Return to Agenda

ITEM EX7

EXECUTIVE – 6 JULY 2004

LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN – ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT 2004

Report by Head of Transport

Introduction

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 Supported Capital Expenditure (SCE) (see Capital Programme Report 16 March 2004). The Government now uses the rating given to each authority’s APR as an important component for the Environment score of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA). The APR is also the mechanism through which funding applications for Major Schemes (i.e. schemes >£5 million) are made to the Government.
3. The County Council’s submission last year was highly successful. It was rated in the "Well Above Average" category, with a score of 82%. This gave Oxfordshire the ninth (equal) highest score out of the 123 authorities who produce LTP’s. From this the County was given an allocation of £23.957 million for 2004/05 including reward funding of £2.4 million (for demonstrating good progress in the delivery of schemes and achievement against targets) and a £0.336 million bonus for demonstrating particularly strong year on year performance.

Requirements

4. The latest Government guidance has made it clear that, in this year’s APR, there is a strong emphasis on delivery. The Government wants to see that the County Council is meeting what it set out to do through its programme for 2003/04. A copy of the guidance has been placed in the Members’ Resource Centre. Compared to last year’s guidance the requirements are much more prescriptive: they indicate not only what information should be included but also how the Government wishes to see that information presented and how it expects the document to be ordered. The Government wishes to see the use of specified tables, graphs and pro-formas for the presentation of the required data.
5. APRs will be assessed on 3 criteria:

• Delivery on the ground
• Progress towards targets and objectives
• An effective spending programme

6. There are three new requirements for this year’s APR:

• A report on the uses of performance-related funding;
• Trajectories for targets and objectives (i.e. a graphical representation of whether the targets are on track to be met); and
• Consideration of the shared priority for transport.

7. The programme which will be set out for 2005/06 will be based on that provisionally approved by the Executive on 16 March 2004 and would be confirmed by the Executive in March 2005. A summary of this programme is set out in Annex 1 . This gives a total expenditure of £28.055 million. This figure is an increase of £3.115m from the approved £24.94 million single capital expenditure allocation for 2004/05; the major individual elements of this increase are the start of town centre measures in Abingdon and Witney and major expenditure on Green Road Roundabout. Delivery of this programme would therefore depend on a funding increase being agreed by the Government.
8. As was stated in last year’s APR, two schemes have been investigated as potential major scheme bids for this year’s submission to Government: Expressway Oxford (more commonly known as GTE) and Marcham Bypass. Neither of the schemes would have required funding support this coming year - either submission would have asked for an ‘in principle’ support from Government with the scheme being conditionally accepted for funding subject to it meeting all statutory requirements for its construction.
9. As has been widely reported, the feasibility study into the viability of the GTE scheme has provisionally concluded that the proposal, as currently envisaged, would not meet the Government’s indicative economic target for acceptance as a major public transport scheme. However, the rationale for the GTE scheme, the provision of reliable (congestion-free) and efficient public transport links from Oxfordshire’s larger towns and Park and Ride sites into the City Centre to support growth pressures and aspirations, is still highly relevant. Studies are therefore underway to ascertain whether a revised scheme that would meet Government economic criteria can be devised. Consequently it is not considered that there is any purpose to be gained by completing and submitting the bid at this time.
10. Work on Marcham Bypass is progressing towards a planning application being made later this year. The current indicative programme for this scheme is as follows:

September 2004 Planning Application
January 2005 Determination of Planning Application
Spring 2005 Publication of Orders
Late 2005 Public Inquiry
Late 2006 Secretary of State’s Decision
Early 2007 Start of works

11. Whilst it is not essential for Marcham Bypass to be submitted in this year’s APR, there would be clear advantages in having it accepted as part of the current Local Transport Plan rather than carrying it forward for a decision to be made as part of the next LTP programme. In particular the Government stated in the guidance for this LTP period that "few authorities could expect to have more than one … major scheme approved during the five year plan period." It is likely that a similar restriction will apply in the next LTP period. Consequently it is considered that a major scheme submission for Marcham Bypass should be made this year.
12. Marcham Bypass was approved by the former Environmental Committee on 19 September 2001 and officers were authorised to prepare the necessary Planning Application and Orders. As part of the investigation for this, some amendments to the scheme have been suggested. While the majority of these are minor in nature and relate to ensuring that the bypass conforms to the current design standards, it has been found that there are significant additional benefits to be gained from extending the scheme to a new roundabout junction with the A338, replacing the existing double traffic lights. A plan showing this revised route will be on display at the meeting and a revised project appraisal is being prepared for approval.

