Return to Agenda

Division(s): N/A

ITEM EX10

EXECUTIVE – 15 MARCH 2005

TRANSPORT CAPITAL PROGRAMME

Report by Interim Head of Transport and Head of Head of Finance & Procurement

Introduction

  1. This report seeks the Executive’s approval to the 2005/06 Transport Capital Programme as shown in the attached booklet. This is the final year of the current Local Transport Plan 5 year period and the programme concentrates on delivering the schemes developed over this time.

  2. The programme takes as its starting point the provisional figures for 2005/06 that were provided in the report on the Transport Capital Programme considered by the Executive on 19 October 2004. That report reviewed the 2004/05 programme and the financial implications for 2005/06 of carrying forward schemes currently being developed. Drawing up the programme therefore has been about matching the planned spending to the capital allocations from government for 2005/06 while taking note of the commitments and the expectations that have built up over the last 5 years.

  3. This programme booklet accompanying this report provides the list of specific transport capital projects called for in the County Council’s decision on the 15 February in regard to the 2005/06 Capital Programme. Financing of the programme is in line with the Transport Capital Settlement as required by the Council decision.

  4. The report includes an explanation of a revised approach to Better Ways to School and seeks approval of this change. Also included is an explanation of plans to advance the implementation of residents’ parking schemes in Oxford and a revised Project Appraisal for the Cowley Road Oxford Demonstration Scheme, both for approval of the Executive.

    5. Background

  5. The total block allocation awarded by the government for Transport in 2005/06 is £27.283 million. This total is made of £10.495 million for Integrated Transport schemes and £16.788 million for Structural Maintenance. The Structural Maintenance figure is further broken down into a formula allocation of £13.097 million and a one-off allocation of £3.691 million for emergency repairs to drought damage sustained in the summer of 2003. The award of the money for emergency repairs results from a bid for extra funding and an argument for equal treatment to other authorities affected by drought damage who received emergency funds in 2004/05.

  6. Separately to the block allocation, a further allocation of £3.595 million has been given for major repairs to the recently de-trunked A40 between Cutteslowe and Sandhills. This allocation is ringfenced to this particular purpose having resulted from the nationally agreed method of funding works required at the date of handover of de-trunked roads to local highway authorities.

  7. These block allocations are given as Supported Capital Expenditure (Revenue) – SCE(R) – and are the transport contribution to the cross-service Single Capital Pot. However, as is now well established, the government expectation is that sufficient money is spent to achieve progress towards the objectives and targets in our Local Transport Plan (LTP) and meet them by the end of the first LTP period in March 2006.

  8. The government’s assessment of our performance on Transport is now firmly rooted in how well we deliver the Transport schemes and in how successful those schemes are in meeting the targets in our LTP. In practice this means that all of the Transport funding needs to be directed to pursuing the full range of our LTP objectives and delivering as many of the schemes as it is possible to do for the money allocated. The need for this is heavily underlined by the score given to last July’s Annual Progress Report on the LTP which gave us a very sharp reminder that we need to deliver what we have set down as our future programme and be able clearly to demonstrate that we have done so.

  9. In addition to SCE(R) funding, the Capital Programme includes funding from developer contributions to transport schemes, On-Street Parking Account Surplus, grants awarded for specific schemes, and the second £1.5 million instalment of the repayment of a loan to corporate funds from Transport capital in earlier years. The total value of the programme put forward for approval is £39.608 million. The total for 2004/05 was £33.84 million so this represents a considerable jump in the value of the programme. The two main reasons for this jump are the award of money for drought damage repair (£3.691m) and for the A40 maintenance schemes (£3.595m).

  10. As well as the increase in the total there are also significant differences from last year’s distribution of funding within the block allocation. The Integrated Transport Schemes amount is £10.495 million as compared to £12.940 million last year while the Structural Maintenance block has risen to £13 .097 million as compared to £11.017 million last year. Annex 1 (download as .xls file) gives a breakdown of the available funding across the various programme areas and a comparison to the provisional figures provided in October 2004 based on carrying forward schemes in the course of preparation. The differences are discussed later in the report.

