local authority major schemes best and final …

LOCAL AUTHORITY MAJOR SCHEMES

BEST AND FINAL FUNDING BID

SEPTEMBER 2011

Scheme Name

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Upgrade Project

Local Authority

Coventry City Council

SCHEME COST SUMMARY (£m)

Scheme As Previously

Configured

(from section 1.4)

Revised Scheme

(from section 4.4)

LA contribution £3.464m £5.805m

Third Party Contribution £3.524m £3.728m

DfT Funding Contribution £10.481m £9.750m

Total £17.469m £19.283m

CONTACT DETAILS FOR FURTHER ENQUIRIES

Lead Contact:

Alan Newland

Position: Transportation and Programme Group Manager,

Coventry City Council

Tel: 024 7683 3379

E-mail:

[email protected]

Alternative Contact:

Jessica Pope

Position: Programme Manager (Major Projects), Coventry

City Council

Tel: 024 7683 2972

E-mail:

[email protected]

NOTE: Bids should be received by the Department by Noon on 9th

September 2011.

SENIOR RESPONSIBLE OWNER DECLARATION

As Senior Responsible Owner for Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Upgrade I hereby

submit this Best and Final Funding Bid to DfT on behalf of Coventry City Council

and confirm that I have the necessary authority to do so.

Name: Martin Yardley

Signed:

M Yardley

Position: Director City Services and

Development Directorate

SECTION 151 OFFICER DECLARATION

As Section 151 Officer for Coventry City Council I declare that the scheme cost

estimates quoted in this bid are accurate to the best of my knowledge and that

Coventry City Council has the intention and the means to deliver this scheme on

the basis of its proposed funding contribution at section 4.3 (a) above, as well as

meeting any ongoing revenue requirements on the understanding that no further

increase in DfT funding will be considered beyond the maximum contribution

requested at 4.3 (c) (including if third party contributions should no longer be

available).

Name: C. T. West

Signed:

C T West

Please Note: The promoting authority should ensure that a copy of this BAFB form and all supporting information is available on its website by 5pm on12 September 2011.

Please detail the appropriate location where these documents can be located. The Department may provide a link to these pages from its own website.

www.coventry.gov.uk/railbid

SECTION 1: THE SCHEME AS PREVIOUSLY CONFIGURED i.e. BEFORE 10 JUNE 2010

This section should EITHER describe the scheme as approved at Programme Entry OR as submitted in a business case bid for Programme Entry OR on the latest design on which the last QMR submitted to the Department was based.

Note: this information should be consistent with what was included in previous EoI with any

differences explained.

Date of Programme Entry or PE Bid or last QMR

Submission (where applicable)

26th March 2010

Estimated total scheme cost (inclusive of eligible preparatory costs)

£17.472m

DfT contribution

£15.261m

Local Authority Contribution (excluding the costs of any Part 1 Claims that you may have included at this

time)

£2.211m

Third party contribution

£Nil

1.1 Brief description of the scheme as previously configured This should clearly state the

scope of the scheme and describe all of its key components.

Coventry City Council, Warwickshire County Council and the Integrated Transport Authority for the West Midlands (Centro) are bidding for funding from the Department for Transport (DfT) for upgrading the existing railway line between Coventry and Nuneaton.

The preferred scheme comprises of two rail new stations and improvements to the existing stations at

Coventry and Bedworth combined with an increased frequency of the core train service along the entire

route, supplemented with the provision of special services for major events at Coventry Arena. The key

elements of the scheme are, shown below in Figure 1.1.1:

1. Coventry Arena Station – A new station, to be constructed adjacent to the existing Ricoh Arena

and the expanding Arena Park retail development.

2. Bermuda Park Station – A new station, which will accommodate three car trains, is to be

constructed close to the Bermuda Business Park between Bedworth and Nuneaton together with

car parking facilities.

3. Bedworth Station – The existing station at Bedworth is to have its platforms extended so it can

accommodate three car trains

4. Coventry Station – A new bay platform is to be provided in the north side of Coventry Station with

associated track and signalling works. This will cater for the enhanced train service to Nuneaton and reduce interaction of the enhanced service with the West Coast Main Line which currently

involves trains crossing this busy route to access platforms. Removal of the current delay point to access Coventry Station will enable the new stations to be provided with minimal impact on existing

journey times between Coventry and Nuneaton.

5. Basic Enhanced Service – The existing hourly rail service between Coventry and Nuneaton is to

be doubled in frequency between Monday and Saturday with two additional vehicles supplementing

the existing single railcar service, effectively tripling rail capacity on the corridor.

Figure 1.1.1: Scheme diagram, showing proposed and existing stations

6. Major Events Enhanced Service – for major events an additional two trains per hour six car service will run between Coventry and Coventry Arena and the Coventry to Nuneaton service will be strengthened to three cars. This will provide an enhanced service of four trains per hour between Coventry and Coventry Arena.

The infrastructure needed to provide the shuttle service will comprise of six car platforms at

Coventry Arena, including a facing crossover to allow trains to Turnback to Coventry to provide a shuttle service to the Arena during major events, and the new six car bay platform at Coventry station.

The Scheme will be designed to safely accommodate major event traffic. The Safety Case produced by Arup includes design recommendations for safe working of the route during major events which will be incorporated into the GRIP 4 design. The cost for these recommendations is already included within the capital cost for the scheme. Full details of the Safety Management Plan can be found in Appendix 5.

There is currently a special bus service that operates during major events. This is fully funded by the Coventry Arena Ltd and it will continue to run once the station opens. The bus service will carry people that cannot be safely accommodated on the rail service provided. The safe entrance and exit of people attending major events, including limiting access to the station and redirecting

people to buses when appropriate, will be delivered in a managed way.

The Coventry to Nuneaton corridor lies partly within the city of Coventry and partly in Warwickshire. The northern area includes the principal settlements of Nuneaton and Bedworth which are located on the Warwickshire Coalfield and have been traditionally associated with industries which have over the last

20 years experienced significant industrial decline and consequently suffer high levels of unemployment, low income levels, and several areas of multiple deprivation.

The corridor has been identified as a designated regeneration zone with a growing population, and plans for major new housing development. In contrast areas to the south of Coventry and the city itself have been highly successful in attracting development, even to the extent that, until fairly recently, these

areas witnessed a job surplus in their employment markets. Figure 1.1.2 shows the location of the

Coventry to Nuneaton rail route in the context of the wider rail network. The Scheme will improve the connectivity from North Warwickshire, and north Coventry to Coventry City Centre, South Warwickshire and to Birmingham and the West Midlands conurbation. The scheme also enhances access to Leicester and other through journeys which are an important element of existing demand.

Figure 1.1.2: Scheme diagram, showing proposed and existing stations

The need for enhanced transport links between the north of the corridor and Coventry City Centre and the developing employment areas immediately to the south has been recognised for some time and has been identified in several local, regional and national plans. The main commuter flows in the area are north south from Nuneaton & Bedworth into Coventry (525,000 commuter trips per annum1[1]).

The rail route between Coventry and Nuneaton is a 10 mile double track line, that has recently been resignalled and much of the track re-laid. There is a broadly hourly existing passenger rail service between Coventry and Nuneaton calling at the sole intermediate station at Bedworth. There are freight terminals at Murco Petroleum (Bedworth) and Prologis Park (near Coventry Arena). The route is used by regular container trains running between the West Coast Main Line and the South Coast ports. There is currently a line speed restriction on the route of 45mph, although the updated signalling has the capability of handling 60mph. As part of the on-going development of the scheme the project team will work with Network Rail to understand the practicality of increasing this line speed to 60mph in order to

deliver improved journey times.

