Agenda item

Cllr Andrew Gant, Cabinet Member for Transport Management, Cllr Judy Roberts, Cabinet Member for Infrastructure and Development Strategy, and John Disley, Head of Transport Policy, have been invited to present a report on progress made on delivering the Local Transport and Connectivity Plan (LTCP) to date and the draft LTCP monitoring report.

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

Cllr Andrew Gant, Cabinet Member for Transport Management, and Cllr Judy Roberts, Cabinet Member for Infrastructure and Development Strategy, had been invited to present the Local Transport and Connectivity Plan (LTCP) progress report. Paul Fermer, Director of Environment and Highways, Joseph Kay, Oxfordshire Transport Strategy Team Leader, and Ben Smith, Strategic Transport Manager, were also present to answer any of the Committee’s questions.

The LTCP progress report was introduced as having marked a major shift aimed at changing travel behaviours in the county. Despite difficulties in setting a relevant baseline due to COVID-19’s impact on travel, there were positive trends like increased cycling, bus, and rail use, along with fewer road traffic casualties. However, vehicle miles and road emissions rose slightly. The report also mentioned delays in major policy implementations. The Committee was reminded that some of the data pertained to 2022 which made monitoring a challenge.  There had also been delays to larger impact schemes owing to external factors.

Following the introduction, members raised a number of queries and questions for the Cabinet Members and Officers, including the following:

• Members noticed that the baseline measurement for the number of car trips had changed, and it was explained that this was because of changes to the way trips were measured and the need for a consistent base.  In 2022, there was a 4% increase in car journeys when compared to 2019.  In 2024, there was a 2.3% decrease when compared to the new baseline of 2022. Members were concerned that the change of baseline was not sufficiently clear and asked that where data was still unavailable for previous years that it was made clear that it was forecast data.
  
  

The Committee suggested that a change of target from a reduction in the number of car trips to reduction in car mileage, as it might provide a better correlation with carbon emissions and align with approaches used by other governments. This suggestion was accepted as logical and worth exploring, especially considering the difficulties in measuring car trips accurately.

• The Committee suggested that greater granularity in the data would be useful.  The Committee recognised that the adoption of plans and strategies were examples of policy delivery.  However, it considered that a greater distinction should be made in the monitoring report, and when reporting on progress generally, between the policies themselves and the physical infrastructure delivered as outputs of those policies.  For instance, whilst multiple policies had been implemented, the relatively slow pace of the resultant infrastructure was of concern to members.

• The aim of mobility hubs was to intercept traffic outside the city to lessen congestion and emissions. They would facilitate a smooth switch from personal vehicles to public or shared transportation like electric buses or trains for the rest of the trip into the city.

This approach focused on transport decisions based on their overall impact on the place, not just individual modes. The goal was an integrated, sustainable, and efficient transport system that benefited the community and environment. Movement and place strategies were being developed to address specific area needs, improving mobility while maintaining the quality of the place.

• Members and officers discussed the School Streets scheme, in the context of its impact to reduce the number of car trips and encourage active travel methods.

It was mentioned that the scheme has been implemented in several schools, leading to a significant reduction in the percentage of children arriving by car and an increase in those cycling.  There was a recognition that there was more of a need for children to arrive by private car in some areas but that School Streets were also about safety near school entrances.

The scheme's effectiveness was highlighted through data from Lark Rise Primary School, showing a reduction in car arrivals from 35% to 14% and an increase in cycling from 23% to 41%. This change equated to approximately 80 more children cycling instead of being driven every day.

It was highlighted by members that whilst the number of car trips had decreased, there had been an increase in vehicle miles, suggesting residents are making fewer but longer journeys. Members questioned what this data said about the successes of the LTCP.  It was explained to Members that this trend aligned with national trends and was not specific to Oxfordshire.

The rise in road transport emissions for 2022 was expected, following the substantial decrease in 2021 due to COVID-19. Despite this increase, emissions remained lower than pre-COVID levels, primarily thanks to cleaner vehicles in use. There was a recognised need for more qualitative data to better understand the factors driving these trends, highlighting a gap in comprehension regarding certain changes.

