Target Justification and Trajectories
The following pages list our targets for the LTP2 period. They comprise:
- 16 mandatory targets as per DfT Guidance on Local Transport Plans
- 2 further targets on light rail patronage and public transport trips into urban centres 'encouraged' by DfT and befitting the Metropolitan Area's status as a Major Urban Area
- 2 targets (for school and workplace travel plans) required by the Regional Spatial Strategy
- 4 local targets (see Section ‘Targets Background’)
Our Planning Guideline funding levels for the LTP2 period are lower than they were for 2001 - 2006 so, allied with inflation, this will affect the outputs that can be produced with the same resources. We show the current performance and trajectory for each target. We have listed links to other policies or indicators to emphasise the joined-up nature of our targets and we comment on the actions and risks we face in achieving our targets.
The Road Casualty Reduction Shared Transport Priority Theme
Targets
Three related targets for casualty reduction
Mandatory Indicator Target BVPI99(x):
a 40% reduction in all KSIs from 1994-98 average to 2010, and a 30% reduction from 2004 to 2010
Mandatory Indicator Target BVPI99(y):
a 50% reduction in child KSIs from 1994-98 average to 2010, and a 35% reduction between the 2002-2004 average and the 2008-2010
average
Mandatory Indicator Target BVPI99(z):
a 10% reduction in slight casualties from 2004 to 2010
| Target justification | The demand from the public for Local Safety Schemes remains high and the ongoing programme of works, targeted at locally determined and prioritised 'hotspots', currently averages a rate of return of over 200%, so we are achieving excellent value for money from this investment. It is therefore expected that funding will continue to be allocated at a similar level to the last LTP period. An extrapolation of the existing downward trends in casualty reduction gives confidence that the stretching target standards defined by DfT can be achieved. Trajectories are exponential to reflect the fact that our past success means casualties will become progressively more difficult to reduce in future. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Yes. We have traditionally performed very well in reducing accident casualties (for example KSIs in 2004 are less than a third of what they were in 1984), but targets with more recent baselines will prove a challenge as most accident clusters have been dealt with. Inner City and Neighbourhood Road Safety Projects in Birmingham and Sandwell will help performance. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
National casualty reduction target, local road safety plans, activities of the West Midlands Safety Camera Partnership, Streets Ahead on Safety (formerly the East Birmingham Inner City Road Safety Demonstration project). |
|
Key actions for local government |
Continue with programme of Local Safety Schemes, road safety training, Safer Routes to School projects, etc. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Maintain or increase the effectiveness of the West Midlands Safety Camera Partnership, bearing in mind new criteria which may give a new funding stream. |
|
Risks to achievement |
We have already achieved exceptional results from 1994-98 baselines, but the more successful we are, the harder it is to continue reducing casualties. The random nature of the problem, with engineering only having a modest effect on the total figures, means the trend line will never reach zero. |
|
Management of risk |
Continued promotion of the seriousness of the problem with prioritising of schemes that give the greatest casualty saving, new initiatives such as 'Kerbcraft' in Solihull, and dissemination of lessons learned in the Birmingham and Sandwell projects. |
| Performance and trajectory |
Open large scaleable image in Popup
Open large scaleable image in Popup
Open large scaleable image in Popup
The Road Congestion Shared Transport Priority Theme
Targets
Mandatory Indicator Target LTP2:
no more than a 7% increase in road traffic mileage between 2004 and 2010
| Target justification | The PRISM model has forecast a 9% increase in vehicle-km travelled between 2001 and 2011. This takes into account Regional Spatial Strategy regeneration aspirations, committed major schemes and behavioural change to bring about 5% modal shift from car (based on local Integrated Transport block expenditure). Target LTP2 is based on these PRISM forecasts, but has the added realism of excluding Metro Phase 1 extensions, which were included in the PRISM 2011 scenario. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Target LTP2 is considered ambitious as local traffic grew by 3.3% between 2001 and 2003. If extrapolated this would equate to 2004-2010 growth of around 10%. Equally 7% growth is only around half the NRTF prediction for conurbations until 2010. However the target is also realistic, the trajectory reflecting growth as monitored by DfT from 1994 to 2004. The economic growth agenda will accelerate car ownership and use, although most future traffic growth is expected in non-peak periods because the network is close to capacity in morning and evening peaks. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Regional Economic Strategy, Centro 20-Year Strategy, Bus Strategy |
|
Key actions for local government |
Continue to encourage modal shift away from car travel, for example via TravelWise, further development of Bus Showcase, rail Park & Ride, Smarter Choices campaign, etc. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Public transport operators need to increase capacity and quality if possible. Local employers to commit more to TravelWise initiatives. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Significant modal shift from car fails to happen. Quality and capacity of public transport does not improve |
|
Management of risk |
Continued monitoring of traffic mileage via a new monitoring system, statistical analysis and review of policies if target not being achieved. Work actively with operators to improve quality of public transport. Management of change in central parking capacity. |
| Performance and trajectory |
Open large scaleable image in Popup
Targets
Mandatory Indicator Target LTP6:
no increase in morning peak traffic flows into the 9 LTP centres between 2005/6 and 2010/11
| Target justification | This target is a balance between the need to reduce congestion around the centres by discouraging car trips, and the desire to allow car access to promote economic regeneration. Trend extrapolation suggests a fall of around 3,800 AM peak car trips into the centres between 2001/2 and 2005/6. However, projections based on the Annual Employment Survey forecast 50,000-100,000 extra jobs in centres between 2001 and 2011. The most pessimistic prediction of the resulting traffic generation would see around 10,000 extra car trips into the centres as a whole. PRISM predicts a 6.5% AM peak increase 2001-11, which equates to around 3.2% for 2005/6 to 2010/11. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
We believe a target to achieve no increase in car trips to centres when faced with possible demand for 10,000 extra trips per day is very stretching. This can only be achieved with significant mode shift from car onto public transport (rail travel and Park & Ride are particularly important for Birmingham), walking and cycling as the nine LTP centres are the focal points of the extensive public transport network. Schemes and measures to remove through traffic from centres will also contribute. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Road congestion and air quality policies, Centro 20-Year Strategy, Bus Strategy |
|
Key actions for local government |
Improve alternative means of access to centres, for example by developing rail services and Park & Ride, continue to encourage modal shift away from car travel via TravelWise, further development of Bus Showcase, Smarter Choices campaign etc, completion of Walsall Town Centre Transport Package, ensure parking policies continue to deter long term parking in centres and planning policies limit provision of new long-stay parking. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Public transport operators to increase peak period capacity and quality, developers to restrain parking aspirations, Government not to incentivise car travel by increasing the pricing gap. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Public transport operators prove unable to increase peak period capacity and quality, increased fares above fuel price rises, new centre developments are more popular to car-borne travellers than anticipated. |
|
Management of risk |
Focus on projects that increase the capacity of the public transport network, maintain complementary policies, for example - car parking. |
| Performance and trajectory |
Open large scaleable image in Popup
Targets
Mandatory Indicator Target LTP6 - additional target at authorities' discretion:
increase the morning peak proportion of trips by public transport into the 9 LTP centres as a whole from the 2005/6 forecast
baseline of 32.73% to 33.8% by 2009/10
| Target justification | The AM peak proportion of trips by public transport into the nine LTP centres rose from 30.94% in 1997/8 to 32.63% in 2003/4 due to rail growth (mostly into Birmingham), public transport schemes such as Midland Metro, and also schemes to reduce traffic in centres such as Masshouse Circus in Birmingham and West Bromwich Town Centre Strategy. The completion of schemes such as Walsall Town Centre Transport Package and Brierley Hill Sustainable Access Network in the LTP2 period should ensure a regular boost to public transport and therefore a linear trajectory for this target. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
We believe this target to be challenging but achievable. The 2003 LTP set targets for individual centres that totalled an increase of 2% in the public transport share of morning peak trips into centres over the period 1996/97 to 2010/11 (14 years). The new target seeks half that increase in only four years, so is obviously more stretching. However the PRISM model forecasts the increase in public transport trips to centres to exceed that of car trips, deeming the target increase to be achievable if capacity and fares are controlled. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Road congestion and air quality policies, Centro 20-Year Strategy. |
|
Key actions for local government |
Implementation of the Coventry Quality Bus Network, continue to encourage modal shift away from car travel via TravelWise, further development of Bus Showcase, rail Park & Ride, Smarter Choices campaign etc. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Public transport operators to increase quality, capacity and improve operations in the morning peak period, Government to reduce differential taxation and pricing measures. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Public consultation fails to support shifting highway capacity from cars to buses in key locations. Public transport operators fail to increase peak period capacity or improve quality, or raise fares above inflation. |
|
Management of risk |
Focus on policies that increase the quality and capacity of the public transport network, review of complementary policies, for example - car parking. |
| Performance and trajectory |
Open large scaleable image in Popup
Targets
Mandatory Indicator Target LTP7: (provisional)
on target routes in the AM peak (0700 - 1000) accommodate an expected increase in travel of 4% with a 5% increase in journey
times between 2005 and 2011
| Target justification | The Metropolitan Area is one of ten major urban areas in England working with DfT to develop a robust, consistent process for urban congestion monitoring. The accumulation of monitoring data and LTP targets from these areas will form the basis of a National Urban Congestion PSA. However, the timescale for data collection and analysis means we cannot develop a robust target in time for LTP submission in March 2006. Thus our target above is provisional and based on limited, locally available journey time data and PRISM model forecasts. However, we recognise that for use at this more local level PRISM requires further calibration, particularly in respect of public transport trips. PRISM has initially forecast a 6% increase in trips on the target routes between 2005 and 2011. This has been modified to 4% to take account of local initiatives and future plans. With DfT now defining a three hour AM peak period there is some limited capacity available to accommodate extra trips in the peak 'shoulders'. Initially we are assuming a 5% increase in journey time as delays increase disproportionately to increases in traffic in congested conditions. It must be stressed that these are initial estimates based on the limited evidence currently available and that it is very likely that they will require modification in the future. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Given the very limited amount of time and information available to develop this target, we believe it is currently as realistic as possible. We will revise this target in July 2006 when we have more survey information, and revisit it again in 2007 when we have some time series data to provide better evidence for the likely trajectory. Until more data is available it is very difficult to say how ambitious the target is. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