    11. Review of 2004/05 performance and influence on 2005/6 programme

  11. The principle of creating some headway between the design of schemes and construction of schemes has worked well in 2004/05. Progress has been more reliable and predictable than in previous years by identifying schemes to be designed in one year with construction in the following year. There are 234 individually listed schemes or groups of schemes in the 2004/05 Integrated Transport schemes programme with 127 of these programmed to be built in the year. Applying the performance measures and targets in the Transport Service plan gives the following forecast performance at the end of 2004/05;
    Target
    Forecast performance
    80% of schemes programmed to be built are built
    87%

    75% of schemes to cost within 54% +/- 20% of estimated cost
    54%

  12. Scheme delivery at 87% has moved little from the forecast performance in October but the performance on the cost target has worsened from a prediction of 76% in October. There is more variation, both up and down, from the estimated cost than was apparent earlier in the year. The detailed monthly monitoring of the programme has enabled the financing of the programme to stay within the available budget and still result in most of the programme being delivered. The performance needs to be seen in the context of the 234 separately listed projects, many of them relatively small projects. Many schemes are included in the programme list in March on the basis of a preliminary design, changes in the detailed design stage and as a result of consultation will change the scheme cost. Improving cost predictability is already a high priority in working with our consultants and contractors and will continue to be as we develop the measures of their performance. Two actions associated with this should be:

    1. to look again at the risk contingency included at this early estimating stage and how much estimating effort is worthwhile for smaller schemes;

    2. identify a point at which estimates are more certain for use as performance data.

  13. Resource planning and costing for the design stage is as important as the build stage if we are designating schemes for advance design. No formal targets were set for the programme as a whole but for comparison the figures for all schemes listed in the programme – both design and construction - are 88% of all actions planned will be achieved and 52% of these at the estimated cost. Clearly we are doing well at managing delivery but need to work on estimating and cost variability measures although many of the scheme costs and the variations are relatively small sums.

    14. Programming issues

  14. The same principle of forward programming by identifying schemes for design with construction in the following years has been applied for 2005/06 where we are carrying forward schemes within well developed programmes such as Integrated Transport Strategies in towns or where a significant proportion of the design work has been done. There is no element of over-programming and no reserve schemes included in the programme.

  15. However, the changes of emphasis for Transport objectives in the second LTP to be submitted this year means that we need to look again at whether using the capital allocations for the programme areas we are using at the moment are the most appropriate for the future. For this reason a number of the schemes listed in the programme for the start of design have "LTP2 appraisal" written against them pending a review as part of the LTP development work.

  16. With the guidance for the second LTP, the government has issued indicative figures for the 5 years after 2005/06. These are;
      06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11
      £m £m £m £m £m
    Structural Maintenance 13.772 14.04 14.750 15.487 16.261
               
    Integrated Transport 10.184 10.184 10.694 11.230 11.792
               

  17. A forward programme on the basis of these figures still has to be developed for the second LTP and for this reason there are no indicative programmes for 2006/7. It is clear though that the Integrated Transport Schemes block will be under considerable pressure in 2006/7.

  18. The task this year and for the future will be working within the guide figures whilst striking a balance between;

    1. the Council priority to improve the condition of local roads and pavements;

    2. the Council priority to increase bus patronage;

    3. progress towards reducing road casualties;

    4. expectations created in towns with ITS’s and in other communities which request schemes important to them;

    5. commitments to major schemes built or planned;

    6. the need to show progress across the whole range of LTP targets.

    Proposed programme

  19. As mentioned in paragraph 10, although the total allocation leaving aside the one-off awards for structural maintenance is similar to last year, there is a reduction in the block allocation for Integrated Transport schemes compared to 2004/05. This means that the SCE(R) for Integrated Transport Schemes of £10.495 million is only 61% of the £17.211 identified in the October review as needed to implement all of the design and construction work that it would be possible to include in the 2005/06 programme.

  20. The Structural Maintenance budget has been set at the settlement figure of £16.788 million. This recognises the need to catch up on the drought damage that took funds away from what otherwise would have been done in 2004/05, the difficulty in making any progress towards improving local road conditions, the need for costly bridge strengthening works, and the pressure on the maintenance revenue budget to accommodate new demands for asset management systems and to implement the duties of the Traffic Management Act 2004. The settlement of £3.595 million for A40 repair is also in the programme and additional to the block allocation money.

