Return to Agenda

Division(s): All

ITEM EX8

EXECUTIVE – 16 MARCH 2004

TRANSPORT CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2004/05 TO 2006/07

Report by the Head of Transport and the Head of Finance

Introduction

  1. This report seeks the Executive’s approval to the 2004/05 Transport Capital Programme (shown in the attached booklet) and indicative programmes for 2005/06. An indication is provided of the potential demand for funding in 2006/07. The report also provides the information on the use of the reward funding in the 2004/05 Local Transport Plan (LTP) settlement as required by 10 February 2004 Council resolution on the Capital Budget.

  2. The 2004/05 programme uses as its starting point the provisional figures for the transport budget headings agreed by the Executive on 18 March 2003 and the explanation of the limited scope for moving away from these figures in the report to the 28 October 2003 Executive which reviewed progress on the 2003/04 Capital Programme.

    (Capital Transport Programme 204/05 to 2007/08 - Contents - download as .xls file)
    (Capital Transport Programme 2004/05 to 2006/07 - download as .xls file)

    3. Background

  3. The total block allocation awarded by the government for Transport in 2004/05 is £23.957m. This comprises a figure of £11.017m for structural maintenance and £12.940m for integrated transport measures. In the new terminology these LTP allocations are unringfenced Single Capital Pot SCE(R) - Supported Capital Expenditure (Revenue). This gives discretion to authorities to spend the allocation according to their own plans and priorities but, as the LTP settlement letter makes clear, the government expectation is that sufficient funds are spent on transport to enable progress towards the objectives and targets in an authority’s LTP and ultimately to meet those targets by the end of the LTP period in March 2006. In practice this means that all of the transport funding needs to be dedicated to pursing the full range of our LTP objectives.

  4. The Annual Progress Report (APR) for 2004/05 was scored as "well above average", one of 11 authorities nationally to achieve this top grading for their APR. This was a particularly pleasing result for the APR team from Transport Planning who felt hard done by under the scoring system in 2003/04.

  5. Our exact score for the APR was 82%; the top score nationally was 87%. The small range of scores in the top band means that the scope is limited for further progress in our APR score for 2005/06 while those with lower scores will be trying hard to reach the top range of scores. The settlement letter makes clear, as does advice from GOSE officials, that performance will be increasingly judged on performance in delivering transport schemes and the outcomes of those schemes in meeting our LTP targets. This advice serves to emphasise that all the transport capital funding needs to be spent on transport schemes in pursuit of our objectives if we are to stay among the top performers.

  6. The "well above average" rating resulted in the block allocation for integrated transport measures including reward funding of £2.4m for our ranking and an improved performance bonus of £0.336 for our progress up the rankings compared to last year. Maintenance allocations nationally were awarded on a formulaic basis and did not attract any reward funding. As will become clear, this additional funding will be spent across the range of budget headings for integrated transport measures in the programme to keep these budgets at around the provisional figures in the March 2003 and October 2003 reports. Cost increases on major schemes in progress, or with payments still to be made against them, plus preparation costs of major schemes not allowed for in last year’s provisional figures, have put pressure on the other budget headings.

  7. In addition to SCE(R) funding, the Capital Programme includes funding from developer contributions to transport schemes, On-Street Parking Account Surplus, and other funding which is mostly grant awarded for specific schemes. These other funding sources bring the total of the Capital Programme put forward for approval to £33.95m. Annex 1 (download as .doc file) gives the breakdown of all sources of funding across the various budget headings and a comparison to the provisional programme figures agreed in March 2003.

    8. Programming Issues

  8. Spending at this level will continue to be a challenge for transport staff, and our consultants and contractors. However, we start 2004/05 in a better position than in past years. This is because the majority of schemes were previously in the 2003/04 programme but could not be constructed due to a combination of the £2m carry over-programming built into that programme, the need to take a £1m contribution to Council reserves out of this programme that had not been possible to make as planned in 2002/03, and cost increases on major schemes. This has resulted in a pool of schemes with design work completed and ready to start early in 2004/05.

  9. Having created this headway in scheme preparation in advance of the programme year for construction, the essential thing now is to keep that headway by identifying and funding design work in 2004/05 for schemes to be built in 2005/06. This will create a much more predictable and reliable programme allowing consultant and contractor to more effectively plan their resourcing, to both be involved in the project teams, and thus to identify the most efficient ways of building the schemes.

