Final LTP March 2006

The LTP targets, described in Section ‘Target Justification and Trajectories’, reflect the need to base performance on a programme of Integrated Transport Block and Maintenance schemes in line with the Planning Guidelines, plus any Major Schemes previously approved.  Delivering against these targets is seen as key stepping stones in the achievement of our transport aims and objectives.  Where possible we have tested the robustness of the targets, for example by using PRISM to validate them.  They do not include the contribution of uncommitted Major Schemes submitted in July 2005 or those yet to be submitted during the LTP2 period.

This means that some key aims of this LTP2, such as no increase in congestion and raising the level of bus patronage, which rely on Major Schemes forming part of the 'up to £1 billion' capital programme, will not be wholly reflected in the targets.

The targets and indicators in both the 2000 and 2003 LTPs have now been thoroughly reviewed and revised in line with DfT Guidance on second LTPs.

In accordance with this Guidance, we have reduced the number of targets from 44 to 24 in order to focus on mandatory targets (plus a target on light rail use, as 'encouraged' by DfT and targets specifically requested through the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS).  We will also focus on four other issues, identified through consultation and linked to wider local policies, that are fundamental to our LTP Objectives.  These are:

• Making more efficient use of the existing transport network - This was confirmed as an LTP priority by the Leaders of the  Metropolitan Authorities in November 2004.  Making the best use of the existing transport network is one of the three principal elements of the longer-term LTP2 strategy.  Our target is in terms of the total cost of delay to private vehicles on the 'main road' network.

• Contributing to economic regeneration - Land use planning policies are focused on concentrating increased development likely to generate large numbers of trips in centres, where there is the widest choice of transport.  We want to maintain the accessibility of centres to ensure that economic regeneration is not hindered by increased congestion created by extra trips.
• Personal security - This has been raised as an important issue in all the local Community Strategies.  In achieving improvements in both actual and perceived safety on public transport we will help to enhance the quality of bus, rail and Metro travel and reduce social exclusion by eliminating barriers to accessibility.
• Freight movement - This target has arisen out of consultation with the local business community and Freight Quality Partnership.  Efficient distribution is vital to supporting local economic regeneration.  The target focuses on HGV access to the motorway network.

Progress will be monitored by reference to relevant indicators for each target.  We consider all our targets to be stretching and we will strive to deliver them.  However, it must be recognised that a number of factors outside the control of the Authorities can impact on delivery.  Examples include the fares policy of bus companies and subsequent impact on passenger numbers and technological developments and weather conditions that affect air quality.

Transport is not an end in itself, but is a key factor in delivering better outcomes for quality of life issues like employment, the economy, housing, social inclusion and the environment.  The following paragraphs highlight the links between the LTP targets and these wider objectives.

Economic Targets

Those relevant for the Metropolitan Area are contained in the RSS.  They focus on increasing the amount of development within Major Urban Areas, Regeneration Zones and High Technology Corridors, but are not quantified.  A further target looks at linking at least one Regional Investment Site to each Regeneration Zone and High Technology Corridor.

A number of our LTP2 targets contribute towards the achievement of these economic targets by focusing on congestion or accessibility to help enable successful new development.  The most pertinent of these are:

• No more than a 7% increase in road traffic mileage between 2004 and 2010
• On target routes in the AM peak accommodate an expected increase in travel of 4% with a 5% increase in journey times between 2005 and 2011 (provisional target)
• Increase the morning peak proportion of trips by public transport into the nine LTP centres as a whole from the 2005/06 forecast baseline of 32.73% to 33.8% by 2009/10
• support economic regeneration by maintaining inter-peak accessibility to the nine LTP centres as a whole between 2004/05 and 2010/11

Housing Targets

Similarly housing targets for the Metropolitan Area are in the RSS.  They include:

• 74% – 100% of new housing development on brownfield land
• 6,000 – 6,500 affordable dwellings each year across the region between 2001 and 2011
• Annual Average Rates of Housing Provision varying between 2,300 in Birmingham and 400 in Solihull (to 2007) and 3,000 in Birmingham and 400 in Solihull (2007 – 2011)

Again the LTP2 targets facilitate the achievement of these housing targets by aiming to improve quality of life for local residents, so making housing developments more attractive to people who may otherwise consider moving outside the Area.  Locating on established public transport routes is a feature of the Urban Living project in Birmingham.  Relevant LTP targets include:

• Increase the total population within 30 minutes inter-peak travel time of a main NHS hospital by 'accessible' public transport from the 2005 baseline of 580,000 by 50% by 2011
• Improve actual and perceived personal safety while travelling on public transport by 10% between 2004/05 and 2010/11
• Reduce the average level of NO₂ by 1% between 2004/05 and 2010/11 in the areas where NO₂ exceeds the national objective

Social Inclusion Targets

The Regional Social Inclusion Partnership is currently in the process of developing a Social Inclusion Work Plan, which will contain targets.  Local Community Strategies for each of the City or Metropolitan Borough Councils contain policy statements about social inclusion and accessibility.  A number are currently being updated and will incorporate targets in due course.  As such, the LTP2 targets on accessibility support local policies rather than link to existing targets.  The most relevant of the LTP2 targets are:

• Increase the number of people attending job interviews per year via access initiatives from the 2005 baseline of 1,150 to 2,300 by 2011
• Improve actual and perceived personal safety while travelling on public transport by 10% between 2004/05 and 2010/11
• Increase bus use from the 2003/04 base of 325 million trips per year to 355 million by 2010/11

Difficult Issues

We have faced particular problems with defining highway maintenance targets.  The three Highway Maintenance targets included in our LTP2 (Principal Road condition – BVPI96, Unclassified Road condition – BVPI97b and Footway condition – BVPI187) are only included because they are mandatory.  With approved monitoring methodologies changing so frequently, we have no confidence that results previously obtained on the Principal Road Network (PRN) from deflectograph surveys, for example, can be compared in a consistent way with results from the new TRACS-type or SCANNER surveys, not least because they measure different highway characteristics.  This obviously precludes any long-term trend analysis, which is important when determining targets and trajectories.  This is a problem also encountered by all other highway authorities across the country and the lack of confidence in survey results is reflected in DfT’s decision not to include highway condition BVPIs in forthcoming CPA assessments.  We are told that DfT themselves do not expect consistency in the measurement of the condition of the PRN to be able to be achieved until around 2007/08.

In addition, the use of SCANNER on the non-Principal Road elements of the network is not likely to begin until 2007/08 at the earliest.  Whilst the quality of survey data obtained remains high, the inherent flaws in the use of coarse visual inspection (CVI) prevent the output fully representing the progress that we consider is being made.  Again, the determination of trends is difficult because of the limited frequency of these surveys.

Given the need to set LTP2 targets against this background of inconsistency and mistrust in the data produced, we have chosen a target of a 5% reduction by 2010/11 in the length of the networks requiring further investigation under each of the three BVPIs to be monitored.  This figure has had to be based on local knowledge and engineering judgment rather than an in-depth trend analysis or prediction of the effect of spending programmes, which is impossible in the current climate for highway condition monitoring.  The targets are, however, felt to be stretching but achievable.  Every effort will be made to monitor them accurately.  As per DfT Guidance, it is fully intended to report BVPI96, BVPI97b and BVPI187 scores for each of the seven local highway authorities in the progress reports during the LTP2 period, but this is obviously dependent upon a consistent and robust monitoring regime being established.

In the longer term, SCANNER is seen as the most likely means of achieving the repeatability that consistent monitoring and target setting demands.  SCANNER output will be an integral component of Asset Management Plans that will use a range of condition measurement techniques to define an overall measure of service quality.  It should, however, be noted that the SCANNER output is largely confined to a measure of surface condition and that this may not be an accurate measure of the structural condition of that part of the highway or the investment needed to repair or maintain it.

As agreed with DfT, Target LTP7 on road congestion should be treated as provisional.  Key journey time data, consistent across all ten major urban areas in England, that will form the basis of the national urban congestion PSA, is still awaited.  Our target, 'On target routes in the AM peak accommodate an expected increase in travel of 4% with a 5% increase in journey times between 2005 and 2011', is based on initial outputs from PRISM that we would ideally wish to analyse in much greater detail given appropriate time and resources.  It is expected that a more robust, final target will be formulated by July 2006.

We also have serious concerns about the practicality of achieving the target required by Policy T4 of the RSS (100% of schools to have Travel Plans by 2011) given the constraints which exist.  These concerns include the temporary nature of DfES funding for School Travel Plan advisors which will finish before the end of the LTP2 period, meaning the existing rate of progress on School Travel Plans may not be maintained.  In addition, the lack of power to compel state schools to develop School Travel Plans and the absence of any ability to influence the private sector, including non-availability of grants, means that 100% take up of School Travel Plans cannot be assured.  Therefore, we consider that this target should be re-assessed at the next review of the RSS.

The technical and consultation processes employed in developing all the targets will be continued throughout the life of the LTP2 to ensure, where necessary, targets can be updated to remain challenging but realistic.  The internal officer working groups focusing on the LTP2 will consider, on at least an annual basis, the need to revise targets based on information contained in the forthcoming APRs.  It is envisaged that increasing use will be made of the PRISM model to forecast what alterations to targets may be necessary during the LTP2 period.