and Centro sharing the risk and reward with a percentage of any loses or profits shared.

5.8 Contract length
The length of the Vehicle Framework will be 8 years as it is the maximum recommended length allowable under the Utilities Procurement Regulations, this will allow for vehicles to be consistent across any future routes; this will also provide an incentive to the manufacturer to offer low prices and a good service. A framework agreement also provides no commitment from Centro and so vehicles could be procured from other sources for future routes if desirable.
The life expectancy of the Sprint vehicles is 15 years with a likely need to be fully reconditioned after 8. The length of the operator contract will therefore be 8 years to allow for a contribution to this to be sought from the new operator to mirror the contribution to the purchase cost sought from the operator for the initial concession. The contract is likely to be limited to operating the service and maintaining the vehicles with maintenance of the other infrastructure falling to Centro under existing contracts which will offer economies of scale and thus deliver at a cheaper price. This will also allow Centro to benefit from potential advertising opportunities on the stops.

5.9 Human resource issues
There are no currently perceived human resource issues. The works will be managed by Centro’s Metro Directorate. Interventions will be delivered by framework contractors, and the Sprint vehicles through an industry wide recognized bus manufacturer.

5.10 Contract management
The currently anticipated implementation timelines are shown on the post award programme given in Appendix I.
The contract management will be undertaken by a bespoke programme manager, reporting to Paul Griffiths (Metro and Sprint Programme Director) and also chair of the Sprint Delivery Board.

The Management Case
6.1 Introduction
Each of the individual elements of the programme of works will be reviewed with regards to design, approvals, resource levels and approach to procurement to ensure a robust programme is provided. Several framework contracts are anticipated to be used permitting parallel working to improve deliverability, and de-risk the programme.

6.2 Evidence of similar projects
Centro will be the Client for the proposed Sprint programme. Over the past five years, Centro have successfully delivered several major infrastructure projects, including:
• Birmingham City Centre Interchange
• Stourbridge bus station
• Halesowen bus station
• Birmingham City Centre Metro
• Wolverhampton Bus Station

6.3 Programme / project dependencies
The scheme design impacts, and is impacted by, the Centenary Square Metro extension and both schemes are being designed accordingly. It is the current anticipation to share an “interchange” at Centenary Square which will possess capacity for Metro trams, Sprint vehicles and conventional buses. The scheme also complements planned upgrades to the bus and rapid transit networks however the extent of these does not directly impact the delivery of the scheme.
Finally, it is currently understood that highway works associated with the development at Paradise Circus will be commencing in 2015 and works will continue until 2018. Liaison with the highway authority will need to be close to ensure that Sprint vehicles can negotiate Paradise Circus with traffic management delays being kept to a minimum. In addition, BCC is undertaking a number of “Pinch Point” related highway schemes which will have an impact on the highway network in the short and medium term and will need to be coordinated with Sprint works. Liaison with Birmingham Council’s Traffic Managers has been regularly occurring over the last few months with bespoke meetings taking place, plus Sprint being discussed at the Birmingham City Centre Co-ordination Group chaired by Birmingham Council’s Traffic Managers.

6.4 Governance, organisational structure & roles
The governance of this project will utilise Centro’s ‘Gateway Review Process’ (based upon OGC’s Gateway Review Process which is considered industry best practice) and will review and approve the project at key stages to provide surety that they remain on target to deliver agreed objectives to time, budget and that project risk is being managed. The Gateway Panel is delegated by Executive Board (formerly Operating Board), reporting back making recommendations, checking progress and approving revisions as appropriate. As representatives for their business area’s interests, Gateway Panel members will provide decision making and agreement of recommendations to the Executive Board where decisions are above the Panel’s delegated authority. This will include acceptance of projects into funded programmes of works, tolerance setting, and exception decisions on projects, process developments, review and prioritisation of the project pipeline and future programmes of works. At key stages, projects go through a Peer Review assessment on behalf of Gateway Panel. In addition to this, Project Development Review Group (PDRG) is a regular monthly project assessment tool used to examine project progress and provide support and guidance to projects that have or are forecasting to exceed their tolerances as set by Gateway Panel (Refer section 6.6)
The project management structure will consist of a the scheme Delivery Sponsor (Metro and Sprint Programme Director) assisted by the Programme Manager who will take the scheme through Centro’s Gateway Process and into implementation with support from Centro’s Finance Team, Procurement Team and Programme Management Office. Implementation will be via approved contractors with relevant experience procured in accordance with Centro’s procurement processes and procedures.
The ongoing management of the programme will be through the Sprint Programme Manager reporting through the Sprint Programme Board, ensuring appropriate control, monitoring and support for the Sprint programme. The proposed structure is shown in section 6.6 below. It should be noted that at the time of writing the Governance process is subject to minor change.

6.5 Programme / project plan
The business case will be submitted in July 2014 ahead of the LTB meeting on the 9th September 2014.
A draft implementation plan is attached in Appendix I assuming a funding award of April 2015 and showing an estimated “go live” date of late 2016.