  10. In retrospect, the amount of over-programming included in the 2003/04 programme produced a considerable degree of uncertainty for all parties as to what would actually get constructed in that year. Although the end result can be seen as beneficial in having a bank of worked up schemes, the better method for the future is seen to be to positively identify schemes for design work only within the programme as discussed above. Nevertheless, some degree of over-programming amounting to £0.983m has been included in the 2004/05 programme because of the difficult choices between the strong pressures to include all of the schemes from 2003/04 and the imperatives of priorities for 2004/05. In the interests of good programme control, this over-programming is made up of specifically identified reserve schemes that will not be built unless other schemes slip.

  11. The various budgets within the Transport Capital Programme strike a balance between:

    • pursuit of the County Council’s priorities for 2004/05 of improving local road conditions and improving bus patronage;

    • improvements to BVPI scores and progress towards casualty reduction targets;

    • the expectation in towns with Integrated Transport Strategies and of other communities requesting schemes important to them;

    • commitments to major schemes built or planned;

    • the need to show that progress is being made across the whole range of LTP objectives and targets including increasing journeys by pedestrians and cyclists.

Proposed Programme

  1. As a starting point, the Structural Maintenance budget has been set at the settlement of £11.017m. This includes £1.5m payback of capital loan as planned in the provisional figures from last year with an SCE(R) of £9.517 m to make up the total. This is an increase of £1m over 2003/04 but also sees through the plan of front loading maintenance in the early years of the LTP period and restoring the balance with integrated transport measures in the later years.

  2. Together with revenue budget increases for highway maintenance in 2004/05, this provides a helpful increase over the 2003/04 budgets. However, the increase falls well short of the £4m of repairs needed to last summer's drought damage before beginning to think about how to achieve the Council's priority and improve BVPI scores for non-principal roads.

  3. One of the main differences to the provisional 2004/05 budget is the amount of SCE(R) required for major transport schemes listed individually in the programme. The SCE(R) allocated to major schemes is £4.285m compared to £0.800m in the provisional programme. Annex 1 provides a scheme by scheme comparison.

  4. The two biggest contributors to this increased spend are the cost increases on the Hennef Way Dualling Scheme in Banbury and on the Cornmarket paving scheme in Oxford. Funding the Oxford Expressway (GTE) project to the point of Transport & Works Act submission, design fees for improving Marcham Bypass to the planning application stage, and funding for the early stages of the Green Road Roundabout scheme are the other significant contributors to the total SCE(R) provision for major schemes.

  5. The total cost for the Hennef Way scheme is predicted to be £8.940m, an increase of £3.164m over the original Project Appraisal cost of £5.776m approved in June 2001. Redesign of the bridge over the railway after contract award so as to gain Railtrack approval has been the main contributor to increased costs, plus increased costs for other bridges, winter working and time extension beyond the contractor’s original programme. To date nearly 150 Compensation Events claims have been submitted by the contractors. The allocation in the 2004/05 programme is the best assessment of the payments due to the contractor and include a substantial contingency for further claims.

  6. The revised cost of the Cornmarket scheme is £5.109m as compared to the project appraisal estimate of £2.739 m. This takes account of the settlement reached with consultant and contractors on payment to the County Council for abortive costs incurred on the failed granite block carriageway. The settlement is the subject of a confidentiality agreement between all the parties. The 2004/05 budget allows for the £1.855 m contribution from Oxford City Council to the cost of this scheme.

  7. The main reasons for the additional costs have been the need to work around the uncharted, or incorrectly charted, utility mains and cables, and the extent of work needed to structurally check and repair each cellar roof exposed by the works.

  8. The budgets for the Integrated Transport Strategies anticipate the agreement of strategies for Didcot and Henley. Although the SCE(R) proportion of the overall budget is £4.049m compared to the provisional figure of £4.600m, the addition of developer contributions, on-street parking account surplus and other funding bring the total budget for the year to £7.038m. The budget for most towns is close to the provisional figure; the programmes for each town are as agreed with and expected by the relevant ITS Steering Groups.

  9. The general pattern across the ITS programmes for all the towns is for most of the schemes to be constructed to come from the 2003/04 programme list with a similar number of new schemes included for design within 2004/05 ready for construction in 2005/06.

