Funding for Innovation: Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems Application Form The level of information provided should be proportionate to the size and complexity of the scheme proposed. As a guide, we would suggest around 10 to 15 pages including annexes would be appropriate. A separate application form should be completed for each scheme. Applicant Information Local authority name(s)*: Portsmouth City Council Portsmouth City Council Portsmouth City Council Portsmouth City Council *If the bid is a joint proposal, please enter the names of all participating local authorities and specify the lead authority Bid Manager Name and position: Adil Mohammad, Traffic and Network Manager Adil Mohammad, Traffic and Network Manager Adil Mohammad, Traffic and Network Manager Adil Mohammad, Traffic and Network Manager Contact telephone number: T: 023 9284 1608 T: 023 9284 1608 T: 023 9284 1608 T: 023 9284 1608 Email address: [email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]Postal address: Portsmouth City Council Civic Offices Portsmouth City Council Civic Offices Portsmouth City Council Civic Offices Portsmouth City Council Civic Offices Guildhall Square, Portsmouth, P01 2NE Guildhall Square, Portsmouth, P01 2NE Guildhall Square, Portsmouth, P01 2NE Guildhall Square, Portsmouth, P01 2NE When authorities submit a bid for funding to the Department for Transport, as part of the Government’s commitment to greater openness in the public sector under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, they must also publish a version excluding any commercially sensitive information on their own website within two working days of submitting the final bid to the Department for Transport. The Department for Transport reserves the right to deem the business case as non-compliant if this is not adhered to. Please specify the web link where this bid will be published: https://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/ext/parking-travel-and-roads/travel/sustainable-transport- funding.aspx
37
Embed
Funding for Innovation: Cooperative Intelligent Transport ... · Funding for Innovation: Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems Application Form The level of information provided
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Funding for Innovation: Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems
Application Form
The level of information provided should be proportionate to the size and complexity of the scheme proposed. As a guide, we would suggest around 10 to 15 pages including annexes would be appropriate.
A separate application form should be completed for each scheme.
Applicant Information
Local authority name(s)*: Portsmouth City CouncilPortsmouth City CouncilPortsmouth City CouncilPortsmouth City Council
*If the bid is a joint proposal, please enter the names of all participating local authorities andspecify the lead authority
Bid Manager Name and position: Adil Mohammad, Traffic and Network ManagerAdil Mohammad, Traffic and Network ManagerAdil Mohammad, Traffic and Network ManagerAdil Mohammad, Traffic and Network Manager
Portsmouth City Council Civic OfficesPortsmouth City Council Civic OfficesPortsmouth City Council Civic OfficesPortsmouth City Council Civic Offices Guildhall Square, Portsmouth, P01 2NEGuildhall Square, Portsmouth, P01 2NEGuildhall Square, Portsmouth, P01 2NEGuildhall Square, Portsmouth, P01 2NE
When authorities submit a bid for funding to the Department for Transport, as part of the Government’s commitment to greater openness in the public sector under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, they must also publish a version excluding any commercially sensitive information on their own website within two working days of submitting the final bid to the Department for Transport. The Department for Transport reserves the right to deem the business case as non-compliant if this is not adhered to.
Please specify the web link where this bid will be published:
SECTION A - Scheme description and funding profile
A1. Scheme name: Portsmouth CITS (Co-operative Intelligent Transport Systems) Platform
A2. Headline description: Aim: Develop an IoT (Internet of Things) and Bigdata platform for Portsmouth's Traffic Management Centre for Information, warning systems and C-ITS applications enabling vehicle to infrastructure and vehicle to vehicle communications.
Objectives:
• Build and adopt IoT and Big Data infrastructure in Portsmouth.
• Demonstrate 'co-operative' vehicle-vehicle and vehicle-infrastructure elements.
• Early adoption and further understanding of the C-ITS technologies.
• Use the findings for more widespread deployment across the city.
• Demonstrate links with other systems, stakeholders, and Research centres with a road map to work with and strengthen relationship with partners and the private sector supply chain.
Figure 1.1 Illustration of C-ITS Applications for IoT & Big Data Platform
3
A3. Geographical area:
Please provide a short description of area covered by the bid (in no more than 50 words)
The area served is the entire Portsmouth road network, focusing on the strategic network of:
• M275/A3 (Western Corridor) – serving Portsmouth City Centre, Portsmouth International Port, Portsmouth Naval Base and Gunwharf Quays;
• A2030 –serving at Industrial Estates and retail parks, Portsmouth Football Club, Southsea seafront and eastern Portsmouth;
• East-west connections in Portsmouth.
Postcode: PO1 2NE Traffic Management Centre (TMC)
Please append a map showing the location (and route) of the proposed scheme, existing transport infrastructure and other points of particular interest to the bid e.g. development sites, areas of existing employment, constraints etc. Please see; Appendix A Scheme Location
A4. Type of bid (please tick relevant box):
C-ITS: Connected Vehicle ����
C-ITS: Real Time Information
C-ITS: Smart Parking
C-ITS: Vulnerable Road Users
Other (please specify)
A5. Equality Analysis
Has any Equality Analysis been undertaken in line with the Equality Duty? No A preliminary Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) has not been undertaken for this scheme as there is no impact on the protected groups.
SECTION B – The Business Case
B1. The Scheme – Summary/History (Maximum 200 words)
The project will deliver:
• An established and tested Bluetooth sensor network
• Real time database, communication and IT hardware infrastructure
• Real time data analytics platform.
• C-ITS application platform to provide Portsmouth City Council's (PCC) own data services, applying its own data for Predictive Modelling and real time Traffic Management.
• Post deployment monitoring and analysis.