Further information on the transport challenges and socio-economic characteristics of the corridor

can be found in the DaSTS stage one report, Appendix 15.

1 [1] Source CENTRO Coventry City Council & Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council

1.2 What are/were the primary objectives of the scheme? Please limit this to the primary objectives (ideally no more than 3) the problems to which this scheme is the solution. If the primary objectives have changed please explain why. Do not include secondary objectives i.e. things to which the scheme will contribute.

The primary objectives of the scheme are;

1) Improved access to Coventry, the Arena development area, the Bermuda Park development area and Nuneaton supporting the economic growth and regeneration of these areas in a sustainable manner.

2) To provide high quality, sustainable, public transport in this key corridor. The scheme also works towards reducing congestion and carbon emissions by offering a greater range of travel options.

3) Improved performance on the national rail network through removal of the Coventry Nuneaton

service from the West Coast Main Line through provision of a bay platform at Coventry.

1.3 Please describe the process by which this scheme came to be the preferred option for meeting those objectives including reasons why alternatives were not progressed. This may simply be an extract from what has already been described in previous Major Scheme Business Cases. However please take the opportunity to expand on that previous material as necessary.

Option Development

Investigation into appropriate transport solutions for the Coventry – Nuneaton corridor has been undertaken over several years. In 2004 it was determined that the sustainable transport and regeneration needs of the corridor required improved public transportation in the corridor. In July 2005 the Coventry - Nuneaton Public Transport Options Study reported the results of an investigation on behalf of Warwickshire County Council and the Coventry, Solihull and Warwickshire Partnership (CSWP). The study included use of the Strategic Transport Model and appraised schemes in relation to the regeneration objectives as well as their costs and benefits.

The study compared 4 public transport options:

• Bus Rapid Transit (BRT);

• Light Rail Transit (LRT);

• Heavy Rail; and

• Quality Bus Corridors.

Numerous sub-options of each and packages were also assessed against a framework based on a range of factors including spatial regeneration objectives in the corridor.

The Study concluded that public transport improvements should be staged over a 15 year period. In the short term it recommended:

• An improved rail service frequency between Nuneaton and Coventry with new stations at

Coventry Arena and Bermuda Park; and

• A bus rapid transit system - Coventry Rapid Transit. Initially the section of the corridor within the Coventry City Council boundary with an aspiration to extend that service to Nuneaton.

In the longer term, the study recommended further development of the heavy rail service pattern in the corridor and the extension of BRT.

Light rail was ruled out due to the high costs of conversion for marginal benefits over heavy rail, producing a weaker business case. Also, additional stops to generate new revenue to cover higher costs resulted in a significant increase to the end to end journey time – an advantage of the existing rail service (currently 19 minutes, LRT 31 minutes and low cost (diesel) LRT 25 minutes).

Heavy rail development was determined to be the cheapest option as it utilises an existing underused asset within the corridor and would form the backbone of the public transport system in the corridor.

Coventry City Council has already implemented Quality Bus Corridors along the Foleshill Road and other radial corridors in the City. BRT was determined to be a further step change in the quality of local public transport – with high-tech vehicles and a higher level of priority. Further studies have been undertaken to determine the route and extent of the network including extension to Nuneaton. Whilst initial options paralleled the railway to the north of Coventry City Centre, no options considered converting the alignment as it is a strategic rail freight corridor.

In 2007 the Coventry Sprint Review study concluded that the scheme should be shortened to a route running from Keresley in the north of the city to the University in the south, largely within Coventry City Council boundary. This was partly as a result of the lack of support for bus priorities in Bedworth and Nuneaton, undermining the more strategic version of the scheme. Further detailed appraisal in 2008 could not establish a sufficiently strong business case for the scheme, and it is now being reviewed in the context of the growth agenda, regional priorities and potential future markets.

The Coventry - Nuneaton corridor is a wide corridor and it is envisaged that future improvements to bus transport will be needed in order to meet the strategic travel demands identified in the Local Development Framework in a sustainable manner. However, for the longer journeys between Coventry and Nuneaton and between the study area and other locations on the national rail network, enhancements to rail are essential in order to maximise the delivery of the strategic objectives for the corridor.

Further work on LRT and Low Cost (Diesel) LRT (using tram-train technology) determined a higher business case for the lower cost option, but significant delivery issues related to infrastructure requirements, safety compliance and institutional and regulatory issues. In addition, the resultant low cost LRT recommended service pattern could be replicated by traditional heavy rail. Heavy rail has the advantage of potentially being able to call on a larger existing fleet to provide maximum rail capacity for serving large events at Coventry Arena.

Table 1.3.1 below shows a summary of the alternative modes that have been considered in the scheme

development and Table 1.3.2 illustrates a comparative appraisal of the different options.

Table 1.3.1 Summary of Alternative Options Considered

Option Reason for Rejection

Quality Bus Already implemented within Coventry by Primelines initiative and commercially forms the

base network.

Bus Rapid Transit Affordability / economic efficiency coupled with deliverability issues. Bus conversion

impractical due to strategic freight role of alignment.

Light Rail Transit Poor business case for whole line conversion and system compatibility issues. Higher

frequency service difficult because of freight movements.

Diesel LRT (Low

Cost) Higher system costs for non-generic vehicle procurement and maintenance. Service

patterns replicable with traditional heavy rail and translated into rail options for appraisal.

Table 1.3.2 Comparative Analysis of Alternative Options

Objective

Sub Objective Quality Bus

Bus Rapid

Transit

Light Rail

Heavy Rail

Deliverability of Scheme

Implemented Some Difficulties

in Nuneaton Difficult owing to

freight movements Deliverable

High Quality Public Transport

Attractive

Frequency Excellent Excellent Excellent

Limited Frequency

Environmental

Benefits

Reduction of

transportation

emissions Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

Improves Accessibility

Better north

south links Good Good Good Good

Promote

economic growth

Supports Regeneration Zone

Good Good Good Good

Access to the

Ricoh Arena Poor at

present Could be

improved Excellent Excellent

Supports

development in

central Coventry

Improved transport

Interchanges None None Good Good

Tackling Congestion

Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

Affordability/ Value for Money (BCR)

Making efficient use of existing facilities

Good High cost approx 2.0

High Cost approx 2.0

Cheapest

Option

approx 3.0

Further development work on the Rail enhancement scheme suggested that the frequency improvement

coupled with two new stations and a bay platform at Coventry Station could provide a positive business

case. The rail scheme was therefore prioritised for further development.

Rail Option Development

Between 2005 and 2009 studies were undertaken to determine the preferred stopping pattern and service frequency. Although other station sites were investigated, it was decided that new stations at Coventry Arena and Bermuda Park best met the requirements for the corridor in terms of serving existing demand and planned growth areas as well as best meeting the station spacing requirements for attractive end to end journey times.

Service frequency options for a half hourly service, three trains per hour, four trains per hour and a halfhourly service with four trains per hour between Coventry Arena and Coventry (2 + 2) were assessed using a strategic mode choice and trip rate spreadsheet model.

Provision of a bay platform at Coventry Station will remove the need for southbound trains to wait for, typically, 5 minutes to access the platform. This negates the journey time penalty of calling at two new stations. Detailed timetable planning work suggests the end to end journey times will reduce from 24 minutes to 21 minutes southbound and will increase slightly from 18 minutes to 20 minutes northbound.

