Archived decisions

Contact: Jim Soutar, ext 6049 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 On 24 June 2003 the Executive Member for Environment considered a report on the indicative programmes for the Integrated Transport Capital Programme for 2004/05 and 2005/06. He requested that reports be presented to the 10 Area Transportation Panels and Environment Policy Review Committee (on 3 September 2003) to allow Members to consider priorities for inclusion in the Integrated Transport programmes from 2004/05.

1.2 Once the Department for Transport's (DfT) settlement letter is received in December 2003, which will include the funding available for 2004/05, the comments made by the Panels and Environment Policy Review Committee will be considered so that proposals can be prepared for a firm 2004/05 programme and provisional programmes for 2005/06 and beyond. These will be submitted to the Executive Member for Environment and the Environment Policy Review Committee in January 2004.

2. Background

2.1 The County Council's transport schemes are primarily funded by Government, either through specific grant and credit approvals, (for schemes costing over £5 million) or through the general allocation of credit approvals in the Local Transport Settlement, (for schemes costing less than £5 million). Additional funding is also available for specific schemes from external bodies, primarily contributions associated with major new development. These schemes are included in the capital programme when it is anticipated that the external funding (EF) will be available and a scheme is sufficiently developed for implementation. In some cases schemes may comprise both EF and Government funding.

2.2 The Annual Progress Report (APR) on the Local Transport Plan (LTP), which included an ongoing transport capital programme, was submitted to the DfT on 31 July 2003. Although the County Council is exempt from the APR and LTP processes because of its "Excellence" status, it was submitted so that the DfT can assess performance and award resources on the basis of that assessment. The APR for 2003 is the subject of a separate report on this agenda.

2.3 At present the County Council has indicative allocations only on the likely funding available in 2004/05 and 2005/06. These suggest that it is reasonable for planning purposes to prepare new start programmes at a level of £12 million for 2004/05, (for LTP funding), and £13 million in 2005/06. The period beyond 2005/06 falls in the next five year LTP period, with funding less certain.

2.4 Thus any comments made by the Environment Policy Review Committee or the Area Transportation Panels which would require increased levels of funding, whether for additional or advancement of schemes or programmes, will have to be balanced by appropriate adjustments to the remainder of the programme unless additional funding were to be found.

2.5 The Proposed Capital Programme for 2003/04 to 2006/07 and the Revised Integrated Transport Programme for 2002/03 were reported to the Executive Member for Environment on 24 January 2003 and the Environment Policy Review Committee on 22 January 2003. The Executive Member requested that all LTP funded schemes not included in either the 2002/03 or 2003/04 Capital Programmes be reassessed for inclusion in future programmes.

2.6 The report on the draft capital programmes 2004/05 and 2005/06 was presented to the Environment Policy Review Committee on 3 September 2003. The Committee expressed the view that increased support should be given to Safer Routes to School schemes and the promotion of School Travel Plans. It should be noted therefore that if there is an increase in budget allocation to the Safer Routes to School programme this would affect the budget allocation for the area strategies. These views, together with those of the Area Transportation Panels, will be considered further once the funding available for 2004/05 has been announced in the December 2003 settlement letter.

3. Five Year Local Transport Plan Programme 2001/02 to 2005/06

3.1 Summaries of expenditure for the whole of the five year LTP programme are shown in Appendices 1 and 2. Those for 2001/02 and 2002/03 are actual figures and those for 2003/04 to 2005/06 are forecasts based upon programmes currently approved by the Executive Member for Environment. Appendix 1 shows expenditure for the area strategies and county-wide programmes, and Appendix 2 shows investment in terms of specific policy areas, such as supporting buses, cycling, etc. Since some schemes are not completed within the initial programme year, the figures are not comparable with those shown in Appendix 4, which show starts values.

4. Scheme Assessment Process

4.1 The scheme assessment requested by the Executive Member has been carried out by officers to take into account a variety of factors to fulfil DfT and County Council objectives. There is a degree of synergy between these and the manner in which they have been collated under the five headings of Environment, Safety, Economy, Accessibility and Integration is shown in Appendix 3.