4
Bluetooth sensors at strategic points along Portsmouth's road network would detect signals transmitted from Bluetooth devices within vehicles anonymously. Multiple sensors along the route would identify devices and measure journey times, queues and origin and destinations in real time.
The data is transferred to the secure data centre. By linking and processing datasets in real time joined up with predictive modelling and a decision support system, the following benefits will be realised:
• Scalable real time traffic and incident management
• Maximum use of the network.
• Improved real time information and support for individuals to make informed travel choices
Portsmouth City Council has recently trialled Bluetooth sensors at five locations with the ability to collect traffic flows, journey times and route choice information. PCC has citywide IP networking and communication infrastructure with a datacentre facility to enable a big data platform with predictive modelling and analytics.
The results provide data accuracy and identify any gaps in the Big Data platform and sensor network enabling the system to be integrated into the PCC's TMC. Figure 1.2 show system overview.
Figure 1.2: IoT and Big Data System Architecture.
5
B2. The Strategic Case (Maximum 350 words) Appendix B provides additional information. Context A dense island city, with limited road space, Portsmouth has significant potential for severe congestion. In future years this congestion is expected through the city's planned growth unless intervention occurs.
Portsmouth's traffic management challenges are:
• Managing the peak traffic demand.
• Management of planned disruption (events and roadworks)
• Disruption from unforeseen incidents.
• Road traffic emissions.
• Managing planned growth on the constrained network
Existing Infrastructure Portsmouth's network infrastructure is outdated with legacy issues where focus has been on maintenance. This approach will not enable a greater understanding of the network capability, or identify challenges from increasing traffic demands.
Urban traffic management and control techniques1 have been used for decades to reduce delays and congestion. By using these techniques without IoT and Big Data platform any additional capacity provided on the network will be replaced with additional traffic.
Big Data Platform The aim of the proposed scheme is:
To develop an IoT and Bigdata platform for Portsmouth's Traffic Management Centre for real-time information and warning systems and C-ITS applications capable of enabling vehicle to infrastructure and vehicle to vehicle communication.
In 2013/14 PCC upgraded their IT infrastructure and data centre facility which can expand to accommodate a Big Data platform. The new platform will address the city's traffic management challenges by provide insights into traffic patterns to allow an improved, dynamically managed transport network. As well as benefits to the city's network there will be indirect benefits to Highways England strategic road network and neighbouring authorities.
The expected direct and unquantified benefits/outcomes are;
• Real time journey and delay information allowing informed route choices that ultimately distribute traffic and increase operational performance of the network.
• An in-depth understanding of the traffic management measures and the economic impact of various events.
• Identify routes used for shortcuts during congestion and peak times.
• Provides information on Road Investment Strategy (2015-2020) for Highways England.
• Economic growth through improved journey time and reduced congestion.
• Improved connectivity to and within the city.
• Improved air quality through reduced congestion.
• Use the findings for more widespread deployment across the city and share with other authorities.
Work with and strengthen relationship with partners and the private sector supply chain.
1 such as SCOOT, MOVA and VA, traffic cameras and variable-message signs
6
B3. The Financial Case – Project Costs Before preparing a scheme proposal for submission, bid promoters should ensure they understand the financial implications of developing the scheme (including any implications for future resource spend and ongoing costs relating to maintaining and operating the asset), and the need to secure and underwrite any necessary funding outside the Department for Transport’s maximum contribution. Please complete the following tables. Figures should be entered in £000s (i.e. £10,000 = 10). Table A: Funding profile (Nominal terms)
£000s 2016-17 2017-18 Total
Cost Contingency Total
Notes: (1) Department for Transport funding must not go beyond 2017-18 financial year. (2) A local contribution of 5% (local authority and/or third party) of the project costs is required.
7
B4. The Financial Case - Local Contribution / Third Party Funding Please provide information on the following points (where applicable): a) The non-DfT contribution may include funding from organisations other than the scheme
promoter. Please provide details of all non-DfT funding contributions to the scheme costs. This should include evidence to show how any third party contributions are being secured, the level of commitment and when they will become available. PCC has allocated £18,000 towards the scheme from capital funds.
b) Where the contribution is from external sources, please provide a letter confirming the
body’s commitment to contribute to the cost of the scheme. The Department for Transport is unlikely to fund any scheme where significant financial contributions from other sources have not been secured or appear to be at risk.
N/A
Have you appended a letter(s) to support this case? N/A c) Please list any other funding applications you have made for this scheme or variants thereof
and the outcome of these applications, including any reasons for rejection. d)
No funding has been applied for this scheme before.
B5. The Financial Case – Affordability and Financial Risk (maximum 300 words) This section should provide a narrative setting out how you will mitigate any financial risks associated with the scheme. Please provide evidence on the following points (where applicable): a) What risk allowance has been applied to the project cost? A 25% contingency allowance has been allocated within the budget. How will cost overruns be dealt with?
• The cost of setting up and delivering the data platform has been budgeted through PCC's Information Services and will be programmed at the agreed costs should PCC be awarded the funding.
• The costs of Bluetooth and other IoT devices are budgeted based on the current procurement costs of these devices. Enquiries have been made with potential suppliers to confirm any variation in the cost.
• With the risk allowance applied to both Bigdata platform and Bluetooth sensors all the infrastructure is delivered to fulfil the objectives of the project. However once the project is sufficiently progressed the 25% contingency can be applied back into the project to add additional functionalities and spreading to the wider network.
• The project manager will provide early warnings and monitoring the costs to prevent overrun of the budget.
8
What are the main risks to project delivery timescales and what impact this will have on cost?
• Any delays in the project will not impact on spend of DfT funds by the end of the 2017/18 financial year. DfT funds will be prioritised at the start of the project with PCC contribution spend being allocated to the end of the project.
• Risk • Mitigation • Impact on cost
• Lack of resource available from PCC Information Services department.
• Their time resource is being planned for now.
• This risk would not impact on cost but it would delay project start.
• Unanticipated works • Scoping and feasibility planning using PCC Information Services and the current contractor to identify all potential works in advance.
• Additional works may incur additional costs, but these will expected to be within the project contingency as a full scoping and feasibility study should pick up any major works.
• Full procurement process required
• Discussions with procurement team have already begun.
• Additional costs may be incurred but these could be accommodated within the project contingency.
• Delay/issues in constructing new data centre
• Plan in advance with contingency in timescales. PCC currently has a redundant UTMC SERVER that can be reconfigured as a data platform as a contingency plan if necessary.
• No additional costs, just project delays.
B6. The Economic Case – Value for Money If available, promoters may provide an estimate of the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of the scheme (particularly for schemes costing more than £100,000) An assessment of the value for money has been undertaken. Please see Appendix C. Table C – Predicted benefits for different scenarios of reduction in total network-wide delay
Scenario 2013 12 Hr Delay Saving1
2031 12 Hr Delay Saving2
Daily PVB (£)
Annual PVB (£)
Indicative BCR
1% reduction in total delay across the network
293 pcu-hrs 816 pcu-hrs £56,528 £13.3 million 47
0.5% reduction in total delay across the network
147 pcu-hrs 408 pcu-hrs £28,264 £6.65 million 24
IoT Big Data Platform represents excellent value for money: falling within "Very High" VfM category with benefits of £24 for every £1 spent.
9
B7. The Commercial Case (maximum 300 words) The procurement strategy for this project will be to utilise single supplier frameworks the Council already has with Atkins and TRL until 2020 and 2019 respectively. Both suppliers have range of skills and expertise to provide support on the project. As single supplier frameworks no additional competitive process is required and work can begin immediately with the suppliers to establish contracts. The scale and scope of the framework agreements are: TRL (Transport Research Laboratory):
• £2.5M value
• To provide assistance and support in the analysis of the raw survey data received from the surveyors and provide quality assurance on the data.
• To provide the Authority with guidance to interpret the data.
• To support and advise the Authority on developing a Highways Infrastructure Asset Management plan.
• To assist in developing a robust asset management system and tools to support the Authority in decision making.
Atkins: PCC has a £20M 'Strategic Partner Framework Agreement' with Atkins to provide professional support to the following Service Areas: Transport, Infrastructure, Planning, Environment, Recreation, Major Projects, and General Business functions. Individual tasks can range from single-discipline ad-hoc operational support through to multi-disciplinary support to major long term regeneration projects. The Council may also use this framework outside of its jurisdictional boundaries where it has responsibility for work-streams forming part of wider cross boundary regional projects. For the procurement of all other contracts the following routes are applied:
• Less than £5,000 at least three ‘Informal Quotes’ are required, most likely sought via email.
• £5,000 - £100,000 at least three 'Formal' quotes are required via the Council's e-sourcing system InTend.
• Greater than £100,000 tenders must be advertised via InTend. Tenders in excess of £1M must be approved via the Council's Gateway Board and tenders in excess of EU thresholds must conform to Public Contracts Regulations 2015.
*It is the promoting authority’s responsibility to decide whether or not their scheme proposal is lawful; and the extent of any new legal powers that need to be sought. Scheme promoters should ensure that any project complies with the Public Contracts Regulations as well as European Union State Aid rules, and should be prepared to provide the Department for Transport with confirmation of this, if required. An assurance that a strategy is in place that is legally compliant is likely to achieve the best value for money outcomes are required from your Section 151 Officer below.
10
B8. Management Case - Delivery (maximum 300 words) Deliverability is one of the essential criteria for this Competition and as such any bid should set out if any statutory procedure is needed before it can be delivered. a) An outline project plan (typically in Gantt chart form) with milestones should be included as
an annex, covering the period from submission of the bid to scheme completion. The definition of the key milestones should be clear and explained. The critical path should be identifiable and any contingency periods, key dependencies (internal or external) should be explained.
Has a project plan been appended to your bid? Yes (Please see Appendix D)
b) A statement of intent to deliver the scheme within this programme from a senior political
representative and/or senior local authority official. Yes, please see Section D1, which demonstrates the intent to deliver of Alan Cufley, Director of Transport, Environment and Business Support.
B9. Management Case – Governance (maximum 300 words) Please name who is responsible for delivering the scheme, the roles (Project Manager, SRO etc.) and set out the responsibilities of those involved and how key decisions are/will be made. An organogram may be useful here. This may be attached as an Annex. A specific Project Manager will be appointed for this scheme. PCC is proposing to set up a Project Board to ensure that tasks are delivered on time and within budget. . The Project Board will be headed by the PCC's Assistant Director of Transport, Environment and Business Support and will include lead specialists from Information Services. The board will review progress on a regular basis and will prepare regular reports showing delivery performance, financial performance and any risks to the project. Full details of governance arrangements and organogram is attached as Appendix E
B10. Management Case - Risk Management Risk management is an important control for all projects but this should be commensurate with cost. For projects where the costs exceed £100,000, a risk register covering the top 5 (maximum) specific risks to this scheme should be attached as an annex. Please ensure that in the risk register cost that you have not included any risks associated with ongoing operational costs and have used the P50 value. Has a risk register been appended to your bid? Yes see Appendix F
11
SECTION C – Monitoring, Evaluation and Benefits Realisation
C1. Benefits Realisation (maximum 250 words) The IoT and Big Data Platform objectives have been used to develop the ‘desired outputs and Outcomes’ for the scheme. These desired outputs and outcomes are the actual benefits that are expected to be derived from the scheme and are directly linked to the objectives. Profile of Benefits:
• Desired outputs – tangible effects that are funded and produced directly as a result of the scheme; e.g. The Big Data infrastructure, IoT infrastructure, Tools and Services available for dynamic traffic and events management for TMC.
• Desired outcomes – final impacts brought about by the scheme in the short, medium and long term e.g. Journey time benefits, better informed travel choices, mode shift to more sustainable travel, BRT and other public transport provisions.
PCC will have a Benefits Realisation Plan that is owned by the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO), although ownership can be reviewed and delegated as necessary. It is the owner’s responsibility to ensure that the benefits are aligned with the study objectives and that appropriate monitoring processes are adopted. The benefits Realisation management plan will be developed which provides details of how the benefits process will be applied to a program. A combined Benefits Realisation Plan and Monitoring and Evaluation Framework have been produced and are available within Appendix G. It describes the tasks, resources, time frame and approach to each step of the framework. Figure 1.3 shows the process
1.
Reconcile
business
case
benefits
2.
Secure
benefit
ownership
3.
Develop
benefits
activity
plan
4.
Conduct
baseline
measures
5.
Review
business
change
6.
Go live
activities
7.
Benefits
tracking
12
C2. Monitoring and Evaluation (maximum 250 words) PCC will evaluate measure and report the benefits outcomes and impacts of the scheme during its progress in the following framework: Outcome Monitoring - will measure the progress of the scheme and ensure that the expected Outcomes are realised. The responsible person in the first instance is the scheme manager who will report outcomes to the project board at monthly intervals. Initially the key measures of success will be setting up the Database server, DMZ comms server and Application Server. This will then be used to start building tools necessary for processing the incoming data. The platform will be ready to receive, integrate and publish data. The next stage will be to install and calibrate the IoT devices on the network. Process Monitoring - A systemic process for calibration and validation of sensor data will be provisioned along with data storage. This will measure the efficiency of the system and minimise the risk of data gaps. Tools will be developed to clean and process the data. This will ensure that the expected outputs from the contractors are achieved and that any issues are raised and resolved in a clear and unambiguous manner. Benefits Realisation Monitoring - will ensure that the project delivers the anticipated benefits over the life of the project. The project board is responsible for ensuring the project benefits are realised and if possible enhanced during the life of the project.
13
SECTION D: Declarations D1. Senior Responsible Owner Declaration As Senior Responsible Owner for [scheme name] I hereby submit this request for approval to DfT on behalf of [name of authority] and confirm that I have the necessary authority to do so. I confirm that [name of authority] will have all the necessary powers in place to ensure the planned timescales in the application can be realised. Name: Alan Cufley
Signed:
Position: Director of Transport, Environment and Business Support
D2. Section 151 Officer Declaration As Section 151 Officer for [name of authority] I declare that the scheme cost estimates quoted in this bid are accurate to the best of my knowledge and that [name of authority] - has allocated sufficient budget to deliver this scheme on the basis of its proposed funding
contribution - will allocate sufficient staff and other necessary resources to deliver this scheme on time and
on budget - accepts responsibility for meeting any costs over and above the DfT contribution requested,
including potential cost overruns and the underwriting of any funding contributions expected from third parties
- accepts responsibility for meeting any ongoing revenue requirements in relation to the scheme
- accepts that no further increase in DfT funding will be considered beyond the maximum contribution requested
- has the necessary governance / assurance arrangements in place - has identified a procurement strategy that is legally compliant and is likely to achieve the
best value for money outcome - will ensure that a robust and effective stakeholder and communications plan is put in place. Name: Chris Ward
Signed:
Submission of bids: The deadline for bid submission is 5pm, 30 September 2016. An electronic copy only of the bid including any supporting material should be submitted to: [email protected]
B2.1 Demographic of the area and unquantified benefits to the local community
1. Portsmouth has a significant role in the sub-regional economy as an employment, education,
tourist, retail, and transport hub. Portsmouth International Port (PIP) gateway with 3.5 million
people passing through the ferry port each year. As a transport hub over 5 million people use
Portsmouth as a gateway to the Isle of Wight and approximately 3 million passengers cross
Portsmouth Harbour to Gosport each year.
2. Portsmouth Naval Base (PNB) is the home of the Royal Navy and BAE Systems and a
significant player in the marine and maritime sector, providing 19,775 jobs (directly and
indirectly) across the wider sub-region and contributes over £1.68 billion of output per
annum. Every £1 million directly generated by the Naval Base stimulates an additional
£750,000 of spending in the Solent economy. From 2017 PNB will have around 2,000
additional staff due to the arrival of the new air-craft carriers.
3. The city's economy has strong roots in tourism, leisure and retail. Tourism in Portsmouth
accounts for 7.6 million visitors per year spending £373 million and supporting over 7,000
jobs. The city focusses on Gunwharf Quays as a retail location which attracts approximately
8 million visitors a year. The city is developing its retail offer through the creation of a new
city centre and city centre road development.
4. High levels of deprivation, widespread obesity, low levels wellbeing, and, low levels of physical
activity
• Portsmouth is ranked 63rd of 326 English local authorities on the index of multiple deprivation score, where one is the most deprived. All Portsmouth residents live in the most deprived 40% of English Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) in terms of the outdoor living environment (considering air quality and traffic accidents); and 46% of Portsmouth LSOAs are in top 10% most deprived in England.
• 64% of avoidable deaths are caused by lifestyle behaviours including low levels of physical activity.
• 65% of Portsmouth adults do less than 30 minutes of physical activity per week including walking and cycling
• Levels of child obesity in Portsmouth are higher than average for England. In 2014/15, 33% of children were overweight or obese on leaving primary school.
• Portsmouth has high child pedestrian casualties, averaging 39 per year (50% more than the national average by population). Despite continuous improvements to the infrastructure, behaviour remains the biggest contributory factor, particularly at Key Stages 1 and 2.
• Portsmouth provides 15.5% of the total jobs in the South Hampshire sub-region
• Portsmouth has a higher proportion of 16-18 year olds not in education, employment or training (NEET) than regionally and nationally. For example, 5.2% of the population
Network Management Team - September 2016
2 | P a g e
in Portsmouth are classified as NEETs, compared with 4.1% in the South East and 4.6% in England.
5. Works are underway to continue the regeneration of the city with major investment in Tipner,
Horsea Island and Port Solent (all served by the western gateway) for residential,
employment and leisure.
6. The University of Portsmouth is one of the leading ‘new’ universities, with over 20,000
students in attendance.
7. A highway network with C ITS infrastructure with a dynamically managed transport network is
essential for delivering the ambitious growth agenda and expanding employment
opportunities across Portsmouth.
Network Management Team - September 2016
3 | P a g e
FigureB1.1 Portsmouth Ward boundaries.
Network Management Team - September 2016
4 | P a g e
B2.2 The Strategic Case: The identified problem(s), with timescales and the key drivers
SRTM summary for Portsmouth
• Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) authorities which includes Portsmouth have
commissioned a study to undertake a Solent Transport’s Sub Regional Transport Modelling
(SRTM) study covering SOLENT region.
• The study provides a high-level understanding of the impacts of the latest growth projections
through to 2034 in the SOLENT region. This note summarise the impacts that were
examined using two scenarios with different transport provisions and the key facts of the
study relevant to Portsmouth.
• The SRTM model has a base year of 2010 with five forecast years; 2014, 2019, 2026 and
2036. An update of the SRTM model to rebase to 2015 is ongoing to be available towards
end of 2016. The starting point of the model is a 2014 reference case.
• The development information is used in the modelling study, this included for both residential
and employment land uses. The employment land uses included office, industrial and
warehousing. All other non-residential land use inputs were left unchanged from the current
SRTM Reference Case scenario.
• The summary of increase in residential land use by local authority between 2014 to 2034 is
shown in Fugure1 and increase in employment land use for the same period is shown in
Figure 2. It can be seen that Portsmouth has Approximately 13,890 which is a 16% increase,
one of highest demand for housing in the region. It was estimated that there is an 8%
increase in the jobs i.e. 8081 by 2036.
Figure1.1 Housing demand 2014 to 2036.
1,845
15,051
9,818
2,994
8,130
4,649 4,177
8,736
13,890
17,984
13,996
02,0004,0006,0008,000
10,00012,00014,00016,00018,00020,000
Demand for Housing
Network Management Team - September 2016
5 | P a g e
Figure1.2 Employment demand 2014 to 2036.
• The impacts are examined using two scenarios. The Do Minimum (DM) scenario was
specified to include those transport schemes that are already committed and also a number
of schemes that are vital to committed development sites although the schemes themselves
may not yet be committed
• Reference Case (2014) + developments up to 2014/15.
• Do Minimum (2036): com + dev.
• Do something (2036): com + dev + schemes.
• The Do Something (DS) test included additional transport interventions, as specified by the
Solent Transport and the PUSH Authorities, with the aim of helping to mitigate the impact of
the quantum and spatial distribution of the proposed developments on the transport network.
There were a number of both highway and public transport schemes included in the DS test.
• The results are analysed in terms five key indicators.
a. Modal Share
b. Flows
c. Delays
d. Volume vs. Capacity
e. Public Transport Flow (Passenger).
• The Do Something (DS) test included additional transport interventions, as specified by the
Solent Transport and the PUSH Authorities, with the aim of helping to mitigate the impact of
the quantum and spatial distribution of the proposed developments on the transport network.
There were a number of both highway and public transport schemes included in the DS test.
199
5991 6085
4459 4660 48873764
10481
8081
4762
2453
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Growth in number of Jobs
Network Management Team - September 2016
6 | P a g e
• Figure 1.3 shows the mode share in both 2014 and 2034. The results from the modelling
study shows that the highway mode share has increased by 0.58%, public transport mode
share has increased marginally by 0.9% and a decrease in active modes by -1.5%.
Figure 1.3 Modal Share 2014 to 2036.
• The study results shows that the network wide trips are increased by 21%, the travel distance
is increased by 36% and the travel time is also increased by 37.2% there is no or marginal
difference in speed.
Table 1.1. Growth in Traffic Flow 2014 - 2036
2014 PUSH DS 2036 Diff % Diff
Total Travel Time pcu hrs 945205 1296620 351415 37.20%
• The study has analysed the boardings (rail, bus and ferry), number of services, and travel
time, travel distance and speed for both the vehicles (supply side) and the passengers
(demand side). An approximate 37% increase in PT boardings is forecast for 2036 compared
to 2014. However the increase in bus users is low.
HIGHWAY PUBLIC TRANSPORTACTIVE MODES
(Walking and Cycling)
2014 65.70% 5.40% 28.90%
2034 66.20% 6.30% 27.40%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%Modeshare
Network Management Team - September 2016
7 | P a g e
• The flow difference plots show an increase in flows in Red approximately 500 to 900 PCUs.
Please see Figures 1.4 and Figure 1.5 and 2 below. For Portsmouth the increase in flows will
have significant impact on key corridors and junctions.
Network Management Team - September 2016
8 | P a g e
Figure 1.4 : AM Peak: Increase in flows over 500.
Figure 1.5: PM Peak: Increase in flows over 500.
Network Management Team - September 2016
9 | P a g e
Figure 1.6: Junction delays
Figure 1.7: Junction delays PM Peak
Network Management Team - September 2016
IoT BigData Platform Project
1 | P a g e
Appendix C: B6. The Economic Case – Value for Money evidence
Separate Annex – Co-operative Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS) Challenge Fund – Value for Money Evidence (Big Data Platform)
Scheme description
This proposal is for the development of a Big Data Platform, using information from bluetooth sensors and radar on the network, to provide real time and historic information on journey times and trip movements, which can then be used in a range of applications.
Benefits include:
• More efficient management of the network, on a day-to-day basis, during special events and periods of roadworks, and in response to unexpected incidents on the network.
• Enabling users to make more informed decision about their travel choices
• Reduced delay and increased journey time reliability on the network.
• Improved network resilience.
• More comprehensive and reliable data to inform modelling, analysis, and monitoring activities.
Monetary estimate of journey time benefits:
The primary benefits relate to journey time savings on a day-to-day basis, during special events and periods of roadworks, and in response to unexpected incidents on the network.
With only three roads linking the island to the mainland (M275, A3 and A2030) there is significant potential for severe congestion at peak times. This includes
• M275/M27A3 – into Portsmouth City Centre, Portsmouth International Port Continental Ferry Port, Naval Base and Gunwharf Quays;
• A2030 – from the M27 and A3(M) to employment locations in Airport Industrial Estate/Anchorage Park, Portsmouth City Centre and eastern Portsmouth;
• East west connections in Portsmouth.
Day-to-day delay savings
Table 1 shows that total delay on the Portsmouth city-wide network is estimated at 29,313 pcu hours in 2013, resulting in an average delay per vehicle (passenger car unit) of 3.25 mins across a 12 hour period and an average speed of 48kph. This is expected to increase almost three-fold by 2031 to 81,556, equating to an average delay per vehicle of 6.92 mins and an average speed of 37kph.
Network Management Team - September 2016
IoT BigData Platform Project
2 | P a g e
Table 1 – Do Minimum Network Statistics (2013 and 2031) – Portsmouth City Only1
COMMENTS Do-Minimum Do-Minimum
AM Peak (1hr) 2013BDM 2031BDM
Total Trips Loaded (pcus) 54,968 69,774
Link Cruise Time (pcu-hrs)
7,193 9,796
Total Travel Time (pcu-hrs)
10,475 20,190
Total Delay (pcu-hrs) 3,282 10,395
Total Delay (mins/pcus) 3.58 8.94
Travel Distance (pcu-kms) 456,644 587,916
Average Speed (kph) 44 29
IP (1hr) 2013BDM 2031BDM
Total Trips Loaded (pcus) 39,183 53,353
Link Cruise Time (pcu-hrs)
4,924 7015
Total Travel Time (pcu-hrs)
6,282 9815
Total Delay (pcu-hrs) 1,357 2801
Total Delay (mins/pcus) 2.08 3.15
Travel Distance (pcu-kms) 332,779 444937
Average Speed (kph) 53 45
PM Peak (1hr) 2013BDM 2031BDM
Total Trips Loaded (pcus) 55,097 69,736
Link Cruise Time (pcu-hrs)
7,472 10,074
Total Travel Time (pcu-hrs)
11,809 22,991
Total Delay (pcu-hrs) 4,337 12,917
Total Delay (mins/pcus) 4.72 11.11
Travel Distance (pcu-kms) 467,976 597,829
Average Speed (kph) 40 26
All Day (12hr)3 2013BDM 2031BDM
Total Trips Loaded (pcus) 540,536 707,259
Link Cruise Time (pcu-hrs)
70,248 97,233
Total Travel Time (pcu-hrs)
99,561 178,789
Total Delay (pcu-hrs)2 29,313 81,556
Total Delay (mins/pcus) 3.25 6.92
Average Speed (kph) 48 37
Network Management Team - September 2016
IoT BigData Platform Project
3 | P a g e
Notes: 1. Network Statistics taken from Portsmouth Western Corridor Model (2013BDM and 2031 BDM). 2. Total Delay (pcu-hrs) is calculated as the difference between Link Cruise Time (travel time based on speed limit only) and Link Cruise Time (travel time including signals, queues, turns, etc.). 3. The following Peak Hour to Period Factors have been used to convert Peak Hour figures to 12 Hour period, based on local observed demand. AM Peak = 2.75; Inter-Peak = 6.00; PM Peak = 2.80).
The Data Platform will enable the network to be managed more efficiently on a day-to-day basis, reducing the amount of delay on the network and resulting in journey time benefits for all vehicles. Table 2 shows the predicted journey time savings and benefits for different scenarios, representing different reductions in % delay across the network in 2013 and 2031. These values have then been used to estimate a Present Value of Benefits, based on the following assumptions and calculations:
• Values of time for car, LGVs, and HGVs have been taken from WebTAG Data Book (V1.5) (Table A1.3.6).
• A 5 year appraisal period has been assumed. This is considered to be conservative. No renewal costs are expected to be needed over this time period.
• Journey time benefits have been calculated for two forecast years of 2013 and 2031 as used in the Portsmouth Western Corridor Model. Benefits for intervening years have then been estimated on the basis of a steady annual rate of growth of benefits to allow the estimates for 2018 to 2027 to be calculated.
• Benefits have been discounted to 2010 values and prices, using an annual discount rate of 3.5% per annum in line with WebTAG.
• Daily benefits have been converted to an annual benefit using an annualisation factor of 235.29.
The indicative BCRs are based on an outturn cost of £300,000, which in appraisal terms equates to a Present Value Cost (PVC) of £282,000, in 2010 market prices and values and accounting for 200% optimism bias (as recommended for IT system deployment, in WebTAG Unit A1.2, Table 8). PCC is confident that costs can be managed within a budget of £300,000: Data Platform:
• PCC have upgraded their IT infrastructure and data centre facility with appx £1.2m in 2013/14 which has capacity to expand to accommodate the Data platform without having to build a data centre infrastructure from the start.