The business case for half-hourly, three trains per hour and 2 + 2 trains options were similar and carried forward for more detailed timetable assessment in 2009 using the Rail Industry’s RailSYS model to understand performance impacts. This confirmed that the half hourly and 2 + 2 trains per hour options could be accommodated assuming the construction of a bay platform at Coventry station. A new bay platform was also found to provide significant performance benefits at Coventry station. It was concluded that the three trains per hour option required additional infrastructure to provide the capacity required to accommodate both passengers and freight services at Nuneaton which would otherwise have a significant timetable impact.

It was decided that the half hourly option should represent the preferred scheme and that, for appraisal, the existing (broadly hourly) service frequency with the new stations should form the low cost option.

Demand work confirmed that three car platform lengths at Bermuda Park and Bedworth would be sufficient to deal with predicted demand within the appraisal period. At Coventry and Coventry Arena six car platforms were included to ensure that the rail route, and in particular Coventry and Coventry Arena stations, would be able to accommodate additional event demand safely. This would ensure a rail service would be able to operate on football match days and during major events. The existing platform and track arrangements at Nuneaton were found to be sufficient.

The Preferred Scheme

As a result of the development work the preferred scheme is:

• New six car station at Coventry Arena;

• A facing cross-over at Coventry Arena;

• New three car station at Bermuda Park;

• New six car bay platform at Coventry station;

• Track and signalling upgrade on the Coventry station approaches;

• Platform extensions to three car length at Bedworth Station; and

• A doubling of the frequency of the existing rail services between Nuneaton and Coventry to two trains per hour between 0530 and 2300 (Monday – Saturday).

1.4 What was the last total estimated cost of the scheme as previously configured including where changed since the award of Programme Entry?

Please provide the latest cost of the scheme with a summary and where, appropriate, an explanation of the key changes from the previous cost breakdown. Please use this section to identify any cost savings that you have already made since the award of Programme Entry. Figures should be outturn costs. Please adjust to exclude the costs of any Part 1 Claims that you may have included at this time.

£m Pre 2011/ 12

2011/ 12

2012/ 13

2013/ 14

2014/ 15

2015/ 16

2016/ 17

2017/ 18

2018/ 19

Total %

LA

contribution 0.721 1.299 1.443 3.463 19.8

Third Party

contribution 1.762 1.762 3.524 20.2

DfT funding

requested 3.488 6.994 10.482 60.0

TOTAL 0.721 6.549 10.199 17.469

2 Extract from Cabinet Report (21/07/11) – Application OUT/2011/0036 – Land Bounded by Railway, Grosvenor Road, Manor Road and including Greyfriars Green, Station Square

1.5 Please describe any developments (such as housing) linked with the scheme as described above and explain any changes impacting on these developments (eg policy changes such as housing allocations, changes to redevelopment plans)? This should explain any links that the planned scheme had to major developments and provide details of changes to these plans such as through changes in policy relating to housing, changes to developer plans etc

Major developments related to the scheme that have previously been referenced are still progressing as planned. These include; Coventry city centre

• 30 ,000 employees work in Coventry city centre, in addition 1.4 million people a Month visit the city centre. Many of the visitors and workers live along the proposed Coventry/Nuneaton line.

• The Friargate Development , Figure 1.5.1 , immediately adjacent to Coventry railway station, includes 300,000m² of offices (10,000 employees) being implemented by Cannon Kirk over the next ten years. The development will also include a number of hotels in the next two to three years, and redevelopment and enhancement of the shopping centre. The scheme will provide vital access to the Friargate Development for both commuters and visitors. A letter of support has previously been sent by the developers of this scheme. Outline planning permission for the proposal was granted in July this year.

Figure 1.5.1 Friargate Masterplan 2

(http://cmis.coventry.gov.uk/CMISWebPublic/Meeting.aspx?meetingID=2210)

•

Severn Trent have recently built new headquarters, shown in Figure 1.5.2, in the city

(completed by September 2010; occupied from end September 2010, final tranche summer 2011), (1,400 jobs) resulting in substantial increase in park and ride use and consequent expansion of park and ride capacity.

Figure 1.5.2 Severn Trent building

•

Coventry University has a Masterplan for the next 20 years, which includes, o

Increasing from 14,000 to 15,000 students and from 2,000 to 2,250 staff.

o Income generated from £144M to £200M+ o Doubling of

business start-up capacity o Tripling of income from

applied research

o Developing transformative programmes within the City, these

current developments are:

− A multi-storey car park accessed from Gosford Street and adjacent to the University opened in spring 2010. − Student Enterprise Building, located off Jordan Well adjacent to the Herbert Art Gallery, with possible phased opening from autumn 2011. − Engineering and Computing Building located adjacent to the existing Student

Centre on Gulson Road, opening in September 2012.

•

The enhanced rail service will also be beneficial to the expansion and development plans of Warwick University, in the corridor. Enhanced connections will help the university to forge closer relationships with business and HE collaborators in important regional and national destination. Enhanced connections will also make it easier for the university to recruit and retain staff, and will stimulate additional visits to the campus by parents. Enhanced connectivity by rail to key international arrival points and well as national centres will also make it easier for the university to develop further the important markets for conferencing and events.

Warwick University has a Masterplan for the next 10 years, which includes:

o Doubling of research activity; o Increase in

student numbers, principally postgraduates; o

Expansion of ‘outreach’ and commercial activities; and

o Growth of ‘support’ facilities.

It is estimated that these forecasts will result in an extra 4,000 staff and students,

requiring an additional 171,000 sq m of development - a 40% increase in the overall

existing campus footprint.

•

Housing development in Coventry remains stable, with a number of large sites being

developed. It is anticipated that over the next 10 years, housing supply will continue to

increase at a steady rate, as there are numerous sites currently available for

development, which are likely to come forward over that timeframe. A significant

proportion of sites are located in the Northern half of the City.

Coventry Arena

Coventry (Ricoh) Arena, Figure 1.5.3, includes a 32,000 seated sports arena, which also hosts major concerts, a hotel, Conference centre, banqueting suite, and exhibition space which has recently been extended and a casino amongst other facilities. The Arena currently employs 1,450 people, and in its first five years the Arena has attracted over 7 million visitors.

The area around Coventry (Ricoh) Arena has been identified as district for major development.

The Arena has been chosen as a venue for the forthcoming Olympics, for the duration of the 2012 Games the Arena will be known as the City of Coventry Stadium. This has led to considerable development around the arena to coincide with the Games.

Figure 1.5.3 Ricoh Arena

New developments planned include two hotels adjacent to the Arena and a further five hectares of developable brownfield land adjacent to the Arena and Arena Retail Park.

The stadium will also host the 2015 Rugby World Cup. Promoters are working with the Arena operating company to develop the scheme and a letter of support from Arena operating company was submitted with the initial expression of interest bid. We can estimate that Arena Retail Park, adjacent to the Ricoh Arena, has over 5M visitors a year and includes of one of the largest hypermarkets in Europe as well as several well known chain stores and a local library. New developments including additional shops by Spen Hill developments are due to be built on the vacant building plot adjacent to the shopping centre.

Bermuda Park

It is anticipated that housing and employment areas in Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough will grow in the future. It is likely that future developments will make use of, and benefit from, Bermuda Park station which will provide a sustainable transport option between the Bermuda Park area and Coventry, Bedworth and Nuneaton.