The Annual Progress Report

13. Following receipt of the guidance for the APR, officers have been working to produce an APR which meets the Government’s requirements. The latest draft 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.
14. Targets – Stretching targets have been set for Oxfordshire’s transport network and systems. There are a small number of the national and local objectives that do not appear to be on track to fully meet the targets and therefore a statement is needed in the APR as to what action the County Council proposes to take as a result. It is considered that the best way to handle these within the APR is to be open about the problems, explain the actions already in hand and further actions for improving performance against targets.

• Journey to work – following confirmation of the 2001 National Census figures the County Council is still not on track to meet its target for the percentage of Oxfordshire’s residents commuting to work on foot or by bicycle. In fact the percentage for those walking to work has decreased from 11.5% in 1991 to 10.2% in 2001, the figures for cycling to work has also shown a decrease from 8.8% to 6.7%. It should be reported in the APR that the County Council will do all that it can to reverse these trends and continue to actively promote these modes of transport. However the background of increasing commuting to work distances does mean that it is likely to become more difficult in the future to alter this trend. It is clear that a reliance on the National Census does not provide a useful benchmark to assess progress. The need to develop a local survey methodology for measuring pedestrian and cyclist activity will be covered in the next LTP, to be submitted in July 2005.
• Number of Bus Journeys – The County Council agreed a Public Service Agreement with the Government to increase the numbers of journeys by bus up to 2006. Our monitoring has shown an increase of just under 0.6% between 2002 and 2003. This is encouraging but is slightly less than the rate that would be needed to meet the PSA target thereby highlighting the need for further work in this area as a priority.
• Road Condition – The lack of funding for maintenance of unclassified roads through the 1990s has left the County with an increasing number of roads which are at or approaching the point where structural maintenance needs to be considered. It had been anticipated that the proportion of this class of road needing work would increase but this increase has been faster than our target. Our target in the future has to be to stop this deterioration from continuing, although this is likely to be only possible with a combination of efficiency measures and increased resources available for this type of work.
• Bus Punctuality – The figure for the proportion of buses on the subsidised bus network which arrive not more than 5 minutes late has increased to 87.1% from 85.3% last year. This improvement has to be seen in the light of the fall from 91.6% recorded in the base year of 2001. In the light of these results the accuracy of this baseline figure has to be questioned, and consequently the appropriateness of the target of achieving 94% of buses punctual to this degree.

15. On a more positive note, we have managed to achieve a 10% reduction in the number of reported cyclists’ casualties. The target that was set for 2010 was 311 per year, last year only 303 casualties were recorded. Therefore, a new target will need to be set for this as part of the next LTP.
16. The overall situation with regard to our targets is that of the ten national core performance targets we are on track with seven and not on track with two (the congestion target does not apply to Oxfordshire) while for the local performance indicators we are on track with eleven and not on track with three.

Conclusion

17. After the success of the APR last year, where the County Council made significant steps forward in the implementation of its LTP, it is important that this year’s report maintains that progress. This year’s report should reflect this and in turn result in a good financial settlement for 2005/06. There are a few 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, apart from the County Council continuing to promote alternative modes of transport.
18. The revised total expenditure figure of £28.055m is an increase on the approved £24.94m allocation for 2004/5. Therefore, for the delivery of this programme to be possible, a funding increase from Government would be necessary.

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 on transport. The report to the Executive on 16 March 2004 outlined the challenges that there have been to implement a programme, which has continued to grow over the LTP period. Continued investment at these levels is critical if the County Council is to meet its overall transport objectives.

RECOMMENDATIONS

20. The Environment Scrutiny Committee resolved on 12 May 2004 to convene a Panel to consider this report before it was submitted to the Executive. The Panel will meet on 24 June 2004 and their comments will be reported to the meeting. Subject thereto the Executive is RECOMMENDED to:

1. authorise the Director for Environment & Economy, in consultation with the Executive Members for Transport and Sustainable Development, to finalise the Annual Progress Report for submission to the Government by 30 July 2004;
2. agree that a major scheme bid should be prepared for submission to the Government for the Marcham Bypass as part of the APR submission this year;
3. agree that no submission should be made to the Government for the GTE Scheme at present, and note officers will provide the Executive with an update on the scheme and alternative options in September/October.

DAVID MCKIBBIN
Head of Transport

Background papers: Nil

Contact Officers:
Roger O’Neill Tel: 01865 815659
Daniel Round Tel: 01865 815623

June 2004

Return to TOP