Data and Measurements informing the City Plan Strategic Transport Assessment

The request was successful.

Dear Brighton and Hove City Council,

Background.

The City Plan Strategic Transport Assessment made assumptions about the congestion levels of the Transport Infrastructure to the East of Brighton (particularly the B2123 and it's junctions with Warren Road and the A259) which conflict with many evidence sources.

In response to earlier FoI requests you stated that "The City Plan Strategic Transport Assessments were based on an original 2010 base-year model and therefore the 2016 traffic data, which were collected in a non-‘neutral’ month, would not be relevant to, or comparable with the STA outputs and any conclusions drawn from it." and also that the JMP model (presumably the same model) had been passed to new consultants (AECOM) and was temporarily unavailable.

It is presumed that this "model" was built and validated in accordance with DfT standards, in particular that the model will have been validated against real world measurements of congestion, using direct measurements or deducing congestion from traffic flows, possibly augmented by vehicle queue counts at key bottlenecks.

Information Request.

Please

(A1) confirm the above base year "model" was validated against real world measurements taken along the B2123 and on the parts of Warren Road and the A259 near the junctions on the B2123.

(A2) provide copies of these measurements.

(A3) provide copies of any analysis used to convert the measurements to the form used for checking the model.

(A4) provide a copy of the section of the model report that confirms validation gave satisfactory results, or the whole model report.

...
(B1) If in fact no detailed (e.g. micro-simulation) modelling of the congestion levels and capacities of Rottingdean and Woodingdean Junctions and their nearby link roads was performed or no real world validation was performed, please state this.

Thank you

Yours faithfully,

rob shepherd

Freedom Of Information, Brighton and Hove City Council

Thank you for submitting your Freedom of Information (FOI) request to
Brighton & Hove City Council.

 

We will respond to your request within 20 working days as stipulated under
the Freedom of Information Act (2000).

 

Regards,

 

Information Governance Team

Notice to recipient:
The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only
for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed
and may contain information which is privileged and confidential, the
disclosure of which is prohibited by law.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please note
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error please notify the sender immediately.
Thank you in anticipation of your co-operation.

You can visit our website at http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk

Please consider the environment, only print out this email if absolutely
necessary.

Please Note:  Both incoming and outgoing Emails may be monitored and/or
recorded in line with current legislation.

Freedom Of Information, Brighton and Hove City Council

2 Attachments

 

Please find set out below the information in response to the above request
FOI 7366:

 

Dear Mr Shepherd

 

Further to my colleague Anne Cameron’s recent e:mail to you dated 3
February 2017, I am responding to your FoI request (reference number 7366)
regarding the City Plan - Part 1 Strategic Transport Assessment [STA]. I
apologise again for the delay to this reply.  

 

I have now been advised by Transport officers that, in response to 4 of
your 5 questions:-

 

(A1) the base year ‘model’ was calibrated and validated in line with
various published guidance, best practice and advice notes published by a
number of agencies, including the Department for Transport and the (then)
Highways Agency, including roads/routes in the east of the city including
the B2123, Warren Road and the A259;

 

(A2) the information, outcomes and conclusions of the validation stages of
the model’s development for its three time periods, which cover the
eastern part of the city, are included in the attached PDF files;

 

(A4) the relevant sections of the  Local Model Validation Report are the
two PDF files (Chapter 6 and Appendix B) attached to this e:mail.

 

(B1) No micro-simulation modelling of the congestion levels and capacities
of junctions in Rottingdean and Woodingdean and their nearby link roads
was undertaken as part of the STA work associated with the City Plan –
Part 1. 

 

In response your question (A3), the Council has withheld the relevant
information, citing section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act.  Section
12 states that a public authority is not obliged to comply with a request
for information if the estimated cost of doing so would exceed the
“appropriate limit”.  This is set at £450 for Councils (or the equivalent
of 18 hours of staff time) in the Freedom of Information and Data
Protection (Appropriate Limits and Fees) Regulations 2004 (the Fees
Regulations).  The appropriate limit applies to the tasks specified in the
Regulations: determining whether the information is held, locating it,
retrieving it and extracting it.  The Council’s Freedom of Information
Policy sets out our approach to dealing with requests which are estimated
to exceed the appropriate limit.