LTP Congestion Strategy, Regional Spatial Strategy, Regional Economic Strategy. |
|
Key actions for local government |
Implementation of the Phase 1 Red Routes programme, continued encouragement of modal shift via TravelWise, further development of Bus Showcase, rail Park & Ride, Smarter Choices Campaign, enhanced network management, etc. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Promotion of development in sustainable locations which offer a choice of travel mode. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Red Routes implementation and Bus Lane Enforcement roll-out delayed, modal shift not achieved, regeneration increases demand for vehicle trips beyond capacity of highway efficiency improvements. |
|
Management of risk |
Monitoring and review of Red Route Phase 1 implementation, monitoring of congestion (using ITIS) and identifying responses to particular problems. |
| Performance and trajectory | Awaiting verified data from which to define an agreed baseline and trajectory. |
Open large scaleable image in Popup
The Accessibility Shared Transport Priority Theme
Targets
Mandatory Indicator Target LTP1a:
increase the number of people attending job interviews per year via access initiatives from the 2005 baseline of 1150 to 2300
by 2011
| Target justification |
The Strategic Accessibility Assessment (see the Accessibility Strategy) identified access to employment via job centres as
one of the few real travel time-related 'accessibility gaps' in our Area. Our target focuses on the development of Job Centre
Plus or WorkWise initiatives (which can also locate in neighbourhood offices or one-stop shops) that provide free travel to
interviews, so improving access to potential employment. There are four schemes currently operating from which Jan-Oct 2005
data has been factored up to a full year total to create a 2005 baseline. The target to double interviews assumes:
|
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
WorkWise has been operating in our Area since 2003. At all sites there has been a rapid initial take-up of the "free travel to interviews" offer before demand levels off in the third year. To meet this target it is therefore important to open new initiatives in areas of high unemployment not currently covered. However, we are severely constrained by the relative lack of revenue resources, both to maintain current initiatives and support new ones. Each initiative costs £65,000 per year to operate, so opening one every two years is financially very stretching but could be achieved. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
LTP Accessibility Strategy, Community Plans re all 4 key services, Employment Strategies, Regeneration Zone policy re jobs, DfT accessibility indicators, Centro 20-Year Strategy. |
|
Key actions for local government |
Investigate potential new sources of revenue funding and develop links with partners, especially Job Centre Plus and Local Strategic Partnerships, to ensure initiatives are operated as effectively as possible. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Recognise the importance of Accessibility Planning through involvement and allocation of funding to support LTP targets and objectives. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Resources audit fails to identify sufficient revenue funding to show improvement against the target, outside partners face similar revenue difficulties. |
|
Management of risk |
Regular reviews of the practicality of the programme including a re-assessment of resources allocated. |
| Performance and trajectory |
Open large scaleable image in Popup
Targets
Mandatory Indicator Target LTP1b:
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
| Target justification | All the Community Plans or Strategies for the seven Metropolitan Authorities regard access to health facilities as a priority issue. The Strategic Accessibility Analysis (see Accessibility Strategy) revealed that access to hospitals was an issue as few are in central locations and many cross-boundary patient trips occur. Furthermore, consultation on this strategic work showed a desire from the public for more 'accessible' public transport serving the ten main general hospitals. We have defined this as Bus Showcase routes (where low-floor buses always have level boarding at stops), railway stations with specific facilities for people with disabilities and Midland Metro, which is wholly DDA-compliant. The population has been defined by overlaying 10-12am isochrones with 2001 census data. Thirty minutes was shown by local market research to be an acceptable travel time to hospital by public transport. The trajectory is likely to be linear as the Bus Showcase programme produces outputs on a regular basis. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Achieving this target of 870,000 people within the relevant isochrone will require the delivery of the LTP2 Bus Showcase and railway station upgrade programmes (the next phase of Metro expansion is not due to open until 2011). This is realistic, but also challenging as consultation on Showcase improvements has slowed down delivery in the past. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
LTP Accessibility strategy, Community Plans, Centro 20-Year Strategy, LTP Bus Strategy, development plans of bus operators, health authority plans. |
|
Key actions for local government |
Efficient and effective design, consultation and joint working to ensure timely delivery of Showcase schemes, effective partnerships with operators to ensure low-floor buses and complementary measures are provided where necessary. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Recognise the important part they can play in achieving LTP targets for accessibility through involvement and allocation of funding and provision of facilities within hospitals where possible. Operators to work in partnership to deliver service improvements. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Consultation and other processes delay scheme delivery. Investment by partners not integrated with LA programme. |
|
Management of risk |
