Archived decisions

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

1. Summary

1.1 Local transport authorities are required by the Government to produce a Local Transport Plan (LTP) every five years. This report describes the background to the local transport process and requests that Cabinet recommends the County Council to approve the provisional LTP. A summary is attached as Appendix 1 to this report. A draft of the full text has been placed in the Members' room.

1.2 A Local Transport Plan is essentially a Statement of Transport Policy and a five year programme of local transport actions (management, investment and improvements) together with a series of targets that these actions would help to achieve. The programme of measures needs to be set in the context of:

(i) the Authority's overall corporate strategy;

(ii) regional and district-level planning strategies, including the South East Plan;

(iii) a defined transport vision;

(iv) a longer-term transport strategy;

(v) an analysis of problems and opportunities; and

(vi) extensive consultation with local stakeholders.

1.3 As an authority rated as "Excellent" by the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA), the County Council could choose not to produce a Local Transport Plan. However, this could reduce the capital allocations provided by the Government. Authorities who do not produce a Local Transport Plan would not be given the opportunity to earn supplementary reward funding, which could be as much as an additional 25%. The intention is that Hampshire County Council will produce a full LTP. The County Council's approach to the LTP was approved by Cabinet on 11 March 2005.

1.4 LTPs need to follow Government guidance on format and content. Due to substantial delays in producing this guidance, authorities have been requested to produce two LTPs. A provisional LTP has to be submitted to the Government by 29 July 2005. This will be an interim document that focuses on the broad policy context and the processes being applied to produce the full LTP. This will be followed by a full LTP which is required by the end of March 2006. In both cases, the LTP will cover the period from 2006-07 to 2010-11.

2. Changes from the first LTP (2001-2006)

2.1 A number of key changes have been introduced by the Government since the first LTP. The first LTPs were bidding documents. Authorities used them to set out the programmes they would like to implement. Following an assessment of the strength of each LTP, the Government decided how much to allocate to individual authorities. The current round of LTPs are not bidding documents. Instead, authorities are required by the guidance to constrain their proposed programmed expenditure to totals supplied by the Government, albeit with an acknowledgement that this total may be supplemented by supplementary reward funding.

2.2 The County Council's first LTP was highly regarded. It was assessed as "well above average" by the Government, with a score of 100% against the official criteria. Where possible, the second LTP seeks to build on this foundation with a policy of evolution and not revolution.

2.3 The second LTP is based on five year initial indicative allocations of £69 million for integrated transport and £79 million for the maintenance of roads and bridges. These allocations are subject to change. The Government intends to produce a formula which will calculate allocations for individual authorities based on factors such as population, road length, traffic levels, etc. A consultation exercise on this formula is expected to be launched in July 2005, with the final allocations announced in December.

2.4 A further change is that the guidance requires a focus on the four shared priority areas of congestion, accessibility, safety and air quality. Authorities have been asked to relate all of their strategies towards these four priority areas.

2.5 Accessibility strategies have to be underpinned by a new process of accessibility auditing using Government-supplied software called "Accession". This software models how long it takes individuals to travel from their homes to key destinations using a combination of walking and public transport. The Government's intention is that authorities should use this software as a tool to measure relative accessibility, based on walking and scheduled public transport services. They should then implement measures to address areas of relative disadvantage, mainly by improving bus services. As this software was considerably delayed, authorities have been asked to set out a framework strategy in their provisional LTPs with details to be included in final LTPs in March 2006. The County Council intends to supplement the fairly crude modelling results with additional intelligence to refine the difficulties of `poor accessibility' and the policy responses.

2.6 The Government's approach to congestion is unclear. Further guidance is expected shortly on how congestion should be monitored and whether the Solent area of Hampshire will be required to set congestion targets.

2.7 Since the first LTP, the Traffic Management Act 2004 has come into force, giving local transport authorities a statutory duty to appoint a traffic manager with responsibility for achieving freer flowing traffic. The LTP explains how Hampshire County Council is implementing this new duty. The LTP will also include a new Transport Asset Management Plan, which sets a strategy for maintaining and achieving best value from existing transport assets, such as roads, bridges and public transport infrastructure.

3. Proposed Hampshire County Council Policy Changes

3.1 In large part, it is proposed that the draft LTP should continue the policy direction from the first LTP. Programmes such as road safety, maintenance and school travel planning are well established and generally performing well. Whilst there is a continual need to evolve and improve these programmes, especially to quantify their costs and outcomes, there does not need to be a radical change in order to meet the requirements of the second LTP.

3.2 To provide a cohesive framework for the whole of the LTP, a new overarching strategy of "reduce, manage and invest" is proposed. This provides a hierarchy of policy approaches in a similar vein to the waste minimisation hierarchy of "reduce, reuse, recycle". Where possible, transport problems should be tackled by measures to reduce the problem. This could include, for example, tackling problems of congestion by reducing the number of unnecessary journeys undertaken. The second level of approach would be to manage to make the best use of the existing assets. This could include traffic management measures to tackle congestion by improving responses to roadworks, enhanced traffic control and other junction improvements for example. The third element of the policy approach would be to invest in new transport capacity.

