Agenda item

The Future of Supertram

Presentation by Ben Gilligan, Director of Public Transport, South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive

Minutes:

6.1

The Committee received a presentation from Ben Gilligan (Director of Public Transport, South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive [SYPTE]) on the future of Supertram.  Also in attendance for this item were Councillor Jack Scott (Cabinet Member for Transport and Development), Tom Finnegan-Smith (Head of Strategic Transport and Infrastructure) and Greg Challis (Senior Transport Planner).

 

 

6.2

Ben Gilligan reported on the history and context of Supertram, and referred to recent updates with regard to the system.  He referred to the tram patronage from 2004/05 to 2017/18, and reported on the receipt of funding from the Department for Transport towards the production of an Outline Business Case regarding the future of the existing Supertram network, which was expected to be submitted in 2019.  The key issues under consideration related to asset condition and renewal, the size and shape of the network, and the role it played in the broader transport network.  Mr Gilligan concluded by referring to the consultation on the Outline Business Case, which would run for a six-week period, ending on 5th November 2018. 

 

 

6.3

Members of the Committee raised questions, and the following responses were provided:-

 

 

 

·             The reduction of around two million passenger journeys were thought to have been due to inefficiencies in the timetable and   people moving to use other forms of public transport. 

 

 

 

·             Whilst Stagecoach operated the Supertram network, and the SYPTE owned the assets, the SYPTE did not receive any income from Stagecoach, with Stagecoach carrying all the commercial risk.  The SYPTE continued to fund various small-scale improvements to the network, such as replacing signal heads. 

 

 

 

·             Although Stagecoach was able to set aside a provision of £6 million in respect of potential future losses, it was not envisaged that the Company was making large profits from the operation in Sheffield.  The Company’s accounts were available for inspection on the Company House website.

 

 

 

·             All tram stops were now fitted with the Passenger Information System, which allowed for the display of real time information.  Whilst there had been a number of technical problems when the system was first introduced, it was now operating considerably better, with the information displayed being around 95% accurate.  The original installation of the system had been funded by the SYPTE, with ongoing maintenance costs being funded by Stagecoach. 

 

 

 

·             The consultation on the Outline Business Case comprised an essential part of the process of selecting a preferred option.  The SYPTE had undertaken a large survey around six months ago, particularly targeting non-public transport users, more specifically employers, with the aim of attracting commuters.  The results of the survey were very complex, and could be provided to Members on request.

 

 

 

·             The survey had been designed to meet the requirements of the Department for Transport funding, therefore, there were restrictions on what could be included without overly complicating the message.

 

 

 

·             When bidding for Government funding, there was a need to prove that there would be a return on any investment, as well as a need to show that any expansion/improvements to the system were required.  The difficulties in providing such assurances was possibly one of the reasons why Sheffield had not received Government funding to expand the network, unlike Manchester or Nottingham.  A further reason as to why the network was not expanded in the 1990s was due to the fact that, given the extent and cost of the works required, light rail systems could not be funded locally, and the Government, at that time, was not willing to commit funding to such schemes.

 

 

 

·             Performance regarding passenger numbers in respect of the Bus Rapid Transit system was exceeding all forecasts. 

 

 

 

·             It was generally accepted that if there was no tram system in the City, this would result in an increase in the number of car journeys. 

 

 

 

·             Growth was forecast in the revenue and volumes as part of the Outline Business Case.

 

 

 

·             In terms of the age and condition of the current tram fleet, whilst the physical condition and appearance of the trams was reasonably good, there were issues in that the manufacturers of some of the trams’ parts, such as the compressors, had become obsolete.  This had resulted in the requirement for a considerable amount of work in terms of reverse engineering, and looking at alternative solutions.  Following assessment of this work, it had been identified that purchasing new trams would be the most cost-effective option in the long-term.

 

 

 

·             There were other examples across the United Kingdom where light rail systems were operated in a similar manner to Sheffield, where a commercial operator ran the network as a concession, such as Croydon. 

 

 

 

·             The concession to Stagecoach in terms of the operation of the tram network would end on 26th March 2024. 

 

 

 

·             Stagecoach provided the SYPTE with data regarding passenger numbers, together with information regarding safety and infrastructure work to the network on a monthly basis. 

 

 

 

·             The possible provision of a light rail link to Stocksbridge was beyond the scope of the current planned works.

 

 

 

·             The issue of allowing cyclists to take their cycles on trams had been debated on a number of occasions.  It had been determined that, as there were no suitable storage facilities, this practice would be non-compliant with the legislation that covered tramways, and would potentially result in conflict between cyclists and wheelchair users.  Cyclists believe that new trams should have the facility for storing cycles safely, as it was currently being done in Edinburgh, and that there should be a further trial.

 

 

 

·             There were no immediate plans to introduce a facility for card payments on trams.  It was accepted that it was a gap in the service, particularly now that the facility was available on buses, but it would be up to Stagecoach to decide on this.

 

 

 

·             Patronage on the trams was calculated by passenger transactions.  It was accepted that this was not always 100% accurate, particularly in that when trams were particularly busy, the conductor was not able to get to all passengers to collect their fare.  This has raised the issue as to whether it would be cost-effective having an additional conductor on trams at particularly busy times.  This had been identified as a common problem over the last few years, and the patronage figures were not adjusted to take this into account.

 

 

6.4

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

 

 

 

(a)      notes the information reported as part of the presentation, together with the responses to the questions raised; and

 

 

 

(b)      thanks Ben Gilligan, Councillor Jack Scott, Tom Finnegan-Smith and Greg Challis for attending the meeting, and responding to the questions raised.

 

Supporting documents: