Annex 3 Scheme impact proforma and economic appraisal summary note

Transcription

1 Annex 2 Logic Map

2

3 Annex 3 Scheme impact proforma and economic appraisal summary note

4 Sustainable Travel Transition Year 16/17 - Schemes Impact Pro Forma For cycling/walking elements of your bid, please provide the following evidence - if available Input data Without Scheme With Scheme Reference to supporting information (e.g. section of Economic Appraisal Summary). Description of infrastructure/facilities Route length (km) Average trip length (km) Average cycling speed (kph) Number of users (per day) Percentage of additional users that would have driven a car otherwise. N.A. No infrastructure elements of this bid. E.g. cycling along general traffic/ in bus lane/ parking bicycles on lampposts/secure cycle racks etc - refer to section 1.9 of WebTAG Please provide reference to more detailed description. Refer for more detailed description (incl maps etc). Not expected to change unless new routes provided. In the absence of local data (e.g. from survey), National Travel Survey (NTS) has average trip lengths and trips times: Table nts0306 has average distance per cycle trip. Again, not expected to change unless users re-route onto new/improved route. E.g. from visual inspection/ automatic count/ speed cameras - please note the NTS data on distance and time are not sufficiently robust to be combined to get a robust estimate for average speed. E.g. from Automatic Cycling Counters or an appropriate sample of manual counts. Given cycling is highly seasonal, adjustments might be needed to account for that if e.g. a survey was undertaken in winter. It is important to refer to evidence you have for this assumption. If you are expecting your project to reduce car travel, please provide the following information Input data Without Scheme With Scheme Reference to supporting information (e.g. section of Economic Appraisal Summary). Traffic levels (Vehicle km) in the affected area 28,828mkm inc A roads, 16,306mkm without Traffic levels (Vehicle hours) in the affected area No data No data Average Speed in the Morning Peak 26.4 mph Not quantified Mode share (in person trips) Car Driver Car Passenger Bus passenger Rail Passenger Cyclist Walking No data See economic appraisal summary section 1 for full details. Without scheme figures : Traffic levels taken from traffic-by-local-authority Both with and without 'A' figures included Average speed taken from DfT statistics table cgn0206 average for 2015 in Surrey and Hampshire LA (morning peak, locally managed 'A' roads) Mode share from Census 2011 journey to work With scheme figures based on Moser and Bamberg evidence reported in TAG Unit M5.2. WTP and STP impacts are higher but to avoid double counting we have made a conservative estimate of 5 percentage point increase only. Evidence from previous TravelSMART programmes and Sustainable Demonstration Towns has been used to estimate where this shift would come from (4 percentage points from car, 1 from car driver. Majority of increase - 2 percentage points each - predicted for walking and cycling as this is the focus of the package and 1 percentage point increase for bus).

5 For Bus elements of your bid please fill in the following table Input data Without Scheme With Scheme Reference to supporting information (e.g. section of Economic Appraisal Summary). Annual number of passenger trips 27million 27.3million Total bus patronage at county level with estimate of percentage of that which falls within the study area. Average trip distance (km) no change expected no change expected Total bus kilometres travelled (km), only change if 'with' scheme includes new bus services Average wait time (mins) n/a n/a Average fare per trip ( ) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Sustainable Demonstration towns recorded average increases of 10-22% in bus trips over the period although results were erratic. Given the timescales and scope of this project we would expect to see only a 1-2% increase in trips along targeted corridors. Additionally, patronage figures overall for Surrey show that for the county as a whole, there has been no increase in bus use since 2011 (data up to 2014) so it is more likely that local increases can be attributed to interventions. Average in-vehicle time (mins) Modest growth in patronage anticipated as a result of the impact of workplace and college travel planning and travel awareness initiatives/campaigns. Description of your intervention

6 Economic Appraisal Summary Note In order to carry out the economic appraisal for the 2016/17 a similar methodology to the 2015/16 bid was applied which used Census 2011 data as the main source of evidence. The key difference is that the economic benefit of new cycle infrastructure has been removed since this is a revenue only bid and the delivery of infrastructure is not dependent on this bid although it will complement it. There are several reasons why this analysis uses the same methodology: The measures to be implemented in 2016/17 are very similar and in cases where there are differences, for example the inclusion of air quality, they are not expected to impact results significantly. The new cycle infrastructure in the Blackwater Valley is not due for completion until the summer of 2016 so we are expecting to see the impact of this from July 2016/17. Although the overall geographic area remains the same, we will be targeting different businesses, schools and communities with measures and so expect the number of people influenced by the programme to be similar. Key assumptions and limitations include: Census data from 2011 is still representative of the population in In comparison with the LSTF demonstration towns it has been assumed that the demographic mix and characteristics of the towns are similar enough to those in Surrey and Hampshire to allow a reasonable comparison. 1. Evidence - Reducing car travel Traffic levels and average speeds have been updated to latest data available (2014). Traffic levels taken from DfT statistics tables tra8904 and tra8906 and include Surrey and Hampshire county data. Average speed data taken from DfT statistics cgn0206 (2015) average of Surrey and Hampshire. It should be noted that the average weekday morning peak speeds have fallen considerably since 2013 in both counties (by 15%). To estimate the reduction in car travel, the without scheme figures were derived from Census 2011 journey to work data at ward level (Table: QS701EW - Method of travel to work) for the areas in which the project will be active. For example, the existing number of cyclists was estimated to be 7,700 consisting of 3,573 from Hampshire (Basingstoke, Andover, Farnborough, Aldershot, Whitehill Bordon) and 4127 from Surrey (Guildford, Staines, Woking and Camberley). The ward data for Surrey is shown below as an example: Ward Code Ward Names Town Method of travel to Work: Cycling E Ash South and Tongham Guildford 53 E Ash Vale Guildford 50 E Ash Wharf Guildford 48 E Ashford Common Staines 87

7 E Ashford East Staines 90 E Ashford North and Stanwell South Staines 139 E Ashford Town Staines 104 E Ashtead Common Staines 58 E Ashtead Park Staines 29 E Brookwood Woking 21 E Burpham Guildford 76 E Byfleet Woking 143 E Friary and St Nicolas Guildford 131 E Frimley Camberley 67 E Frimley Green Camberley 64 E Goldsworth East Woking 136 E Goldsworth West Woking 100 E Halliford and Sunbury West Staines 70 E Heatherside Camberley 26 E Holy Trinity Guildford 68 E Horsell East and Woodham Woking 41 E Horsell West Woking 82 E Kingfield and Westfield Woking 123 E Knaphill Woking 103 E Lovelace Woking 63 E Maybury and Sheerwater Woking 206 E Merrow Guildford 114 E New Haw Woking 117 E Old Dean Camberley 42 E Onslow Guildford 97 E Parkside Camberley 42 E Send Woking 18 E Shalford Guildford 66 E Shepperton Town Staines 71 E St Johns and Hook Heath Woking 35 E St Michaels Camberley 74 E St Pauls Camberley 26 E Staines Staines 97 E Staines South Staines 125 E Stanwell North Staines 136 E Stoke Guildford 163 E Stoughton Guildford 210 E Sunbury Common Staines 120 E Sunbury East Staines 79 E Town (Camberley) Camberley 79 E West Byfleet Woking 61 E Westborough Guildford 177

8 TOTAL 4127 Once the baseline figures were obtained, evidence from Moser and Bamberg reported in TAG Unit M5.2 was applied which suggests 8 percentage point reduction in car trips from targeted marketing techniques and 18 points from workplace travel planning. However these are considered as upper limits where smarter choices is applied extensively to a target population and there are a number of reasons why this level would not be reached in this proposal. The first is levels of engagement, where for example only 50% of employees are likely to be targeted in target areas such as Staines. The second is the limited duration and scope of the programme compared to many of those assessed in Moser and Bamberg. For these reasons a conservative 5% reduction in car trips has been applied for all activities. This was distributed as follows: car driver -4% car passenger -1% This estimate is primarily drawn from levels seen in the Sustainable Demonstration Towns. This was then distributed as follows to reflect the approximate allocation of funding and activities to each mode: Cycle 2% Walk 2% Bus 1% It was assumed that the effect on train journeys would not be significant due the relatively small amount of activities targeting this area. 2. Evidence - Increasing Bus Patronage Data from two sources was used to estimate growth in passenger numbers. Sustainable Demonstration towns recorded average increases of 10-22% in bus trips over the period although results were erratic. Given the timescales and scope of this project we would therefore expect to see only a 1-2% increase in trips along targeted corridors in 2016/17.

9 Additional evidence was gathered from the monitoring carried out as part of the first round of LSTF funding which also looked at bus patronage data. This data is also highly erratic and external influences such as new operator routes and the weather dominate over the effects of soft measures. The results in the LSTF towns are however significantly better than in Epsom which was not part of the LSTF programme but no clear pattern emerges as to the size of the influence which varies between 0 19%. For this reason, the sustainable demonstration towns results are applied. Patronage per route Percentage change from base year 2010/ / / / / / / / /15 Woking % -6% -7% -20% Redhill % -18% -1% 10% Guildford % 29% 3% -1% LSTF towns % -2% -1% 1% Epsom [CONTROL] % -17% -13% -20% Data extract from Surrey County Council final report on LSTF To account for changes in background levels of bus use, patronage figures overall for Surrey were analysed and showed that for the county as a whole, there has been no increase in bus use since 2011 (data up to 2014) so it is more likely that localised increases can be attributed to our interventions. Year Total (millions) 08/ / / / / / Bus patronage Surrey wide Wider benefits that do not fit into the pro-forma table include: Improvements to air quality as a result of reduced congestion levels Reductions in accident levels amongst cyclists as a result of Bikeability training Reductions in carbon emissions as a result of more economical driving due to ecodriver (estimate of benefit presented in the bid) Health benefits of active travel interventions such as the pedometer challenge. An estimate of the monetised benefits for one such intervention is made below.

10 Economic benefits of the pedometer challenge The pedometer challenge encourages employees or residents to increase the amount of walking they do by enabling them to track their daily steps as part of a competition. Participants are asked to record their steps over a four or six week period (dependent on organisation) and are encouraged to increase their steps by about 500 per week until they reach or exceeded the recommended 10,000 steps a day. After the challenge a follow up survey is sent to participants asking individuals to report their increase in steps. The results below are based on a challenge run at Surrey County Council. Approximately 470 staff took part in the six week challenge with 225 (48%) completing the follow up survey. This data was input to the WHO s Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT). The inputs and results from this challenge are presented in the table below: I N P U T S O U T P U T Average Steps before 6,100 Average Steps after 8,500 Average Step length 74cm No. Participants 225 Population age years Value of statistical life (UK) 3,229,114 Average mortality rate of walkers Decreased by 5% Average annual benefit (across 3 years) 44,000 Total benefits over 3 years 133,000 Cost of challenge (inc officer time) 4,000 Cost benefit ratio over 1 year 1:11 Cost benefit ratio over 3 years 1:34

11 Annex 4 Project delivery plan Gantt chart

12

13

14

15 Annex 5 Definition of project management framework to be used

16

17 Annex 6 Governance structure, roles and responsibilities

18

19 Governance Structure The table below provides brief descriptions of roles, named lead officers, resources, responsibilities and reporting lines for each part of the Organogram. Role Lead/Resources Responsibilities Reports To Joint Project Board SCC/HCC Governance Project Sponsors Travel SMART Programme Management Group My Journey & Blackwater Valley Project Steering Group Project Manager for HCC towns and Blackwater Valley programme Lead: Lesley Harding, Place & Sustainability Group Manager. Resources: Hampshire and Surrey County Councils (HCC & SCC). Function Lesley Harding (SCC), Dominic McGrath(HCC). Resources project and programme teams from HCC and SCC. Lead: Harris Vallianatos, LSTF Programme Manager. Resources from Surrey County Council. Lead: Lisa Bloomer. Resources from: Surrey County Council, Surrey District and Borough Council s, Hampshire County Council. Lead: Lisa Bloomer. Resources from Hampshire County Council. - Providing steer and challenge on delivery of the joint bid - Ensure delivery of packages within the joint bid is in budget and on time. - Governance structure for delivering Hampshire County Council s and Surrey County Council programme including corporate finance. - Accountable for the delivery of the joint bid. - Management of Surrey joint bid, programme and budget. - Overall risk control and management. - Management of Hampshire joint bid programme and budget. - Overall risk control and management. - Manages and Delivers local programme of measures in Blackwater Valley - Lead on local engagement and consultation. - Secure local approvals with relevant Local Committee. -Manage/reports risks and town budgets. - Day to day Project management. - Overseeing and line managing Enterprise M3 LEP Board, DfT. Respective directorate management and finance teams. - HCC/SCC Governance. - SCC Governance. - DfT. - Joint Project Board. - SCC Governance. - DfT. - Joint Project Board. - Relevant Local Committee and District and Borough Council s - My Journey & Blackwater Valley Project Steering Group. Project Manager for SCC Step Up Towns Blackwater Valley Active Travel Marketing Manager Lead: Harris Vallianatos, Travel SMART Engagement Team Manager. Lead: Vicky Doyle, Marketing Co-ordination Manager. Resources from Surrey County Council and Hampshire County Council. - Day to day Project management. - Overseeing and line managing - Develop a Blackwater Valley marketing strategy. - Day to day delivery of the Blackwater Valley Marketing Strategy with HCC and SCC. - Travel SMART Programme Management. - My Journey (HCC) & Blackwater Valley Steering Group. - Project Manager for HCC Step Up Towns.

20 SCC Transport & Health Steering Group Lead: Harris Vallianatos. Resources: Surrey County Council, Surrey Borough and District Councils. - Provide steer and challenge towards SCC s Step Up Towns element. DfT Liaison Function. - To assist Programme Management team with communications & progress reporting to DfT. Surrey County Council Relevant Local Committees EM3 Local Growth Fund: Sustainable Transport Packages Spelthorne, Guildford, Surrey Heath, Woking, Rushmoor, Basingstoke and Deane, Hart, East Hampshire and Test Valley. Leads: Dominic McGrath & Paula Edwards Hampshire County Council; Lyndon Mendes Surrey County Council. Resources from Hampshire County Council, Surrey County Council, District and Borough Councils. - Relevant Local Committee agrees on local programme of measures in associated town. Engages with local people. - Funded Local Growth Fund: Sustainable Transport Packages will be delivered in relevant working groups. - Travel SMART Programme Management. Liaison with DfT via: - Travel SMART Programme Manager. - My Journey & Blackwater Valley Project Steering Group. - Relevant District & Borough Council s. - Surrey County Council. - Hampshire County Council. - Cabinet. Function not group but relevant Working Groups will reports to associated LEPs where necessary.

21 Annex 7 Project Risk Register

22 Risk description and consequences Some elements of the programme are weather dependent, for example led rides/walks, which may not be possible if rain is heavy during the summer months. The short timescales of this project increase the risk that alternative dates may not be found. Local and political objections to the proposed package of measures could make it difficult to implement schemes that are not approved at a local level. This will lead to County Council reputational damage of failing to meet public needs. Some of the promotional measures in the bid package are dependent on infrastructure delivery. If relevant capital schemes are not funded or are unable to be delivered in 2015/16, we won t be able to promote infrastructure that doesn t exist. The majority of the work packages are to be delivered by delivery partners, which in some cases requires a procurement exercise to be carried out. Procurement timescales and any associated issues may extend the start date of delivery. Estimated scheme costs may go up by the time package of measures is delivered. If this happens we may not have required funds to deliver the works. Impact Likeliho od Risk Rating (Impact x Likelihood ) Mitigation Reduce Project plans in relevant areas will include contingency activities that are not weather dependent but still meet objectives. Reduce - Early engagement and effective consultation with relevant district and boroughs/local committees to ensure local support is obtained for delivering local schemes. Contingency - promotion of existing as well as new infrastructure in order to provide a platform for promotion of future investment. Develop a reserve scheme list that could be used as a contingency measure. Reduce Extend contracts wherever possible to cover project gap in April. Begin any procurement exercises needed in March/April in anticipation of a successful bid. Ensure procurement procedures are rigorously followed to reduce any potential delays through errors. Reduce - Add in a contingency to the project budget to mitigate against project risks. Obtain fixed price quotes for all works. Reduce - Implement a coherent governance structure that Issues associated with partnership working could impact the delivery of the programme e.g. - Challenge of shared decision making - Conflicts of interest focuses on structured collaboration. This will include using a partnership board that will endorse the sharing of information and best practice, expert knowledge, resources, risks to project delivery between local authorities. Learn lessons from 2015/16 programme. Take up of schemes such as Reduce - The success of existing

23 cycle training, cycle festivals, business engagement events etc does not convert to the anticipated/targeted levels. Risk that these schemes won't deliver required benefits and are therefore viewed as a failure. LSTF programmes provides the blueprint for these schemes. Continue to use the successful elements from previous programmes and strive for improvements through lessons learnt. Monitoring plans will be put in place to detect where a scheme is underachieving and from this indication we can look to intervene and rectify the situation.