Archived decisions

Item 7

Report to the

Transport for South Hampshire Joint Committee

Date: 14 April 2008

Report by: Charles Stunell (Head of Transport & Street Management, Portsmouth City Council)

tel: 023 9283 4574 email: [email protected]

Subject: Coordinated Traffic Control and Travel Information

Purpose of the Report

To provide an update on the interim conclusions of the study into the merits and methods of closer working between those responsible for traffic control and travel information in South Hampshire.

Recommendations

1. That the interim conclusion that there is merit in moving towards some form of integrated service delivery be approved.

2. That the options identified in the report be approved for the purpose of setting the scope for future work.

Introduction

1. Strategic Traffic Management and Information was identified as having a key role in delivering the `manage' part of the reduce/manage/invest strategy adopted by Transport for South Hampshire. A sub-group was therefore set up of officers of the three authorities, together with other key stakeholders, it being one of three reporting to the Senior Management Group. Whilst the idea of closer working was not new, it was identified by the sub-group as a potential early outcome for the TfSH partnership.

2. Strategic Traffic Management is seen as having an increasingly important role in maximising the capacity of the network. However, improved infrastructure will be necessary which will require investment. Therefore a sum of £70 million has been included in the current version of the Provisional Transport Implementation Requirements to 2026

3. A consultant was appointed in October 2007 and his third interim report is the basis for this report.

Existing Situation

4. There has been a very significant investment by the three local authorities in the various electronic based systems (known as Intelligent Transport Systems or ITS) used to control traffic and to supply travellers with information. Some 45 staff are currently employed and the annual running costs have been estimated at £6.4 million.

5. Each of the three authorities operates a centre to integrate, control and monitor its ITS activities, which each house the relevant authority's extensive installation and communications systems, as well as control rooms, meeting facilities, staff accommodation and media facilities, where appropriate. These occupy a floorspace totalling 760 square metres.

6. In addition the Highways Agency operates systems covering the motorway and trunk road network, primarily from its regional control centre at Godstone on the M25 in Kent. Also, the Police provide a crucial role, particularly in providing the lead in dealing with emergencies. They have a control centre situated at Netley.

Options

7. The following have been identified:

(i) `do nothing' - ie continue with the three current centres;

(ii) a fully integrated single centre for the three authorities only, with any of the following sub-options:

(a) under the auspices of Transport for South Hampshire;

(b) under the auspices of one of the three client authorities;

(c) under the auspices of a technical consultancy (as, for example, the Essex model with Atkins);

(d) under the auspices of a management consultancy (as, for example, the Capita arrangement with Southampton);

(e) under the auspices of a supplier (eg Siemens);

(iii) a fully integrated single centre for the three authorities together with either, or both:

(a) the Highways Agency control centre

(b) the Hampshire Police control centre;

(iv) a `two centre' approach, ie covering southern Hampshire and the cities, and the other, northern Hampshire;

(v) some form of `virtual integration' of the three existing centres; and

(vi) integration by specialisation', ie with two or three centres each focussing, on behalf of the whole area, on the most relevant sub-set of ITS functions to their current specialist expertise.

The broad-brush costs of establishing a new integrated centre and migrating the systems and staff to it are also being examined.

8. The logistics of transferring services to any new centre whilst keeping them operational also need to be examined, as well as the sequence and timing of migration of the individual services. Timing will be of particular significance, as it is not conceivable to contemplate a `big bang' solution, with all services migrating at the same time. It will need to be an incremental process over a period measured, perhaps, in years. This will be a significant challenge in management, staffing and maintaining even the current level of interoperability of the systems within each centre.

9. The above list now needs to be reduced and refined to identify those which should be developed in detail. In particular, there needs to be consultation with the Police and the Highways Agency to understand their modes of operation and to be able to reflect their views and aspirations.

Interim Conclusions

10. There is a prima facie case for some form of integration of ITS services in the study area:

(i) In terms of administrative and operational staff there is clearly a degree of duplication/triplication, although there is now a lack of strategic expert leadership and direction and some difficulty with recruiting and retaining specialist staff.

(ii) In terms of systems there is also clear evidence of significant duplication/triplication, most obviously in the integrative Control Centre operations, but also in the deployment of most of the specialised systems.

(iii) In terms of systems maintenance costs it seems very likely that economies of scale would result from integrating these activities for at least some of the systems deployed.

(iv) Reducing these overlaps can undoubtedly create a saving of ongoing costs and may provide a more effective overall service, better able to deal with the seamless nature of some of the transport activity over the whole of the study area.

11. Equally, any form of physical integration will have its costs and drawbacks. Although the costs of communications seem set to continue to reduce, there will be significant costs in moving the communications terminations from each of the centres to anywhere else, and at least some of the communications costs are distance-related and are hence likely to increase. The cost of accommodating a new integrated centre in serviced lease space is unlikely to be less than £25,000-£30,000 per annum even in a non-city-based location. The tentative capital cost of all of the in-station systems of the three authorities is estimated at a little over £2 million and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that they would virtually all need to be replaced during any integration. There will also be new costs, and design issues, associated with continuing the support that ITS provides to other staff and functions that remain within the three authorities, particularly in the discharge of their responsibilities under the Traffic Management Act 2004.

12. The logistics of a prolonged migration of services from the current centres to an integrated facility will not only negate (at least) any short-term savings in operating costs, but are also likely to lead to some degradation of services over the migration period. Management of the centre and its staff will present challenges if it is remote from all three of the `parent' authorities. Staff will have their working lives disrupted by any relocation, and even more so by any transfer to a new employer, if that is a potential outcome of the study.

13. It is proposed therefore that the consultant be asked to complete the study, using the list of options set out above to define the scope of that further work. It is hoped to be able to report the conclusions at the next meeting.

9425Rpt/CS