6.6 Assurance & approvals plan
The programme of works has previously passed through Centro’s Gateway process in order to obtain approval to take the concept idea (Centro Gateway -3) to Concept Feasibility (Centro Gateway -2).
At Concept Feasibility, options associated with Sprint were discussed and a direction recommended, based upon works undertaken at development stage. The recommendations were accepted by the Gateway Panel, and the programme progressed to Sponsor’s Remit (Centro Gateway -1) in February 2014. The purpose of the Sponsor’s Remit is for the Sponsor to provide the need and business justification for the project. The Sponsor provides high level project objectives, which will act as a baseline and project driver’s for the project.
These stages are pre-Gateway approval (ahead of the project definition stage shown in the Centro gateway Review Process shown overleaf). These stages are in keeping with the requirement for a “Starting Gate” review required for a major programme, mandatory for all projects requiring Treasury financial approval.
In May 2014, the Sponsor’s Remit was accepted by Centro’s gateway process and the “Project Definition” (Centro Gateway +1) is currently being worked upon. The project definition documentation was presented to Gateway during July 2014 with a recommendation to commence procurement and design activities in August 2014. Centro acknowledge that these “development” works precede the formal approval of this outline business case and confirmation of funding. However, Centro consider that a proactive stance is required now to enable Sprint operations to commence in Autumn 2016.
Development of the business case is currently supported by the Sprint Technical Board. As the Sprint programme progresses through the Gateway process to “Project Definition”, it is intended that the Technical Board is replaced with a new Delivery Board. It is proposed that the proposed delivery board will have the following members:

The Sprint Delivery Board will meet to discuss progress against programme, and to ensure that any programme related issues are swiftly and proactively resolved. The Board will also act to ensure that the described assurance processes are adhered to.
A plan with key assurance and approval milestones is shown in Figure 6.1 overleaf. In relation to timescales, the post award implementation programme will be refined once the award has taken place, with key approval meetings cross referenced within the programme.

Figure 6.1 Centro Gateway process, key assurance and approval milestones
Figure 6.2 Project overview structure
6.7 Communications and stakeholder management
Centro has an ongoing active partnership with Birmingham City Council and the bus operators along the Hagley Road corridor. It is proposed that this close working relationship would continue to support the development and delivery of Hagley Road Sprint, with Centro liaising with the Local Authority and ITA Members, in addition to undertaking public consultation exercises. Local sensitivities regarding transport schemes along the corridor would be acknowledged and incorporated as appropriate into the development of the project. It should be noted that public consultation exercises have been programmed as follows, to assess people’s reaction to the Sprint proposals:
• Tuesday 12th August, Victoria Square, Birmingham
• Saturday 6th September, High Street, Birmingham
Discussions have also taken place with the Birmingham city centre Business Improvement Districts, particularly the Broad Street and Colmore Row BIDs, in relation to this Sprint scheme and how it can support the BIDs’ activities.
Initial discussions have been held with the bus operators on the feasibility of running the Sprint vehicles on the Hagley Road corridor, and how this would work from an operator and financial perspective.
In previous major projects Centro’s programme team have established regular coordination meetings with key partners such as Birmingham City Council and bus operators in order to effectively manage the delivery and any issues arising.
Centro will prepare a Stakeholder Communication Plan and take the lead on all stakeholder communication processes. The contractors appointed to design and construct the works will have a key role in carrying out communications regarding the works programme with stakeholders. The Plan will define how communications with stakeholders and the general public will be managed and will set out the interfaces between Centro, the contractors and the relevant local authority.
During the finalisation of the Plans, Centro will ensure that the following key matters are addressed:
• All parties who may be affected by the project or have an interest in its implementation will be identified and recorded on a database.
• The stakeholder database will identify the interest that each stakeholder has, what communications they should receive during the course of the project implementation and the timing of such communication.
• The Plan will identify any input required from the stakeholder and the timing of that input and will set out how the project will manage the delivery of that input. Where relevant, the Plan will also describe the outcome desired by the stakeholder and how the project will deliver that outcome.
• The Plan will identify those stakeholders who have been offered undertakings and will describe the management methods to be adopted to ensure that fulfilment of the obligations in the undertakings is monitored effectively.
• The database will be updated so as to record all communications, whether by telephone, email, and letter or at presentations, with each stakeholder. The Plan will ensure that all those who are, or may be, affected by the works are advised in good time of the progress of the works and how they may be affected. The Plan will set out exactly what information will be sent to each stakeholder at each stage of the project.
• The Plan will ensure that the parties engaged in implementing the projects comprising this Business Case understand their roles so that communications with the public are co-ordinated, consistent and avoid duplication.
• The Plan will ensure good records are kept so that queries from the public are responded to appropriately and are tracked effectively.
• Information centres and websites will be kept up to date with accurate and informative information.
• Information prepared for distribution to stakeholders or the public will be accurate, up to date, informative and attractively produced so that the image of the project is enhanced as far as possible.
• Appropriate and up to date information will be provided to the media in a manner that ensures there is no duplication or misinformation and that the project is promoted positively.