Regular reviews of the practicality of the programme including a re-assessment of resources allocated. |
| Performance and trajectory |
Open large scaleable image in Popup
Open large scaleable image in Popup
Open large scaleable image in Popup
The Air Quality Shared Transport Priority Theme
Targets
Mandatory Indicator Target LTP8:
reduce the average level of NO2 by 1% between 2004 and 2010 in the areas where NO2 exceeds the national objective
| Target justification | Although air quality is very weather dependent, NO2 concentrations at roadside locations in our Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) (and in 'Areas of Exceedence hotspots' where city or borough-wide AQMAs have been declared) gradually increased between 2001 and 2004. NO2 concentrations at some background locations may be falling, but local evidence demonstrates that this is generally not the case at the roadside, which is the critical location for monitoring in AQMAs. An objective analysis of roadside NO2 levels by the Air Viro air quality forecasting model has predicted the 'do nothing' situation in 2010 to determine the potential added effect of local Air Quality Action Plans (AQAPs). While NO2 levels fluctuate from year to year, a 1% reduction is feasible within AQMAs if traffic growth can be limited in line with LTP targets and traffic flows smoothed. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Given the currently rising levels any noticeable reduction in NO2 is challenging. However the target can be achieved if AQAPs are effective. AQAPs will also help to meet congestion and traffic growth targets. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
LTP Air Quality Strategy, Local Air Quality Action Plans, health policies, LTP Congestion Strategy. |
|
Key actions for local government |
Implement Air Quality Action Plans in relevant areas, further joint working with Highways Agency, further develop air quality forecasting capability building on the link between Air Viro and PRISM. Link congestion strategy and air quality actions. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Highways Agency to implement measures to reduce pollutants arising from M5, M6 and M42 traffic, pricing policy of M6 Toll continues to encourage its use at times of peak movement. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Weather becomes more conducive to retaining pollution, we fail to achieve targets LTP2 and LTP6, Highways Agency measures are ineffective, outcomes of measures fail to keep pace with traffic growth, traffic patterns change. AQAPs are not effectively implemented |
|
Management of risk |
Regular review of air quality conditions through the Metropolitan Air Quality Officers Group, modelling of possible future scenarios and assessment of responses, positive partnership working with Highways Agency on Route Management plans and joint network management. Implementation of AQAPs will be monitored to prevent slippage of programme. Impact of different measures will be assessed to guide good practice elsewhere. |
| Performance and trajectory |
Open large scaleable image in Popup
Open large scaleable image in Popup
Intermediate Outcome Indicators
Targets
Three related targets for highway maintenance
Mandatory Indicator Target BVPI96:
reduce the length of Principal Roads requiring further investigation according to DfT rules and parameters by 5% between 2004/5
and 2010/11
Mandatory Indicator Target BVPI97b:
reduce the length of Unclassified Roads requiring further investigation according to DfT rules and parameters by 5% between
2003/4 and 2010/11
Mandatory Indicator Target BVPI87:
reduce the length of high usage footways requiring further investigation according to DfT rules and parameters by 5% between
2003/4 and 2010/11
| Target justification | 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. These are impossible to obtain with approved monitoring methodologies changing so frequently, resulting in the national absence of consistent, accurate survey data. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Based on the small amount of relatively reliable comparative data available (from deflectograph surveys in 2002/03 and 2003/04 on the Principal Road Network, which showed an annual improvement of less than 0.25%) a 5% improvement is considered challenging and is more than satisfactory under DfT Guidance. The expected implementation of the Birmingham Highway Maintenance PFI will provide significant improvements to Birmingham's highway infrastructure. It will also have a major impact on overall performance against these targets as Birmingham has around one-third of the road length of the Metropolitan Area. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Transport Asset Management Plans (TAMPs), Road Safety Plans, District Walking and Cycling Strategies. |
|
Key actions for local government |
Implementation of the Birmingham PFI. Other Highway Authorities will need to maximise the impact of available resources (revenue, LTP capital and prudential borrowing) to avoid wide variations in service delivery across the Metropolitan Area utilising the developing TAMPs. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
DfT need to develop SCANNER so that it quickly becomes suitable for measuring highway structural condition in addition to surface condition, and then ensure machine availability at appropriate times for Local Authority or consultant use. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Birmingham PFI does not begin in 2007. Underfunded maintenance programmes. Further amendments to condition measurement inhibiting confidence in condition trends, target setting process and investment outcomes. |
| Management of risk | The developing asset management process will provide the framework that informs decisions about future target setting and the allocation of resources necessary to achieving our longer term objective of achieving steady state maintenance. |
|
Performance and trajectory |
It is impossible to define accurate baselines given current national monitoring problems. Trajectories are initially expected to be largely linear with fairly consistent annual spending, but with a developing impact from the Birmingham PFI. |
Targets
Mandatory Indicator Target BVPI102:
increase bus use from the 2003/4 base of 325 million trips per year to 355 million by 2010/11