 

In this case, in order to respond fully to your request an Officer would
have to extract data from a number of Excel spreadsheets, each of which
have over 20 individual workbooks, some of which are linked.  As they are
in Excel, there is no way to “interrogate” them and the information will
have to be manually identified and then extracted from each workbook. 
Even supposing a very conservative time estimate of 50 minutes per
workbook to locate, extract and then paginate to a legible format, this
would exceed the 18 hours limit.  In this case it is difficult to see how
it would be possible to narrow your request in order to bring it below the
18 hour threshold.

 

 

 

Should you have any further queries about this request, please contact us
via email to [1][Brighton and Hove City Council request email] quoting the
reference number given above.

 

If you are not satisfied with the handling of your request, you can appeal
(Internal Review) within 2 months of the completed FOI. Write to:

 

Freedom of Information Appeals

Brighton & Hove City Council

ICT 4th Floor

Bartholomew House

Bartholomew Square

Hove BN1 1JE

[2][Brighton and Hove City Council request email]

 

If you are still not satisfied after your Internal Review has been
investigated, you can escalate your complaint to the Information
Commissioners Office. The contact details are:

 

The Information Commissioners Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 5AF

Helpline: 0303 123 1113 (local rate) or 01625 545 745 (national rate)

e-mail: [3][email address]

Website: [4]www.ico.org.uk

 

 

Re-use of Public Sector Information and Copyright Statement

Where information has been supplied, you are advised that the copyright in
that material is owned by Brighton & Hove City Council and/or its
contractor(s) unless otherwise stated. The supply of documents under the
Freedom of Information Act does not give the recipient an automatic right
to re-use those documents in a way that would infringe copyright, for
example, by making multiple copies, publishing and issuing copies to the
public. Brief extracts of the material can be reproduced under the “fair
dealing” provisions of the Copyright Design and Patents Act 1998 (S.29 and
S.30) for the purposes of research for non-commercial purposes, private
study, criticism, review and news reporting. Authorisation to re-use
copyright material not owned by Brighton & Hove City Council and/or its
contractor(s) should be sought from the copyright holders concerned. If
you are considering re-using the information disclosed to you through this
request, for any purpose outside of what could be considered for personal
use, then you are required under the Public Sector Re-use of Information
Regulations 2005 to make an Application for Re-use to the organisation
from which you have requested the information. Applications for Re-use
should be directed to the Data Protection Manager at the address above.

 

Notice to recipient:
The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only
for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed
and may contain information which is privileged and confidential, the
disclosure of which is prohibited by law.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please note
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error please notify the sender immediately.
Thank you in anticipation of your co-operation.

You can visit our website at http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk

Please consider the environment, only print out this email if absolutely
necessary.

Please Note:  Both incoming and outgoing Emails may be monitored and/or
recorded in line with current legislation.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Brighton and Hove City Council request email]
2. mailto:[Brighton and Hove City Council request email]
3. mailto:[email address]
4. http://www.ico.org.uk/

Dear Freedom Of Information

Thank you for the information so far provided in response to this request, it was very helpful. However ...

You wrote ...

In this case, in order to respond fully to your request an Officer would
have to extract data from a number of Excel spreadsheets, each of which
have over 20 individual workbooks, some of which are linked. As they are
in Excel, there is no way to “interrogate” them and the information will
have to be manually identified and then extracted from each workbook.
Even supposing a very conservative time estimate of 50 minutes per
workbook to locate, extract and then paginate to a legible format, this
would exceed the 18 hours limit. In this case it is difficult to see how
it would be possible to narrow your request in order to bring it below the
18 hour threshold..

My request related to traffic East of the City.

In terms of narrowing the request to bring it below the 18 hour threshold, the following would more than satisfy this.

(1) provide the information in the original Excel spreadsheet files.

This would avoid losing potentially important information on linkages and annotations in the needless procedure of creating "legible" files ... Excel files are perfectly legible.

(2) Rather than providing the validation for 12 Routes and 3 scenarios (AM, IP, PM), the validation for Route 11 would suffice.

If that is still a problem, the information for Route 11 PM scenario may be sufficient (I'll know when I see it).

THERE WAS A VERY IMPORTANT CAVEAT ON THE USE OF THIS MODEL AND THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS INCOMPLETE WITHOUT THE CONTEXT OF THAT CAVEAT.

6.16. It is concluded that although the model shows a reasonably sufficient correspondence with observed flows in the calibration dataset, there are areas in each of the peaks that do not compare adequately. Given the strategic nature of the model and the intended uses of the model, it is deemed sufficient for purpose.