6.8 Programme / project reporting
The control of this project will be through Centro’s ‘Gateway Review Process’ (based upon OGC’s Gateway Review Process which is considered industry best practice) and will review and approve the project at key stages to provide surety that they remain on target to deliver agreed objectives to time, budget and that project risk is being managed. The Gateway Panel is delegated by Centro’s Executive Board, reporting back making recommendations, checking progress and approving revisions as appropriate. As representatives for their business area’s interests, Gateway Panel members will provide decision making and agreement of recommendations to the Executive Board where decisions are above the Panel’s delegated authority. This will include acceptance of projects into funded programmes of works, tolerance setting, and exception decisions on projects, process developments, review and prioritisation of the project pipeline and future programmes of works. At key stages, projects go through a Peer Review assessment on behalf of Gateway Panel. In addition to this, Project Development Review Group (PDRG) is a regular monthly project assessment tool used to examine project and provide support and guidance to projects that have or are forecasting to exceed their tolerances as set by Gateway Panel.

6.9 Implementation of work streams
Workstreams are currently being overseen by a Centro programme manager dedicated to the Sprint programme. Works undertaken within these workstreams have been used to produce the business case. The development workstreams identified for the Sprint project are as follows:
• Route confirmation
• Route interventions
• Track analysis
• Highway modelling
• Bus stop design
• Bus stop locations
• Procurement
• Legal
• Ticketing technology
• Programme interfaces
• Costings
• SQPS
• Sprint trademark
• Risk & issues
• Publicity
• Wayfinding
• Business case writing

Once the business case has been approved, it will be necessary to establish workstreams to ensure proactive delivery for the Sprint programme. The delivery workstreams will be overseen by a programme manager, but will be split as follows:
• Procurement of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) vehicles, delivering a 10 minute frequency
• Procurement of an Operator to operate the BRT vehicles
• Procurement for civils works (interventions), Sprint stops, ITS, way-finding and ticketing
• Procurement of all detailed design elements including interventions, stops, ITS, way finding
• Implementation of highways Improvements along the Hagley Road between Quinton and Birmingham City Centre to improve journey times for the BRT vehicles
• Implementation of Sprint stops, more akin to Metro stops including 13 outbound stops and 14 inbound stops, excluding the termini.
• Implementation of off-vehicle ticketing
• Implementation of appropriate wayfinding including shelter timetable totems and local directional wayfinding
• Provision and implementation of ITS including bus priority at signals

6.10 Key issues for implementation
Key issues affecting the implementation predominantly relate to the interdependencies of various programme work streams that need to be co-ordinated effectively, to ensure that they are programmed carefully and completed on time. Any one of the various elements could lead to delays to the Sprint “go live” commencement date, currently anticipated as late 2016. These are shown on the draft post business case award programme given in Appendix I. Key interdependencies include:
• Sprint vehicle procurement, manufacture, delivery, and commissioning
(Note: a key issue for this task is to establish whether a derogation from the DfT will be available to permit the use of a 24m vehicle. Hence, to manage this risk, it is the intention to include both 18m and 24m vehicles within the framework tender, giving more time to discuss derogation in parallel).
• Sprint vehicle operator procurement
• Establish Sprint vehicle depot
• Provide appropriate ticketing system
(Note: Once we have had negotiations with potential Sprint operators, the most appropriate ticketing system can be established; this may include the use of conductors, fare evasion officers, ticket machines, remote fulfilment or web based purchase, ticket validation points).
• Install new Sprint vehicle stops
• Install bus priority interventions
• Install appropriate wayfinding
• Agree SQPS with operators and highway authority
• Pre “go-live” publicity

6.11 Contract management
The business case delivery will be managed by Centro’s Programme Management Directorate. Following the business case submission, the ongoing contract delivery will be managed by Centro’s “Metro and Sprint” delivery team. Key staff will remain in position, maintaining continuity for this programme from conception through to feasibility, business case, procurement, detailed design, implementation and commissioning.

6.12 Risk management strategy
A robust and systematic Risk Management process to Identify, Analyse, Plan and Manage risk will be applied to the programme. Risks will be reviewed, prioritized and, where appropriate, mitigation strategies developed for all significant risks. Effective control measures will be established to ensure risks are maintained at the level acceptable to the business. The stated aim is to be “best in class”.
Centro will demonstrate a proactive approach to risk management which is based on the following key principles:
• Centro will anticipate and take preventative action to avoid risk rather than manage the consequences
• Centro will seek to realize opportunities that arise from the monitoring of risk
• A consistent approach for the identification, assessment and management of risk will be embedded throughout the organization
• Risk control and mitigation will be effective, appropriate, proportionate and affordable.

A current table of risks associated with the programme is provided in Appendix J.

Analysis of the risks above has been undertaken by a professional risk manager, Peter Campbell FAPM MIRM MBCS MIET. The analysis for the Sprint programme has been undertaken in three elements as shown below:
a. Development stage.
b. Delivery stage.
c. Total Programme Exposure.

At each stage results have been produced for Confidence levels of 50% and 80% based on Residual (Post Mitigation) exposure values taken from the Sprint programme risk register.

References
A. Centro Programme Management Directorate ‘Risk Management Framework’.
B. British Standard BS 31100.
C. Association for Project Management Project Risk Analysis and Management Guide (PRAM).
D. Cabinet Office Management of Risk Guide (MoR).
E. Centro Risk Management Policy (Risk Appetite).
Methodology
The methodology adopted is supported by documentation shown in the above References. Analysis has been undertaken for Cost using both semi-quantitative and quantitative methods. Semi-quantitative methods are applied to the Risk Register for Cost analysis and provide outputs including level of exposure, percentage of project budget, non-specific and specific reserve and total management reserve. A mean value for the exposure (approximating the P50 value) is also provided.
Cost analysis has been undertaken using the applications MS Excel and Predict! Risk Analyser. This analysis is primarily used to provide levels of confidence in establishing impact values and a level of management reserve. Output graphs are shown below under Results.