| Target justification | This target seeks a 9.23% increase in bus passenger trips between 2003/04 and 2010/11in order to help limit road congestion and accommodate expected increases in trips to centres resulting from new development. In justification PRISM has forecast an increase of 10% from a 2001/02 baseline, resulting in 370 million trips in 2010/11. This comprises increases of 11% in the AM and PM peak periods and 9% inter-peak and off-peak. As a result of a recent real fares increase of 5.6%, average UK bus fare price elasticity analysis predicts a short-term fall of 5 million trips. Longer-term elasticity will prolong this decline into 2006/7, but will be mitigated as Showcase and other bus improvements encourage trip growth. Substantial growth is expected towards the end of the LTP2 period as these bus improvements make a major impact. These effects are reflected in our falling then rising trajectory. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Extremely ambitious given the long-term decline and increasing car ownership. However PRISM considers the LTP target achievable if the full development and effectiveness of the programmed Bus Showcase schemes and Smarter Choices programme are achieved, resulting in significant modal shift from car. As these are key parts of the LTP congestion strategy, there is added impetus to ensure it is achieved. Free off-peak travel for the over 60s will also increase patronage, at least in the short-term. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Centro 20-Year Strategy, Bus Strategy, LTP Accessibility Strategy, LTP Congestion Strategy, LTP Air Quality Strategy etc. |
|
Key actions for local government |
Implementation of Coventry Quality Bus Network, Bus Quality Partnerships, further Bus Showcase development, bus priority as part of Red Routes, Smarter Choices Campaign continues with a high profile. Continue enhanced concessionary fares schemes. Roll out of Network West Midlands (NWM) branding with extensive marketing. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Bus operators to encourage passenger growth by improving quality of services (comfort, cleanliness, safety etc) via Bus Quality Partnerships, marketing and coverage / frequency / reliability of services. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Local consultation fails to support the physical Bus Showcase measures required, funding and local support declines. Dominant bus operator does not drive up quality or retain competitive fares. Marketing of NWM does not increase patronage |
| Management of risk | Change of attitudes through the 'Smart Choices' promotion, a flexible and innovative approach to bus aids, 'before and after' studies to demonstrate the benefits to people as opposed to vehicles. Work closely with operators to a shared goal of driving up patronage. |
| Performance and trajectory |
Open large scaleable image in Popup
Targets
Mandatory Indicator Target BVPI104:
achieve levels of bus satisfaction of more than 60% by 2009/10
| Target justification | Target is based on data collected for BVPI104 every three years, but can be supported by data from annual Centro surveys which focus on actual bus users. The trajectory is based on an extrapolation of current trends. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Realistic. Current level is 57% (up from 54% in 2000/01). Measures to improve punctuality and personal security will contribute to higher satisfaction levels. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Centro 20-Year Strategy, local bus operators' policies, Bus Strategy |
|
Key actions for local government |
Local authorities and Centro continue to provide infrastructure and information (eg, new NWM branding) to help bus users, and continue to support personal security improvements. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Local bus operators to improve all areas of bus service provision. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Local bus operators, Centro and local authorities are unable to improve the whole bus environment sufficiently to register in surveys. |
|
Management of risk |
Monitoring surveys of performance, cooperation between bus inspectors, police and local authorities to deter anti-social behaviour. |
| Performance and trajectory |
Open large scaleable image in Popup
Targets
Mandatory Indicator Target LTP3:
a 1% increase in the cycling index between 2003/4 and 2010/11
| Target justification |
Cycling is generally a thinly-spread activity and it is accepted that it is not possible to measure accurately actual numbers
of cycling trips in a major urban area. As such, we have combined all available sources of cycle monitoring information
that go back to at least 2000/01 (and so have a reasonable trend basis) in order to create a cycle index which can be used
to chart progress against Target LTP3. The cycle datasets used and their weighting in the index are:
The LTP target graph of the index shows that cycling is declining in our Area, but that the rate of decline is diminishing. To turn this decline around and achieve growth in cycling is seen as a significant challenge. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Given the long-term decline in cycling locally, a 1% increase in cycle activity by 2010/11 is seen as ambitious but achievable. A target seeking more than "no reduction in cycling levels" is more than "satisfactory" in DfT terms. The 1% increase was calculated as realistic when tested using the English Regions Cycling Development Team target setting methodology. Also the PRISM model suggests a 1.5% increase in cycling in the Metropolitan Area between 2001 and 2011, which equates to a 1% increase 2003/4 - 2010/11. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Health policies, sustainable communities, Authority cycling strategies, Rights of Way Improvement Plans. Air Quality. |
|
Key actions for local government |
Capitalise on groups and routes where there is latent demand for cycling, further develop TravelWise and training initiatives, particularly around schools, ensure cycle use is designed into schemes and programmes from the outset, further develop cycle monitoring methodology. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Schools and work places with Travel Plans to show positive responses to cycling, health sector to become more involved by promoting the health benefits of cycling. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Revenue funding for cycle training needs to be at least maintained, Government need to maintain funding for School and Workplace Travel Advisors to maximise cycling message. |
|
Management of risk |
Undertake 'Smarter Choices' promotion, monitor initiatives to identify the most successful approaches. |
| Performance and trajectory |
Open large scaleable image in Popup