Around 450 houses and 3000 sq m of office space has been recently built at Bermuda Park. A planning application for a further 170 houses 400m to the west of Bermuda Park station is currently being considered. A further 3000 sq m of employment is expected to come forward as part of the Developer’s proposals for the Bermuda Park area in the near future.

Bermuda Park is home of the National Distribution Centre of Dairy Crest and RS Components. The newly opened national headquarters of Holland and Barrett (35,000sqft) is 600m from the proposed Bermuda Park station.

SECTION 2: REVISED SCHEME PROPOSAL This section should describe the changes you are proposing to make for the purposes of your Best

and Final Funding Bid.

2.1 Are you proposing any changes of scope from the scheme as described

in Section 1? If yes, please describe in detail the changes you are proposing. Please also attach

explanatory maps, diagrams etc. as appropriate.

1) Three Spires Loop – A new loop at Three Spires Junction for DBS (Murco) Oil Trains to run round, replacing capacity lost at Coventry Yard, Coventry station after the implementation of the new bay platform and associated sidings conversion / removal. This need has been identified during the design process, and if not replaced would otherwise impinge on strategic freight capacity and freight company access rights and therefore mean an

unacceptable scheme for progression through Network Change.

2) An alternative scheme with a shorter bay platform at Coventry is currently being considered (but has not been included) that does not require the Three Spires Loop described above; but will mean that event shuttles greater than 3 cars in length will have to use other platforms at Coventry station, which will need operational sign-off from the train operators that could be difficult to achieve. Design acceptability and operational viability are being established with Network Rail.

3) Inclusion of car parking at Coventry Arena – land for eighty car park spaces is being provided to the scheme by ACL, which will be sufficient to accommodate expected car parking demand from patronage levels of the normal train service. Operating costs will be covered by revenue; a car park daily charge of £1.50 is proposed.

2.2 What, if any, additional changes of scope have you ruled out for the purposes of your Best and Final Funding Bid? Please give reasons.

1) An alternative scheme that does not cater for event shuttles has been considered and ruled out as it does not achieve scheme or local objectives.

2) A second alternative scheme that provides a full end-to-end shuttle service has also been considered to cater for high volume events, but this has been ruled out due to lack of rolling stock availability and the detrimental impact on normal services whilst longer trains are operated (services would not be able to call at Bermuda Park and Bedworth due to short platforms).

3) Not having car parking at Coventry Arena has been ruled out as this is required to cater for

demand, and will be required to satisfy the requirements of the planning application.

2.3 Whether or not you are proposing a change of scope, please identify any savings that have been made to the total cost of the scheme, for example through value engineering. Please provide details with a summary and explanation of the further savings beyond those already identified at 2.1 above or, if no scope changes are proposed, with reference to the cost breakdown provided in the latest cost estimate at 1.4 above.

1) At Coventry Arena an existing pedestrian underpass will be used to provide access between

the station platforms and to provide full public access to the station from both sides of the railway line. This has avoided the need to provide a DDA compliant pedestrian footbridge and lifts/ramps on the station - a substantial cost saving. A derogation is being sought for this arrangement from the DfT.

2) At Bermuda Park an existing footway underneath the railway will be used to provide access

between the station platforms and to provide full public access to the station from both sides

of the railway line. This has avoided the need to provide a DDA compliant pedestrian

footbridge and lifts/ramps on the station - a substantial cost saving. The gradient of the existing footpath is not DDA compliant and therefore a derogation is being sought for this arrangement from the DfT.

3) Derogations have been secured from Network Rail for retaining existing ballast depth and for retaining the location of an existing Overhead Line Electrification mast at Coventry Bay Platform. These have reduced the need and cost of additional works.

4) Car Parking at Bermuda Park will be provided by widening the existing highway. This has removed the need for off-street car parking provision.

2.4 Please provide separate details of any further changes you are proposing to the scheme from that submitted in January 2011. Under the earlier submissions, an assumption was made that the base hourly service on the route will be operated by a 2-car Class 150 unit. This was in line with the original London Midland submission to the DfT for additional HLOS (growth) vehicles. This proposed removing

the Class 153 units from the franchise, to be replaced by a retained fleet of Class 150 units. This submission has since been replaced by a significantly scaled down proposal which will see the single car Class 153 unit retained on the line at least until the end of the franchise. Please refer to Section C, Appendix 6 for further details of the rolling stock procurement for the scheme.

2.5 What is your latest assessment of the cost, feasibility and value for money of any alternatives to the proposed scheme?

This should include any previous options subsequently discarded and / or those proposed by third parties. Please explain why this / these options have not been progressed. Please detail any elements that have been included in your proposed scheme. Please make reference to any material differences with the preferred scheme in costs or benefits such as carbon impacts.

In Spring 2010 the preferred scheme was determined through an appraisal of alternative rail frequency options, and the next best and low cost options identified. The scheme sponsors case for the preferred scheme, together with updated versions of the other options have been modelled and are provided below:;

• Preferred Scheme (half Hourly plus two new stations) BCR 3.5.

• Next Best Option (as preferred scheme but with existing hourly timetable) BCR 2.3 rejected due to poorer VfM.

• Low Cost Alternative (as next best without the Bay Platform at Coventry) BCR 1.2 rejected due to very poor VfM.

This analysis also demonstrates that the Next Best Option still represents value for money with a BCR over 2, and could become a viable fall-back position if the Preferred Scheme train service levels are unsustainable or not attainable for any reason.

SECTION 3: IMPACT OF CHANGES PROPOSED AND DELIVERY OF THE SCHEME This section should describe the impact of the changes you are proposing in Section 2 above

compared to the previously configured scheme as described in Section 1

3.1 What impact, if any, would the proposed changes have upon achievement

of your primary objectives? This should refer to the scheme as identified in section 2.1

1) The reduction in length of the bay platform at Coventry Station from 6 to 3 cars would have a slightly negative impact on the operational reliability of Coventry Station if event services were required to use alternative platforms.

2) The ability to provide a limited number of car parking spaces at Coventry Arena Station will enhance the attractiveness of the service and prevent users from parking in inappropriate locations. This addition to the scheme will have a slightly positive impact on the economic/regeneration objective.

3) The provision of the new loop at Three Spires Junction delivers a number of further network benefits, enhancing the achievement of the operational objectives of the scheme. In particular these include:

• More efficient operation of the Murco Oil train (with its terminal at Bedworth) which will in future have to travel a shorter distance to run-round and may be able to operate with less shunting staff, creating cost savings for both Murco and DB Schenker.

• Better access to the Prologis freight terminal, encouraging the development of new freight services to this site

• Improved capability to hold passenger services outside Arena station to provide services after events

• Potential cost savings to Network Rail by making the existing Hawkesbury Lane loop redundant, and facilitating its removal.

• Improved freight service regulation on the route, by providing a northbound looping capability which currently doesn’t exist, giving performance and timetabling benefits for the wider network.

Based on the above, the Partners believe third party contributions towards the Three Spires Loop cost should be sought from rail industry parties.

3.2 Please provide a short description of your assessment of the value for money of the revised scheme including your estimate of the Benefit Cost

Ratio. This should cover both monetised and non-monetised costs and benefits and should briefly

explain the reasons for significant changes since your most recent Business Case submitted to the Department. The full assessment, as set out in the Value For Money guidance should be provided as an Appendix. Valuation of any dependent development should be reported here, separately from the central value for money evidence and supporting evidence, and a full description of the

approach taken should be included in the Appendix.

