Agenda Item 5

Report to the

Transport for South Hampshire Joint Committee

Date: 29 April 2009

Report by: Alison Linnell

tel: 01962 845526 email: [email protected]

Subject: Evidence Base and Modelling

Purpose of the Report

Now that the prioritised Regional Funding Allocation (RFA) packages are established, and the political and administrative requirements are in place, there is the need to accelerate activities to achieve successful delivery. Implementation of the interventions requires both public and private funding which in turn requires justification that the proposed packages are the best solution when measured against objectives within the strategy and other measures. In order to provide a sufficiently robust evidence base to demonstrate this justification and unlock funding, a suitable transport modelling tool with associated data collection is needed. This report sets out the proposed way forward.

Recommendations

1. That Transport for South Hampshire budgets be secured for 2009/10 and commitments made for 2010/11 and 2011/12 to move forward the required evidence base.

2. That Transport for South Hampshire engages with funding agencies, stakeholders and the private sector (Developers) to secure commitment towards the cost of the evidence base, including data collection and transport modelling.

3. That expressions of interest be invited for the workstreams involved in providing a transport modelling framework for the sub-region.

4. That Transport for South Hampshire appoints Hampshire County Council as `Lead Authority' to commission and manage the work related to the transport modelling process and tools to include the appraisal process of the evidence base for the sub-region as described within the report.

5. That additional data collection be undertaken during autumn 2009 by Hampshire County Council in its role as `Lead Authority' as part of the transport modelling process.

Introduction

1. In April 2008 the Joint Committee gave approval in principle to progressing the analysis of data and transport modelling tools required to provide a sufficiently robust evidence base to ensure that the Transport for South Hampshire (TfSH) strategy and schemes emanating from it could receive Government support and funding.

2. This further analysis made it clear that a substantial quantity of new data was required to inform the transport modelling process, which comprised a large proportion of the overall anticipated costs.

3. At the same time the Department for Transport (DfT) was reviewing its approach to long-term transport planning in the light of the findings of the Stern Review on climate change and the Eddington Study on economic impacts of transport. The DfT had also commissioned work on an investigation into the engineering feasibility of Active Traffic Management (ATM) systems and/or hard shoulder running now commonly referred to as Managed Motorways on the M27 and the M3.

4. Members may recall giving approval in October 2008 for data collection to be prioritised within the available resources earmarked in the 2008/09 budget, and for taking a partnership approach with other public and private sector organisations to minimise duplication of work.

5. A series of origin-destination surveys was successfully undertaken in November 2008 to provide the most urgently required data necessary at two locations, namely the Gosport Peninsula and Hedge End areas.

6. At the end of November 2008, the DfT published its approach to long-term transport planning in the document `Delivering a Sustainable Transport System' (DaSTS), inviting comments on the transport challenges identified and which should be considered the most important. The document sets out how transport policy and investment decisions will be taken forward from 2014 at both the strategic and local level. Members may recall receiving a report on DaSTS in January which included the following five broad goals for transport:

(i) to support economic growth;

(ii) to tackle climate change;

(iii) to contribute to better safety, security and health;

(iv) to promote equality of opportunity; and

(v) to improve quality of life.

7. Work has been continuing in looking at possible alternative ways of providing a sufficiently robust evidence base, taking on board revised Government guidance along with the outcomes of the study into Managed Motorways.

8. This report, and the accompanying presentation, sets out the requirements and way forward for a robust evidence base, including an appropriate transport modelling framework to meet Government standards.

The Need for a Transport Modelling Framework

9. In order to secure Government funding it will be necessary to justify the transport intervention or package of measures proposed to meet a transport challenge, by appraising alternatives and demonstrating that it is the best option when measured against the objectives to be met. This method ensures that funding is directed at the most appropriate intervention or package, and that the proposed solution can be delivered and provides acceptable value for money.

10. Without such an evidence base it is highly likely that the schemes already earmarked within the RFA process and those proposed for future funding will not be realised. Clearly this would have a very detrimental effect on the sub-region and delivery of the growth agenda.

11. The TfSH Statement `Towards Delivery' provides a strategic transport planning framework to the development of individual Local Development Frameworks (LDFs). In turn the proposed LDFs provide input to the necessary transport evidence base for the sub-region. The LDFs across the sub-region are being developed at the present time but to different timetables. Development of the evidence base will inform and support the LDF process downstream.

12. The overall evidence base includes collection and collation of data to analyse current problems, constraints and opportunities in sufficient detail, and forecasting tools (ie transport modelling) to predict scheme impacts separately, and in combination as packages, both on implementation and into the future. It also requires structured appraisals of the chosen schemes and their alternatives and the development of a full business case as a prerequisite to obtaining necessary private and public funding.

13. The justification and appraisal of individual interventions and packages (leading to the detailed individual business cases) is the key activity in terms of evidence base now facing TfSH. Given the scale and nature of proposals, a complex technical tool is required to meet Government guidance and requirements. Essentially this tool consists of a multi-modal transport model or models.

14. Within the South Hampshire sub-region travel patterns are complex, the geography difficult, and the demand for new development is high. The TfSH strategy includes a range of schemes across all modes, and the most efficient and effective method in establishing an evidence base to appraise these interventions and packages is to take an area-wide consistent approach, as recommended by DfT guidance.

15. This area-wide approach is best accomplished by means of a single transport modelling framework. Such an approach can utilise elements of the existing Solent Strategic Transport Model suitably refreshed and updated as a key element within it. It would also utilise data and analysis from current studies such as the Portsmouth Western Corridor Study. There are a number of additional advantages to this approach, including the ability to minimise overall costs and to share these with other private and public bodies working in partnership. A single transport modelling framework would also provide a means of agreeing the impacts of individual developments and transport interventions (individually and in combination within packages) consistently across the sub-region. A further advantage is that alongside a suitable data collection programme in place to periodically refresh and maintain its suitability, such a model would provide benefits to meet changing needs into the future.

16. The alternative solution of a number of independent multi-modal transport models on a case-by-case basis in different parts of the sub-region is likely to be far more expensive overall, be less capable of satisfying Government requirements, and less conducive to a cost-effective partnership approach with other public and private bodies. Such models would also have very limited capability for future re-use.

17. Input to transport models includes multi-modal transport data on existing movements (some of which has now been collected and collated), services and networks, as well as information arising from the current LDF process underway within the Planning Authorities of the sub-region.

18. Data collected as input to the transport models would also have many other uses for day to day management of the transport system and planning process. A rolling programme of data collection would therefore aim to maximise the use of data cross many functions and agencies.

Management and Procurement

19. There are a number of different ways in which the necessary transport modelling process could be managed. The overall management is likely to be complex, with specialist contractors working on individual but interlocking workstreams. Coordination of this work and a clear decision making process are essential.

20. In the same way that individual schemes within TfSH are to be delivered by an appropriate commissioning lead authority, it is advisable that the same approach is taken in relation to the technical tools and appraisal processes of the evidence base. Given the previous work on transport modelling within the sub-region already carried out by Hampshire County Council on the Solent Strategic Transport Model, it is proposed that the County Council takes on this lead role in commissioning and steering the necessary work.

21. The modelling and appraisal process would be directed by a Steering Group made up of representatives of the contributing - bodies, infrastructure providers and relevant Government partners headed by the commissioning authority. The Steering Group would report to the TfSH Joint Committee and there may be the need for individual workstream groups to manage more of the detailed work.

22. Involvement of the contractors as soon as practicable is important and likely to lead to more efficient and effective working. Given the likely scale of costs it will be necessary to follow Official Journal of the European Union procedures and, given the lengthy lead-in time that this involves, it is recommended that approval now be given to invite expressions of interest from suitable consultancies. It would be preferable for appointment of suitable contractors to be completed in time for their input into the final data collection and for work on the models to commence in early 2010.