• Members considered both the expenditure on and the significance of diverse schemes and surveys to evaluate their cost-benefit.

The pilot countywide travel behaviour survey was described as a European-funded initiative undertaken in partnership with the university, and it incurred no costs. This survey generated highly detailed granular information regarding the behaviours of Oxfordshire commuters, aiding in the development of policy.

The Central Oxfordshire Movement and Place Framework was highlighted as an important project set to revolutionise central Oxfordshire, beginning with Oxford City.  This initiative aimed to develop an ambitious vision for the city, considering policies like traffic filters that will greatly diminish through traffic and allow for alternative uses of space. The framework addressed a range of elements, including tourist coach parking, urban greening, and improved connectivity via designated routes.

The Committee was advised that a feasibility study would put forward recommendations on making the city more accessible and sustainable, with a report anticipated in the spring of next year.

• Questions were raised about the significant gap between the numbers cycling in Oxford compared to the rest of the county. Members considered what more could be done to increase the cycling numbers in the districts.

Oxford city’s higher rate of cycling was attributed to its much more concentrated geographic area, making cycling a more convenient and practical mode of transport.  These same reasons were seen as barriers to cycling in the districts, as well as poorer cycling infrastructure and greater safety concerns.

The need for more qualitative research to understand these barriers and tailor interventions accordingly was discussed. However, there were ongoing efforts to improve cycling infrastructure across the county to encourage more cycling, with the Vision Zero policy acknowledged in relation to this issue.

• The discussion went on to emphasise the need for more granular data and enhancements regarding budget expenditures and policies related to the LTCP. Specifically, it addressed the difficulties in measuring specific LTCP targets like car trip reductions and considered a potential shift toward using car mileage as a more accurate metric.

Furthermore, the conversation highlighted the importance of differentiating between policy execution, reporting, and actual on-ground scheme implementation in future reports to better assess their impact on LTCP objectives.

It was also noted that aligning budget allocations with policy priorities is crucial to ensure that financial resources effectively support LTCP goals.

The Director of Environment and Highways recognised the need for future reports to provide more detailed information on successes, spending, and other aspects of budget monitoring.

The Committee made the following requests of the Director of Environment and Highways that, before submission to Cabinet, they should:

1.     Edit the report so that the Delivery part (p52) turns from a bullet point lists to a table that has additional columns for:

a.     Is this a policy document or on-the-ground scheme that been delivered?

b.     If it is an on-the-ground scheme delivery, have an additional column on what the impact has been of this project on the headline LTCP targets (i.e. car trip/mileage reduction, active travel increase, road safety improvements).

2.     Add more schemes to the future schemes (p57) section, including all capital transport schemes. Turn this into a table with additional column to give an estimate of how much this will increase or decrease the headline target metrics (e.g. What is the expected car trip/mileage reduction impact of the WPL? What is the expected car trip/mileage increase of a new bypass due to induced demand?).

3.     For ongoing programme delivery (e.g. school streets), give an indication of whether the speed of delivery is on track to meet targets (e.g. is the pace of delivery of school streets on track at current schemes per year?) - and have a RAG rating for these for how on track this is to help meet the targets.

4.     Include the Active Travel England Capability Ratings in the monitoring report (and any feedback from ATE on this rating).

5.     Include the percentage on-the-ground delivery of LWCIPs for each of the LCWIPs in the monitoring report (e.g., How much of the Abingdon LCWIP currently exists in reality?)

6.     Set out how much budget has been spent on different transport infrastructure modes in the last year (or over multiple years if this is an easier measure)? Including all transport capital, revenue, and maintenance spend. (e.g. how much money per capita is spent on active travel?). Categories of spend should include roads, cycle lanes and pavements.

The Committee resolved to AGREE recommendations to Cabinet under the following headings:

·       That the Council, for the headline LTCP targets on car use reduction, should move from a car trip to car mileage reduction measure, aligning to Wales and Scotland on this (e.g. 20% car mileage reduction by 2030). If required, reach out to the Welsh and/or Scottish governments to learn from them on their data collection and metrics reporting for this measure