Please provide that context, i.e. the 'intended use of the model'" as specified to the consultants

Yours sincerely,

rob shepherd

Freedom Of Information, Brighton and Hove City Council

Thank you for submitting your Freedom of Information (FOI) request to
Brighton & Hove City Council.

 

We will respond to your request within 20 working days as stipulated under
the Freedom of Information Act (2000).

 

Regards,

 

Information Governance Team

Notice to recipient:
The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only
for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed
and may contain information which is privileged and confidential, the
disclosure of which is prohibited by law.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please note
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error please notify the sender immediately.
Thank you in anticipation of your co-operation.

You can visit our website at http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk

Please consider the environment, only print out this email if absolutely
necessary.

Please Note:  Both incoming and outgoing Emails may be monitored and/or
recorded in line with current legislation.

Freedom Of Information, Brighton and Hove City Council

Hello Mr Shepherd,

 

You have sent two emails to us that are exactly the same, one from your
email address and one from whatdothey.com, can I please ask which you
would prefer us to send our responses to?

 

In regards the email below, we will be looking into points 1 and 2 as
requested, however the following paragraph we will be dealing with as a
separate and new Freedom of Information Request;

 

6.16. It  is  concluded  that  although  the  model  shows  a  reasonably 
sufficient  correspondence  with  observed flows  in  the  calibration 
dataset,  there  are  areas  in  each  of  the  peaks  that  do  not 
compare  adequately. Given  the  strategic  nature  of  the  model 
and  the  intended  uses  of  the  model,  it  is  deemed  sufficient for
purpose.  

Please provide that context, i.e. the 'intended use of the model'" as
specified to the consultants.

The reference for the new request is FOI 7747.

Kind regards

Freedom of Information Team

 

 

From: rob shepherd [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 11 March 2017 7:54 AM
To: Freedom Of Information
Subject: Information in response to request FOI 7366: City Plan STA
figures

 

Thank you for the information so far provided in response to this request,
it was very helpful. However ...

You wrote ...

In this case, in order to respond fully to your request an Officer would
have to extract data from a number of Excel spreadsheets, each of which
have over 20 individual workbooks, some of which are linked.  As they are
in Excel, there is no way to “interrogate” them and the information will
have to be manually identified and then extracted from each workbook. 
Even supposing a very conservative time estimate of 50 minutes per
workbook to locate, extract and then paginate to a legible format, this
would exceed the 18 hours limit.  In this case it is difficult to see how
it would be possible to narrow your request in order to bring it below the
18 hour threshold..

My request related to traffic East of the City.

In terms of narrowing the request to bring it below the 18 hour threshold,
the following would more than satisfy this.

(1) provide the information in the original Excel spreadsheet files.

This would avoid losing potentially important information on linkages and
annotations in the needless procedure of creating "legible" files ...
Excel files are perfectly legible.

(2) Rather than providing the validation for 12 Routes and 3 scenarios
(AM, IP, PM), the validation for Route 11 would suffice.

If that is still a problem, the information for Route 11 PM scenario may
be sufficient (I'll know when I see it).

THERE WAS A VERY IMPORTANT CAVEAT ON THE USE OF THIS MODEL AND THE
INFORMATION PROVIDED IS INCOMPLETE  WITHOUT THE CONTEXT OF THAT CAVEAT.

6.16. It  is  concluded  that  although  the  model  shows  a  reasonably 
sufficient  correspondence  with  observed flows  in  the  calibration 
dataset,  there  are  areas  in  each  of  the  peaks  that  do  not 
compare  adequately. Given  the  strategic  nature  of  the  model 
and  the  intended  uses  of  the  model,  it  is  deemed  sufficient for
purpose.  

Please provide that context, i.e. the 'intended use of the model'" as
specified to the consultants.

Thank you,

Rob Shepherd.

Sent with AquaMail for Android
[1]http://www.aqua-mail.com

Notice to recipient:
The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only
for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed
and may contain information which is privileged and confidential, the
disclosure of which is prohibited by law.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please note
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error please notify the sender immediately.
Thank you in anticipation of your co-operation.

You can visit our website at http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk

Please consider the environment, only print out this email if absolutely
necessary.

Please Note:  Both incoming and outgoing Emails may be monitored and/or
recorded in line with current legislation.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.aqua-mail.com/