Results
The graphs below show the results of the Cost risk analysis.
Cost risk exposure at confidence levels P50 and P80 for Development stage, Delivery stage and Total Exposure are shown below.

Development Graph

Delivery Graph

Total Exposure Graph

Table of results
Confidence P50 P80
Development £149,836 £199,923
Delivery £113,108 £162,398
Total Exposure £269,473 £332,668
6.13 Benefits realisation plan
Benefits realisation management is an integral part of Centro’s Gateway process, to ensure that all projects and programmes maximise benefits at project inception and that these benefits are realised as the project is developed and implemented.
All benefits from this project will be achieved from scheme implementation; monitoring programmes proportional to the scale and type of the scheme will be in place to ensure benefits are realised.
Sprint has been identified as one of Centro’s key priorities for the coming year and has been prioritised for funding by GBS LEP. In order to maximise the business case presented for funding, and improve opportunities for funding of future Sprint schemes, we will need to clearly demonstrate all benefits from the project and subsequently ensure that they are all fully realised. We will therefore undertake a full benefits assessment to identify all benefits and disbenefits, allow presentation of benefits to stakeholders and ensure plans are in place for benefits realisation once the project is transferred to business as usual.
In advance of this assessment, initial likely benefits have been identified as:
• Improved quality of services in the city centre
• Mode shift along a congested route, leading to reduced congestion in the city centre
• Enhanced connectivity to the Enterprise Zone, HS2 and Eastside
• Increased growth in the corridor through improved links to HS2 and associated wider network of jobs
• Improved public transport access to jobs in the city centre
• Improved connectivity between hotels in the corridor to the Convention Centre and Brindley Place
• Improved journey times and reliability in this key congested corridor
• Improved attractiveness of existing PT services by reducing peak period overcrowding
• Improved evidence and business case for future Sprint services to justify rolling out additional routes

The proposed SMART objectives for this project are:
• For Sprint passenger satisfaction to be 2% higher than regular bus satisfaction
• To increase regular bus patronage (non-Sprint services) on the Hagley Road corridor by 100,000 passengers per annum by 2018
• To improve access to new developments and growth areas in the corridor by sustainable transport modes by reducing current journey times for Sprint by an average of 7%
• To support modal shift with 8% of Sprint passengers changing from car by 2017

Baseline surveys will be undertaken to provide a clear “before” position to monitor against.

6.14 Monitoring and evaluation
In order to monitor effectively the performance of the projects comprising this Business Case against the key objectives it will first be necessary to establish a base case against which performance can be measured. It is anticipated that this will need to be done just prior to commencement of operations on the system, so that the comparison of ‘before’ and ‘after’ scenarios uses the most up to date ‘before’ data.
The baseline data will comprise the following:
• Regular bus satisfaction levels;
• Existing patronage levels;
• Journey times;
• Traffic levels on key highways;
• Junction performance including queues at junctions where highway modelling indicates measurable change; and
• Environmental data.

Wherever possible Centro will use information already available from bus and rail operators and local authorities as part of the regular data gathering process, in order to avoid incurring additional costs and adverse impacts on the public. It may also be necessary in certain instances to obtain some baseline data prior to the start of construction to ensure that construction activities do not impact on the validity of the baseline data.
Following implementation of the scheme, Centro will introduce a monitoring and evaluation regime. The purpose of this regime will be to monitor performance of the system so as to ensure:
• The scheme is performing as intended;
• Any problems and/or possible improvements are identified;
• Key performance indicators are monitored;
• Established objectives are being achieved; and
• The scheme continues to represent value for money.

The evaluation will enable the performance of the system to be continually optimised. Before the monitoring regime is introduced, consideration will be given to the availability of data, the practicality of obtaining it, whether it will properly reflect the indicators and the cost of obtaining it.
Monitoring of key data sets e.g. patronage, customer satisfaction, journey speeds should be conducted at least one year after programme completion as a minimum.
Centro have a number of Market Research and Data Collection Framework Agreements with external suppliers as well as in house Customer Insight and Research and Intelligence Teams to assist with the development of any Monitoring and Evaluation Framework which is required by the Sprint Programme.

6.15 Contingency plan
It is the intention that Sprint should “go live” during late 2016. The “go-live” date is dependent upon various workstreams all dovetailing together to arrive at a predominantly common completion date.
Should there be delays to the programme of works and the “go live” date is delayed, then the existing bus routes currently serving the Hagley Road will remain in place.
The preferred use of a 24m Sprint vehicle is dependent upon receiving a derogation from the DfT for the use of these vehicles. The current maximum length of vehicles that are permissible on UK roads is 18.75m. Senior local politicians are greatly in favour of the 24m vehicles, due to their “tram like” appearance and capacity. The proposed framework tender for the vehicles will include both 18m and 24m vehicles. This will permit dialogue to continue with the DfT during the course of the tendering procedure, without delaying the procurement process.
If the derogation to use 24m vehicles is not forthcoming at a time in the programme where this becomes critical to maintain an Autumn 2016 operational start, then a high level decision will need to be taken to utilise 18m vehicles. It is anticipated that this critical date will be approximately May 2015, dependent upon vehicle delivery timescales determined from the vehicle procurement procedure.