The value for money assessment of the scheme has been undertaken through the application of the Coventry – Warwickshire Transport Models for trips within the corridor, the rail industry MOIRA model for long distance trips and analysis of Coventry Arena visitor data for medium scale events / conferences. The economic appraisal employs the DfT’s Appraisal Guidance for Major Schemes and for the appraisal of rail schemes including the use of TUBA for the analysis of the within corridor user benefits, MOIRA for the analysis of long distance user benefits, rail appraisal guidance for the assessment of wider benefits (non-users) and Rail PDFH forecasts for the performance benefits resulting from the bay platform. In addition, the wider economic benefits have been forecast using the DfT’s WITA programme.

The economic appraisal results are shown in the table below for the preferred WebTAG

compliant case (with all demand, revenues and benefits growth capped at 2026), and the sponsors case with performance benefits capped at 2026 but demand, revenues and benefits growing to 2031 the forecast model year and around the time when the peak services will be crowded.

Table 3.2.1 Economic Appraisal taking account of quantified benefits.

DfT WebTAG

Compliant Case

DfT WebTAG

Compliant Case

plus wider

benefits

Scheme

Sponsors Case Scheme

Sponsors Case

plus wider

benefits

Present Value of

Benefits (PVB) £43.9m £45.6m £46.6m £48.3m

Present Value Costs

(PVC) £13.0m £13.0m £13.0m £13.0m

Net Present Value

(NPV) £30.9m £32.6m £33.6m £35.3m

Benefit to Cost Ratio

(BCR) 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7

The appraisal shows that the scheme has high value for money and significantly contributes to the corridor objectives in terms of improving accessibility and connectivity to encourage economic regeneration and development and by encouraging use of sustainable transport to reduce carbon emissions. In addition, the appraisal shows significant non-quantified benefits in terms of improved accessibility for 70,000 residents of the corridor with particular benefits for households without a car (up to 40% of residents of the new station catchments), significantly improved interchange at Coventry and Nuneaton stations for longer journeys and improved journey ambience (especially through reduced traveller stress).

The quantified wider benefits included in Table 3.2.1 were estimated through the DfT's WITA programme which identified significant agglomeration benefits of £1.2m (in present values) resulting from the improved accessibility between Coventry and Nuneaton and locations in between that the scheme will deliver. The other quantified benefits were £0.3m Labour Supply Impact and £0.2m increased output in imperfectly competitive markets. No quantification of the move to more productive jobs was included due to the absence of a land use / transport model for the corridor. However, this would be a key benefit of the scheme which improves connectivity between areas of deprivation in the regeneration zone in the corridor and training

and employment opportunities in Coventry and further a field. The WITA output files can be

found in Appendix 14.

Wider regeneration benefits and job numbers can also be considered as part of the Wider

Economic Benefits, further details can be found in Section 6.1, the full report is in Appendix 16.

3.3 What impact, if any, would the proposed changes have on the statutory orders or permissions required or the timetable for obtaining these? For

example would fresh planning consent need to be sought?

1) Planning Permission is required for Bermuda Park and Coventry Arena stations. These are still required and the proposed changes have no impact on their timescales.

2) The work at Coventry Bay Platform and Bedworth will be carried out under Network Rail's Permitted Development (PD) rights. The proposed changes have no impact on this.

3) Two Station Change processes (for Coventry and Bedworth) and one Network Change process (for the new stations and trackwork alterations) are required. These are still required and the proposed changes have no impact on their timescales.

4) A Minor Modification process is required at Coventry station as there will be a loss of car

park spaces due to the construction of the Bay Platform. This is still required and the proposed

changes have no impact on its timescale.

3.4 What are the procurement arrangements for the revised scheme and what,

if any, changes have been made from the arrangements or timetable proposed

for the original scheme? For example would any retendering be required? Have you supplied

details of your procurement strategy and arrangements to the Department?

A Procurement Strategy is being submitted as part of the BAFB process. Procuring a construction contractor relies critically on the completion of planning consents (applications for the two new stations are to be submitted in December 2011) and railway consents (Network & Station Change to be commenced by the end of 2011).

Works at all four stations rely on the new loop at Three Spires Junction having been completed, locating freight trains away from Coventry Yard; this will be the first package of work to be procured by the scheme, for completion in Spring 2013.

Centro has approached third parties for rolling stock to support proposed train services in order to ensure there is a credible plan for how this is achieved, The Partners have also agreed that Centro will own the new stations once constructed, in order to have direct control over the quality of passenger experience in the longer term.

3.5 Please describe the internal / external expertise & skills that will be

assigned to the project to allow for its effective delivery. This should detail who /

what roles will have overall responsibility for the project and what other skills will be available.

Coventry City Council's Transportation Group consists of City Council employees and seconded staff. The Programme Managers within the unit practice PRINCE 2/MSP programme management principles to implement schemes within the City Council's corporate guidelines. This team successfully delivered the PrimeLines programme, which was a four year programme delivering infrastructure over a network of six Bus Showcase routes running across the city, giving the people of Coventry the very best vehicles and service. PrimeLines aimed to improve the quality of all aspects of bus travel to meet the needs of current and future users. In addition to this was the Jubilee Crescent Bus Showcase Scheme, delivered in partnership with Centro, winning the Partnership Award at the annual 2011 ICE Awards.

Warwickshire County Council has a strong track record for procuring and delivering new railway stations. In recent years Warwick Parkway and Coleshill Parkway have opened, both delivered through innovative and effective public and private partnerships to the benefit of passengers and stakeholders across the industry. This provides a strong body of experience for the County Council’s role within the Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Upgrade scheme

Centro, the West Midlands Integrated Transport Authority has a wide range of skills and capabilities, coupled with the relevant experience, for the delivery of complex, multi-disciplined transport related projects. This is illustrated through the recent record in the delivery of a broad and diverse Capital Programme, in addition to a Joint Initiatives Programme delivered in collaboration with our District Colleagues. Projects of note successfully implemented range from the Midland Metro Line 1 opened in

1999, to a number of significant Bus Station/Interchanges in recent years which include West Bromwich, Halesowen and the newly opened Wolverhampton Interchange. Centro has also implemented in recent years a significant programme to provide park and ride facilities at a number of rail and metro stations across the West Midlands.

The delivery team for the Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Upgrade draws staff from the three

Authorities as well as specialist rail experience. The following roles have responsibility for the

development stage of the scheme. Full Programme Organisation for the scheme can be found

in the Project Management Plan, Appendix 2.

Project Sponsors (Coventry City Council, Warwickshire County Council, Centro)

• Project aims and objectives

• Funding and resources

• Client for contracts

Management Board (Coventry City Council, Warwickshire County Council, Centro)

• Overall Project Oversight

• Overall direction of project and review of progress

• Delegation of authority to deliver the project and incur cost

• Authorisation of expenditure

• Approval of project plan, programme and budget

• Resolution of matters escalated from Programme Board

Executive Management Board (Coventry City Council, Warwickshire County Council, Centro )

• Means by which the Programme Manager manages Promoter and Project deliverables /

activities

• Review of periodic project progress against planned milestones & budget

• Identification of project progress issues and development of enhancement or mitigation plans

• High-level review of deliverables of all promoter parties

Programme Management Group (Coventry City Council, Warwickshire County Council, Centro,

Network Rail, London Midland Trains, Virgin Trains, Arriva Cross Country)

• Management of key stakeholder activities / communication

• Forums to review progress and discuss inter-partner matters

Programme Manager (Coventry City Council)

• Overall management of the project

• Chairs the Executive Management Board and Programme Management Group meetings and various supporting forums

• Reports progress to the Management Board

• Retains overall responsibility for project specification, programme, budget and cashflow (including funding drawdown)

• Manages the Senior Project Manager Development / Delivery

3.6 Please supply a note setting out the governance arrangements for the

scheme. This should also link roles and responsibilities with accountability and arrangements for

Reviews as appropriate.