4.2 For the purpose of the assessment process Accessibility was sub-divided into (a) social inclusion and (b) access to transport, and Integration was sub-divided into (a) public transport and (b) walking and cycling. An additional objective related to making the best use of the transport network. Thus under the general heading of Objectives there are eight headings, each of which has been given points between 1 and 5 for individual schemes.

4.3 Other considerations, which comprise value for money, deliverability/engagement, local priority and contribution to modal shift have been assessed in a similar manner. With a total of 12 factors to be considered, each scheme therefore has a theoretical maximum score of 60.

4.4 No weighting has been applied to the various objectives. The results should not be taken as a definitive prioritisation method as factors such as feasibility, relative cost and issues, etc are all relevant to final prioritisation.

4.5 The points totals for individual schemes have been included in the appendices showing the draft capital programmes for each of the 10 LTP areas. The positions of schemes within LTP area programmes are also shown. However, inevitably there are some apparent anomalies relating to points scored compared with a particular scheme's position in the programmes, and consequently appropriate notes have been included in the appendices.

5. NEHTS draft Programme for 2004/05 and 2005/06

5.1 The NEHTS draft programme for 2004/05, 2005/06 and beyond is shown in Appendix 4. This programme has been drawn up almost entirely from schemes previously approved by this Panel. Additional priority was also given to bus related schemes which support the County Council's Public Service Agreement targets, which require an increase in bus use of 10% between 2000 and 2010, together with improvements in punctuality and reliability.

5.2 The NEHTS programme also shows schemes which, although rated, have not been included in either the draft 2004/05 or 2005/06 programmes. It is suggested that this Panel considers its top (typically three) priorities for inclusion in a pool of schemes for early development for future years' programmes.

5.3 The A3 bus priority scheme has been submitted as a bid for funding as a major scheme. A decision on that bid was expected in 2002, however, at the time of writing, no decision had been made by Government. If the major scheme bid is successful then it will not be necessary to consider stopping the project or making financial provisions in the Capital Programme for it to continue. If, however, the bid is only partially successful (ie only part of the 2003/04 and future costs are funded) then the impact to the project on the 2003/04 and future years' programmes will have to be reassessed. The 2003/04 programme was reviewed by the Executive Member for Environment on 16 September 2003.

5.4 In addition to the Strategy Area Transportation programmes, there are county-wide programmes concerned with particular policy areas, eg pedestrian crossings and safer routes to school. Although they have not been rated as described in section 4, the provisional budgets for 2004/05 and 2005/06 have been included as Appendix 5 for completeness.

5.5 The provisional Safer Routes to School Programme was also approved by the Executive Member for Environment on 24 June 2003. This covers both 2003/04 and 2004/05, and each scheme will be progressed once a School Travel Plan has been approved by the County Council. Schools on this provisional list have been included in the NEHTS programme (Appendix 4) for information.

Recommendation

That the Executive Member for Environment be advised of this Panel's views, with formal responses to be received by the County Council no later than Friday, 14 November 2003.

8202/JS

APPENDIX 1

Local Transport Plan Programme 2001/02 to 2005/06

Actual and Planned Expenditure - Area Transportation Strategies

Expenditure - £'000

*Includes Safer Routes to School (SRTS) programme. Full investment in schools (SRTS and other local schemes) is shown in Appendix 2.

APPENDIX 2

Local Transport Plan Programme 2001/02 to 2005/06

Actual and Planned Expenditure - Specific Policy Areas

Expenditure - £ million to nearest £100,000

APPENDIX 3

Scheme Assessment Process - Objectives

Paragraph 4.1 refers

APPENDIX 4

North East Hampshire Transport Strategy - NEHTS

Draft Capital Programme

Notes:

1. Additional to the £300,000 ROUA funding.

2. Includes Park Road; additional to the £200,000 ROUA funding.

3. Continuing programme

Safer Routes to Schools - 2003/04 and 2004/05 Provisional Programme

NB: Subject to the preparation of a School Travel Plan at Level 3, to be approved by the County Council no later than 31 December 2003.

APPENDIX 5

Draft County-wide/Other Transport Capital Programme

* NB: It is proposed that additional money will be put into the Safer Routes to School scheme, with corresponding reductions made elsewhere in the Programme.