  10. In the Community Safety (Transport) programme, all the schemes included for construction as a result of going through the priority assessment procedure are from the 2003/04 programme. There is a waiting list of worthwhile schemes to be done but it is not possible to include any new schemes from this list for construction in 2004/05. However, fees for the design of schemes from this list have been included in the 2004/05 budget for the schemes in 2005/06.

  11. The Casualty Reduction Schemes programme is larger than 2003/04 but below the provisional programme budget level. About half of the schemes have come from the 2003/04 list but the other half are new additions to the programme.

  12. The Sustainable Transport programme in total is close to that planned in the provisional figures due to the inclusion of developer contributions and on-street parking account surpluses. The Better Ways to School budget allows for completion of all outstanding work from programmes A, B and C plus design on programme D. No work will be done on programme E. It is planned to review whether this is still the best approach in the light of the Government’s School Travel Action Plan initiative, including making capital grants direct to schools who put in place an approved Travel Plan. A fuller report on the School Travel Action Plan initiative will be presented to the Executive later in the year. The majority of the cycling schemes budget is for two schemes already designed and ready to go. The Public Transport budget is aimed at supporting achievement of PSA target by including investment on Premium Bus Routes, on Thornhill Park & Ride upgrading and Real Time Passenger Information. A budget of £100k is included for rail station developments (refer to the report to the 4 March Executive on rail travel generally).

  13. A project appraisal for the upgrading of Thornhill Park & Ride is included with the report as Annex 2.

  14. A cautious approach has been taken to the availability of on-street parking account surpluses in compiling this programme. Accumulated surpluses have been spent and future availability will depend on what the surpluses are from year to year. In addition to funding for appropriate schemes in the Transport Capital programme, any surpluses will also be needed for the short term to support the operational costs of the Water Eaton and Thornhill Park & Ride sites. Subject to the legal constraints that apply to on-street parking account income and surpluses, this could also be an appropriate funding source for the expansion of de-criminalised parking to the whole of the County. This project has been accepted in principle by the Executive but to date no budget has been identified for it.

  15. Pressure to introduce countywide de-criminalised parking could increase if the provisions of the Traffic Management Bill become law – this would empower government to instruct a traffic authority to introduce a scheme covering their entire area. It is suggested that when the on-street parking account for 2003/04 is finalised, the feasibility of using on-street parking funding for a phased introduction of de-criminalised parking across the County is looked at again.

    16. Future Years’ Programmes

  16. We will of course be striving to produce an even better Annual Progress Report to submit this year to keep us in the top ranking authorities but it would be unsafe to assume that we will get reward funding again, or at the same level, in 2005/06. This is a comparative exercise and performance of other authorities is not in our control nor is the availability of money for the government office to hand out as reward money. The advice from government office officials is to plan on the basis of the previous indicative figures of SCE(R) around £20m. In 2006/07 we will be in the first year of a new five year LTP period and a planning figure for that year is less certain, but a reasonable assumption would be a settlement of around £20m again.

  17. Given these planning figures, the provisional programme for 2005/06 at £27.6m for SCE(R) cannot be met in full. If ITS and other programmes in 2006/07 stay at the same level as the 2005/06 provisional figures, then the addition of major schemes pushes the SCE(R) requirement up to £30m for that year. There is an opportunity to bid for higher funding in the next LTP period so, given some inevitable uncertainties attached to major schemes in particular, and the possible availability of other funding not completely known at this time, this is not the moment to decide to reprogramme these schemes. A continuous review process will be used to identify pressures as they are identified throughout the year and consider what reprogramming is required to produce a realistic future programme.

    18. Financial and Staff Implications

  18. The financial implications are set out in the report. Assessment, promotion and design of schemes will be undertaken by a combination of existing staff, Halcrow as our Term Consultant for Transport Planning, Babtie Group as our Term Consultant for enforcing design, and by other specific consultants.

    19. RECOMMENDATIONS

  19. The Executive is RECOMMENDED to:

          1. approve the detailed Transport Capital Programme for 2004/05 and the provisional programmes for 2005/06 as set out in the booklet accompanying the report subject to adjustment of the 2005/06 programme to match the available finance in that year;

          2. approve the Project Appraisal for the upgrading of Thornhill Park & Ride site; and

          3. request the Head of Transport to report on progress on the Transport Capital Programme in October 2004.

DAVID McKIBBIN
HEAD OF TRANSPORT

CHRIS GRAY
HEAD OF FINANCE

Background papers: Nil

Contact Officer: Richard Dix Tel: Oxford 815663

March 2004

Return to TOP