Targets
Mandatory Indicator Target LTP5:
83% of bus services operating between '1 minute early and 5 minutes late' by 2010/11
| Target justification | Bus punctuality monitoring is carried out in eleven corridors that cover all seven Authority areas. Over fifty services, run by a variety of operators, are surveyed. This produces over 35,000 individual bus observations every year. The target is based on 90% punctuality by 2012/13 as per the 'stretching' standard contained in DfT Guidance. The trajectory is based on an exponential curve (reflecting expected improved performance) from a forecast position in the 2005/06 baseline year. Some timetable alterations following a reduction in performance during 2004/05 (largely due to early running on two corridors) are expected to put us back up to 62% punctuality in 2005/6. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
This target is felt to be very ambitious, but Bus Showcase and Red Routes are expected to bring about improvements. The 3.6 kilometre pilot A34 Stratford Road Red Route helped to increase bus punctuality by over 7% in that corridor. Joint working with bus operators to widen the roll-out of on-bus GPS and to develop Punctuality Improvement Partnerships should accelerate our performance on monitored routes. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Centro 20-Year Strategy, bus operators' policies, Bus Strategy. |
|
Key actions for local government |
Continue to monitor performance, work with bus operators to bring about operational improvements, implement bus priority measures where appropriate. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Traffic Commissioner to raise profile of this issue with increased monitoring resources, operators to acknowledge need for improvement and to implement practical changes required, including changes to timetables. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Level of commitment of private bus operators to a public sector target, resource availability, support for bus priority measures. |
|
Management of risk |
Monitor performance, promote benefits to bus operators, respond to identified problems where possible. |
| Performance and trajectory |
Open large scaleable image in Popup
Targets
Local Indicator Target:
increase light rail use from 5.1 million trips per year in 2003/4 to 5.8 million in 2010/11
| Target justification | DfT Guidance 'encourages' local authorities with a light rail system to include a target for patronage growth in the LTP. This should ideally be in line with the national PSA target of a 12% increase 2000 - 2010. 2000/01 showed the potential patronage of Midland Metro Line 1 with 5.5 million trips, but vandalism causing operational problems has dented user confidence. Metro also operates largely at capacity during peak periods, particularly arriving at or leaving Birmingham in the AM and PM respectively, which means future growth will be focused on off-peak. As Birmingham City Centre and Wednesbury - Brierley Hill Metro Phase 1 extensions are not programmed to open until 2011, trip growth is expected as a steady year-on-year increase as user confidence is restored in the system. A linear trajectory building on the 2001/2 to 2003/4 increase is thought most likely. This was only interrupted by operational problems and a fares increase during 2004/5. The target equates to a increase of 13.7%. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Metro patronage has remained fairly stable since 2001/2, but we believe a number of factors will increase ridership up until 2011. Bilston Urban Village, immediately by a possible new Metro stop, and the development of West Bromwich as a shopping centre will generate new trips, as will trips generated by new development in Birmingham and Wolverhampton city centres. Thirteen British Transport Police are now patrolling the system which will enhance personal security, especially during the evenings. New security measures have also been put in place to help curtail vandalism and service disruption and some Park & Ride sites are due for expansion. As a result of all these factors, we believe Metro ridership can increase steadily during the LTP2 period. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Centro 20-Year Strategy, links to Accessibility Strategy, Congestion Strategy, Air Quality Strategy, etc. |
|
Key actions for local government |
Implement proposed enhancement and expansion of Park & Ride, continue to market services, ensure new developments near Metro have direct links to stations. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Travel Midland Metro to ensure continued smooth operation of network and restrict fare increases. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Disruption from vandalism on the route discourages use, capacity problems at peak times, extra development in corridor not being realised during plan period |
|
Management of risk |
Increase policing and targeting of persistent vandals, monitor performance and reliability and respond to problems. |
| Performance and trajectory |
Open large scaleable image in Popup
Targets
Local Indicator Target:
no more than a 7% increase in the total cost of delay on the main road network (excluding buses) between 2004 and 2010
| Target justification | This local indicator target focuses on one of the three principal elements of the LTP Strategy - to make the best use of the existing transport network. The local road network is our biggest transport infrastructure asset, and managing its use effectively in line with the Congestion Strategy is crucial to the achievement of a number of LTP targets. Our biennial 1500-point traffic monitoring programme and the PRISM model allows us to monitor speeds, delays and congestion on 1,213km of roads carrying over 10,000 vehicles per day throughout the West Midlands Metropolitan Area (the 'main road' network). The 2004 baseline cost of total network delay has been calculated at £2.049 billion using the perceived cost value as defined in TAG3.5.6 Values of Time and Operating Costs (December 2004) using 2002 costs as the base. The target of no more than a 7% increase in delay cost is consistent with target LTP2 - no more than a 7% increase in road traffic mileage between 2004 and 2010. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Target LTP2 is regarded as achievable but challenging. This target is actually more stretching than it first appears as the cost of delay increases more than proportionately with an increase in mileage travelled. Monitoring the main road network gives us a much clearer picture of how overall conditions are changing, and also allows us to account for benefits gained by small-scale, Integrated Block-funded schemes away from the Congestion Monitoring network. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Congestion, Air Quality and Accessibility Strategies, health policies, sustainable communities, Centro 20-Year Strategy. |
