Return to Agenda

ITEM EX12

EXECUTIVE – 8 JULY 2003

LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN – ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT 2003

Report by the Assistant Director (Transport Development)

1. The Government requires each transport authority in England to submit an Annual Progress Report (APR) on its Local Transport Plan (LTP) to the Government Regional Office by the end of July each year. The purpose of this is to inform the Government of how the authority’s LTP is being implemented, how the funding allocations made through the LTP process are being used and how well the authority’s own local and the Government’s national targets are being met.
2. The APR is also used by the Government as the basis on which the indicative allocation for future funding is confirmed or amended. This allocation in turn forms a significant part of the County Council’s Single Capital Pot (SCP). The Government now uses the rating given to each authority’s APR as an important component of the Environment score of their Comprehensive Performance Assessment.

Requirements

3. The latest Government guidance has made it clear that, with this year’s APR, the focus has switched significantly from what each authority wishes or plans to do towards what it is actually achieving. A copy of the guidance has been placed in the Member’s Resource Centre. The main requirements (reproduced from the checklist included in the guidance) are shown at Annex 1. The requirements are much more prescriptive of the contents of the APR than in previous years: they indicate not only what information should be included but also how the Government wishes that information to be presented and how it expects the document to be ordered. There is an increasing use of specified tables and proformas for the presentation of the required data.
4. APRs will be assessed on 5 main criteria:

• Delivery on the ground
• Progress towards targets and objectives
• An effective spending programme
• Evidence of improvement
• Consultation, Good Practice and Presentation

5. In line with the switch of focus from planning to delivery the guidance requires authorities to include a selection of examples of schemes delivered in 2002/03 that will contribute to meeting each of the national transport targets. Evidence of the outcomes arising from each scheme, or details of how these outcomes will be measured, is also required, as are links to local targets and objectives. It has become clear during the preparation of the draft APR that the County Council needs to be much more rigorous in setting expected outcomes or targets for individual schemes and strategies. A consequence of this is that the outcome of schemes will need to be monitored more comprehensively than previously in order that we can report on whether individual schemes, as well as the overall LTP strategy, are meeting their targets.

Programme

6. The programme which will be set out for 2003/04 and subsequent years will be that approved by the Executive on 15 April 2003. As members will recall, to avoid the rise of underspending in 2003/04 and to maximise the size of the delivered programme, it was agreed to include in the 2003/04 programme £2.0m of schemes (10% of the 2003/04 SCP) that would have formed part of the 2004/05 programme, in the expectation that the programme will underspend by at least this much. It is impossible to predict which schemes will slip but the programme will be kept under review and expenditure carefully monitored. This decision will be reported in the APR as one of the ways in which the County Council is acting to overcome a potential barrier to implementing its LTP.
7. The APR needs to include a comparison of the out-turn outputs for 2002/03 compared to that programmed in last year’s APR. In many ways the 2002/03 programme was a watershed. As well as using the remainder of the previous year’s allocations (which had been in the form of Supplementary Capital Allocations valid for two years), the County Council has fully utilised the allocations made for transport in the SCP for that year (£18.614m) and made progress on a number of developer funded schemes (including the Didcot to Milton Heights Link Road Stage II and the Skimmingdish Lane Improvement in Bicester). The total out-turn cost of the improvement programme delivered exceeded £35m. Over 250 schemes were wholly or partially delivered – probably the largest single year programme delivered since the creation of the current county in 1974. It is intended that the APR will include a set of plans showing the locations of all these schemes, together with another set showing the (even larger) programme that is being prepared for 2003/2004, including over 350 schemes.
8. No major scheme bids are proposed this year. Work is progressing on the A415 Marcham Bypass and the Expressway Oxford projects. At the moment both are being progressed to schedules that will allow us to make full scheme submissions for them with next year’s APR. At the moment we cannot say whether either or both of these bids will be successful, this will depend to a large extent on the availability of resources for this type of scheme next year, but officers are working with the Government to ensure that the submissions meet the required standards.