6.16 Options
The project management structure will consist of the scheme Sponsor (Metro and Sprint Programme Director) assisted by the Programme Manager who will take the scheme through Centro’s Gateway Process and into implementation with support from Centro’s Finance Team, Procurement Team and Programme Management Office. Implementation will be via approved contractors with relevant experience procured in accordance with Centro’s procurement processes and procedures.

Appendix K – Calculation of Economic Benefits for New Public Transport Users
Journey time saving for modal shifting users
Annualised values for the periods below 2021 (person*hr) 2031 (person*hr)
AM (2 hour) 4106.1 4022.8
IP 1369.7 1783.3
PM (2 hour) 4168.3 3874.1
Day 9644.0 9680.3

Estimation of the weighted Value of Time
Journey Purpose TAG VoT in 2010 prices and values (£/hr) Journey purpose split from NTS
Other 6.04 71.0%
Commute 6.81 25.0%
Business, PSV 16.63 4.0%
Weigted Value 6.66 –

Estimation of time saving benefits for modal shifting users
Total benefit is £2,368,027 in 2010 prices and values, as detailed below.
Year VoT work index VoT non-work index Weighted VoT (£/hr) hrs saved Undiscounted benefits (£) discount rate discount factor discounted annual benefits (£)
2010 106.47 106.47 6.66 £ – 1
2011 106.77 106.77 6.67 £ – 3.50% 1.035
2012 106.36 106.36 6.65 £ – 3.50% 1.071225
2013 107.50 107.50 6.72 £ – 3.50% 1.108718
2014 109.70 109.70 6.86 £ – 3.50% 1.147523
2015 111.53 111.53 6.97 £ – 3.50% 1.187686
2016 113.71 113.71 7.11 9644.0 £ 68,552 3.50% 1.229255 £ 55,767.08
2017 115.97 115.97 7.25 9644.0 £ 69,914 3.50% 1.272279 £ 54,951.69
2018 118.17 118.17 7.39 9644.0 £ 71,243 3.50% 1.316809 £ 54,102.86
2019 120.81 120.81 7.55 9644.0 £ 72,835 3.50% 1.362897 £ 53,441.42
2020 123.52 123.52 7.72 9644.0 £ 74,470 3.50% 1.410599 £ 52,793.35
2021 125.82 125.82 7.87 9644.0 £ 75,855 3.50% 1.45997 £ 51,956.30
2022 128.18 128.18 8.01 9647.7 £ 77,304 3.50% 1.511069 £ 51,158.35
2023 130.59 130.59 8.16 9651.3 £ 78,792 3.50% 1.563956 £ 50,379.76
2024 133.08 133.08 8.32 9654.9 £ 80,321 3.50% 1.618695 £ 49,620.57
2025 135.76 135.76 8.49 9658.5 £ 81,972 3.50% 1.675349 £ 48,928.43
2026 138.53 138.53 8.66 9662.1 £ 83,672 3.50% 1.733986 £ 48,254.07
2027 141.37 141.37 8.84 9665.8 £ 85,422 3.50% 1.794676 £ 47,597.22
2028 144.30 144.30 9.02 9669.4 £ 87,223 3.50% 1.857489 £ 46,957.36
2029 147.31 147.31 9.21 9673.0 £ 89,077 3.50% 1.922501 £ 46,333.99
2030 150.41 150.41 9.40 9676.6 £ 90,986 3.50% 1.989789 £ 45,726.43
2031 153.45 153.45 9.59 9680.3 £ 92,860 3.50% 2.059431 £ 45,089.95
2032 156.57 156.57 9.79 9680.3 £ 94,751 3.50% 2.131512 £ 44,452.36
2033 159.79 159.79 9.99 9680.3 £ 96,694 3.50% 2.206114 £ 43,829.83
2034 162.92 162.92 10.18 9680.3 £ 98,592 3.50% 2.283328 £ 43,179.11
2035 166.30 166.30 10.40 9680.3 £ 100,637 3.50% 2.363245 £ 42,584.16
2036 169.77 169.77 10.61 9680.3 £ 102,733 3.50% 2.445959 £ 42,001.20
2037 173.31 173.31 10.83 9680.3 £ 104,881 3.50% 2.531567 £ 41,429.31
2038 176.96 176.96 11.06 9680.3 £ 107,087 3.50% 2.620172 £ 40,870.40