The scheme is jointly promoted by Warwickshire County Council, Centro and Coventry City Council. The three partners have agreed that Coventry City Council will lead and manage the preparation and submission of the bid, this arrangement has been agreed to ensure clear and effective programme management of the scheme and that there is clear communication between the Department for Transport and the partners.

3.7 What is the estimated start and completion date of the scheme as now proposed, taking into account any of the impacts described above? For the purposes of this question assume that decisions on BAFB will be made in December 2011 and that no DfT funding will be available before 2012/13. Please complete the list of milestones below adding any additional ones where appropriate and setting out separate start and completion dates where there are separate elements in the schemes. Please enter “n/a” if not applicable rather than deleting lines.

Milestone

Expected Completion Date

Approval of BAFB from DfT December 2011

Statutory Orders published Planning Applications submitted –

January 2012

Public Inquiry Starts NA

Confirmation of Orders Planning Permission granted – Spring

2012

Complete Procurement (include separate elements if appropriate)

Summer 2012

Submit Full Approval application to DfT Summer 2012

Work Starts on Site Construction start – December 2012

First possession for signalling / track commissioning January 2013

Possession for signalling commissioning November 2013

Figure 3.6.1 Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Upgrade Governance Structure

The scheme is managed through recognised programme (and project) management frameworks Figure 3.6.1 shows the governance arrangements for the scheme and how the different Groups and Boards interact. The Project Management Plan, Appendix 2, details the internal communication strategy including how change management procedures are implemented.

Work Completed Completion and scheme opens –

December 2013

Opening / commencement of operations (including phases of opening as appropriate)

December 2013

3.8 What are the key risks to the delivery to this timetable, aside from the availability or otherwise of DfT funding? Please list the biggest risks (ideally no more than three) that have a potentially significant impact on the timing of the scheme. For each risk please describe its likelihood, quantify the potential time delay, and explain how you are mitigating the risk including how risks are transferred as part of your procurement strategy?

1) Finalising required consents – railway change / modification process and planning consent, and any knock-on impacts of achieving approval / acquiescence on scheme scope and cost, particularly from the Environment Agency and the train operators (passenger and freight) may result in additional scope that needs to be designed into the scheme deliverables, impacting on programme. If this occurs it could have a knock-on programme impact of 3 months, with a 50% likelihood of happening, mitigation measures include continued engagement on all scheme aspects. Once consents are achieved, delivery of any conditions will form part of the deliverables of the design and build contractor.

2) Agreement negotiation timescales – including Asset Protection Agreement (and associated resources, possessions and other variables) with Network Rail, securing rolling stock agreement with the relevant leasing company, operating arrangements with the train operators (including train service increment and day to day operating arrangements & costs). Likelihood of delay estimated as 25%, impact of <2 months, this will be mitigated by seeking agreement from the relevant parties between September and December 2011 in advance of funding certainty (refer to Procurement Strategy in Appendix 6), partners will seek to cascade all obligations of surrounding agreements within the construction contract; and

3) Engagement with train operators – full engagement from Virgin West Coast on the practical

and commercial issues at Coventry station has not been possible, VWC has confirmed that

it is not able to provide resources or input into the project at this stage of its Franchise term.

A fuller involvement of the DfT franchise management team will be required to enable the

Network Change and Minor Modification processes to be progressed. London Midland have

been fully engaged through the Programme Management Group meeting arrangements.

Likelihood of delay assessed as 30%, impact <4months. A Quantified Risk Assessment was undertaken for the scheme, full details can be found in Appendix 1.

3.9 Please indicate the level of allowance you have made within your own budgets to cover the cost of scheme evaluation including your initial estimates of the costs of:

a) full scheme impact evaluation

b) pre and post scheme opening monitoring reports Please note that funding for scheme evaluation and monitoring will not be available from DfT. a) A post completion report, evaluating the project’s outputs, will be carried out on completion of the scheme, focusing on the outturn cost, schedule and quality of delivery of key outputs including the new stations, bay platform and service improvements. The report will also include patronage statistics and passenger surveys assessing the impact the project has had on mode transfer, destination choice, journey purpose and access to employment opportunities. The report will focus on the whether the expected benefits of the project have been realised and if not why not and what lessons can be learnt from the implementation of this scheme that could be disseminated to other scheme promoters. Cost estimate £30k b) Pre and post scheme evaluation reports including passenger boarding and alighting

counts and surveys at both new and existing stations (as discussed above). Cost estimate

£45k (£20k for before and £25k for after surveys)

Resources have been made available to fund this work.

SECTION 4: FUNDING FOR REVISED SCHEME PROPOSAL This section is to detail the cost, revenues and funding requirements for your revised proposal as

described in Section 2 above. Please quote all amounts in £m to three decimal points (i.e. to the nearest

£1000)

4.1 What is your estimate of the total outturn cost of the

revised scheme? After taking into account all the proposed changes

described in Section 2 above. Do not include any pre-Programme Entry costs.

Please provide a breakdown of the total cost, split between different elements of

the scheme and separately identify preliminaries, project management, risk and

inflation. Please also provide your full cost breakdown as an annex.

£19,283,000

(The full cost breakdown

can also be found in

Section 6, Appendix 2) Element Outturn Prices

Bay Platform at Coventry Station (including trackworks) £10,027,767

New Bermuda Park Station £3,201,425

Extension of Bedworth Station £1,146,357

New Coventry Arena Station £3,160,948

Project Management and Supervision £676,845

Land Provided by Third Parties £230,000

Development Costs £839,657

Total £19,283,000

Further Analysis (elements included within above) Outturn Prices

Contractors Preliminaries £1,591,827

Project Management (including Network Rail Costs) £2,170,602

Risk £2,739,000

Inflation £970,129

4.2 Please state what inflation assumptions you are using. Inflation rates for different categories (e.g. general inflation, construction cost,

operating cost) should be separately identified.

Construction Inflation (RPI) 2.7% Operation Inflation (RPI) 2.7%

Wage Inflation RPI + 1.5%

4.3 Please provide a breakdown of the proposed funding sources for the scheme

(a) Local Authority contribution This needs to cover the difference between the total cost of the scheme

as stated above and the total of the requested DfT and agreed third party

contributions. It should include the LA costs incurred or expected to be

incurred after Programme Entry excluding ineligible preparatory costs as

defined by previous guidance. Where a local authority is promoting more

that one scheme, please detail the level of contribution required if all

schemes are successful as part of this funding process. Please do not

include the cost of any Part 1 Claims.

£5,805,000

(b) Agreed third party contributions Please name each contributor on a separate line and provide evidence of

agreement (e.g. a letter from the funder outlining the degree of

commitment, timing for release of funds and any other conditions etc).

Note: you will be required to underwrite all third party contributions should

these not materialise.

ERDF £3,524,000

Network Rail £204,000

Total £3,728,000

(c) DfT funding requested You are reminded that, as set out In the document “Investment in Local Major Transport Schemes” the risk layer cost sharing mechanism is being discontinued and the figure you enter here will, if accepted, be the

maximum funding that DfT will provide for the scheme. If you wish eligible

preparatory costs (as defined by previous guidance) to be paid these will

need to be consolidated within this funding request.