The Annual Progress Report

9. Following the receipt of the guidance for the APR, officers have been working to produce a report which meets the Government’s requirements. (Copies of the latest draft version of the APR will be placed in the Members’ Resource Centre.) There are a number of issues on which the advice of the Executive is sought before the text can be finalised. These are set out below.
10. Congestion – The national PSA target for congestion (to reduce congestion to below 2000 levels by 2010) applies only to the inter-urban trunk road network and to large urban areas (those with a population exceeding 250,000). Other authorities are invited in the guidance to say whether they consider congestion to be a problem in their area and, if so, what action they are taking to address this. If we accept this target then there would be a substantial need for monitoring congestion levels in the county which could not be met within current traffic monitoring budget levels. It is my opinion that our response to this should be that, due to our successes in promoting public transport use across the county over the past two decades, the County Council does not consider that there is a general problem of congestion in the county but that there are particular locations which do experience congestion regularly, such as the A40 west of Oxford, the A34, parts of the Oxford Ring Road and a number of Oxford’s main radial routes, and particular streets in other towns (eg Hennef Way in Banbury, Marcham Road in Abingdon, Queen’s Avenue/Buckingham Road in Bicester, Bridge Street in Witney). The APR will then outline the solutions that we have programmed or are developing for relieving these problems.
11. Road Safety and Social Inclusion – The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recently published a report which indicated that there was a significantly higher incidence of road accidents in disadvantaged areas. Consequently the PSA target on reducing the numbers of people killed and seriously injured, particularly children, has been amended to take this into account. A preliminary assessment of this in Oxfordshire, conducted as part of the review of the Child Safety Audit, has shown that there is evidence that this relationship may apply, for child casualties at least, at the ward level in Oxfordshire. While action has been taken on a number of the areas identified as being the most disadvantaged in the county, such as through the traffic calming programme, the results of the preliminary assessment do indicate that more needs to be done to address these issues. A commitment to carry out a more detailed analysis of this problem and adjust the programme accordingly is proposed to be included in the APR.
12. Targets – There are a number of the national and local targets that do not appear to be on track for being met and where a statement is needed in the APR as to what action the County Council proposes to take as a result. I consider that the best way to handle these within the APR is to be open about the problems and to recommend a way in which we can seek to remedy them in the future.

• Road Safety – Even taking into account the variability that is inherent in numbers of accidents and, especially, casualties it would appear that overall levels in the county are stable or, at best, could be said to be reducing at a significantly lower rate than is required to meet the targets set for 2010. The number of powered two-wheeler casualties appears to be increasing significantly. Given the effort that has been made over the past decade to deal with known accident locations (it should be remembered that throughout the 1990s almost all the transport capital expenditure carried out in the county, excluding some structural maintenance schemes and work on the Oxford Transport Strategy, was justified on accident reduction grounds contributing to the 50% reduction in fatalities and serious injuries which was achieved between 1981/85 and 1994/98) there are unlikely to be any easy solutions to this. It is recommended that we state that further detailed study is needed into the causes of accidents in the county in order to recommend a future strategy.
• Structural Maintenance – While the condition of principal and non-principal classified roads has been improving this cannot be said for unclassified roads. This is to a large extent the legacy of the lack of funds that was available for maintaining these roads through the 1990s and, in fact, we had predicted in previous years that despite the increase in funds now available the condition of these roads was likely to get worse before they got better. It is recommended that we state that, providing that funding levels for minor roads are maintained at current levels, their overall condition should begin to improve in future years.
• Bus Punctuality – In the LTP we set targets for three levels of bus punctuality (% of buses no more than 5, 10 and 30 minutes late) – this was a necessary part of our application for Centre of Excellence status. In the latest data available the figures for 10 and 30 minutes are improving but that for 5 minutes is getting worse. In part this may be because the monitoring programme on which these figures are based is geared toward those services where there have been reported problems. To implement the systematic programme that would be required to remove this bias would involve a significant increase in the resources that are available for monitoring but it is likely that without such an increase it will be impossible for us to demonstrate whether the measures that we are putting in (in the Premium Routes and ITS programmes, for instance) are having any effect on this measure. It is recommended that we state that the development of such a systematic programme be investigated before the next APR. The increased resources needed for this will be included in the budget pressures this year.
• School Travel – In the Better Ways to School section of the Local Transport Plan a target was set to increase the proportion of school trips undertaken by non-car modes. This is monitored through a telephone survey undertaken for the County Council as part of the LTP monitoring process. Surveys were conducted in 2000 and earlier this year (see below). The figure for non-car modes decreased between these two surveys from 76% to 69% - or to put it another way the proportion travelling by car increased from 24% to 31%. This can be explained through a decrease in the proportion using school buses (which decreased from 20% to 14%). This appears to be the result of the statistical variation that is inherent in such studies. This should become clearer as the survey is repeated. The next scheduled survey will be in 2005 as part of the preparation for the next Local Transport Plan. It is recommended therefore that no action be taken as a result of this funding.

13. An early draft of the APR was presented to the Oxfordshire Transport Forum for comment. A number of changes have been made to the draft as a result of comments made at the Forum meeting and in written submissions. There were some comments made that this consultation was not sufficient, nor timely in order to have an impact on the submission. The APR process, particularly the short time available between receipt of the guidance in late March and submission of the document in July, does not lend itself well to consultation on the document although this is expected by Government. Officers will consider how this can be improved for future years and for the development of the second LTP, due for submission in 2005.