2039 180.68 180.68 11.30 9680.3 £ 109,340 3.50% 2.711878 £ 40,319.03
2040 184.66 184.66 11.54 9680.3 £ 111,750 3.50% 2.806794 £ 39,813.95
2041 188.73 188.73 11.80 9680.3 £ 114,212 3.50% 2.905031 £ 39,315.19
2042 192.93 192.93 12.06 9680.3 £ 116,749 3.50% 3.006708 £ 38,829.55
2043 197.21 197.21 12.33 9680.3 £ 119,343 3.50% 3.111942 £ 38,349.91
2044 201.59 201.59 12.60 9680.3 £ 121,994 3.50% 3.22086 £ 37,876.19
2045 206.07 206.07 12.88 9680.3 £ 124,704 3.00% 3.317486 £ 37,589.92
2046 210.65 210.65 13.17 9680.3 £ 127,474 3.00% 3.417011 £ 37,305.81
2047 215.18 215.18 13.45 9680.3 £ 130,216 3.00% 3.519521 £ 36,998.11
2048 219.81 219.81 13.74 9680.3 £ 133,016 3.00% 3.625107 £ 36,692.96
2049 224.53 224.53 14.04 9680.3 £ 135,876 3.00% 3.73386 £ 36,390.31
2050 229.36 229.36 14.34 9680.3 £ 138,798 3.00% 3.845876 £ 36,090.17
2051 234.29 234.29 14.65 9680.3 £ 141,783 3.00% 3.961252 £ 35,792.50
2052 239.18 239.18 14.95 9680.3 £ 144,741 3.00% 4.08009 £ 35,475.01
2053 244.17 244.17 15.26 9680.3 £ 147,761 3.00% 4.202492 £ 35,160.34
2054 249.27 249.27 15.58 9680.3 £ 150,844 3.00% 4.328567 £ 34,848.45
2055 254.47 254.47 15.91 9680.3 £ 153,991 3.00% 4.458424 £ 34,539.34
2056 259.78 259.78 16.24 9680.3 £ 157,204 3.00% 4.592177 £ 34,232.97
2057 265.27 265.27 16.58 9680.3 £ 160,525 3.00% 4.729942 £ 33,937.99
2058 270.87 270.87 16.93 9680.3 £ 163,916 3.00% 4.87184 £ 33,645.55
2059 276.59 276.59 17.29 9680.3 £ 167,378 3.00% 5.017995 £ 33,355.64
2060 282.71 282.71 17.67 9680.3 £ 171,081 3.00% 5.168535 £ 33,100.55
2061 288.96 288.96 18.06 9680.3 £ 174,866 3.00% 5.323591 £ 32,847.40
2062 295.37 295.37 18.46 9680.3 £ 178,745 3.00% 5.483299 £ 32,598.06
2063 301.91 301.91 18.87 9680.3 £ 182,702 3.00% 5.647798 £ 32,349.33
2064 308.60 308.60 19.29 9680.3 £ 186,748 3.00% 5.817232 £ 32,102.50
2065 315.43 315.43 19.72 9680.3 £ 190,882 3.00% 5.991749 £ 31,857.55
2066 322.41 322.41 20.16 9680.3 £ 195,109 3.00% 6.171501 £ 31,614.47
2067 329.50 329.50 20.60 9680.3 £ 199,394 3.00% 6.356647 £ 31,367.74
2068 336.73 336.73 21.05 9680.3 £ 203,773 3.00% 6.547346 £ 31,122.93
2069 344.13 344.13 21.51 9680.3 £ 208,248 3.00% 6.743766 £ 30,880.04
2070 351.68 351.68 21.99 9680.3 £ 212,821 3.00% 6.946079 £ 30,639.04
2071 359.41 359.41 22.47 9680.3 £ 217,495 3.00% 7.154462 £ 30,399.92
2072 367.22 367.22 22.96 9680.3 £ 222,225 3.00% 7.369095 £ 30,156.32
2073 375.21 375.21 23.46 9680.3 £ 227,057 3.00% 7.590168 £ 29,914.66
2074 383.37 383.37 23.97 9680.3 £ 231,995 3.00% 7.817873 £ 29,674.95
2075 391.71 391.71 24.49 9680.3 £ 237,040 3.00% 8.05241 £ 29,437.15

Estimation of benefits for the generated demand
Total benefit for the new demand (from modal shifting) given in the table below is £2,368,027. Benefit for the additional 100,000 trips is assumed to be: 100,000 / ((202,730 + 207,004) / 2) * £2,368,027 = £1,155,884.
Year Existing demand New demand from modal shifting Total demand
2021 907,005 202,730 1,109,735
2031 964,610 207,004 1,171,614

Total benefits for new public transport demand
It is estimated to be the sum of benefits for new demand from modal shifting and generated demand, £3,523,910.