|
Key actions for local government |
Implement Red Route networks, continue with Park & Ride expansion, continue to develop TravelWise initiatives, promote use of most efficient modes of transport, press for early funding of the UTC major scheme. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
More local organisations to implement TravelWise initiatives and so increase rate of modal shift. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Resource constraints prevent key actions being implemented, delays caused by increasing numbers of signals and pedestrian crossings on the main road network offset improvements from other measures. |
|
Management of risk |
Monitor and promote benefits of programmes. |
| Performance and trajectory |
Open large scaleable image in Popup
Targets
Local Indicator Target:
improve actual and perceived personal safety while travelling on public transport by 10% between 2005/6 and 2010/11
| Target justification |
Personal security is a major issue highlighted in all seven local Community Plans or Strategies, and Centro's 20-Year Strategy
standards 'have been designed to overcome real and perceived personal security issues' while using public transport. While
improving personal security we will also enhance the quality of public transport - one of our three principal LTP Strategy
elements. Our target is to achieve 10% improvements in both actual and perceived security. Actual security is measured by
the number of street crime offences that occur:
as reported to West Midlands Police. Unfortunately similar information for rail or Metro is not available. Perceived security is monitored by responses to quarterly Centro Customer Satisfaction Survey questions, recording the % of travellers satisfied with the feeling of security while on or waiting for a bus, train or Metro. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
We feel that a 10% improvement in both actual and perceived personal security is ambitious. Reported bus-related street crime per million trips fell by 32% 2001/02 - 2004/05, but there was a conflicting 4.4% increase in the number of people not satisfied with the feeling of security across all public transport modes between 2003/04 and 2004/05 (5.3% for bus users). Clearly there is a gap between perception and reality, but extra police presence on buses, funded by Centro in 2005/06, is expected to have a major positive impact on this. Equally thirteen British Transport Police to patrol the Metro system will help improve actual and perceived security there, particularly at some stops which are viewed as vulnerable. Consultation with local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships has agreed a 10% improvement to be realistic and in line with local aspirations. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
LTP Accessibility Strategy, District Crime and Disorder Reduction strategies, community safety audits. |
|
Key actions for local government |
Continued liaison with, and funding of, police and British Transport Police officers patrolling buses and Metro, continuing installation of CCTV systems in appropriate locations. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Continued commitment from police, British Transport Police and transport operators to eradicate crime and disorder on public transport. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Insufficient non-LTP and revenue funding available. |
|
Management of risk |
Monitor and promote benefits of programmes. |
| Performance and trajectory |
Open large scaleable image in Popup
Targets
Local Indicator Target:
support economic regeneration by maintaining inter-peak accessibility to the 9 LTP centres as a whole between 2004/5 and 2010/11
| Target justification | This local target focuses on the LTP objective to 'ensure that the transport system underpins the economic revitalisation of the West Midlands Metropolitan Area'. The main way in which transport can support economic regeneration is to ensure that people and goods can move efficiently between origins and destinations. There are literally millions of different trips that are made in this complex Metropolitan Area every day, so we need to focus on the daily time periods and locations that are most important for the local economy, i.e. the inter-peak period when most shoppers and visiting commercial people arrive to do business and the nine LTP centres which are the main commercial hubs. We will monitor accessibility for this target in terms of the number of residents within 15 minutes car travel and 30 minutes by public transport of one of the LTP centres. The public transport isochrone approximately equates to the boundary of the former West Midlands County, although the 15 minute car isochrone does stretch into Warwickshire and Staffordshire. The 2004/05 baseline population figure is 1,842,309. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Although WMRSS policies encourage residential development, and so increased population, within the urban area, the 2001 Census provides the population basis for this target. When monitoring our performance we will therefore be unable to capture expected inward migration. We expect the bulk of our road traffic increase (which we aim to restrain to 7% by 2011) to occur during the inter-peak period as the peak periods are largely at capacity. This will slow car journey times, slightly contract the car isochrone and so reduce the number of people within it. However, we expect this to be partly offset by the Red Route and Bus Showcase programmes pushing car and bus isochrones out along key corridors. Achieving a net effect of zero population change within the two isochrones requires us meeting the challenge of implementing all our committed Red Route and Bus Showcase programmes on time. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
LTP Accessibility Strategy, West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (development in centres), Regional Economic Strategy, PPG13, Bus strategy. |
|
Key actions for local government |