MORI Survey

14. A survey was commissioned earlier this year from the opinion research company MORI into how people in Oxfordshire travel and what were their views on travel and County Council transport policies. A total of 1,000 households were randomly called by telephone in March and April. This mirrors a previous survey which was conducted in 2000 as part of the preparation for submitting the LTP. The "topline" results from the survey and a more detailed analysis are available for inspection in the Members’ Resource Centre.
15. The major changes found between the results in 2000 and 2003 were:

• An increase in the number of households with a motorbike or moped (from 7% to 10%)
• Increases in the numbers of people who consider Oxfordshire to have good bus services (from 32% to 38%)
• Decrease in the number who consider that there is poor public transport generally or who consider they need to have a car to get around (from 13% to 7%)
• Increase in the number who consider the roads to be in poor condition (from 16% to 20%)
• A decrease in the number who think transport could be improved by improving public transport generally (from 16% to 8%)
• An increase in the number who think more buses or more frequent bus services are needed (from 19% to 25%)
• Fewer think that improved frequency/coverage of public transport will make them use cars less often than at present (31% compared to 35%)
• Increases in the numbers of people who say they usually walk to work, for food shopping and for social/leisure trips
• Increases in the proportion of pupils who walk or cycle to school and who go by car; decreases in the proportion by special school bus (see para 13, above)
• Around the same number as in 2000 consider that there is nothing that could be done to make them use cars less often than at the moment

16. In terms of the opinions on County Council transport policy and practice the survey showed that:

• There was general support for the objectives included in the LTP’s "Vision for Transport in Oxfordshire" with the greatest support being for reducing the numbers of casualties caused by transport (83% think this "very important"), ensuring roads are properly maintained (78%) and stopping noise and pollution from getting worse (62%)
• 73% think that traffic congestion in peak times and 56% that the condition of the roads has got worse in the last three years
• 61% think facilities for cyclists have improved in the last three years
• General support for higher proportions of funding to be spent on sustainable transport, community safety (transport) and casualty reduction schemes
• 48% of those in the survey who had been involved in any consultation on transport issues were either very or fairly satisfied with the consultation compared to 32% who were fairly or very dissatisfied.

17. The County Council has made significant progress towards implementing its LTP in 2002/03 and that similar progress looks likely for 2003/04. The APR will reflect this and hopefully this should result in a good financial settlement for 2004/05. There are a number of areas where progress has not been as good as expected. There are no easy or clear solutions to any of the problems identified this year. In most cases further and detailed investigation is required before recommendations for the future can be made.
18. The APR this year has signalled a further move towards Government expectations that for all investment we should be setting clearer targets and monitoring outcomes. To some extent this was anticipated at the countywide strategy level when the LTP was first submitted (a report on this was put to the former Environmental Committee on 20 September 2000) but the need to extend this to justify individual schemes will have a significant impact on the amount and type of monitoring that is required to be undertaken. It is also clear that some of the monitoring that we have been conducting to date is not of a sufficient standard for the uses to which it is now being put. It is intended that a report on what our transport monitoring needs now are and how these can be met should be prepared and presented to a future meeting of the Executive and included within our budget pressures.

Financial and Staff Implications

19. The APR is a vital part of the process whereby the County Council receives approval from Government for its capital spending. The report to the Executive on 15 April 2003 outlined the challenges that there have been to implement a programme, which had tripled within the space of five years. It is clear that continued investment at these levels is critical if the County Council is to meet its overall transport objectives.
20. The report has identified a number of areas where the County Council’s current practices are no longer sufficient to meet government expectations, in particular with respect to target setting and monitoring. Additional resources will be needed to meet these expectations and these will be added to our future budget pressures.

RECOMMENDATIONS

21. At the Environment Scrutiny Committee’s request this report is being submitted to the Committee on 2 July and any comments on their part will be reported to the meeting. Subject thereto the Executive is RECOMMENDED to:

1. endorse the proposed approach for the preparation of the Annual Progress Report, and in particular the issues of congestion, road safety and targets outlined in the report; and
2. authorise the Director for Environment & Economy, in consultation with the Executive Members for Transport and Strategic Planning & Waste Management, to finalise the Annual Progress Report for submission to the Government by 31 July 2003.

EDDIE LUCK
Assistant Director (Transport Development)

Background papers: Nil

Contact Officer: Roger O’Neill Tel: Oxford 815659

June 2003

Return to TOP