Appendix L – Calculation of WEBS
Agglomeration impacts
The effective densities for each origin area by industry sector are presented in the table below, for the do minimum and do something scenarios, respectively. These were estimated based on:
• Generalised cost derived from time, distance and travel demand skim matrices output by traffic models; and
• Employment data for the relevant modelling year from the DfT’s economics dataset.
LAD Sector Manufacturing Construction Consumer Services Producer Services Manufacturing Construction Consumer Services Producer Services
Do Minimum Do Something
Dudley 1 123,185 65,480 49,987 53,609 122,991 65,388 49,928 53,542
Dudley 2 119,504 60,238 44,424 48,111 117,284 59,111 43,677 47,272
Sandwell 3 154,565 85,559 66,565 70,954 155,890 86,234 67,012 71,457
Birmingham 4 163,816 105,161 95,430 96,855 163,836 105,170 95,436 96,861
Sandwell 5 165,121 94,626 75,273 79,710 165,351 94,763 75,372 79,819
Birmingham 6 173,265 102,018 81,165 86,116 173,925 102,377 81,412 86,391
Birmingham 7 180,337 110,522 90,042 94,927 180,930 110,863 90,285 95,195
Birmingham 8 159,334 85,421 62,567 68,140 160,172 86,039 63,069 68,674
Birmingham 9 154,007 89,339 71,794 75,866 154,206 89,443 71,865 75,945
Birmingham 10 146,016 76,307 55,141 60,282 146,046 76,325 55,154 60,296
Dudley 11 23,409 8,252 4,748 5,537 23,227 8,172 4,699 5,481
Sandwell 12 39,648 17,454 11,301 12,754 39,700 17,480 11,318 12,773
Birmingham 13 45,067 20,692 13,615 15,306 45,085 20,701 13,621 15,312

2021 Employment data by LAD and origin area for each sector is given in the following two tables.
LAD Total Manufacturing Construction Consumer Services Producer Services
Birmingham 297072 48878 18913 106736 122545
Dudley 78016 16296 8842 32462 20416
Sandwell 85321 26292 5750 35898 17381

LAD Sector Manufacturing Construction Consumer Services Producer Services
Birmingham 4 491 190 1073 1232
Birmingham 6 633 245 1383 1588
Birmingham 7 3317 1283 7243 8316
Birmingham 8 11109 4298 24259 27852
Birmingham 9 2592 1003 5661 6500
Birmingham 10 5625 2177 12284 14103
Birmingham 13 25110 9716 54834 62955
Dudley 11 14292 7754 28469 17905
Dudley 1 1203 653 2396 1507
Dudley 2 801 435 1597 1004
Sandwell 3 430 94 587 284
Sandwell 5 362 79 494 239
Sandwell 12 25500 5577 34817 16858

Agglomeration impact is estimated based on GDP per worker, employment and density for each origin area. Total benefit is estimated to be £688,647 per annum for 2021, following the formulae given in WebTAG.
LAD Sector Manufacturing Construction Consumer Services Producer Services
Dudley 1 -£2,627 -£1,235 -£3,125 -£10,281
Dudley 2 -£20,760 -£11,046 -£30,056 -£96,829
Sandwell 3 £5,590 £975 £4,951 £11,093
Birmingham 4 £88 £21 £66 £480
Sandwell 5 £769 £152 £818 £1,802
Birmingham 6 £3,654 £1,156 £4,476 £30,637
Birmingham 7 £16,540 £5,313 £20,810 £141,897
Birmingham 8 £88,581 £41,614 £206,271 £1,313,768
Birmingham 9 £5,078 £1,580 £6,004 £41,342
Birmingham 10 £1,753 £679 £3,008 £19,773
Dudley 11 -£154,536 -£101,984 -£328,570 -£1,005,495
Sandwell 12 £50,798 £10,819 £64,782 £137,820
Birmingham 13 £15,200 £5,637 £25,068 £164,324
Total £688,647