3.3 The proposed LTP strategy is for a balanced suite of measures that combines all three elements of "reduce, manage and invest". It includes measures to improve both roads and public transport. The strategy encourages greater use of public transport, walking and cycling, and the potential role of demand management, but also recognises that the car will remain the dominant form of transport. Measures to improve both walking and cycling are recommended, although the importance now placed on pedestrian movement will be greater than the first LTP reflecting the relatively higher modal significance of walking as a proportion of transport movements.

3.4 This also includes a proposal to invest more in non-capital measures that would influence travel choices. Marketing initiatives such as "Infomotion" and Quality Bus Partnership have been shown to be very effective in affecting choices about mode of transport.

3.5 A proposed new emphasis for the LTP is on accessibility. The draft LTP takes the Government's requirements as a minimum and seeks to go further by:

(i) assessing and improving accessibility to a wider range of services than the official guidance requires;

(ii) assessing non-transport accessibility - delivering services to individuals rather than requiring them to travel to the service;

(iii) improving actual accessibility as well as the theoretical accessibility required by the Government. This includes providing better information to the public about the travel options available to them; and

(iv) providing a new focus on town centre permeability, especially for pedestrians.

3.6 It will be a stern challenge to improve accessibility in terms of the times taken for some journeys to be made by bus. In some circumstances, this is likely to require new bus services that would be used infrequently and could require a substantial subsidy. This would be difficult to justify against a context of rising bus costs and uncertainty of Government revenue funding for bus support. The full implications of accessibility auditing are being considered as part of the process of preparing the full LTP.

3.7 The proposed approach to congestion is that journeys should be made more reliable. This entails a focus on the traffic management of the existing network as well as actions to reduce the need to travel. Investment will be needed in some locations where the demand for travel clearly exceeds supply, such as the Fareham-Gosport peninsula.

4. Particular Issues to be Addressed

4.1 Congestion levels are growing and are one of the public's chief concerns about transport. However, LTP analysis suggests that there remains considerable capacity on most of the road network. The public are expected to continue to use the road network until traffic reaches considerably higher levels. This means that it will be very difficult to achieve substantial modal shift away from the car in the short to medium term. Short term measures to improve the alternatives to the car and to reduce the need to travel will help to tackle congestion, but are likely to be overwhelmed by predicted increases in car ownership and use.

4.2 The provisional LTP proposes to tackle this by a combination of measures to:

(i) reduce the need to travel, by travel planning and land-use policies;

(ii) make best use of existing infrastructure by traffic management measures, and by travel planning initiatives to spread peak hour travel;

(iii) in the short-term to tackle congestion hot-spots by junction improvements where this is practical; and

(iv) in the longer term to provide more transport capacity, especially for shorter journeys catered for by bus.

4.3 In particular, the LTP proposes to review the ambitious public transport strategy envisaged as the wider South Hampshire Rapid Transit network, which included further light rail lines and expensive heavy rail improvements. It is considered to be unlikely that funding will be available for these proposals beyond the Fareham-Gosport-Portsmouth LRT under the current transport regime; therefore the LTP is reviewing proposals including consideration of a range of measures based on bus/guided bus and park and ride. More details will be available for the full LTP.

4.4 The full LTP will need to address falling levels of cycling and bus use. Both appear to be caused by increasing levels of car ownership and increases in the distances that are travelled, especially in the journey to work. It is not proposed to maintain cycling expenditure at the same level as the first LTP, which was around 10% of the total budget. Instead, cycling schemes will be limited to relatively short and cost-effective measures that tackle safety problems and/or which are likely to be heavily used, and have a clear transport rationale. This approach will also inform the County Council's investment priorities in relation to initiatives, such as the National Cycle Network.

4.5 Bus patronage is increasing on quality bus partnership routes, but decreasing elsewhere. Marketing initiatives can help to increase bus usage, but these are generally effective only when the bus service is of a good standard. The LTP focuses on capital measures to make buses more reliable and convenient, such as priority measures, park and rides, improved bus stops and interchanges.

5. Proposed Capital Programme

5.1 It is not yet possible to produce a detailed and definitive capital programme for the five years of the second LTP. The funds available will not be known until the Government consults on its new funding formula, which may be announced in July. Until the audit of accessibility is complete, it is not known what level of expenditure would be required to set realistic but challenging targets.

5.2 There is also considerable uncertainty about the funding of street lighting column replacement. The existing stock of street lighting columns is deteriorating. A programme of column replacement is urgently needed. At the request of the Department for Transport, the County Council is currently considering how much expenditure is needed and how this could be funded, exploring the Private Finance Initiative, prudential borrowing and/or the integrated transport block of the LTP.