  21. To help offset the difference between demand and available funds for the Integrated Transport Schemes, the £1.5 million repayment of loans to corporate funds has been put towards this part of the programme instead of to Structural Maintenance where it went last year. The allocation of funds to the different programme areas was then done by reducing all of them to 61% of the figure as it stood in October, adding the £1.5 million, the developer contributions and all the other sources of funding available, and adjusting the results to meet absolute commitments and high priority areas of the programme.

  22. The Major Schemes budget remains almost exactly at the October figure although this does disguise the effects of some slippages in scheme timing. In particular Witney, West End Link Stage 1, has slipped to 2005/06 because of the land access problems and delays in agreeing the contractor’s final accounts for Didcot, Milton Heights Stage 2 and Bicester, Skimmingdish Lane has slipped the budget provision for these schemes into 2005/06. These changes have been offset by the Didcot, Cow Lane subway scheme being slipped to 2006/07 because of lack of progress with Network Rail in connection with this scheme. All of the above schemes are funded by developer contribution and these changes do not affect the use of the SCE(R) settlement in the rest of the programme.

  23. Looking at the Integrated Transport Strategies block, in Abingdon provision is made to start construction of the Town Centre scheme but it has not been possible to budget for a start on the Marcham Road Stage 2 scheme. The plan is to complete design of this in 2005/06 for a start on construction in the following year. In Henley, the budget provides for completion of the design of the town centre traffic management scheme and a start on construction. In the other towns, the programmes consist of the construction of smaller schemes and design work on others with no major changes to the road network resulting from these. Overall, SCE(R) is 63% of the SCE(R) funding assumed in the October provisional figures. Much of the Oxford and Witney ITS programmes are funded from developer contribution and other funding.

  24. Within the Sustainable Transport budget, a new approach to Better Ways to School is explained later in this report. The Cycling Schemes continue schemes continue those already under construction or being designed. Public Transport schemes take forward the Premium Routes schemes and the completion of the Real Time Information pilot project. The SCE(R) component overall is 67% of the October provisional programme.

  25. The Community Safety programme includes for the construction of Charlbury Home Zone scheme, the completion of schemes in progress, schemes which have been designed and approved by Transport Implementation Committee ready to be built in 2005/06, and a group of schemes to design for construction in 2006/07 or subsequently. The schemes for design are subject to a review as to suitability for inclusion in LTP2. Because of the commitment to schemes in train and expectations arising from approval by TIC, the SCE(R) funding for this programme area is 69% of the October figure.

  26. The Casualty Reduction budget has very little contribution to it from other funding sources and would have been considerably below what was thought reasonable in the light of the casualty reduction targets we are expected to meet. For this reason the SCE(R) contribution to the programme area is higher than in other areas at 87% of the October provisional figure.

    27. Better Ways to School: Revised Strategy

  27. A new strategy is proposed for Better Ways to School (BWTS) in response to the government’s target for all schools to have Travel Plans by 2010. The strategy will ensure that Oxfordshire County Council meets this target, and adds value to the government’s initiative by setting a target to achieve 3,000 less car journeys to school by March 2011. It is proposed to re-present School Travel Plans as a ‘contract’ between schools and the County Council for modal shift, and re-structure spending from the BWTS budget to offer more support to more schools more quickly.

  28. A menu of revenue and capital funded measures has been developed, which will offer practical help to schools in developing travel plans. Access to the menu will be controlled in order to focus spending where it will be most effective in generating travel plans and/or modal shift. All schools will continue to have access to the extensive range of support available to help them to develop travel plans, whilst LEA schools will have access to the government’s Small Capital Grant Scheme administered by the Council’s Travel Plans Development Team. Access to more costly and resource-intensive measures, such as cycle parking provision, bus and highway measures, will be focussed on those schools with the greatest potential to generate modal shift (the main programme), and those with a track record of success or achievement, including schools with existing ‘approved’ travel plans. A programme of schools identified as having high modal shift potential will be selected by the County Council for each programme year, and will be supplemented by ‘centres of excellence’. Other schools will be able to approach the Council at any time and provided they can demonstrate a record of achievement, will be eligible for capital funds. The overall funding available in each category will be determined each year by the Executive.