Agglomeration impact for forecasting year 2031 is estimated to be £962,351 following the same approach as above.
Total agglomeration impact is estimated to be £23,887,220, following the discounting and profiling process set out in the table below.
Year VOT work index VOT non-work index Calculated WI1 for modelled years Undiscounted WI1 – profiled (£) discount rate discount factor discounted WI1 (£)
2010 106.47 106.47 £ 582,765 1
2011 106.77 106.77 £ 584,383 3.50% 1.035
2012 106.36 106.36 £ 582,143 3.50% 1.071225
2013 107.50 107.50 £ 588,358 3.50% 1.108718
2014 109.70 109.70 £ 600,426 3.50% 1.147523
2015 111.53 111.53 £ 610,440 3.50% 1.187686
2016 113.71 113.71 £ 622,350 3.50% 1.229255 £ 506,282
2017 115.97 115.97 £ 634,714 3.50% 1.272279 £ 498,880
2018 118.17 118.17 £ 646,782 3.50% 1.316809 £ 491,173
2019 120.81 120.81 £ 661,235 3.50% 1.362897 £ 485,169
2020 123.52 123.52 £ 676,079 3.50% 1.410599 £ 479,285
2021 125.82 125.82 £ 688,647 £ 688,647 3.50% 1.45997 £ 471,686
2022 128.18 128.18 £ 716,018 3.50% 1.511069 £ 473,848
2023 130.59 130.59 £ 743,388 3.50% 1.563956 £ 475,325
2024 133.08 133.08 £ 770,758 3.50% 1.618695 £ 476,160
2025 135.76 135.76 £ 798,129 3.50% 1.675349 £ 476,395
2026 138.53 138.53 £ 825,499 3.50% 1.733986 £ 476,070
2027 141.37 141.37 £ 852,869 3.50% 1.794676 £ 475,222
2028 144.30 144.30 £ 880,240 3.50% 1.857489 £ 473,887
2029 147.31 147.31 £ 907,610 3.50% 1.922501 £ 472,099
2030 150.41 150.41 £ 934,980 3.50% 1.989789 £ 469,889
2031 153.45 153.45 £ 962,351 £ 962,351 3.50% 2.059431 £ 467,290
2032 156.57 156.57 £ 981,949 3.50% 2.131512 £ 460,682
2033 159.79 159.79 £ 1,002,084 3.50% 2.206114 £ 454,230
2034 162.92 162.92 £ 1,021,759 3.50% 2.283328 £ 447,487
2035 166.30 166.30 £ 1,042,949 3.50% 2.363245 £ 441,321
2036 169.77 169.77 £ 1,064,675 3.50% 2.445959 £ 435,279
2037 173.31 173.31 £ 1,086,935 3.50% 2.531567 £ 429,353
2038 176.96 176.96 £ 1,109,801 3.50% 2.620172 £ 423,560
2039 180.68 180.68 £ 1,133,148 3.50% 2.711878 £ 417,846
2040 184.66 184.66 £ 1,158,116 3.50% 2.806794 £ 412,612
2041 188.73 188.73 £ 1,183,634 3.50% 2.905031 £ 407,443
2042 192.93 192.93 £ 1,209,929 3.50% 3.006708 £ 402,410
2043 197.21 197.21 £ 1,236,808 3.50% 3.111942 £ 397,439
2044 201.59 201.59 £ 1,264,284 3.50% 3.22086 £ 392,530
2045 206.07 206.07 £ 1,292,370 3.00% 3.317486 £ 389,563
2046 210.65 210.65 £ 1,321,080 3.00% 3.417011 £ 386,619
2047 215.18 215.18 £ 1,349,489 3.00% 3.519521 £ 383,430
2048 219.81 219.81 £ 1,378,510 3.00% 3.625107 £ 380,267
2049 224.53 224.53 £ 1,408,154 3.00% 3.73386 £ 377,131
2050 229.36 229.36 £ 1,438,436 3.00% 3.845876 £ 374,020
2051 234.29 234.29 £ 1,469,369 3.00% 3.961252 £ 370,935
2052 239.18 239.18 £ 1,500,025 3.00% 4.08009 £ 367,645
2053 244.17 244.17 £ 1,531,321 3.00% 4.202492 £ 364,384
2054 249.27 249.27 £ 1,563,270 3.00% 4.328567 £ 361,152
2055 254.47 254.47 £ 1,595,885 3.00% 4.458424 £ 357,948
2056 259.78 259.78 £ 1,629,181 3.00% 4.592177 £ 354,773
2057 265.27 265.27 £ 1,663,597 3.00% 4.729942 £ 351,716
2058 270.87 270.87 £ 1,698,740 3.00% 4.87184 £ 348,686
2059 276.59 276.59 £ 1,734,626 3.00% 5.017995 £ 345,681
2060 282.71 282.71 £ 1,773,001 3.00% 5.168535 £ 343,037
2061 288.96 288.96 £ 1,812,225 3.00% 5.323591 £ 340,414
2062 295.37 295.37 £ 1,852,422 3.00% 5.483299 £ 337,830
2063 301.91 301.91 £ 1,893,437 3.00% 5.647798 £ 335,252
2064 308.60 308.60 £ 1,935,359 3.00% 5.817232 £ 332,694
2065 315.43 315.43 £ 1,978,209 3.00% 5.991749 £ 330,156
2066 322.41 322.41 £ 2,022,009 3.00% 6.171501 £ 327,636
2067 329.50 329.50 £ 2,066,415 3.00% 6.356647 £ 325,079
2068 336.73 336.73 £ 2,111,797 3.00% 6.547346 £ 322,542
2069 344.13 344.13 £ 2,158,175 3.00% 6.743766 £ 320,025
2070 351.68 351.68 £ 2,205,572 3.00% 6.946079 £ 317,528
2071 359.41 359.41 £ 2,254,009 3.00% 7.154462 £ 315,049
2072 367.22 367.22 £ 2,303,026 3.00% 7.369095 £ 312,525
2073 375.21 375.21 £ 2,353,108 3.00% 7.590168 £ 310,020
2074 383.37 383.37 £ 2,404,279 3.00% 7.817873 £ 307,536
2075 391.71 391.71 £ 2,456,563 3.00% 8.05241 £ 305,072

Imperfect Competition Benefits
This is estimated to be 10% of the business user TEE benefits following the recommendation in WebTAG Unit A2.1.

Appendix M – Scheme Capital and Revenue Costs
Capital and revenue expenditures
This sections presents a copy of the spreadsheet where scheme costs were derived and demonstrates how individual elements were prepared for input into TUBA economic assessment.
The annual expenditures above were discounted and profiled across the appraisal period, with 44% optimism bias applied on non-fleet related costs. The table below summarises total costs for Scenario A split into standard TUBA category ready for input. Only public sector costs were brought into the economic assessment as private sector costs and benefits were not considered as explained in the main body of the report.
Construction Preparatory Supervision Operating
Cen. govt Local govt Private Cen. govt Local govt Private Cen. govt Local govt Cen. govt Private
£7,261,546 £3,318,916 £1,260,993 £525,414 £32,628,070 £19,913,495

The table overleaf present the detailed costs discounting and profiling for Scenario A for illustration purposes.

TO HAVE YOUR ASSIGNMENTS DONE AT A CHEAPER PRICE, PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US NOW.