1) Is this the only ITT produced by TFL that relates to the Rotherhithe Bridge? 2) Please provide the below which forms part of the ITT • tfl_scp_001144_co007_itt_vol_0_appendix_a_final (MS Word) • tfl_scp_001144_co007_itt_vol_1_contract_data_part2_final (MS Word) 3) Re Section 3 of Vol0, the contract was awarded in May 2017. Please confirm who the contract was awarded too and provide their submission. 4)Please provide the technical scoping study document that has been issued to civil engineering companies. 5) please can you also send me the business case document for the Rotherhithe bridge

---

TfL Ref:           FOI-4761-1718

Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 1 March 2018 asking for information about the Rotherhithe bridge.

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can confirm we do hold the information you require. For ease of reference, using your item numbers in the spreadsheet you provided us (attached titled ‘Consultation paper queries’), we have responded in turn below to the items you have marked ‘incomplete’:

Item 3
In accordance with the FOI Act, we are not obliged to supply the specific information you have requested as it is subject to a statutory exemption to the right of access to information under section 43(2). This is because disclosure of the information you have requested is likely to negatively affect our commercial interests.

Whilst from our work to date, we have concluded that a bridge is our preferred option, this is still subject to further investigation and should we conclude later than a bridge is not deliverable, we may wish to pursue another form of crossing, such as a tunnel or ferry. Releasing detailed costs on these two options at this stage would be likely to negatively impact our ability to negotiate effectively with those impacted, particularly in relation to land and property, and therefore have a direct impact on our ability to obtain best value for money.

The use of this exemption is subject to an assessment of the public interest in relation to the disclosure of the information concerned. Whilst we recognise that there is a public interest in transparency, particularly around major projects, we feel that there is a greater public interest in ensuring that our commercial interests are protected to ensure that we continue to be able to obtain best value for money in ongoing and future projects.

Item 4
We previously sent you the supporting summary note that explains the demand modelling work completed to date (attached again for your reference and titled Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf Walking and Cycling Modelling DRAFT). We also hold more detailed technical notes that explain the pedestrian and cycling modelling (Cynemon) and these are attached. It is worth noting that total cycling demand presented in the Background to Consultation Report is higher and this is because this includes cyclists that are predicted to re-route in the future as a result of the forecast capacity constraint arising in the Greenwich Foot Tunnel, as well the demand forecast from our Cynemon modelling. We have previously shared the note explaining the Greenwich Foot Tunnel surveys in correspondence dated 27 February and attached again for your reference. All our demand forecasting is iterative and will be continually refined as the project matures. As a result, the attached notes will be updated in the future to reflect our most recent work.

Item 5
Please see our answer to Item 4.

Item 6
A summary note of the transport user benefits was provided to you previously in correspondence dated 27 February and has been attached to this request again. The discount rate is 3.5% falling to 3% after 30 years.

We do hold a Business Case Model Spreadsheet however this information is being withheld under section 43(2), please refer to our arguments above (Item 4).

Item 7

We provided an explanation of the differences between the tables in correspondence dated 15 February and have copied this again below for your reference:

Table 6 shows the cost estimate ranges for the various crossing types we have explored. Table 7 shows the results of a sensitivity analysis carried out to check these estimates and ensure the conclusions drawn were robust. These sensitivity tests generally produced a slightly higher cost range than our previous estimates, hence the difference in results between the two tables. To ensure that we presented the more conservative Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR), the ranges in Figure 7 are based on the costs and benefits in Table 7.

Item 8
The total spend as of January 2018 on this River Crossing project is £2.5 million. The cost reported is up to 6 January 2018.

Item 9

The closest cycle route (existing or proposed) to the locations proposed at consultation on the south side is National Cycle Route 425. As mentioned in previous responses, there are many existing and planned cycle routes in the area, including CS4.

Item 12

There is no supporting modelling at this stage. There is quantitative analysis although this is draft work which is under further refinement and will be reported in future stages. All relevant information was presented as part of the consultation documents.

Item 13

1) Is this the only ITT produced by TFL that relates to the Rotherhithe Bridge?

No, TfL has procured the services of a number of technical specialists to support the development of the proposed river crossing.