5.3 The following proposed programme therefore should be regarded as indicative. It is intended to give the Government an impression of the broad direction of the LTP. However, it does not commit the County Council to these levels of expenditure and will be reviewed for the full LTP in March 2006.

Integrated Transport

Safety (including safer routes to school) £20 million

Access - town centres £15 million

Access - others including countryside £ 5 million

Public transport including park and ride £15 million

Tackling air quality and congestion £ 7 million

Street lighting improvements £ 5 million

Others - innovation and environment £ 2 million

Total £69 million

Maintenance and Bridges £79 million.

6. Major Schemes

6.1 A revised bid for the Fareham-Gosport-Portsmouth Light Rapid Transit scheme was submitted to the Government earlier this year, following the Government's decision to withdraw funding in July 2004. A decision has been requested before July 2005. The LTP puts this scheme into the context of the wider long-term strategy but in line with official guidance does not assume that the scheme will be built.

6.2 A number of other potential major schemes remain under review for possible submission to Government at a later date. These include the Chickenhall Lane Link Road, Stubbington Bypass and Botley Bypass. The second park and ride scheme at Winchester may also be a candidate for a major scheme bid. None of these schemes can reasonably be submitted at this stage as they need to be reviewed against the emerging South East Plan spatial strategy. The full appraisal requirements to support a major scheme bid will clearly also need to be informed by spatial strategy provisions.

6.3 The decision not to submit a full major scheme submissions at this stage is unlikely to disadvantage the County Council's preferred schemes. The Department for Transport has indicated that few if any major schemes will be accepted following the provisional LTPs, apart from schemes already under consideration by the Government. Recent changes in the rules governing major schemes mean that submissions can be made at any time and do not need to be made in local transport plans.

6.4 A further major scheme bid had been considered for improvements to Totton town centre. Following informal advice from the Government Office and the Department for Transport, it was considered that this scheme had little chance of being accepted for funding under the Government's current criteria. The scheme was then modified and is proposed to be delivered as a number of discreet separate elements within the integrated transport programme. The scheme and potential for funding will be kept under review.

7. Targets

7.1 All LTPs are required to set challenging but realistic targets. The provisional LTP attempts to demonstrate that the County Council has a robust methodology for setting targets and monitoring progress against them. In some cases, this means setting targets that are relatively modest. Given the uncertainties over funding levels, all targets in the provisional LTP are tentative. The proposed targets include:

(i) targets on road condition on principal roads, non-principal roads (classified and unclassified) and footways;

(ii) road safety targets for killed, seriously injured and slight injuries;

(iii) bus patronage levels to remain at 2003-04 levels by 2010-11;

(iv) target on bus punctuality in 10 years;

(v) bus passenger satisfaction levels;

(vi) the number of cycling trips to remain constant;

(vii) all air quality management areas to be withdrawn by 2011; and

(viii) to reduce the proportion of children travelling to school as car passengers.

7.2 All targets will be reviewed once the revised funding levels are known. Additional targets will be included in the full LTP, including those on congestion and accessibility.

8. Strategic Environmental Assessment

8.1 All local transport authorities are required by legislation to carry out a strategic environmental assessment of their LTP, which should feed into the decision-making process. A number of consultation responses have been received to the strategic environmental assessment scoping report that was circulated to interested groups in March. A summary of these responses is attached as Appendix 2 to this report. Copies of the consultation responses will be placed in the Members' room.

8.2 The comments from most respondents were largely matters of detail that can be incorporated into the final LTP. The vast majority supported the direction of the strategic environmental assessment and considered that it was comprehensive and met the requirements of the guidance.

8.3 It is considered that the LTP's proposed policy stance of "reduce, manage and invest" is a balanced strategy that provides the best fit to the objectives of the strategic environmental assessment. A number of alternative strategies have been considered and rejected:

(i) a strategy based wholly on promoting road travel is likely to lead to significant environmental impact and reduce the quality of life;

(ii) a strategy based wholly or predominantly on providing alternatives to the car is unlikely to be successful. The car remains the dominant form of transport and is likely to do so for the foreseeable future. This is especially the case in rural areas like Hampshire where there are many journeys that cannot sensibly be made by public transport;

(iii) demand management measures, on their own, would not tackle current infrastructure deficits and problems of poor accessibility. Without suitable alternatives, demand management measures to reduce car usage could damage the county's economy and the quality of life of its residents;

(iv) land-use policies are not effective in tackling transport problems in the short term.

9. Next Steps

9.1 Subject to the agreement of the full County Council, it is proposed that the LTP be the subject of further consultation during autumn 2005. The responses to the consultation should be considered at the end of 2005/06, prior to the finalisation of the full LTP in March 2006.

Recommendation

That Cabinet recommends the County Council to approve the provisional Local Transport Plan, taking into account the comments received on the strategic environmental assessment.

355/IR Rpt