Network Management Team - September 2016
IoT BigData Platform Project
4 | P a g e
• The feasibility of the project was reviewed by PCC's IT specialists and estimated costs and resources to enable this and can be programmed immediately.
• In addition PCC currently hosting and maintaining UTMC data and IT infrastructure, this will be made redundant as part of the Traffic Management Centre upgrade. As a contingency PCC will consider reducing the costs by making use of this.
• Therefore the data platform can be made fully operational within the budget and time scales.
Bluetooth Sensors:
• PCC have experience in installing and maintaining the Bluetooth sensors on the street. Currently 5 Bluetooth sensors are installed on street for monitoring Journey times across the city.
• As part of the C-ITS funding network is expanded and integrates the data to data centre.
• The costs of installing and procuring the sensors are based on the current supplier and variation of prices is unlikely to be high in the short term.
A 25% as contingency cost which will be put back in to expanding the network and application services if no contingencies.
Table 2 – Predicted benefits for different scenarios of reduction in total network-wide delay
Scenario 2013 12 Hr Delay Saving1
2031 12 Hr Delay Saving2
Daily PVB (£)
Annual PVB (£)
Indicative BCR
1% reduction in total delay across the network
293 pcu-hrs 816 pcu-hrs £56,528 £13.3 million
47
0.5% reduction in total delay across the network
147 pcu-hrs 408 pcu-hrs £28,264 £6.65 million
24
1. Delay!AA8:AAB.
The results show that achieving even a very small reduction in average delay across the Portsmouth city-wide network (-1%) will deliver very high value for money. This assumes no other improvements are made to the network. In practice, reduction in delay is as a result of traffic management and behaviour change interventions driven by information from the Data Platform, is likely to be focused on particular areas of the network. These locations are likely to experience a higher level of reduction, while other areas experience minimal change. The above scenarios represent an average reduction across the network and are considered to represent realistic scenarios for the purpose of illustrating the potential value for money of the proposed investment.
Network Management Team - September 2016
IoT BigData Platform Project
5 | P a g e
Other benefits
Other expected benefits are summarised below:
• More efficient management of the network during special events and periods of roadworks, and in response to unexpected incidents on the network (Large beneficial) – based on analysis of information from the Data Platform from historic events (and potentially use of real time information in the long term). With only three roads linking the island to the mainland (M275, A3 and A2030) the network in Portsmouth can approach gridlock if an unexpected incident occurs on the network, particularly during a period of high demand (e.g. summer holidays, during the Victorious Festival, etc.). On these occasions, the level of delay on the network significantly exceeds the 12-hr delay figures shown in Table 1, for several hours.
Assuming the information provided by the Data Platform enables a reduction in average delay across the network equivalent to 10% of the level of delay in the 12-hr Do Minimum scenario, this will deliver a daily Present Value of Benefits (2010 values and prices) of £548,000 - based on one day per year. This alone gives an indicative BCR of 2:1, representing strong value for money.
• Improved reliability (Moderate beneficial) – As a result of reduced delay, more efficient operation of the network, and more accurate information for network users about expected journey times.
Air Quality (Moderate beneficial) – Due to reduced delay and emissions in Portsmouth’s five Air Quality Management Areas.
• Accidents (Slight beneficial) – Reduced delay and better information about expected journey times will reduce the number of accidents resulting from driver frustration or distraction.
• Other – More comprehensive and reliable data to inform modelling, analysis, and monitoring activities.
B8. Management Case - Delivery : IoT BigData Platform Project - Outline PlanB8. Management Case - Delivery : IoT BigData Platform Project - Outline PlanB8. Management Case - Delivery : IoT BigData Platform Project - Outline PlanB8. Management Case - Delivery : IoT BigData Platform Project - Outline Plan
Scoping Meeting Milestone X
Technical workshop 1 day
Prepare technical and pricing proposals 6 weeks
Submission of proposals to Portsmouth Milestone X X
Evaluation of proposal and raise contract up to 12 weeks
Project Board Review of the Proposal Milestone X X
Implementation Planning 9 weeks
Contract signed & approval obtained to proceed Milestone X X
System Design, Infrastructure Planning, Software Development of Data and Modelling Tools Ongoing
Completion of the detailed Software,Tools, Hardware, Data analytics, design and specs Milestone X
Order Hardware and delivery lead time 9 weeks
Testing and Development period 14 Weeks
Install and commission Bluetoothe sensors,Calibration, IP Networking 10 weeks
Data Integration, Setting up the Development, Testing, Pre-Prod and Go Live Environments 12 weeks
C-ITS Applications, Data Analytics testing and Demonstration 8 weeks
Window for Monitoring and Evaluation 3 weeks
Window for snagging, Monitoring and Evaluation 4 weeks
Review of Objectives and benefits realisation 3 Days
Project Closure Milestone X X
Contingency Period
Project
ConsiderationsCity Events and Major Works, Resource restrictions and other potential constraints
Role Responsibilities Project Executive Pam Turton
• Maintain ultimate responsibility for the project
• Monitor and control progress of the project
• Review the business case
• Hold senior supplier and senior users to account
• Ensure overall business assurance Senior User(s) Adil Mohammed Michael Robinson
• Advises the executive on user issues
• Provide customer quality expectations
• Ensure desired outcome of the project is specified
• Ensure expected benefits of the project are realised
• Ensure availability and commitment of user resources Senior Supplier Graham Fairbrother
• Advises the executive on supplier issues
• Assess and confirm viability of project approach
• Ensure proposals for development of the products are realistic
• Ensure availability and commitment of supplier resources Project Board
• Direction of the project