Implement Bus Showcase, bus priority measures and Red Routes, continue to manage public car parking supply to attract shoppers but deter car commuters, support rail enhancements. |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Public transport operators to enhance current levels of service to the nine LTP centres. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Unforeseen public opposition prevents the implementation of Bus Showcase or Red Route schemes, insufficient national rail resources. |
|
Management of risk |
Monitor and promote benefits of programmes. |
| Performance and trajectory |
Open large scaleable image in Popup
Open large scaleable image in Popup
...blank page
Targets
Local Indicator Target:
increase the proportion of the West Midlands industrial areas that are accessible to 44 tonne lorries within five minutes
of the nearest motorway junction (daytime inter-peak) by 2% between 2004 and 2010
| Target justification | We are working with the local business community and the West Midlands Freight Quality Partnership to improve conditions for freight movement within the Metropolitan Area. This local target has arisen from issues being raised in the developing Regional Freight Strategy and echoed in the LTP Freight Strategy (Appendix 11). While a number of goods movement issues are very localised, such as parking restrictions and delivery hours, the main strategic road issue is to keep the Primary Route Network (PRN) as free-flowing as possible. Our target concentrates on where we can improve access times between industrial estates, which are obviously important focal points for lorries, and the motorway via the PRN. |
|
Ambitious and realistic ? |
Isochrone modelling has shown that in 2004 there were 169 industrial estates in the Metropolitan Area within five minutes of a motorway junction. This is 43.5% of the total of 388. Through the Red Route network, highway improvements via 'quick wins', demonstration projects for shared HGV use of bus lanes and, where programmed, bridge strengthening to accommodate 44 tonne vehicles we believe that a further eight industrial estates (a 2% increase bringing the total to 177) can be brought within the five minute isochrone by 2010. We feel this is challenging given the normal rate of infrastructure change and the rate of traffic growth close to motorways, but realistic as these are programmed network enhancements. |
|
Links to other policies / targets / indicators |
Regional Freight Strategy, West Midlands Lorry Guide. |
|
Key actions for local government |
On key routes between industrial estates and motorways ensure that, as far as possible, congestion is minimised, speed limits are maintained, signage is appropriate and all bridges owned by highway authorities are free of weight restrictions (priorities for new Traffic Managers). |
|
Key actions for local partners |
Ensure that bridges owned by rail and waterway authorities on key routes between industrial areas and motorways are, as far as possible, free of weight restrictions. |
|
Risks to achievement |
Abnormal traffic growth around motorway junctions. Lack of funding to ensure bridges remain open, or re-open, to 44 tonne lorries. Rail and waterway authorities fail to prioritise this work. Public objections mean network efficiency improvements are not delivered. |
|
Management of risk |
Liaise with local partners and Government to coordinate programmes. |
| Performance and trajectory |
Open large scaleable image in Popup
Open large scaleable image in Popup
Targets
Target required by Regional Spatial Strategy:
100% of schools to have travel plans by 2011
| Target justification | This is an output target defined under Policy T2 of the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy that we are required to include in the LTP. |
| Ambitious and realistic ? | Hugely ambitious and unlikely to be achieved due to resource constraints, especially considering the uncertain futures of School Travel Plan Advisors after 2008. Our concerns are detailed more fully in section 10.2. |
| Links to other policies / targets / indicators | Safer Routes to School programme, TravelWise, LTP Smarter Choices appendix. |
| Key actions for local government | Continue working with schools to ensure take up of travel plans. |
| Key actions for local partners | Government to confirm long-term revenue funding to ensure continued employment of School Travel Plan Advisors, currently unsigned schools to act on incentives. |
| Risks to achievement | Funding is withdrawn, incentives for schools to participate are also withdrawn. |
| Management of risk | Establish closer working relationships now with schools currently without travel plans, lobbying of Government to continue funding of advisors. |
| Performance and trajectory | Standards for School Travel Plans need to be defined before a baseline position can be determined. The type of schools to which the target applies also needs definition (all schools, or would it not apply to middle schools, private schools, sixth form colleges etc ?). Without a baseline we cannot determine a trajectory. |
Targets
Target required by Regional Spatial Strategy:
30% of all employees to work in organisations committed to work place travel plans by 2011
| Target justification | This is an output target defined under Policy T2 of the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy that we are required to include in the LTP. We assume there is no minimum size of organisation to which the target applies. |
| Ambitious and realistic ? | Currently 24% of employees are in organisations with travel plans, but most big employers have now signed up. The work involved in signing up smaller organisations is the same, but produces less reward in terms of progress against the target, and still stretches revenue budgets. The 2003 LTP contained a target to achieve 50% coverage by 2011, which was proving to be too ambitious. In reality an increase of 1% per year is realistic and this will equate to around a total of 30% of employees covered by 2011. |
| Links to other policies / targets / indicators | TravelWise and Local Agenda 21 |
| Key actions for local government | Ensure revenue budgets can continue to put resources into Company TravelWise. |
| Key actions for local partners | Chambers of Commerce to ensure continued support, signatories to ensure plans are implemented to achieve real benefits in terms of outcomes. |
| Risks to achievement | Resources available to ensure enough new smaller organisations are signed up. |
| Management of risk | Closer working with currently committed organisations to enable real benefits to be extolled to potential members. |
| Performance and trajectory |