  29. A copy of the team’s Strategic Review and Action Plan for BWTS & School Travel Plan Development can be found in the Members’ Resource Centre.

    30. Development of Controlled Parking Zones

  30. The County Council has carried out a review of resources associated with developing controlled parking zones (CPZs) in Oxford. It is now planned to engage consultants to help with the design, consultation and legal processes needed to develop new CPZs. A revised forward programme of CPZs for Oxford has been developed taking into account this extra resource

  31. For clarity, the forward programme of CPZs is summarised in two tables below. Table 1 lists the CPZs on which work has already commenced, and the projected implementation timescale for these schemes. Table 2 lists the planned new zones and their projected implementation timescale. The timescales for implementation are based on the current committed staff resources. Schemes have been prioritised, based on current policy. Any change in this staff resource in future years could have an effect on the implementation timescales.

    32. Table 1: CPZs in Oxford on which work has already commenced

    CPZ

    Projected implementation timescale

    Girdlestone Rd/ Quarry

    Mid 2006

    Headington North East

    Late 2006

    North Summertown

    Mid 2007


    Table 2: Planned CPZs for Oxford

    CPZ

    Projected implementation timescale

    The Lakes

    Late 2008

    Northway

    Early 2009

    Marston South

    Mid 2009

    Divinity Rd/ Southfield Rd area

    Mid 2009

    East Oxford Extension

    Late 2009

    Wood Farm

    Mid 2011

    Lye Valley

    Late 2011

    Marston North

    Late 2011


  32. The OTS Working Party/ HAMATS Steering Group will have an opportunity to comment on the priority of the planned schemes as shown in table 2 in advance of the Executive on 15 March and any views will be reported to the Executive at that meeting.

  33. In order to provide certainty for future programming, the Executive is asked to endorse the order of implementation shown in the tables.

    34. Cowley Road Demonstration Project – Revised Project Appraisal

  34. A revised Project Appraisal for the Cowley Road scheme is attached as Annex 2 (download as .doc file) for approval. This is one of 10 national demonstration projects on "Mixed Priority Routes" and is supported by a £1 million grant from the Department for Transport (DfT). As a demonstration project there are regular reports to the DfT on progress and outcomes.

  35. The original project appraisal was based on a preliminary design estimate by design consultant Halcrow. Further work on detailed design and costing of the work by the contractors Isis Accord has resulted in an increase in estimated cost of construction. The first detailed costing of the scheme was higher than the increase put forward for approval; savings of £162,000 were identified in discussions with Isis Accord from changes in specification resulting in a cost increase of £251,000 for the project. The main reasons for the increase are an underestimate at preliminary design stage of material prices and of the intricate nature of the traffic control needed to deal both with vehicular traffic and pedestrian access to premises fronting the road. The additional cost can be met from the capital programme as set out in the Project Appraisal.

    36. Financial and staff Implications

  36. 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, Jacobs Babtie as our Term Consultant for engineering design, and by other specialist consultants.

    37. RECOMMENDATION

  37. The Executive is RECOMMENDED to:

          1. approve the detailed programme for 2005/06 as set out in the booklet accompanying the report (Annex 1);

          2. note that there will be a review of the programme for 2006/07 onwards as part of the development of the second Local Transport Plan;

          3. endorse the revised approach to school involvement in the Better Ways to School programme outlined in the report;

          4. approve the order of implementation of Controlled Parking Zones in Oxford as set out in Table 2 of the report;

          5. approve the revised project appraisal for the Cowley Road Mixed Priority Routes Demonstration Project (H174) Annex 2); and

          6. request the Head of Transport to report on progress on the Transport Capital Programme in October 2005.

RICHARD DIX
Interim Head of Transport

SUE SCANE
Head of Finance & Procurement

Background papers: Nil

Contact Officer: Richard Dix, Tel 01865 815663

March 2005

Return to TOP