Sheffield has just announced that our new out-sourced ICT provider is (subject to scrutiny etc.) to be Capita. We've had the feeling that the tanks are being lined up by our ICT people to make a grab for at least some parts of our UTC operation - because we use ICT and it has been decided centrally that all ICT is all going to be handled by the ICT team.
Does anyone know if Capita run any UTC operations anywhere (I believe they run the London Congestion Charging), and are there any other out-sourced operations other than Essex and Berkshire?
I do believe Amey run a few outsourced UTC operations (Bedford springs to mind), and if not they will certainly be running one in Plymouth when we are outsourced to them on 1st December.
Nigel, We do indeed run the UTC system and everything signal related on behalf of Bedforshire County Council under our partnership banner of Bedfordshire Highways.
Northamptonshires UTC is operated by MGWSP and I beleive Coventry is still run by Jacobs
Capita run the ICT side of the Authority here in Derby and we generally get a very poor service (we call them Crapita). Thankfully they expressed no interest in UTC when we first started to discuss it and after seeing them perform I will use every tactic I have to keep them away from it.
Capita Symonds run the UTC operation here in Blackburn, as well as Carlisle and the company has recently taken on Sefton as well. I'm not too sure where else we are involved in any technical way.
I have never been a great beleiver in allowing ICT anywhere near traffic control systems - yes they run on electronic platforms, but so do the controllers - will ICT take these on for us as well?
While there are advantages in having the "support" from the IT specialists in terms of communications infrastructure and networking, their involvement in having our Systems locked in their server rooms with only them having access to them unless with an appointment is somewhat inconvenient operationally.
Just because it has some computing power to it, does not make it an IT domain IMO.
We have, so far, been able to resist including UTC within the PFI. There are difficult issues about how to define SLA agreements which will be robust enough to accommodate all potential strategic changes over 25 years. There are also difficulties for potential suppliers in pricing for delivering a service which relies on kit which is obsolete in a couple of years, albeit some of our controllers are 25 years old.
At the moment the UTC/PFI dividing line is the interface between the communications device and the outstation, with ICT wanting to take over the communications channel and the central systems.
I can appreciate where your coming from but surely adding it the PFI is practical and solves your ICT problem. We didn't have any problems with pricing it up or (potentially) delivering the service for Birmingham! Come and speak to us (Amey) if you want.
Lutons Central IM are looking to outsource anything IT/ITC/ and anything else that has a computer attached to it and i suddenly remembered seeing this discussion about it.
Has anyone gone through this recently? Peter what was Sheffields outcome?
Anyone drawn up a SLA for the UTC server etc (there was talk that they would take servers off-line at night since we don't use them overnight, so I need to ensure that I draw up a robust SLA for my corner). Help please.
I hesitate to be definitive about this in case someone comes along and changes it all, but the current position in Sheffield is that the central UTC/ITS will remain with the client, possibly on a city region basis. On-street equipment including OTUs, VMS, ANPR cameras and WiFi links will be maintained by the PFI contractor (now down to either Amey or Carillion/Mouchel). The interface will be at the connection between the communications backhaul and the first on-street equipment, so GPRS routers, for example, are part of the equipment maintained by the PFI contractor (the interface being where the signal reaches the antenna).
I'm not party to the detail of the discussions which finalised the decision to keep UTC/ITS out of the contract, but I think it may have been influenced by the need to keep within the available budget - any pricing for uncertainty would have limited the amount available for bringing the physical infrastructure up to scratch.
So far we are managing to resist any takeover bids by ICT for our side of the interface.
We are now in the slightly surreal position of trying to create a new structure to be able to cope with the demands which will be placed on the authority during the core investment period (major works taking place continuously on one or two of the main radials for 5 or 7 seven years, 2 or 3 signal junctions being replaced every week over the same period), at the same time as exemplifying 15% or 30% cuts in revenue and possibly a 50% cut in capital.
My arithmetic makes this look like up to 150 junctions a year to be changed for each of 7 years. That would be over a thousand reconfigurations. While I don't suppose that this is the true number, there is obviously a lot of work. Are you recruiting Peter?
Our understanding at present is that the PFI consortium will be replacing the signals at junctions and ped crossings, and (re-)configuring signals - over 500 sites including around 75 Supertram/LRT operational on-street signalled installations.
A lot of signalling work for the new consortium. I am not sure what the current position is about the replacement of Pelicans - new Pelicans or Puffins? We shall wait and see!
Howard Saffer (Traffic Signal Design, currently still with Sheffield City Council)
I should have said "signal junctions being replaced at a rate of up to 2 or 3 a week" - lots of reconfigurations for the contractor to do, and lots of sites at which the Council will have only a short time to consider whether we want any revisions done as part of the refurbishment. The structures we are setting up are bigger (but only a bit) - remains to be seen whether we can fill them with new staff, or we have to retrain some redundant highway designers.