Archived decisions

Contact: Iain Reeve, ext 5301 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 This report seeks Members' views on the key problems to be addressed in the second Local Transport Plan (LTP). It proposes a workshop for the discussion of these ideas at the Transport Strategy Panel meetings on the following dates:

Central Hampshire 1 March 2005

Solent 3 March 2005

North Hampshire 4 March 2005

New Forest 24 March 2005

2. Problems and Issues

2.1 The Government guidance on LTPs requires a detailed consideration of existing and future problems, together with proposed policy responses. The guidance says:

"2.44 Local transport authorities are expected in their LTPs to identify local transport problems and opportunities, including their environmental and social consequences, and to set out their policy responses. Analysis of problems should not be restricted to existing problems, but should also attempt to anticipate and prevent any emerging or potential problems. Authorities should not make fundamental assumptions about transport that are not necessarily supported by evidence (for example, the assumption that new roads, on their own, will always deliver lasting economic and congestion benefits). Authorities should always aim to identify and tackle the root causes of problems, rather than providing `symptomatic' relief. For example, analysis may reveal that a localised congestion problem at a particular junction is caused by inappropriate parking outside a nearby parade of shops, leaving vehicles unable to clear the junction. In this example, better parking enforcement may provide a cheaper and more effective solution than infrastructure works or traffic management measures.

2.45 In developing their programmes, local transport authorities are expected to show that they have considered the services and facilities they provide to all users of local transport networks. LTPs must therefore not only provide solutions and opportunities for drivers, walkers, cyclists, and bus and tram users, but also taxi and private hire vehicles, freight and distribution vehicles, coaches, motorcyclists, wheelchair users and equestrians. They should in particular consider how to provide infrastructure and services for vehicles providing a public service (eg ambulances, police cars, fire engines, military vehicles and waste collection trucks) in a way that enables the operators of those vehicles to maintain or improve service standards.

2.46 It is essential for local authorities to work closely with local communities themselves to identify problems and opportunities - they will provide analytical insights that cannot be obtained except through careful consultation. It is usually more economical and more effective to use existing structures (Rural Transport Partnerships, for example) when working directly with local communities, rather than inventing new structures."

2.2 Hampshire County Council officers have already collected a considerable amount of information about local problems and opportunities through ongoing dialogue with district councils, local strategic partnerships and other local stakeholders. It is proposed to augment this information with workshops during the Transport Strategy Panel meetings.

2.3 The aim of the workshops is to collect information about problems and issues in the following format:

2.4 The first column should be used to describe the nature of the problem. Where possible, this should be described without reference to possible solutions. For example, this could include junctions with poor casualty records and areas suffering from problems of congestion or poor accessibility.

2.5 The second column should relate the problem to the Government's shared priority areas of congestion, accessibility, air quality and safety. Some problems will affect more than one shared priority. There may be some problems that do not relate directly to the shared priorities, but these should be relatively rare. During the workshop, officers will be able to give advice on which shared priorities might apply to particular problems.

2.6 The third column is not essential. If there is a possible solution, or a number of solutions, they can be included here. If solutions are not known, officers can undertake subsequent assessment work to identify suitable approaches.

2.7 The fourth column allows an indication of the urgency of the problem. This can also be used to indicate if the problem is related to future events, such as the impact of development.

3. Important Considerations

3.1 It is important that this process should be used primarily to identify problems rather than preferred schemes. Once a problem has been identified, officers can commission further work to identify likely solutions.

3.2 The cost of schemes and interventions is likely to be a crucial factor. Schemes costing more than £5 million gross will need to be approved by the Government through the major transport scheme process. There is no guarantee of success for major schemes. The Government has said that there is likely to be reduced funding for new major schemes in the LTP2 period. In particular, new major schemes are unlikely to be accepted for funding before 2008/09. Officers will provide subsequent advice to the Panels and to the Executive Member for Environment on whether a proposed scheme is likely to be accepted for funding by the Government.

3.3 There are unlikely to be sufficient funds to meet all the problems identified through this process. Once Members have identified key problems and issues, officers will provide further information on relative priorities.

3.4 Proposed solutions should include interventions which do not require capital infrastructure, such as travel planning, marketing and information.

3.5 It should be assumed that the existing county-wide programmes will continue and do not need to be recorded through this process. For example, there will continue to be programmes of casualty reduction, school travel planning, workplace travel planning, bus support, maintenance, etc. This process should be used to identify additional problems that would not be sufficiently well tackled by existing county-wide programmes.

4. Proposed Process

4.1 It is proposed that this part of the Transport Strategy Panel meetings will be conducted as informal workshops. Members and officers will be invited to propose and discuss problems according to the format identified in paragraph 2.3 above. It would be helpful if Members and officers could be prepared with problems they would like to see included in the lists. Some district councils have already drafted lists of schemes they would like to be

included in the capital programme for LTP2. It would be helpful if these lists could be restructured into the format in paragraph 2.3. Although not essential, it would make the workshops more productive if any such lists could be circulated prior to the meetings.

4.2 Following the Panel meetings, officers will refine the lists of problems into costed proposals for the LTP2 capital programme. In particular, there will be an assessment of how far each of the solutions would help to meet the mandatory and voluntary targets for the LTP. There will be further opportunities for Members to comment on this assessment and to add additional schemes. The assessment would help to inform the capital programmes and preparation pool for the LTP2.

4.3 It is likely that further research would be needed on specific problems and solutions. Because of this, it is anticipated that some of the results of this work will be incorporated into the full LTPs to be published in March 2006 rather than the provisional LTPs to be published in July 2005.

4.4 Officers of the County Council would be able to give more detail about how the workshop is proposed to be run, and the process for incorporating the results into the second LTP.

Recommendation

That this report be noted and Members prepare lists of problems to be discussed at the workshops in the format proposed in paragraph 2.3 of the report.

9246/IR