£9,750,000

4.4 What is the estimated funding profile. Assume that no DfT funding will be available before 2012/13. Please specify the third party contributor(s) and list each one (if more than one) on a separate line. Please assume that the DfT and LA contributions will be in the same proportion in each year from 2012/13 and provide an explanation if this is not the case. Although the total level of DfT funding will be fixed, profiles across years may be subject to further discussion and agreement. Please do not include the cost of any Part 1 Claims.

£m Pre

2011/ 12

2011/ 12

2012/ 13

2013/ 14

2014/ 15

2015/ 16

2016/ 17

2017/ 18

2018/ 19

Total %

LA contribution 0.840 2.187 2.778 5.805 30.2

Third Party

contribution 1.864 1.864 3.728 19.3

DfT funding

requested 4.295 5.455 9.750 50.5

TOTAL 0.840 8.346 10.097 19.283

4.5 If any DfT funding were available in 2011/12 would you be in a position to reach Full Approval and begin claiming such funding and if so how would your funding profile change? (If appropriate please set out a funding profile similar to that in section 4.4)

Full Approval is not likely to be reached until after 1st April

2012.

4.6 Please indicate the level of flexibility with regard to the phasing of the local contribution of the bid (including the third party contribution), should the DfT have a need to vary the phasing of its own contribution for budgetary reasons. Please detail the level of change in DfT support per funding year you could accommodate within the project and from which sources any change would be made up.

Third party contributions from ERDF have funding criteria, particularly that funding ends in 2014. Local authority contributions however can be flexed to align with DfT funding and phasing requirements, subject to removal of the proportion constraint outlined in 4.4 above.

4.7 Please set out the efforts you have undertaken to obtain (additional) third party funding and, where appropriate, why it is not available. Arena Coventry Limited have agreed to provide land for the project to be able to offer 80 car parking

spaces for passenger use at the new Coventry Arena station; the value of this land has yet to be

independently validated, so has not so far been included in the BAFFB.

4.8 Please supply details of likely revenue generated, any ongoing revenue liability associated with the operation of the scheme (other than routine maintenance) and how you intend to fund it. If revenues fall short of those forecast (especially in the early years after implementation) how will these be

funded? (This is of particular relevance to public transport schemes but could apply to package

schemes.)

The industry wide revenues generated by the scheme are expected to be as follows, in outturn prices:

Calendar Years

2014 2015 2016 2017

Total Revenue Value £ 759,845 905,577 1,146,707 1,163,494

Centro have agreed to procure the additional train services through ‘increments’ arrangements with

London Midland, and to underwrite any revenue subsidy requirements for the first three years.

The industry wide analysis shows that after year four the scheme has an operating surplus as follows:

Calendar Years

2014 2015 2016 2017

Subsidy Value £ -265,895 -150,440 59,241 43,359

The DfT has been provided with this information and it is considered that the funding profile fits well within their guidance enabling the scheme to be incorporated as part of the franchise process, after the first three years of operation.

4.9 Please detail any other funding information you think to be of relevance to the bid (For example other costs or revenue risks etc being taken by the local authority or other parties but not included within the funding table above.)

The DfT funding contribution amounts to 50.05% of the capital costs albeit that costs have increased due to the Murco Oil train requirements, this has been absorbed through increased Local Authority contributions.

Furthermore in this BAFFB the funding requested from DfT has been reduced from £10.5m to £9.75m.

With regard to infrastructure required to support major events services – including longer platforms and a crossover required to cater for event shuttle services the costs have been calculated to total £3.022m; and the Partners have agreed to fund these locally

4.10 Please explain how the Local Authority contribution will be funded. Explain where local contributions are dependent on a particular source of income and contingency plans if that income is not forthcoming. Please also include any contingency plans for meeting third party costs that fail to materialise.

The Local Contribution is funded by Warwickshire County Council, Centro and Coventry City Council, approval from respective Cabinets and the ITA has been granted, subject to final approval of DfT funding.

This includes some land at Coventry Arena which has been secured for the scheme from Coventry City Council.

SECTION 5: STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT

5.1 Consultation Please provide a brief overview of the consultation you have undertaken to date with

(a) the public,

The Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Upgrade has been an aspiration for Coventry, Warwickshire and Centro for a number of years. The public have been consulted on the following documents which detail the scheme,

• Coventry Development Plan (2001)

• Warwickshire County Council Vision and Transport Strategy

• Nuneaton and Bedworth Local Plan

• 2011 West Midlands Local Transport Plan (LTP3)

• Warwickshire LTP3

As the scheme has developed we have kept the public updated about the progress and we will be undertaking a period of formal consultation in the form of an exhibition at several sites along the route at the end of September.

The Programme Entry submission was published on our website after submission, to DfT, in March 2010, and remains available for all stakeholders that are interested in the scheme.

(b) statutory environmental bodies

• Extensive discussions have taken place with English Heritage (West Midlands Region) and Natural England both bodies are satisfied that the scheme will not affect their "criteria".

• Discussions have taken place with Environment Agency about various environmental issues at Coventry Arena and Bermuda Park to agree the scope of work for the Planning Application. We are working with them to complete the flood modelling to support the planning application at both sites.

• The formal Station & Network Change processes can begin with the GRIP 4 output, but

informal discussions with consultees has started and is ongoing.

(c) other stakeholders;

• Continued liaison with proposed SFO TOC (London Midland) is being undertaken, but as

noted elsewhere engagement has been difficult with Virgin. London Midland has provided a

letter of support for the scheme, Appendix 4.

• We met with the ORR in December 2010 and we have continued to update them about the progress of the scheme. The ROGS process has commenced and we are preparing to complete the GRIP 4 element of process.

• The Safety Management Plan, for the scheme, has been developed with the key

stakeholders – Arena Coventry Limited, West Midlands Police, British Transport Police,

London Midland, Virgin Trains and CCC Network Management. The Safety Management

Plan can be found in Appendix 5.

This should include dates detailing when consultation was carried out Please also summarise any further consultation you plan to undertake.

As part of the planning application process consultation events will be undertaken at the sites for the new stations, as well as Coventry city centre, further details can be found in the Communication and Stakeholder Management Strategy

5.2 Letters of support Please append any letters of support explaining strategic importance of scheme especially from the

Local Enterprise Partnership and business groups. These should detail, where possible, the particular outcomes they believe the scheme will deliver. Where a LEP includes more than one scheme it will be important that they differentiate between schemes, and prioritise if possible.

The scheme is well supported in the West Midlands, this is demonstrated by the letters of support that we have received from the following organisations,

• Arena Coventry Limited

• Centro

• Coventry Airport

• Coventry & Warwickshire LEP

• Deeley

• ERDF

• London Midland

• Mira – Enterprise Zone

• Network Rail

Copies of the letters can be found in Appendix 4

5.3 Opposition Please describe any significant opposition to the proposed scheme, the reasons for this opposition and how you are dealing with their concerns?

Please describe any mitigation measures you have included in your plans in response to these concerns.

Scheme is well supported, we have not had any opposition expressed to date, and we do not

expect any to be raised; the process for receiving and responding to comments is detailed in the

Communication and Stakeholder Management Strategy, Appendix 3

SECTION 6: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

6.1 Please add any additional information that is relevant to your Best and Final Funding Bid that is not covered elsewhere in the form.

Subsidy Profile

As noted in 4.8 above, Centro will provide subsidy to support the train service operation during the first three years, after which time the expectation is that the scheme will have demonstrated sufficient value to be included in the normal franchise arrangements between DfT and its franchisee.