• Project assurance
• Publicity/dissemination of information about the project
• Approval of major plans
• Approval of changes
• Commitment of resources Project Manager Darren Thirlwell
• Responsible for delivering the project on behalf of the Board
• Plan and monitor the project
• Direct and motivate the project team
• Manage or delegate the management of project resources
• Report to Project Board
• Manage configuration and change control
• Manage risks
• Manage production of required products Team Managers Adil Mohammed Graham Fairbrother
• Manage production of specific products as defined by Project Manager
• Prepare team plan
• Manage team
• Report progress on team’s work
• Identify risks associated with team’s work
• Ensure that quality controls for the team’s work are planned and performed correctly
The Project Team will consist of:- IS & Finance TE&BS & Other Darren Thirlwell - IS Project Manager Adil Mohammed - Traffic & Network Manager Paul Darlow - IS Business Partner Lee Gilbert - Assistant Traffic Engineer Rob Williams - IS Applications Architect Steve Flynn - Assistant Traffic Engineer Jack Donohoe - IS BSA Barni Fry - Contracts Administrator Simon Whitworth - IS Network Architect Claire Bartlett - Communications
Christine Mansley - Financial Assurance
Risk
Number
Risk Title
(insert name of the identified risk)
Risk Owner
(insert initials of
the person
responsible for the
risk - in most
cases it will be the
project manager,
however for larger
scale projects the
risks maybe split
amongst a project
team)
Probability
(insert a score of 1-
4, using the
descriptions at the
bottom of the log -
based on the
likelihood of this
risk occurring)
Impact
(insert a score of
1-4 using the
descriptions at the
bottom of the log -
based on the impact
this risk could have on
the project)
Net Risk Score
(there is a
formula set up
to multiply the
probability score
by the impact
score and
it will be
automatically
inserted in this
column - this
score will
dictate the
colour the risk
should be, again
using the table
at the foot of the
log)
Control Measures
(describe how the risk will
be mitigated against)
1 Full procurement process required (Delaying project start,
and incurring small additional costs)
Adil Mohammad 1 1 1 The procurement process
has already been discussed
with the procurement team
who are happy with the
proposed procurement
route.
2 Project costs increase (outside funding availability) Adil Mohammad 2 3 6 Indicative costings have
been obtained from
suppliers and as such we
are happy the costings are
accurate. If costs were to
increase the number of
junctions could be reduced.
3 Unanticipated works discovered (delays to programme,
increase in costs)
Adil Mohammad 1 2 2 Initial scoping and feasibility
has indicated the works
required and no further
works are anticipated. Any
additional works are likely
to be small and can be met
through the cost and
timescale contongencys.
4 Lack of resource available to deliver works (delays in
Purpose of this document The benefits realisation management plan supports section C1 of the application form providing details of how the benefits process will be applied to a program. It describes the tasks, resources, time frame and approach to each step of the framework. The executive summary is a brief overview of the program, key benefits and how they will be tracked.
IoT and Big Data Platform
Monitoring, Evaluation and Benefits Realisation
Appendix G - BENEFITS REALISATION
2
Version Name Details of changes / comments Distribution Date
1.0 Adil Mohammad Preliminary draft 26/09/2016
3
1. Executive Summary
The benefits realisation management plan provides details of how the benefits process will be applied to a program. It describes the tasks, resources, time frame and approach to each step of the framework. The executive summary is a brief overview of the program, key benefits and how they will be tracked.
2. Benefits Management Phases
Describe how this program links to the standard phases
3. Business Case Benefits Reconciliation
Consider the following point for inclusion in this section:
• Participation in business case benefits development
• Economic appraisal calculations
• Current Project scope/direction: Benefits Change Form
• Analysis of Business Case Benefits
4. Benefits Ownership
Consider the following point for inclusion in this section:
• Benefits Owners Engagement
• Roles and benefit accountabilities
• Business problems to be resolved
• Operational obstacles and risks: Benefits Risk Register
• Benefits Measures and Targets: Benefits Realisation Register
1.
Reconcile
business
case
benefits
2.
Secure
benefit
ownership
3.
Develop
benefits
activity
plan
4.
Conduct
baseline
measures
5.
Review
business
change
6.
Go live
activities
7.
Benefits
tracking
4
5. Benefits Activity Plan
Consider the following point for inclusion in this section:
• Business, Technology, Organisational, Processes and People tasks
• Benefits Realisation Pathway map
• Benefits Result Chain
• Review project plan for benefit and change management tasks
• Benefits Realisation Activity Plan
• Communication materials – benefits at each level and “What’s in it for me”
6. Baseline Measures
Consider the following point for inclusion in this section:
• Describe how measures will be collected
• Detail the effort and time frames
• Detail any tools to be used such as satisfaction surveys
• The sign-off process for the measures
7. Benefits and Organisational Change
Consider the following point for inclusion in this section:
• This section should detail the process changes and initiatives required to produce each benefit. Benefits and change work together.
• The Change Management group typically develop “Stop, Start and Continue” process lists.
• The details will be used to create the Benefits Pathway and The Benefits Realisation Results Chain.
• Go Live
Consider the following point for inclusion in this section:
5
• Describe how the quick wins will be identified and communicated.
• List the key processes to stop and those which will improve.
8. Post Go Live Benefits Tracking
Consider the following point for inclusion in this section:
• Describe how the benefits data collection and reporting process will be conducted post implementation.
• Indicate the groups and stakeholders who will receive the information.
• Some benefits will not meet target and it will be necessary to implement new initiatives to correct this.
• Describe the expected duration, possible two years post implementation.