23. This timescale, whilst tight, is achievable, provided stakeholder agreement can be reached and funding issues can be met. It would allow the completed model framework to be in place by 2011 in time to support provision of business cases for currently earmarked schemes proposed for implementation in 2013/14 (eg the eastern corridor approach to Southampton, including the proposed Bus/High Occupancy Vehicle lane, Windhover Park and Ride and Windhover roundabout improvements).

Programme, Costs and Future Maintenance of the Models

24. The total cost of the proposed schemes and packages of schemes within TfSH over the next 20 years is substantial at around £2 billion, so it is not surprising that the likely cost of the required evidence base to support that level of investment is also high. A cost of around £2.2 million in total is anticipated for the data collection and transport modelling required to justify and lever-in this sum, a ratio of about 1:1,000 (0.1%).

25. However, as noted earlier, a number of origin-destination surveys were carried out in autumn 2008. Further surveys will be required this autumn and spring next year on a larger scale than those carried out in the previous financial year. The results of this work would then feed into the modelling process in 2010.

26. The proposed transport model framework would form an essential tool for a number of years to come. In this respect the most difficult aspect is that of having sufficiently up-to-date data. In light of the necessity of maintaining the model framework for a number of years, it is prudent to design a rolling programme of data collection and model maintenance to ensure that it continues to meet Government guidance in this respect, and maximum use can be realised for the expenditure made.

27. It is anticipated that around £750,000 will be required in 2009/10 for highway and public transport (including ferry) data collection, with lesser sums of around £350,000 in 2010/11 and then £100,000 annually to support a rolling programme of data collection designed to maintain the model's suitability into the future.

28. The initial cost of developing the transport models will depend on the final specification and to some extent on the method of procurement and proposals put forward by contractors, however this is anticipated to be in the order of £700,000. This expenditure would be spread over three years with the bulk in 2010/11 (depending on commissioning date, expenditure in 2009/10 would be about £50,000). Once developed the main cost of using the models would be borne by the individual schemes/packages, although there would be an ongoing maintenance cost to be borne centrally at about £100,000.

29. There are clear synergies with other stakeholders and prospective partners in acquiring the transport model framework for use within the sub-region. It will be necessary to seek funding from other stakeholders, including the DfT, Highways Agency (HA), the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA)/South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) and other private sources (Developers).

30. There will be a need to work closely with the DfT and HA (as per the memorandum of understanding) along with Network Rail and the Regional Transport Board (RTB). Subject to further discussions some of these will be represented on the Steering group. It is understood that the RTB is considering whether additional work is required in relation to its Strategic Transport Model for the South East or on additional modelling capability in order to support its work programme. Close working with the RTB is envisaged in the future.

31. Initial estimates of costs are included in the table below:

Use of the Modelling Framework

32. As already indicated, there are a number of public and private bodies which would benefit from the ability to make use of the proposed transport modelling framework. These include, but are not limited to, the DfT, HA, SEEDA, Network Rail, planning authorities in the sub-region, and developers of individual sites in the sub-region. As a starting point the following table sets out initial thoughts (no discussions have taken place) of how contributions could be sought.

* initial estimates subject to negotiation

33. It is recommended that ownership of the model be retained by TfSH (Hampshire County Council) as the lead authority, not least because of the need to maintain and update it in a suitable manner, so as to ensure that it continues to meet Government guidelines for acceptability. Access to the model would be available for all contributors subject to appropriate agreements being in place. Suitable contributions would be negotiated for the opportunity to utilise it from non-contributing parties. Such additional contributions would then be used to off-set costs of ongoing data collection and modelling.

34. In conclusion, Member approval is sought to the proposed way forward with regard to the evidence base, including:

(i) securing TfSH budgets for 2009/10 and commitments for 2010/11 and 2011/12;

(ii) engaging with other funding agencies and the private sector to secure commitments;

(iii) inviting expressions of interest for the workstreams involved in providing a modelling framework for the sub-region;

(iv) undertaking additional data collection during autumn 2009; and

(v) approving Hampshire County Council as the lead authority in commissioning and steering the work necessary in taking the evidence and appraisal work forward.

2004Rpt/AL