Without the Coventry to Nuneaton Rail Upgrade scheme, demand growth along the route in the short term (20% over the last year) would start to put pressure on capacity of the 1-car train service during peak hours. One way this issue could be addressed is through the provision of additional rolling stock, converting the single car to a 2-car service, probably a 150. Although the provision of this additional capacity would need to be determined on a standalone business case basis, it is fair to assume that additional capacity would need to be provided on the service at some point.

Centro will provide subsidy that covers two additional vehicles in the early years (1 x 2-car and

1 x 1-car future operation versus 1 x 1-car now). As highlighted above, a lower level of incremental costs could be attributed to the scheme, considering the probable need for capacity in the longer term; this has been excluded from the bid assumptions.

2011 West Midlands Local Transport Plan (LTP3)

Prioritises the economy and climate change at the forefront of its policy objectives. Following a public consultation, ten long term themes were developed which all capital schemes linked to LTP3 will aim to address. The NUCKLE rail scheme is clearly in conformity with many of these objectives including:

• Regeneration, thriving centres, corridors and gateways

• Modal transfer and the creation of sustainable travel patterns

• A rail and rapid transit network "backbone for development"

• improved local accessibility and connectivity

• sustainable and efficient freight transport

• Effective and reliable transport integration

The LTP aims to accommodate the bulk of increased demand for travel arising from increased economic and housing growth, through high capacity, rapid fixed links between centres and regeneration areas in busy, high volume corridors. The NUCKLE scheme directly addresses this objective by linking together two major conurbations (Coventry, Nuneaton and Bedworth), which have significant commuter flows between them, with a high quality public transport facility.

Warwickshire LTP3

The Warwickshire LTP identifies the Coventry to Nuneaton Rail Upgrade as a scheme that will assist in delivering the objectives of the plan. It states that a step change is required in the North-South (Coventry – Nuneaton) corridor:

‘The corridor suffers from the most severe congestion because of large movements of people throughout the day and offers significant opportunities to improve accessibility, reduce congestion and aid economic regeneration. The density of the population and the level of activity in the corridor is set to grow substantially and will create increasing demand for transport. These demands will increase car use and congestion unless a good quality public transport network is available.’

It then goes on to outline the need for the Coventry to Nuneaton rail upgrade by stating the

requirement for:

‘Improved service frequencies between Coventry-Bedworth-Nuneaton with new stations

at Ricoh Arena and Bermuda, platform lengthening at Bedworth and a new bay platform at Coventry’

Wider Economic Benefits

Over the last year there has been growing recognition throughout the transport planning industry of the importance of wider economic benefits of transport schemes in supporting the UK economy.

The promoters believe wider economic benefits are extremely important especially since:

• Increased tax revenue reduces the cost of the scheme to Government in the medium term.

• GDP growth should be demonstrated by all schemes; and

• The creation of jobs is important to support economic recovery in the short term and in

shifting the balance from public to private sector employment.

KPMG has been commissioned to build the wider economic justification for the scheme. Analysis of this scheme has been undertaken utilising the model developed to assess to economic impact of High Speed Rail on the West Midlands. The methodology used is based on the assumption that investment in transport infrastructure will bring about a step change in how well the Coventry to Nuneaton corridor is connected to the rest of the Region, with implications for business to business (B2B) connectivity and also for labour market catchments. It is expected that these connectivity improvements would affect the productivity of firms in three different ways

• Through changes within a particular business sector e.g. agglomeration,

• Through changes in the mix of business sectors e.g. a move from manufacturing to a knowledge/service sector led economy and

• Through changes in the location of businesses and jobs to more productive areas e.g.

dense city/town centre locations.

Results

The impact of the scheme is to substantially increase public transport connectivity in key zones in Coventry and Nuneaton.

The consequences of these changes in connectivity for employment and productivity are shown

in the Table 6.1.1 below.

Table 6.1.1: Modelled economic outcomes of scheme, 2026

Area West Midlands

Workplace employment

Change 388 jobs

GVA

Change £42M

This analysis would clearly indicates that the scheme offers significant economic benefits in relation to its capital cost and highlights the importance of improving connectivity along this corridor in terms of increasing access to both the labour and business to business markets for key locations such as Coventry City Centre and Nuneaton. Full details can be found in Appendix 16

6.2 Please provide details of any other information that has been submitted to

the Department since January 2011 that forms part of your submission (This

should include name of the document and date of submission.)

Document Title Date

Submitted

Location on Promoter

Website

BAFB Pro-Forma 09/09/11 www.coventry.gov.uk/railbid

Appendix 1: Risk Register 31/08/11 www.coventry.gov.uk/railbid

Appendix 2: Project Management Plan 31/08/11 www.coventry.gov.uk/railbid

Appendix 2a: Gantt Chart 09/09/11 www.coventry.gov.uk/railbid

Appendix 3: Communication and Stakeholder

Management Strategy

09/09/11 www.coventry.gov.uk/railbid

Appendix 4: Letters of support 09/09/11 www.coventry.gov.uk/railbid

Appendix 5a: Safety Management Plan

Principles


Appendix 5b: Specific Safety Management Plan 06/09/11 www.coventry.gov.uk/railbid

Appendix 5c: Train Service Report 06/09/11 www.coventry.gov.uk/railbid

Appendix 6: Procurement Strategy 31/08/11 www.coventry.gov.uk/railbid

Appendix 7: Subsidy Profile 07/09/11 www.coventry.gov.uk/railbid

Appendix 8: Checklist of appraisal and modelling

supporting material


Appendix 9: Appraisal Summary Report 09/09/11 www.coventry.gov.uk/railbid

Appendix 10: VFM Update Report 09/09/11 www.coventry.gov.uk/railbid

Appendix 10a: Future Development

Assumptions


Appendix 10b: Appraisal Summary Table 09/09/11 www.coventry.gov.uk/railbid

Appendix 10c: TEE, PA and AMCB Tables 09/09/11 www.coventry.gov.uk/railbid

Appendix 10d: Appraisal Cost Summary Sheet 09/09/11 www.coventry.gov.uk/railbid

Appendix 10e: Affordability and Financial

Sustainability Sheets


Appendix 10f: Other NATA worksheets 09/09/11 www.coventry.gov.uk/railbid

Appendix 10g: Desire Line Diagrams 09/09/11 www.coventry.gov.uk/railbid

Appendix 11: Highway Model LMVR 09/09/11 www.coventry.gov.uk/railbid

Appendix 12: Public Transport Model LMVR 09/09/11 www.coventry.gov.uk/railbid

Appendix 13: Choice Model LMVR 09/09/11 www.coventry.gov.uk/railbid

Appendix 14a: TUBA Preferred Option Output

Files


Appendix 14b: TUBA Next Best Option Output

Files


Appendix 14c: WITA Preferred Option Output

Files


Appendix 15: DaSTS Report 07/09/11 www.coventry.gov.uk/railbid

Appendix 16: KPMG Wider Economic Benefits

Report


Notes:

BAFB Form and Link to the 5 Case Model

The following section provided to bidders to detail which elements of the form relate

to the 5 cases used in decision making.

Case Elements of the BAFB Form

Strategic Case

1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 2.1,2.2, 2.4, 2.5,

3.1, 3.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3

Financial Case

1.4, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, Section 4

Economic Case

3.2 (and Appendices)

Management Case

3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 5.1, 5.3

Commercial Case

3.4, 3.5,3.7,3.8

local authority major schemes best and final …

Documents