ENVIRONMENT. PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

REVIEW OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT

VISIT TO SHEFFIELD

Friday, 23 March, 2001

Briefing Notes by Committee’s Adviser

Background

Sheffield is one of the very few UK cities to have pursued, and implemented, a light rapid transit (LRT) system. The preparation, organisational, and operational issues can be examined by Members on the visit.A distinguishing feature of Sheffield’s system is the relatively high percentage of the total routes, particularly in the City Centre, that involve street running, as opposed to separate track, or former British Rail permanent way, which characterises other LRT systems such as Manchester and Tyneside.Location and AdministrationSheffield is one of four Metropolitan Districts in the former South Yorkshire Metropolitan County (abolished in April, 1986). It is the most populous, by far, with circa 500,000 population. The others are Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham. For comparison, Sheffield is therefore, some 50% larger than Cardiff.The former South Yorkshire County area was covered by a Passenger Transport Authority and Executive (PTA/PTE), which is still in existence. It was formerly involved in both planning and operations, but since deregulation, operation of Supertram has passed to Stagecoach (South Yorkshire Supertram Ltd - or SYSL) The FrameworkSheffield has a well developed transportation planning policy, with antecedents in the former SLUTS (Sheffield Area Land Use Transportation Study); County based Transportation Policy and PTA/PTE Development Plans. The former South Yorkshire had a very strongly public transport orientated strategy, pegging fares for many years, with an eventual policy aim of free fares, as a matter of social policy. At abolition, fares subsidy accounted for half the Metropolitan County’s budget. Abolition and deregulation resulted in the SY low fares policy returning to regional and national averages, over time.Sheffield has an industrial base similar to South Wales. It was heavily dependent upon the steel industry, also. In 1980, 25,000 people were employed in steel, a figure which by 2000, had diminished to 4000. The parallel with South Wales is very sharp.SupertramThe planning for Supertram began in the late 1970’s when such concepts were only apparent in Newcastle / Tyne and Wear (the first), and Manchester and Birmingham, which followed on with even more comprehensive proposals.The first lines in Sheffield connected to the Centre were:-

• • New Mosborough Townships on the southern extremity of Sheffield to the Centre, and;
  • the conventional suburb of Middlewood, posing some interesting topography problems, and;
  • The new "out of town" shopping complex at Meadowhall, one of the few such mega centres approved and committed before planning guidance changed to presumptions against.

Over time, further lines are being added, and the development plan and PTE proposals will be explained to Members. The Experience So Far?Sheffield decided that to go directly to LRT, given the South Yorkshire population base, was appropriate. As with all LRT systems, it is necessary to implement the whole of the operating infrastructure before the first tram can run. The project was built to time and budget, and its infrastructure and its rolling stock has performed pretty well faultlessly since day one. Traffic trends were rather more variable, as described below.The circa £150 millions needed to get to this stage required a Government/ Local agreement, and specific Government credit approvals, under the then legislative position. There have been funding and accountability issues, which can be explained on the visit, but which ended with the Secretary Of State having to agree to major debt rescheduling two years ago. These problems, seemingly endemic in such large schemes, threatened the viability of the Supertram project until resolved.Operational problems have been experienced, in the initial years, with more attraction from bus to tram than anticipated, and less attraction from car to tram than anticipated. These problems are resolving, and present experience and practice will be explained. Passenger ridership is now distinctly up and the forward trends are very encouraging. It is clear that the initial schedules were too ambitious and have been revised.Put simply, when opened, Supertram attracted considerable interest, which then fell off, before picking up again after revision and considerable effort, including Day Rider and weekly Mega Rider tickets. Original machines were replaced with more effective ones and roving conductors introduced, which, it seems, have greatly increased the population’s confidence in the system. A regular clientele has now been built up. Reliability and comfort / convenience seem to be the keys to success.Park and ride schemes introduced in conjunction with Supertram have been successful, and these will be explained on the visit. Work is being put in to consolidate non-peak traffic demand.Possible QuestionsOn the visit, it is hoped to have people from Sheffield City, the PTA (Member) and the PTE, as well as the operator. The possibility therefore exists to cover organisational questions as well as operational ones.

• How important is Supertram to solving the transport problems of Sheffield?
• What are the operating economics?
• Could they explain the grant / credit approval position? Or, how has the HMG / local agreement delivered finance?
• How is the network likely to develop?
• What are the ridership trends?
• Any public acceptability / safety problems?
• Are you getting people out of cars and onto the Supertram?
• What is their view on organisation?
• Has a PTA / PTE structure been of advantage in getting this scheme through?
• What is the PTE / Local Authority relationship, and how does it work?
• Can transport procurement and traffic management support sensibly be provided from different organisations?
• If you had a "clean sheet", what would you change?

I am sure there will be many other points, but hopefully, the above may be of some help!As with previous visits, I hope to work with Member rapporteurs in producing a report of the visit to go back to Committee.  Denys MorganAdviser to CommitteeSunday, 04 March 2001