2) Please provide the below which forms part of the ITT
• tfl_scp_001144_co007_itt_vol_0_appendix_a_final (MS Word)

This was provided to you previously as part of the ITT documentation. Appendix A explains the Freedom of Information Act which can be found on page 25 onwards on the Vol 0 document. For your reference, the zip file containing the ITT documentation has been attached again to this request.

• tfl_scp_001144_co007_itt_vol_1_contract_data_part2_final (MS Word)

This was provided to you previously as part of the ITT documentation in a zip file. The contract data part 2 form that forms part of the ITT can be found on page 13 of the Vol 1 document. For your reference, the zip file containing the ITT documentation has been attached again to this request.

3) Re Section 3 of Vol0, the contract was awarded in May 2017. Please confirm who the contract was awarded to and provide their submission.

Arcadis were appointed through TfL’s Multidisciplinary Framework and a copy of the contract is available on the contract finder website:

https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/ca6db238-6197-4d09-b266-0d33589315c4?p=@RPT0=NjJNT08=UFQxUlR

In accordance with the FOI Act, we are not obliged to supply their submission as it is subject to a statutory exemption to the right of access to information under section 43(2).

In this instance the section 43(2) exemption has been applied as disclosure would be likely to prejudice Arcardis’ commercial interests. Disclosing this information could be prejudicial to Arcardis’ ability to compete for tendering opportunities with us and other companies in the future, as their competitive edge would inevitably be prejudiced by disclosure of detailed information about how they meet the requirements of the ITT as well as a detailed breakdown of their price.

The use of this exemption is subject to an assessment of the public interest in relation to the disclosure of the information concerned. We recognise the need for openness and transparency by public authorities but in this instance the public interest in ensuring that we are able to obtain the best value for public money outweighs the general public interest in increasing transparency of our processes. Please note that this exemption applies to the information requested for both the previous and existing contract.

4) Please provide the technical scoping study document that has been issued to civil engineering companies.

The Technical Scope document was part of the ITT and was included in the zip file that we sent you previously. This document captured the scope of the services that TfL were seeking. The document reference is tfl_scp_001144_itt_vol_2_v3_ii.pdf.

Item 14
Please see attached pdf ‘Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf contracts’.

Item 15
As we have explained in correspondence, the outputs of the work developing our Business Case were summarised as part of the recent public consultation in the Background to Consultation Report. We do not yet hold a completed Business Case to provide to you as we are still in the process of compiling this. However, once complete we will publish this as part of the next public consultation later this year.

On 7 March you contacted us separately and asked us to explain the ‘opening year’ we chose and presented in the Background to Consultation Report. Our explanation is below:

As is standard, modelling outputs are calculated every 10 years, to align with published Census data. Three possible sets of data could be presented to represent an opening year and these are outlined below alongside our rationale to chose 2031:

1. 2021. This could be critiqued as underestimating demand. Not only would it likely be before a crossing opens, but it is the lowest of our forecasts so does not give the public an appreciation of the possible scale of usage.
2. 2031. This is likely to be the first available forecast following the anticipated opening of a crossing. As you highlight, this may be higher than the actually opening year (which is to be determined) but on balance, was determined to be the best option we could present at the point of the most recent public consultation.
3. Bespoke year. A bespoke year could be presented, with 2021 outputs factored up to a year by applying various assumptions. This is difficult as we do not know in this instance what the best opening year to select would be, and the forecast would be less accurate than a standard output (as a result of additional assumptions being applied).

None of the above options are right or wrong; they each have their strengths and weaknesses and based on our expertise in transport modelling, we determined that 2031 was the best representation to present. This balances the need to present accurate data with the need to present it in a format which is easy to understand.

Equally, on 9 March you asked us to clarify the number of cyclist trips in the Background to Consultation Report:
The numbers in paragraph 3.18 refer to the number of cycling trips. We do not generally use the term ‘cyclists’ to refer to a return journey consisting of 2 trips. We have demand matrices for different times of the day and while there is a peak flow into Canary Wharf in the morning and returning in the evening, there are also about 1/3 of the trips with other destinations so the trip patterns are more complex than simply return trips.

If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable to access it for some reason, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.

Yours sincerely

Gemma Jacob
FOI Case Officer
FOI Case Management Team
General Counsel
Transport for London

[email protected]

Attachments

Back to top

---